How Obama Got Elected

[Passion4Muzik]

[

This country was founded by people who came here to make a better life for themselves. They didn't look to leaders to do that for them.[/quote]

Every day citizens don't create and control the laws/policies -- the president and elected officials do that...

 

[LiquidSky]

God, I'm glad the election is over and we don't have to hear these assholes calling him a terrorist, socialist,muslim, blah,blah, blah...

Now we just have to deal with them posting the same shit on this board.

 

[HenryReardon]

This country was founded by people who came here to make a better life for themselves. They didn't look to leaders to do that for them.

Every day citizens don't create and control the laws/policies -- the president and elected officials do that...[/QUOTE]

Laws and policies are not what make a better life for people.

People get off their lazy butts and make a better life for themselves - usually in spite of what government does, rather than because of it.

People who whine about wanting a president to make a better life for them are looking for a nanny state, which is the antithesis of that this country is all about.

"They govern best who govern least."

 

[Passion4Muzik]

Laws and policies are not what make a better life for people.

People get off their lazy butts and make a better life for themselves - usually in spite of what government does, rather than because of it.

People who whine about wanting a president to make a better life for them are looking for a nanny state, which is the antithesis of that this country is all about.

"They govern best who govern least."

If it doesn't matter what the president does or who he is then why are you so against him?

 

[HenryReardon]

If it doesn't matter what the president does or who he is then why are you so against him?[/QUOTE

I suppose if, like some of those people in New Orleans after Katrina, you are waiting around on your lazy butt waiting for the government to 'help' you, it does matter, to some extent.

I am against the man because of his declared intentions and policies.

I was against Bush because he failed to protect our southern border.

 

[HenryReardon]

"I'm going to close Guantanamo."
"There will be no lobbyists in my administration".

There are two promises that weren't vague at all, and he's attending to them right off -- arguably not as well as would have been liked, but they weren't vague, and that he's already issued executive orders about them, they have substance.

The promise to 'close gitmo' was total flash. A bone thrown to the anti-war bedwetters. Sure, he's signed an order to close it within a year, but look at the fine print - lots of caveats there.

As for lobbyists, he's already hired two of them.

A truly substantive promise would have been, for example, a promise to require all federal departments (except defense) to take a 5% budget cut every year for four or five years.

A truly substantive promise would have been to reduce the size and scope of government - get rid of some of the 'bloat' that has occurred during the last eight years.

A truly substantive promise would have been to add a sunset clause to everything he does, as someone in one of these forums recently suggested.

 

[naked gent]

^^ Why exempt defense?

Do you seriously believe the Pentagon can't spend money more efficiently.

If you just got the various branches of the military to cooperate with each other we'd save billions.

Or is it your position that the government is grossly inefficient and wasteful except for the military?

 

[HenryReardon]

^^ Why exempt defense?

Do you seriously believe the Pentagon can't spend money more efficiently.

If you just got the various branches of the military to cooperate with each other we'd save billions.

Or is it your position that the government is grossly inefficient and wasteful except for the military?

All government is by definition grossly inefficient and wasteful, and the pentagon more than most in some cases.

So, freeze defense and don't let their budget grow - compel them to better use the resources at hand.

Defense is arguably much more important than the rest of government.


Reduce everything else.

 

[naked gent]

Defense is arguably much more important than the rest of government.

And its importance is reflected by the amount of the federal budget it absorbs.

Defense accounts for about half of federal discretionary spending so if you don't want to cut defense spending you're not really serious about cutting the budget. What you're really saying is cut the things I don't like and keep the things I do which is exactly the sort of thinking which leads to ever larger federal deficits.

 

[Passion4Muzik]

I suppose if, like some of those people in New Orleans after Katrina, you are waiting around on your lazy butt waiting for the government to 'help' you, it does matter, to some extent.

I am against the man because of his declared intentions and policies.

I was against Bush because he failed to protect our southern border.

But you're not one of they 'lazy' ones, right? If you're not one of them, what is your concern? Obviously, compassion for others isn't high on your list.

What has Obama declared to do that will negatively impact your life?

 

[HenryReardon]

But you're not one of they 'lazy' ones, right? If you're not one of them, what is your concern? Obviously, compassion for others isn't high on your list.

What has Obama declared to do that will negatively impact your life?

Nothing wrong with compassion - However, I reserve the right to choose the recipients of that compassion.

He is going to take my money at gunpoint and give it to someone who a) hasn't earned it and b) probably doesn't deserve it. If you fail to understand that, then you have no concept of the power of the IRS.

 

[Passion4Muzik]

Nothing wrong with compassion - However, I reserve the right to choose the recipients of that compassion.

He is going to take my money at gunpoint and give it to someone who a) hasn't earned it and b) probably doesn't deserve it. If you fail to understand that, then you have no concept of the power of the IRS.

To be more specific, I was referring to your feelings towards hurricane katrina victims. Obviously, your compassion is nil for them so to bring up people "like" them in regard to the importance of the presidency is disingenuous at best.


What money of yours has he declared to take?

 

[Kulindahr]

There's no way in hell you'll have me believe that those people were 12 randomly selected people from a voters line.

Randomly selected -- probably not. They probably did thirty random people and used the twelve we got to see.

They were just too perfect and they all said things that were WAY too similar to each other. They all sounded scripted. And I'm almost positive that the older guy was in a commercial I saw last year.

They didn't have varied enough reactions. 12 people aren't going to respond with the exact same words like that. Yes.. there's a lot of ignorant people out there on both sides of the political spectrum, but there's no way that 12 randomly selected people will word things exactly the same way. I also don't believe that 100% of the people they selected don't know who Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or Barney Frank are or who controls congress.

Even Republicans aren't that stupid.

Been to any ReligioPublican rallies lately?
All they had to do was catch a Dobson group.

It isn't just Republicans, on the knowledge part -- I can think of places where Democrats and Republicans both would be proud of not knowing those things.

 

[Kulindahr]

"Stimulus," you say? What stimulates me to my very balls is deporting the cowards. America agrees.

Statistically, it's the Democrats who are cowards -- look at who volunteers to protect the country.

 

[Kulindahr]

And its importance is reflected by the amount of the federal budget it absorbs.

Defense accounts for about half of federal discretionary spending so if you don't want to cut defense spending you're not really serious about cutting the budget. What you're really saying is cut the things I don't like and keep the things I do which is exactly the sort of thinking which leads to ever larger federal deficits.

Or it's saying "Cut the things not explicitly authorized in the Constitution and keep the ones that are there".

There are a number of programs I like, on a personal level, but which aren't authorized -- for example, the Department of Energy. There are some I don't like but which aren't authorized -- for example, the B.L.M. There are some I have mixed feelings about but which aren't authorized -- for example, Housing and Urban Development.

As voters, what we like or don't like should be the last thing on our minds. We should be asking, "Does the Constitution say the government can do this?" -- and if the answer is "No", we should be against it, whether we like it or not.

 

[HenryReardon]

Randomly selected -- probably not. They probably did thirty random people and used the twelve we got to see.


:

All of which ignores the Poll that was part of the same report. The Poll pretty much reflected what the videos did, and as mentioned by the OP, McCain voters came off as only marginally better informed

That, of course, was the thrust of the post. Voters go to the poll and select candidates for many reasons, least of which is their knowledge of political affairs.

Perhaps we need to have a discussion concerning who should be allowed to vote in federal elections.

 

[Kulindahr]

All of which ignores the Poll that was part of the same report. The Poll pretty much reflected what the videos did, and as mentioned by the OP, McCain voters came off as only marginally better informed

That, of course, was the thrust of the post. Voters go to the poll and select candidates for many reasons, least of which is their knowledge of political affairs.

Perhaps we need to have a discussion concerning who should be allowed to vote in federal elections.

I thought landowners who live on that land was a good idea.