Jump to content
goodspeed

Change is here.

Recommended Posts

<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do6gs0M7vfw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do6gs0M7vfw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>

Link to post
Share on other sites

For GS:

 

From the Wall Street Journal...

 

"Sen. Obama cited new economic forces to explain what appears like a return to an older-style big-government Democratic platform skeptical of market forces. "Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably. He spoke aboard his campaign bus, where a big-screen TV was tuned to the final holes of the U.S. Open golf tournament."

 

Guess that covers the wealth redistribution. Next...

 

Protect a woman’s right to choose:

For almost a decade, Obama has been a leader in the Illinois legislature in the battle to protect a woman’s right to choose and promote equal economic rights and opportunities.

Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.com May 2, 2004

 

OK That covers the abortion issue. Next...

 

Gay Rights Quotes or Votes

# Opposes CA Prop. 8, one-man-one-woman marriage. (Jul 2008)

# Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. (Nov 2007)

# Decisions about marriage should be left to the states. (Oct 2007)

# Homosexuality no more immoral than heterosexuality. (Oct 2007)

# Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007)

# Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands? (Aug 2007)

# We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)

# Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church. (Aug 2007)

# Disentangle gay rights from the word “marriage”. (Aug 2007)

# Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights. (Aug 2007)

# Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement. (Aug 2007)

# Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage. (Jul 2007)

# Pass ENDA and expand hate crime legislation. (Mar 2007)

# Opposed 1996 Illinois DOMA bill. (Mar 2007)

# Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006)

# Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)

# Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)

# Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998)

 

and

 

Don't Ask, Don't Tell - Gays in the Military:

Barack Obama believes we need to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. His campaign literature says, "The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve."

 

From LesbianLife websight quoting campaign literature.

 

So I guess that sums up his attack on morality.

 

The more you look the scarier it becomes. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
For GS:

 

 

 

So I guess that sums up his attack on morality.

 

 

Question: Morality according to whose standards? I am being serious here. Thank you. -Goodspeed

 

Also, thank you for the information. Very much so. I am in the process of reading up on some of it right now. This is very interesting to me. If you have any more information and or links please feel free to pass it/them my way. As the older I get the more I think I should care/be interested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Decipher this then

“As president, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.”

 

So, you have a right to protect yourself in Wyoming but not Illinois?

 

Gun ownership is foremost a standard against ones own government.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Decipher this then

 

 

So, you have a right to protect yourself in Wyoming but not Illinois?

 

Gun ownership is foremost a standard against ones own government.

 

 

I don't think I should "interpret" those words (I am assuming they are Obamas) as due to their vague and ambiguous nature any of us could skew them to mean what we wanted. As to your statement about gun ownership, I agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe his statement is a commentary about the non-law abiding gun owners that are probably more common in Chicago vs the law abiding gun owners more common in Cheyenne..

 

if all you look for is stuff that will make you angry, than all you will find is stuff that will make you angry... try looking for some good, some common ground... it exists, but you might have to spend a bit of time and look a bit harder than just googling the latest drivel dripping from a bunch of talking heads that gain their popularity from stirrin' shit up...

Link to post
Share on other sites
maybe his statement is a commentary about the non-law abiding gun owners that are probably more common in Chicago vs the law abiding gun owners more common in Cheyenne..

 

if all you look for is stuff that will make you angry, than all you will find is stuff that will make you angry... try looking for some good, some common ground... it exists, but you might have to spend a bit of time and look a bit harder than just googling the latest drivel dripping from a bunch of talking heads that gain their popularity from stirrin' shit up...

Well said Fasty.:pirate:

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK fine! I'll wait four years

to see if this administration does even one thing I agree with?

 

Perhaps one benefit that has already accrued to me is that

we?ve lost our wonderful Governor and a Republican has taken her place.

She?s already set about undoing the mess we are in.

The downside? With Janet as head of homeland security we are sure

to get blow?d up but oh well at least I?ll be safe here in the desert!

 

lessee topping today?s headlines

Osama to close gitmo (gotta let them poor guys go back and do Allah?s werk ya know)

and lifts the ban of the US guberment for paying for 3rd werld wimens

to get their uteruses scraped out on the American taxpayers dime.

 

Now there?s a coupla great ideas I gotta agree with er I?m

not a lookin? fer the ?good?!

 

Damn this is all I?d ever hoped fo and moe!

 

oh and all you gun nuts already know he?s bringing back the assault weapons ban

except it?s a gonna be writ a lil bit differently this time. ;) ;)

 

But don?t worry yer prudy lil head, it?s only werds. And mosta duh folks

dat voted fer this guy cain?t read no way anyhow.

 

yeah its gonna be a LONG four years?

Link to post
Share on other sites
[partial]

But don’t worry yer prudy lil head, it’s only werds. And mosta duh folks

dat voted fer this guy cain’t read no way anyhow.

 

yeah its gonna be a LONG four years…[Partial]

 

There is support for that view.

 

Approximately 50 percent of the nation's unemployed youth age 16-21 are functional illiterate, with virtually no prospects of obtaining good jobs.

source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

 

Nearly half of America's adults are poor readers, or "functionally illiterate." They can't carry out simple tasks like balancing check books, reading drug labels or writing essays for a job.

source: National Adult Literacy Survery of 1993

 

21 million Americans can't read at all, 45 million are marginally illiterate and one-fifth of high school graduates can't read their diplomas.

source: Department of Justice

 

46% of American adults cannot understand the label on their prescription medicine.

source: Journal of American Medical Association

 

50 percent of American adults are unable to read an eighth grade level book.

source: Jonathan Kozol, Illiterate America

 

According to the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 37 percent of fourth graders and 26 percent of eighth graders cannot read at the basic level; and on the 2002 NAEP 26 percent of twelfth graders cannot read at the basic level. That is, when reading grade appropriate text these students cannot extract the general meaning or make obvious connections between the text and their own experiences or make simple inferences from the text. In other words, they cannot understand what they have read.

source: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

 

Who (primarily) turned the tide? 50 percent of young adults identified themselves as Democratic compared with 29 percent Republican.

 

Impressive that the marginally and functional illiterate could be organized so well that it shifted the balance of political power in the United States. I'm guessing they understood the "you're entitled" part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, I didn't say that was a bad thing, afterall, who\what caused our current percent of functional illiterates. -"No Child Left Behind" did. That was Republicans and our 41st president. I'm thinking there is Karma in that and certainly a bit of payback for screwing up the educational system. (at least more then it was) Political scientists have always marginalized the political strengths of young voters because, historically, they haven't exercised that power. oops! that changed. The "change is here" title of these threads is as apropo to the group having caused change as it is to the change itself.

 

The estimates of 45 million marginally illiterate people does not equate to 45 million stupid people as readily as it does 45 million pissed off voters (when shown exactly how their government has and continues to fail them)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Protect a woman?s right to choose:

For almost a decade, Obama has been a leader in the Illinois legislature in the battle to protect a woman?s right to choose and promote equal economic rights and opportunities.

Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.com May 2, 2004

 

OK That covers the abortion issue. Next...

 

Gay Rights Quotes or Votes

# Opposes CA Prop. 8, one-man-one-woman marriage. (Jul 2008)

# Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. (Nov 2007)

# Decisions about marriage should be left to the states. (Oct 2007)

# Homosexuality no more immoral than heterosexuality. (Oct 2007)

# Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007)

# Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands? (Aug 2007)

# We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)

# Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church. (Aug 2007)

# Disentangle gay rights from the word ?marriage?. (Aug 2007)

# Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights. (Aug 2007)

# Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement. (Aug 2007)

# Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage. (Jul 2007)

# Pass ENDA and expand hate crime legislation. (Mar 2007)

# Opposed 1996 Illinois DOMA bill. (Mar 2007)

# Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006)

# Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)

# Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)

# Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998)

 

and

 

Don't Ask, Don't Tell - Gays in the Military:

Barack Obama believes we need to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. His campaign literature says, "The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve."

 

 

 

 

How is this even an issue for you? Are you out of your mind? One can make logical arguments for different economic laws, but really? Anti-gay, anti-abortion? I always heard people like that existed, I just thought they were too old or poor to afford the internet. GTFO my webz.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when the right preached individual and states rights, and promised to "keep government outta my business"... when they (led by the moral majority) started to obsess on peoples private lives (ie, gays, abortion, and imposing their own judgement of morality), they lost me...

 

its pretty simple... if they drop their judgemental focus on my morality, they get me back... and probably the marjority of the center that they lost miserably in this past election... but nope, the republican party bigwigs apparently think exactly the opposite... they seem to think they lost BECAUSE of running John McCain, not IN SPITE of running John McCain...

 

my hope is that Obama reaches across the aisle and builds consensus to address some of the very significant problems this country is facing... and those problems do NOT include abortion and gays for crying fucking out loud...

 

and as far as re-distribution of wealth ... heres your re-distribution of wealth, according to the Economic Policy Institute...

Wealthiest Americans will receive most of the benefits from the planned tax cuts...

 

America's 112 million families had combined wealth of $50.3 trillion in 2004. When those families are ranked by the size of their wealth, however, the top 1% alone held $16.8 trillion in wealth, more than a third of the United States' total wealth and more than the $15.3 trillion held by 90% of U.S. families. The top 1% had average wealth of $15 million per family in contrast to the $22,800 average wealth of the least wealthy 50% of families or the $313,500 in wealth for families ranked between 50% and 90%.

 

Homes accounted for more than a third of American families' assets. Primary residences are the asset with the least-skewed ownership, with the top 1% owning primary homes worth $1.9 trillion and the bottom 90% owning $11.8 trillion. That is not the case, however, when it comes to ownership of second homes, a far greater source of wealth for the top 1% ($1.1 trillion) than the bottom 90% ($0.02 trillion).

 

An examination of other types of assets reveals why cutting taxes on capital gains, dividends, and inheritances favor such a small share of the population. Those three forms of income and wealth are largely associated with three kinds of assets: stock in publicly traded companies, ownership of closely held businesses, and nonresidential real estate. The top 1% of families owned 37% of all stocks, 62% of all closely held businesses, and 47% of nonresidential real estate. Percentages for the bottom 90% were 21%, 10%, and 24%, respectively.

 

didja get that... the top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 90%, and the last round of the Bush tax cuts were targeted at the wealthiest in America... I'm pretty sure I am in the bottom 90% and not in the top 1%, and so have more in common with the poorest of the poor... I'd bet that is he case with most of us here...

 

another source...

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%.

 

I for one, happen to feel that those that have prospered MORE from the system, owe MORE back to the system... of course, I prefer that is be used to put people to work, to provide for their education and healthcare, and to build infrastructure, etc... I don't think you can argue that business benefits from a stronger, healthier, better educated workforce, better roads, rail and ports... and, I wholeheartedly agree that it should NOT be handed out directly in the form of federal assistance to the poor and not necessarily in the form of tax rebates for the rest of us... but I am concerned when tax cuts are designed to directly benefit the wealthiest (ie, the Bush era cuts), and all forms of tax increases are villified...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since marriage has a long & defined history...changing the rules midstream is worthy of discussion. Instead, if you didn't agree, you were labeled a homophobe.

 

Abortion, while I think it's a personal matter, limitations need to be set & it doesn't need to be paid for by the feds. In fact, the feds may have a stake in stopping it (LIFE, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness)

 

Most of the arguments seperating right & left are no longer political policy matters. They've become society changing. When the people speak (homosexual marriage ban-every time it's tried) , the left has the rules overturned by a court. Then we're called names.

 

Individual rights , then states rights are primary. Unfortunately, those argumemts have been either settled or forefeited due to lack of new material. The left has decided to change the rules. The right wants to stay put (or slow down the changes).

 

One must take a stand or get caught up in the rush to one side or the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the above points clearly but I think there is another side of it that needs a look see at least. Concentration of wealth concentrates giving. That giving most certainly benefits society to a much greater extent then any government could (ever) possibly hope to duplicate with the fractional increased revenues collected. (and the resulting reduction of that concentration) The inefficiency, waste, corruption, political wrangling would only result in more taxation to pay for distribution. Granted it would bring about an opportunity to hire several thousand more civilian public sector employees but in that is the bloating that causes the cycle of waste. Two-thirds of the members of The Forbes 400 have fortunes that are entirely self-made and those that made it need to direct it to good use.

 

"The big institutions just keep getting bigger. To some extent, it’s because capacity begets quantity: Someone looking to make a $300m donation will generally place it somewhere that already knows how to handle a gift this size. And then the bigger the non-profit, the larger and better equipped its fundraising function will be, reinforcing what’s a virtuous cycle for them.

There’s another angle to this concentration of philanthropy, however. Quite simply, medical research and higher education (as well as big arts) institutions do an excellent job of explaining to donors what their gifts will accomplish. They address the core concerns of the ultra-wealthy with great focus: legacy, impact, and tax efficiency. They offer these potential donors solutions, not problems. They have looked beneath the headlines, they have learned from the past, and they understand the real trends."

Source: Melissa A. Berman is President & CEO of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.

 

The ultra-wealthy know how their dollars will be used, and I trust they are significantly better equiped to direct it v/s being stolen and wasted by our Government.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How is this even an issue for you? Are you out of your mind? One can make logical arguments for different economic laws, but really? Anti-gay, anti-abortion? I always heard people like that existed, I just thought they were too old or poor to afford the internet. GTFO my webz.

 

My friend do you live in such a bastion of left wing ideologies that you don't even know that it's possible to disagree with you? Or is yours the only possible right way?

 

Because I believe that life begins at conception and I think that life has value and is worth protecting, I'm old, poor and out of my mind? Or a sexist?

 

Because I believe that one man and one women is the best way to raise a child and to maintain an army; thus the best way to build a country, I'm old, poor and out of my mind? Or a homophobe?

 

And because I believe that all men should earn and keep what they work for, I'm old, poor and out of my mind? Or an elitist?

 

Your name calling is all you have left as the moral and social backbone of the country collapses under the decay of secular humanism. Just look to the Roman empire, the world's other last, great democracy, to see the road that that leads down.

 

But hell, I'm just an old, poor, redneck, inbred, illiterate, homophobe, sexist racist, elitist (not sure now that one fits), gun toting, vast right-wing conspirator, clinging to my guns and religion; what do I know? I'm not worthy of an opinion because I believe there is a right and wrong and it's not based on the "feelings" of the people involved and because I disagree with YOU.

 

But my friend, and you are my friend even if you would never stoop to associate with someone as despicable as me; I will never call you names. I will voice my opinions and uphold them until I die. I will disagree with you, but I will always respect you. I may hate the things that you believe, but I will always love you as a human being.

 

...and I will never "GTFO your webz".

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh and all you gun nuts already know he?s bringing back the assault weapons ban

except it?s a gonna be writ a lil bit differently this time. ;) ;)

 

 

Laugh all you want, but when the zombies come we both know whose house you will be running to for protection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...