Thank you, TheWolfen. You, apoc.famine and kiddailey are 100% correct.
I wouldn't even be an issue if it were not for the Democrats having complete control of both the legislative and administrative branches. An Obama presidency would throw away even that fig leaf of a check.
But then I keep coming back to the tin-hat conspiracy theory of "How the hell do we keep coming into these elections with 0.1% margins?" Every time that question creeps into my head, I feel played by the media. Then I think about the horrible, unreasonable and bizarre treatment that Ron Paul received during the primary debates. I just have this strong feeling that the ones pulling the strings didn't want the applecart upset to much.
Bob Barr is really the only selection that makes any sense.
Reagan pushed through a military buildup that basically boiled down to playing a game of chicken with the Soviet Union. It worked.
During the Clinton years, there were finally massive reductions in military spending. Should have happened under Bush I, and Clinton didn't go far enough. We still have troops stationed all over the place where they have no business being.
But, basically, Reagan took on a depressed economy and pushed the Soviets over the brink with it. Clinton inherited the long term benefits from that, and then got a boost from technology.
Interested, I read the article referenced in your first link. Turns out, Palin complained about our government spending money for fruit-fly research in France, but she didn't know about about some research that occurred with fruit-flies at the University of North Carolina LAST YEAR that has "boosted" autism research.
DAMN-IT!! I DEMAND that my political candidates read ALL of the scientific journals and be up-to-date on all the latest findings.
BTW, when you wonder about that anti-intellectualism that the left likes to sneer about, it may have something to do with snot-head claiming to be so much smarter because they know of a piece of trivia that no one else does. Until the UNC research gets beyond the may-lead-to-understanding stage, it is pretty much just trivia, interesting to those in that particular field and those directly affected but few others.
I did something you told me not to. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to disobey you.
But lets take the definition you reference. A system that "advocates vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." What would "community as a whole" be? Could that be construed as anything other than the government? If the government takes control of the profit, does it not, in fact have control? Obama wants the government to have more control of the profits. How does it become trollish to say that his outlook socialist?
Redistributive change: 'RE' distribute. That is, take what has been distributed and distribute it again. The article you link to takes a snippet of the interview and says that he didn't say what he just said. The gist of what he said in the interview was that he was disheartened that the Supreme Court didn't go more into economic decisions to right the civil-rights wrongs. Your link to a partisan hack of a website notwithstanding, the man said what he said. He would have preferred that the Supreme Courts pass down rulings to "spread the wealth around".
I provided a link to wikipedia, the same you referenced, but./ dropped the href I manually type in. Probably a bug involving all the quote tags in my response. But how does a site that says socialism is a philosophy that wants to take charge of spreading the wealth around supporting you when you claim that someone that wants to take control of spreading the wealth around is not a socialist?
Now, how about stopping the childish name calling and answer that one simple question.
Worse than that. They expect the application fees to "protect against risks". Now, just what 'risks' could that possibly be? It's not like they could hit somebody with a truck, or a building might fall on somebody. Just what sort of risk is involved in maintaining a database that links tediously formatted names with a 32-bit number?
As the others have said, you can take issue with Obama, but you can't call him a Marxist or a Socialist without being a fool;
Only to someone who has no access to a dictionary or a computer.
to draw a comparison, consider that we in the US have a culture (at least since the Civil War) of powerful central government.
And there is a large percentage of people who are constantly trying to roll back that power. There is an approximately equal percentage that is trying to increase that power.
Someone suggests that the drinking age, say, no longer be a matter of Federal control, and I declare this person to be an anarchist.
See how much sense that makes?
He could be an anarchist. He could be a federalist.
Wikipedia: Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which support the elimination of all compulsory government,[1] i.e. the state.
Keywords: elimination of all
Wikipedia: Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program...while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.
Keywords: advocate state control of capital
Obama pushes for policies and programs that give him the control to decide 'economic justice'. Socialism.
Simply brushing the merest fringes of socialism doesn't make Obama any less of the capitalist swine he is, and the gap is far too vast to seal up with an appeal to "cultural relativity". The man is simply not a Socialist. He's the same kind of fucking free-market-worshipper that got us where we are today.
"Merest fringes"? You are just confusing what he feels he can get away with saying in a political campaign as what he would be pushing for with the highest office in the free world. (Slight hubris there, but, c'mon, give me something. I think I live in a great country.) He has stated in public interviews what he would really like to happen. The people he has chosen to associate with throughout his career have stated what he would like to happen. His voting record has laid out what he would like to happen, spread eagle.
Wait a minute. 'Socialist' and 'Capitalist' are words, with definitions and meanings. You can't redefine them just because you don't agree with the dictionary.
Oh, shut-up already! Jeesh?
Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.
By any reasonable definition, Obama is *not* a socialist. He's a moderate capitalist -- to the right of Clinton, for god's sake.
With 'reasonable' being whatever you decide it should be today?
Assuming you're not a troll, the rest of your post is just hard-core ignorance. Look up 'redistributive change' and realize that it has nothing to do with money -- it's a specific legal term that applies to civil rights.
Let me quess. It means that we should take money from those evil wealthy people that earned it, and give it to those deserving individuals that did not? And Senator Obama gets to decide which is which?
Dodge the term however you like. I don't care. I just have one word for you: socialist.
The right-wing has hit Obama in any way they could, and that includes redefining words and phrases in any way that gives them an attack angle. They are lying to you, and you apparently are eating it up.
I think it was Obama that told a gentleman that we should be happy that Obama was here to "spread the wealth around". And don't go off about Joe the Plumber. He's immaterial. A placeholder. The defining conversation is:
Anybody:"I've worked hard, sacrificed, and suspended gratification to make more money. Are you going to tax me more?" Obama:"You should be happy that we're going to spread the wealth around."
I've provided you with a link and some of the text from the Wikipedia article on socialism, a somewhat authoritative source of what socialism is. Go educate yourself. And stop accusing people of drinking kool-aid when you're walking around with a purple stained tongue. It makes you look childish.
He has admitted to some of it. Circumstantial evidence tying him to others. He may not be responsible for all of it, granted, but there is a pattern and it ALL stopped when the heat started getting close to him.
We reported my son's classes being changed. The principal in charge, who is good friends with the boy's grandfather, blew it off. It wasn't until the school resource officer got wind of it that something started there. I don't know if they found anything, or if the principal we've come to know and love as "the bitch" got it buried again. I have no idea how the cracking was accomplished. I've no access to the computers or the investigation. My son is done with that school, and I really can't do anything about what was done there....sooooo...moving on.
Most of the calls can be traced back to anonymous skype accounts.
The myspace defacing was done scipt-kiddie style mixed with some password guessing.
candidates themselves all seem to be batshit insane
I don't think that phrase means what you think it means. And I don't think you've listened to any of the candidates. At least, not the ones I've heard interviewed or seen debating. It was refreshing to listen to Mike Munger, who is running for governor of North Carolina. Answers question directly, succinctly and with a clear explanation of issues involved and where he thinks a balance needs to be struck. Bob Barr is the same way. There's some extensive interviews on YouTube if you've not actually listened to the real thing.
Ron Paul said that we shouldn't be putting our military in harms way in foreign countries, that we shouldn't be warmongering like the other candidates in the presidential debate. Huckabee and Thompson had just made statements about introducing speed-boat personel "to the 40 virgins they've been waiting to meet". Brit Hume cut Paul short and shouted him down with, "Who is war mongering, Senator?" Now tell me who is batshit insane?
I've listened to Obama's prepared stump speaches. Just sounds like a backwoods preacher to me. It's a practiced act he puts on. When he speaks of the cuff, he stumbles and pauses a lot. Most statements begin with phrases designed to pause and buy time. Not impressive at all.
You can't compare Palin's "credentials" with Obama's. The most experience she can claim is being governor to an incredibly rich, homogeneous state with a population of a half million. That's about as much experience as being elected to your high school's SGA.
And Obama has a career of running for office opposed by a press that considers verbal felatio "tough interviewing". That's about as much experience as being elected as your high school's prom king.
See, it was a fairly easy comparison.
Things will absolutely "swing back." We'll get out of a illegitimate war started by lies.
We're not in a war. Haven't been for a long time. We have some troops devoted to nation building. They will be there indefinitely, just like we still have bases in Japan and Europe. The troops will be drawn down when Iraq is ready, not any sooner. You do note that Obama qualifies his withdrawal claims with "responsibly" don't you? Or do you just quit listening halfway through sentences?
Better regulation will help bring our economy back in control. You think that McCain will let that happen?
Regulation? You mean like regulating that banks give loans to people without money or the means to repay the loan? No. I guess he has a record of opposing that sort of thing.
We'll be in Iraq for a hundred years if he has his way. How high does the death toll have to get before people like him realize that there are no "winners" in a war?
{sigh} See above.
A will to compromise must be had for anything to be done with a conflicting executive and legislature. We've seen how well that works with a Republican in charge (ie, not at all). Bush policies got us into this mess, and another scion of Bush will just make things four more years worse. We can't afford that.
Of course, Obama won't need to compromise. He'll have a Democratic controlled Congress to rubberstamp any hairbrained scheme he'll come up with. And the Democratic controlled Congress will have someone that voted with them 97% of the time to rubberstamp any hairbrained scheme they come up with. But the candidate with the record of proposing and getting bills passed with the support of both major parties is the bad one? What was the color of that koolaid you drank? Did it stain your tongue?
Stupid positions on foreign affairs? Like maybe the willingness to sit down with tin-pot dictators who would get populace support from demonizing the US and then forcing the our leaders to negotiate with them?
Ok. What else do you propose? Kill these poor people to save them from suffering? You'll HAVE to talk to them.
I propose you negotiate in such a way that you do not lend support to the demonizing dictator. You can use low level officials. You can use surrogates. That is, neighboring countries that have no choice but to negotiate, or countries that are not targets of demonization. There is much posturing and positioning with international politics, mainly because even sitting down at the conference table can be taken as a sign of weakness or a sign of support. Simply saying, "We will talk to everybody" is naive or stupid. You pick.
Don't be deceived. The US Government is, and will continue, talking to all heads of state around the world, and many powerful entities that are not heads of state. You just won't read about any of it in USA Today.
So, when we ask someone with some credibility, you fail on both sides. Sorry.
To quote the wikipedia article:
Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.
How is the government taking the earnings and profits of people who have earned it in a free and open market and deciding that others should have it NOT socialism?
First, I don't live in "the rest of the world". I live in the United States. We have a culture. We have a way of doing things. It's nice that you have a different culture and a different way of doing things. Where I live, we call the ability to choose to do things differently "freedom". I think, historically, my country has been mostly prosperous. At least prosperous enough that a lot of people in other countries complain about how rich and powerful we are. With that in mind, excuse me while I don't give a shit where Obama would fall on the Socialist-Capitalist scale in your country.
Second, I have no doubt that Senator Obama would institute national wage and price controls in a second if he were given the power. His views that he wished the Supreme Court would rule on "economic justice" (60's style codewords for Marxism) is evidence enough. He knows he can't tear down our institutions like that. That's not the way it is done here. He has to tear it down one brick at a time. Just because he knows he can't get everything he wants immediately does not mean that he won't try to do as much damage as possible. He has to bribe the populace first. He seems to feel $1000/person will be enough to buy the votes he needs. Once the idea is instilled that it is right and proper for the federal government to take money from people who have earned it on an open and free market and give it to the idle and stupid, then it is just a matter of moving the mark of where "middle-class" falls. It started at $250K, but he isn't even elected yet and we've seen it go to $200K and now down to $150K.
Man hits a woman at a bar. "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" "Sure," she says. "Cool." "I've only got $10 with me. Will that be enough?" "What kind of woman do you think I am?" She questions indignantly. "We've already decided that. Now we're just haggling over the price."
"We've decided you're a whore. Now we're just haggling over the price."
No I didn't jump on the 'partisan speech' bull, other than to note that it was a partisan speech. My contention was/is that she has an axe to grind. The speech is one small piece of evidence for that contention.
I agree. But we have to make them keep pretending to have their little internal conflicts, or it will be even worse that 2000-2006. Then we at least had the media overlooking what was going on. Most of the media is so far in the pot for the Dems that we won't hear about any of the shenanigans until it is to late. And then they'll blame the Republicans anyway.
Horrifying anti-science? You mean like the idea of giving $1000 to people unwilling to work will improve our economy? No, I'm not willing to overlook that.
Stupid positions on foreign affairs? Like maybe the willingness to sit down with tin-pot dictators who would get populace support from demonizing the US and then forcing the our leaders to negotiate with them? No, I don't think I can overlook that one either.
Pandering to the extreme religious right? You mean instead of pandering to the extreme religious left? Yeah. I'll probably let that one slip by in a "don't care" conditional.
And this is somehow worse than electing a man who will say and do anything to be elected - including putting a woman with absolutely no business being a VP candidate within a heartbeat of the Presidency?
VS putting a man with absolutely no business being a P candidate in the Presidency? Why, yes?
We just came out of a Republican Presidency who had absolutely no checks placed on him. Things have swung so far to the "Right", a swing back towards center can only help.
Except that things won't "swing back". A Republican Presidency with no checks will not be fixed by a Democratic Presidency with no checks. We'll just have MORE government run amok, it will just run over us in another direction.
Putting the make-believe maverick at the helm of a Democratic congress will just deadlock the government when we need action.
History has shown that a so-called deadlocked government is when the country prospers the most. "Deadlocked government" is just newspeak for a government that is checked and balanced. The necessary still gets done.
How did the Chris Dodd and Barney Frank's pushing for regulations to make Mae and Mac give NINJ loans "prevent industry from acting against the interest of the American people"?
His is NINJ and sub-prime loans not "financial tomfoolery and promotes the building of monopolies"?
Obama voted with his Democratic leadership 97% of the time.
Basically the same question was asked in the 3rd debate. Could you list some programs that you would cut?
Obama went on about going through the budget with a scalpel, conveniently ignoring the fact that he's not allowed to do that (President's don't have line-item veto power).
McCain actually listed some. I don't know which. Don't really care. I thought it more impressive that he was actually willing to risk some bought votes by naming names.
Line-item veto: If I were President, every bill would be vetoed and sent back to Congress with a list of lines that could be removed to get my signature. Probably why I have no chance in hell of ever being President.
So the current Republicans didn't reduce the government when they had control of the whole thing, so you will lend your support to turning the whole thing over to the Democrats?
Your logic seems to be, "If I can't have a smaller government, might as well make it be as large as possible."
Libertarians: You need to work for your own stuff...and then the government needs to leave you alone and let you enjoy it as you see fit.
Obama: Who wants some FREE government money? I took the excess from those rich people. You deserve it.
I don't see where the two will ever intersect. The problem with the Libertarians is they expect people to think rationally, and expect that laws should be logical and apply to everyone equally. That requires intelligence in the electorate. Sadly, a commodity that is running shorter than NINJ loans in this country.
I get so sick of seeing all this credit given to Clinton for such a good economy. Damn, people. We're technologist!! Can you not remember back 8yrs to what was going on near the end of Clinton's era? Remember all the companies buying up new equipment to replace the stuff that was not Year-2000 compliant? Do you think that might have played even a SMALL part in a burgeoning economy? How about just after 2000, with everyone sitting on brand new 2000-compliant equipment? Think maybe the economy would take a little bit of a hit when nobody wants to buy any capital equipment, because they bought it last year? Now, Al Gore might have had something to do with that Year2000 bug prevalence, he being the inventor of the internet and all, but Bill Clinton, being a lawyer and real-estate mogul, most certainly did not.
For those that don't know, tax revenues walk mostly lockstep with the economy.
All I'm asking for is looking at reality a little when talking about this-or-that president being good or bad with the economy.
What you need to watch out for is a candidate who/presumes/ to know/exactly/ how to resolve the situation and who justifies this with a reference to some ideology or other. Chances are such a candidate is much more interested in carrying through his ideology rather than in actually solving any problems.
That is why I will walk to the somberly walk to the polls with head bowed and pull the lever for McCain. My head and heart are with Bob Barr, but there is reality to contend with.
Both houses of Congress are controlled by a Democratic majority. Obama has voted 97% of the time with the Democratic leadership, and nothing I have heard about or from him has led me to believe that he is anything other than a warmed over 60's style activist acting as a mouthpiece for a socialist agenda. History has shown that when one party has control of the entire legislative and executive branches of our government, the economy suffers. A president that will walk lockstep with a Congressional leadership that has shown it has an axe to grind (re: Nancy Pelossi's partisan speech right before the Bailout Bill was to pass the first time) is not what this country needs...now or ever.
An Obama presidency with a rubberstamp Congress, or a Democratic Congress with a rubberstamp Obama presidency, either way you want to look at it, will be disastrous.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you, TheWolfen. You, apoc.famine and kiddailey are 100% correct.
I wouldn't even be an issue if it were not for the Democrats having complete control of both the legislative and administrative branches. An Obama presidency would throw away even that fig leaf of a check.
But then I keep coming back to the tin-hat conspiracy theory of "How the hell do we keep coming into these elections with 0.1% margins?" Every time that question creeps into my head, I feel played by the media. Then I think about the horrible, unreasonable and bizarre treatment that Ron Paul received during the primary debates. I just have this strong feeling that the ones pulling the strings didn't want the applecart upset to much.
Bob Barr is really the only selection that makes any sense.
Reagan pushed through a military buildup that basically boiled down to playing a game of chicken with the Soviet Union. It worked.
During the Clinton years, there were finally massive reductions in military spending. Should have happened under Bush I, and Clinton didn't go far enough. We still have troops stationed all over the place where they have no business being.
But, basically, Reagan took on a depressed economy and pushed the Soviets over the brink with it. Clinton inherited the long term benefits from that, and then got a boost from technology.
After the last election I made a promise to myself - I promised I wouldn't vote Republican or Democrat ever again.
I did the same. Now it looks like I will be in that small subset of counties that WILL actually make a difference. Wake County, NC.
Exactly.
We got screwed. Why turn around and let the other side of the Republicrats have a chance.
Interested, I read the article referenced in your first link. Turns out, Palin complained about our government spending money for fruit-fly research in France, but she didn't know about about some research that occurred with fruit-flies at the University of North Carolina LAST YEAR that has "boosted" autism research.
DAMN-IT!! I DEMAND that my political candidates read ALL of the scientific journals and be up-to-date on all the latest findings.
BTW, when you wonder about that anti-intellectualism that the left likes to sneer about, it may have something to do with snot-head claiming to be so much smarter because they know of a piece of trivia that no one else does. Until the UNC research gets beyond the may-lead-to-understanding stage, it is pretty much just trivia, interesting to those in that particular field and those directly affected but few others.
I did something you told me not to. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to disobey you.
But lets take the definition you reference. A system that "advocates vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." What would "community as a whole" be? Could that be construed as anything other than the government? If the government takes control of the profit, does it not, in fact have control? Obama wants the government to have more control of the profits. How does it become trollish to say that his outlook socialist?
Redistributive change: 'RE' distribute. That is, take what has been distributed and distribute it again. The article you link to takes a snippet of the interview and says that he didn't say what he just said. The gist of what he said in the interview was that he was disheartened that the Supreme Court didn't go more into economic decisions to right the civil-rights wrongs. Your link to a partisan hack of a website notwithstanding, the man said what he said. He would have preferred that the Supreme Courts pass down rulings to "spread the wealth around".
I provided a link to wikipedia, the same you referenced, but ./ dropped the href I manually type in. Probably a bug involving all the quote tags in my response. But how does a site that says socialism is a philosophy that wants to take charge of spreading the wealth around supporting you when you claim that someone that wants to take control of spreading the wealth around is not a socialist?
Now, how about stopping the childish name calling and answer that one simple question.
Worse than that. They expect the application fees to "protect against risks". Now, just what 'risks' could that possibly be? It's not like they could hit somebody with a truck, or a building might fall on somebody. Just what sort of risk is involved in maintaining a database that links tediously formatted names with a 32-bit number?
As the others have said, you can take issue with Obama, but you can't call him a Marxist or a Socialist without being a fool;
Only to someone who has no access to a dictionary or a computer.
to draw a comparison, consider that we in the US have a culture (at least since the Civil War) of powerful central government.
And there is a large percentage of people who are constantly trying to roll back that power. There is an approximately equal percentage that is trying to increase that power.
Someone suggests that the drinking age, say, no longer be a matter of Federal control, and I declare this person to be an anarchist.
See how much sense that makes?
He could be an anarchist. He could be a federalist.
Wikipedia: Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which support the elimination of all compulsory government,[1] i.e. the state.
Keywords: elimination of all
Wikipedia: Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program...while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.
Keywords: advocate state control of capital
Obama pushes for policies and programs that give him the control to decide 'economic justice'. Socialism.
Simply brushing the merest fringes of socialism doesn't make Obama any less of the capitalist swine he is, and the gap is far too vast to seal up with an appeal to "cultural relativity". The man is simply not a Socialist. He's the same kind of fucking free-market-worshipper that got us where we are today.
"Merest fringes"? You are just confusing what he feels he can get away with saying in a political campaign as what he would be pushing for with the highest office in the free world. (Slight hubris there, but, c'mon, give me something. I think I live in a great country.) He has stated in public interviews what he would really like to happen. The people he has chosen to associate with throughout his career have stated what he would like to happen. His voting record has laid out what he would like to happen, spread eagle.
Socialist. Socialist. Socialist.
Wait a minute. 'Socialist' and 'Capitalist' are words, with definitions and meanings. You can't redefine them just because you don't agree with the dictionary.
Oh, shut-up already! Jeesh?
Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.
By any reasonable definition, Obama is *not* a socialist. He's a moderate capitalist -- to the right of Clinton, for god's sake.
With 'reasonable' being whatever you decide it should be today?
Assuming you're not a troll, the rest of your post is just hard-core ignorance. Look up 'redistributive change' and realize that it has nothing to do with money -- it's a specific legal term that applies to civil rights.
Let me quess. It means that we should take money from those evil wealthy people that earned it, and give it to those deserving individuals that did not? And Senator Obama gets to decide which is which?
Dodge the term however you like. I don't care. I just have one word for you: socialist.
The right-wing has hit Obama in any way they could, and that includes redefining words and phrases in any way that gives them an attack angle. They are lying to you, and you apparently are eating it up.
I think it was Obama that told a gentleman that we should be happy that Obama was here to "spread the wealth around". And don't go off about Joe the Plumber. He's immaterial. A placeholder. The defining conversation is:
Anybody:"I've worked hard, sacrificed, and suspended gratification to make more money. Are you going to tax me more?"
Obama:"You should be happy that we're going to spread the wealth around."
I've provided you with a link and some of the text from the Wikipedia article on socialism, a somewhat authoritative source of what socialism is. Go educate yourself. And stop accusing people of drinking kool-aid when you're walking around with a purple stained tongue. It makes you look childish.
He has admitted to some of it. Circumstantial evidence tying him to others. He may not be responsible for all of it, granted, but there is a pattern and it ALL stopped when the heat started getting close to him.
We reported my son's classes being changed. The principal in charge, who is good friends with the boy's grandfather, blew it off. It wasn't until the school resource officer got wind of it that something started there. I don't know if they found anything, or if the principal we've come to know and love as "the bitch" got it buried again. I have no idea how the cracking was accomplished. I've no access to the computers or the investigation. My son is done with that school, and I really can't do anything about what was done there....sooooo...moving on.
Most of the calls can be traced back to anonymous skype accounts.
The myspace defacing was done scipt-kiddie style mixed with some password guessing.
candidates themselves all seem to be batshit insane
I don't think that phrase means what you think it means. And I don't think you've listened to any of the candidates. At least, not the ones I've heard interviewed or seen debating. It was refreshing to listen to Mike Munger, who is running for governor of North Carolina. Answers question directly, succinctly and with a clear explanation of issues involved and where he thinks a balance needs to be struck. Bob Barr is the same way. There's some extensive interviews on YouTube if you've not actually listened to the real thing.
Ron Paul said that we shouldn't be putting our military in harms way in foreign countries, that we shouldn't be warmongering like the other candidates in the presidential debate. Huckabee and Thompson had just made statements about introducing speed-boat personel "to the 40 virgins they've been waiting to meet". Brit Hume cut Paul short and shouted him down with, "Who is war mongering, Senator?" Now tell me who is batshit insane?
I've listened to Obama's prepared stump speaches. Just sounds like a backwoods preacher to me. It's a practiced act he puts on. When he speaks of the cuff, he stumbles and pauses a lot. Most statements begin with phrases designed to pause and buy time. Not impressive at all.
You can't compare Palin's "credentials" with Obama's. The most experience she can claim is being governor to an incredibly rich, homogeneous state with a population of a half million. That's about as much experience as being elected to your high school's SGA.
And Obama has a career of running for office opposed by a press that considers verbal felatio "tough interviewing". That's about as much experience as being elected as your high school's prom king.
See, it was a fairly easy comparison.
Things will absolutely "swing back." We'll get out of a illegitimate war started by lies.
We're not in a war. Haven't been for a long time. We have some troops devoted to nation building. They will be there indefinitely, just like we still have bases in Japan and Europe. The troops will be drawn down when Iraq is ready, not any sooner. You do note that Obama qualifies his withdrawal claims with "responsibly" don't you? Or do you just quit listening halfway through sentences?
Better regulation will help bring our economy back in control. You think that McCain will let that happen?
Regulation? You mean like regulating that banks give loans to people without money or the means to repay the loan? No. I guess he has a record of opposing that sort of thing.
We'll be in Iraq for a hundred years if he has his way. How high does the death toll have to get before people like him realize that there are no "winners" in a war?
{sigh} See above.
A will to compromise must be had for anything to be done with a conflicting executive and legislature. We've seen how well that works with a Republican in charge (ie, not at all). Bush policies got us into this mess, and another scion of Bush will just make things four more years worse. We can't afford that.
Of course, Obama won't need to compromise. He'll have a Democratic controlled Congress to rubberstamp any hairbrained scheme he'll come up with. And the Democratic controlled Congress will have someone that voted with them 97% of the time to rubberstamp any hairbrained scheme they come up with. But the candidate with the record of proposing and getting bills passed with the support of both major parties is the bad one? What was the color of that koolaid you drank? Did it stain your tongue?
Stupid positions on foreign affairs? Like maybe the willingness to sit down with tin-pot dictators who would get populace support from demonizing the US and then forcing the our leaders to negotiate with them?
Ok. What else do you propose? Kill these poor people to save them from suffering? You'll HAVE to talk to them.
I propose you negotiate in such a way that you do not lend support to the demonizing dictator. You can use low level officials. You can use surrogates. That is, neighboring countries that have no choice but to negotiate, or countries that are not targets of demonization. There is much posturing and positioning with international politics, mainly because even sitting down at the conference table can be taken as a sign of weakness or a sign of support. Simply saying, "We will talk to everybody" is naive or stupid. You pick.
Don't be deceived. The US Government is, and will continue, talking to all heads of state around the world, and many powerful entities that are not heads of state. You just won't read about any of it in USA Today.
Also, that 97% number keeps going up...it was 90% a month or so ago. Are they discovering new votes?
No. A month ago, August 29th to be exact, factcheck.org stated the 97% figure. Youre a little busy I'm sure, so I'll post the relevant sentence:
He said McCain, far from being a maverick whoâ(TM)s "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.
So, when we ask someone with some credibility, you fail on both sides. Sorry.
To quote the wikipedia article:
Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.
How is the government taking the earnings and profits of people who have earned it in a free and open market and deciding that others should have it NOT socialism?
First, I don't live in "the rest of the world". I live in the United States. We have a culture. We have a way of doing things. It's nice that you have a different culture and a different way of doing things. Where I live, we call the ability to choose to do things differently "freedom". I think, historically, my country has been mostly prosperous. At least prosperous enough that a lot of people in other countries complain about how rich and powerful we are. With that in mind, excuse me while I don't give a shit where Obama would fall on the Socialist-Capitalist scale in your country.
Second, I have no doubt that Senator Obama would institute national wage and price controls in a second if he were given the power. His views that he wished the Supreme Court would rule on "economic justice" (60's style codewords for Marxism) is evidence enough. He knows he can't tear down our institutions like that. That's not the way it is done here. He has to tear it down one brick at a time. Just because he knows he can't get everything he wants immediately does not mean that he won't try to do as much damage as possible. He has to bribe the populace first. He seems to feel $1000/person will be enough to buy the votes he needs. Once the idea is instilled that it is right and proper for the federal government to take money from people who have earned it on an open and free market and give it to the idle and stupid, then it is just a matter of moving the mark of where "middle-class" falls. It started at $250K, but he isn't even elected yet and we've seen it go to $200K and now down to $150K.
Man hits a woman at a bar.
"Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
"Sure," she says.
"Cool." "I've only got $10 with me. Will that be enough?"
"What kind of woman do you think I am?" She questions indignantly.
"We've already decided that. Now we're just haggling over the price."
"We've decided you're a whore. Now we're just haggling over the price."
No I didn't jump on the 'partisan speech' bull, other than to note that it was a partisan speech. My contention was/is that she has an axe to grind. The speech is one small piece of evidence for that contention.
I agree. But we have to make them keep pretending to have their little internal conflicts, or it will be even worse that 2000-2006. Then we at least had the media overlooking what was going on. Most of the media is so far in the pot for the Dems that we won't hear about any of the shenanigans until it is to late. And then they'll blame the Republicans anyway.
Horrifying anti-science? You mean like the idea of giving $1000 to people unwilling to work will improve our economy? No, I'm not willing to overlook that.
Stupid positions on foreign affairs? Like maybe the willingness to sit down with tin-pot dictators who would get populace support from demonizing the US and then forcing the our leaders to negotiate with them? No, I don't think I can overlook that one either.
Pandering to the extreme religious right? You mean instead of pandering to the extreme religious left? Yeah. I'll probably let that one slip by in a "don't care" conditional.
And this is somehow worse than electing a man who will say and do anything to be elected - including putting a woman with absolutely no business being a VP candidate within a heartbeat of the Presidency?
VS putting a man with absolutely no business being a P candidate in the Presidency? Why, yes?
We just came out of a Republican Presidency who had absolutely no checks placed on him. Things have swung so far to the "Right", a swing back towards center can only help.
Except that things won't "swing back". A Republican Presidency with no checks will not be fixed by a Democratic Presidency with no checks. We'll just have MORE government run amok, it will just run over us in another direction.
Putting the make-believe maverick at the helm of a Democratic congress will just deadlock the government when we need action.
History has shown that a so-called deadlocked government is when the country prospers the most. "Deadlocked government" is just newspeak for a government that is checked and balanced. The necessary still gets done.
How did the Chris Dodd and Barney Frank's pushing for regulations to make Mae and Mac give NINJ loans "prevent industry from acting against the interest of the American people"?
His is NINJ and sub-prime loans not "financial tomfoolery and promotes the building of monopolies"?
Obama voted with his Democratic leadership 97% of the time.
Basically the same question was asked in the 3rd debate. Could you list some programs that you would cut?
Obama went on about going through the budget with a scalpel, conveniently ignoring the fact that he's not allowed to do that (President's don't have line-item veto power).
McCain actually listed some. I don't know which. Don't really care. I thought it more impressive that he was actually willing to risk some bought votes by naming names.
Line-item veto: If I were President, every bill would be vetoed and sent back to Congress with a list of lines that could be removed to get my signature. Probably why I have no chance in hell of ever being President.
So the current Republicans didn't reduce the government when they had control of the whole thing, so you will lend your support to turning the whole thing over to the Democrats?
Your logic seems to be, "If I can't have a smaller government, might as well make it be as large as possible."
Their version of Obama?
Libertarians: You need to work for your own stuff...and then the government needs to leave you alone and let you enjoy it as you see fit.
Obama: Who wants some FREE government money? I took the excess from those rich people. You deserve it.
I don't see where the two will ever intersect. The problem with the Libertarians is they expect people to think rationally, and expect that laws should be logical and apply to everyone equally. That requires intelligence in the electorate. Sadly, a commodity that is running shorter than NINJ loans in this country.
I get so sick of seeing all this credit given to Clinton for such a good economy. Damn, people. We're technologist!! Can you not remember back 8yrs to what was going on near the end of Clinton's era? Remember all the companies buying up new equipment to replace the stuff that was not Year-2000 compliant? Do you think that might have played even a SMALL part in a burgeoning economy? How about just after 2000, with everyone sitting on brand new 2000-compliant equipment? Think maybe the economy would take a little bit of a hit when nobody wants to buy any capital equipment, because they bought it last year? Now, Al Gore might have had something to do with that Year2000 bug prevalence, he being the inventor of the internet and all, but Bill Clinton, being a lawyer and real-estate mogul, most certainly did not.
For those that don't know, tax revenues walk mostly lockstep with the economy.
All I'm asking for is looking at reality a little when talking about this-or-that president being good or bad with the economy.
What you need to watch out for is a candidate who /presumes/ to know /exactly/ how to resolve the situation and who justifies this with a reference to some ideology or other. Chances are such a candidate is much more interested in carrying through his ideology rather than in actually solving any problems.
That is why I will walk to the somberly walk to the polls with head bowed and pull the lever for McCain. My head and heart are with Bob Barr, but there is reality to contend with.
Both houses of Congress are controlled by a Democratic majority. Obama has voted 97% of the time with the Democratic leadership, and nothing I have heard about or from him has led me to believe that he is anything other than a warmed over 60's style activist acting as a mouthpiece for a socialist agenda. History has shown that when one party has control of the entire legislative and executive branches of our government, the economy suffers. A president that will walk lockstep with a Congressional leadership that has shown it has an axe to grind (re: Nancy Pelossi's partisan speech right before the Bailout Bill was to pass the first time) is not what this country needs...now or ever.
An Obama presidency with a rubberstamp Congress, or a Democratic Congress with a rubberstamp Obama presidency, either way you want to look at it, will be disastrous.