Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

THE COW AND THE ICE CREAM ONE OF THE BEST THEORIES OF WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION

Posted by   + Show Post


-- From a teacher in the Nashville area --


"We are worried about 'the cow' when it is all about the 'Ice Cream.'The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching 3rd grade.


The last Presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president.We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members.We discussed what kinds of  characteristics these students should have.


We got many nominations and from those,Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.

The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids.

I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support.

I had never seen Olivia's mother.

The day arrived when they were to make their speeches.

Jamie went first.

He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. 
He ended by promising to do his very best.

Everyone applauded and he sat down.

Now is was Olivia's turn to speak.

Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down.

The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream."

She surely would say more. She did not have to.

A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. But no one pursued that question. They took her at her word.



Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it...She didn't know. 

The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream...

Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.

Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and 51.4 % of the people reacted like nine year olds.

They want ice cream.

The other 48.6% percent know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess."


This is the ice cream Obama promised us!


Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone that they have not first taken away from someone else.
Did you vote for the ice cream?


THAT, MY FRIEND, IS HOW OBAMA GOT ELECTED,



BY THOSE WHO WANT EVERYTHING FOR FREE!

by on Apr. 24, 2012 at 11:38 PM
Replies (31-40):
asfriend
by on Apr. 25, 2012 at 10:18 AM
1 mom liked this

Republicans?

Are you aware that Obama has received more money from wall street than any politiican in history?


 

Quoting LIMom1105:

I like this story, but it all depends how you look at it.  I think Republicans offer ice cream too, though they focus more on the wealthy and large businesses than the not so weatthy and small businesses.

This is the problem with both parties at the moment IMO--too much ice cream being offered. Nothing of substance, and no one wants toask people to eat their carrots instead.


imamomzilla
by on Apr. 25, 2012 at 10:18 AM

 Sadly, the target audience is getting bigger...more people out of work looking for FREE STUFF.frown mini This all part of the Master Plan.

Quoting asfriend:

 

Quoting imamomzilla:

 Quite a few people were duped:

This lady, Peggy Joseph, thinks Barack Obama will pay for her gas, mortgage, and who knows what else.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 

Quoting rccmom:

I hate it when people take a complex subject and try to simplify it to the extent that it loses all meaning. Anyone who believes that is the only reason  Obama was elected obviously either was not paying that much attention, or does not have a very deep understanding of the issues.  

 Exactly.

IMO, there was just so much backlash from President Bush policies, and President Obama was just eloquent enough -- and Senator McCain just unlikable (as a candidate) enough -- that President Obama was able to win.  His victory had nothing to do with anything that he promised during the campaign.

But, I guess rhetoric is more fun.

 


She was exactly, his target audience. Sad.

 

asfriend
by on Apr. 25, 2012 at 10:19 AM
1 mom liked this


Quoting imamomzilla:

 Now, he's hinting that student loans will be forgiven. What's next...a balloon or promise of a free puppy for a vote? LOL

holding balloonspuppy

I like puppies!

imamomzilla
by on Apr. 25, 2012 at 10:21 AM
1 mom liked this

 So does the POTUS. LOL

eating

Quoting asfriend:

 

Quoting imamomzilla:

 Now, he's hinting that student loans will be forgiven. What's next...a balloon or promise of a free puppy for a vote? LOL

holding balloonspuppy

I like puppies!

 

JakeandEmmasMom
by Gold Member on Apr. 25, 2012 at 10:24 AM

 Did you read the transcript?  He didn't say he didn't think it was radical enough.  He didn't even imply that.  He said that (basically, in his estimation) it wasn't as radical as people have claimed.  That the Court interpreted the constitution in a what would be considered an orthodox way.

I think this is a case where a particular story has been repeated so many times that it has become "true" and people will read the objective evidence in that light.  They do whatever mental gymnastics they have to do in order to make the words fit the narrative that they've been given.

Quoting asfriend:

You are right that he didn't think the court was radical enough. That is a bad thing, not a good thing.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 

Quoting asfriend:

 

Quoting rccmom:

 

Quoting asfriend:

 

Quoting rccmom:

I hate it when people take a complex subject and try to simplify it to the extent that it loses all meaning. Anyone who believes that is the only reason  Obama was elected obviously either was not paying that much attention, or does not have a very deep understanding of the issues.  

There is some truth to that, it wasn't entirely the fact that he promised to redistribute all the wealth from the producers to the takers, some people simply wanted to be a part of an historic election.

Oh good lord! there is still so much more too it than that! Just before I go out the door though, Obama has never promised to redistribute the wealth. He does wish us to return to the pre Bush tax rate, which would still be lower for higher wage earners than the tax rate Reagan had in place. But as I am sure you realize, economics is only one small part that figures into why people elect candidates.

You seem intelligent and reasonable, but just maybe not that well versed in Obama. When he was running for Pres. he stated that the biggest problem with the Supreme Court during the civil rights years was that the Warren Court never addressed the "redistribution of wealth".  His entire Presidency has been a quest to attack the evil rich and redistribute that money to the poor, which his policies are creating more of.

 That's a mischaracterization of what he actually said.  In reality, he was pointing out (to those who've claimed that the Warren Court was very radical and activist) that it really wasn't that radical, because it wasn't like they made decisions that effectively redistributed wealth.  He also went on to criticize civil rights leaders for relying too much on the court system for effecting change, and not enough on a grassroots movement that would have produced more substantive change within the community.  Here is a transcript of the radio show where he makes the comments about the Court:

From the January 18, 2001, broadcast of the WBEZ's Odysseyprogram, "The Court and Civil Rights":

OBAMA: Right, and it essentially has never happened. I mean, I think that, you know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order in, as long as I could pay for it, I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, in some ways, we still suffer from that.

[...]

GRETCHEN HELFRICH (host): Let's talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you're on Chicago Public Radio.

CALLER: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn't terribly radical. My question is with economic changes. My question: Is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?

HELFRICH: You mean the court?

CALLER: The courts, or would it be legislation, at this point?

OBAMA: You know, maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but, you know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way.

You know, you just said -- look at very rare examples wherein, during the desegregation era, the court was willing to, for example, order, you know, changes that cost money to a local school district. And the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.

You know, the court's just not very good at it, and politically, it's just -- it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So, I mean, I think that, although, you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally -- you know, I think you can, any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts -- I think that, as a practical matter, our institutions just are poorly equipped to do it.

SUSAN BANDES (DePaul University law professor): I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I think it also depends on -- much of the time what we see the court doing is ratifying the status quo, and, in fact, the court makes redistributive decisions or distributive decisions all the time --

OBAMA: Right.

BANDES: -- and it --

OBAMA: But, but, but --

BANDES: Let me give you an example, which is that the court considers whether it's OK to take a program, a federal Medicare program that provides -- you know, that recompenses people by insurance for every medical procedure they can have except abortion. And it upholds that --

OBAMA: Right.

BANDES: -- and says we can except abortion from that. Well, that's a decision about what kinds of subsidies we're willing to uphold and what we're not.

OBAMA: Although, typically, I mean, the court can certainly be more or less generous in interpreting actions and initiatives that are taken by the legislature, but in the example of, for example, funding of abortions or Medicare and Medicaid, the court's not initiating those funding streams. I mean, essentially what the court is saying is, at some point, OK, this is a legitimate prohibition or this is not. And I think those are very important battles.

 

 

LIMom1105
by on Apr. 25, 2012 at 10:27 AM
2 moms liked this

Do you mean as a candidate or are you saying he has received bribes from Wall Street?


Of course the Republicans offer ice cream.  In the form of no new taxes on the affluent and breaks for certain industries. And you missed the larger point I was trying to make (or maybe no one can criticize Republicans ever)?  But the larger point is that neither the Republicans or the Democrats are making changes that might be hard for all Americans to swallow.  Everyone needs to tighten their belts at the moment, not just groups that each party chooses to protect.

JakeandEmmasMom
by Gold Member on Apr. 25, 2012 at 10:28 AM

 Another example of, "Must.Make.It.Fit.My.Narrative."

No he isn't.  He is urging people to write to their representatives because the interest rate on student loans is getting ready to double this summer.  In what way does, "Keep interest rates at the current level" = "We are going to forgive your student loans"?

Even Romney came out in support of keeping the interest rate the same.  Someone posted that article yesterday or the day before.

SMH.

Quoting imamomzilla:

 Now, he's hinting that student loans will be forgiven. What's next...a balloon or promise of a free puppy for a vote? LOL

holding balloonspuppy

 

numbr1wmn
by Nikki on Apr. 25, 2012 at 10:33 AM

What are your thoughts about the last  anti republican email forward on here?

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

Dumb and probably a lie

And Obama didn't promise to give anything to anyone...

Crock


imamomzilla
by on Apr. 25, 2012 at 10:35 AM

 All I can say is ...wait until November.

You'll see all kinds of promises being made....just like the last election. I'm still waiting to see  a clear and transparent govt, debates live on CSpan...and important legislature posted online before votes. hmmm.

wink mini

 

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 Another example of, "Must.Make.It.Fit.My.Narrative."

No he isn't.  He is urging people to write to their representatives because the interest rate on student loans is getting ready to double this summer.  In what way does, "Keep interest rates at the current level" = "We are going to forgive your student loans"?

Even Romney came out in support of keeping the interest rate the same.  Someone posted that article yesterday or the day before.

SMH.

Quoting imamomzilla:

 Now, he's hinting that student loans will be forgiven. What's next...a balloon or promise of a free puppy for a vote? LOL

holding balloonspuppy

 

 

JakeandEmmasMom
by Gold Member on Apr. 25, 2012 at 10:41 AM

 I expect to see lots and lots of empty promises, illogical rhetoric, and just plain 'ole garden variety pandering from BOTH sides the closer we get to November.  *Rubs hands together*  I LOVE it!!  It's a chess match like no other.  I love the game of it...the strategy involved...

Quoting imamomzilla:

 All I can say is ...wait until November.

You'll see all kinds of promises being made....just like the last election. I'm still waiting to see  a clear and transparent govt, debates live on CSpan...and important legislature posted online before votes. hmmm.

wink mini

 

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 Another example of, "Must.Make.It.Fit.My.Narrative."

No he isn't.  He is urging people to write to their representatives because the interest rate on student loans is getting ready to double this summer.  In what way does, "Keep interest rates at the current level" = "We are going to forgive your student loans"?

Even Romney came out in support of keeping the interest rate the same.  Someone posted that article yesterday or the day before.

SMH.

Quoting imamomzilla:

 Now, he's hinting that student loans will be forgiven. What's next...a balloon or promise of a free puppy for a vote? LOL

holding balloonspuppy

 

 

 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN