I claim he's a constitutional law professor. That's not a debatable point, it's a fact -- and other law professors he's worked with say he's got his head on straight.
With regard to right to bear arms, his long-term goal is that local governments have the ability to enact strong gun control measures. Given that there tends to be a congruence between Libertarians who want the federal government to keep its nose out of what state and local governments can legislate in other areas (see Ron Paul's view on abortion), this doesn't strike me as exceptional. So -- I'm not worried that Obama is going to take away my shotgun or my ability to get a concealed-carry license. If I still lived in California, I'd be worried that policies Obama supports would let my state and/or local governments abridge my rights in that regard -- but where I do live, that issue is thoroughly moot. (Implementation is another thing, as well; it probably would take nothing short of an amendment to let such a thing get through without a challenge, and as such is beyond the power of any President, I don't see why you're so worried about it).
If you're going to make it black and white, though, not a single member of Congress and not a single Presidential candidate (possibly excluding Ron Paul) supports the Constitution as written -- unless you accept the modern interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, which is pretty completely outlandish. There are no more strict Constitutionalists, and certainly none of the three major candidates comes close to fitting that bill; get over it.
It still happens and encouraging it is government's job, not picking which ones they think will succeed. People are not that smart.
I agree with you -- but I really think that the more modern approaches to government-supported research do use free-market apparatus. Focusing on corn-based ethanol in particular is certainly an embarrassment (and a testament to the lobbying power of Archer Daniels Midland), but the general approach of producing artificial demand rather than direct funding lets the market pick the winners among those companies supplying the demand in question.
Do you really think someone in the media wouldn't be trying to break that juicy story if the whole economic downturn were in fact just a big conspiracy?
I bought into conspiracy theories when I was in high school; these days, I just don't have that kind of imagination on me.
If the Middle East cut us off, we'd tap the Strategic Petrolium Reserve and -- yes -- ANWR to run the military until we resolved the issues counter to our interests through military means. Tapping ANWR now means that it's not available later, for use in the event of such an event. Fuel for domestic use would be rationed, as there simply isn't enough easily accessible oil (ie. not locked up in oil shale) in the United States to satisfy our demand.
Cutting a country off from its oil is a military matter; to expect that it would go unanswered in kind until alternative fuel research bore fruit is simply unrealistic.
Fact is that Obama and other Democrats like gas prices high and want them even higher so that our habits will change and we'll use less energy.
Habits... and our buying tendencies. Look at Europe -- gas prices are much higher there than in the US, the average efficiency of vehicles on the road is much higher, and public transportation infrastructure is better developed (in part due to higher demand, because people care more about public transport when driving personal vehicles is more expensive). That's a good model to follow.
Peak oil is coming, unless future-gen biofuels get here first. Do you want to be beholden to the Middle East? Do you want to be in competition with China for what little easily accessible oil is left in the ground in ten years?
For proof, ask yourself, "How have the food and fuel prices been going since Congress starting fucking with it?"
I don't have time for a full reply right now -- but let me note that food prices are an international problem, not a domestic problem, and placing 100% of the blame on the US's local policies is patently unreasonable. Oil prices have a lot to do with the weak dollar, as well; certain foreign expenditures (*cough* war *cough*) aren't entirely unimplicated in that.
Re the apples-and-oranges claim -- again, two-party and multi-party talks are completely different things. Talking to "Hamas and the Palestinian Authority" (which is to say, acting as mediator between those two groups) is something which will only be productive if there's reason to believe that any treaty worked out will be upheld. One-on-one talks are a different kind of beast -- we're not staking our reputation on being able to effectively intermediate between two parties, or necessarily even taking any action other than gathering positions and attempting to decrease the level of mutual distrust; consequently, there's nothing to be lost, and potentially much to be gained, by talking. Recent American history (particularly Cold War era) is replete with examples of talking to our enemies, and I won't bore you by going into examples.
I'd need to pull up a transcript and find the specific question and answer to speak to the taxation question, so I'm not in a position to speak to that at present.
He is for every alternative to oil, if it works or not, he is going to throw government money (our money) at it. If the market is allowed to make these decisions, we should find a better alternative faster than if government chooses who wins and who loses.
This is one of those points where I'd really, really like to agree with you -- and perhaps in the days when US companies were focused enough on longer-term profits and not the immediate next quarter, I entirely would. Unfortunately, we're no longer in the days of Bell Labs and Xerox PARC; business decisions are driven by short-term share price goals, and big research projects simply aren't privately funded on the scale they once were. Until this is fixed, government intervention to funnel money into research is simply necessary. Artificially expanding markets, as fuel subsidies and quotas do, leverages more of the free-market mechanics than more traditional funding mechanisms do; it's far from a perfect mechanism, but there certainly are arguments to be made in its favor (indeed, several DARPA-funded projects which ultimately produced nothing at all come to mind as examples of government-funded research gone wrong; a research project funded via an artificial demand for the thing it seeks to create, on the other hand, must actually produce something).
Please let me apologize for folks with beliefs similar to my own who've been less than civil. I would hope that folks with a reasonable sense of civility would outnumber those who are otherwise -- if not in loudness, at least in number.
The Wii Fit keeps metrics on fitness over time (extremely useful from a motivational standpoint), and provides yoga exercises and such that one's not likely to get at a gym. The gym provides more strenuous exercises; they compliment each other.
Gym in the morning, Wii Fit in the evening; the Fit charts the progress I'm making, helps me set goals and lets me know how close I am to meeting them.
Funding aside, I was and continue to be open to a revote.
So is Obama.
Also, didn't other states move their dates without punishment?
The agreement Clinton and Obama signed named Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina as the only states allowed to hold primaries or caucuses before 2/5/08. Only Michigan and Florida broke this rule.
I agree with what you are saying about the necessity of appearing to support the troops, but what power over the President in this situation does Congress have besides cutting the purse strings? They're not doing their jobs if they continue to fund the war time and time again. IMO, in this situation, voting no IS supporting the troops.
Control over the purse strings is an indirect thing indeed -- and funding can't be suddenly and completely cut, simply because even pulling troops out requires money. Further, if Congress reduces budget with the intent of forcing the President to start a withdrawal, the President can simply fail to implement the troop reduction and reduce equipment and supplies, blaming those Democrats (who don't have a solid enough majority in Congress to buck the Republicans anyhow) when soldiers are killed... well, we've seen how well that plays.
More recently, we've seen a budget come to the floor with strings attached to ensure a reduction; both Democratic potential candidates voted in its favor, and it got shot down.
On terrorism, he says he would not sit down and talk to the Hamas and the Palestinian Authority until they renounce terrorism and recognize previous agreements.
Here you're talking about three-party talks (Hamas, PNA, USA).
But, he would sit down with Iran and Syria
Here, you're talking about two-party talks (USA and Iran, USA and Syria). Apples and oranges.
On taxation, he says he would raise rates on certain groups because he thinks it is fair, even if it reduces tax revenue.
I could speak more intelligently on this if you'd provide a link.
On the energy policy, he has supported ethanol in the past and for the future (which has increased the cost of food, caused an increase in farm land [to the reduction of forest lands], and has not and will not materially alter the price at the pump), while he plans to increase taxes on the US corporations that produce oil with the windfall profit tax (WPT).
I agree that WPTs are a Bad Thing. Regarding ethanol... Hindsight. 20/20. Lots of folks made that mistake -- look at the Governator. The upside is that future-generation biofuels will avoid competition with food, and the money already put into ethanol has gotten lots of people working on the problems; cellulosic ethanol in particular is a key part of Obama's energy platform.
On the other hand, Obama has a lot going for him in other areas -- technology policy, healthcare policy, government transparency, etc. Moreover, after seeing the Constitution trampled on for years, I look forward to having someone in office who taught it to law students and fought for it as a working civil rights attorney.
... so you're saying don't count Florida and Michigan? the two biggest swing states responsible for throwing an election?
Not without a revote, no. If folks are told (by both major candidates, their party apparatus, all local and national media, etc) that their vote in a given primary election won't count (so they can stay home / vote in the primary of the party they don't intend to support in the general election / etc), why do you think the results of that primary election have anything whatsoever to do with the results of a general election in that same state? If you're willing to pay for a revote... well, then, great; have the revote, that's fine.
Obama's "I voted against the War but continue to fund it" slogan has always bothered me a little.
I agree that this is unfortunate. That said, I understand why the position has been taken; failing to continue to fund an ongoing war leads to things like having it blasted around in public that you're the reason soldiers serving overseas don't have adequate body armor. Ever since the anti-Vietnam backlash, one cannot fail to support the troops, no matter how much they oppose the war those troops are ordered to fight.
His first condemnation of the war was from Senate of his state government, where it didn't matter. He flip flopped on the war during his run for Senate because the war was popular at the time. Now his finger is in the wind and he is picking his position.
Coming out against a popular war is a statement on character and judgment, and while state senators may not be involved in foreign policy decisions, those factors are as relevant in a state senate race as anywhere else an opponent is actively seeking flaws to exploit. Obama has never wavered on his position that getting in in the first place was a bad idea, and I challenge you to find a source to the contrary. The question is -- okay, you're in, how do you get yourself out quickly and with minimal damage to all involved?
It's a hard military problem, and picking the best possible solution is a difficult thing. I don't begrudge anyone the ability to revise their plans as the situation develops -- so long as the principals that plan is founded on is constant.
"Flip flopper" and "finger in the wind" just don't fly with Obama -- both of his opponents are far more vulnerable to that line of argument. Indeed, if there's one word which describes Obama's policy positions, that word is nuanced. Nuanced positions are dangerous inasmuch as they don't exactly fit either major party's template of What Their Unified Party Position Is, and inasmuch as any 30-second soundbite will be incomplete (and thus multiple, seemingly conflicting 30-second soundbites can be made about the same position without that position actually changing) it leads to allegations much like what you're leveling here. Thing is, though, just because only one or another aspect is discussed at any given time (giving the appearance of flip-flopping) doesn't mean that the complete policy and rationale isn't available up front for those with an interest (putting to rest whether any flip-flopping is actually occurring in practice). It's an unfortunate side effect -- but the real world is complex, and nuanced positions are exactly what it takes to accommodate folks coming from different sides.
...only if you exclude all the states using causes, and count in the states where both Hillary and Obama signed an agreement not to participate. I don't think that's a very reasonable set of conditions.
How can you claim that someone who spoke out against the war when it was immensely popular (and when they were in the middle of a tough senate race) has no backbone? Someone who spent years as a community organizer, keeping at it when it wasn't easy and a cushy job as a lawyer was available for the taking?
If you think Obama doesn't love his country, I suggest you read The Audacity of Hope. Certainly, he isn't guilty of blind patriotism -- but intentional blindness of any kind is a flaw, not a qualification. The partial quote "My country, right or wrong" is woefully incomplete; its ending is this: "If wrong, to be set right; and if right, to be kept right".
A person wearing blinders such that they can't see when their country is doing wrong is in no place to set it right, and is no kind of patriot compared to the person who sees their country's faults and does what they can to set it right.
So we spend that money on alternative fuel research -- and then we do what when the military needs massive amounts of oil before those alternative fuels have pulled through?
Running a military takes a lot of oil -- not having enough oil to run its military operations elsewhere in Asia on account of a US embargo was a major factor in Japan's entry into WW2. What do we do if we end up in a military situation and the Middle East doesn't want to sell to us if we've already tapped our reserves?
The only difference between a politician making something a problem and outlawing it is order of operation. First they talk, then they legislate. Obama is in the talking stage right now.
But nobody said that the legislating had to be done in such a way as to constitute a civil rights issue.
Even instituting the FairTax would be doing something about this problem, as it would end the tax-free status of food products above the level actually necessary to feed a family of a given size. Claiming that a politician supports rationing of resources on the basis that said politician has identified the level of public consumption of those resources as a problem is disingenuous at best, and outright lying at worst.
Truth is constant. Why is it now "truth" and it was just normal life 9 years ago?
Once it was truth that the United States had an overwhelmingly rural population; now, it's truth that the US has more of its population in urban areas. Truth is based on facts, and facts change over time; the claim that "truth is constant" is as false as anything could be.
Anyhow -- the rate of consumption that was part of "normal life" in the United States nine years ago wasn't sustainable either; it's just that most folks have avoided waking up to that until the situation has started to become acute.
The article title doesn't talk about a recession; it talks about a "poor economy". That we're in the midst of the latter situation is pretty much unchallenged. Do you think the economic stimulus package was passed just for fun?
In a technical sense you're correct, of course.. but housing prices are down, "prime" mortgages are failing at unforseen rates, consumer confidence is in the hole and the dollar is weak, so putting your fingers in your ears and saying everything is fine and it's all just propaganda because we don't meet the technical definition for a recession isn't particularly helpful.
By the time we run out of ANWR oil, we won't need it anymore.
Do you realize how many barrels we go through in a day? Folks who did the math came to the conclusion that the difference in oil prices would be less than fifty cents a barrel.
You realize there's a big difference between saying we eat too much and drive too much to saying that it's acceptable to legislate food and fuel rationing in non-emergency situations... right?
One of those is a civil liberties issue; the other one is just speaking the truth.
If he didn't agree with him, why did he go to that church?
There's a lot more that's preached and supported there than just the sentiments that have been making the news (and, in the context of the entire sermons, the snippets aren't as bad as they're made out to be -- I heard worse things in the nondenominational church I went to growing up when it was our hellfire-and-brimstone Southern Baptist's turn to preach). Even Huckabee has publicly stated that the Wright thing is overblown (while the folks interviewing him -- MSNBC, I think -- were trying to coax a soundbite out of him; google up the clip, it's a good one, and massively improved my opinion of Huckabee as an individual, even as much as I disagree with him on the issues).
In Dreams from my Father, Obama talks about some of the attitudes he encountered trying to work with church leaders in Chicago. Suffice to say that there were a lot of bad options to choose from; a church with generally progressive politics and a focus on doing good works in the community is maybe worth putting up with some wingnuttery from the pulpit on occasion.
Re the "extra trillion of government spending", I'm not quite sure where you're getting that; Obama has specific cuts scheduled to fund the costs of his plans. Some of those cuts are harsh -- the space program, in particular, is a target there -- but then, nobody's going to be able to pull universal healthcare out of a hat without making some tough decisions. In any event, the money that's presently going to keep us in Iraq would pay for quite a lot of healthcare and education if applied back home.
...because, like Clinton, he had agreed to be bound by Democratic party rules. If Clinton didn't intend to abide by those rules, she shouldn't have signed her name to them.
Do I need to point to a clip of Clinton saying that those states' primaries wouldn't matter?
Obama has strong endorsements from some very influential folks who are more than hobbyists -- Randall Munroe and Larry Lessig among them. I bought and read The Audacity of Hope long ago, have followed Obama's interviews w/ folks in tech, and am quite convinced he's got his head on straight.
You want to count the votes in the state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot? How is that fair?
I haven't seen a single major media story discussing Hillary's claim of being ahead on the popular vote that didn't indicate that said claim was valid only given a very particular set of conditions. It's all over but the shouting, and additional carrying on does nothing but hurt the primary's winner in the real election.
Slashdot Mirror
I claim he's a constitutional law professor. That's not a debatable point, it's a fact -- and other law professors he's worked with say he's got his head on straight.
With regard to right to bear arms, his long-term goal is that local governments have the ability to enact strong gun control measures. Given that there tends to be a congruence between Libertarians who want the federal government to keep its nose out of what state and local governments can legislate in other areas (see Ron Paul's view on abortion), this doesn't strike me as exceptional. So -- I'm not worried that Obama is going to take away my shotgun or my ability to get a concealed-carry license. If I still lived in California, I'd be worried that policies Obama supports would let my state and/or local governments abridge my rights in that regard -- but where I do live, that issue is thoroughly moot. (Implementation is another thing, as well; it probably would take nothing short of an amendment to let such a thing get through without a challenge, and as such is beyond the power of any President, I don't see why you're so worried about it).
If you're going to make it black and white, though, not a single member of Congress and not a single Presidential candidate (possibly excluding Ron Paul) supports the Constitution as written -- unless you accept the modern interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, which is pretty completely outlandish. There are no more strict Constitutionalists, and certainly none of the three major candidates comes close to fitting that bill; get over it.
Do you really think someone in the media wouldn't be trying to break that juicy story if the whole economic downturn were in fact just a big conspiracy?
I bought into conspiracy theories when I was in high school; these days, I just don't have that kind of imagination on me.
If the Middle East cut us off, we'd tap the Strategic Petrolium Reserve and -- yes -- ANWR to run the military until we resolved the issues counter to our interests through military means. Tapping ANWR now means that it's not available later, for use in the event of such an event. Fuel for domestic use would be rationed, as there simply isn't enough easily accessible oil (ie. not locked up in oil shale) in the United States to satisfy our demand.
Cutting a country off from its oil is a military matter; to expect that it would go unanswered in kind until alternative fuel research bore fruit is simply unrealistic.
Peak oil is coming, unless future-gen biofuels get here first. Do you want to be beholden to the Middle East? Do you want to be in competition with China for what little easily accessible oil is left in the ground in ten years?I don't have time for a full reply right now -- but let me note that food prices are an international problem, not a domestic problem, and placing 100% of the blame on the US's local policies is patently unreasonable. Oil prices have a lot to do with the weak dollar, as well; certain foreign expenditures (*cough* war *cough*) aren't entirely unimplicated in that.
I'd need to pull up a transcript and find the specific question and answer to speak to the taxation question, so I'm not in a position to speak to that at present.This is one of those points where I'd really, really like to agree with you -- and perhaps in the days when US companies were focused enough on longer-term profits and not the immediate next quarter, I entirely would. Unfortunately, we're no longer in the days of Bell Labs and Xerox PARC; business decisions are driven by short-term share price goals, and big research projects simply aren't privately funded on the scale they once were. Until this is fixed, government intervention to funnel money into research is simply necessary. Artificially expanding markets, as fuel subsidies and quotas do, leverages more of the free-market mechanics than more traditional funding mechanisms do; it's far from a perfect mechanism, but there certainly are arguments to be made in its favor (indeed, several DARPA-funded projects which ultimately produced nothing at all come to mind as examples of government-funded research gone wrong; a research project funded via an artificial demand for the thing it seeks to create, on the other hand, must actually produce something).
Please let me apologize for folks with beliefs similar to my own who've been less than civil. I would hope that folks with a reasonable sense of civility would outnumber those who are otherwise -- if not in loudness, at least in number.
The Wii Fit keeps metrics on fitness over time (extremely useful from a motivational standpoint), and provides yoga exercises and such that one's not likely to get at a gym. The gym provides more strenuous exercises; they compliment each other.
Gym in the morning, Wii Fit in the evening; the Fit charts the progress I'm making, helps me set goals and lets me know how close I am to meeting them.
More recently, we've seen a budget come to the floor with strings attached to ensure a reduction; both Democratic potential candidates voted in its favor, and it got shot down.
On the other hand, Obama has a lot going for him in other areas -- technology policy, healthcare policy, government transparency, etc. Moreover, after seeing the Constitution trampled on for years, I look forward to having someone in office who taught it to law students and fought for it as a working civil rights attorney.
It's a hard military problem, and picking the best possible solution is a difficult thing. I don't begrudge anyone the ability to revise their plans as the situation develops -- so long as the principals that plan is founded on is constant.
"Flip flopper" and "finger in the wind" just don't fly with Obama -- both of his opponents are far more vulnerable to that line of argument. Indeed, if there's one word which describes Obama's policy positions, that word is nuanced. Nuanced positions are dangerous inasmuch as they don't exactly fit either major party's template of What Their Unified Party Position Is, and inasmuch as any 30-second soundbite will be incomplete (and thus multiple, seemingly conflicting 30-second soundbites can be made about the same position without that position actually changing) it leads to allegations much like what you're leveling here. Thing is, though, just because only one or another aspect is discussed at any given time (giving the appearance of flip-flopping) doesn't mean that the complete policy and rationale isn't available up front for those with an interest (putting to rest whether any flip-flopping is actually occurring in practice). It's an unfortunate side effect -- but the real world is complex, and nuanced positions are exactly what it takes to accommodate folks coming from different sides.
nt == "no text"
How can you claim that someone who spoke out against the war when it was immensely popular (and when they were in the middle of a tough senate race) has no backbone? Someone who spent years as a community organizer, keeping at it when it wasn't easy and a cushy job as a lawyer was available for the taking?
If you think Obama doesn't love his country, I suggest you read The Audacity of Hope. Certainly, he isn't guilty of blind patriotism -- but intentional blindness of any kind is a flaw, not a qualification. The partial quote "My country, right or wrong" is woefully incomplete; its ending is this: "If wrong, to be set right; and if right, to be kept right".
A person wearing blinders such that they can't see when their country is doing wrong is in no place to set it right, and is no kind of patriot compared to the person who sees their country's faults and does what they can to set it right.
...of course, that should be "and we've already tapped our reserves", not "if we've already tapped our reserves".
So we spend that money on alternative fuel research -- and then we do what when the military needs massive amounts of oil before those alternative fuels have pulled through?
Running a military takes a lot of oil -- not having enough oil to run its military operations elsewhere in Asia on account of a US embargo was a major factor in Japan's entry into WW2. What do we do if we end up in a military situation and the Middle East doesn't want to sell to us if we've already tapped our reserves?
Even instituting the FairTax would be doing something about this problem, as it would end the tax-free status of food products above the level actually necessary to feed a family of a given size. Claiming that a politician supports rationing of resources on the basis that said politician has identified the level of public consumption of those resources as a problem is disingenuous at best, and outright lying at worst. Once it was truth that the United States had an overwhelmingly rural population; now, it's truth that the US has more of its population in urban areas. Truth is based on facts, and facts change over time; the claim that "truth is constant" is as false as anything could be.
Anyhow -- the rate of consumption that was part of "normal life" in the United States nine years ago wasn't sustainable either; it's just that most folks have avoided waking up to that until the situation has started to become acute.
The article title doesn't talk about a recession; it talks about a "poor economy". That we're in the midst of the latter situation is pretty much unchallenged. Do you think the economic stimulus package was passed just for fun?
In a technical sense you're correct, of course.. but housing prices are down, "prime" mortgages are failing at unforseen rates, consumer confidence is in the hole and the dollar is weak, so putting your fingers in your ears and saying everything is fine and it's all just propaganda because we don't meet the technical definition for a recession isn't particularly helpful.
You realize there's a big difference between saying we eat too much and drive too much to saying that it's acceptable to legislate food and fuel rationing in non-emergency situations... right?
One of those is a civil liberties issue; the other one is just speaking the truth.
In Dreams from my Father, Obama talks about some of the attitudes he encountered trying to work with church leaders in Chicago. Suffice to say that there were a lot of bad options to choose from; a church with generally progressive politics and a focus on doing good works in the community is maybe worth putting up with some wingnuttery from the pulpit on occasion.
Re the "extra trillion of government spending", I'm not quite sure where you're getting that; Obama has specific cuts scheduled to fund the costs of his plans. Some of those cuts are harsh -- the space program, in particular, is a target there -- but then, nobody's going to be able to pull universal healthcare out of a hat without making some tough decisions. In any event, the money that's presently going to keep us in Iraq would pay for quite a lot of healthcare and education if applied back home.
Do I need to point to a clip of Clinton saying that those states' primaries wouldn't matter?
Obama has strong endorsements from some very influential folks who are more than hobbyists -- Randall Munroe and Larry Lessig among them. I bought and read The Audacity of Hope long ago, have followed Obama's interviews w/ folks in tech, and am quite convinced he's got his head on straight.
You want to count the votes in the state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot? How is that fair?
I haven't seen a single major media story discussing Hillary's claim of being ahead on the popular vote that didn't indicate that said claim was valid only given a very particular set of conditions. It's all over but the shouting, and additional carrying on does nothing but hurt the primary's winner in the real election.