I Would Take a Bullet for Barack Obama

[HapSmo19]

I Would Take a Bullet for Barack Obama

Well?......What are you waiting for?

[InkL0sed]

I Would Take a Bullet for Barack Obama

Well?......What are you waiting for?

The bullet...

[BlacKnighT]

Well?......What are you waiting for?[/quote]

The bullet... [/quote]

lol

And I would probably do that for Obama too if need be.

[Grooveman2007]

I'd take a bullet for him, but only in the shoulder or pinky finger, maybe the foot. But I'd let him get shot if I had to get hit in the chest or head, or balls.

[jonesthecurl]

There has not been a candidate for President in my lifetime I would ever say or think that about, until Mr. Obama.

We need his leadership. We need his judgment. We need his administration.

We'll see if your still saying that after the first year of his administration. He's a master orator, and an impressive showman. Weak minds are apt to be overcome by such trickery. Foolish jedi, your power will not work on ME!

Lest you think I'm all for McCain, see my post in the "McCain VP" thread first.

Here's what I think of the choices we've got this election: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTrIeqMtEOg

[These are not the voters we are looking for]

"These are not the voters wwe are looking for..."

[Frigidus]

I'd take a bullet for him, but only in the shoulder or pinky finger, maybe the foot. But I'd let him get shot if I had to get hit in the chest or head, or balls.

True that. The pain would be on a biblical level. I'm OK with pretty much anywhere else though.

[gdeangel]

Out of curiosity, what is it about Obamas economic policy you take issue with. You have used a fair amount of rhetoric, with the frequent use of redistributionist, which is more of an ideological than practical term, nearly all social systems distribute wealth and all of them but the freeiest of market systems redistribute. So if youd explain what you dont like specifically instead of using a term that is rather blanket statement oriented in nature id be interested in the specifics.

Call it a gut feeling. Call it malias if you want. Call it having been in Chicago and seen first hand how Obama manipulated the election process to gain political positions without the people really having any alternative to vote for (sound like some sham democracies you've heard about recently?). But the bottom line is that there are a lot of things that look good on paper about him. I seriously was swayed after hering Biden's breakdown of what an tough and inciteful person he thinks Obama is. Then I listened to yesterday's speech. It went like this: if we can only raise taxes for just those few in the top 5% of incomes, I can solve all our problems. That's all I have to do, just deal it out to the top 5% of earners.

This is exactly what the founding fathers would have been afraid of. This is just what the expansionist view of equal protection and due process that have been read into the constitution to protect ethnic minorities is meant to do. That is to say, prevent a "drum beating" majority from using a minority (however you define that, racially, religiously, economically) as their scapegoat, and extracting from them undue recompense to appease the masses for systemic failures that were not caused by the minority. When Hitler singled out the Jews for persicution, it found an accepting ear with the German people, when viewed in the context of Germany in the 20s and 30s, not because Jews dressed differently, looked different, or celebrated different religious beliefs. At the very bottom, it was economic envy. Don't believe me? Go back to the original propaganda of the nazi machine. Once that found a sympathetic ear, it was an easy expansion it the "ethnic" markers in order to identify the class of minority that was allegedly to blame for the failure of post-WWI Germany. Will we go that far? Probably not. But it is certainly possible to kill off the upper middle class becuase, for an aspiring doctor or lawyer or middle market banker, there is a lot of busting of your ass involved to make the incremental jump from $80,000/yr to $125,000 (half of the household income wher Mr. Obama draws the line for his tax increase.

So go back and listen to what Mr. Obama says to pump up the stands of drooling fans (I really can't call them "discerning voters"), and it amounts to promising the moon, in impressive orratory, with $0, no cost to you, Mr. Ordinary voter, right now, all you have to do is give him the presidency and he will do it for you. We are such a "no-cost" society already, people are just not asking the right question. That is, what's behind the curtain Mr. Obama?

Obama has been far more transparent about the economic plan than Mccain. Mccain wishes to extend a tax cut that would make paying the deficit far more difficult to pay off, than the expenditures from Obama. The way he plans on paying for this is something of a red herring, as pork-barrel spending (while in need of reform) is certainly not enough to pay that off.

For the average person, your wallet should be voting for Obama (especially if you believe the gov shouldnt be taking all of your money away from you).

Unfortunately, the economist in me agrees with you. I seriously think McCain will bungle the economy for another four years. But he is unlikely to comprimise the integrity of america's real core value, declare war on the upper middle class, which will merely result in the richest and ablest going off shore, and the actual attainable upper-middle class, the doctors, lawers, middle managers, and entrepreneurs who have busted their ass to get a little advantage either for themselves or their children. And once we no longer have attainable examples of "better economic life" that can be reached through honest hard work (i.e., not the super rich, who inherit their wealth or acquire it through duping the masses to invest in their overvalued stocks or unsound structured debt - or worse, defraud them), what will be motivating America to work hard, and what will those new mostive lease us, as a people to do? We will be Italy.

One telling thing I find about Obama's economic plan is that he does not plan to fully restore the estate tax to its pre-Bush level. Now why would anyone do this? Dying is not an activity that anyone can choose to do or not. The marginal tax rate of dying has no effect on output. In fact, a higher marginal tax rate on dying is probably the best way to spur consumption among the people who actually can afford to "go to the mall". Why would you lower the rate on inter-genreational wealth transfers? My suspicion is that it is the real payoff to the owners of the wealth in this country. Their unrealized capital gains will be safe during their lifetimes from the increase of tax on the acurrsed 5%. And those real power brokers are the people who you saw sitting at the back of the stage every night at the convention. The people who got personal greetings from the superstars after each speach. That is where your "man of the people's" allegiance stray. That is why, despite boasting of the grass roots contributions he's received, he has declined matching funds.

And now to pull back the curtain and peer into one man's hopefully faulty crystal ball. What happens to a society when you make the prospect of grinding away for years to make a success as an entrepreneur, or a doctor or lawyer or middle market banker? What happens when those vocations are no longer the aspiration of the hard working and ambtious children all races and creeds. How many of those children will suck it up and put the nose to the grindstone for the equivalent of government pay? Will the last of America's work ethic pass out of existence as they chase after the "super rich", going for the "fortuitous wealth" model of the likes of Bill Gates or, dare I say, Ken Lay? We don't need a whole contry of Bill Gates wanna-be failures, or Ken Lay "wealth by hook or krook's". We need just enough of them to produce one or two Bill Gates every few years, and we can tolerate one or two ken Lay fiasco's once in a while without falling off the cliff. But we need a lot more people to take up the yoke of being doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs and middle market bankers. That's what makes social stability in a quasi- free market possible. Otherwise, everyone would be gambling on the lottery, knowing that there is no point in grinding away, since, after all, the redistributivists will make sure they / their children are reasonably provided for should the "wealth dice" crap out on them.

And it is such an attractive message to the 18 to 20-somethings who were never schooled in the world of "keep what you kill." They instead have apparently been schooled in the way of "get what you want". The Obama message is just what they want to hear, so much so that I see here people saying (at least at the start of the thread) they think he is so great that they'd rather die that he may live. Well thank you for reminding me what kicked off my malaise. Hitler. Mussalini. Stalin. Mao. All were masters at erecting the cult of promises that they individually were the answer to everyone's problems. This was what George W. Bush did, but on a smaller scale with the evangelicals. And that is just what I see when I watch Obama's speech. An unappologetic attemt to charm a bunch of angry sheep to go after the people he says are the bad guys.

[pimpdave]

http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives ... 50506.html

[gdeangel]

http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/05/050506.html

LOL - I bet you read about as fast as this guy talks. No wonder you can't respond intelligably. Oh, wait, that's right, your above this discussion and not responding.

[GrimReaper.]

the bullet would bounce off me!

[cpurcell]

Barrack Obama is a shit spouting, purple lipped, change obbsessed, ass hole who is deluded enough to believe that he can CHANGE everything, and doesn't understand that if the world needs change, it's going to take a bit more than garbage eating candidate like himself to make anything change for the better! I would never take a bullet for Obama, in fact I wouldn't really mind if he were assasinated! So go ahead, when the polls are coming in, and crazy gun-wielding righties are preparing a massive assault on the savior of the SHIT!!! you all can go line up and try to protect him! Keep an eye out for me, because I'll be there 'gunning' for you all!!!!!
---C!

[pimpdave]

http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/05/050506.html

LOL - I bet you read about as fast as this guy talks. No wonder you can't respond intelligably. Oh, wait, that's right, your above this discussion and not responding.

The song that starts at about the 20 second mark.

Basically sums up every post you make.

[gdeangel]

http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/05/050506.html

LOL - I bet you read about as fast as this guy talks. No wonder you can't respond intelligably. Oh, wait, that's right, your above this discussion and not responding.

The song that starts at about the 20 second mark.

Basically sums up every post you make.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Apparently you're an anti-intellectual who has no freaking grasp of history, mass psychology, economics, or even good taste in parodies. Maybe you heard someone win an argument by labelling the other guy an anti-intellectual once, but, dude, your clearly not an intellecutal so just shut it down 'cause your making me feel bad dragging your ass around this thread.

Oh, BTW, here's an "intellectual" pop culture video parody contrasted that anyone whose reading this thread should check and and think about ...
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=61007#p1544329.

[pimpdave]

Just create your own thread, if you must prattle on endlessly.

See, I'm almost certain I'm better educated than you, and I also know when to quit. I'm not going throw pearls before swine, I'm not going to argue with a fool. Which you are.

You are a fool who doesn't stop. All over these forums, you just go on and on, as if you were actually important enough to bother reading anymore. Yeah, I get it. You like to waste your time typing a whole lot on the web, but you're certainly not important enough to actually get PUBLISHED. And as I catch myself actually thinking I could engage you as an adult, you reveal yourself as a complete troll. So I won't waste my time with your anti-intellectual bullshit. Because that's what it boils down to.

And you're the troll threadjacking. I didn't come into any thread you made swinging my dick around. Nope, you've pretty much got the niche market on that, you waste of time.

[cpurcell]

and you are refering to??? I'm assuming it's either gd or myself... please specify so I know whether I should post a horrendously crude reply or not Thanks,
---C

[gdeangel]

Just create your own thread, if you must prattle on endlessly.

See, I'm almost certain I'm better educated than you, and I also know when to quit. I'm not going throw pearls before swine, I'm not going to argue with a fool. Which you are.

You are a fool who doesn't stop. All over these forums, you just go on and on, as if you were actually important enough to bother reading anymore. Yeah, I get it. You like to waste your time typing a whole lot on the web, but you're certainly not important enough to actually get PUBLISHED. And as I catch myself actually thinking I could engage you as an adult, you reveal yourself as a complete troll. So I won't waste my time with your anti-intellectual bullshit. Because that's what it boils down to.

And you're the troll threadjacking. I didn't come into any thread you made swinging my dick around. Nope, you've pretty much got the niche market on that, you waste of time.

Please, take the bullet. I'll leave you with your fantasy of bleeding out all over your iconic "super leader". Hopefully I'm wrong, and I won't see you in Italy dumbass.

[pimpdave]

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=60398&p=1544339#p1544339

[MOBAJOBG]

Trust me when I say, ...I Would Take a Bullet for Barack Obama only when I wear a bullet-proof vest.

[KoolBak]

Interesting thread; the only people in this world I would offer up my life for are my 2 sons. The USA will continue if Braaaack croaks; my family unit would not if I croak....

I assume the shootees here are not parents.

[Iz Man]

Interesting thread; the only people in this world I would offer up my life for are my 2 sons. The USA will continue if Braaaack croaks; my family unit would not if I croak....

I assume the shootees here are not parents.

most are still living with their parents so............yup

[Frigidus]

Interesting thread; the only people in this world I would offer up my life for are my 2 sons. The USA will continue if Braaaack croaks; my family unit would not if I croak....

I assume the shootees here are not parents.

There are plenty of parents in the armed forces though. The police and fire departments too. Seems there are plenty willing to risk their lives (along with their family unit) for a greater cause. It doesn't take someone who has no responsibilities to be willing to die for something.

[HapSmo19]

Pimpdave: You have been schooled.

[got tonkaed]

Forgive what will be a very tldr, but since you took the time, I did.

Call it a gut feeling. Call it malias if you want. Call it having been in Chicago and seen first hand how Obama manipulated the election process to gain political positions without the people really having any alternative to vote for (sound like some sham democracies you've heard about recently?). But the bottom line is that there are a lot of things that look good on paper about him. I seriously was swayed after hering Biden's breakdown of what an tough and inciteful person he thinks Obama is. Then I listened to yesterday's speech. It went like this: if we can only raise taxes for just those few in the top 5% of incomes, I can solve all our problems. That's all I have to do, just deal it out to the top 5% of earners.

Off the bat, I am originally struck by how often you have changed your mind about this. Seemingly someone who had thought Obama had muddled up Chicago elections as much as you have, would have been very staunchly against the senator from the beginning. Many of your posts suggest that you have had a hard time making a choice about it, which suggests it hasn’t really been that set up in your mind. While certainly gut feelings can be pushed aside temporarily, I don’t consider gut feelings that change every day quite as strong as those that are stuck to. Forgive me as i know this is a bit too attacking, but i wonder if when you hear Palin give a speech for the first time, if you wont switch your vote back to Obama, until someone else says something.

Ironically enough (since ive spent a paragraph disagreeing with you about it) I am in a somewhat similar boat. I too am voting for the lesser of two evils. I too believe there are a fair number of things on paper, that policy wise i agree with, though i certainly do not believe all of them will happen. I also believe that Biden is correct that the candidate is much tougher than he is often cast out as. Although a necessary move when being attacked I do believe Obama has a strength that is often overlooked.

This is exactly what the founding fathers would have been afraid of. This is just what the expansionist view of equal protection and due process that have been read into the constitution to protect ethnic minorities is meant to do. That is to say, prevent a "drum beating" majority from using a minority (however you define that, racially, religiously, economically) as their scapegoat, and extracting from them undue recompense to appease the masses for systemic failures that were not caused by the minority. When Hitler singled out the Jews for persicution, it found an accepting ear with the German people, when viewed in the context of Germany in the 20s and 30s, not because Jews dressed differently, looked different, or celebrated different religious beliefs. At the very bottom, it was economic envy. Don't believe me? Go back to the original propaganda of the nazi machine. Once that found a sympathetic ear, it was an easy expansion it the "ethnic" markers in order to identify the class of minority that was allegedly to blame for the failure of post-WWI Germany. Will we go that far? Probably not. But it is certainly possible to kill off the upper middle class becuase, for an aspiring doctor or lawyer or middle market banker, there is a lot of busting of your ass involved to make the incremental jump from $80,000/yr to $125,000 (half of the household income wher Mr. Obama draws the line for his tax increase.

What i admittedly find curious is the way in which you decide to use the term redistributionist. All societies redistribute wealth, even the ones that do so through less taxation or greater tax breaks. The past 8 years have seen a redistribution that has favoured that 5% of people that you are worried are about to be massively slighted. I do not think it is so simple as to say he thinks taxing 5 percent of the country will solve all of the economic and fiscal problems that we face. However, with Obama you see an actual plan to raise the revenue that needs to be raised for what he is doing. Ill passingly make a point that i would rather go with the candidate who will pay for the policy that i may or may not agree with, then the candidate who will simply add debt to our country, to eventually pay for the policy i may or may not agree with.

The founding fathers also would not have seen some of the practical difficulties in maintaining the general welfare of a country with hundreds of millions of people. Nor would they have seen what happens when an economic base shifts in a way that negatively affects the livelihoods of millions of workers, instead of improving it. The simple reality is that if there is going to be a welfare state in any sense of the term, perhaps the thing needed to prevent the “drum beating majority” from rising up, more intervention has to be done than wisdom of the past would suggest. I don’t quite share your viewpoint as Americans have seemingly since the 50’s held wealth as something rather unassailable, people are very disinterested in punishing tax brackets they have no part of as a rule. Unlike other places (perhaps) the faulty American Dream (though still believed by large numbers of people) requires a counternotion protecting the people who have made (whatever we consider the dream to be at this point in time).

Interestingly enough (invoking Godwins law aside, and the gross overapproximation used in comparing the current Democratic nominee and the Nazi party) I disagree with the analogy as a general rule. While arguments can be made for an against the book, I believe the book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” by Goldhagen actually disproves what you said. The eliminationist mindset although perhaps steeped in economic envy, was not entirely directed there. Nor by any stretch of the imagination did Hitler create it or even masterly manipulate it. Goldhagen’s argument hinges on the notion that everyone bought into this far before Hitler arrived. You are essentially trying to equate a very real and nearly universal antagonism of an entire way of life with a specific ethnicity, tied to a rare leader who shared those views in the extreme, with something entirely different. In the case of the other you have a group of people which people don’t really know (ask the average person before all of the campaigning what the top 5 percent of wealth was or how much wealth they controlled – you might still be able to ask them) and have little or no antagonism toward (because of how they feel about the American dream and the right to keep what you kill). Yes there is a charismatic leader, but even he doesn’t seem to want to destroy these people or their livelihoods. Rubberstamping analogies that aren’t accurate in form, much less in intent is not a policy one should get too enamored with.

I do no believe the important part of the last paragraph that Obamas line for the tax cuts will kill off the upper middle class. The Obama version of the plan does not hurt this group of people as much as you are suggesting. Especially considering as you say all of the busting it takes to get to 125,000, I do not believe the lack of extension of Bush tax cuts or the different tax increases Obama is planning on introducing create nearly as much of the disincentive as people seem to think. People are incredibly quick to throw the incentive argument out there anytime anyone suggests increasing taxes, despite whatever need there is for federal revenues. Its a bit of a red herring, in that people are going to work and invest their money as it is socially conditioned for members of the middle and upper middle class to do so. I find it highly unlikely that someone is going to wake up in the first 100 days of the Obama presidency and go “well i guess since this tax has been added i might as well stop working my way toward management, because it does no matter anymore”. Aside from purely financial rewards, there are numerous other factors which drive us in our professional lives, than taxation does not touch. And again, I believe that Obama’s taxation plan shows where he wants to and can get money from, where as Mccain does not. If we are electing a president which is best for the long term status of a country, we need not be in the dark about what the candidate will do.

So go back and listen to what Mr. Obama says to pump up the stands of drooling fans (I really can't call them "discerning voters"), and it amounts to promising the moon, in impressive orratory, with $0, no cost to you, Mr. Ordinary voter, right now, all you have to do is give him the presidency and he will do it for you. We are such a "no-cost" society already, people are just not asking the right question. That is, what's behind the curtain Mr. Obama?

I cannot help but disagree with you as I read the text for his speech again. As you suggest Obama is one of the great orators of this generation, who i believe writes his own material. The man clearly has a gift of inspiration. However, I think your displeasure for this has seemingly swayed your version of the events. In reading the speech a few times over, I don’t see him saying give me the keys, and ill get the car back to you in 8 years looking brand new. I see him talking about all of the ways in which millions of people have worked hard, and it hasn’t worked in part (and only in part) because specific aspects of the way our government has ran hasn’t been as helpful as it could be. You can disagree with the idea that the government should do much at all, but i think thats ideological naivety in the context of an economy where we are losing the working class base that tens of millions depend on. I am more willing to believe Obama when he says he will cut programs that don’t work, because he has to, in order to pay for some of the things he wants to pay for. I don’t believe he will be able to do it all because presidents don’t shape their fingers and create a budget, but i do believe he will be acting more in the interests of the majority of Americans than Mccain. I also believe he is more market driven than he is given credit for. I actually think economically he is more astute than Mccain. He will not be the one to tax our country deeper down the rabbit hole toward recession, but he may be the one who is willing to try and lessen the burden by preparing our economy to shift out of the base that is likely to become less lucrative as we go. Facilitating a difficult change isn’t a one man operation, everyone would have to keep working, and that seems to be the crux of his speech, that Americans are workers, but that if the Government doesn’t help by making sound decisions, it negates the value of that hard work.

Unfortunately, the economist in me agrees with you. I seriously think McCain will bungle the economy for another four years. But he is unlikely to comprimise the integrity of america's real core value, declare war on the upper middle class, which will merely result in the richest and ablest going off shore, and the actual attainable upper-middle class, the doctors, lawers, middle managers, and entrepreneurs who have busted their ass to get a little advantage either for themselves or their children. And once we no longer have attainable examples of "better economic life" that can be reached through honest hard work (i.e., not the super rich, who inherit their wealth or acquire it through duping the masses to invest in their overvalued stocks or unsound structured debt - or worse, defraud them), what will be motivating America to work hard, and what will those new mostive lease us, as a people to do? We will be Italy.

I find this admission rather telling. If it is really the economy stupid, as one once so brilliantly claimed, then why vote for a president who will bungle the economy. I do not think if Mccains bungling of the economy is not an attack in some way on the core values of America, than Obamas attempt to lessen some of the shock of the past 8 years is. I do not believe in any sense this is a war on the upper middle class, as the upper middle class is either defined very narrowly if we are using the term middle. I don’t believe the upper middle class is going to fall back down to earth because of Obama. We currently live in a nation that has one of the greatest inequalities in terms of wealth distribution in the world. In an economy that is as productive as ours (of which there can be no doubt) it does not stand to reason that this is just happening on its own. People are not simply outworking everyone else by so much that it has created a massive shift in the last decade or so in inequality. Part of that is related to policy making, and Mccains policy making will not alter than mindset or policy program any. If in any way you are worried about drum beating majorities, continuing to elect leaders who will continue to negatively affect equality in our country is a good way to start. I find this incentive argument to be extremely disingenuous. People as a low have shown historically a much greater desire to move into our country than to move out. This “war on the middle class” is not going to make everyone jump ship and go somewhere else. Where exactly do you think they are all going to go? It is not as if America is the only country in the world with relatively high rates of taxation on the elite in society. It is silly to think that moving away from ones country is purely an economic decision (especially when you are not in a time of economic hardship). Illegal immigration is far more a sign of an economic decision, than emigrating because of tax policy ever would be. It seems to be an incredible weak assertion which you flesh it out practically.

And who is to say that these people will disappear, or even if such a thing did occur (extremely unlikely imo) why on earth would that make the rest of people stop working. The protestant work ethic, survived far longer than simply the notion that idle hands are the devils playground. Social values very quickly adapt and transform into something far greater than the vessel they originated in. People in this country are far more workers than welfare cheats. The values that most people buy into believe that hard work is rewarded, and this is not going to go away in four or eight years. We are not going to become Italy, and to say so is pretty alarmist and ideological. I don’t need to see anyone around me in order to try and work for a better economic life, i think everyone does this on their own.

One telling thing I find about Obama's economic plan is that he does not plan to fully restore the estate tax to its pre-Bush level. Now why would anyone do this? Dying is not an activity that anyone can choose to do or not. The marginal tax rate of dying has no effect on output. In fact, a higher marginal tax rate on dying is probably the best way to spur consumption among the people who actually can afford to "go to the mall". Why would you lower the rate on inter-genreational wealth transfers? My suspicion is that it is the real payoff to the owners of the wealth in this country. Their unrealized capital gains will be safe during their lifetimes from the increase of tax on the acurrsed 5%. And those real power brokers are the people who you saw sitting at the back of the stage every night at the convention. The people who got personal greetings from the superstars after each speach. That is where your "man of the people's" allegiance stray. That is why, despite boasting of the grass roots contributions he's received, he has declined matching funds.

I would maintain is because your notion of him being out to cripple the upper middle class and higher of the country is misguided. I do not think he is out to do that as much as he is out to raise revenue for the things that he believes will improve the lives of millions in the country. I don’t believe the estate tax is really something that would have to be meddled with as it is something that is going to affect everyone and while it is something that is going to benefit the rich more than the poor if it is kept at the same rate, we aren’t talking about anything that is ruinous to anyone at present. It seems to be a relatively non-issue in the midst of everything else being talked about.

And now to pull back the curtain and peer into one man's hopefully faulty crystal ball. What happens to a society when you make the prospect of grinding away for years to make a success as an entrepreneur, or a doctor or lawyer or middle market banker? What happens when those vocations are no longer the aspiration of the hard working and ambtious children all races and creeds. How many of those children will suck it up and put the nose to the grindstone for the equivalent of government pay? Will the last of America's work ethic pass out of existence as they chase after the "super rich", going for the "fortuitous wealth" model of the likes of Bill Gates or, dare I say, Ken Lay? We don't need a whole contry of Bill Gates wanna-be failures, or Ken Lay "wealth by hook or krook's". We need just enough of them to produce one or two Bill Gates every few years, and we can tolerate one or two ken Lay fiasco's once in a while without falling off the cliff. But we need a lot more people to take up the yoke of being doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs and middle market bankers. That's what makes social stability in a quasi- free market possible. Otherwise, everyone would be gambling on the lottery, knowing that there is no point in grinding away, since, after all, the redistributivists will make sure they / their children are reasonably provided for should the "wealth dice" crap out on them.

In the interest of not repeating myself, ill only quickly move here. Americans work hard because we are culturally attuned to believing it will pay off in the end, not because we see someone else doing it. I also don’t think these positions are going anyway by any stretch of the imagination. People have more rewards of attainment from their career than taxation incentive on their income (which disregards that your point is forced and probably inaccurate). Every society distributes wealth and the past 8 years have seen us redistribute wealth (by changing the taxes) toward the wealthy. Shockingly people did not become more interested in becoming doctors, laywers, or market bankers in the past eight years. I think you incredibly overestimate how much every person is going to be getting from this “massive redistribution” in wealth. People are going to have to continue to work, no one is going to wake up thinking well, i might as well give it up now, the government has it from here. Obama is far more attuned to markets than i believe he is given credit for. He will not let them simply fall apart on account of his plans. Id argue he is more attuned to them than Mccain, who has still shown little of anything as far as how he is going to pay for what he is going to do, he has essentially committed to Bush-lite which unless we are very fortunate in terms of an economic shift (which seems very difficult to suggest where it would come from) the next four years will not help us get back on the right track.

And it is such an attractive message to the 18 to 20-somethings who were never schooled in the world of "keep what you kill." They instead have apparently been schooled in the way of "get what you want". The Obama message is just what they want to hear, so much so that I see here people saying (at least at the start of the thread) they think he is so great that they'd rather die that he may live. Well thank you for reminding me what kicked off my malaise. Hitler. Mussalini. Stalin. Mao. All were masters at erecting the cult of promises that they individually were the answer to everyone's problems. This was what George W. Bush did, but on a smaller scale with the evangelicals. And that is just what I see when I watch Obama's speech. An unappologetic attemt to charm a bunch of angry sheep to go after the people he says are the bad guys.

Despite my appreciation for your response, you have remained in ideology. At the core your complaint seems to be that Obama is going to use redistributionist rhetoric to bring us down the drain. While possible, this seems quite unlikely, as one president usually doesn’t have that much power to drastically bury the economy (president Bush didn’t have that much either). However presidents may have enough power to help guide the government toward what they feel will best manage the economy, which Bush, Mccain, Obama and all the other presidents and potential presidents of the past did have. If Obama is doing these things, it is because it is a part of what politics are in this day in age. It doesn’t mean that it is all of what anyone does, but i don’t think you win an election simply saying nice things without showing how you will solve problems. There was a backlash already during the protracted Hillary concession that showed people will not vote simply for words, they wanted specifics from Obama. Obama has provided many of these, and seemingly is more fit to continue to do so. Currently, you have essentially sided with someone who has not shown you how they plan on changing things or what their plans are in a time when it is fairly commonly agreed we cannot continue on the same path forever. When Mccain decides to start talking about what he will do, I suspect ill have a lot more to think about, but until he does, i cannot see how he could be the lesser of two evils.

[Snorri1234]

gt wins thread, news at eleven.

[pimpdave]

Wyclef Jean: If I was President