Obama's ideology leans socialist, which is less individualistic, less self reliant, and less religious. He also is very uncomfortable with the idea of American exceptionalism, that America is superior to Western Europe by virtue of its Constitution and values and its duty to protect the world from all evil. The left is generally uncomfortable with patriotism, flag saluting, and overt celebrations of national pride.

That is the America the right feels was abandoned by Obama. Your questioning this might have to do with Obama's race was such a non sequitur that I just took it as a standard liberal ad hom diversion.

The approach of calling the right racists has been effective in eliminating the left. Keep up the good work.

Don't forget Pakistan — Benkei

Right. Obama actually dropped SEALS into a sovereign nation to arrest a criminal. I'm not sure how the US would have reacted if Pakistan dropped soldiers in an American city in the name of Pakistan national security.

My understanding was that Obama-care was a first step in dealing with the fact that Medicare funding is inadequate, so it was forced by circumstances, not socialist principles. — Mongrel

There are those who argued that Obamacare was passed under the expectation of failure so that when it did fail, it would force a more comprehensive public healthcare plan to then pass. The failure part did come to pass, but the problem is that a Republican won the presidency and he's more interested in scrapping it than in fixing it (as Clinton wanted)

And now I would assume that a rational person would understand why, for instance, women object to Trump. — Mongrel

I really don't know there's any consistency with the liberal women's vote other than that they consistently vote liberally. There are plenty of misogynists and sexists on the left who were given a pass (Bill Clinton, the Kennedys, Weiner).

Throw me a bone, here, Hanover. You're a fairly rational person. — Mongrel

I really do agree with you that Trump is a buffoon. I don't see him as any more or less dangerous than any other candidate for President though. From my perspective, it's all entertaining theater. At the end of 4 years, I'll stand up, brush the popcorn off my lap, and go watch the next show.

Obama demonstrated his menace by saving the auto industry, introducing affordable health care, attempting to disentangle America from the consequences of his predecessor's reckless war-mongering, and presiding over a modest but real recovery from the most dire economic emergency since the Great Depression. — Wayfarer

Bush gave Chrysler and GM 17.6 billion in TARP money. I'd say that saved them as much an anything, nothwithstanding the fact that Ford received no assistance. So why you offer all this Obama I'm not sure, but anyway, Trump is very strongly pro-American manufacturing, so you should be able to get aboard that.

Obamacare is not at all affordable. I'm not sure where you've been living, but the middle class has seen their costs for healthcare skyrocket. Even Hillary admitted Obamacare needed to be repaired. It's not at all doing what it intended to do: make healthcare affordable. What it did was make it theoretically available for those previously excluded for pre-existing conditions, but it hardly matters if someone qualifies but still can't afford it.

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama invaded 3 new countries under his regime: Yemen, Libya, and Syria.

Obama can be given no more credit than Bush (who initiated TARP) and the Fed and I'm sure all sorts of other entities for the recovery.

In terms of what Trump has done, well, it's not been a month yet, so it's hard to know.

Progressives hardly need resist the Trump clown show. It's doing a better job of destroying itself than any of its opponents could. Sometimes the only way to teach a baby not to eat its own shit is to let it try some and see what it tastes like. — Baden

Well before the first primary, the pundits were laughing at the Trump clown show, certain it would fade away and die, and now he's the President. Nope, he's not going away, and all the gaffes that everyone loves to point out have no impact on him. He's the energizer bunny and the liberal ridicule fuels him even more.

241 to 115 is a pretty decisive victory.

Cruz is an ideologue, a far greater threat to a non-believer, thus the greater danger posed by Obama to the right.

What puzzles me is why the left can't appreciate that the right felt just as strongly that Obama posed a threat to America as the left now feels Trump poses. Had it not been for the gridlock after the midterms, the US would have been bombarded with socialist, crippling legislation. And let's not selectively forget Obama's attack on the courts.

"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

Andrew Jackson, telling the Chief Justice to enforce his order.

The role of the courts is not fully defined in the Constitution and their power to set aside democratically passed law was conferred on the Court by the Court. While the issue is now historically settled, this issue was heavily debated by the founding fathers and there are many scholars who have expressed real doubt that it was intended the courts would play such a central role in American politics. That is to say, Trump's questioning of the Court is an American tradition. Maybe he's a bit bolder in his speech, but the very idea of judicial restraint derives from the otherwise unchecked power of the court and the questionable foundation of its authority.

What should cause more concern than a hothead screaming about the courts is a court that able to divine every contemporary moral principle from an 18th century document and impose that morality on a supposedly democratic body.

The Dems didn't lose the election, they won the popular vote by a margin wider than most historical presidential elections. The argument that they did not listen to their grass roots is mistaken. They lost in the states where the Electoral votes counted the most. They were out played, out strategized, by the Republican political machine. — Cavacava

Right, and the Falcons didn't lose the championship because they cumulatively outscored their opponents throughout the playoffs. And we should probably go back behind every Congressional decision to be sure that the representative majorities were equivalent to the population majorities. And while we're at it, let's throw out every Prime Minister because they were appointed by a hodgepodge of representatives and they didn't even get a single popular vote.

Or, we could say, guess what, the Democrats lost the election, fair and square. I know, I know, they would have won if this were the case and that were the case, but it wasn't, so they didn't. If you really want to know how to lose any support from those who might be inclined to come over to your side, keep being a poor loser. How about getting up, dusting yourself off, admitting you were bested, and standing up to fight the next fight. That's what people do who weren't raised on participation trophies and have actually had to lose at some point in their lives prior to reaching voting age.

And, no, it was not the Republican machine that secured Trump anything. The Republican machine hated Trump, did everything it could to block Trump, and is now trying to figure out how to deal with Trump. What won the election was Trump in all his absurd blazing glory. It was his money, his celebrity, and his saying things like what I'm saying that won him the election. The liberals cannot seem to appreciate that when they have these life changing, emotionally charged moments where they march, make really clever speeches, and condemn whatever it is they condemn, the rest of the nation is rolling their eyes at them.

The resistance to Trump, whether it comes from the media, the marches, the celebrities, or whoever, only strengthens support for Trump, both among his loyal following and those who were previously only slightly leaning in his favor. I really don't think the left appreciates how offensive they are to middle America in what might be the greatest display of poor sportsmanship by a losing team since the goalkeeper on my son's soccer team starting beating his defender in the back because he allowed a shot on goal. That was the best comparison I could come up with, but it is true. A bunch of women wearing pussy hats with the words "Nasty Woman" on their face doesn't convince Mildred from Peoria to vote against Trump, nor does it sway many Hispanics, Asians, or even African Americans (they weren't voting for Trump anyway). Other than forming a kinship among a small, educated, likely underemployed group of fairly privileged folks, all they did was publically express bitterness and offensiveness while ironically condemning public bitterness and offensiveness.

Yeah guys, you are making a difference, but it's not a good one. When the left loses even more seats in the mid-terms, are you going to protest some more in the hopes that you can shed yourself of every liberal in Congress other than a few districts in Massachusetts, New York, and California?

Descartes is underrated and underappreciated.

Boynton Beach's most famous daughter. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/entertainment/exclusive-phil-cash-outside-viral-star-from-boynton/5JVTLubHL8Wwg4eZxaKbhJ/

Cash me ousside, how bow dah?

One thing I would like you to think about is why it is that you found my remarks against Question objectionable and not my remarks against Hanover? I was rude to him, but that seemed to escape your notice, perhaps you laughed and even approved of it. The reason why you found my remarks against Question objectionable was because you identify with the situation and so felt the need to defend the argument - rather prejudicially - rather than seeing the rationale behind it. — TimeLine

It could also be that my alleged offense was being mean and Question's was simply being useless. Being mean to me is therefore considered fair comupance, whereas attacks on Question are considered piling on. It's understandable, but I agree emotionally driven.

I now fully understand your ban based upon your responses in this thread.

Is this an ethical question, as in what ought a moral government do, or is this an empirical question, as in after itemizing the structure of all world governments, from tribal councils to parliaments, what have we found to be the common denominator. The first seems more philosophical than the latter. The latter seems like it would be very general, like "they all make and enforce rules."

All excellent points. The rules:

a. The poster of the last word wins.
b. A poster is anything that posts, unless that thing is something else.
c. "Something else" is defined by the last word.
d. "Last" is defined by the person immediately prior to the person who wins, lest the winner and the immediate preceeding poster are the same, in which case the Assembly of 13 shall convene on the 13th of April in the year following the winner being declared,and they shall so decide in retrospect.
e. The Assembly of 13 shall be shrouded in mystery for eternity and should its shroud of nebulousness be clarified in any regard, you shall surely die.
f. "Word" shall be defined as any arrangement of alphanumeric characters other than "put" and "done.
g. The game shall formally begin the yesterday following the 3rd day preceding the crowning of the victor minus 13 lest same falls on a Sunday, in which case there shall be no game, but instead the day will be a day of fasting and contemplation.

Questions or concerns?

Consider it a parable, not a paradox, that you shouldn't be an indecisive ass.

You're sounding pretty close to what's called the Protestant work ethic. — Mongrel

I guess, but I don't know any culture that has no work ethic, if for no reason than food doesn't just fall from the sky.

It never ends, does it? — Question

Well, to summarize here, I've taken a very strong stance against your stance that whether one is idle or one is constructive is irrelevant. My position is that it does matter, and it is in fact pathetic that you find no more or less pride in spending your days twiddling your thumbs than in actually accomplishing something. I get that you don't actually twiddle your thumbs, but consistent with what you said, you would find the 25 year old thumb twiddler who is cared for by mommy no better or worse than an actual productive member of society.

I could offer the platitude "to each his own," but I don't think that. In fact, the only reason society continues to function is because there are few enough of you and the system is large enough to absorb you. And this is not a conservative rant. I don't care if your incentive is a bigger house or because you feel yourself an integral part of the commune. No society, East to West, welcomes the loafer.

To the extent you're in a transitional state, getting yourself on your feet and relying upon your mother, I see nothing wrong with that. I also really see nothing wrong with living with your mother as long as you continue to advance in your own life and not just fall into a state of easy dependency.

The definition of loafer (and pay close attention to the synonyms and the sample sentence):

"1. a person who idles time away.

synonyms: idler, layabout, good-for-nothing, lounger, shirker, sluggard, laggard, slugabed; informalslacker, slob, lazybones, bum
"to his parents' chagrin, he was a complete loafer" "

I wasn't expecting that kind of reply. — Sapientia

I like to keep people guessing.

I do think that I am better off than I was, in more ways than one... but what's better for me isn't necessarily what's better for others, and I don't think that it's right to judge Question's situation based on these preconceived notions you seem to have about the proper relationship between parent and child. — Sapientia

I understand we're faced with limited information and our opinions are no better than the information upon which they are based, and for that reason we often modify our opinions here when we learn additional information, but I think if we exercise such great caution before speaking, we'll never meaningfully engage. What you've said here is that you largely agree with the notion, at least based upon your limited experience, that there is true benefit from independence. I'd suspect that benefit is far reaching, affecting areas of self-esteem, outlook on life, social interaction, and emotional well being among many other things. I also understand you feel some kinship to Question, having been in a situation not dissimilar to his. Although, as I said, I do think the critical distinction between the two of you is his desire to remain where he is. In fact, he finds dependence no more or less a virtue than self-sufficiency.

I get that you might not be so bold as to call his position pathetic, but there's probably a middle road between that and silent respect for a position that you disagree with. For example, offering understanding, qualifying that what is good for you might not be so for him, etc, and then tactfully offering your two cents. Yeah, that's another way, but it hardly has the Hanoverian effect.

I'm just responding to your statement that judging is a bad thing. It's really not.

I don't care if what I'm saying is fun to hear, and I think your defense of idleness is absurd, and really nothing more than a rationalization for doing nothing of import. So get pissy, call me a dick, tell me I'm not the boss of you, and carry on with your vitriol, but at the end of the day, do nothing at all because that apparently is your highest virtue.

Your situation is critically distinct as far as I can tell. You are self sufficient. To the extent you're not, you sell yourself short. Sure I'm judgmental. Who isn't?

No interrogation. I was just pointing out to BC that your statement was ambiguous. I had my struggles in college as well, and there's much to be said about just hanging in there.

I do appreciate your ownership of whatever flaws you may have, and it does not appear you're as fragile as your protective friends might've thought. My most significant point really is that you (and me and everyone) be cautious about adopting a personal philosophy that allows for idleness. In truth, such philosophies are nothing more than rationalizations for poor conduct.

Been looking for a good troll. Know where I might find one?

Like already having a degree... — Bitter Crank

Well, he didn't say he had a degree. He said he had been to college for a degree. Going and getting are two different things, but I leave the clarification to him.

It's impossible to know why they banned you without seeing their correspondence to you. It's also a stretch to assume that their standards would coincide with this forum's standards and that should evoke concern from you about being banned here. At any rate, your idea of digging deep holes to solve the energy crisis is probably as far fetched as those posters were trying to explain.

Well, whatever the hell they are, they all dance the same when pelted with BBs.

Funny you should say that. I just got a ticket for hunting over bait because I put some nice stuff out by the curb on garbage night and was shooting BBs at the poor people as they came by to scavenge. The officer thought it wasn't sporting to do it that way.

You can play in the sprinkler and pretend you're in the Caribbean. It's sort of the same. I'll buy you a 5 pack. One's for me.

Immigration process would be tough for me... — Emptyheady

So ironic. The process is tough if you follow it, but really easy if you don't care.

I know, right? You can come too. In fact, I'm going to need a new roof soon, and I'd like nothing more than hearing your footsteps above me while drinking my mint julep. The insurance company rejected my claim of hail damage, instead presenting the questionable argument of "Dude, your roof is just old." So, yeah, bring your hammer and shingles and shit and swing by. It gets like 1000 degrees in the Summer on a hot roof, so the sooner the better.

I myself may consider to move to the USA in the future -- I have never been there. — Emptyheady

If you're in Atlanta, stop on by.

Good point. We're all enigmatic at some level I guess.

And I missed the Witt reference, but I do agree with him regarding getting a job. You're not bowing down to corporatism, capitalism, conservatism, religious fundamentalism, Trumpism, GW Bushism, or whatever it is that represents all that is evil by admitting to the value of hard work. I'm pretty sure even Marx envisioned that people would work hard.

And I'd expect you'd even admit to the real benefit of getting out of the rut of dependency and directionlessness when you secured a challenging job.

Porters annoy me, offering to do what I can do myself just for a tip.

This provides a pretty good summary, caricatures to be sure, but it makes both of our points:

https://youtu.be/n9huSs0g67c

Also... You have to be a certain age to remember why they smelled their papers.

"Matters" in the sense that what you say will doubtfully matter in terms of bringing about meaningful change, not that people don't matter. It's possible something we say in this thread will change a person's life course, but such things usually require far more effort. Our influence is limited, and that is probably a good thing.