The problem of course is that theoretical discussions akin to St. Augustine's "just war" always become muddy when put into practice by flawed humans with ulterior motives. It takes quite the rhetorical gymnastics to justify Iraq, while giving Pakistan a pass (for instance). Instead of focusing our finite resources on getting those who attacked us (and those who fund them), the administration has to come up with a 'doctrine' that gives carte blanche to invade half the planet (for their own good). We don't have the ability to print our way out of expensive wars any more.
Oddly enough, the Left doesn't seem to hold anyone else to that standard. Police aren't required to wait until they're shot at to use deadly force. In fact, the entire concept of gun control rests on the concept of stealing our rights "just in case" we might do something wrong later if they didn't.
It takes quite the rhetorical gymnastics to justify Iraq, while giving Pakistan a pass (for instance).
Ok, that's complete bullshit, and I'm tired of hearing it.
We attacked Afghanistan because it was harboring Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organization. Pretty much the entire world was A-OK with that.
Iraq wasn't the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, it was the conclusion of the 1991 Gulf War. It was the result of twelve years of failed sanctions, of violations of the terms of the cease-fire, and of carrying out the intent of numerous UN "resolutions" that were anything but resolute.
The U.S. had every justification for invading Iraq, notwithstanding the fact that Iraq had bought off Russia, France and probably Germany thus preventing the UN Security Council from ever approving the invasion.
By doing so, the US put on notice Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Jordan (et cetera, et cetera, et cetera)and most especially Iran that the US was not a "weak horse" and that we would use military force and use it better than any nation in history ever has.
It has been a long time since I posted but I found something here I am interested in commenting on.
I find Pakistan to be extremely justifiable. This is where Al Qaeda, by many accounts, has rebuilt their stronghold. They are vying to obtain Pakistan's WMDS and would love to rip off one of Pakistan's Agosta Subs. Some reports I have read say they are practicing how to operate one of these subs on a "model" in the desert. Remember, the Agosta sub has an Air Independent Propulsion system that is capable of firing nuclear missiles. Couple this with the fact that Pakistani intelligence is rife with extremist supporters and we have a much large problem on our hands than Iraq ever was. In fact, our attention should have stayed in Afghanistan-Pakistan and we should left Saddam to his pathetic and empty threats.
My friend's son is in special forces and currently in "Afghanistan." When we here stories regarding the new raids over the border in Pakistan, he is on them. I completely support President Bush on this and actually wish he would do more, even though it would put someone I love in jeopardy. This would be something that would actually defend our country as opposed to Iraq. Contrary to what is written about "liberals" and "Democrats" on this blog, we want to defend our country too...not just in the narrow minded way that some think we should.
As for this last comment about Obama, it's complete crap. Take a look at his plan for combating extremists. It's 8 pages long.
So, the statement that Obama would prefer not shoot period is a lie. A lie that all too many people in this country believe. This lie, among a multitude of others, will result in virtually all of you not voting for him which I think would be a mistake. While Obama will in no way be perfect (in fact I think he will be just OK, given the insane tonnage of shit he is going to have to clean up), McCain, although qualified to be president, has all the wrong ideas on what direction we should go. It's a few different things but mainly it's stay the course. His choice of Sarah Palin as his VP completely illustrates this.
I don't know about the rest of you but I want to win. As several key people in the military have said these last few years, the military is not our only option. America has many weapons in its arsenal and it is time to start using them in addition to the military. There are many other options as well which I, of course, would be happy to discuss :)
Attacking allied nations, violating treaties, all good as long as done by the Right People.
They are vying to obtain Pakistan's WMDS
Woah. Who says Pakistan has WMDs? Sorry, you can't cite anybody who claims this who also thought Iraq had them. (This includes, among others, France, Clintons, Obama..)
As many times as you've frothed over the "lack" of WMDs here found in Iraq (and ignored the evidence and the ones found) you need to back up and re-examine your base assumptions.
I can claim Pakistan has WMDs. You can't. Not without eviscerating your own opinion.
has all the wrong ideas on what direction we should go.
All the wrong ideas? I thought that was Bush? McCain disagrees with Bush on a whole lot of things.
It's a few different things
A few? I thought it was all of them? So all of them is a few?
but mainly it's stay the course.
So say We Obama. Wait. All. Something like that. That's Obama's stance. It doesn't survive well against the facts.
His choice of Sarah Palin as his VP completely illustrates this.
His choice of Governor Palin was brilliant, utterly brilliant. Mark, if you were intellectually honest you'd at least admit that.
Just for one major point: (and I'm quoting someone in a discussion thread) Everything Obama says he "will do" she can say "I've done".
The McCain/Palin ticket is poised for real, substantiative change from Bush, more even than the Obama ticket, which is rapidly turning into Jimmy The Sequel.
Last night I explained to a bunch on pdb's irc channel why Biden was an obvious choice, for instance. I can explain that, while still deriding him as a Senator and a VP candidate, because analyzing the political movements and my opinions are separate.
You conflate yours, and thus you fail.
By the way, given kudos to Bush *yet* for him signing S-CHIP? Like you said he wouldn't?
Unix, yes his choice was brilliant, no doubt. It was also terribly sad because it shows that a large segment of our country places ideology and belief before competence and facts...this is also known as the myth of executive experience. Or what I like to call: BEST PALS:Conservatives and Affirmative Action
I have no doubt that she is qualified to run a small state like Alaska but to understand the intricacies of American foreign policies in 2008? No. Given McCain's age and health, I think it is fair to scrutinize her views on the world. From what I have seen and read from her so far (and I didn't think it was possible), President Bush looks like Abraham Lincoln next to her. Show me her 8 page policy paper on extremists or her 12 page policy paper on the military.
For that matter, show me me McCain's. His web site has much less to offer in the way of specifics compared to Obama's. But I still think he is qualified to be president as are Obama and Biden.
As for your screed on WMDs, I am at a loss to understand where you are getting. My source is the Pakistani navy, largely bent on thumping their chest at India. The subs were provided by France, which I would think would make you happy, having another reason to do the obligatory "conservative eye roll" whenever the F word comes up.
"... a large segment of our country places ideology and belief before competence and facts ..."
Oh, shit. I can barely reduce my laughter enough to type this. Goddamn, but I've got a stitch in my side that's killing me and I can't catch my breath, but I just can't stop. The cat woke up and is looking at me as if there is something wrong. Oh, crap, but it hurts.
Thanks, dude, you've made my whole fucking year. Goddamn, what a day.
Yeah, DJ. I kind of expected that you and others would react that way. Part of your ideology and belief is...the lie that liberals and Democrats "places ideology and belief before competence and facts."
This lie is easily exposed once you take a look at the core issues of the day and how each side wants to solve them.
So, go ahead, DJ. Pick an issue...the economy, Iraq, climate change, education, health care...and I will show you how the base doesn't let little things like competence and facts get in the way when it comes to solutions.
And then I will show you how someone with common sense solves problems.
Mark: It was also terribly sad
Because it's not Obama. Yes, I know, only the Obama can heal our souls, forgive our sins, shave our cats.
But you miss the whole point. You can't intellectually honestly discuss anything because you portray *everything* as from your point of view.
because it shows that a large segment of our country places ideology and belief
Like who? Me? I don't agree with much of Palin's belief or ideology. Among many, many others. Who span the gamut ideologically.
I'm not a christian! Yet I can - and do- enthusiastically support Palin. How do you describe *me* then? (You'll need to get a more accurate description of Palin to be correct.)
before competence and facts.
Competence. Strange coming from the support of Obama, who's shown very little competence, and has issue with facts. You of course can dispute this, but remember when you stormed off from Kevin's site before, Obama's campaign had had a steady stream of "corrections" or "apologies" for 2 straight weeks daily.
..this is also known as the myth of executive experience. Or what I like to call:
Stop it with trying to name or describe things. 1) You're usually laughably wrong. 2) You don't understand categorization and itemization. 3) It confuses the discussion when you use your own terminology or meanings for works, makes you sound like Markadelphia.
Wait. Scratch 3).
As for your screed on WMDs, I am at a loss to understand where you are getting.
Yes, I know. I know.
BELIEVE ME I KNOW. Oh, $WHATEVER_IS_HOLY, do I know.
My source is the Pakistani navy, largely bent on thumping their chest at India.
So, who says they're telling the truth? How are you evaluating their statements? Remember, you've called Bush a "liar" for believing there were WMDs in Iraq - a country where they've been used, as well as tagged, tested, and identified as late as 1998. And who had a leader beating his chest and bragging about them.
What I'm "getting" is that you've got no idea how to evaluate sources and synthesize analysis. The fact you don't understand what I was saying to you re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-proves it. Teacher, study thyself.
DJ: Goddamn, but I've got a stitch in my side that's killing me and I can't catch my breath, but I just can't stop
Somebody call Alanis, now this is irony!
HAH HAH HAH. Ow. My side. My side. Can't ... breathe... losing O2... thinking.. turning.. leftwards....
Sure, let's tax our economy back to health!
OK, Deep breath. I'm back.
Ok. Mark. ThEEE! Um. *SNICKER* Right. So. um, *SNERK*
Yeah. Tell me how the BASE proceeds about CLIMATE CHANGE... doesn't let little things like competence and facts get in the way when it comes to solutions.
Actually, you might be right. I don't think facts or competence factor into their plans for "economy, Iraq, climate change, education, health care".
I think they're completely ideologically bound. But I don't think that's what you meant. Even thought it is what you said
Speaking of Health Care, are you going to acknowledge Bush's S-CHIP signature, or just write that down the memory hole?
... a large segment of our country places ideology and belief before competence and facts ...
Mark, I have an aunt who typically votes Democrat, but she's actually not so sure for this election. Could you help her out and explain, from one Democrat to another, why someone with one year of actual legislative experience is more competent to lead than someone with eight years of executive experience?
Sarah, I would ask her to visit both McCain's and Obama's web sites and see what their plans are. I do think both, as well as Biden, are qualified.
I think Obama's points are more grounded in reality than McCain's. Has anyone bothered to read through my links or any others on Obama's site? I'd be real interested to hear you justify your BELIEF that Obama is a socialist with the FACT that he wants to make most of the Bush tax cuts permanent. I also doubt that someone like Warren Buffet would support someone who is the ludicrous and bizarre image that you paint him to be.
As far as Palin goes, I'm sure she is fine as the governor of Alaska. How does that translate to the international stage? She has executive experience in a small state. In my mind, she is qualified to run...a small state. George Bush had executive experience in a big state and how do we think he has done? How's the country doing today, folks?
I would ask you to comment on whether or not you thought Abraham Lincoln was a good president, a man with less experience than Obama. Did Sarah Palin travel around with Richard Lugar and track loose nukes, ultimately passing legislation to protect America? Show me her international accomplishments, her ideas on where we should go in the world, and what her plans are...as detailed as Obama's are...and then we can compare and contrast. So far, all I have seen is a script from the bull crap machine. Seriously, she tells the troops going to Iraq to "go get those people who murdered thousands of Americans." Not even President Bush thinks that any more. Good Lord.
Oh, and Palin's crack about how Obama's time as a community organizer doesn't amount to any sort of real responsibility...I find myself quite perplexed. Isn't his work on the south side of Chicago the example that all of you want to see in this country...more individual responsibility? He went into that community, and even after when was in the state Senate, and said...the government is not going to help you. You are on your own. What are we going to do it about it?
What many of you fail to realize is that this election is not about him...it's about us...all of us...taking more responsibility for ourselves and making government work more efficiently.
How dare he adopt a conservative ideal like that!?
Markadelphia, I recommend that you undertake some basic remedial education. First on the roster is geography. Alaska is the largest state in the Union. "But, I meant population-wise, Alaska is small!" In that case, basic english is next in line to study. Now, you need to get some in-depth information on the state. I recommend perusing an encyclopedia. Alaska is not an easy state to govern. Weather extremes, poor or no infrastructure and great distances put great burdens on government and law enforcement, low population not withstanding. Alaska also does more proportionally more business with foreign nations than most states. If you think that business isn't a huge part of foreign policy, you need to add economics to that remedial course list.
Alternatively, you can continue your ignorant screeds. Feelings are much more important than facts to the liberals of today, after all. It's much easier, and provides a higher entertainment value (for me and DJ, at least). Your statement of showing how someone with common sense solves problems is hysterically funny, especially after looking at your blog.
Unix, sure I'm glad he signed a stop gap measure but the fact still remains...the United States ranks among the lowest in industrialized nations in regards to treatment of its children.
I also give Bush props for starting to listen to his military more, being ready for hurricanes this year in a superior fashion, Pakistan (of course), and the continued destruction of terrorist financial networks.
Mark, would you care to tell me where "the United States ranks among the lowest in industrialized nations in regards to treatment of its children" comes from?
Who is doing these rankings?
The U.N.? The same groups that rank countries by "freedom," but have preconceived notions about what that represents ("Oh, they have the death penalty! Minus 20 points! They don't have socialized medicine! Minus 50 points!")?
Sigh. This, Mark, is why we attacked Iraq and not Pakistan.
Casus belli.
If you don't understand why that makes a difference, then I wouldn't have enough time in a week to explain it to you. If you have not read Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars, you should.
...once you take a look at the core issues of the day and how each side wants to solve them.
Tell me, how is it that these politicians are going to solve, well, anything, Mark, or haven't you been paying attention to history, for the last 2000 years, or so?
Clue for the clueless, here; Stay the fuck outta my way!
Mark: You keep failing to understand the most basic concepts. How dare he adopt a conservative ideal like that!?
He adopts all sorts of claims. But once Obama pronounces it a claim, you believe that that's what he will do.
1) Obama might just be lying to get elected. It's been known to happen.
2) Obama might not have any idea what the hell he's talking about. It's been known to happen.
So to deal with 1 and 2 we have to look at prior track records. For instance, you've been totally confused why we believe Barack Obama will try to take our guns, ban others, and infringe on the Second Amendment. What is his track record? Well, it's not good. What about what he says? Not good there, either. Just the other day he said it was safe to elect him because he didn't have the votes in Congress to ban guns. (Remember, this is the speaker you keep telling us is smart and motivational.) This is after the nomination election speech when he, again, promised to try and ban guns. (But really! It's crime control!)
I'd be real interested to hear you justify your BELIEF that Obama is a socialist with the FACT that he wants to make most of the Bush tax cuts permanent.
He claims to. Now. And he's claimed otherwise. In the past. That's the problem here, Mark. We have a judgement on his character that you don't like, and so you insist that it's not true, it's wrong.
Obama is one of 100 senators. He could start legislation tomorrow to make the Bush tax code permanent. He could have last year. Once he's elected, in fact, he's unable to do anything about the tax code.
Yet he's not done that. Words matter. Deeds more. (And he's running with the author of the "'Assault Weapons' Ban")
I also doubt that someone like Warren Buffet would support someone who is the ludicrous and bizarre image that you paint him to be. =
That you paint us painting him, that is.
As far as Palin goes, I'm sure she is fine as the governor of Alaska.
After all, she is just a woman. And a former beauty queen.
How does that translate to the international stage?
First up, Mark, that's secondary.
Primary is executive experience, and particularly American executive experience. She's being elected to be the Vice-President of the United States of America.
The Vice President's job is almost entirely domestic. Even the President's should be primarily domestic.
She has executive experience in a small state.
Just stop that at "she has executive experience". Not just experience, Positive experience. She's garnering 75% support from the Democrats in Alaska. After defeating the Republican establishment incumbent in the primary, and winning against the Democrat with very little "party" support. Who's more suited to "uniting" people?
McCain, often called a RINO, and Palin, who's united the state behind her, or Obama, with massive negative polling numbers, and Biden, who's no sort of a aisle-crosser?
In my mind,
Anytime you say that, you're about to say something ignorant.
she is qualified to run...a small state. George Bush had executive experience in a big state and how do we think he has done?
Bush has done far better than I expected. Better than you'll admit.
How's the country doing today, folks?
Could be better. But Bush insisted on trying to do things "bipartisan" and be polite. Not that he's been thanked for it.
Abraham Lincoln was a good president, a man with less experience than Obama.
That's completely incorrect. Lincoln had led troops in combat prior to running for the Senate. (Was administered his oath by a then-Lt. Jefferson Davis, US Army, reportedly.)
But no, he wasn't a really good President.
He was a great man.
Did Sarah Palin travel around with Richard Lugar and track loose nukes
Oh, brother.
I'm not surprised you think this means something. However, being the tag-along means less. What do you think Lugar and Obama did, drop from Helicopters at 60,000 feet, HALOing in through the concrete bunker! "I got one, Dick! I got one!" "Good, tag it and move out!"
ultimately passing legislation to protect America? Legislation won't do that. Not from nuclear weapons.
Show me her international accomplishments,
She's, unlike Obama, (legally) negotiated with other countries, and successfully got a pipeline hung up in red tape going. But she's the vice-presidential candidate. She's got more accomplishments than she needs, and more than Obama. Who's the presidential candidate.
Seriously, she tells the troops going to Iraq to "go get those people who murdered thousands of Americans." Not even President Bush thinks that any more. Good Lord.
I'd ask what you're talking about, but I know you don't know anything about Iraq that daily Kos didn't tell you. But, suffice it to say, we've lost thousands in Iraq, and even if you're trying with an al-Queda gotcha, guess who's been beaten up and thrown out of Iraq? yeah.. Al-Queda. Maybe you should stop insulting her intelligence. You're getting your ass kicked here from a beauty queen.
Isn't his work on the south side of Chicago the example that all of you want to see in this country...more individual responsibility?
Again, two things.
1) That wasn't what he was doing.
2) He failed. He left, with the situation worse than it was.
"why we believe Barack Obama will try to take our guns, ban others, and infringe on the Second Amendment. What is his track record? Well, it's not good."
First, there's the word 'believe'...hmm...you're pretty much done criticizing me for not being factual and leaning on my beliefs.
Second, you asked before I stopped posting to show you one piece of legislation that Obama supported, either as a US Senator or a State Senator. I showed you two (Vitter amendment and conceal and carry in for off duty cops in Illinois). You laughed and ignored them. These are facts.
Third, he votes to ban certain types of weapons...not hand guns, rifles, shotguns or a multitude of other weapons. I think he has struck an effective and sensible balance. You think that a ban on ANY on any gun is wrong. And I yet I am the one being illogical...
"Words matter. Deeds more."
Ask yourself this question, Unix. Why would a man like Warren Buffet...someone who has been wildly successful in the free market and has years of executive experience...support Obama if he thought Obama would turn our country into a socialist state?
"Bush has done far better than I expected. Better than you'll admit."
What exactly has to get worse for you to be admit how completely fucked our country is as a result of this presidency? Seriously, talk about ignorance...willful at that.
Last, c'mon...a right wing blog? I know you can do better than that. There are plenty of other sites out there with a balance of what he did and did not accomplish on the South Side of Chicago 20 years ago.
I was actually there right after he left and, while the area was not a paradise, it showed marked improvement from 10 years before that when I used to visit relatives of a grade school friend. He helped set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization. People got involved without the help of government which is what I thought folks on your side wanted. For more on this time in his life check this out
First, there's the word 'believe'...hmm...you're pretty much done criticizing me for not being factual and leaning on my beliefs.
Oh, no. I've backed mine up. You're still on the "He said, thus, it is" stage.
Second, you asked before I stopped posting to show you one piece of legislation that Obama supported, either as a US Senator or a State Senator. I showed you two (Vitter amendment and conceal and carry in for off duty cops in Illinois). You laughed and ignored them. These are facts.
I don't think so. We might have said that wasn't very much (voting for something that was going to pass anyway) and note the 2nd bill. "Off Duty Cops". That's not us. Not us at *all*. Meaningless.
So of your two examples, one was a foregone conclusion that the D leadership said not to fight, and the other was about cops. You know, those people paid to follow politician's instructions? Funny how those sorts of relaxations occur for them. Nothing to see here, move along, move along.
In the meantime, he's said that Congress will keep him from outlawing guns. Which isn't true, entirely. The ATF has a large set of regulations that manage to shut down a lot of sales. He'll be appointing the head of the ATF.
Third, he votes to ban certain types of weapons...not hand guns, rifles, shotguns or a multitude of other weapons.
Yes, he voted to ban several sorts of rifles, he voted to support complete handgun bans, among other things.
Either provide what you're saying - specifically - what he's "voted to ban" other than "guns going into the inner city", which he called full-automatic, or retract this as drivel.
I think he has struck an effective and sensible balance. You think that a ban on ANY on any gun is wrong. And I yet I am the one being illogical...
He's already voted in the Ill. State Senate to take my deer rifle away.
http://unix-jedi.livejournal.com/65706.html
The only balance he's struck is between what he believes and what he says openly. His deeds matter. Voting for one - SOLITARY - amendment while in the Senate for 3 years doesn't back your play, Mark.
It demonstrates you're wrong.
Ask yourself this question, Unix. Why would a man like Warren Buffet...someone who has been wildly successful in the free market
Careful there. You might not know Buffet as well as you think you do.
support Obama if he thought Obama would turn our country into a socialist state?
For the same reason that socialist states have always enjoyed an enthusiastic following among certain - very rich - classes? Who bankrolled Lenin? Mussolini? They didn't come out of nowhere, Mark. They had backing.
As to Buffett's particulars? I don't know. Maybe it's because he's old. Maybe he's gone senile. Couldn't begin to tell you. Or maybe it's because he wants to be in power? Any number of reasons.
The fact Warren Buffett is backing him doesn't delegitimize looking at Obama's past history, which until about 10 months ago, was very consistent. Not compromising. Not conciliatory. Quite the opposite.
"Obama might not have any idea what the hell he's talking about."
Gee, ya think?
Pardon my sarcasm, Jedi, as you certainly don't deserve it, but that statement struck a nerve, it did.
Consider Obama's history. He began in low-level Chicago machine politics and progressed with ACORN (specialists in zombie votes and the like). Then he jumped into state politics where, with the help of those same machine politics, he got his opponents in the race for the state senate to fold up and go away. While in the state senate, he was a specialist in voting "present", which is precisely the opposite of leadership. Then he tried for the US Senate, and won election against what amounted to token opposition. While in the US Senate, he did nothing, and for only a few months before deciding he wanted a bigger desk.
Now summarize that. He has: 1) no business experience; 2) no executive experience; 3) damned little legislative experience; 4) no memorable legislative experience; 5) a history of intentionally avoiding legislative experience while serving as a legislator; 6) no foreign gubmintal experience; and, 7) never won a contested election against real opposition.
Then he decided to jump into the presidential election. His only skill in such waters is the ability to read a speech from a teleprompter. He does that quite well (and remember what the Dims used to say about Reagan). When without a 'prompter, he is revealed as a stumbling, bumbling, fumbling, inarticulate, incoherent, and unskilled fool.
I believe that, when he decided to run, he had NO expectation of winning, or of even doing well. I believe he expected to become well-known on the national scene, to gain experience in campaigning nationally, and to set the stage to be groomed for a real election post-Hillary.
Now, much to his and everyone else's surprise, he finds himself the nominee and he is utterly bumfucked thereby. Whether literally or not, he is asking himself, "What the fucking hell am I supposed to do if I win?"
HE DOESN'T KNOW, AND HE KNOWS THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW. He has grabbed a tiger by the balls and, no matter the pending harm to the country, he can't let go.
"Yeah, DJ. I kind of expected that you and others would react that way. Part of your ideology and belief is...the lie that liberals and Democrats "places ideology and belief before competence and facts.""
And this is the kind of statement that I expected from you. No, part of YOUR behavior over many months is that YOU place ideology and belief before competence and facts. You don't get your own joke, and THAT is why it is so funny.
Some minds are worth the pain and effort of pounding one's forehead against the anvil in hopes of having some influence thereon. You have demonstrated mightily that yours is not one of them.
DJ: I believe that, when he decided to run, he had NO expectation of winning, or of even doing well.
No. He was supposed to get name recognition, and be the groundbreaking VP for Hillary.
Notice how softly she dealt with him until he started to open up a lead. When he took the lead and started running, versus when she got serious - after she did, he didn't win any winner-take-all-Primary.
Very similar to his Senate run. Ryan had it zipped up, no chance for the D, so they ran him to get some experience, name out there.
Then Ryan dropped out. Oops. Now there's the almost-nobody as the D nominee.
DJ: HE DOESN'T KNOW, AND HE KNOWS THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW.
And he can't admit that.
That's the single biggest problem. Which is funny, since Markadelphia's bitched about that so often (with Bush), but Obama just CANNOT admit he was at all in error. Pulling his teeth would be easier. Quitting smoking. Wait. Nevermind that last.
Look at Obama's track record. "They are lying about me!" which turns to "Ok, they're right, but they're EVIL!"
"No. He was supposed to get name recognition, and be the groundbreaking VP for Hillary."
In his own mind, when he decided to run, did he expect that? I can't read his mind, but he knew he brought nothing to the table, so was he expecting to be put on a silver platter?
We'll never really know unless he confesses. I ain't holdin' my breath.
"HE DOESN'T KNOW, AND HE KNOWS THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW.
And he can't admit that."
Yup, hence my description that "He has grabbed a tiger by the balls and, no matter the pending harm to the country, he can't let go."
Unambiguously, Gibson was trying to make her look bad. He was trying to get a straight Yes/No answer out of her RE should we attack Russia; he tried to paint her as ignorant with the "Bush Doctrine" thing.
He was aching for a nice juicy soundbite that could be easily removed from context. He wanted:
Q: Should we attack Russia?
A: Yes.
There are other blog psts around regarding the way ABC edited the interview. Check those out -- they did a _lot_ of editing to make her look bad.
Example: When he asked her if she had met any heads of state, she replied "Yes" and talked about the heads of state she had met. Gibson then refocused the question to, in essence, "Have you ever met the Top Dog of a foreign nation?". To that, she said "No".
The interview as airedshowed Gibson ask if she had met any heads of state, then jumped ahead a question to show her answer "No I haven't".
She was excellent in that interview, and the only way they could find to make her look bad was to flat-out lie. That interview was probably edited by Michael Moore. 100% fraud.
You know, Mark, given that I made a constructive suggestion for you (i.e. read Michael Walzer), I'm a bit confused that you haven't even acknowledged it.
After all, aren't you the champion of reasoned inquiry?
Or are you so comfortable with your faux-edginess that you are afraid of what you might find out, if you should read Walzer? He is an eminent scholar with impeccable radical Leftist credentials; if he shoots you down, where do you have left to turn?
Seriously, you should read Just and Unjust Wars. I don't agree with his conclusions, but it's a fantastic exploration of the problem.
Sarah, I would ask her to visit both McCain's and Obama's web sites and see what their plans are. I do think both, as well as Biden, are qualified.
She didn't buy it. She stopped at the word "plans," because what does anyone's plans have to do with experience and competence?
See, I have great plans for this country, too, Mark. They'd really knock your socks off. I also have experience managing hundreds of students in a class -- I know how to lead and organize and stuff. Maybe I should run for office.
It addresses many of the questions you raise about Obama and is going to surprise you, no doubt.
Last, that fourth rate blog? Not a chance there's any bias there...
Sorry, Mastiff, that was wrong and rude of me not to acknowledge it. I have put the book on my wish list and will order it soon. In fact, I might be able to make use of it for a unit in the future, based on what you have said about it.
Sara, well, I think competence is clearly illustrated in the issues section of each candidate's web site. I do think both men are competent. As for experience, McCain does have more time in the Senate and in government and thus, more experience, right?
And yet he signed his name to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, one of the chief causes of our current economic problems. Obama would have never signed that bill. Judgment should be just as big of a deciding factor as experience.
I think you should run for office. Or be a delegate like I was this year. The more people we have involved, regardless of their politics, the better. I'm sure you have just as many complaints about Republicans as I do about Democrats. Apathy or laziness is the third head of the Three Headed Monster that currently controls our country today.
I thought we were talking about Obama vs. Palin, not Obama vs. McCain. You implied that the response to McCain's choice of Palin showed that people are more concerned with ideology than competence. My Democrat aunt is not convinced that effectively one year of legislative experience is better than eight years of executive experience, even if it's on a small scale.
P.S. The probability of me ever getting involved in politics per se is approximately zero-squared. I have no interest in wielding that kind of authority. "Render unto Caesar... "
It's not a bad article, Mark.
It hardly convinces me that you're right. It's decently well written, with a couple of "WTF's" in there.
In some fundamental ways, the American economy has stopped working.
Not hardly. And that being the opening segue poisons the rest of the piece.
The American economy hasn't stopped working in minor ways, much less fundamental ones. What you're seeing is the *failure* to allow the markets to deal with failures. Plus the result of regulations, requirements, and other governmental meddling.
For these workers, roughly the bottom 60 percent of the income ladder, economic growth has become a theoretical concept rather than the wellspring of better medical care, a new car, a nicer house — a better life than their parents had.
Again, nonsense. If this is his opinion - and it is - his conclusions are to be doubted.
Right now you can buy a house for 70% of it's valuation in 2003, on average. We're still living far better than "our parents" were. People still have multiple cars. They're still giving cars to their kids. This is something that did not exist prior to the 80s. Period.
There is also the slow unraveling of the employer-based health-insurance system and the fact that, come 2011, the baby boomers will start to turn 65, setting off an enormous rise in the government’s Medicare and Social Security obligations.
Unravelling that's due, again, to much meddling, regulation, and the omnipresent looming risk that HillaryCare or ObamaCare will eat your investment. (Of time, education, or money.) Boomer turning 65? WHY WEREN'T WE INFORMED! Gentlemen! We must DO SOMETHING to save our phony-baloney jobs!!!!
That's not a new issue, it's not looming any more than it has over the last 20 years.
“My core economic theory is pragmatism,” he said, “figuring out what works.” Nice sentiment, kid. Don't get cocky.
But in fairness, this is addressed: He has never run any government entity — no state, no city, not even a municipal agency — and he may not prove to be good at doing so.
It's amazing how humbling trying to do a job can be. Easy to say "I could do that!" Very often, not true. Hillary Clinton found that out when she tried to transform the health care system, but without anything other than her intellect. Without partnerships, or understanding the needs and requirements. She'd never needed to know, she'd never learned. Obama's never needed to know, and it appears he hasn't learned. We'll have to see.
But to specifics: Obama’s agenda starts not with raising taxes to reduce the deficit, as Clinton’s ended up doing, but with changing the tax code so that families making more than $250,000 a year pay more taxes and nearly everyone else pays less.
Congress passes the tax code. Obama is currently in Congress!. Yet in his 3 years, he has yet to introduce this idea in a legislative format. If he's President, he can only ask someone else to. But he has the power to start this now. If he means it.
. In Obama’s second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” he goes further: “Reagan’s central insight — that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing that pie — contained a good deal of truth.”
Great words for man with more book-writing experience than anything else. You assure us that of *course* that won't happen under Obama. But miss that so far, he's proposed no changes (and let's not forget he opposed welfare reform) to do so. AFDC didn't start out as a free gimme to the able - it took years to degenerate to where it did. Has Obama specified how he'll differ?
So his policies often involve setting up a government program to address a market failure but then trying to harness the power of the market within that program.
Because that worked really well with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. (Well, it did for Jamie Gorelick.)
For three decades now, the American economy has been in what the historian Sean Wilentz calls the Age of Reagan. The government has deregulated industries
Ok, detail time. That's a lot to throw away in a throwaway sentence.
Quite often, they've been "deregulated" as California electric was deregulated. Partially, but with plenty of regulation and control.
As I've told you before, you keep using that word. It does not mean what you think it means.
Leonhardt probably does. But I suspect he would be hard pressed to prove it off the top of his head. (Which if it were as he blithely describes it, it would be.)
And Obama's economy doesn't scare me as much as most of his other ideas, Mark. You're picking one the best sides to try and argue him. Which is good. Now how about the nowhere-as-good sides?
"DJ and Unix, before I respond to what you have written, kindly go and read this article."
I read it when it was published last month. Words. They don't change the facts about Obama. He is still the least-qualified candidate the Dimocrats have ever nominated.
Dude, you couldn't get a clue if it was deposited in your ass with a hammer. I have more important things to do than to try yet again to get you to understand anything. I refuse to try.
Right now, there's a pile of dog shit under my mailbox, and I'm gonna go clean it up. Now that is worth doing.
From Reagan or Democrats? If it is other Democrats, take a look at some points from his tax plan.
* Make many Bush Tax Cuts Permanent
* Make "work pay" tax credit
* Index the Alternative Minimum Tax
* Reduce Estate Tax
* Automatic 401K and IRA plans, large saver's credits
* Other Tax Cuts (for college students, seniors, low income filers)
* Permanent R & D and renewable energy credits
That's a far cry from what many old school Dems want.
"Plus the result of regulations, requirements, and other governmental meddling."
Completely disagree. It has been deregulation that has caused the problems we have now...starting with Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. You could also look at the Responsible Lending Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. These are all fine examples of deregulation that have resulted in disaster.
"What you're seeing is the *failure* to allow the markets to deal with failures."
What does failure, with asterisks, mean?
Sarah, I don't think it is much of an issue of authority as it is an issue of engagement. We typically have about 55 percent voter turnout and that's in a good year. It's a global embarrassment when you see other countries with upwards of 75 percent turnout. Getting involved in whatever way you can furthers the democratic process.
How did you come up with the figure of one year? I suspect that is the right wing propaganda machine talking, although I hope I am wrong. Look at the totality of his life and Palin's...if we are comparing the two...and judge from that. Her criticism of his time as a community organize is ridiculous when you consider how "conservative" it was.
That being said, I think it is a mistake to compare Obama and Palin. The focus should be on Obama and McCain.
"You have demonstrated mightily that yours is not one of them."
Well, of course I have because my views, and the facts of course, challenge your ideology and view of the world. Sit back and think for a second, DJ. Be reflective. Is there anything in your political view that may be...in error? Both you and Unix say that Obama can't admit when he is wrong and yet I have heard him say he has been wrong several times. I have even heard him say he will make mistakes when he is president. When was the first, last, or any time someone on the right side of the aisle said anything remotely like this?
In some ways, it's comforting to know you're constant, unchanging and unreachable.
"Now how about the nowhere-as-good sides?"
What would those be? The issues, that is...
I've named 'em. But it's OK. You'll just miss the point more than you did the next:
"Has Obama specified how he'll differ?"
From Reagan or Democrats?
It was a clear paragraph and idea. I quoted the quote from the article quoting Obama's book. And I pointed out that in specific, Obama didn't support, when he could have, the change and reform that he claims to.
I gave an example of something that started with a wholly different aim than it ended up being - and asked you how Obama was going to make HIS good ideas different.
Yeah, I know, you don't understand. Hope Change. Rah. Rah. Rah.
I think it dispels some of the other information that has been floating around out there about his opposition to welfare reform. In particular, there are details of how we worked with Republicans to pass legislation.
If you watched the service forum a week or two ago, I think you can see that his ideas are more rooted in Kennedy than FDR. Hence, the bowels being blown by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as their little playhouse is about to come down. Cry me a river...
On another note, I re-read what you wrote above and just want to say thanks for reading it and offering some excellent points that have made me think. You seemed pretty even handed in many of your responses and that gives me...well...hope :)
It has nothing to do with propaganda, Mark, but simple arithmetic. When did Obama get elected to the Senate, and how much of the time since has been spent on the campaign trail?
It's nice that Obama was a community organizer, but that sort of experience has little to do with my definition of the role of government. And I don't buy that it's ipso facto good experience, anyway. You could just as easily apply the label "community organizer" to the mafia.
That being said, I think it is a mistake to compare Obama and Palin. The focus should be on Obama and McCain.
Then we're left with a choice between two rather unappealing candidates. As Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy) put it, one wants to tax the bejeezus out of certain people and hand the money over to a bunch of jackasses with a 14% approval rating, and the other is a lukewarm cadaver. I'm so excited about the democratic process. Whoopee.
Something to help your mom out...just got this little capsule in an email..
If you spend 3 years as a community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
Obama's got experience, all right, just not the relevant kind. And I seriously distrust anyone who is a product of the extremely corrupt Chicago/Illinois political machine.
Incidentally, it's my aunt, not my mom. A couple of years before my mom passed away, she switched to the Republican party. In fact, she threatened to disinherit me and my brother if we didn't vote for Bush in 2000. :-)
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-doctrine.html (59 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Before the revisionist crap gets too deep and we forget:
Han Solo shot Greedo first!
That's all...
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt!
The problem of course is that theoretical discussions akin to St. Augustine's "just war" always become muddy when put into practice by flawed humans with ulterior motives. It takes quite the rhetorical gymnastics to justify Iraq, while giving Pakistan a pass (for instance). Instead of focusing our finite resources on getting those who attacked us (and those who fund them), the administration has to come up with a 'doctrine' that gives carte blanche to invade half the planet (for their own good). We don't have the ability to print our way out of expensive wars any more.
Oddly enough, the Left doesn't seem to hold anyone else to that standard. Police aren't required to wait until they're shot at to use deadly force. In fact, the entire concept of gun control rests on the concept of stealing our rights "just in case" we might do something wrong later if they didn't.
It takes quite the rhetorical gymnastics to justify Iraq, while giving Pakistan a pass (for instance).
Ok, that's complete bullshit, and I'm tired of hearing it.
We attacked Afghanistan because it was harboring Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organization. Pretty much the entire world was A-OK with that.
Iraq wasn't the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, it was the conclusion of the 1991 Gulf War. It was the result of twelve years of failed sanctions, of violations of the terms of the cease-fire, and of carrying out the intent of numerous UN "resolutions" that were anything but resolute.
The U.S. had every justification for invading Iraq, notwithstanding the fact that Iraq had bought off Russia, France and probably Germany thus preventing the UN Security Council from ever approving the invasion.
By doing so, the US put on notice Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Jordan (et cetera, et cetera, et cetera)and most especially Iran that the US was not a "weak horse" and that we would use military force and use it better than any nation in history ever has.
Iraq was easily legally justifiable.
Pakistan? Not so much.
It worked for Han Solo. It worked for Frederick the Great.
Works for me.
III
I can't help but think your Obama-supporting colleague would prefer we not shoot, period.
It takes quite the rhetorical gymnastics to justify Iraq, while giving Pakistan a pass (for instance).
War is a policy decision. Nothing more, nothing less...
I keep urging my liberal friends (I'm from Chicago, after all...) to read On War by Clausewitz.
It has been a long time since I posted but I found something here I am interested in commenting on.
I find Pakistan to be extremely justifiable. This is where Al Qaeda, by many accounts, has rebuilt their stronghold. They are vying to obtain Pakistan's WMDS and would love to rip off one of Pakistan's Agosta Subs. Some reports I have read say they are practicing how to operate one of these subs on a "model" in the desert. Remember, the Agosta sub has an Air Independent Propulsion system that is capable of firing nuclear missiles. Couple this with the fact that Pakistani intelligence is rife with extremist supporters and we have a much large problem on our hands than Iraq ever was. In fact, our attention should have stayed in Afghanistan-Pakistan and we should left Saddam to his pathetic and empty threats.
My friend's son is in special forces and currently in "Afghanistan." When we here stories regarding the new raids over the border in Pakistan, he is on them. I completely support President Bush on this and actually wish he would do more, even though it would put someone I love in jeopardy. This would be something that would actually defend our country as opposed to Iraq. Contrary to what is written about "liberals" and "Democrats" on this blog, we want to defend our country too...not just in the narrow minded way that some think we should.
As for this last comment about Obama, it's complete crap. Take a look at his plan for combating extremists. It's 8 pages long.
http://obama.3cdn.net/417b7e6036dd852384_luzxmvl09.pdf
And his plan on the 21st Century military. It is 12 pages.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Defense_Fact_Sheet_FINAL.pdf
So, the statement that Obama would prefer not shoot period is a lie. A lie that all too many people in this country believe. This lie, among a multitude of others, will result in virtually all of you not voting for him which I think would be a mistake. While Obama will in no way be perfect (in fact I think he will be just OK, given the insane tonnage of shit he is going to have to clean up), McCain, although qualified to be president, has all the wrong ideas on what direction we should go. It's a few different things but mainly it's stay the course. His choice of Sarah Palin as his VP completely illustrates this.
I don't know about the rest of you but I want to win. As several key people in the military have said these last few years, the military is not our only option. America has many weapons in its arsenal and it is time to start using them in addition to the military. There are many other options as well which I, of course, would be happy to discuss :)
Less,
Ironic.
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/search?q=Clausewitz
I find Pakistan to be extremely justifiable.
Yes, Mark, we know.
Attacking allied nations, violating treaties, all good as long as done by the Right People.
They are vying to obtain Pakistan's WMDS
Woah. Who says Pakistan has WMDs? Sorry, you can't cite anybody who claims this who also thought Iraq had them. (This includes, among others, France, Clintons, Obama..)
As many times as you've frothed over the "lack" of WMDs here found in Iraq (and ignored the evidence and the ones found) you need to back up and re-examine your base assumptions.
I can claim Pakistan has WMDs. You can't. Not without eviscerating your own opinion.
has all the wrong ideas on what direction we should go.
All the wrong ideas? I thought that was Bush? McCain disagrees with Bush on a whole lot of things.
It's a few different things
A few? I thought it was all of them? So all of them is a few?
but mainly it's stay the course.
So say We Obama. Wait. All. Something like that. That's Obama's stance. It doesn't survive well against the facts.
His choice of Sarah Palin as his VP completely illustrates this.
His choice of Governor Palin was brilliant, utterly brilliant. Mark, if you were intellectually honest you'd at least admit that.
Just for one major point: (and I'm quoting someone in a discussion thread) Everything Obama says he "will do" she can say "I've done".
The McCain/Palin ticket is poised for real, substantiative change from Bush, more even than the Obama ticket, which is rapidly turning into Jimmy The Sequel.
Last night I explained to a bunch on pdb's irc channel why Biden was an obvious choice, for instance. I can explain that, while still deriding him as a Senator and a VP candidate, because analyzing the political movements and my opinions are separate.
You conflate yours, and thus you fail.
By the way, given kudos to Bush *yet* for him signing S-CHIP? Like you said he wouldn't?
Unix, yes his choice was brilliant, no doubt. It was also terribly sad because it shows that a large segment of our country places ideology and belief before competence and facts...this is also known as the myth of executive experience. Or what I like to call: BEST PALS:Conservatives and Affirmative Action
I have no doubt that she is qualified to run a small state like Alaska but to understand the intricacies of American foreign policies in 2008? No. Given McCain's age and health, I think it is fair to scrutinize her views on the world. From what I have seen and read from her so far (and I didn't think it was possible), President Bush looks like Abraham Lincoln next to her. Show me her 8 page policy paper on extremists or her 12 page policy paper on the military.
For that matter, show me me McCain's. His web site has much less to offer in the way of specifics compared to Obama's. But I still think he is qualified to be president as are Obama and Biden.
As for your screed on WMDs, I am at a loss to understand where you are getting. My source is the Pakistani navy, largely bent on thumping their chest at India. The subs were provided by France, which I would think would make you happy, having another reason to do the obligatory "conservative eye roll" whenever the F word comes up.
"... a large segment of our country places ideology and belief before competence and facts ..."
Oh, shit. I can barely reduce my laughter enough to type this. Goddamn, but I've got a stitch in my side that's killing me and I can't catch my breath, but I just can't stop. The cat woke up and is looking at me as if there is something wrong. Oh, crap, but it hurts.
Thanks, dude, you've made my whole fucking year. Goddamn, what a day.
Yeah, DJ. I kind of expected that you and others would react that way. Part of your ideology and belief is...the lie that liberals and Democrats "places ideology and belief before competence and facts."
This lie is easily exposed once you take a look at the core issues of the day and how each side wants to solve them.
So, go ahead, DJ. Pick an issue...the economy, Iraq, climate change, education, health care...and I will show you how the base doesn't let little things like competence and facts get in the way when it comes to solutions.
And then I will show you how someone with common sense solves problems.
Mark:
It was also terribly sad
Because it's not Obama. Yes, I know, only the Obama can heal our souls, forgive our sins, shave our cats.
But you miss the whole point. You can't intellectually honestly discuss anything because you portray *everything* as from your point of view.
because it shows that a large segment of our country places ideology and belief
Like who? Me? I don't agree with much of Palin's belief or ideology. Among many, many others. Who span the gamut ideologically.
I'm not a christian! Yet I can - and do- enthusiastically support Palin. How do you describe *me* then? (You'll need to get a more accurate description of Palin to be correct.)
before competence and facts.
Competence. Strange coming from the support of Obama, who's shown very little competence, and has issue with facts. You of course can dispute this, but remember when you stormed off from Kevin's site before, Obama's campaign had had a steady stream of "corrections" or "apologies" for 2 straight weeks daily.
..this is also known as the myth of executive experience. Or what I like to call:
Stop it with trying to name or describe things. 1) You're usually laughably wrong. 2) You don't understand categorization and itemization. 3) It confuses the discussion when you use your own terminology or meanings for works, makes you sound like Markadelphia.
Wait. Scratch 3).
As for your screed on WMDs, I am at a loss to understand where you are getting.
Yes, I know. I know.
BELIEVE ME I KNOW. Oh, $WHATEVER_IS_HOLY, do I know.
My source is the Pakistani navy, largely bent on thumping their chest at India.
So, who says they're telling the truth? How are you evaluating their statements? Remember, you've called Bush a "liar" for believing there were WMDs in Iraq - a country where they've been used, as well as tagged, tested, and identified as late as 1998. And who had a leader beating his chest and bragging about them.
What I'm "getting" is that you've got no idea how to evaluate sources and synthesize analysis. The fact you don't understand what I was saying to you re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-proves it. Teacher, study thyself.
DJ:
Goddamn, but I've got a stitch in my side that's killing me and I can't catch my breath, but I just can't stop
Somebody call Alanis, now this is irony!
And then I will show you how someone with common sense solves problems.
Dammit, Mark!
Now you've got me laughing like DJ!
OW! OW! OW!
And then I will show you how someone with common sense solves problems.
This ought to be fascinating. . .
In a slow-motion trainwreck kind of way.
Oh, HEE HAAH HAH HEE. Ow. Ow. Ow. This hurts, dammit.
HAH HAH HAH. Ow. My side. My side. Can't ... breathe... losing O2... thinking.. turning.. leftwards....
Sure, let's tax our economy back to health!
OK, Deep breath. I'm back.
Ok. Mark. ThEEE! Um. *SNICKER* Right. So. um, *SNERK*
Yeah. Tell me how the BASE proceeds about CLIMATE CHANGE... doesn't let little things like competence and facts get in the way when it comes to solutions.
Actually, you might be right. I don't think facts or competence factor into their plans for "economy, Iraq, climate change, education, health care".
I think they're completely ideologically bound. But I don't think that's what you meant. Even thought it is what you said
Speaking of Health Care, are you going to acknowledge Bush's S-CHIP signature, or just write that down the memory hole?
Welcome home Mark, welcome home.
Boo-ya
... a large segment of our country places ideology and belief before competence and facts ...
Mark, I have an aunt who typically votes Democrat, but she's actually not so sure for this election. Could you help her out and explain, from one Democrat to another, why someone with one year of actual legislative experience is more competent to lead than someone with eight years of executive experience?
In addition to Sarah's question, I have another one, Mark.
Could you please explain from which orifice of your body you pull this B.S.?
Just curious.
Sarah, I would ask her to visit both McCain's and Obama's web sites and see what their plans are. I do think both, as well as Biden, are qualified.
I think Obama's points are more grounded in reality than McCain's. Has anyone bothered to read through my links or any others on Obama's site? I'd be real interested to hear you justify your BELIEF that Obama is a socialist with the FACT that he wants to make most of the Bush tax cuts permanent. I also doubt that someone like Warren Buffet would support someone who is the ludicrous and bizarre image that you paint him to be.
As far as Palin goes, I'm sure she is fine as the governor of Alaska. How does that translate to the international stage? She has executive experience in a small state. In my mind, she is qualified to run...a small state. George Bush had executive experience in a big state and how do we think he has done? How's the country doing today, folks?
I would ask you to comment on whether or not you thought Abraham Lincoln was a good president, a man with less experience than Obama. Did Sarah Palin travel around with Richard Lugar and track loose nukes, ultimately passing legislation to protect America? Show me her international accomplishments, her ideas on where we should go in the world, and what her plans are...as detailed as Obama's are...and then we can compare and contrast. So far, all I have seen is a script from the bull crap machine. Seriously, she tells the troops going to Iraq to "go get those people who murdered thousands of Americans." Not even President Bush thinks that any more. Good Lord.
Oh, and Palin's crack about how Obama's time as a community organizer doesn't amount to any sort of real responsibility...I find myself quite perplexed. Isn't his work on the south side of Chicago the example that all of you want to see in this country...more individual responsibility? He went into that community, and even after when was in the state Senate, and said...the government is not going to help you. You are on your own. What are we going to do it about it?
What many of you fail to realize is that this election is not about him...it's about us...all of us...taking more responsibility for ourselves and making government work more efficiently.
How dare he adopt a conservative ideal like that!?
Markadelphia, I recommend that you undertake some basic remedial education. First on the roster is geography. Alaska is the largest state in the Union. "But, I meant population-wise, Alaska is small!" In that case, basic english is next in line to study. Now, you need to get some in-depth information on the state. I recommend perusing an encyclopedia. Alaska is not an easy state to govern. Weather extremes, poor or no infrastructure and great distances put great burdens on government and law enforcement, low population not withstanding. Alaska also does more proportionally more business with foreign nations than most states. If you think that business isn't a huge part of foreign policy, you need to add economics to that remedial course list.
Alternatively, you can continue your ignorant screeds. Feelings are much more important than facts to the liberals of today, after all. It's much easier, and provides a higher entertainment value (for me and DJ, at least). Your statement of showing how someone with common sense solves problems is hysterically funny, especially after looking at your blog.
Unix, sure I'm glad he signed a stop gap measure but the fact still remains...the United States ranks among the lowest in industrialized nations in regards to treatment of its children.
I also give Bush props for starting to listen to his military more, being ready for hurricanes this year in a superior fashion, Pakistan (of course), and the continued destruction of terrorist financial networks.
Mark, would you care to tell me where "the United States ranks among the lowest in industrialized nations in regards to treatment of its children" comes from?
Who is doing these rankings?
The U.N.? The same groups that rank countries by "freedom," but have preconceived notions about what that represents ("Oh, they have the death penalty! Minus 20 points! They don't have socialized medicine! Minus 50 points!")?
My source is Marian Wright Edelman and the Children's Defense Fund.
Sigh. This, Mark, is why we attacked Iraq and not Pakistan.
Casus belli.
If you don't understand why that makes a difference, then I wouldn't have enough time in a week to explain it to you. If you have not read Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars, you should.
You'll like him, he used to publish Dissent.
...once you take a look at the core issues of the day and how each side wants to solve them.
Tell me, how is it that these politicians are going to solve, well, anything, Mark, or haven't you been paying attention to history, for the last 2000 years, or so?
Clue for the clueless, here; Stay the fuck outta my way!
How's that grab ya?
Mark: You keep failing to understand the most basic concepts.
How dare he adopt a conservative ideal like that!?
He adopts all sorts of claims. But once Obama pronounces it a claim, you believe that that's what he will do.
1) Obama might just be lying to get elected. It's been known to happen.
2) Obama might not have any idea what the hell he's talking about. It's been known to happen.
So to deal with 1 and 2 we have to look at prior track records. For instance, you've been totally confused why we believe Barack Obama will try to take our guns, ban others, and infringe on the Second Amendment. What is his track record? Well, it's not good. What about what he says? Not good there, either. Just the other day he said it was safe to elect him because he didn't have the votes in Congress to ban guns. (Remember, this is the speaker you keep telling us is smart and motivational.) This is after the nomination election speech when he, again, promised to try and ban guns. (But really! It's crime control!)
I'd be real interested to hear you justify your BELIEF that Obama is a socialist with the FACT that he wants to make most of the Bush tax cuts permanent.
He claims to. Now. And he's claimed otherwise. In the past. That's the problem here, Mark. We have a judgement on his character that you don't like, and so you insist that it's not true, it's wrong.
Obama is one of 100 senators. He could start legislation tomorrow to make the Bush tax code permanent. He could have last year. Once he's elected, in fact, he's unable to do anything about the tax code.
Yet he's not done that. Words matter. Deeds more. (And he's running with the author of the "'Assault Weapons' Ban")
I also doubt that someone like Warren Buffet would support someone who is the ludicrous and bizarre image that you paint him to be. =
That you paint us painting him, that is.
As far as Palin goes, I'm sure she is fine as the governor of Alaska.
After all, she is just a woman. And a former beauty queen.
How does that translate to the international stage?
First up, Mark, that's secondary.
Primary is executive experience, and particularly American executive experience. She's being elected to be the Vice-President of the United States of America.
The Vice President's job is almost entirely domestic. Even the President's should be primarily domestic.
She has executive experience in a small state.
Just stop that at "she has executive experience". Not just experience, Positive experience. She's garnering 75% support from the Democrats in Alaska. After defeating the Republican establishment incumbent in the primary, and winning against the Democrat with very little "party" support. Who's more suited to "uniting" people?
McCain, often called a RINO, and Palin, who's united the state behind her, or Obama, with massive negative polling numbers, and Biden, who's no sort of a aisle-crosser?
In my mind,
Anytime you say that, you're about to say something ignorant.
she is qualified to run...a small state. George Bush had executive experience in a big state and how do we think he has done?
Bush has done far better than I expected. Better than you'll admit.
How's the country doing today, folks?
Could be better. But Bush insisted on trying to do things "bipartisan" and be polite. Not that he's been thanked for it.
Abraham Lincoln was a good president, a man with less experience than Obama.
That's completely incorrect. Lincoln had led troops in combat prior to running for the Senate. (Was administered his oath by a then-Lt. Jefferson Davis, US Army, reportedly.)
But no, he wasn't a really good President.
He was a great man.
Did Sarah Palin travel around with Richard Lugar and track loose nukes
Oh, brother.
I'm not surprised you think this means something. However, being the tag-along means less. What do you think Lugar and Obama did, drop from Helicopters at 60,000 feet, HALOing in through the concrete bunker! "I got one, Dick! I got one!" "Good, tag it and move out!"
ultimately passing legislation to protect America?
Legislation won't do that. Not from nuclear weapons.
Show me her international accomplishments,
She's, unlike Obama, (legally) negotiated with other countries, and successfully got a pipeline hung up in red tape going. But she's the vice-presidential candidate. She's got more accomplishments than she needs, and more than Obama. Who's the presidential candidate.
Seriously, she tells the troops going to Iraq to "go get those people who murdered thousands of Americans." Not even President Bush thinks that any more. Good Lord.
I'd ask what you're talking about, but I know you don't know anything about Iraq that daily Kos didn't tell you. But, suffice it to say, we've lost thousands in Iraq, and even if you're trying with an al-Queda gotcha, guess who's been beaten up and thrown out of Iraq? yeah.. Al-Queda. Maybe you should stop insulting her intelligence. You're getting your ass kicked here from a beauty queen.
Isn't his work on the south side of Chicago the example that all of you want to see in this country...more individual responsibility?
Again, two things.
1) That wasn't what he was doing.
2) He failed. He left, with the situation worse than it was.
I'm more interested in the results of his work there.
Found some results...
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/07/photo-gallery-results-of-obamas.html
"why we believe Barack Obama will try to take our guns, ban others, and infringe on the Second Amendment. What is his track record? Well, it's not good."
First, there's the word 'believe'...hmm...you're pretty much done criticizing me for not being factual and leaning on my beliefs.
Second, you asked before I stopped posting to show you one piece of legislation that Obama supported, either as a US Senator or a State Senator. I showed you two (Vitter amendment and conceal and carry in for off duty cops in Illinois). You laughed and ignored them. These are facts.
Third, he votes to ban certain types of weapons...not hand guns, rifles, shotguns or a multitude of other weapons. I think he has struck an effective and sensible balance. You think that a ban on ANY on any gun is wrong. And I yet I am the one being illogical...
"Words matter. Deeds more."
Ask yourself this question, Unix. Why would a man like Warren Buffet...someone who has been wildly successful in the free market and has years of executive experience...support Obama if he thought Obama would turn our country into a socialist state?
"Bush has done far better than I expected. Better than you'll admit."
What exactly has to get worse for you to be admit how completely fucked our country is as a result of this presidency? Seriously, talk about ignorance...willful at that.
Last, c'mon...a right wing blog? I know you can do better than that. There are plenty of other sites out there with a balance of what he did and did not accomplish on the South Side of Chicago 20 years ago.
I was actually there right after he left and, while the area was not a paradise, it showed marked improvement from 10 years before that when I used to visit relatives of a grade school friend. He helped set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants' rights organization. People got involved without the help of government which is what I thought folks on your side wanted. For more on this time in his life check this out
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0703300121mar30,0,7797542.story
First, there's the word 'believe'...hmm...you're pretty much done criticizing me for not being factual and leaning on my beliefs.
Oh, no. I've backed mine up. You're still on the "He said, thus, it is" stage.
Second, you asked before I stopped posting to show you one piece of legislation that Obama supported, either as a US Senator or a State Senator. I showed you two (Vitter amendment and conceal and carry in for off duty cops in Illinois). You laughed and ignored them. These are facts.
I don't think so. We might have said that wasn't very much (voting for something that was going to pass anyway) and note the 2nd bill. "Off Duty Cops". That's not us. Not us at *all*. Meaningless.
So of your two examples, one was a foregone conclusion that the D leadership said not to fight, and the other was about cops. You know, those people paid to follow politician's instructions? Funny how those sorts of relaxations occur for them. Nothing to see here, move along, move along.
In the meantime, he's said that Congress will keep him from outlawing guns. Which isn't true, entirely. The ATF has a large set of regulations that manage to shut down a lot of sales. He'll be appointing the head of the ATF.
Third, he votes to ban certain types of weapons...not hand guns, rifles, shotguns or a multitude of other weapons.
Yes, he voted to ban several sorts of rifles, he voted to support complete handgun bans, among other things.
Either provide what you're saying - specifically - what he's "voted to ban" other than "guns going into the inner city", which he called full-automatic, or retract this as drivel.
I think he has struck an effective and sensible balance. You think that a ban on ANY on any gun is wrong. And I yet I am the one being illogical...
Balance? Between what? Banning and not banning? Banning and not banning yet?
So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’
He's already voted in the Ill. State Senate to take my deer rifle away.
http://unix-jedi.livejournal.com/65706.html
The only balance he's struck is between what he believes and what he says openly. His deeds matter. Voting for one - SOLITARY - amendment while in the Senate for 3 years doesn't back your play, Mark.
It demonstrates you're wrong.
Ask yourself this question, Unix. Why would a man like Warren Buffet...someone who has been wildly successful in the free market
Careful there. You might not know Buffet as well as you think you do.
support Obama if he thought Obama would turn our country into a socialist state?
For the same reason that socialist states have always enjoyed an enthusiastic following among certain - very rich - classes? Who bankrolled Lenin? Mussolini? They didn't come out of nowhere, Mark. They had backing.
As to Buffett's particulars? I don't know. Maybe it's because he's old. Maybe he's gone senile. Couldn't begin to tell you. Or maybe it's because he wants to be in power? Any number of reasons.
The fact Warren Buffett is backing him doesn't delegitimize looking at Obama's past history, which until about 10 months ago, was very consistent. Not compromising. Not conciliatory. Quite the opposite.
"Obama might not have any idea what the hell he's talking about."
Gee, ya think?
Pardon my sarcasm, Jedi, as you certainly don't deserve it, but that statement struck a nerve, it did.
Consider Obama's history. He began in low-level Chicago machine politics and progressed with ACORN (specialists in zombie votes and the like). Then he jumped into state politics where, with the help of those same machine politics, he got his opponents in the race for the state senate to fold up and go away. While in the state senate, he was a specialist in voting "present", which is precisely the opposite of leadership. Then he tried for the US Senate, and won election against what amounted to token opposition. While in the US Senate, he did nothing, and for only a few months before deciding he wanted a bigger desk.
Now summarize that. He has: 1) no business experience; 2) no executive experience; 3) damned little legislative experience; 4) no memorable legislative experience; 5) a history of intentionally avoiding legislative experience while serving as a legislator; 6) no foreign gubmintal experience; and, 7) never won a contested election against real opposition.
Then he decided to jump into the presidential election. His only skill in such waters is the ability to read a speech from a teleprompter. He does that quite well (and remember what the Dims used to say about Reagan). When without a 'prompter, he is revealed as a stumbling, bumbling, fumbling, inarticulate, incoherent, and unskilled fool.
I believe that, when he decided to run, he had NO expectation of winning, or of even doing well. I believe he expected to become well-known on the national scene, to gain experience in campaigning nationally, and to set the stage to be groomed for a real election post-Hillary.
Now, much to his and everyone else's surprise, he finds himself the nominee and he is utterly bumfucked thereby. Whether literally or not, he is asking himself, "What the fucking hell am I supposed to do if I win?"
HE DOESN'T KNOW, AND HE KNOWS THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW. He has grabbed a tiger by the balls and, no matter the pending harm to the country, he can't let go.
"Yeah, DJ. I kind of expected that you and others would react that way. Part of your ideology and belief is...the lie that liberals and Democrats "places ideology and belief before competence and facts.""
And this is the kind of statement that I expected from you. No, part of YOUR behavior over many months is that YOU place ideology and belief before competence and facts. You don't get your own joke, and THAT is why it is so funny.
Some minds are worth the pain and effort of pounding one's forehead against the anvil in hopes of having some influence thereon. You have demonstrated mightily that yours is not one of them.
DJ:
I believe that, when he decided to run, he had NO expectation of winning, or of even doing well.
No. He was supposed to get name recognition, and be the groundbreaking VP for Hillary.
Notice how softly she dealt with him until he started to open up a lead. When he took the lead and started running, versus when she got serious - after she did, he didn't win any winner-take-all-Primary.
Very similar to his Senate run. Ryan had it zipped up, no chance for the D, so they ran him to get some experience, name out there.
Then Ryan dropped out. Oops. Now there's the almost-nobody as the D nominee.
DJ:
HE DOESN'T KNOW, AND HE KNOWS THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW.
And he can't admit that.
That's the single biggest problem. Which is funny, since Markadelphia's bitched about that so often (with Bush), but Obama just CANNOT admit he was at all in error. Pulling his teeth would be easier. Quitting smoking. Wait. Nevermind that last.
Look at Obama's track record. "They are lying about me!" which turns to "Ok, they're right, but they're EVIL!"
"No. He was supposed to get name recognition, and be the groundbreaking VP for Hillary."
In his own mind, when he decided to run, did he expect that? I can't read his mind, but he knew he brought nothing to the table, so was he expecting to be put on a silver platter?
We'll never really know unless he confesses. I ain't holdin' my breath.
"HE DOESN'T KNOW, AND HE KNOWS THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW.
And he can't admit that."
Yup, hence my description that "He has grabbed a tiger by the balls and, no matter the pending harm to the country, he can't let go."
Well, you can certainly tell that Markadelphia is back. Commentary has increased threefold in one day!
Well Mark, you DID reference that markadelphia.blogspot site above. You know, that site that calls it right down the middle.
"Commentary has increased threefold in one day!"
But it is mostly just noise! Marky doesn't say anything. He's our own private Obama!
Unambiguously, Gibson was trying to make her look bad. He was trying to get a straight Yes/No answer out of her RE should we attack Russia; he tried to paint her as ignorant with the "Bush Doctrine" thing.
He was aching for a nice juicy soundbite that could be easily removed from context. He wanted:
Q: Should we attack Russia?
A: Yes.
There are other blog psts around regarding the way ABC edited the interview. Check those out -- they did a _lot_ of editing to make her look bad.
Example: When he asked her if she had met any heads of state, she replied "Yes" and talked about the heads of state she had met. Gibson then refocused the question to, in essence, "Have you ever met the Top Dog of a foreign nation?". To that, she said "No".
The interview as airedshowed Gibson ask if she had met any heads of state, then jumped ahead a question to show her answer "No I haven't".
She was excellent in that interview, and the only way they could find to make her look bad was to flat-out lie. That interview was probably edited by Michael Moore. 100% fraud.
You know, Mark, given that I made a constructive suggestion for you (i.e. read Michael Walzer), I'm a bit confused that you haven't even acknowledged it.
After all, aren't you the champion of reasoned inquiry?
Or are you so comfortable with your faux-edginess that you are afraid of what you might find out, if you should read Walzer? He is an eminent scholar with impeccable radical Leftist credentials; if he shoots you down, where do you have left to turn?
Seriously, you should read Just and Unjust Wars. I don't agree with his conclusions, but it's a fantastic exploration of the problem.
Mark,
Sarah, I would ask her to visit both McCain's and Obama's web sites and see what their plans are. I do think both, as well as Biden, are qualified.
She didn't buy it. She stopped at the word "plans," because what does anyone's plans have to do with experience and competence?
See, I have great plans for this country, too, Mark. They'd really knock your socks off. I also have experience managing hundreds of students in a class -- I know how to lead and organize and stuff. Maybe I should run for office.
"Iraq didn't have WMDs"
No, only 550 TONS of yellowcake.
DJ and Unix, before I respond to what you have written, kindly go and read this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=David%20Leonhardt&st=cse&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
It addresses many of the questions you raise about Obama and is going to surprise you, no doubt.
Last, that fourth rate blog? Not a chance there's any bias there...
Sorry, Mastiff, that was wrong and rude of me not to acknowledge it. I have put the book on my wish list and will order it soon. In fact, I might be able to make use of it for a unit in the future, based on what you have said about it.
Sara, well, I think competence is clearly illustrated in the issues section of each candidate's web site. I do think both men are competent. As for experience, McCain does have more time in the Senate and in government and thus, more experience, right?
And yet he signed his name to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, one of the chief causes of our current economic problems. Obama would have never signed that bill. Judgment should be just as big of a deciding factor as experience.
I think you should run for office. Or be a delegate like I was this year. The more people we have involved, regardless of their politics, the better. I'm sure you have just as many complaints about Republicans as I do about Democrats. Apathy or laziness is the third head of the Three Headed Monster that currently controls our country today.
DJ and Unix, before I respond to what you have written, kindly go and read this article.
Ok, read it, go ahead and respond now.
Mark,
I thought we were talking about Obama vs. Palin, not Obama vs. McCain. You implied that the response to McCain's choice of Palin showed that people are more concerned with ideology than competence. My Democrat aunt is not convinced that effectively one year of legislative experience is better than eight years of executive experience, even if it's on a small scale.
P.S. The probability of me ever getting involved in politics per se is approximately zero-squared. I have no interest in wielding that kind of authority. "Render unto Caesar... "
It's not a bad article, Mark.
It hardly convinces me that you're right. It's decently well written, with a couple of "WTF's" in there.
In some fundamental ways, the American economy has stopped working.
Not hardly. And that being the opening segue poisons the rest of the piece.
The American economy hasn't stopped working in minor ways, much less fundamental ones. What you're seeing is the *failure* to allow the markets to deal with failures. Plus the result of regulations, requirements, and other governmental meddling.
For these workers, roughly the bottom 60 percent of the income ladder, economic growth has become a theoretical concept rather than the wellspring of better medical care, a new car, a nicer house — a better life than their parents had.
Again, nonsense. If this is his opinion - and it is - his conclusions are to be doubted.
Right now you can buy a house for 70% of it's valuation in 2003, on average. We're still living far better than "our parents" were. People still have multiple cars. They're still giving cars to their kids. This is something that did not exist prior to the 80s. Period.
There is also the slow unraveling of the employer-based health-insurance system and the fact that, come 2011, the baby boomers will start to turn 65, setting off an enormous rise in the government’s Medicare and Social Security obligations.
Unravelling that's due, again, to much meddling, regulation, and the omnipresent looming risk that HillaryCare or ObamaCare will eat your investment. (Of time, education, or money.) Boomer turning 65? WHY WEREN'T WE INFORMED! Gentlemen! We must DO SOMETHING to save our phony-baloney jobs!!!!
That's not a new issue, it's not looming any more than it has over the last 20 years.
“My core economic theory is pragmatism,” he said, “figuring out what works.” Nice sentiment, kid. Don't get cocky.
But in fairness, this is addressed:
He has never run any government entity — no state, no city, not even a municipal agency — and he may not prove to be good at doing so.
It's amazing how humbling trying to do a job can be. Easy to say "I could do that!" Very often, not true. Hillary Clinton found that out when she tried to transform the health care system, but without anything other than her intellect. Without partnerships, or understanding the needs and requirements. She'd never needed to know, she'd never learned. Obama's never needed to know, and it appears he hasn't learned. We'll have to see.
But to specifics: Obama’s agenda starts not with raising taxes to reduce the deficit, as Clinton’s ended up doing, but with changing the tax code so that families making more than $250,000 a year pay more taxes and nearly everyone else pays less.
Congress passes the tax code. Obama is currently in Congress!. Yet in his 3 years, he has yet to introduce this idea in a legislative format. If he's President, he can only ask someone else to. But he has the power to start this now. If he means it.
. In Obama’s second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” he goes further: “Reagan’s central insight — that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing that pie — contained a good deal of truth.”
Great words for man with more book-writing experience than anything else. You assure us that of *course* that won't happen under Obama. But miss that so far, he's proposed no changes (and let's not forget he opposed welfare reform) to do so. AFDC didn't start out as a free gimme to the able - it took years to degenerate to where it did. Has Obama specified how he'll differ?
So his policies often involve setting up a government program to address a market failure but then trying to harness the power of the market within that program.
Because that worked really well with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. (Well, it did for Jamie Gorelick.)
For three decades now, the American economy has been in what the historian Sean Wilentz calls the Age of Reagan. The government has deregulated industries
Ok, detail time. That's a lot to throw away in a throwaway sentence.
Quite often, they've been "deregulated" as California electric was deregulated. Partially, but with plenty of regulation and control.
As I've told you before, you keep using that word. It does not mean what you think it means.
Leonhardt probably does. But I suspect he would be hard pressed to prove it off the top of his head. (Which if it were as he blithely describes it, it would be.)
Obama said he agreed that blue-collar workers were struggling primarily because their skills weren’t as much in demand as they used to be. ... couldn’t be about just education; it also had to take account of the psychology of the workplace, Obama continued. ... But many of them don’t want to work in health care or any service job.
Here, he's right. But the implications of that idea are staggering to anybody who thinks about it. So if I don't want to work where it's available, what then? That's a very reasonable statement with an almost-catastrophic hole left unsaid.
and the one that most clearly indicated how little Obama and his fellow organizers understood the conditions that had led to the workers' unemployment. ... “Well, they had no transferable skills. I remember interviewing one man who ran a steel-straightening machine. It straightened steel bars or something. I said, well, what did you do? And he told me he pushed a button, and the rods came in, and he pushed a button and it straightened them, and he pushed a button and it sent them somewhere else. That’s all he did. And he made big bucks doing it.”
It would appear that Obama did learn something from it - he'd have to take that into account in his speeches, but leave unsaid what actually would have to be done. So the guy refuses to work at McDonalds, or as a nursing tech, or anywhere where there's labor demanded. What then? That's the hard part. That's the part where you're going to have to ask about leadership. And ability to take vitrol. So far, he's lacking in both of those.
And Obama's economy doesn't scare me as much as most of his other ideas, Mark. You're picking one the best sides to try and argue him. Which is good. Now how about the nowhere-as-good sides?
Much appreciated, Mark.
"DJ and Unix, before I respond to what you have written, kindly go and read this article."
I read it when it was published last month. Words. They don't change the facts about Obama. He is still the least-qualified candidate the Dimocrats have ever nominated.
Dude, you couldn't get a clue if it was deposited in your ass with a hammer. I have more important things to do than to try yet again to get you to understand anything. I refuse to try.
Right now, there's a pile of dog shit under my mailbox, and I'm gonna go clean it up. Now that is worth doing.
Working backwards...
"Now how about the nowhere-as-good sides?"
What would those be? The issues, that is...
"Has Obama specified how he'll differ?"
From Reagan or Democrats? If it is other Democrats, take a look at some points from his tax plan.
* Make many Bush Tax Cuts Permanent
* Make "work pay" tax credit
* Index the Alternative Minimum Tax
* Reduce Estate Tax
* Automatic 401K and IRA plans, large saver's credits
* Other Tax Cuts (for college students, seniors, low income filers)
* Permanent R & D and renewable energy credits
That's a far cry from what many old school Dems want.
"Plus the result of regulations, requirements, and other governmental meddling."
Completely disagree. It has been deregulation that has caused the problems we have now...starting with Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. You could also look at the Responsible Lending Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. These are all fine examples of deregulation that have resulted in disaster.
"What you're seeing is the *failure* to allow the markets to deal with failures."
What does failure, with asterisks, mean?
Sarah, I don't think it is much of an issue of authority as it is an issue of engagement. We typically have about 55 percent voter turnout and that's in a good year. It's a global embarrassment when you see other countries with upwards of 75 percent turnout. Getting involved in whatever way you can furthers the democratic process.
How did you come up with the figure of one year? I suspect that is the right wing propaganda machine talking, although I hope I am wrong. Look at the totality of his life and Palin's...if we are comparing the two...and judge from that. Her criticism of his time as a community organize is ridiculous when you consider how "conservative" it was.
That being said, I think it is a mistake to compare Obama and Palin. The focus should be on Obama and McCain.
"You have demonstrated mightily that yours is not one of them."
Well, of course I have because my views, and the facts of course, challenge your ideology and view of the world. Sit back and think for a second, DJ. Be reflective. Is there anything in your political view that may be...in error? Both you and Unix say that Obama can't admit when he is wrong and yet I have heard him say he has been wrong several times. I have even heard him say he will make mistakes when he is president. When was the first, last, or any time someone on the right side of the aisle said anything remotely like this?
"other countries with 75% over turnout"
Where the voter's choices are "Big government socialist" and "slightly less big government socialist"
Mark:
In some ways, it's comforting to know you're constant, unchanging and unreachable.
"Now how about the nowhere-as-good sides?"
What would those be? The issues, that is...
I've named 'em. But it's OK. You'll just miss the point more than you did the next:
"Has Obama specified how he'll differ?"
From Reagan or Democrats?
It was a clear paragraph and idea. I quoted the quote from the article quoting Obama's book. And I pointed out that in specific, Obama didn't support, when he could have, the change and reform that he claims to.
I gave an example of something that started with a wholly different aim than it ended up being - and asked you how Obama was going to make HIS good ideas different.
Yeah, I know, you don't understand. Hope Change. Rah. Rah. Rah.
"Has Obama specified how he'll differ?"
Here's what I found.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/07/01/post_7.php
I think it dispels some of the other information that has been floating around out there about his opposition to welfare reform. In particular, there are details of how we worked with Republicans to pass legislation.
If you watched the service forum a week or two ago, I think you can see that his ideas are more rooted in Kennedy than FDR. Hence, the bowels being blown by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as their little playhouse is about to come down. Cry me a river...
On another note, I re-read what you wrote above and just want to say thanks for reading it and offering some excellent points that have made me think. You seemed pretty even handed in many of your responses and that gives me...well...hope :)
How did you come up with the figure of one year?
It has nothing to do with propaganda, Mark, but simple arithmetic. When did Obama get elected to the Senate, and how much of the time since has been spent on the campaign trail?
It's nice that Obama was a community organizer, but that sort of experience has little to do with my definition of the role of government. And I don't buy that it's ipso facto good experience, anyway. You could just as easily apply the label "community organizer" to the mafia.
That being said, I think it is a mistake to compare Obama and Palin. The focus should be on Obama and McCain.
Then we're left with a choice between two rather unappealing candidates. As Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy) put it, one wants to tax the bejeezus out of certain people and hand the money over to a bunch of jackasses with a 14% approval rating, and the other is a lukewarm cadaver. I'm so excited about the democratic process. Whoopee.
Something to help your mom out...just got this little capsule in an email..
If you spend 3 years as a community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
Obama's got experience, all right, just not the relevant kind. And I seriously distrust anyone who is a product of the extremely corrupt Chicago/Illinois political machine.
Incidentally, it's my aunt, not my mom. A couple of years before my mom passed away, she switched to the Republican party. In fact, she threatened to disinherit me and my brother if we didn't vote for Bush in 2000. :-)
Sorry, aunt. My mistake. All apologies.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>