So, what next for Americans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

theres a difference b/w taking money from people who are wealthy and giving it to those who arent as successful is a major part of communism.
the government isnt forcibly taking money from anyone to give to the poor.

---

Ahhhhh!.... so taking from the poor and middle to give to huge transnational defense contractors and Wall Street, is NOT Communism. Or spending on the taxpayer's credit card, to be repaid later with tax money, to give tax cuts to the rich now--- NOT Communism.

Taking from the wealthy in the form of taxes, for things like education and repaired roads and college grants... IS Communism.

Seriously, you don't know what you're talking about.

youre probably right.....
this should teach me to not go on these forums when im drunk....
w/e

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I'm seriously not trying to be rude here, but I find this a really bizarre statement coming from someone who isn't American. Do you have a house here and live here part of the year or something? This statement just seems really odd from someone who isn't a citizen and doesn't vote here.

---

No, you don't understand me. I have no influence over Obama or his victory, and why shouldn't I, as a person - not a voter, just a person - give Obama a chance in my view to see if I end up liking his Presidency or not? The influence of the American election isn't limited to America, you know. Guess what is at the top of the Die Welt website right now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

No, you don't understand me. I have no influence over Obama or his victory, and why shouldn't I, as a person - not a voter, just a person - give Obama a chance in my view to see if I end up liking his Presidency or not?

---

I understand what you mean. You just phrased it in a really bizarre way, that made you sound like an opposition party Congressman or something who was "considering" supporting Obama. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I understand what you mean. You just phrased it in a really bizarre way, that made you sound like an opposition party Congressman or something who was "considering" supporting Obama. ;)

---

I see. I rephrased that post a little bit, does it seem alright now? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I see. I rephrased that post a little bit, does it seem alright now? ~;)

---

Quite. Quite ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Diablo

Excuse my ignorance as I am not an American, nor have I paid that much attention to the election.

But this kind of disturbed me...



Should you not know WHAT the new POTUS has planned? How can you chose one candidate over another unless you know what they have planned? Their stance on Iraq and the world ecomonic crisis for example? Otherwise any election must surely must turn into a popularity contest with out any substance?

Obviously politicans lie, or at the least stretch the truth so that maybe what EMFM meant. Does he withhold 100% support till he sees how many promises BHO will keep.

---

Welcome to the mindset of the Oamamania lovefest; Let's elect a guy who "talks great for a black guy" as Joe Biden, his VP said https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxWSVXZVR4c , and we know nothing about even though by the age of 47, he's already wrote 2 autobiagraphies about himself!!! No, this guy isn't arrogant or borderline sociopath!!! This empty suit would have been exposed if the leftist media wasn't spunking all over themselves to get him elected. :beam:

Way to answer the OT, Dave...

DC, was my answer sufficiently nonpartisan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Way to answer the OT, Dave...

DC, was my answer sufficiently nonpartisan?

---

Yes, I think you were making an honest effort, and you know, I welcome the chance to be proven wrong (in terms of my beliefs leading up to this morning). I hope the next 4 years are about a more centralized, interventionist government that uses its power for the good of its citizens. I will state that it's a two way street. If the administration wants my continued hope and belief, they have to offer just cause for it. It's one thing for me to be a hopeful optimist. It's another to expect me to just quietly turn into a doormat.

I will say the choice of Rham Emmanuel as Obama's chief of staff doesn't give me warm fuzzies about 'reaching out'. The man is bright, disciplined and effective, but he's about as partisan as they come. At the same time, Obama's short list of Treasury secretaries gives me hope that Obama intends to reform Wall Street, not destroy it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Yes, I think you were making an honest effort, and you know, I welcome the chance to be proven wrong (in terms of my beliefs leading up to this morning). I hope the next 4 years are about a more centralized, interventionist government that uses its power for the good of its citizens. I will state that it's a two way street. If the administration wants my continued hope and belief, they have to offer just cause for it. It's one thing for me to be a hopeful optimist. It's another to expect me to just quietly turn into a doormat.

I will say the choice of Rham Emmanuel as Obama's chief of staff doesn't give me warm fuzzies about 'reaching out'. The man is bright, disciplined and effective, but he's about as partisan as they come. At the same time, Obama's short list of Treasury secretaries gives me hope that Obama intends to reform Wall Street, not destroy it.

---

I'm shocked you think we'd expect different, DC. A lot of us certainly made our discontent known when the Bush Admin did the opposite of what it, and its supporters, insisted it would do, over and over.

I think the only expectation would be to give it an honest shot. If you turn a naked eye on any political machine, of any kind, whatsoever, already preconvinced that it's evil and up to no good and against your interests, I am sure you will find reasons to believe it in every speech, every bill, every rider, every vote, every veto, etc. Bush can't claim to have had irrational, partisan opposition his whole two terms--- everyone was behind him after 9/11, and what happened after that was entirely the decisions he made, and the ideological bent he decided to pursue, and the fear tactics he tried to use to tie every possible issue into somehow being related to national security. Whether or not Obama will leave the starting gate with even half of what Bush had after 9/11, is up to Republicans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I will say the choice of Rham Emmanuel as Obama's chief of staff doesn't give me warm fuzzies about 'reaching out'. The man is bright, disciplined and effective, but he's about as partisan as they come. At the same time, Obama's short list of Treasury secretaries gives me hope that Obama intends to reform Wall Street, not destroy it.

---

What? No, Rahm is a perfectly reasonable guy. :smash:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

The best Rahm Emanuel story is not the one about the decomposing two-and-a-half-foot fish he sent to a pollster who displeased him. It is not about the time - the many times - that he hung up on political contributors in a Chicago mayor's race, saying he was embarrassed to accept their $5,000 checks because they were $25,000 kind of guys. No, the definitive Rahm Emanuel story takes place in Little Rock, Ark., in the heady days after Bill Clinton was first elected President.

It was there that Emanuel, then Clinton's chief fund-raiser, repaired with George Stephanopoulos, Mandy Grunwald and other aides to Doe's, the campaign hangout. Revenge was heavy in the air as the group discussed the enemies - Democrats, Republicans, members of the press - who wronged them during the 1992 campaign. Clifford Jackson, the ex-friend of the President and peddler of the Clinton draft-dodging stories, was high on the list. So was William Donald Schaefer, then the Governor of Maryland and a Democrat who endorsed George Bush. Nathan Landow, the fund-raiser who backed the candidacy of Paul Tsongas, made it, too.

Suddenly Emanuel grabbed his steak knife and, as those who were there remeber it, shouted out the name of another enemy, lifted the knife, then brought it down with full force into the table.

''Dead!'' he screamed.

The group immediately joined in the cathartic release: ''Nat Landow! Dead! Cliff Jackson! Dead! Bill Schaefer! Dead!''

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Welcome to the mindset of the Oamamania lovefest...

---

Cheer up Dave. You know what they say... ~:pat:

Let's not even get into really nasty campaign management. A good high school friend that I am still in touch with worked on the McCain campaign, and was directly around Schmidt numerous times. And just those few stories.... the guy sounds like a monster. Even when a Republican staffer describes him.

Really competitive, borderline neurotic, controlling, bastard guys are tapped for this kind of job. It's just a matter of degree. I mean, the job description is basically "make me look really good and that other guy like a total :daisy:."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

What? No, Rahm is a perfectly reasonable guy. :smash:

---

Guy sounds like a punk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Really competitive, borderline neurotic, controlling, bastard guys are tapped for this kind of job. It's just a matter of degree. I mean, the job description is basically "make me look really good and that other guy like a total :daisy:."

---

Sounds like he's a real (Il-advised pun). :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Let's not even get into really nasty campaign management. A good high school friend that I am still in touch with worked on the McCain campaign, and was directly around Schmidt numerous times. And just those few stories.... the guy sounds like a monster. Even when a Republican staffer describes him.

Really competitive, borderline neurotic, controlling, bastard guys are tapped for this kind of job. It's just a matter of degree. I mean, the job description is basically "make me look really good and that other guy like a total douche."

---

But the point is, Rham Emmanuel won't be running a campaign, which by its very nature is partisan. Making a guy like that Chief of Staff in your White House sends a strong message what sort of dissent you're going to tolerate. There's lots of Democrats I respect, and I don't think Rham Emmanuel is a particularly ideological freak. But he is all about gutting anybody that disagrees with him. That's not coalition building.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Communism - Placing the entire means of production in the working class to create a classless society.
Wealth Redistribution - Taking from some people to give to others.

They are not the same thing.

---

One is communism, and the other is socialism. Those are both part of the so-called left-wing economies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Cheer up Dave. You know what they say... ~:pat:

---

Nothing makes me happier than a wonderful song during a cruxifiction. Thanks!!!:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I'm seriously not trying to be rude here, but I find this a really bizarre statement coming from someone who isn't American. Do you have a house here and live here part of the year or something? This statement just seems really odd from someone who isn't a citizen and doesn't vote here.

---

He lives in Germany and Canada I believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caius

One is communism, and the other is socialism. Those are both part of the so-called left-wing economies.

---

Socialism involves far more things than simple wealth redistribution. There is no way Obama even comes close to being a Socialist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Nothing makes me happier than a wonderful song during a cruxifiction. Thanks!!!:laugh4:

---

I thought that would cheer you up as you seemed so cross about the election. Hopefully on the third day you'll feel much better... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

taking money from people who are wealthy and giving it to those who arent as successful is a major part of communism.
the government isnt forcibly taking money from anyone to give to the poor.

---

Well thecnically, enforcing tax payments does not equal (is not in the same league) as 'foricibly taking'. And thecnically, 'giving it to those who arent as successful' is not at all communism. In an ideal communist state there be no such distinction possible to make.

Communism is the state form in which (in its idealised -I mean idealised Plato style- state) the distinction between two individuals is minimised as much as possible in the hope that given an equal status, and equal means of living, and an equal 'task' towards and share in society as a whole; people will be more happy. Well, thecnically not even that as it doesn't really consititute a state form, so much as an ideology whereby people live in one big commune and share the means of sustainance with each other on a basis of equality. One would say the communism is like giving each person equal shares in the stock of society; with the expectation individuals act prudent accordingly: to act in the best interest of the society/company/producing entity would (likely) see a rise in the worth of those shares, thereby increasing the wealth of the individual.

In practice however state forms modeled on communism tend to deviate from that pattern, and never achieve any sort of communism at all. These just use communism as a means of advertising themselves towards people who don't know better (just like anyone can advertise himself as a patriot towards any other [insert: fool] who's willing stupid enough to take that as measure of benovelence competence).

By origins the Jewish Kibbutz is decidedly communist. In practice however...

Neither work.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Right up until he signs FOCA into law - then it is no-holds-barred combat.

I plan to be in Washington for this years anniversary of the Roe verdict. My money is on the act being signed on that day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

I thought that would cheer you up as you seemed so cross about the election. Hopefully on the third day you'll feel much better... ~;)

---

:laugh4:

:applause:

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Right up until he signs FOCA into law - then it is no-holds-barred combat.

---

He is a co-sponsor of the bill and has said he would sign it. Don't get your hopes up.

Glad to hear you are giving him the benefit of the doubt until then though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

He is a co-sponsor of the bill and has said he would sign it. Don't get your hopes up.

Glad to hear you are giving him the benefit of the doubt until then though.

---

Sorry, Tuff, not only is FOCA going into affect, the determination the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act (2002) will be repealed. I suggest if you're squeamish about infanticide, you drop the issue, because it's coming and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

The way to end abortion is not to legislate it out of existence and to raise the conciousness of the American people to where Europe is, where they consider abortion as a form of birth control to be grotesque, not chic.

Quote:

---

he's already wrote 2 autobiagraphies about himself!!!

---

Wow thats outrageous he should have written his autobiographies about someone else:2thumbsup:

Don, may I ask what I hope is a constructive question? - in no way do I mean to belittle anyone's beliefs here.

It strikes me that the biggest impediment to putting a decent and humane bill on abortion is the polarisation of the issue in the States. The left defends Roe versus Wade (a truly awful ruling, it seems to me) because the opposition will brook nothing less than the complete outlawing of abortion (understandable if one accepts their premise that abortion is murder).

Do you think it is possible that a Democratic president with a very strong mandate plus a compliant Congress might be able to address this issue thoughtfully? Perhaps to propose a bill (maybe even a Constitutional Amendment) that would set a limit of (ideally) 12 weeks for abortion (with slightly longer limits for serious medical issues) or even the European standard of 20 weeks? Would there be a possibility of bi-partisan support for this (since really important bills usually need this)? Or would opening the can of worms result in ignominious defeat?

Perhaps the Democratic party is too far gone on the pro-choice defensive, but I seem to recall President Clinton putting it very well: "Abortion should be legal, but very, very rare."

Am I too optimistic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Don, may I ask what I hope is a constructive question? - in no way do I mean to belittle anyone's beliefs here.

It strikes me that the biggest impediment to putting a decent and humane bill on abortion is the polarisation of the issue in the States. The left defends Roe versus Wade (a truly awful ruling, it seems to me) because the opposition will brook nothing less than the complete outlawing of abortion (understandable if one accepts their premise that abortion is murder).

Do you think it is possible that a Democratic president with a very strong mandate plus a compliant Congress might be able to address this issue thoughtfully? Perhaps to propose a bill (maybe even a Constitutional Amendment) that would set a limit of (ideally) 12 weeks for abortion (with slightly longer limits for serious medical issues) or even the European standard of 20 weeks? Would there be a possibility of bi-partisan support for this (since really important bills usually need this)? Or would opening the can of worms result in ignominious defeat?

Perhaps the Democratic party is too far gone on the pro-choice defensive, but I seem to recall President Clinton putting it very well: "Abortion should be legal, but very, very rare."

Am I too optimistic?

---

Bill Clinton was quoting the original party line for abortion that Planned Parenthood has used since 1973. One of the rare missteps Obama had during the campaign was defending his oppostion to the "Born Alive" act, something he opposed in the Illinois state senate. What it outlawed, I'll describe in hidden text in the interest of civility.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

There is a very late term abortion procedure by which the doctor induces premature delivery. The idea is that the fetus (typically at 32/33 weeks by this point) will not survive the shock of being forced into delivery early. Many do. Those that do are left to die of exposure, as it was decided "before they were born", that they were not to be born, so even though they survived the delivery process, since the intention was for them not to, the medical staff should let them die. It is an uncommon procedure that accounts for 0.5% of abortions, and the AMA is against it (the AMA does support elective 3rd trimester abortions, however).

When a "Born Alive" act, basically outlawing the procedure, was brought to a vote in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted against it. This is not merely a defensive posture to an assumption of slippery slope from the pro-choice side, it is a widening of the scope of abortion. In light of that, and in light of the stated intention by NARAL to get the federal "Born Alive" act repealed, I think it's a safe guess that it will be.

I understand what you're saying... that the extremism of the pro-choice side is a reaction to the extremism of the pro-life side. It's not that. Look at the numbers of abortions per year over the past 35 years of Roe. I agree that it should be "Safe, Legal and Rare", but we as a society are doing what we can to see to it that it's anything but rare.

I am pro-choice in the legal sense, at least in the first trimester, but would do whatever I could to discourage the practice. Unfortunately, that's a losing battle, and most pro-choice people would say I'm really anti-choice, because by my efforts, I'm implying there's something wrong with having the procedure. I would argue that there is, it should be an option of last resort, and I am called a misogynist for that view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Don, may I ask what I hope is a constructive question? - in no way do I mean to belittle anyone's beliefs here.

It strikes me that the biggest impediment to putting a decent and humane bill on abortion is the polarisation of the issue in the States. The left defends Roe versus Wade (a truly awful ruling, it seems to me) because the opposition will brook nothing less than the complete outlawing of abortion (understandable if one accepts their premise that abortion is murder).

Do you think it is possible that a Democratic president with a very strong mandate plus a compliant Congress might be able to address this issue thoughtfully? Perhaps to propose a bill (maybe even a Constitutional Amendment) that would set a limit of (ideally) 12 weeks for abortion (with slightly longer limits for serious medical issues) or even the European standard of 20 weeks? Would there be a possibility of bi-partisan support for this (since really important bills usually need this)? Or would opening the can of worms result in ignominious defeat?

Perhaps the Democratic party is too far gone on the pro-choice defensive, but I seem to recall President Clinton putting it very well: "Abortion should be legal, but very, very rare."

Am I too optimistic?

---

It all sounds very good. "Legal, Safe and Rare" is what allowed people who were pro-life to hold their noses and vote for Clinton. Obama voted against the born alive act and against the partial birth abortion ban. He is of the opinion that the unborn are not human beings and have no rights if they are nto wanted by their mother. He has no desire to limit in any way the method or frequency of abortions because he believes that it is the same thing as having a tumor removed - does anyone have a moral problem with how many growths you decide to remove?

He ran on a platform of wishing to end the old cultural wars that have plagued us for so many years - people interpreted that in their own way - what he meant was that he was tired of not winning outright and his resolution of those old conflicts would be the total allowance of abortion without any compromise. Under his plan - even in comparison with other pro-abortion politicians - the life issue is further muddied until even after the birth of an unwanted child it doesn't receive human rights based on the mothers feelings.

The legislature was always capable of dealing with this issue until it was polarized and hijacked. I hope some moderates learned their lessons well from the Roe debacle.

"I don't want my daughters punished with a baby" would be his response to "legal safe and rare"