• Subscribe to
    Lloyd’s Blog via RSS.
Tumblr
  • Check out TheShelterBlog.com
  • Tools for the
    Half-Acre Homestead
 

Go Barack!

Jeez, I hope he makes it this time around. In spite of unfulfilled promises and broken dreams. The alternative is just so dark and scary.

31 comments:

ChippyChin from Twitter said...

It is. There are other alternatives, but sadly they won't even be allowed into the public eye. I'll do my part to make sure Obama gets four more years to fulfill the promises.

Michael Janzen said...

IMHO... they both are scary.

I voted for Obama the first time around and really believed he'd bring change, transparency, renewable energy, and an end to wars for oil. But I don't see he tried to do any of that. In fact I see that he's done everything to help continue the current paradigm of corporatism, debt & war.

Albert Einstein said, "You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it. You must learn to see the world anew."

So at this point I'm satisfied with the notion that we're stuck in a catch-22 until the majority of Americans embrace a more sustainable paradigm - like one that values balance over acquisition. Until then I fully expect the core problems to continue to fester until it falls apart, morphs into something worse, or people wake up.

So on the topic of voting... I'm going to vote for Ron Paul even though he's not running. He's the only guy talking about something that vaguely looks like a different paradigm. I don't think it's a wasted vote either... a wasted vote is for the lesser of two evils. A vote for a man not running is a message to anyone paying attention that a growing number of Americans are awake and want real change.

Goggler said...

Now that's a Freudian slip.

Anonymous said...

I couldn't agree more.
I was planning on holding my nose at the voting table, but I'm a little more inspired by this president's demonstration of hyper-competence....even while incredibly disappointed and angry at his unwillingness to govern the way he campaigns.
He's too good and too motivated to lose. But will he use a second term to shed his ambivalence and actually prove what good government is capable of?
Such an outrageously stark difference between the two sides (in rhetoric, anyway).
-Jonathan H
San Francisco

Anonymous said...

Yes. Let's see who's elected president of the USS Titanic.

Rebecca Fogg said...

From my POV, Van Jones said it well: "With Obama, you might not get everything you want, but with Romney, you can lose everything you have."

Anonymous said...

@Michael Janzen, you're the closest here, but lets be real, none of the muppets we see in power do anything but 'as they're told', they are after all just puppets, puppets that like the gravy train they're riding!
If you think Oh-bummer will do you the slightest good, you're heads in the sand thus your arse is in the air just asking to be ******!
It's the plutocrats that run the place... for as long as we let them, think on...

Anonymous said...

Read Greed & Debt.The true story of Mitt Romney & Brain Capital in Rolling Stone.by Matt Taibbi Sep.13 Taibbi knows more about Wall Street than any body.Also his blog in Rolling Stone is free.Just go to Rolling Stone.Click on his blog.You will want to nuke wall steet and put up tiny homes.

rj said...

The real deal is Bill Clinton. That speech he gave Wednesday wasn't news to those who stay current, but it was presented elegantly and clearly. The Democrats need to dissect every argument he made and have Obama restate in a massive country wide blitz. Perhaps with a victory, Obama could pull Bill into his cabinet, perhaps replacing Hillary. One thing for sure, now's the time to play hardball...

c w swanson said...

What about the Obama administration makes it worthy of your vote?

Is it the 5 trillion in new debt with basically nothing to show for it?

Is it selling semi automatic weapons to drug gangs in Mexico?

Is it spending billions of dollars of your money and mine on now bankrupt green energy companies? If you have ever started a business and made it work, you could look at the hyper expensive facilities of "start up" Solyndra and know that company was dead on it's feet.

Is it his refusal to allow reasonable energy development, like the Keystone Pipeline, among other things, causing gas prices to double since his election?

Is it his closure of Gitmo?

Is it his Middle East policy that has turned the region into a hotbed for religious war and abuse?

Romney is no savior, but at least he has experience rescuing failing companies, which the US is right now. Obama has not earned re election.



Jack Stub said...

Lloyd, thanks for the post. The alternative (Republicans) is nothing but dark, dark energy. Check out these stickers I'm finding around Seattle - they are hilarious: http://jackstub.blogspot.com/2012/09/a-graffito.html

Cheers, and let's hope we win this one

bayrider said...

Obama is a likable guy but politically no different from Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. I don't vilify him or declare that he is out to destroy America or any of that nonsense. His inclinations and goals may be idealistic but his governing philosophy is completely at odds with all of history.

The bottom line is that all governments are coercive by nature. Ultimately the state claims a monopoly on the use of violence. The state compels citizens to obey by the threat of imprisonment and even death. There is not one instance in history of a powerful government acting in continued benevolence towards the people it rules over. There are many instances of governments that started with the most idealistic intentions but quickly became corrupted beyond belief by the actions of a particular ruler or rulers. You cannot trust in the continued beneficence of any government or any particular leader.

The genius of the American government is in it's granting clearly enumerated and very specifically limited powers to the federal government by the people. The people reserve all other rights as their own. The most fundamental freedom is personal property rights and the right to the fruits of your own labor. When a government can take your property or labor and redistribute it in the name of 'fairness' you have no control of your own destiny.

A truly free market may have harsh outcomes in some instances but it is the antithesis of coercion. Free market outcomes are determined by the individual decisions made by millions of citizens, that's a bottom up democratic process versus a top down political one.

BTW, if you think the Democrats are not coercive when it suits their needs, please review the voice vote on their platform changes concerning God and Israel the other night. The speaker states it needs a 2/3 plurality to pass, then when it's very obviously voted down he declares it passed, from a pre-written teleprompter stream no less.

Kay L. Davies said...

The alternative, from my Canadian perspective, is actually terrifying. Our present prime minister was trained by the Bushies, so if he and Mitt Romney rule North America, I'm moving to Australia.
K

Richard G. said...

Reponse to: “c w swanson”

Some Republicans have such a short memory:

1). Regarding Obama’s 5 trillion dollar debt, congressional Bush Republicans allowed “PAYGO” expire in 2002 which meant they could pass legislation and not have to pay for it as they had required of the Clinton administration. They then proceeded to engage in two wars, unfunded, pass Medicare Part D, unfunded, and a tax cut for the wealthy, also unfunded. That tax cut alone will account for half the public debt by 2019. This debt accrues not only to Obama but to every succeeding president as well.

2). “Fast and Furious” was an extension of a Bush program called Project Gunrunner, that since 2006 allowed guns to “walk” into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

3). Hindsight on Solyndra is, as they say, 20/20. Don’t forget the largess expended on Dick Cheney’s Haliburton and tax breaks for the oil companies.

4). Gas prices in June of 2008 (Bush era) were $4.10 a gallon.

5). House Republicans have consistently blocked and prevented Obama’s effort to close Gitmo.

6). The Middle East has been a hotbed for religious war and abuse since at least 1949. The Obama administration was instrumental in removing the dictators, Muammar Gaddafi and Hosni Mubarak. Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran’s nuclear program are highlights of the Bush administration, lest we forget.

7). The United States is not a for-profit company or a corporation nor should it be operated as one. Countries or societies governed this way are called plutocracies. They are governments by and for the wealthy.

Why vote for Obama? Because he passed health care. Because the stock market is double in value from the day he took office. Because his stimulus bill prevented a depression. Because he saved GM and Chrysler. Because he gave the order to kill Osama Bin Laden. Because he supports the rights of gay Americans. Because he supports abortion rights for women. Because he doesn’t engage in sword rattling. And because he doesn’t employ a lot of half truths and revisionist history so common from other side.





c w swanson said...

First of all, I must compliment Richard G. in his response to my post. That, sir, is an intelligent and adult argument. In response, I offer you the following:

1) I have no love for the excessive spending that occurred during previous administrations, but the Obama administration has piled on more debt than all others combined, from George Washington to George W. Bush. It's not really an excuse that others were also big spenders, when the scope of borrowing during President Obama's time is so much larger. I recall as well that when running for President he also promised to cut the deficit in half.

2)The Bush program you are referring to is Wide Receiver ( how do they come up with these names? ). This program attempted to track guns sold, involved about 400 guns, and was shut down in 2007 when it became clear it was a failure. The Obama administration revived it in Fast and Furious, walked 2000 guns across the border, and made no attempt to track them. So why did Obama bring back a program that even the Bush administration thought had failed, and make it five times larger? To say it isn't a problem because the Bush administration did something similar does not let Obama off the hook. Instead, he needs to explain why a failed program was revived and quintupled in size, with no tracking attempt at all.

3) The connection you draw between Solyndra and Halliburton is a good one. I suspect that both were primarily ways to reward big political donors. Either way, it's dirty, and it wastes the money that hard working folks like you and I send to the government in our taxes. Again, if it was wrong when Cheney and Halliburton did it, it's wrong when Obama and all his green pals do it. It shouldn't be rewarded with re election.

4) Gas prices when President Obama took office were 1.84 a gallon. Obama only has to answer for what has happened after he got elected, and since then, it's been a relentless climb.

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/01/average-gas-pricesjanuary-26-2009.html

Remember as well that he said that energy prices would "skyrocket" during his administration, and that he would strive to bankrupt the coal industry. High energy prices affect everything, since they are factored into the manufacture and transportation of everything. The poor and middle class get the shaft on this far more than the rich.

5) The Repubs couldn't have blocked him during the first two years of his administration, when they controlled neither the House nor the Senate, and were in such low numbers that they couldn't even mount a filibuster. This is all on Obama.

6) The Middle East has been a hotbed of religious war and abuse for thousands of years. Gaddafi and Mubarak were certainly dictators, but to replace them with religious fanatics is an act of insanity. It may well be like when the Shah was replaced by the current government there, under which a relatively open society descended into the intolerance we see today, and where people are massacred by government thugs shooting them from the rooftops. Libya is now ruled by no central government, but by regional warlords. How is that an improvement? And why was it our government's job to attack the sovereign nation of Libya, and without the approval of Congress or the UN at that. No matter what mistakes Bush made, at least he respected the rights of Congress to approve an act of war and the need to at least bring the matter to the UN.

How is Iran's nuclear program a highlight of the Bush administration? It was my impression that they are trying to build a bomb all on their own so they could dominate the region.

7) Agreed, the US is not a for-profit company or a corporation, nor should it be operated as one.

c w swanson said...

Continuing my response to Richard G.'s post:

Vote for Obama because he passed health care: Maybe, if it actually provides good health care at a price that doesn't destroy the nation's finances, which even without it are possibly already too far gone to save. I also did not find it reassuring that we were told we would have to pass it to find out what was in it. And do we want government bureaucrats telling us what health care we can have and what we can't have? I know I don't want my health care decisions in the hands of a faceless bureaucracy I have absolutely no control over.

Because the stock market has doubled: score one for Obama, I agree that's a good consideration

Because his stimulus bill prevented a depression: arguable. It is hard to prove the argument that 'it could have been worse.'

Because he saved the automakers: It isn't the government's job to save the automakers. If they go broke, they will be reorganized in bankruptcy and come out in much different and better shape. Why risk billions of taxpayer money that you have to borrow anyway when it could be done much more efficiently and legally using the normal legal process? Looked at a different way, once you start down the road of saving bankrupt companies, where do you stop? Where do you draw the line? It wasn't necessary, it cost billions in public money, and like Halliburton, it was a big payoff to the unions, who are huge political supporters.

Because he gave the order to kill Bin Laden: what President wouldn't?

Because he supports gay Americans: he really didn't support gay marriage until very recently, did he? Romney wouldn't support that, however, so Obama scores one here as well.

Because he supports abortion rights for women: Didn't the Supreme Court define a woman's right to abortion?

Because he doesn't engage in sword rattling: Libya says differently, and hasn't there been plenty of sword rattling from this administration over Syria?

I personally am ready for a change. Before the country can afford common goods like health care, Social Security, Medicare and all the rest, we have to be able to pay for it. I fear that can't happen on our present course, and the first thing we must do is grow the economy. What has been tried over the past three and a half years hasn't worked, and we need to get back to something that history has shown has worked. That is to allow the American people to keep more of their own money through lower energy prices, to stop subsidizing businesses with public money, to allow them to keep more of the fruit of their own labor, and to quit borrowing vast sums we really can't pay back.

Gill said...

I used to think that both the left side of the isle and right were all bought and paid for, so the men behind the curtain that we are not supposed to pay attention to, don't really care who wins. Now I'm wondering if it isn't all of us who are bought and paid for.

Lloyd posts all kinds of creative, inspiring, and promising modern alternative living information, and usually we only post something like "cool".

He posts one picture of our President, and the cat claws come out. We are a well trained gaggle, myself included. I should never allow myself to type with a hangover, but here I am.

IMO the gig is up, we live in a Corpocracy now, one that has a goal of a whole world, 3rd world. Want proof? Go look on your back porch at the "plastic injected molded chairs" there. Then pay attention to pictures you see from around the world... they are everywhere. (must be one hell of a profit margin on those suckers). Still own your house? Or do you keep paying on it to the "to big to fail" banks that WE had to bail out?

BTW there's a new 12 step group for people that can't stop typing/talking. It's called OnAndOnAnon. I'm gonna shut up and go to a meeting now.

Peace.

Beth Ann Lane aka Magnan said...

I hope he makes it as well because I agree...the alternative is extremely dark, scary and does not embrace my belief that we all matter, we are all connected, and if we are going to make it in any way, shape or form, we ought to try and do it in the most life-giving life-enhancing way...with no one left behind Just Because.

Richard G. said...

To “c w swanson” who clearly enjoys the sport of politics:

1). You may not love the excessive spending under Bush but I don’t think you can just walk away from your team. Obama’s spending and borrowing is to a large extent predetermined by the decisions and conditions that preceded him.

2). Gunrunner/Wide Receiver: just a screw-up or an attempt to outlaw guns? Probably the former.

3). Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers support Romney. Looks “dirty”. You shouldn’t reward this candidate with your vote.

4). Gas prices fluctuate over the year based on a lot of worldwide supply and demand factors most of which presidents have little control over.

5). Is it true that Republicans have blocked Obama’s effort to close Gitmo these last two years? Yes.

6). Gaddafi and Mubarak as well as the Shah of Iran had histories of severe human rights abuses. Were it not for our support of the Shah, we might have had more support with the people and government that replaced him. The dust has yet to settle in either Egypt or Libya and the ultimate outcome is still unclear.

The Bush administration failed, among other failures, to bring Iran into negotiations to curtail their nuclear program.

7). If you agree that the US is not and should not be operated like a corporation, why would you think Romney’s experience at rescuing failing companies would be a recommendation for electing him?

Other stuff:

• “Health care decisions in the hands of a faceless bureaucracy that you have no control over” nicely describes the private insurance health care system before Obamacare.

• Paul Ryan publicly decried the stimulus while privately asking for millions for his district because he said it “created jobs”.

• Obama used taxpayer money to save the auto companies because bank credit was frozen. There was no other money available. Letting the companies fail would have assured depression. Union “big payoff”; workers get to keep their jobs to pay their bills and pay their mortgages.

• Sending in Seal Team 6 could have been a disaster like Jimmy Carter’s failed hostage rescue attempt. Others might have just dropped a bomb and avoided the political risk.

• Paul Ryan’s recent support of legislation narrowing the definition of rape makes it clear that many Republicans are far from accepting the abortion issue as settled.

• If you want sword rattling, I refer you to George Romney who recently suggested that the US should be prepared to send forces into battlegrounds in the Middle East in the near future.

• If you want a change, I think you should look to someone other than Romney since he appears to be a rerun of the Bush administration’s failed policies.

Lloyd Kahn said...

I hesitate to get political in my blog because I don't have time to devote to endless debate; I feel my time is best spent on posting the kind of stuff I do. Yet I wanted to sort of make a declaration here after watching parts of both conventions. What a difference!
I think there's a vast gap between the parties now, especially since the Republicans have moved so far to the right. Just as I think the world would be a far different place if Gore had won instead of Bush/Cheney and their disastrous war in Iraq.
Most of my friends from high school and college (Stanford) are way different from me politically, but they're still my friends. Go figure.
I appreciate all the comments, guys.

c w swanson said...

To Richard G.: Thanks for the thoughtful arguments. I do appreciate them, and if we ever happen to stumble across each other somewhere, the beers are on me.

To Lloyd Kahm: Great, great blog. Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

Four more years of shuck 'n jive from the affirmative action poster boy?

and your good with that?

Mark E said...

He has my vote as well.

Republicans these days deal in little more than deception and intimidation of others.

Richard G. said...

To “c w swanson”: Thank you also. I’ll get the second round.

Anonymous said...

All due respect to fellow Americans on the Left but the arguments in favor of Obama's reelection is very weak given the struggling economy, poor leadership, inability to coordinate bipartisan agreements, NDAA, Patriot Act II Extension, illegal preemptive attacks on Third World countries without Congressional approval, use of Export Import Bank for political advantage which is commonly known as Cronyism, signing of Financial Stability Board in direct conflict with our sovereignty and Constitution, etc., etc. etc..

Anonymous said...

I love this blog and have deep respect for Lloyd but supporting an administration which has institutionalized a Stasi-like Police State with the NDAA and Patriot Act II Extension is just baffling.

There's no defending this. It's unconstitutional no matter how you slice it.

Anonymous said...

See how divided we are a country. It's all right here at LLoyd's place. And to Mr Anon why not post your name are you really that afraid.

Bob

Anonymous said...

What difference does it make if a comment is posted under a legit identity or nom de plume?

Anonymous said...

I'm with you cw swanson
Couldn't of said it better.


Matt

Jessica Bullock said...

Lloyd, who'da thunk that your awesome blog could foster such thoughtful, generous, and respectful dialogue about such a touchy subject. You should be proud! I enjoyed reading all the comments.

Anonymous said...

What if the outcome of next week’s presidential vote in the United States was correctly predicted by customers at a bar in Paris?

Harry's Bar is a small corner of Manhattan in the heart of Paris. Originally called the New York Bar, it opened on Thanksgiving Day 1911, soon attracting American expatriates and celebrities (F Scott Fitzgerald, Gertrude Stein, Hemingway, Humphrey Bogart, Clint Eastwood... and George Gershwin who is said to have composed An American In Paris there)

This establishment is also renowned for its Straw Poll that’s correctly predicted the outcome of US elections all but twice since 1924.

Americans who take their passports with them to Harry's Bar, are given a slip of paper on which to cast their ballot. The votes are meticulously counted every evening and a running total is printed on the mirror behind the bar. On November 3, the final results will be made public. 

''Many American customers hope for Obama's re-election because of his social policy'' says the bar's manager, Alain da Silva. ''But there are also some conservative people : the results can be very tight''.

Video by french magazine Le Point :
http://www.lepoint.fr/monde/election-americaine-le-resultat-se-joue-aussi-au-harry-s-bar-17-10-2012-1517830_24.php

Post a Comment