Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Friday, March 9, 2012

President Obama Campaigns in Houston - A Quick Thought

I watched president Obama's campaign speech in Houston tonight. He said the oft-spoken phrase, "we are better together than we are apart."

He went on to say, "we want each and every American to realize the American dream: that if you work hard, if you put in your time, if you store a little away for retirement, you can be successful and you can live the American dream."

Ummmm... does anyone see a problem with this? If WE are all forced to work together, people of different skills, education, motivation, productivity, etc., we will naturally have people who produce and accomplish at different rates and levels. This will lead to the natural condition that does and should exist: income inequality. Yes, income inequality is a good thing. If WE are all tied together, we will naturally have people that don't pull their weight. People will naturally slide and slime their way into prosperity while giving less and taking more. And if they contribute less, they should have less. This is the way it is, and the way it should be. Forcing income equality will ultimately do one thing: kill incentive.

Keep in mind, Obama's first sentence listed above differs greatly from the second listed below it. Can you see the difference? He talks about a world in which WE are all working together (which sounds great, but is pragmatically terrible) but only YOU realize the dream, and only YOU get to be successful. So which is it? WE or YOU?

The last thing he said: change will come? How much longer do we have to wait? I'm sorry, our country and our future is way too important to give another 4 years to a guy that is basically saying, "just wait a second... wait a second... I need a little more time."


  1. Well it took bush 8 years to fuck it up.
    I'm guessing at least 8 to fix it.

    (or should we just continue "fixing" other countries)

    1. Anonymous, the way I see it, it only took the Democrats (the House and Senate) two years to F#ck it up. They came into power in 2007 inheriting a $160.7 Billion deficit and 4.4% unemployment. The Bush tax cuts had been in place for nearly 4 years. Revenues were climbing:

      2003: $1.782 Trillion
      2004: $1.880 Trillion
      2005: $2.154 Trillion
      2006: $2.407 Trillion
      2007: $2.568 Trillion (Enter the Democrat controlled Congress)
      2008: $2.524 Trillion
      2009: $2.105 TRillion (Enter Barack Hussein 0bama)
      2010: $2.163 Trillion

      While the revenues rose, the spending did too, but, the deficits were falling:

      2003: $378 Billion
      2004: $413 Billion
      2005: $318 Billion
      2006: $248 Billion
      2007: $161 Billion (Enter the Democrat controlled Congress)
      2008: $459 Billion
      2009: $1.413 TRILLION (Enter Barack Hussein 0bama)
      2010: $1.293 TRillion
      2011: $1.645 Trillion

      Sure, Bush spent like a drunken sailor (no offense to drunken sailors) but compared to 0bama he's a penny pincher.

      When you say, "should we just continue "fixing" other countries", do you mean like 0bama "fixed" Egypt and Libya? They love 0bama so much in Egypt I saw a picture of a man holding his shoe to a picture of 0bama's face. That's an endearing gesture in the Arab world, right?

  2. Each and every speech reeks with more of the same collectivism. This is the 'liberation theology' roared from the pulpit in Jeremiah Wright's church, where he sat for 20 years (but didn't pay attention?)

    We see the same mentality with Democrats on the floors of the House and Senate, 'tax the rich' 'fair share' - in the labor unions and OWS... their 'mic-checks', their mindless chants, 'direct democracy' 'up/down-twinkles', 'income inequality' etc... collectivism/socialism/communism at their finest. They attempt to drown out ANY and ALL opposing points of view... then invoke the first amendment... freedom for ME, but not for THEE?

    THIS is Obama's Army. With each new speech, he repeats the same old, same old - with the hope of inflaming his base... they apparently FAILED to study world history. Socialism/communism IS NOT the 'utopia' Obama promises, the 'equal' society they seek... it does not/can not exist - in fact or practice.

    American's ARE and always have been a society composed of 'rugged individualists'. THIS is what has made and kept us the great nation that we are...

    'Yes WE can' is NOT and never has been, how we operate. THAT is the 'fundamental transformation' Obama promised in the last election... another reason NOT to vote for him in this one.

    Another interesting point is this: The capitalism that these people decry with such distaste - is slowly recovering - IN SPITE of Obama and his crony's assault on it... I'm afraid that another four years of Obama would kill it - forever.

    People who have known freedom and lost then lost it, will never see it again. - Ronald Regan.

    @ Anonymous Rude language aside, you've chosen the Obama Blame Bush fallback position... after almost four years - he owns it - and has absolutely NO clue that he - and HIS bloated and overgrown government needs to get the h*ll out of the way - so AMERICA can heal HERSELF.

    1. Wow Dara, great post. I thought the best part was "with the hope of inflaming his base". How true, his base is a big hemorrhoid that does get inflamed. LOL Take the Anonymous poster for instance, he seems to be an inflamed hemorrhoid.

      My question to 0bama is, if we are better together than apart, why do you seem to like to divide us so much? You called the Tea Partiers "tea baggers" with no subsequent apology. You and your minions like to frame this 1% vs 99% crap. The main problem with that is multimillionaires like Michael Moore are part of the 99% and police officers and dock workers are the 1% in your weird warped little pea brains.

  3. @ Anonymous

    This is something I gotta know: can you back what you say?

    I ask because frankly, this is getting really, really old. You have a position, and that's fine. But anyone can make a holly, one-line comment. Ignorance is at play when there is nothing behind it. You see, Slim comes on here and has a position (also fine) but the difference is, he gives the reasoning behind it. As far as his OPINION being right or wrong, who knows? But he cites his FACTS to back why he feels the way he does. That's the way it should be, and that's the way to show you don't blindly believe of follow something.

    You said, "Well it took bush 8 years to fuck it up." Back it. Give examples. Can you name one thing, one policy, one action to show you know what you're talking about? I'm getting sick of this kind of one-line rhetoric. It does nothing. If you have a position, even if people like me, LME, slim, Dara disagree with you, it helps us know you're not just an idiotic, mindless, rambling fool if you back WHY you believe the way YOU do. I'm really curious to see if you actually can back that up.

    My position: (there are a few): we are not in this position because of Bush. We are in this position because of the government. Bush did fine. You seem to forget the era between 2001 where incomes steadily rose, unemployment steadily fell, and people bought homes, spent money, etc. How did Bush mess that up? He didn't, but people like you scapegoat him with ignorant, factless, one-liners. So back what you say, or you look really ignorant.

    Another position, yes, Barack Obama owns this. It has NOTHING to do with how long it takes to fix it. It has everything to do with the promise to fix it. I don't care if it would naturally take 8 years to fix it. That's not what was promised. If I hired a landscaper to do my yard, and the reason I hired him was because promised he could be done in a week while every other company would be done in 4 weeks, I would be pretty darn pissed if he finished in 3 weeks.

    Obama came in with the promise to fix things, and he hasn't. He said, "I will reduce unemployment to below 7% by the end of 2010." (Remember, his ridiculously large waste of money stimulus was supposed to do this). He was supposed to halve the deficit by 4 years. He did not. He was supposed to fix the economy in 3 years or he would be a one-term president. He did not. He was supposed to remove lobbyists from his administration. He did not, and in fact, he gave them jobs. He was supposed to close Gitmo. He did not. That's way more than 3 strikes. Again, it's not the time that is needed; it's the fact that he said, "I will fix this by this amount of time" and he hasn't. In my job, if I don't finish my projects by their deadlines, I get fired. Well, the same should be applied to the president.

    So, I backed why I don't want Obama to be reelected. Can you back why you say this is Bush's fault? Can you back why you think Obama should be reelected? My guess: you will continue to spout the ignorant, factless, false, lie-ridden one-liners usually seen on MSNBC.

    - Pachyderm Pride

    1. LOL

      So much stupid in that comment.....Can't back up the stupid.....Laughing at the stupid....

      Please, recite some more talk radio horse shit. It makes me happy because it's going to make Obama win again. You can't twist fact and expect someone to back up a rebuttal to misinformation.

    2. Anonymous -

      So I have to side with Pachyderm Pride on this one. I'm not sure you truly understand the purpose of and how to debate, and I also don't think you understand the purpose of this blog.

      We tend to make arguments here, and that's fine. People tend to have counter-arguments, and that's fine too. To come in doing what you do, making one-line statements with no facts holding it together is really pointless. And to me, this is the largest problem with politics today. It's the nasty language, the hate-filled vitriol from people like you that are widening the divide in our political landscape. I and the writers of this blog take positions, but we back them. If we don't agree with the counter-argument, we give one of our own, of course, backed with evidence. At the end of the day, we might not agree with the "other side" but a calm, respectful, fact-based debate might help us learn something about it. With what you do, I don't think you want people to come together. You'd just rather come in here, give a one-liner, use the comeback "liar, liar, pants on fire" and leave without any supporting facts. What good is that? In all honestly, it makes you look quite ignorant, and again, you seem to be trying to destroy the political fabric of this country even further.

      Now, with all that. You have made a bunch of claims, and, of course, you don't provide ANY backing behind them that would show you have a clue what you're talking about:

      1. The same as before... "Well it took bush 8 years to fuck it up." Again, unbacked. By giving no evidence to this you show you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I'd be curious if you can actually back this. I'd love to hear what evidence you give to support this rant-like claim.

      2. "You can't twist fact and expect someone to back up a rebuttal to misinformation." Please tell us,.. copy and paste works good, where FACTS are TWISTED and MISINFORMATION is being spread. If you don't agree with us, fine, but saying "liar, liar, pants on fire" is a rebuttal that got old in about third grade. Now, if you actually disagreed with the accuracy of information, in the adult world, the rebuttal might look something like, "I disagree with your facts for ___________. I've read before (here is the link) that it's actually ______________. That's my evidence, what do you think?"

      That's how adults debate. I hope you get on board, because honestly, people see right through what you're doing, and if more people like you are out there, it's going to be a nice year for the GOP.

      Take care.

  4. Hi All - thanks for letting me rant on.

    I run into people like @anonymous on twitter, daily. Most of the time, I just read and absorb, but once in awhile they come up with something so outrageous - and totally un-backed - that I speak up with FACTS. This always results in a barrage of insults directed at me, my intelligence, my age, family, parentage, pets, etc... but STILL un-backed by any semblance of proof in what they're claiming.

    I'd give up, but I think that would make them happy : ) Besides, I finally brought my 81 year old, die hard liberal mom over to the conservative side... that's a start!

    1. Dara:

      Our blog is your blog. Rant on, rant loudly, rant often!

      We pride ourselves on facts and we avoid ignorant, factless comments, and we strive to differentiate ourselves from MSM blog sites. You have never strayed down the ignorant and factless road :-). I hope you and many others will continue to be Loudmouth Elephants!

  5. This comment has been deleted due to inappropriate, sexually graphic content.

  6. Seems I missed this over the weekend!

    This comes off as an odd argument to me.

    Our leaders have been preaching equal opportunity in living the ‘America dream’ in various forms for the better part of the last 80+ years, why is it that Obama repeating it is taken as socialist?

    And not once has Obama, or any Democratic figurehead, recommended equal income levels. To me, that's just taking the phrase 'income equality' out of context and/or to an extreme, when in reality that term has more to do with the disdain people had for bailing out banks, or the fact that little was done to punish those involved cheating the system, or stagnant middle class wages, or how large (and exponentially growing) amount of influence money has in politics.

    The argument has far more to do with perceived inequality in how the amount of money you have in 2012 grants you unfair advantages in special treatment (bailouts), political influence (super PACs), court (embezzling $30 billion and you get less punishment than a guy caught smoking weed), etc, over those with less money... than it does "I want to be paid $100k/y with my fast food job at McDonalds". The latter of which to me is as much as a strawman ignoring the real debate as a liberal saying "Repubs want war so they can get money from their oil cronies!"

    1. Good morning, RKen! I hope you had a great weekend.

      I’m not sure about your confusion on the issue here. To me, Obama is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Yes, everyone preaches about equal opportunity and living the American dream. Where Obama, to me, is speaking out of both sides of his mouth is when he starts touting the “WE” part… but yet, nothing in this country is WE. We earn individual incomes, live in different homes, communities, states… we are taxed as individuals, we work as individuals and on and on. He then confirms this by stating all the things YOU as an individual can do and are supposed to do. For some reason, he wants the WE work together to be a big part (to me, group/mob mentality) of his campaign. I don’t label all this as Obama’s push for socialism, but to me, he either thinks people are really dumb, or he is intentionally trying to get people to rally around a group concept vs. an individual responsibility concept.

      As far as income inequality, yes, I do think this has to do with people complaining about “I only make this while that guy makes gobs of money.” This is proven by the almost near daily reports of some CEO’s salary, compensation or someone’s retirement package, or any of these types of things that are, to me, private issues. I think people would still complain about income inequality if the perception of the banks, and those that have “cheated the system” (I’m still waiting for someone to prove this… to me, it’s a house of cards rant) didn’t exist. If everyone thought that everything was 100% legal, fair, ethical, etc… we would still have people complaining about income inequality. As far as stagnant middle class wages… that’s 100% okay with me. It’s a product of supply and demand for labor. To me, it’s a necessary evil. I would only complain if someone’s wage was something they could not choose to get out of. If it was assigned to them, then I would complain. But the fact still exists that no law, rule, or regulation forces someone into a career, job, and its associated income. No law or rule makes people have terrible spending habits. We all have choices and the fact that there are many low-paying jobs with little wage growth is 100% okay with me, and it preserves the notion of free market economics.

      As far as this: “The argument has far more to… you get less punishment than a guy caught smoking weed), etc, over those with less money...”

      1. To me, yes, having more money should afford you more things and privileges. If it didn’t, why would people even try to be productive?

      2. But bailouts? I’m confused? When did having more money help you get bailed out? What are you referring to?

      3. SuperPACs (this argument, not yours, but the argument against, SuperPACs is starting to wear thin) do not have political influence. They simply advertise and promote a cause. Just as the NAACP, ACLU, etc. do, people are mixing up a lot of notions/terms/ideas when they talk about SuperPACs.

      4. As far as the claim of someone getting caught smoking weed part… this is 100% not true. This was an internet meme floating around Facebook. It plays on emotion and does not contain any facts whatsoever. The argument is quite the contrary. You can kill someone (2nd degree murder, manslaughter) and be out of prison in 15 years, but if you embezzle money, you get 180 years?! No one (especially across the aggregate) is getting a greater sentence for weed-related offences than a white-collar crook. I can’t live in the world where unproven internet memes reign over fact.


    2. continued -

      Bernie Madoff – 150 years in prison
      Jeff Skilling – Enron: 24 years + $810 mil in fines and damages
      Kenneth Lay – Enron: 45 years
      Bernard Ebbers – MCI Worldcom 25 years
      Dennis Kozlowski – Tyco – 8.3 – 25 years

      These are just a few examples of how white-collar crimes are punished, and how having money doesn’t truly help in the regards you listed. I saw that internet meme about the weed conviction and I was appalled. I couldn’t believe people were actually passing that propaganda around. It is up there with the internet posted meme (I posted about this earlier) claiming a teacher pays 25% in taxes while Mitt Romney pays 13%. Again, not true. I truly do believe that the income inequality argument does come from the fact that people are upset that others are making lots of money. Again, why would they be protesting claiming to be upset at a CEO’s income or how many stock options he has? I hear the argument, “the CEO doesn’t work on the how, sweaty assembly line… why should he make $20 million while I make $15 an hour?” It all comes down to the demand for and supply of certain types of labor. :-)

      I’m glad you don’t buy in to the “war for oil argument.”

      It kinda stinks… we were on a roll of many agreements. Oh well, it happens. This happens to be something I disagree with you quite a bit on. But that’s okay. We can start up a new streak. Do you like baseball? Lol. Hope to hear back… have a great day, Rken!

    3. Hi LME, good morning to you as well.

      I don’t really see the “we” argument like you do, I think it’s far more likely the case when he says “we need to work together” he’s talking about the fact that we’ve had the most bipartisan, disliked, and ineffective Congress (and in large, our political system) in over 100 years. This has been addressed by him multiple times now, including the state of the union address, as yes our government should ultimately be working together.

      I don’t see him saying that as ‘we need mobs/groups.’ That just seems to be a stretch to me.

      If you read/listen to the SOTU, all of the “we need to work together” talk is confirmed to be part of his discussion in our political divide. I think that proves it pretty well.

      I can’t really take sensationalistic journalism as proof of income equality motives either. Proof to me of what income equality is about is what it means and calls for in our political agenda, and not once has anything been proposed to ‘equalize/cap’ wages or even to significantly boost minimum wage.

      I mean, I could just as easily take all the conservative articles/news on Syria/Libya/etc as ‘proof that all the GOP want is more war’, but how ridiculous is that?

      The argument that “if everything else was fair and equal, we would still have people complaining about income” doesn’t really say much either. That applies for everything and is really a hollow statement. I could just as easily say that, if right now we instituted a flat 10% tax rate across everyone (no loopholes/deductions/anything), there would still be people that complain about paying too much in taxes. And it would be true. Does that mean that I can simplify the flat tax argument to a bunch of people that will complain no matter what and/or just want more money in their pocket? No.

      Regarding your bullets:

      1. Having more money should never grant you special privileges in avoiding/circumventing the law. A millionaire that committed murder isn’t any ‘less bad’ than a poor person.

      2. Bailouts are referring to the fact that multi-billion-dollar industries can be bailed out when they fail, while the same would never happen to a mom & pop store or any small business that met the same hardship. They would simply fail, as they should, and the same should apply no matter how big your business is.

      3. I’m not sure what you mean by Super PACs not having political influence? How don’t they? They provide indirect financing for a political candidate, and thereby allow that person to spend and afford more in their campaigning. The overall issue here being that over 90% of that funding (and 78% of campaign funding) comes from 1-2% of all donations, which again demonstrates an extremely disproportionate amount of monetary influence coming from the few.

      4. I haven’t heard of the internet meme you speak of, but I admit my statement was more hyperbole and not quite meant to be taken literally. The idea is that we seem to be unfairly lenient towards major financial crimes, with the primary recent evidence being the fact that not a single person has been sentenced with regards to selling mortgage-backed securities as a AAA investment that was clearly (and well-known as) high-risk, dangerous investments.

    4. RKen – I certainly respect your opinion; I just also respectfully disagree with it. Unfortunately, I don’t have much time :-/

      To me, the president does (kind of) mean that we need to “work together” to get over this divide, but I believe he is also hiding his notions of class warfare in this. He is continually touting the “the rich need to pay their fair share” gig in and around the “we are better off together” parts of his speech. I do see what you’re saying, but I also see how he has desires to turn the opinions of the largest voting bloc against the smallest voting bloc.

      As far as the bullets:

      1. I never said this was the case. The law is the law. Period. I think you might be mixing things up. The rich should be able to purchase better products, homes, etc. I would never imply they were above the law. Money does not buy anyone any special privileges within the law. I would like to see how this would be the case.

      2. I think this is also a very inaccurate statement. First, I don’t believe in government-sponsored, taxpayer funded bailouts for anyone. That completely goes against free market principles, and it goes against the notion of running good, well-run business is what you should rely on to survive… not the government. The reason I think this is inaccurate is because tons of large companies must file bankruptcy and do it the correct way (American Airlines and Kodak are large companies this year that had to do this). I don’t care who started it or who was responsible for it (you hear both Bush and Obama being tossed around for the auto bailout and Bush for tarp) to me, the bailouts for big banks and big automakers was not done truly for the benefit of these companies but for the votes they would get. Sure, no “little guys” are getting bailed out, but with regards to the big ones, the government is picking and choosing who it bails out and who it doesn’t… to me, that’s dangerous, and it appears to be in an effort to garner votes. To me, that’s the variable.

      3. I guess what I meant to say is that SuperPACs don’t have a direct influence on politics. They are merely (for lack of a better analysis) advertisements. They are the collective voices of some people. Additionally, what is the alternative? Having a country where the government can stop people from spending their money freely?

      4. I know it wasn’t meant to be taken literally :-) I was just pointing out that this was a meme going on out there. As far as lenient towards major financial crimes, it’s actually the opposite. Like I said, you can get out of jail in 15 years for killing someone, but if you embezzle some money, you’re getting a lot more. The examples I listed above are just a few of the many for people who have cooked the books. As far as the statement for selling mortgage-backed securities; you can’t incarcerate someone if they broke no law. Disagreeing with the law is fine, and somewhat understood (I actually don’t fully agree with the continual coverage about the lack of regulation, but that’s not the point), but selling credit default swaps and securitizing mortgages and mortgage-backed securities is (and were sold as) 100% legal moves. As much as we don’t like it, we can’t just start throwing people in jail for not breaking the law.

    5. No harm in disagreeing. :)

      Actually, the largest contributing voting block isn’t made up of the poor but the upper middle ($50-100k salary). I’m a bit short on time so I can’t find the research right now, but the ‘poor vote’ is really only about 15-20% of the voter base (from statistics on the 2008 election, which even had more poor people vote than typical).

      I in general agree with your sentiments though, in that turning one voting block against the other is shady politics. I don’t quite see Obama’s words that way, but nevertheless I agree that doing it is wrong no matter what side you’re on.

      For the bullets:

      1. It might not have been completely clear, but I was referring to what money can buy as far as the judicial system goes. I’m more repeating what I’ve heard on this topic, as I don’t exactly have an opinion on it quite yet (or have researched it). But the idea is that vast amounts of money can (or has) corrupt lawyers/court trials (IE: Lohan?).

      2. I’m on the same page in that I don’t agree with bailouts either, but I was merely making the point that people view us bailing out big companies as both unfair and unjustifiable.

      3. Advertisements do have a direct influence on politics though, and is a major part of a typical political campaigns budget. I don’t see potential campaign donation regulation as the ‘government stopping people from spending freely.’ People already are forbidden/regulated on spending their money for many things; from monetary gift amounts, to what you can buy. IE: I can’t go up to Obama and hand him a check for $5 million, nor can I bid on the state house. If I was an insurance agent, I’m forbidden from accepting monetary gifts over a certain amount from my clients. I don’t see why forcing similar levels of careful moderation are any less important for the political system that gets people elected to represent our country.

      4. I again don’t quite know much about this facet and am just repeating the arguments I’ve heard on this topic. But it is in fact illegal to mislead costumers and knowingly package & sell high-risk investments as certified low-risk (and vise versa), the laws regulating it are just ambiguous, faulty and tough to stick. I can’t just go and advertise a AAA-rated portfolio for people to invest in, and then throw my hands up and say “not my fault!” if it turns out to be garbage.

  7. Hi RKen

    Watching Obama in '08, I always got an eerie feeling. After a couple of speeches, I finally figured out what it was.

    I drove a long distance (56 miles - each way) school bus for many years. My students were teens and pre-teens, from a pretty rowdy area of the state. I loved them to pieces, and I was pretty lenient, due to the length of the trip. But... at times a few would get completely out of control. To regain order, we'd been taught a trick called 'broken record', which usually worked to diffuse the situation. Put simply, you calmly, but firmly, repeat the SAME very short instruction to the offending student(s) until THEY calm down and comply.

    I saw Obama applying the SAME premise to us as he spoke, and the tricky part of WHAT he's now saying - Yes WE Can.

    I'm a Christian in the sense that I believe in God and individual salvation. Whether you believe or not, it's important to understand that our founders DID. They BASED our entire country on the Ten Commandments and English Law. AND it worked out pretty well for us for about 235 years. NOW, Obama has stated that our Constitution is 'outdated'... and implies we need to change it to make it more 'progressive.'

    'It's the economy stupid'... but underneath all the rhetoric is Obama's plan for the 'fundamental change' of America... He TOLD us this in '08...

    What he learned sitting in Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years (but not paying attention) - was Collective Salvation - and that concept floats dangerously close to Communism. The 'fair share' 'wealth redistribution' etc. are more of the same thing.

    Look to Obama's Army, the union and ows mobs - 'This is what democracy looks like.' Their GA's are agreed upon by 'consensus' where ANY and ALL descending voices are drowned out and/or ignored. They call this 'direct democracy'.

    John Adams: Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

    Thomas Jefferson: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.

    John Marshall: Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.

    In the past, it's gone something like this: Representative Republic > Democracy > Tyranny/Totalitarian. Communism by default - brought on by Bottom Up, Top Down, Inside Out event - such as civil unrest (and possible riots.)F.F Pivens recently gave a speech, warning about (no pushing for)this. OWS on FB has an event scheduled in May they're CALLING 'Inside Out.'

    Unfortunately, our government run schools HAVE NOT done a real good job of impressing upon our students how DANGEROUS these concepts are to our American way of life. The left leaning 'intellectuals' obviously neglected to teach them about the Russian Revolution... and starvation and the millions killed by the regime once Communism reigned.

    From your posts, it looks like you pretty much agree with Obama's 'dream' for America's future... I do not and this is the 'why'.

    1. Hi Dara, good afternoon to you!

      I respectively disagree; I can’t quite see eye to eye on all of the points you’ve made. I appreciate your post though.

      The “Yes we can!” and “change” political campaigns aren’t anything dissimilar from the normal course of our politics. Almost all major presidential campaigns have some sort of rally word, catch-phrase, or one-liner that can all be interpreted in different ways.

      And the “change” platform never involved re-drafting our Constitution or anything close to that extreme. It had mostly to do with major changes to our foreign policy, energy policy, corporate dynamics and the tax system (which were the hot-topics in 2008). A sample article:

      Most of which of course he failed to deliver on, at least to the extent which he campaigned on. But that’s also part of politics, and a different topic.

      On that same topic though, whether or not anyone implies (whether directly or indirectly) that our Constitution isn’t perfect isn’t a bad thing either. There’s a reason for the 27 amendments, and the likely more to come. Likewise, the GOP has proposed amendments as well (such as the cut & cap).

      Also, it must be said that communism isn’t anything close to our system or anything anyone has proposed. That word is used far too loosely, particularly during the cold war period but even still now. Communism is the furthest level of socialism, with no type of representative governmental system… much less having the two party system we have now. But even when discussing socialism, we’re not anywhere near that kind of society either. There is no such thing as profits in a socialistic society, and anything involving business is moderated completely in full control by the people.

      That said, I think it’s a bit much to attempt to imply that Obama means that communism is his dream of the future. “Equal opportunity” has been a forefront of the traditional American dream for decades, and I can’t quite look at that as socialist now just because Obama is repeating it.

      I don’t agree with the methods of the OWS movement, but at the same time I respect their rights to protest and free speech. Just as people respected the Tea Party rallies and their rights to protest/speech as well, or for the million-man march, etc. All of which at various points have been called ‘destructive and dangerous to America’, but the fact of the matter is non-violent protest isn’t communist/social and is a right granted to all.

  8. Hi RKen - good day to you too!

    I agree that slogans are just catchwords, designed to perk interest. The words within those slogans ARE important. 'A lie, repeated often enough, becomes truth.'

    Digging up what little exists of Obama's past history reveals some dark and very ugly connections to people who don't share the common view of America. These people are ADMITTED members of socialist AND communist leaning organizations... as well as many members of our OWN Congress - who bow to his every whim.

    I disagree that Obama wouldn't like to see himself as 'supreme leader' but say he 'just' sees socialism as his 'end game'... he's ALREADY instituted government takeover of private industry - with GM, and the (total failure) 'green energy business'. HIS Czars regulate the stuffing out of business - without ANY oversight or input by OUR elected representatives.

    He bends over backward to appease the unions, having stated publicly during the campaign that he'd 'march with them' - Andy Stern, Hoffa Jr. and Trumpka are frequent visitors to the WH... another red flag (no pun intended : ).

    He's already rammed through what amounts to socialized medicine FOR ALL with his monstrosity - Obamacare... which WILL replace Medicare/Medicaid and WILL be rationed 'for the common good.'

    He's bypassed Congress to push HIS agenda on the ILLEGAL immigration issue. He REFUSES to enforce the laws of the land... instead he and his AG SUE states who attempt to do so on their own.

    He said in this State of the Union address, as well as other speeches that he 'can't wait around for Congress' to inflict his agenda upon the American people. That he'd(again)bypass them and use Executive Order...

    The founders intentionally made it a VERY long and tedious process to amend our Constitution. They also made it so that ANY amendment that we later repealed (also a tedious process) was to be left in there - so we'd (hopefully) learn from our mistakes.

    So I'll give you that he and his ilk might not be communists - I do not believe for a minute that he DOES NOT seek to 'fundamentally transform America' into something 'closer to his heart's desire'.... I KNOW this, because he's said it.

    That - is Fabian Socialism... and THAT is NOT our America.

    p.s. with regard to 'right to protest and free speech'... the Tea Parties were respectful of the law and property - both public and private. They paid their own way and left the area cleaner than they found it. There were NO documented arrests. THEY were called 'terrorists' by those on the left.

    OWS (while I agree, they HAD some valid points - initially) squats on and destroys public and private property, costing those cities millions in taxpayer dollars - Classic Cloward/Pivens 'overload the system' strategy. They practice 'free speech' by disrupting and denying the rights and free speech of others. Many, particularly those on the west coast ARE NOT non-violent. To date, there have been nearly 7,000 arrests. The left embraces them - Pelosi called them 'spontaneous' which they most certainly were/are NOT - and blessed them.

    So you see, it's really not 'fair' to compare the Tea Party to OWS. While similar in original message, the TP seeks smaller, more efficient, less intrusive government... OWS wants to overthrow our e-e-evil Capitalist system, and institute 'social justice' and 'income equality'... while demanding that same gov. give them more 'free stuff'(not sure how that's supposed to work) :-O

    Great debate... thanks