Americans Weep in Joy at Obama's election

[Matus1976]

There were people who despise Obama as a man and as a Marxist, who nevertheless actually did cry in celebration that a black man (who happens to be, to our dismay, a Marxist) was able to be elected president.

I've never believed the tripe that the US was a nation full of intrinsic racists, the US is probably the LEAST racist nation on the planet, but I found myself hoping it was so that Obama would not be elected. Doing the right thing (not electing a socialist marxist wannabe tyrant) for the wrong reason (because he is half black) is better than doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. This may be a positive step forward in worldwide race relations, but it is a huge step backward in the well being of man kind. Those Kenyan's cheering Obama won't be so happy with they can no longer afford the food which keeps them alive because Obama's suicidal energy policies skyrocket global food prices.

[Selene]

Folks:

Here is what O'Biwan has planned for you in terms of serving the state:

http://change.gov/agenda/service/

Or maybe this should be in the Is it time to Shrug thread?

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

There were

people who despise Obama as a man and as a Marxist, who nevertheless actually did cry in celebration that a black man (who happens to be, to our dismay, a Marxist) was able to be elected president.

I've never believed the tripe that the US was a nation full of intrinsic racists, the US is probably the LEAST racist nation on the planet, but I found myself hoping it was so that Obama would not be elected. Doing the right thing (not electing a socialist marxist wannabe tyrant) for the wrong reason (because he is half black) is better than doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. This may be a positive step forward in worldwide race relations, but it is a huge step backward in the well being of man kind. Those Kenyan's cheering Obama won't be so happy with they can no longer afford the food which keeps them alive because Obama's suicidal energy policies skyrocket global food prices.

I just said this elsewhere, which is the converse of your statement, Mike:

Jay said: "4. Don't be fooled by a pretty face. Your running mate is going to have to complement and consolidate your ticket in a substantial and meaningful way. Where you have a weakness, they should have a strength, whether it be their constituency (except evangelists), or their technical savvy on an important concern."[Emphasis added.]

This parenthetic remark is facile and its implication fallacious. There is absolutely nothing wrong with courting the evangelist vote. A little-ell libertarian can do that quite easily, even if he is an atheist. The purpose of having people vote for you is to get elected, not to prove something about your social circle or your own morality. So long as you can remain true to your principles, (which you need to do as a person, not a candidate) you should court everyone's vote, no matter who they are. You do not court votes by lying or betraying your principles. You do not need to court the vote of people who happen to be racists by appealing to racism. And you may be wise to explicitly and vocally repudiate the votes of racists if that wins you more votes with others.

But you need not publish a list of people whose votes you don't want.

Not being voted for by evangelists or any other class of voter is no proof of personal morality. If it were, then the candidate who garners no votes would be assumed bodily into paradise.

[BaalChatzaf]

.

Is that picture what is suppose to happen when the Rapture occurs?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

Is that picture what is suppose to happen when the Rapture occurs?

It's being used here to illustrate the purity of the candidate who accepts no voter's sanction.

[Brant Gaede]

Is that picture what is suppose to happen when the Rapture occurs?

It's being used here to illustrate the purity of the candidate who accepts no voter's sanction.

But is it art?

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

Is that picture what is suppose to happen when the Rapture occurs?

It's being used here to illustrate the purity of the candidate who accepts no voter's sanction.

But is it art?

--Brant

As opposed to juornalism? Wrong forum.

[Brant Gaede]

Is that picture what is suppose to happen when the Rapture occurs?

It's being used here to illustrate the purity of the candidate who accepts no voter's sanction.

But is it art?

--Brant

As opposed to juornalism? Wrong forum.

I've nothing against "juornalism," but like a little humor.

--Brant

[Barbara Branden]

Michael: "I do not hold the negative view of the USA. I don't live in a hellhole here. I live pretty good, and I see that others do, too, despite FDR and all the evil Democrats."

It is true that we live well, it is true that we have a great deal of freedom. But what worries people -- it certainly worries me -- is the direction in which this country is heading and in which it has been moving since at least the New Deal. Laws, once enacted, are almost never rescinded; we still are suffering from laws enacted under Roosevelt, for instance. I don't believe Obama will turn America into a completely socialized state, but there is no question that with his presidency our move in the direction of statism has been given a major impetus.

Chris Grieb: "I have come to the sad conclusion that most Americans like some parts of the welfare state. They don't like the high taxes to support it. The don't like some of bureaucracy that goes with it. But they like the welfare state.A small example was just before the New Hampshire primary a viewer called into C-Span in horror to say that Ron Paul wanted to get rid of Social Security."

Chris, I agree with your premise, but not with your example. It's clearly true that many if not most people want to hold on to their entitlements -- although not necessarily to the entitlements of others. But wanting to hold on to some form of Social Security is a different issue. The viewer who complained has probably paid into SS for many years and has been assured that when he retires he will get back at least part of his money. Unlike welfare, SS has been sold as an investment, not a coerced "gift" from the American taxpayer.

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It is true that we live well, it is true that we have a great deal of freedom. But what worries people -- it certainly worries me -- is the direction in which this country is heading and in which it has been moving since at least the New Deal. Laws, once enacted, are almost never rescinded; we still are suffering from laws enacted under Roosevelt, for instance. I don't believe Obama will turn America into a completely socialized state, but there is no question that with his presidency our move in the direction of statism has been given a major impetus.

Barbara,

This is as I believe and have stated many times. It's like the old joke that nothing is more permanent than a temporary measure by the government.

If people expressed their objections in your manner, I would have no problem with it. I would gladly join it, even if it were presented in a high volume of passion. My problem is with method. You can't fight an untruth with a contrary untruth and go in the direction of reason.

Here are the normal exaggerations:

Liberal: Conservatives are heartless and don't care about the poor.

Conservative: Liberals want to enslave us all and wreck the country.

(This applies to all similar categories.)

Now if liberal extremists are only talking to conservative extremists, I would have no problem with that. Let them lie to each other to their heart's content and fight and bicker until they both melt down with spite.

But what about the reasonable person who does not want to join one side or the other? The one who is more interested in living his life than getting involved with political activism? The one who is trying to take care of his family and put food on the table and move up in his career?

Isn't the real issue to persuade that person?

He is not going to listen just to what each side says. He is going to look at what happens and compare this against the words he hears and reads. When he sees that what is said doesn't correspond to what he sees, the person who said it will be discredited in his eyes.

If FRD's welfare machine is ever going to be dismantled, and I believe it should be, it will only happen by persuading a majority of people with the truth—the objective truth without leaving anything out, good or bad. It will not be by telling people that the USA is an evil slave nation or the like, nor that the USA will be that shortly if the liberals have their way.

That method of persuasion does not persuade precisely the person it needs to persuade in order to make a lasting change.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael, liberals aren't concerned with the truth, just the truth as they pretend to see it.

--Brant