RE: What "Change"? (Not an Obama bashing thread) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


FirmhandKY -> RE: What "Change"? (Not an Obama bashing thread) (4/5/2009 8:07:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


So these weren`t inividual contributers?

Nice spin.

No spin at all.

If you didn't bother to follow the link, it's from "OpenSecrets.org", and is one way of looking at contributions.

Sorry that it might not support your particular ideological view of things ... but there you are.

Firm




Owner59 -> RE: What "Change"? (Not an Obama bashing thread) (4/5/2009 8:10:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


So these weren`t inividual contributers?

Nice spin.

No spin at all.

If you didn't bother to follow the link, it's from "OpenSecrets.org", and is one way of looking at contributions.

Sorry that it might not support your particular ideological view of things ... but there you are.

Firm



You didn`t read the 1st paragrah of the piece?

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.




FirmhandKY -> RE: What "Change"? (Not an Obama bashing thread) (4/5/2009 8:13:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


So these weren`t inividual contributers?

Nice spin.

No spin at all.

If you didn't bother to follow the link, it's from "OpenSecrets.org", and is one way of looking at contributions.

Sorry that it might not support your particular ideological view of things ... but there you are.

Firm



You didn`t read the 1st paragrah of the piece?

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.


uhhh ... I quoted that paragraph, Owner. 

What is your point?

Use small words and short sentences.  Have a topic, then support it with evidence and/or logic that someone might be able to diagram.

Fuzzy ideological statements that begin and end in the middle of nowhere just kinda confuse me.

Firm




DomKen -> RE: What "Change"? (Not an Obama bashing thread) (4/5/2009 8:16:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FullCircle


It's astonishing a University tops the list, I wonder how that decision is in the best interest of students, or is that even a consideration at all?
It's definitely a different culture.

Actually the university being at the top of the list is the important detail. This list is based on total donations of anyone and everyone associated with the University. If a student gave $25 it's included in that total. Every employees and all of their family member's donations are included as well.

What's actually astonishing is how far down Sidley Austin is. Michelle met Barack while both worked at the firm and I know the firm's lawyers were encouraged to give generously.




Owner59 -> RE: What "Change"? (Not an Obama bashing thread) (4/5/2009 8:24:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

I agree. I think everyone with wealth should leave the country. You have a good plan there O59.

To the OP, still thinking and looking at some info before I respond. Though it seems slightly slanting, I think good intellectual discourse over things like this is what is needed. 



You did`t say where these patriots are moving to.[:D]

Socialist/Communist Europe? Niet.The far east? No.The middle east?NO!
South Africa?Nope.Australia?Forget it mate.South America?Don`t think so.The 3rd world?That`ll be the day....

These selfish bastards aren`t moving anywhere.That`s a load of crap.

I heard cheaney was moving to Dubai,but that place pitsville presently.I heard Professor Cole say that it`s so bad in Dubai that there`s thousands of abandoned cars clogging the airport parking lot,left by ex-patriots.

On a positive note.The president mentioned that the US and other major world leaders are going to jointly curb tax shelters.

How refreshing,making rich people and corporations pay their taxes.




FullCircle -> RE: What "Change"? (Not an Obama bashing thread) (4/5/2009 8:33:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Actually the university being at the top of the list is the important detail. This list is based on total donations of anyone and everyone associated with the University. If a student gave $25 it's included in that total. Every employees and all of their family member's donations are included as well.

What's actually astonishing is how far down Sidley Austin is. Michelle met Barack while both worked at the firm and I know the firm's lawyers were encouraged to give generously.

It did seem a bit strange but I missed the detail of how the list was formed so that explains it. I'm not entirely sure how accurate these lists are because you could for instance have a relationship with two entities on it. I wonder what degree of involvement with the entity is required to be considered part of that entity?




FirmhandKY -> RE: What "Change"? (Not an Obama bashing thread) (4/5/2009 8:36:50 AM)


Great post NG.


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Are you saying that Obama's "new diplomacy" is pretty much no better than the old diplomacy, as far as results go?



Much better and here's why......

The US government, and the British government for that matter, came out of that summit with pretty much as much as they could have hoped for. He's a far more shrewd operator than George Bush. He knows what he's got to do to get what he wants - for instance, let Sarkozy have his moment in the sun with the photo shoots and the dramatics......stroke his ego and you'll get what you want.

Forget the 'fiscal stimulus' objective, which was always a red-herring (no decent negotiator will lay their cards on the table from the off).

What has he achieved.?....with the help of his allies....

a) He has increased the standing of the United States. Rightly or wrongly, style or substance, people are impressed. He's laying the foundations for future gains; when he has people on board then I'm sure the United States government will be less flexible in their negotiations.

b) He has already moved the German and French governments from their position (hitherto solid position) on Afghanistan. The first steps are always the hardest.

c) He has reinforced the British government's support for the United States position. There is no reason why we should side with the US or the continental Europeans (we're different to both, and have no particular loyalty to either), but the US needs an ally in Europe; particularly as the French and German governments are forging an alliance based on shared values.

d) He has helped stave off the protectionism proposed by France and other representatives (which was the key British concern, by the way).

You may not like this, Firm, but political commentators (and I'm talking of serious political commentators who know their stuff), certainly in this country, are mightily impressed not just with Obama but the with the way the Americans pitched it.

You'd have to be extremely naive to think Obama can stroll into a world summit and take everything while giving nothing back, and you know how it is - you have to lay the foundations for future gains.


I do not discount that your point of view may well be valid.  You support the view that it is still too early as well, as some of the other posters have?

I can't say that isn't a valid position.  From my point of view, looking at structural issues of diplomacy, I'm just not sure I agree with you yet.  Time will tell.

Part of the reason that I don't see the change in the same way is that (as I've stated before), I'm more of the realist school of international politics.  In that world view, the only two ways that one nation is able to influence another nation is through either bribery or force.  Every international agreement or event can ultimately be seen as coming from one of those two methods.

This is because one nation generally cannot change another nation's course because the second nation's national interest do not change, unless the financial benefit offered is sufficient to overcome objections, or unless the calculations of security overcome those objections.

Of course, the biggest issue with "the realist" school of thought is that nations are seen as "rational actors", and that doesn't always have to be the case.  It assumes that people share a rational idea about what a "national interest" is.  Usually, the biggest problem is when a strong ideology or belief system fundamentally changes the political elites definition of a national interest, so that other political elites miss the change in focus and goals.

But ... I don't see a real change in focus - big picture - of the US right now.

Wasn't/isn't the goal still security from terrorism?  Wasn't/isn't the methods the use of force and bribery?  Wasn't/isn't using Nato forces in Afghanistan part of the desired US outcome?  Didn't Bush get some support?  Has Obama really gotten any kind of major increase in that support?

Firm




FirmhandKY -> RE: What "Change"? (Not an Obama bashing thread) (4/5/2009 8:40:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

I agree. I think everyone with wealth should leave the country. You have a good plan there O59.

To the OP, still thinking and looking at some info before I respond. Though it seems slightly slanting, I think good intellectual discourse over things like this is what is needed. 



You did`t say where these patriots are moving to.[:D]

Socialist/Communist Europe? Niet.The far east? No.The middle east?NO!
South Africa?Nope.Australia?Forget it mate.South America?Don`t think so.The 3rd world?That`ll be the day....

These selfish bastards aren`t moving anywhere.That`s a load of crap.

I heard cheaney was moving to Dubai,but that place pitsville presently.I heard Professor Cole say that it`s so bad in Dubai that there`s thousands of abandoned cars clogging the airport parking lot,left by ex-patriots.

On a positive note.The president mentioned that the US and other major world leaders are going to jointly curb tax shelters.

How refreshing,making rich people and corporations pay their taxes.


You need to research the term "going Galt" or "doing a John Galt".

You still have not done anything to add to the discussion, nor respond in any substantial way to my questions.

I'm hoping, but not really expecting.  While I have a warm place in my heart for you ... you are more of a ideological propagandist, than an interested intellectual.

Prove me wrong.  Please.

Firm




pahunkboy -> RE: What "Change"? (Not an Obama bashing thread) (4/5/2009 2:50:06 PM)

hmm.  Well- the Obama Deception pretty much covers it.




OrionTheWolf -> RE: What "Change"? (Not an Obama bashing thread) (4/5/2009 3:04:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

I agree. I think everyone with wealth should leave the country. You have a good plan there O59.

To the OP, still thinking and looking at some info before I respond. Though it seems slightly slanting, I think good intellectual discourse over things like this is what is needed. 



You did`t say where these patriots are moving to.[:D]


I was not the one that first mentioned it. So you tell me where you would like to send them. You are the one that said good riddance, or something similar.

quote:


Socialist/Communist Europe? Niet.The far east? No.The middle east?NO!
South Africa?Nope.Australia?Forget it mate.South America?Don`t think so.The 3rd world?That`ll be the day....


China might not be a bad place with big bucks. I didn't know Europe was communist in any areas. Costa Rica would be my choice if I had lots of dough, maybe Aruba.

quote:


These selfish bastards aren`t moving anywhere.That`s a load of crap.


Yeah they should make laws against being selfish, Castro did.

quote:


I heard cheaney was moving to Dubai,but that place pitsville presently.I heard Professor Cole say that it`s so bad in Dubai that there`s thousands of abandoned cars clogging the airport parking lot,left by ex-patriots.


I could care less where Dick goes, I was never a supporter of that admin.

quote:


On a positive note.The president mentioned that the US and other major world leaders are going to jointly curb tax shelters.

How refreshing,making rich people and corporations pay their taxes.


So what percentage of net would you say is a fair tax rate?

Not sure why I still ask you questions since you are batting less than .500 on answering my direct questions.




MasterShake69 -> RE: What "Change"? (Not an Obama bashing thread) (4/5/2009 4:48:10 PM)

did Bush ever push a stimilous bill that nobody was allowed tor ead before voting on it and had provisions to allow Enron bailout money.

What exactly did ENRON get for all its money it gave bush???

When Enron called bush because they wanted federal $$$$ Bush just laughed at them and hung up phone and let them DIE.

If you can prove otherwise please let me know?  what specifically did President Bush give Enron between Jan 2001 and its death???


quote:

ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire

Oh, yeah, we should follow the money of campaign contributions... So how much money DID Obama take from Haliburton and Enron, anyway?




MasterShake69 -> RE: What "Change"? (Not an Obama bashing thread) (4/5/2009 4:52:20 PM)


so what exactly did Obama accomplish this past week in Europe that Bush tried to do but wasn't able to do the past year???

#1 he got them to do X Y and Z

hmmmm Obama said he would get combat troops out of Europe...he failed at that.



quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Are you saying that Obama's "new diplomacy" is pretty much no better than the old diplomacy, as far as results go?



Much better and here's why......

The US government, and the British government for that matter, came out of that summit with pretty much as much as they could have hoped for. He's a far more shrewd operator than George Bush. He knows what he's got to do to get what he wants - for instance, let Sarkozy have his moment in the sun with the photo shoots and the dramatics......stroke his ego and you'll get what you want.

Forget the 'fiscal stimulus' objective, which was always a red-herring (no decent negotiator will lay their cards on the table from the off).

What has he achieved.?....with the help of his allies....

a) He has increased the standing of the United States. Rightly or wrongly, style or substance, people are impressed. He's laying the foundations for future gains; when he has people on board then I'm sure the United States government will be less flexible in their negotiations.

b) He has already moved the German and French governments from their position (hitherto solid position) on Afghanistan. The first steps are always the hardest.

c) He has reinforced the British government's support for the United States position. There is no reason why we should side with the US or the continental Europeans (we're different to both, and have no particular loyalty to either), but the US needs an ally in Europe; particularly as the French and German governments are forging an alliance based on shared values.

d) He has helped stave off the protectionism proposed by France and other representatives (which was the key British concern, by the way).

You may not like this, Firm, but political commentators (and I'm talking of serious political commentators who know their stuff), certainly in this country, are mightily impressed not just with Obama but the with the way the Americans pitched it.

You'd have to be extremely naive to think Obama can stroll into a world summit and take everything while giving nothing back, and you know how it is - you have to lay the foundations for future gains.




awmslave -> RE: What "Change"? (Not an Obama bashing thread) (4/5/2009 5:03:09 PM)

quote:

So what percentage of net would you say is a fair tax rate?

The tax itself is not a problem. The budget should be balanced with appropriate taxation. Borrowing from Chinese is bad policy. The problem is the government has disconnected itself from the taxpayer and there is no control where the money goes. Who would agree with Obama administration plans to buy "toxic assets" from bankers for tax money paying more than the market value would be? High taxes and totally corrupt bunch of people in Washington is a recipe for disaster. These guys just line the pockets of themselves and their buddies and lie to you constantly.




OrionTheWolf -> RE: What "Change"? (Not an Obama bashing thread) (4/5/2009 5:51:10 PM)

Damn but you are preaching to the choir. Is why I have said for the last 12 years there is no large differences between the two parties, besides which corp gets more of the money, power or perks.

To the OP, from what I am finding that other than some small things already mentioned, there is not much difference. The approach to our security is the same, just a different terrain. The taxes are going to be slightly juggled, but a 5% juggling is not much except it will take more from medium to larger businesses.

I tend to look for effect, and not seeing much. People's money does not go far, people are still suffering, we still have a huge amount of troops in Iraq, and the government is still spending hand over fist. Maybe in a year I may see a difference, but at the moment I still just keep hearing about change. I really do not believe change is going to occur until the people force change.


quote:

ORIGINAL: awmslave

quote:

So what percentage of net would you say is a fair tax rate?

The tax itself is not a problem. The budget should be balanced with appropriate taxation. Borrowing from Chinese is bad policy. The problem is the government has disconnected itself from the taxpayer and there is no control where the money goes. Who would agree with Obama administration plans to buy "toxic assets" from bankers for tax money paying more than the market value would be? High taxes and totally corrupt bunch of people in Washington is a recipe for disaster. These guys just line the pockets of themselves and their buddies and lie to you constantly.





Raiikun -> RE: What "Change"? (Not an Obama bashing thread) (4/6/2009 5:28:13 AM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05Dnf2Gc6u0&feature=player_embedded




Crush -> RE: What "Change"? (Not an Obama bashing thread) (4/6/2009 6:22:26 AM)

It just is a "change" of who wants to screw you.  Well, not quite true...we still have all those Congress Critters that just want to give it to you harder.

I didn't vote for Obama.  I didn't vote for McCain. Neither represented what I wanted for the future of the country.  I don't think I've vote "FOR" a candidate since I started voting 37 years ago.  

Though I must admit, since O's been in office, the TOTUS has had a more visible role in governing.  Though I didn't vote for TOTUS either...don't like the policies it spreads.

CHANGE is inevitable...it isn't CHANGE that matters...it is the direction of the CHANGE that matters.







popeye1250 -> RE: What "Change"? (Not an Obama bashing thread) (4/6/2009 8:35:42 AM)

I certainly hope that Obama doesn't *pay* N.Korea *not* to launch missiles!
What kind of thinking is that?
That's the kind of "thinking" that needs to "CHANGE!"




RacerJim -> RE: What "Change"? (Not an Obama bashing thread) (4/6/2009 9:34:22 AM)

Well, since North Korea successfully launched that missile apparantly they didn't/don't believe Obama means what he says, just like the 48% of us who were objective/open-minded enough to see Obama for the empty suit he is during the election.  Now what, Obama?  Wait for North Korea to put a nuke on a similar missile?  Wait for China, Russia and/or North Korea to upgrade Iran's missile and nuke capabilities even further than they already have at which point Israel will nuke Iran into oblivion at which point China, Russia and/or North Korea will threaten to nuke Israel into oblivion?  What then, Obama?  That's the kind of  thinking that needs to CHANGE...NOW!

IMPEACH NObama!    




FirmhandKY -> RE: What "Change"? (Not an Obama bashing thread) (4/6/2009 11:47:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I certainly hope that Obama doesn't *pay* N.Korea *not* to launch missiles!
What kind of thinking is that?
That's the kind of "thinking" that needs to "CHANGE!"

I used the term "force" when I was talking about the realist school of international politics, but a more accurate term is "coercion", which can use the threat of unwanted consequences rather than the direct application of force.

So, there is only two ways for the US to prevent NK from doing anything:  bribery, or coercion.

If you take bribery off the table, the only thing left is some sort of coercion. It doesn't have to be all out war, but could be more trade restrictions (pretty much worked out that vein), threats or other actions less than war. 

So what's really left in this situation other than direct military action, that you think would be effective?

Firm




NorthernGent -> RE: What "Change"? (Not an Obama bashing thread) (4/6/2009 1:27:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

You support the view that it is still too early as well, as some of the other posters have?



Firm, your sig line is instructive - people are easily impressed with the packaging. I doubt very much that the French and German governments are seduced by the new, 'benevolent' US government. They do know, however, that Obama is far more popular among their citizens than Bush ever could be, and thus their political capital is in part dependent on their relationship with Obama. It was fashionable to berate Bush; it's fashionable to like Obama. You should have seen politicians falling over themselves to be seen with him - why? Like it or not, Firm, Obama brings a spot of stardust with him; in a place where politics is just so dull and more of the same, it's a welcome rest-bite. People are interested in him, which means politicians have to be interested in him in order to avoid the political costs.

And, he's like a soul singer - when he speaks he almost sings. Never mind what he says, the delivery is impressive. The same can not be said of George Bush.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

In that world view, the only two ways that one nation is able to influence another nation is through either bribery or force.  Every international agreement or event can ultimately be seen as coming from one of those two methods.



In that case, I think you seriously underestimate the power of celebrity in the age of celebrity. Force? I'd agree with; you missed persuasion (including celebrity).

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

But ... I don't see a real change in focus - big picture - of the US right now.



I'd estimate the above is accurate. The Middle East was shown to be a key objective, but he's well versed in subtlety, which is a departure from the previous administration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Didn't Bush get some support?  Has Obama really gotten any kind of major increase in that support?



Bush certainly got some support from Britain, but he was lucky. He was lucky that the Labour government was headed by a devout christian man (a liberal interventionist, come christian missionary). Now, Brown, too, is a christian, but he would have been more objectionable. In fact, any other Labour leader since the dawn of time would have been more objectionable (and they have been - see Vietnam). It will take more than a man running 'round like a bull in a china shop to persuade people this time.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125