Rethinking Paradigms


by Life of Illusion

In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is widely understood to carry a negative connotation – referring to those who wholly support their party’s policies and are perhaps even reluctant to acknowledge correctness on the part of their political opponents in almost any situation. Partisanship can be affected by many factors including current events, figureheads (presidents), decisions, and even location.

In the United States,  “partisan” has come to refer to an individual with a psychological identification with one or the other of the major parties.

A friend posted this on facebook and I shared it with SUFA.  I find it to be racist and offensive.  I don’t have friends that object to Obama because of his skin color.  I know people who support him strictly because of his race, but that is another topic.  Someone responded to my friends post,

“I have no objection. Let the electorate see the real reason a lot of republicans oppose Obama.”

I shouldn’t be offended since I’m not a Republican, but I do oppose Obama and don’t think that comment reflects well on me and most who have and are speaking out on today’s issues.  The TeaParty was vocal about fiscal responsibility and was called racist.  Please, let the electorate see the real reason a lot of democrats support Obama.  The price of gasoline alone is issue enough to call for his being thrown out.  He railed against Bush when oil prices spiked, by his own words and standards, Obama should be thrown out of office.  He is constantly attacking the “fat cats” on WallStreet while showing compassion for the man on the street suffering thru these hard times.  But who is more responsible for those hard times, WallStreet or OvalStreet?  The guy in the oval office, wearing out our printing presses with “qualitative easing”.  How much has the value of the dollar dropped since he took office?  WallStreet didn’t cause that and the decrease in what you can buy for a dollar.  The one defense I will offer for WallStreet is at least they are honest in what they seek, it’s all about the money!

HOWARD STERN: Who should be the next President of the United States Elle MacPherson, go ahead.

ELLE MACPHERSON: I think Obama’s going to do it.

STERN: You like Obama?

MACPHERSON: Yeah, I’m living in London and I’m socialist. What do you expect?(1)

I did not expect that comment!  Bravo, bravo!  I don’t agree with your political beliefs, but I respect the honest, forthright answer.  We could at least have a conversation that would have real meaning.  But could we have the same conversation with our president or most of his progressive followers?  Is he a socialist?  He and his American followers say no but a supermodel seems to think otherwise.  Is she judging him on his looks?  Would make sense for a model to focus closely on how a person looks, their appearance and attractiveness.
“I think Obama’s going to do it.  I’m socialist. What do you expect?”
I expected you to deny he was/is a socialists.  I expected you to blame the deficit on tax cuts and ignore record spending.  It’s hard to defend Bush’s spending record, which I don’t.  But how can anyone who attacked Bush on the economy and spending excuse Obama for the economy and spending?  Bush ran up the deficit in eight years.  Obama has surpassed him in only three.(2)  Any Obama supporters want to defend that?  If you try or even can defend that, I have a name for you, partisan.  I see you as not looking at what is right or wrong, but what is left and right.  And you have chosen sides like picking a sports team,  SOX fan until I die!  I think that’s OK in sports, but doesn’t work well in life and politics.  The Soviets and Chinese killed over 70 million in the name of the “Greater Good”.  Their leaders promised it would be worth the sacrifices later on, after everyone was equal.
Obama has made some promises and like others before him, failed to keep many.  Myself, I don’t care or mean to harp about  those he was wrong or nieve to make.  In many cases, he simply cannot fund/spend money as he would like without the agreement of both Congress and the Senate.  He wanted to spend more on cancer research, but could not get the support.  I don’t blame him for trying and failing on cancer.  I do blame him for promising to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, then submit a budget that achieves said balance and deficit goals some ten years after he’s out of office.(3)  I think Bush spent too much on the “War On Terrorism”, but let’s be honest, this was life and death.  Blame Bush for using 9/11 to incite the masses, but Congress and the Senate voted for the war.  That means we legally committed our solder’s to go in harm’s way.  That also means any person of conscience does not begrudge them whatever bullets or bandages they request.  Sure we get hosed sometimes like a MASH episode, draw a line thru the M16 and write pizza oven in and you will receive.  The thing is, Obama has spent, not on war, but on his agenda.  Oh, but thousands are dyeing in the streets of America. There is some truth to that, I remember Chicago had over 300 in its morgue, way more than they could processes.  They had to put two bodies in some coolers which broke some state laws but was mandated by other state laws.  Something about identifying/notifying and retaining the deceased body until efforts had been satisfied.  So to be very non-PC, how does ObamaCare fix the homeless or the drug addicts?  It has been US law that if they presented themselves to an emergency room, including the free ambulance ride, they would receive treatment.  Again, harsh reality, all the money in the world could not save Whitney Huston, Michael Jackson or Elvis.  So what are the visible results of Obama’s trillions of spending vs GWB’s trillions?  I’m still irritated (not surprised) at the thousands of dollars of increased health insurance costs I’ve paid since this came out, where are the promised “savings”?

The jobs-killing Obamacare law contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and employers. Many of these tax increases fall on families making less than $250,000 — a direct violation of candidate Obama’s promise not to raise “any form” of taxes on these families. This Friday marks the second anniversary of Obamacare being signed into law. The Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments about the constitutionality of Obamacare next week.

Out of the 20 new or higher taxes in Obamacare, there are four that most hurt young adults and children. Every single one of these taxes violates President Obama’s “firm pledge” not to raise any form of taxes on families making less than $250,000.(oops, sorry, new ‘puter just erased instead of copied.  Source was the Daily Caller)

A sad truth to me, Obama did tell us what he hoped to do, the masses just heard what they wanted, with no thought to the cost.  I talk to a wide variety of people, and even the poor blacks are unhappy with the high gas prices.  They tell me they are not sure if they will vote for Obama again, or don’t answer.

Before catapulting to prominence, the president complained that thanks to constraints instituted by our Founders, “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice.”  Obama’s justice ensures not that transactions are freely entered and fairly measured, but that bureaucrats enforce results fancied per the fluttering fashions of political correctness.

Still, most Americans would deny Obama’s Marxist outlook, mistaking the term’s meaning as synonymous with Stalin or Mao.  Marxist theory informed many of history’s most murderous tyrants, but Obama’s brand is the emasculated theorizing of the faculty lounge.  He neither intends similar mayhem nor has such means in our constitutional republic.

Further confusion revolves around textbook definitions as production remains primarily private.  We still exhibit generally free markets, although our economic liberty rapidly erodes. If socialism connotes complete public ownership of society’s productive infrastructure, and capitalism represents purely private property with minimal state interference, then few examples of either exist. (4)

Can you be proud to be an American but still attack the very principles that inspired its creation?  How can you believe in “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and then spout off about redistribution of wealth?  Words have meanings.  A celebrated constitutional scholar is expected to know redistribution of wealth in the context of his statement means taking from the wealthy by government force, and giving to those they deem needy.  One has to question what principles Obama is guided by…. does a handshake mean a honerable agreement, or is that the Chicago way, shake hands while slipping the knife in….
Boehner thought he had worked out a deal with Obama, a deal which included $800 billion in additional revenues, largely from future growth. This would be worked out through projections involving a “macro estimate”:

“(T)he macro estimate was essential to Boehner; he needed it to make the argument that a decent chunk of the additional revenue could come through growth and stepped-up compliance, and thus Congress wouldn’t need to actually raise anybody’s rates to get it done. Boehner left that Sunday meeting convinced that Geithner, in particular, understood and accepted this condition.

But in his counteroffer, Obama had reversed the formulation so that the tax revenue figure – now at $1.16 trillion – would be the minimum that rewriting the code could achieve (a floor), rather than a maximum (a ceiling). With a slight turn of phrase, he rejected Boehner’s entire premise that growth could be counted on to deliver some of the revenue. (did it again, this is from American Thinker)

  There are Republicans out there that would vote for George Zimmerman if he were in the primary!  And there are Democrats who will vote for Obama and never question if he’s right or wrong by their personal beliefs.  There are also true “Progressives”, who in MHO, are trying to walk us down the path to socialism.  I don’t see the extremists on the right having as much sway, but could be blinded by my own bias.  What about liberal bias?  Do you assume ignorance rather than look in the mirror?  If you believe in AGW and think we must drastically reduce our use of fossil fuels, are we going about it in the right way?  Seems to me even if you force the USA to stop, China and India will simply surpass us and the earth continues on its path while we give up our way of life?  China has dropped most of their green energy projects and has scaled up their coal use and imports.  Is it OK to mine coal in the US if it is exported to China?