Barack Obama Is A Great Orator...

[sonofone]

...so was Hitler. I'M NOT SAYING OBAMA IS HITLER OR ANYTHING LIKE HIM BUT IT SEEM THE BEST THING HE HAS GOING FOR HIM IS THE SAME THING HITLER HAD GOING FOR HIM. A.k.a being a charismatic orator doesn't make one a good candidate and I feel like his positions are too vague. Someone please help me out, because I don't know what's so special about him. Heres his position on Iraq. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sounds great, right? Not to me.

"He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

What are the chances al Qaeda will just go away? So, if al Qeada leaves, will leave... thank you Mr. bush... wait sorry, Mr. Obama. Come on, he runs a campaign that, in part, stands on a promise to bring our troops home, but he doesn't seem to mention the technicality in his "great energetic speeches."

So, whats so great about Obama?

[coffeeloverfreak]

If your point is that charisma alone does not make a great candidate, I think it would be easy to make that point without violating Godwin's Law in your first post, don't you?

But to the topic at hand: I'm not a huge fan of Barack Obama. However, I think that he does inspire people. He injects a dose of idealism into a deeply cynical population, and he will probably get people to vote who otherwise would have stayed home. That alone means something, because one of the biggest problems with politics is that so many people don't make their voices heard or participate in the process.

I also think that Obama's basic point - that diplomacy should always be tried before force - is a good one, and needs to be part of the debate.

That said, Obama's positions seem quite vague in a lot of areas. I find him weak in foreign policy, and it seems like his inexperience will haunt him in other areas. He hasn't had long enough to establish a voting record that forces him to really stand for something.

But on the other hand... he does have the most important thing going for him: Oprah's endorsement! :)

[Lights]

What are the chances al Qaeda will just go away? So, if al Qeada leaves, will leave... thank you Mr. bush... wait sorry, Mr. Obama. Come on, he runs a campaign that, in part, stands on a promise to bring our troops home, but he doesn't seem to mention the technicality in his "great energetic speeches."

The interesting thing is there wasn't really any Al Queada in Iraq before we invaded. Sadamn was not a big fan, especially of Osama bin Laden. And I remember that we went into Iraq with the intention of keeping Al queada from getting a foot hold in Iraq, and now they are what is keeping us there? I get tired of all the rhetoric. They are all politicians with their own agenda whether they are a Bush, a Clinton, a McCain, or an a Obama. What is special about Obama? Well he is black, and that's kinda cool, and he isn't Bush. That's all the reason most of America needs to vote for him.

[sonofone]

If your point is that charisma alone does not make a great candidate, I think it would be easy to make that point without violating Godwin's Law in your first post, don't you?


No. Its important to think about what I'm saying before you jump in and bring up Godwin's Law. I used caps lock to make sure I specified where the importance in my comparison lies. I'm personally nervous about people who are great orators. It seems to be a very powerful tool to rally people, which you seem to think is a good thing. I'm not saying it couldn't be used for good, but I tend to be suspect of people with little defined sustains that can still rally people around unclear issues. Its like signing a contract before reading it because the car dealer seems to be an great guy and must be telling you the truth.





sonofone added to this post, 3 minutes and 55 seconds later...

The interesting thing is there wasn't really any Al Queada in Iraq before we invaded.

I know... We've done great things for that country...

[coffeeloverfreak]

Well look at it this way:

Clinton = great orator
Bush Jr = not so great

Hmmmm...

[Lights]

Let's just elect Hilary so that we can get Bill back to fix this mess. ;)

[lordrrr]

Let's just elect Hilary so that we can get Bill back to fix this mess. ;)

Bill would be like "lolwut'sthis?" and panic, divorce Hillary and kill himself. Hillary would consequently whine and moan and the U.S. is screwed forever.

Let's not shall we?

[Santana28]

i really dont understand why anyone thinks Barack Obama is a "great orator" - i really don't see it at all. Not even close. Maybe its the fact that the media likes to repeat over and over again how wonderful his speaking skills are, or the fact that he plants people in his audience to faint for him at events (seriously - look it up).

When he talks - i hear a man trying to basically summarize all of the "great" speeches that have been made before (in both style and substance). He presents nothing new or exciting. He is not smooth - he comes off very scripted, and worse than that... he stutters frequently when going into details (implying that he is nervously doing so). He speaks using a stereotypical "black" accent in front of black audiences, and less so in front of white colleagues. I find that suspect and offensive. The substance of his speeches is a whole 'nother matter... i won't go there as this is not the topic at hand. But his mere speaking style, in my opinion, is average at best. I think the image of the "great orator" is a self-fulfilled prophecy which is being preached repeatedly by the media and in the minds of those who are desperate to find an answer to their political anxiety, and latch onto non-offensive words emanating from a non-offensive smile. personally, i think Mitt Romney wins the award for best acting this campaign 2008... but Barack Obama might make the top 3.

[sonofone]

Santana, I agree. It's amazing, people love him! I've found if you ask most Obama supporters why they like him so much (which most of them love him) they regurgitate something he mentioned in a 5 second news clip on CNN (so called, stump speech).

[Santana28]

Santana, I agree. It's amazing, people love him! I've found if you ask most Obama supporters why they like him so much (which most of them love him) they regurgitate something he mentioned in a 5 second news clip on CNN (so called, stump speech).

well, it should be noted that the #1 & 2 responses i get from Obama supporters when i ask them why they support him is not one of his policies, or something he has accomplished - it is always "I hate Bush/Republicans" or "He's such an amazing speaker!"

[pavman]

I trust neither John McCain nor Barak Obama, nor Billary...which leads me to only trust one guy... Huckabee. Unfortuantely, I think he might be a closet idiot and looks a lot like Bush, Part II... even if he's trying to associate himself more with Ronald Reagan than the Bush dynasty.

As for great orator...Obama is, but Alan Keyes is even greater. Its a shame the majority doesn't agree with his ideology, or at least think that he's too extreme. The Keyes-Obama Debates from 2004 were really good, if you haven't watched them, I suggest downloading them from CSPAN (not u-tube...seems like they're cut up on U-tube).... well worth the hour or so.

Lastly, Obama is really slick. He's very good at seeing why a certain tactic won't work because it would open a door to undercut a leftist strategy. For instance, I've heard that he opposed certain wording on abortion because if they were to update the law using the wording they we're hoping for, it would open the flood gates to undercut the pro-choice ideology, and, ultimately, undercut the left's incessant argument regarding life in totality (Ie, your life isn't worth it if you are not productive or if you cause problems to society).

;D Hopefully I won't be starting some side abortion debate here... don't do it...don't take the bait! I really don't want to get into this!!!

On a final note... my prediction is this... if Obama wins the dem nomination, he'll win the presidency. It doesn't matter what you put up against him, I think he's got a lock on it much more strongly than Hillary....so go Hillary go! ;)

[sonofone]

Obama may win the presidential nomination but I think it is unlikely. Just as Obama can "reach across partisan lines" so can McCain. I think the democrats shot themselves in the foot with this one. It was their year; if they nominated Edwards or someone else (i.e. white male) it would have been theirs for the taking. I'm not saying that I wouldn't vote for a (half)black male or (half)women female but I think there are people on the margin that would have voted democrat this election that won't vote for someone who isn't a white male. And the past few elections have been quite close. So even if those people a small minority, they could still have the power to sway this election to the republicans.

Also, I think it is unfortunate that the democrats have put themselves in a position where they have to vote for a man with little demonstrated substance and experience or creating a precedent that monarchies are something America wants. I'm not trying to start some conspiracy theory, so please don't attach it from the angle. I just think a minimum (if Hilary was elected president) 24 year of Bush/Clinton rule over this country is inappropriate. It's bad enough most people in DC are cousins.

[Provoker]

Anyone who uses ethnicity as a corridor to power is a scoundrel (e.g. Hitler, Milosevic, etc). It's dirty politics. On the one hand, a lot of these issues have been pushed under the rug for many years and should be addressed. On the other hand it will create renewed conflict, stimulate old repressed emotions, etc. This creep is really a step backwards. He's targetted hip hop culture (which is gigantic in the US) and he'll probably win because the youth and uneducated blacks are so gullible to this sort of thing. But history speaks louder than any political jargon - and history tells us that politicians that exploit ethnic nationalism as a corridor to power are a danger to society.

[Antares]

Obama may win the presidential nomination but I think it is unlikely. Just as Obama can "reach across partisan lines" so can McCain. I think the democrats shot themselves in the foot with this one. It was their year; if they nominated Edwards or someone else (i.e. white male) it would have been theirs for the taking.

Hillary and Obama are much more popular than Edwards. Personally, I was rooting for him before he fell out of running, but against Hillary and Obama's 'gender' and 'race' card, he doesn't have an advantage (because alas, every other President was a white male. He just isn't 'special' enough compared to the other two). I've heard lines from black people such as: "Every black person should vote for Obama." Even though not even black person would, but Obama running for the president did stir some commotion in this ethnic group.


I trust neither John McCain nor Barak Obama, nor Billary...which leads me to only trust one guy... Huckabee. Unfortuantely, I think he might be a closet idiot and looks a lot like Bush, Part II... even if he's trying to associate himself more with Ronald Reagan than the Bush dynasty.

Ugh. I don't find any politician completely trustworthy. The whole system is just full of deceit, dirt, conspiracy, argumentum ad populum etc etc. Democracy is the best working political ideology I know, but it's still built around the 'moral majority' mentality eg. We will do it because most people want it. (and sometimes it doesn't matter if popular opinions are wrong) I'm not suggesting that we should change the system. What can I say? It's the best we have (at least from my perspective). Maybe I'm just bitter at the world's imperfections. *sigh*

[sonofone]

Hillary and Obama are much more popular than Edwards. Personally, I was rooting for him before he fell out of running, but against Hillary and Obama's 'gender' and 'race' card, he doesn't have an advantage (because alas, every other President was a white male. He just isn't 'special' enough compared to the other two). I've heard lines from black people such as: "Every black person should vote for Obama." Even though not even black person would, but Obama running for the president did stir some commotion in this ethnic group.


What might be an advantage in the democratic primary could also be a disadvantage in the general election. That was my point.

[SeaCzar]

This election is going to the nastiest on record, regardless of who gets the Democratic nomination. What American needs now is a leader, not the ususal politician who says whatever to whomever in order to get elected. We need a Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, no one running is fit to shine Reagan's boots.

[Llen]

...
As for great orator...Obama is, but Alan Keyes is even greater. Its a shame the majority doesn't agree with his ideology, or at least think that he's too extreme. The Keyes-Obama Debates from 2004 were really good, if you haven't watched them, I suggest downloading them from CSPAN (not u-tube...seems like they're cut up on U-tube).... well worth the hour or so.

Lastly, Obama is really slick. He's very good at seeing why a certain tactic won't work because it would open a door to undercut a leftist strategy. For instance, I've heard that he opposed certain wording on abortion because if they were to update the law using the wording they we're hoping for, it would open the flood gates to undercut the pro-choice ideology, and, ultimately, undercut the left's incessant argument regarding life in totality (Ie, your life isn't worth it if you are not productive or if you cause problems to society).

;D Hopefully I won't be starting some side abortion debate here... don't do it...don't take the bait! I really don't want to get into this!!!

On a final note... my prediction is this... if Obama wins the dem nomination, he'll win the presidency. It doesn't matter what you put up against him, I think he's got a lock on it much more strongly than Hillary....so go Hillary go! ;)

Ok, if you don't want to begin an abortion debate on this thread, then don't write an entire paragraph heavily referring to that subject within your post.

Luckily for you, I'd rather speak on your comments regarding Alan Keyes:

Keyes is the GOP Token-of-Choice.

Example 1: On August 8, 2004 – with 86 days to go before the general election – the Illinois Republican Party drafted Alan Keyes to run against Democrat Barack Obama for the U.S. Senate, after the Republican nominee, Jack Ryan, withdrew due to a sex scandal, and other potential draftees (most notably former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka) declined to run. Keyes was called a "carpetbagger" in the media, since he "had never lived in Illinois." – Wikipedia

Example 2: As an Assistant Secretary of State, during the Reagan Administration, he opposed sanctions on the South African apartheid regime for U.S. economic interests.


I watched the 2004 Obama-Keyes CSPAN -2 Debates and I was not impressed with Keyes’ argument tying same-sex marriage with incest; it's not applicable for most situations involving same-sex marriage. Thus Keyes opposition to it does not constitute doing so for a "universal good" in philosophical terms. Obama said it best, “…your logic wasn’t that complicated; it was just wrong.” So does flawed logic = great orator. In my book it doesn't.

I could go on about why one shouldn't listen to Keyes. However many people simplify the argument by just writing him off as an asshole.





Llen added to this post, 11 minutes and 57 seconds later...

This election is going to the nastiest on record, regardless of who gets the Democratic nomination. What American needs now is a leader, not the ususal politician who says whatever to whomever in order to get elected. We need a Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, no one running is fit to shine Reagan's boots.

No, we do not. Reaganomics lead to a increased Federal budget deficit and hit the lowest socio-economic groups hardest by cutting social programs. Perhaps no one running is fit to shine Reagan's boots, but I know plenty of people that were ready and willing to kick his ass before he died.

[Provoker]

This election is going to the nastiest on record, regardless of who gets the Democratic nomination. What American needs now is a leader, not the ususal politician who says whatever to whomever in order to get elected. We need a Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, no one running is fit to shine Reagan's boots.

Reagan = Recession.

But I agree with everything else you said.

[Santana28]

I lean towards the Republican end of the spectrum and you can count me in on the list of people who think Reagan was a lousy president. Sorry, i had to say it. Nice guy, but did nothing good for this country.

[ginandsour]

i really dont understand why anyone thinks Barack Obama is a "great orator" - i really don't see it at all. Not even close. Maybe its the fact that the media likes to repeat over and over again how wonderful his speaking skills are, or the fact that he plants people in his audience to faint for him at events (seriously - look it up).

When he talks - i hear a man trying to basically summarize all of the "great" speeches that have been made before (in both style and substance). He presents nothing new or exciting. He is not smooth - he comes off very scripted, and worse than that... he stutters frequently when going into details (implying that he is nervously doing so). He speaks using a stereotypical "black" accent in front of black audiences, and less so in front of white colleagues. I find that suspect and offensive. The substance of his speeches is a whole 'nother matter... i won't go there as this is not the topic at hand. But his mere speaking style, in my opinion, is average at best. I think the image of the "great orator" is a self-fulfilled prophecy which is being preached repeatedly by the media and in the minds of those who are desperate to find an answer to their political anxiety, and latch onto non-offensive words emanating from a non-offensive smile. personally, i think Mitt Romney wins the award for best acting this campaign 2008... but Barack Obama might make the top 3.

Well, compaired to Clinton, who has a toneless pull string voice, I bet Obama does sound like a fabulous speaker. I can only stand about a paragraph's worth of Clinton's speeches.

[Santana28]

Well, compaired to Clinton, who has a toneless pull string voice, I bet Obama does sound like a fabulous speaker. I can only stand about a paragraph's worth of Clinton's speeches.

thats a really good thought. that makes a lot of sense - prop up the fact that Barack Obama is such an "amazing" speaker to distract and excuse the fact that Hillary is just awful at it. I think you're on to something there.

[rcarter]

I'm not voting for anyone whose last name rhymes with Osama and whose middle name is Hussein....lol j/k. Just felt like annoying some people.

But I do think Obama is exceptional in his ability to appeal to wide audiences and unite people. Plus he actually listens to his experts, advisers, and constituents. I actually like the guy, and I don't generally like people, lol.

Obama's an ENFJ by the way (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Any insights?

[interjerator]

Ramsey Yousef, the man behind the first bombing of the World Trade center, lived in Baghdad. So did Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Abu Nidal, and Abu Hassan. SOF forces report finding an al_Qaeda training camp just north of Baghdad.

It's not clear how active they were, or if Saddam collaborated much with them. However, we do know they are there now, and we can only deal with the current situation.

[pavman]

I'm not voting for anyone whose last name rhymes with Osama and whose middle name is Hussein....lol j/k. Just felt like annoying some people.

But I do think Obama is exceptional in his ability to appeal to wide audiences and unite people. Plus he actually listens to his experts, advisers, and constituents. I actually like the guy, and I don't generally like people, lol.

Obama's an ENFJ by the way (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Any insights?

Awesome! You know, we haven't had an INTJ president in a while...

Hillary INTJ?! Dam, its hard to believe, but Typelogic says so....

As for comments earlier... umm did you not only listen to the televised Keyes-Obama debates, but also the two radio debates? They were really good, best in a long time in this country.

You might pick apart Keyes on one point, but Obama can be picked apart on a number of points as well. I don't remember all of the details, but they were both very well versed during the debates and they both left impressions of intellect and will. And that's really what matters in debates :)

I think the radio debates are still out there as well.

I admit that Illinois Republican leadership is in pretty poor shape right now; hopefully they can turn that around soon without destroying their base. Topinka, although a nice person, just didn't have the balls to win the governorship (literally and figuratively).

Hell, Republicans are in pretty piss-poor shape in general...hopefully they can turn the whole party around without splintering a majority of their base, which is what they appear to be doing (even if they're not trying). Tis a shame they couldn't take their success in the 90s and keep it going in the 21st Century. Oh well...power corrupts.

[xanodel]

Actually I think the Kiersey people typed Obama as an INTJ (which I find a tad hard to believe) and Hilary as an ENTJ (which I also find hard to believe).

What I do however believe is that most of politics today is still governed by Machiavelli's fundamental theories outlined in "The Prince"-that a good leader will always insinuate and imitate virtues which he does not have, as people can read your actions but not your thoughts. Hence while I do believe Obama is charismatic, I must ask, are his virtues as outlined in the media (which had previously found Bush Jr. charismatic too), for real? And perhaps because of media hype, I should not put stock on his virtues. Rather it does beg the question, perhaps we are giving him virtues he does not have, and other candidates vices that they do not have?

[ginandsour]

Hell, Republicans are in pretty piss-poor shape in general...hopefully they can turn the whole party around without splintering a majority of their base, which is what they appear to be doing (even if they're not trying).

Yes and no. In the end, the social conservatives supporting Huckabee to "make a point" would probably rather have McCain in office than either of the opposition.

I for one would be happy to see the political musculature of fundamentalist extremists in America take a great, big nosedive, or at least willingly retreat to some militia compound where they can sit in a giant circle and believe that when those crazy liberals take over, they'll send their children to gay school where they'll learn to pray to Mecca and have d.i.y abortions on gurneys made of contraceptives and banned books.

[Santana28]

Yes and no. In the end, the social conservatives supporting Huckabee to "make a point" would probably rather have McCain in office than either of the opposition.

I for one would be happy to see the political musculature of fundamentalist extremists in America take a great, big nosedive, or at least willingly retreat to some militia compound where they can sit in a giant circle and believe that when those crazy liberals take over, they'll send their children to gay school where they'll learn to pray to Mecca and have d.i.y abortions on gurneys made of contraceptives and banned books.

if America doesn't stop voting for the media-crowned "front-runner" or between the "lessor of two evils" and start voting for the BEST candidate with the BEST record supporting their ideas, we are doomed.

[merid]

if America doesn't stop voting for the media-crowned "front-runner" or between the "lessor of two evils" and start voting for the BEST candidate with the BEST record supporting their ideas, we are doomed.

I live in Britain but global politics does interest me, so I have to say that you are right. I think Obama will be extremely bad on the world stage. Good speaking does not equal an ability to get things done.

[thod]

Such logic.

1) Hitler was a great orator.
2) Obama is a great orator.

-> 3) Obama is Hitler.

or

1) Swans have long necks.
2) Giraffes have long necks.

-> 3) Swans are Giraffes.

Obama has one good thing going for him. He is a black man that came from left field. Clinton is bought and paid for by the lobbyists as is McCain. Nobody saw Obama coming and he owes nobody any favors. America wants a change, it has to vote for change. In usual circumstances you are not given that choice, all candidates are pre owned. This time you get to vote for a man that can act freely. Its not about if he is capable of delivering that change but that he is free to try.

[eternaltriangle]

Hillary Clinton is definitely an STJ, I would say ISTJ. She is not a big ideas person, and her speeches comprise of lists of things - pretty ISTJ to me.

"Nobody saw Obama coming and he owes nobody any favors. America wants a change, it has to vote for change. In usual circumstances you are not given that choice, all candidates are pre owned. This time you get to vote for a man that can act freely. Its not about if he is capable of delivering that change but that he is free to try."

Uhhh lots of people saw Obama coming, and started saying "ooh he's so presidential" after his big speech in 2004. Tony Rezko, currently under indictment saw so much potential in Obama that he raised hundreds of thousands of dollars (and sold a lot next to Obama's house to Obama for 1/6th the price he bought it for). Obama is the child of deeply corrupt Chicago politics (and has been endorsed by most major trade unions as well). Obama can only act freely in that he has campaigned on nothing, and therefore, if he wins, will not really be tied to any particular policy.

Here is the thing about Obama. Obama the idea: lets elect the first black, nay, the first post-racial president, and everything in America will be saved. Martin Luther King Jr. will rise from the dead, and schools will be integrated, and white people will no longer have to feel guilty about... all that stuff they did (I do think there is a strong correlation between "white guilt" and support for Obama - evidence? Who likes Obama... African Americans, university students and upper middle class liberals... who dislikes Obama, relatively... Hispanics, Asians, women and working class whites - people probably don't feel white guilt because they generally have grievances of their own).

The thing is that substantively, Obama represents a boilerplate liberalism that could have come from just about any Democrat since the 60's. His coalition is unworkable, or at least will be in a general election where he doesn't agree with his opponent on everything (unfortunately for Clinton, Obama is running on the same platform as her). Independents are a lot closer to McCain on the issues.

One other thing - the media needs to learn how to handle a black politician. Throughout this race they have jumped on the slightest thing as being racist. The general tendency is to first fawn over Obama, and then all of a sudden turn around and say the opposite, because they don't want to be unfair. Look at the responses to Obama's recent speech on realclearpolitics. The day after, it was all rosy "this is the greatest speech of all time" (I felt like the speech was pretty empty). Then on day two, the knives came out - "wait, he said nothing... he insulted his grandmother" etc. What this says to me is that we aren't in a magic post-racial land. The media (or rather individuals IN the media) are having a hard time evaluating Obama fairly - perhaps out of a morbid fear of being called racist, but then also out of a fear of overly favouring one candidate. Given how much we need a healthy news-media to keep a president honest, I do not look forward to Obama's presidency (although I would bet on his winning this November).

[ginandsour]

Sure there's a morbid fear of being called a racist. Look what's happened to people in Clinton's camp who've been taken so far out of context as to be called racists?

America isn't tolerant at all--well, compared to say the history of the last century we are, but that isn't saying a whole lot--and Obama gives a portion of white voters a chance to finally release the guilt that's been thrown at them their entire lives for being white. It's like a reverse race card.

[eternaltriangle]

America isn't tolerant at all--well, compared to say the history of the last century we are, but that isn't saying a whole lot--and Obama gives a portion of white voters a chance to finally release the guilt that's been thrown at them their entire lives for being white. It's like a reverse race card.

Oh, the poor poor white people.

The problem is that people are more concerned with being called racist than whether or not they are racist. Electing a mixed president to salve white guilt is the exact worst thing to do in that situation - white guilt is just about the only thing getting middle class Americans to care about the other side. Moreover continuing racism is hardly going to be stopped by the elimination of white guilt.

At the end of the day, a truly equal America will come through policies, not platitudes.

[meanlittlechimp]

We need a Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, no one running is fit to shine Reagan's boots.

Are there any INTJs on this forum that aren't republican?

Pining for the Reagan yesteryears? The simpleton's only qualification before politics was being a second rate actor. The level of analysis here is embarrassing. Obama is racist, Obama plays the race card, he's a creep. He doesn't have a real plan, (as opposed to Bush or McCain?). The reason many candidates don't go into detailed policy analysis is because they know it will bore people with small attention spans, and limited vocabularies which comprises the majority of the population. That's why you get duncecaps like Bush and actors to make the most important decisions in the world. An economics professor, might be a good choice - but their arguments would go above most people's heads, and they know it.....

The same people here that probably voted for Bush, aren't even embarrassed about what they've done to the country. Supply side/trickle down economics was a bullshit economic theory, created by David Stockman, who later resigned from Reagan's staff and admitted he was completely wrong, but of course they didn't stop them from using his bullshit to sell to the American public. They needed some kind of rationale and buzzword that would work on folks that know nothing about economics. Reagan chose this guy as Budget Director when his credentials, were a graduate degree from Divinity School (and had no economics background whatsover). That's some brilliant thinking. Get a bible studies teacher to determine economic policy.

Do you think Reagan knew anything about economics or foreign policy, he was merely a mouthpiece for the conservative party, he had no actual ideas of his own. He was handed sheets of paper to read like a script. Him, and his retarded wife, consulted astrologers in the White House for chrissakes, but a good third of you here, probably believe in that nonsense too.

Most of the people here probably even like the idea that the number one feeder school to the department of justice, is the faux law school started by Pat Robertson, where bible studies are taught side by side with tort reform and constitutional law.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Astrologers and Bible teachers? The dumbest lawyers in America to work in the highest judicial branch of government. No wonder much of the party doesn't believe Global Warming is real and stem cell research should be stopped, you guys got your faith healers to go too, in case of emergency.

[ginandsour]

Oh, the poor poor white people.

The problem is that people are more concerned with being called racist than whether or not they are racist. Electing a mixed president to salve white guilt is the exact worst thing to do in that situation - white guilt is just about the only thing getting middle class Americans to care about the other side. Moreover continuing racism is hardly going to be stopped by the elimination of white guilt.

At the end of the day, a truly equal America will come through policies, not platitudes.

I don't mean to suggest that eliminating white guilt will end racism. Middle class left leaning Americans tend to vote for Clinton anyway, with Obama pulling from a cohort of the electorate that is better educated with higher median household incomes, students who will rally around him now and blow it in the general election, and poor people.

I'm also not suggesting that what I wrote is the correct way to go about anything--it is just what I see happening at the moment.

[eternaltriangle]

Are there any INTJs on this forum that aren't republican?

Pining for the Reagan yesteryears? The simpleton's only qualification before politics was being a second rate actor. The level of analysis here is embarrassing. Obama is racist, Obama plays the race card, he's a creep. The reason many candidates don't go into detailed policy analysis is because they know it will bore people with small attention spans, and limited vocabularies which comprises the majority of the population.


1. Whether they were his own or not, Reagan sold ideas to the American public that were radical. While I agree that supply-side economics was a crock, a lot of the deregulation reforms, and streamlining of government (apart from defence) were positive. For Obama, by contrast, Obama IS the change. Talk to some of these Obama-nuts, and you will see what I mean. Why do you support Obama? "Because he inspires people"... "Because he once gave a speech against the war." Only a generation of people with a civic education as poor as today's young adults could elect a man with as vapid a vision for America.

2. It isn't the lack of details that bothers me about Obama. It is the extreme disconnect between his rhetoric and his platform. His rhetoric is about unity, hope and change. His platform offers boilerplate liberal solutions of more spending on X Y Z (so much for unity and change). He is calling for "a new politics" but has no new ideas. As for hope... nobody sounds less hopeful about America than Obama (apart from maybe John Edwards).

3. In 1980 Reagan had been a two-term governor of California, former president of the Screen Actor's Guild, a leading critic of big government (in his years as a GE Spokesman) - as well as a nearly successful primary contender against Gerald Ford, a sitting president. The notion that Reagan was "dumb" is baseless - of course he was happy to bask in that image, as it was part of what made him the teflon president.

4. You can absolutely sell people on ideas. Reagan sold people on deregulation and a tougher stance towards the Soviets. Clinton sold people on a third way platform that combined more efforts to help the needy with welfare reform and law and order. Lyndon Johnson sold people on the civil rights act and the war on poverty. Roosevelt sold people on the New Deal. People don't care about the details (I don't care much about them), but I do care about the 'N' of it all. What is the big picture about where Obama will take the country?

5. Okay I lied, there are some details I care about, which Obama has not addressed. Like... If Al Quaeda has a base in Iraq, (which Obama admitted is the case) will he still withdraw American troops? Is more spending on education (Bush doubled federal spending on education) likely to yield results? What will Obama do about the deficit - if his answer is that he will reduce it, what cuts to government spending will he make? How will Obama's policies reduce the cost of healthcare, either to the taxpayer or the individual (and how is it universal if it doesn't cover everybody)? What is the likely effect going to be of raising taxes in the midst of a recession? Why should taxpayers - rich and poor - smart enough not to get sub-prime mortgages subsidize the idiots that did, and the banks that miscalculated the default rate?

Don't these questions bother you a great deal? Sure the people are stupid, but the elites that mobilize them and mold them are not. People have a lot of heuristics that enable them to make informed choices, despite knowing little about politics. They rely on trusted sources (which presumably do care about the questions I listed), or remember that they dislike candidate X without remembering specifically why. Can you recall a time in your life when so many questions like this were left unanswered*, despite a media circus without compare (I will grant, I'm a foreigner, and we do things differently up there... like you know... ask questions about our leaders)?

*Well perhaps Bush's first term qualifies as another time when a lot of questions weren't asked... and that didn't work out too well, did it.

[meanlittlechimp]

3. In 1980 Reagan had been a two-term governor of California, former president of the Screen Actor's Guild, a leading critic of big government (in his years as a GE Spokesman) - as well as a nearly successful primary contender against Gerald Ford, a sitting president. The notion that Reagan was "dumb" is baseless - of course he was happy to bask in that image, as it was part of what made him the teflon president.


I said BEFORE he entered politics, his handlers and campaign contributers controlled Reagan. He just did what he was told. President of the Actor's guild? So his background was being a second rate actor, but being well liked by other actors, which made him leader of a UNION. He was a crap student at a crap school. He was spokesperson for GE?. Guess what, so are J-Lo, Hulk Hogan, and actors who PRETEND to be lawyers on Law and Oder. California loves republican actors, who suck at their chosen craft (they also love lawyers who don't do well in school either, go figure). But.. I would actually vote for Arnold over Reagan or McCain.

I don't think he was dumb. I think he was AVERAGE. Not stupid or smart. I know I could crush him in a debate on every fucking policy he ever signed. I'm not saying I'm that smart. I know there are millions in this country far smarter than me, I just think one of them should be president over a second rate actor who wouldn't know a good script, if it bit him in both eyes.


*Well perhaps Bush's first term qualifies as another time when a lot of questions weren't asked... and that didn't work out too well, did it.

They weren't asked by the people who voted for him. But don't project that to the rest of us.

Some of us knew what was gonna happen. Some of us read the Wolfowitz papers in 1992 when they got leaked. They did exactly what they've been planning to do for quite some time. The policy makers on the right read them before they leaked.

Sure the people are stupid, but the elites that mobilize them and mold them are not. People have a lot of heuristics that enable them to make informed choices, despite knowing little about politics. They rely on trusted sources (which presumably do care about the questions I listed), or remember that they dislike candidate X without remembering specifically why.
You're right about one thing. The neo-cons calling the shots are NOT stupid. They are extremely bright, but they can only get their way by duping the ignorant. Being bright doesn't make them right, however. I though W's papers were brilliant. They correctly predicted chinese growth rates at 10% a year in 1992!

I agreed with their assessment that the growth rate of the Chinese,among other things would have so much pressure on the price of raw materials, especially oil, but also tin, copper, lead, bauxite, rubber, etc. That it would have devastating effects on the US economy. Most conservatives AND liberals never understood this about their reasoning. They are true patriots, they aren't just trying to line their pockets, as some liberals claim. But because I believe in a different strategy, it doesn't make me LESS patriotic, as most conservatives claim.

I just disagree with their solution.. Which is to steal by taking advantage of our stronger military which is not necessarily irrational (it can work in other circumstances). I just don't think it's the best tactic long term. Getting too aggressive makes the world start to hate you and force detente amongst your enemies. Sure you can make money robbing liquor stores, but eventually you get busted. It's better long term to get a fucking job, without having to resort to theft. As soon as Japan and Germany were scared straight, and dropped all the conservative hawk rhetoric (from getting their faces punched in); they were better off, don't you think? What's ironic is that now THEIR citizens protest OUR policies now!! The largest protests in Europe since the rise of the Nazis, was against the US invasion of Saddam, a corrupt dictator!! Think about it.....

The best approach, IMO, is to win through economic competitiveness. Build better products, increase LONG TERM productivity growth, by making sure we have the best engineers on the planet. Engineering builds economies and wins wars. When other societies have better engineers, it develops their economies, once their economies develop, they can learn how to make weapons and militarize VERY quickly. Look at the US pre WWII.

Although Japan and South Korea aren't on the list of nations that have the bomb, do you really think they don't have it? What's the point of bragging and drawing criticism when you're winning the real war (the economic one). We buy our computer chips for our laser guided missiles from them. You don't think they know how to enrich uranium and manufacture long range delivery systems? North Korea has it, but South Korea and the Japanese don't know how? Believe me, they don't need to buy the technology from the Pakis, either.

Half the Chinese Congress have engineering backgrounds, while our leaders have acting backgrounds. Hmm... wonder why we have a huge trade deficit?

We need to go back to science, we invented the car, electricity, the microwave, the telegraph, the internet, almost everything great in the last 100 years. Korea was a third world country who went through 50 years of Japanese occupation and a the Korean war, and in a few decades with no natural resources, we're buying cell phones, cars, semiconductors and whatever else from them? This is a dangerous path.

The average ninth grader in Japan and Korea know calculus while only 5% American high school seniors do. The average 10th grader there, knows more math than the average college graduate here. That is the trend that scares me. That is the trend, that must be reversed.

[eternaltriangle]

Thank you for a very fair assessment of neoconservatism (of which I do not consider myself a supporter - I am more of a foreign policy realist in the traditions of Nixon-Kissinger or Bush the Elder). I actually agree with your assessment somewhat - America needs to improve long-term productivity growth, but I am not sure if your solution is the best.

For starters, America did not invent the car (the first cars were German, and France dominated the industry in the beginning), nor the telegraph (invented Baron Schilling), nor the telephone (Alexander Graham Bell was Scottish, and he worked primarily in his laboratory in Nova Scotia, Canada). While America can claim the airplane as its baby, America was far behind the French, British and Soviets in aviation technology until the 1930's. My point? The innovator is not necessarily the main beneficiary of a technology.

If it were just a matter of good schools, Britain would not have led the world in the 19th century, France would have. The folks with money in Britain did not study the sciences - and for much of the time the two main British universities (Oxford and Cambridge) thought the sciences beneath them.

In the 20th century, American schools were not exactly exemplary either. In terms of the number of scientists per capita, the Soviets held a large lead over America. Despite this, they could only muster leadership in space technology (a lead that had few economic spinoffs, was enormously expensive to maintain, and whose propaganda benefits were blunted when America landed on the moon).

So why did Britain, and why did America do so well, despite not really being great innovators? The answer lies in entrepreneurship and markets. While not inventing the car, America had Henry Ford. It had a system where bad businesses failed, and good ones succeeded. Relentless competition forced firms to implement the latest technologies into their production processes.

Should America buy cars, semiconductors and cell-phones from Japan and Korea? ABSOLUTELY. They are old technologies - Japan's long-standing lead in semiconductors and consumer electronics has hardly helped the Japanese. Their economy didn't grow from 1987 till the early 00's (while they are high tech in a lot of public aspects, they lag behind the rest of the OECD in computerization in the workplace). The analogy I would draw is with the Corn Law debates in Britain in the 1830's. There were a lot of vested interests (the landed aristocracy) that sought to maintain protectionism for British corn (they meant all grain products, by the way, not actual corn in the American sense). However, at great political cost, Robert Peel repealed all tariffs. There were job losses, and there certainly was a lot of short term economic pain. However, folks started moving from the countryside and into the factory towns - making Britain the workshop of the world.

The question is not whether or not America buys things from other countries. Low-tech goods, and medium-tech goods should be bought from abroad if America is to maintain its economic lead. It is the cutting edge where the greatest value-added exists anyway. What is a problem, and is happening, is that America's lead in biotechnology, IT and aerospace are dwindling.

What should be done? I agree that America's education system is a problem, but not for the same reasons as meanlittlechimp. It isn't so much about the innovation side (American universities are by far the world's best and most productive - moreover, you only need a well educated 2% to produce innovation), which I have demonstrated does not always flow into economic success. It is about having good workers able to perform increasingly complex tasks (eg. just-in-time production). Good education will help, but it is a small part of the problem.

Moreover, the issue with education is hardly money, it is emphasis. America babys its students, and encourages rote learning with things like standardized tests (Japan also probably overemphasizes rote learning, I should note - Finland and Canada are the best and most applicable models Americans should be looking at). The trouble with education spending is that it has been largely spent on stupid things. There is this obsession, for instance, with smaller class sizes (or rather, there is an obsession on the part of teacher's unions with job security for their members). Empirical studies show weak or almost no improvement from smaller class sizes, unless you can get them below 15 students - which is not feasible. A far better (because you don't need to build new schools) alternative that does not require more schools is better teachers, especially in the sciences. Of course teacher's unions don't like the idea of raising the salary of just science teachers (more science teachers would also help with another problem - the emergence male-female gap). The other dumb policy that education spending has gone right into is tuition subsidization so more kids can go to university. I really don't think giving millions of kids a firm grounding in Post-Marxist feminist sociology (and liver problems) helps much of anything - while it does force universities to dumb down the curriculum. It is a great example of the middle class welfare state within America - policies aimed at the votes of soccer moms, rather than their effect on the economy.

A bigger problem lies in obstacles to successful entrepreneurship. America has the highest corporate taxes in the free world. At the same time, unlike virtually every other country, there is no national sales tax. Sales taxes are by far the most effective of taxes - they cost the least to administer, and encourage saving (which is a good thing - more saving means more investment, because people save either by investing in companies, or by putting money in the bank, which banks lend to entrepreneurs).

Secondly, American patent laws are somewhat outdated and poorly suited to present times. Of course pharmaceutical companies need to be able to make profits (and boy howdy, they do), but they shouldn't be able to sit on what is essentially a publicly enforced monopoly for their entire lifetime.

Thirdly, congress needs to be reformed so as to limit the power of vested interests. Old growth industries (like the auto industry) will tend to be more powerful than new industries, because new industries usually consist of small, scattered firms. Because there are many firms, it is harder for say, the IT industry to lobby, than it is for the big 3. Something like a line-item veto, enabling the president to reverse industry favoritism is needed, otherwise old-growth industries will prevent progress (just as big textile and steel cartels did in Britain in the 1920's and 1930's - thwarting the interests of newly emerging industries).

Fourthly, America needs comprehensive immigration reform as a matter of national security. When a rich country lives next to a poor country, guess what, people are going to get in. When those people are denied basic rights and services, they are limited in their ability to either integrate into American society, and to contribute to American society for work. A guest worker program of some kind, with amnesty (well automatic guest worker status) for those illegals already here is necessary. If the US is going to compete with a demographic giant like China, it needs Mexico, and it needs Latin America (I'm also a big fan of the FTAA). Republicans (thankfully McCain, hailing from a border state, gets it) need to suck it up - free markets are about the free movement of goods AND services.

Fifth, to pay down the deficit, and pay for necessary infrastructure and public goods, somebody needs to go after America's middle class welfare state. What am I talking about? Billions of dollars in social security for people that don't need it. An extremely over-regulated health-care system that pushes up costs for businesses and individuals (America should either go fully public or private). The US government spends almost as much per capita as Canada and most Western European countries on health-care yet gets incredibly poor results.

[meanlittlechimp]

Nice points. I obviously just picked random inventions without actually doing any research on the actual inventors.

It's true it's not just engineering and science education. It's also how efficient your capital markets are. Entrepreneurship is important, as is the venture capital to take on risks commercial lenders won't or even public markets. A well written, and well enforced legal system is also hugely critical to economic development.

That being said, I think investment in education of the populace is hugely critical. Where do you think this entrepreneurs with ideas come from, or competent lawyers to enforce judicial system. Or venture capitalists who determine which next big idea should be funded. No we shouldn't just waste money willy nilly, and reform should also stem in policy, not just spending. At the same time, even if the dollars weren't 100% efficient, imagine what 2 trillion dollars would do to the level of education and skills our populace would have instead of sending them to Iraq, so they can come back home and flip burgers?

There are plenty of studies that show education level even impacts factory workers. One of the reasons Japan, Germany and Korea has such great manufacturing prowess is smarter/more educated workers, creates higher productivity even on seemingly, skill-less assembly line jobs such as manufacturing cars. You imply these are old industries, and somewhat irrelevant in a 21st century economy but why is our trade deficit so huge and our currency turning to shit? Because people don't buy our goods anymore (relatively), and we buy their's.

What are we exporting besides music, hollywood and war? Do you think we wanted to lose the auto industry and the ship building industry and everything else? What jobs are replacing these in places like Detroit and Kansas.

I agree congress has to be fixed to stop special interests. Lobbying and special interests is the number one thing broken with our political process. The sub prime lending fiasco is the direct result of MBNA writing the lending laws that precipitated the whole situation (because they were the largest contributers to the Bush campaign.) Taking money from social security is not the answer. Stealing from people who put in THEIR money for retirement should not be stolen from to finance our wars or balance our budgets.

I agree with your patent law reform, but I think it's a minor issue in the big picture compared to trillion dollar wars, un-regulated corporate greed and bailouts. Why the fuck should my tax money be used to bail out crappy companies because they used practiced predatory lending practices on the exact people who can't afford it (and who had the dubious credit, which is accounting for all the defaults). Most regulation is bad, but not all is. Anti-trust regulation, for instance, is extremely critical to a well functioning economy.

Another area that requires legislation is energy reform. This is something if allowed to private sector would just go on ad infinitum until there is irreversible catastrophe. The Germans, who many here might even call socialist, have an innovate incentive based energy system that promotes use of solar energy. They've already hit 20% solar and will hit 30% fairly shortly. This would have NEVER been done without government regulation. Some social benefits for the common good, would never have been enacted without government interference.

No one objects to government interference in crime. Because individuals are hurting others, through their actions and without the state to step in their would be lawlessness. Environmental damage hurts future generations and no one will speak for THEIR interests, without government regulation. It is essentially a crime against their welfare, that the free market would not protect on it's own.

The economic miracle in places like Taiwan, Korea, Japan, etc was not done with pure capitalism and free markets. They protected fledgling industries to grow large enough to compete in int'l markets. Keep in mind t hey grew WITHOUT vast natural resources, or stealing them via puppet dictatorships. They did it through engineering prowess. They largely rejected the "free market" remedies offered by the World Bank and IMF. If you look at the countries that listened to those organizations, they are completely screwed and are in massive debt to those same organizations and associated lending bodies. The blind following of the "free market" is not always what it seems. I believe in free trade, but most free trade preached is not actual free trade but rhetoric to trap the developing world.

Generally speaking, I agree with keeping taxes low to incentivize industry. But it is NOT always the answer. Especially when it's being used for political purposes, and we are just pushing that debt onto another generation. The tax rebates that Bush likes to do, are a temporary, fleeting stimulus to the economy, that just passes on this little spending spree to the next guy who has to pay it. It's like a drunk college kid maxing his credit cards, thinking everything is ok. It is not incentivizing R&D and economic growth in the traditional economic sense, it's a quick shot in the arm, that fades almost as soon as it helped, but is a cheap way to garner political support.

When interest on the debt dwarfs our education spending and we decide not to pay off any of this debt and continually lower taxes, and then increase spending by going to war - we are living in fantasy land. This is a plan in idioicy and it WILL have long term consequences. Whomever is going to be the next president is going to inherent a massive debt, decreased US prestige due to our militarism and a recession in magnitude far beyond what most imagine.

Ack! that was too long, and totally thread derailing. If you want to respond to me, maybe start a new thread or we'll do this somewhere else. YES, Obama is a great orator and is the best ones since JFK. Reagan wasn't bad, but he didn't have any of his own ideas, he was a second rate actor reading from a second rate script. Obama is actually smart enough to write his own speeches.

[acyckowski]

Hillary INTJ?! Dam, its hard to believe, but Typelogic says so....


I read an independent article on realclearpolitics.com about a month ago claiming that Hillary is an ISTJ, which seems more coherent with her actions. I read the Typelogic profile (or was it Keirsey?), and they based their assessment on cues from her books. I tend to think that indicates she had an INTJ ghostwriter.

Anyhow, in this article the basis for characterizing Sen. Clinton as an SJ, not an NT, was her public actions. The way she manages her staff indicates a need for great control, and she seems to value loyalty before competence. If you look at the way her campaign has been run, it seems to demonstrate an unwillingness to move from old paradigms regardless of overwhelming evidence that things aren't working right. And, as mentioned in previous posts, her speeches do sound like checklists.

The same article also cited Sen. Obama as ENFP, although due to his habit of retreating into solitude between public appearances, he could be an INFP with a well-developed E. He certainly is an Idealist of some variety, his speeches seem to indicate the pure optimism of an INFP and not so much the personal connections of an ENFP. I'm not sure of Typelogic's ENFJ rating, again I think it says more about his ghostwriters.