Do you want Obama to fail?

[quote name='thrustbucket']One single lone congressman can't get anything done by themselves if they venture far from the status quo, no matter how right they are.[/QUOTE]

Well, again, maybe if getting a bill passed is the only thing you count as getting something done.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The President should fail at doing things that would not be good for the country

wanting the President to fail is such a general term, it's not so black & white, nobody wants him to succeed at everything unless you agree with him on 100% of the things he does (you don't), and nobody wants the President to fail at everything either, particularly fixing a recession (you don't). Limbaugh meant he wanted him to fail fixing it the way he's trying to; from his perspective, the President is fixing throw up on the carpet by putting a newspaper over it: as seen from Big Daddy, while it may avoid you from stepping on vomit, it's not the right way to go about it.

but the media likes sensationalism so they took "I want the President to fail" out of context and made it sound like "I want the President to fail, therefore I want America to fail" or something stupid like that. that's why I don't like politics, it's like a televised poker game where the audience loses.
 
So I don't know if anyone saw this, but it looks like ESPN's going to have "Barack-etology" (I shit you not, that's what it's called) with him picking his NCAA bracket. I'm sorry, but it seems like he doesn't have his priorities straight.
 
broly once again illustrates that no matter what obama does some people will always consider him a failure

in 4 years we'll have the right saying he failed and the left saying he didn't, so it really doesn't matter
 
[quote name='Koggit']broly once again illustrates that no matter what obama does some people will always consider him a failure

in 4 years we'll have the right saying he failed and the left saying he didn't, so it really doesn't matter[/quote]

Um...you missed the point. Completely.
 
[quote name='Evil Poptart']He should have been chained to his desk... Oh wait, that lead to trouble too. Damn Dems![/quote]

I wish I had chains like Clinton did.
 
[quote name='Evil Poptart']Was your point that Presidents shouldn't have personal interests or free time?

Why the hell was Bill Clinton jogging? He was the president! He should have been chained to his desk... Oh wait, that lead to trouble too. Damn Dems![/quote]

No. The point of my post was that he shouldn't be on TV for every little thing, especially stuff that is used in office pools. Priorities. His are misplaced at the moment.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']No. The point of my post was that he shouldn't be on TV for every little thing, especially stuff that is used in office pools. Priorities. His are misplaced at the moment.[/QUOTE]

Bingo. People need to stop this Barrack worshipping bullshit like some if not a lot do with celebs., fawning all over them. I mean it's disgusting. Remember you voted for him not just to be a better face to the world then Bush but to also FIX things! It seems to me Barrack is either doing nothing(on the terrorists and trial front as well as stopping this multitude of anti-Civil Rights signing statements) or in some ways is causing more harm. I really am disgusted by this idea of just throwing money at the problem to fix things. Why don't you just pass a program that has funds to help create new discoveries and create the business from scratch? After the product hits market, you don't tax them for 5 years and they're not allowed to outsource 10 years from the opening of said business as well. That's not hard. I'm talking about brilliant inventions here especially. I mean that would cost a lot LESS then the Stimulus and would be much more likely to reinvigorate the economy.
Remind me how Barrack is really that much different from the Republicans except that they have the nutty Religious Right. Even he is giving them lipservice over the Gay's. REALLY classy you fucking wimp. I swear Obama at times can be the most dickless coward. He went back on "Don't Ask Don't Tell" when one of his people even flat out said they're getting rid of it. Now they want to commission a study. Utter nonsense. Here's something to think about. If you don't get rid of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" you help breed traitors under threat of blackmail from other countries who find out their sexuality. It's not hard to jump to said conclusion.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']No. The point of my post was that he shouldn't be on TV for every little thing, especially stuff that is used in office pools. Priorities. His are misplaced at the moment.[/QUOTE]

:roll:

There's plenty of things people (especially conservatives) can find to complain about Obama, but that one's pretty petty.

I like seeing our president on TV more often and being himself rather than only making official appearances etc. I'd have even liked to have seen more of that from Bush, he has a pretty good sense of humor when he was just talking crap and not politics.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']No. The point of my post was that he shouldn't be on TV for every little thing, especially stuff that is used in office pools. Priorities. His are misplaced at the moment.[/QUOTE]

Bingo. People need to stop this Barrack worshipping bullshit like some if not a lot do with celebs., fawning all over them. I mean it's disgusting. Remember you voted for him not just to be a better face to the world then Bush but to also FIX things! It seems to me Barrack is either doing nothing(on the terrorists and trial front as well as stopping this multitude of anti-Civil Rights signing statements) or in some ways is causing more harm. I really am disgusted by this idea of just throwing money at the problem to fix things. Why don't you just pass a program that has funds to help create new discoveries and create the business from scratch? After the product hits market, you don't tax them for 5 years and they're not allowed to outsource 10 years from the opening of said business as well. That's not hard. I'm talking about brilliant inventions here especially. I mean that would cost a lot LESS then the Stimulus and would be much more likely to reinvigorate the economy.
Remind me how Barrack is really that much different from the Republicans except that they have the nutty Religious Right. Even he is giving them lipservice over the Gay's. REALLY classy you fucking wimp. I swear Obama at times can be the most dickless coward. He went back on "Don't Ask Don't Tell" when one of his people even flat out said they're getting rid of it. Now they want to commission a study. Utter nonsense. Here's something to think about. If you don't get rid of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" you help breed traitors under threat of blackmail from other countries who find out their sexuality. It's not hard to jump to said conclusion.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']:roll:

There's plenty of things people (especially conservatives) can find to complain about Obama, but that one's pretty petty.

I like seeing our president on TV more often and being himself rather than only making official appearances etc. I'd have even liked to have seen more of that from Bush, he has a pretty good sense of humor when he was just talking crap and not politics.[/QUOTE]

I agree with dmaul here.

After all, if we have to have puppets, I'd prefer to see them in more puppet shows.

Man i miss the muppet show.
 
It might be petty, but I just have a problem with it. If he wants to put it out there and say 'hey, I made Bracket picks too, go here to see them' I'm fine with that. But making it a spectacle bothers me.

It also bothers me that it's on ESPN. I hate ESPN. That might be what's bothering me more about it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I like seeing our president on TV more often and being himself rather than only making official appearances etc. I'd have even liked to have seen more of that from Bush, he has a pretty good sense of humor when he was just talking crap and not politics.[/QUOTE]

A lot of people expect the president to play this kind of role. I think it's kind of sad.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']It might be petty, but I just have a problem with it. If he wants to put it out there and say 'hey, I made Bracket picks too, go here to see them' I'm fine with that. But making it a spectacle bothers me.

It also bothers me that it's on ESPN. I hate ESPN. That might be what's bothering me more about it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's ESPN. I'm sure they went to him and asked if he'd come on in to it. They made the spectacle of it, not him. :D

I have no problem with ESPN. I'm a huge sports buff and they have sports coverage on around the clock so there's always something I can flip too--ESPNEWS if nothing else. Some of their talking heads are annoying, but that's just the norm with tv news--sports or otherwise.
 
[quote name='rickonker']A lot of people expect the president to play this kind of role. I think it's kind of sad.[/QUOTE]

I don't expect it, I just think it's a good idea as it helps break down that wall of "elitism" that many see between people and leaders.

Plus can you really fault him? With only having 4 year terms first term presidents can never really quit campaigning and have to keep in the public's eye as much as possible.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't expect it, I just think it's a good idea as it helps break down that wall of "elitism" that many see between people and leaders.[/quote]

That's the problem dmaul, it doesn't actually break down that wall...it just appears that way.

Plus can you really fault him? With only having 4 year terms first term presidents can never really quit campaigning and have to keep in the public's eye as much as possible.
Yes, because he chose to participate in that system. And even if he just had to be the president, it's not like he has to go for two terms.
 
[quote name='rickonker']That's the problem dmaul, it doesn't actually break down that wall...it just appears that way.


Yes, because he chose to participate in that system. And even if he just had to be the president, it's not like he has to go for two terms.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. But all should try for two terms if they really care about achieving their goals. Hard to accomplish much of an agenda in one four year term.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, it's ESPN. I'm sure they went to him and asked if he'd come on in to it. They made the spectacle of it, not him. :D

I have no problem with ESPN. I'm a huge sports buff and they have sports coverage on around the clock so there's always something I can flip too--ESPNEWS if nothing else. Some of their talking heads are annoying, but that's just the norm with tv news--sports or otherwise.[/quote]

Oh, I watch ESPN a lot (It's kinda like Wal-Mart. You go there, but you secretly hate it).

The NCAA coaches think he should stick to the economy, though. I watched that on ESPN :lol:
 
Piyush say's its ok to wish Obama fails
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- -- It's OK for Republicans to want President Obama to fail if they think he's jeopardizing the country, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal told members of his political party Tuesday night.
art.bobby.jindal.gi.jpg
Gov. Bobby Jindal is offering a spirited defense of Republicans who say they want President Obama to fail.


corner_wire_BL.gif



Jindal described the premise of the question -- "Do you want the president to fail?" -- as the "latest gotcha game" being perpetrated by Democrats against Republicans.
"Make no mistake: Anything other than an immediate and compliant, 'Why no sir, I don't want the president to fail,' is treated as some sort of act of treason, civil disobedience or political obstructionism," Jindal said at a political fundraiser attended by 1,200 people. "This is political correctness run amok."
Since conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said that he hoped that Obama would fail, Republicans have been pressed by Democrats and the media about Limbaugh's comments.
Jindal, a potential 2012 presidential candidate, told the Republican audience he would "not be brow beaten on this, and I will not kowtow to their correctness."
"My answer to the question is very simple: 'Do you want the president to fail?' It depends on what he is trying to do."
Jindal, who served two terms in the U.S. House, returned to Washington to help his former colleagues raise more than $6 million for the 2010 midterm elections. And he likely picked up important political chits, should he decide to run for president.
So far, Jindal has sidestepped questions about 2012. But on Tuesday he seemed to be laying the groundwork in case he eventually decides the political climate is right. A video of favorable back-to-back TV reports about Jindal preceded his introduction to the audience. And Jindal used his remarks to deep-pocketed Republican donors to emphasize his vision for how the Grand Old Party can get back on track.
He made a point to criticize Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for a "spending spree" that he said "is costing the taxpayers more than the Iraq war, more than the Vietnam War, and, near and dear to my heart, even more than the Louisiana Purchase."
Jindal singled out House Republicans for standing up to Obama and helping the GOP return to its conservative roots.
The governor took a controversial stand when he refused to accept $98 million in federal stimulus money to expand unemployment benefits in Louisiana, because he said it would force an unfair tax on businesses when the funding ran out.
Don't Miss



Democrats and other critics blasted Jindal's decision, saying he was influenced by presidential ambitions. But many conservatives saw his decision as a principled stand.
Moments after Jindal wrapped up his remarks Tuesday, Obama held his second prime-time news conference 12 blocks away at the White House. Last month, Jindal delivered the Republican response following Obama's joint address to Congress. The governor was widely panned for his performance, which he addressed Tuesday at the top of his speech.
"Many of you have asked that I reprise my State of the Union response speech," Jindal said. "That was a joke by the way. It's OK to laugh about it.
"I have just learned that because of President Obama's opposition to torture, it is now illegal to show my speech to prisoners at Gitmo," he added.
The governor's speech then took on a serious tone when he emphasized the need for Republicans to put the 2008 election behind them and embrace the role of loyal opposition party.
"It's time to declare our time of introspection and navel-gazing officially over," Jindal said. "It's time to get on with the business of charting America's future. So, as of now, be it hereby resolved that we will focus on America's future, and on standing up for fiscal sanity, before it is too late."
With the next presidential election three years away and the fact that he has to face Louisiana voters in 2011 if he seeks re-election, it is not surprising that Jindal does not publicly express interest in running in 2012.
But if the governor is considering a presidential bid, he must now focus on learning to become a national candidate and building a political operation.
Unlike potential 2012 rivals such as Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, Jindal doesn't have a national infrastructure in place, nor the experience the two men gained crisscrossing the country in their failed 2008 bids for the White House. And Jindal lacks the name recognition of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a former vice presidential nominee who is said to be considering her own campaign in 2012.
GOP operative Alex Vogel said it is critical for Jindal or any other Republican candidate to begin amassing a list of national supporters similar to what Obama created for the 2008 campaign.
"It is all about data," said Vogel, a former senior aide to the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and ex-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. "The best candidate in the world is only as good as his database. How many cell phone numbers, e-mails and mailing addresses can you collect? You can't collect that in a presidential campaign. You have to do that now."
Vogel also said that beyond "fine-tuning his message," Jindal needs to continue giving speeches, attending political events and appearing on television if he wants to get used to running for national office.
At 37, Jindal potentially has a long political future, whether or not he runs for president in 2012.
"There is plenty of time between now and the primaries for him to tighten his game," said Jonathan Grella, a GOP strategist who has worked for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
"He obviously has got a long ways to go before he performs at a presidential level, and particularly at the Obama level. That is a tall order. But Bobby Jindal is an above-average political performer now, and he has plenty of room to grow."
 
[quote name='KingBroly']No. The point of my post was that he shouldn't be on TV for every little thing, especially stuff that is used in office pools. Priorities. His are misplaced at the moment.[/quote]

Exactly. He's the first president to go on a talk show (Jay Leno) while on the job. He is also the first president to rely heavily on a teleprompter. Without our tax money being wasted on that, he'd be all "uhhs" and "umms". Oh wait...
 
Obama's mismanagement of the whole bailout fiasco and related market issues shows his inexperience. Regardless of whether someone wants him to fail, in this aspect right now his administration is certainly far from succeeding.

Beyond that, if Obama's agenda is to take advantage of the recession and shape America into a more socialistic country under the guise of "recovery" (and his budget looks this way), then personally I do want that agenda to fail as I feel it would be a massive step backward for the country.
 
it was bush's bailout fiasco -- it's obama's (well, congress's.. but under obama's watch) stimulus fiasco -- and you're a fool if you think the negative aspects of either are due to obama's inexperience
 
I like what Obama said the other night in his press conference; that basically this financial issue is too big to place blame on any one thing (at least that's how I took it).

To me, it doesn't matter who you choose to blame for this mess. All I see are Bush beginning very bad decisions to correct them and Obama cranking the volume up on those decisions even more.
 
i just don't understand the supposed 'experience' argument.. oh no he's not 'experienced' enough, he needs more 'experience'..
 
[quote name='Koggit']it was bush's bailout fiasco -- it's obama's (well, congress's.. but under obama's watch) stimulus fiasco -- and you're a fool if you think the negative aspects of either are due to obama's inexperience[/QUOTE]

Funny how personal insults are resorted to when your argument is on the thin side. :D

The "bailout"(s) is not just Bush no matter how bad Obama wants it to be. It started with Bush but Obama has been failing to manage it beyond the initial stages it underwent with Bush.

Obama's inexperience is definitely showing IMO. He and his treasury secretary continue to make poor decisions and exhibit poor PR regarding the financial sector. The only good thing I've seen him done financially thus far is the small business stimulus plan, but that is just a drop in the bucket of his otherwise big government program spending budget. People are losing their shirt and Obama makes comments implying that he has more important things to worry about than the financial crisis, and solidifies them by his superficial PR appearances. He needs to get serious and show it, plus put away any pseudo-utopian socialist ideals he has in mind.

Another way to look at it is though these financial problems did rear their head near the very end of Bush's administration, they also started only a year or so after the Democrats took full control of congress. So while you could blame their beginnings on Bush, you could also blame their beginnings on the Democrats in congress. And you can continue to point out Obama's mismanagement of the situation.
 
You're all assuming that Obama wants what's best for everyone else and/or that with more experience, Obama would do what's best for everyone else.
 
[quote name='rickonker']You're all assuming that Obama wants what's best for everyone else and/or that with more experience, Obama would do what's best for everyone else.[/QUOTE]

Are you sure you don't believe that? Are you saying Obama does what he does not because he believes something different from what you believe is the better way for the country, but for another reason (personal enrichment or something)? Maybe I'm a little naive, but unless I know differently I tend to think people base their beliefs on something less sinister.

In any case, to clarify what I said earlier in this thread about wanting Obama to fail being unpatriotic, I mean wanting him to not succeed in making the country a better place is unpatriotic. Of course if you want abortion to be illegal or something similar, you want him to fail in attempts to pursue the opposite policy. But of course we all should want America to end up as a better place than it is now due to Obama's policies. I may think X, Y and Z are the wrong policies to pursue, but seeing as I don't have a monopoly on wisdom, I sure hope those policies succeed in improving all our lives.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Are you sure you don't believe that? Are you saying Obama does what he does not because he believes something different from what you believe is the better way for the country, but for another reason (personal enrichment or something)? Maybe I'm a little naive, but unless I know differently I tend to think people base their beliefs on something less sinister.

In any case, to clarify what I said earlier in this thread about wanting Obama to fail being unpatriotic, I mean wanting him to not succeed in making the country a better place is unpatriotic. Of course if you want abortion to be illegal or something similar, you want him to fail in attempts to pursue the opposite policy. But of course we all should want America to end up as a better place than it is now due to Obama's policies. I may think X, Y and Z are the wrong policies to pursue, but seeing as I don't have a monopoly on wisdom, I sure hope those policies succeed in improving all our lives.[/QUOTE]

Now that you mention it, sure Obama might do some things for personal enrichment without even really knowing it. But as for experience, I don't think that would make any real difference, especially on economic issues.
 
Thought this was the most reasonable Republican statement on Obama I've seen yet. Talks about how he likes Obama and some of his goals and will support those while opposing the policies he doesn't like.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/07/feehery.obama.gop/index.html

Commentary: Liking Obama, opposing his White House

By John Feehery
Special to CNN

Editor's note: John Feehery has worked as a staffer for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other Republicans in Congress. He is president of Feehery Group, a Washington-based advocacy firm that has represented clients including News Corp., Ford Motor Company and the United States Chamber of Commerce. He formerly was a government relations executive vice president for the Motion Picture Association of America.

(CNN) -- As I watched President Obama conduct a town hall meeting in Strasbourg, France, the other day, a chilling realization crossed my mind: I like the guy.

This might be a surprise coming from a partisan Republican who also does some work as a lobbyist. (Obama seems to dislike my profession with special intensity.)

But it shouldn't be. There is much to like about him. He has a winning smile. He is unself-consciously hip. He is smart. He has self-confidence without being overly smug. He has married well and has two "perfect" daughters (his words, not mine).

Obama also has an inspiring life story, and his election to the highest office in the world represents the best possibilities of the American dream.

I also want Obama to succeed. Unlike Rush Limbaugh, if Obama can get my 401(k) back to life, if he can get health care costs under control, if he can stop pollution, if he can get the manufacturing sector back on its feet, if he can make our country more secure while regaining for America the moral high ground, if he can find the cure for cancer and bring peace, love and understanding to the world, I am all for it.

I am also willing to pay a few extra bucks in taxes for that success, if I can get some economic growth in return.

And I am not alone in my feelings. Obama's personal approval ratings are still high, and most Americans simply love his family. Internationally, the president's ratings are off the chart.

So, how do I square my approval of the president personally with my disapproval of his policies? How can I like Obama but not the Obama White House?

For example, I think the president's budget will lead to inflation or even possible bankruptcy for the nation. I understand the difficult choices that he has tried to make, and I understand the desire to get everything done right now. But governing is about choosing, and the system can't do everything at once.

I also disagree with his attack on the lobbying profession. Lobbying the government is protected under the Constitution, because what lobbyists do is petition their government on behalf of the people. Are there some lobbyists who are corrupt or crooked? Sure there are. But most lobbyists, like most politicians, do it the right way, and they serve a vital function of providing expertise to both the private sector and to the public sector.

Philosophically, I don't agree with the president. He is a collectivist, where I believe more in individual responsibility. He is a Keynesian, where I am a supply-sider. He is pro-choice. I am pro-life.

But I still like him. And I think many of my fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill are stuck in the same trap. They like the man, but don't like the policies. They hope, for the sake of the country, that he is successful, but have their real doubts that his policies will work. And because they are the loyal opposition, they are stuck, in this 24-hour cable news and talk radio culture, saying things about him that make them seem shrill and out of touch. What makes it worse is that, according to the polls, Americans have much more faith in Obama and the Democrats now than they do in the GOP.

Here are some suggestions about how Republicans can square the circle, how they can express their admiration for the man and even some of the goals of this administration, without rolling over on the policy front:

1) Accept every social invitation from the president. When he invites you to watch the Final Four, go the White House and watch the Final Four. When he wants to buy you a beer, go ahead and buy him a beer back. Let the public know that you appreciate their appreciation for the president, and that while you might disagree with him on policy, you like hanging out with him on occasion.

2) Never miss an opportunity to compliment the president and his family for something they have done that puts America in a good light. Root for them. If the first lady represents the country well when she meets the French premier's wife, or if the president does a good job talking to students overseas, applaud them. Don't look for reasons to pick on things that don't matter.

3) Agree with certain policy goals. Yes, all children should have access to health care. Yes, we need to have 21st-century schools. Yes, we should have clean water and clean air. Yes, we need to create more jobs. We may have a different approach, but we agree with the goals to make America a better place to live.

4) Create and then market your own ideas. The key to beating Obama is not by vilifying him (in my opinion). The key to beating Obama is in coming up with superior ideas to transform the government and to make America a better place to live. Republicans should come up with plans that insist on transformational change of the government bureaucracy, that require greater accountability from failing school districts, that target the high costs caused by frivolous medical lawsuits, that highlight job-killing union contracts and that insist on total transparency in government spending.

Reacting to the president's proposals puts Republicans in a tough spot. Having the president react to our proposals puts him on the defensive.

Some will say that this "play nice" strategy will backfire on Republicans; that the only way to beat Obama is to stoke fear and attack his character. Others will accuse me of going soft on a Democrat who quite clearly doesn't share the values of most Republicans. But I think there is far greater risk for the Republican brand in not acknowledging what Obama's election means historically, and not appreciating how his example is not only good for Democrats but for the country at large.

Tearing this president down is not the way for Republicans to regain a majority coalition, although some pundits and talk show hosts will be tempted to do just that. Instead, Republicans should allow themselves to like the president, just as they fight against his policies. And as they fight his policies, they should do all that they can to market their own ideas so that the American people understand that the Republicans have positive alternatives that will make our country stronger, safer and more prosperous in the future.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John Feehery.
 
"I also disagree with his attack on the lobbying profession. Lobbying the government is protected under the Constitution, because what lobbyists do is petition their government on behalf of the people. Are there some lobbyists who are corrupt or crooked? Sure there are. But most lobbyists, like most politicians, do it the right way, and they serve a vital function of providing expertise to both the private sector and to the public sector."

To borrow a line from Penn Jillette, BULLSHIT. Exactly what "people" do most lobbyists lobby for? Certainly not me, anyone else?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']
To borrow a line from Penn Jillette, BULLSHIT. Exactly what "people" do most lobbyists lobby for? Certainly not me, anyone else?[/QUOTE]

That's really not true. There's people lobbying for everything so they're are people out they're lobbying for some of your interests.

I work in higher education, so people lobbying for that are lobbying for me in some ways. There's groups that lobby for crime research funding--also for me.

Or you can get down to social issues, pro life/pro choice lobbyists etc. etc. For pretty much every belief you have there's a group lobbying for it.

Now, that said, I'm not near the supporter of lobbying that this guy is as there's far to much corruption and buying of votes etc. But I don't agree with your statement either.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's really not true. There's people lobbying for everything so they're are people out they're lobbying for some of your interests.
[/quote]
There may be people lobbying for our interests, but there are far more people who are lobbying things that are in there own interest and against the common interest, of course these lobbyist also claim there changes are for the common good.
 
Of course. Like I said, I'm not supporter of lobbying on a large scale and was just pointing out one statement I disagreed with.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's really not true. There's people lobbying for everything so they're are people out they're lobbying for some of your interests.

I work in higher education, so people lobbying for that are lobbying for me in some ways. There's groups that lobby for crime research funding--also for me.

Or you can get down to social issues, pro life/pro choice lobbyists etc. etc. For pretty much every belief you have there's a group lobbying for it.

Now, that said, I'm not near the supporter of lobbying that this guy is as there's far to much corruption and buying of votes etc. But I don't agree with your statement either.[/quote]
The people lobbying for my interests are the weakest of the bunch too, the least heard. I won't even make the obvious statement of which lobbyists are more heard. The fact is that money talks in this country, the ones who have the most are the ones who get the most attention.
 
Agreed. Again, was just picking out one statement I disagreed with in your earlier post.

It's a capitalist society. Money will always rule everything.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Agreed. Again, was just picking out one statement I disagreed with in your earlier post.

It's a capitalist society. Money will always rule everything.[/QUOTE]

What? Special interests will always attempt to bribe politicians...because "it's a capitalist society"?
 
Not what I meant, I was responding to his comment about the ones with the most money getting the most attention.

I meant that in a capitalist society you'll inevitably end up like the US with an absurdly large gap in wealth between the super wealth and everyone else. As such power is concentrated in those few hands who have the majority of the wealth and thus the majority of influence in the political world.
 
You also see large gaps in economic status in Communist states. But I think we're better off than most people living in those Communist states. Mainly because in those states you'll be shot for raising your hand in opposition to the dictatorship.
 
Agreed, I wasn't saying other systems were better. Just saying to JolietJake that that's just how things work with lobbying and income disparities in our society.

But I'd also say you don't have to be communist to not have such huge income gaps. You can be a controlled capitalist society that just has super high taxes on incomes over 1 million a year or whatever threshold etc. etc. without changing other parts of the government system or way of life.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Not what I meant, I was responding to his comment about the ones with the most money getting the most attention.

I meant that in a capitalist society you'll inevitably end up like the US with an absurdly large gap in wealth between the super wealth and everyone else. As such power is concentrated in those few hands who have the majority of the wealth and thus the majority of influence in the political world.[/QUOTE]

You probably talk about "capitalism" more than anyone else in the vs. forum, but without anyone having a clear idea of what you mean by it. So again do you have a definition of "capitalism" that you use, or do you just mean "the system currently in the US"?
 
Rick I gave you one the last time you asked, and you didn't like it. And as I said then, I refuse to get into any debates with you as I don't have the time or interest to go in circles with someone even more stubborn, argumentative and opinionated than myself.

I'm not really here to debate and discuss things. I'm just here to give my opinions when needing short breaks from tedious work (transcribing tapes now :puke: ). People can take them or leave them.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Rick I gave you one the last time you asked, and you didn't like it.[/QUOTE]

I don't think you did. Here's what you said last time:
Capitalism at the end of the day is just a dog-eat-dog, every man for himself orientation of a society oriented around wealth accumulation.
More of a characterization than a definition. So I asked:
So by "capitalism" do you mean what we have today?
...and you didn't answer.

You make a lot of posts with vague statements about "capitalism" so I don't think it's too much to ask for a clear definition from you. Do you have some criteria for deciding whether or not a society is capitalist? Or is capitalism just an attitude for you, the same as selfishness?
 
Fine I'll briefly oblige. It's a broad concept and difficult to define succinctly. I guess I'd say it's both an economic system and an attitude/belief system/set of social norms and mores. And I have issues with the latter.

For the system, the standard dictionary definition is sufficient:

An economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

My problems with it come with the attitudes (yes selfishness) and the the fact that free market (or unde-regulated) capitalism results in what we have in the US today--a materialistic, consumeristic, selfish society with a huge income back between the elite and everyone else.

Like I've said before, I have no respect for people who's main life goal is to make as much money as they can and buy as much shit they don't need with it. So that's where my comments about capitalism come from--the belief that what we have in the US is the inevitable outcome of a capitalist system that is not heavily regulated. And if it's heavily regulated most would say it changes to a socialist system--so hence why I just rail against capitalism rather than being more nuanced. That and I don't care to put a lot of time into composing posts on forums--much less a video game forum.

And that's the last I'll say on the matter.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Fine I'll briefly oblige. It's a broad concept and difficult to define succinctly. I guess I'd say it's both an economic system and an attitude/belief system/set of social norms and mores. And I have issues with the latter.

For the system, the standard dictionary definition is sufficient:



My problems with it come with the attitudes (yes selfishness) and the the fact that free market (or unde-regulated) capitalism results in what we have in the US today--a materialistic, consumeristic, selfish society with a huge income back between the elite and everyone else.

Like I've said before, I have no respect for people who's main life goal is to make as much money as they can and buy as much shit they don't need with it. So that's where my comments about capitalism come from--the belief that what we have in the US is the inevitable outcome of a capitalist system that is not heavily regulated. And if it's heavily regulated most would say it changes to a socialist system--so hence why I just rail against capitalism rather than being more nuanced. That and I don't care to put a lot of time into composing posts on forums--much less a video game forum.

And that's the last I'll say on the matter.[/QUOTE]

Well, when you rail against capitalism, you're usually talking about the current US system. So if your definition of capitalism is actually the one you posted, I think you've skipped an important step - showing that the dictionary definition is what currently exists in the US. I know you don't want to do that, but that means your conclusions are suspect. Especially when you say capitalism "inevitably" results in this and that.

Oh, and this is from someone who, like you, thinks "a materialistic, consumeristic, selfish society with a huge income back between the elite and everyone else" is a problem.
 
bread's done
Back
Top