How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 What Are Obama's Major Accomplishments?   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

What Are Obama's Major Accomplishments?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


0 posted 10-26-2008 06:54 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

  I've been looking into this as a topic I'm writing about.  So far qualifications are off-limit topics for the Obama campaign, so let's ask them here.

So, I ask in all seriousness:

1) WHAT has Obama Accomplished that merits him jumping ahead all the other Democrats into the Presidential nomination?

2) whether you plan to vote for Obama or not, make the case for WHY he should be President.  

To me this is the core question of the election:  what can he point to that would lend himself to being hired as CEO of America?

Granted, he is one of the best speakers I've heard since Clinton.  

Granted he made a great speech at the Democratic convention and that put him on the map.  I thought his speech, at the time WAS inspiring, and quite good.  

Granted he ISN'T Bush! LOL, but of course, we are ALL qualified on that count!

I won't ask the same question of McCain, at least in this thread, because he HAS been in office long enough to have a list of accomplishments, so please don't deflect the topic to the 'bad things' McCain has done.  

p.s.  Try to do this mental exercise WITHOUT using links if possible, first.  My supposition is that few will be able to do this without researching first.  

[This message has been edited by threadbear (10-26-2008 09:05 PM).]

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


1 posted 10-26-2008 08:53 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

I read the topic line and took this question seriously, until I read the arbitrary pundit-styled codicils as you answered your own question, to suit yourself.

Besides his Senate record of thoughtful cooperation, Barack Obama's major accomplishment is that he brought something positive back to politics.

An option--

Hope. A slogan--or the last thing left in the ballot box?

McCain's campaign has been imploding daily, so I can't say Barack offers us choice.

There's not much choice left.

It's hope, or no hope.

threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


2 posted 10-26-2008 09:06 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Thanks, Serenity:

I changed the post considerablly to be more fair without much bias.  Your point is well taken.  Good idea, and implemented.
Jeff
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


3 posted 10-26-2008 09:13 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

um, I noticed that.

I get a little...just a teensy bit passionate sometimes.

*chuckle*

There's a chinese curse yanno:

"May you live in interesting times."

(Watch your SPAM for more details!)

*laughing*
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


4 posted 10-26-2008 09:17 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
1) WHAT has Obama Accomplished that merits him jumping ahead all the other Democrats into the Presidential nomination?

That's an easy one. They're called votes.

quote:
2) whether you plan to vote for Obama or not, make the case for WHY he should be President.

Because there's only one horse running the race?

More seriously, the answer will ultimately be the same as for the previous questions. If he's elected, it will be because the majority of America wants him to be elected.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


5 posted 10-26-2008 09:52 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Sadly, you are almost right, ron. Gathering the most votes is not a qualification, more like a consensus, but it's the one thing that gets one into the white House.

That's also how people, even ones that happened to be hitting .189 or are on the disabled list for the rest of the season or died in an accident in the off-season get into the all-star game....it's all in the votes.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


6 posted 10-27-2008 12:40 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

How much more secure is voting than if one single coin were flipped to determine which would be the president?  
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


7 posted 10-27-2008 01:14 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Essorant,

          A single coin flip offers a 50-50 chance.  If the actual liklihood of the outcome were in fact 50-50,  and you were asking only about probability, I suspect the answer would be none.

     Since more than half the electorate believes that the probability is more than 50-50, however, I suspect it would not a be a wise step.

     Sincerely, Bob Kaven

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


8 posted 10-27-2008 01:20 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Besides, Essorant, one would have to determine which coin to use. Would it be a Lincoln penny, a Roosevelt dime, a Kennedy half-dollar, or what? It would probably takes years for congress to agree which coin to use!
Larry C
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 09-10-2001
Posts 10765
United States


9 posted 10-27-2008 01:24 AM       View Profile for Larry C   Email Larry C   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Larry C's Home Page   View IP for Larry C

I think it should be the buffalo nickel.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


10 posted 10-27-2008 01:43 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Dear Threadbear,

          To answer your first question, winning the Democratic Primary by convincing a sufficient number of Democrats that he could beat a Republican challenger.

     To answer your second question, I believe he will do things differently than George Bush, and he will, I believe do things differently than John McCain, who has agreed with George Bush more than 90% of the time.  He also has a fairly solid background in constitutional law, which McCain does not.  He is much further to the right than is my personal preference, but this may be a help in working with the Republicans over the next few election cycles.  I think it might be useful for somebody who has skill in working together with others to be in office.  He also has a much better grip on his temper than I do, and certainly than Senator McCain has.

     He doesn't seem to have as many enemies in the senate as does Senator McCain, who seems to have quite a few within his own party.

     Both men will of course have to deal with the huge breaches in the constitutional protections opened by The Patriot Act and by the extensions of Presidential and executive powers pushed forward by the current administration.  No matter who becomes President, the country is in extreme danger of falling into a dictatorship.  It is purely a matter of personal opinion that I believe Obama better suited to handle this temptation.  I'm not certain even the best meaning executive will be able to avert a constitutional meltdown.

     From looking at the overall tone of these discussions, everybody, left and right, shares a certain sense of apocalyptic doom that I hope we will all be able to be amused about in four years time.  I think that would really be great.

     That's the best answer, and the straightest one, I can offer you at this point, threadbear.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 03-07-2001
Posts 19652
British Columbia, Canada


11 posted 10-27-2008 02:08 AM       View Profile for Mysteria   Email Mysteria   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Mysteria

Well Threadbear, Barach Obama's history in the Illinois Senate, shows his many accomplishments in a very short period.  I have to wonder what he can and will do, and think it's worth that risk.  I think most people, or I would certainly hope so by now anyway, will have done their homework on his track record, and feel comfortable in what he has to offer.  Besides "hope," which incidentally is 100% accurate, he offers a new, fresher approach to politics because of his youth, his education, and experience in the Senate, which is extensive.  His lack of enemies is a bonus, and his temperment and demeanor as displayed is what you expect in a person of authority, or a commander-in-chief.  Judging by the change in his hair color lately I would say he is getting lots of advise on this campaign trail and will continue to be smart enough to listen to it, and take from it all what is needed to make Americans stand proud and tall, and feel secure once more.

One only has to research the number of bills he was instrumental in getting passed to see where his passion is Ė with the people.  Obama's work on legislation of the death penalty in Illinois, and how it is doled out was a major accomplishment.  He was in favor of only issuing the death penalty in the most heinous of crimes.  This accomplishment was the difference between life and death.  He was instrumental in having minors not prosecuted as adults in certain crimes as well.

He also favors stricter gun control, (which is my personal favorite,) and has worked toward passing some great gun control legislation, and regulations for gun-bearing citizens.

He sponsored a bill while serving in Statehouse that made health care available to approximately 150,000 people that included over 70,000 children Ė so if is not an accomplishment I don't know what is.  He has often said, he will give "you" exactly what he would give his own children as far as health care and education, and I do believe him.  A 5,000 cheque to get health care just won't cut it trust me.

He too was a "Maverick" with some fancy foot work in finance reform during 1998.  It prohibited lawmakers from soliciting funds for campaigns while on state property, nor could they accept any gifts from contractors, lobbyists or any other politically interested parties.  It changed history in Illinois, since up to that point it was known as a pay/play political state I think, but correct me if I am wrong.

He was instrumental in getting young offenders re-trained and back into the work force, as well as job training for those below the poverty line, and that bill was a huge success.  

Because of a bill he had passed, drivers now have to wear seat belts Ė how good it that?  

He started a bill which I donít think is yet passed that would require utilities to purchase part of their energy from renewable sources.  Hope that one passes soon.

So let's see he has been responsible for bills passed in the state of Illinois for managing the environment, health care reform, assisting those impoverished, or incarcerated, shaking up ethics, shining a light on civil rights, not to mention his extensive work on immigration.  That is one heck of a resume.

Heís ma man, and he has the votes to prove he is more than just a pretty face, or a good speaker.  Not to take away from the track record of John McCain, because not only is it impressive, it is very "American," but right now I think people are scared, and going to put their money on some big "change."  Are they ready for what they wish for?  Hard to say, but I would bet this is the start of a very interesting period in our history.  Now don't ask me why I like him okay, I could write you a book on that, as I have since he ran for Senator.  I know one thing he has handled his campaign with complete integrity, but then I knew he would.  

Sharon leaves swiftly out the side door, wearing her "Americanuck" t-shirt, just missing Balladeer's cream pie.  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


12 posted 10-27-2008 02:10 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
How much more secure is voting than if one single coin were flipped to determine which would be the president?

Secure? I'm not sure how security pertains. Do you mean how much better?

I'm not sure voting is necessarily about getting the best man for the job. I'm quite sure it can't be about the probability of being "right," since mankind has a very long history of being collectively wrong about a great many things.

I think majority rule in general, and voting in particular, is much more about people getting what they deserve. And, yea, these days that can be a scary thought.


threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


13 posted 10-27-2008 03:39 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Unfortunately, the United States population neither elects the President nor directly nominates the candidate either, since the state election party decides whether to cast all their votes for one candidate.

As long as the electoral college is in place, the popular vote will not ever elect a President.  Not only that, the electoral college is a winner take all proposition, and a very slim voting victory (not even a majority is needed) results in all electorial votes from that state going to one party or the other.  So, essentially, the OTHER party's votes within a state DO NOT COUNT AT ALL!

For the above reasons, winning huge population states such as California, New York, Michigan, far outshines the middle states.  If you look at the last election, the Dem's only won the far north Midwest, 3 states on the West Coast, and most of the states on the upper north east.  The Republicans won all the rest.  Weird, but it is possible to win 12 states thru electorial vote and still win the national election.  As a matter of fact, Gore only won 20 states in the 2000 election, while Bush won 30, but according to some Dems, the vote is still in dispute.

Gore actually WON the popular vote, but lost the election with 50,999,000 votes vs. 50,456,000.

In 2004, Bush won 31 states, Kerry 19 states, and Bush carried the popular vote by 3 million.
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


14 posted 10-27-2008 05:29 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

OBAMA 2001
TALKING ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT
radio interview WBEZ Chicago

TRANSCRIPT:
MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and weíre joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it Iíd be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
~THE CLINCHER FOR ME WAS:~
And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasnít that radical. It didnít break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as itís been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

It says what the states canít do to you, it says what the federal government canít do to you, but it doesnít say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasnít shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
----------------------------

In case you missed it, Obama in this interview CRITICIZES the Supreme Court for NOT OVERSTEPPING ITS CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS!  Yikes, Barak!  The most liberal court in modern history and it didn't go far enough?  didn't break enough Constitutional liberties.  

He also calls himself a law professor in this interview.  He was not.  He was a guest lecturer, non-tenured, paid by appearance by the University of Chicago.  Big difference.  Typical politician puffery and they all do it.

If you get a chance, do a search on the term:  'negative liberties' and what it really means.  He claims the Consitution is a charter of negative liberties.  
Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 03-07-2001
Posts 19652
British Columbia, Canada


15 posted 10-27-2008 07:10 PM       View Profile for Mysteria   Email Mysteria   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Mysteria

You had asked when this discussion started that we not the use links, but I think the reason people tend to use reputable links is to actually show truthful facts, like this for instance, as Obama is not big on political "puffary" really from what I have seen or read.

New York Times - The Long Run Teaching Law, Testing Ideas, Obama Stood Slightly Apart

You are right however, anything can happen after Tuesday, and we will have to learn to adjust to whatever that is once again.  Popularity does not always mean votes, that is a fact indeed.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


16 posted 10-27-2008 08:33 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

There will be a lot of adjusting to do, Sharon.

There is really not a lot more to be said. No one is going to be influenced one way or another. No republican is going to be able to convince a democrat the danger of Obama and no democrat is apparently going to be able to get over their dislike for Bush to care.

All of the warning signs are there to see. For those who refuse to look or recognize them, then you get what you deserve. Unfortunately the rest of us will get it, too.

When unemployment shoots sky high, when companies start moving overseas to avoid the increases in corporate taxes adding even further to the unemployment figures, when prices of products rise to offset the extra costs of doing business, when your take-home pay is a lot less to take home and you realize the "middle class exception" to taxes increases was a phallacy, when the thrill of having someone "fresh and new" in the White House is tarnished by the realization he has no experience and no idea what he's doing, then maybe, just maybe, you will wonder if you made the right decision.  Just don't cry that you didn't see the signs. They are all there.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


17 posted 10-27-2008 10:42 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Obama has no accomplishments, major or otherwise that commends him to be the next Commandor in Chief. None whatsover. What he does have is an amazing talent for slick rhetoric in which he usually says nothing of substance. His true agenda came through when he was talking off the cuff to Joe the Plumber, one of those rare moments when we actually got a glimpse of his true agenda. And now the tape today that surfaced from 2001 where he was talking about the redistribution of wealth and economic justice in reference to the civil rights movement...I couldn't believe what I was hearing.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


18 posted 10-28-2008 12:11 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Threadbear,

          I heard the tape of the Obama interview played on the radio.  If you can find it, you owe it to yourself to listen to it.  You have in this case an example of how oral and written communication can give widely different understandings from the same text.  As poets we ought all of us to know about this.  Apparently as political animals, it's really all too easy to read what he expect.  The oral text is very different than the transcribed text, not in the words, but in the meaning the listener walks away with.

     Or perhaps it's as simple as the two of us hearing things differently.  In this case, though, I think not.

     "Congress shall make No Law to Abridge Freedom of Speech" is an example of a Negative Liberty, if I understand the man's point correctly, and it is phrased that way because it is wants to make the point that Freedom of Speech is the natural state of affairs, and that a specific action must be taken to damage it by the government or people in power.  The Founders wanted to frame the liberties as Natural States of Man.  The same is true about the Right to Bear Arms  in a militia.  Though we may argue about the circumstances under which such liberties may be exercised today, the basic right is one the Founders felt to be a Natural Right, and one which was inherent to being a citizen of American.  The Founders put a lot of the Bill of Rights in these terms.

     Unless I am badly mistaken, this is what Obama was talking about.

     While you may believe that Obama was being wrong in calling himself Professor, if he held a college teaching post that generally is the courtesy title extended.  He was also editor of The Harvard Law Review; and, as such, many colleges would have been pleased to have him on staff.  Except, of course, Harvard and perhaps a few of the other Ivy league schools who are, unfortunately, not Harvard.

     If you believe Obama guilty of Hubris, it is probably better that you err on the side of reality in your account of his abilities, otherwise ó should the man win ó you will have no other explanation than magic or witchcraft.  You are already on a side of the aisle where that explanation is resorted to far too often, if I remember accurately Reverend Robertson claimed something of the sort when Katrina hit New Orleans.

     I hope all is well.

     Sincerely, Bob Kaven
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


19 posted 10-28-2008 12:49 AM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Nice answers, Ron and Bob.  One is pragmatic, the other is gut feeling.  In the end, all we really have is our logic and gut feeling when it comes to predicting exactly HOW a person will actually perform.  I mean, who would have thought initially that GW would have let pass so many spending bills?  It just didn't fit the conservative image.

Another good reply, by Mysteria, although they are all good laws, nothing there is really earth-shaking, at least to me.  They seem to reinforce humanitarian laws, which is a good thing, especially in murder-ridden Chicago lately.     It did, however, look rather similar to the Democratic Underground flyer being passed around.  

Mike: I'm not going to predict some great and horrible tragedy IF Obama wins.  Vegas now puts the odds at 5-1 FOR Obama.  It's a done deal now barring some international tragic incident.  Better get used to it:  Obama/Biden will be our next Presidential Team.  My prediction will be 8 pt voting spread, by Obama.  

Bob, I did hear the tape.  I also heard a slick politician glossing over very liberal concepts hoping that the public will be impressed by the rhetoric without knowing the substance.  Unfortunately, some of us DO know what he was referring to.  That's why the McCain election camp - is so riled up about it.  It will just go over the voter's heads.  It's the kind of answer that only political junkies will know what the h*ll he meant.    He was indicating how he thought reparations wouldn't be enough for civil rights adjustments; how the Constitution shouldn't stymie far-thinking ideas by their legal constraits.  And he brought up that idea again: wealth redistribution.  Those are vote killers for him.  

Negative freedoms are code-words for certain Marxist beliefs.  I only bring this up because it has been a topic of conversation lately.  Government granted freedoms (as opposed to God-granted freedoms) is another hallmark of Socialism.  It would take much more to be a Socialist, to be sure.  But to hear both of these ideas put together in one speech kind of shoots Obama's ducks out of the water when refuting that he doesn't at least harbor SOME Government-First Socialist beliefs.  That yoke will be the hardest obstacle to overcome, I believe, in the election: even harder to overcome than race will.  

Many thanks to y'all for the sharp-witted answers.  Well done!
Jeff


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


20 posted 10-28-2008 12:55 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Threadbear,

           I don't buy the Marxist stuff.  I know you would like me to buy the Marxist stuff, but I don't.  First of all, I am a lot further Left than Obama and I am not Marxist.  Second, Marxism is a method of thinking.  Third, there's not a Republican in the world that isn't in favor of redistribution of wealth so long as it's on their own terms and it is upward.  The past eight years have involved a massive redistribution of wealth upward, much of it at the expense of those with less wealth.  I suggest that allowing the banks and credit companies more leeway in their interest rates and fees alone has caused a lot of redistribution upward.  Tightening of bankruptcy laws at the same time is another example. Loosening of environmental regulation on heavy metals and other pollutants may have saved industries the cost of clean-up, which might have been substantive, but the cost to the health of the public has not yet been determined.  Odds are it won't be cheap.

     Republicans are in favor of this sort of wealth redistribution, if we are to judge by their voting records.

     They are at war with the middle class and the poor, while at the same time being the first to croak "Class warfare!" at the least sign of upset from the left.  At this particular point in history they have managed to revoke the laws which forbid the use of the U.S. army against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil to enforce the law under federal authority.  When forced to repeal this legislation, President Bush issued one of his famous signing statements which said essentially, "Maybe I'm signing this, but I don't really mean it."

     The recent bank bail-out measures were voted upon under threat of the declaration ó reported by congressmen in their speeches before the house ó that if they didn't vote for the bail-out martial law would be declared.

     It is not simply money that is being re-distributed upward here.  It is power as well.

      I have said elsewhere and I will say again here that we are looking at a quarrel between two different views of America here, neither of which should win.  One is the Welfare State.  The other is The Security State.  Right now were are dangerously close to living in a Security State, which governs by repression and by concentration of wealth and power upwards.

     People generally know about the stifling of initiative that comes from The Welfare State.  I don't advocate that, but then we aren't in danger of that right now either.

     Worrying about the Yoke of Government at this point, however, seems funny to me at a point when we've allowed so many of our protections to be blandly given away to the government over the past eight years.  When the government is able to listen in to our phone-calls pretty much at will under the pretense of National Security, even our most private phone calls.  When troops may be used for law enforcement duties within the country that were illegal eight years ago, and where the President can say that he's revoked that law and then sign a statement saying he doesn't really mean that.  And still have those troops assigned where they were before with orders unchanged.

     Where agents of the government can board buses and demand to see everybody's papers.  I can remember a time when you could travel in the United States without having to carry a picture I.D. ó certainly if you did so by bus.  

     After the most massive give-away of liberties that I can think of in world history, the Right is now worried what will happen when the center comes to power.  This government and this Republican party is so far to the right that a Republican Lite like Obama actually looks like a dangerous Left wing radical.  This Republican party actually believes its own propaganda and can't identify somebody that pretty much everybody in the rest of the world can identify as middle of the road.  This Republican Party looks on the spectrum of Politics as a bird with one wing and only half a body.  It's right hand doesn't believe it has a left hand.  It has declared war upon half its own body politic.  Having pursued policies in this fashion except for an eight year hiatus for Bill Clinton since 1980, it is very worried about what might happen if the power shifts more toward the center.

     I am still worried whether anybody will have the courage to give up the potential power that the Republicans have been busy gathering since 1980, and the civil liberties that have been eroding since that time may be very difficult to re-acquire.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


21 posted 10-28-2008 02:21 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"They are at was with the middle class and poor"..what incredible malarky that is, Bob, and I'm sure you know it. Of course I suppose that if being at was with the poor means trying to get them to get out and work for a living instead of sitting home while the government checks and food stamps keep rolling in, I suppose you are right. If being at was with them means being against the "distribution of wealth" Obama favors which takes money from the wage-earners and gives it to the non-wage earners, I suppose you are right again.

when we've allowed so many of our protections to be blandly given away to the government over the past eight years.

If my count is correct, that's the 14th time you have used "the past eight years". Sure, I keep track. What else do I have to do with my life? I'm interested in seeing what the record you set will be.

Speaking of these "protections" we have given away, I think it's time for another cartoon from those Aussies, who don't really know much about American politics....

threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


22 posted 10-28-2008 08:46 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Well, Bob,

one flaw with your whole argument on redistribution of wealth to the wealthy:

there is none.

If they are taxed at a lower tax rate, then they get to KEEP WHAT THEY ALREADY EARNED.  Why is it that the farther left people are, the harder it is for them to understand that this was THEIR MONEY to begin with.  How can you say: 'redistribute' money that is already theirs and never left their bank account BACK to the wealthy??  If you want to talk about 'sliding tax' brackets, that is a different story.  The government did not to prop up those huge CEO salaries.  It was each companies Board of Director's fault that they paid rockstar salaries for short term CEO's.  

By the way, if you DO believe that keeping more of their own money is redistribution of wealth back to the wealthy, then, sorry to say, you are advocating a Marxist philosophy, and a pretty basic one at that.
Jeff
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


23 posted 10-28-2008 08:48 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



You still aren't sourcing your funny Aussie cartoons, Mike, even though I've asked you to.  Even though Ron should probably be asking you to, unless I misunderstand copyright even more than I do already.  I would also like to see some more of this guy's work, because he's funny.
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


24 posted 10-28-2008 08:50 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Hey, Bob, or Ron, or whomever knows:

SHOULD we source graphics or quotes?  Sure don't want to get into copyright infringement, although someone would have to prove a profit motive to win a lawsuit, I believe.  
--------------------------------

Also wanted to address Bob's subtopic of the loss of civil liberties.  I am an unabashed Independent, leaning toward Libertarian.  I have a few more conservative views than liberal ones, but I do cross fields at times, and that makes me a political pariah.  So when I write opinion, it will assuredly take into account both viewpoints since I look at both constantly and am not sold on the Party System anyway.  People have talked about the failures of government, but I think the BIGGEST one is overreach by Government, and the Two-Party System.  The government is not God, and I am sure I could live just fine, thank you, without their involvement in my life.  Fix my roads is about all i ask of them!  LOL  (or expect)

Now, the real point (after that meandering, sorry.)  You bemoan our civil liberties loss, but it WAS and IS necessary.  Times change.  Been to Europe lately?  Their security system is tremendously more stringent than ours, and has been for many a moon.  We just had some catching up to do.  Believe me, if another jerk committed another 9-11 you would be in line with millions bemoaning the lack of airport security (which still ain't up to snuff, according to several media outlets who have tested it with their own reporters carrying banned objects.)

If the wireless wiretaps were REALLY an issue, don't you think the Huffington Post or KOS or whomever, would be trumpeting the horrible examples?  Sure they would.  But they've been few and very far between.  The last abuse I heard of in the news was nearly a year ago.

     Government has two functions, as far as I am concerned and ONLY two:

1) provide freedom within the country
2) provide a national defense.

State govt has an obligation for local schools and roads.  That's it.  Everything else is nonconstitutional and nonbinding, even the Income Tax which is nowhere in the Bill of Rights or Constitution.  It's a voluntary tax, with penalties.  If you can figure that one out, please let me know!

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> What Are Obama's Major Accomplishments?   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors