Obama on Small-Town Pennsylvania...

[Flying Dog]

LOL@this thread being almost twice as long as Erc's delegate counting thread.

Seriously guys:

Good to see you're about as clueless as usual.  And I bet you wish one of your millions of threads could spark nearly 400 replies that weren't mostly about how stupid the author of the post is.

Deep Breaths.....

[Alcon]

Well, this was a good thread for a while there.

[Flying Dog]

Makes me think Obama himself is a closet-atheist.

Please!

First Obama is a Muslim. Then he's a radical religious Black Liberation Theology follower. Now he's an atheist. Make up your mind, guys!

[J. J.]

First of all, Rendell is right about the economic issue.  Obama is dead wrong.

He went on to point out that folks liked guns way back when Pennsylvania was the epicenter of the Industrial Revolution in the US and everyone who likes to hunt generally likes to hunt whether their stocks are up or down.  I thought that a good point as well, but it does sort of take Obama out of context.  And he said some things about observant monotheists who practice religion out of a genuine spirituality which hasn't much to do with economics either.  I also thought that took Obama out of context as well.  But at least it helped the ignorant among us understand why the statement might be offensive.  But the first point that he made, the one about Obama's general ignorance of Pennsylvania's current state of economics, was the most prescient I think


That said, we always are reading in TIME magazine and the Wall Street Journal and the talking heads are always saying that it's easy to recruit terrorists in places like Sudan because of their poverty.  They're always going on some touch-feely argument about how we ought to try to alleviate poverty in Africa and Asia as a means to ensuring good will toward the US and as a means to defeat the cause of such resentment that folks turn to guns and allah.  Now, how can we claim that every one else is like that but not us?  Either we buy into the argument that economics is a tremendous motivator, and makes folks get a little preachy and a little violent when they're poor, or we don't buy into it.  And if we do buy into that, then it's reasonable to, perhaps, talk about sinking money into the plight of impoverished, starving Africans and south Asians.  But, to be fair, then we shouldn't think ourselves in our own rich nation above such human frailties.  If we don't buy into the argument, then that's fine too.  But then we'll have to stop claiming that poverty is a major reason that it's easy for terrorist organizations to recruit suicide bombers.

I don't agree, largely because, I've never bought the "They hate America because they hate freedom" argument.  (I would say that the want the power America has.)

The problem is that Obama's argument is a gigantic non sequitur, the "the economy has been for decades [a false premise in itself], so the locals cling to guns and religion."

[Flying Dog]

Why would I think crime is a fringe issue? And are questions whether people can arm themselves to the teeth or if gay people can get married just as-, or more important than whether they can put food on the table or own a house? The three Gs are fringe issues by comparison.

I really don't know.  You think religion and guns are "fringe issues."  Fringe issues are in the eyes of the beholder.  Obama's view is much different than the average persons view.

Who is this average person you speak of?

The ones that gave Bush a majority in the last election.

Your response speaks for itself.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

He probably is, but he went to church to create the image that 1) he was black and went to a black church and 2) prove he wasn't an atheist. Atheists have a hard time getting elected to office, but we know his parents were atheists. You normally learn your faith from your parents. It's not unfair or out of the question to ponder whether he is an atheist or not. He certainly looks down on those religious, gun loving hicks.

[J. J.]

Why would I think crime is a fringe issue? And are questions whether people can arm themselves to the teeth or if gay people can get married just as-, or more important than whether they can put food on the table or own a house? The three Gs are fringe issues by comparison.

I really don't know.  You think religion and guns are "fringe issues."  Fringe issues are in the eyes of the beholder.  Obama's view is much different than the average persons view.

Who is this average person you speak of?

The ones that gave Bush a majority in the last election.

Your response speaks for itself.

Yes it does, since we don't have a President Kerry.

[Person Man]

I would like to redirect this entire conversation to the more broad issue that Obama tried to answer.

Why are non-economic issues more important than economic ones?
Why does it seem that only now that they are?

[Wiz in Wis]

He probably is, but he went to church to create the image that 1) he was black and went to a black church and 2) prove he wasn't an atheist. Atheists have a hard time getting elected to office, but we know his parents were atheists. You normally learn your faith from your parents. It's not unfair or out of the question to ponder whether he is an atheist or not. He certainly looks down on those religious, gun loving hicks.

As an atheist, I'm pretty sure that Obama isn't one. We can smell our own. He's in the UCC for chrissakes... a church built on nothing but the beattitudes (rev Wright not withstanding). Yeah, Obama prolly chose to attend trinity over another church to both connect with his heritage and grease the wheels in Chicago, but I think its ridiculous to suggest that he is an atheist.

[tik 🪀✨]

I would like to redirect this entire conversation to the more broad issue that Obama tried to answer.

Why are non-economic issues more important than economic ones?
Why does it seem that only now that they are?

Because in a time of economic growth and perceived success people will be content with economic affairs and likely resist changing them. As opposed to now. Duh

[Ban my account ffs!]

Regarding those nice little charts, the CPI overstates inflation (particularly the old index before it was reconstituted about a decade ago which overstated inflation by about 1%, maybe a bit more).

The CPI vastly underestimates inflation.

If the price of product A rises 100% in 10 years, the old CPI said that it was rising at 10% per year.. subtracting the old price from the new and dividing the change by the number of years to find the inflation rate.

The new index figures out the increase year by year.. so if a product was $10 in 1998 and is $20 today, the old method said it rose 10% per year.  The new method says it rose ~7.2% per year.

So, basically what they did, was change it about a bit to understate inflation even though prices were going up at the same rate as they were before... suddenly things looked way better than they actually were.

[tik 🪀✨]

He probably is, but he went to church to create the image that 1) he was black and went to a black church and 2) prove he wasn't an atheist. Atheists have a hard time getting elected to office, but we know his parents were atheists. You normally learn your faith from your parents. It's not unfair or out of the question to ponder whether he is an atheist or not. He certainly looks down on those religious, gun loving hicks.

As an atheist, I'm pretty sure that Obama isn't one. We can smell our own. He's in the UCC for chrissakes... a church built on nothing but the beattitudes (rev Wright not withstanding). Yeah, Obama prolly chose to attend trinity over another church to both connect with his heritage and grease the wheels in Chicago, but I think its ridiculous to suggest that he is an atheist.

Ever been bombarded by black gospel choirs at one of his rallies? I think he's making a blatant effort to net in evangelical voters who were afraid to take liberal stands because of the Christian Right.

[Flying Dog]

He probably is, but he went to church to create the image that 1) he was blackSince we all needed clarification on that and went to a black church and 2) prove he wasn't an atheist. Atheists have a hard time getting elected to office, but we know his parents were atheists. You normally learn your faith from your parents. It's not unfair or out of the question to ponder whether he is an atheist or not. He certainly looks down on those religious, gun loving hicks.

Then, if we're going down that road, we should ponder whether John McCain is a traitor and whether Hillary only stayed with Bill for political reasons.

[Person Man]

Hey, McCain was said to be lenient to spies as an Air Force Officer in Vietnam.

Then again, why have we made our own idiosyncracies everything about us?

[Flying Dog]

Why would I think crime is a fringe issue? And are questions whether people can arm themselves to the teeth or if gay people can get married just as-, or more important than whether they can put food on the table or own a house? The three Gs are fringe issues by comparison.

I really don't know.  You think religion and guns are "fringe issues."  Fringe issues are in the eyes of the beholder.  Obama's view is much different than the average persons view.

Who is this average person you speak of?

The ones that gave Bush a majority in the last election.

Your response speaks for itself.

Yes it does, since we don't have a President Kerry.

So basically the 48% of Americans who voted for Kerry aren't "average"? Average to whom? You?
And the 51% who voted for Bush are average.

OK, it's all so clear to me now.

My mom and dad, who served in Vietnam,  aren't average americans. Neither is my Grandpa who was a marine in Korea. Tell me then, what are they?

[Lunar]

People can't seem to get over the fact that modernizing our economy inevitably yields winners (Texas) and losers (Rustbelt).  There are more winners than losers and she's only a harsh mistress if you have a family of three supported on an overpaid unionized steelworker in Pennsylvania.

Correction:

Winners (China, WalMart), losers (Middle Class America).

I don't know how to say it nicely but that's retarded and has nothing to do with how the real world works.  Yes, some people do get hurt by free trade if you look at anecdotal slices.  Yet that's unfair to make generalizations based upon a few sob stories about "middle class America" being hurt by big-bad China.  America is really good at a lot of things, and we're relatively bad compared to the rest of the world at a lot of things.  If you define middle class America at the crap we're comparatively bad at (textiles, manual labor, steel, automobiles) then sure.  But there's lots of middle-class America that are doctors, scientists, professors, designers, architects, or laborers in plane-factories, chemical plants, or superconductor factories [?] that benefit AMAZINGLY from free trade so that's just not fair.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whatever. Far be it for me to dislodge your preconceived world view about the prole drift of the sans cullottes. Carry on, and vote Dem early and often.

[Flying Dog]

People can't seem to get over the fact that modernizing our economy inevitably yields winners (Texas) and losers (Rustbelt).  There are more winners than losers and she's only a harsh mistress if you have a family of three supported on an overpaid unionized steelworker in Pennsylvania.

Correction:

Winners (China, WalMart), losers (Middle Class America).

I don't know how to say it nicely but that's retarded and has nothing to do with how the real world works.  Yes, some people do get hurt by free trade if you look at anecdotal slices.  Yet that's unfair to make generalizations based upon a few sob stories about "middle class America" being hurt by big-bad China.  America is really good at a lot of things, and we're relatively bad compared to the rest of the world at a lot of things.  If you define middle class America at the crap we're comparatively bad at (textiles, manual labor, steel, automobiles) then sure.  But there's lots of middle-class America that are doctors, scientists, professors, designers, architects, or laborers in plane-factories, chemical plants, or superconductor factories [?] that benefit AMAZINGLY from free trade so that's just not fair.

Unfortunately it's bad in my slice of America
I don't put all the blame on trade agreements, though.
More, I blame the Auto Execs in Detroit for dragging their feet.

[Ban my account ffs!]

People can't seem to get over the fact that modernizing our economy inevitably yields winners (Texas) and losers (Rustbelt).  There are more winners than losers and she's only a harsh mistress if you have a family of three supported on an overpaid unionized steelworker in Pennsylvania.

Correction:

Winners (China, WalMart), losers (Middle Class America).

I don't know how to say it nicely but that's retarded and has nothing to do with how the real world works.  Yes, some people do get hurt by free trade if you look at anecdotal slices.  Yet that's unfair to make generalizations based upon a few sob stories about "middle class America" being hurt by big-bad China.  America is really good at a lot of things, and we're relatively bad compared to the rest of the world at a lot of things.  If you define middle class America at the crap we're comparatively bad at (textiles, manual labor, steel, automobiles) then sure.  But there's lots of middle-class America that are doctors, scientists, professors, designers, architects, or laborers in plane-factories, chemical plants, or superconductor factories [?] that benefit AMAZINGLY from free trade so that's just not fair.

Free trade is a good idea if we trade with nations that treat their people with basic human rights.  But free trade will always hurt us as long as we expect to have our human rights and the standard of living we have come to expect.

We can have free trade in a way that doesn't drag us down to their level, but instead lifts them to our level if we set standard for the nations we trade with.

We can't just wait for the free market to let children attend school rather than toil in a factory or to provide people who work very hard with a warm meal.

These are things that should be stipulated in our free trade agreements.

That's why there is a thing called fair trade, and that's what is best for us and for the world.

We can't continue to buy products from countries with no respect for the environment or human rights.. of course they can produce stuff cheaper than we can!  They can dump their sludge in the river and make 8 year olds do it... how are we supposed to compete with that?

I know some of the world rich elite wouldn't mind seeing American children do just that as long as their bottom line went up... but unfortunately democracy is a two way street.

People who want free trade without environmental protection and workers rights are clearly lacking in the common sense department.

[Torie]

Most Chinese exports are not produced by child labor. Nice try though. Ya, it will sure help the Chinese workers to throw them out of a job, so that they can go back to the farm, to toil away at a level of bare subsistence. Oh the concern, the concern, for the less fortunate of this planet, is just so well - touching.

[opebo]

Why would one care about 'chinese workers', Torie?  One cares about oneself, and should act to protect oneself politically. 

'Free' trade is of course a ridiculous concept like all attempts to call any aspect of economics (imposition of political power) 'free'.  But one can broadly say that obviously there is a 'freedom' in the sense of no harm done to have trade with places like Germany, Belgium, or Austria.  But to suggest that one will benefit by importing the politics of China and Vietnam is pretty glaringly obvious self serving propaganda on the part of the owners, don't you think.

[Torie]

Why would one care about 'chinese workers', Torie?  One cares about oneself, and should act to protect oneself politically. 

'Free' trade is of course a ridiculous concept like all attempts to call any aspect of economics (imposition of political power) 'free'.  But one can broadly say that obviously there is a 'freedom' in the sense of no harm done to have trade with places like Germany, Belgium, or Austria.  But to suggest that one will benefit by importing the politics of China and Vietnam is pretty glaringly obvious self serving propaganda on the part of the owners, don't you think.

I thought we were discussing trade in goods and services, you know the stuff folks produce and purchase. Generally when it comes to trade in ideas, the US has a healthy balance of "payments" surplus, and this is good.

[opebo]

I thought we were discussing trade in goods and services, you know the stuff folks produce and purchase. Generally when it comes to trade in ideas, the US has a healthy balance of "payments" surplus, and this is good.

No, we were discussing politics, but I know your misunderstanding is a common one among rightwing dupes.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Most Chinese exports are not produced by child labor. Nice try though. Ya, it will sure help the Chinese workers to throw them out of a job, so that they can go back to the farm, to toil away at a level of bare subsistence. Oh the concern, the concern, for the less fortunate of this planet, is just so well - touching.

Perhaps you can tell me what makes American manufacturing so inefficient compared to Chinese manufacturing and then explain what you would like to do in order to fix that.

And don't try to pull the "you only care about yourself" card.  You don't kick somebody in the balls and then go and say "You selfish pig, I eviscerated the guy next to you.. you should have pity on him instead of worrying about your trivial ability to produce children."

Look at it from China's perspective:  The U.S. desperately wants its manufacturing jobs back and is looking to reactionary measures to do that.  This would screw us over since they are our biggest purchaser.

The other side would gladly keep trading with us if we just treated our workers a bit better and worked to protect the environment... sure, we might lose out a bit, but we'd have a better standard of living in the process.

Do we say "fcuk human rights and the planet" in trade for short term high profits, or do we make some sacrifices now for higher, and more ethical profits in the long term?

Looking at a bad situation and trying to turn it around onto those it has been worst to is a Republican way of being shortsighted and selfish.

[Person Man]

Or, what we could do is to work through International Community to ensure that our unique products are sold. The Kyoto treaty would do wonders at that. We can cap everyone's emissions and sell our technologies to keep them productive and if they don't sign on, we can play the international security card and levy high tariffs on them until they accept the treaty and buy our technology.