|
Post by username on Nov 4, 2008 21:39:01 GMT -8
I never imagined that this election would effect me like this. I am not angry. I am not puzzled. I am not bitter.
I am heartbroken.
What happened to my country? My country, tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I speak. What happened to the place where everyone believed that anyone here could do anything? What happened to the American dream? Where did we go wrong?
I know where we went wrong. We started looking at the American Dream as the American guarantee. We started to take and take and take and never give back, because what was the most important was the dollars in our pockets and not the welfare of our fellow man. We started to fight with our compatriots and hiss and spit and name-call because, God help us, we wanted to win for the sake of winning rather than lose for the sake of honor. We let our press become a propaganda machine and our schools become indoctrination centers because we couldn't spare the hour a week it would have took to check up on either. We allowed government to take up the roll we all ought to have taken up, allowed them to help the poor and feed the hungry, and now we are surprised that the government asks for their pound of flesh. We were fools, and we got what we deserved.
From here, what does a person who believes in freedom do? He does what he ought to have been doing before all this started happening: he gets involved in his community. He gets to know his neighbors. He puts in his time for people less fortunate than himself. He tells the stories of those who managed to do great things out of meager means. He tells the stories of those who deserve the opportunity to do the same. He finds common ground with his opponents, and realizes that after all is said and done, we likely have more in common than we do things to fight about. He picks up his chin, looks to the future, and moves on.
My friends, my compatriots, my fellow travelers, it has been a good fight. Now is the time to lick our wounds and move on. If we want to save this country, it will not be through some man in Washington DC telling us how we ought to do it. It will be through each and every one of us, out of our own volition and our own free will, putting in the time that before we realized the gravity of the situation we wasted with such smug self-assurance. In four years, we will all have something to say sorry for. In the mean time, let's try to clear our good names and get our families, our communities, our states, and our nation on the right track again.
To anyone I've had a cross word with over the course of this election, I'm sorry. I'll try and do better next time. I only ask that you do the same.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Nov 4, 2008 21:51:57 GMT -8
Umm. What does this have to do with Obama winning. Your whole first three sentences confuses me. You are aware that Obama is now our first Black President right?
|
|
|
Post by username on Nov 4, 2008 22:04:00 GMT -8
I am, and that's great. But it's also sad that America is so hung up on that fact. I suppose in the context of history, a black president is very significant. However, it worries me that Barack Obama's status as a black man had so much to do with his appeal. If Barack Obama's name had been Barry Stevenson and he'd been a white man with Obama's exact history and qualifications, would he have won? I can't say for sure (mainly because I doubted McCain's ability to be a viable candidate from the start).
Being black is not a disadvantage in my book. I don't want to institutionalize blackness as some sort of challenge that must be overcome. This is not because I don't that racism exists, but because I believe that in our country racism is not a barrier to entry. And, at least at this point, I don't think anyone can argue that fact anymore. My problem is that since Obama did in fact win, blackness is not in fact the huge disadvantage we all imagined it to be before this happened. In fact, I'd be willing to go so far as to say that Barack Obama's blackness made him much more notable and much more appealing than he would have been otherwise.
But this message is not about Barack Obama. It's about us, and how we got where we are. If you believe in what Barack Obama believes in, then I can't change your mind with a post on a local music forum. I can say, however, that according to what I believe, people like myself have failed on a very important and very specific point: we've allowed America to think that government is the solution to their problems rather than people simply helping people. That is our fault, our shortcoming, and our ultimate failure to lead by example.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Nov 4, 2008 22:12:13 GMT -8
I honestly believe that race had very little to do with the campaign. I think it had more to do with the effectiveness of the campaign and the chrism(which may be just as much a concern as if race had been a real factor) of the candidate. I brought it up because when I read that was the most "What happened to the place where everyone believed that anyone here could do anything? What happened to the American dream?" that is the first fallacy in your logic that I saw. To be honest, I plan to pray that no freak accidents or "accidents" happen that would somehow put McCain in charge. We can't afford to gamble on McCain living through all his years as president and Palin not having to take over.
|
|
|
Post by username on Nov 4, 2008 22:17:14 GMT -8
Well, from a classical liberal standpoint (my point of view), government is only ever able to diminish freedom, since freedom itself is a granted. Giving more power to government seems to me an abdication of responsibility in addition to a dangerous course of action, based only on what I've seen in every nation that's tried ever-bigger government as a solution to ever-bigger problems.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Nov 4, 2008 22:31:18 GMT -8
I don't know, Ireland Does well for it's self and you could think of it as a welfare state. The point you are hitting upon is the main devision between the two parties (at least historically) and both sides have compelling arguments. I have yet to read it but in A. B. Atkinson's findings: “Incomes and the Welfare State” published by Cambridge University Press, 1995 he indicates that there is no real evidence that supports criticism against the welfare state and that all the statistics bolster those arguing FOR the welfare state.
|
|
|
Post by milofultz on Nov 5, 2008 0:01:19 GMT -8
I think that if we had no idea what the presidential candidates looked like and sounded like and got all their speeches in writing, elections would be a lot closer. Obama is a man that has great rhetoric and has such great speaking mannerisms that he can take the heart of whatever country/woman he wants. McCain; not so much. If we hadn't known Palin was a woman and didn't know Obama was black, the election would have been WAY different. Also, Obama had better not fuck up. He is so sketch, I am super scurred. Oh yeah, congrats to me for making the most posted on thread on these boards. YAYZ!
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Nov 5, 2008 0:22:03 GMT -8
I think that if we had no idea what the presidential candidates looked like and sounded like and got all their speeches in writing, elections would be a lot closer. Obama is a man that has great rhetoric and has such great speaking mannerisms that he can take the heart of whatever country/woman he wants. McCain; not so much. If we hadn't known Palin was a woman and didn't know Obama was black, the election would have been WAY different. Also, Obama had better not fuck up. He is so sketch, I am super scurred. Oh yeah, congrats to me for making the most posted on thread on these boards. YAYZ! Exactly. I don't think race had so much to do with Obama's win as his pure charisma and the quality job of his campaign. That and Bush fucked it up so bad that a lot of people, I think, will hesitate to vote republican for the next 4-8 years unless Obama fucks it up worse. I'm not complaining, I voted for him and I trust the guy but I can't argue against fact. And yes, Congratulations Milo!!!
|
|
|
Post by username on Nov 5, 2008 0:23:55 GMT -8
I don't know, Ireland Does well for it's self and you could think of it as a welfare state. The point you are hitting upon is the main devision between the two parties (at least historically) and both sides have compelling arguments. I have yet to read it but in A. B. Atkinson's findings: “Incomes and the Welfare State” published by Cambridge University Press, 1995 he indicates that there is no real evidence that supports criticism against the welfare state and that all the statistics bluster those arguing FOR the welfare state. That is fair, though I think what you count as criticism matters a great deal. My criticisms are based on individuals and what I think it means to be free. I don't take into account many of the statistics that such a study might cite because I feel a welfare state might be doing well in a quanta such as the poverty rate but it doesn't much matter because of the costs leveled against freedom to lower the poverty rate. That's the entire basis of my evaluation, because I think being free is ultimately more important than just about anything else.
|
|
|
Post by milofultz on Nov 5, 2008 0:30:03 GMT -8
Can you trust a dude whose church was that fucking radical*? It's not like the pastor all of a sudden started preaching white-hatred when the spotlight got on him. He's been doing it since Obama has been there and before, as well. It's not that hard to believe, either.
Plus all his business in Chicago with ACORN or whatever? Sketchy.
Also, 237 Present votes on his voting record, meaning no vote. For someone who's all for change, that seems like he doesn't care.
*Not Bill & Ted radical.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Nov 5, 2008 0:35:02 GMT -8
I don't know, Ireland Does well for it's self and you could think of it as a welfare state. The point you are hitting upon is the main devision between the two parties (at least historically) and both sides have compelling arguments. I have yet to read it but in A. B. Atkinson's findings: “Incomes and the Welfare State” published by Cambridge University Press, 1995 he indicates that there is no real evidence that supports criticism against the welfare state and that all the statistics bluster those arguing FOR the welfare state. That is fair, though I think what you count as criticism matters a great deal. My criticisms are based on individuals and what I think it means to be free. I don't take into account many of the statistics that such a study might cite because I feel a welfare state might be doing well in a quanta such as the poverty rate but it doesn't much matter because of the costs leveled against freedom to lower the poverty rate. That's the entire basis of my evaluation, because I think being free is ultimately more important than just about anything else. Yeah, I get that I really do. But having the government take on some of the responsibilities of your freedom (bare with me) will open more opportunities to express yourself or expand on research or what ever it is that you have never really gotten the time to do that you enjoy. I mean freedom in and of itself is slavery. I know that some people like to feel completely independent and to take on all their own responsibilities themselves. But it really is more liberating to be able to not worry about it. And again this is all in the realm of opinion. You probably think that what I am saying is crazy or dangerous. Really it's just about opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Nov 5, 2008 0:36:43 GMT -8
Can you trust a dude whose church was that fucking radical*? It's not like the pastor all of a sudden started preaching white-hatred when the spotlight got on him. He's been doing it since Obama has been there and before, as well. It's not that hard to believe, either. Plus all his business in Chicago with ACORN or whatever? Sketchy. Also, 237 Present votes on his voting record, meaning no vote. For someone who's all for change, that seems like he doesn't care. *Not Bill & Ted radical. Do little more research Milo. THEN bring this up.
|
|
|
Post by milofultz on Nov 5, 2008 0:37:24 GMT -8
WTF? Answer my claims. Look them up.
|
|
|
Post by username on Nov 5, 2008 0:38:01 GMT -8
I would like to distrust him for who he has associated himself with, but I don't, really, any more than I distrust him because he's black. Those are prejudices that I think hurt the actual process of debate. I distrust Obama because he might believe that he can tell other people how they ought to live their lives. Honestly, I distrust any politician for that same reason. At the same time, I believe that the policies that he supports are so disconnected both with reality as I know it and from what policies he perports to advicate that I can't help but think that he either doesn't know what he's talking about or he doesn't care what he is talking about. Those are the only options I'm left with, because I think that he is wrong. It's not so much a character judgment on my part as it is a necessity of my position. To me, you have to justify a pretty big thing when you justify removing a person's freedom. If I don't think the price is worth it, I can't support it. I don't feel like just because he's not trustworthy, I shouldn't vote for him. I feel like I shouldn't vote for him because I disagree with him. And in the end, that's what casting your vote should be about, I think.
|
|
|
Post by milofultz on Nov 5, 2008 0:41:58 GMT -8
I would like to distrust him for who he has associated himself with, but I don't, really, any more than I distrust him because he's black. Those are prejudices that I think hurt the actual process of debate. I distrust Obama because he might believe that he can tell other people how they ought to live their lives. Honestly, I distrust any politician for that same reason. At the same time, I believe that the policies that he supports are so disconnected both with reality as I know it and from what policies he perports to advicate that I can't help but think that he either doesn't know what he's talking about or he doesn't care what he is talking about. Those are the only options I'm left with, because I think that he is wrong. It's not so much a character judgment on my part as it is a necessity of my position. To me, you have to justify a pretty big thing when you justify removing a person's freedom. If I don't think the price is worth it, I can't support it. I don't feel like just because he's not trustworthy, I shouldn't vote for him. I feel like I shouldn't vote for him because I disagree with him. And in the end, that's what casting your vote should be about, I think. Agreed. But it's not who he associated with, that's not a problem. It's the fact the he had been part of that church since the mid-80's where he became a Christian. It's not like he's along for the ride, no, this is the man who brought Obama to God. WTF? Read this: www.newsmax.com/kessler/Obama_Church_Racism/2008/01/07/62285.html
|
|