Happy Atheist Forum

f

The current President clearly has no more ethical authority than the last.

His appointees drop like tax dodging flies.

His gaffes are as ridiculous as the last guy.

His logic surely isn't any better either when unscripted and unmanaged.

Both he and his predecessor were and are busy bailing out Wall Street fat cats and other organizations that contributed to their campaigns and protecting current elected officials guilty of inciting and prolonging the decisions that brought us to this point economically. Completely unacceptable from either.

In foreign affairs they are nearly identical with minor cosmetic differences for better or worse.

Partisanship is a sucker's game. They win and we all lose.

For the record I did not vote for Obama, because i believed him to be a worse charlatan than his opponent.

Jim

Quote from: "adimagejim"The current President clearly has no more ethical authority than the last.

His appointees drop like tax dodging flies.

 I agree with both of these points.

 

Quote from: "adimagejim"His gaffes are as ridiculous as the last guy.

Hmm, I don't think he can really fill those clown shoes.  In any event, he seems to make fewer really outlandish/fatuous/inane statements.  Early days yet, though.

 

Quote from: "adimagejim"His logic surely isn't any better either when unscripted and unmanaged.

This I cannot agree with.  Bush seemed much less able to think in a coherent manner than Obama.

 

Quote from: "adimagejim"Both he and his predecessor were and are busy bailing out Wall Street fat cats and other organizations that contributed to their campaigns and protecting current elected officials guilty of inciting and prolonging the decisions that brought us to this point economically. Completely unacceptable from either.

In foreign affairs they are nearly identical with minor cosmetic differences for better or worse.

Partisanship is a sucker's game. They win and we all lose.

Once again, I find little to dispute here, except in foreign policy.  I don't think Obama is as much of a change from his predecessor as his supporters would like to believe, but I really doubt that he would have led us into Iraq.

 

Quote from: "adimagejim"For the record I did not vote for Obama, because i believed him to be a worse charlatan than his opponent.

I think he will provide a better show than McCain would have.  Of course, like all politicians, he's a charlatan, no doubt in my mind. Whether he's worse than McCain though, I'm not sure. I admire McCain's service to this country, but I consider him just as much a mountebank as Obama.
Still, considering the very real possibility that Palin would have become president *shudder* at some point in the next 4 or 8 years if McCain had been elected, I'm very glad that their ticket went down to defeat.

I am forever amazed by the visceral, almost Pavlovian, reaction of ideologies to people because "respected sources" have portrayed them as shudderworthy.

Palin, for example, is accomplished and respected by the people who know her best, Alaskans. Until I see an unvarnished view (not produced by NBC or MoveOn.org) that contradicts that, I'll favor the people who know her best.

The truth is, to put a finer point on it, more constitutional freedom has been lost in the last 2.5 months than the prior eight years. Now maybe some of that really is W's fault. But let's not forget John Kerry and Al Gore both earned worse grades in college than W. So it is objectively dishonest to harp on the stupidity angle.

It just seems to me the "[add name here] is dumb and scary" argument just never really washes with reality.

Not liking the policies because they don't have the effect you'd prefer ... that's rational.

Jim

I really couldn't care less how Palin has been portrayed, in either the right-wing or left-wing media.  In fact it's not hard to find Alaskans that are not at all pleased to have her as their governor, and have a very low opinion of her, so as far as I'm concerned, that's a wash as well.  My opinion of her is based on words from her own mouth to some extent, but it's mainly the feeling for her world-view I got from watching her.  Call me irrational if you will, but I think she would have made a truly horrible president, easily as bad for this country as the blundering buffoon who just left office.  Imagining what she (or McCain, for that matter) might have done with the Supreme Court, to cite one important issue, really gives me pause.

I think that Obama may in fact be "smart and scary," which is arguably even worse than "dumb and scary."  See for instance Dick Cheney.  Still, for now I'm willing to wait and see how Obama proceeds, and I hope that at the very least, he doesn't lead this country into an even worse mess than the one he inherited.

 

Quote from: "adimagejim"... more constitutional freedom has been lost in the last 2.5 months than the prior eight years

What exactly are you talking about?  Maybe I've missed something, and if so I'm very interested to hear it.  It's hard to imagine what you might consider more harmful to our constitutional freedoms than the Patriot Act, and the advancement of such ominous programs as "Operation Garden Plot" which was carried out by the Bush/Cheney administration.  They did not institute Garden Plot, but they certainly did move forward with making it more practical to implement.  There are now several hundred 'camps' ready and waiting.

Palin was probably only chosen by McCain to attempt to win the female and fundamentalist vote (certainly he could have found someone better but he needed a female who could appeal to the christian right since he is considered a moderate by them) and thinks the war in Iraq is God's work.

Quote"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/0 ... 23205.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html)

She was also obviously more concerned witth how her potential vice-presidency could help to benefit Alaska and couldn't carry on a formal debate without rambling on about other topics and ignoring the moderator's questions.

Where to start...

In 2.5 months the government has essentially seized control of one the world's largest corporations (GM) and fired the CEO illegally and never owned a single share of stock. This, by the way, violates the $17 billion loan agreement the US government had with GM on consequences for non-performance. Further, the individual rights of a man, illegally fired by the President, were violated as he was denied any severance after 31 years of service to the company. No consequences at all for the intransigent UAW and the $70+ per hour (wage & benefit average) pay.

The executives of AIG, who are almost exclusively paid in bonuses rather than in salary because of prior government paternalistic intrusion on executive salaries, have protests formed by ACORN (governmentally funded in the current stimulus bill to the tune of $4 billion and under indictment or investigation for voter fraud and intimidation in several states on behalf of one party) at their private residences. This despite the wholly legal and specifically written-in legislation to allow them to be paid (put into the bill by the very same party leaders favored by ACORN). Hypocrisy and illegal seizure of income anyone? Further, the newly government appointed CEO of AIG who makes $1 a year is grilled by lawmakers who feign not knowing about the legislation they themselves wrote. (Oh that's right, the current President said forget reading it, we need it now, pass it.) Co-opting the elected representatives of the people is another violation.

Under the past administration, Wells Fargo was threatened by the US government to take TARP money against the private bank's board of directors decision. The current administration now claims power to decide how much money Wells Fargo officials can make since they took the money against their own better judgement.

In the mean time, the homeowners who are being foreclosed upon for non-payment haven't seen dime one from their rescuers, despite the urgency claimed by both administrations to "solve the problem" with trillions of dollars.

As for Palin, elections have a nice way of sorting out if someone is respected enough to continue in office. I don't like her religious stands either. But if I had a dollar for every time I shuddered thinking about a (plagiarizing, fictionalizing, melodramatic, misspeaking) President Biden, I could bailout the entire country personally.

In any case, I'm enjoying the exchange here.

Jim

F

The only time that I received a bonus was In the previous company that I worked for. The bonus was approx. $500 for pulling off an excellent  IT-project. My colleagues and I where very happy with it, because we didn't expect nor demanded it. In the case of AIG and other financial institutions, we have managers who really done a terrible job, but still get their bonuses. They brought their companies and the world into a financial crisis and are awarded for it. IMHO those guys should not be rewarded, but heavily punished.

Nowadays, many employees have a variable salary that is partially based on financial results of the company that they work for. When things go well, they receive their full salary, but when things go bad they don't. Might sound fair, but in many cases the employees have little influence on the market situation or on bad management. I don't know whether the situation is the same in the USA, but whenever things go bad for a company the first thing management will do is to save money on personnel costs. They either throw out a lot of people, increase the working hours, cut personnel benefits, freeze or reduce the salaries, etc.. Again this may sound fair, but their actions never involves themselves. Looking f.e. at my company, I've seen the salaries of management go up by more than 30% and the salaries of the employees go down with more than 25% in just a few year's time. At the same time more than 1,000 employees were fired, but management staff was increased by 50%. So basically we've now created a management culture of vultures. Management grabs as much money that they can get their hands on and ordinary employees are at their mercy.

Yes, I also believe in a free market system. But, it must be ethical and fair. i don't feel sorry for all those "poor" AIG executives who ran away with millions of dollars for doing a very bad job; nor do I have any sympathy for managers who enrich themselves and at the same time punishes their employees for their own stupid mistakes.

You both miss the point entirely.

The contract with GM DOES NOT allow for firing the CEO. The AIG billionaires are already gone to foreign countries. The people still working there get paid in bonuses. It is common for mortgages to be paid by these people ONCE A YEAR based on the bonus system, because government interfered with the salary system.

C'mon, I know you can read.

Jim

One additional note. When you and I or this President get to decide what other people make and who gets hired and fired by private corporations, you favor a hegemony of power in the hands of government against which the entire Constitution was written.

So, back to the original argument, you favor the subtraction of individual rights as long as it suits you politically. Bush, Cheney, Palin bad. Obama good. I get it.

Wow.

Jim

Before this gets out of control, it hasn't yet and may not, please remember we encourage members to take a few moments to cool off so you can maintain a civil conversation. When the forum was young we lost a good member over (me) not moderating well enough, so I wanted to step in and say something before anything got out of hand.  Carry on.  I don't plan on being heavily involved in the discussion, I just felt like briefly explaining why I don't like Palin.

Quote from: "adimagejim"In 2.5 months the government has essentially seized control of one the world's largest corporations (GM) and fired the CEO illegally and never owned a single share of stock.

In fact, the said corporation came to the government, hat in hand, and begged for corporate welfare, so "seized control" is just a bit of an overstatement.  If one believes in a free market, then they should have been shown the door; sink or swim on your own, no coming to dad for help when you get yourself into trouble!  Once they've accepted government money, then they are beholden to the government, and they will of necessity give up some of the independence they would have maintained if they had not taken the money.  The head of GM was asked to resign, not fired.  He could have refused, if he thought the corporation could do just fine without government interference, thank you.  You invite government into your house, don't be surprised when they throw their weight around.  That's what government does.  Did they really expect that they could come and beg money off the government, then blithely go and never have to answer for it?  I think they knew quite well there would be some kind of quid pro quo. Though in fact the first huge bail-out seems to have just been given with pretty much no strings attached; I'm not sure the government even knows what exactly happened with that money. But as a certain eminent philosopher said,"'Fool me once, shame on â€" shame on you. Fool me â€" you can't get fooled again."

Corporations are not mentioned in the Constitution. In fact it was not until 1889 that corporations gained standing as "persons" under law, which I think was never the intention of the writers of the Constitution. The 1889 decision was made in a time when corporations were running roughshod over people, and they wanted to be recognized as 'persons' under the law to be able to do so more efficiently. I don't think that should ever have been allowed.  They should of course have standing under the law, but never equal to that of a human being!  But then again, I value people more than conglomerations of capital.

Apparently you (adimagejim) think that since certain corporations have voluntarily allowed the government into their houses in exchange for huge sums of money, it means that all of us have less freedom.  I don't know that it necessarily follows. Despite the 1889 ruling, a corporation is a different thing than an individual.  Though it is true that when people take money from the government, they too have to listen more to what the government says than people who don't take any money from the government.  Again, that's what government does.  Personally, I try my best to stay well clear of it.  I'm not fond of government, and which group of clowns happens to be in charge of it does not change that opinion. So, speaking only for myself, I can't agree with the following sentences: "Bush, Cheney, Palin bad. Obama good."  If I were to make some equally simple statement it would be something like: "Obama not so good. Bush, Cheney, Palin; worse." Of the politicians that were trying for the presidency recently, I would have been more interested in seeing somebody like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich in office.  They both seemed to offer a fresher perspective, if from different ends of the spectrum. I bet you never would have expected somebody to put those two in the same sentence as equally desirable.   :beer:  When it comes to politics, I wouldn't describe myself as a particularly hot-blooded person, but your advice is excellent.  A thoughtful post is generally more readable and less likely to cause trouble than one fired off in the heat of the moment.

f

f

f

f

That's cool. You've chosen to be a socialist. I am not. Being open about who and what we are is a great part of this forum.

We're both honest about where we stand.

Have a great weekend.

Jim

I have sympathy for the rights individuals granted under the constitution.

Corporations are nothing more than people bound together as workers and investors in a marketplace to make a profit. The government should never guarantee any investor or worker a profit.

There are laws written under the Constitution to protect the People (including the workers and investors) from fraud and abuse and they have recourse against incorporated bodies under the law.

The current mess is a governmental and corporate failure. The governmental entities charged with overseeing the potential for fraud and abuse to the detriment of the People did not do their jobs. Corporations did what corporations do when unfettered or unwatched by a Constitutional government, they maximized (sometimes unethically) profits. On both sides, some were lazy. some were greedy, some were power hungry. They all abdicated their responsibilities to one degree or another.

In theory, socialism could be an answer. But human nature says if you give all the power to one entity, it will succumb to absolute power and be corrupted absolutely. I cannot think of a single real world socialist state that has not had to enforce its point of view without a bayonet or gun or rationing of resources.

Again, the contracts with GM, AIG, Wells Fargo, et. al. have limits. Once those limits are breached (as they have been by the government on the GM and AIG contracts) then the violating entity has abrogated it's responsibility to the People under the laws and Constitution itself (workers and investors) and started pursuing an unconstitutional agenda.

I understand the left's concerns about the Patriot Act. It has the same potential. So did Lincoln's much more extreme suspension of habeus corpus. Or even worse, Roosevelt's internment of Americans of Japanese descent. Knowing the natural proclivities of the news media, if people were being hauled off to camps or jails in the middle of the night under the Patriot Act I think we'd have seen that on the front page, daily.

My point is simple. The US government is hauling off people's livelihoods illegally in broad daylight against it's own contracts now, today, for real. No theory. No could be. It is happening. The 90% we'll fix 'em tax is even worse. That's called a bill of attainder. Totally unconstitutional.

If your position is pitch the Constitution, give us a new socialist government. Then great, get it going and see if people are with you. But as of right now, we've got a Constitution and the government can't do what it's doing.

Jim

f

F

f

Quote from: "maestroanth"It's all based on idealism.  Personally, if I had to pick and Ideal doctrine (I think it's Plato)  where governmentally, the philosophers ruled (i.e. the philosophy kings)  raised from childhood being totally altruistic/smart then the artists (Like me) then the businessmen.  They would be in charge in that order.

1. philosophers
2. artists
3. business

In America, it is opposite though.

1. Business
2. Artists
3. Philosophy

I've had philosophy professors talked to me about this as well.  Actually I only know this shit from philosophy class I happen to agree with.

All Best,

Anthony

Hmm, philosophers saying that philosophers should be in charge.....

Didn't someone talk about this before? I wanna say he was Greek... wrote some kind of book about Philosopher Kings or something. Didn't work then, either.  

Anthony:

Your point about believing in a system sounds a lot like nihilism. Belief in nothing usually brings anarchy. The great thing about the current social contract (Constitution) is that it has constant input from the governed (imperfect though it may be).

There are three basic foundations for government:
1. Theocentric - your divine right of the governors over the governed crowd. (Yuck!)
2. Anthropocentric - people choose their government to regualte human nature and reserve the right to make corrections as we go along in recognition of our imperfection. (Ours now.)
3. Messianic - where through some evolutionary or revolutionary step humans leave behind their current nature and behave out of historical character forever more. (Socialism, communism, collectivism.)

I'd like to believe in the last version. Really I would. But that's just it, it requires me to ignore reality about human nature and believe without any evidence something to the contrary of reason. It's the same reason I'm an atheist.  

The current social contract going is called the Constitution. If you don't like it, that's cool, you simply find enough people who want to throw it out and create a new one (in your case a socialist one or Platocratic one) or leave and find a place with a social contract by which you can abide.

Seems easy, but sometimes uncomfortable, if the shoe you're wearing doesn't fit your particular social contract standards.

Jim

OK, we don't agree on the magnitude of the Obama administration's assault on civil liberties regarding it's recent interference in corporate affairs, adimagejim.  But when I heard about this; "Obama Mimics Bush On State Secrets" (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/expert_consensus_obama_aping_bush_on_state_secrets.php?ref=fp1) it certainly brought me closer to your position in saying that he's no appreciable improvement over Bush in the area of civil liberties. (I know you say he's worse, but I haven't gotten there yet.  I still foolishly hope I don't have to.)

  Surprise! (Not)  
 After accusing the Bush administration of abusing the state secrets privilege, his administration carries right on with the same sort of thing.  Quoting from salon.com's article on the subject (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/09/tpm/index.html):

 

Quote from: "Glenn Greenwald"Just in case anyone had any doubts about whether Obama himself personally approves of what his DOJ is doing, Robert Gibbs dispelled those at today's Press Briefing (h/t CarolynC and Sam Stein):
Q. Last Friday, the Justice Department invoked the state secrets privilege in asking a judge to dismiss a civil suit filed against the National Security Administration regarding its domestic surveillance program. And in its brief, the Justice Department argued that Americans have no right to sue the government for alleged illegal surveillance.
Does the President support the Justice Department's positions in that case?
MR. GIBBS: Yes, absolutely. It's the -- absolutely does. Obviously, these are programs that have been debated and discussed, but the President does support that viewpoint.
That was followed by this amazing exchange:
Q. Before he was elected, the President said that the Bush administration had abused the state secrets privilege. Has he changed his mind?
MR. GIBBS: No. I mean, obviously, we're dealing with some suits, and the President will -- and the Justice Department will make determinations based on protecting our national security.
Q. So he still thinks that the Bush administration abused the state secrets privilege?
MR. GIBBS: Yes.
Given that Obama is doing exactly what Bush did in this area, Gibbs' claim that Obama "still thinks that the Bush administration abused the state secrets privilege" must be one of the most incoherent and intellectually dishonest claims to come from the White House since the Inauguration -- either that, or Obama believes that Bush abused the privilege and that he, Obama, is also doing so.

This is what I meant way earlier in the thread about little but cosmetic differences between the two.

Talk and posturing are cheap. It's what you actually do that matters.

There you go, a factual critique from the far less than conservative lap dog salon.com.

All I want for us to do is judge by the facts, not hope and belief.

Jim