my Top 10 reasons to not vote Obama (LONG)

Schmoe wrote:

Ddawg wrote:
I don't want to debate. I want to be a student of truth. I did not say Obama is a racist.



Read my statement - I said Obama is a "race baiter." Have you watched Obama's 2007 speech @ Hampton Univ.? It is a dishonest, race baiting speech.



Race baiting: Inflammatory speech that incites one race of people against another, to communicate and use racially charged language to anger.



Watch his speech. There is no way Obama should be president of the United States.



Here is a link to an evaluation of that speech by an African American - Thomas Sowell. Read his assessment of Obama's speech.



http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/10/09/phony_in_chief" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



2007 Obama speech at Hampton Univ., 36 min, un-edited.



http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2012/10/02/daily-caller-uncovers-stunn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ing-new-obama-tape

Merriam Webster defines race baiting as the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group. A common definition of a racist is a person who hates or dislikes those who belong to a different race. The way I see it calling someone a race baiter is calling someone a racist. I have not observed in his four years as President that Mr. Obama is a racist. Further, as I said, I give about as much weight to his 2007 speech as I do Mr. Romney's 2012 47 percent talk to some high rolling donors.

Inciting a particular race of people to anger and action against another race for your own personal/political gain does not mean that you dislike one of the races or that you're racist, it just makes you egotistical and a terrible person. We've seen Obama get involved in very local stories because of race (Trevon Martin, Cambridge Police), there's no denying that.



Also, our language is a living language and is therefore always evolving. Can you tell what Merriam Webster defines "noms" as?

Noms: National Organization of Marijuana Smokers? Am I close? :whistle:

BoiseBYU wrote:

I don't want to debate. I want to be a student of truth. I did not say Obama is a racist.



Read my statement - I said Obama is a "race baiter." Have you watched Obama's 2007 speech @ Hampton Univ.? It is a dishonest, race baiting speech.



Race baiting: Inflammatory speech that incites one race of people against another, to communicate and use racially charged language to anger.



Watch his speech. There is no way Obama should be president of the United States.



Here is a link to an evaluation of that speech by an African American - Thomas Sowell. Read his assessment of Obama's speech.



http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/10/09/phony_in_chief" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



2007 Obama speech at Hampton Univ., 36 min, un-edited.



http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2012/10/02/daily-caller-uncovers-stunn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ing-new-obama-tape

Merriam Webster defines race baiting as the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group. A common definition of a racist is a person who hates or dislikes those who belong to a different race. The way I see it calling someone a race baiter is calling someone a racist. I have not observed in his four years as President that Mr. Obama is a racist. Further, as I said, I give about as much weight to his 2007 speech as I do Mr. Romney's 2012 47 percent talk to some high rolling donors.

Yes, Race Baiting is using racially charged language to incite a group of folks up against another racial group - to incite anger racially.



However, you are mistaken that a race baiter is a racist. Yes, "racists" can and do use race baiting. But, just because a person is using "race baiting" language, it does not automatically mean they are a racist.



For instance - folks that have used race baiting in the past are Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Louis Farrakhan. Are they racists? I don't know. But they have used race bating for political purposes.



Has Obama used race baiting in the past? You bet. His speech at Hampton University is blatant, dishonest race baiting. If you remember what Obama did for a living before running for political office - he was a community organizer in Chicago. Where do you think he learned his race baiting? :bug:



The issue here though is NOT whether Obama is a racist. I never accused him of that. I do not believe that. The is "is" - Obama used race baiting for political gain - by telling a LIE. That is the issue.



Obama's conduct was wrong - and he needs to be called out for it. The combo of race baiting and using a lie to incite racial animosity, and for personal political gain is off the charts reprehensible.

Ddawg wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

I don't want to debate. I want to be a student of truth. I did not say Obama is a racist.



Read my statement - I said Obama is a "race baiter." Have you watched Obama's 2007 speech @ Hampton Univ.? It is a dishonest, race baiting speech.



Race baiting: Inflammatory speech that incites one race of people against another, to communicate and use racially charged language to anger.



Watch his speech. There is no way Obama should be president of the United States.



Here is a link to an evaluation of that speech by an African American - Thomas Sowell. Read his assessment of Obama's speech.



http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/10/09/phony_in_chief" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



2007 Obama speech at Hampton Univ., 36 min, un-edited.



http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2012/10/02/daily-caller-uncovers-stunn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ing-new-obama-tape

Merriam Webster defines race baiting as the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group. A common definition of a racist is a person who hates or dislikes those who belong to a different race. The way I see it calling someone a race baiter is calling someone a racist. I have not observed in his four years as President that Mr. Obama is a racist. Further, as I said, I give about as much weight to his 2007 speech as I do Mr. Romney's 2012 47 percent talk to some high rolling donors.

Inciting a particular race of people to anger and action against another race for your own personal/political gain does not mean that you dislike one of the races or that you're racist, it just makes you egotistical and a terrible person. We've seen Obama get involved in very local stories because of race (Trevon Martin, Cambridge Police), there's no denying that.



Also, our language is a living language and is therefore always evolving. Can you tell what Merriam Webster defines "noms" as?

Noms: National Organization of Marijuana Smokers? Am I close? :whistle:

No Obama (for) Mr. Schmoe? ;)

Ddawg wrote:

Ddawg wrote:
I don't want to debate. I want to be a student of truth. I did not say Obama is a racist.



Read my statement - I said Obama is a "race baiter." Have you watched Obama's 2007 speech @ Hampton Univ.? It is a dishonest, race baiting speech.



Race baiting: Inflammatory speech that incites one race of people against another, to communicate and use racially charged language to anger.



Watch his speech. There is no way Obama should be president of the United States.



Here is a link to an evaluation of that speech by an African American - Thomas Sowell. Read his assessment of Obama's speech.



http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/10/09/phony_in_chief" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



2007 Obama speech at Hampton Univ., 36 min, un-edited.



http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2012/10/02/daily-caller-uncovers-stunn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ing-new-obama-tape

Merriam Webster defines race baiting as the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group. A common definition of a racist is a person who hates or dislikes those who belong to a different race. The way I see it calling someone a race baiter is calling someone a racist. I have not observed in his four years as President that Mr. Obama is a racist. Further, as I said, I give about as much weight to his 2007 speech as I do Mr. Romney's 2012 47 percent talk to some high rolling donors.

Yes, Race Baiting is using racially charged language to incite a group of folks up against another racial group - to incite anger racially.



However, you are mistaken that a race baiter is a racist. Yes, "racists" can and do use race baiting. But, just because a person is using "race baiting" language, it does not automatically mean they are a racist.



For instance - folks that have used race baiting in the past are Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Louis Farrakhan. Are they racists? I don't know. But they have used race bating for political purposes.



Has Obama used race baiting in the past? You bet. His speech at Hampton University is blatant, dishonest race baiting. If you remember what Obama did for a living before running for political office - he was a community organizer in Chicago. Where do you think he learned his race baiting? :bug:



The issue here though is NOT whether Obama is a racist. I never accused him of that. I do not believe that. The is "is" - Obama used race baiting for political gain - by telling a LIE. That is the issue.



Obama's conduct was wrong - and he needs to be called out for it. The combo of race baiting and using a lie to incite racial animosity, and for personal political gain is off the charts reprehensible.

I see where you are coming from and do not defend the speech. I just put it in the same category as Romney's 47 percent pandering pitch to the donors. That was wrong too. I think both men are better than those two episodes. You no doubt disagree and think Obama by far the worst, but a speech five years ago without subsequent evidence of racist behavior means I will give zero crede to it the same that I see a man who serves and donates to less advantaged persons and thus is not a class divider. Romney is a good man at heart. So cheers and let us stomp Beavers!

BoiseBYU wrote:

a speech five years ago without subsequent evidence of racist behavior means I will give zero crede to it

You keep mis-stating, or mis-understanding the point. Let me say this very clearly: I have not said, nor, am I saying, Barack Obama is a RACIST. I have said, and do say, Obama is a "Race Baiter." And yes, he has done it since 2007.



It is you who are saying if you are a "race baiter" you are a "racist." Being a "race baiter" does not mean, automatically, that you are a racist. You could be. But it is not a guaranteed, cast in concrete, done deal. Race baiting is a tactic.



What is a "race baiter" doing? They are appealing to the baser, emotional, easy trigger points within people - (and here's the point) - for Personal Political Gain.



What Obama did in that speech was very calculated. It was a prepared speech. Not an off the cuff remark. He appealed to the baser, lower, racial animosity of the crowd - by telling a lie. It was not a mistake. Obama knew he was lying and appealing to the racial animosity.



But, and here is what is so troubling. Obama lied and race baited in a calculated way to help himself politically. It is a repugnant and low tactic. That's the point.



And the topic of Obama lying? He continues that practice. We haven't even touched Benghazi, Libya where four Americans died, and Obama lied.

I think Romney said "47%" when he meant to say 47 Million americans, which IS a number he repeated a few times in the Presidential debate.



And I think he correctly identified a group of people that would not and should not be a focus for his campaign. They've already made their decision, and in essence, are being paid to make it by my taxdollars. It's the same rationale that arguing politics on facebook does no good. No one listens, they've already made up their minds and all your well-thought of arguments will amost always end in ad-hominen attacks. Both parties focus on the small sliver of people in this country who have not made up their minds. And yes, Romney mispoke, but he accurately identified the same strategy that all campaigners use when they focus on those that are on the fence. not those that have already made up their minds.



as for not caring about the poor. That's not what he said at all. Romney was a Bishop, and a stake president. He ran Boston's LDS welfare program for years. He's no stranger to the face of poverty or compassion.

tww wrote:

2. Blame Culture- GOP and Tea party Stonewalling definitely played a significant role to today’s Washington culture. We can vote them out too.

This makes no sense to me. It seems to me that "stonewalling" is exactly the responsibility of both the Tea Party and GOP when there is no other way to stop fascists/socialists.



What are they supposed to do, capitulate?

you are right, GOP freshman did exactly what they said they would do in Washington. And as a result, we've had the most divided, locked, do-nothing Congress with a disastrously low approval rating at a time when we need plans, compromise and action. I think the question is, with today's problems and the ever-advancing tsunami of debt and budget problems, would you prefer that Congress do nothing at all to a compromised solution that involves some of the principles the tea party was voted in to stop?



Yes, it's true that there may well be fascists/ socialists/ socialites or whatever in Congress, The real problem is that they were voted there by americans. That means they get to have an opinion and a vote and a say in the direction of this democracy even if you and I don't like it. And yes, I realize that hitler was democratically voted into power. But INACTION I fear might be worse here and that's what we've had. a lack of WH leadership, and a complete deadlock in congress.



And there were some decent compromises on the table the last four years that were turned down because of inability to compromise. The GOP is not blameless here. That's my only point. If you can't compromise in a democracy, (or republic) then you have stalemate. and no one wins in a stalemate.

I think I need to clarify a few things.



1. Tea Party - a grass roots group (in other words spontaneously created with no one group or person being the organizer). It's central purpose is to lobby for less taxes and government spending. All the other "issues" are incidental to the fact that those associated with the tea party are generally social conservatives in addition to being fiscal conservatives. It is not racist to any degree, it represents probably 70% of Americans, and is made up of people from all walks of life including differing race, political party and so on. I am proud of the work they do in getting the "silent majority" to stop being silent.



2. Race baiting. It is present in both verbal attacks and in verbiage that is intended to incite the feeling of racism. This is just a small part of his overall strategy which is to be the most divisive President in history. Divide and conquer. That is evident in the adds and the speeches he continues to deliver. Old people, war on women, blacks being ignored, Latinos, poor vs rich, every race vs whites, gay marriage, government vs religious institutions, and so on.



3. 47% This is not comparable to the Obama speech from 2007. First, it was done in answer to a donor's question about target audiences. Romney explained in not the most political manner but was accurate and concise in explaining why he did not target those he deemed as "deep blue" that were not sway-able. He explained who and why they targeted the way they did with adds and campaign money and it was completely innocent. Also, two minutes of his answer including the question have been left out. Hmmm. I wonder why? Actually, I know why. It would put the lie to the dems 47% argument. There is more to this but I think that should answer why this is in no way comparable to the 2007 Katrina speech (see below).



4. Obama's speech to the mostly black audience in N.O. was divisive and misleading to say the least. His claim that N.O. was not getting the money it was entitled to was because they were black. First, Katrina victims got five times what the people of NY got. Second, the Stafford Act was waived for Katrina and Barack voted against the waiver. He lied about the government not waiving the Stafford Act, acted incensed because of it when he himself voted against the waiver, and then claimed the bullet (of racism) hasn't been removed. He also admitted that he was close with Wright in that speech, something he denied before his election.



If you want a reason to vote for Romney how about this: character. Romney has very strong and good character while Obama is just a character who tries to portray whatever the person is you want to believe he is. Look at it this way, If a gunman took aim at the candidates, Obama would jump behind his secret service agent, Romney would jump in front of the agent. That is the difference between the two men.

CougarClaw wrote:

CougarClaw wrote:


2. Blame Culture- GOP and Tea party Stonewalling definitely played a significant role to today’s Washington culture. We can vote them out too.

This makes no sense to me. It seems to me that "stonewalling" is exactly the responsibility of both the Tea Party and GOP when there is no other way to stop fascists/socialists.



What are they supposed to do, capitulate?

you are right, GOP freshman did exactly what they said they would do in Washington. And as a result, we've had the most divided, locked, do-nothing Congress with a disastrously low approval rating at a time when we need plans, compromise and action. I think the question is, with today's problems and the ever-advancing tsunami of debt and budget problems, would you prefer that Congress do nothing at all to a compromised solution that involves some of the principles the tea party was voted in to stop?



Yes, it's true that there may well be fascists/ socialists/ socialites or whatever in Congress, The real problem is that they were voted there by americans. That means they get to have an opinion and a vote and a say in the direction of this democracy even if you and I don't like it. And yes, I realize that hitler was democratically voted into power. But INACTION I fear might be worse here and that's what we've had. a lack of WH leadership, and a complete deadlock in congress.



And there were some decent compromises on the table the last four years that were turned down because of inability to compromise. The GOP is not blameless here. That's my only point. If you can't compromise in a democracy, (or republic) then you have stalemate. and no one wins in a stalemate.

What you are missing is that the Republicans are being portrayed as stonewalling but that is not true. they have presented numerous deals etc but the Dems will not bend. The Senate will not even take up a republican bill when it is passed by the House even with the support of the dems in the House. This whole mess falls on the dems in congress and the white house. They will not yield, they had all the power for two years and instead of addressing the real issues they rammed Obamacare and other such legislation through. They could have passed anything so why no jobs bills? Why no budget? Why are we still having all the issues? Because the agenda came first and the country second (if that).

imuakahuku wrote:

What you are missing is that the Republicans are being portrayed as stonewalling but that is not true. they have presented numerous deals etc but the Dems will not bend. The Senate will not even take up a republican bill when it is passed by the House even with the support of the dems in the House. This whole mess falls on the dems in congress and the white house. They will not yield, they had all the power for two years and instead of addressing the real issues they rammed Obamacare and other such legislation through. They could have passed anything so why no jobs bills? Why no budget? Why are we still having all the issues? Because the agenda came first and the country second (if that).

The GOP refused to accept a single tax increase. That was the primary stonewall. They refused to compromise because that's what we sent them there to do. And it worked, to the detriment of all progress. Oh, and of the 4 years of house control and 4 years of Senate control, the democrats have controlled 6 of those 8 years. And yet the democrats have posterized the GOP for their inability to compromise and are to blame (obama's favorite word!) for inaction the last four years. But you look at that 6/8 figure and it's really hard to accept.



I don't disagree with you. The senate in particular has acted atrociously by preventing all riders and any minority input into legislation. As a backlash, GOP has has to run more filibusters than virtually any congress in history. It's their only way to provide input. I do think the democrats have the lion share of the blame. But the GOP is not without blame either.

CougarClaw wrote:

What you are missing is that the Republicans are being portrayed as stonewalling but that is not true. they have presented numerous deals etc but the Dems will not bend. The Senate will not even take up a republican bill when it is passed by the House even with the support of the dems in the House. This whole mess falls on the dems in congress and the white house. They will not yield, they had all the power for two years and instead of addressing the real issues they rammed Obamacare and other such legislation through. They could have passed anything so why no jobs bills? Why no budget? Why are we still having all the issues? Because the agenda came first and the country second (if that).

The GOP refused to accept a single tax increase. That was the primary stonewall. They refused to compromise because that's what we sent them there to do. And it worked, to the detriment of all progress. Oh, and of the 4 years of house control and 4 years of Senate control, the democrats have controlled 6 of those 8 years. And yet the democrats have posterized the GOP for their inability to compromise and are to blame (obama's favorite word!) for inaction the last four years. But you look at that 6/8 figure and it's really hard to accept.



I don't disagree with you. The senate in particular has acted atrociously by preventing all riders and any minority input into legislation. As a backlash, GOP has has to run more filibusters than virtually any congress in history. It's their only way to provide input. I do think the democrats have the lion share of the blame. But the GOP is not without blame either.

It is true the "new" republicans did stonewall on tax hikes but that is what they were tasked to do when they were elected. But they presented and passed numerous bills that would have made nice inroads into helping the economy but Reid won't even take those bills up and then the dems claim that they are being blocked. Specter once said "compromise is the art of government". Well it may have been a hundred years ago but not today. Ever since Woodrow and the progressive (liberal) movement Compromise became a move to the left and almost never to the right (see my next post for explanation). Bush I found out the hard way when he raised taxes because the Dems promised him cuts in other places. Of course the cuts never came and then the "no new taxes" statement came back to cost him the election. Funny thing was it was the dems that played the statement over and over to discredit Bush.

I wanted to give a better explanation of right and left and why I always claim to be a true centrists.



Take a rubber band and put a tack right through the middle. You have the same amount of rubber on each side of the tack. Now stretch the rubber band out 6 inches to the right and 12 inches to the left. Has the middle moved? In reality no but by visual perception yes. This is the fallacy of the misplaced middle.



The tack represents the US Constitution. It doesn't move. Left and right represent movement from the ideals of the Constitution. We all move both right and left. When you go right you look to err on the side of caution and vote for less government to address the issue. When you move left you push for more government to address the issue. The further you go left you go through socialism, communism, fascism, monarchy, totalitarianism and so on until you get to only one person being all powerful. The further you go right you lose government until you reach no government. So an example of us going left would be to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater or falsely call out bomb on an airplane or at an airport. Infant car seats are another. There is nothing in the constitution about these but we "allow" the federal government to pass a law for each because it seems logical to us. But if they were to force us to not allow children under 2yrs to watch any TV most of us would scratch our heads and say that's crazy (btw our current administration is floating that idea and may begin to push this through Obamacare - remember the statement "the Secretary shall" or "developed by the Secretary" here is one of her first moves - outlaw TV to kids under 2yrs of age but I digress). So you can see we all move left and right but since the progressives came to power with Woodrow Wilson, there has been a steady push to just move left. In reality we should see an issue, evaluate if the Constitution covers it and if not then debate and decide which side we should err on.



So as the left moves further left they claim the middle has moved when in fact it has not ("the Constitution is an outdated document" "a living document" etc sound familiar?). They claim conservatives won't meet them in the middle but they mean their middle which is actually left and moving further left every day.



This is what is going on today and what the true difference is between leaning left and right. This is why I also don't believe we have any "true" liberals on this board and claim that about 70% of America is not liberal. We have some that will lean left more often than right but I believe they all still hold that the Constitution is the center.



I'll break down what a "true" liberal is if anyone is unclear on what that means.

Imuakahuku:

I just made the mistake of watching some of the liberal pundits spin the debate results so I am feeling a little testy right now. I hope that what I type communicates what I intend it to. If you detect anything other than friendly discussion please give me the benefit of the doubt.



I have never disagreed with anything you have said, political or sports related. I believe you to be a solid American patriot and I would jump in a foxhole with you anytime.



Though I agree with everything in your last post, I think that your definition of "centrist" may be unique to you.



As I work up to explaining why, I feel the need to lay this groundwork. I totally despise (maybe I should just say, reject) the left-wing/right-wing categorization as a meaningful premise on which to contrast political views. It is way too ambiguous. Further, it is not even of American political origin. It is something that came out of the French revolution not the American founders.



Much of academia believes that the far left-wing is something like a hippy and the far right-wing is something like a nazi. (Which is absurd just about anyway you look at it.) Thus they equate conservatives with Nazi dictators and liberals with freedom loving individuals.



As you said, the only accurate measure of political views is the degree of government one thinks best. Thomas Jefferson made a very similar argument to yours by saying that the kings of Europe represented the extreme manifestation of totalitarian government while the American Indian tribes represented the least form of government. He added that he believed America was closer to the Indians in political ideology than Europe. Thus he would also probably have called himself something of a centrist for the same reasons you have. However, academia and the media have done such a thorough job of erasing this level of critical thinking and understanding of noble ideology from the common American mind that the paradigm no longer exists for most Americans.



So as I see it, even accepting the premise of a left/right contrast is a fools errand because it is so corrupted, there is no way to control the meaning. It is a term for the tongue of Babel and should be scrapped. Plus, I hate anything that is an attempt to tie the bloody French Revolution with American independence.



I apologize that this sounds a bit lecturing. I am blowing off a little steam. Please forgive me and feel free to point out anything I may have overlooked.

tww wrote:
Imuakahuku:

I just made the mistake of watching some of the liberal pundits spin the debate results so I am feeling a little testy right now. I hope that what I type communicates what I intend it to. If you detect anything other than friendly discussion please give me the benefit of the doubt.



I have never disagreed with anything you have said, political or sports related. I believe you to be a solid American patriot and I would jump in a foxhole with you anytime.



Though I agree with everything in your last post, I think that your definition of "centrist" may be unique to you.



As I work up to explaining why, I feel the need to lay this groundwork. I totally despise (maybe I should just say, reject) the left-wing/right-wing categorization as a meaningful premise on which to contrast political views. It is way too ambiguous. Further, it is not even of American political origin. It is something that came out of the French revolution not the American founders.



Much of academia believes that the far left-wing is something like a hippy and the far right-wing is something like a nazi. (Which is absurd just about anyway you look at it.) Thus they equate conservatives with Nazi dictators and liberals with freedom loving individuals.



As you said, the only accurate measure of political views is the degree of government one thinks best. Thomas Jefferson made a very similar argument to yours by saying that the kings of Europe represented the extreme manifestation of totalitarian government while the American Indian tribes represented the least form of government. He added that he believed America was closer to the Indians in political ideology than Europe. Thus he would also probably have called himself something of a centrist for the same reasons you have. However, academia and the media have done such a thorough job of erasing this level of critical thinking and understanding of noble ideology from the common American mind that the paradigm no longer exists for most Americans.



So as I see it, even accepting the premise of a left/right contrast is a fools errand because it is so corrupted, there is no way to control the meaning. It is a term for the tongue of Babel and should be scrapped. Plus, I hate anything that is an attempt to tie the bloody French Revolution with American independence.



I apologize that this sounds a bit lecturing. I am blowing off a little steam. Please forgive me and feel free to point out anything I may have overlooked.

"It is a term for the tongue of Babel and should be scrapped" is the best sentence I've read in a long time. I tend to agree with you. I have no clue where I'd be classified. On some things I seem "leftist" and on others not so.

If I may add a word or two on tonight's debate...



The only way that anyone can honestly think that Obama won tonight's debate on substance is for them to have forgotten or never understood three things— the workings of a free-market economy in relation to taxes, the Reagan presidency, and the insistence of Obama that the killing of four Americans was the result of a video.



The democrats and the media can insist that Romney's tax plan doesn't add up all they want but they are still wrong and that doesn't take away from the fact that their tax plan never has and never will add up by more than a trillion dollars a year not counting individual losses.



They can also pretend that Obama didn't blame a video even though everyone knows that he most certainly did. And the economy is still trashed and Americans are still dead. Both were preventable.

BoiseBYU wrote:

Imuakahuku:

I just made the mistake of watching some of the liberal pundits spin the debate results so I am feeling a little testy right now. I hope that what I type communicates what I intend it to. If you detect anything other than friendly discussion please give me the benefit of the doubt.



I have never disagreed with anything you have said, political or sports related. I believe you to be a solid American patriot and I would jump in a foxhole with you anytime.



Though I agree with everything in your last post, I think that your definition of "centrist" may be unique to you.



As I work up to explaining why, I feel the need to lay this groundwork. I totally despise (maybe I should just say, reject) the left-wing/right-wing categorization as a meaningful premise on which to contrast political views. It is way too ambiguous. Further, it is not even of American political origin. It is something that came out of the French revolution not the American founders.



Much of academia believes that the far left-wing is something like a hippy and the far right-wing is something like a nazi. (Which is absurd just about anyway you look at it.) Thus they equate conservatives with Nazi dictators and liberals with freedom loving individuals.



As you said, the only accurate measure of political views is the degree of government one thinks best. Thomas Jefferson made a very similar argument to yours by saying that the kings of Europe represented the extreme manifestation of totalitarian government while the American Indian tribes represented the least form of government. He added that he believed America was closer to the Indians in political ideology than Europe. Thus he would also probably have called himself something of a centrist for the same reasons you have. However, academia and the media have done such a thorough job of erasing this level of critical thinking and understanding of noble ideology from the common American mind that the paradigm no longer exists for most Americans.



So as I see it, even accepting the premise of a left/right contrast is a fools errand because it is so corrupted, there is no way to control the meaning. It is a term for the tongue of Babel and should be scrapped. Plus, I hate anything that is an attempt to tie the bloody French Revolution with American independence.



I apologize that this sounds a bit lecturing. I am blowing off a little steam. Please forgive me and feel free to point out anything I may have overlooked.

"It is a term for the tongue of Babel and should be scrapped" is the best sentence I've read in a long time. I tend to agree with you. I have no clue where I'd be classified. On some things I seem "leftist" and on others not so.

LOL. Thanks. And we still need to talk.

Tww you may be on to something. I don't know if I fully comprehend all of what you've said but I do know that you can right-left until you are blue in the face but if you interfere (like with taxes and regulations) with the flow of raw materials through manufacturing to the consumer you are causing a drag on your society. If you continue to do it you will destroy that society no matter how wonderful it seems when you take from those with ability and give to those with need rather than giving those with need the opportunity to work in the process of the above mentioned flow. In fact in destroying society that includes those seemingly benevolent takers and those that are formerly benefited as well as the producers and anyone I missed.



About the debates, can we not have a moderator that doesn't defend the president? I don't think Romney needs much defending.

tww wrote:
Imuakahuku:

I just made the mistake of watching some of the liberal pundits spin the debate results so I am feeling a little testy right now. I hope that what I type communicates what I intend it to. If you detect anything other than friendly discussion please give me the benefit of the doubt.



I have never disagreed with anything you have said, political or sports related. I believe you to be a solid American patriot and I would jump in a foxhole with you anytime.



Though I agree with everything in your last post, I think that your definition of "centrist" may be unique to you.



As I work up to explaining why, I feel the need to lay this groundwork. I totally despise (maybe I should just say, reject) the left-wing/right-wing categorization as a meaningful premise on which to contrast political views. It is way too ambiguous. Further, it is not even of American political origin. It is something that came out of the French revolution not the American founders.



Much of academia believes that the far left-wing is something like a hippy and the far right-wing is something like a nazi. (Which is absurd just about anyway you look at it.) Thus they equate conservatives with Nazi dictators and liberals with freedom loving individuals.



As you said, the only accurate measure of political views is the degree of government one thinks best. Thomas Jefferson made a very similar argument to yours by saying that the kings of Europe represented the extreme manifestation of totalitarian government while the American Indian tribes represented the least form of government. He added that he believed America was closer to the Indians in political ideology than Europe. Thus he would also probably have called himself something of a centrist for the same reasons you have. However, academia and the media have done such a thorough job of erasing this level of critical thinking and understanding of noble ideology from the common American mind that the paradigm no longer exists for most Americans.



So as I see it, even accepting the premise of a left/right contrast is a fools errand because it is so corrupted, there is no way to control the meaning. It is a term for the tongue of Babel and should be scrapped. Plus, I hate anything that is an attempt to tie the bloody French Revolution with American independence.



I apologize that this sounds a bit lecturing. I am blowing off a little steam. Please forgive me and feel free to point out anything I may have overlooked.

I agree and I sincerely hate the left/right argument but unfortunately its there. It is so miscontrued as you noted (Nazi is leftist not right wing but the liberal media continues to call them right wing as they do for the KKK which at one time was the military arm of the dem party). Hence why I tried to give an accurate explanation of it. (I doubt liberals would let us use Indian vs Monarchy as they would cry racism for using the term Indian :roll: ). But again, I agree that the term is not a great desciption and that many people don't know what each really represents and so they just take the media's word for it that the right is bad and the left is good.

Obama's "Green Energy" failures: The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:



Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*

SpectraWatt ($500,000)*

Solyndra ($535 million)*

Beacon Power ($69 million)*

AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)

Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)

SunPower ($1.5 billion)

First Solar ($1.46 billion)

Babcock and Brown ($178 million)

EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*

Amonix ($5.9 million)

National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)

Fisker Automotive ($528 million)

Abound Solar ($374 million)*

A123 Systems ($279 million)*

Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)

Johnson Controls ($299 million)

Schneider Electric ($86 million)

Brightsource ($1.6 billion)

ECOtality ($126.2 million)

Raser Technologies ($33 million)*

Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*

Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*

Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*

Range Fuels ($80 million)*

Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*

Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*

LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*

UniSolar ($100 million)*

Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*

GreenVolts ($500,000)

Vestas ($50 million)

LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million)

Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*

Navistar ($10 million)

Satcon ($3 million)*



http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;