Hanging Together
by BradfordSpeaking of intellectual honesty this looks like a case of academia protecting its own:
adobe acrobat new version Download Adobe Creative Suite 5 Web Premium software crack for adobe photoshop cs adobe acrobat writer 50 for download Download Adobe InCopy CS5 for Mac software adobe premiere 6 5 demo adobe photoshop manual pdf Download Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 software adobe photoshop basic training adobe illustrator cs23 download Download Adobe Dreamweaver CS5 software adobe photoshop 8 serialz adobe premiere pro tryout expired Download Adobe Creative Suite 5 Design Premium software adobe photoshop free evaluation adobe photoshop free trail Download Adobe Photoshop CS5 Extended software adobe cs2 creative suite activation code adobe download full premiere Download Adobe Creative Suite 5 Master Collection software serial adobe premiere cs3 adobe photoshop elements documentation Download Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended software adobe creative suite mac download adobe photoshop camera raw Download Adobe Premiere Pro CS5 software free download adobe acrobat writer adobe photoshop effects tutorials Download Adobe Illustrator CS5 software adobe acrobat 7.0 professional download crack
-
Featured Books
The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene 
Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body 
Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology 
System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts 
The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart 
Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge 
Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris 
Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey 
The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies 
Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch 
Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman 
Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur 
Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee 
The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards 
The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold 
The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet 
Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb 
The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse
October 25th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Really? Looks like a smear campaign against Obama to me.
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 25, 2008 @ 6:59 am
October 25th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Perhaps that's the motive (protecting Obama) for academics to protect Bill Ayers. But it's not very intellctually honest to pretend this is about a "rehabilitated" Ayers when it is really about who should be president. As for whether or not the relationship of a candidate to a Bill Ayers type is a legitimate issue, Leef had it right. If instead of a history, described as a far leftist terrorist, we were taliking about a former Ku Klux Klan member who had a relationship to McCain or Palin the matter would be a central focus of the mainstream media, particularly NBC and CNBC.
Comment by Bradford — October 25, 2008 @ 9:55 am
October 25th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Hi Bradford,
We don't have to deal in hypotheticals.
Shall we do a compare and contrast of the "mainstream media" treatment of the McCain and G. Gordon Liddy relationship?
What is your complaint?
Are you complaining or just trying to keep a republican talking point alive and well, even on Telic Thoughts blog?
Intellectual Honesty?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 25, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
October 25th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Since the blog theme is intellectual honesty let's stay with it. G. Gordon Liddy was a convicted burgler (of Watergate fame). William Ayers was a terrorist active in an organization that bombed and murdered. Worse yet Ayers has not recanted this part of his life. You see the two as morally equivalent?
Yes, intellectual honesty. News coverage is demonstrably slanted, not only with respect to politics but concerning almost any controversial topic out there. The two networks I cited are open cheerleaders. Partisan news coverage- a disgrace. Where's Edward R. Morrow when we need him?
Comment by Bradford — October 25, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
October 25th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Hi Bradford,
You asked…
Did/does Liddy recant his past?
On Fox News in the name of Bill O'Reilly?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 25, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
October 25th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
I am curious how this works in the US. In the UK TV and radio for the most part is non-partisan, and I suspect the BBC sets the standard there, and the independent channels have to conform to compete. The national newspapers are different, with some clearly slanted to the left (liberal/socialist), and rather more to the right (conservative), and I can only think of one newspaper that is non-partisan.
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 25, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
October 25th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Pixie:
In the USA television and radio broadcasting as well as newspapers are for the most part corporately run enterprises. The giant corporation General Electric is the parent company of NBC and CNBC. They have to make a profit to contiune broadcasting and publishing. Of course large profits are preferable. This can account for what I think is sleezy and often slanted news coverage. That and some evolution in cultural values.
Editorials are the right place for opinions. I do think it is dangerous for a society when news reporting is deliberately biased to suit the views of reporters or management. It should be a matter of ethics to report relevant facts while keeping personal bias out of stories. Ethics should be taken seriously.
Comment by Bradford — October 25, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
October 25th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Which should taken more seriously, ethics or morals?
Is it ethical for news agencies to make a big deal about private, immoral acts?
For the record, would you agree with me that the media's actions during their coverage the Lewinsky scandal were unethical?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 25, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
October 26th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Morals. Ethical standards flow from moral values.
It was overdone but those parts linked to truth telling were relevant. And there is this:
This is rich. A Marxist terrorist anarchist wearing a Maoist red star on his shirt is pestered by a reporter and invokes property rights (!) to get the reporter to leave him alone. He then calls the police (!), the same public servants he conspired with other Weathermen to murder in the 1970s, to escort him to his car.
Comment by Bradford — October 26, 2008 @ 1:05 am
October 26th, 2008 at 2:37 am
Hi Bradford,
Let me get this straight. You start a thread that begins with "Speaking of intellectual honesty…" and then proceed to use Telic Thoughts blog to promote the major talking point of your preferred presidential candidate. This is followed with an accusation of how a biased media would react in a hypothetical situation while dismissing non-hypothetical evidence.
And now you approvingly link to Bill O'Reilly and a Fox news reporter ambushing a reluctant 63 year old man saying "This is my property, would you please leave?"
Are we to take these as intellectual honest actions because the people involved were morally righteous?
Who cares if a few ethical rules get bent in the process (like implying the design on Ayers' T-shirt is significant), right? After all "Ethical standards flow from moral values". The simple, honest application of ethical standards regardless of personal biases isn't good enough, right?
Is Bill O'Reilly an example of what you mean by intellectual honesty?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 26, 2008 @ 2:37 am
October 26th, 2008 at 9:11 am
TP, if you want ta good indicator of a double standard try the mirror strategy. Keep Obama and Bill Reilly out of this for they are irrelevant. Also try and restrain the emotional factor.
Bill Ayers was a terrorist. His organization, the Weatherman, bombed to kill and destroy property. They represented an extremist fringe. Ayers' history is not only played down or ignored, his image is intentionally "rehabilitated" within parts of academia.
Use the mirror. What's the equivalency? A bomber who kills and destroys property only from the other extreme of the spectrum. The writer nailed it. An abortion terrorist. He also had it right on target in pointing out that the media would not let that go. They would have hammered McCain on a daily basis for an association with an abortion terrorist.
The intellectually honest thing to do is acknowledge the double standard rather than introduce irrelevancies like Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly is not needed to make the case for a double standard. Vote for whom you wish. But I'm going to point out evidence for biased press coverage whenever it rears its ugly head. It's telling that your focus would be on one individual- O'Reilly- when entire newspapers and broadcasting stations have become part of partisan campaigning. It doesn't stop with a presidential election. The bias can be found in reporting about healthcare, religion, education, science and other issues. It's unethical.
Comment by Bradford — October 26, 2008 @ 9:11 am
October 26th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Are you going to honestly try to convince me and the listening audience that your sudden interest in Bill Ayers has nothing to do with McCain's, Bill O'Reilly's (and Fox News in general) desire to engage in negative attacks on Obama?
Note, my comment prior to the last one focused on ethics in media in general (no mention of McCain, Obama, Ayers or Bill O'Reilly). Your response to this was to provide a link to Bill O'Reilly engaging in gotcha journalism.
So, unemotionally, what were your trying to demonstrate by giving us an example Bill O'Reilly's journalistic style?
George Washington was a terrorist and a traitor. Zionists were terrorists. Oliver North supported terrorism.
I truly hope you realize the use of the term "terrorist" is inherently emotional and generally used for propaganda purposes, especially lately.
There are plenty of potential actions that could be considered as bad if not worse. Abortion bombers is one. How about the criminal actions that took place in during the seige of Falluga? There is documented evidence the illegal use of chemical weapons (White Phosphorus) were used. The international media was all over that story but it was hardly mentioned in the United States.
I happen to think G. Gordon Liddy is an equivalent situation. He advocated the killing of ATF agents. I suspect, for some reason, you don't consider that terrorism even though, at the time, it added to the fear and devisiveness in the country.
If you are truly suggesting that McCain and Obama are actually irrelevant to to this discussion, there are plenty to domestic terrorists we could talk about…
Kathy Boudin, Mark Rudd, Cathy Wilkerson, Jeff Jones and many more were just as culpable for the actions of the Underground Weathermen as Bill Ayers, if not more so. These people are alive and most are actively engaged in modern political activities.
If Obama is "irrelevant" to this discussion then why weren't these other people mentioned before now?
As for right wing terrorism, have you heard of Andreas Strassmeir? It seems that he was part of a right wing terrorist group taking its lead from a book titled The Turner Diaries. The Turner Diaries is a suggested future history of what will happen if and when the government finally outlaws private gun ownership.
"Earl Turner and his fellow patriots face this question and are forced underground when the U.S. government bans the private possession of firearms and stages the mass Gun Raids to round up suspected gun owners. The hated Equality Police begin hunting them down, but the patriots fight back with a campaign of sabotage and assassination."link
I understand this book is freely handed out at gun shows by rightwing patriots fighting terrorism and illegal immigration. The link I provided is a complete on line version.
After Timothy McVeigh was executed, significant evidence (phone records, matching blasting caps) was found linking McVeigh to Strassmeir and his group.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 26, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
October 26th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
P.S….
I agree that unethical "bias can be found in reporting", but I disagree it only happens in one direction. The unethical bias of the media during the Lewinski scandal and the run-up and early stages of the Iraq war bordered on out-and-out negligence in the part of the "fourth branch".
It is all the more reason to provoke independent thinking.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 26, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
October 26th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
How often do you listen to O'Reilly? Not very often I gather. He has criticized both candidates but he was not the one who brought Ayers to my attention.
Go back to the blog entry itself. You'll find Ayers mentioned there. As the writer correctly pointed out Ayers' whining about property rights is more than a little ironic.
Ayers is a hypocrite and protected because he is a left wing rather than a right wing extremist.
I suspect there are a lot of politicians who secretly agree with what you wrote but who lack the intellectual honesty to come out and say so. Best to keep quiet and pander to mainstream voters by saying things they don't believe in. By doing so they keep their highly paid kushy jobs allowing them to lord it over average working Americans. FYI, Washington was a soldier who history documents as having been brave and daring and willing to fight other soldiers. He did not plant bombs which blew up non-combatants. That's Ayers' style. That and sneaking away like a coward. Those flying planes into buildings are terrorists. My father fought in WWII. If you can't distinguish soldiers from terrorists you have become part of the problem.
Comment by Bradford — October 26, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
October 26th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
TP:
Right. Their actions are repugnant. So are RW terrorists. Let me know if any of them host the kick-off campaign party for any politicians you know of.
He is irrelevant to Ayers' character. He is not irrelevant to explaining press coverage.
Comment by Bradford — October 26, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
October 26th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Hi Bradford,
If you think Fox News in general and Bill O'Reilly specifically represents ethical and balanced reporting it is no wonder that you think all the other major new agencies are biased against your personal worldview.
For the record, besides Bill O'Reilly and Fox News is there any one or any news group you would concede as relatively unbiased?
WorldNetDaily?
You wrote….
You position on this is getting a little confusing. So this is about trying to make negative statements on Obama's candidacy after all?
I doubt anyone will be surprised by this.
However, if Obama's relationship with Ayers is relevant, then McCain's relationship with G. Gordon Liddy is also relevant.
Shall we do a quick compare and contrast of the news coverage for both?
Would it bother you in the slightest that the campaign party in question was for Alice Palmer, not Obama?
Are you just assuming your "unbiased" news source wouldn't mislead you into thinking Obama actually "pals around with terrorists" when the charge is murky at best?
For extra points, other than three Weathermen being blown up by their own bombs, did the Weathermen actually kill anyone? If so, who?
It helps to do your own independing fact checking and independently thinking about it.
Either that, or just assume Bill O'Reilly is a modern-day "Edward R. Morrow" rather than someone who is more concerned about promoting righteousness than ethical journalism.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 26, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
October 26th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Bradford:
No, they're not equivalent. Liddy's a convicted felon. Ayers was never convicted of any crimes. Sure, that's because in the case of the Weathermen the government's own actions were so illegal that they couldn't convict him. But of course, I think the Johns Poindexter and Negroponti should have been tried for crimes against humanity for their parts in the Iran-Contra 'affair' as well as native genocides, mass murder and organized torture in Central America in the 1980s. They still make lots of gub'ment money.
Um… come on, Bradford. Tell the truth. The Weathermen did bomb buildings. Empty ones. Some of them planned to kill innocents, but they succeeded only in killing themselves. The breakaways of this SDS breakaway did do an armored car heist that killed guards. For that crime (yes, it was a crime that did not require the US Army to deal with, a good thing since the Guard was busy murdering students at Kent State instead) they were convicted to consecutive life terms. Ayers was not among them.
My sister joined SDS her first year in college, quit in '69 when the Weathermen split off. While her involvement did cause my husband some problems getting his security clearance for the Silent Service (decided not to go to Canada), it wasn't an issue for her husband's clearance to become a general. Go figure.
By the way, Eric Robert Rudolph hid out in my neck of the woods for years despite the entire might of the FBI actively attempting to track him down. He was a bomber, a murderer, an "abortion terrorist." The locals kept him fed and clothed all that time, you know. He was a regular hero until he decided he'd be more comfortable in prison. None of them have ever been charged or convicted either.
Obama was 8 years old and living in Indonesia when Ayers was an active Weatherman bomber. The two met because they both served on the board of a Chicago project of the Annenberg Foundation in 1995. Ayers is a free citizen, a university professor, and educational activist.
I know a number of unsavory characters from all corners of life. America's chock full of crazy secessionists, white supremacists, ex-Weathermen, 'rehabilitated' draft dodgers, political subversives, civil rights activists, mass and individual murderers, wife-beaters, child molesters, unholy middle management types, corporate raiders, economy-busters and other assorted low-lifes. Do you now know or have you ever known any of them, for any reason?
Sheesh! By your measuring stick if you had made good on Christ's advice to visit prisoners, you'd be guilty of being what the people in prison are!
I wonder why John McCain never asked Sarah Palin that question. He might have made a better choice, had half a chance to loot the nation awhile longer. Too bad…
Comment by Joy — October 26, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
October 26th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
The point being that people doing such things are really not so bad? Here is Ayers' take on that part of his life:
I've heard Obama say that but since he was never accused of complicity in the bombings what is the point of his being 8 years old?
And Ollie North lives a fine upstanding life now too. If this guy's indiscretions were commited as a dedicated right winger, who bombed an empty abortion clinic, no subsequent successful career would have salvaged his reputation.
Hardly. At the core of Christian teaching is the need for repentence; something Ayers is loathe to do. I'll assume for the sake of argument that Ayers is a good professor. He has not altered his political views and hosted a fund raising party for Obama when Obama was starting his political career in Illinois. Obama may think the guy's views are all wet. But let him say that instead of pointing out he was 8 years old.
Loot the country as in 700 billion in bailout money voted for by Obama and Biden too? 100 billion of that was pork. Bridges to nowhere by the 100 billion. What hypocrisy to harp on a bridge and then vote for vastly more wasteful spending weeks later. Check the economic news. It looks like that 700 billion is not saving us after all. Why would the Dems cozy up to Bush on something like that? Strange bedfellows.
Comment by Bradford — October 26, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
October 26th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
TP, don't start misquoting me. I never commented on Fox News and my comments about O'Reilly were specific to the topic at hand. He has indeed criticized both McCain and Obama. That's a fact. No spin needed. You were the one who linked Edward R. Morrow to O'Reilly, not me. You wrote:
If you can't be honest and accurate in what you attribute to me don't bother commenting.
Comment by Bradford — October 26, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
October 27th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Hi Bradford,
My statement started off with that big two letter word "IF".
I did not accuse you or misquote you.
I find it almost amusing the "fact" that O'Reilly "criticized" McCain for not being right wing enough on things like illegal immigration or the need to feel the pain of the voters in order to beat Obama is significant to a discussion about balanced reporting.
So, unemotionally and without misquoting you, do you feel O'Reilly is a reliable news source?
Do you think Fox News, in general, is a reliable news source?
Do you think Fox News, in general, is biased? If so, in which direction?
Is there any news source you consider reliable and unbiased?
Personally, I like to think for myself so I look at many news sources with a critical eye. It is my hope and expectation that any biases they have does not influence me.
I'm going to bed now. You might want to consider doing the same. Note, that in a thread on intellectual honesty you criticized Obama and Biden for the same vote McCain made, yet chose not to mention the whole truth.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 27, 2008 @ 12:09 am
October 27th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Control of our borders is not "right wing." If our right to control who enters this country has become right wing we are in bad trouble. And no, our immigration policy is not mean to aliens although it is stupid in that we limit visas to skilled workers who can aid our economy. Guess who opposes more leniant policies toward foreign workers? That's right. Big labor which opposes McCain. McCain should have opposed the bailout. It was a big mistake on his part.
O' Reilly is an interviewer and someone who editorializes. He is not a news reporter except in that an interviewed guest might reveal news during the interview. His reporting is connected to his interviews and editorials in most cases.
The news reporters are as fair as those of competing networks. Better than NBC and CNBC. Much of the station is dedicated to shows like O'Reilly's and Hannity and Colmes, Greta van Sustern etc. These shows include commentary which is identified as opinion. Colmes and Van Sustern are not conservative.
In general it leans to the right of center. Most stations lean to the left. The NY Times leans over sharply in the leftist direction.
Not completely. They are all run by humans.
You need to read more critically. The word too follows Obama and Biden. That's a reference to McCain.
Comment by Bradford — October 27, 2008 @ 12:32 am
October 27th, 2008 at 10:13 am
TP,
Obama's dishonesty begins at the very core of his being, it just blossoms out from there. I do spend a lot of time watching all kinds of news programs, and across the board we hear from the more liberal side of the media how we are about to elect the first black president. Or how often we also hear things like race being such a big factor, on both sides, that we don't want to vote for him because he is black, or that we should vote for him because he is black….
Problem is, he's not black. Nor is he white. He is a half breed or hybrid (depending on how you view it) I say this as a Korean/european hybrid. He is lying to himself everyday he gets up and says how he is a black man. As to the point of race in this election it should be a celebration and of significantly greater importance that we in America are about to elect a true product of the melting pot….but no, it's about capturing the black vote through some falsly projected relationship with him. He's playing at something, for his own agenda.
He is an amazing orator to be sure. But his very limited experience and barely existent voting record should've handicapped him enough to have to stay in the senate awhile and earn the experience needed to be president. He said so himself in 2005. I would absolutly vote for a black president or any color for that manner, of either gender also, but only if they are qualified for the job.
History is full of leaders who were excellent speakers and took advantage of societies in economic downtimes with a dumbed down and weakened populace…..
Comment by Kuma — October 27, 2008 @ 10:13 am
October 27th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Bradford:
Ayers' reputation is well deserved and he has obviously not pretended otherwise. That has not earned him any jail time nor prevented him from becoming a tenured professor, but you are of course as free to complain to his school's administration just like is regularly done against professors who might reveal a suspicion about intelligent design. Just don't get your hopes up that your complaints would actually get him fired.
Unless you have real, verifiable evidence that Obama knew about Ayers' past life when they sat on the board and/or approves of Ayers' past life of crime, you're just whistling Dixie. Whistling Dixie won't prevent Obama from being the next President of the United States, and in case you're wallowing around in the rest of the cesspool of Turdblossom smears, Hawaii is indeed a state and not a foreign country.
Obama repeatedly decried Ayers' involvement back when this smear first raised its ugly head many long months ago. Thus your whining is too little too late – vote-counting takes place on exactly one week. As for me, I have already voted because my state actually did something to address the stolen elections of the recent past. Along with more than a third of all registered voters in my state, and our early voting continues through this coming weekend. Thus these desperate, last-ditch efforts to influence the election – based on an antiquated illusion about how elections are conducted in this country – is pretty darned pitiful. It is entirely possible that the race has already been decided, the results right now sitting in the box.
If you really believe this mess will only cost us $700 billion you need to go back and view the desperate pleading of Mister Paulson again. It's merely a cash-out, and all the pork is golden parachutes for economic criminals. Paulson – that would be Bush's Treasury Secretary – wanted all the money right now with zero oversight and an open line of credit to the Fed so he could steal more. And his dire threats to the nation in order to justify this heist was more certifiably designed than life is.
Thus, much like the so-called "Patriot Act" in response to 9-11, we got a patchwork piece of must-have legislation that promised a bailout but didn't give it to Paulson and isn't going without oversight. AIG and Bear-Stearns have both reneged on their junket-and-bonus plans as soon as they became public and the public very firmly said 'no'. That doesn't mean they aren't still going to rob us blind, it just means they'll have to stop talking about it in public.
Notice that nationalizing the mortgage industry and wiping out investment banks has not led to freeing up the credit market, the reason for the bailout and the only thing that would have prevented another Great Depression. They are KEEPING the money, planned to do so all along. Luckily for us, it's all just dead trees (or mere electrons) and no longer affiliated with anything that could remotely be considered valuable. We can always come back to the 91% tax bracket for these criminals and apply that Patriot Act's banking clauses to them in the interests of National Security so their offshore accounts get wiped. No one but those criminals (and some crazy, hypnotized wingers who understand nothing) will mind.
Yeah. Actual real threats to National Security and the stability of the nation do generate some of these. Bush held a briefing for the candidates a week or so ago about his 'new' plans in Iraq now that the Iraqi government is insisting we get the hell out and let them govern themselves. Sarah Palin was not invited, presumably because she does not have (or qualify for) a high enough security clearance to know these things. Besides, she is going home to Wasilla next week with nothing but a new high-dollar wardrobe. So she will not have her little hubby problem (connection to that plastic explosives deal gone bad and Iranian sponsorship) waived by executive order come January 20.
There are no "perfect politicians," never will be any. Obama was not my first choice, or even my second or third. But he will be the next POTUS, so you might want to try getting used to the idea.
Comment by Joy — October 27, 2008 @ 11:44 am
October 27th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Hi Bradford,
Reviewing my comment in the morning light, I see your spin wasn't a large as I originally thought. When I first saw your "too", I had read it as a claim that Obama and Biden were part of the "Dems cozy up" to Bush.
As I hope we all know, both the Democratic and Republican congressional leaders and both presidential candidates voted for the bailout package, not just the "Dems".
I too question the wisdom of that particular legislation. However, I am also sensitive to the difficulties in choosing between doing something that may, or may not, be harmful and doing nothing which definately would be harmful, at least in the short run.
I have a lot of respect for Van Sustern. She works hard and does her job well. She covers legal proceedings quite well. Unfortunately, not many people have the patience for actually understanding the details of the issue. I suggest most of Fox News' loyal following would rather simply blame the elite, liberal media for most of the political problems in this country.
As for Colmes… well… I understand the orignal working title of the show was Hannity vs Liberal to be Determined and the focus hasn't changed much since then.
On NBC's side, Joe Scarborough has is own show.
Would you suggest Kelly O'Donnell and David Gregory are liberal?
I understand Savannah Guthrie is NBCs version of Van Sustern, but I haven't seen much of her as I have Van Sustern.
In short, I suggest that the news biases aren't as one sided as a lot of people suggest. To hear mediamatters.org talk, you would think the mass media had an extreme CONSERVATIVE bias.
As usual, there is some merit in complaints from both sides.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 27, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
October 27th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Hi Kuma,
This internet is an amazing tool. With just a little work you can usually find whatever information you are looking for. For example, with a quick Google search I found all sorts of news articles asking the question as to whether or not Obama will become the first black president. However, I did not see a single one making this a declaration or even a prediction. In fact, I found several pointing out how Obama was downplaying the idea to the point that it was clear he wanted to keep it from distracting the more relavent aspects of his campaign.
Maybe you will have better luck. Can you find a news article substantiating either of your claims?
(Hint, links to sites like http://www.rushlimbaugh.com and http://www.freerepublic.com won't be very persuasive).
One more question, do you think Palin is more qualified to be president (if needed) than Obama?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 27, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
October 27th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Kuma:
Alas, the way our system works the Presidency is pretty much on-the-job training deal. That's why there's a cabinet to choose, a bevy of career policy wonks with experience, and two other co-equal branches of government to oversee the executive. We mostly get to vote temperament and style.
McCain has had zero experience as President. Palin has zero experience as Veep, and doesn't even have a clue as to what the Veep's job actually is under the US Constitution – despite having had plenty of time to look it up. Obama and Biden have zero experience in the jobs too. The only time you ever get to vote for someone experienced at being President/Veep is when an incumbent team is running for a second term. They don't get thirds.
For temperament and style, I'll go with the thoughtful, mild-mannered, experienced Constitutional attorney and Senator rather than the elderly, foul-mouthed, raging misogynistic hothead whose trophy wife (adulterously wooed) bought him a Senate seat and who thinks crashing jets and dropping bombs entitles him to leadership of the free world. Just a personal preference, YMMV.
Comment by Joy — October 27, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
October 27th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
True of course but he has vastly more experience as a Senator than Obama.
Palin's comment that the Constitution allowed the Vice-President authority to work with the Senate to further excecutive branch policies is not in the wording of the Constitution although as a practical matter a Vice-President could speak with Senators if that is what is meant by "work with." Biden also erred in the debate:
Article II defines the Executive, not Article I. The only constitutionally specified duty of the Vice President (a legislative duty) appears in Article I; the section describing the Legislative Branch:
Comment by Bradford — October 27, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
October 27th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Bradford:
You must have missed the re-take on that question. The one where she completely redefined the job of VPOTUS -
Bzzzzzzt! Wrong answer, dear. You should have taken that remedial civics class when you had the chance. And you're concerned over a misstatement of articles?
Given that Biden has been in the Senate for four decades, I'll trust him to handle the tie-breaker contingency. If it should ever arise, which is looking less and less likely by the day.
Comment by Joy — October 27, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
October 27th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
I'm not concerned. Misstatements are common during campaigns. Being linguistically inclined I was amused when earlier in the campaign Obama complained about the difficulties in getting enough translators for the war in Afghanistan. He complained that translators were limited and they were all in Iraq. That made it harder to use them in Afghanistan. Actually the real reason has to do with Arabic and Kurdish being the dominant languages in Iraq while Pashto and Farsi are the dominant languages in Afghanistan. There are plenty of Obama/Biden bloopers. No matter. Partisan politics magnifies these things while important issues like misregulation of the banking business and the subsequent debacle leading to the 700 billion disgrace are underplayed even as consequences continue to plague us.
Comment by Bradford — October 27, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 9:37 am
TP, Joy,
Thanks for your responses, sorry it took me so long to get back to you.
I have to make this brief, TP, I need look no further to find the subtle use of the incorrect race card than Obama's own web adds. Specifically the ones which say "Help us make history, vote." Sorry I know it's a paraphrase.
But I ask you, what history is he trying to make on election day? None of his policies will be able to be in place that day…. It's about voting for the 1st black president ( let us remember that he is not black, but a halfbreed).
He's misrepresenting himself from the onset.
Also listen to his celebrity endorsements, I think it was T.L. Hughley (sorry about the spelling) who said this weekend within the span of about 10 minutes of airtime that people should vote for him because he's black or that he is the next black president about 15-20 times……literally.
Everyone I talk to, that is supporting Obama is projecting what they think he should be when discussing him. He has such an open ended message that anyone can fill in the blanks of "what is change?" with whatever they want and that's the way Obama wants it. He can't be all things to all people… and yet many people think this is the case, but it's just not possible. So I ask you who is going to get burned on this one?
And as much as I know you will blast me for this, there is an underlying narrative to Obama's life….socialism. While I don't care who he served on boards with, most of the people (by his own admission and description) he has made close ties with have had very deep seated views about marxism and it's offshoots. This is not good for America.
It can be described in the very biological and evolutionary terms we often use on this board. Freedom (both to succeed and fail) promotes evolution through the more aggresive fitness landscape it presents, socialism promotes stagnation of the individual. We are not created equal unfortunatly and we must realize this.
Personally I am a centrist who values the power of the individual to make changes for the betterment of the whole. We definetly need change in our country, we can all agree on that. What we need however is a sense of community without sacrificing the individuals ability to evolve to their maximum potential.
Democracy has not yet failed us, we have allowed ourselves to fail democracy.
The pigs with their dogs are at the gates, will we let them run the farm?
Comment by Kuma — October 29, 2008 @ 9:37 am
October 29th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Bradford:
Glad to hear it, Bradford. Someone could make a career of simply highlighting misstatements during election season, since the poor candidates have to spent months (or, in this campaign, years) on the road, 3 or 4 stops a day, flying hither and yon, never letting their internal clocks catch up, and not sleeping very much. It's a gauntlet, not a very good way of choosing leaders. Unless we want our leaders continually jet-lagged and stretched beyond endurance. I'd personally wish great, on-top-of-it teams of advisors, plenty of rest and more than once-a-month sex for our leadership, but that last did manage to get Bill Clinton in a lot of trouble (no, he didn't retire to become a spokesperson for Viagra).
Yet when it's all said and done, it really is all about broad policy, intelligence and temperament. Even if John McCain were 48 (like Obama) and not 73 (like he is), he himself admits he is rash, headstrong and impulsive. People around him admit he's also mean, vindictive and has a way too short fuse. These weaknesses are reflected in his choice of Veep, who is honestly unqualified to even be governor of Alaska. Her own legislature agrees, but corrupt Alaska politicians also seem to be an institution there (i.e., Ted Stevens, convicted this week on all felony counts). She can't get an honestly vetted security clearance, she's married to a secessionist – she'd have to have a waiver, and then we could all wonder what Shadow Todd is doing with all that National Security information. Poor ol' McCain just has a weakness for beauty queens. That also is more rash and shallow than I want in national leadership.
Worse, he's really NOT about "Country First" and never was. He wrote in 2002 in his book Worth the Fighting For…
It's about a "prize" he thinks is owed him, an "ambition" for which he's shown he'll sell his soul. This is not what our nation needs in time national and international crisis. Really.
Comment by Joy — October 29, 2008 @ 11:51 am
October 29th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Kuma:
"Incorrect" racial designation? Wow, Kuma. Just… wow.
No, he is not misrepresenting himself. Barack Obama is who and what he is, and we do not use racial designations in this country that include "halfbreed." This is because in this great ethnic and cultural melting pot, everyone is some of this and a little of that. At least one (and possibly 3) of Thomas Jefferson's children were your version of "halfbreed." Those descendants self-identify as African-American to this day.
Here in the United States we use different sorts of designations for census purposes. African-American, Native-American, Caucasian, Asian, etc. And various self-designated combos thereof. I am Scots-Irish-French-Scandinavian-Anglo-Saxon. My hubby is Scots-English-Cherokee-Choctaw. [Note: one can legitimately self-identify, be on the rolls and receive benefits as Cherokee - Eastern or Western Band - on 1/4 bloodline].
Barack Obama is, in plain, easy-to-understand terms, African-American. I don't see how anyone could argue that – his father was Kenyan, his mother was Kansan. That's about as AA as it could possibly get. Now, you or I or anyone else could vote for or against him due to his African heritage or his Anglo heritage, couldn't we? But that's not why I voted for Barack Obama because his shade of tan isn't an issue for me. It obviously is an issue for you. Vote accordingly if it bothers you, I know several people who won't vote for him no matter how much better a choice he is than John McCain just because they don't like his tan (or his wife, or his daughters). Bigotry is unfortunately alive and well in the US today.
I think it's very sad that the only way Republicans think they can pull it out against the better candidate is to play the race card and try every dirty trick in the book to prevent dark-skinned Americans from voting. I sure hope it doesn't work, though in some states it might. That's a shame, an offense against the Constitution and the law, and should be dealt with accordingly for what it is. As Obama has been saying for years, we are all Americans.
Those who judge a man by the color of his skin and not by the content of his character. They are bound to be sorely disappointed come November 5th.
Well, I could go on and on about George W. Bush and his Sec.Treas. socializing the mortgage industry, the banks, the insurance bigwigs, etc., but this form of socialism isn't the kind that is designed to benefit the many. It's a form of statism, more properly termed "National Socialism" – Corporate Authoritarianism.
Barack Obama isn't socialist enough for me. That's why he was not my first, second or third choice for Democratic candidate. I want universal health care, capital gains and dividend income taxes to pay for infrastructure and other government programs that do benefit the many. I want high school graduates to be able to go to college without going into debt, even if their parents aren't rich. I want serious regulation of food and drugs, I want science to play a larger role in agricultural and energy policy, I want way more oversight of both executive agencies and Wall Street. I want to "redistribute the wealth" in a much more egalitarian manner because this insane "trickle-down" from fabulously wealthy miser greed-heads flat out doesn't work. It's just another Big Lie, which both Volker and Bernanke now admit. The "unfettered free market" is a playground for gamblers and criminals. Our FDA thinks there's a "safe limit" of melamine in our food supply (from China, which has never been our friend), to the point that a new epidemic of kidney stones in American children as young as 5 is exploding.
But, given the end game as it's been played by our Wall Street overlords, we'll have to put a lot of the necessary changes on a slow back burner. So I'll take the direction of change, and await the necessities that cannot be accomplished until we've reclaimed the nation's looted wealth.
Oh, barf! Is that a pig with lipstick or a pit bull with lipstick? Either way, NO. We will not let 'them' run the farm.
Comment by Joy — October 29, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Rash, headstrong and impulsive would describe Andrew Jackson and a few other notables of America history. Mean and vindictive? I'd suspect anyone around someone else who levels these kinds of accusations of gossip or sour grapes. Why do they hang around someone like that? I don't hang around people I judge to have such qualities.
But here is an opportunity to make some predictions. Obama is the favorite so what would we likely see? Throw those tax promises out the window. Small business- will see increases. Current tax breaks affecting middle income people- allowed to sunset. Pension plans- adversely affected by tax code revisions. We'll see an increase in the outsourcing of American business and a corresponding loss of jobs. More costly regulation aimed at social engineering and not enough intended to curb ethical abuses- politicians are too hooked into lobbyists. Obama is far to the left of his public persona and this will be revealed in the unfolding of the previous predictions. My primary character complaint against him is that I think he is fundamentally dishonest. TP made some statements in prior comments which are common currency among the crowd that runs with Obama. Not controversial to them but very controversial to average American voters likely to pull the lever for Obama. If Obama were to say what he really believes he would be unelectable. The fun part is you will be able to point to this comment in the future and say I guess you were wrong huh Bradford. I hope that's the case. I have to live in this country and would prefer to be wrong but safe and prosperous. We'll see. If I'm right bet that I'll note this comment in future exchanges.
Comment by Bradford — October 29, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Hi Kuma,
Thank you for your reasoned and reasonable response.
You wrote…
May I suggest you "need look no further" because you have already convinced yourself of what you want to believe?
As I indicated, the internet is an amazing tool. It wasn't very hard at all to find a speaker claiming this is an "historical election" at the republican convention…
"The choice America makes this November doesn't just echo for four or eight years, but will reverberate for many years to come.
In this historic election we have a clear choice between two very different governing philosophies. But we also have a choice between rhetoric and promises and a life-long commitment to service and reform.
You have heard the stories of John McCain's life, but consider for a moment how truly remarkable his life has been." link
So it's ok for a McCain and his supporters to claim to be making history, but if Obama and his supporters attempt it… well… that is inherently dishonest?
If you have specific evidence you would like to present in support your argument, please provide links so we can see it in context and the reliability of the source. For all we know, you got your information from someone quoting someone on http://www.freerepublic.com which has articles proclaiming anything from Obama receiving support from the terrorist organizations to being the Antichrist.
""Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?" is the question the House Un-American Activities Committee asked its "witnesses" in the early 1950's. Link
While a rigerous discussion of different tax policies is expected and, indeed, healthy during a presidential race, the attempt to paint the opponent a Communist, Marxist or a Socialist is obviously an attempt to play on voter's fear. Just like claims that an opponent "pals around with terrorists".
At this point, I think the only typical rightwing smear I haven't heard directed at Obama is that he is a homosexual, but there is still time. It may happen yet.
If you want to know Obama's tax plan, here is a link to his plan.
Here is a link to McCain's tax plan from his own web site.
Here is a link of the detailed comparison between the two from Obama's web site.
I could not find where McCain did a detailed comparison but here is a link to McCain's general economics page.
I can't very well stop you from believing what you want to believe, especially if you have decided to embrace the rightwing talking point that Obama is inherently dishonest and lies.
However, it gets difficult to maintain that Obama isn't speaking to the issues when you look at what he is presenting in writing and in a half hour televised presentation (happening tonight).
While McCain and the right wing want to make the issue about claims that Obama is a babykilling, Marxist Antichrist who palls around with terrorists it is an obviously desperate campaign tactic, especially coming so late in the race.
It will be a sad commentary on America if the tactic works.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 29, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Joy,
To be polite as possible, I use the term because I too am a halfbreed. So there is absolutly no need for you to lecture me about racism. I have been called "gook" "slant eye", I have been spit on by both Caucasians and African Americans. I have been talked down to and ridiculed by Asians.
We Hybrids get it from all sides.
He should bask in the very fact that he too is a product of how wonderful this melting pot of ours is, not try to play one side off the other.
Comment by Kuma — October 29, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Bradford:
Indeed, we will see. I hope you are wrong, but since the nation has been effectively robbed blind, will you blame the effects of this current economic crisis and GWB's outrageous 'fixes' on Obama? You and I both have problems with the situation as it now stands. Both of our candidates voted for a version of Bush/Paulson's bailout. Perhaps we will have reason to revisit these issues. My prediction – you'll blame it on Obama and not George W. Bush. Funny how that always works out. Republicans are NEVER responsible for their failures. Democrats are ALWAYS responsible for failures they didn't cause. It's transparent, you know.
Comment by Joy — October 29, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Kuma:
You are obviously hanging around with the wrong crowd if you're getting spat upon for being Asian-American. I have two brothers-in-law who are Asian-American. Fathers of my nieces and nephews whom we all love. I told you I'm married to a Native-American. In Oklahoma [a.k.a. "Indian Territory"] where he was born, they don't have a single reservation, they have 'Nations'. The Eastern Band, where we now live and have worked often, *is* a reservation. Still amazes me no end.
Oh… and by the way, my hubby is also a Vietnam era veteran. Nobody ever spat on him and lived to tell the tale. §;o)
There's just no accounting for some people here in America. There are serious haters, who never understood that hate hurts them way more than it will ever hurt those they hate. There are entire media conglomerates who make their billions fomenting even more hate, as if it were a product to sell. Fortunately, we are all soon to be way too poor to buy any of it, whether it's re-packaged cheap junk from China or Home-Grown hate. In the end, that might turn out to be a positive development.
That's precisely what Barack Obama is doing and has been doing. Did you miss his wonderful address on racism a few months ago? His mantra has always been "We Are All Americans." He is not the one fomenting division. Maybe you need to look a little harder at your own sources for these smears you are spreading.
Comment by Joy — October 29, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
And just a note to those here buying into (and/or spreading) the hate-sponsored smears…
A paid operative for the McCain campaign (from those notorious black-bag jobbers known at "College Republicans") attempted this past week to sell a completely outrageous hoax picked up by those notorious media conglomerates I previously mentioned, which still have not apologized or characterized the stunt for what it is. She claimed she was attacked at an ATM (where, every adult with a bank account knows, there are video cameras 'on' 24 hours a day) by a "Big Black Man" who physically and sexually assaulted her for a McCain bumper sticker on her car, then "carved" (actually scratched) a "B" – for Barack – onto her cheek.
Alas, it was obvious to police immediately that the "B" was backwards – as if it had been scratched shallowly into ample skin with an unwound paper clip in a mirror. Sure enough, when she was asked to come in for a polygraph by suspicious officials, she admitted she'd done it herself. That, however, didn't stop the McCain campaign from trying really hard to publicize (through "the usual" outlets) this outrageous lie.
THAT is desperation, intentional division, and I spent some time in Oklahoma growing up. Have you ever heard about the Tulsa Riots on "Black Wall Street" in the Greenwood district in 1921? Not surprising – it's not taught even in Oklahoma state history classes. Same sort of false charge, nobody ever tried to count the bodies that ended up being buried in a mass pit now underneath the parking lot of Sears on Memorial Drive.
She will suffer criminal charges, as she should. It's entirely up to her lawyer to 'prove' she's a certifiable nut-case, the law presumes (as it must) that she's sane and did it on purpose. Those who tried so hard to exploit her hoax will suffer nothing but defeat at the polls come Tuesday. As they should.
Barack Obama's campaign didn't do this, isn't playing that race card. John McCain's campaign is. That's just the plain truth. You might ought to consider that before spreading more hate as if Telic Thoughts is one of those hate-based media outlets. It is not.
Comment by Joy — October 29, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Joy:
As far as the bailout bill is concerned I can say now that all those who supported it, including Bush, share in the responsibility for its effects. There are two other matters that are related. What got us into the mess in the first place and what future actions will be taken to remedy things. The first issue is historical and blame already available to be parceled out. We'll have to wait and see about the second issue.
Comment by Bradford — October 29, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Joy,
I'm glad we can keep this civil! I appreciate it. Look, my personal view on much of what is going on currently in our country is that We the people are about to get screwed by both sides. I'm not a right winger, nor am I a left winger. My philosophical views stem from my view of the world which finds much of its basis in taoism. There must always be balance for the many to prosper, and currently we have no balance. Nor does there seem to be any in our near future.
Obama really doesn't bother me as much as those who will be behind him in the Senate and Congress… even if he is the man you hope he is, he will be hard pressed to stop or slow this kind of momentum to the far left.
By the way, it was never my family or friends that I had trouble with, so the point of who I hung around with is moot. After 3 straight major campaigns/wars in Asia there was some hatred built up in some people regarding Asian Americans. I've heard more than once how some member of my family must've killed someones uncle or father in Vietnam or Korea.
I was spit on because these people were ignorant.
I don't consider myself "Asian American", I am an American plain and simple. Racism will only go away once we stop bringing it up, period. Who cares if we may be electing "the 1st black President". Why aren't we just voting for the next president? The fact that many many people are focusing on the fact that he is black (this is both sides mind you) shows me how far we have to go yet. But we are evolving and that is a good thing. I face much less of what I did as a child and teenager. It takes time.
I think he should be more honest with himself, he's something different, not black or white. Maybe something better, maybe something worse, but that remains to be seen.
As to the statement about "Animal Farm", Joy, the pigs are on both sides of the aisle, not just one. If it were up to me, We the People should take back what is ours and tame our government as our constitutional duty asks us to when the farm house is full of pigs. Slowly but surely they are taking more and more away from us….when and how we stop it is up to us, not them.
Comment by Kuma — October 29, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Bradford:
Let's hope you're right (no pun intended). By average European standards Obama's public persona is rather right wing, and I'm to the left of average European standards. I pay a 52% marginal tax rate, and if that's what it takes to spread the wealth, fine by me.
Can you honestly say that Obama is more dishonest than McCain?
Comment by Raevmo — October 29, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Bradford:
Yeah. My first choice voted against it, but never had a prayer of getting the nomination anyway (Kucinich). My second choice (Edwards) didn't get a vote because he holds no office, and disqualified himself early on anyway. My third choice (Richardson) also didn't get a vote, but much as I like Joltin' Joe, I sure wish he was the Veep candidate. Heck, by the time our primary finally came around it was all over for everyone but the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuits (who refused to admit the truth that orange pantsuits are positively hideous enough to cause serious 'taste backlash').
Had Paulson – or any of the drafters of the supposed 'compromise' plan – simply told the truth, Americans would have hit the streets en masse (or at least flooded their phones and computers so they couldn't get a word in edgewise). It was never about a "credit crunch" and freeing up capital for loans to keep America going. It was always about cashing in chits and absconding with the loot before their criminal machinations get regulated again.
Once again my jaded fondness for Will Rogers and Sam Clemens comes to the fore. Maybe I should look into becoming an Anarchist in my old age, now that I'm pretty sure I'll be living in a cardboard box behind WalMart along with 150 million other one-time Americans, dumpster-diving in the wee hours after Popeye's and KFC close for the night… §;o)
Comment by Joy — October 29, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Joy
My wife and I called and emailed every state and federal official we have to speak out against that horrible "bail out" bill. It's rediculous what they are all doing to us.
Comment by Kuma — October 29, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Now, they are genuine American folk heroes.
Comment by Bradford — October 29, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Kuma:
Good for you! Designations have become so weird of late that I always fill in the 'race' blank with "GREEN." Let 'em just try to figure that one out (though if HSD has anything to do with it, I can tell by the trouble I had in my last outside job they'll try to deport me to Mars as a real illegal alien).
That's all I voted for. Won't that be all you vote for? I can readily understand why people of my socialist-leaning ilk are proud to have Obama as our candidate, because he actually does represent the kind of change that's been too long in coming. I also understand the excitement and energetic involvement of a great many blacks in this country who never registered or voted before because of leftover echoes of Jim Crow and the absence of real representation for their issues. I don't see this as a bad thing at all, and once the Obama administration is history the color and/or ethnicity of future candidates for office will be far less of an issue all around.
You're right that progress is slow. That's why Obama's campaign has been so polarizing. But you don't see the kind of hate toward Obama being aimed at McCain. There's a reason for that. Can you guess what it is?
There has been a Democratic Party in this country for a long time. We have even had Democratic administrations. None of them have turned this country into anything it's not. Why all of a sudden being a Democrat is equivalent to being a 'socialist' or a 'Communist' or a 'traitor' is a mystery to me, because nothing has changed. I have not changed. Barack Obama hasn't changed. These are all incendiary charges lobbed by haters as alternative buzzwords for… well, you can fill in that 'n' blank. No one is really being fooled.
Republicans have been in power for 8 years, and all but about 22% of the people think it's been a disaster – and we still haven't met the worst of it, ongoing as we speak. THAT is why we will have a Democratic administration beginning in 2009. It would have been exactly the same if the candidate had been Hillary or Richardson or Biden or Dodd… We have two serious parties in this country. Neither of them are the "party of traitors." A single-party system would look way more like Communism than a Democratic administration will, and is not a system in which I'd care to live (even in a cardboard box).
I think Obama thinks of himself as American, has said so repeatedly, so why do you want him to self-identify differently than you do? And where in the world did you get the strange idea that he hasn't been completely honest about both sides of his family? That's quite bizarre, since we all know that he's Kenyan-Kansan – it's never been a secret, you know. It's strange that you seem to care so much about his ethnicity, to the point of calling him dishonest about who and what he *is*. He hasn't been dishonest in the least, so you can stop asserting otherwise. It's not very effective.
Gee, I sure don't know how you plan to "take back" whatever they took from you without becoming a politician yourself. We have a Constitution and it specifies the form of our government. Now, you can always run for office, and if you can sell yourself effectively enough to at least 51% your erstwhile constituents, you might get elected. Then you'd be just another politician, up against the very same 2-party divisions, endless arguments, backroom dealings, checks, balances, laws, regulations, judicial reviews and voter referendums as every other politician. About half the people you represent will disapprove of everything you do. That's just how the system works.
If you want to replace the US Constitution with some other form of government, you will find way more than 51% of Americans ready, willing and very much able to protect and defend what you want to destroy. Along with 100% of the US Armed Services and National Guard.
Our system is far from perfect, just like We the People are far from perfect. But a perfect system run by perfect people simply does not – and never will – exist. Take it or leave it, warts and all. The greatest wisdom of the system our Founding Fathers gifted to us is that it cannot tolerate anything approaching official investiture of putrefied garbage like this. For which I, for one, am immensely grateful.
Comment by Joy — October 29, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
But that's not what spreads the wealth. The USA is the greatest producer of wealth the world has ever seen. As JFK once put it people vote with their feet and with reference to the USA that means often risking life and limb to come to this country to escape poverty. It is a land of opportunity but not because of the government. It is because of all the office workers, factory workers, public servants, teachers, small business owners, scientists, doctors, engineers, medical technicians, artists and many more who put in the work needed to generate wealth. You and Obama have a flawed conception of what our source of prosperity is.
My primary character complaint against him is that I think he is fundamentally dishonest.
With regard to their political views- yes. McCain only needs to articulate his own to be effective while, as I said before, if Obama revealed his real agenda he would forfeit the election. Both are too closely tied to special interests but that plagues almost all of our congressmen and women. It's tragic. I can't assess their honesty vis a vis their families and their personal relationships.
Comment by Bradford — October 29, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Raevmo, one of our founding fathers said this:
For the privilage of winning the critic of the week award who said that?
Comment by Bradford — October 29, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Hi Kuma,
In case you missed it, here is a link to Obama's half hour presentation he gave tonight.
You will notice that he spent quite a bit of time talking about, and showing pictures of, his mother (who happens to be Caucasian).
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 29, 2008 @ 9:00 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
This You Tube link is better.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 29, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Hi Bradford,
Here is a link to the context of your quote to Raevmo.
It included another quote of interest…
The jealous princes of power have had their way for the last eight years. It is time to give the common people (making less than $250k/year) a break.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 29, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Bradford to Raevmo:
In what way, and specifically, about what? I'd honestly like to know, because I see a great deal of serious dishonesty coming from his opponents. And not just the "Country First" claptrap McCain is spouting, that's just the usual politics of backroom dealer types at work (forgetting what he himself wrote about his overweaning ambition for a 'prize' he thinks we somehow owe to him).
Kuma has said he's dishonest about his parentage and ethnicity, though it's perfectly evident that he hasn't been dishonest about that at all. What's your beef? You mention an "agenda," which I presume is the very agenda he's been running on – planks in the Democratic Party platform. That too is not hidden in the least, it's right out there in the open for all – including you – to see. I can understand being against populism. I can even grok deliberately mislabeling populist policies as "socialism" (though it's not nearly as scary a word as it used to be). And all this whining about "redistributing the wealth" is just silly. Capitalism is all about redistributing the wealth. It's ultimate result (being a ponzi scheme unless it's fairly taxed) being concentration of wealth at to the idle rich and impoverishment of the producers. That is where we are right now.
There's nothing wrong with believing wealth should belong exclusively to the top 2% of citizens and workers should be wage-slaves. That's at least honest. By the same measure, there's nothing wrong with believing wealth should primarily remain in the productive sector with fair chunks allotted to infrastructure and social programs – like public education, among others. That's not dishonest either. Just because you don't like someone's political beliefs and policies, it doesn't make them "fundamentally dishonest."
Comment by Joy — October 29, 2008 @ 10:21 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
The best way to do that is to get out of the way of the people who create jobs in this country. They are entrepreneurs who start small businesses that can grow into huge industrial giants. Excellent new biotechnology coming to the marketplace is the product of creative minds allowed to do their thing. A healthy economy runs from the bottom up. Attempts to manage it from the top down have been disastrous as history shows.
Comment by Bradford — October 29, 2008 @ 10:27 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Hey Joy, TP
Tp, thanks for the link I'll check it out later, no time right at this minute.
Joy, I have no intention of wanting to replace the Constitution, as a former Marine I have put my life up on the block to defend it. But government grows and grows…. Both "sides" are slinging us back and forth with much bad policiy. I think we just need to get back to our roots and cut up the corruption that is so rampant in our political system, it's a cancer and it's spreading.
I hope your right, and Obama is the man you believe him to be, I really do. I don't like the idea of a lopsided government though in either direction it's bad for us in the middle…
It has been nice discussing these things with you, really.
Tp, I know his mother is a caucasian
Comment by Kuma — October 29, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Comment by Kuma — October 29, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Floating now is a proposal to buy out 401k plans and incorporate them into social security funds. That's scary not only to conservatives but to anyone vested in such a plan. It's one of those specifics I hope does not come to pass. Recall the 1964 election won by LBJ in a landslide against Goldwater. After the election Johnson instituted the most wide sweeping domestic spending program seen in this country. Expenditures exceeded FDR's New Deal. The power of the federal government expanded and the power of the presidency likewise. Johnson advertized none of this during the campaign. Goldwater's warnings fell on deaf ears. This election has eery similarities. Controling majorities in Congress and an activist president able to push through whatever program he wishes. There will be little to restrain a president who is in the middle of his first term as a U.S. senator and has very little track record to go on but a voting history as the farthest leftist in a left leaning party. Obama has raised expectations with his politics of change theme- the new type of politician. If he takes LBJ's road and the economy stumbles he'll find himself boxed in by his own hope raising strategy. We'll see what happens but I'm certain enough about his real agenda that I'll risk the inevitable mockery sure to follow if I'm proven wrong.
Comment by Bradford — October 29, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
October 29th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Kuma:
Corruption is endemic to power, it's the nature of the beast. That's the reason our Founding Fathers didn't allow for dynasties and "President for Life" situations. It's also why they made representatives of the people have to stand on their records every two years, but we don't use our primary system well enough to throw the bums out often enough. We could most certainly do better on that. The biggest problem of corruption (apart from the executive branch, so well illustrated by Bush-Cheney these past 8 years) is in the Senate. They only have to stand to rights every six years, and too many of them have made fiefdoms out of it.
In my state, we got rid of the corrupt pig farmer (Lauch Faircloth, beneficiary of Jesse Helms' feifdom) after he embarrassed us hopelessly with the Jennifer Flowers fiasco during Clinton's reasonably well-managed administration, when the economy did rather well. Unfortunately, we elected a prima dona to replace him, who didn't even serve a whole term before running off to be Veep. Yes, we were disappointed, even if some of us liked his populist message. They lost, now he's nobody and Liz Dole the carpetbagger bought into Jesse's machine. She doesn't even live here, cares nothing about our concerns. So this year she's gonna lose big time to someone better, who actually lives here (and is a Sunday School teacher, in case you're inclined to believe Liz's latest desperate filth). When we finally make the break from the old "Southern Strategy," I predict Richard Burr is next to get the axe. We have always liked Democratic leadership here.
The best way to combat the corruption of Big Biz payoffs is to limit both their contributions and their direct access. John McCain actually sponsored legislation to do that, then ignored it entirely when his turn finally came. That said, I think Obama's $150 million September is obscene, even if it did come from small $100 and $200 donors. To his credit, McCain went with public financing, and I really wish Obama had too. I think it shouldn't be an option, it should be mandatory. Our political campaigns situation is entirely out of hand.
I get 5 or 6 pleas from Dem leadership for money every day, and they've got more money than God! I'm damned sick of it, so no. They won't be seeing any more of my meager hard-earned cash. I can't wait for this to be over. And when Obama wins, I expect I'll have issues with his leadership and policies just like I've had with all the Presidents since I first became politically aware – that was JFK. But I vote every chance I get, for the broad overview and policies, and THAT honestly earns me my bitching rights. It's a democratic republic, I like it fine.
I wasn't born here. Just like John McCain, I was a Navy Brat born in a foreign country – for which I was granted dual citizenship until my 18th birthday. I could have renewed at the time, but I wasn't at all fond of Imelda Marcos and her shoe fetish. Yet despite what Homeland Security cost me that last job about, I have always been a full-fledged honest-to-God American citizen. That represents the biggest expansion of government power ever in the history of this country, you know. Far as my dealings with them go, they're completely stupid and entirely inept.
They monitor all our internet and phone traffic, rifle our backgrounds and acquaintances, try like hell to find us guilty of some indiscretion against their version of whatever it is they think they're guarding. I find it humorous enough that I've actually offered to monitor myself for just half the price they're paying at least 4 junior flunkies in a bunker to follow me around on the 'net. I'd report regularly, all the way down to daily bowel movements. Watta Deal!!! So far they have not responded. No doubt because my security clearance is higher than theirs.
You're right that things are malignant. In a world as crowded and 'dangerous' as ours, maybe there's no cure for that. But I'm not willing to go back to anybody's idea of 1950s "good old days" because they weren't very good. I remember them, so I am not fooled.
Don't be afraid, everything will work out fine (or not), and we'll all die in the end. I am not afraid. As an ex-Marine, I suspect you aren't really afraid either. Try to remember that day to day, spread some random act of kindness along your way. And if someone asks you why, tell them about the Man from Galilee. It's all okay. §;o)
Comment by Joy — October 29, 2008 @ 11:39 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Hi Bradford,
Ok, have we gotten down to the REAL issue now?
Are you done with Obama-is-anti-American boogie man yet?
Because I happen to know a few things about running small businesses.
First of all, it is hard work. A lot of hard work. You become a slave to your business because there are no excuses. What must get done, must get done. Bills have to be paid, especially paychecks.
The government bureaucracy is a joke. The money we need to pay to the various agencies is bad enough but the unexplainable complications would be funny if not so frustrating. For example, a while ago when we paid our state unemployment insurance they returned the check with a letter explaining we were overpaid on our account. Two days later we got a notice we were delinquent and owed money plus penalties.
This isn't a Republican or a Democratic problem, the career bureaucrats are a force all their own that transcends whoever is in power.
Do you know what a small business can deduct from their taxes?
Just about everything.
The notable exception is business meals (and drinks). Business meal expenses can only be deducted at half value. This, of course, adds complications to tracking our travel expenses. We have to keep our meals separated from everything else.
Of course the Cost of Goods sold is totally deductable as well as the salaries of our employees and ourselves (we are a "C" corporation).
At this point you might be thinking Capital Equipment isn't deductable. Kudos if you did, but for a small business it generally isn't a problem. An exception would be businesses with significant capital intensive which probably means comparatively less labor (a warehouse with lots of inventory).
But since we are talking about entrepreneurs, I suggest we are probably talking about more elbow grease than inventory. This is where all the pro-small business legislation from the past comes into play. Businesses get to write-off a minimum amount of capital each year. In over ten years of business we have always been below the minimum and, therefore, deducted all of our capital purchases. When we had good years, we buy extra stuff to take advantage of the tax benefit. But even at 30% off, there is a limit to what makes sense to buy.
BTW, did you know up to 25% of your salary can be put into an IRA through a profit sharing plan? Another small business bonus we take advantage of. We have put a lot away for retirement, tax free.
What about the building? Extra kudos if you thought about that. Well, we got a little creative on that one. At least we thought we were being creative. It turns out what we did is done all the time. We created an LLC ("S" corporation) that bought the building and rented it back to ourselves. Rent is a totally deductable expense. The LLC makes a modest income that let's us pocket some cash (which we have to pay personal income tax on).
While I am sure that there are some small businesses that can't deduct practially everything like we can but I suggest we are quite typical. The only thing left to tax is actual pure profit and, maybe, capital gains on corporate investments. Guess what, Obama's tax plan eliminates taxes on capital gains.
If honestly understood, small businesses aren't being threatened. It is greedy small business owners dreaming of multiple millions who are being threatened.
In business you run into different kinds of people. The owners who are most easy to work with are the ones who are focused on win-win relationships and content with slowly growing their business. Most honest small business owners are simply happy to do a good job for an honest price. The owners that can be difficult are the ones looking to quickly grow the business and then sell it.
BTW, it is a very rare entrepreneur who is looking to stick around for the whole process of turning a small business turning into huge industrial giant. Do you have any idea how painful business growing pains can be?
Think of all the small businesses that are Chinese restaurants, laundry cleaners, floor scrubbers and plumbers.
Yes, the situation of Joe the Plumber immediately didn't make sense the first time I heard it during the debate. In order for Joe the Plumber to realistically be worried about making $250K/year that would mean the plumbing business he wanted to buy would be worth millions or he was going to rape the company and its employees. It's probably a good thing the Joe won't likely be buying that business (I understand he is getting other very interesting offers) because if he did, his unrealistic expectations would have ruined it as I have seen other small businesses ruined by their greedy owners who then, of course, bitterly blamed the government for their own mismanagement.
In short, Obama's idea of eliminating capital gains tax more than offsets any detrimental effects of allowing the Bush's giveaway-to-the-rich to expire.
McCain may claim he isn't Bush, but he is threatening to continue Bush's tax policy.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 30, 2008 @ 12:22 am
October 30th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Bradford:
Well, the government's been borrowing the trust fund wholesale for so long they think it's an entitlement. For THEM, not for us. They have to pay it back somehow, taking what's left of your 401k is just another version of the company you worked for the last 30 years of your life deciding it won't give you your pension because the new CEO 'needs' $40 million this year for his own bank account. That was made legal ages ago, you know. It's always been a scam, start to finish, the moment they allowed Treasury to usurp the funds. Why are you surprised?
It's all just mammon. Dead trees, bits and bytes. An illusory valuation, which has no intrinsic worth. Caesar's due, none of it real. As an ID supporter (who has done an admirable job of keeping this blog going in spite of my laxness and unpopularity), I'm frankly surprised that you don't seem to understand this. We all just want to make a living, be able to afford the things we need. Sure, some think they 'need' more than others, and some think they 'need' it all. That's greed, one of the seven deadly sins. Did we all grow up believing we'd be fabulously wealthy someday? Sure we did. How many of us ever got there?
LOL!!! Oh, my. That one made me truly giggle out loud. "IF" the economy "stumbles?" Honey, it's in the shit-house right now, won't be getting anywhere close to 'better' for a year or two at least. After which time this nation's wealth will firmly belong to someone else. That started in 2002, hasn't let up a bit ever since. Happy Halloween, the candy is contaminated with melamine so don't eat any unless you want to end up like that beloved pet you lost to kidney failure last year. It's all tricks this year, no treats.
LBJ did some good things, despite my visceral dislike of the man. The Civil Rights Act was no small potatoes, even if too many people still think minorities shouldn't have civil rights. There will be plusses and minuses in all administrations. I just want this abject hatred to be dealt with firmly and harshly, so that the haters crawl back under their rocks where they belong.
What "real agenda?" You still haven't answered my question.
As for mockery, why can't you simply admit it when you're wrong? Way too many people these days are too proud to do that (another of the seven deadly sins). Mea culpa goes a long way toward healing, you know. We're all wrong on occasion.
Comment by Joy — October 30, 2008 @ 1:02 am
October 30th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Are you finished with strawmen?
I realized all this years ago. When I was younger I was a rabid leftist. Not knowing much about how life really functioned I idealized things until I experienced government up front and personal. I agree completely with you about government bureaucracy. You're also right that it does not matter who is in power as career bureaucrats are indeed a force of their own. But they come with every expansion of government and government expansion is the bane of our existence. Where do people get their limitless faith in government? Talk about blind faith, it's evident to me every time I see people not incorporating the lessons of government futility.
Most deductions are legitimate expenses and if you want to eliminate some of the more questionable ones we could probably find common ground. As you say, operating a small business is hard work and there should be rewards for it. After all bureaucrats have their secure jobs and paychecks and not very demanding work schedules to boot.
This is election year rhetoric. Many provisions of the tax laws currently in effect are sunsetted. They also affect middle income people. Here's another take on tax policies.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 8:44 am
October 30th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Besides a huge expansion of governmental power and the spending that goes with it? It's A Question of Barack Obama's Character. I don't believe for a second that Obama was unaware of Wright's views. He likely sympathizes with the idea that the USA is at the core of problems plauging the world. It's a fundamentally different perspective from mine and one Obama understandably does not want to communicate to voters. This is another item Obama is not too eager to campaign on. Legislation committing the United States to "spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends." Is he kidding? I suspect not. Having one party control both the legislative and executive branches, and the former by solid majarities, does not bode well.
The bailout fiasco has roots in the type of social engineering Obama represents. Long standing banking procedures, related to loans and who qualifies for them, were upended in a desire to make housing affordable to low income people. The threat of sanctions for institutions not sensitive to the needs of low income applicants was linked to subtle changes like having to count unemployment insurance as income and other such unsound practices. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Set aside sound policies and combine that with ruthless recruiting practices fueled by greed. What you snowball that into is an economic disaster that sets low and middle income people further back than they were previously. To add insult to injury we must endure the Barney Franks of the world lecture us on the need for drastic measures when they were the very same people who ignored warnings about the need for regulatory reform.
The politics of hope is empty rhetoric. Real hope does not come from ambitious politicians. Obama is just another one of them.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 8:46 am
October 30th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Bradford:
Spending priorities are an "expansion of governmental power?" Since when? The budget's the budget. There hasn't been a balanced one in 40 years, surely you don't expect one now. I don't have a problem with spending to rebuild the economy bottom-up or helping people eat or have shelter, since I think that's both wiser and kinder than spending it to kill people, to devise bigger badder ways to kill people, padding already fabulously wealthy offshore bank accounts, and paying off warlords NOT to target our troops with wheelbarrows full of cash. No matter what the priorities are, the power is still the same.
LOL!!! What in the world would make you believe we who support the Democratic Party – thus Barack Obama – don't believe the very same thing? That's hilarious, Bradford. We are involved in two illegal wars of aggression right now, hundreds of thousands of people have died, millions more have lost everything including their country. Nobody with a triple-digit IQ could be so ignorant as not to see why the US isn't the most popular Risk player in the game.
Nor do I care about Obama's preacher's views. Lots of preachers these days are frothing at the mouth preaching hate as if the Law of Love is somehow consistent with abject hatred – a contradiction so obvious it's not convincing anybody outside the pews. Mostly I shrug it off, haven't attended church on a regular basis since high school. Too many scribes and Pharisees for my taste, let 'em wallow in their own hypocrisy, I've got better things to do with my life.
Wow. That's almost 8 months of spending in Iraq murdering civilians and stealing oil! Not strangely, I am entirely unimpressed. Merely a priority sans Dubby's weird personal problem with Daddy. We're done with it (and him), the most we can hope for between November 5th and January 20th is that he doesn't get us into yet another illegal war. Which makes it fortunate that Congress doesn't reconvene until then, doesn't it?
Yeah, Dubby gave that situation a really bad rep too. Obviously, the people are sick to death of signing statements, invasions and occupations, and Commander Codpiece's smug smirk. I'm guessing they're sick of corruption and graft too. It's not surprising the blow-back would go all the way to the opposing pole. Don't worry – it'll settle out eventually into the usual gridlock.
Oh, bull. You can't give a marginal borrower an exploding loan you know he can't afford and expect it not to go bust. They did it for the gazillions in fees they could get by fleecing first-time buyers. And the bailout was a Bush-Paulson creation, it never had anything to do with social engineering. It's just a cash-out, a robbery of historic proportions. The 1% of US mortgages that defaulted were never worth 5 times the GDP of the entire world – you know that as well as I do.
Think of it this way. You get cancer, you've a 75% chance of dying within 6 months. Every single person in your city rushes out and buys a million dollar life insurance policy – good for just 6 months – on your life. Sure enough you die after just 5 months, suddenly the insurers have to pay out $10 billion to all those people who bought the policies. Your poor widow gets a measly 100K from your long-term policy, on a guy that turns out to have been "worth" ten billion! Who knew!? Obviously, this is a scam. It should have been illegal all along both for outsiders to purchase the policies on your life, and for the insurance company to issue them. This is what an unregulated "free market" gets you – criminals doing criminal things.
Well, I'll go for the hope over the filth, greed, fear-mongering, hate and violence of the past 8 years. My hopes are minimal, given what I know of politics and politicians. You needn't waste any worry on me, I'll be just fine.
Comment by Joy — October 30, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
This merely makes the point that Obama and his leftist supporters cannot state on the campaign trail what they really feel. You can find common ground with others on Iraq but Afghanistan a war of aggression? Obama does believe that so let him say so loud and clear. Instead he talks about invading Pakistan. Go figure.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Hi Bradford,
To my "Are you done with Obama-is-anti-American boogie man yet?" you answered…
I am if you are.
Does this mean you aren't suggesting Obama has a secret anti-American agenda?
As Biden likes to suggest, politics goes smoother if you don't question the motives of the opposition. The presumption is that Obama is motivated to do what is best for his country.
Do you disagree?
Interesting question. Do you have faith in righteousness of our government's decision to engage in a pre-emptive war that caused the deaths of over 100,000 human beings?
I don't.
So your answer to rhetoric is to link to more rhetoric?
Here is a link to a detailed comparison for Obama's plan as opposed to McCain's. It includes the following comparison as to examples of who benefits under the different plans and how much…
Single Parent making $40,000 with two young children and childcare expenses.
Obama's plan = $2,100
[includes $500 making work pay; $500 universal mortgage credit, and $1,100 from Obama expansion of the child care tax credit]
McCain's plan = $125
Married Couple making $75,000 with two children, one of whom is in college
Obama's Plan = $3,700
[includes $1,000 Making Work Pay; $500 universal mortgage credit; and $4,000 college credit net of current college credits]
McCain's plan = $125
Married Couple making $150,000
Obama's plan = $1,000
McCain's plan = $0
70-Year Old Widow making $35,000
Obama's plan = $1,900
McCain's plan = $0
Exxon-Mobil
Obama's plan = $0
McCain's plan = $1.2 billion
Do you have anything to challenge these numbers? Can you find a detail comparison McCain has put out?
Or is the problem that you agree with the numbers but disagree with the plan anyway?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 30, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Bradford:
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=eW9viaJatpo
You mean the kind of social engineering Bush supported?
Bush:
Comment by Raevmo — October 30, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Are you finished with strawmen?
As I suggested to Joy if Obama agrees with her about the two wars of aggression he owes it to the voters to come out and say so. I'm not questioning whether he thinks his goals are anti-American. I'm certain he does not think this way. But he is also politically saavy enough not to state what he feels if it will prejudice his election chances.
Where do people get their limitless faith in government?
That's not an example of faith. We know the policy and can make decisions about whether or not we suport it. My comment followed your own acknowledgments about the nature of bureacracies. They are intrinsically inefficient.
This is election year rhetoric. Many provisions of the tax laws currently in effect are sunsetted. They also affect middle income people. Here's another take on tax policies.
Thomas Sowell is a sound analytical thinker. That link was not rhetoric unless rhetoric is defined as anything you disagree with. As to your ink I would have to spend some time analyzing it before commenting.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Raevmo, Bush is not running and the argument that McCain is the same as Bush falls flat.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Bradford:
Please stop spouting lies, Bradford. It's very unbecoming and doesn't support whatever point you think you're making. The American public is soundly and with significant majorities against the current endless wars of aggression Bush/Cheney started based on bald-faced lies. That is why Democrats got a resounding majority in the 2006 mid-terms, which were all about ending the wars, primarily Iraq and secondarily Afghanistan.
True, the new Dem majority didn't manage to accomplish what it promised in order to get elected, I strongly suspect because Pelosi, Reid and others among the entrenched leadership are as guilty of graft as Stevens and Delay and the rest of the Republican crooks. Corruption, pure and simple. This has caused a good deal of anger in the ranks, and was something Obama has had to work hard to overcome. You may be gratified to know that the plans for change aren't over on Tuesday, and that the crooks will be sent out to pasture in the '10 mid-terms.
Point being YES. We want O-U-T of Bush's illegal wars of aggression, NO we do N-O-T want him starting any new ones before January 20. Not in Syria, not in Iran, not in Pakistan (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tadjikistan or any other stan). If Israel has any issues with Iran's nuclear ambitions, it can use its own nukes to deal with it. Or it can bomb the facilities with the jets and conventional 'bunker-busters' we gave 'em and/or Carlyle sold 'em. And protect itself with those anti-SCUD batteries we installed for free. We can take to the table and do what civilized nations are supposed to do – negotiate.
Here I am saying it, right out loud. Where's the Big Secret?
Democratic policy – planks in the platform that have survived and expanded for 8 long years. You keep wanting to call Democratic voters stupid, but we aren't. Nobody's hiding anything. We're just not scared of your side's fear-mongering booga-booga tactics anymore. Crying "Wolf!" does have real ramifications. Most 5-year olds have figured that much out.
Exporting democracy at the point of a gun doesn't work. Bush is big into "nation-building," but all he's done is to destroy everything he touches. Russia couldn't 'win' in Afghanistan, neither can we. It's the poorest, most primitive, meanest nation on the planet. As a career diplomat once said to me, they're incurable barbarians. Best to just contain them, let them kill each other off. Bush is right now conceding to the Taliban and gave up on bin Laden years ago. Karzai is a joke. Our 7 years of war there has accomplished nothing but death and more death. Worse, Iraq sucked the military dry, we can do nothing more. Except for Carlyle and Blackwater. THEY are making billions, they like war just fine, so THEY can fight it.
We know what we want, we know what the planks are, we are electing people to carry them forward. You not liking it is completely irrelevant. Your guys have impoverished us, have killed our children in wars based on lies, and have presided over the biggest expansion of government since the New Deal. We're done with it, going to try something else.
You don't have to agree. You just have to live with it until your guys get some power back. It'll happen someday. Always does, just as soon as the nation's on its feet again and creating real wealth for them to loot. A cycle, regular as clockwork. That's all out in the open too, no secrets there.
Comment by Joy — October 30, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
This merely makes the point that Obama and his leftist supporters cannot state on the campaign trail what they really feel.
Public opinion about Iraq varies very much from that of Afghanistan. Most Americans consider Iraq a grave mistake and if you or Obama want to use the aggression label it can be done without political consequence. Base Dems may believe the war in Afghanistan is a war of aggression but that is not a mainstream view. If Obama believes Afghanistan is a war of aggression then let him come out and say so. But if he did he would alienate independents who do not owe allegiance to leftist mantra. So either Obama disagrees with his base (unlikely) or he agrees but recognizes that it is not politically smart to say so. The theme of this post is intellectual honesty. If Obama thinks the war in Afghanistan is a war of aggression the intellectually honest thing to do is acknowledge that stance before the electorate before election day. If he does not feel that way then he is at variance with a good part of the Democratic base. I'm not the one lying.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
In the broader War on Terror, a majority thinks Afghanistan is more important to the larger terror-fighting effort than the Iraq war.
The ABC-Washington Post poll also found that a 51 percent majority believes the U.S. must win in Afghanistan for the War on Terror to be a success. Sixty percent responded that the U.S. War on Terror could be a success without winning the war in Iraq.
The majority of Democrats and independents say the Iraq war was not worth fighting. Independents side more with Republicans on Afghanistan in saying it was worth the fight and linked to the defeat of terrorism.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Bradford:
Oh, I was just pointing out that Bush (whom you voted for I'm pretty sure) very much encouraged the "ownership society", government supporting mortgages for people who couldn't afford them. You know, "social engineering". Since McCain supported Bush >90% of the time, there is little reason to expect much change in a McCain government.
Comment by Raevmo — October 30, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
I would be interested in hear your definition of rhetoric. Here is Warren Buffett's discription of Obama's tax plan. Do you consider it rhetoric?
"I think the biggest thing we need now is to unclog the credit markets, and we may need another stimulus — if we do, it's — it should go to the lower and middle-income people. I mean the truth is, I've never had it so good in terms of taxes. I am paying the lowest tax rate that I've ever paid in my life. Now, that's crazy. And if you look at the Forbes 400, they are paying a lower rate, accounting payroll taxes, than their secretary or — whomever around their office. On average. And so I think that actually people in my situation should be paying more tax. I think the rest of the country should be paying less, the 95 percent that Obama talks about or maybe even a little higher than that. But I think that a stimulus plan should really be geared to the people. You know, you've got — you've got, what, 24 million households, 1/5th of the households of the United States, you have earning $21,000 a year or less, on average of close to four people, three people in those households. Two and a half they will actually probably. But just imagine living on 21,000 a year, Charlie, 22,000 a year. I mean you have 20 percent of the population doing that. So you don't have to worry about guys like me. I would push purchasing power — you push out $1,000 of purchasing to those people, it's going to get — it's going to get spent. And it needs to be spent. They need it. And it should come, to some extent, from guys like me." link
You aren't thinking independently if you let others do your thinking for you, no matter how smart the others are. I would think it would cause you pause not to understand the details of McCain's and Obama's tax plans at this late date in the race.
Unfortunately, you aren't alone. As I indicated previously, it will be a sad commentary on America if this last minute fear tactic works because people didn't take the time and effort to study the details and think for themselves.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 30, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I've been very critical of Bush's policies which result in a tilt toward socialism. I don't offer blind allegiance to any politician. They all have warts. Some have more than others.
That 90% figure is a stat manipulator. Of all the biils passed in Congress since Obama became a senator over 50% of the bills Obama voted in favor of were signed into law by Bush. Does that surprise you? It shouldn't if you think about it.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Bradford, what does it mean to "win" in Afghanistan? Specifics, please. If it's ousting the Taliban, that was done awhile ago. If it's installing a puppet government, that was done awhile ago too. If it's giving them more money than they can earn on opium, that's been done as well as we transfer cargo boxes stuffed with cash. Is it to kill Osama bin Laden? If so, why did Bush stop trying?
Are we aiming to own more warlords than the Taliban or the opium dealers or Al Qaeda do? That'll never work, the warlords are completely untrustworthy, in it for themselves. The Taliban still exists after 7 years, so Bush is now negotiating with them – that means they get some power back. Are we trying to teach them how to grow actual food crops instead of poppies? There are a dozen NGOs who can do that without the US Army. And since bin Laden doesn't live there anymore, the rationale for going in is shaky. If we really wanted to 'get' the states supporting the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11, we'd be at war with Saudi Arabia. We are not, so that lie doesn't hold water either.
Going after bin Laden's stronghold was easily sold to us after 9-11. Deal is, that wasn't the real reason we went in. Bush had tried to negotiate, then to strong-arm the Taliban into approving a cross-Afghanistan oil pipeline, they didn't go for it. Taking them out was on his plate just like Iraq, well before the towers got hit. Besides, the Taliban had utterly decimated the Afghan opium trade. Can't have that (ask the Brits, they know all about opium wars. Or China… they're supplying the money, after all).
We'd all love to 'win' the war on terror. Realistically, however, it's not a winnable enterprise, and that's not why we're in Afghanistan OR Iraq. It's not why our future was sold to China, it's not why our European allies have deserted us.
But hey. 85% of FoxNews devotees firmly believe to this day that Saddam Husssein attacked us on 9-11, because that is the lie they were told and they flat refuse to accept the truth. Popular polls of 'average people' do not decide what is or is not actual truth in this world. They just reveal what 'average people' have been led to believe. Now, when you ask how those 'average people' plan to vote, you might get an accurate picture – of how they'll vote. You know the difference between opinion and reality as well as I do, I hope.
Comment by Joy — October 30, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Bradford:
Socialism is a not a black-or-white thing. There are good middle grounds between all-out communism and all-out laissez-fair free market capitalism. If you want to prevent rampant inequality, then the state has to intervene to some extent. Is it OK with you that 20% of American families have to make do with less than $20k per year, while 1% "earns" 25% of all income?
Homo homini lupus est.
Comment by Raevmo — October 30, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
You provide a link to a paper about taxation prepared by Obama's campaign and then lecture me about independent thinking? How objective do you think the Obama people are about this? Why not link to a Heritage Foundation report? In any case do you buy into the following report about health care?
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Raevmo, you did not answer the question about bills passed in Congress? The answer goes a long way in explaining how voters can be manipulated. Why would Bush and Obama find themselves on the same side of the fence most of the time? This is not that hard.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Bradford, laws do manage to get passed every year, even with a divided house. Why are you pretending that 50% is equivalent to 90%? Hint: 50 is 40 less than 90, therefore 50 is not equal to 90 no matter how you attempt to manipulate it.
Distraction, sleight-of-mind, substitution, changing-the-subject mid-stream… you've really been paying attention to the critics' arguments around here, haven't you?
Comment by Joy — October 30, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Bradford:
As Joy's comment shows, the question wasn't really worth answering. Lots of laws have bipartisan support. But there's a big difference between >90% and 50%.
Why didn't you answer this question:
I put it to you that Jesus would be a Democrat (or even a socialist).
Comment by Raevmo — October 30, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Joy:
I did not say 50%. More than half the time. But you're missing the point. When someone says x and y agree 90% of the time (I doubt that is the exact figure) but z is very different from both, a reasonable person might suspect that z rarely agrees with x and y. That's not the case. What is left unsaid is that most bills passed by congress are about mundane, uncontroversial matters. An education bill is passed by consensus and so is funding for worker salaries etc. If an intelligent argument is to be made which distinguishes two voters we need to focus on a subset of bills which are considered controversial. Percentages based only on such bills would show exactly how far apart the three individuals really are. McCain and Bush would need to be assessed with regard to the subset if an argument about them being the same is to be made.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Raevmo, observe the above and then revise your 90% with a relevant, non-political figure.
No. It's preferable to have an even distribution like that observed by de Toqueville. But you don't accomplish that by taking from Peter and giving to Paul.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Bradford:
Good, so we agree that the current level of inequality is unacceptable. How do you propose to change it?
Comment by Raevmo — October 30, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
In my view one of the greatest contributors to economic inequality is corruption. Starting at the top. That's where I'd like to see progress made. Rooting it out. One thing to note though, if you have comparisons in mind. The USA is unique with respect to most other nations in that it has historically assimilated large numbers of immigrants. That's still occurring. Most first generation immigrants would fall within the lower income group.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Bradford:
Well, I think hardly anybody would disagree with you that corruption is bad and should be prevented and punished. What's your evidence that corruption is the greatest contributor though?
True. But social climbing in the US is lower than in Europe. The American Dream is no American Dream, anymore. Moreover, the income of the lower income group is shamefully low in the US. A minimum wage job means living in poverty. What should be done about that?
Comment by Raevmo — October 30, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Bradford:
What's "more than" in this context? 50.1%? 51%? Does it matter? Obama's pretty good at bipartisanship. That's a plus, not a minus, since it means he can "reach across the aisle" to get done what needs doing.
I'm not missing the point, you are. Both Obama and McCain are running against (read, "away from") Bush, the most unpopular President in recent memory. Obama can do that easily, since he's a Democrat and not a Republican. McCain has a harder job of it, given that he *is* a Republican – Bush is the default 'leader of the party' and all, not to mention completing two terms in office. Republican administration, McCain is running to extend the streak. That's how party politics works.
You're right that the 90% figure is not exact – but it is an accurate average. The exact figures demonstrate that McCain voted with Bush 100% in 2008, 95% in 2007, less between 2001 and 2006 (as low as 77% in 2005). Overall, the average comes out to precisely 90% over these past 7 years and 10+ months. That is according to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies, as cited by FactCheck.org.
Obama, on the other hand, voted with Bush 49% of the time in 2006, and just 33% in 2005 (before Dems took control of the Congress). I'll accept that his average is 50+% (FactCheck didn't say). No problem.
This means you cannot use Obama's voting record to suggest he's a big Bush supporter, and you can't use McCain's voting record to suggest he's not a Bush toady. Senators are expected to vote with their party unless there's a serious bone of contention, so neither of these figures are surprising. It just means McCain isn't as much of a "Maverick" as he pretends to be.
Precisely.
No need to go to that much trouble. McCain has strongly supported Bush's legislative policies, Obama has been a lot less inclined to do so. That isn't difficult at all and reflects precisely what you'd expect from a wannabe Republican flag-bearer running for an office his party has held for 8 years, opposed to a Democratic candidate promising a Democratic change of direction.
Comment by Joy — October 30, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Corruption distorts normal economic flow. Instead of fair competition determining who buys what and for what price the determination is likely to be based on influence peddling. A very troublesome trend in the USA is the extent to which lobbyists influence legislators. I know. It's nothing new except for one thing. Senators and House Representatives routinely arrange to have members of their families registered as lobbyists and for six figure no show jobs. The practice should be illegal but the foxes are guarding the chicken coops. In the last open thread I posted a link to a blog about Nancy Pelosi's son who is one of many making good money to secure the favor of his mom. Republicans are guilty as well. I have a father who is well connected politically. He once managed a campaign for a congressman in my state. He is a Democrat who disagrees with me all the time but he is disgusted at the pervasive corruption in Washington. It's not a big secret and the problem has become significantly worse in the recent decade or two.
One thing to note though, if you have comparisons in mind. The USA is unique with respect to most other nations in that it has historically assimilated large numbers of immigrants. That's still occurring. Most first generation immigrants would fall within the lower income group.
I don't have all the answers but think some educational reforms coupled with policies that discourage one parent families is a start. New productive jobs are going to come from the private sector and government policies favorable to job creation would be welcome.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Bradford:
Sure, there are a lot of thieves on Wall Street, but it's a system. The top 2% of citizens are not all crooks, you know. They're capitalists. If I rob a bank and get away with a million dollars, I've got a million dollars I didn't earn. Who did I steal it from? Not the depositors with meager savings and checking accounts – those are all insured. I stole it from the system, and the system prints money. That million, btw, won't get me into the top 2% of wealth-holders.
That is no longer true. Our immigration laws are quite strict, our 'quotas' relatively small. Most legal immigrants these days must be sponsored (or prove they have a pre-arranged, high-paying job), and they do pretty well – that's why you see immigrants owning so many small businesses. Nobody ever gave ME a business! You know the demographic (and the color) of poverty in this nation. Most were born here and so were their parents and grandparents, many back a century or two or more. If they're not disabled, they work. Hard. As many hours a day as they can, just to afford food and shelter. They're "wage slaves," actually receiving less in return for their labor than most actual slaves did.
The illegals – such as flood our nation every spring from Mexico, work harder than just about anybody. The ones who did ALL the hard work, 14-16 hours a day, at a theme park where we once did the seasonal entertainment got $20 a day and a ratty 2 bedroom trailer out back for all six of them (brothers). They got driven back to the border in November after the park closed, and lived a very comfortable life in Mexico on the little money they'd earned. Road workers, farm hands, cotton-pickers, you know the work. But, contrary to what John McCain weirdly thinks, I would sure pick lettuce for $50 an hour! That's not what these people earn in a long, hard day.
I don't think it's a very inspiring thing when a single mother (and a majority of children these days are raised by single mothers) must work two or three wage-slave jobs just to get by if they didn't go to college, and not everybody can go to college. That's a 'class war' thing too, you know. No insurance, no benefits, no security, 70¢ for every dollar their deadbeat ex-husbands make just because men have balls. And risk losing what very little they have if they get sick or injured because there's no health care they can afford. I think that's a terrible shame for our nation. I hope it changes dramatically, soon.
Comment by Joy — October 30, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Hi Bradford,
You asked…
Please tell me that you know the Heritage Foundation is an extremely conservative think tank. BTW, do you have an opinion yet on whether or not Warren Buffett's conclusions concerning Obama's plan are "rhetoric" by your definition?
The Heritage Foundation is not an unbiased source thus making its conclusions (rhetoric?) suspect.
Even so, thanks for the link. It is the kind of thing I was looking for.
Some raw data from your link…
"The candidates do have significant differences. Senator McCain's plan extends all of the Bush tax cuts, while Senator Obama's does not extend the cuts for the top two rates. Furthermore, Senator Obama would impose a new tax on those who earn more than $250,000 a year, which would be dedicated to paying for Social Security. Senator McCain has proposed a few other cuts, highlighted by a cut in the corporate tax rate and a change in the tax treatment of health care. Senator McCain's tax plan for health care is the following: Currently, workers do not pay tax on the value of insurance they receive from their employers. Senator McCain would end this preferential tax treatment and replace it with a tax credit that would allow families to purchase health insurance. Senator Obama has many new proposals, including several new tax credits. Senator Obama proposes a refundable health care tax credit to help low-income individuals purchase health care."
You then link to McCain's web site where it attempts to explain how his Health Care plan majically becomes a tax break.
As I said, I know something about running a business. Which means I also know how much employee medical insurance costs. McCain's use of a 25 year old male as an example is laughably slanted. Claiming the "refundable tax credit" is "effectively cash" is misleading. It isn't money that can be spent on anything, it must go to insurance companies of medical spending accounts.
The practical impact of this is employers will shift to high deductable medical plans forcing employees to maintain medical spending accounts to cover the deductables.
While the net effect might be better than doing nothing, it doesn't end up directly helping the small guy. The common employees do not get a "tax break" at best they break even while being confused by the shell game imposed by the government.
Note, there will be some greedy business owners that will take advantage of the confusion to squeeze a little more out of their employees while blaming the government.
The good news, Bradford, it looks like our sources agree on the basics of the plans of the two different candidates.
In short…
McCain will continue the bulk of Bush's policies including Bush's supply side economic policy and the Iraq war policy.
Obama's policy is to shift the economics back to pre-Bush demand-side levels and drawing down on the expensive, unnecessary Iraq war.
Obama is proposing real change from the previous administration. You may not agree with Obama’s proposed change, but at least we can agree that it is much more of a change than what McCain is proposing.
Note: I will be incommunicado for the next three days but I am sure Joy and Raevmo will more than hold up this end of the conversation.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 30, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
And most of those votes related to non-controversial issues. On the big issues there is little difference between McCain and Obama. Both would continue to prosecute the "war of aggression" in Afghanistan based on their statements. If there is reluctance below the surface it is being withheld from us. McCain is an immigration reformer whose positions have been unpopular in his own party. Both McCain and Obama supported the bailout with Bush. Obama is more aggresive in his end the Iraq war stance but we'll have to see what happens. Nixon promised to end the war too.
You can mold Obama into whatever you want him to be in your own mind. His track record is very slim. He has not made a mark as a legislator. He has not made a mark in the business world. He has never been a chief executive of anything and is on the precipice of gaining the most important job in the world based on his ability to make pretty speeches and appear charasmatic. That and an ability to ride the hate Bush bandwagon. Hating Bush does not confer executive abilities even if it pleases his constituents. You don't know what you are getting in Obama. Could be JFK. Could be Jimmy Carter or something entirely different. We'll see.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
TP, this seems to sum up the Obama campaign. He represents change. The problem is change is only a positive when we become better as a nation. Lenin represented change and so did Hitler. I know that will not sit well but neither does the assumption that change = progress. It does only if the change solves problems. Buffet's views are not rhetoric. The politics of change is rhetoric. Yes, I know the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank but I also know Obama's campaign position papers are not a source of objective information.
You, like most people, attribute too much to any president's ability to influence the economy. The economy does not prosper because of who is president. It is more likely to tank because of government fiscal policies like the one witnessed recently. Historically booms and recessions have occurred under both Democratic and Republican administrations. That should clue people into the fact that the causes for economic cycles is not the president in power. I find it more than a little amusing that although you chide me and others for not thinking independently it is me who is the more likely to critique a Republican than you a Democrat based on what is seen in these exchanges.
Comment by Bradford — October 30, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Bradford:
If there were really "little difference" then you wouldn't be so worried about Obama as POTUS. You'd be confident he's just another Bush clone. McCain's minuses are that he's a 4-time cancer survivor whose chances of living through a single term aren't great, and his Veep choice is a worldwide joke that isn't very funny at all. You'd be an enthusiastic Obama supporter if you really believed what you're saying here, and obviously you are not. I don't "owe" John McCain his life's ambition. He's not the only veteran I've ever known of, nor the only POW. These are not exclusive qualifications for the Presidency.
Obama would 'prosecute' but would also aggressively negotiate an end to our involvement in both these wars – they've gone on too long. McCain said it would be fine if we're still fighting them 100 years from now, and I strenuously disagree. He also wants to "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb-bomb Iran," and that is totally inexcusable. You only go to war as a last resort – real warriors know this. You don't start or continue wars just because they're fun or offer 'exciting investment opportunities'. This seems a big difference in worldview to me. So I voted accordingly on that issue.
To tell the truth, I thought both Bush and McCain proposed reasonable immigration compromises in regards to the incoming from Mexico. Guest workers and all. I think they know just what I know about these people, their reasons for coming, and their basic honesty and willingness to slave so they can support families back home. Unfortunately, the wingnut faction of their party wants to build fences and patrol the border in Humvees armed to the teeth to shoot 'em as they wade the river. And it's the wingnuts who now own the party lock, stock and barrel. We know this because they turned the Veep choice over to Dobson & Co. Palin is a menace.
Yeah, the bailout is a great big anchor around the neck of both parties, even if they were just attempting to meet the pre-arranged meltdown. That's Wall Street's fault, and Wall Street should be made to pay. How that goes down once we're all standing in bread lines is anybody's guess, but there's gonna be a heck of a lot less money for them to steal. That's something, anyway.
Tricky Dick ended the war when the military decided it must end. He'd have been happy to keep it going for a hundred years too. There is a reason he was forced to resign, and it wasn't just because he didn't want to tough it out (Clinton showed us how that is done, rather artfully too). You just can't make enemies of your DOJ, your generals and your spooks and expect not to be taken out. Stubbornness on such levels when dealing with patriots who are actual lifers is stupid. Nixon was stupid, he paid the price.
Yes, we will see. I don't expect any miracles, way too jaded for that. I know politics (married a poli-sci guy, after all), it's a dirty game that draws sharks. Obama is inspiring enough for me to suspect he could be a great leader, something we see only once or twice in a lifetime. Or he could be a bust, in which case he'll be outta here just like all the rest. No big deal.
What IS a big deal is what affects me and mine, here where we live. I want some action on all that post haste, and expect to see some. If it doesn't come, we'll go find someone who will get it done. Politicians come and go, some are better than others. Jimmy Carter is a brilliant man who let himself be used by the wrong people for all the wrong reasons, that's a shame. But if we'd used that crisis to make the real changes we needed to make – and STILL need to make – we wouldn't be in this mess today.
It's kinda like GM and Ford et al. not re-tooling for the smaller, lighter, more energy efficient vehicles we've needed ever since we figured out the oil was running dry and OPEC (Saudis, again) began their blackmail. So they lost out to Toyota and Honda who WERE making the vehicles we needed, and they lasted more than a couple of years (I had a Toyota panel van that lasted 500,000+ miles, would have lasted a million if I could have afforded the ring and piston job). Detroit's K-cars didn't get 30,000 before falling apart. Remember "planned obsolescence?"
I'm not for bailing them out either. They're fossilized, need to go the way of the dinosaur along with their Humvees and gigantic SUVs. Someone will do the start-ups, force EPA to come off that new biodiesel engine they're sitting on, everything will work out fine. It's evolution at work. Let 'em die, something better is coming.
I must say I have really enjoyed these exchanges, Bradford. Even though you know my vote is already cast. I love politics, it's the greatest game ever, I've spent years and years of my life observing and commenting and opining about it. I know your vote is as 'cast' as mine, I'm not changing your mind either. But it's wonderful to just have the opportunity to express these things in an adversarial forum with someone who isn't ranting and raving like a freeper. Thanks!
Comment by Joy — October 30, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
October 30th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Holy Hell! Below is a picture courtesy of Wonkette of a mass prayer rally on Wall Street yesterday (Oct. 29th), per CBN and Cindy Jacobs. Who said…
Gee. I wonder if any of them recall the story of Moses, and what happened while he was on the mountain getting those stone tablets. Apparently not, nor did any of them consider what this insanity would look like to those of us who actually own copies of Charlton Heston's classic and watch it quite regularly (grandson loves it).
Wow. The image of Christians praying to a golden bull for money is… amazing.
Comment by Joy — October 30, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
October 31st, 2008 at 10:03 am
Joy, that picture is so sad……in so many ways
My wife and I almost fall into that area of income, I think we made about 26-27k last year….might be less. I don't want anyone elses money. The problem I see with many lower income families is they have absolutly no understanding of how to save and live within their means. I can only speak to my area of the country in WI. Many of my friends alone make more money than we do together….but their dept is off the charts. We carry over no credit card debt, our vehicles are paid for, we do not buy things we cannot afford. That being said we live nicely. The only debt we have is in our home loan and school loans.
Ther biggest vehicle for change that I see is in our educational system, from grade school through college on the public side. We need to show our children the benefits of fiscal responsibility from an early age, and to educate them against being taken advantage of. They must understand history and it's implications, they also must understand that the future is open to them whatever their meager beginings. We must provide them all with an education that levels the playing field of oppurtunities, whatever they choose to be.
To do this we must be able to remove bad teachers that fail to meet high standards, and replace them with teachers that inspire our children to reach for higher goals, and to work hard to reach those goals. This is how we strive for change and hope, by empowering our children. Ignorance is the bane of democracy. It leaves us open to further corruption from the entrenched power players. Too bad this has been the trend for decades, increased ignorance, and it's beginning to show.
Comment by Kuma — October 31, 2008 @ 10:03 am
October 31st, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Kuma:
Janis Joplin once sang someone else's song very poignantly – "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose…" – and that's semi-true in my experience. We all make choices about what's important in our lives, and usually become enslaved to that which we choose. At the low end of the scale there's never enough, just paying the bills is a constant struggle. At the high end of the scale there is also never enough. The thirst for more and more and more rules lives and ruins them too.
As Wall Street melts down we're suddenly informed we must Spend, Spend, Spend!!! They can never make up their minds. Either we're not saving enough or we're not spending enough, it's always our fault. I call bullshit. Slave wages have not even kept up with the cost of living, they can't have it both ways.
I read about a 50-something day care worker yesterday who a coworker noticed sitting in the corner crying. When asked what's wrong, she finally said she couldn't feel her face. The coworker was alarmed, saw one side of her face drooping as they were talking, speech slurring. She drove her friend to the hospital, but the woman just cried harder and wouldn't get out of the car. Said yes, she must be having a stroke, but if she walked in the door she'd lose everything – house, car, meager income (job)… she was terrified. Her friend finally talked her into going, she is still in the hospital and her coworkers are trying very hard to raise the tens of thousands she'll need to pay for the care. There is no insurance at that end of the scale.
Some people on that discussion board from Europe and Australia were horrified. Simply trying to imagine what it must be like to face utter ruin just because you need to see a doctor – when you might be dying. Where dying is the "reasonable" choice, just so your children aren't left bankrupt. Every other civilized country in the world provides basic health care for their citizens. Only in America…
This is wrong. We all work, much harder than the greed-head capitalists who skim the wealth we create for themselves. There are only so many hours in a day, and humans need sleep. If two full-time minimum wage jobs or three part-time minimum wage jobs – 16 hours a day, the kids are home alone – can't provide a decent income, it's NOT because these people are "lazy" or "shiftless" or anything. That's wrong too. Now that Wall Street has cashed-out, millions who are very much willing to work won't have jobs – there won't be any. Great Depression v2.0. This is what unfettered 'free market capitalism' has wrought. It's not pretty, and I sincerely doubt Jesus would approve.
So the haters are busy whipping up more hate. Buzzwords like "socialism," taxing the rich, scary black people, gays and terrorists around every corner… "God's Voter Guide." That's f***ing obscene! Dogs and cats living together, total chaos!!! Booga Booga, blah, blah, blah, Osama bin Laden, blah, blah, blah, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, blah, blah, blah. Disgusting.
We need change, not hate. Hate's not going to help anyone, it's just going to cause more pain. Maybe if the so-called Christians spewing hate 24-7 and worshipping golden bulls on Wall Street were exposed as the liars, posers and hypocrites they truly are, we could finally all work together to improve our nation and everyone's lives. As if this were the United States of America, sans secessionists and domestic terrorists in the White House.
There's a difference between "socialism" that has the government working for the people, and "socialism" that has government working for the corporate greed-heads. One is how the rest of the free world functions these days. The other is fascism. Things can't go on like this, so when the dust clears which choice will we make? Valueless money is just mammon. Belongs to Caesar, not to God (who is pennyless). Our nation is drowning in it. If We the People ever come to our senses, we'd realize there are way more of "us" than "them." So I hope. Right now that's pretty much all there is, and a great many others are hoping too…
Happy Halloween – Booga Booga!!!
Comment by Joy — October 31, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
October 31st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
The chunkster must chime in on this one.
Personally, I wouldn't be caught dead having dinner at terrorist Bill Ayers house.
Personally, I wouldn't stay stay 5 minutes in racist Jeremiah's church.
Personally, I'd never raise a toast to terrorist Rashidi.
Personally, I wouldn't get within a hundred yards of scumbag Tony Resco.
Personally, I wouldn't listen to a word of Father Flager's racist talk.
But that's not why I won't vote for Obama. The fact that his associates seem to be chosen based on political power, rather than character, is not unusual for Washington.
The simple fact is he hasn't got the resume.
He was good at raising money for community organizations. Then he had a shot at doing something as a state legislator, and he punted. Then he was a U.S. senator for 3 months when he decided he was ready to lead the most powerful army on the planet. All he really seems to be good at is ingratiating himself to political power brokers.
Sorry, Thought Provoker, but your bigoted, prejudiced and slanted characterization doesn't fit me. If your implication is that an Obama loss would mean that America succumbed to fear mongering, then let me offer you the advice you always freely dish out – think for yourself. Maybe some Americans just feel that the presidency is a job for which one must pay his or her dues. Being incredibly charming and voting 'present' just ain't cutting it with me.
Comment by chunkdz — October 31, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
October 31st, 2008 at 4:00 pm
chunkdz:
Tell um chunkdz.
Exactly. Look at the comments in the thread. Where are the accusations coming from and who are they directed at? Hate never disappeared from the American political scence. What changed is who we are allowed to hate and how hatred can be justified. You can hate right wingers in politics. You can hate IDists in origins discussions. You must be tolerant of other religions but you can hate conservative Christians. You can hate pro-lifers. You just have to get adjusted to the new rules.
Comment by Bradford — October 31, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
October 31st, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Feel the hate.
Yes, We Can! – Si, Se Puede!
Comment by Zachriel — October 31, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
October 31st, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Bradford:
Poor hated Bradford.
If you want to see some real hate, watch some of those McCain rallies where the dumb fundies are whipped into a frenzy. Of course McCain despises the suckers but he needs their votes. But then, I guess you already have seen that and you're just playing the poor persecuted Christian card. It's a little too transparent.
Comment by Raevmo — October 31, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
October 31st, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Raevmo, you have something against enthusiasm?
Speaking of a frenzy. Those endorsements keep coming in.
And this is what happens to enemies of the people.
Comment by Bradford — October 31, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
October 31st, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Just don't ask for specifics. What a demagogue! The guy speaks lots of words without saying anything.
Comment by Bradford — October 31, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
October 31st, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Bradford:
What a surprise. After McCain said "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran".
How do you like this endorsement?
Comment by Raevmo — October 31, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
October 31st, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Raevmo, this is outragous. But I like the directly proportional indicator for PhDs.
This stuff will keep you from getting fat and happy.
Comment by Bradford — October 31, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
October 31st, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Raevmo, voter turnout will be unusually heavy. It will be a grass roots effort. Why not take a trip to Chicago on Tuesday. If you show your passport they'll let you vote.
Comment by Bradford — October 31, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
October 31st, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Bradford, you hang out at some dubious web sites.
I can do much better than that. Since the vast majority of holders of PhD degrees have two middle fingers, I'd say the number of middle fingers is not just proportional to the number of PhD degrees, but scales with a factor of almost 2 with the number of PhD degrees in an x-block radius.
In other news: Dawkins resurrected.
Comment by Raevmo — October 31, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
October 31st, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Raevmo, once in a while Obama makes an honest admission.
Comment by Bradford — October 31, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
October 31st, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Bradford:
No thanks. Last time in Chicago they wouldn't let me enter a bar, even when I showed my European driver's license. I think I'll get drunk right here on Tuesday, no matter what the outcome of the election.
Comment by Raevmo — October 31, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
October 31st, 2008 at 7:59 pm
His resurrection was preceeded by his coming into existence.
Comment by Bradford — October 31, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
November 1st, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Last night hubby and I were driving home through the mountains from Tennessee, so I sought a radio station that would actually come in despite the interference. That turned out to be FoxRadio, the Neal Boortz show. Being as it was Halloween, I figured hate-radio would be appropriately scary, and it sure enough was.
Seems this nut has a great idea for how to make sure the "little people" don't get to elect leaders to office that he doesn't approve of. Boortz said he'd support a "constitutional amendment" that would give citizens the vote, which made us laugh. No amendment needed, dear. We already have the right to vote, despite the best efforts of recent Republicans to interfere. Then he added that rich people should have more votes than poor people, up to five per rich person! I nearly choked on my fountain drink.
Now, I understand why bigots like Boortz would want to have more votes than 'lesser' citizens, but there's not a snowball's chance in hell such an idea would make it past the one-person one-vote situation we now enjoy, because he's only got one vote, just like me. But what really got to me was his rationale…
Seems he believes that rich people somehow "work harder" than poor people. Which of course is blatantly ridiculous. There are 24 hours in a day. Most people work for 8 of them, some people work 16 of them. Apart from short stints (which must be short because it'll kill ya quick), nobody works 24 hours a day. Because of institutionalized inequalities in education and earning ability, some people make less than $10 an hour for their labor, others make $100,000 a month (or more) in salary for just taking up office space. Same or similar hours, though the low end of that comparison usually works much harder for what little they get.
See, you can't determine who "works harder" just by looking at income. Especially not in the US of A, where income inequality is more significant than in any other so-called 'first world' country on the planet. Therefore, it's not a question of rich 'workers' versus poor 'deadbeats', and such a lie could not be sold on these deceptive terms to anyone but pitiable idiots.
I hear a lot of senseless blabbering about "socialism" lately – Boortz used for his example public education. IOW, Obama would support public education if he got to be President, which makes him a scary "socialist." Yet the plain fact is that universal public education has been in place in this country since 1918 (90 years), the first mandatory public education laws were passed in Massachusetts in 1852. Thomas Jefferson first suggested the idea, supported by George Washington, Noah Webster and other luminaries of the new nation. Thus the United States has been certifiably "socialist" on this issue for a long, long time. Big Fail, Boortz.
Then Boortz added the idea of taxation as "socialism." Now, it's true that our ancestors fought their revolution against Britain partially over the issue of "Taxation Without Representation," but they had no problem with the idea of taxes paid to the government to support its functions. At this point the taxation of 'average' workers (local, state and federal) amounts to 40% of income. Until income taxes on the wealthy were instituted in 1861 (and extended in 1913), most tax income to the government came from trade tariffs – which predominantly hit businesses. Until 1964, the top marginal tax rate was as high as 90%. [Taxation in the United States]
So this is a Big Fail too, Neal. Taxing rich people and businesses has a long and complex history in the United States, from day 1. If that is "socialism," the US has been a socialist country since its inception.
Now, I do realize that the hate-radio pundits get paid to spew "talking points" to an audience of ignorant citizens who know basically nothing about anything, thus are easily led by the nose to believe whatever the pundits are paid to sell them. But for most Americans who can at least find California or Afghanistan on a map, this crap will never fly. There are a lot of people out there with double-digit IQs who are unfortunately unable to learn much, but they are NOT a majority of citizens and do NOT wield the kind of power it would take to eliminate the US Constitution or wage your elitist revolution as unpaid, throw-away mercenaries.
P.S. To Boortz, Limbaugh, Savage and the rest of the winger pundits – almost all of those dummies you're trying so hard to whip into revolutionary frenzy work hard for their meager livings and don't have much left after paying 40% of it in taxes. They're too tired at the end of the day for anything but wallowing in the hate you spew. They don't know why they hate, they just know it makes them feel better about themselves to believe they're better than someone else. This is why the Judgment Jesus promised is graded on a curve – weighted against shepherds more than sheep.
Comment by Joy — November 1, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
November 1st, 2008 at 5:57 pm
One more chunkdz:
Sorry, a failing grade on this one too. According to Esquire Magazine, anyway. Where 3 of 5 White Supremacist leaders are supporting Obama…
First, there's the ever-fascinating (in a psychological sense) Tom Metzger, Director of the White Aryan Resistance, ex-Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, who got his nose broken on that infamous episode of Geraldo. His endorsement:
Then there's Erich Gliebe, Chairman of the National Alliance, a.k.a. "The Aryan Barbarian." His endorsement:
And Rocky Suhayda, Chair of the American Nazi Party. His endorsement:
Obama didn't make the grade with Yahanna, self-appointed General of the Israelite School of Universal Practical Knowledge, or Ron Edwards, current Imperial Wizard of the Imperial Klans of America. Oh, well. You can't have universal agreement on things like this, I guess. But good news! John McCain did earn Dick Cheney's endorsement today. To which Obama (who didn't dignify those racist endorsements at all) responded most magnanimously…
No, I don't think much of any of these 'endorsements', any more than I think much of Osama bin Laden's supposed 'endorsement' of John McCain. It's just more dirty politics, desperation playing itself out in a climate of hate and fear instead of hope and courage.
And by the way, how come Kuma's the only one here who admits the image of Christians praying to a golden bull for money is "disturbing?" Is this the sort of thing you support?
Comment by Joy — November 1, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Hi Chunkdz,
I'm back. As expected, Joy at al held up their side of the conversation in my absence but I thought it appropriate to address your comment directed to me.
To my suggestion that McCain and the Right Wing are attempting the standard FUD (Fear uncertainty and doubt) tactic at the last minute, you wrote…
Simple?
Here is a link to an Obama Resume which includes…
EDUCATION:
J.D., Magna Cum Laude, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, 1991
President, Harvard Law Review (first African-American ever elected)
B.A., Political Science, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, 1983
TEACHING EXPERIENCE:
Lecturer / Senior Lecturer 1992 to 2004
University of Chicago Law School
• Taught courses in General Law, Constitutional Law and Government Affairs.
• Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs
• Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
• Member, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
• Member, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
• Member, Environmental and Public Works Committee
• Member, Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Like Joy, Obama was my first choice but to imply Obama "hasn't got the resume" and Palin does, is something many people (myself included) find “simply” not credible.
Please note that I wasn't suggesting that you or other people who long ago chose to support McCain were doing it for reasons other than the issues. I was pointing to the last minute push trying to sway those on-the-fence with everything-but-the-kitchen-sink smears.
And, again, if the tactic works, I think it would be a sad commentary on America.
I didn't suggest it did.
I am, by looking at the details the candidates' qualifications, both for President and Vice President. I am also looking at what each are proposing and generally taking their word at it. McCain is proposing to continue the Bush's economic and military plans. Obama is not.
Do you remember Bush's 2000 campaign? Bush kept his economic campaign promises. The results were predicable and predicted. This was aggravated by Bush's decision of invoking a preemptive doctrine as an excuse to invade Iraq along with a reckless attitude fighting a costly war, maintaining domestic spending while also reducing income (i.e. taxes).\
We are fighting an unnecessary war we can't afford.
McCain is promising to generally stay this course. I suggest continuing the Bush-imposed tax cuts for large corporations and wealthy individuals along with fighting an expensive war is Iraq is not only unfair, it is unwise.
But, by all means, think for yourself. I hope everyone will, especially tomorrow.
It is my sincere wish people's votes will be based on deliberate and conscious decisions instead of last minute appeals to emotions of fear.
We have been living in fear for too long already.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 3, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Speaking of fear. Leftists are pretty good at spreading it.
Comment by Bradford — November 3, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Hi Bradford,
So, do you think that Erica Jong (author of Fear of Flying) was trying to influence the election by giving an interview to an Italian newspaper?
Meanwhile back to the real issues…
Do you think the wise course of action is to continue the expensive war in Iraq?
Do you think the wise course of action is to continue the Bush tax breaks for large corporations and weathy?
These are the questions at issue here. McCain might have made a legitimate issue out of necessary experience, but his choice for vice president negated that through comparison.
Obama may be young, but there is little question of his intelligence. Even his critics call him elite as if that is a bad thing. If and when he pledges to uphold the constitution, he will know what that means as well as most past presidents, maybe even more so.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 3, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:50 pm
That's not the point. But I'm sure you know that. You brought up the peddling of fear issue. The leftist luminaries cited in that blog entry do a great job of fear mongering.
As far as tax breaks and wealthy corporations are concerned, I'd like to see the biggest and wealthiest of them go on a strict diet. The U.S. government is a pig which produces very little and saps a great deal of money out of the economy. Money that could be used for useful endeavors like producing, consuming and investing. Leftists have unlimited faith in the largest, most powerful organization in the world- Uncle Sam. It is also run by the wealthiest, most powerful people in the world. The USG is not where I place my hope. You wrote:
Except for one thing I've previously pointed out. She would be a heartbeat away. Obama is the heartbeat.
The United Sates is loaded with first class minds. Intelligence is not the most important prerequisite for a leader. Vladimir Lenin was very intelligent. So was Napolean Bonaparte. Character counts for much more. I know many bright individuals I wouldn't trust for a nanosecond. Their intelligence actually makes them more dangerous. Dishonesty and other character flaws are exacerbated by one who can use intelligence to further selfish ends.
Comment by Bradford — November 3, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Well said Bradford.
Comment by computerist — November 3, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
TP:
He's only 'young' (47) in comparison with a 72-year old 4-time cancer survivor. The 'average' age of US Presidents (there have been 43 of them) is 55. JFK was 43 when he became President, Bill Clinton was 46.
Bradford:
Oddly enough, that doesn't bother most voters. After eight years of Bush-Cheney altering and abrogating the Constitution at will, it'll be refreshing to have a Constitutional scholar in the job.
You've tried and tried to whip up frenzy for this low-life character assassination of a good man, it obviously hasn't worked. So I'll once again suggest that you may wish to start getting used to the idea that Barack Obama will be President #44. Because that's just what we're going to get.
No one is expected to agree with the policies of administrations or Congresses dominated by the 'other' party, but so long as you do your civic duty and vote, you've got bitching rights for the next 4-8 years. The recent reign of terror from the Republican 'base' is over, not a moment too soon. Our country – and the world we operate within – will change, as it must change to meet 21st century realities.
There will always be an opposition party that you can support with all the energy and effort and money you can safely or legally donate. Of course, reality dictates that you won't always win. So long as you pay your taxes the government you dislike so much will most likely leave you alone. Which is the most any of us can hope for when the 'other guys' are in charge.
Comment by Joy — November 4, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Dishonesty and other character flaws are exacerbated by one who can use intelligence to further selfish ends.
That quote you reference is a general response to TP's argument for the primacy of intelligence as a qualification. It is applicable across the board. You don't know that Obama is a good man. How could you? He may be one but then again you could say that about almost any freshman legislator. If you can say that about almost anyone with his level of experience then good or nice are not very revealing terms.
It will be more difficult to get used to the idea that results count for more than pretty speeches. He'll have to produce. Americans will have to see a better economy and other benefits. If they do not Obama will go the way of Jimmy Carter. But he has an opportunity. Let's see what happens.
Comment by Bradford — November 4, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Bradford:
That is a tad dishonest, Bradford. Why would you estimate the man only by his actions as a legislator? Given Obama's stellar performance in Harvard law school, he could have gone for the big bucks in a major law firm. Instead, he was more interested in helping the less fortunate members of society. Compare that to McCain. A spoiled brat like W. Ended near the bottom of his class. Lousy flier, crashing a bunch of airplanes, but tolerated in the Navy on account of his daddy. Serial adulterer. Leaving a disabled wife for a rich heiress.
Comment by Raevmo — November 4, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Obama and his wife are very well off financially. He kick started his political career with the stint as a community organizer. From CO to the state legislature and beyond. His Harvard background does not make him a good man. Do you think an Ivy League background confers good character? Why do you want to canonize this guy? I'm content to see what he does. You've already got him lined up for sainthood.
Like John Kerry?
Sounds like talking points to me. How well would you hold up under torture?
You had to go back a couple plus decades for that one. I'll just bet you hammered Bill Clinton for his ongoing adultery. Since when did you get an attachment for Judeo-Christian morals?
Comment by Bradford — November 4, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Bradford:
Of course they are well off. He's a US senator and sold quite a few books. But he could have been far richer if he had opted for a lucrative career as a lawyer. Instead he helped out the poor. That's a sacrifice. It suggests to me he is a good man. Do you disagree?
His Ivy League background testifies to his capabilities and character. It takes hard work and dedication to reach the top of your class in Harvard.
I thought McCain broke under torture. Nothing wrong with that, but nothing to be proud of either. He did get the VIP treatment on account of his father's position. He refused to be let go earlier, to his credit, but note that refusal is mandatory under the Geneva convention. I don't see how that qualifies the man as president.
McCain's treatment in Hanoi was also decades ago. I didn't at all admire Clinton's adultery and lying over it, but the resulting Republican hysteria was pure hypocrisy. Does the rampant homosexuality among Republican politicians bother you? One doesn't have to adhere to Judeo-Christian religion to agree with some of their morals.
Comment by Raevmo — November 4, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
The Obamas are an ambitious couple. She made the bucks while he step-stoned his way to the U.S. Senate. Nothing wrong with that but neither does this fit the self-sacrifice paradigm. I have much better examples of that. Now it looks like they will have the best of all worlds- money and power and adulation to boot. Again, nothing wrong with seeking those things but spare us the self-sacrifice stuff.
Anyone can be broken under torture. The thing you want to do is to not let it disrupt the rest of your life. I give all those who survive torture with grace and dignity credit.
Yes, but there is no hypocrisy on my end. With respect to immoral behavior I don't play favorites.
Comment by Bradford — November 4, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Bradford:
Yeah, right. Earlier you said that you thought Obama was fundamentally dishonest. You didn't say that about McCain. Yet if I compare CVs I see nothing to suggest that Obama is more dishonest than McCain. On the contrary. The McCain campaign is sufficient evidence that McCain is fundamentally dishonest. He hired the same people that spread the rumor in 2000 that he fathered a black child out of wedlock. How do you spin that to your own conscience?
Anyway, I'm off to the pub pretty soon to watch the spectacle with my friends (to a man/woman Obama supporters of course). It might be a long boozy night, but I expect it will be a good night.
Comment by Raevmo — November 4, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
November 4th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Obama may be a better family man than McCain. He may be more honest in his personal life. I can't assess that. But what I can evaluate is a candidate's positions during a campaign when the tendency is to run toward the center to curry favorites with voters. I believe Obama when he says he will push for fundamental changes. I also understand the meaning of fundamental. What Obama has not done throughout the campaign is supply the details that will produce fundamental changes. Next year at this time I'll have a list of them and if we're both still around. I could be asking you some pointed questions that bear on political honesty. McCain was the Republican darling of the mainstream media not all that many years ago. His positions have not changed and he has little need of running toward the center. Honesty is most relevant where job performance is impacted. I don't care so much about whether either one is a nice guy. I want to live in a safe and prosperous nation.
I have no idea what this means.
Comment by Bradford — November 4, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
November 5th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Hi Thought Provoker,
I didn't mention Palin, I mentioned Barack.
But it is very telling that in making up a 'pretend' argument for me, you made the 'pretend' chunkdz compare Barack's resume to a VP candidate rather than the obvious comparison.
You are really not interested in critical thinking are you?
Wow. He taught general law and was on several committees for three months. Why did I ever doubt him?
Who said I support McCain? Critical thinking is not your strong point, is it?
Umm, you were the one justified Barack's resume by comparing it to Sarah Palin's. Is this what happens when you think for yourself?
Well, you don't have to fear any longer, now that there's a Senior Lecturer of General Law classes at the helm. Sweet dreams, TP.
Comment by chunkdz — November 5, 2008 @ 6:46 pm