On Obama's Audacity

[Maggie]

An interesting read -- at least I thought so....

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1579/article_detail.asp

[SB Shock]

there was a story the other day about the guy who masterminded his campaign. He actually tried out his "marketing plan" on another politician (at the state level) and then tweaked it.

That seems to be the root problem with our politicians - it is now more about Marketing and less about ideas.

[SHOCKvalue]

That seems to be the root problem with our politicians - it is now more about Marketing and less about ideas.

Spot-on!

Both sides are guilty as such, but I'd venture to say that BO's campaign is over the top with the amount of design and marketing going into their cause. If I see another Che Guevara-esque, color block, BO portrait emblazoned on another t-shirt or poster, I think I'm going to get physically ill. Just like CG was the people's savior in Cuba and parts of South America, so will BO be our savior in the US. It's a scary, but honest, correlation held by some on the far left.

[RoyalShock]

Re: On Obama's Audacity

An interesting read -- at least I thought so....

http://www.claremont.org/publication...cle_detail.asp

Obama sees the American story as a blend of two themes, individualism (symbolized in the Declaration) and unity (symbolized in the Constitution's commitment to "a more perfect Union"). The latter phrase, plucked from the Preamble, has long been a favorite of liberals, and was used in the same way by, for example, Bill Clinton. Unity means being your brother's, and sister's, keeper; it means coming together "as one American family." Obama explains: "if fate causes us to stumble or fall, our larger American family will be there to lift us up." He doesn't explain who get to be the parents in our new national family. Membership in this community confers or protects our "dignity," in the sense of guaranteeing "a basic standard of living" and effectively sharing "life's risks and rewards for the benefit of each and the good of all." Conservatives prefer to leave us "to face fate by ourselves," he notes, because they believe in "the Social Darwinist idea," which "requires no sacrifice on the part of those...who have won life's lottery...."

And here we discover why all freedom and liberty loving people should be wary, even afraid, of an Obama presidency. He takes one little phrase from the preamble and twists it to spite the rest of the Constitution that expressly limits federal power.

For the next 4-8 years we are going to have socialistic ideals paraded in front of our faces until we accept them enough to have policies and legislation shoved down our throats.

WuDrWu weeps for our youth. I weep for us all.

[Maggie]

I think people need to question why people like Obama subscribe to a certain type of social philosophy. Is it truly altruistic in that they are worried about their fellow man? Personally, I don’t believe, when distilled to its essence, their motivations are quite so pure.

Much of this is about control, dependency and power. In order to secure power they strive to control the population, and indeed it seems private companies now, by making them dependant upon the Government. That is what, ultimately, “sharing the wealth” means.

This country has succeeded by emphasizing the rights of the individual. The creation of wealth should always be encouraged not punished. Most people in this country seem to understand this – they don’t hate someone because they have wealth, they just want to the same opportunity to succeed or fail. Obama likes to talk about the promise of America – and he sounds pretty good doing it; however, Obama seems to believe that when one person achieves success it is because another person ultimately fails. Sort of like a pizza – if someone gets or earns a bigger slice another person’s is automatically smaller.

The answer is not making everyone’s slice equal – it is creating the environment in which a larger pizza can be made.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

That seems to be the root problem with our politicians - it is now more about Marketing and less about ideas.

Spot-on!

Both sides are guilty as such, but I'd venture to say that BO's campaign is over the top with the amount of design and marketing going into their cause. If I see another Che Guevara-esque, color block, BO portrait emblazoned on another t-shirt or poster, I think I'm going to get physically ill. Just like CG was the people's savior in Cuba and parts of South America, so will BO be our savior in the US. It's a scary, but honest, correlation held by some on the far left.

Those Che-esque montages you speak of were'nt created by Obamas camp. Supporters undoubtedly but I dont think somebody close to Obama did it

[ABC]

Though too simplistic, one way to describe the differences between the two major philosophies is this: individual vs. collectivists.

"Spread the wealth around"

I was part of a neighborhood dinner the other night and there was an older, loud couple that supports Obama.

We were discussing social security. I asked what was wrong if I had the option to take 2% of the 12% withheld from my paycheck to invest as I please. He said that would be fine for me but that most people aren't smart enough to make these decisions for themselves, even if optional There is the difference in a nutshell.

I trust people, those on the left mosty do not.

[Maggie]

Interesting WSJ editorial….notably, it begins with a recent quote from Rep. Barney Frank of Mass.:

"I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat . . . I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money."
-- Barney Frank, October 20, 2008

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122471696933660407.html

Our national debt should take a “second seat”? Does this sound like solid fiscal policy to anyone? If you believe that your taxes will not rise under an Obama Administration with a Democratic controlled Congress – please tell me what brought you to this conclusion.

[Maggie]

Though too simplistic, one way to describe the differences between the two major philosophies is this: individual vs. collectivists.

"Spread the wealth around"

I was part of a neighborhood dinner the other night and there was an older, loud couple that supports Obama.

We were discussing social security. I asked what was wrong if I had the option to take 2% of the 12% withheld from my paycheck to invest as I please. He said that would be fine for me but that most people aren't smart enough to make these decisions for themselves, even if optional There is the difference in a nutshell.

I trust people, those on the left mosty do not.

ABC – come on now – life is so much better when someone else or something else is there to take care of the “average Joe”.

Your example is too simplistic but it does illustrate what some people, especially those who have spent eons in Washington, think about the masses.

[Maggie]

Obama on “sharing the wealth”:

"The simple point I was making was that even assuming he's at a point that he wants to buy a business that he hopes will generate more than $250,000, the point I was making was that ten years ago or five years ago or even a year ago when he was making a lot less than that, he was having a tough time. ... We don't mind people getting enormously wealthy because of their skills and their talents and their drive. But we always want to make sure that the playing field is such where everybody who's got a good idea has a chance to succeed. Everybody's got a chance to get financing. Everybody who works hard is able to raise their family. Everybody has an opportunity if they act responsibly to send their kids to college and retire with dignity and respect. And in that sense, that does involve us spreading around opportunity."

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/22/obama-explains-spread-the-wealth-comment/

Well – that clears everything up for me. Boy was I being silly.

Perhaps, Obama and this team need a few more days to sort out an answer to this question. So, I’ll wait until he figures out what he thinks everyone wants to hear.

[SFL]

It’s all over folks… start countin’ them chickens and call the fat lady.
We're gettin' ready to PARTY.

:good: :good:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/23/obama-camp-plans-major-celebration-election-night/

[Maggie]

It’s all over folks… start countin’ them chickens and call the fat lady.
We're gettin' ready to PARTY.

:good: :good:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10...lection-night/

I’m glad you are happy, it sounds like quite a bash.

What I have not read – is why this is a good idea -- why should I "PARTY"?

[RoyalShock]

Obama on “sharing the wealth”:

"The simple point I was making was that even assuming he's at a point that he wants to buy a business that he hopes will generate more than $250,000, the point I was making was that ten years ago or five years ago or even a year ago when he was making a lot less than that, he was having a tough time. ... We don't mind people getting enormously wealthy because of their skills and their talents and their drive. But we always want to make sure that the playing field is such where everybody who's got a good idea has a chance to succeed. Everybody's got a chance to get financing. Everybody who works hard is able to raise their family. Everybody has an opportunity if they act responsibly to send their kids to college and retire with dignity and respect. And in that sense, that does involve us spreading around opportunity."

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/22/obama-explains-spread-the-wealth-comment/

Well – that clears everything up for me. Boy was I being silly.

Perhaps, Obama and this team need a few more days to sort out an answer to this question. So, I’ll wait until he figures out what he thinks everyone wants to hear.

So, how does the government "make sure" (read, guarantee) that everyone who works hard at a minimum wage job can put their kids through college? Why, we give them the money we took from the rich!

What he's doing is saying, "No, I don't mean A=B. What I'm trying to say is that B=A. Now remove your head from the fence and go back to grazing on that fine grass I grew for you while I go plan my election party."

[Maggie]

For ABC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BtJG0BonMQ