RoR: Forum

I thought that the most chilling thing in the audio clip was that Obama correctly identified that the Constitution was designed to guarantee negative rights to the citizens while placing strict limits on how and where the government could act. He then outlines his plan to overturn those guaranteed rights with his concept of positive rights and his wealth-redistribution scheme, accomplishing this by to circumventing the limits on government powers and broadly expand the scope of governmental action into non-constitutional areas. You can't say he didn't warn us. This pledge to ignore the Constitution should automatically disqualify him from office since it flat out contradicts the oath of the President.

I have never been too disturbed by any past presidential election, but this one, coupled with the current economic state of affairs has me feeling as though the ship is all but sunk. Laure, how can you rationalize away those statements of Obama's?

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 21

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 5:11pm

He then outlines his plan to overturn those guaranteed rights with his concept of positive rights and his wealth-redistribution scheme, accomplishing this by to circumventing the limits on government powers and broadly expand the scope of governmental action into non-constitutional areas.

Jeff, was that in the audio referenced at the start of this post? Can you point me to the part of the transcript you're referring to? I guess I'm just dense, but I didn't hear him outline any plan.

Post 22

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 5:34pm

Laure,

Here is the section where he refers to the negative rights - I pulled it from the transcript provided by Ted: "It [the Warren court] didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as has been interpreted. And [the] Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the States can't do to you, says what the Federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the Federal government or the State government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted. And one of the, I think, tragedies the of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change."

He sees the negative rights placed in the Constitution by the founding fathers as a tragic barrier to being able to redistribute wealth. He doesn't give a specific plan, but just states that it would be more effective to approach this legislatively. I'm sure that working with Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and some of the others they can manage to "put together the actual coalitions of power" that will let him realize his goal.
(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 10/27, 5:38pm)

Post 23

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 5:41pm

I'm sorry, Laure, but just because Rodney shouldn't have impugned your motives doesn't mean you aren't totally missing the boat on this one. You need to listen again, he did say what Jeff and others have mentioned. He was calling for outright Marxism, not some moderate scheme.

If the Republicans were running Putin versus Obama, I'd think it was a tough call.

And as for physical looks, if you like Obama, I won't agree, but I won't argue either. But personality? Look into my eyes...

Post 24

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 6:53pm

Laure wrote:

Jeff, was that in the audio referenced at the start of this post? Can you point me to the part of the transcript you're referring to? I guess I'm just dense, but I didn't hear him outline any plan.

Laure:

You are correct that Obama didn't outline a plan in the audio clip. When I referred to his plan, I was speaking of all of the proposals he has made during his campaign for things such as:

His "tax cut" which directly redistributes wealth from wage earners to others who do not currently pay any taxes.
His health care plan which will give medical care to people who cannot afford it and have it paid for by those of us who can.
His call for universal, "free" college education in exchange for conscription into national service programs.* You can guess who gets to pay for that! (Kinda reminds me of a radio preacher I heard back when I was in college who said, "I'll send you this free pamphlet for a gift of one dollar.")
His "windfall profits" tax on oil companies which will be redistributed to families.
His doubling of the capital gains tax. (15% to 28%)
His $50 billion in tax revenues to states to prop up existing welfare programs. Another increase in existing wealth redistribution programs.
His proposed increases in taxes on companies that outsource overseas while funneling tax dollars into businesses that Obama judges are American-friendly. Another wealth-redistribution program.
His $150 billion in tax dollars to alternative energy companies.
His funding of job training programs with tax dollars.

And so on. This just scratches the surface of what this guy has in store for us. It's all right there on his web site. How can any Objectivist reconcile these proposals with their core principles? I do agree with Laure's take on John McCain in her post #19. His support of the bailout and other government financial measures; his blaming the financial crisis on "greed"; his call for national service; his altruism; his erratic and unfocused approach to any number of issues and his poor manner of conduction his campaign are all very good reasons not to vote for him. But that realization is not any sort of excuse for then supporting Obama. This guy knows exactly what he is doing and he is going to make every effort to implement as many of his ideas as quickly as he can once elected. I'd rather have four more years of George Bush or John McCain stumbling around in the dark and breaking things than have Obama zeroing in on destroying everything Ithat makes living in this country great.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 25

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 8:23pm

OK, gotcha, Jeff. Sanctioned.

Post 26

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 10:20am

"Well, there are two people in this race. It's not over yet."

There are MORE than two people in this race, if the ballot I cast yesterday is an indication. I recall there were about 5-6 choices. Unless you're counting the people in the race who have a realistic chance to actually win it, in which case there is only ONE person in the race, based on the electoral math and the recent polling.

It's over, unless Obama comes out in favor of gleefully drowning puppies in the next few days. Or unless virtually all those state-level polls are woefully, incredibly wrong.

Post 27

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 10:38am

Well you can also vote for anyone as a "write-in". So I guess there are more than 5 billion candidates running for office. Since we're talking about people who have the same chance of winning as I do, I don't see how we should care about those other "5-6" choices.

Post 28

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 10:57am

John, how's that swing state of Connecticut doing? You know, the one that has Obama up by over 21 points here:

http://pollster.com/

Still think your vote has any chance at all of deciding this election, much less the outcome in your home state?

Note how the solidly Democratic states are at 272 electoral college votes -- enough to win it. Even if McCain won all the states where he appears to be currently leading, and all these states where he shows as trailing -- Nevada, North Dakota, New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri, Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida -- he would still lose. He needs to pick off a state where he is way behind -- Rove is betting on Pennsylvania.

The reality is that McCain had pulled to where he was dead even with Obama, and then it turned sharply toward Obama when McCain confirmed he was a socialist and in favor of pork-barrel spending when he "suspended" his campaign to go back to D.C. and lobby FOR the $700 billion bailout, plus another $150 billion or so in pork to get wavering votes.

He lost the election right there. If McCain and Palin had swung for the fences and fought the bailout tooth and nail, this race would still be a nail-biter.

You can't out-Santa-Claus a Democrat. You can't credibly claim to oppose pork barrel spending, and socialism, and redistribution of wealth, when you just championed a trillion dollars or so of just that.

Post 29

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 12:03pm

"Well you can also vote for anyone as a "write-in". So I guess there are more than 5 billion candidates running for office. Since we're talking about people who have the same chance of winning as I do, I don't see how we should care about those other "5-6" choices."

John, presidential elections are not decided by the national popular vote. They are decided by the electoral college, which is essentially run on a winner-take-all basis for each state. So, are you seriously advocating this: "You should only vote for presidential candidates who have a realistic chance of winning in the state in which you're registered to vote"?

Because, that logic leads to the conclusion that you (the individual John Armaos, not some collective mass of people with political views similar to you) should either vote for Obama, since he is the only candidate with any chance whatsoever of winning in Connecticut in this election, or refrain from voting, even though you detest Obama's political philosophy. And that logic would dictate that I should have voted yesterday either for Obama or left my ballot blank in that race, even though I also detest Obama's political philosophy.

Obviously, that logic is deeply flawed, because it would lead to irrational actions on both of our parts if followed to its logical conclusion.

I voted for Bob Barr yesterday because I support the libertarian philosophy he is advocating, and because I think both Obama and McCain are socialists who would govern quite similarly, based on their votes for the bailout and all the rubbish they've spewed on the campaign trail. That vote for the LP candidate wasn't "throwing away my vote", since the whole notion of throwing away one's vote is based on the illogical premise that one "should only vote for presidential candidates who have a realistic chance of winning in the state in which you're registered to vote".

Post 30

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 12:27pm

Jim:

John, how's that swing state of Connecticut doing? You know, the one that has Obama up by over 21 points here:

http://pollster.com/

Still think your vote has any chance at all of deciding this election, much less the outcome in your home state?

Oooo you got me there Jim! Nevermind at the time we last discussed CT polls a Rasmussen poll showed McCain behind by three points within the margin of error. But let's not dwell on that, because after all you have a crystal ball that predicts the future don't ya?

Because, that logic leads to the conclusion that you (the individual John Armaos, not some collective mass of people with political views similar to you) should either vote for Obama, since he is the only candidate with any chance whatsoever of winning in Connecticut in this election, or refrain from voting, even though you detest Obama's political philosophy. And that logic would dictate that I should have voted yesterday either for Obama or left my ballot blank in that race, even though I also detest Obama's political philosophy.

Obviously, that logic is deeply flawed, because it would lead to irrational actions on both of our parts if followed to its logical conclusion.

Jim you don't understand statistics.

Chances of each candidate winning in CT.

Obama > McCain > Barr = Mickey Mouse = 0

Yes it is more than likely that McCain will lose CT, but it is a guarantee Barr will lose. If I was betting money, I wouldn't put it on McCain winning CT at this point, but upset wins have happened, and McCain's chances of winning CT are a hell of a lot higher than Barr, whatever those chances are for McCain I know they are far greater than Barr's zero chance of winning.

I voted for Bob Barr yesterday because I support the libertarian philosophy he is advocating,

Why didn't you just write-in yourself? Don't you advocate a libertarian philosophy?

Post 31

Friday, March 6, 2009 - 11:10pm