Aren’t there enough reasons to vote against Obama based on his policy stances, political philosophy, and lack of experience?
We could talk about how he should be more ashamed of certain of his present and past associates, but I don’t think we should, for three reasons:
- It’s a distraction from more important reasons to vote against him.
- It makes us sound petty, and it creates the impression that there aren’t more substantive reasons to oppose him.
- It can be easily misinterpreted as trying to imply a much harsher complaint. Say that Obama is friends with a former terrorist, and many people think you’re saying that Obama is a terrorist himself. And that is not a claim that one should come anywhere near making without solid evidence.
This goes double for the unsubstantiated claim that he’s not a citizen, and triple for the absurd notion that Obama is some sort of Muslim extremist sleeper agent. The Ayers, Rezko, and Wright complaints at least have the virtue of having some basis in fact.
So, can we talk about foreign policy, taxes, regulation, health care, or judicial appointments for a change?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 60 comments }
I think his associations are important. They indicate the kind of person he is based upon the people he deals with. Sometimes, it can’t be helped. For instance, we can’t be silly enough to accuse him of palling around with adulterers because of John Edwards (or any other of many in Congress). Sometimes, he clearly has a choice and, for whatever reason, makes very bad ones.
However, I think you are correct that it is no profitable at this point to continue down that road. The MSM isn’t going to investigate any of this, and most people just simply won’t listen. McCain and Palin need to hammer him on issues. Period.
Look, Obama is the most clever politician the world has ever seen. He is a secret fundamentalist Islamic terrorist, a secret Communist and a secret socialist, while fooling everyone into believing he is just a pragmatic moderate. Only a true political genus could pull that off.
Pragmatic moderate? Obama may not be a Communist, but he is quite liberal. And not a secret liberal, unless his Senate voting record and his campaign website are supposed to be secret.
Maniakes,
You know you’re not supposed to talk about his record or beliefs! Just like you’re not supposed to talk about his associations, written and spoken beliefs, his wife’s beliefs or his ears. You are only supposed to talk about what Barack allows you to talk about; anything else would just be racist, right-wing evil-talk.
What record?
The things he did with Ayers are a big part of his record. Same for Wright and Rezko. He really hasn’t done much other than run for office and associate with some pretty nasty or unpleasant people.
Disagree regarding the associates. We’re hiring a Chief Executive, and people-selection is a key executive skill, maybe *the* key executive skill. The best guide to the kind of people Obama would pick as President, given that he has no real executive experience we can look at, is provided by the set of people with whom he has chosen to associate in the past and those whom he now has as advisors.
The issues do need to come first because the terrorist stuff has become easy fodder–reeks of slanderous gossip. Let’s focus on what we do know. Foreign policy and taxes are much more civil matters to hash out with left-wing illuminati, and do you really think Obama is going to admit anything about his clandestine associations, after all this time? We have a week left.Â
I can’t believe you guys are still dwelling on Ayers and co. who were acting up at a time when Obama was getting his adult teeth. If McCain is elected, with his proposed tax cuts for everyone, he SHALL bankrupt the country. That will be as inexorable as the tides.Â
And by the way, Ronald Reagan was a very close ally of Menahen Begin, prime minister of Israel during the 80′s. But M. Begin, in 1948, was the Jerusalem coordinator of the Irgun (a radical Jewish group) which bombed the King David hotel and killed scores of British soldiers and many civilians. Reagan had his adult teeth already when he dealt with M. Begin; HE KNEW. Still, does that association with the former Irgun leader make Reagan a terrorist?
I do not think so
I’m not sure you can gauge ideology based on a Senate voting record for several reasons.  Senate voting records don’t represent actual preferences; they represent party affiliation as much as anything.  Party affiliation is only a rough approximation of ideology–a Democrat from San Francisco and a Democrat from Mississippi may be two different breeds of cat. Or mule in this case.
Senators at least those from large states tend to be less ideological than Congressional Representatives at any rate. Voting is statewide. That tends to weed out the extremes. That’s why I don’t think that the Senate demarks the line between liberals and conservatives but between the left and the center-left, the center-right and the right.
Certainly Obama is center-left.   The real centrist pragmatists have been weeded from national elective offices in both parties. It’s no coincidence that independent or nonpartisan is as large a category in most states as either of the political parties.
The question for me is whether he’s a pragmatist and that’s how I interpret his rather slim record.
BTW, I think that’s the reason the election campaigns are as they are. Neither presidential candidate has the sort of experience that Americans have tended to count as suitable experience for the presidency and Sen. Obama’s resume is so slender there’s little else to go after.
I’m sure that Aziz will insist that I look at the pieces of legislation in the U. S. Senate and IL Senate that Sen. Obama has authored. I have. When you weed out the proclamations, sense of the house bills, and bills that were never enacted into law, there isn’t a great deal left.
Note that I’m not saying that a lack of experience should be dispositive. I’m not. It just makes it difficult to tell what Sen. Obama’s views are.
At this point I think that the clearest indication is his concept of equality. It doesn’t resemble anything I’d think of as equality but more the equality of outcome notions that were most fashionable in academic circles, coincidentally, precisely when Sen. Obama was in school.
Obama’s recent association with Ayers is not only relevant it is a crucial window into the man’s character and ideology.
As I have said before, my concern with Obama’s association with Ayers is not that he shares the goals of the Weathermen, but that he shares the stated goals of Bill Ayers to turn our education system into a Marxist indoctrination system. I am concerned about this not because Obama was eight years old when Ayers was making bombs, but because Obama was funnelling millions of dollars to Ayers’ educational experiments just a few years ago in Chicago.
Ayers’ violent, terrorist past has become a political asset for Obama’s team because it provides the perfect cover for the recent demonstration of Obama’s sharing of Ayers’ radical educational goals through the very concrete distribution of millions of dollars to accomplish them.
Yes, I do think Obama’s association with people like Wright is bad enough to warrant concern, but his actual POLICIES that he DIRECTED are much more concerning to me. If he was directing millions of dollars to socialist indoctrination campaigns just a few years ago, I find it hard to believe he no longer holds those views.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Shake that felonious booty!
Dave, I agree with you on several of your points except that Mr. Obama never pronounced the word "equality". He spoke of "redistribution of wealth" a phrase which has provided a cascade for McCain’s mill, but redistribution is hardly a term that you can quantify; equality is, by definition, a measurable concept.
Our tax system is a progressive one. The rate of taxation is directly proportional to our income. Mr. Obama, no doubt, will make it more progressive. Mr. Bush made it LESS progressive. Thus, one will cancel the other. It is impossible to determine how much the pendulum will shift to the left in an Obama administration but I am certain that the word "equality", as always, only applies to rights and duties; not income.
Again, I will no desist of reminding everyone: the greatest storm of all will be when foreigners stop buying our T notes – and it will happen, sooner or later.
I fear it will be rather sooner so time is of essence.
Cosmic: what do you mean? will they teach Marx in public schools? So what? If capitalism were so feeble that it could only survive through the ignorance of the citizen, then the Berlin Wall would have never fallen.
My father’s business failed during the Great Depression and he turned to study Marxism with a very favorable disposition at the start. The more he learned, the more disillusioned he became with the doctrine. Knowledge is something we should never fear. And school curriculum is the business of states and smaller divisions of government, down to boards of education and college departments.
If I were you, I’d be worried about the half trillion Mr. Bush borrowed from Pink China. THAT is scary!!
Relax
Maniakes FFS thank you so much for writing this. I for one am also sick of the tin-foil hat club’s "theories" on how Obama is evil. There are plenty of other reasons to dislike Obama. His retarded health care plan, for example.
My father’s business failed during the Great Depression and he turned to study Marxism with a very favorable disposition at the start.
Exactly, at the start, but then knowledge brings either acceptance or disillusionment. Now, he was able to reject these principles based on an informed decision. Also, if high schools start teaching sociology and Marx isn’t mentioned, they would be foolish. Marx like him or hate him was a historical figure like Durkheim, Weber, Comte, and other intellectuals of the 1800′s early 1900′s. When you hide something, it makes people wonder what it is more acutely than if you had it out in the open in the first place.
No, he said "fairness" while enunciating something based on equality of outcome which isn’t remotely fair.
Again, I will no desist of reminding everyone: the greatest storm of all will be when foreigners stop buying our T notes – and it will happen, sooner or later.
Yes, if we don’t quit our evil, capitalist, Israel supporting warmongering decadence and become a bastion of peaceful socialist equality like Iceland, we’ll all be bankrupt.
Oh, wait a minute, Iceland is already bankrupt, and most of the nations in the socialist/progressive paradise of Europe are sliding into recessions.
I guess the progressives don’t have any solutions to offer at all.
I am bewildered. What do high schools have to do with the president of the United States? High Schools (at least the public ones) already teach social studies. The programs are usually prepared by the districts’ superintendents, school principals, etc., under, in some cases, state guidelines.
Are you proposing that knowledge be suppressed? What kind of liberty is that? Liberty to be ignorant? Are we supposed to burn books to be "safe"? Peoples of the nations of Eastern Europe were exposed to communist indoctrination since birth for 50 years (Russia since 1918) and look how the communist block fell like a house of cards. Have faith in your fellow man.
Freedoms of thought, religion, expression, association, and secularism (you can’t have freedom of religion without the separation of church – any church – and state) were doctrines upon which this nation was created. Nations are like pressure cookers and those liberties are the relief valve.
By the way, I am really at a loss to imagine a lecture about modern social thought without mentioning Marx.
Mary: Iceland was far from being socialist. In fact it was a banking paradise. And I was talking about the national debt – climbing to 11 trillion. That is absolutely out of whack.
 Europe is surely sliding into recession dragged by us; not just Europe but the entire world. We sneezed and everyone caught a cold.
To Dave: Equality? He did not say that; you did.
Ayer’s violent terrorist past? What about G. Gordon Liddy? I guess if you go to prison it’s okay to be a terrorist. However, it is not okay if you didn’t go to prison. It’s like Palin said in one of her recent interviews, she didn’t really know if abortion clinic bombers could really be called terrorists. I guess she doesn’t know what a terrorist is. However, the accusations fly around sure enough.
BTW according to Palin, because of my geographical location, I am not a real american. The pentagon and the white house aren’t in real america either. We’re all living in "fake america". I guess that makes her a real stupid american.
Now Obama’s retarded health care plan, that’s a legitimate criticism of his ability to lead america. Otherwise, this Bill Ayers crap is a farce, and so is this "real america" horseshit. I will watch the rampant paranoia that ensues after Obama wins with bubbly glee.
I agree, jrogge, that all the Ayers and Obama being Muslim is nonsense and detrimental to the public discourse. I do not know enough about his health care plan to have an informed opinion and in fact I did not watch a single debate entirely.
But I do know this: EVERYTHING (health care, defense, social security, infrastructure, etc) depends on the ability of the governments (federal, states, etc) to pay bills. This ability in turns depends on the revenue they receive in the way of taxes. That revenue depends on the state of the economy; unemployed people can not pay taxes.
The interest on the existing national debt already devours around 10% of the federal budget (i.e. defense is about 20% – just for the sake of comparison). As the debt increases, so will the interest. It is fundamental that we control the deficit (as soon as the economic crisis abates) and start amortizing the debt. It is under that premise that I say that the McCain plan of cutting taxes for everyone – "making all of us wealthy" – is irresponsible and will lead the nation to an economic disaster.
We have to pay that debt. It won’t go away.
Iceland’s government, like most European governments, was based on the ideals of democratic socialism. – cradle to grave benefits, "spreading the wealth", high taxes, low defense spending. When most pinkos (or progressives, or whatever they’re calling themselves these days) talk about their plans for America, they talk about plans that would make the US more like Europe or Iceland.
Europe and Iceland are failing faster than we are, which is causing the dollar to rise in value. So, investment in America is probably looking pretty good. Thanks, social democrats!
Europe is surely sliding into recession dragged by us; not just Europe but the entire world. We sneezed and everyone caught a cold.
American bankers didn’t force Iceland to turn their banks into casinos. American bankers didn’t force London’s real estate market to rise to stratospheric levels. American bankers didn’t force investors worldwide to gamble big on commodities. Other economies are failing because everyone made mistakes.
America is not a virus that is infecting the world and economics is not a zero sum game. Unlike politics, trade is a cooperative kind of thing. It’s in everyone’s interests for everyone to do well.
I love the internet and finding things other people say about the way I see it more eloquently than I.  From a commenter on another site a couple of weeks ago:
[...]
I currently feel as if I am a passenger on a plane who has been told to remain calm. The plane is turning…and I don’t recognize the terrain beneath me.
I hope the pilot is capable and honorable and filled with good intent. But I look up the aisle at Ayers and Dorhn, Jeremiah Wright and Michael Klonsky, Sam Graham-Felsen and Khalid al Mansour. I see Tony Rezco and Rashid Khalidi. I see Samantha Power and Robert Malley. I see ACORN thugs and Frank Marshall Davis. I see Nation of Islam staffers and Michael Pfleger. I see Carl Davidson and the New Party.
I see Sarah Bernhardt asking for Sarah Palin to be gang raped in a racially tinged rage. I see my countrymen being accused of being mean, slothful and “clinging†to their religion. I am told I need to sacrifice, that there needs to be “justiceâ€â€¦and I feel I’m about to be shown just how it will come to pass.
I am being told that the passengers will be allowed to speak, if their words fall into a “fairness†doctrine code of approved comments.
I am being told that I have no access to the pamphlets about the plane, they are “restricted†from my view…and when another passenger, Stanley, asked to see them, he was told the same by the public library that holds them. In fact, there is precious little in the way of information about this flight. But I’m told that it will change everything. I wonder what that means, and I still don’t recognize the terrain beneath me.
The TV’s drop down and I am fed all happy news, that there is much to hope for in the future. But nobody answers any of the questions I have…in fact, they make a concerted effort to not answer them. And some smarmy comedian goes on about what a horrible country we are and slanders my country and my countrymen repeatedly. And I don’t recognize the terrain beneath me.
Who are these people who hate my countrymen so…and slander them and my country and Israel with impunity? They seem giddy with delight, as they spew venom on my screen. And I do not recognize the terrain beneath me.
I am told that all those passengers I see ahead of me…sons of Alinsky and Karl Marx are a “distraction†and that I am unduly paranoid for noticing them. I notice the sons of Cone and Louis Farrakhan, and I am told that I am a racist for noticing them. I notice the sons of Arafat and Edward Said, and I am told that I’m a bigot for noticing them. And I do not recognize the terrain beneath me.
I am told to stay calm and avert my gaze. To not “give in†to my racist, bigoted, small minded paranoia. To not cling to my religion…to let it go, because paradise will come to me through hope and change. This…is the change I have been waiting for, or so I’m told.
And I turn to my loved ones and say…May God keep you safe and warm in His embrace, and on any day He doesn’t…I will try. Strap yourself in…because the plane has turned…and I don’t recognize the terrain beneath me.
Â
(sorry, but there is no permalink to the comment, just to the original post; it’s #39, cfbleachers)
Mary: I don’t know who’s falling faster and that is immaterial; we are falling together.
We created the sub-prime and put those mortgages in funds and sold them worldwide. The financial system, as the economy en general, is global. There are no financial "islands". When the sub-prime phenomenon (our sub-prime) went bust, everyone was affected because we are the largest economy in the world. Iceland was simply more affected because it is a small country and they had all their eggs in one basket so to speak.
As for the European socialists policies and so on, yes they have higher taxes, the education up to college level is free, and so is health care. Those things are good for the youth and the infirm of modest means, respectively. No system is perfect; just different. But do not confuse social democratic policies with communist policies. Europe has vibrant private economies and all the political liberties we have.
Â
I have to leave now and I want to add something: nobody really knows who is going to win this election but whoever it is, have faith in our political system; the creation of our founding fathers. There are many checks and balances built in: congress, the judicial system, etc
There is no need to dramatize. And if things do not work out, in the end, it is all due for review in two years – midterm election.
You never know
Part of what’s going on is that different people evaluate people in different ways. I have learned (at great pain) not to take people at their word. Instead, I evaluate based on associations and past actions. Words are cheap.
In Illinois, as far as I can tell he pushed some money to groups that squandered it and have no positive results to show. That’s about the extent of his past actions.
I look at who he associates with, and don’t see any evidence that he evaluates the character of others.
He’s a con-man.
There’s no point in evaluating his claimed policies beyond that, because he’s going to say whatever he thinks will be received well. "Bitter gun-clingers" was received well when it was said. It was only when it got to the wrong audience that it stank.
This is Barack Obama. Con man.
While he’s very good with the words coming from his mouth, they’re just words. There is nothing to back them up. Just cheap words.
The interest on the existing national debt already devours around 10% of the federal budget (i.e. defense is about 20% – just for the sake of comparison). As the debt increases, so will the interest. It is fundamental that we control the deficit (as soon as the economic crisis abates) and start amortizing the debt. It is under that premise that I say that the McCain plan of cutting taxes for everyone – "making all of us wealthy" – is irresponsible and will lead the nation to an economic disaster.
We have to pay that debt. It won’t go away.
It’s quite a conundrum isn’t it? As of 2004 manditory government spending was sitting at roughly two-thirds of the budget. After the debt cap increases, I wonder what it would be now. There’s a lot of spending in the budget that we cannot cut, unless programs are eliminated altogether. So, how do we reduce mandatory spending and keep revenue high enough to pay for all that interest? If the dollar deflates internally i.e. housing, luxury, food, and transportation costs all lower and wages drop. Our debt actually increases. What are we going to do about that? Like Bush and Regan, we’ll eventually have to raise taxes or sink.
What are we going to do about that? Like Bush and Regan, we’ll eventually have to raise taxes or sink.
Not necessarily. Either the programs can be trimmed or we can let the economy grow faster.
Trimming options are things like raising the retirement age or reducing payments.
Encouraging faster economic growth includes things like lowering tax rates.
As I see it, if we don’t cut the "entitlements" some, there is a serious risk that they will force a spiral of rising taxes and eventually strangle the economy.
jrogge: you got it right: new taxes have to be levied and that’s why the program of McCain, the candidate promising tax cuts for everyone, is totally faulty. But there is more to it.
Going about the budget with rounded off numbers:
a) 10% interest on debt
b) 20% military
c) 50% social security, medicare, military pensions,
d) 20% everything else (including the cost of running government, foreign aid, etc)
a) can’t do much about it unless we reduce the debt
b) I know a little about this. Do you know that for every combatant in Vietnam, there were 7 or 8 military persons supporting him (cooks, drivers, mechanics, paper pushers, rule-makers, etc)? We have the highest non-combatant to combatant ratio in the world. So when we had half million men in Vietnam, only 60 or 70 thousand were doing the fighting. The NVA, with many less men, could outnumber us in almost every battle. We balanced things out with expensive air power. That has not changed. Probably worse now.
We maintain military bases, big and small, in some 150 countries of the total of 190 or so. Can anyone tell me why?
We maintain 12 huge aircraft carriers which are useless against terrorism and sitting ducks against a conventional or tactical nuclear missile attack. There are 6000 men and women in every carrier. That is two 9/11′s a pop.
On the other hand we lack basics: we went though 4 years in Iraq losing men and women to IUD’s without having a good infantry carrier (the army refused to reactivate the excellent M-113 from the VN era) Because we never have enough men on the field, we have to depend more on the air force and that is expensive.
Those were examples where reductions are possible. But Iraq may be winding down anyway.
Put a woman in charge of the defense department and you’ll see savings!!!
Except with Sarah Palin…expensive shopper.
c) Social security and military pensions are social contracts with men and women. We paid into the system and expect our money back when we get old. Medicare could become the model for a national health care system but I must confess I don’t know much about that issue. Here is an area where taxes may have to increase and/or tax more income (there is a limit to how much income is taxed for SS – I believe)
d) Probably some areas to cut but I would say most of those expenditures are unavoidable or even necessary for our future (infrastructure, student loans, etc)
Sorry, small correction on something although it is somewhat off the topic: when I said 60 or 70 thousand combatants in VN, I was somewhat misleading. In fact about 50% of those 60 or 70000 were babysitting everybody else in bases and cities. So in fact we just had a mobile force of some 35000 for the entire SVN at any time.
I have no faith that I’ll ever see back from social security what I’ve paid into it. It’s a matter of demographics. We’re heading for 2 workers per retiree, which means that each worker will have to supply on average half a retiree’s payments.
Politicians made promises that can’t be kept, knowing they’d be dead long before the matter came to a head.
That doesn’t even consider the possibility of "actuarial escape velocity", which appears to be coming quickly. At that point, Social Security is certain to have a problem.
With all that, "entitlements" are continuing to grow.  Some of them are even effectively (like SS) indexed to the economy, such that they will continue to grow as a percentage of the economy. That is not sustainable.
Put a woman in charge of the defense department and you’ll see savings!!!
Sexist.
US military spending, as a percentage of GDP, is very close to an all-time low. Even including Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s still around 3-4% of GDP. It’s a tiny item, and not really growing. You can only cut so many years of "entitlement" growth out of it before it’s zeroed out completely. My quick calculation says 10-12 years.
in 2008: 4.4% but hardly "tiny"… it is a whopping 716 billion plus 141 billion for the wars in 2008 and 91 billion to catch up with the expenses of 2007 left unpaid.
almost 1 trillion for 2008
But again, taxes will have to increase no matter who gets to the White House. Mr. Obama is telling you so (for those above 250 thousand taxable income) whereas Mr. McCain promises tax cuts for everyone and "to make us all wealthy"
So much for straight talk. Personally I had enough straight talk for the last 8 years
Sorry, small correction on something although it is somewhat off the topic: when I said 60 or 70 thousand combatants in VN, I was somewhat misleading. In fact about 50% of those 60 or 70000 were babysitting everybody else in bases and cities. So in fact we just had a mobile force of some 35000 for the entire SVN at any time.
Its been known since the time of Alexander and Sun Tzu that trying to win based on regular forces is expensive at best, and nearly always a failure. The push after Bulge comes to mind as one of the few times it actually worked, but at a terrible price. The role of regular forces is to engage and not lose, while the special forces (including Special Forces, air, artillery, cavalry, archers, armor, intel, psy-ops, etc.) deliver the actual victory. (Note that at Agincourt the French tried to use cavalry as regulars, and got slaughtered for it.)
A stand-up fight is a good way to piss away lives. Trying to do that may be viable when those lives are not valued. In this country, we tend not to see things that way.
I AM FROM THIS COUNTRY! and we did piss away lives in both VN and Iraq. Obviously you were not in either
Typical republican!!!
I AM FROM THIS COUNTRY! and we did piss away lives in both VN and Iraq. Obviously you were not in either Typical republican!!!
My comments were not intended as a personal attack. Clearly you took them as such, and chose to attack me. No, I didn’t serve in either. My brain function is not compatible, unfortunately, which has caused me great distress. Your mockery of my nature is not appreciated.
If we had a tooth to tail ratio closer to 1, the lives lost in both wars would have been much higher. That would have been far more serious pissing away of lives. As I indicated, that’s what Eisenhower did after Bulge. It’s stupid, ineffective and pisses away lives. We try not to do that in this country. Other countries do it. North Vietnam is one example.
We maintain military bases, big and small, in some 150 countries of the total of 190 or so. Can anyone tell me why?
Don’t you know? We maintain military bases worldwide because we are one of the few nations in the world that is capable of defending our borders (and the borders of other nations). Europe has "vibrant private economies" because we pay for their defense. Most vibrant European countries couldn’t defend their borders from an onslaught of girl scouts.
And Western Europe is a powerhouse compared to most other nations outside of Russia, England and China.
Many nations can’t afford to pay for defense, but Western Europe certainly can, even now. They’ve been living off of American largesse for years, like a 30 year old lawyer who still lives in his mom’s basement. They still expect us to do their laundry for them and pay their bills. One way for us to save money (and to use that money to provide benefits for Americans) would be to force them to pay for their own defense.
When the sub-prime phenomenon (our sub-prime) went bust, everyone was affected because we are the largest economy in the world.
We didn’t make the biggest mistakes, but we do have the largest economy. Yet our population is not the largest in the world. How on earth could Americans (including the ever-maligned Republicans) have created and maintained the huge economic and military infrastructure upon which the entire world has been depending on for decades?
Could it be – individualism and capitalism??
Many leftists, especially the ones who don’t know much about our economy or the world around them, think that because America is successful, we must be to blame for all the world’s problems. They have a zero sum view of the world which is based on the idea that the economy is like a pie. If you have a little piece, then a person with a big piece must have stolen something from you. In the limited zero-sum mentality, the only way for people to be equal is to be sure that, to the molecular level, all slices are exactly the same size.
The zero sum mentality doesn’t understand how an economy can grow and contract due to internal and external forces, and it doesn’t understand the principles of equal opportunity that allowed America to be successful. Since these zero-sum types don’t understand the basics of how these things work, they’re the last ones to be offering advice on how to fix things.
…we did piss away lives in both VN…
andrea, Actually there are some around here that were functioning military during the time of VN.
And some can tell you quite accurately, that the VN war was never lost in Viet Nam, but, rather on the streets of this nation, in this here very country, thanks to the efforts of Hanoi Jane, Joan Baez, one of our biggest traitors —John Kerry and the ineptitude of Lyndon Baines Johnson who informed the Department of Defense that our boys merely have to fight for twelve months and then they can go home and last but not least what’s his name, Robert McNamara, a wonderful social engineer whose primary goal was to have every american drive a Ford Falcon. Secondary to those interests, Mr. McNamara had a passing hobby in military strategy as Secretary of Defense during Viet Nam.
So whilst you’re pissing in the wind with your macro-military economics and white flag military strategy maybe you ought to listen to the person that plans to gut the US military — the ever absent from the senate, Senator
Barry, aka B.Soetoro,Barack Hussein Obama.Barack Obama – Yes I Can Make Us Defenseless
“jrogge: you got it right: new taxes have to be levied and that’s why the program of McCain, the candidate promising tax cuts for everyone, is totally faulty.”
What a curious statement. Obama’s promising tax cuts to 95% of the people. Is that not faulty? Are there enough taxes to be had from just 5% of the country to overcome the current deficit AND the $430 billion/year in programs Obama is promising?
Lots and lots of argument back and forth, but not one substantive rebuttal of Obama’s funneling of millions of dollars of cash for the educational programs of Bill Ayers, a man whose Marxist goals are publicly stated, and who has publicly embraced and congratulated Hugo Chavez for retooling his schools into Marxist indoctrination camps. That’s Ayers known, stated goal. Obama fed millions of dollars to Ayers to achieve those goals.
If you find those goals to be objectionable, that should be enough of a reason to vote against Obama right there. If you feel those goals reveal a deeper policy concern beyond simply education, then that is more than enough of a reason to vote against Obama.
Andrea. I can’t tell if you are disingenuous or simply stunningly ignorant.
Bill Ayers did not push for "educational programs" that simply "included" discussion of Karl Marx and his goals. If you actually think that’s what Ayers went to Venezuela to congratulate Hugo Chavez for, I’m not sure what to say to you. I find it hard to believe you are that naive…
But then again, you are voting for Obama, aren’t you?
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Shake that felonious booty!
Our surrender in Viet Nam–after our biggest crushing military victory, Tet–cost millions of lives, destroyed many millions of others, and wasted an awful lot of money. Thank God we don’t have someone like LBJ in office now.
By the way, in 2004, Bush got more than 70% of the military vote.
As for the old nonsense about how if you haven’t served you can’t back a war: tell it to Franklin Roosevelt. Or Abraham Lincoln. Yeesh. We no longer have a draft military, everyone in there volunteered, and it would be insane to suggest that only people who serve in combat should be allowed to support a conflict anyway. Grow up, please.
Geeez..I have stirred up a hornets’ nest!!! lol well i can’t write nuch as I have to leave for work in a while.
You republicans ran the country for eight years and look at the mess you have made. We’ll see what new debacle the news bring in today.
have a nice day
andrea:
Two points.
1. Republicans did not "run the country for eight years." Another example of either your disingenuousness or your ignorance. The more you talk, the more I tend to think it’s the second. Republicans controlled both the White House and the Congress for four of the last eight years, and two of those were only technically "Republican" since there was a virtual tie in the Senate. For the first four years of Bush’s Presidency he had either a slight Democrat advantage in Congress, or a tie. It was only in 2004 that Republicans gained a decisive edge and that was repudiated in 2006, giving us Democrat control in both the House and Senate, the result of which was demonstrably the least effective and most reviled Congress since we started measuring approval of Congress. In case you don’t understand the Constitution let me remind you that we have three branches of government.
2. In spite of your error in understanding how our government works, the Republicans have, in fact, totally screwed up in the past 8 years and I do, in fact, blame GW Bush for a lot of it. But I also blame Democrats for turning everything they can into a political football in their relentless pursuit of power.
With an Obama election we will see the most liberal President and most liberal Congress in my lifetime, even including Jimmy Carter’s four years. If you think that is a recipe for success in the American experiment, good for you. I personally prefer a divided government because that tends to reduce the excesses each side tends to pursue. Let’s revisit this in two years and see what you think of how the Democrats have "fixed" things.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Shake that felonious booty!
Cosmic: you get personal when you don’t like the message… that’s why the republican rethoric is resonating so badly with a lot of people
ok let’s change the word; instead of "ran" let’s use "dominated". Bush got every major thing he wanted: the tax cuts, the unnecessary war of Iraq, and all the little moves to dismantle environmental protections. Look at us now.
If things are going well, I won’t be around this blog in two years. Actually, i’ll probably disappear after the election. I hate politics. I am here because i am worried about the future of my children. I am worried about the economy, the national debt, the environment, the warmongering of this government, the attitude that we must be the policeman of the world, the attitude it is our way or no way, the lack of support for education (and don’t insult my intelligence by mentioning "no child left behind" – legislation without funding).
Â
I am worried about the breaches in the wall separating church and state, I am worried about the bigotry and the intolerance "the good people vs the bad people", I am worried about our overextension abroad while home is crumbling, and I am worried sick about this new generation of young men and women that comes back home broken from the wars .
can you understand?
PS. Mary: England IS in Western Europe
andrea:
Heh, if you think conservatives are the ones that get personal, perhaps you better talk to Joe the Plumber.
You have an interesting perspective on events. You say that Bush has "dismantled environmental protections" in a time when every measurable means of determining environmental quality has gone up. That’s some dismantling of protections. It’s a typical misinformed complaint. It takes me back to the Left vilifying Bush for proposing arsenic levels in water that were identical to the levels proposed and implemented by the Clinton administration. Pure politics, don’t let the facts confuse you.
You seem to be one of those who believes that Republicans are responsible for this credit mess in spite of the overwhelming evidence that Democrats created it, protected it and profited from it. The “warmongering” you refer to was voted on overwhelmingly by Democrats including Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Funny how that becomes a Bush thing when you don’t like it.
The substantive portion of your comment, about Bush’s pushing through of new, expensive entitlement programs is absolutely true. Funny how I didn’t see Democrats opposing those either.
It’s no surprise that you bring up the “wall of separation between Church and State.” Not only is there no such thing constitutionally, but the INTENT of the First Amendment was not to protect the government from church, but to protect the church from government. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with religious people using their beliefs as guides towards public policy. That’s why we hold ELECTIONS andrea. If enough people vote for a person who says their religion convinces them that abortion is wrong, then that’s how the election goes. EVERYONE brings guiding principles into public office. Obama has Marx, Palin has Jesus. Take your pick.
If anyone has ideological blinders on andrea, it ain’t me.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Media’s Presidential Bias and Decline
PS. Mary: England IS in Western Europe
I try to avoid mentioning that, because calling Brits "European" usually annoys them.
If your goal is to avoid wars and warmongering, neither party will suit your needs because both wage wars. Since America is one of the few countries in the world with a viable military force, we’re sort of stuck with that role. The foreign policy stays the same, only the marketing changes. If Obama is president, we’ll be fighting for ‘humanitarian’ reasons, not for ‘security’Â reasons.
What a curious statement. Obama’s promising tax cuts to 95% of the people. Is that not faulty? Are there enough taxes to be had from just 5% of the country to overcome the current deficit AND the $430 billion/year in programs Obama is promising?
Actually, McCain screams that Obama’s plan actually does not reduce taxes. It is widely known that his plan actually reduces tax revenue for everyone. So yes it’s a bigger tax cut, and she’s being quite astute.
Cosmic: Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfelf  manipulated and conned everyone into believing that:
a) Sadam hussein was an accomplice of Al Quaeda – a lie
b) That Iraq had WMD’s – a lie
c) That S. Hussein was preparing to attack the United States with the WMD’sm – a lie
If it was up to me, I would take all 3 to The Hague and have them tried for war crimes. Do you have any idea how much grief these 3 men have caused?
As far the separation of church and state, don’t talk to me about intent because you weren’t there. The Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of worship – any worship. The moment you make the government a Christian government, you defranchise everyone who is not Christian. That is the LEGAL interpretation of the First Amendment as far as  religion goes.
Not all Americans are Christian and they are still Americans.Â
Â
Yes, Andrea, embrace your hatred, feel it fill you, pushing away all those unpleasant questions. Your enemies are not human with flaws and mistakes, they are evil beings to be destroyed. Let your hatred flow. Share it with everyone around you.
And when it has destroyed your life and consumed you, some might remember to mourn your passing.
So now the real andrea comes out. Pure BDS on display.
Bush says exactly the same thing about Hussein that Clinton says and BUSH is the liar. Bush gets exactly the same approval from Congress to invade Iraq that Clinton got and BUSH is the warmonger. Bush asks for and receives multiple UN votes and resolutions before going to war with Iraq and BUSH is the warmonger.
There is no sense in discussing things with you andrea. You have demonstrated the pure ideological foundation for your beliefs. Facts simply don’t matter to you.
I know that it isn’t nice to say things like this, but I have to admit that it does bother me that ignorance such as andrea displays is the sort of thing that leads one to vote for Obama. That does not portend well for the choice of President we will have in a few weeks.
And as if your ignorance of recent history isn’t enough to give one pause, your “understanding” of the Constitution really drives the point home.
Tell me andrea, have you ever read the Federalist Papers? Do you even know what they are? What side did Italy fight on in WWII? When FDR declared war on Germany, was it because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor? Was Lincoln a great President andrea? You do know he imprisoned editors and reporters for publishing unpleasant facts about the Civil War, right? Do you even know what the “Bay of Pigs” was, who authorized it, and who abandoned the poor men there to death and torture?
How old are you?
Ignorance is bliss…. no doubt.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Media’s Presidential Bias and Decline
Dishman: The World Court in The Hague administers justice; not hatred or revenge.
Hatred? listen to the evening news tonight – the neonazi plot in Tennessee. That is hatred.
Cosmic: I have not read the federalist papers. I am a scientist; not a historian. Italy fought first on the Axis side and switched to the Allies in 1943. We did not declare war on Germany; Germany did on us. Lincoln was indeed one of the greatest presidents this country ever had. The Bay of Pigs was initiated by Eisenhower and executed by Kennedy in April 1961. The Assault Brigade 2506 was for the most part captured. They were not tortured afterward although 9 men asphyxiated while being transported in an enclosed trailer. 5 of the men were also executed for alleged crimes they committed while they were in the army of Batista in 1958.
You are ridiculous lol
Can I quiz you now? Besides republican propaganda, what do you know?
Andrea wrote:
If it was up to me, I would take all 3 to The Hague and have them tried for war crimes.
Earlier, Andrea wrote:
Typical republican!!!
I stand by my assessment.
Have a good drown.
I do believe Barak Obama, if elected, will be a great president. His eloquence will be a great asset in the harsh times we face. I sense that he has inner strength and I also do believe that he will have the good sense of surrounding himself with the best advisers. He will need them for no president since FDR has inherited such a mess.
 His adversaries have sown every possible element of fear, suspicion, and inuendo in this election.The list is almost interminable: "the bad people", "the real America vs the
un-America", "socialist", "communist", "terrorist", "Arab", "Moslem…"
 We can see it in these columns. In the end, History will pass judgment.
andrea:
While you’re believing and sensing his eloquence and nuanced positions on things, there are a lot of people out there who are looking for something a little more concrete. Frankly, they don’t have much to go on with Obama. His record is thin, but what there is points to democratic socialism at best, and some associations he’s had *must* be questioned as he will be the Commander-in-Chief if elected.
I respect your passion for this candidate, but I find very little substance to your arguments supporting him or vilifying Bush. If you’re upset about the name calling, you might need thicker skin. As much as we dislike it, the extremes on either side say and *do* terrible things in the name of their party. That’s unfortunate, but it’s reality. In time, hopefully you’ll learn to see past the bluster of the pundits and other self-appointed defenders and offenders of a candidate. Instead, perhaps you will really think through the reasons why you support a candidate.Â
If you do that, I think you’d find that it is largely the Democrats that are responsible for our current financial crisis, with complicity from the Republicans. You would also understand that your desire to reduce the national debt will be poorly served by Obama, although I’m not sure McCain would be much better.
I’d also add that when you throw around accusations in the comments here, you’d better be prepared to back them up with linked evidence. For example, perhaps there was a stronger link between Bin Laden and Saddam than you realized. As for accusing Bush of lying, I’ll invoke Occam’s Razor: the simplest explanation is the most likely. Given two possibilities, incorrect intelligence assessments or a massive conspiracy to deceive Congress and the American people, I’ll take the incorrect assessments.Â
Where we went from there is a matter of debate. Clearly we had every right to be in Iraq, as Saddam was in routine violation of the conditions of surrender in 1991; this fact is supported by the U. N without dispute. There is certainly a case to be made for how the war was handled post-invasion, but hindsight is 20/20; just ask Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Kennedy and Johnson.
I for one hope you’ll stick around to discuss issues, but I do hope you’ll bring a little more "umph!" with you next time. More substance, less buzz, please.
Keith: Would you be kind enough to define "democratic socialism" or rather social democracy – which is the historic name?
And perhaps you’d kindly point out some countries out there as examples of that doctrine.
On the other issue, Iraq, Bush did not have a peg leg to stand on to justify that invasion and that is why we went alone, with the Brits. Had we had a case, we would have had 15 nations with us, as in 1991
that arrogance has alienated the entire world from us. we can not just go out there bombing people because we don’t like their governments – the Bush doctrine
Keith: Would you be kind enough to define "democratic socialism" or rather social democracy – which is the historic name?
I stand corrected, Obama is better considered a social democrat. For more information, you can read the relationship between the two here.
On the other issue, Iraq, Bush did not have a peg leg to stand on to justify that invasion and that is why we went alone, with the Brits.
Your logic confounds me: we went alone with the Brits? If I recall, there have been 34 countries who have lent support in the form of logistics or troops to the effort. Your oversight of this is an insult to their efforts, but I’ve come to expect this.
Had we had a case, we would have had 15 nations with us, as in 1991
There are multiple resolutions that Saddam was in violation of; they are best delineated in the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. This is the same resolution which was broadly supported by both parties and which it should be noted, Obama was not able to vote on as he was not yet a Senator.
that arrogance has alienated the entire world from us. we can not just go out there bombing people because we don’t like their governments – the Bush doctrine
I’ve given this some consideration over the years. I’ve considered isolationism, interventionism and preemption. I suggest that if we withdraw our forces from around the world, including Europe, we surrender significant leverage in world affairs. While it may not be the most popular position amongst the world, if we do not assume the role, someone else will, and they may not be very friendly to freedom and liberal values. If we do not maintain this role, who are you comfortable having in our place? Russia? China?
No, we did not have U. N. Security Council approval to go into Iraq. Who voted against it? China, Russia and France. Each of those had their own interests in voting against our action there, largely financial ones. Each of those countries wears the blood of innocent Iraqi citizens on their hands, and in my mind, if you consciously agree with them while knowing this, you are complicit as well. I chalk up most anti-war rhetoric to partisanship, and I suspect that’s the case here as well.
andrea:
I stand corrected; Obama is better described as a Social Democrat, but I think you understand where I meant by the remark. You can read about the relationship between the two here.
And here is the peg leg Bush had to justify invasion.
On the other issue, Iraq, Bush did not have a peg leg to stand on to justify that invasion and that is why we went alone, with the Brits.
Your logic confounds me. There are 34 nations who have lent support to the efforts there. Your oversight of this is insulting to each of them. You may be alienating them with such derision.
While being the most powerful country certainly buys you the envy of the world, it also comes with a responsibility to act in the interests security; and freedom of the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator made the US more secure. Do you really think we’d be better off with him there, trying to hide some sort of program, threatening his neighbors and killing his own while Iran and North Korea are developing nuclear capabilities?Â
I’m sure you’ll determine that Iraq was all about oil, and to a point, you would be correct. But it was also about security and the freedom of the Iraqi people. Those nations opposed to our action each had financial interests in protecting Saddam, and as such, they have the blood of innocent Iraqi’s on their hands.  If your position is with them, then that’s your choice. I suspect you’re poorly informed or simply partisan. In either case, it should be interesting to see how a President Obama and Democratic Congress reframe Iraq. I predict it will become a good war after the election and I look forward to seeing how it’s cast.
Andrea, it wasn’t just the US and UK. There were 4 countries involved in the initial invasion:Â
http://tinyurl.com/yggpwe
In total, more than 60 countries joined the coalition:
http://tinyurl.com/26l7ce
That is hardly "alienating the entire world."
Sorry for the double response, but it seems there’s a delay on comment postings, so I ended up essentially repeating myself. Oh well.
a) Sadam hussein was an accomplice of Al Quaeda – a lie
This, of course, is a vicious hatemongering lie. No one in the Bush administration ever uttered any such lie. You may not know it’s a lie because you’re ill-informed, but vicious hatemongering lie it is.
b) That Iraq had WMD’s – a lie
This, too, is a vicious hatemongering lie. Not only we, but every other intelligence service in the democratic world all believed he had them.
Again, you may just be repeating the lies of others because you haven’t educated yourself sufficiently, but vicious hatemongering lie it remains.
c) That S. Hussein was preparing to attack the United States with the WMD’sm – a lie
It’s not exactly a lie you’re repeating here, just a questionable assertion. Since Saddam had a habit of attacking us and our allies, and was still doing so, we had every reason to believe that might continue and that he might use the WMDs that most every intelligent observer around the world believed he had, and might well give or sell them to terrorists (which he was in the habit of aiding directly or indirectly), it was reasonable to say that it was no longer prudent to leave him in power once we’d been shown that some terrorists were so nuts they’d pilot airplanes into buildings.
Honestly, though, you’re so ill-informed about these things it’s sad, but it’s also sadly common. If you’re interested in being de-programmed from false information, let us know. Otherwise, I guess you can continue on in happy ignorance. Your choice. Just don’t be proud of it if so.
Dean: why don’y you listen to the speeches by the leaders of the administration in 2002 and 2003; all the barrage of misinformation trying to justify the war in Iraq?
I have no more sympathy for Saddam Hussein than any of you. But he was Baas – secular and socialist – the last thing he would have done was to support a fundamentalist religion revival for that would have been his end.
The Bush administration not only misrepresented and manipulated the intel to justify the assault on Iraq; it also made the fatal blunder of weaking the Afghanistan expedition  at the moment when we had OB Laden cornered. WE could have finished them right there. But he escaped.
What an ignorance!! or was it?
 I wonder if the governement was interested in winning at all. I remember all the talk about a 30 year war. It sounded to me like a pretext to reach onto the oil fields.
As long as the war continued, we would have a presence in the Middle East, wouldn’t we?
I meant "weakening the Afghanistan…"
Comments on this entry are closed.