Anarchy Trumps Socialism Anyday, Rain or Shine.

My Politics.

Let us observe, if we can, the execution of Obama's economic stance. He has possibly mis-stepped, observing the obvious nature of his speech at the convention. Walking... TALKING...Smiling...socialism. But he sure was gentle before the rape. He claimed such knowledge of American families that one might believe him a seeker, a man rife with the knowledge of his fellow man's misfortune. A man who has undergone the struggle himself. A man who, if one is taken by his words, seems to have an overwhelming concern for the benefit another experiences. "What a good Christian!! Thank god he is there for us, for you, for everyone"--the taken one will think. But are the ideas he promotes sound in reasoning? Does it bear reason as an inconvenient step in life? Why would it be inconvenient?

(Extrapolated from his recorded speech at the convention...non-linear)

Obama:

"Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story — of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren't well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.

It is that promise that has always set this country apart — that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well."

First part: yes sir!
Second part: "but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well."
But still come together? With who? For what reason? If we desire to assist our children, and our neighbor, then we have made that choice, and experience the moral benefit of that action. We do these things because we are good people. Is he suggesting that our government set standards of how we should act in our own lives? What right would he have to think this?

Well, he wants to inform us of why he is running, lets find out:

"That's why I stand here tonight. Because for two hundred and thirty two years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women - students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors -- found the courage to keep it alive.

We meet at one of those defining moments - a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more. "

What has threatened it? And what defining moments is he referring to? Have we defined our countries prosperity, and moral uprisings, at the times when our government is at its largest and our structure at it's weakest? (i.e. WW2, the Great Depression) We are threatened. Lets get more government--he seems to be saying. Are we in the midst of a World War? Are we in midst of a stock market crash? No? And No? So why do we need larger government, I must ask, Mr. Obama?

Obama responds to this possible inquiry:

"Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit card bills you can't afford to pay, and tuition that's beyond your reach.

These challenges are not all of government's making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush. "

A failure to respond insists that he was also responsible. Didn't you say "These challenges are not all of government's making".... so there should be a governmental solution?
Has that been proven to work? And if so, how was it done? If you are insinuating a need for a new deal, I can't help but disagree--are we WW2 level in trouble? I have noticed that many of Bush's economic stipulations, and contractual affiliations with corporations, seemed a bit too controlling of market forces. Is that the part of the "governments making"? I think so. Such is the act of tax breaks with increased spending. (I know that doesn't make sense. Give some back, but spend more?) Is this what you suggest? Or is it, instead, you suggest that Bush has in fact intentionally destroyed his own countries market, somehow, and the only cure is more governmental intervention? Wasn't that the problem to begin with?

Obama does not complete his assertion, you can check for yourself, yet he continues to denounce John McCain's ideas:

"The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives - on health care and education and the economy - Senator McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made "great progress" under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisors - the man who wrote his economic plan - was talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a "mental recession," and that we've become, and I quote, "a nation of whiners."

Sounds reasonable to me. How is that wrong Mr. Obama? I mean, sure It doesn't feel good. But the fundamental market system, although corrupted by socialist policies making, are still largely free. How is he wrong on these assertions? A free market, historically proven, is stable and always growing--based on societies desire.

"A nation of whiners? Tell that to the proud auto workers at a Michigan plant who, after they found out it was closing, kept showing up every day and working as hard as ever, because they knew there were people who counted on the brakes that they made. Tell that to the military families who shoulder their burdens silently as they watch their loved ones leave for their third or fourth or fifth tour of duty. These are not whiners. They work hard and give back and keep going without complaint. These are the Americans that I know."

It is good that you know them. I admire noble humans too--hence the terms honor and nobility. And I would complain if I wasn't making enough too--so yah, whiners. But why is what McCain said, on economics, wrong? At least what you have just described seems reasonable. Economics doesn't care....period. It isn't a person. Are we still personifying inanimate forces? The wind is mean. Thats what I'm being told here. And McCain's economic stance, defined by Obama, is expressing the facts that economics is soulless. Really? What about earthquakes, Hey Obama!! Can you please personify earthquakes? Don't they know about those proud Americans they f**k with in California? Could you step in and fix this? No? Big surprise.

Now Obama will let us know why McCain feels the way he does about economics:

"Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than one hundred million Americans? How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?

It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it. "

How does he define the middle class that way? If that is true, I guess McCain is MORE fucked up then I first thought. Big surprise there as well. Or perhaps Obama has mis-lead us, which would not be surprising granted his other surreal expectations on life. But wait a second...who are these hundred million Americans? A hundred million? Really? I guess I am lucky not to be affiliated with that group...or am I? Well, I guess it's a bit ambiguous. "How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?" Quick question: How could he offer a health care plan? Period. Great Question!! I don't know why he wants to socialize personal health care systems. Perhaps for power? It surely doesn't reflect the founding principles of freedom. But who cares about principle? I mean, even though it is equal, and just, and righteous. Those words aren't too hot either. Do you think there might be a bit of INJUSTICE in something fundamentally UNJUST? (The distribution of market rewards based on subjective claims) That would be a good guess. And he wants to privatize social security? Like...allow people to place THEIR earnings into THEIR retirement? WHAT THE F**K? Geez Obama, you are right. I want MY social security (laughable as the idea is) to have OTHER peoples money in it. Absolutely. That is because I don't make wise financial moves, and I want other people to help me out, because I am ignorant, and its not my fault. No one is ever at fault for remaining ignorant. Your so right Obama. So completely, non-sarcastically, absolutly, without repeating the same ironic gesture, correct. What nerve people have to keep their own earnings, and to support themselves by themselves--just because they aren't ignorant? Don't they know how courageous you are Obama? How much you have to offer them? How much of other people you can truly re-distribute? Or maybe, some people do know. Some people haven't forgotten liberty. And they want to keep you as far from the f*****g white house as possible. But I am curious as to what other people don't "get" here. I mean, you get it, right Obama? (although you don't seem to want to let us in...or maybe there is nothing to "get" after all...)

Let us know what we aren't "getting" Bama-baby! Lay it on me! :

"The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great - a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight."

You mean that promise you talked about earlier? Geez, I am so confused as to the exact definition he is referring to. Obama...what's that promise again?

"What is that promise?

It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.

It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road. "

Rules? He must not mean "law"...being he said..."rules" of some road...the road to?
Obama, keep going baby, I think I'm almost there!!:

"Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves - protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.

Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work. "

Sweet, your right man, Government can't solve all our problems...what was that next thing you said? Government should take care of "that which we cannot do for ourselves..." and he includes, security, education, clean water, and safe toys. He also talks about Governmental investments. So, if I get him right I am unable to secure myself, or my family. Is he offering me police assistance when I haven't asked for it? Who asked him for this? Who demanded his authority over life? Who told Obama that we CAN NOT gain our own education, nor find safety, nor maintain drinkable water and safe toys. Does every American say this? Believe it?
And what's with this whole help, not hurt bit... Shouldn't it have very little effect on our lives? Shouldn't a person be the primary influence in their own life?
NO WAY--that would be responsible.
Well, I am speaking for my own life, but I am getting an education...Obama... where were you? You mean I could do it without him? But he just said that American's are unable to... am I the only exception? I am poor too. I wonder how I did it?
And I drink water every day..out of my faucet. Should I stop? (although if we are going to be environmental, in governmental policy, we should focus on water instead of Global Warming {if we think government should support environmental --science-- for our own good}. In those cases, I'll agree.)
My childhood toys were great. Never hurt me. Is there a toy epidemic? When did it start?
And Governmental investments? I thought a government wasn't an enterprise...so when did it start investing in something outside of the military? Isn't that an infringement on the individual? Isn't that the disruption of a market formed by American citizens? Isn't that a "next step", one far above and beyond grant funding? Aren't we discussing turning our Government into a corporation all it's own?
I feel like my eyes are opening...(vomit)...come on man, keep talking about the promise!!

"That's the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper."

We are responsible for ourselves... BUT we aren't. Got it.....right? When the chips are down, we aren't? When they are up, we are? How convenient and unrealistic. What a pandering mass of bickering and impracticable individuals we must be! Am I part of this promise? And if the chips are down for everyone, then how can you assist others? Is somebody just milking our teets Obama, you pervasion of truth, you?


"Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it."

Who deserves what? Who decides that? Not logic, thats for sure. It's better than Logic, its Obama Baby!! Well, he sure is ambitious... what else you got planned you steaming pile of...intelligence, you.

"As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced."

So Obama, personally, is going to tap our natural gas reserves. Yah? Why hasn't it been done yet? Anyone got any guesses? OH. I know. It's big oil's fault. Right. Wrong industry, yet they are so cut-throat that they wouldn't even consider getting into the market! They would rather, instead of profiting from that resource, "hide" it from us. Yup. I'm sure it isn't a less-than-cost-effective method of energy. I am sure corporations have just given up on making money, and are now concerned with "our awareness". Yup. They no longer care for growth, all they care about is hiding the truth. That certainly sounds like a sound business model to me--saying--"Our motive is clear. To stay in un-profitable assets, and to hide that which is profitable from the American people. We intend to loose profit." Great Business Model!! I am sure the stock holders are very secure. Or at least Obama is trying to convince us that these areas of energy are more than great, their money losers! Which means? You can count on having to pay your government to set them up, and then pay them again when you collect the resource. So Obama is proposing to have us pay him all new kinds of dividends. And Obama...how does the government plan on doing this? Isn't that a bit out of the Government's reach, in terms of federal power? WELL I GUESS NOT ANYMORE. I love the Promise the fascist leader has. SO MUCH PROMISE.
And what about all those new jobs that "cannot be outsourced"? How many industries do you intend to personally control and manage Obama? How many businesses are you going to drive into the ground through new taxations? I mean you got to come up with that 150 billion like you said. You sure aren't going to cut spending, so? A few? All of them? So, in order for his beliefs to coincide with reality his claims require this: absolute federal power over state business legislation--with brand new tax legislations. Are you now an up-n-coming-despot? Obama, what does UNITE mean to you? Absolute control? (think about what it means when your government forces "incentives" to exist in a market that naturally competes. Who is holding greater power, government or the people? Where did that power exist before the incentives? Why are these incentives created?)

Lets hear more about what this promise exactly means, I want to hear its founding principle!!
( I am skipping a very large portion, which i WOULD cover, if it weren't so god damn long. It's basically Obama talking about changing things a president use to not have any control over. Which is simply saying he intends, for our own good, to expand federal powers, or at least executive powers. So..just checking...we are ok with this? Anyone get that uh-oh feeling?) But man... I WOULD really like to not have to tear apart every sentence of your speech Bama babe. You got a thesis statement on this promise thing? You do?!!!! EXCITEMENT!! Drum roll....roll....roll.....everyone ready?!!! We are gona hear the philosophy of this idea!!!!

Let it fly Bama!!

"Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility - that's the essence of America's promise."

What? Hold on. Let me get some definitions because this thesis makes my head spin.

Individual-1. not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker.
2.        not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free: an independent businessman.
3.        not influenced by the thought or action of others: independent research.
4.        not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.
5.        not relying on another or others for aid or support.
6.        rejecting others' aid or support; refusing to be under obligation to others.
7.        possessing a competency: to be financially independent.
8.        sufficient to support a person without his having to work: an independent income.
9.        executed or originating outside a given unit, agency, business, etc.; external: an independent inquiry.
10.        working for oneself or for a small, privately owned business.
11.        expressive of a spirit of independence; self-confident; unconstrained: a free and independent citizen.
12.        free from party commitments in voting: the independent voter.
13.        Mathematics. (of a quantity or function) not depending upon another for its value.
14. Grammar. capable of standing syntactically as a complete sentence: an independent clause. Compare dependent (def. 4), main1 (def. 4).
15.        Logic.
a.        (of a set of propositions) having no one proposition deducible from the others.
b.        (of a proposition) belonging to such a set.
16.        Statistics. statistically independent.
17.        (initial capital letter) Ecclesiastical. of or pertaining to the Independents.

Man... that is a really important word!!
What about Mutual?

Mutual-1. possessed, experienced, performed, etc., by each of two or more with respect to the other; reciprocal: to have mutual respect.
2.        having the same relation each toward the other: to be mutual enemies.
3.        of or pertaining to each of two or more; held in common; shared: mutual interests.
4. having or pertaining to a form of corporate organization in which there are no stockholders, and profits, losses, expenses, etc., are shared by members in proportion to the business each transacts with the company: a mutual company.

Alright...

What about responsibility?

Responsibility-1. answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management (often fol. by to or for): He is responsible to the president for his decisions.
2.        involving accountability or responsibility: a responsible position.
3. chargeable with being the author, cause, or occasion of something (usually fol. by for): Termites were responsible for the damage.
4. having a capacity for moral decisions and therefore accountable; capable of rational thought or action: The defendant is not responsible for his actions.
5.        able to discharge obligations or pay debts.
6.        reliable or dependable, as in meeting debts, conducting business dealings, etc.
7. (of a government, member of a government, government agency, or the like) answerable to or serving at the discretion of an elected legislature or the electorate.

Obamas American promise-- An American is not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker, and is answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management (often fol. by to or for). Right--makes sense... And...an American is having the same relation each toward the other, so they are answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management, in life.

So wait....
HOW CAN BOTH EXIST IN THE SAME PHRASE? Good f*****g question. That's his thesis folks. That's it.. right there. Who decides where you are not independent? Who decides at what point you are, somehow, still responsible for others? So we are responsible now for our selves, and now for our neighbors. With THAT Marxist idiocy, which is a conflicting idea, IN EVERY REGARD, we can claim that one is responsible for a murderous neighbor--If of course the people who set this strange competing gradient of thought allow it to cover "murder" as a "mutual" quality. THEY ARE DEFINING US, while encouraging our independence, which they dictate!! This is only another step in the process of socializing our nation, for our own good, without our literal consent. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to claim mutual as well as independent in fact, especially in regards to RESPONSIBILITY. How can I be liable to another, who has not had my thoughts, my heart, my experiences, my life? How do you become accountable for those you do not control? Well, you can be if we are all under the same hamlet of control. If we all have the same property. If we all have the same experiences. If we all have the same LIFE, well then, with a governmental Big Brother, I guess you CAN be held responsible for another's life choices. But, to make sure everyone thinks, and lives, and acts the same, you will require a very "liberal" police force, with very limited restrictions. Martial law goes hand in hand with this ideal.

[What taxation actually meant has been washed away in the sands of time. What happened to taxes DIRECTLY mirroring the interests of the person being taxed? So to say, that tax money used to REPRESENT an individuals interest, and it pertained to the person who was TAXED. My money, my problems. Obama believes that he, the king, is best fit to hold our wealth, and to give it to any interest he is interested in. Our money, his life choices. Not ours. No longer has the citizen say over his own work and earnings. We apparently are more than ok with this.]

Has madness taken the mind of Obama? He expresses his firmest belief in a CONTRADICTION. Anyone finding this discouraging? Any one just learn the lesson that intelligence does not require wisdom? Anyone getting the fact that he has just expressed his lack of fundamental ANYTHING, for his basis is in contrast, and that it sports a tide of assumptions thereafter that almost eradicate freedoms? Did anyone b***h about the Patriot act? Does anyone realize how much FURTHER these claims bring such a doctrine? I see a tide of oppression on the cusp of our reality.

As he said earlier: "The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great - a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight." Well, your FUNDAMENTALS lack FUNDAMENTALS, Obama, dear. And your promise is in the same boat (which you invented...and claimed it came from our founding?!! How LUDICROUS!!). Too bad friend. You should have thought a bit harder, or used a dictionary to get a clearer idea. Perhaps academia's evil mis-use of philosophical factotums has slated your mind. But as you said yourself, "a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight"... well...you know, this is gona be harder for me than for you, but please, god,...step down. I mean, you lost your reason to still be standing there, by your own words. You got it from me first. We will try to keep it down low that your party's fundamentals are based on a promise which is not fundamental--or even uttered previous (yet claimed to be a founding principle!?). You can go home now. Go on...

No?

Well, geez, I guess your a LIAR too.
Big F*****g Socialist Surprise.

Can't wait to be in chains with this kind of thinking.

Author's Note

Go on. Call me names...lol

Reviews

[ashley]

*whew* just when I thought everyone had gone completely insane, i'm happy to know there's at least one other
person mourning the hopefully, non-permanent death of American democracy. Who knows maybe we'll get the house back in 2 years...maybe...

[Jerrica Benton]

2 things more i forgot to add:

1) NICE THAT YOU DIDN'T WANT POINTS ON THIS ONE

and

2) neener neeener neeener to follow my prior 'reviews' last sentence.

[Jerrica Benton]

brendan.

i will take you up on yr challenge.

i see nothing of yr's going after john mccain and that wingnut sarah palin. whenever i talk about how horrible the republicans are (i got my angst, man!) you always have to point out that they're ALL bad, the democrats as well....but you don't seem to go after anyone else BUT.

therefore, i have concluded that it has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with you being a dirty dirty racist.

and no, i actually didn't finish reading this piece anyway.

[Hawksmoor]

Somebody's Pissed.

But then again, somebody's thinking, too.

Damn right, man.

Speak your peace and f**k (those who question your ethics and opinions without ample backing) in the ear.

LOL.

Still, having done a little research myself, I'd rather have a rabid gopher in The Big Seat than Mr. McCain.

LOL.

I do wonder when politicians will drop The Act completely (although, I gotta say, Obama is just about the most honest of the fuckers I've ever heard of or gave enough of a damn about the subject at hand to listen, lol) and allow the American public to Think For Itself.

Who needs such influence either way, you know?

Great argument, no matter what it is that I believe personally.

Hawksmoor...From The Bleed.