If you could vote in the U.S. Election

[trailmix 77]

Now, seeing the makeup of our congress, Obama will not have free reign to do what he wishes, which I think is a good thing. Look what happened to the U.S. when George Bush had a veto proof majority for 6 years........

I always find this interesting.

An analogy:

You start a new job - they guy in the position before you had been pushed out, virtually fired really, because no one had the gumption to fire him, he messed up too many things to mention.

So along you come, intelligent, prepared and really willing to give this job your utmost attention and care.

But no. The guy before you messed it up so badly that they virtually have your hands tied, you can't take more than a 2 minute bathroom break without someone casting you the evil eye for leaving your desk and you certainly won't be making any decisions anytime soon.

It may be a good thing, they don't really know you very well and the don't want a repeat and giving you too much 'power' might cost them money.

On the other hand, if they had enabled you to make decisions and use your common sense, you just might be making a huge contribution that would benefit everyone.

[Carlawarla 1]

Aww group hug.

where's the timbits?

charles...you goof! too funny. Not like most of the stuff in this thread. Time to close it OP!

[The_Dude 1,142]

Trailmix,

Your analogy doesn't really pertain to the situation with the president. The repricussions of screwing up at a normal job if they had enabled a new manager is nothing in comparison to what a failed president could do. So, I think it's prudent to have more checks and balances. The current president has already stretched the authority of the president beyond its limit. Look at the use if signing statements. Congress passes a law, or overrides a presidential veto and is enacted as law despite the presidents objections. President Bush loves to attach signing statements that are the equivalent of a note telling the agencies that are responsible for enacting and carrying out the new law that they do not need to actually do it.

Now, if Obama had a received a massive win in the election, a mandate, I would say that he should be given more latitude with congress to move things through. But with the stakes so high with a president, and a country still divided over ideology, I think it's a good thing that he will have to make his case, and some concessions in enacting laws.

[trailmix 77]

Trailmix,

Your analogy doesn't really pertain to the situation with the president. The repricussions of screwing up at a normal job if they had enabled a new manager is nothing in comparison to what a failed president could do. So, I think it's prudent to have more checks and balances. The current president has already stretched the authority of the president beyond its limit. Look at the use if signing statements. Congress passes a law, or overrides a presidential veto and is enacted as law despite the presidents objections. President Bush loves to attach signing statements that are the equivalent of a note telling the agencies that are responsible for enacting and carrying out the new law that they do not need to actually do it.

Now, if Obama had a received a massive win in the election, a mandate, I would say that he should be given more latitude with congress to move things through. But with the stakes so high with a president, and a country still divided over ideology, I think it's a good thing that he will have to make his case, and some concessions in enacting laws.

Well I think it does, that's why I posted it

I hadn't really intended for this thread to become a political discussion - it was really just meant as a slightly interesting poll.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I'd like to weigh in here.

I think trusting any politician is a bad idea. I don't care what party they're from and how well they present themselves, no politician is to be trusted. They predominately want power and a legacy that history teachers will force upon students. It's hardly about the American people.

Obama makes a lot of nice speeches and wonderful promises. How many times has a politician said he or she would do something and then never carry through with it? Lots and I'm sure that's occurred in Canada too. Politicians actually have the psychological profile of sociopaths. I know that sounds extreme, but your typical sociopath does not run around hacking people to death with a hatchet. They use people by saying whatever is necessary to get their way. They benefit from lies and deceit and hurt others around them by taking advantage of all they know. Tell me... how well does that match up with your average politician?

I suppose what irritates me most about Obama isn't his supposed policies or that he's a Democrat. What bothers me is how so many in the U.S. react to him like he's the messiah and practically worship the ground he walks on. Even worse, many in the African American community see him as the panacea to all of their problems and those who're particular zealous out of that group view Obama as a way to "assist them and hurt their white aggressors."

I find the above amusing in a way, if not overly sad. Obama's mother (who raised him) was a white woman from Wichita, Kansas. Kansas is typically seen as a "red state." He speaks and acts like what many in the African American community would normally refer to as an "Uncle Tom." Yet somehow, that is all overlooked as Obama is considered the African American salvation. Something doesn't seem logical about this reaction, but then again, why should people actually look at a politician's history and information surrounding them? It's far easier to point and go, "Obama's black so he'll help us all!"

The reason some people say we shouldn't tax the wealthy hard or do something to destabilize those with wealth is due to their position. Who owns the companies and provides jobs? It's not the people on welfare. If the wealthy are heavily taxed, they will cut jobs in order to regain lost income. Overtaxing the wealthy is as foolish as dramatically raising the minimum wage. Both options will put more people out of work than previously before. That doesn't mean the rich can't be taxed, but to specifically target them because "they have more than other people" won't solve our problems and might actually exacerbate them.

I don't believe in paying for other people. I might hand out a loan to someone I know personally, but if I'm in California and someone I don't know at all needs monetary assistance in New York, how is my responsibility to help them? The answer is it isn't. While not everyone seeks to exploit the welfare system, there are many who do and would be just fine taking money from others in return for not having to work.

Disregarding welfare, the idea of using taxes simply to help out everyone won't work. People who are successful generally work hard their money. They've gone to college (or university, as Canadians like to say) and worked through the ranks at a company or set up their own business. Whatever they've done, they're apparently successful now. To punish such success by ripping money away from them to give to others is a true smack in the face of the American Dream. In the U.S., it's been said that anyone can become successful if they work hard enough. That's not always true, of course, but it's right more often than not. Why would people really strive for success if they knew their income would be dramatically reduced in order to help those they don't even know and will probably never know? All in all, such acts would decrease the drive of many Americans, since they'll know ahead of time that being successful isn't necessary in order to earn money.

I absolutely agree about the "elite" commentary. As was previously said, everyone wants the best doctor and the best lawyer. The "best" is among the elite. Who really looks for someone in any field who's merely "okay" or even "bad" at their career? No one I know.

And finally... capitalism has not failed. There have been economic downturns before. If you know anything about history, there was something called "The Great Depression" that occurred in 1929 and took World War II to effectively stop it. Was that crash the fault of then-President Herbert Hoover? Many irrationally blamed him, just as they now blame Bush today. There was also a crash in 1987, which actually resulted in the loss of more money than the 1929 crash. However, there were policies set in place and the country recovered faster and more easily than before. The economy is hardly a direct result of who resides in the White House. What happens in the stock market is mostly due to investors and business endeavors as a whole.

[Tahoma 2,291]

I'd like to weigh in here.

I think trusting any politician is a bad idea. I don't care what party they're from and how well they present themselves, no politician is to be trusted. They predominately want power and a legacy that history teachers will force upon students. It's hardly about the American people.

Obama makes a lot of nice speeches and wonderful promises. How many times has a politician said he or she would do something and then never carry through with it? Lots and I'm sure that's occurred in Canada too. Politicians actually have the psychological profile of sociopaths. I know that sounds extreme, but your typical sociopath does not run around hacking people to death with a hatchet. They use people by saying whatever is necessary to get their way. They benefit from lies and deceit and hurt others around them by taking advantage of all they know. Tell me... how well does that match up with your average politician?

I suppose what irritates me most about Obama isn't his supposed policies or that he's a Democrat. What bothers me is how so many in the U.S. react to him like he's the messiah and practically worship the ground he walks on. Even worse, many in the African American community see him as the panacea to all of their problems and those who're particular zealous out of that group view Obama as a way to "assist them and hurt their white aggressors."

I find the above amusing in a way, if not overly sad. Obama's mother (who raised him) was a white woman from Wichita, Kansas. Kansas is typically seen as a "red state." He speaks and acts like what many in the African American community would normally refer to as an "Uncle Tom." Yet somehow, that is all overlooked as Obama is considered the African American salvation. Something doesn't seem logical about this reaction, but then again, why should people actually look at a politician's history and information surrounding them? It's far easier to point and go, "Obama's black so he'll help us all!"

The reason some people say we shouldn't tax the wealthy hard or do something to destabilize those with wealth is due to their position. Who owns the companies and provides jobs? It's not the people on welfare. If the wealthy are heavily taxed, they will cut jobs in order to regain lost income. Overtaxing the wealthy is as foolish as dramatically raising the minimum wage. Both options will put more people out of work than previously before. That doesn't mean the rich can't be taxed, but to specifically target them because "they have more than other people" won't solve our problems and might actually exacerbate them.

I don't believe in paying for other people. I might hand out a loan to someone I know personally, but if I'm in California and someone I don't know at all needs monetary assistance in New York, how is my responsibility to help them? The answer is it isn't. While not everyone seeks to exploit the welfare system, there are many who do and would be just fine taking money from others in return for not having to work.

Disregarding welfare, the idea of using taxes simply to help out everyone won't work. People who are successful generally work hard their money. They've gone to college (or university, as Canadians like to say) and worked through the ranks at a company or set up their own business. Whatever they've done, they're apparently successful now. To punish such success by ripping money away from them to give to others is a true smack in the face of the American Dream. In the U.S., it's been said that anyone can become successful if they work hard enough. That's not always true, of course, but it's right more often than not. Why would people really strive for success if they knew their income would be dramatically reduced in order to help those they don't even know and will probably never know? All in all, such acts would decrease the drive of many Americans, since they'll know ahead of time that being successful isn't necessary in order to earn money.

I absolutely agree about the "elite" commentary. As was previously said, everyone wants the best doctor and the best lawyer. The "best" is among the elite. Who really looks for someone in any field who's merely "okay" or even "bad" at their career? No one I know.

And finally... capitalism has not failed. There have been economic downturns before. If you know anything about history, there was something called "The Great Depression" that occurred in 1929 and took World War II to effectively stop it. Was that crash the fault of then-President Herbert Hoover? Many irrationally blamed him, just as they now blame Bush today. There was also a crash in 1987, which actually resulted in the loss of more money than the 1929 crash. However, there were policies set in place and the country recovered faster and more easily than before. The economy is hardly a direct result of who resides in the White House. What happens in the stock market is mostly due to investors and business endeavors as a whole.

Greetings DPX.......

It never ceases to amaze me how people can have such a different view of the world around them...

> I believe that there are honest politicians out there, and I believe that we have the power to elect more good politicians. But, if we are going to elect good representatives, I feel that we need to pay attention to the issues, and the politics which surround them, for longer than simply during the campaign season. This way, a person will have a better context into which they can fit the campaign speeches, the debates, the political ads,and the rhetoric. If politicians campaign in poetry and govern in prose...it is a wise idea to make reading about politics and issues your new hobby. It is really all up to us.

> As for your contention that "politicians actually have the psychological profile of sociopaths"...I'm not very familiar with the study of psychology, and I'm not going to touch that one...I'm glad to leave it for someone else. I certainly do agree with you about one thing..."that sounds extreme".

> I'm particularly interested in your assertion about Barack Obama when you say "many in the African American community see him as the panacea to all of their problems" and some of the "zealous" ones "view Obama as a way to assist them and hurt their white aggressors". Would you please provide references to any articles or studies you have read about these issues, or provide references to the polls that you have seen. Or, maybe you have African American family, friends, or acquaintances that reached this conclusion. My African American friends and acquaintances have never expressed these sentiments. Instead, they respect and appreciate a brother who is educated, articulate, and successful. Have you ever noticed that the Democrats consistently receive an overwhelming majority of the African American vote regardless of the color of the candidate's skin? There are good reasons for this and I would encourage you to explore them. Did it ever occur to you that there may be a variety of reasons that "Uncle Tom" Obama is a better choice for African Americans than the alternative? Also, please cite your sources for your assertion that "Obama is considered the African American salvation". Exactly who said "'Obama's black so he'll help us all'". Could it be that you are generalizing?

> I have a good friend who was born and raised in "red" Kansas. He and his fiancee still live there. They are a free thinkers and progressive in their politics. They both voted for Obama. It does not stretch my imagination to imagine that there may be another liberal citizen in Kansas, or from Kansas...such as Obama's mother...or the thousands of Kansas voters who cast their ballots for Obama. Barack Obama never lived in Kansas, and he was raised by his grandmother as well as his mother. And yes, Obama's mother is white and his father is black. To give you some insight about that aspect of Barack Obama, please ask the African Americans in your life about the "one drop" rule. Maybe it is you who are not looking at the history and information around him. If you look closely at McCain's record, as well as his past and current associations, it makes Obama look good in comparison.

> Please don't feel sorry for the rich in our country. They have gotten richer and richer. The gap between rich and poor in this country has not been this great since the guilded age of the late 1800's when capitalism was king and the robber barons ruled (which happened to be an era without government regulation of business). Fast forward to today. The rich have outsourced millions of jobs. They have dodged countless billions in taxes by using illegal off-shore corporate shell schemes. They go to the government for handouts when they gamble away your money on risky investments. This country was mostly built by the sweat of slave labor, cheap labor, and child labor. The rich would have nothing if there was no one to produce it for them. Do you know anyone who can make a living on minimum wage? Raise a family? Buy a home? Do you actually know anyone who lost their job because the minimum wage went up from $5.15 / hour? President Clinton taxed the wealthy at the same rate that President-elect Obama proposes to tax them. The economy grew and added millions of jobs. The federal budget had a surplus instead of these record deficits...and the rich still got richer.

> I also support our welfare program, our food stamp program, and our employment security program. It is the humanitarian and the Christian thing to do. Are there abuses to these programs? Sure. Are the abuses a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water? If you don't like spending a relatively small amount of tax dollars to lend a helping hand to people in need, you must be appalled at the enormous number of tax dollars this country is spending on the war in Iraq...which was sold to you using distortions and lies. Yet, I see that you did not even mention this massive waste of money.

> Finally, it is a mystery to me how someone who purportedly knows so much about the economic history of the United States can have absolutely no clue about the regulatory authority, oversight, and responsibility over business in this country which is exercised (or not) by the President, his relevant Cabinet members, and Congress. The Glass-Steagall Act, enacted during the Great Depression to place certain regulations on business, was gutted by a vote of Congress and the signature of a President. This was one of the major factors in our current economic meltdown. Other meltdowns can easily be traced to Congress and Presidents who deregulated business and industry. How about the Savings and Loan meltdown? Remember Enron? Today, it is the same story with Wall Street. The market (capitalism) needs rules for a reason.

> While there are many culprits responsible for our current economic meltdown, Presidents and Members of Congress have the ultimate responsibility and duty to regulate business and industry. To even begin to understand what caused the current crisis, I would suggest starting with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000...what is it...who sponsored it...how it was slipped into the omnibus spending bill...and what affect it had on Wall Street and beyond. You can go to motherjones.com and read the article by David Corn titled "Foreclosure Phil". Or go to portfolio.com and read the article by Michael Lewis titled "The End".

[DeadPoolX 9]

Wow. You sure do have some nerve. I particularly like the demand for references, as if this is some sort of term paper. I'm still laughing at the sheer level of your audacity.

I disagree with most of everything you said, especially since you did so in a degrading and insulting manner. If you wish to have a conversation then I'd suggest you do so without looking petty. At the very least, no one will wish to discuss issues with you. I know I don't and I love debating. However, I refuse to engage in conversation with someone so full of themselves that they not only make inflammatory statements (and demand that someone else back up their assertions with references when they have none of their own), but they believe -- without a shadow of a doubt -- that their view is the correct and only one.

You have a lot to learn about debate. I would strongly suggest you take a few classes on the subject. Perhaps you may learn how to discuss issues with another person in a rational manner, instead of acting smugly superior.

[Tahoma 2,291]

Wow. You sure do have some nerve. I particularly like the demand for references, as if this is some sort of term paper. I'm still laughing at the sheer level of your audacity.

I disagree with most of everything you said, especially since you did so in a degrading and insulting manner. If you wish to have a conversation then I'd suggest you do so without looking petty. At the very least, no one will wish to discuss issues with you. I know I don't and I love debating. However, I refuse to engage in conversation with someone so full of themselves that they not only make inflammatory statements (and demand that someone else back up their assertions with references when they have none of their own), but they believe -- without a shadow of a doubt -- that their view is the correct and only one.

You have a lot to learn about debate. I would strongly suggest you take a few classes on the subject. Perhaps you may learn how to discuss issues with another person in a rational manner, instead of acting smugly superior.

That's too bad you feel that you are too far in over your head to even attempt to defend your posting. I did not mean to scare you. My hope is that someday you will realize that there is nothing wrong with learning something new. But then again, I didn't really expect anything of substance from you.

[Carlawarla 1]

Again, this thread should be closed. It'll end up like the regular OT political threads!

[Sprailenes 47]

No no is about to get good.

[thetreble 19]

No no is about to get good.

I agree.

Can I ask you, Pangga, where do you live in the United States?

Edited November 18, 2008 by thetreble

[DeadPoolX 9]

Wow. You sure do have some nerve. I particularly like the demand for references, as if this is some sort of term paper. I'm still laughing at the sheer level of your audacity.

I disagree with most of everything you said, especially since you did so in a degrading and insulting manner. If you wish to have a conversation then I'd suggest you do so without looking petty. At the very least, no one will wish to discuss issues with you. I know I don't and I love debating. However, I refuse to engage in conversation with someone so full of themselves that they not only make inflammatory statements (and demand that someone else back up their assertions with references when they have none of their own), but they believe -- without a shadow of a doubt -- that their view is the correct and only one.

You have a lot to learn about debate. I would strongly suggest you take a few classes on the subject. Perhaps you may learn how to discuss issues with another person in a rational manner, instead of acting smugly superior.

That's too bad you feel that you are too far in over your head to even attempt to defend your posting. I did not mean to scare you. My hope is that someday you will realize that there is nothing wrong with learning something new. But then again, I didn't really expect anything of substance from you.

Ah, of course. Insult me further. Good call! I have to wonder why you'd think I would answer you (or your demands) by continuing to toss more inflammatory statements my way. Maybe you'll "scare me" into doing what you wish?

Tell you what: perhaps I'll be "willing" to learn something new when you learn to stop hurling insulting commentary. I'm not even sure what you're aiming to accomplish. Do you have some desperate hope that you'll make me look bad or pin me to the wall, so I "must" answer you? If so, your attempt is failing miserably. But by all means, go ahead and continue to look foolish. I'm enjoying this.

If you cease these childish antics, you'll see something of some so-called "substance" from me. In the mean time, I refuse to enter any sort of discussion with those who have the debate skills of a 10 year-old (i.e. "do what I say or you're an idiot!") and believe a debate is conducted by flaming the opposition. B)

Edited November 18, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[trailmix 77]

I didn't really want to have to ask for this thread to be closed, only because I feel people should be able to post where they like.

That said, this isn't OT-OT - this is the Canada forum and it would be nice if people could just voluntarily speak their mind without taking unnecessary personal jabs at other people.

I'm not saying we are all sweetness and light - we aren't.

In my opinion you should disagree if you like, express your opinion all you like, but there is no reason for this to turn in to a personal fight.

Edited November 18, 2008 by trailmix

[DeadPoolX 9]

I didn't really want to have to ask for this thread to be closed, only because I feel people should be able to post where they like.

That said, this isn't OT-OT - this is the Canada forum and it would be nice if people could just voluntarily speak their mind without taking unnecessary personal jabs at other people.

I'm not saying we are all sweetness and light - we aren't.

In my opinion you should disagree if you like, express your opinion all you like, but there is no reason for this to turn in to a personal fight.

I absolutely agree. We may not always get along or agree with everyone else in the Canada forum, but we usually have polite discourse with each other. I've rarely seen people attack others on a personal level here, which is something I can appreciate (as opposed to OT, which seems to be all about slamming the opposition into submission).

If this thread has to be closed -- and that probably wouldn't be a bad idea -- I understand completely. There is no need for a personal fight or any ridiculousness that may end up following it.

[Krikit 1,163]

Wow. You sure do have some nerve. I particularly like the demand for references, as if this is some sort of term paper. I'm still laughing at the sheer level of your audacity.

I disagree with most of everything you said, especially since you did so in a degrading and insulting manner. If you wish to have a conversation then I'd suggest you do so without looking petty. At the very least, no one will wish to discuss issues with you. I know I don't and I love debating. However, I refuse to engage in conversation with someone so full of themselves that they not only make inflammatory statements (and demand that someone else back up their assertions with references when they have none of their own), but they believe -- without a shadow of a doubt -- that their view is the correct and only one.

You have a lot to learn about debate. I would strongly suggest you take a few classes on the subject. Perhaps you may learn how to discuss issues with another person in a rational manner, instead of acting smugly superior.

That's too bad you feel that you are too far in over your head to even attempt to defend your posting. I did not mean to scare you. My hope is that someday you will realize that there is nothing wrong with learning something new. But then again, I didn't really expect anything of substance from you.

Ah, of course. Insult me further. Good call! I have to wonder why you'd think I would answer you (or your demands) by continuing to toss more inflammatory statements my way. Maybe you'll "scare me" into doing what you wish?

Tell you what: perhaps I'll be "willing" to learn something new when you learn to stop hurling insulting commentary. I'm not even sure what you're aiming to accomplish. Do you have some desperate hope that you'll make me look bad or pin me to the wall, so I "must" answer you? If so, your attempt is failing miserably. But by all means, go ahead and continue to look foolish. I'm enjoying this.

If you cease these childish antics, you'll see something of some so-called "substance" from me. In the mean time, I refuse to enter any sort of discussion with those who have the debate skills of a 10 year-old (i.e. "do what I say or you're an idiot!") and believe a debate is conducted by flaming the opposition. B)

No it's not. ( <---- referring to bolded bit) In fact, Pangga's post is nothing short of brilliant. Thank you, Pangga, for your enlightened and intelligent response.