Before the obama zombies can infect us all... here is a questionnaire any potential voter should take before making their decision... and I will just include the profiles of Ron Paul and Barack Obama's... in an effort to elaborate on gaia3's somewhat slanted portrayals. Read this first: http://funadvice.com/r/bqb1ocv9ila
I believe in wealth distribution. I am glad to give to the government so that it can engage in corporate welfare and military contracts, as long as it offers a pittance to the needy citizenry. http://funadvice.com/r/bqb1ocv9vvi I believe that an income tax is vital for the sustenance of a debt based economy. I'm not really sure what a debt based economy is, but as a dutiful citizen, i am obliged to pay my part. http://funadvice.com/r/15qmie347i6
I believe that a tax on earned income is not, in point of fact, a direct tax, which is prohibited by the constitution from being levied on the individual, but an indirect tax, and as so, is applicable... ie... I'm not very smart.
I believe that the endorsement of government christmas trees and school prayer are a grievous violation of the establishment clause... and as such... are indicative of the disregard a Paul presidency would hold for the constiution.http://funadvice.com/r/15qmie348qv I'm fine with the spying on... indefinite detention of... and assassination writs on Americans. http://funadvice.com/r/bqb1ocvb4kb and http://funadvice.com/r/15qmie34b6d and http://funadvice.com/r/15qmie34cct
I believe that despite the fact that Ron Paul has endorsed gay marriage... since he says that the government should be out of the business of bedrooms entirely... he doesn't really support gay rights. How my position that the government should have a say in this religious institution jibes with my aforementioned take on the establishment clause is irrelevant... because sanctimony trumps substance I find. http://funadvice.com/r/15qmie34di0
I believe that an off color remark should be met with the utmost immediacy the federal government can give it. I believe that despite the overwhelming regulations stifling a recovery... state and local laws are not enough to protect a worker to be secure in their environment even if the threat is nothing more than a joke involving sexual innuendo. On the other hand I am totally fine with total naked body scanners and pat downs/groping from the TSA because travel is a privelege... not a right.
I'm okay with the fact that despite saying he would never mandate health insurance upon the people... and would open all legislation up for total transparency... President Obama did the opposite. Look at that smile... would he ever really lie to you???... er... I mean... lie again?
I found Bush's unilateral wars in the mideast to be appalling.
I find Obama's unilateral wars in the mideast to be warranted.
The economy is great. Gasoline prices are reasonable. We have really enjoyed an upsurge in the standard of living these last three years.
If you agreed with any of the statements above... it isn't too late for you. Avail yourself of some information... it's mostly free on the internet... I have kindly provided some of it here at the low low price of nada... and you can re-enter the realm of the living. If you agreed to every one of the statements above... you'll notice the trail of sloughed off skin in your wake... Yeah!...you might want to try some GoldBond medicated powder on that or just go home and await your inevitable end. Whatever you do... do not give any political advice to anyone... for the sake of humanity.
Honestly, while I may not think that Obama is perfect, from the other options I see I think he is our best option. I think he has done what he can with the way congress is acting (i.e a bunch of children). I think that people forget that the U.S is not a dictatorship, Obama cannot do anything without the support of congress etc etc and when things do not change, it is easy to blame the president and not pay attention to what others are doing. In addition, seeing as how the other candidates have really only based their campaigns on promises of making Obama a one term president, and not actual plans of action I find it hard to believe that replacing a president who apparently does nothing (although in three years, he has done quite a lot I believe) with a person who barely bothered to come up with a plan at all is not the best option. Not to mention look at who our main options are. ) Santorum: sexist, homophobic, doesn't really support higher education on the basis that people who go to college lose their faith He also does not believe that climate change is an issue or that we should be at all accountable for our actions towards the earth, and that if we "drill everywhere and anywhere" we will have enough coal to last us centuries. He doesn't seem to care about the impacts of "drilling everywhere" would have. *) Romney: while in my view, not as bad as santorum, he has changed his views on things such as gay rights, abstinence only sex ed which I think if you are against abrtion, you better be willing to put more money in the school systems and support proper sex education that will help prevent pregnancies in the first place (contrary to popular belief, schools that have proper sex ed have less teen pregnancies than schools that do not). Not to mention there is that whole questionable treatment of his dog. *) Ron Paul: he tries, he really does and I seriously considered this guy but I looked farther into what he wants to do and I do not think that eliminating taxes to such a degree will help this country at all. 1. It results in massive budget cuts and I strongly believe that organizations that act for the environment, mental health (since I have siblings that have special needs and could easily become dangerous if dropped from the system, which due to budget cuts, my sister was.) and higher education (since I an a student I am not a fan of how hard it is to afford to go to college) 2)Also, he completely rejects the idea of seperation of church and state, which is something I strongly support. He also talks about how religion creates more orderly people. If you visit a prison you will find that most of them are religious. I presented numerous studies that show that (for example) there is a low population of Asians in prison, which is correlated to the high amounts of Asians that are more spiritual and believe in Karma rather than the other major religions. Most of the religious people in prisons tend to focus on the whole "god will forgive me" part to help them sleep at night. 3)Also, not a big supporter of gay rights at ALL. 4) And believes that when it comes to protecting women against sexual harassment, if they experience harassment THEY should just quit their jobs. And that sexual harassment is only a government problem when the woman has actually been physically forced, not before it gets to that problem (i.e restraining orders to prevent it from happening)
And that is why I think Obama is our best option
Nobody here is an "Obama Zombie." Gaia3 and I both mentioned misgivings we had about President Obama but still think he is our best choice compared to the Circus show the Republican nominees are. The Republican party has a habit of taking candidates who could be decent presidents and forging them into ideologues. George H Bush had a history of being pro-choice and came up with voodoo economics to describe Reagan's trickle down theory. Then to become Reagan's running mate he had to change to "pro-life" then after 8 years of false prosperity with reckless tax cuts and massive deficit spending quadrupling our debt all he could do as president is to unsuccessfully try to coax 4 more years of false prosperity by running our country's credit card up more. I liked John McCain in 2000. Then in 2008 McCain became as doctrinaire as the rest of the Republican party pushing an agressive unilateral foreign policy, unconditional support of Israel, more reckless tax cuts, etc. Getting to Romney, I could have supported as a pragmatist and long time moderate but to appeal to the bat guanno crazy wing of the Republican party he had to become bat guanno crazy himself. The financial sector bailouts were controversial. The Lehman Brothers bankrupcy was the largest in US history and sent shockwaves through the financial sector. Many sober minds agreed that preventing further bankrupcies was necessary to avoid a monitary catastrophy. The thing that bugs the crap out of me is that there were no real conditions on the bailouts. Obviously any bank "too big to fail" is a de facto monopoly and needed to be broken up similar to how AT&T was broken up in 1983. Also, $multi-million bonuses and junkets to exotic places for top execs of firms who were just bailed out should not have been allowed. There was no reinstatement of Glass-Stegall or anything else to prevent future problems. The way I see it, Republicans have been running our country into the ground for most of the last 40 years. We did see a little daylight under President Clinton who by cutting the size of government to the smallest it had been since Kennedy was in office and a implementing a modest tax increase changed our country from running up deficits to projecting a surplus. Unfortunately the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election with a party line vote to halt Florida recounts and elect Bush 43 who undid the good that Clinton did and squandered his surplus on tax cuts for people who didn't need it and entering a quagmire of a war based on lies and jingoism. I could support a Republican cadidate who would denounce the failed polices of previous Republican administrations but they all promise more of the same: tax cuts, deregulation and a more agressive foreign policy. Isn't one definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result? And yes I know it was Clinton who enacted NAFTA and repealed Glass-Stegall; I didn't say he was a perfect but he did a lot of good things while in office.
@filletofspam: Don't get defensive and rattle off a list of discrepancies that is particular to you as an apology because you feel slighted from my label. If you are in agreement with the mock questionnaire, then perhaps you should reassess the principles you espouse to support. This is the reason I would consider anyone who does so... a mindless drone or Obama Zombie. If not... then I wasn't referring to you. Please... read the article from Glenn Greenwald who goes into much further detail and refined argumentation. It's the first link I provided. Once again... you have managed to go off on a tangent and I am left in a tenebrae as to what exactly it has to do with my post... aside from our disagreements between Keynesian and free market principles... though I know from past exchanges you have admitted that every administration has been keynesian for the last century up to and including if not especially Bush Jr. So when you say that we have languished under the financial policies of these administrations... I tend to agree... and still vehemently disagree with your position that we need more control and redistribution. Clinton never ran a surplus and I recall mentioning to a group of star-struck Obama sycophants on FunAdvice... just post election that he [Obama] had signed on the braintrust behind the rescission of Glass-Stegall- Robert Rubin and Larry Summers as financial advisors. This info was met with unceremonious silence... just as any other political juxtaposition seems to meet from people whom I feel only hold a tentative grasp on those deep principles they claim... or use to brow beat people whenever expedient. I'm fed up with the silence... with the apologies... wth the excuses... and with the misrepresentaion those sycophants use to further their mindless political persuasions. Since you didn't address the obvious gist of my post... I attempted to call attention to the fact that Obama supporters must justify his wars... bombings... rendition...wiretapping... abuses of due process... support of foreclosures... corporate welfare spending... attacks on federal whistle blowers... campaign lies... raids on decriminalized state drug proprietors... raids on manfacturers who were in violation of foreign laws... sanctions against Iran that have driven up gas prices... all in justification of a failed financial philosophy? gaia3 was attempting to paint Ron Paul's platform as somehow more of an infringement against civil liberties and social mores as Obama's policies that you have all given a pass to. This is insane and instead of dozens of likes... someone needs to call her out for her incredulous spin on the issues. I was not addressing you... but if you feel the need to chime in, in defense... then perhaps I was unknowingly. Feel free to attempt to refute any charge I have placed on Obama... or please refrain from future tangential replies.
Let me start by saying... I never said you shouldn't be defensive... I said... you can't use your righteous indignation as a rebuttal... because it isn't... it's just you attempting to misdirect attention away from my point... in an effort to score points with the likeminded denizens here. Or am I missing something? Where did I mention republican ideology? This is your second reply to me in which you have brought it up... after I asked you to keep future replies in the context of my post. To me... you are engaging in the real essence of politics... the art of subterfuge. You're attempting a sleight of hand. A straw man right under my nose by misrepresenting my post... the one right here... above... for everyone and their mother to read. Is this delusion or has the cognitive dissonance gotten so rampant that one would think it passable to try and say I said what I obviously never said? <---I'll let you digest that for a moment. Speaking of straw men... you accuse me of it. Where? What straw man did I argue? In my estimation... gaia3 comes the closest to a straw man when she misrepresents Ron Pauls positions. You accuse me of asking loaded questions. The problem with your assessment is that my "loaded" questions are all accurate. If you disagree... then tell me where and how I am incorrect and we can crunch the numbers. Gaia3's rubric was an attempt to portray Ron Paul as somehow more cavalier in his regard for the Constitution and civil liberties than has been the case under Obama. This position is reprehensible for its mischaracterization... and is indefensible... proven by virtue of the repeated attempts to sidestep my point. Ron Paul is the only person running who would end these wars for natural resources and empire. He would end the abuses to our civil liberties. Why is no one mentioning him... except for these ancillary issues and then spinnng his position? You say..."When reality disagrees with their ideology it is the reality that is in error not their ideology." Salient point... pot meet kettle.
If I lived in a swing state, I might vote for Obama again (whose campaign I worked hard for in 2008), but since it's a winner-take-all system and Massachusetts will go for him heavily anyway, I have no qualms about voting my conscience. (I'd do the same if I lived in a strongly Republican state, too). So I might vote for the Green Party candidate (party members are still voting in the primaries to determine who that will be), or I might write in Dennis Kucinich. I'm hopeful that Elizabeth Warren will be my new U.S. Senator after this election.
That's my immediate personal answer to the narrow sense of the question. Now here's the real answer, quoted from the late historian Howard Zinn:
"Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutes—the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth.
But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice.
Let’s remember that even when there is a 'better' candidate (yes, better Roosevelt than Hoover, better anyone than George Bush), that difference will not mean anything unless the power of the people asserts itself in ways that the occupant of the White House will find it dangerous to ignore."
If I could choose the next president my choice would Elizabeth Warren. She is practical, smart, tough, has unimpeachable character and is committed to protecting Americans from the excesses of banks and the financial sector. Politics are always the art of choosing the lesser of the available evils. Of the current candidates I'd have to reelect Barack Obama. He has disappointing me in his first term and has been a much weaker president than I hoped. Still, a president who is weakly moving us in the right direction is better than a strong president bent on going in the wrong direction and revisiting the policies that got us in this mess. That and the fact that the Republican field is pathetic this time. My theory is that establishment Republicans know they can't win in 2012 and are letting the B team duke it out and are saving the stronger candidates like Charlie Crist and David Petreaus for 2016.
If you do not wish for people to be defensive than you should avoid ad hominem attacks. Straw man arguments and loaded questions are not going to sway many people. As I said, politics is the art of choosing the lesser of the available evils. I agree with many of your charges against President Obama. The point is that I don't see any of the Republicans as doing better. While I would like to see more ideological consistency from Obama the Republicans have the opposite problem as being so doctrinaire that they refuse to any compromise. When reality disagrees with their ideology it is the reality that is in error not their ideology.
Although I can see your point Pinkpearl. And yes to a certain degree the President is a token puppet. He can be deadlocked by Congress and then get all the blame for things undone. However, unless we're going into a revolution of handing the country back to England or the Indians we have to try and make the best decision based on what we have to work with. And I certainly don't want nor do I believe the country is in shape to handle another version of Bush Jr or worse. It's not an ideal situation but can we really afford to ignore who will be in office in the coming years with the problems ahead?
Thanks. I have been trying to stay up with elections in America and I have a pretty good head about it but you summed up some more about the other candidates that I didn't totally know about... I live in Canada but I strongly believe things that happen in America, Canadians should know about because if you guys go down we probably will too :P And you guys are our obese relatives south of us :)
It actually doesn't matter. Governments do not represent people, they represent large corporations. If you want to know who they support, just look at where their campaign contributions come from. The President is just a puppet, regardless of which party.
Marisha, can't all of the above be true? Militarism is organized, international, state racism. ("How did those dang Arabs get ahold of all of our oil, anyway?")
I have to agree that Obama is the best option we have. And if Newt were elected.....I'm moving across the border and taking the American Flag with me. LOL
Obviously with that exception you would choose a completely irrelevant tangent to reply to my post? There is something to be said for consistency.
Pinkpearl, do you think what you describe is how things will be eternally? Or what might be done to change it over, say, the next 50 years?
@gaia3... if so then please refer to the above rejoinder... though I wonder if you were really a McCain in 2000 supporter.
I was 9 years old in 2000, so no I was busy playing tag on the playground. So obviously with the exception of that.
Oh and I forgot, Gingrich is staying in the race, but come on, that's a joke.
I think closer to the truth isn't they hate arab as much as they love oil.
i cant vote.but i will support whoever is our president
The broken link... http://funadvice.com/r/15qmie348qv
all of them hate arab .............and like wars
^^^took the words out of my mouth filletofspam
Im sorry but gingrich is a joke
PRESIDENCY SUCKS!! ANARCHY!!!
she said that tho