Obama and Bush: Separated at Birth?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by fivepoint, Oct 13, 2008.

  1. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #1
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/wall.bush-obama/index.html


    Vote for REAL change, write-in RON PAUL!!! ;)
     
  2. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #2
    Also, for those of you who support liberty, both social and economic, I suggest you read this section from a well-written post a few days ago by Clive At Five:


     
  3. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #3
    Bulls**t Op Ed piece

    For starters:

    That doesn't say he's FOR it. Says we should explore it.

    How does this make them peas in a pod?

    Most of our country is Christian - is this supposed to make Obama a fundamentalist evangelical?

    It should also be mentioned that the author works at the Washington Times as an editorial director, is an RNC advisor and was appointed by President Bush as Director of the Office of Public Affairs (OPA) at the Administration for Children and Families (ACF).

    Hardly unbiased.
     
  4. benthewraith macrumors 68040

    benthewraith

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #4
    Obama and McCain both suck.

    They both stink to high hell of corruption. And both lie through their teeth like there's no tomorrow.

    I think I might vote third party.
     
  5. abijnk macrumors 68040

    abijnk

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #6
    Yeah, and "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" people actually agree because they both think babies are cute. :rolleyes:
     
  6. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #7
    Typical effing liberal! :cool:
     
  7. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #8
    It's why you love me. :D
     
  8. P-Worm macrumors 68020

    P-Worm

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #9
    This list is stupid. I bet if I had the time, or cared for that matter, that I could make a list of 20 things both Ron Paul and Hitler agreed on.

    Hitler and Ron Paul - separated at birth?

    P-Worm
     
  9. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #10
    That'll change a lot.

    Also, that list is really quite hilarious. Do you even believe half the stuff you post?
     
  10. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    Go Gary! Yeah- there are more things on this list that need to be challenged, but I'm at work and only have time for quick, snarky posts. :)
     
  11. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #12
    Those of you posting one-liners...Are there any lies or inaccuracies in the linked article?

    At some point you will all need to admit that there are more similarities between our two major parties than there are differences. How many times did Obama say "John's right..." in the first debate?

    Ron Paul and the Libertarian party stand for REAL change. They stand for balancing the budget, limiting foreign involvement, and protecting our personal liberties ad priority #1. They don't do these things because they're the popular thing to do, or the 'different' thing to do, but because they're the constitutional and correct thing to do.

    While McCain and Obama argue over where to send troops, Afghanistan or Iraq, Ron Paul suggests a non-interventionist foreign policy. While McCain and Obama argue over who should get tax cuts, Ron Paul wants to lower them for everyone. While McCain and Obama argue over how much money, and how quickly to give hand-outs to our country's elite banks, Ron Paul quotes the constitution and argues against the manipulative hand of government ruining the basic principles of the free market by artificially propping up dying companies.

    McCain and Obama only ever bring up the constitution when it suits their needs. Ron Paul bases every single stance upon the document our founder's left us.

    Vote for real change, write-in Ron Paul!
     
  12. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    And you do not notice the glaring contradiction in this stance? Amazing.
     
  13. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    I've explained several times in this forum why Ron Paul is a disaster. I'm not going to do it again. I used his own website for evidence too. If you still think that maniac is OK, well then good for you.
     
  14. P-Worm macrumors 68020

    P-Worm

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #15
    :rolleyes:

    Are you trying to convince me that when John McCain says something like "The economy is struggling" that Ron Paul would say "John's wrong..."?


    Oh, so you think that the country going through another depression is the right thing to do? Hell, if the constitution says it...

    As much as libertarians hate to admit it, the constitution wasn't written by God, but by men. Just because the constitution says something doesn't mean it's scripture.

    The reason you have gotten so many one-liners for your thread is because your list is stupid. Really, it feels like a McCain attack ad or something. You're assuming that because we don't like Bush that we all believe that every single teeny-tiny thing he has ever said and done was wrong. On top of that, just because people agree on things, doesn't make them the same person.

    P-Worm
     
  15. gauchogolfer macrumors 603

    gauchogolfer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    American Riviera
    #16
    Did you even read #6 on your list?
    Do you really think that the Bush tax cuts that favored the wealthy are the same tax cuts that Obama is proposing? I like how the author puts in parentheses that 95% of people will get a break under Obama's plan, like it's somehow a minor detail. :rolleyes:
     
  16. spamdumpster macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    #17
    Yeah, I used to be a libertarian. It's really easy to be a libertarian. The problem is that things aren't as black and white as libertarians claim. And when you really examine many of today's issues, the libertarian philosophy really doesn't make any sense

    One of the reasons for given for censorship is that it's necessary to protect the children. Even the most ardent libertarian believes (I hope) that it's inappropriate for the same rules to apply to adults and children. Justification for invading personal privacy with wiretaps is that it's necessary to protect right of the rest of us (whatever that means) to live free lives. Same with initiating foreign wars. I've never understood denying rights to gays, but I'm sure the same protect our children rationale is given.



    Again, Clive's view of the world is far too simple. Game theory predicts that some Government regulation is necessary. Perpetually increasing firearms restrictions gets to the question of whose freedom your protecting -- the right to own guns, or the right to live in a society where one needn't worry about getting shot.

    The problem that arises is that, in real life, individuals often make choices that interfere with the choices made by others. Libertarianism has no answer to this conundrum. Here's an example: Let's say that I want to breathe clean air and you want to improve your gas mileage by buying a high-emission vehicle (which, fyi, have better mileage). Who prevails? Game theory predicts that it's in no one persons interest to buy a low-emission vehicle, because the air is impacted equally by all vehicles, and one person spending a few extra bucks on a clean car doesn't really improve the air at all. If everyone acts rationally, no one would ever spend an extra penny on a clean car. However, once you realize that cleaner air results from *everyone* being forced to drive a clean car, you can see that some level of Government regulation is necessary for me to be able to breathe clean air. So, ultimately, my desire to breathe clean air conflicts directly with someone else's desire to drive the car they want.

    Another, more controversial, example: Let's say that I wish to live in a crime-free society and I believe that most crime exists due to issues of class and poverty (obviously, statistics confirm this to some degree). It logically follows that I want to live in a society that requires some degree of economic equality, so as to prevent crime from occurring. One way to achieve this economic equality is to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Libertarians hate this for obvious reasons. Another way is for the Government to simply provide good paying jobs to some members of society. Libertarians also presumably don't like this. Another way is for the Government to make policy decisions that affect the way people and businesses operate. So what say the libertarian if I wish to vote for a candidate who proposes to require banks to make a certain percentage of loans to low-income, under-qualifying persons at the same interest rates that the rich folks can afford? I'm entitled to live in a crime free society, right? But, you're entitled to live in a society without Government regulation, right?

    See, Clive, I don't give a sh*t whether people have a right to buy homes, regardless of their credit, but I do care about living in a society in which EVERYONE has an ownership stake, i.e., something to live for. It's very easy to say "too bad, you can't afford a house, go live under the bridge." But, you know what the bridge people do, Clive? They commit crimes, have children who are destined to repeat their parents mistakes, and generally detract from a healthy society and economy.

    I agree with you on this point.

    This is a total cop out. Some people believe that abortion is murder (I think these people are wrong, but I concede that they really, truly believe it). Don't those people deserve to live in a society that doesn't condone murder, by "leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration?" On the other hand, I really think it's totally up to the mother to do what she wants with her body. Shouldn't I have the right to abort a fetus up to the time of birth? Libertarianism can't resolve this dispute.

    I think I've addressed most of this. Except with respect to the comment that "Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent." This is really too simple. First of all, debt is a very important part of a free market economy. Occasionally, the Government (even in a libertarian world) must act in the market as a private person acts (to keep the libertarians happy, let's assume here that we're just building court houses, jails, and equipping the military). In these instances, the Government should be able to use debt, just like private persons can use debt. More importantly, if you want to get back to founding principles, we must recognize that our national identity was forged, in part, as a result of the the federal government acquiring debt. One of the biggest issues in the years after the revolutionary war was whether the federal government should assume the debts separately incurred by the colonies in fighting the war. The view that prevailed was that the government should do so, in part, because this would help forge a national identity. Also, many of the founding fathers (including the Peter-Gammons-look-alike on the $10 bill) believed that selling debt to citizens would create a country where the average citizen (read: Joe Six-Pack, wink) would have a real stake in the Government.

    Good points.
     
  17. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #18
    Tell us something we don't know. People have been saying that the two parties have been treating the same political turf for years.

    The same number of times that he followed it up with 'but the way he's doing it is wrong'.

    He could stand for painting the White House pink, it doesn't make much difference because he's not getting voted in.

    Completely flawed plan.

    Yeah, that'll be fun when the whole thing crashes around his ears.

    Vote for real change, write-in somebody able to bring it.

    There is a reason why he can't win this election. You just don't seem able to see it.
     
  18. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #19

    You make it sound like the was the only choice, and that it was agreed upon by ALL professionals to be the best route to take. The truth, was quite to the contrary:



    Men, and some very smart men at that. Smart enough to allow the constitution to be amended. It's a living document, always open to change and amendment, but you have to have the votes to make this happen! Unfortunately, liberals and too many conservatives seem to forget this and push unconstitutional bills through anyway.



    The list implies a strong philosophical connection between the two individuals and the two parties. It's representative of our lack of political choice in this country. It also implies a concerning lack of respect for the constitution by both parties, who have shown a long history of picking and choosing when to follow the law, because changing it requires too many votes.
     
  19. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #20
    Yes. The very first one is incorrect. President Bush has supported many abstinence-only organizations. Obama has supported abstinence (and rightly so) and sexual education. The connection as presented in the article simply isn't there, and the reasoning is specious. I could compile a list of twenty similarities between Ghandi and Ahmadinejad, MacGuyver and Jack Bauer, Jesus and Popeye the sailor man, and these lists would mean just as much.
    I agree with you, and am an outspoken critic of the Democratic party, perhaps even moreso than I am of the Republican party. But this article and the rest of your statements are spurious and specious at best, and downright dishonest at worst.

    As an opponent of both major political parties, I absolutely agree with your decision to vote independently, however your efforts to convince others to do the same are at least equally marred by your choices of irrationally biased materials. Furthermore, your approach to detailing why Dr. Paul is the correct choice is equally as devoid of intellectual discourse as the tactics of the parties you (rightly) condemn. By focusing on supposed and misleading similarities between the two parties, even if you were 100% correct, you would not have made an even remotely compelling argument for why Dr. Paul is the most fitting choice; you will have merely outlined why Obama and McCain are not, presenting a false dichotomy. Presenting why Dr. Paul is an intelligent choice will be a lot more effective than presenting him merely as an alternative to two poor choices.
     
  20. abijnk macrumors 68040

    abijnk

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #21
    No, the list shows that when you oversimplify things you can draw any conclusion you want.

    Of course both parties agree on the same basic set of things that NEED to be worked on, but they do not agree on HOW to achieve that.
     
  21. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #22
    Took me all of five minutes to find one.

    Here's the quote from your article:
    And here's how that big tax cut of Bush's, the one that the author is comparing to Obama's, benefited Americans:
    I really doubt a $20 cut for people at the bottom of the ladder is the kind of tax cut Obama is talking about.
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #23
    +1.

    Libertarians should be as disappointed with the Libertarian party as I am with the Green Party. Rather than focusing on building on local wins to boost chances at the state and then the national level, both these "third" parties appear to invest much of their money and effort trying to win the biggest prize of them all.

    News flash -- it ain't gonna happen. You got to build your organization from the ground up. Prove you can win some elections and get some results those elections that are different from "traditional" politicians. Build your bench in every state. Find and train your best to move up.

    Then you can talk about the big prizes. Until then, it's all just talk.
     
  23. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #24
    i'd be much more sympathetic to the green party and libertarian party if they actually did this. hell i'd probably vote green then. these attempts by them to start at the top won't get them anywhere.
     
  24. TSE macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Location:
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    #25
    Democrats, Republicans, same **** different pile.

    Like I said in another thread, I want Obama to win. Not because I agree with him on almost anything, but because he will both make minorities have hope and quit riding on the minority scapegoat bandwagon, and it will make America desperate for some actual change, turning to Ron Paul or other various, much better choices. Bob Barr is iffy. I don't exactly hate him but I don't exactly like him. He flip flops on issues way too much, but he does get the basic idea.
     

Share This Page