random off-topic thread

[Newman]

The troops are just doing what they are told by our leaders. It was the same in the Vietnam debacle.

Huckabee vs. Obama. If that stays who would YOU vote for? Wouldn't that be some kind of choice. What does Huckabee offer? More of the same. He's a fundamentalist Christian. He wants to stay in Iraq, supports Bush's strategy there. He's homophobic. He is your stay the course candidate. If you're happy with the way things are, with the way things are headed then you'll vote for him.

What did Reagan say when he was first elected? Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? When Bush began his war of choice in Iraq, way back in 2003, a barrel of oil was $27. Yesterday it topped the $100 mark. Bush's friends in the oil business have made a killing. We have suffered. And that's just one area. Healthcare? Retirement? Is any issue better now than it was before Bush and the Conservatives got in office 6 years ago.

The answer is NO. Everything is worse. From the price of gas at the pump, to how much you contribute to health care and how much it covers now, to the media being gobbled up by Rupert Murdoch to Britney Spears dominating the airwaves to the Broncos missing the playoffs yet again. <oh, the end part was humor, if that needs to be labeled> What is better?

So why stay the course and vote for Huckabee? Out of fear? Out of habit? Out of racism? Homophobia?

[TheIncredibleRox]

Huckabee vs. Obama. If that stays who would YOU vote for?

I can't stand Huckabee. Most Conservatives can't. He's really not one of us. He's closer to Carter than Reagan on foreign policy, he has practically no track record of success, and has quite a few policy problems in his past he's yet to provide a good answer for.

So why stay the course and vote for Huckabee?

Simple; identity politics. This is why Conservatives get pissed at the evangelical crowd (not that it's nearly the only dynamic where this happens, but it's a prominent example). Even though practically all of our candidates are Christian, and some have a good record in favor of what Christian political values supposedly are, they have to vote for the most Christy guy.

They can't say 'sure, Huckabee was a preacher but he sucks at X, Y, Z. McCain is a strong man of faith too, and I like his policies on X, Y, Z better." It's just "Huckabee was a preacher "... end of story. Fortunately, this will be less of a big deal in other states.

Here's a question for you; why the hell does anybody like Obama?

I'll give you my take; it's similar to my answer for Huckabee--because he's a young, good-looking minority. That and he tells good stories about his goat-herding immigrant father. People call this 'charisma,' I call it being a well-coached and equipped politician.

All he talks about is 'change' and 'bringing the divisive culture of Washington to an end.' Well, his voting record suggests that if anything, he's a large proponent of that culture. He hasn't reached an inch across the isle for anything.

Sure, he talks about ending the war. As does every Democrat to varying degrees. Why him, other than what I said?

[BigRapidsJackass]

First of all, not so fast. I very much doubt the choice in November will be Obama vs. Huckabee. Maybe one or the other, but not both.

Here's what I can muster in favor of these guys.

Obama: obviously very intelligent. Calm demeanor. Exudes quiet confidence and competency. That demeanor cause most people (myself included) to think that he is a middle-of-the-road type guy, certainly not on the liberal fringe of the Democratic Party, probably much more centrist than his main competitors. (But we have no solid history to base this on.)

Huckabee. A skilled politician in the Bill Clinton way. I was aghast when he stuck up his hand to claim that he doesn't believe in evolution. Then I saw him being interviewed and he tried to back off this a bit, talking about different levels of knowledge and belief. So smooth he almost convinced me that he was pretty sensible. In fact, he convinced me of something different: that he doesn't necessarily believe all the things he has to say to get elected. I don't know whether that should make me less likely to vote for him ("He's full of crap!") or more likely to vote for him ("He's full of crap, so at least he doesn't believe the ridiculous things he says!). Despite the whole evangelical appeal thing, he comes off as more of a moderate, middle-of-the-road guy. Romney is probably really the guy who is middle-of-the-road, but he lacks the easy ability to b.s. you that Huckabee has, so he's boxed himself into a corner here. Huckabee seems downright reasonable even when he's saying something unreasonable. Has been a chief executive of a small and backward state, and apparently didn't make things worse there. It was probably not within any governor's powers to make things significantly better.

They're both a helluva lot more eloquent than W. And they both seem quite a bit smarter, particularly Obama. I used to think that didn't really matter. I changed my mind.

So there's some real lukewarm support for those guys.

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleRox

Here's a question for you; why the hell does anybody like Obama?

I'll give you my take; it's similar to my answer for Huckabee--because he's a young, good-looking minority. That and he tells good stories about his goat-herding immigrant father. People call this 'charisma,' I call it being a well-coached and equipped politician.

All he talks about is 'change' and 'bringing the divisive culture of Washington to an end.' Well, his voting record suggests that if anything, he's a large proponent of that culture. He hasn't reached an inch across the isle for anything.

Sure, he talks about ending the war. As does every Democrat to varying degrees. Why him, other than what I said?

This is a very good question. I personally am not convinced by Obama yet since I don't know what he really stands for, policy-wise. He is wet behind the ears and could be schooled on the world stage if he were to become president.

On the other hand, he has a sort of "Sydney Poitier" type of elegance and eloquence (i.e. a black who is appealing to whites), and just exudes "winner". He is the "Tiger Woods" or "Derek Jeter" candidate, both winners and children of mixed marriages. This motivates his troops and excites young people, possibly unlike any politician running for president since RFK. He's the "hope" candidate since he does seem genuine, smart, and is of a stature that people think could restore some of our country's lost luster around the world. I truly think America has a self-image or self-esteem problem right now, and is grasping for a leader to lift up our spirits and return America to a moral high-ground again. In that sense, Obama is more of an IDEA than an actual candidate with specific policy positions that people either agree or disagree with.

So, that's my explanation. Obama has a better chance of becoming president than "Huckelberry" Huckabee. He's almost a "larger than life" figure, or rapidly becoming that way. Americans want to present a different and better face to the world and show it can change, and Obama may be the annointed one to do that.

[BigRapidsJackass]

Roxpert, I think Obama really taps into a generational thing.

I am technically a baby boomer, but born in the very last year of the boom. And I just don't have a dog in the whole "culture wars" fight. People hating Clinton because he was a draft dodger, people looking up to him because he shared their experiences in the Vietnam era.

I'm just sick and tired of that generation. These politicians (and Kerry was the ultimate one, with the whole war hero vs. traitor crap last time) just annoy me. Actually, the bore me. So Obama is a breath of fresh air.

Is that enough to get my vote for the presidency? No. Right now I like him because of what he is not. Pretty soon he'll have to get substantive.

[Newman]

I'm still in the Edwards camp but would have no trouble voting for Obama. Barack is a breath of fresh air. Just compare 10 seconds of his cadenced speech vs. old school Hillary (who I would also vote for vs. any Repub). Hillary sounds like every politician I grew up with. I'm tired of the Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush leadership of the past 20years.

Obama represents change. He sounds like a college professor. I respect intelligence. He was against the war in Iraq from the get go, as was I. However he wants to stay there for a full 4 years unlike Edwards who wants out much more quickly.

Edwards' emphasis is on the multinational corporations that run the world now, not governments. That resonates with me. He gets it. All the Repubs, on the other hand, want perpetual war for perpetual profits for Halliburton and are in bed with the oil companies and lobbyists. Nothing will change if a Repub is elected.

Hillary was on the board of Walmart and takes more defense contractor money than any other candidate. She is Republican Lite.

Incredible, Huckabee isn't a conservative. You see that. And yet you'll vote for him. Why? You're not an evangelist. What's the attraction then? That he says he'll get rid of the IRS and bring in the Fair Tax, a consumption tax? You know he won't be able to accomplish that, of course.

Taxes? That's why I think most people are Repubs. They don't want to pay taxes. But what's the alternative? The Bush plan? Keep borrowing money from Communist China until our economy collapses? Keep printing money until the dollar collapses? Do "Conservatives" support that?

Q: Would you call Bush a conservative? He's folksy like Huckabee (some would say stupid, or easily controlled by those who really run the government like Cheney). Under 7 years of Bush the government has gotten bigger and bigger. Where is his conservativism? His policy is to "trust the free market". Trust corporations. Tax breaks for the wealthy. Has that worked?

In 2003 a barrel of oil was $27. Now in 6 short years it's over $100. Bush's oil friends have made record profits.

Reagan got elected on this phrase: are you better off than you were 4 years ago? Who's better off besides CEOs? Nobody! The Republican Party is dying because it only serves the very rich. And those who want America to be an imperial, colonial power. Do you fit either category, Incredible?

[indianadrew]

Originally Posted by Newman

Q: Would you call Bush a conservative?

no absolutely not. he may have claimed to be to get elected, but he is not conservative.

i want ron paul to be president, but i seriously doubt if it will happen. my second choice would be
obama.


Iraqi soldier kills 2 American troops - Yahoo! News

this is just great. we now have to worry about the iraqi military being infiltrated by terrorists. how are we supposed to keep track of the iraqi soldiers. we cant even keep track of who enters our country. the current plan in iraq is not working. you cant force freedom on people that obviously are not ready for it.

[TheIncredibleRox]

Under 7 years of Bush the government has gotten bigger and bigger. Where is his conservativism? His policy is to "trust the free market".

You must realize you just completely conradicted yourself. Trusting the free market and increasing the size of government are the opposite of one another. Besides, how the hell are you going to rail about big government while supporting the likes of Edwards, Obama, Hillary, etc?

IMO, the three largest failures of Bush, in no particular order.

1. Failure to control spending. Programs like no child left behind are not in line with conservative ideals. He failed to curb pork barrel spending. He failed to get anything done on Social Security, which could have not only reduced the size of the Federal Government, but made the program more effective. At least partially as a result of these reasons, our country and it's enterprises are now increasingly beholden to questionable (at best) governments, such as Dubai and China.

2. I think he outsourced management/planning of the Iraq war to Rummy, who failed terribly. Maybe this is more on Rumsfield, but GW could have had a quicker hook.

3. Failure to do anything whatsoever about illegal immigration. It's a huge security loophole, and it has massive negative effects on our economy and society.

Edwards' emphasis is on the multinational corporations that run the world now, not governments. That resonates with me.

I'm glad you brought this up, because I think this is a classic point of division amongst modern libs and convervatives. It's an interesting thing to discuss openly.

You, as a liberal, fear that corporations (private business) are too powerful because, as owners of massive amounts of capital (for contributions), they are having undue influence on the government.

My questions are; 1. What evidence do you have that this is having a negative effect on American society? I'm not saying it doesn't have one, but like I said, this is an interesting/defining subject, and it should be fun to really flesh out the logic behind this. 2. If they truly are having undue influence on the government, and it is negative, then how do we go about stopping it? Policy-wise, what do we do?

As a conservative, I'm not terribly scared of corporations so long as a monopoly is not in place. Corporations employ us and provide us with goods and services that we want and need. A corporation is, by definition, a group of people working together in enterprise.

In addition to that, the most overpaid CEO in America cannot tell me where I can and can't smoke a cigarette. The most overpaid CEO in America cannot dictate the type of car I have to drive. The most overpaid CEO in America cannot raise my taxes, dictate speech codes in my University, or tell me what type of gun I can buy. So I'm not afraid of him.

Lawyers, politicians, and beaurocrats can do all those things. In addition to that--going back to my first point--what they can do is severely limit corporations so that competition (and thus, efficiency) is severly limited for the goods and services they provide me, and my friends/family/neighbors they employ.

And if their CEO is indeed overpaid, that only hurts their company's long term viability, and increases the likelihood that another, more efficient model steps in to provide those goods, services, and employment. This is why I and many Conservatives are in favor of minimalist Federal government.

So, that is my take. I want this to be less of a debate and more us fleshing out each other's logic; again, I find this kind of defining ethical equation to be a lot of fun--it's a major indicator of why we are the way we are (politically)... getting to the bottom of it is a great excercise in social political theory.

[HoyaRoxFan]

I'd been trying to steer clear of this thread for some time as the "chattering classes" inside the Beltway are all I have to listen to at work 9-5 Monday through Friday and this site is a nice escape for me... but since right now it's admittedly a much more interesting read than debating the merits of the Rockies signing Josh Towers...

I'm not 100 % sure the candidate will live up to the billing, but for those curious as to why Obama is such a phenomenon - and building on Jackass' point about the baby-boom culture wars question - I'd strongly encourage folks to give an article a read from The Atlantic last month. It gave me enough pause and changed the way I'm looking at the elections this year that I'm sharing it with everyone who will bother to listen. It's a heckuva read.

In sum, it says the Obama candidacy has very little to do with the man, and everything to do with ending the culture wars, and getting out of the '60s, once and for all. Though I've not necessarily made up my mind yet, I felt that this was well represented in the respective speeches given by the candidates on Thursday evening. Certainly, time will tell, but wouldn't it be nice if it were true...

Goodbye to All That

[Newman]

Incredible, you misunderstood me, or missed my sarcasm. Conservatives, like Bush, preach smaller government. But when they get in, they expand govt, they spend as much or more than Dems. They don't follow thru on their campaign promises at all. Govt has gotten bigger under Bush and the Repubs.

Repubs hate govt. They say vote for me and I promise not to do anything, other than invade and occupy other countries.

Repubs dont believe in govt. The whole thing is about what is the role of govt. Dems think govt should help the people, we the people. Repubs believe that the free market is the answer for everything. Trust the free market. Well, I don't.

Look what the free market has done with gas prices alone. I can trust the CEO of Exxon to make as much profit as he possibly can and I can trust Bush to do nothing about it.

Illegal immigration. Where's the free market solution there? Multinational corporations want tomake as much profit as possible. How to maximize profit? Break unions and let illegals come in for the cheapest labor possible.

1. We are wasting $10B per month in Iraq. Done the drain. How are we paying for Bush's war of choice in Iraq (remember, we were never attacked by Iraq, and they were no threat to us)? Did Bush raise taxes to pay for his war? NO. He continues to borrow money from Communist China, our "enemy". We now have record debt and record deficits because of Bush and his Republican voodoo economics. $10Billion a month, with no end in sight, a perpetual war. Why aren't Conservative Republicans outraged? Instead all Repub candidates support the Bush War of Choice in Iraq.

2. He gave people like George Tenet the Congressional Medal of Honor. Did Rummy get one too? This war has been a disaster. Are we safer because of it? Did we get Osama bin laden because of it? NO.

3. totally agree with you about illegal immigration. Bush did nothing about it because the corporations that control him don't want him to do anything about it. Big agra business loves those illegals who work for peanuts, as do the housing industry, restaurants, well, all the big businesses love them because they don't have to pay them squat or give them health benefits or anything.

The evidence is clear, Incredible, in the issues you yourself brought up! The multinational corporations want illegal immigration. They also profit greatly from the war in Iraq. Oil companies have made record profits. Pharmaceutical companies. Need I go on.

Q: Are YOU better off now than you were 4 years ago? Corporations are. But not WE, the PEOPLE.

[GerryInCS]

Tuesday is the day they announce the Baseball Hall of Fame votes. Here's hoping that Colorado Springs' hometown hero, Rich "Goose" Gossage finally gets the recognition he deserves. I saw the ballot today and the only other persons on the list who is close to be deserving of being in the HoF are Bert Blyleven and maybe Lee Smith

[TheIncredibleRox]

Newman, you didn't answer any of the questions.

Again:

1. What evidence leads you to believe corporations are having an undue, negative influence of our government? (Again, not saying they don't but let's flesh it out)

2. If they are, what can be done policy-wise to change that?

Look what the free market has done with gas prices alone.

Just for the record, oil is very far from a 'free' market. The vast majority of it (~2/3) is controlled by a cartel, it gets taxed out the ass on several ends, and is regulated quite heavily by the department of energy.

[Newman]

1. Evidence? Just ask yourself what are the main issues in the country today. They are the war in Iraq, illegal immigration, and the healthcare crisis. They all directly go to the undue and negative influence that multinational corporations have on our government, on our people, we the people.

We are in Iraq, why? For oil. For profit. For war profiteering. Iraq certainly is not a threat to us, never attacked us, doesn't even have an air force or a navy. We are there so that corporations can make a huge profit.

Illegal immigration is all about cheap labor, let the cheap labor come in so transnational corporations can make a bigger profit.

Healthcare. Pharmaceutical industry. It's all tied together. WE have healthcare for a profit. The only civilized western nation that does not have healthcare for it's people, doesn't have total coverage. And premiums keep going up. And deductibles go up. And care gets worse. Why? So the health care corporations can make more and bigger profits.

2. What can be done? Vote for Edwards. He speaks directly to the issue. The Repubs all want to stay the course. If you want change, then vote for Edwards and a Democratic Congress, and hope they kick out Pelosi and Reid and get new leadership there.

3. We need to take the lobbyists out of the election process, special interest groups like the pharmaceutical industry, the insurance industry, and so forth, who own Congressmen and Presidents alike.

[BigRapidsJackass]

Newman, I actually agree with you on some of that. If I see one more Republican brag about how we have the best health care system in the world I'm going to shoot out the TV Elvis-style.

But Edwards? The guy who made a huge fortune suing doctors? Thereby raising health care costs? Do you think someone so closely tied to a powerful lobby (the euphemistically name "Trial Lawyers," meaning "personal injury lawyers?) could actually ram "reform" down the throats of that lobby? Wouldn't a nationalized health care system essentially eliminate these kinds of lawsuits, at least with respect to huge damage awards? Do successful national health care systems in other countries allow you to sue your government doctor when you get a bad result? No, they don't. If you allowed that you'd have the kind of cost uncertainty that would destroy the system.

I hate to say it because it's an awfully sad situation, but the decision (although informed by cost considerations, on the employer's part, not on the insurer's part since Cigna simply administered the employer's plan) in that Sarkisyan girl's case was correct. It is tragic, but she was not an appropriate candidate for a liver transplant. Edwards feels like he's on familiar turf here, distracting the jury (voters) by pulling on our heartstrings. You can't have nationalized health care unless you can make reasoned (albeit hard from an emotional standpoint) decisions like the one Cigna made.

I'm not sold, and I don't think the voters are either. Prediction: he's done in 3 weeks.

[Roxpert]

Sorry I've been absent, but I'm in Arizona attending a conference. TIR, I wish to address your question regarding "evidence" of corporate undue influence on policies coming out of Washington.

To be brief, K Street is all the evidence you really need. And Jack Abramoff. And the fact that many in government, many Congressmen, when they leave Congress are hired by lobbying organizations, given corporate board seats, earn huge honoraria or speaking fees.

I talk quite a bit about the "Military Industrial Complex" that Dwight Eisenhower warned us all about when leaving office in 1961 in his farewell address. He was a Republican that I have long respected, even though he didn't do much as president beyond playing golf. This is the biggest example and evidence of corporate influence on policy, in this case foreign policy and government spending. Many of the books I've recommended on this thread deal with this influence, including The Shock Doctrine and Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

The evidence is all over the place, TIR. All you have to do is look, read, and understand how Washington works. This is unfortunately a sad state of affairs that has infected both political parties. We now live in a virtual "corporatocracy" where the government has turned into enablers for corporations and is more responsive to corporate interests than people's interests. We have to get money out of politics to even have a fighting chance for this system to change.

Now, I like corporations and free market capitalism. I've made a ton of money investing in them. But I realize that the role of government is to set the agenda for the common interest of the people, and this common interest is often in conflict with corporate profit-making.

An essential difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that government may actually be able to run programs more cost effectively and efficiently than profit-making enterprises, while conservatives want to privatize and outsource everything. The privatization urge grows from a belief that government is a collection of unambitious career losers who are bureaucrats and not money-motivated, hence less effective. Liberals believe that corporations cannot be expected to protect the interests of the citizenry when profit motives get in the way, and that programs that are privatized end up costing taxpayers more in the long-run than if they were kept inside government.

In short, liberals are "anti-greed" and "pro-idealism", believing in the higher possibilities of government to solve collective problems. Conservatives believe government is the problem and cannot work as well as the free market, and then they get elected and set about to prove their point!

You can't have people who are ideologically opposed to the uses of government actually running the government, and have good governance. I think that's fairly easy to understand.

Hope that helps flesh a bit of this out for you, TIR. I don't wish to debate this ad-nauseum again, but instead just trying to define the differences between the two camps.