Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

OBAMATRONS UNITE!!

- Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959

Daily, I read Scott Adams blog. He is the genius behind the Dilbert comics. I will post his blog from today and the response from one of his readers. The response I feel does an incredible job of putting to words my uneasy feeling. What do you think?

—————————————————————-
The Blog Post
by Scott Adams
—————————————————————-

http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/vague_feelings_of_discomfort/

Yesterday I was talking to some McCain supporters about how they arrived at their preference. We don’t see many McCain supporters in my neighborhood, so I always take time to hear their views. Admittedly my sample is not large, but of the dozen or so McCain supporters I have spoken with, there is a common thread: Obama gives them a vague feeling of discomfort that they can’t quite identify.

When I ask about this vague feeling of discomfort, the answer has something to do with how his views got formed, his past associations, how quickly he rose to prominence, and how charismatic (slick) he is.

The risk, as I understand it, is that once in office Obama would start sporting a turban and begin each speech with WAHLALALALALALAL!!!! He would appoint Supreme Court justices who favor a redistribution of wealth to unborn gay babies, and he’d legalize crack. It would all be part of his master plan to destroy America. I might have the details wrong, but it goes something like that.

It’s hard to argue against someone’s vague feeling of discomfort. After all, studies have shown that people are actually quite good at determining character and intelligence from nothing more than photographs. I just found it interesting that the people I spoke with described a vague feeling of discomfort in forming their preference. That is not something I ever heard in other elections.

—————————————————————-
The Response
by User Phantom II
—————————————————————-

Scott, I don’t think you actually understood what the McCain supporters were telling you. The problem with Obama is that nobody (or only his closest associates) knows what he really thinks. I heard a PBS recording of some fairly well-known news folks saying, just yesterday, that they didn’t know what Obama was really like - that they didn’t know how he’d handle foreign policy, they didn’t know how he really felt about capitalism versus socialism, and so on. They were saying that the only things they know about him come from the books he’s written and the speeches he’s given.

Now, these are members of the same press that was supposed to be finding out for us what he’s really about. They have had almost twenty months, and they didn’t do their job, for whatever reason. Only just now do they seem to be admitting it.

My problems with Obama are many, but I’ll try to boil them down here. The reason for that vague unease your neighborhood McCain supporters have is that his current words don’t fit his past actions. He has associated with an unsavory, by most standards, group of people, including Tony Rezko, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn, Rashid Khaladi, and more. Yet he says, in effect, he really didn’t know any of them very well. I don’t believe him. He’s either being disingenuous, or he’s too oblivious to be president (which would seem to fly in the face of that great intellect he supposedly has).

He says that he’s a big believer that we are our brothers’ keepers. Yet his half-brother George, whom he has met, lives in a hut in Africa on $12 per year. His paternal aunt is currently living in the slums in Boston (it took a UK newspaper to find that out, again showing what a poor job our press corps have done), and says she can’t really talk about him (Obama) until after November 4th. Does that kind of thing concern anyone else?

There’s a big blank in everyone’s knowledge of what he did in one important part of his past: his time at Columbia University. It’s as though that time didn’t exist - no one knows what he did during those four years.

He also has, in the past, supported socialism through the redistribution of wealth. He now says that that really isn’t what he’s going to do, but again, I don’t believe him. His work with Bill Ayers in Chicago, particularly his work with the Annenberg Challenge, seems to have been pointed, at least in part, to building curricula to teach teachers how to indoctrinate children in how to become radicals. I don’t think this is appropriate for children. I would rather have the schools teach them how to think, and then present them with both sides and let them talk it out. Obama does not seem to support that kind of free exchange of ideas.

Obama is running on a feel-good platform of “change.” Yet his ideas pretty much mirror those of Franklin Roosevelt. Take Obama’s desire for a “new Bill of Rights,” for example. That was proposed by Roosevelt back in 1944. Liberals always accuse conservatives of somehow wanting to take us back in time. When you peel away the onion of what Obama is saying, it leads right back to the New Deal and the Great Society. I’m not for that.

The bottom line, for me, is that he lacks experience and has had a somewhat radical past. I don’t feel it makes sense to hand the most powerful job in the world over to someone who not only lacks experience but also is largely an unknown.

At the same time, look at what his supporters say about him. Charismatic. A great orator. Gives them hope. OK, that’s a bunch of great feelings, but where is the substance to back them up? If I tell you what you want to hear, you’ll feel good - for a while. But then what happens when the words turn out to be just that: words? To whom will you complain then?

If you’d like an interesting intellectual exercise, then take a look at the major cities that are most out of control in the US. Those that have the highest crime rates, the highest poverty rates, the lowest high school graduation rates, the worst schools; and then ask yourselves how long it’s been since they’ve had a Republican mayor.

My point is that rhetoric, by itself, is meaningless. Take a look at the results. Are the candidates you are supporting proposing solutions, or short-term, feel-good actions that put band-aids on the problems? If you are intellectually honest, the very least you can do is demand of your legislators that they show results. If they don’t, then you should seriously consider evaluating, on an intellectual rather than emotional basis, what it’s going to take to get those problems solved, and who is proposing those solutions, regardless of their party.

As long as you let politicians keep getting elected because they make you feel good, rather than because they prove they can solve problems, the politicians are going to continue to do make you feel good. I believe, for a lot of people who look to feelings rather than realities, it’s time to grow up.

I read an article a while ago (If I can dig it up I will cite it here) that posed a question basically the opposite of mine. It attempted to answer the following (paraphrasing): “Why do the Republicans and conservative Christians continually elect people into office who go against their best financial interests?” It is a valid question; the majority of the Republican base are hard working middle class people, who would directly benefit from Barack Obama’s proposed tax law changes. If a candidate is basically offering to save us thousands in our taxes every year why aren’t we jumping at the chance to vote for him? The answer is easy; I believe that the Republicans vote more on principle than their financial interests. We fundamentally believe that an imposed redistribution of wealth is wrong, and should be avoided at all costs. We put aside our selfishness and realize that it is immoral to take someone’s hard earned money and give it to someone else, who did nothing to earn it. Of course another principle that most Republicans hold is that a smaller and less imposing Government is optimal, which means that both spending and taxes should be cut.

I often hear the argument that the rich should “pay their fair share,” and that Obama’s plan wouldn’t hurt any of the rich because “they can afford it.” First of all, the rich already pay more than their “fair share.” The United States tax system is progressive, meaning that the tax rate increases with income. Additionally, secondary taxes, such as the death tax are basically only applied to the wealthy, because that incredibly high rate is only applied to wealth beyond the first $2 Million. We have all seen or heard the figures, where the top 5% of income earners pay some much larger percentage of taxes into the system. I will not repeat them, as to not sound like a talking point spewing robot, but it bears mentioning just to show that there is no question that the rich already pay their fair share. But what about that other point? The one regarding their ability to afford increases in taxes? I simply don’t think that is a valid question. If Target began requesting a copy of my W-2, and progressively adjusted prices higher for all of the junk merchandise that I buy there based on my income, the consumer reporter from the local news would have the story on air that night. There would be protests and boycotts. With a concrete example like that it is easy for everyone to see the unfairness of the system, but that is exactly how our tax code is designed, and Barack wants to push it even further in that direction. Based on Democrat lectures I have heard on the subject of taxes they make it seem like a large majority of rich people are chomping at the bit to pay additional taxes. The way Barack spoke of Warren Buffet I assume that he already has next year’s inflated tax checks written, and is gleefully having his assistant drive them to the post office as I type this. If I were a congressman I would put forward a bill at my very first session that would require the IRS to create a donation system. That way all of those rich Democrats would be able to easily pay whatever additional amount they want to the Government each year. I would even make that donation eligible as a deduction on the next year’s taxes!

I am not going to say how much money my wife and I make per year, though we do pretty well. Still, we are nowhere near that magical $250K mark set by Barack Obama. That means that if he is elected, and if he actually pushes for his proposed tax changes, and if congress actually buys off on those changes I would directly financially benefit from his presidency. In fact, almost everyone I know would benefit, yet the majority of them are not voting for Obama. We value virtue over personal gain at the detriment of another; even that other is a member of the “evil rich.” I feel that if John McCain would stand up, and say that he believes that the American people have enough principle to disagree with socialistic, wealth redistribution propositions he would gain traction with some of those still “undecided.” I believe that a majority of the middle class is better than what Barack Obama has assumed, though we won’t know for sure for three weeks.

——————————————-

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Most people are in the dark about what actually has caused the financial meltdown we’ve been seeing in the last few months. I too do not fully understand all that has occurred to bring us to where we are today. I have done some research into the topic and I have done my best to be non-partisan in that research.

That said, I was sent a video that gives a good summary of many of the things I found in my research. Both sides of our government are trying to blame each other for the events going on and in this election cycle the stakes are critical. At the core of what you will watch are some policies that were made with good intentions but the full consequences were not quite understood or anticipated.

Our government wanted all Americans to have a chance at owning a home. To create this opportunity legislation was passed that in essence forced banks into giving our risky loans (call it a financial affirmative action)…and so it begins.

Try to ignore the fact that the author of this is a McCain support and just look at the facts that are presented. As always, check sources, confirm facts, and be smart. Don’t believe at all that your hear.

American artist Paul McCarthy’s latest exhibit is a turd of epic proportions. Yes, he created a giant inflatable dog turd. It is claimed that this turd is the size of a house (which rivals some of the ones I’ve found in my daughter’s diaper). Rather unexpectedly the turd took on a life of its own when it decided to break free of the earthly bonds that were holding it at bay.

The turd terrorized the local town and left a path if destruction in its wake knocking down a powerline and destroying windows at a children’s home where it decided to end it’s journey.

Lets hope that the Oscar Wilde aphorism, “Life imitates art far more than art imitates Life” doesn’t ring true here, because I certainly don’t EVER want to see a turd the size of a house.

Good Day.

UPDATE: I found a picture!

I have never felt prompted to write my government representatives. My wife worked for a US Senator for a little while and she was partly responsible to read and log such correspondences. But times are rough and I felt inclined to put to paper what I was feeling. I drafted the following letter. I have not yet sent it but I plan to send it to both of my US Senators very shortly. If you feel so inclined, you may also send this text to your Senators.

Dear Senator,

I’m not one to normally write letters about political issues; however, what America is experiencing right now is approaching a tipping point that could have catastrophic consequences for all citizens.

I am a well educated, hard working professional. I even make a decent living working as an Electrical Engineer. Times have become tough for everybody and even with my salary I find that it is harder and harder to make ends meet.

With gas and groceries at record levels I fear for the future. I was recently investigating home heating oil prices for the coming season and the companies are all predicting prices to be in the $5-7 per gallon range. This is double what I paid last year! I make too much money to qualify for any assistance programs yet the burden is still there.

I know one of the hottest topics in politics right now is Global Warming and renewable energy. While I, personally, do not believe that man is the cause of any climate change we may be experiencing, I do believe that we should do all we can to be good stewards of our environment. With that in mind, I want you to know that I support our quest for renewable, clean energy. I advocate the construction of new nuclear power plants to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels for power generation. I believe that alternatives to gas powered vehicles should also be further pursued in our quest to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

That said, I am also a realist. Being in technology I see the progress that is being made in these areas. While it is exciting and shows promise we are still a long way away from a widespread solution being implemented to a point where things change. The obstacles, both politically and practically, are huge. A sweeping change to automobiles would require a widespread change in infrastructure (think of gas stations). Electric cars would need places to recharge, which means there will be further demand on our power infrastructure. My point here is that while I am hopeful that we can change, relief is not just around the corner.

There is no perfect solution to the current fuel crisis. I don’t pretend to understand the economic and political drivers of the oil market but I do believe that it follows Adam Smith’s principle of supply and demand. Developing nations have greatly increased their demand in the last 10 years but the supply out of the Middle East and South America has not increased proportionally. I’m sure that this is no news to you. Research has determined that here in America we have years and years worth of oil right beneath our feet. In addition, we have more coal here than we know what to do with! The problem is that we are unable to access our own natural resources because of current policies in effect.

I urge you, as my US Senator, to please consider sponsoring and/or supporting legislation that will allow us to drill for our own oil and lessen our dependence on terrorist, communist, and rogue nations. I am fully confident that our American ingenuity will allow us to do this safely, cleanly, and with minimal impact on our environment. Additionally, I ask that you support the construction of new nuclear power facilities and new oil refineries.

I have a feeling that if Congress votes to allow drilling on American soil once again drastic things will happen immediately. First, OPEC will sense an upcoming flood of new oil to the market and the market will react due to the anticipated new supply. We are OPEC’s largest customer and they will do what it takes to retain us as customers. They will either boost production or drop prices or both! I think this would happen nearly immediately, providing much needed relief to many Americans. Second, once we have our oil (it would take a few years) we could lessen our dependence on oil from people who are not our friends. Third, we would continue our quest to find alternative energies so that the technology and infrastructure would be in place long before we run out of our own oil.

With the upcoming presidential election I am not confidant that these decisions will be made in time to impact this winter’s oil prices but I do ask that when they are made, you vote accordingly, offering much needed relief to all Americans.

With a deep love for America,

Daniel Lopez

I wrote this letter weeks ago. Here is what is funny. Look at the second to last paragraph. Just a few days ago President Bush said in a speech that we need to DRILL, DRILL, DRILL! In the 2 days following oil slid down $16 a barrel. Remember, Congress hasn’t yet done anything! No drilling has started or is even planned yet! Just the mention of drilling causes the market to react to a future increase in supply! I gotta say, I called this one…

The first study was from members of the American Physical Society, a group representing nearly 50,000 physicists across the world. This group previous considered the evidence for man-made global warming “incontrovertible.” Now the group has done an about face. All it took was for a few of the members to question the methods used by the IPCC to evaluate certain factors that they say are a root cause of warming. I’ll let you read the article.

The second article was from a group of Australian scientists who are predicting a 20-30 year cooling cycle. These guys subscribe to my theory that global climate tracks closely with solar activity. Apparently the has been less active than usual lately and will continue to do so.

Finally, there is the third article. This one is the funniest to me and it does support man-made global warming, but not in a way that would think. Supposedly Europe has seen higher than average warming when compared to the other continents. A scientific study performed in Germany has found that the temperature increase is not due to greater carbon emissions, rather it is because of cleaner air! In the 80’s many nations enacted clean air legislation to get rid of some nasty pollutants. Well it turns out that these pollutants may have acted as a shield by blocking some of the sunlight. Now that the air is cleaner this sun filter is no longer present and the surface of the earth in these areas is brighter than it was.

Regardless of these studies, those belonging to the religion of climate change will dismiss them and continue on with their scare tactics and fearmongering. The glaciers could take over the earth and these people will still not admit that they were wrong.

With elation, have a cool day….

There are times in our history when mistakes are made. Laws are passed that maybe don’t fully take into account the freedoms granted to us by our Constitution. In times like these action must be taken. It is our duty as citizens to uphold and protect the ideals that so many have fought and died for in our 232 year existence as a nation. We have a mechanism in place via our judicial branch that allows us to challenge contradictions and injustices in our own laws. There are even many organizations out there which provide assistance to those who need a louder voice.

Today, the city of Philadelphia is under assault by one of these laws. In April, the city passed a law that by it’s very nature is so heinous, discriminatory, and utterly unfair that citizens are in an uproar! Some say that at it’s core this law violates the First Amendment’s guaranty of free speech. Three citizens of our great city Mike Tait, Josh Silver and Ann Bourlais along with the Institute of Justice have had enough of this injustice and have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this law.

So what is this law the the city so carelessly passed? According to the new law, beginning in the fall, all Philadelphia tour guides must take (and pass) a history exam and pay a fee to become a city licensed tour guide. Violators of the law would face a fine of $300. This law applies to all city tour guides including NPS guides, Duck Boat and Bus tours, carriage rides, and even foot guides. CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS INJUSTICE!

The city claims that this action was taken to ensure that all tour guides are providing proper and historically accurate information to the tourists that visit from all over the world. According to a local news article:

“The city of Philadelphia is trying to claim that is has the power who may speak and who may not and under our Constitution, that’s simply unacceptable,” said Robert McNamara of the Institute of Justice.

The group believe the new regulations would have a negative impact on small and independent businesses.

“What’s next? Are you going to start licensing comedians to guarantee the delivery they have is funny,” Boulais said. “Where does it stop?”

So let me clarify this. These people are claiming that their free speech is being violated because the city wants them all to be licensed. Let me tell you people something. Even the food cart operators have top be licensed. The city is not stopping these people from speaking. They can say whatever they want whenever they want. However, if they are being payed to provide a service (a business) then information they provide needs to factually accurate. This has nothing to do with free speech. It has everything to do with being qualified for the job.

Lets re-frame this. Will the city or state give me a plumbing license without passing the plumbing exam? NO! Will I be able to practice law without passing the Bar exam? NO! Can I practice medicine without passing a medical exam? NO!

NO! NO! NO! Freaking IDOITS! What a waste of time and my tax dollars. I love the quote above about comedians. What a poor analogy. You aren’t paying a comedian to give you accurate information.

So could my company be sued for not hiring a person who doesn’t have the job qualifications for the job they are gunning for? Of course not!

Are these people so lazy and stupid that can’t study for a history exam that they should already know the answers to? If they spent half the energy studying as they have put into this stupid lawsuit it would be no problem. I’d actually love to take the test and see how I stack up based on what I know right now. Can anybody arrange that?

I am sick and tired of our judicial system being so tied down by stupid lawsuits like this. These people should be responsible for ALL court costs associated with these ridiculous suits if they lose them…and this one will be lost. Maybe that would make them think twice.

So Happy Independence DAY!