Discussion the presidential election race with your Northfield area fellow citizens here. (Previous blog post: DNC and the RNC: the good, the bad, the ugly has 365 comments.)
Discussion the presidential election race with your Northfield area fellow citizens here. (Previous blog post: DNC and the RNC: the good, the bad, the ugly has 365 comments.)
What if it was Obama Palin vs McCain Biden?
The immediate answer is that if those were the tickets, pigs (with lipstick) would be flying overhead.
Bright, again, I’m not getting your point. How would you envision this even happening? Wouldn’t it be better to discuss the real issues instead of starting the thread with a detour?
But just to show I’m a good sport, I’ll give an answer.
Obama and Palin would never be on the same ticket because they are completely opposite on issues and their supporters don’t agree on the issues. They also would not be on the same ticket because Palin doesn’t have the experience, the underlying knowledge or the ethics to be on a national ticket. She maybe a quick study, but you can’t learn foreign policy in two months. She didn’t study foreign policy in college, she has had no interest in it until know. That’s exactly how we got into trouble with Bush; everyone thought if he had good advisers they could make up for his lack of knowledge. Not true.
News stories today outline her history of giving important jobs to old school friends, of using power for power’s sake. And she’s still lying about the bridge to nowhere, despite mountains of proof that she supported it.
And while I don’t support getting into family business, she has made being a mother a major part of her resume, so is it true that the daughter wasn’t engaged until the boy was ordered to show up at the RNC? Is it true the daughter was living with an aunt because Sarah Palin was angry at her for being pregnant?
I’m sorry, but a young boy shouldn’t be forced into marriage to fulfill a politician’s ambitions. And a mother doesn’t banish a child who fails to live up to her expectations.
The idea of her being a heartbeat away from the presidency is just too scary to consider.
Impossible to even consider…
Bright- Now that is a radical proposal! In this particular case, I think it would be like putting two cats into a bag and closing the end. The result would probably be two dead cats. Besides, what would we call such a ticket, since we Americans are so into labels. Republicat? Democan? The possibilities on this are almost endless, but I’m assuming Griff was looking for more serious debate here.
Hi, JG! Nope, I don’t think it’s radical. What I am looking for is to see people think outsideatha cube. It’s offensive to me that Americans, the oh so free and well educated people of the world, would only be able to lay down party lines and then go party. What about thinking what we want for ourselves, as any one of us might represent thousands of others with the same needs and dilemnas, and not let the party leaders do all the thinking for us.
Then, we use this fabulous tool called the Internet and disperse these ideas that are more likely to be more to the point of how we can all grow this young country of ours into a better place for everyone without the GOVT. standing in the way, and maybe even pave the way for greater innovation and surpassing the long lag times we now endure.
Ideas on how we can live with or without all those issues which are plaguing our good country, and how we can see eye to eye on solid solutions. They don’t always cost money. They need creative ideas that we know could work while still paying out less than we have had to in the past. I don’t know, this is just me tossing out some framework and to others who think
there is a bean to plant and grow here.
Ideas like flex time and job sharing and natural gas for vehicles and smothies.
Bright- Basically, what you are proposing is the original Greek democratic process. The internet does open up all kinds of possibilities for quick communication, but seeing how discussions amongst just a few people on this blog can get bogged down (perhaps that is why it is called a blog?), I don’t have much hope for any simplification or efficiency being attained through this type of method. Just because of the sheer size of the country, it would seem that our representative form of government is still the best.
As far as the two parties go, at least there can be some sense of majority rule. When Ross Perot tried to affect the process with a strong third party, it essentially split the conservative vote to the point that Bill Clinton was elected by only 43% of the voting public. This is still a simple majority by percentages, but I could see the country being polarized more and more by single issue oriented parties breaking off on their own. What with the Green, Independent, Democratic, and Republican parties right now, add into the mix a Latino Party, an Islamic Party and the Evangelicals rise up again with some kind of God Party, I could see chaos begin to ensue. Our process is certainly not ideal, but it does work.
As far as the two tickets before us, there is certainly not much in similarities, aside from the status quo of a burgeoning federal beuracracy. This election, IMHO, is going to be a good indication of where the voters have any trust in and put any hope in either ideology to provide a secure future. It will be interesting to see how it comes out. I don’t have any real sense of where the chips are going to fall.
Come on, ladies! Stretch the imagination for a moment. I wasn’t hoping for more candidate bashing. I am still hoping for some really take a minute to consider the possibility, what if Sarah was willing to comprimise like she said, and Obama was willing to reach hands across the aisle like he said, and McCain you know would listen to Biden on all sorts of things. This is totally possible. Biden admits what friends he is with McCain, except for a couple of issues, which he voted FOR anyway. This is possible. They are politicians, after all.
Anne, why did you feel it was necessary to come down on Bright for asking a question? Just because you don’t get her point is no reason to come down on her. Last time I checked free speech was still alloowed in America.
Perhaps you should look at your own postings before coming down on someone else for theirs. You seem to want to spread rumor rather that looking at the real issues. You are the one who posted “so is it true that the daughter wasn’t engaged until the boy was ordered to show up at the RNC? Is it true the daughter was living with an aunt because Sarah Palin was angry at her for being pregnant?”
This is gossip, not fact. These are family matters not anyone elses business. I would be willing to bet that most all Presidents and Vice Presidents have skeletons in their closets that they would rather not have come out.
It amazes me how we as citizens want to look at the negative in politics rather than the positive. Maybe is is because that is all we see in the tv ads from the candidates themselves.
I don’t classify myself as a democrat or republican and therefore do not vote along party lines. I tend to cast my vote based the positives I know about a candidate and the job I feel they can do for me and all of America.
So in closing, I do think that Bright’s question is a good one. Afterall, McCain (Republican) was considering Joe Lieberman (Democrat turned Independant) as his running mate.
Anne,
Thank you for your comments (#2). I couldn’t agree more.
There are MAJOR differences on major issues between Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin. Leadership ability, judgment, personality and experience are also valid in discussing who should be elected president and vp. If there is to be discussion here, it would seem to be fruitful to focus on that.
For me, it boils down to who will serve this country and the world best as the single most influential individual in the single most powerful nation in the world over what are sure to be four (or eight) tumultuous, challenging years in which radical change of course is desperately needed in the US and the world. On issues and personal qualities, for me, Obama wins hands down over McCain as the possible change agent we so badly need. I know others will differ with me.
On the heartbeat away from the presidency issue, I feel comfortable with the possibility of Joe Biden as president, but Sarah Palin scares the bejeezus out of me. I can understand why the right wing is fired up by her addition to the Republican ticket, but enthusiasm from anyone else over her selection frankly baffles me.
Not much action here for the moment, for some reason, so let me try (not or the first time) something contrarian, vaguely related to Bright’s idea of the VP candidates trading places and to the many postings in that diss the R and D parties and congratulate the posters for their independent minds.
I like the two-party system. (I’m not crazy about the two parties we actually have right now, but that’s a different question.)
And I’d prefer more, not less, party discipline and party identification among candidates and elected officials. Independent-mindedness has its place, but in our political system, and in most others, parties are the means by which people actually get together to propose programs, enact legislation, etc. In a system with two reasonably viable parties, each party has an incentive to propose moderate rather than extreme policies, to which a majority of voters can reasonably be expected to be attracted.
The system works poorly when, as here and now, party discipline is weak and candidates tend to run (however dishonestly) as outsiders and mavericks rather than as experienced actors who might accomplish something. In such an environment parties compete less on serious programs and policies than on hot-button cultural issues, which don’t really belong in the political arena, and on cheap slogans and implausible promises. And parties feel free—and are free—to put forth ludicrously underqualified candidates for high office.
Viva partisan politics!
Paul Zorn
Paul Z: You offer an interesting position, to say you’re not particularly fond of the parties as they are, but to believe in partisan politics.
There have been times when many Democrats/liberals were in favor of exporting democracy and capitalism, and where, on the other had, Republicans (like Ron Paul and to some extent John J. Duncan, Jr., of TN) have advocated small government, avoiding foreign entanglements like nation-building, and a small military that is used more for national defense than for expanding US corporate-military empire.
Now we have a Republican party that wants it both ways: To claim they’re conservative about taxes and spending, but to support a global military (and increasingly expensive, privatized military) project that we can’t long afford. They’re pro-business and pro-free market, which means deregulation, like having a western town without a sheriff so the liars, outlaws and general thieves can have free run of the place. The party is fracturing especially in light of Bush-Cheney, but was also fracturing during the Bush I years. They say they’re in favor of traditional family values, but these conflict with the free market stuff listed above. Does this party have a future unless it undergoes some radical change in focus — or unless it keeps getting a lot of big money from the richest of the liars and thieves?
We have a Democratic party that is increasingly perceived as aligned with unions (decreasing in influence and popularity), with the poor, with minorities, feminists, gays, and elitist atheists. Who but those groups (and maybe some Christians dedicated to solidarity with “the least of these” as the Gospels say) especially wants to think of themselves as associated with that party? Does this party have a long-term future unless it changes its focus?
During the depression, many of the richest corporate CEO’s hated the New Deal, and some conspired to have FDR’s government changed to a Fascist government that favored corporate interests. But it was only the small help from the New Deal, and the large infusion of public (federal) funds for the war effort, that lifted the nation out of the depression. There was a disconnect: The rich didn’t see that it was in their best interests to have a thriving, productive middle class of active consumers.
It seems we’re heading slowly (or today, more quickly) toward a new era of crippling economic challenge for the majority, with real inflation-adjusted wages falling over decades, with taxes cut for the rich, with social security withholding rising for the lower and middle class (still a slush fund), and with the national credit-card being used too often.
There seems to be little awareness that, when more people thrive, even the richest profit nicely — and when many suffer, then the rich, of course, suffer too. Short-sightedness.
Back in government class, high school days, I recall that the vice president was the principal representative of the U.S. to other nations. The idea being that the president was too valuable to send to potentially hostile nations, but the v.p. was in the place of the president and, unfortunately for the v.p., expendable.
While the role of vice president has changed drastically over the last 232 years, even today with the secretary of state assuming this vice presidential duty, I admit that the idea of Gov. Palin becoming the principal representative of the U.S. to other nations is not comforting.
The most important aspect of the next administration is who will be nominated to replace at least two retiring Supreme Court justices. For me, this is the most important issue. The next president has 4 or 8 years in office. The justices’ job is a lifetime appointment.
Don’t DFLers have any thing better to offer than bash, bash, bash Sarah?
Bright: I don’t think it’s bashing. If you interview various people for a job and note some of the facts on their resume and gathered from references, observing that one candidate is more experienced, etc., than another is not bashing.
This is like the response of some to observations like these:
– Bush brought us into a preemptive war (and certain Dems went along) against the Geneva conventions.
– Bush and his administration authorized “enhanced interrogation techniques” (another name for torture).
– Bush and Cheney authorized illegal wiretapping (and certain Dems went along).
– Bush, like Clinton before him, has practiced “Extraordinary rendition,” the practice where some assume that, while it’s illegal to torture people in the US, it’s OK to take them to another country where others will torture them to obtain information.
– The Constitution says that if congress passes a law (especially by a veto-over-riding majority) it becomes law, and the president must comply; but Bush has issued “signing statements” that take exception to, and ignored or failed to enforce other, laws passed by congress, in apparent violation of the basics of the constitution.
Note that this list is not simply a “liberal” list – it’s pretty similar to the list created by the likes of conservative/libertarian Bob Barr and constitutional conservative Bruce Fein, at the American Freedom Agenda / americanfreedomagenda.org
Note also that I’ve included Clinton and Dems in some of the above criticism.
Now some respond to such criticism routinely by saying Bush’s critics are just Bush “bashers,” or “haters.” They change the topic of the conversation from Bush’s crimes to this: Why do people hate so much — like those Bush-haters? This is like a rhetorical shell-game. Keep your eye on the topic at hand, or suddenly evil is the new good (as a recent article I read was titled), and evil’s critics are suddenly the evil ones because they hate.
Like listening to overwhelming evidence given against a suspect in a rape case, a suspect named John Smith, say, and saying the lawyers for the prosecution were John Smith “haters” and “bashers.”
This is not to say that everything we hear about Palin and other candidates will be true. But discussions of the basic facts of her experience and her past actions as an elected official is not automatically “bashing.”
Who’s to blame for 9/11 ? “Mr. Clinton’s responsibility in Somalia doesn’t stop there. Despite the mistakes that October day, Aidid had been struck a blow. The U.S. military, with 18 dead, wanted nothing more than to finish what it had started. Mr. Clinton instead aborted the mission. The U.S. released the criminals it had captured that same day at such great cost, and the U.N., lacking U.S. support, was powerless to keep order. Somalia remains a lawless, impoverished nation. Worse, the terrorists of al Qaeda interpreted the U.S. retreat from Somalia as a sign of American weakness that may have convinced them we could be induced to retreat from the Middle East if they took their attacks to the U.S. homeland. ” http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002091
Paul Frieid, You needn’t accuse me of “automatically” saying that people around here are bashing when it’s the same phrases that the same people keep saying over and over again, without giving any credence to a woman who has made significant accomplishments in her life, against the grain of the old boy network and other similar anti women in office types…it is bashing and it is direct orders party line trash talk, imho.
And furthermore, I challenge you to prove any of the accusations you have made in the furtherance of the old tactic of not sticking to the question at hand, ie, Sarah bashing, and bringing up a whole bunch of other unfounded, unsourced, unproven statements, most of which I believe are only partly, if at all true.
Bright writes:
“You needn’t accuse me of “automatically” saying that people around here are bashing…”
Bright, Paul did not accuse you of automatically saying anything, he wrote instead that people who discuss Palin’s experience, or lack thereof, are not automatically bashing her. By misplacing his adverb, you are distorting his words and making them appear like a personal attack on your style of presentation instead of the substance of what you have to say.
David Henson: The president at the time of 9/11 was George Bush. He received a security briefing memo well before September 11 stating that terrorist were planning on using hijacked planes to crash into buildings. He and his administration did nothing.
To continue this repeated claim that Clinton should have put policies in place to guard the airlines before he left office is only correct when you find out how incompetent the Bush adminstration has been. Yes, Clinton should have forseen that his successor was an idiot and he should have convened all kinds of committees before he left office–his briefings of the Bush administration was obviously inaffective.
Too bad Clinton thought that the next guy was actually going to act like a president, instead of working on putting all his buddies into appointed offices and making false claims that all the “W’s were missing from the computer key boards.
The information was there and Bush did nothing.
For 8 years McCain has rubberstamped Bush, and now has adopted the same nasty campaign techniques he once was on the other end of. All McCain can do is try to distract us from the failures of the Republicans, and he is doing so by claiming that being liberal is a bad thing and that we are all sexist to point out that Sarah Palin is an incompetent candidate.
The next presidency will be about cleaning up the mess made by Bush and his Republican friends, including John McCain–how can anyone really expect McCain to repair what he was a party to in breaking.
Gee, Barry, I don’t remember asking you to interpret my meaning and once again accusing me of doing something that was not in my intention to do.
Furthermore, a poorly constructed sentence must know that it might be misinterpreted sometime. I never used the word “automatically” in bringing up the subject this time in post no. 13, and made the interpretation they way I did because that is the only way it made sense to me. If I had said that people were automatically bashing Sarah, then it would have made sense to me as you interpreted it.
I don’t know what Paul Freid thinks of his words, but I think that you, Barry, might have given me the benefit of a doubt if you weren’t an anti woman thinking sort of dude. Please forgive me if I err yet again.
Thanks, Barry.
Bright, here are some examples:
– If it’s true (if that Palin lowered income taxes and placed a (regressive, harmful to the poor) sales tax on food, then we can disagree over analysis of what this means, but facts are facts, and it’s not bashing to ponder.
– If it’s true that Palin is against sex education in the schools, for traditional Christian family values, but has somehow failed to pass on these values to her daughter who became pregnant outside of marriage, we can disagree in our analysis of the meaning of these facts, but it’s not bashing to ponder the stuff.
– If it’s true that Obama was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review (have I got that right?), and that Palin moved around from school to school before getting a degree, and has not been to foreign countries other than Canada, Mexico and Iraq (as governor to visit troops) outside of a fuel-landing in Europe on the way, then these are facts. We can disagree on what they mean, how we interpret them (does Palin’s school record reflect a lack of direction? Her lack of first-hand knowledge of foreign countries reflect a lack of experience?) — but the facts behind our questions are not bashing, and I’d claim the questions are not bashing.
– If it’s a fact that Palin was in favor of banning books, or teaching both evolution and creationism in schools, then citing this is not bashing, nor is healthy questioning and debate about what it may portend for a future in which she might be elected.
– If it’s a fact that Palin’s husband was a member of a secessionist party (The Independence party of Alaska) and that Palin herself addressed the party convention twice, then it’s not bashing to mention these things, or to question and debate what they may mean. There are 27 active secessionist movements in the US, and what with pork spending, the regular deficit, the national debt, a criminal but unimpeached president and vice president, and health care and education in this country that is often second-rate or worse compared to other first-world nations, perhaps there is a need for a new constitutional convention to fix some of the problems, and perhaps Palin is visionary for her secessionist sympathies — or perhaps she is unpatriotic. Talking about, and striving to analyze the possible meaning of, such facts is not bashing.
– If Palin was interviewed and hesitated, and asked questions, hemmed and hawed, when asked about the Bush Doctrine (preemptive war, the US claim that it can invade any country that it thinks is harboring terrorists), then it’s OK to wonder and ponder about her hesitation, and to strive to interpret what seemed to be her lack of understanding of the idea. This is not bashing, but paying attention and asking hard questions.
A questions for Paul or anyone else who can answer …
In post # 14, Paul states – “The Constitution says that if congress passes a law (especially by a veto-over-riding majority) it becomes law, and the president must comply; but Bush has issued “signing statements” that take exception to, and ignored or failed to enforce other, laws passed by congress, in apparent violation of the basics of the constitution.”
Who is responsible for keeping tabs on the President to ensure he is following the law? Is it Congress? The Attorney General? Who should have their feet held to the fire when the President, or others in Congress, do not follow the law? Why would the person responsible not do their job? Is it due to party affiliation?
Okay, Paul, I really need to get going but I’ll play this game with you for a few more minutes. First of all, if O’bama wasn’t Daley’s man then you might have something there. IF Obama wasn’t still smoking cigarettes, and if that isn’t a stroke maker in black men who die much younger than white men, and if
torture was unconstitutional, which it is not, only cruel and unusual punishment according to Justice A. Scalia on 60 Minutes last Sunday evening.
And if every personal and private belief was to keep anyone from running for office, we’d have a bunch of robots running the country, and if I had more time and the inclination, I’d go on, but it still remains, Obama has nothing.
He has never run any financial operation, he still smokes, he is turning old already, and McCain takes care of himself and is strong and has proved through this campaign that he can do the job and do it strong and well, and not appear as weak and fragile as Obama. NO one is even talking about Biden, cuz he would work with McCain no matter what if asked.
This is from TruthDig (link at bottom) and Eugene Robinson, some clips from an article about what Robinson claims is lying by Palin.
(I’m noticing today that I’m on the time-delay plan: I made an earlier post that hasn’t shown up. Pardon if it seems I’m stacking my comments; they’re not appearing for now).
Here are some clips:
……………………………………………..
What kind of person tells a self-aggrandizing lie, gets called on it, admits publicly that the truth is not at all what she originally claimed-and then goes out and starts telling the original lie again without changing a word?
….
I’m sorry, but to explain my point I have to make another visit-my last, I hope-to the never-built, $398-million “Bridge to Nowhere” that was to join the town of Ketchikan, Alaska, with its airport on the other side of the Tongass Narrows.
You’ll recall that in her Republican convention speech, Palin burnished her budget-hawk credentials by claiming she had said “thanks but no thanks” to a congressional earmark that would have paid most of the cost. A quick check of the public record showed that Palin supported the bridge when she was running for governor, continued to support it once she took office and dropped her backing only after the project — by then widely ridiculed as an example of pork-barrel spending — was effectively dead on Capitol Hill.
In her interview with ABC’s Charles Gibson, Palin ‘fessed up. It was “not inappropriate” for a mayor or a governor to work with members of Congress to obtain federal money for infrastructure projects, she argued. “What I supported,” she said, “was a link between a community and its airport.”
Case closed. Except that on Saturday, days after the interview, Palin said this to a crowd in Nevada: “I told Congress thanks but no thanks to that Bridge to Nowhere-that if our state wanted to build that bridge, we would build it ourselves.”
That’s not just a lie, but an acknowledged lie. What she actually told Congress was more like, “Gimme the money for the bridge” — and then later, after the whole thing had become an embarrassment, she didn’t object to using the money for other projects.
…it’s weird for a politician — or anyone else, really — to maintain that an assertion is true after admitting that it isn’t true.
Maybe Palin cynically believes she can keep using the “no thanks” line and manage to stay one step ahead of the truth police. Maybe she calculates that audiences would rather believe her than their lying eyes. Or maybe she really believes her own fantasy-based version of events. Maybe the Legend of Sarah Palin has become, on some level, more real to her than actual history.
And quite a legend it’s turning out to be. The Washington Post reported Sunday that as mayor of tiny Wasilla, Palin pressured the town librarian to remove controversial books from the shelves, cut funds for the town museum but somehow found the money for a new deputy administrator slot, and told city employees not to talk to reporters.
And The New York Times reported Sunday that as governor, Palin appointed a high-school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to a $95,000-a-year job as head of the state Division of Agriculture. Havemeister “cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency,” the Times reported, noting her as one of at least five schoolmates Palin has given high-paying state government jobs.
….
Here’s the URL, busted up a bit:
http://www.truthdig.com/
report/item/
20080916_palin_keeps_lying_and_lying_and/
Arlen (#21): It’s the responsibility of the congress, technically (starting with the House), to impeach if there are impeachable offenses… which they should do, unless it seemed that impeachment might make things worse.
Congress has decided for now that impeachment is off the table. Why? Some of the stated reasons, plus a few speculations either of my own or which I’ve read:
– Impeachment would be too time-consuming, while there are many other important things to do, and historically, no president impeached by the house has been tried and convicted by the senate to be removed from office.
– There are some Democrats who knew about various illegal acts by the president, such as torture, and they don’t want to have those Democrats implicated during an impeachment proceeding.
– Given the historical unliklihood of a successful impeachment and removal, consider that, given the current administration, it would be even harder to impeach and remove both Bush and Cheney, and have any strong hope of success.
– What if you impeach both, and remove Bush, and then you’re left with Cheney as president, the same Dick Cheney who was considering a run in ’08 with either Voldemort or Satan as a running mate?
– What if you start impeachment proceedings, and then Bush and Cheney arrange for Israel to start bombing Iran, and all hell starts to break loose in the world — and we need a commander in chief, but even our own military is split on whether to follow the orders of what might be an illegitimate president in the long-delayed process of being removed? Sort of a cornered animal lashing out phenomenon?
– What if you impeach one at a time, and the remaining one (either Cheney or Bush) pardoned the other?
It’s a messy situation, and it reveals some of the flaws in our constitution (which was made by a bunch of humans, after all).
So in an ideal world — and perhaps if congress could stop time and complete the impeachment proceedings? — impeachment is overdue. In the real world, it’s messy.
Paul – a real problem for Dems is all the complaints you make just make people like Palin all the more , do you think we would rather she did not appoint her friend that “loves cows” and instead brought in the Ivy League educated head of Lehman Bros ? I mean “you just don’t get it :)”
.
David, there’s a great columnist who said last week that it’s not sexism to want the person flying the plane to be a licensed pilot instead of the really nice person sitting next to you on the flight.
I believe the friend who loves cows was chosen instead of a professional in the field of agriculture, which one would think would be a reasonable background for the head of the top Agriculture position.
Following your reasoning, I’d love to watch when you ask your old high school buddy who wore braces to do that root canal you need.
I didn’t realize that Palin is running for POTUS?
Very early in Obamas campaign (and to some degree today) you were considered a racist if you questioned his past.
I am still waiting for the same level of research in to his affairs i.e. Rezko and Wright that is being exhausted on Palin.
Part of the election game is scrutiny and false rumors that is what you have to expect when you run. However the lopsidedness of the current witch hunt is pretty sad and very UN American.
Why don’t the just tap the phones of the candidates. Thats real American.
One more thing referring to my post no. 22, which relates to PF’s post no 20, Paul said,
.
And if it is true that Obama said that he thought his Harvard education was a waste, as was his prepatory high school education, and that is why he decided to give back, by going into Chicago neighborhoods to organize the community. I have a video showing people claiming that Obama didn’t do anything to change that community whatsoever. It’s on youtube, if you are interested. You get what you put into school, not what school puts into you, cuz this world changes way too fast, and by the time you get your degree, all the knowledge is outdated. It’s just a matter of attending class and learning about the form of the subject at hand.
I attended three colleges and found it most useful. Many schools simply don’t teach anything useful in the real world. Taking courses and finding out what you need and want is often more useful than taking what is given to you. Bush went to Yale, so what? It’s not the degree, it’s the person, esp. when it comes to non science courses, imho.
bright, are you one of those people who switched over to mccain after palin was named vp?
Hello, Anthony.
Truth is that I did say I was on the McCain side, but had been leaning that way earlier on, because between Obama, who I sincerely believe is just a front man for the Kennedy’s and Richard M. Daley of Chicago, which means he says hes for one thing or other, but nothing gets done for the people, and although I think it would be good to have a minority president, I don’t think he is the man for the job.
I have seen him falter in his normal conversation, I have seen him drift off into his own head, and to me, the best sign of a great leader is his or her ability to communicate effectively, leaving no person behind. If Obama cannot do this, how can he talk to Congress or world leaders? It is not a good sign. That is the main reason, something I saw with my own eyes.
McCain is the lesser of two evils. I have said this from the very first word, that none of the candidates were presidential enough for me, and that some combination of the several runners might work. Anyway, my answer to your question is no.
I do like Palin though because she engenders a lot of good vibrations and she will help heal this country wherever she lands, that’s her gift and that is what is driving some DFLers crazy cuz they are so full of stress and hatred because they don’t have it all. Dems, some of you need to learn how to share with others.
did you know she is campaigning as a special needs kids advocate, and as governor of alaska she cut the special olympics budget in half. cut 250k from teh budget. doesnt sound like she is building bridges to me.
sounds liek a lot of lies.
I think I am going to donate some money to the alaska special olympics right now.
Bright, it’s not very civil to say that people who disagree with you are full of hate and stress. In fact, Obama has made me more hopeful that I have been in 20 years.
I’m not going to go through the points again, because we’ve covered ground over and over.
We disagree. That’s all. And it’s a disagreement that works out pretty well for me. You will have to vote for the lesser of two evils. I get to vote for the person I feel is the best candidate on the ballot.
Good for you, Anthony. But as for believing the assertion that Palin did what you say she did, I would have to see the copy of the whole bill that she rejected, to know why she rejected it, to know if there was a more dire need somewhere, or a better bill for the special kids. I am so over this sort of attempted diminishing of a woman, and especially of one who decided to keep a special needs kid rather than abort, rather than kill the baby, even when she knew ahead of time that this baby might have special needs.
Another poster wrote, somewhere above:
… I think that you, Barry, might have given me the benefit of a doubt if you weren’t an anti woman thinking sort of dude. …
What might this accusation mean? Here are some possibilities that occurred to me:
1. Barry is a “thinking sort of dude” who is anti-woman.
2. Barry is a “sort of dude” who is opposed to “woman-thinking”, whatever that might be.
3. Barry is anti-woman but thoughtful, and not a real “dude” but only “sort of” a dude.
I know Barry, and so can attest that none of these charges seem well-founded (except perhaps that he’s a “thinking sort of dude”). In any event, the one thing these puzzling possibilities have in common is that they’re all textbook cases of the ad hominem fallacy. Surely we can do better.
you asked
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/bills/SB221_with_vetoes.pdf
page 100 #30
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/palin-cut-funding-for-alaska-special-olympics/
(the last link gives context)
The public CONTINUES to gobble up the lies the mccain campaign in spewing. I don’t understand it at all.
Sorry Anthony but your post has already been debunked
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
thinkprogress
moveon
commondreams
Are nothing more then the same animal under a different name…mostly George Soros mouthpieces.
oops my bad, I should check stuff better
I feel the excitement over Palin and Obama are rooted in the same desire to throw out the old within the beltway “corruption as usual crowd” and get on a new track. However, these two are tied to McCain and Biden, two business as usual guys and that’s where the focus should be. After Nov 3 it will still be the Imperial party of power whether they have an (R) or (D) after their name.
They will both:
1. expand the GWOT (cover story for perpetual Imperial wars)
2. expand the power and size of the federal gov
3. continue handing out favors to their campaign contributors and lobbyists
4. continued support of AIPAC and Israel
They should have a box at the bottom ” NONE OF THE ABOVE”
We need to be careful about what kind of “CHANGE” we are voting for, and “THE LESSOR OF TWO EVILS” we are expecting. I think Hitler was for CHANGE and a LESSOR EVIL also. We should not have to settle for what is spoon fed to us! I feel Americans should send a message by not checking off anyone that has an (R) or (D) after their name this Nov.
DavidH and AnneB: Thanks. You’d think she could look far and wide in the college/university system in Alaska, or even out of state, to find some Republican-leaning woman or man who knew some good stuff about AG.
But I know what you mean about how some people just like her all the more because of the attacks. Especially with cheerleaders like Billy O’Reilly and Rush Limburgler.
Many of us have read or heard what they say about how the massacre started in Rwanda: Talk radio hosts. And those studies about how people would rather follow authority, and conform, than resist authority and/or be a nonconformist.
Those folks are not ALL, spontaneously “liking Palin all the more” on their own. We are not only an oil-addicted nation, but a media-addicted nation. We should pick our media talking heads carefully, or like Jesus says (John G, you out there) (did Jesus say that? Oops), “The blind leading the blind”….
Paul & Anne – you can feel good that the media and the Republican party will ruin Palin soon enough. I felt she was holding back on her answers too much – clearly accepted guidance from all those high qualified *@$#.
The best answer was when Charles Gibson said “call me a cynic but ….” and Palin’s reply was “I do think you’re a cynic ….. ” Which is true since he sold out to get the interview and could probably care less about the topic. Gibson actually seemed a little hurt.
But the Dems corrupted Obama right from the get go and at least there is hope for Palin. My fav was when Obama said “I love this country too much to let them” and he could barely choke out the “love this country” part – clearly told to say this and unnatural for him.
I never listen to Billy O’Reilly and Rush Limburgler. I wouldn’t be against someone just because they are for them.
And the one about Palin, arranging for the ex-husband of a relative to lose his job….
Now some folks are thinking: If I had the power, I’d’a done it too, if he was a jerk. Who wouldn’t? What’s a little power for if you can’t use it to help your friends and family, and grind your enemies into the dust?
Look at David Wilson and the Yellow Cake story. The ungrateful, unfaithful jerk!
Whistleblower? Fighting for truth and justice? How old fashioned is that in the Bush-Cheney world of raw power and, usually, no apologies unless they’re absolutely necessary for PR?
Who cares if it looks suspicious that Cheney and Bush want a war with Iraq, and a forgery conveniently turns up to help make a case for nukes in Iraq? Who cares if the people who arranged for the forgery are probably Cheney & Rove, with the usual considerations for plausible deniability and all that.
Some people are out there thinking: Gee, what kind of forgery should be arranged for next, and how easy will it be to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public again?
There is a kind of pleasure that comes from appointing your friend who likes cows, and outing Valarie Plame, and arranging for wiretapping, and the smearing of your enemies. Or planning to bomb Iran. All the secrets, all the expensive secrets.
If someone in your administration gets an ethical wake-up call, leaves and writes a tell-all whistle-blower book, then smear ’em. Information war time. That guy was probably just trying to sell his book.
He’s being greedy —
NOT like W-Dick-n-“Turd Blossom” Karl.
And the public BUYS it, to a large extent. Of course, some don’t, but ENOUGH DO, and that’s what counts. Not ethics, but winning. Raw power. Tell the big lie, and people often believe it. It’s like a dare: How big a lie can we get away with today? What a rush. Who could resist? The lure of power. Use it or lose it.
If I were president, I’d put my daughter in charge of the National Program for the Advancement of Ice Skating, and my son in charge of an international musical exchange program for drummers. Let him travel around the globe and drum, with the taxpayers picking up the bill for his airfare. And I’d send my dad on a speaking tour for OSHA, lecturing about the importance of safty with the use of table-saws, and the struggle after thumb-reattachment. He and mom could go anywhere in the US — heck, I’d send ’em overseas too. You can’t be too safe with table saws, and my dad has valuable first-hand experience he could share.
But like Palin with her daughter, my dad is one of us. Not some elite. So I’d make sure he had a good job, lots of salary, and free air fare with mom.
Then I’d start thinking about how I could arrange for some forgery hinting that certain oil-rich nations (and China and Japan, which own most of our debt) were about to attack us, so we had to attach them first.
It would be cool: Could I out-Cheney Cheney? A kind of contest. Could I convince enough people in the US? I’d figure out which church to go to that would make me popular with the most Christians, and I’d hunt and fish a lot, and drive a bullet-proof pickup truck. Maybe wear a dew-rag, like Jesse Ventura. Maybe a Fu Manchu moustache, also like Jesse. And I’d shave my head, like Jesse. Maybe a nose-ring.
Or not. You stop and think about it and realize your kids and wife wouldn’t let you get away with that many lies ‘n’stuff, so never mind.
All that power. Slipping through my fingers.
But I can dream, can’t I?
In #31 Bright wrote, “I have seen him falter in his normal conversation, I have seen him drift off into his own head…”
Frankly, that is one of the major reasons that I support Obama. To me that means that he is a listener and a thinker–qualities I feel our current President seems to lack.
Paul,Paul,Paul!
Your starting to sound like an angry Dem. Must be that Sara Palin irritant taking hold. Which is exactly what the Republican propaganda machine is hoping for. They are appealing to the base instincts of the ignorant American Idol crowd! As Joseph Goebbels Nazi propaganda minister once said, ” If you repeat a lie enough times it will become the truth” . Its all about sound bites and sex appeal.
A link below to sink your teeth into about the McCain/Palin deception. Sounds like another angry Dem , but very insightful on the Republican propaganda machine.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10239
Anthony (posting #39) writes:
“oops my bad, I should check stuff better”
Anthony, indeed you should. Peter Millin’s link debunks a charge you didn’t make. FactCheck.org lays to rest a claim that Palin cut funding for special needs education by 62%. But your assertion in posting #32 was that she cut $250k, roughly half the budget, from special olympics, and that does not seem to be in dispute (except you seem to have gotten the number slightly wrong). Here’s a snippet from an Associated Press article (found by googling “palin special olympics veto”):
“During her few years as governor, she vetoed $275,000 for Alaska’s Special Olympics — half the amount being sought. Money for a program that helps rural school districts provide special education has remained flat. But she supported another legislative proposal to boost spending for students with special needs by some 175 percent in 2011.”
Your mistake, if you made one, was citing a partisan website on a factual matter. However, that site at least links to an official document, the budget bill showing vetos (your other link in posting #37). As Peter, I hope, will agree, if you’re going to make statements of fact, it’s a good idea to have reliable documentation to back them up.
Barry,
I suggest you read factcheck thoroughly……
Looks like the silly season is fully upon us.
Anne, I never said I would vote for McCain, and in past posts I said I might be changing sides again. I only said for now I am for McCain over Obama, but not exactly in those words. SO, let me clarify, if it’s any of your business, and it’s not…I will vote for whomever I feel is the best candidate on Nov. 4th and it’s my business and mine alone.
Also, I did not say that people who disagree with me are full of hate and stress. Those are your words. See post No. 34
What has gone on here in this topic and the previous political topics is exactly why I have not gotten into politics previously to this year. It has been a very interesting year for me, and I have learned a lot. But mostly I am very deeply disappointed.
This is my last post on the topic. Have a good election and keep it real and honest.
Bright, I do feel pretty silly right now.
In #31 you said:
“…although I think it would be good to have a minority president, I don’t think he (Obama) is the man for the job.”
“McCain is the lesser of two evils.”
“I do like Palin though because she engenders a lot of good vibrations and she will help heal this country wherever she lands, that’s her gift and that is what is driving some DFLers crazy cuz they are so full of stress and hatred….”
We are barely a month away from the end of an election season that has lasted two years. You have not had a single kind word for Obama. The two candidates couldn’t be more opposite in their views, plans, styles and supporters. To contend now that you aren’t sure or haven’t made up your mind or you are waiting for the candidates to switch parties and form a job-sharing team and sing Kumbaya at their joint inauguration just boggles the mind.
I am sorry for misunderstanding you. I realize your vote is your business, but there are only two choices, so I made what I thought was a reasonable interpretation of your comments. Yes, I feel pretty silly right now.
Peter writes:
“I suggest you read factcheck thoroughly……”
Peter, I read the webpage you linked to very carefully. There is no mention of special olympics there. Your posting #38 “caught” Anthony in an error he did not commit — or at least it failed to provide any evidence of an error. That you might originally conflate a cuts for special ed myth with a cut in special olympics report is understandable; that you would persist in your claim (which is the obvious implication of your “suggestion”) is beyond the pale.
Barry you are right and I am wrong on this. I did get the two mixed up.
Sorry
So she did cut funds to special olympics but increased spending for special ed quiet dramatically.
Seems like a good move to me. In a budget crunch you got to make tough choices.
——————————————————————-
Since Republican presidential nominee John McCain tapped Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, information about Palin’s past has been zipping around the Internet. Several claims are not true, and other rumors are misleading.
No Cut for “Special Needs” Kids
It’s not true, as widely reported in mass e-mails, Web postings and at least one mainstream news source, that Palin slashed the special education budget in Alaska by 62 percent. CNN’s Soledad O’Brien made the claim on Sept. 4 in an interview with Nicolle Wallace, a senior adviser to the McCain campaign:
O’Brien, Sept. 4: One are that has gotten certainly people sending to me a lot of e-mails is the question about as governor what she did with the special needs budget, which I’m sure you’re aware, she cut significantly, 62 percent I think is the number from when she came into office. As a woman who is now a mother to a special needs child, and I think she actually has a nephew which is autistic as well. How much of a problem is this going to be as she tries to navigate both sides of that issue?
Such a move might have made Palin look heartless or hypocritical in view of her convention-speech pledge to be an advocate for special needs children and their families. But in fact, she increased special needs funding so dramatically that a representative of local school boards described the jump as “historic.”
According to an April 2008 article in Education Week, Palin signed legislation in March 2008 that would increase public school funding considerably, including special needs funding. In particular, it would increase spending for certain special needs students that Alaska calls “intensive needs” (students with high-cost special requirements) from $26,900 per student in 2008 to $73,840 per student in 2011. That almost triples the per-student spending in three fiscal years. Palin’s original proposal, according to the Anchorage Daily News, would have increased funds slightly more, giving intensive needs students a $77,740 allotment by 2011.
Education Week: A second part of the measure raises spending for students with special needs [the intensive needs group] to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development.
Unlike many other states, Alaska has relatively flush budget coffers, thanks to a rise in oil and gas revenues. Funding for schools will remain fairly level next year, however. Overall per-pupil funding across the state will rise by $100, to $5,480, in fiscal 2009. …
Carl Rose, the executive director of the Association of Alaska School Boards, praised the changes in funding for rural schools and students with special needs as a “historic event,” and said the finance overhaul would bring more stability to district budgets.
According to Eddy Jeans at the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, funding for special needs and intensive needs students has increased every year since Palin entered office, from a total of $203 million in 2006 to a projected $276 million in 2009.
Those who claim that Palin cut special needs funding by 62 percent are looking in the wrong place and misinterpreting what they find there. They point to an apparent drop in the Department of Education and Early Development budget for special schools. But the special schools budget, despite the similar name, isn’t the special needs budget. “I don’t even consider the special schools component [part of] our special needs funding,” Jeans told FactCheck.org. “The special needs funding is provided through our public school funding formula. The special schools is simply a budget component where we have funding set aside for special projects,” such as the Alaska School for the Deaf and the Alaska Military Youth Academy. A different budget component, the Foundation Program, governs special needs programs in the public school system.
And in any case, the decrease in funding for special schools is illusory. Palin moved the Alaska Military Youth Academy’s ChalleNGe program, a residential military school program that teaches job and life skills to students under 20, out of the budget line for “special schools” and into its own line. This resulted in an apparent drop of more than $5 million in the special schools budget with no actual decrease in funding for the programs.
Peter, thanks. Your previous post gave me quite a start, as in What did I miss?
Factcheck.org and other organizations that do the legwork to evaluate various claims and counterclaims are a real godsend. They facilitate an informed discussion of what’s really important: the difference (if any) between what politicians promise on various issues and what they actually do about them.
It would be wonderful if we could get beyond the Palin bashing and Obama bashing and all the other political posturing and horserace analysis and talk instead about the candidates’ policy positions and what agendas they’re likely to pursue (and with what prospects of success). There are rumored to be stark differences between Obama and McCain on the economy, for example, but it’s hard to find them reported on. Today’s St. Paul Pioneer Press has a frontpage article ostensibly on the subject, with a column devoted to each candidate, but you have to read deep into the Obama story to find any mention of specific Obama proposals, and I didn’t find anything specific in the McCain story beyond a “meta-proposal” to form a commission to study what’s recently gone wrong. (I don’t count rhetoric like “We will clean up Wall Street. We will reform government.”) The bulk of the article was devoted to political sound bites and analyses of campaign strategy — all fun and fascinating, but ultimately not what affects people’s lives.
Ah, how wonderful it would be. And someday soon, pigs will fly. With lipstick, or without….
Compare the candidates’ records on disabilities at http://www.specialneeds08.blogspot.com
Interesting – “A transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context.”
http://www.talkgwinnett.net/index.php?option=com_joomlaboard&Itemid=131&func=view&catid=7&id=1749
Barry: I agree in general that more substantial coverage is needed, but if candidates are lying, and then there’s denial or misdirection to cover it, I don’t see anything wrong with noting that.
On MPR yesterday AM, I heard a snip of a Republican commercial talking about how Palin had been accused of lying, and the commercial said the accusation of lying was “just disrespectful.” I wondered: If she lied, how is it disrespectful? Because one should not accuse a lying governor of lying because of her office? Or because you should not treat a lady that way — the Republicans, who have finally discovered sexism, perhaps advocating a sexist, hands-off bias to benefit Palin?
Discussions of policy focus on what candidates say they’ll do: Bush said he was in favor of carbon limits (later changed when elected), that he was against nation building (changed on that), etc. He has been accused perhaps of more documented lies than any other president — there are web sites and a certain California congressman who have made documenting the lies a kind of hobby. Are some candidates actually pro-life, and others liars who simply taking the position to harvest pro-life votes? Voters should care about discerning candidates’ honesty.
Discussions of lies and integrity matter as much as those of policy.
David Henson quotes P.J. Gladnick as saying:
“A transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context.”
“Clearly” is clearly in the mind of the blogger, in this case a rightwing ideologue (I’m referring to Gladnick, not Henson). I read over the transcript at the link provided (as well as tracing it to its original source), and I, leftwing ideologue that I no doubt will be deduced to be, do not see anything in the edited-out portions that demonstrates Palin’s knowledgeability or shows her words being taken out of context. What I do see are edits that tighten the interview and keep it on topic.
Paul? Politicians lie?..Oh really?
If I wouldn’t be too lazy i could give you a laundry list of Obama and Clinton lies that would pretty much rival McCains.
I would also say that pandering would be a better word then lying. Most politicians just tell you what you want to hear and change their message to fit their audience.
Most Americans don’t have the time or the patience to understand the issues . So elections are won or lost by sound bites..and Obama is a master at it.
Just look at the current bank meltdown. each of the poltiticians are falling all over themselves and wanting to be first in being “tough on regulations”..and the masses go “Rah..RAH…RAH kill wall street.
Never mind that politicians are responsible for this mess in the first place. Unfortunately most people don’t know…don’t care or don’t have the brains to understand it.
If they did we would vote out 90% of the bums that are in office today.
Jefferson had it right
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
Peter wrote,
I say, go for it. A bit of googling should turn up a conservative blogger who’s already done the work for you.
Here’s a nice list of McCain lies:
http://www.mccainpedia.org/index.php/Count_the_Lies
And another:
http://zalandria.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/obama-memo-on-mccains-lies/
Patrick,
Here is a quick one. How about Obamas last ad in spanish?
Peter,
What about McCain’s last ad in Spanish? (Of course, it’s only being broadcast in Florida so as not to upset Midwest conservatives who are strongly against the trend towards bilingualism.)
Peter,
Yes, do tell me about Obama’s latest ad in Spanish. I don’t understand Spanish, but I do understand that an Obama ad in Spanish has Rush Limbaugh all in a tizzy.
A quick bit of googling on “obama limbaugh spanish ad” got me this:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/17/obama_invokes_rush_limbaugh_in.html
I don’t know which part of that is supposed to be equivalent to John McCain’s Spanish language ad asserting that Obama and Democrats were responsible for the failure of immigration reform:
http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/whats-spanish-for-lies/
He used unrelated quotes out of some Limbaugh skids in regards to immigration and tried to link McCain to the anti illegal immigration crowd.
Which is a lie. It was McCain , Kennedy, Bush and others who wanted to “legalize” illegal immigration.
Conservatives (and immigrant) like me didn’t appreciate McCains stand on immigration at all, including Rush Limbaugh.
I was able to come in to this country legally, why can’t others do the same?
Peter: One route to smaller government (and fewer lies, because there would be fewer people you’d have to pander to?) would be sesession. Less bureacracy, we’d be forced to think hard about spending more than half of what the rest of the world spends on military.
Are there any secessionist candidates for president we could write in, besides Palin, who, it seems is a SINO (Secessionist In Name Only)?
Peter wrote,
Yes, but in selling his soul to the radical right, McCain came out against his own immigration reform proposal in January 2008:
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/McCain_Would_Vote_Against_His_Own_Immigration_Bill
In short, McCain was for immigration before he was against it. He can’t have it both ways, not even if he tries to speak out of one side of his mouth in English, and out the other side in Spanish.
Britt,
The ad did run in NM, CO and NV as well.
I am all for helping people initially as long as the goal is to integrate them in to our lives., but not to support the separation of them via a language barrier.
I am all for immigrants, especially since I am one myself. But this is America and we speak English here, get used to it.
Patrick,
McCain(and others) had no choice, because a lot of people don’t want uncontrolled immigration.
One of the reasons I am leery about McCain is that he might bring this “reform” back.
Peter wrote,
I thought McCain was supposed to be a leader who’d give us nothing but ‘Straight Talk'(TM). Sounds like pandering to me. Like I said, he’s sold his soul to the radical right.
Patrick,
Does that mean that I am the “radical right”?
For believing that a sovereign nation has the right and obligation to protect it’s own borders?
For demanding that people who want to live here should learn English and assimilate to our customs?
OK…call me a radical right then……
ya, peter, a sovereign nation does have those rights. and that country is Iraq.
Anthony,
You are right, but you are barking up the wrong tree.
While I initially supported the war I know realize it was a mistake, and the price we paid doesn’t justify the gains we made.
Peter, it really depends who you are when you say ‘we’
haliburton + all of the no bid contracts + oil companies made an ASSLOAD. you and me and everyone on this comment thread made jack shit.
are you SURE you want to support the same party that pretty much bent the whole country over for the last 8 years?
Anthony,
I won’t support McCain or Obama on the national ticket, but locally I will support the Republicans.
Especially since the alternative will cost me even more money. A vote for democrats means more taxes, more regulations and more government involvement in my life.
I left Europe because I am tired of social experiments and tired of working 60 hours a week and see half of my money being taken by the government.
If we in this country don’t wake up, we’ll end up like Europe, and that’s no place I want to be.
That fear makes it impossible for me to vote for Obama and to a degree for McCain.
Peter, the last 8 years have been an exercise in fear and pushing the limits of honesty.
4.00 gas
bailing out BANKS
a huge ass war thats draining the country emotionally and monetarily.
I am sure that hurt your pocketbook.
And if honesty has less value than the dollar to you, then I guess I can’t say much to change your mind.
Before this election, I thought the Republican party hated everyone different than them. During this election I have seen they don’t hate. They just want a bigger piece of the pie regardless of the consequences.
$ 4 gas is hardly the Republicans fault. It is a combination of more demand, stagnant supply and a weak dollar policy ever since Bush the first.
(Following your logic btw would make it the democrats fault, since they rule congress for the pas two years.)
Couple this with our inability to manage and explore our own natural resources and a complete absence of a national energy policy, makes this a perfect storm.
I think Carter was the last POTUS that had any opinion of this, since then we went through how many presidents, congress and senates?
We chose to neglect this issue because it was deemed unimportant. The fact that it blew up on Bush’s watch doesn’t make it his fault.
On bailing out banks…see my other posts on that. Again we are left holding the bag and clean up what was started a couple of decades ago. Do a search on CRA and connect the dots.
..and the democrats want a smaller slice of the pie? hardly.
It doesn’t matter who you vote for, you still be paying the price.
in 2000, gas was 1.50.
in 2008 it is damn close to 4.00
you think it isn’t the war that raised prices?
can you imagine what kind of alternative fuels we would have if all of the money going to the worthless war went to research?
and the banks:
The general co-chairman of John McCain’s presidential campaign, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), led the charge in 1999 to repeal a Depression-era banking regulation law that Democrat Barack Obama claimed on Thursday contributed significantly to today’s economic turmoil.
don’t tell me it started a couple of decades ago, it started in 1999 when mccains buddy phil gramm deregulated.
Yeah and it went from $2.50 to $4.00 in the last two years…..
——————————————————————
Only, the risk-taking was her idea — and the idea of all the other Democrats, along with a handful of Republicans, who over the past 30 years have demonized lenders as racist and passed regulation after regulation pressuring them to make more loans to unqualified borrowers in the name of diversity.
They were the ones who screamed — “REDLINING!” — and sent banks scurrying for cover in low-income neighborhoods, where they have been forced to lower long-held industry standards for judging creditworthiness to make the subprime loans.
If they don’t comply, they are threatened with stiff penalties under the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA, a law that forces banks to make home loans to people with poor credit risks.
No fewer than four federal banking regulatory agencies are responsible for enforcing the law. They subject lenders to racial litmus tests and issue regular report cards, the industry’s dreaded “CRA rating.”
The more branches that lenders put in poor neighborhoods, and the more loans they make there, the better their rating. Those lenders with low ratings can not only be fined, but also blocked from mergers and other business transactions needed to expand.
The regulation grew to monstrous proportions during the Clinton administration, obsessed as it was with multiculturalism. Amendments to the CRA in the mid-1990s dramatically raised the amount of home loans to otherwise unqualified low-income borrowers.
—————————————————————–
what does that even mean
In posting #55, Paul Fried writes:
“Discussions of lies and integrity matter as much as those of policy.”
Paul, I couldn’t disagree more. The crambe repetita of Palin’s misrepresentations of her support for the Bridge to Nowhere matters less than a compelling argument, if one can be made, that a McCain-Palin administration will do no more to end Congressional earmarks than would Obama-Biden.
Discussions of policy should not “focus on what candidates say they’ll do” (quoting your posting again). They should be assessments of what candidates actually *will* do and analyses of their actions’ impacts. For anyone who paid attention in 2000 to commentators who knew Bush from his time in Texas (I’m thinking in particular of Molly Ivins, one of the great wits of modern journalism), or early on to economists on his tax plans (vide Paul Krugman’s prescient “Fuzzy Math), the disaster of the Bush presidency comes as no surprise.
At the same time, a bright light on lies and the lying liars who tell them is an awfully good idea. To quote the concluding paragraph of “Fuzzy Math”:
“I can’t think of any previous administration that has tried to sell its economic plans on such false pretenses. It would be a shame, and a dangerous precedent, if they get away with it.”
Perhaps we’re seeing the progeny of that precedent.
Here’s a Time magazine piece on how McCain’s untruths have moved well beyond the political tradition of distorting one’s opponent’s position, and firmly into the realm of plain old lies:
John McCain and the Lying Game
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1842030,00.html
And you’ve really gotta love the irony in Karl Rove’s declaration that “McCain has gone in his ads one step too far, and sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the 100-percent-truth test,”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/14/karl-rove-mccains-ads-hav_n_126280.html
Anthony,
It means that congress has created this mess in the first place, by forcing banks to make bad loans all in the name “political correctness”.
The banks made the bad loans with the knowledge that they would sell them off as soon after the closing.
These “bad loans” were packaged in to derivatives and sold off to Fannie May and Freddie Mac.
Since both of those weren’t really a private entity, it was always understood that if something would go wrong the government would bail them out. So less care was taken.
Does that let those who made the bad loans of the hook? Hell no. They are guilty of fraud in some cases.
What makes me made is that those who planted the seed for this mess, are now pretending that it was somebody else s fault.
Barney Frank as late as 2005 said “Fannie May and Freddie Mac are sound companies there is nothing to worry about” ( I paraphrase).
In the meantime those two donated millions of dollars to various lobbies and politicians.
Embellishment alert. Peter Millin writes:
“Barney Frank as late as 2005 said “Fannie May and Freddie Mac are sound companies there is nothing to worry about” ( I paraphrase). In the meantime those two donated millions of dollars to various lobbies and politicians.”
It’s not clear what it means to donate to lobbies, but the data at opensecrets.org, which I assume is Peter’s source, shows $4.8 million to members of Congress over the last 20 years, not the last three. That’s a quarter million dollars per year spread over a few hundred politicians. (Obama, who of course is a relative newcomer, comes in second to Chris Dodd at $120k; McCain, who has been around the whole time, well down the list at $21k.)
Also, as near as I can tell, Barney Frank’s comments was made in 2003, not 2005. Interestingly, here’s (part of) what he said:
“The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn’t bail them out.”
Oops, I meant either “comments were” or “comment was” — this is what comes of heavy night of drinking….
Attached is the exact list as to contributions of those we know off.
Barry I don’t understand people like you. Here we are being put on the line with $ 1 Trillion of tax dollars of bad loans and another security for $ 4.5 Trillion…and you get hung up over minute details.
This kind of partisan behavior allows politicians to get away with murder, why we are fighting over numbers behind the comma.
Unless you believe that paying off politicians is only serious when it includes large amounts or Republicans???
Geez Barry this is not a Republican or Democrat issue, this is about our kids future being gambled on.
Fannie, Freddie And Friends
Source: opensecrets.org
Top recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign
contributions, 1989-2008
1. Dodd, Christopher (Sen.) D-Conn. $133,900
2. Kerry, John (Sen.) D-Mass. 111,000
3. Obama, Barack (Sen.) D-Ill. 105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary (Sen.) D-N.Y. 75,550
5. Kanjorski, Paul (Rep.) D-Pa. 65,500
6. Bennett, Robert (Sen.) R-Utah 61,499
7. Johnson, Tim (Sen.) D-S.D. 61,000
8. Conrad, Kent (Sen.) D-N.D. 58,991
9. Davis, Tom (Rep.) R-Va. 55,499
10. Bond, Kit (Sen.) R-Mo. 55,400
11. Bachus, Spencer (Rep.) R-Ala. 55,300
12. Shelby, Richard (Sen.) R-Ala. 55,000
13. Emanuel, Rahm (Rep.) D-Ill. 51,750
14. Reed, Jack (Sen.) D-R.I. 50,750
15. Carper, Tom (Sen.) D-Del. 44,389
16. Frank, Barney (Rep.) D-Mass. 40,100
17. Maloney, Carolyn (Rep.) D-N.Y. 38,750
18. Bean, Melissa (Rep.) D-Ill. 37,249
19. Blunt, Roy (Rep.) R-Mo. 36,500
20. Pryce, Deborah (Rep.) R-Ohio 34,750
21. Miller, Gary (Rep.) R-Calif. 33,000
22. Pelosi, Nancy (Rep.) D-Calif. 32,750
23. Reynolds, Tom (Rep.) R-N.Y. 32,700
24. Hoyer, Steny (Rep.) D-Md. 30,500
25. Hooley, Darlene (Rep.) D-Ore. 2
come on.
if the republicans had their way they would have stuck all of the social security money in the stock market. That’s not real smart is it?
partisan politics and dividing the country on wedge issues is a trademark of turd blossom ™. He’s an evil genius and probably one of the main reasons we have had another 4 years of W.
Nice for you to bring up the social security money. You and I are young enough to see it collapse.
This is the next completely ignored ticking time bomb. Anyone can provide an inside how we are going to fix this?
ya, I have an idea, its a novel one. are you ready????
STOP BORROWING FROM IT
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=847
Anthony, Your idea is good, but not realistic because as long as anyone can use money to grow more money, all money will be used for that, risk or not.
On soc sec…over 50 million people receive soc sec right now. That’s about 1/6 of the American pop…that is about 17%.
Housing should be a right, not a priviledge. We are born to this earth and have a right to a place to live, away from the elements, no matter what our status in life may be. Most Americans spend most of their wages and other income on a home or apartment. Much of that money is never seen again after the mortgage or rent is paid. A lot of apts in New York and Chicago are owned by single foreign families who have raised the rates on apts. every time the wages go up for decades. You can never get ahead unless you are very successful and very well paid.
I think if rents were reduced, and mortgage payments as housing prices lowered, and the saved money would be put into a housing fund for retirement years, and houses would be constantly under construction, waiting for the new retirees to come and take their rightful place. People would care for each other and medical services would be available. on a basic scale. Food would be cheap and grown and raised locally.
Here is a dirty little secret. There is no real money in the “lock box”. It was always a pay as you go fund. Which is exactly the problem, because we are facing an imbalance between those that pay in versus those that take out.
So we either pay more in or stop taking more out or find another way to increase the pot.
Periodically the presidential campaigns take a break from partisan bickering to engage in a semi-serious discussion of issues. Such an event came to a head today with the posting of a science “debate” between the two candidates, at
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com
Setting aside the usual platitudinous boilerplate from both sides, there is a fair amount of information about the candidates’ plans. Overall, I would say that Obama has better — and more specific — ideas for moving forward in the so-called STEM areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, which are key drivers for a strong economy.
They both make good points and in broad terms go in to the same direction. I don’t think anybody can deny that these are serious issues that need to be addressed.
Again most of us agree on most of the issues were we differ is how we are going to get there.
Herein lies the real choice.
Do we believe as a nation that a big powerful centralized government can efficiently address the issues or do we believe that the “we the people” are better suited to solve the problems of the future?
Given our federal governments track record my faith is with “we the people”.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sparring_in_spanish.html
Obama deceptions
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/scaring_seniors.html
More Obama deceptions
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/stretching_with_biden.html
Of course his sidekick continues the tradition
Obama is distorting facts again
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/school_funding_misleads.html
More real facts…..
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/attacks/all/
Peter makes a good point: While McCain uses lies and distortion more aggressively (more problems with facts), Obama has had a mere 11.46% of the troubles with telling the truth that McCain has, which is not the same as 101%, nor 1%:
http://allthetruthsyoucanchecknhandle.org/5679/checkitout/McCaincampaigndoesn'tknowtruthfromlipstickonpigs/2008/9-19.tlc/html
McCain & RNC accused today of mail fraud in highly offensive and unethical mailings — story on NPR. It seems registered Dems were getting letters claiming they were registered Republicans and telling them how to update their status.
This is straight out of the Karl Rove playbook:
Republican Mailing Leaves Florida Voters Confused
by Pam Fessler
NPR
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94818483
I wonder: Perhaps some would think anyone who participated in the creation and distribution of the mailing should be taken to Guantanamo and have enhanced interrogation techniques used on them for, oh, about 3-7 years on a daily basis (what some of the innocents there had to endure).
But liberals will be nicer than that. They’ll be willing to grant the RNC and McCain folks who put this together their human and legal rights.
It’s just not fair.
In #93 (last of a litany of mailings about Obama’s supposed un-truthiness) Peter recommends the following website
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/attacks/all/
It is indeed worth a look. Assuming that the website itself if truthful (I have no reason to doubt this, and Peter has recommended the site) here are some conclusions I’d draw:
1. If the only live issue is the *qualitative* assertion that both sides sometimes, or even often, stretch the truth or ignore it entirely, these data will support that conclusion. QED. Done. Read no further.
2. A *quantitative* question, more interesting to me, concerns the frequency or egregiousness of truth-stretching that each side indulges in. Politifact.com can help here; obviously, some interpretation is required.
Here, first, is my conclusion from the Politifact data: The McCain team plays significantly faster and looser with the truth than does the Obama team. In a sense I’ll describe below, the McCain team’s “median assertion” is Barely True on Politifact’s scale, while the “median” Obama team claim is Mostly True. (There’s a Half True level in between … ).
Here’s what I did with Politifact’s data. I looked at the first 6 or so pages of Politifact’s listings, considering only claims attributed to the “principals”: the POTUS and VPOTUS candidates themselves. (What others, especially Web chatter, has to say seems beside the point here. And I say this as a Web chatterer.)
Politifact rates claims as True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True, False, and (the worst!) Pants on Fire. Here are the data I found:
Pants on Fire: 4 McCain, 1 Obama
False: 7 McCain, 1 Obama
Barely True: 10 McCain, 8 Obama
Half True: 8 McCain, 7 Obama
Mostly True: 5 McCain, 6 Obama
True: 6 McCain, 15 Obama
Whether these are acceptable records for either candidate is certainly debatable, but the difference seems clear. One possible measure is the “median” — the middle claim if one line up the claims from least to most truthful. By this measure McCain’s median claim is Barely True, while Obama’s is Mostly True.
Other measures are possible. Any suggestions?
Paul Zorn writes:
“A *quantitative* question, more interesting to me, concerns the frequency or egregiousness of truth-stretching that each side indulges in.”
Wonderfully well analyzed!
The truth is not treating McCain very well at all. Still, it’s good to know that McCain has decided to talk about issues for a bit, and that he wrote an article for the October 2008 issue of “Contingencies” (published by the American Academy of Actuaries – who knew?) titled “Better Health Care at Lower Cost for Every American.”
So what is his insightful solution to health care problems?
http://www.contingencies.org/septoct08/mccain.pdf
That’s right, deregulation will work the same great wonders for health care that it has done for the banking industry.
And do you think he was misquoted or misrepresented? That’d be a hard case to make, because he is credited with writing the article himself.
Perhaps the only good thing about the apparent impending financial meltdown is that it’s nice to be talking about real policies again – instead of lipstick.
Paul:
Your data shows McCain as having more lies or falsehoods, but is the difference between “(liar, liar) pants on fire” and “false” the sense that a the teller of the lie or falsehood seems clearly to be lying (pants on fire) and intentionally distorting facts — as compared to merely “false” as those cases where it’s unclear that the falsehood was intentional? Or – ?
Paul F:
Concerning your question in #102 …
I don’t know how Politifact define its categories, or how much “worse” a Pants on Fire rating is than a False rating. Doubtless these things are subjective, as they would have to be.
In my book it’s worse to tell a lie, knowing it’s a lie, than to make a false assertion in genuine ignorance. I’ve done quite a lot of one of these things, and somewhat less of the other, I’d like to think.
But the cynic in me says that false assertions in political campaigns seldom proceed from sincere ignorance. More often, methinks, such assertions nicely illustrate the concept of BS, as defined by Walter Uhler, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Princeton, in a useful little monograph on the subject. (Look for it on Amazon if you need more BS in your life.) BS, writes Professor Uhler, is usually false by any standard, but BS’s hallmark is not garden variety falsity but rather the speaker’s (or writer’s …) indifference to normal standards of truth and falsity.
Paul,
The book you refer to is by Harry Frankfurt, not Walter Uhler. The title is “On Bullshit.” A great read.
I think, but I am not stating I know any better than anyone else around, but
there are other reasons to lie besides the assertions that have been made here. I’ll let you have some time to think about that if you want to and if you are really interested in the truth about why we are lied to by politicians, and then when you are ready, willing and ready to hear my version, just ask me.
Most of you I know can figure it out or have heard it before. I think it’s valid.
But first, can someone explain to me who else does the jobs that Haliburton does, and does it as well? Honestly, now, she said with all sincerity.
On BS: Twice here I’ve created what I hope were seen, at some point, as humorous URL’s to nowhere, both in response to what seemed to be efforts to cherry-pick data and offer it out of context in mountain-out-of-molehill fashion.
Sometimes it seems that hard research and strong, direct argumentation are appropriate in countering such stuff, but as Jon Stewart’s Daily Show often shows, humor is sometimes better, in part because it’s more fun.
Barry (#104) is quite right that On [BS] was written by Professor Frankfurt. It hurts to do so, but I must plead guilty to propagation of BS in Prof F’s sense — while I did not try explicitly to lie I was so careless of the actual truth of my attribution that I Google’d in haste.
If there’s any consolation, it may be that, although my attribution could rate no better than False on Politifact’s scale, I don’t think it would earn the Pants on Fire designation.
I feel better now.
Paul Zorn writes:
“I must plead guilty to propagation of BS in Prof F’s sense”
Not at all, Paul. As you said, you were careless. That’s different from being indifferent.
BTW, the Frankfurter book is available at the Northfield Public Library. Out of idle curiosity, I checked the online catalog for the Wasilla Public Library. It’s not listed there, though they do have a copy of Stanley Bing’s “100 Bullshit Jobs — and How to Get Them.”
Oops, I meant Frankfurt, not Frankfurter. Careless me!
Last night I watched a CSpan book talk show and Kaylene Johnson wrote a book called, “Sarah” that was published in April of 2008, before any VP place was ever thought of, and Kaylene says that Sarah is just who she says she is and did the right stuff all along s far as reform, fighting corruption, and using the bridge money for other necessary infrastructure work. I congratulate myself, and anyone who agreed with me on my earlier posts for coming tot he the very same conclusion, based on intuition and a little faith on my part.
I do this mostly cuz I know that’s prolly the only time I am gonna hear that around this thread.
Am I too conclude from your responses that lying is now a quantitative measure?
Have we lowered our standards that much, that we don’t care who is lying to us?
Like I said earlier
I am not a Republican and I am not a Democrat I am American first.
Sad to see that most of you rather give in to partisan bickering and turn your head the other way just to support your candidate.
The $ 1 Trillion we just printed should serve as a warning, that Washington does not have our best interest in mind.
Rather then stand up and admit a mistake both parties now blame Wallstreet. This is laughable at best.
Let’s just ignore this and continue our partisan squabble while our elected officials are laughing all the way to the bank.
Peter wrote,
It is at least something which can be ranked according to degrees, as others here have done.
Yes, let’s.
I would argue that the majority of your posts on this thread and its relatives – like mine – have been either in defense of one candidate, or in criticism of another.
People have made (in my opinion) a pretty good case that there are degrees of lying, and that McCain and his campaign have lied to a significantly greater degree than has Obama.
Please do continue the debate.
Peter Millin wrote:
These lines would have some impact, Peter, if you hadn’t been the one who clipped a whole string of posts about Obama’s “deceptions” (your word) in comments #92, 93, 94, and 95, and then topped it off with comment #96 where you directed everyone’s attention to the politifact website.
Paul Zorn then quantified politifact’s findings for everyone; causing you to back out when the numbers don’t work in your favor. Perhaps you think you’re taking the higher ground with the tone of comment #111, but it sounds to me like you just want to pretend you weren’t down there in the mud, slinging away.
Please, if you want to preach that “most of you would rather give in to partisan bickering” (comment #111), then don’t bicker in such an overtly partisan manner and then claim to care only for America (cue patriotic music) and not your candidate of choice.
Peter, the irony of my comment here is that I actually agree with what you wrote, it just rings hollow after many of your earlier dirt-digging, mud-flinging comments to take that high-minded, moralistic (“Have we lowered our standards that much…”), more-patriotic-than-thou-petty-squabblers tone.
We should be concerned about all lies told, by anyone in this and all campaigns. We should be very worried about financial sector mismanagement by lawmakers and by corporations. But, please don’t fling mud and chastise those who fling it back.
Brendon, as Americans we reserve the right to both sling and chastise.
After all, both sides have some grasp and hold of the truth. As I know you know, there are truths on many levels, even though they may seem to be at odds. Let’s use my girl, Sarah, as an example. She was tough on corruption, but only after she quit a job where it was her job to be tough on corruption, cuz she didn’t like having to make statements that went against her grain every month on the mandatory form. If we add up the bits and other bits, we finally can create a whole truth. It’s kinda hard sometimes, but it can be done over time. So chastise and sling, it’s an American thing!
As presidential candidates make visits to states, it’s going to be interesting to watch how the police work to protect the candidates and their supporters:
Do they wear riot gear and gas masks that hide the identity of a given police officer (as was the case at the RNC in St. Paul, making many of them anonymous and perhaps more prone to use force?
Do they use pepper spray and tear gas? (…as at the RNC.)
Do they surround protesters, leave them no escape route, roughly knock them to the ground and arrest them with plastic strips around their wrists, behind their backs? (…as at the RNC.)
A few (including Coleen Rowley at Huffington Post) have already noted that, with the recent McCain-Palin rally at the Blaine airport, the anti-McCain protesters were very peaceful, the McCain supporters got in to the airport and hanger without being obstructed, some the McCain supporters had signs of their own, but the police wore their normal uniforms, didn’t make arrests or excessive force, didn’t use pepper spray or tear gas, etc.
What made the difference? Did the police at the RNC already arrest all troublemakers, so there were none left to go to Blaine?
Was Homeland Security less involved in the Blaine visit, and was the Blaine event therefore lacking in overkill?
Did they forget to hire agents provocateurs for the Blaine event? Or was it recognized as being less the center of media attention as the RNC in St. Paul?
Did the troublemakers change or retreat? Did the police learn from their mistakes and change their approach?
Or both? Neither? Or was it more than that?
What a difference a few weeks and a change in venue make!
Paul f. I don’t think the provocatuers target the stops and rallies of the candidates. They want national attention and big crowds make that happen.
Also, we didn’t have the surrounding area police who view things differently in the mix. We also didn’t have a lot of hysterical people demanding complete safety.
This is just off the top of my head, which is filled with stuff that people put into it over the years.
Gotta go.
After hundreds of posts on this thread, I still have not seen one person come out and talk about why Obama would make a good President without evoking the names of the opposing side.
health care plan
diplomacy first
tax the rich more than middle class
alternative energy plan
not to mention all of the womens issues
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/womenissues
Bright, happy to oblige…
Obama connects with a generation of young people looking for a reason to get involved. I haven’t seen anyone since JFK have such an impact for good on young people, heck, on all people. He is leading one of the largest voter registration movements in this nation’s history, which will have an impact for decades in the future, as these voters turn into candidates and volunteers and community organizers themselves.
Obama has sparked a new attitude among countries around the world, an attitude that says they believe this country may be focused at last on respect and cooperation and not domination, arrogance and force.
Obama is both black and white, a symbol of the post-racial country that we could be and that many people already see.
Obama respects life, but also understands that laws and jails are not effective forms of contraception.
Obama is a living example that poor kids can value education, can use good grammar, can tie a tie and wear a belt and still be cool, can be good parents and strong world leaders without using four-letter words or becoming athletes or movie stars or musicians. Kids need to see politics and civil service as something honorable and valuable.
Oh, and his policies on health care and Iraq and the economy totally beat the other team’s. Just read the financial analyses coming out in the last couple of weeks. Obama’s health plan is cheaper and covers more people. McCain’s deregulation plan would work as well for health care as it did for Wall Street. Republicans are fine with bailing out the bankers but not the people who lost their homes.
OK, Bright, that’s a start. Anyone else, jump in.
When i first came to this site 99% of the posts were ripping the Republican party and praising the Democrats and Obama.
My attempt was and is to show some of you and there is two sides to this. This has nothing to do with me being on the high horse.
Brendon I posted those threads in respond to Patrick, since he asked me to point out some of Obamas short comings.
Anthony,
Diplomacy first? Yes, but you have to have the means to back up your words.
Healthcare plan? Yes, but not one run by the government.
Tax the rich? How about tax everybody fair?
Alternative energy plan? Yes, but we can’t abandon oil at this time. Why does this have to be an either or decision?
As you can see we agree on the issues of the day, we just disagree on how we should get there.
Peter writes:
I posted those threads in respond to Patrick
Peter, your purpose would have been clearer if you had referenced Patrick’s posting (#58) in the first of your Obama postings. Some 30 postings (and about the same number of hours) had elapsed, and I, for one, had quite forgotten Patrick’s challenge.
Sorry Barry.
Here is a technical question for the moderator. Have you ever considered changing the format of this to v.Bulletin?
It’s much more conducive for this type of forum.
peter:
Diplomacy first? Yes, but you have to have the means to back up your words.
(how are the current policies working for you)
Healthcare plan? Yes, but not one run by the government.
(free healthcare is provided by every single country except this one, insurance companies run the health care industry right now. and again, how is the current system working for you)
Tax the rich? How about tax everybody fair?
(how about close loopholes, how is the current system working for you? I bet you dont get the huge tax breaks the rich get)
Alternative energy plan? Yes, but we can’t abandon oil at this time. Why does this have to be an either or decision?
(we can abandon oil, and we should. clean renewable energy should be the goal. and o ya how is the current climate policy working for you?)
As you can see we agree on the issues of the day, we just disagree on how we should get there.
(we agree on the issues but republicans want a bigger piece of the pie regardless of the consequences)
Peter, can you provide a link to a site that uses v.bulletin? I’m unfamiliar with the format.
In general, I think the format here works extremely well. The layout is attractive and easy to navigate. I don’t care much for sites that nest replies to replies to replies; I find them hard to follow. It’s nice to have the entire “discussion” reviewable on a single page, without having to click around from posting to posting. However, I would encourage people to make an explicit reference back whenever responding to something that appeared some time ago. (I can only hope here that there haven’t been two dozen other postings between Peter’s and this one. Oh, I guess I could do more than hope….)
Anthony,
There is no such thing as free health care, that’s the whole fallacy of this argument.
Health care is paid for through your taxes. I have lived in three countries that had “free health care” current tax rate in Germany is close to 50%, current tax rate in Canada is 42% . 20 years ago the tax rate in Holland was 35%, which is probably higher now.
I wish people in the USA would look outside of their country to understand what national health care will mean to them. Is the US system perfect? NO, but neither are the current alternatives.
Even Europeans have now realized that an all out national health care system doesn’t work. That’s why most of them are now moving to a private secondary supply of health care, because the national system is too slow and too expensive.
Did you know that 25% of the wage earners pay 86% of the taxes already?
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/341.html
None of the current alternative fuels can replace oil today. Will we get there? Yup, but until then we are not even close.
Let’s don’t forget that oil delivers more then just fuel for your car aspirin, cosmetics, plastics are just a few.
That even addresses the issues around using food to power our cars. How can we justify burning corn while people are starving?
# 124
Barry, this might be a mute point after your statement, but here it is.
http://www.politicalforum.com/
Peter,
Some thoughts on your posting #126, which I think contains some good points and some I find less convincing.
You say, for instance:
There is no such thing as free health care, that’s the whole fallacy of this argument.
Indeed, no health care is free, and kudos to you for reminding us of this. Somebody — whether individuals or groups — always pays. So much said, I’d add two caveats. First, I think you overstate the matter when you describe this as the “whole fallacy” of this argument — I doubt that any of us really believes that health care is totally free. Second, as I’m sure you’d agree, there are also costs (to individuals and to society) of underinvesting in health care. Finding the “right” level for a given society is not an easy matter.
Then you wrote:
I have lived in three countries that had “free health care” current tax rate in Germany is close to 50%, current tax rate in Canada is 42% . 20 years ago the tax rate in Holland was 35%, which is probably higher now.
Again you make good points, and I’m a great fan of number-related arguments … well done! But to compare these numbers in an apples-to-apples sense one would need to control somewhere for the fact that the US health care system consumes something like 16% of GDP, last time I checked. So if indeed the Canadians pay 42% of GDP for a package that includes health care, and we pay N% of GDP for a package that does not include health care, then the N-vs-42 comparison is less meaningful than the (N+16)- vs-42 comparison. On that scale, we may differ less than we think from the Great White North.
Then you wrote:
I wish people in the USA would look outside of their country to understand what national health care will mean to them.
Another good point. But some of what we’d see outside the US could help us improve, not just serve as an object lesson in what can go wrong. As you suggest, there’s a whole range of possibilities, from government-provided healthcare at one extreme to government-supported at the other. There’s a lot of room for improvement.
Peter, thanks for the example. I’ll point out a few things I don’t like about its layout compared to LGN. I hope you’ll point to what you do like in it.
Griff and others, I apologize for going completely off topic here.
First, it took me a couple of false starts to figure out how to use the politicalforum site, whereas LGN seemed intuitive from the get-go. I like the way the LGN homepage stacks current topics initiated by Griff et al. and makes it easy to see which topics have active discussion going on, with a glimpse of who’s saying what.
Once you get to a thread at politicalforum, you only get to see 10 postings at a time. As I said above, I like having the entire discussion on a single page. It’s much easier to scroll around than it is to have to click back and forth and wait for the pages to load and reload. (Of course when there are thousands of postings even scrolling is problematic. But I haven’t seen any such problem at LGN.)
I also like the discreet, neighborly “fences” LGN puts between consecutive postings in the discussions. Putting the posters’ identifying information off to the side facilitates the conversational feel of the site. The politicalforum site, by contrast, interposes a big block of identifying information between the postings, creating a visual sense of people saying OK, you’re in my house now and here’s what I have to say. It compounds this by allowing posters to create tag lines that appear each and every time they have something to say. Tag lines are about as endearing as the habit of a coworker who reminds you at the end of the day, week in and week out, not to take any plugged nickels.
One thing I would like to see at LGN is a more easily navigable archive. Right now, if I want to take a look at something from, say early July, I have to click through multiple pages to get to it — and if I’m not sure exactly when it was posted, I have to glance at all the posting as I scroll down to click on “Older Entries.” I’m tempted to say a better presentation would be to reduce the entry page for each month’s archive to a chronological list of titles for the entire month. The same applies to the “categories” archive. (Something else I just noticed there: Entries are dated by month and day, but the year is left unspecified. This is unproblematic for the archive by date, but is potentially confusing for categories.)
OK, sorry for the off-topic meander. But I do hope Peter’ll follow up.
Peter M and Anthony both spoke about taxing everyone fair–and I want to comment on Peter’s “revelation” that 25% are paying the bulk of the taxes.
The transfer of money to the rich that has taken place in the last 7 years is astonishing and daunting–why shouldn’t they pay ALL of the taxes–they are taking all of the wealth–. We have seen the biggest transfer of wealth out of the middle class and to the wealthy in the history of the United States.
(So–who really benefits from the bailout? All of those wealthy that took their cut out of the taxpayers’ backsides.)
There is nothing wrong with taxing the rich. Taxation can work to redistribute wealth–it is the rich, their mouth pieces (the conservative-owned press, including the Wall Street Journal, et al.), their lobbyists, and their Republican Senators and Congressmen who continually claim that the “liberals” are dangerous while it is the Republicans that led us into a costly and illegal war that enriched their already rich friends, increases our dependence on oil, and destroys the earth as well as our economy.
Tell me–are you better off today than you were 8 years ago? If you are, you are a rich Republican that owns Haliburton, so vote for McCain. If, however, you are struggling to put something away in savings while still paying to fill your tank so you can get to work, and your health insurance, college tuition, and grocery bills are all going sky high–vote for a change.
Frankly, it amazes me that anyone can be FOR the Republicans. The Republicans distract from their Repbulican-made disasters wtih hate ads, hate radio, and lies that spew from McCain and Palin, and their “truth” squad.
I would rather take an inexperienced but hard-working intellectual over a the class idiot who’s claim to fame is he crashed ANOTHER plane so he became a POW and he picked a VP candidate with a nice rack.
Jane writes of McCain:
“he picked a VP candidate with a nice rack.”
Jane, thanks for observation, I’ll have to take a closer look at Palin. But I hope you understand that leftwing venom only invigorates the right. It leaves cold those of us whose passions run to dispassionate discourse and reason.
Nice job Jane I am sure your extremist left views will attract a lot of followers.
If a white male would have commented on Palin’s rack he would be decried as sexist…but if the extreme left does it..it’s ok I guess
Jane,
I am better of than eight years ago and it didn’t happen because of government and I do probably own some Haliburton in my 401K. Which I have to have, especially since social security will be a bust soon.
Yet I am not rich. I have a house , a mortgage and three kids. I still work about 10 to 12 hours everyday and think about twice what I spent my money on. But yet some would say I am rich.
What is fair about the fact that I work everyday to make ends meet, but have to pay for those that rather sit at home and live on the governments dime?
Should we help people in need? Of course it’s a human responsibility, but the question is at what point do we stop?
http://www.npr.org/templates/topics/topic.php?topicId=1027
Paul here are the numbers on health care cost from the NPR website.
Most people in Canada still say “We have free health care” so I am not sure if people are just saying that or really mean it?
The cost argument is very valid and it’s hard for me to argue those numbers, unless of course you put them in relation to quality and availabilty.
Quiet a few Canadians chose to visit the US for certain treatment, because of extended waiting periods. The irony is that if you are politician or rich, you skip the line or go straight to the US.
In the matter of taxation don’t forget the taxes and fees you pay “after the state and the feds” have taken their cut…i.e. property taxes, sales taxes, license fees….etc.etc…
I don’t understand why people want inexperience youth to be the deciding votes in this election. Yep, Barack’s team knows how to use the Internet, I guess, but so does Miley Cyrus aka Hannah Montana.
Barack is not black or white. He’s like me a mixed breed. He knows nothing about being a black man in America, or a white one either. Not saying that is a bad thing. I think there are more people like me and him, mixed and unique than anyone really knows.
And Jane, while I see several points of agreement with your last post, I cannot imagine why anyone would be so jealous of a woman as to refer to her ‘rack’, especially when Mrs. Palin is such a modest dresser.
Peter is exactly right about taxes and health care in other countries, and not just lately, but for decades, Europeans and Japanese have paid so much for health care and food and gasoline, much more than we have paid, much more…staggering amounts, in fact. That’s why all they do is sit around and drink wine and whine about the USA.
I’ll leave it at that for now.
Bright, ‘mixed breed’ is a very offensive term. Breeds are for animals, not people. And the idea that Barack doesn’t understand what it means to be black or white is just as offensive. You don’t really mean that, do you? He has understands only too well, I’m sure. Polls just this week show a third of Americans have misgivings about a black president —and consider Obama black, even though he’s as Midwestern as I am.
And Jane, the ‘rack’ comment is just as offensive, whether it comes from a man or a woman. I dislike Palin for a hundred reasons, but making fun of her figure is just as bad as making fun of Hillary’s cankles or her pantsuits.
We need to take a deep breath here and move back to issues.
One of them is getting young people involved in the election process. I’d rather have a 20-year-old voting about our future than an 80-year-old voting based on fond memories of segregation. What is the alternative, Bright? Why wouldn’t you want young people voting or being involved in the process and in volunteering and government service? If they care enough to vote, why wouldn’t you want them to do so?
Peter,
As regards taxes … you mentioned in #126 (along with a reference to http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/341.html ):
Did you know that 25% of the wage earners pay 86% of the taxes already?
A couple of comments:
1. The (interesting!) website you quote also mentions that the top 25% of wage earners earn about 65% of all income. The fact that those of us in that group pay more than 65% of all income taxes reflects the fact that the federal income tax structure is to some degree “progressive” — higher income-earners pay a higher tax percentage. Reasonable people can and do differ on *how* progressive a tax system should be, but virtually all rich countries have some degree of progressivity for income taxes. Perhaps there’s a principled argument against any progressivity, and I’d be interested to hear it. But it would certainly be swimming upstream.
My own opinion is that the 65% income/86% tax statistic is by no means shocking, let alone prima facie evidence of “unfairness”. (I use the scare quotes not to diss a crucial principle, but to acknowledge that fairness is not just a simple mathematical computation; it also depends on important but debatable and ultimately non-economic principles.) On the contrary, the 65/86 disparity seems quite reasonable to me, given the fact that the rich are not just richer (duh) but may also benefit more than the poor from public goods, such as freeways and education.
2. The 86% figure cited above refers only to Federal income tax. As you pointed out in #134, there are many other taxes, fees, etc. kicking around. And (my point, not necessarily yours) most of these other taxes and tax-like things are much *less* progressive, if indeed progressive at all, than the Federal income tax. I’ve seen data (sorry, can’t cite anything here and now) that suggest, for example, that in most states the total burden from state and local taxes and fees is actually slightly *regressive*, with middle income folks paying *higher* percentages than top earners. (As I recall Minnesota was among the least regressive states in this respect, or perhaps even very slightly progressive. We should be proud of this.)
Bright , nice move playing the arrogant ugly American!
Most of the rest of the world lives what’s called a sustainable lifestyle, living within their means.
Due to cheap energy and cheap money most Americans have no idea what this is. However, now that the cheap oil era is over, and now with the current financial Armageddon on Wall Street(mostly caused by greed and living beyond our means for the past 30yrs), America will be able to experience and extreme version of sustainable living starting 2009!
Next year while we are swirling down the financial toilet, the “Wine Drinking Whiners” will be standing on the rim smiling, waving , yelling “Au revoir”.
Jane, perhaps “Rack” is a little to quick to the point! you could have said that Palin is an empty headed Barbie Doll that was brought in for sex appeal for the empty headed American Idol crowd!
Paul Z and Peter: It’s also a fact that, while since Reagan, many income tax reductions have been enacted, social security withholding has continued to increase, and as others have noted here on LoGroNo, social security still has no special bank, so it’s still used as a “slush fund”: There are limits on how much income is calculated for SSWithholding, and while this has increased in recent years, the ultra-rich have still enjoyed tax cuts since Reagan, without suffering from most of the increased withholding.
Many of the figures thrown around by some conseratives about who pays the most taxes are not on the mark….
Bright, in #135 you say:
I happen to be mixed in nearly the same way as Senator Obama, and I suspect it’s very different from the way in which you are “mixed”. We live in a nation in which a single drop of African-American blood qualifies one as black. Furthermore, we also live in a nation in which many people who are seen as “black” (though most are varying shades of brown) have many fewer options in life; fewer options for school, healthcare, jobs, and housing.
I can tell you from personal experience that everyone who looks “black” faces challenges, even those who grew up as privileged as I. Do people think I got my job because I’m black, rather than because I’m qualified? Do people trust me when I talk only because I sound reassuringly non-black? Before I met my husband’s family, I wondered whether they would mistrust me because of my color, as my father’s white family had mistrusted my mother and her black family?
Do those questions even enter into play for a white woman, or a white man? I’m sorry, I don’t believe you have any experience to help you understand what it’s like to grow up as a truly mixed breed in America.
I keep reading the terms “liberal” and “conservative” projected at different opinions, but I think there is an underlying difference in economic policies that the terms socialist and capitalist would better describe. Some of the comments posted here remind me of the poltitcal discussions out of the’60s and ’70s. There seems to be an underlying disgust in socialist thinking toward the idea of economically richer and poorer levels of society. What I hear behind the rhetoric is the hope that a stong central government will be the great equalizer in our society. This will be accomplished through taxes, especially greater taxes on the “rich”. It reminds me of an attitude of mistrust and contempt toward anyone in a higher income bracket than yourself that is prevalent in the part of the country in which I grew up. It isn’t fair that another person has more money than you, and he must have done something illegal to obtain it. It does a lot to discourage individual entrepineurship, like a person should be ashamed if they do well economically in life.
The capitalist thinking, on the other hand, seems to convey the idea that if a person was able to get ahead economically, then everyone should be able to. They don’t seem to disturbed by an economically stratified society. They view taxes as a necessary evil to facilitate the building, maintainence, and defense of infrastructure, not as a means of equalizing economic disparencies, and therefore want to keep them at a minimum. I believe it too often ignores the people who, because of mental or physical challenges, cannot work. This leaves those economically challenged in a place of discouragement, especially if they believe they have the “right” to the same economic level of those that are “rich”. This is an unrealistic expectation in the first place, in my opinion. Not everyone can be a millionaire, but it is this belief that drives the lottery and gambling industry. The Amercan dream has become getting rich without working.
My personal opinion is that neither philosophy is ideal, because both rely on the idea that men are not driven by greed. This idea is untrue and creates a false hope. As we have seen in the recent demise of Wall Street financial giants, men are motivated by greed. Over 30 years ago, Dr. Francis Schaefer stated the problem the best. He said that the biggest problem facing mankind is the compassionate distribution of accumulated wealth. I believe it is important for a person to work and be paid for it, but I try to live by a different philosophy called giving and receiving. I don’t think this can be done politically. It must be a change in the basic motivations of each person, and the next election will not accomplish that.
Felicity, what great comments. My husband has five adult children who were adopted when they were small: two Korean sisters, two mixed race boys and a blond Caucasian girl. They grew up in the same family in the same house on Lake Minnetonka and went to the same Methodist church and the same private schools. Yet I can assure you the boys knew exactly what it was like to be considered black and all four dark-haired children knew what it was like to be treated very differently from their blond sister.
It was and is not fair, but I am happy to see that attitudes among many are changing, just as attitudes about so many other issues are changing. I was in grade school in a Klan town in Indiana many, many years ago and there were kids that couldn’t play with me because I was Catholic. I remember how proud my grandparents were because Kennedy proved a Catholic could be elected president. That seems ridiculous now, yet the questions about Romney’s religion this year show we still have a long way to go.
The latest polls this week show there are still many people who would be reluctant to vote for a Harvard-educated U.S. Senator whose roots are in Kansas, Hawaii and Illinois and who is as much white as he is black because they see him as different from them.
In another 30 years whites will be in the minority in this country — what an interesting time that will be.
I can’t believe I let myself get trapped in the issue of who is paying what taxes and how much.
This issue makes for good partisan conversation and fill up threads but it diverts from the bigger more important picture.
How much do we want our government to do for us? Do we believe that a centralized government in Washington can do more for us that we can do ourselves?
Once we decide on what that is, we then can decide on how much our government should use to accomplish this.
Here is a reality check, especially for those that like numbers. WARNING this is from the Heritage Foundation ( a mean conservative think tank). Never mind that they are using congressional budget numbers.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/index.html?CFID=34545635&CFTOKEN=95731575
Their are some points that stick out, and they should worry every American.
1) Despite and increase in dollar tax revenues, nearly every President has added to the national debt.
2) Entitlement spending will be the biggest burden on our budget. Make s me wonder why McBama want to spend more?
3) Please take a look at the pie chart on spending. A large % is called “discretionary spending”, which is another word for “funny money”
Happy reading.
Mike Z…
Good comments…’ Au Revoir’ indeed.
Peter…
Regarding your references to tax burdened, regulation fettered Germany, and by extension Europe…and maybe even Canada. From your posts, you strike me as an entrepeneurial, ambitious type of person…I may be wrong but that is my impression. That’s great, but as you know, many people are not like that. They may not have the talent or inclination to be ‘moving on up’ in society. Or they may be at a stage of life where they have reached an accommodation with their position. The pleasures they take from life are the pleasures of family and friends, along with a little self indulgence. Even in our consumer society, I still think most people fit this description.
So I ask…where are people like this better off…in Europe or the US? Where do they work less and have time to enjoy life more? Where do they have greater access to affordable health care? Where do they retire earlier and have larger government guaranteed pensions? Where are vacations longer? Where are cultural and recreational activities more available and affordable? Where do they travel more? Where is higher education for their children more affordable?
I think that European society better balances the life goals of the ambitous and entrepeneureal with the life goals of the average person.
Mike Zenner said:
My answer to that is at least she didn’t have to come in on the tails of her deregulating the banks in the early 90s husband! Hillary could never have made it to the presidential candicacy ring without BIll…who btw could not bring himself to say anything bad about McCain who Bill admitted gave him a great deal of help during his years in the Oval office. When asked about Obama, all he could say is that Obama is smart and will learn.
Felicity, the problems you discuss are problems every unknown man and woman face when they enter the work place, a new town, or neighborhood,
to some degree. And to be clear, I do not associate any of them with my understanding of what black men go through in this country. Your complaints would be the least of it, maybe not for you, but for them. I have friends, artists, police men, people I know very well from my days living in very close knit neighborhoods where people talked to each other heart to heart every day.
Obama was brought up in Hawaii where everyone is his color approximately. and then in Indonesia. He has no experience growing up as a black man in this country, no matter how you try to portray it.
He went to college prep high school, he has no military experience, he has no economics in his background, he has cut and run from every thing he has started and he just isn’t ready yet. Maybe in four or eight years, but not now.
Felicity, also, when I walk into a room, I have drawn scorn cuz I speak my mind, I am thin, I have weird eyes, my veins show through my skin, I don’t allow people to push me around, I wear short skirts when it’s hot outside, etc, etc. I do not know which of those things to ascribe to racism, sexism, ageism, jealousy, pettiness, fear, or what, but don’t tell me I have not had to bring down or go around or over a few dozen walls to get where I needed to get, cuz I have. Don’t forget I am prolly twice your age and things haven’t always been like they are now, which is to say they are easier, but still not fair to anyone who has to work for a living.
My mother told me early on not to tell people I am partly Native American. Imagine my shame about having to hide who I was, and I didn’t even know why I had to hide it. Well, I never did. Sorry, mom. The Spanish heritage was completely hidden from us til we researched it in our twenties, people used the Irish to make every drunk joke there ever could be, and I don’t drink. People used to tell Canadian jokes, about how backward and dull they supposedly were. One of my grandmothers was half German, imagine being associated with that group, even today, there is a subtle racism going on right here in Minnesota against Germans. Oh, and I am part English, well that does it. I am in the wrong state. Fortunately I don’t choose to run for office, but if I did, I wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell in this state.
Back to the topic;
I still don’t think McCain is all that either, but it’s like I said early on, none of these guys are presidential material alone. Put them all together. Have a eight person sharing type of deal. And put Sarah in charge of them. hahaha.
John, I agree that government cannot and should not be asked to fix it all.
We must and some of us surely do work for moral standards, but it seems like a big chunk of people got into power, the kind of power where they not only rule their own roosts, but a lot of other people’s roost, too.
And then, for the other side of it;
When we moved to Minnesota, I noticed just from the highways so many big homes being built and I asked my dh what, where, who are these people who can afford these mansions? He told me then, they are getting loans for houses more than they can afford, and thru creative financing. I told him, we are buying one that is less than we can afford and so we have money for other things. I am so happy we did that now. Seems like a good education and the ability to research things on the Internet is such a gift, but greed can wipe all that aside.
Well, my self imposed half hour on this site is up, so I am gonna say a rosary for the best outcome we can have so everyone is safe, healthy, happy, loving, free, moral, kind, well fed, and for clean air, water and soil, and for
wind turbine and greenhouse businesses to develop and flourish in Northfield and other areas of the country. God be willing.
William,
I don’t disagree with any of your assumptions about life in Europe, and it sounds very attractive on the surface.
However if you never lived there you don’t know the implications of it.
1) The majority of Germans don’t own a house and live in apartments, because most of them can’t afford a house.
2) Most families only can afford one child, because of the cost of it. Families with three or more end up on state sponsored well fare.
3) Disposable income is much lower then here.
4) Yes, they do retire earlier, but live on the edge of poverty in doing so. My mom ended up moving to Hungary, because she couldn’t afford to live in Germany anymore.
5) Don’t forget that the 50% in taxes is only part of the picture, you are still dealing with a 20% VAT, automobile taxes, gas taxes etc…etc.. needless to say most people don’t have much money left to enjoy life.
6) Most Americans would not accept government run health care. You are not a human being you are a number.
7) higher education is marginally more affordable,because society is paying for it with tax $$$
What looks like balance form the outside is really born out of necessity. Government regulations in all areas of your life are just overwhelming. Personally I never want to live there again and even contemplating to bring my mom over here. So she can enjoy her retirement with a bit more dignity.
Yes call me ambitious if you want. I came here twenty years ago with nothing but two suitcases and worked hard to get to where I am at today. I played by the rules and managed to support my family and raise three great kids.
Is it time to slow down? Yes, but that doesn’t make me less ambitious, because I want to give my children the same opportunities that I had here. Where if you work hard and play by the rules you can make a great living for yourself free from government interference. Where you get to keep most of what you earned so you can enjoy live.
It is much easier to have somebody else take care of you, but it is a whole lot less full filling.
Everybody get your conversation out of the gutter–haven’t you seen Ms. Palin with her elk trophy? (What is another name for the the elkhorns–rack?) And I never said she is an empty-headed Barbie Doll–although it always good to get confirmation of the prejudices against women who have a nice figure. Sarah Palin is much more dangerous because of her strange approach to governing and her proactive application of her power as mayor/governor–to ban books, eliminate employees and appoint her friends to government jobs, all the while lying about her record.
Peter: glad you could make it in America and live the American dream. Unfortunately, too many Americans do not have the same access to that dream, due to poverty and family circumstances. Today, if you are not born into a family with college educated parents, your chances of financial success are nearly nil.
For all you conservative voters who thought voting for the Republicans meant less government regulations–you got your wish and now we can nationalize banks–and regulate them even more since we are bailing them out.
Unfortunately the Republicans in power and the platform of the Republican party are at odds. They continually affirm their message of smaller government and lower taxes while giving away money to their friends and using patronage to rob the US blind–as evidenced by the current financial crisis and the war in Iraq. Give me a real Barry Goldwater Republican anyday. The Real Republicans have to see the light–throw the pretenders out and take back their party.
Republicans continually blame Democrats for their administrative woes, and claim THIS TIME they will be disciplined.
McCain’s advisors are predominately government lobbyists. Do you really think that he is going to fight for the middle-class American–or is he going to be a front for big business like the Shrubmeister?
McCain dumped his dumpy, handicapped wife for the millionaire glamour girl Cindi (now, unfortunately, there is an empty-headed Barbie doll). He claims to be for campaign finance reform–even authored an bill (that essentially does nothing) yet he is involved in the worst practices.
The Republicans run ads to warn us of the threat that Obama is FOR big government and higher taxes, while Obama’s plans and policies support the opposite–a tax cut for most Americans –oh, but he would roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy–but that is not most voters (Obama’s plan would increase taxes on households making over $250,000 while giving all other taxpayers (more than 75% of taxpayers) a tax cut.)
Republicans are using the Rove tactics to convince people to be afraid of Obama and Democrats and Liberals. They have been effective—and that is what is frightening to me. This election will be decided by voters who are not educated on the real issues or the candidates, and use the lies in the campaigns to decide their votes.
I think the Democrats should jump in with the same propaganda tactics that the Republicans are using to make it a fair fight.
Jane,
How does poverty and family circumstances prevent you living the American dream?
Isn’t Obama a prime example that you can do it if you put your mind to it?
Bright,
Please get a clue.
Bright wrote,
No. When people in a predominantly white community see Felicity, they notice her immediately, and they remember her. In Northfield, this comes in the positive sense that almost everyone she has met even in passing remembers her distinctly, and probably by name. In many other communities, this sense is not necessarily such a positive one.
One measure of this is in the much talked-about (if somewhat flawed) AP survey and article which shows that many white people, even white Democrats, hold negative opinions of African Americans – and those who hold such general negative opinions are less likely to vote for Obama in particular.
From the AP:
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race
But, if words aren’t enough evidence for you, how about videos?
Here’s a racist Hillary Clinton supporter going on about Barack Obama outside the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s
And here’s the Jon Stewart’s segment on the West Virginia primary:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=168561&title=Indecision-2008—West-Virginia
Yet you offer this:
Where can you show any evidence that the prejudice against white people who have veins that show through their skin can in any way compare with this:
(from above)
Bright, even if you did suffer some kind of discrimination because of your veins and short skirts – well guess what: you can put on a pair of pants, and ‘pass’ as a normal white person like everyone else around here.
Of course, that’s not the end of your cluelessness:
Bright: Hawaiian Americans are not black. Indonesians are not black. Apart from being Not White, Hawaiians, Indonesians, and African Americans have ABSOLUTELY NO COMMON KINSHIP WHATSOEVER. He was just as much of a racial outsider there as he is elsewhere.
And then you offer this:
Bright, here’s a bit of logic for you – the kind Barack Obama would’ve learned in that preparatory school you deride:
1) Barack Obama is black.
2) Barack Obama is a man.
3) Barack Obama is therefore a black man.
4) Barack Obama grew up in Hawaii.
5) Hawaii is in America.
6) Barack Obama grew up in America.
Conclusion:
Barack Obama is a black man who grew up in America.
But, Bright, let’s get back to your own experience:
You wrote,
Bright, I’ve met you, and you can pass just fine as ‘white.’
The only thing that would keep you from having “a snowball’s chance in hell in this state” would be your own words.
Patrick, you just proved what I am talking about. In no way am I even given credence to what my own experience is around here.
Jane , don’t look now but you are spinning your own spins.
Anne, please stop putting your words into my meanings. I never said I don’t want youth to vote. I want anyone within legal age to vote, no matter what their affiliation.
Bright wrote,
Bright,
I have no idea what you mean, or what point you think I’ve proven for you. My point is this: your opinions on Barack Obama’s race, and his personal experience, are entirely uniformed by reality.
Bright, these are your words, in response to my comment about getting young people to vote…”I don’t understand why people want inexperience youth to be the deciding votes in this election.” How else did you mean them?
Bright, Patrick wasn’t discounting your comments because you are thin or native American or wear short skirts. He (and others of us) are just disagreeing with you because we think you are plain wrong.
Patrick, okay, skip that point you don’t understand. I am going to now delineate for you all what I refer to when I say Obama doesn’t have the growing up as a black man experience that I have been referrring to. Warning, It’s sad and it’s long. this is what I saw, and things may have changed somewhat in the last ten years since I left my home town of Chicago, but not that much.
Young men who have never been out of their squalid neighborhood. Where only five miles away, downtown Chicago, people thriving, art, culture, food, lakefront, city parades. The only way out; join the military, be smart enough for scholarship, play sports really well, sing really, really well, or join the police force or postal service.
A policeman, retired, an accomplished pianist commits suicide because he has no one to confide in after a long hard life of service. He had to be strong his whole life for others. To keep the city from exploding into violent chaos through the seventies, eighties and nineties. Murders at 1000 per year, and more bodies unseen, unheard of, found in garbage cans every day. This is what he saw every day. Being shot at, wives picking up knives so you won’t take their abusive husbands away. Missing kids, lost grandmas, junkies and crack heads freaking out, ex cons trying to muscle you. Every day, every single day for forty years. Every day. Some white people, too, but it’s the only choice for many black men and women.
A black man in Chicago crosses the street just as you are pulling up in your car. He sees you and still he crosses in front of you, on a very busy street.
He does that because that is the only recognition he is going to get all day.
A beep, a finger, respectful waiting, a holler. He doesn’t care what kind of recognition, because people have forgotten him and looked past him for years.
A black teacher and artist, with eight kids, wife leaves him cuz he doesn’t make much money. He loves his kids so much. He cries for them everyday.
So much pressure to make it big time. Can’t get a good position in a good school. Has to deal with kids with all sorts of problems in the projects all day long. Has no choice. Can’t go get an easy office job, his skin is so dark. And yet, he ‘s the nicest, smartest man. He’s stuck. No woman will marry him, with eight kids visiting all the time and a controlling ex wife. He can’t go to many parts of the country. He visits only in areas where he has family.
Is this the same type of experience Obama has had? I don’t think so. He grew up surfing on a beautiful island where lots of other people who are not white grow up. It’s completely different. Completely. Hey, there is no harm in admitting that Obama is unique. I wouldn’t hold that against him.
And as for black features, oh please. What are those features? Any feature can be found in any other race.My grandfather, the blue eyed wavy haired Iroquois doesn’t “look like an Indian” either, but he was one.
So, I have to put on long pants in the sweltering heat to be accepted around here, where most place in this country it’s perfectly acceptable to dress according to the temperature? And I cannot cover my all of my veins unless i walk around with burka. Not gonna happen.
Oh, and as far as passing for white, I wouldn’t want to and never have tried to, I tell everyone where I came from and I am proud to have the heritage that gives me a great love of the earth and sky and water and life…not saying Native Americans are the only ones who care about those things… I don’t want anything from anyone who cannot like me because of my heritage or my way of dressing. They can keep their friendship and their lip service to Christianity.
I don’t get this stuff at all. I guess I need more clues.
Bright,
The sad litany of anecdotes you rattle off in no way validates your assertion that
And then you’ve got your assertion that:
What give you the right to decide what is a ‘legitimate’ black experience, and what is not? According to you, a person can apparently only be ‘black’ if they grew up in urban slums of Chicago.
Again, I offer the simple logical sequence:
1) Barack Obama is black.
2) Barack Obama is a man.
3) Barack Obama is therefore a black man.
4) Barack Obama grew up in Hawaii.
5) Hawaii is in America.
6) Barack Obama grew up in America.
Therefore, Barack Obama has experience growing up as a black man in America.
It’s not rocket science.
You wrote,
I didn’t say you would. Just said you can. Barack Obama can’t hide the thing that makes him different, and can’t escape the prejudices (described above in Post #151) that go with his skin color. Big difference.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Bright (#152): I can see what you mean, even if Patrick (#155) can’t. I assume you’re referring to his lengthy post #151. I’m sorry to see that he’s about to go medieval on you. Don’t feel bad. He probably can’t help it. It’s hard to have a real conversation with a totalitarian. He seems more interested in “correcting” you than in finding out what you’re talking about.
Patrick (#151): I spend too much time on the Internet, too, so I’m familiar with most of the stuff you mentioned, but I’m not sure why you were throwing it all at Bright. Are you just hoping that some of it will stick? Bright seemed to be using her personal experiences to explain some of her opinions, and subjective personal experience, at least in my book, doesn’t ever call for rebuttal. But if your experiences are different, of course, feel free to share them.
Oh, and Patrick, thanks for posting the link to the Hillary supporter on youtube. I had watched it a few times last spring, when it first went up, but I had forgotten about it. It’s pretty funny. I realize that most New Yorkers are considered too feisty by midwestern standards, but the woman in the video may be a bit above average.
Peter: You said…
“1) The majority of Germans don’t own a house and live in apartments, because most of them can’t afford a house.”
I say…The majority of New Yorkers don’t own a house and live in apartments…so what? Do you suggest that the quality of life in New York is somehow not up to par because most people rent? Some people rent in Northfield and have been renting their entire life. Are you suggesting that their quality of life (or even the value of their investments) is not as good as people who own homes?
Then you said…
“2) Most families only can afford one child, because of the cost of it. Families with three or more end up on state sponsored well fare.”
Whether they can afford one child or chose to have one child is a matter of debate. In any case the birthrate in the eurozone is about 1.7 versus 2.1 in the US. That is per woman of child bearing age. Not a big difference. Your statement that families with 3 or more children end up on state sponsered welfare is meaningless and an afront to those with large families. Of course if you are saying that many european governments support women who have children better than the US govt., I would have to agree.
Then you said…
“3) Disposable income is much lower than here.”
For who? In what circumstances? I don’t believe you can prove that point. In any case… Do you really think that the average American has alot of disposable income?
Then you said…
“4) Yes, they do retire earlier, but live on the edge of poverty in doing so. My mom ended up moving to Hungary, because she couldn’t afford to live in Germany anymore.”
This is what is called anecdotal evidence.
Then you said…
“6) Most Americans would not accept government run health care. You are not a human being you are a number.”
Aside from the fact that Germany does not have government run health care (it has mandatory insurance), you make a statement that is at odds with citizen satisfaction levels with health care in the US as opposed to satisfaction levels in countries with universal health care.
Finally you said…
“7) higher education is marginally more affordable,because society is paying for it with tax $$$”
Exactly my point.
Scott Oney wrote,
Please clarify what you mean by this. Medieval? And who is the totalitarian are you talking about? Mussolini?
I have criticized and addressed Bright’s statements specifically. I ask that you do the same in disagreeing with me – and please address me personally when doing so.
Scott, OMG, I don’t think the Hillary supporter is funny, I think she’s racist!
And the Southern Poverty Law Center http://www.splcenter.org/blog/ has done a good job of chronicling real, factual incidents of racism agains Barack Obama, like this magazine cover: http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2008/09/12/neo-nazi-magazine-to-feature-obama-assassination-cover/
No offense, Bright, but we aren’t even close to dealing with this.
William, I have to side with Peter,as far as creature comforts go, we are far and away more comfortable and human with our heat and air conditioning.
Heat is shut off for seven hours each night. A/C is almost non existent. Ice isn’t served very often with drinks.
About five or ten years ago, tens of thousands of elderly people died in the European heat wave, while the French went on holiday to the islands.
When I was in London, a woman told me that goods were hard to come by, such as twine, simple things like that which make life a little more easy.
Many people with allergies and asthma would not live well as they do here as compared to Europe.
Apartment living is difficult when you can hear other people shaving in the middle of the night, lifting and dropping weights above you, neighbors talking in the hallways on cell phones to Saudi Arabia at the height of their voices, druggies calling out to drug dealers in the middle of the night, every night for three months and no cops will come, the elderly woman who sets her frying pan on fire once a month and fills the halls with smoke, sets off the fire alarm and firemen evacuate the building, a
garbage room where you have to drop your trash that smells like the worst thing you can imagine. The man who has been storing all his personal garbage in his apartment for three years.
And that was in a ‘good’ neighborhood.
Yeah, living in a home is OFTEN much better.
Scott, thanks! The real story is that most of the people on this thread are trying to squelch every single solitary idea that leads to truth, they are so afraid Obama will loose the election, that they are willing to do or say anything to distract from the fact that they do not have a viable candidate.
Even Bill Clinton, a staunch and loyal Democrat cannot endorse Obama with a full heart.
The fact is that the Democrats are not helping Americans lighten their loads. They are only using them to gain power and position for themselves.
The latest jobs created by Dems in Chicago are people standing in the middle of intersections directing heavy traffic, in the heat, in the cold.
Bright wrote,
Actually, no. Regardless of what is said here on LGN, Barack Obama will carry both Northfield and Minnesota in November.
The real race lies elsewhere.
Bright we disagree, but we are not stopping you from making your case or trying to distract people from it. We are just offering a response and an alternative position, and letting readers decide for themselves which is true for them. You are the one who seems afraid of those who decline to support your arguments and ideas.
You’ve said a lot of things about why you don’t like Obama, and you neatly avoid taking any stand for McCain, so you can’t be held accountable for anything. Saying nobody is good enough feels like a cop-out.
Personally I don’t like living in an apartment so for me it is much more desirable to live in a house.
Most of the people I had contact with in Germany were dreaming about owning a house. Yeah, I know it’s anecdotal but so are a lot of your assumptions.
Of course Germany is not “government run”, but making it mandatory amounts to the same. ..an inefficient bureaucracy without having any other choice.
There is no better hospitals, doctors and care then in the USA, why else do people come to the US from all over the world to be taken care off?
Most people can’t afford three children in Germany unless they have government subsidies (state well fare).
I was trying to find some data on discretionary income, but to no avail. Common sense however will tell you, that if you compare your after tax money to the cost of everyday goods their can’t be that much left for other things.
Americans whine about $4 gas, while Europe is paying $8 per gallon. ..but that’s all anecdotal.
Patrick (#160): When I start out a post with your name and a post number in parens, I am addressing you directly. Nobody ever said to do it that way, but I thought it was obvious enough. I guess not. So I was addressing you directly in my #158. I had a question in that one for you, too. Perhaps you missed it.
I thought everybody knew what “go medieval” meant; it’s common argot in some circles, but apparently not in others. (You can find many examples by googling the partial phrase “go medieval on your.”) I checked on http://www.urbandictionary.com, and they have it as coming from the movie Pulp Fiction. I don’t remember hearing it before about that time; it may be one of those expressions that was concocted by scriptwriters and then made it into common English.
Mussolini was a Fascist. That system relies on autocratic control, too, but, at least as I use the term, it has a nationalist or ethnic component that totalitarianism doesn’t. When I used the term in my #158, I was referring to what I assume to be your political leanings. I wasn’t addressing you directly because I wasn’t criticizing you; it was just an observation. I think we have a better system here, but I don’t really feel like getting into an argument about it.
Peter: Barack Obama is an example of the American dream, just like you are. However, todays young people face education costs that exceed their ability to pay, unemployment, and economic disaster. The circumstances brought about by Republican policies are destroying this country.
Unfortunately, those that are implementing the Republican policies are doing so without regard to what REAL Republicans want and support–the Republican party was hijacked by cynical, manipulative people like Karl Rove–and cater to big oil and big pharmaceuticals and other big businesses that buy themselves the legislation they want.
Yes, Democrats are sometimes to blame and sometimes complicit, but the majority of the problems have been caused by Republican controlled congress’ and Republican presidential administrations, especially George W’s.
The Iraq war is now up to 380 million a day (from 330 million a day.) This war of choice, this illegal war, is bankrupting our country.
We must throw the bums out, and hope and pray and plead with new leaders that they bring some discipline to Washington and to rein in the Federal government’s disastorous policies.
Bush has shown us what DOES NOT work. McCain wants to “stay the course” in Iraq. It isn’t working now and it won’t work in a few months. Vote Obama. Dump the war-mongers.
Bright (#162): Yeah, I thought the 2004 election season was bad, but this one may get a lot worse. I’m tempted to tune out until November 5.
As for whether or not Obama is a viable candidate, he was able to get about half of the Democrats who vote in primaries or attend caucuses to vote for him, not counting the voters in Florida and Michigan.
Hi, Scott. Okay, Obama can get votes, he’s a nice looking guy with a good rap and plenty of support and he’s smart too. Biden takes the train home every night. Gee. My idea of viable goes a bit further than that, especially when it come to being the leader of this country in a dangerous and complex world. I may be too picky. Not sorry. I just want something better and I will ask for it.
Say, Jane, or anybody, who do we pay this $380 million per day to? The Iraqis get it all? or don’t our soldiers get a bunch of it, and civilian workers, and generals and advisors? How much goes to whom?
There are a bunch of people in this country who have rationalized a vote against Obama in various ways. Non Viable Candidate = I am not voting for a black dude.
Thats why I think Obama will lose.
It is sad, to think that they are willing to suffer through 4 more years of the last 8 years just because they don’t want a black president.
Bright (#168): I was actually being sarcastic. What I was really trying to point out was that Obama isn’t even doing that well among Democrats. Some people still think he’s a Great Orator, but to many others, he’s starting to sound sort of annoying.
Unfortunately, Scott and Bright, Obama is doing well because he is such a good candidate. There is a little problem with the bigots. However, people who make their decisions based on something other than the color of his skin are decidedly supporting him. He has a higher national approval rating than George W. (yes, I know that isn’t saying much.)
I really wish someone could tell me why anyone would be FOR McCain. All I hear is how you want to convince everyone to be against Obama. And how, even though the Republicans have been in charge and run the country into the ground, it is preferable to–Obama?
Bright: you can find out information on the cost of the war through the Congressional Research Service or just about any economist. Some of the newest estimates are at 400 million a day, so I was being conservative at 380. These estimates use actual costs of, yes, US soldier pay, plus war suppliers and contractors, plus independent contractors, plus payments to the Iraqi government, plus payments to local Iraqi terrorists groups to not fight, plus payments for health care for blown-up vets, etc. etc. Isn’t it great that mercenaries can go to Iraq and make 4 times what we are paying a soldier? The waste and fraud are costing us plenty, and included in the 400 million a day.
This war is a source of our economic crisis–and McCain wants us to keep going. Vote for peace, vote Obama.
Scott Oney,
You wrote in #158:
In #165, you wrote:
That’s quite an assumption you’re making there, and a very mistaken one.
Where do you get the idea that calling someone “a totalitatian” isn’t a criticism? In my world, “totalitarian” is an insult, and not one to be bandied about lightly.
But getting back to your previous question,
Your statement here is quite vague, and without you clarifying what “stuff” I was throwing at Bright, or what I might be hoping would stick, I have no answer for you.
If you go back to look at my post #151 and the ones that preceded it, you will see that the conversation started in the following manner:
1) In post #135, Bright offers up a post dismissing Barack Obama with “Barack’s team knows how to use the Internet, I guess, but so does Miley Cyrus aka Hannah Montana.” Pretty much standard fare here, and nothing worth bothering with.
However, in the next paragraph, Bright wrote,
2) In post #140, Felicity – the only ‘black’ or mixed-race African American person I’m aware of who posts on this board – attempted to explain why being mixed race did not exclude one from also being black, and suffering negative connotations from such. Given that it was polite company, she kept it brief and innocuous.
3) In post #147, Bright responded with the post that was the subject of my post #151.
4) My post #151 was organized as follows:
a) I offered a concrete, personal example of how being mixed-race black is fundamentally different than Bright’s representation.
b) I generalized that example by citing survey data that firmly shows the negative connotations associated with being black, and how those negative stereotypes are associated with an increased likelihood of not supporting for Obama.
c) I provided a couple examples to show that racists really are out there (the videos).
d) I again discussed Bright’s assertions, and showed why I believe they are wrong.
I admit, my recent tone with Bright has been somewhat harsh. (Now, switching gears here, due to LGN’s very sensible but awkward civility rules…)
Scott Oney,
You wrote in #158:
In #165, you wrote:
That’s quite an assumption you’re making there, and a very mistaken one.
Where do you get the idea that calling someone “a totalitatian” isn’t a criticism? In my world, “totalitarian” is an insult, and not one to be bandied about lightly.
But getting back to your previous question,
Your statement here is quite vague, and without you clarifying what “stuff” I was throwing at Bright, or what I might be hoping would stick, I have no answer for you.
If you go back to look at my post #151 and the ones that preceded it, you will see that the conversation started in the following manner:
1) In post #135, Bright offers up a post dismissing Barack Obama with “Barack’s team knows how to use the Internet, I guess, but so does Miley Cyrus aka Hannah Montana.” Pretty much standard fare here, and nothing worth bothering with.
However, in the next paragraph, Bright wrote,
2) In post #140, Felicity – the only ‘black’ or mixed-race African American person I’m aware of who posts on this board – attempted to explain why being mixed race did not exclude one from also being black, and suffering negative connotations from such. Given that it was polite company, she kept it brief and innocuous.
3) In post #147, Bright responded with the post that was the subject of my post #151.
4) My post #151 was organized as follows:
a) I offered a concrete, personal example of how being mixed-race black is fundamentally different than Bright’s representation.
b) I generalized that example by citing survey data that firmly shows the negative connotations associated with being black, and how those negative stereotypes are associated with an increased likelihood of not supporting for Obama.
c) I provided a couple examples to show that racists really are out there (the videos).
d) I again discussed Bright’s assertions, and showed why I believe they are wrong.
I admit, my recent tone with Bright has been somewhat harsh. (Now, switching gears here, due to LGN’s very sensible but awkward civility rules…)
That is to say…
Bright: My tone towards you in recent posts has been somewhat harsh, but that is because I believe that your posts here have been consistently, harshly anti-Obama – but not for reasons of what he has said or what he has done, but for who he is, and where he comes from. Worse still, your statements tend not to be based upon independently observable facts, but rather on rumor and innuendo. This, I believe, is not conducive to a civil dialogue.
Bright, the most concerning examples I’ve seen you write are the following:
Bright wrote,
Bright wrote,
Bright wrote,
Bright wrote,
And after all the time you’ve spent trying to imply that Barack Obama is just a front man for a grand Chicago political machine conspiracy, and tied to Farrakhan even, now you want to talk about how he’s not black enough, and not white enough as well?
Yes, given your previous writings, it is hard for me to consider your present comments on Barack Obama, and what it means for him to be black or mixed race, in the best possible light.
(Reference links deleted due to problems getting this post to appear with them included.)
Oops. The contents of my first preceding post (currently #172) are entirely repeated at the start of my second post (currently #173).
The LGN bug that prevents posting some html addresses struck again.
I am only going to answer a few items and make one more assertion.
Jane, when you referred to Sarah’s rack, I assumed that you were referring to her physique. Slang for ‘frame’. My mind was never in the gutter and because you set that up and then accuse me, like Anne does, of saying or inferring things I never meant to say or infer, I will never take anything you say or post with any seriousness again.
Don’t ever pull the race card and say people won’t vote for Obama just because he is black. He is not black, he is not white, he is mixed. And some people, like me, may not vote for him cuz he hasn’t the background to prove he can handle the pressure.
I never said Barack was tied to Farrakhan. Never said that.
And when I say ‘mixed breed’, I think of humans as animals, two legged, and I don’t mean to insult the animals.
And, I’m with Scott, you guys are just bullying me and will pick apart my every word. Well, good luck to you, and try not to cheat at the polls like has been done around here for years. I have the confession clearly in my head about that voting fraud from one of your own townspeople, and it ain’t me.
# 169
Your post plays the guilt card.
Could it just be that most people don’t like his policies? I don’t think that America is not ready for a black or a female president…I think America is not ready for a socialist president with a questionable past.
Having said that..Obama will be our next POTUS because McCain hasn’t convinced enough conservatives to vote for him. By regurgitating the populist theme on the financial bailout, he again has shown that he is just another version of a populist. True leadership means you tell the truth and make the tough choices. Throwing away tax money does neither.
Anne,
I appreciate your several just-now-cleared posts above. It’s a shame they might get lost in the shuffle of a busy thread.
Any chance you can earn back the right to post in real time?
A vote for Obama is not a vote for peace. He won’t fight in Iraq supposedly, but he is going to Afghan, so he says, cuz that’s a much better war, yet no one tells me how so.
I have stated why I was leaning towards McCain at least once in the past, and I’ll say it again. He is a good man with a proven record of honor and steadfast love of his country, and people on both sides of the political fence love him and are supportive of him. His wife is not a barbie, but a complete angel of mercy and love. She walks her talk and no one can say anything bad about her without lying, imho.
No, McCain is not perfect, and wouldn’t be my first choice, and I may not vote for him, but I don’t trust the Dems anymore. I will not state my choice here or anywhere. But, my vote better count.
I’d love to see a black man or a Mexican man or a Native American man, whose time is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overdue become a US President. I’d go with Colin Powell, or possibly Bill Richardson, or my grandpa if he was still alive. I’d love to see a woman president. Idon’t really care about the gender or the age or the religion…only the ability to lead and protect this nation. The rest is fluff. We have a congress and senate and executive branch that ought to be tough and smart enough to handle the rest of it, if we hold them accountable.
In posting #181, Patrick writes:
“Anne, I appreciate your several just-now-cleared posts above.”
One problem, Griff, when delayed postings are inserted: It makes a hash out of some of the references. E.g., in posting #180, Peter Millin now seems to be addressing Scott Oney rather than, if I remember correctly, Anthony Pierre. This makes it tricky for readers who come late and want to catch up. Would it be possible to set up the format so that delayed postings are put at the bottom but with an editorial note at the beginning of the message giving their time of submission?
Bright, I have been very careful to quote you precisely when I ask what you mean or respond to your points.
I am terribly confused by your thinking and sincerely want to be clear, yet you refuse to explain. None of us are trying to put words in your mouth, we’re just trying to understand the words that have already spilled out of it.
Yeah, Patrick, today was an interesting discussion. But you handled everything brilliantly. You didn’t need my help at all.
Bright:
The war in Afghanistan is in Afghanistan, and is against the Taliban–who helped fund and train the hijackers of 9/11, and sheltered Osama bin Laden and his group. The war in Iraq, which distracted from the war in Afghanistan and is causing us the current problems there, is an illegal war against a sovereign nation that did not attack us and was complying with all UN decrees.
There are about 30,00 troops in Afghanistan and about 160,000 in Iraq.
We are unable to effectively help the people of Afghanistan because our resources are tied up in Iraq. If not for Iraq, we would most likely have captured Bin Laden and destroyed the Taliban. Bush ordered the troops to Iraq, and said we could always catch Bin Laden later.
A vote for McCain is a vote for war. Please don’t vote for war. Vote for peace. Vote for Obama.
Barry- Regarding your (at this point in time) post 183, that is a good idea. I understand Griff’s delima, and your solution certainly sounds reasonable. Wish I had thought of it, but you get all the plaudits.
Bright, you are quite correct when you said that “Obama is not a vote for peace”.
I can’t understand how Obama supporters like Jane, who appear to be antiwar supporters, do not actually hear or see what Obama and Biden have been saying about their continued support for the so called “Global War On Terror”. It is quite clear that Establishment Party (entrenched and connected R’s and D’s) have no intention of ending America’s war’s ever!
If ending Americas wars are your goal then you should be supporting and voting Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich!
I fear Obama, the man of peace, will be elected and he will also be the man who will start WWIII!
Not that McCain wouldn’t do the same.
Patrick, the problem with posting all the comments at the end is that they still don’t make any sense, all bunched together out of sequence. For people to go back and match up the times to the sequence is too much work. We don’t have to worry for a while.
I’m heading out to California for 10 days of rehab with my grandsons, who think computers should be used only for Sesame Street games and video chats with far-off relatives. Perhaps I’ll be ‘clean and sober’ and off discussion boards when I return, or at least switched over to unmonitored sites — or maybe I’ll be polite enough to get back in the game. And maybe I’m so hooked I’ll be sneaking comments in after bedtime. We’ll see.
Have fun.
Bright…
You mention that you could back Colin Powell as a “black” candidate. But Powell was born in Jamaica and has African, Scottish, Jewish and many other ancestries…Why is Powell black and Obama a ‘mixed breed’?
William: Colin Powell is not a Democrat, but a kind of moderate Republican. If you tend to vote Republican, and if you’d ever vote for a black candidate at all, you look for reasons to like black Republicans, and reasons not to like black Democrats.
That is how partisan bias works.
Mike–I guarantee that either Obama or McCain will be president–not Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich.
McCain has publicly committed to not withdrawing troops from Iraq and for “staying the course” (which includes bankrupting the USA.)
Obama is consistently for withdrawing the troops and letting the Iraqis deal with their own civil war.
Obama is consistently against preemptive war–an illegal war, while McCain has supported it.
War does not make us safer–this “proving a negative” that we have not been attacked since the Iraq war started–is kindergarten-level politics–it makes the uninformed feel good, but it has no basis in reality. The federal government’s own agencies have concluded that the Iraq war has made the USA less safe, with fewer friendly countries throughout the world and has attracted once-moderate Islamists to al Queda. In addition, it has bankrupted our economy, making us less able to respond to new threats.
Obama will bring our troops home from Iraq. Don’t waste your vote-refute the war mongers and vote for peace–vote for Obama.
Bright…
You also mention you could back a ‘Mexican Man’ like Bill Richardson. Since he was born in California and is of course an American citizen, I’m not sure he would appreciate being categorized as Mexican. ‘Hispanic’ or ‘Latino’, no problem, but ‘Mexican’, as you surely know, is a nationality, not an ethic group. I bring this up only to emphasize what others have said in this thread..In the discussion of race, ethnicity and national origin, words matter. You may think that calling Americans who consider their ethnicity to be Hispanic, ‘Mexicans’, is fine, or that calling Americans who consider their race to be African-American, ‘Mixed Breeds’ is a compliment, but I can assure you others do not. In fact they might see vestiges of prejudice and racism in your terminology.
As the grandfather of a multi racial child, I would take offense at her being called a “Mixed Breed”. I hear echoes of the derogatory ‘Half-Breed’ in such a term. There are, of course, proud Americans who really are of Mexican heritage who would not take offense, at being called ‘Mexican’. Just as there are proud Norwegian-Americans who would not take offense at being called ‘Norwegian’. But there are many others who would. And if you don’t know, it is best to be sensitive and use generally acceptable terminology. I don’t believe that you categorize any Latino/a or Hispanic person you see as a ‘Mexican’. But seeing you describe Bill Richardson, who was born in the US and whose father was born in Nicaragua, as a ‘Mexican Man’ does make me pause.
You have, on several occasions, preemptively warned people to ‘not play the race card’, in reponding to your posts. You have admonished people to ‘not even go there’ in regard to your remarks referencing race, when people haven’t in fact ‘gone there’ at all. I might say that you, ‘protest too much’, but instead I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and just ask that you consider the words you use when discussing race and ethnicity a little more carefully.
William, obviously through extreme nitpicking, there is not one word I say that people around here will allow. Too bad. I mean no offense to anyone at any time although I may heartily disagree with their opinions or their trying to discredit me.
Bill Richardson’s camp has played up his image as one who has a strong Mexican background, hence where I am getting it from, and Mexico is in North America, hence Mexicans are Americans, though not citizens of the United States. See, I can spin, too.
We had a saying where I come from, “consider the source” meaning if the source has known to be kind and considerate most often, then give them the benefit of the doubt. If the source has been lying, cheating and hateful all along, why then they are probably still doing that sort of thing. I have tried to be as civil as possible at all times.
I may not know all the rules of political correctness, but I know it’s making it so people are afraid to say “hello” anymore. Bah!
Barack Obama will go to war, make no doubt about that. You want peace,
go find a quiet corner somewhere and enjoy it.
http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
Here is a fun site to check on where candidates stand on the issues.
John McCain suspends campaigning to work on economy, requests postponing Friday debate; asks Obama do the same.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
I guess he figures it worked well for him when he canceled the first night of his convention in order to monitor the hurricane – why not go back to that well again?
Maybe, given a few more days, McCain will be able to decide whether or not he supports Paulson’s bailout proposal.
Politico’s Ben Smith sums this up nicely:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/
And on McCain’s stunt itself:
McCain’s gambit
McCain suspends his campaign, and asks to postpone Friday’s debate, to address the financial crisis.
Both candidates have been marginal players; McCain, though, seems to have the potential to make himself a major one, and his move is a mark, most of all, that he doesn’t like the way this campaign is going.
But in terms of the timing of this move: The only thing that’s changed in the last 48 hours is the public polling.
(same address)
(that was supposed to be in blockquotes)
I would hope our elected officials take a bit more time to decide on the bailout.
I don’t think most people realize the implication of this bailout.
Are we seriously considering to let our government influence market forces? Is it capitalism when we make money but socialism if we lose money?
Do we want government to bail out entities or individuals because of bad choices?
The debates are useless anyway, they are artificially staged with questions given days in advance….that doesn’t qualify as debate.
Peter wrote,
Yep: I think that’s the modern Republican version of economics: capitalism for private profit during good times, and the government to bail out capitalists when they lose money.
Gotta love the no-lose economics for the wealthy.
Back to McCain’s stunt…
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/
Patrick..Patrick
You of all people should know that Washington shares at least fifty % of the blame…are we going to take away their pensions too?
Debates are as exciting as watching grass grow…IMHO
BTW Obama has it wrapped up already.
The current financial crisis plays right in to his playbook……nevermind that the media is not telling the real story here.
I actually feel bad for Obama because with or without bailout he will have to deal with some serious money issue.
Although the bailout might actually delay that pain.
Time to buy gold, because our greenback will turn in to the ” American Lira”
Peter wrote,
No arguments there – although I’d hazard a guess that you and I have different ideas on which part(s) Washington messed up, and which Washingtonians are most to blame. (And yes, I believe there’s more than enough blame to spread some of it around).
Unfortunately, Washington (and by extension, you and me) will end up bearing far more than 50% of the costs of this fiasco.
We’re currently in a bind where we get to choose between 1) doing nothing, and letting the economy grind to a halt – with all the real-life misery that would entail, or 2) bailing out Wall Street, thereby eliminating the one supposed ‘check’ in pure capitalism’s system: the principle that those who act unwisely will lose their shirt.
It’s a no-win situation.
Today, Sarah Palin faced her toughest challenge yet: Katie Couric, asking questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg6hF0nShQ
How do you think she did?
She was bobbing and weaving just like Obama, McCain or Biden…what’s new?
This is a brilliant opinion piece..turns out Gramm was right after all..LOL
——————————————————————
There is a H.L. Mencken quotation that captures the essence of this year’s politics: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” The media, economic “experts” and both presidential candidates are making bad-talking our economy key features of their campaign messages. For politicians and their hangers-on, keeping the populace alarmed is a strategy to seize more control over our lives. It’s so important that Senator John McCain took his economic adviser, former Senator Phil Gramm, to the woodshed for saying that America had “become a nation of whiners” and described the current slowdown as a “mental recession.” Had Senator Gramm added that economically today’s Americans are better off than at any time in our history, he might have lost his job altogether. Let’s look at it.
Dr. W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm, of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, in the July/August 2008 edition of The American, have an article titled “How Are We Doing?”. Wages and income are frequently used to measure progress but Cox and Alm say that a better measure is consumption. For example, while gasoline prices have skyrocketed, the average worker has to work about two hours to earn enough to purchase 10 gallons. In 1935, it was six hours and in 1950, over two hours. A basket of groceries that took four hours of work in 1950 to purchase now takes 1.7 hours. Annual hours of work have fallen from 1,903 in 1950 to 1,531 today. Real total compensation — wages plus fringe benefits, both adjusted for inflation — have been rising steadily for several generations. Fringe benefits have become a greater share of our earnings, thus dampening statistics on wage increases.
Today’s Americans are healthier than ever. In 1950, life expectancy was 67 compared with today’s 78. Death rates from diseases, once considered a death sentence, are in steep decline. With advances in medicine and medical technology we’re receiving much better health care. The increase in quality explains part of the higher health care costs. But health care costs would be dramatically reduced if there were more competition and less government intervention and third-party payers. Cox and Alm say that competition works but because of third-party payers, consumers have little incentive to shop around. They point out that prices for Lasik eye surgery, a procedure rarely covered by insurance programs, have fallen in the past decade because consumers shop around and take their business to surgeons who offer the highest quality service at the cheapest price.
Recall that during President Carter’s last year in office in 1980 what was called the “misery index”, which was defined as the sum of the inflation and unemployment rates, was about 22 percent: inflation averaged 14 percent; unemployment was 7.5 percent. Today’s inflation just became 5 percent, having been between 1 and 3 percent for a decade, and unemployment is 6.1. Cox and Alm say that today’s problems “will turn out to be mere footnotes in a longer-term march of progress.” They add that, “Since 1982, the United States has been in recession for a mere 16 months, the present slowdown notwithstanding. Over that period, the country more than doubled its inflation-adjusted output of goods and services and created jobs for an additional 50 million workers.”
Things are not nearly as gloomy as the pundits say. Most of today’s economic problems, whether it’s energy, health care costs, financial problems, budget deficits or national debt, are caused by policies pursued by the White House and Congress. As my colleague Dr. Thomas Sowell suggested in a recent column, we don’t look to arsonists to put out fires that they’ve created; neither should we look to Congress to solve the problems they’ve created.
“The Biggest Story of the Campaign”
by Michael Tomasky
(a sampling:)
Mark this day down. Today – last night, actually – the New York Times and Roll Call reported (it’s hard to see who was first) what may be the biggest political story of the campaign. How big? John McCain might have to fire his campaign manager. Big enough?
The story is this. The lobbying firm of Rick Davis, the manager, was being paid $15,000 a month by Freddie Mac until last month. That fact is a direct contradiction of words McCain had spoken Sunday night. At that time, responding to a Times story being prepared for Monday’s paper revealing that Davis had been the head of a lobbying consortium led by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae until 2005, McCain said Davis had done no further work for either mortgage giant.
Someone’s lying – either Davis to McCain, or McCain to the public. I trust you see the problem here.
….
(Those are the first few paragraphs from a much longer piece in a blog attached to the online version of the Guardian/UK, but the NYTimes ran a story today with many of the same facts.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/sep/24/johnmccain.congress
Jane (#184): I thought we went to war in Afghanistan because the Taliban (“blowback” from our proxy war with the USSR, fought in Afghanistan, funded through Pakistan) would not let UNOCAL build an oil pipeline there.
Peter (#203) You say Obama has it wrapped up because the economic woes play right into his hand–
But Bush-Cheney could still stage an “incident” (remember the Gulf on Tonkin, and more recently, the forged yellow-cake papers?) and have Israel start bombing Iranian nuclear sites. Then some Americans (my cousin, for one) may really want a war hero and an Alaskan Governor more than they now realize….
Yogi Bera: “The game’s not over till it’s over.”
Jane to #189,
Must I remind you of the elections of 2006. It basically was a referendum on ending the Iraq war.
The Dems won the majority, and they were going to end it right?
Two years later, how they doing on that war thing? What’s that you say, they happily continue to fund the imperial war project!
In answer to the other blog ” McCain, Surge a success” , it was wildly successful but not in the way of a military success. Its main goal was to stifle the antiwar movement of the 2006 election and change the question from stop war funding altogether, to we need 80 billion instead of 50 billion more. “Don’t cut off the troops” oh no we can’t have that! No one mentioned cutting off funding for the F22 fighter project, to see the troops through their exit!
“Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on ME!”
There’s no way in hell the empire is going to leave it’s permanent multi-billion dollar bases they built in Iraq , only to see the Iranians come in and take them over to help establish the new Shia backed Iraq central government. The most that will happen is draw down the surge troops, send them to Afghanistan, and park the rest inside the base walls.
By the way, how does expanding the war into Afghanistan and Pakistan to ” take out Osama bin Laden” ,Obama’s words, make him the man of peace?
Paul,
Where is your post on Frank Raines and Jim Johnson? HMMMM??
If you sit in a glass house don’t throw any rocks.
Bush’s speech last night was a joke. Between him an Paulson trying to scare us it makes me wonder if we ever going to discuss how we got to this point in the first place. It’s sickening.
1) Why should we bail out those that just want to walk away from their bad mortgages? So they can walk out again down the line?
This whole notion of protecting “home owners” with bad mortgages doesn’t make any financial sense at all. It is designed to buy votes in an election year and more so to cover up failed policies.
2) Most executive compensations are protected by contracts, are we oing to challenege them in court?
3) when are we going to have an investigation on which politicians are responsible for this, showed bad judgment and have been collecting fat checks from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac?
My guess is never. The current “show hearings” and pretend outrages are nothing more then a smoke screen to blind us tax payers.
4) Where is the $ 1 Trillion going to come from? Print more money? Doing this will not only hit our pocket books but will devalue your savings even more. Inflation is nothing more then a hidden tax, that is slowly killing the middle class.
That’s my rant for today.
Anne, or should I say editor Anne?
Focus on what the candidates are doing. I have said what I said and you are free to interpret it as you wish. If someone feels I have offended them personally, please contact me at Northfield Speaks Up section at http://blog.beautywood.com/blog, and we will take it up and make it right there. I have nothing to hide from anyone.
And, editor Anne, for the permanent record,
I am happy for the youth vote as they bring fresh perspectives, and it is their future. I only wish that they vote, like any one of any age, with a good solid comprehension of the issues which will be affecting them and their future families, if they intend to have families of their own…explain explain explain til everyone’s so bored they forget why I am posting…and I would be happy if any man or any woman or any combination thereof if there is such a being, be they any one of the great human races, I think it’s five, but I could count six or more if you include people who are not bred, but are somehow born into the world from parents of different races or mixed races. I swear on a whatever book or stone you have for me to swear on, that this is my whole truth and nothing but the truth, uninterpretted, so Anne, you don’t have to be confused or in some shocked and bereaved state of mind based on my previous or future posts. This is it. Is that good enough for you, or are you going to try to put me through the wall, and not just backed up into a corner defending myself for ever and ever and continuing to ignore some of the flaws of the candidates for President of the United States Of America?
Good luck on the rehab!
One more time, I am going to try and see what makes Obama so much different from all the other junior senators who have voted just like him,
or very close to it, what makes him so much different and so much deserving to be President of the United States Of America.
If you cannot answer that one little old question without reverting to
avoidance or abusive tactics or trying to make me or anyone feel like
they are something they are not in order to get us to do something we
do not want to do, then we will all know you have nothing good to say
about your candidate. Lies and exaggeration don’t count.
google is your friend, or you could look on his web site
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364×3132998
I noted a CNS News tactical smear in Katie Couric’s interview with Sarah Palin. Couric asked Palin about Obama saying he would meet with Iran’s Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Palin said that the idea was absurd. Then Couric pushed that Kissinger has agreed to this idea. Palin replied that she had never heard Kissinger state that he would meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions.
The interview ended on this note and Couric shows up on screen saying CBS contacted Kissinger and he would recommend if not meeting with Ahmadinejad then at least with ‘senior’ staff without precondition.
Couric’s editorializing when Palin was ‘off-screen’ and could not retort was absurd. Even more absurd is she tried to spin Kissinger’s remarks which supported Palin’s position in a way that appeared they did not support Palin. I’m certain Kissinger is not recommended the next president of the United States sit down with Iranian senior staff with out preconditions. Add if US staff is sitting down with Iranian staff ahead of a presidential meeting then what purpose could there be other than “Preconditions.”
Palin has the street smarts our current leadership lacks.
david #216
did you even watch the interview, if you havent, I will post it here.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=palin%20couric%20interview&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv#
It is very hard to follow what Palin is saying, especially when she says reducing taxes has to accompany tax reductions.
David H,
Both you and Ms. Palin are wrong.
Back on Sept. 15 2008:
ABC News’ Rachel Martin Reports: Former U.S.Secretary of State Henry Kissinger today told an audience in Washington, DC that the U.S. should negotiate with Iran “without conditions” and that the next President should begin such negotiations at a high level.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/kissinger-backs.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf6nhmfJxNU
Howard Deans brother stoops to a new low and with him the DNC. This is an ad by a 527 supporting Obama?
One word despicable …
what part of that ad is untrue peter?
Kissinger is just one of many quoted the main stream media who seek out sound bites from those who will promote their own leanings. He hasn’t been Secretary of State for 35 years…just putting it in perspective.
Anthony,
This is not about truth or lie, this is about class and dignity. Do you see the GOP running ads about Bidens two brain Aneurysms.
There used to be certain lines that we would never cross. As long as the guy can do his job, what does it matter?
It
swift boat
peter:
It matters cause McCain is 72 and, according to the actuary tables, may not live 4 more years.
Doesn’t Palin scare the crap out of you too?
There is something called age discrimination and you are taking part in it.
..as for Swiftboat……..I am still waiting for Kerry’s rebuttal.
You are grasping at straws now peter.
McCain’s age wouldn’t be an issue if he would have picked a VP that didn’t scare the crapola out of people. Romney, Giuliani T-Paw would have been better VP candidates.
Well, McCain’s ‘Campaign Suspension’ was a big success. He never stopped running his advertisements, never closed any campaign offices, and he never stopped giving speeches or meeting with big campaign donors or reporters. He never even got around to stopping his campaign spokespeople from going on Fox News to attack Obama over the bailout negotiations.
Instead, he arrived in Washington just in time to scuttle an already-announced ‘agreement in principle’ worked out by Congressional leaders.
Buoyed by that success, he’s decided that he can, in fact, make time in his busy schedule for the debate tonight – even though he’d previously declared that he would attend the debate ONLY if a bailout plan was already passed.
After all that success in the last 24 hours, I’m sure that everyone will be glad to know that he’s already won tonight’s debate:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/26Sep_Friday_WSJ.JPG
from
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/mccain_wins_debate.html
Yes, time travel is amazing, but what’s next for our superhero President-to-be? Slate has some predictions:
http://www.slate.com/id/2200927/
Patrick – it semantics because what Obama suggests is that he would personally sit down with Ahmadinejad and other leaders without preconditions. Nobody backs this position. I think Palin’s good guy / bad guy analogy was straight forward and acurate –
“In April 2006, Ahmadinejad described Israel as a “rotten and dried-up tree that will be destroyed by one storm”. When Israel celebrated its 60th birthday in May, he called it a “stinking” corpse and a “dead rat”: a regime that was on “its way to annihilation”. ”
To sit down with a leader that took that position without preconditions would be a fool’s errand.
Palin’s positions are not esoteric and elaborate like those whom built the exotic mortgage securities system now endangering our economy – that’s why people like them because they are refreshingly frank and could actually work.
David H,
People can reasonably disagree over whether or not Obama’s foreign relations vision is a good one. (I happen to like his view on this.)
It’s much harder for you to make a convincing case that Henry Kissinger disagrees with Obama’s stated principles – as such an assertion is contradicted by the known facts.
If Sarah Palin had made good use of her hour long sit down with Mr. Kissinger this week – or if she had been even passingly familiar with the foreign policy guru’s philosophy – she would’ve known Mr. Kissinger’s position, as well.
Sarah Palin’s interview with CBS was truly remarkable. I think it is essential viewing for every American voter.
Part 1:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4476649n
Part 2:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4479161n
The Palin interview begins at 10:00 in this video.
David H, the part you take offense at is split between Palin’s discussion about Kissinger beginning at 15:15, and Katie Couric’s postscript at 17:58.
Patrick,
Glad to see that you finally got your talking points from the DNC.
Fact is that Obama was put up in the meeting to look presidential. He failled miserable.
Fact is that there never was an agreement in principal with the rank and file. The GOP leaders got their hands slapped, because most common sense people have sniffed out the current con game called “bailout”.
Patrick,
Ask your friends at the DNC that if they are so serious about the bailout, why not just pass it????
Pelosi has more then enough votes to do so. BUT as always the Democrats are looking for McCain’s cover on this, since they are cowards to take some real leadership.
That way once this bailout blows up (which it will) they can use the cover of “bipartisan ship” to hide from responsibility.
This is not leadership this is gambling with our future. This will buy everybody enough time to get passed the election.
In about six month from now we will have another bailout discussion. Mark my words.
Like another poster so truly stated. This will effectively double our debt…and even worse it will cover up responsibility of those that created this mess.
Patrick,
I agree with Kissinger and Obama that now is the time to talk…but you forget it was Bush and McCain who got us to this point.
If we would have listened to Obama and his following there would be no serious possibility of negotiations today. Because nobody would take us serious.
Negotiation 101.. if you can’t back up your demands with resolve..stay away from negotiations.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrat-house-gop-not-consulted-enough-on-bailout-2008-09-26.html
Even democrats admit now that the GOP wasn’t kept in the loop on the bailout discussions.
peter said in #233
but you forget it was Bush and McCain who got us to this point.
——
Are you serious? Do you think that Iran is afraid of what we did to Iraq? I bet they are thinking HOLY CRAP WE DONT WANT THEM INVADING US AND THEN BRIBING EVERYONE NOT TO SHOOT AT THEM.
Anthony,
Of course they are afraid, why else do they cozy up to Russia??? Certainly not because of shared ideology….
the enemy of my enemy is my friend
Iran and Russia are both non-Arab states sitting on top of very large supplies of oil, who both exert significant state control over (and and take significant profit from) that oil. So they’ve got that in common.
Also, McCain has threatened to go to war with each of them.
Most people underestimate Russian imperialism.
We spent hours discussing our own shortcomings but never look at the reat of the world.
Russia is making a play for Europe and we better watch out. That after years of negotiations I might add.
http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1
The Obama “truth squad”?????
In 1939 we called it the Gestapo……
Peter,
This bailout was proposed by Bush, who is a Republican. It’s an ugly solution (we hope) to a very ugly problem.
One could also make a pretty good case that the party that has controlled the Presidency for the last 8 years, and the Congress for 12 of the last 14 years, is most responsible for getting us into this mess – and for failing to prevent it – in the first place.
There is no reason why the Democrats should carry the bag containing George Bush’s stinking mess, while the House Republicans would be allowed to wash their hands of it.
The Democrats are right: it’s time for bipartisanship. Everyone in, or everyone out. It’s up to the House Republicans to decide which.
We don’t need any foreign oil. We have natural gas, and vehicles can be converted to run on it. We have all sorts of ingenuity, and oil coming down our pipes. We have new technology that makes the old oil wells new again. We have ride share!
We have all the food sources we need right here, we have cotton and wool for clothes and leather for shoes and I am sure we can get us a few silk worms going for fancy suits and dresses. We have enough clothes just laying around for ten years prolly.
We can grow bamboo for housing and fabric right here. What do we need those foreign headaches for anyway?
#240
I guess Godwin’s Law applies to this thread now.
Peter wrote,
It’s also after years of George Bush squandering most of our power, goodwill, and influence in the world for the sake of his debacle in Iraq. Oh, and driving up the price of oil, and thereby funding Russia’s newly rediscovered power.
And Iran’s.
Peter, I guess you haven’t been alive long enough to know that politicians have been saying that they will be “reaching across the aisle”, meaning calling for bipartisanship, since time began. I exaggerate, yes, but not by much. It’s just a ploy or a stance or posturing so that they look good for the moment that you hear them say that. It’s never gonna be bipartisan for more than a flash.
They all say that whenever it’s convenient, and it doesn’t fly any more.
In answer to post 244, hatred is easy for people. A lot easier than love.
For thousands of years, each nation or religious group has found reason to disavow other nations and religions. This is from Ed Koch’s newsletter, a democrat, btw, who has given me permission to post it:
The Pew Research Center Global Attitudes Project released a
survey of European and U.S. attitudes on anti-Semitism and other
bigotry. The statistics relating to Great Britain and the U.S. were
especially surprising.
The report states, “Great Britain stands out as the only
European country included in the survey where there has not been a
substantial increase in anti-Semitic attitudes. Just 9% of the British
rate Jews unfavorably, which is largely unchanged from recent years.
And relatively small percentages in both Australia (11%) and the Unites
States (7%) continue to view Jews unfavorably.”
An earlier report in 2006 during the Tony Blair
administration conveyed a different atmosphere in Britain. The author
of the report was Denis MacShane who wrote, “Hatred of Jews has reached
new heights in Europe and many points south and east of the old
continent. Last year I chaired a blue-ribbon committee of British
parliamentarians, including former ministers and a party leader, that
examined the problem of anti-Semitism in Britain. None of us are Jewish
or active in the unending debates on the Israeli-Palestinian question.
Our report showed a pattern of fear among a small number of British
citizens — there are around 300,000 Jews in Britain, of whom about a
third are observant — that is not acceptable in a modern democracy.
Synagogues attacked. Jewish schoolboys jostled on public transportation.
Rabbis punched and knifed. British Jews feeling compelled to raise
millions to provide private security for their weddings and community
events. On campuses, militant anti-Jewish students fueled by Islamist or
far-left hate seeking to prevent Jewish students from expressing their
opinions. More worrisome was what we described as anti-Jewish
discourse, a mood and tone whenever Jews are discussed, whether in the
media, at universities, among the liberal media elite or at dinner
parties of modish London. To express any support for Israel or any
feeling for the right of a Jewish state to exist produces denunciation,
even contempt.”
While negative attitudes towards Jews have apparently not
increased in Britain, according to the Pew report, attitudes in Germany
and France have worsened: “German and French attitudes have also grown somewhat more negative. Currently 25% of Germans have an unfavorable opinion of Jews up from 20% in 2004. Over the same period unfavorable views in France have increased form 11% to 20%. French president Nicolas Sarkozy has made a point of stating his support for the State of Israel and protecting Jews in France from assault. His predecessor
Jacques Chirac was not seen by the Jewish community as friendly to them
or to the State of Israel.
In Russia, with respect to Jews, “(34%) voice an unfavorable
view, up from 25% in 2004.”
Muslims are viewed more unfavorably by non-Muslims . “Fully
half of Spanish (52%) and German respondents (50%) rat[ing] Muslims
unfavorably.” In Poland it is 46% negative and in France 38% negative.
Undoubtedly, the Muslim terrorist acts by British Muslims is responsible
for the negative feelings. “Just 14% of the British public expressed a
negative view of Muslims in 2005 compared with 23% today.”
The shocking statistics relate to unfavorable attitudes
toward Christians, “about one in four Spanish (24%) now rate Christians
negatively, up from 10% in 2005. Similarly, in France 17% now hold an
unfavorable view of Christians, compared with 9% in 2004.”
The negative attitudes cited towards Christians in the poll
– Spain 24%, France 17%, Germany 12% (a decline from 16% since 2004) are surprising. In the U.S. the negative view of Christians is 3%.
Patrick,
You really need to check your facts in 241..try this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH–o
Or use google
Peter,
Well, if you’ve got a ten minute You Tube video that pins this entire economic mess on the Democrats, then I guess you must be right.
You have to explain to me how Bush drove up the price of oil. I thought the war in Iraq was about oil. Shouldn’t we now reap the benefits of that conquest?
In case you forgot 95% of the worlds oil reserve are in the hands of government.
Here are the real reasons:
1) A decline of the dollar value, which btw has started way before Bush got in to office
2) China and India coming online as a developed country.
3) Our own inability to come up with a comprehensive energy strategy. I think Carter was the last POTUS to even attempt one.
4) While we are worrying about some caribou in Alaska the rest of the world is halfway ahead of us exploring resources.
Russia will drill in the arctic for oil like it or not.
5) Plus our own increased consumption.
In short focusing on Bush is wrong and won’t do anything to solve problem.
focusing on bush isn’t going to solve the problem. Bush is the problem.
Do you think if Gore was elected in 2000 9/11 would have happened? How about Iraq? How about inaction with Katrina? How about the Bank Crisis.
I am about 95% sure none of those would have happened.
Maybe I am not 100 right…but neither are you blaming this on the last 12 years.
Especially since Bush and McCain have tried to stop this since 2003 and the democrats have shut him down.
You need to get away from just following party line, despite of clear facts to the contrary you still maintain it. I am trying to convince you that this is not a democrats versus GOP issue..this is about government covering their tracks and being irresponsible with our money.
I though only Germans were stubborn….LOL
# 251
Oh so 95% of the senate and 85% of the house supporting Iraq is Bushs fault to??
Well if it makes you feel better I go along…..perception is reality.
#253
uhh ya, are you forgetting they cooked the report (NIE) on that too? let me find a link.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm
those people voted because they were scared shitless from 9/11 and also outright lied to.
You cannot deny that Bush is the worst President in the last 100 years and maybe ever.
Certainly Bush got a free ride on those Iraq votes — I always wondered why Hillary Clinton didn’t stress, when she was questioned about her “pro-war” stance, that it was *impossible* to vote no on any of that stuff without being branded a hate-America-liberal. We forget that the post-911 atmosphere fostered a situation in which it was literally unpatriotic to question Bush. That was tragic. He literally spent the credibility of the presidency to get what he wanted —notice now when he talks about the economic crisis, no one has any idea what to believe.
As for the benefits of the Iraq war, guess what: Exxon, Shell, Mobil, etc have all been invited back in. This spilled blood was about oil, oil, oil.
I know that I can be a stuborn German that tends to be a bit dense sometimes as well……but until now nobody can explain to me “WHY WAS THIS WAR ABOUT OIL???
Given the current cost of gasoline it surely didn’t do anything for our supply.
My personal theory on the war is That little Bush wanted to show his dad that he could finish what he couldn’t.
As for oil??? ..there is no logic to this argument, unless we believe that we will occupy the fields forever. Which doesn’t make much sense either because so far all contracts have been awarded to China and India???
Peter,
None of us has suggested that Bush is logical.
Anthony- In your post 251, are you suggesting that if Gore were elected, the Islamic extremists would not have attacked? Are you serious? The hatred of America that was acted out that day had been festering for years. When then president Clinton failed to act of the offer of Ben Laden’s head, they were embolden to attack at any cost, thinking that the US was as impotent as their extremist mulahs had been teaching them for years. 9/11 was not a failure of any one administration, but a naivety across the whole of US security agencies to believe that these extremists had no real desire or backing to carry out such a plan. It just proved that men are not naturally good.
As for Iraq, I think Peter’s observation, “…My personal theory on the war is That little Bush wanted to show his dad that he could finish what he couldn’t…” is as credible as any. As far as Katrina, who knows. The thing that seems to be emerging in this election is the difference between Republicans and conservatives and between Bush haters and Democrats. At least Democrats have a plan, flawed as it might be, IMNSHO. The Bush haters have only one solution for every problem known to mankind- just get rid of Bush. What an election we have coming up!
Peter and John–yes, Bush wanted to show his Daddy that he could finish off Sadam, but this war was about oil–Cheney’s meeting with oil execs to set economic policy for energy included a map of Iraq which they divided up amongst themselves–but their plan did not work out–between Americans screaming foul and Iraqis “forgetting” to welcome them with open arms as we trashed their country–but they still got the contracts with the army and they made deals with the “new” Iraqi government–it is just that we have called them on it so many times Cheney-Bush could not have unfettered access to plunder Iraq.
But that brings us back to this election. ALL of the Bush policies have failed, and we are in a severe economic crisis–who do you trust to help us out–the party that put us smack dab in it–or the Democrats?
Jane- Fortunately, my hope is in neither.
2 months before 9/11 the administration was warned
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html
the president was in crawford and condi ignored the warning.
so I can say in all seriousness, 9/11 would never have happened if all of the votes were counted in Florida. Al Gore would have read My Pet Goat in peace on 9/11/01.
why not place blame where it belongs with all of these crises? The Bush administration. It happened on their watch.
John,
Good answer. #260
I find it amazing that despite evidence to the contrary many here still worship the altar of Washington politics.
As long we let party affiliation blind us from the truth Washington remains dysfunctional.
BTW……..(this is not towards you John) I am still waiting for an answer on what oil benefits we are getting from Iraq…now that we “occupy it”.
Anyone…anyone…
Anthony, based on your previous logic ,,,is Kennedy fit to lead?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/09/26/kennedy_taken_to_hospital/
Does he have some unqualified VP behind him? Its not McCain I am worried about, its the VP. That is the issue
Peter- Don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer about Iraqi oil profits. i think they are only a smoke screen. According to the last figures I read a few weeks ago, less that 20% of our oil comes from the whole Middle Eastern region. The greatest majority of it comes from Canada, with (if I remember correctly) Mexico as second.
Anthony- My opinion of the Democratic ticket is not magnanamous. I don’t believe the Dems have had a viable candidate since Jimmy Carter. In fact, if Ross Perot had not split the conservative vote in the ’90’s, we would not have had Clinton. He was elected on 43% of the popular vote. That, in my opinion, is the bone in the craw of most liberals I have talked to. Your assertion that the Islamic extremists attacked the US because Gore was not elected is unfounded at best, possibly preposterous. And, if there was that type of connection between Gore and the extremists, thanks be to God that he was not elected.
John,
I believe that the attack of Sept. 11 would’ve probably happened even if Al Gore had been President.
The difference is that he would’ve done better with everything that followed. No Iraq war. No secret prisons, and no torture. No alienation of the rest of the world.
And no incompetent response to Katrina. The post-Katrina disaster was due to Bush gutting FEMA and putting his political cronies in charge of what had been a non-politicized agency.
http://thehill.com/josh-marshall/bush-tore-down-the-fema-that-clinton-built-up-2005-09-08.html
john, I did not say the extremists wouldn’t have tried to attack teh US. I said that we were warned and it was ignored.
to be clear, I didn’t say we *were* getting any oil benefits from iraq; that’s not because they weren’t sought. Peter, don’t you remember Dick Cheney’s promise of cheap oil? Or how about the assertions of Alan Greenspan: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece), and
Sarah Palin “We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go.”
The worry that Hussein would cut off oil supplies and reduce US dominance of oil fields was a far more compelling reason for this war (again, i’m not saying it worked!) than the bs “liberation” “wmd” , etc. Just ask yourself this simple question: is there more evidence that Bush et al care about access to oil and sustaining US dominance, or is there more evidence that they concern themselves with human rights, liberation, and “democracy.? Good God, I can barely write it, so patently obvious is the answer.
John, I think the assertion that only 21%, or whatever, of current US oil comes from the middle east is quite misleading. It is the cheapest and most abundant source, and looking towards the future, the most likely from several standpoints (that is, if we have access…). The top three in the middle east are Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait. Geez, those countries ring a bell for some reason!
Here, from Bill Moyers:
Let’s go back a few years to the 1990’s, when private citizen Dick Cheney was running Halliburton, the big energy supplier. That’s when he told the oil industry that, “By 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East, with two-thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.”
Here’s the html, if I can get it to copy, on crude oil imports so far this year:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbbl_m.htm
As for cost/bbl, it appears that Equador is the cheapest, according to this table:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_wco_k_w.htm
Nick- If it is the cheapest and most abundant source (which it appears to not be), why are we buying so much elsewhere?
Anthony- This is your quote from post #261;
“so I can say in all seriousness, 9/11 would never have happened if all of the votes were counted in Florida. Al Gore would have read My Pet Goat in peace on 9/11/01.”
This sounds like you are saying the extremist would not have attacked. As far as the warning being ignored, this threat was discovered during the Clinton administration, and I remember this being discussed on another thread as to how this was communicated to the Bush administration. I had said this in my post #258:
“…9/11 was not a failure of any one administration, but a naivety across the whole of US security agencies to believe that these extremists had no real desire or backing to carry out such a plan…”
I will still stand by that opinion. Bush’s, and perhaps Clinton’s, mistake was 1) believing the intelligence community actually knew what was going on and 2) trusting an Iraqi expatriot’s claims that he was really credible in his claims about Sadam. Just my opinion, again, but if this information had been run past Israel’s intelligence community, I think there would have been a much different response to 9/11. I think they are the only ones in the Middle East that have reliable intelligence about what is actually going on there. This country’s pride in our own ways got us into this fix, and I don’t believe Al Gore is any more humble than George Bush.
Patrick- You said,”…The difference is that he would’ve done better with everything that followed. No Iraq war. No secret prisons, and no torture. No alienation of the rest of the world…”. The way you state this. it comes across as a verifiable fact. I don’t think it is. You evidently hold this opinion, and that is fine, you have a right to do so. I do not for these reason. What with the attitude toward Israel I hear coming from many in the the Democratic Party, I question whether this would have happened. I think Gore would have been just as asleep at the switch as Bush, for this reason: I think, from the events of 9/11, that it is clear that these extremists cannot be negotiated with. This, and the disdain I hear coming from the Democrats toward Israel. The foundation of all the Democratic Party’s approach to foreign policy for the last thirty years is the idea that all international conflicts can be settled through negotiation. I hear this idea being repeated in the current platform. IMHO, this is an underlying flaw, and just one more issue that keeps me from having hope in the Democratic Party. Without Israel in the region, we would really be up the creek. And, unfortunately, I hear many verbal attacks against Israel coming from the Democrats, and they sound just like the attacks coming from the Arab world.
While you all are sitting in your partisan glass houses throwing rocks at each other about Iraq and oil, the real OIL issue is flowing right out of your wallet and US national wealth!
At the current price of $107/bbl and US current consumption of 22 million bbl/day 70% of which is imported simply translates to a:
American WEALTH TRANSFER PER YEAR =
$107*22000000bbl/day*0.70%*365days/yr = $601 Billion/yr!!
This is the price we are now paying to motor to the mall in our SUV’s and drink our Cokes in throw away plastic bottles!
THE WALL STREET BAILOUT at a $700 Billion one time shot is looking pretty inexpensive!!
This is where the drill!, baby drill! Repub’s jump up and say “Yeah right on” this is why we need to drill!
Well, yes and no. first of all it is estimated there is about 1 Trillion barrels of oil left within the earth. this sounds like a a lot of oil until you estimate how long this will last at the global consumption rate of about 85 Million bbl/day:
1e+12bbl/(85e+6bbl/day*365days/yr) = 32years!!!!
Of this 85% of this remaining oil is nationalized by foreign governments mostly in the Middle east and Central Asia.(this is where the Iraq war comes in to change this % lowwer!)
So yes we are going to be needing that offshore and Alaskan oil very soon. however, this oil will take 5-8 years and at great expense and by that time the price of oil will most likely be higher because oil exporters will have economically grown exponentially due to our wealth transfer to them about 4.8 Trillion dollars they will be consuming much more of their own oil and will have much less to export. so even if best estimates on offshore and Alaska come in at 1.5milbbl/day we will very well have lost 1-2milbbl/day in imports. offshore oil wells tend to play out very quickly so within less then 10 years from the time they come on line their output will be reduced to about 30% of peak flow rate! So much for the grad kids oil!!
Sorry kids Grandma and I decided to spend your oil wealth on ourselves!
It is estimated that Mexico our 3rd largest exporter will be a net importer by 2014!
Lastly, there is the EROEI(Energy Return On Energy Invested) issue. currently we expend about 1 gal of oil energy equivalent to produce 8 gal. this ratio has been going down steadily. In the early 1900’s this ratio was 1gal energy equivalent to 100 gal produced. The point will come, well before 32 years that we reach the less than 1 gal energy equivalent to 1 gal produced. At this point it is pointless to continue. This is the major argument against corn Ethanol, it has a ratio of 1 to 0.9. They throw in the residual corn meal to make it 1to 1.25! Barely above break even.
Glass houses, Mike? They are such a pane, and everyone can see right through them!
Another comment about the North Slope. It was known as the National Oil Reserve until Bill Clinton changed it to the Alaskan National Wildlife refuge.
Mike: The thinking you describe is not the exlusive thought of non-partisan elites, while all the Dems and Repugs are off in another world. There are glimmers of recognition sometimes in the most unlikely of places. Newt Gingrich has been quoted (in a Georgia newspaper, I believe) as saying that the war on terror is a hoax, and that if we really wanted to fight terrorism, we’d work for energy independence. Google this: Newt Gingrich war terror phony energy independence
Now of course, many Repugs are still using the Wallstreet meltdown as shock doctrine, and trying to push more free market reforms and more tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. This is like the definition of insanity as doing the same thing but expecting new results.
Many people are aware that there isn’t much future in oil. That’s why the progressives want renewable energy, and why Bush-Cheney want world empire (regime change in Iraq, Iran, Venezuela…). Some say that with cheap oil and industrial farming, food processing, shipping and plastic packaging, we’ve gotten to a point where we use, on average, 10 calories of carbon-fuel to produce one calorie of food (this seems high, and I’m sure it’s debatable). But as oil prices go up, everything else does, especially food.
There will be huge changes needed in the next decades, and it will cost much more than the bailout.
(Also, Mike, the dollars per barrel times the price per barrel is not what the consumers pay for gas; we pay more for gas than is paid for crude oil….)
Here’s a little tongue in cheek economic trivia to help you in your voting decision. After our presidents serve their terms, they are paid $191,300 per year until they are 80 yrs. old. If Mc Cain is elected, and would per chance serve 2 terms, he would be 80 yrs. old at the end of his terms and would be paid nothing. If Obama is elected, and served the same two terms, he would be paid a total of $4,973,800 until he turns 80. Just from an economic standpoint, it would seem more fiscally responsible to elect Mc Cain.
John G,
I don’t follow the connection between your opinion about Democrats’ relations with Israel and Bush’s invasion of Iraq.
Bush invaded Iraq for any/many of a variety of reasons: oil, neoconservative global strategy, the remote threat of wmd’s, or just to get revenge for the attack on his father’s life – take your pick. And if you believe protecting Israel was also one of those goals – and that Democrats don’t care about protecting Israel – isn’t that just one more reason to believe that Al Gore would not have led us into a fiasco in Iraq?
Don’t look now, Patrick, but there’s a little thing called democracy that we are trying to allow or spread throughout the world.
Comment about the debate; Yes, I would love to. I thought Obama didn’t do as well as I expected him to do. One sort of side point to that is how he called Senator John McCain, Jim, Tom, John. McCain always referred to Obama as Senator Obama, showing the proper respect and honor you give to your opponent, and shows why McCain is so honored amongst both Ds and Rs.
Obama does look good on tv, but let’s not keep making the mistake of voting for looks over substance. McCain appears energetic, whereas Obama appears somewhat tired. I am sure he was wearing his nicotine patch last night.
Honestly, I am with everyone here who is tired of war and wish to heck and back that it was over in Iraq and everywhere in the world. Pray for peace.
Maybe we won’t be able to afford war now with the financial situation as it is.
Would it be a good thing provided that people don’t get hurt physically from it all?
Bright, you wrote:
You’ve got to be kidding. Barack Obama failed to meet your expectations? I’m shocked. And your expectations were set so very low to begin with.
In posting #275, John George relays “a little tongue in cheek economic trivia to help you in your voting decision.” FYI, there is no age cutoff, 80 years or otherwise, for presidential pensions. See http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/pension.asp
In general, snopes.com is one of the best websites around for debunking — or in some cases confirming — urban legends, including some of the current campaign nonsense. Adding “snopes” to a Google search will often produce the best information.
Patrick- Remember, I hold a Biblical world view. From my perspective, world events revolve around God’s plan, and His plan is focused on Israel. The God of scripture is refered to as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not Muhammed, Budda or Pantheism. There are numerous admonitions in scripture about various country’s dealings with Israel and the ensuing blessing/judgement associated with them. So, from my perspective, it is very important how we align ourselves with the various countries in the Middle East. I know you come from an entirely different perspective, and that is fine. I only hope to help you understand where I am coming from, not try to convert you to my beliefs.
As far as our attack on Iraq from a Biblical standpoint, God, in the past, has brought judgement against ungodly nations through other nations. There is an interesting read on this in Isa. 10, if you would like to read it. Just because a nation is used for judgement does not exempt it from judgement itself. I think there is evidence of ungodly actions in recent Iraqi dealings with their own people and others. When God says it is time to stop, He will find a way to accomplish it. If the US was used for an instrument of judgement, we need to be mindful of judgement coming against us, also, for we certainly have our own sin. The interesting thing about Sadam is that we helped set him up in power in the first place. Talk about the dog biting the hand that feeds it.
Barry- Sorry about the misinformation in my post about presidential retirement pay. Either way, though, we are still out the additional $4+ million we will have to pay to Obama if he is elected. Now, if Mc Cain dies before the end of his term, then we have Palin to pay the retirement to. If Obama would, for some reason, be eliminated during his term, then we have Biden to pay. Perhaps it is a wash all the way around, then. I suspect that the “change” being called for will move VERY slowly no matter who is elected. WIth the number of people on the public dole right now, we won’t see any drastic changes in government expense, anyway.
Bright…McCain also goofed up by (repeatedly) talking about dividends when he meant dependents…
I am amazed that McCain had the nerve to question Obama’s judgment. This coming from a guy who judged that Sarah Palin was the best person to be one heart beat away from the presidency. Forget Lieberman, Forget any number of republicans with the experience to carry on the fight aginst his number one, (and defining) issue…The Fight Against Islamic Extremism. “Give Me Sarah Palin” “She is the best person (except for me) to carry on the fight against this gravest of threats.”
‘America First’ my ass.
oh, I commented in the wrong spot. Yikes! Sorry
Patrick #266 – History will show that Clinton failed America in Somalia and in al-Qaida’s own words this lead to 9/11. And in the embassy bombings Clinton’s response of firing missles into Afganistan was ultra weak. Al Qaida kicked the US in shins and Clinton ran away. Then Al Qaida came back and smacked us full on in the mouth 9/11 – Bush’s response maybe questioned but anyone believing Clinton handled this right is lying to themselves.
David H,
Whatever his shortcomings may have been, at least Clinton showed no inclination to start an unnecessary war in Iraq.
John G (#270) and David H (#284):
Unless we move more toward a totalitarian dictatorship in which history books are fabrications that air-brush out the truth, history will show (and documented evidence has already shown) that Cheney and Bush had multiple warnings from many nations (Anthony in 261 pointed toward a Washington Post piece that touches on warning).
Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Wolfowitz were members of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Their stated goal was for regime change in Iraq, US dominance in the middle east, and no peacetime dividend, but instead, pressing our advantage as the primary superpower in a unipolar world. They knew that the public might not support the military projects involved, unless there were some kind of new “Pearl Harbor” event to solidify US citizens in supporting war. This was all very clearly and explicitly laid out in documents on the PNAC web site.
In other words, given their clearly stated interests and goals, The Cheney-Bush administration had strong motovation, when warnings came in, to make sure that the US military, airport security, customs, the FBI, etc., were ignoring warnings, were not informed, or were otherwise occupied.
If you were president and had the warnings that the president received, the wise thing to do would have been to beef up airport security, to check back through records of visas issued and find suspicious people, and to put the military on high alert, scheduling complicated and resource-intensive drill exercises in such a way that it would not over-tax jet fighters or take them away from where they might be needed.
What did the Cheney-Bush administration do? They did the opposite: Airport security was not beefed up. Higher-ups in the FBI told underlings not to investigate suspicious persons and events that might have led to knowledge of the plans. People on fast-track visas from the middle east who should have been investigated or rounded up were not. And importantly, there were multiple military exercises going on in early September which not only drew down necessary resources, but also became potential sources of confusion: Were the hijackings real, or part of a drill?
Dissatisfaction with and suspicion regarding the Bush-Cheney handling of all this, of course, became the reason for the color-coded warning system, and extra airport security.
DavidH, all this stated above regarding the malign Cheney-Bush purposes and methods is not to say Clinton may or may not have been seriously flawed in many of his choices, or that such flaws didn’t contribute. But investigating terrorism was a priority to his administration, even if some of his methods in stopping it were seriously lacking. This was not the case for the Bush administration. Bush insiders have confirmed this.
There are many smaller and more complicated shreds of evidence that we ignore in order to reinforce our friendly assumptions that Cheney-Bush would never do such a thing.
– Popular magazines have documented what seem to have been intentional efforts on the part of some leadership in the US to thwart efforts to capture Osama bin Laden: A senior CIA agent in Afghanistan quit his job in frutration when things were planned, and unfolded, in a way that intentionally let their targets get away. This was in Time or Newsweek, but we’d like to dismiss it as typical but relatively benign military bureacracy or bungling, unfortunate but harmless. Hard to register on the radar.
– On 9-11, visiting Washington was General Mahmud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI. Unknown at the time General Mahmud Ahmad had approved the wire-tranfer of $100,000 to Mohamed Atta, alleged leader of the hijackers.
– The Bush administration said over and over that no one could have imagined that planes would be used as missiles, but in fact this is a lie. Many people in the Bush adminsitration had, in fact, anticipated it, planned for the possibility, etc. There were anti-aircraft guns on the roof of Bush’s hotel when he stayed overnight in Florida before 9-11. There were special plans when Bush went to Europe for Bush to stay on a boat rather than be a target in a building that could be struck by a plane.
– If you visit Paul Thompson’s 9-11timeline.net, you find many articles and information collected from TV and radio news sources, and the web of facts paints a very different picture from the Bush administration’s official story.
History will tend to trust the many facts, like those collected by Thompson, instead of the prevailing assumptions and spin.
Why do many people assume Bush and Cheney didn’t know? First, consider that half of all New Yorkers believe they knew and let it happen on purpose. These are people who had the attack occur, in part, in their own state, and many of whom were related to victims. They had a vested interest in following the stories.
What of all those who don’t believe they knew and let it happen, which includes many Republicans, but also some Democrats and independents? It is easier to believe the safe assumption that the Bush-Cheney team some voted for, and others did not, would never be involved in such a machiavellian plan. This is true especially of many liberals, who tend to look at the world as if Republicans are actually liberals who have not yet found their compassion, but it’s in there somewhere just from the fact that we’re all human.
It’s far easier to believe Bush and Cheney were incompetent, or caught by a sucker punch, than to consider that they’re machiavellian. Consider that conservatives like you, David H., tend to blame Clinton for 9-11 more due to incompetence than to evil, empire-building motives. The idea that someone might allow thousands of their own fellow citizens to die in order to launch a plan for — world domination? spreading democracy in the middle east? — is so reprehensible that even many so-called 9-11 conspiracy theoriests express their resistence and shock as they studied the evidence that pointed, at the very least, toward what half of New Yorkers already believe: That the attacks were allowed to happen so that we could get going with the PNAC plan, and other related agendas.
In my previous post, I gave the wrong URL for Paul Thompson’s timeline, which is at HistoryCommons:
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
David H: Another problem with #284 is that it views terrorism with tunnel vision, as if history began in 1992. This neglects what the CIA (since the coup we and the British orchestrated in Iran during Ike’s presidency) have called “blowback.”
Eisenhower, JFK, Carter and Reagan, through coups and covert proxy wars/surrogate wars (arming the mujahadeen to fight the USSR in Afghanistan, and lying to the US about it) all bear some responsibility.
History is always easy in hindsight. There is no doubt there was a warnings as to a planned attack. It is also a fact that these warnings pop up all the time. Are we supposed to go in to panic mode every time we have warnings like this? This seems far fetched.
Especially since prior to 9-11 most Americans thought of themselves as being untouchable and loved worldwide. The specter of a terrorist attack of any sort on American soil was a foreign to us as Muslim religion.
Did we have warnings? Of course we did WTC 1, USS Cole and Kenya come to mind. How did we react to it?
We send a couple of cruise missile in to a chemical plant killing some poor night janitor.
We call got caught of guard and we all got carried away in the emotions of revenge, fear and flat out hatred.
I am honest enough to admit to myself that I shared much of the same emotions. It was a shock not only in the shear magnitude and brutality of 9-11, but it also destroyed the notion that the whole world loves us. We are not an island and we are not a fortress and there is forces in the world who envy us and want to destroy our way of live.
Have we made mistakes responding to it, of course we have. Is it somehow connected to some backroom conspiracy? I don’t think so. I would challenge anybody that was put in to the presidents position to make no mistakes in this. But this is merely an academic discussion since history in hindsight is always easy.
Most of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9-11 are just that, and belong in to the same archive as “Elvis is still alive”..”Sasquatch” and the aliens of area 51.
It makes for good blogs and delivers fodder for a bunch of potheads.
JohnG: Corrections to your claim about “biblical viewpoint” of God using nations to correct other nations:
In 280 you write,
“As far as our attack on Iraq from a Biblical standpoint, God, in the past, has brought judgement against ungodly nations through other nations.”
Here are my concerns:
1. You speak as if the Bible is one book, with one viewpoint. This is very misleading. It is in fact a collection of many books, written over centuries, with many human authors and editors, and you cannot take one passage from one book in the bible and impose it on the whole, claiming this is the biblical standpoint. For example, you can’t take the verse, “An eye for an eye” and impose it on the whole, claiming this is the biblical view. It’s not.
– It’s more accurate to observe with Isaiah (“My ways are as far above yours as the heavens are above the earth”) that if we are to discern a single voice of a monotheistic God prevailing in the whole Bible, it is never so simple as the method you imply above, but much more a mystery to ponder and seek. Those who think they’ve achieved certitude about the mystery are mislead, and often dangerous in the political sphere (consider Bush’s certitude about God working His will through Bush).
2. It’s true that, at times in the Bible, Israel looked at their misfortunes (such as snakebites, or when they were victims at the hands of other nations), and through their prophets and religions leaders, sometimes came to believe that God was judging and punishing them for their sins. This may have helped them keep faith in a loving God rather than assume God didn’t love them, or there was no covenant. But this is not the last word in the bible:
3. In the New Testament, some assume this kind of worldview –that misfortune or being the victims of war is a sign of the judgment of God for sin. They approach Jesus and ask him if people were victims of a building collapse, or of disabilities like blindness, because of their sin, or their parents’ sin. Is God judging and punishing these folks for sin? Jesus says no. This is a radical departure from previous biblical assumptions by various characters in various books.
4. This leads many to conclude that understanding clearly the voice of God in the bible is much more complex and mysterious a process.
– If misfortune makes one look inside and perceive faults and sins in need of reform, then this may be a great twist of grace, but that does not mean God was judging and punishing one country because of the fact they were attacked by another, or this blind man or woman because they happened to be born that way, or lost their sight in an accident. (A great example in literature of a character who takes his misfortune, in part, as reason to reflect on his failures and limitations is “The Fixer” by Bernard Malamud, about a Jewish handiman falsely accused of murdering a Christian boy.)
5. It may therefore be more helpful and accurate to view the books of the Bible as the chronicle of many writers regarding the story of their faith. This story, in ways both intended by the authors and also unintended, tracks the development or evolution, including correction and clarification, of their understandings of their faith.
– Early on, stories of God’s dealings with people seem sometimes to omit discussion of angels as mediators, and God deals sometimes more directly. Later on, angels are more consistently seen as messengers.
– Early on, in the Jacob story, angels in Jacob’s dream use a ladder as their means of transportation from heaven to earth and back. Later, in other books, this cluncky metaphor is replaced with wings.
– Early on, God is seen as blessing the righteous with riches, health and children, even though Abraham and Sarah have some initial trouble conceiving. Later on, the book of Ecclesiastes meditates on how the wicked get rich and the righteous suffer misfortune and poverty, and the book of Job reflects on the suffering of a good man over a gambling bet between God and the devil; also, as said above, Jesus also challenges the conventional wisdom of the day regarding suffering as punishment for sin.
So I think it’s wrong in a biblical sense, and dangerous in a political sense, to claim the “biblical view” as you do regarding Iraq and the US.
Later you write in 280:
“If the US was used for an instrument of judgement, we need to be mindful of judgement coming against us, also, for we certainly have our own sin.”
It’s usually far better (in the Christian sense, I think) to use circumstance as inspiration to repent (“our own sin”), than to rationalize circumstance as justification for harsh actions and wars against others: “Take the plank out of your own eye first,” etc. We can’t be sure about when our success or failure is used to God’s good ends (and should not assume!), but realistic admission of mistakes and efforts to grow and make amends is always helpful.
This is why the US needs to apologise someday soon for all the coups and proxy wars we orchestrated, etc.
Paul F.- Corrections? I think you and I have discussed this on another thread. You perfectly present the historical critical interpretation of the scriptures. That is not the only “correct” interpretation out there. If you want to follow that, that is between you and God. I don’t follow that interpretation. Why are you trying to impose your perspective onto me? In presenting my position to Patrick, I stated this, “…I only hope to help you understand where I am coming from, not try to convert you to my beliefs…” Is this not sufficient for you or something? Paul (the Apostle) writes in Romans that every man should be convinced in his own mind. I will get the reference when I get home tonight. I have a personal walk with God that is my own. I am in relationship with a group of people in authority over me whom I can test these things on. You are not one of those people. For you to take the position of “correcting”me in my viewpoint is a little presumptious on your part.
You also stated this, “…So I think it’s wrong in a biblical sense, and dangerous in a political sense, to claim the “biblical view” as you do regarding Iraq and the US…” If you look at my comment to Patrick, I said I hold “a” Biblical viewpoint. There are quite a few Biblical viewpoints out there, yours being one of them. Mine is different. We will each give account on that day for what we have said and done. I don’t think my perspective is wrong, and, as Paul wrote to one of the churches, I also have the Holy Spirit.
You also wrote this, “…It’s usually far better (in the Christian sense, I think) to use circumstance as inspiration to repent (”our own sin”), than to rationalize circumstance as justification for harsh actions and wars against others: “Take the plank out of your own eye first,” etc. We can’t be sure about when our success or failure is used to God’s good ends (and should not assume!), but realistic admission of mistakes and efforts to grow and make amends is always helpful…” I agree with you here, but that does not negate the possibility of a judgement being imposed, also. Eccl. 9:11 addresses this subject from one direction. You might also remember Jesus discription of the last days that there will be wars and rumors of wars. We don’t always know, aside from direct revelation, what every event implies. I do know that God wins in the end, and, by His grace, I am on His side.
Peter: You might find it interesting to read what former CIA director George Tenet (director at the time of the attacks) said about how the warnings at that time differed radically from the other occasional warnings the US receives. Intelligence officials have said that there was no other previous time when there were so many warning. Tenet said the system was “blinking red” and described passing on the warnings to others in the administration. It is nothing like you describe:
“There is no doubt there was a warnings as to a planned attack. It is also a fact that these warnings pop up all the time. Are we supposed to go in to panic mode every time we have warnings like this? This seems far fetched.”
The facts and testimony prove otherwise.
(Beware: Thread drift ahead….)
JohnG: Your line was not, “from the standpoint of my own opinion” in the start of the paragraph where you spoke of God’s judgment. You said this:
“As far as our attack on Iraq from a Biblical standpoint, God, in the past, has brought judgement against ungodly nations through other nations.”
I’m sorry if you took offense at my use of the word “corrections.” Perhaps that was as uncareful as your use of the phrase, “Biblical standpoint.”
Your opinions and religious beliefs are of course your business. But if you have years of experience changing your own oil, and I do too, and if you say something that doesn’t square with what seem to be the facts of my experience and observation, opinion doesn’t matter in some questions: If one of us advises that it’s OK to put the fresh oil in the engine without screwing in the plug at the bottom of the pan, opinion or no, we’ll either agree to disagree and have our own “opinions”, or there’s a chance that, through dialog, maybe one of us will say to the other, “Oh, sure, you do put the plug in first. Don’t forget that.”
Granted, the Bible is a realm of belief and opinion more than oil changes. Fewer people have had visions while changing oil, or disagreements about whether the angels on Jacob’s ladder didn’t have wings because they had the ladder.
But in this example regarding what you call the “Biblical viewpoint,” you are treating the Bible as an object more of your personal faith and opinion, while a number of my comments treated it more as a collection of texts, with human authors, with distinct differences and evolution of themes. I was dealing more with the facts, the evidence of the text, and bracketting the question of certitude and the mystery of exactly how a divine voice might be present.
You can believe anything you want. I’ll never dispute that. But when you claim to speak for the “Biblical viewpoint,” then you’re assuming to speak for the biblical texts, and not merely opinion. Yes, your earlier paragraph mentioned your “worldview,” but in the paragraph I quoted (each paragraph can have it’s own idea), your terms were not of opinion or view but “Biblical viewpoint.” This implies not the JohnGviewpoint, but the Biblical view.
In the end, it’s probably best if I don’t say “correction” and you don’t say “Biblical viewpoint.”
A couple of things seem to elude many people, many American people, including those in charge and including enforcers.
1. Osama bin Laden is part of a tribe. His tribe reaches into many corners of the earth, as his father was a multi millionaire, building skyscrapers around the globe. Many, many people are beholding to the bin Laden tribe. As a result, if you mess with one of them, you mess with a whole network of people who, over many decades have made their living from bin Laden monies. If you want to see a real uprise unlike no other, than kill Osama and watch what happens…he becomes a martyr, and the people have a rallying point like no other. I have posted this before, a while back.
2. Very few people in this country, or in any English speaking country neither knew or understood the Middle Eastern culture, which is diametrically opposed to our culture here. The languages they speak are
virtually unknown to but a handful of scholars. and a shake of a few others until only a few years ago.
Now, I am not saying our leaders on either side have been innocent. They should have been more aware and knowledgeable about world cultures.
So many strike me as self aggrandizing and not willing to do the real grunt work of researching nations beyond understanding their economic base.
This lack makes a dangerous world even more dangerous for us.
Obama has not even travelled to any area of concern. And everyone is aware of the Chinese potential, nothing new. Didn’t have to read a book or
consult anyone myself to figure that one out. Hopefully, they remain peaceful and progressive. I for one would love that.
I feel that McCain makes an important point to leave Iraq with our heads held high in the sense that kings of the mountain have because that is what is held in high esteem amongst warrior like humans.
William, I would love to see a transcript that shows your assertion about the mispoken words of McCain. I did miss about 15 minutes of the debate, so I never noticed any such thing. McCain did almost mispronounce ‘O My Dinner Jacket’ for the Iranian dude’s name, (my words, not his, cuz it helps me to remember Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), but he corrected himself right away. At least McCain didn’t call him ‘Hey, Joe’, or Mahmoud.
Bright, w/r/t your “couple of things seem to elude many people, many American people, including those in charge and including enforcers.”
1. “Osama bin Laden is part of a tribe.” (disclaimer: i think bin Laden one of the most evil persons on earth, and I am not defending him). “Tribe” or “tribal” are routinely used by westerners in describing other cultures and promote a view of others which is “primitive” demeaning, etc. Not only that, if you don’t think George Bush belongs to a tribe, and one which would protect its own interests at all costs, you have never been to Greenwich, Connecticut.
2.” Very few people in this country, or in any English speaking country neither knew or understood the Middle Eastern culture, which is diametrically opposed to our culture here. The languages they speak are
virtually unknown to but a handful of scholars. and a shake of a few others until only a few years ago.”
a) there is no “middle eastern culture;” but there are many middle eastern cultures; b) not so sure there is an “our” culture and what “diametrically opposed” would constitute — once you start getting specific instead of speaking in these general, and again, stereotyped terms, the arguments tend to fall apart. c) the languages they speak are virtually unknown, etc???? yes, there are far fewer Arabic, Farsi, Urdu speakers than one might expect or hope for, but you write as if they were speaking some kind of secret code! Some of these are languages taught in our own town!
3) Sure, maybe Obama hasn’t been to “those” places — is that really the appropriate criterion here?
4) “I feel that McCain makes an important point to leave Iraq with our heads held high in the sense that kings of the mountain have because that is what is held in high esteem amongst warrior like humans.”
Someone has to say it: this language is racist. Ridiculous, and racist.
Paul,
Maybe the lights were blinking red, but seriously who would have ever thought that terrorist hijack an airliner and run them in to the WTC?
It seems plausible to us today, but before 9-11 hardly.
Paul F.-While the thread is adrift, we may as well cover the waters. You said, in your post #292, “…In the end, it’s probably best if I don’t say ‘correction’ and you don’t say ‘Biblical viewpoint.’…” Lo and behold, in my search of the scriptures, I found these references:
NAS:Deuteronomy
{28:49} “The LORD will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as the eagle swoops down, a nation whose language you shall not understand,
2002 (C) Bible
NAS:Jeremiah
{5:15} “Behold, I am bringing a nation against you from afar, O house of Israel,” declares the LORD.
“It is an enduring nation,
It is an ancient nation,
A nation whose language you do not know,
Nor can you understand what they say.
2002 (C) Bible
NAS:Jeremiah
{18:7} “At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it;
{18:8} if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.
{18:9} “Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it;
{18:10} if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it.
2002 (C) Bible
NAS:Amos
{6:14} “For behold, I am going to raise up a nation against you,
O house of Israel,” declares the LORD God of hosts,
“And they will afflict you from the entrance of Hamath
To the brook of the Arabah.”
2002 (C) Bible
Hmmmm. These are in the Bible, not some other writing. Is this a method of judgement God used in history? It appears so. Could He use it at another time and situation? I think that is possible. Is this sufficient to say that it is a Biblical viewpoint? I think so. And it is for just the conditions I laid out. Sorry, Paul. I am not going to back down from my statement.
You also said, in that same post, “…JohnG: Your line was not, ‘from the standpoint of my own opinion’ in the start of the paragraph where you spoke of God’s judgment…”. You are correct in that exact verbage. Actually, what I said in preferencing my comments was, “…From my perspective, world events revolve around God’s plan…” I think I qualified my comments perfectly well, and, knowing Patrick as I do, I think he understood what I was saying. We have talked face to face, and I enjoy discussing things with him. Perhaps, if you and I had a chance to talk face to face, some of the animosities I have perceived in your comments about my opinions might be asuaged. Perhaps not, but I would really like to meet you sometime. You are very well researched and articulate in your communications.
Paul- In my second paragraph above, I meant to say “prefacing”, not “preferencing”. Good grief! It has been a longer week with later nights than I had thought.
Nick, people can speak in generalities here. I am not required to write a book or college thesis. I am not going to defend my every word here like I have done in the past. You are not going to accuse me of being a racist for not
wanting to vote for Obama, if in fact that is what I choose come election day.
And if Obama continues to look at the world through books and the eyes of others who wrote those books, and not even make an attempt to check out the scene for himself, that tells me a lot. He should stay home with his family.
That racist accusation is an abhorrent tactic on your part and needs to stop.
Bright, I never accused you of being a racist, and I doubt that you are one. Your language, though, is racist. It may be unintentionally racist, but it’s racist just the same. Labeling some people “tribal” and their languages “unknown” and their “culture” “diametrically opposed to ours” is racist. What does “tribal” mean? It gains what little meaning it has from opposition to our culture, right —i.e. we’re “civilized” and “they” are tribal. So, we can’t trust “them,” “they” act emotionally and unpredictably, etc.
I don’t care who you vote for. And you’re 100% entitled to make judgments about the relevance to presidential fitness of where mccain or obama have traveled. Just as I’m 100% entitled to have a different opinion. There, we are dealing in fact and opinion.
But with stuff like “tribal,” “diametrically opposed cultures” and “unknown languages,” we are dealing in, and I genuinely mean no unkindness here, ignorance.
Nick, I don’t know where you get your definitions, but they are not in the dictionary as such and they are certainly not mine. If you continue to say that your interpretations are the same as my intent, then I will have to say you are projecting your thoughts on to my words, and as such, you are trying to make me do something I don’t want to do, like vote your way.
It’s point blank intimidation, and it’s the third time today I have heard someone trying to say that if you don’t vote for Obama you are a racist,
when in all honesty, people just want a good leader to help this country stay safe and financially afloat.
Americans should not be treating each other like enemies.
Peter to #288,
I noticed you side stepped the PNAC statements that Paul referenced in #286, and instead brushed it all off as all Tin Foil Hat conspiracy. Was it getting too close to a truth you would rather ignore?
John G. , I was having a difficult time following what point you are trying to make from the Biblical quotes you referenced#297. I get a sense that you hold a Dispensationalist Theology? I’ve had this idea for a while that if I became President the first thing I would do is move 60yr old Israel to a new Israel in Zion national park in Utah. We would build a complete new city/state for them (I believe that many nations of the world would gladly help fund this) and the old Israel would return to Palestine, except for the Holy sites would be turned into an international Religious park that all can visit 8am to 8pm every day of the year. Do you see any flaws with this idea?
Bright, you wrote,
If you look at Nick’s words again, you’ll see that he said no such thing.
Bright, the term “tribal” has negative connotations exactly as Nick described. NPR did a piece on this in February: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18767319
That being said, I wouldn’t limit the list of the racist-sounding language you have used as Nick has. The term “mixed breed” (#135) is also quite offensive, as Anne stated before. You also suggest (#146) that people of approximately the same color as senator Obama must also have roughly the same experience. In #158 you imply that black people who have an experience different from the one you observed in Chicago must not have experienced life as a black American. In #182 you seem to refer to Bill Richardson as a “Mexican man.”
That being said, Nick specifically said: “I never accused you of being a racist, and I doubt that you are one. Your language, though, is racist. It may be unintentionally racist, but it’s racist just the same.”
Please stop trying to play the “race card.” Nick has simply asked you to be more careful in your language; I ask the same.
I disagree and I think you all are playing party line rules which include taking language away from people just like the European’s did when they disallowed Native Americans to speak their own language.
NPR is certainly DFL all the way, you listen to them all you want.
No one has simply asked me to do anything…to use your words, Felicity.
If anyone had merely asked me what I intended or meant by my use of the term instead of trying to force their pick and choose definitions on my words, I would have gladly explained what I meant.
But because several of you here are trying to eliminate all other views, trying to take over this discussion entirely, there is no chance for good back and forth conversational exchanges where people can actually bring each other up. Have fun talking to yourselves.
Don’t worry, I am sure Obama will win hands down with the kind of treachery that is being practiced ! Good luck with that.
For all People reading this post; One usually takes an entire body of work, be it posting, books, essays, what have you, and takes the meaning from that. I cannot be saying on one hand that Bill Richardson might make a good President and on the other that he’s not good enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson
Saying a man is a Mexican man has no negative connotation to me. It is just like saying a man is an American man, or a woman is an American woman, or a Canadian and on and on and on. Bill Richardson was born in California, and his parents are from Mexico and Nicaragua. Good, fine, I don’t care, as long as he shows ability to be President, if he runs again.
That’s it. He grew up with his Mexican mother in Mexico. He says he is Mexican. That’s fine, it’s good, it’s right. No negtaive connotations coming from me. He’s an American cuz he was born here. That’s fine, too.
I cannot and do not say things like Middle Eastern tribe and at the same time when I am talking about a Middle Eastern man and his family who have amassed a great fortune and many followers by building skyscrapers around the world and not think that they are smart and industrious people. Even if they don’t build skyscrapers, they have a good and wonderful culture that is to be honored. For anyone who has reading skills and comprehension, the facts speak for themselves.
I honor all people and all cultures at all times, even when they are trying to blow me out of the water. My life, my house and my art are testimonies to that fact.
Bright, this isn’t about Senator Obama at all. It’s about your choice of words.
To be clear, I’m not sure this would be a problem in a face to face discussion. If you made comments such as these face to face, they might be mediated by your body language and not seem the way they do when they are just words on a page. Furthermore, as you suggest, I could either challenge them at the time they are said, or let them slip into memory.
However, we are writing a medium in which body language cannot change the tone of a comment, in which immediate back and forth discussions are not always possible, and in which your comments remain for anyone to return to rather than slipping into the ether.
Therefore I ask that you choose your words with more care.
Mike- Sorry to confuse you with the Biblical quotes. This was in answer to Paul.F.’s comment that my opinion in post #280 on God using a nation to judge another nation was not a “biblical viewpoint” in his post #289. I am using the quotes to refute his claim. Paul and I have different aproaches to the interpretation of the Bible, and unless you had been following all our discourses, it would be hard to jump into the middle and make any sense out of what we are talking about. Candidly, perhaps there is no sense to be made out of it, anyway. There are a lot of conversations going on here, and I haven’t followed all of them in real time. I have to go back and read most of them again to follow the idea being discussed.
I don’t think my approach to the Bible fits into dispensationalism, either. It is close, perhaps, but I believe that if there is a dispensation, it began at creation and will continue until the end of the millenium. But, my opinions don’t really have any effect upon what is going to happen over the next period of time, anyway. It is just the way I interpret what I see happening. I am part of a group praying for this time period, though, and, according to James 5, “…the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man acomplishes much.” That is why I don’t place any hope in the political process before us. I will definitely participate in it, but my hope does not rely on the outcome.
Bright, I just want to say that I’m not taking any language away from you; I’m merely asking you to be more conscious of the meanings associated with the language you use. If the meanings are those you intend, fine. But I didn’t think that they were, and that’s why i drew your attention to them.
I think that if you would respond to my points with a spirit of learning and openness, instead of paranoia (“treachery,” “taking my words from me” “trying to eliminate other views,’ etc) and defensiveness, there’s perhaps something to be learned here. I think Patrick and Felicity and I have all shown a willingness to take other points into consideration, and it’s offensive to suggest that any of us are on here to eliminate other people’s viewpoints.
In an earlier post, you said “Americans should not be treating each other like enemies.” I agree, and I’m not treating you that way. I would further broaden that statement to say that we shouldn’t treat *anyone* like an enemy (at least until s/he proves they are one). Words like “tribal” “mixed breed,” etc are hardly aimed at making friends.
Bright & Nick- In reference to Bright’s use of the word “tribal” in her posts. I’m not sure I understand the basis for the way you are defining this term. I didn’t read the url, so perhaps it is clear there. In pretty much all the reporting about people involved in the confflicts going on in Iraq right now, there is reference to the “tribe” this person belongs to. In fact, I think I have read the term “tribal conflict” in some articles. I was not aware there was a negative connotation to this term. To me, “tribal” simply defines an orientation, as opposed to “national” or “regional”. I think I may have even used it in some of my posts. If this was offensive, please forgive me. I have lived long enough to see many new connotations put on words that were used a certain way in my youth. Many times, I found out about this new connotation in a particularly embarrasing social situation. In this, I just ask you to please be considerate of Bright in her comments. Like Nick said, I don’t think she is a racist. And, Bright, since we now know this term is offensive to some, we can use a different term, perhaps “people group?”
John,
How about ‘family’?
The radio piece Felicity posted is worth a listen:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18767319
Bright,
…and in that, I’m looking at post #293. I’m not sure what your intent was elsewhere.
Patrick- Family is a great term. When we visited someone, I oftened refered to us and all the kids as the tribe that showed up.
John,
Perhaps you’ll agree that it’s different when one uses a term to informally refer to one’s own family?
I’ve never heard anyone say, for example, “We’re off to visit the Johnson tribe!”
Bright,
You must be a well-educated individual, which is why Anne, Nick, Patrick, Felicity and others find the carelessness of your words offensive. I think they come across as flippant and insensitive, which I am pretty certain you are not and did not intend. I concur with Felicity and Nick’s request to consider the medium and your choice of words.
I have spent almost all of my professional life working in the Middle East, North Africa and the Subcontinent (Pakistan and Afghanistan). All of these regions have long, rich histories and languages. I make the following statement based on my extensive, first-hand experience in the Middle East. It may surprise you that the average Arab, Persian, African etc., who you claim are diametrically opposite to our (?) culture, have many of the same fears, needs and wants as the average American. They suffer from terrible leadership, a general lack of education and a definite absence of opportunity.
Are there extremists in each of these cultures — you bet there are — however, to paint each culture with the same brush demonstrates ignorance and is dangerous. Should every white American have been categorized as a dangerous terrorist post-Timothy McVeigh (the bombing of the Federal Building In Oklahoma City) and his gang of kooks?
Crazy and dangerous people are crazy and dangerous people — no matter which culture produces them.
You are correct, Bright, Americans should not be treating other Americans like enemies — that includes ALL Americans of ALL races. If you object to OBAMA then object to him on the issues, not because he is from Chicago or because of his race.
Nick, Felicity and Patrick,
Regarding the use of the word “tribal”, it is not a negative or denigrating term from my global experience. In many post-colonial countries they use tribal identity before they refer to their ‘colonial’ identity. Again, in many cases tribal identities span centuries not decades. Tribes are ancient cultural identities not a country that was drawn with an arbitrary boundary and bears a colonially assigned name.
Regarding how we as a culture use words (just to note a few):
Black hat — bad guy — negative
Yellow bellied — WWII foes — negative
Gypped me — Gypsy stealing — negative
White hat — good guy — positive
Thought and care should be exercised at all times when using speaking or writing. One can inadvertently use a word or phrase that is offensive to another
I do still think that “tribe” and “tribal” are issues, but , Bright, and others, perhaps my objections are best addressed in respect to your phrase “warrior-like humans” at the end of post 293 — clearly what’s being supposed here is that some humans are more “warrior-like” (and thus your warnings about how we’d better behave towards them) than others. This is a slippery slope towards concluding that some humans are less human (or less “civilized” ) than others. This is a decidedly 19th-century idea, and one of its effects is to promote all sorts of interventions, from missionizing to political meddling to war.
If we are not out to make enemies, steering clear of calling other people warrior-like might be a good start.
I would rather be warrior like, killing only when defending the innocent in all wars since 1870, than be a Pro Choice Democrat who advocates killing the innocent since 1970. Let’s see the score would be
Warriors: 10, 000,000 vs Pro Choice: Abortionists 40,000,000
christans 3 billion
I guess I should say religion: 3 billion (I don’t want to single out christans, cause its all the same)
that abortion number would be lower if the pro life crowd wanted to prevent abortions (abstinance doesn’t work so that doesnt count)
well, gosh, perhaps it’s time to end this — we’re officially at the lowest point of human conversation.
Bright, when challenged –not attacked — you attacked, rather than challenge.
This response was not a response to anything actually going on in the thread, just a desperate attack. It demonstrably lowered the level of discourse. And just for the record, not all Democrats are pro-choice, just as all Republicans are not “pro-life.”
And by the way, who’s “killing only when defending the innocent in all wars since 1870”?
Mike,
I have discussed the 9-11 conspiracy ad nauseum on other threads and I don’t want to do it again.
They are just that…theories.
When Griff started this thread, he had this comment at the bottom: “…Discussion the presidential election race with your Northfield area fellow citizens here. (Previous blog post: DNC and the RNC: the good, the bad, the ugly has 365 comments.)…” Well, after another 321 comments, we still have the good, the bad and the ugly. I’m not sure what all this indicates- maybe, some things never change? I think I can make one observation about it, though. I don’t think anyone has changed anyone else’s mind. My hope would be that we could at least come to understand where different people come from and allow them that perspective. Another prediction I think I can confidently make is that no matter who is the president-elect on Nov. 5, this country will continue on. Now, depending on what we do with the debacle on Wall Street…. I guess that is another thread.
Right you are, John. I made the same observation to Sam Donaldson when ABC flocked to Pakistan to cover the change of government from Zia al Hauq to Benazir Bhutto. The real story of any country is how its people choose to treat each other and live. We all adapt to the politics at the national level. The citizens and the private sector adjust.
I think the Jamaicans have it right when the refer to ‘politics’ as “POLYTRICKS”!
good post john
JohnG: Thanks for your list in #297. And I’d like the F2F. But notice that your list is all Old Testament. Christians have built into their New Testament scripture and understanding of Jesus the idea that earlier ages were not ready for the truths in the form in which they were incarnate in Jesus and his teachings. But I’m sure we’d keep going ’round and ’round on this (which is thread drift, after all).
Peter: In 296, you say that it’s only now that we imagine planes being used as missiles, but that pre-9-11, they didn’t imagine it. This is simply false and has been well-documented. A few highlights:
WWII – Kamakazie suicide pilots
Same era: Plane crashed (accidentally, it seems) into Empire State Bldng.
Nixon administration: A soldier steals a helicopter and, after various tricks near the White House, lands by the White House.
Clinton Administration: Small private plane is crashed on White House property.
Same era: Plane is landed near Kremlin
In France, there was an effort to crash a plane into the Eifel tower.
The military was (before 9-11) running tests involving crashes of airplanes into buildings so that they could be prepared for that kind of scenario. In fact, one was scheduled for 9-11-01:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-08-22-sept-11-plane-drill-_x.htm
This means they imagined it. That’s why they had anti-aircraft guns on top of some government buildings in Washington, and sometimes, other places where the president stayed.
But this is wonkish kind of knowledge that insiders and avid readers are aware of, but that the average person in the public doesn’t know, so the claim that it wasn’t imagined was far more a PR-spin choice than a statement of fact.
I’m sorry, Peter, but your assumption is simply wrong. You’re entitled to opinion, but facts are facts.
Martha, I know that the Middle Eastern countries have had tribes for more than decades, but I cannot readily prove that so I cut it back to something I can prove, but is still true. There have been tribes for decades AND centuries…look up the Silk Road.
Look, uh uh uh, Obama is not from Chicago. He worked there and is a junior senator from Illinois. He now lives in a million dollar mansion paid for by his book or books. ( I wish I could get 4.2 million dollar book deal, too. ) But I am from Chicago, and I know people who know him from his community organizing days. SO what?
And Martha, seeing as how you have, like some of the others, have many, many preconceived notions on how to tell me what I meant, I won’t bother to explain what I meant by diametrically opposed, but I assure you it had nothing to do with your own explanation.
Again I am not against Obama for his genetic inheritance. I am against him because of how the Democrats have been acting since he started running, more than anything.
I have been practicing what the guidelines of this community newsletter say, we are not writing books here, we are supposed to be who we are and as such, I don’t feel it’s appropriate to dissect every word, or to assume that the person who doesn’t believe as you do is making outrageous statements.
And because of the real lack of congeniality and good humor around here, I’m gone. You all can rejoice and revel in it. I have never gotten involved in politics in a social way before and I feel it has been mostly but not completely a waste of my good time.
I still have never heard any of your recommendations, was told to google Obama, or go to his site, cuz you are all afraid that by the time I read something about him that you said, he’ll change his stance again. Well, you HOPED for CHANGE and you might get it.
Paul F. Your post #325, you are welcome. As far as Old and New Testaments, this is a format relative to the birth of Jesus. I embrace the scriptures as contiguous. That is another difference in our approaches.Lets try for coffee some time. I am around Mondays & Tuesdays. I’m in the phone book, too, if you want to give me a call.
martha, my point was not that there are not “tribes” but rather that people employing the word “tribe” or “tribal” are often trying to say something quite apart from a use of the word to denote particular cultural units.
Bright, I give up. Several people have written thoughtful responses to you, disagreeing with you but treating you with respect and dignity. In response you have leveled accusations at us. Words matter. “Dissecting” them is only necessary when their meaning is ambiguous, which it often is if the post is stream-of-consciousness and meanders from topic to topic. It doesn’t seem possible to have a principled disagreement with you without being attacked, mostly in a kitchen-sink manner with abortion, chicago etc in the mix.
For the zillionth time I DO NOT care who you vote for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am not reacting to your words on the basis of a supposed political difference, I am reacting to your words as a human being sharing your earth.
John G (#322) that’s an excellent point. We’ve gotten far off topic. While the discussion in many ways reflects some pretty entrenched differences (at the national level as well as the individual level), perhaps we can still find some common ground.
What if we go back to saying things like “I’m voting for _________ because….” This would be particularly helpful if links to supporting materials are included.
Paul,
From your own source…??
——————————————————————-
However, CIA Director George Tenet claims that none of the warnings specifically indicates terrorists plan to fly hijacked commercial aircraft into buildings in the US. [New York Times, 4/4/2004]
——————————————————————–
Your source also indicated that Bill Clinton was warned as early as 1998. Which just proofs my point.
It wasn’t the mistake of a single person or agency. It was our own arrogance and the denial that an act like this could happen on our own soil.
To squarely blaming on Bush is nothing more then partisan hackery….IMHO.
Felicity- That is a great idea, and I think there are many that have done that in this stream. But, I doubt that would necessarily ward off some of the attacks and stream drifts. When we are able to attach a url, it at least gives others a chance to see on what we base an opinion without each of us having to write a book. That doesn’t mean that everyone will agree with the validity of a source or the particular interpretation of a source. Many of the links I have read are not just inert observations. Rather, they are already someone else’s interpretation of the observations. Facts in themselves are not necessarily action points. We all must interpret what we observe in our environment, and then we act out of that interpretation. I just assume that not everyone will agree with me or my opinions. My hope, through these types of discussions, is to come to some understanding of how and why we interpret the same observations differently. Understanding does not necessarily imply agreement, but I believe it does build relationship. That is a priority for me, but that’s just me.
I agree, John. But to clarify, I meant to specify why one would vote FOR a particular candidate rather than against the other. Bright has asked for that a couple of times now. A few people have already done this, but I think it might behoove us to try again. In that spirit…
I’m voting for Senator Obama because…
He listens to people
Not only does he espouse a bottom-up campaign, he used that idea to develop the Democratic party platform. The federal government hasn’t listened to the people in a long time – at least during a non-election year.
I want things to be done in a new way
I see this as critical, since many things at the federal level can’t be changed without bottom-up reconstruction. For me, this makes it an advantage that Obama hasn’t been in Washington long. For example, I’m betting that his record on improving transparency in government (link) with the goal of reforming lobbyist influence will continue into the Obama administration. Even greater changes will be needed to accomplish the following:
Energy reform
I think this is the greatest task ahead, and we have only about 25 years to completely change energy consumption in the world. Obama’s plan is at link. This includes a variety of industries as well as updating our infrastructure to handle the changes. There’s also a nice touch about offering returning veterans the new energy jobs – that could forestall a problem for returning vets. Fuel efficiency standards (for new buildings as well as cars) and plug-in electric vehicles are also included. I am particularly pleased that corn ethanol is NOT listed in the biofuels section – I’m hoping that means the Obama team has read the reports of the fuel-to-develop vs fuel-produced ratio for corn ethanol. Some things I’m not so excited about are the inclusion of “clean coal” and nuclear energy.
Health care reform
We need a fundamental shift in the way we offer healthcare. Obama’s plan is at link. It doesn’t go as far as I want (ie single-payer universal healthcare) but it’s certainly better than what we have now.
War in Iraq
I see the need to end the war not only for ethical reasons, but also financial. We can’t possibly achieve the goals I want without plugging the flow of money to outside our borders. We need to focus on domestic concerns. I am concerned about a potential increase in spending in Afghanistan, but I see that as old business that President Bush should have taken care of but didn’t.
Progressive Taxes
Last but certainly not least, I’m a strong believer in a progressive tax code. I think people who make more money should pay taxes at a higher rate. Everyone benefits from strong government (ie, good schools, good transportation, energy infrastructure, healthcare (in an ideal world), etc. Not only does this mean ending the Bush tax cuts, but also closing the loopholes that have let corporations and extremely wealthy individuals get away without paying the stipulated amount (link). To be clear, for most Americans (95% of working families) the federal tax burden would be lower under the Obama plan than it is now. I expect that percentage would be somewhat lower in Northfield, though.
OK, the links really didn’t work. Here they are again in order:
transparency act: http://obama.senate.gov/issues/good_government_responsible_spending/
energy: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf
healthcare: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
taxes: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/fiscal/ObamaPolicy_Fiscal.pdf
Felicity,
I would have to say that Obama’s energy plan is woefully lacking! 150 billion over 10 years is next to nothing.
That’s how much the empire spends on Iraq every year, which of coarse Obama and Biden have no intention of giving up on.
If they were serious about energy reform the would be shooting for 15 Trillion which is what it is going to take!
McBama are just more of the same.
Felicity,
I have bad news for you and Obama (or McCain). We are 5 trillion dollars in debt.. We finally have reached the breaking point where the sins of th past will come to haunt us.
We haven’t had a sound fiscal policy since Carter. EVERY president has increased the national debt since.
Obama wants 800 Billion in new spending and McCain wants 600 Billion. Despite some of the accounting gimmicks proposed by both there is simply not enough money to pay for it.
We also better start to create a serious energy policy. Both candidates propose policies that will end up costing us more. Money that most people don’t have.
Healthcare if not managed right will end up being another large entitlement program just like social security will be in another 10 years.
We are being told to live within our means, are we going to demand the same from our government?
Neither Obama or McCain have addressed this issues. All they do is just tell us what we want to hear not what we need to hear.
Mike, I agree I’d like to see more. However, I consider this far better than the alternative.
Peter, according to a story on NPR this morning, the (D) party in Ohio is doing everything it can to bring new voters to the polls. Unfortunately for your call for fiscal conservativism, they appear to be focusing on people who have absolutely no incentive to want to keep taxes and spending low, as they are rounding up voters at bars and homeless shelters. I believe we have reached a tipping point and that future elections are going to continue to be about spending more and balancing less. The people have found the keys to the treasury in the ballot box, and out republic is probably going to fail due to monetary policies that reflect that fact. We might have had a chance had we passed some sort of balanced budget amendment back when we had the chance.
I hope you aren’t blaming homeless people and people at bars for the financial crisis. The homeless ones in particular were let out of mental institutions by your buddy Ronald Reagan under the guise of small govt.
Small govt, to me, means squish the small guy and make the big guy as rich as we can. In the last 8 years we have seen how that works.
Anthony- I can’t speak for Bruce, but my take on this is that the Dems can only win by turning out people who do not have any skin in the game. Jerold Friedman has a good quote from Baron Mccauley in the “Financial Crisis” thread.
Felicity, seeinga s how everyone is playing nice again, I’ll comment on your input, and please note, it is not argument in opposition at all to the idea.
Felciity said:
This is a good idea, but since I can remember, we have held jobs for the returning military. There are many sectors of the job market that are ideally suited for men who have trained in computers, and many other jobs.
And we have always given first consideration to returning military. See
http://www.militaryexits.com/
john: if you are american you have a stake in the game. and you have a right to vote.
Bruce: The alternative to the Democrates is the Republicans–who have given deficit spending a new meaning.
Constantly bashing Democrats by claiming they will raise taxes and spend like crazy is a ploy by Republicans to distract from what they have been doing–cutting taxes for their rich friends and spending money like crazy by giving it to their corrupt war contractor friends or their currupt oil company friends or their polluting industry friends.
The Democrat’s platform is not raise taxes and spend like crazy–Obama has a specific plan to give tax breaks to most Americans–those that make less than $250,000–while taking away the tax breaks for wealthy taxpayers who make more than $250,000–so they can start kicking in their fair share.
It is really not constructive to continue claiming what the other guy is going to do–how about telling me what Republicans are for? Because we have had 8 years of Repbulican rule–that has included fiscal irresponsibility which is costing us trillions of dollars, an illegal war that is costing us trillions of dollars–and tax benefits for big oil and big pharmacuetical companies and tax breaks for the hedge fund managers that have cost us a fortune.
So, if the Repulicans are going to change–I want some proof that they know what they have been doing wrong for 8 years. No fair telling me how it is really Bill Clinton’s or Nancy Pelosi’s fault. My question is, do the Republicans recognizes their folly –can they admit their mistakes? If not, how can they possibly change? If they can’t change, throw the bums out–we need good, serious people in Washington who want to help this country–not a bunch of politicians who’s claim to election success is how much mud they sling.
Bruce wrote,
Bruce, would you prefer that people who frequent bars and homeless shelters did not vote?
I’m glad to see that someone is encouraging every citizen to exercise his or her constitutional right (duty, even) to vote.
Jane- Just for clarification, it is the Congress that sets regulatory standards, not the president. Seems to me that the Congress has been under Democratic control for quite a few years, now. I know you and I will never see eye to eye on how things should be run, but I’m not sure that blaming all the failures of the last eight years onto the Republicans is necessarily accurate. That is just my opinion. I also think that the sooner we approach these problems as a whole nation, not partisan, the sooner we will be able to get some things resolved. The idea that all the rich cats vote Republican and all the poor common people vote Democratic is not an accurate assessment, either, in my opinion.
John,
In #346 you wrote:
Seems to me that the Congress has been under Democratic control for quite a few years, now. … I’m not sure that blaming all the failures of the last eight years onto the Republicans is necessarily accurate.
Blaming *everything* on Republicans may be overdoing it, but your premise is a bit skewed: In fact, the Republicans controlled the House for 12 of the last 14 years (as far back as I checked), and they controlled the Senate for 11 of those years.
Bruce M.,
In 339, you wrote:
… according to a story on NPR this morning, the (D) party in Ohio is doing everything it can to bring new voters to the polls. … they appear to be focusing on people who have absolutely no incentive to want to keep taxes and spending low, as they are rounding up voters at bars and homeless shelters.
Just to be clear, Bruce, what are you suggesting about the luckless inmates of homeless shelters and bars? Should they *not* be encouraged to vote? (I’m a bit sensitive on the subject as I’ve been seen, more than once, at the Cow.)
Then you wrote:
I believe we have reached a tipping point and that future elections are going to continue to be about spending more and balancing less. The people have found the keys to the treasury in the ballot box, and our republic is probably going to fail due to monetary policies that reflect that fact. We might have had a chance had we passed some sort of balanced budget amendment back when we had the chance.
Yes, of course we should account honestly for what we want, and pay for it. But which “people” do you see as having found the keys to the vault in the ballot box? Are we still talking about the homeless and the barflies? Seems to me it was mainly much fatter cats who — all that talk about rugged individualism and free markets notwithstanding — mainly socialized risk and privatized profits in the current economic meltdown.
Bruce: This might be a stretch, or it might not be. If the Dems are seeking to register voters at the homeless shelters and bars, has anyone paused to think about how the homeless and bar flies arrived at their predicament? The Dems might be focused on the disenfranchised, which would be very savvy of them to find people who lost their house or livelihood due to prevailing U.S. economics.
Paul Z. & Jerold- Yep to both your comments. My point is that the sentiment expressed in Jane’s post and others on this thread seems to suggest that if the Dems could just get into power, all these problems would be eliminated. I don’t agree with that sentiment. I think it was Lyndon Johnson that began the war on poverty. Talk about a long war, we are still fighting this, and it has been through both party’s tenure. The other thing I might point out is that the Democratic or Republican majorities in Congress over the last few decades has only been by 1 or 2 percent. This may be a simple majority, but in practical terms of actually getting legislation past a veto, it is not possible without cooperation between the parties. I am more inclined to lean Republican for many reasons, but I don’t hate all the Democratic party’s planks. The hatred and bitternes that comes through both sides is, in my opinion, detrimental to the health of the nation.
Bright, I agree that people have been putting vets to the front of the line (properly) for some time. However, I’m concerned that with the economy tanking, that may (MAY) not help. I don’t want any sort of repeat of Vietnam. I see our future growth in alternative energy as the best set of new jobs because they’re in a new sector (at least for the scale we need).
John George writes:
“the Democratic or Republican majorities in Congress over the last few decades has only been by 1 or 2 percent.”
That implies the Senate has always (meaning over the last few decades) been split 51-49 and the House by at most 222-213. Without even checking, I’m going to guess that that has rarely been the case. John’s point may be perfectly valid, but there’s no need to bolster it with made-up numbers.
John George–Ok, you lean Republican–WHY? I never said that the Dems were going to fix everything–just that they will be better at fixing what is a Republican mess–I sincerely cannot understand how anyone can be for John McCain–one of the Keating Five, with the failure of Republican economic policies, foreign relations policies, energy policies, tax policies–need I go on?
The partisanship of the Republicans–starting with Newt Gingrich’s plan to cut Democrats out of the process and the Karl Rovian/George Bush to refuse cooperation–has led to an ineffective congress and a rogue, unprincipaled president who believes he is above the law. I don’t want to argue about Bush’s incompetence –I want to talk about how anyone thinks McCain, with his pin-head VP choice–could possibly make any kind of a good leader.
The McCain ads continually bash Obama and make general claims that we should be afraid..be very afraid of “tax and spend” Democrats with no discussion of if the Republicans know what they have done wrong and understand what they would have to do to be better leaders than Bush.
jane, I can probably tell you why john leans republican. Social issues. A lot of the time social issues trump every other issue. whether it is right or wrong, it is where a lot of people make their vote.
Anthony: Republicans get a D- in social issues-causing this economic crisis increases proverty level, failure to rein in pharmaceuticals and health insurance–failure to recognize the problems caused by global warming-rabidly supporting a war that is destroying one country and bankrupting us, while killing people, and failing to provide assistance where genocide is occuring, while tacitly giving Russia the nod to imperialistic practices in Georgia–actually, the Republicans get an F.
What that really says is the Republican voter is voting for the LIES of their leaders even though the actions of their leaders are another story.
Republicans pander to the social issues of “Joe six-pack” while lining their own pockets and pockets of their big-oil, big pharmaceutical friends.
Where would we be today if the Republicans had successfully privatized Social Security? Their policies make good sound bytes but bad bad bad disastorous policy. Tell me something good about Republcans–not what you think they should be for–what they have actually done!
jane, I agree with you, but thats not what the religious right sees.
Well they get an A+ for the christian right who loves to prevent gays from marrying and also love to ban abortions and also love to lock down the boarders to mexicans. Germans like peter are alright.
BTW, I know john is a good dude. The above statement is not meant to be associated with john in any way.
Why doesn’t the religious right feel weird about the name “McCain?” That means “son of Cain.” If I were a Bible literalist, I’d be worried about that.
Seriously, I think Anthony has the right idea about the social issues being a leading factor in voting trends. Democrats need to be better at describing what they want/ want to do.
Holly: I still think what Anthony is saying is that the religious right will vote Republican even if it is against their religious beliefs because they THINK that the Repulicans are really going to outlaw abortion and get the end of days going in Israel–I don’t think this is a matter of convincing them of what the Democrats stand for–they have a religious belief–that in spite of Republican actions to the contrary–they will get their religion legislated through the Republicans.
I don’t think that is how the Democrats are articulating that they are for FAIRER treatment of all citizens, fair application of tax laws, safe work and fair wages, do our best to educate our children and keep our neighborhoods safe, good and safe public infrastructure, energy policies that work and a dedication to a greener environment. Republicans still claim that we are “Tax and spend” Democrats–
So what are the Republicans standing for? Tax breaks for the rich, expensive, unsustainable spending to shift wealth to the wealthy? Because that is what they have given us. Spend and spend and spend until we are broke Republicans. Republicans have made us unsafer economically, unsafe internationally, and unsafe in our environment.
In about twenty years from today the US will be more like Europe.
1) 50% tax rate fro everybody
2) Limited access to health care
3) Gasoline at $ 10 per gallon
4) reduced disposable income
5) Higher unemployment rate
6) GDP increase of less then 1% per quarter
7) Government involvement in almost all aspects of our lives
8) The rich will still be rich
9) And the poor still be poor
10) No free choice in pursuit of college degrees.
11) Most retirees at the edge of poverty
Sounds good to me.or?
Peter wrote,
Peter, people have been ringing that same alarm bell for over 30 years. It’s didn’t come true then, and there’s no reason to think it’ll be any more true now.
Heck, just a couple years ago, there was all that talk about a ‘permanent Republican majority’ and all that would’ve come with it.
Relax and enjoy life a little. In a few years, things’ll swing back your way. As long as we all pay attention and stay involved, the future will work out just fine.
Aother encouraging sign that the Democrats are leaving no stone unturned in its effort to reach all eligible voters:
http://fultonsun.com/articles/2008/10/02/news/090news01.txt
Peter Milin predicts in 20 years the US will be like Europe, with a 50% tax rate, $10/gal gas, and GDP growth less than 1% per quarter.
Once again (cf my posting #352) we have an argument bolstered with made-up numbers. As crystal-ball predictions, that’s OK, but to the extent Peter is implying this is the way Europe already is, it’s just bugbear misdirection.
The Wikipedia entry for Tax Rates of Europe does indeed show some 50% entries for personal income tax (whatever 50% means — i.e., top marginal rate, or total tax burden?), but it’s boldly headlined with a warning that “the factual accuracy of this article is disputed.”
In 20 years we’ll probably be looking back fondly to the days of $10 per gallon gasoline. At the moment, the price in Europe seems to be around $8/gal, with the Netherlands at $9 — see the fascinating chart at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/gas1.html
As for the GDP growth rate, one should keep in mind that even when rates are reported as “growth in such-and-so a quarter,” the number given is usually an *annual* rate, so I’ll assume that’s what Peter means when he writes “1% per quarter” — if not, he’s arguing that anything less than 4% annual growth is poor performance, which I believe most economists would dispute. Here are a couple of nice sites that a fairly nice picture of real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) GDP growth:
http://indexmundi.com/g/
http://www.cenimar.com/factbook/trend_list.jsp
According to the latter of these, the growth rate for the EU over the last decade has ranged from 2 to 4%, while that of the US has ranged from 2.5 to 5%, with the exception of 2004 for the EU and 2002 for the US. That’s actually a significant difference, but one can hardly point to the EU’s numbers as indicators of a struggling economy.
Anthony- Thanks for the vote of confidence. I know you and I come from different perspectives, but I think you are a person I could agree to live in the same town with. Same with Patrick, Jerold, et., al.
Jane & others- There are a number of reasons I don’t support the Democratic ticket. Basically, philosophically, I do not believe in a large central government. Unfortunately, that is what we have, and it seems to be growing. I think Baron Mccauley’s perspective is applicable here. I am more inclined toward a stronger state and local level government since we would be dealing with people we actually know and who are more familiar with our specific predicament. I don’t mind paying taxes to keep up the infrastructure, but I object to my taxes being used to perpetuate a dependence upon government programs forever.
There are social aspects to my position, also. I feel the DFL has moved a long way away from its farmer/labor roots. In fact, there are many issues the DFL supports anymore that have nothing to do with farmers or laborers that, according to some I have talked to, they feel disenfranchised. In my opinion, much of this has come from the dominance of intellectuals in the higher education field. So many of the programs proposed by the DFL are idealistic and, IMHO, unrealistically applicable to the day to day life of many people. I have a real problem with Al Gore, who seems to be the hero of the Dems. He is supposed to be all about “living green”, but he does this in a 10,000 sq. ft. house that uses the same amount of energy as some small towns. He supposedly has no “carbon footprint” because he uses his wealth to buy energy credits. What hypocritical hogwash! This man no more saves energy than the man on the moon. He just uses his wealth to buy and justify his lifestyle. How is he any different than any of the corporate CEOs that have extracted obscene personal wealth from the economy? This is just one example of, what I feel, is a two-faced energy program. If this is the man who is supposed to be the example of the anti-global warming, energy consumption liberal ideals that I am supposed to follow, then I say no-way.
I think it is interesting who Al Gore edged out of the 2007 Nobel Peace prize. It was a lady, Irene Sendler, who rescued over 2500 Jews from the Nazi regime in WWII. This book and movie supposedly “prove” that man has brought on his own demise by his own lifestyle, which, by the way, Mr. Gore continues to live. I remember when Carl Sagan accused everyone of bringing on the next ice age because we were adding so much unburned hydrocarbon polutants to the atmosphere that it would soon block out the sun. Well, we cleaned up the auto engines and smoke stacks, and now, instead of becoming colder, the earth is warming up. I just don’t believe the conclusions arrived at from the science. Man’s total contribution of CO2 is approx. 3.7%. This is supposed to cause all this? Rotting plant matter alone contributes over 20% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, and water vapor absorbs just as much heat as CO2. The science is there, but the interpretation of it is incorrect, IMHO. I think this is the inconvenient truth the liberal science elite is overlooking.
Another problem I have is with the sanitation of baby killing by calling it “choice”. I have stated before how the decision of Roe vs. Wade was promised to not be used as a means of convenient birth control. It has been twisted around to be just that. This is all justified by the opinions, again, of higher educated “experts” whose only purpose is to refute what was believed to be wrong for the history of this nation up until 1970. I have heard no justification of this other than it is the woman’s “right” to kill her baby if she thinks it will be inconvenient to her. Again, these are my opinions.
As far as Gay rights, I have no problem with them living in this country/state/city. They are no threat to me or my family or my marriage. The issue I have is that I feel I am being threatened in my right to believe what I read in God’s word about the lifestyle. My Lutheran pastor brother-in-law summed it up very well. He said that he has no problem saying this is part of the fallen man, or allowing people to minister with the acknowlegement that this is part of the fallen nature. What he, and I, have a problem with, Biblically, is saying this is part of the redeemed new nature. Chuck Colson described it this way. He said that the Gay community does not want his permission to live that way. They want his praise. That will just never happen. The redefinition of “tolerance” has gone to far, IMHO.
I know I may have alienated many of you here, and I do not wish to do that. I am confident in my convictions, and I reserve the right to hold them and discuss them. I do not do this to try to convert or convince anyone to be just like I am. I don’t have that type of power. If someone wants to discuss them with me, I am more than willing to open up to them, but, just as I try not to condemn anyone who believes differently than I, I would appreciate being afforded the same consideration.
the baron Mccauley quote already rings true. What did Bush and is cronies do since 2000? Pretty voted to make themselves richer. Oil companies/Banks etc.
also…
“dominance of intellectuals in the higher education field”
who do you want dominating higher education?
John G.: I like that you reveal your soul among like thinkers and among critics. It’s refreshing to see that candor.
While looking through your list, I see that we have substantial differences, I agree that I welcome calling you my neighbor. I don’t desire a community of like minds, but a community where we can have different opinions without fear.
I have found brilliant ideas in many texts including the Bible. I do what I can to incorporate brilliant ideas from whatever source with somewhat of a smorgasbord approach, since sometimes one has to sort through a great deal of nonsense to find brilliance. Thoreau, Gandhi, Kant, Rand, Nietzsche, there are so many who have contributed great ideas that I have wandered far from referencing only one source.
This quote from Robert Ingersoll is a gem of constant inspiration. (Ingersoll was an officer in the U.S. Civil War.) “My creed is that; Happiness is the only good. The place to be happy is here. The time to be happy is now. The way to be happy is to make others so.”
Jerold- Thanks for the encouragement. I think it is always easier to point out how we each differ from one another rather than to look for ways we could live together in harmony. I love your comment, “…a community where we can have different opinions without fear…” My sentiments, also. I can only be what I believe, as can you only be what you believe. I like that quote you had from Ingersol, “…The way to be happy is to make others so.” Sounds a lot like , “You will reap what you sow,”, doesn’t it? There are, I believe, many more things we as humans have in common if we are just willing to open up to both share and listen. Thanks for the oportunity.
Oh, there are other things I believe that lean me toward the Republican side, but I think I’ve started enough here.
Barry and Patrick with all due respect both of you are wrong. Before my mom retired about 12 years ago, over half of her paycheck was taken by the government. At the time this included a 7% “solidaritaets zuschlag” which was a tax raised to support the former east Germany. This tax might be gone by now, but I really don’t know. Even if it is gone that still leaves a whopping 44% of paycheck deduction.
Part of it is for healthcare, which is your largest deduction. Although this particular doesn’t go direct to government, it is still mandatory.
BTW my mom was a waitress, certainly not white collar.
These taxes and deductions do not include a 20% VAT or gasoline tax, car tax, transportation tax etc..etc.
How come if Europe is buying the same crude that we do, but their gasoline is two or three times as much as ours..anyone..anyone? Right it is taxes what makes gasoline that high.
There is nothing we should imitate from Europe, there is nothing they do I like..that’s why I moved and stayed here.
Kind of ironic that we fought against English tyranny but now are striving to copy them.
About twenty five years ago the SPD (German socialist party) came in to power by merging with the Green Party. The result was decline in German work ethics, a total conversion to socialism and a deteriorating society and a steady increase in crime.
A lot of people prefer to stay on unemployment benefits or other government benefits and moonlight. That way they avoid paying taxes and still maintain their benefits.
Government sponsored retirement plans have been in trouble almost from the get go and are continuing to drain tax coffers.
Nirvana? I don’t think so.
Anthony- This is what Mccauley said that I was refering to, “…A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury…” The way I interpret his comment is that the citizenry is voting to pocket for themselves part of the public treasury that is collected through taxes. I may be wrong on that, but it seems there are many, especially in the Democratic party, who have pushed for entitlements out of the treasury without actually working to earn them. The oil companies and bankers have figured out how to get money out of everyone’s pockets without having to go through the government, through windfall profits on the oil futures market and voodoo financing with the bankers. I see a differnce, here, but I think both motivations are based in greed and trying to get something for nothing.
john, I read the quote before I responded last time, this is what I interpret.
correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t the last 8 years increase tax cuts on oil companies that legislature in the pocket of big oil passed?
also, deregulation of the banking system in 1999 was also legislated. Ya, I almost forgot about the 700billion that went into the pockets of the banks.
and dude, welfare and public help are small potatoes compared to the 2 things I just cited.
John G,
Thanks for your posting #364. It helps me understand your perspective on the election, and a lot else. I don’t expect to convince you of anything, as you haven’t convinced me. But since you’ve offered a lot of thoughts, perhaps it’s fair to offer some reactions to them.
About Al Gore you suggested, for example, that in some way he “edged out” another deserving candidate for the Nobel, and that you found this “interesting”. What are you suggesting? That Gore somehow cooked the Nobel books? To my knowledge candidates are not involved in the prize selection.
You seem to feel, too, that Gore’s credibility on environmental issues is compromised by his personal lifestyle. Fair enough, but does it follow, to you, that Gore is wrong on the scientific substance of global warming? Isn’t it possible that he’s a both a fat cat and right on the science?
You mentioned, too, some supposedly science-based reservations about global-warming. Again, fair enough, but do you take seriously the fact that the overwhelming consensus among serious scientists is that global warming is real, problematic, and materially affected by human activity? (Jeez, even Sarah Palin believes this, or says she does!) I don’t think either of us is an expert in climatology; given that situation, it seems sensible to take the preponderance of scientific opinion into account.
And then you wrote:
As far as Gay rights, I have no problem with them living in this country/state/city. They are no threat to me or my family or my marriage. The issue I have is that I feel I am being threatened in my right to believe what I read in God’s word about the lifestyle. … [stuff snipped] …
Here I’m baffled: What threat do you see to your right to *believe* anything? Do you see others’ disagreement with your views as a threat? What exactly do you fear?
And then you wrote:
Chuck Colson described it this way. He said that the Gay community does not want his permission to live that way. They want his praise. …
Chuck Colson is probably right that gays don’t look for his permission — on any subject. But the idea that gays, as a group, want Colson’s praise seems absurd. Is there evidence for this view?
Peter wrote,
Peter, I took no stand on what Europe is like – I haven’t been there yet. I question the likelihood of the future you fear ever coming to pass.
Anthony check your numbers.
Entitlements are the second biggest budget item, soon to be first.
Paul Z. Thanks for your response. I have to get serious at work, today, but I will get back to you tonight.
Peter, isn’t part of the reason for those terribly high gas taxes in Europe that they are used to subsidize the remarkably cheap and remarkably efficient and remarkably omnipresent mass transportation? Every time I’ve been in Europe it’s been a breeze catching a train to connect to a tram or bus to land a block or two from where i want to be. Contrast that here, with our trains to nowhere, available once a day at top cost, connecting to bus systems that don’t exist. In Minneapolis, for example, the bus route covers about half what it used to 20 years ago.
It’s a bit apples and oranges doing these comparisons. Here’s what would make it more meaningful, I think. Let’s take a waitress, a factory worker, and a busness owner and compare across countries: housing, health care, access to education, security of retirement, and whatever else people think is meaningful. I think the difference has much more to do with being nickled and dimed as opposed to dollared or euroed; in the end I am not so sure we pay that much less than Europeans for how much less we get.
You are right about the public transportation system it is very efficient, but also very expensive.
German trains have been running deficits for a long time. Finally government has relinquished control and made them semi private. While they are not running in the red anymore, the fares have gone up dramatically.
So not only do you pay high gas taxes to support the system, now you have to pay a hefty fare as well.
My disposable income in the US is much higher, plus I own a home and have two cars. Better health care and a much higher standard of living.
That’s about the only comparison I can offer. It might be anecdotal but it’s the truth.
peter,
were you doing the same job in Germany as you are now?
Peter, thanks for that specific information, I think it’s helpful. At the risk of being branded a socialist, this is the point that comes to mind after reading it:
are we better off with a system where everyone has at least adequate health care and adequate transportation, etc., and where presumably those with more money can buy extras, or better off with one where those with money get good or very good health care, and those without money get none, and pretty much the same deal for transportation, etc. Here your disposable income is higher; mine is too. Until it gets spent for college educations, health crises, and so on.
I agree this stuff is not black and white, but I would just submit that our system simply hides many costs which are not hidden in others, thereby making it easy to make a false comparison. So for me (maybe there’s a book that does this, who knows?) I would love to see a sort of cradle to grave accounting about where you really make out better, once you factor in the true aspects of living.
I am not proclaiming that the US health care system is not in need of improvement, but to go from here to national health care is extreme.
England has already learned the hard way that a national healthcare system is not sustainable on its own. A few years back they have opened the door to let some parts be taken over by the private sector in order to cut cost. France and Germany are now taking a closer look at the English model.
We should be smart enough to learn from other countries mistakes. For some of them we only have to look as far as Canada.
There has to be a monetary buy in from people so they realize that health care is expensive and not free. I can’t tell you how many people in Europe and Canada think that they have “free” health care.
I think we all know what happens when we perceive things to be free. They tend to be abused or neglected. But if you have ownership in it people tend to be more careful.
A transportation system that models Europe would not work in the US, because we are a much bigger country. American cities are much more spread out then European cities. Pus the European lifestyle is vastly different then ours. In Europe most people actually live in downtown!!!
Can we take some lessons and implement some of the ideas in dense population areas i.e. the northeast corridor? Probably, but what makes sense their makes no sense in Wyoming or Montana.
Anthony,
Yes, I am still in the same profession.
Paul Z.- Now I have some time to answer your great questions. As far as Gore “cooking the books”, no, that is not possible. I feel there is an almost worldwide hysterical reaction to the whole idea of global warming. This thing with the Nobel Peace prize is just an example. Here is a person who risked her life to save many people in WWII who is edged out by a person I call a pseudo-scientist. I will get into that moreso in the next paragraph.
Not only do I believe that Gore’s lifestyle compromises his credibility, I believe he has fanned the flames of hysteria rather than contributed to the cause of peace. Much of what Gore bases his conclusions on are questionable interpretations of the scientific data. I remember during the Kuwaiti war, when all the oil wells were set on fire, there were dire predictions that the Persian Gulf would become a marine wastelend. It would supposedly take decades for the sea to recover from the effects of the polution. Within two years, there was not a trace of the effects of the polution. I already mentioned Carl Sagan and his “science”. If Gore’s assertions are based on the same environmental “science”, then I just don’t believe these conclusions are credible. As far as the “preponderance of scientific opinion” you refer to, if they couldn’t get something right in a much more observable microcosm like the Persian Gulf, why would I ever believe their predictions about a macrocosm like the whole earth’s atmosphere? This is especially doubtful, given the observable evidence that the middle ages were quite a bit warmer than what we have now. There is evidently climate change going on, but I just don’t believe the environmentalist interpretation of the evidence. It would seem from the observable evidence that man’s contribution is insignificant in comparison to the natural processes. And, for any of these scientists to question it would be professional suicide. It has already happened to some that have. In my opinion, there doesn’t seem to be any place in the scientific community in this discussion for critical thought. I just don’t think it is sensible to follow them.
On the gay rights issue, what is happeneing, especially on some campuses of higher education, is not even allowing critical thought about the subject. What I have experienced in responses to my questions has been the opinion that I must be a homo-phobe and steeped in hatred of the lifestyle. What I hear in the unspoken inferences is that if I were not this, then I would have no reason to question homosexuality. In Canada, right now, it is against the law for a pastor to preach a message against homosexuality because it is considered hate speach. This is where I and men like Colson feel stifled to question the movement. When we do, we are accused of homophobia and intolerance. It is the new definition of tolerance that is the key. It is now defined that to be tolerant, one has to embrace every idea out there as having equal validity. There is getting to be less and less room for the expression of opposing opinions. The term “praise” of the gay lifestyle is Colson’s term, not mine. But, do you see what he is talking about when he uses that term?
Hopefully, this helps a little bit. All I am looking for is some understanding. Your questions were quite good, and, I feel, helped me to better articulate why I believe what I do. If it is still not clear, please let me know. In long discourses like this, I can sometimes get on autopilot and not finish my thoughts clearly.
John : it is abundantly clear what you believe … and it is abundantly clear that it is your right to do so.
What is NOT abundantly clear is that you will allow others to have their beliefs without you saying that their beliefs “threaten” your lifestyle.
Your beliefs cannot be threatened by others, unless you are prevented, actually PREVENTED, from holding the beliefs you do.
I believe your real fear is that laws will be made which you INTERPRET as personally threatening your belief system, and will not allow you to hold your beliefs, and therefor you feel your entire worldview is threatened.
How can a law change your belief? It can only direct your action, should you choose to abide by it.
With respect to abortion, and gay rights, there are already laws which you find threaten your belief system … but what you don’t seem to tolerate , is that those laws SUPPORT other peoples belief systems. and because of the preponderance of support, laws have been created to support what that preponderance believes is the common good.
The same holds for “science” … you don’t believe in evolution; others don’t believe in creationism. No one is FORCING you to believe either. If the preponderance of scientific evidence guides what is taught in our schools, then parents who do not belief in that science should instruct their children to believe otherwise.
If your belief system is strong and is what guides your life, then only YOU can allow it to be “threatened”. No law says the women in YOUR family MUST have the right to choose abortion, it only says others MAY make that choice.
No law says you MUST believe in evolution, or global warming or any other science that you personally feel in conflict with; equal rights only give the freedom of personal belief to others who believe differently.
I can’t understand how differing beliefs “threaten” your world, unless laws were made that didn’t allow you to THINK or BELIEVE your preference.
Is there global warming? Yes. Is it man made? We don’t know and I highly doubt it.
It is pretty arrogant for humans to predict the climate in 20 years from now, when we can’t even predict the weather tomorrow.
We have an obligation to take care of our planet and environment. We should use common sense and reduce our damage as much as possible.
This is a noble cause and worth working for. What get’s me worried is when there is another attempt to get in to my pocket book and a mandate from DC on how to live my life.
It get’s even more ridiculous when those, who want to make me feel guilty about my lifestyle, are leaving a much larger carbon foot print then I ever will.
I am with Ferraro on this, if Obama wouldn’t be black he wouldn’t be where he is today. His election is more about electing a person of color, so we can soothe our racial prejudice, then it is about electing somebody with experience and good ideas. Any mention of this will get you marked as a racist.
John and Peter:
As was discussed previously on the ‘evolution’ subject, one strength of science is putting out ideas (hypotheses) and then trying to prove them wrong. As with gravity, evolution, bacteria, nothing has yet proven wrong that humans are causing adverse climate change and if we do not stop, it will be to our peril. Scientists must admit that any time there can be new evidence that proves them wrong. However, the responsible thing to do is accept the conclusions of the vast majority of scientists until they are proven wrong. It is essential that we do not abandon our own critical thinking — it’s good to question the prevailing opinions, but while employing our critical thinking we should behave as though the scientists are right. Otherwise you’ll be acting like the passengers on the Titanic who doubted the iceberg.
From my understanding, the great danger of global warming is that at a certain temperature, carbon compounds in the ground will be baked out of the ground, thus releasing more carbon into the air and causing more heat to be retained by our atmosphere. The concern isn’t so much an increase in temperature of 1-2 degrees annually, but at a certain temperature, being unable to stop the release of carbon. If we reach that tipping point, humans will cause our own extinction.
It’s true that the rest of nature produces greenhouse gasses. It’s also true that the rest of nature neutralizes greenhouse gasses. The issue here is capacity. If the Earth produces 1 billion tons of greenhouse gasses every year, and it has the capacity to neutralize 1.1 billion tons, then if humans produce more than 0.1 billion tons, we will cause the Earth to heat up. Humans have a small range to work within. If we are generating 0.2 billion tons annually, eventually we will overwhelm Earth’s ability to neutralize it.
From my point of view, we are on a giant ship. I don’t assume that the ship is named Titanic, but I don’t assume that the great majority of scientists are out of their minds when they tell us that the ship is sinking. Now is the time to act. Now.
Peter: Obama is an accomplished statesman. To assert that his claim to the White House is because of his color is ignorance at best. It would be an equally ignorant assertion for you to say that his claim to the White House is only because of his traditionally Muslim middle name, in order to soothe our religious prejudice. You’re judging the book by its cover, and overlooking his content.
Incidentally, his first name, Barrack, is the *last* name of three well known Christian families in Lebanon. Barrack is an Arabic word for sort of a mill owner, which is also somewhat of a famous Christian profession. His middle name, Hussein, means “beautiful” in a small way, like a kitten is a small cat. I haven’t found the etymology of Obama; I assume it’s a Kenyan family name.
Peter said:
Hmm. That is outrageous on so many levels.
Peter wrote,
Peter,
Barack Obama’s race is a part of who he is, and inseparable from the rest of his identity – just as who I am is informed by my experience as a white midwesterner. However, Barack Obama’s race is not the reason we chose him. Barack Obama was chosen as our candidate for the Presidency because of his cool head, his skilled oratory, his knowledge, and his judgment. Also, he has thus far played the game of politics more effectively than any other Democratic presidential candidate in my lifetime. In short, we chose him because we believe he is the Democrat most likely to be elected President, and most likely to excel in the Presidency.
Clearly your opposition to him stems primarily from your beliefs about what a government can and should do. Accordingly, you have previously criticized primarily what Obama has done, what he has said, and what he might do. That was well and good, but dismissing Mr. Obama as being chosen just “so we can soothe our racial prejudice” is, well, wrong. And yes, to an observer who doesn’t know your overall political philosophy, it could unintentionally suggest baser motives for your opposition to Mr. Obama.
Patrick,
You just proofed my point, thanks.
Obama has been treated by the press with kids gloves. Not one news outlet has ever questioned Obama on his questionable past.
While the press gets of on meaningless details on Palin.
We debate hours if Palin can handle her family commitments despite her large family or why she went on an airplane after her water broke???
But I have yet to see an op ed piece or any kind of reporting on Obamas connections to Ayers or Reverend Wright. Oh I forgot there was one in the NYT today, trying to explain away his connections to Ayers.
Reverend Wrights church is the equivalent of the KKK and Obama was a member of this church for twenty years, had his kids baptized there and donated lots of money.
If McCain would have just driven by a KKK meeting we would ask for his head.
How about Obamas dealings with Rezko? and his sweetheart deal he got on his property?
Truth is that Obama gets a pass on everything that would be uncomfortable to his aura.
He is a great orator with a socialist agenda with no original though of his own. He is just regurgitating 60 years of failed liberal policies and just packages it nicely put a pinch of Hollywood in it and the masses are eating it up.
And yes Patrick a lot of people are quiet, because if they do question his motives, they are being accused of racism.
For you Patrick to accuse me of hidden racism is exactly the reaction I expected, when I was questioning your leader. I expect an apology from you.
You know nothing about me and to call me racist is as far from the truth as you can get.
The same goes for you Holly.
Peter,
Glad to help out; it did sound like you were asking for affirmation there.
However, if you read my post again, you will see that I did not accuse you of racism.
I said:
I know your political philosophy, and I understand your principled opposition to Barack Obama’s candidacy. But your (intentionally inflammatory?) words in post 381 do not do justice to your otherwise principled position.
Jerold,
Here is a Times article from 1974 on the issue of global warming. Back then all the scientist were sure it would happen.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
I don’t care if Obama is black or he is a muslim or if his name is Hussein or Ahmed. I have quiet a few mid eastern friends and have visited their countries quiet a few times.
My point is that we are not putting him under the same scrutiny then we do everybody else…some here didn’t think about it twice to question McCains age or his cancer….why is Obamas past off limits??
Peter,
Which purportedly shady part of Barack Obama’s past has not been discussed?
Rezko? – covered.
Ayers? – covered.
The Muslim heritage of his father? – covered.
Wright? – definitely covered.
If you have some new evidence on these issues, go right ahead and present it.
However, this statement of yours is preposterous:
I realize you are new-ish to our country, but the KKK has a long history of terrorist acts and murder of African Americans, other non-whites, and their supporters. Per Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kkk#Activities_2
If you have any evidence that Rev. Wright’s church has ever instituted a similar campaign of systematic murder against white people, I strongly suggest that you stop blogging, and immediately contact the appropriate authorities.
In addition to Henny-Penny : “flaws in the theory of global warming:
most of the warming in the past century occurred before 1940, before CO2 emissions could have been a major factor (p. 84);
temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 even as CO2 levels increased (p. 86);
temperature readings from reporting stations outside the U.S. are poorly maintained and staffed and probably inaccurate; those in the U.S., which are probably more accurate, show little or no warming trend (pp. 88-89);
“full professors from MIT, Harvard, Columbia, Duke, Virginia, Colorado, UC Berkeley, and other prestigious schools … the former president of the National Academy of Sciences … will argue that global warming is at best unproven, and at worst pure fantasy” (p. 90);
temperature sensors on satellites report much less warming in the upper atmosphere (which the theory of global warming predicts should warm first) than is reported by temperature sensors on the ground (p. 99);
data from weather balloons agree with the satellites (p. 100);
“No one can say for sure if global warming will result in more clouds, or fewer clouds,” yet cloud cover plays a major role in global temperatures (p. 187);
Antarctica “as a whole is getting colder, and the ice is getting thicker” (p. 193, sources listed on p. 194);
The Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica has been melting for the past 6,000 years (p. 195, p. 200-201); “Greenland might lose its ice pack in the next thousand years” (p. 363);
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is “a huge group of bureaucrats and scientists under the thumb of bureaucrats,” and its 1995 report was revised “after the scientists themselves had gone home” (p. 245-246);
James Hansen’s predictions of global warming during a Congressional committee hearing in 1988, which launched the global warming scare, were wrong by 200 percent (.35 degrees Celsius over the next 10 years versus the actual increase of .11 degrees); in 1998, Hansen said long-term predictions of climate are impossible (pp. 246-247);
there has been no increase in extreme weather events (.e.g., floods, tornadoes, drought) over the past century or in the past 15 years; computer models used to forecast climate change do not predict more extreme weather (p. 362, 425-426);
temperature readings taken by terrestrial reporting stations are rising because they are increasingly surrounded by roads and buildings which hold heat, the “urban heat island” effect (p. 368-369); methods used to control for this effect fail to reduce temperatures enough to offset it (p. 369-376);
changes in land use and urbanization may contribute more to changes in the average ground temperature than “global warming” caused by human emissions (p. 383, 388);
temperature data are suspect because they have been adjusted and manipulated by scientists who expect to find a warming trend (p. 385-386);
carbon dioxide has increased a mere 60 parts per million since 1957, a tiny change in the composition of the atmosphere (p. 387);
increased levels of CO2 act a fertilizer, promoting plant growth and contributing to the shrinking of the Sahara desert (p. 421);
the spread of malaria is unaffected by global warming (pp. 421-422, footnotes on 422);
sufficient data exist to measure changes in mass for only 79 of the 160,000 glaciers in the world (p. 423);
the icecap on Kilimanjaro has been melting since the 1800s, long before human emissions could have influenced the global climate, and satellites do not detect a warming trend in the region (p. 423); deforestation at the foot of the mountain is the likely explanation for the melting trend (p. 424);
sea levels have been rising at the rate of 10 to 20 centimeters (four to eight inches) per hundred years for the past 6,000 years (p. 424);
El Niños are global weather patterns unrelated to global warming and on balance tend to be beneficial by extending growing seasons and reducing the use of heating fuels (p. 426);
the Kyoto Protocol would reduce temperatures by only 0.04 degrees Celsius in the year 2100 (p. 478);
a report by scientists published in Science concludes “there is no known technology capable of reducing [global] carbon emissions … totally new and undiscovered technology is required” (p. 479);
change, not stability, is the defining characteristic of the global climate, with naturally occurring events (e.g., volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis) much more likely to affect climate than anything humans do (p. 563); and
computer simulations are not real-world data and cannot be relied on to produce reliable forecasts (p. 566).”
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=16260
David,
If it says “(p. 479),” it must be true?
What is it about global warming that you find so unbelievable?
Covered? And you still think he is electable? Have we lowered our standards this much? Hmm…..
Would you elect a white Republican with the same background? Probably not.
My comparison to the KKK was a bit of a reach, but the black liberation theology spews the same kind of hatred..and Ayers got off on a technicality.
——————————————————————–
March 19, 2008
The Real Agenda of Black Liberation Theology
By Jeffrey Schmidt
Now, suddenly, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is misunderstood. Suddenly, so-called black liberation theology is misunderstood.
Wright’s successor at Trinity United Church of Christ, the Reverend Otis Moss III, won’t bow to the wishes of “they” to shut up. It begs the question: “Who are they?” The larger white cultural? Or liberals and Democrats who see all this unfavorable publicity hurting the election chances of Barack Obama?
The sad truth is that neither the Reverend Wright nor black liberation theology is being misunderstood. Both, thanks to the candidacy of Barack Obama, are being exposed. God, in fact, works in mysterious ways. And unless it’s the aforementioned liberals and Democrats who are trying to hush up Wright, Moss and others of their ilk, sensible Americans want to hear more, for knowledge is power, the power to combat hate.
And make no mistake, what Americans are hearing, they don’t like. In the Rasmussen poll, 73% of voters find Wright’s comments to be racially divisive. That’s a broad cross section of voters, including 58% of black voters.
In an article in the Washington Post, unnamed ministers commented that black liberation theology “encourages a preacher to speak forcefully against the institutions of oppression…”
And what might these institutions be? They are not specified. But it is safe to say that they are not the welfare state or the Democratic Party. Given that black liberation theology is a product of the dreary leftist politics of the twentieth century, the very vehicles employed by the left to advance statism certainly can’t be the culprits.
For the left, black liberation theology makes for close to a perfect faith. It is a political creed larded with religion. It serves not to reconcile and unite blacks with the larger cultural, but to keep them separate. Here, again, The Washington Post reports that “He [Wright] translated the Bible into lessons about…the misguided pursuit of ‘middle-classness.'”
Not very Martin Luther King-ish. Further, all the kooky talk about the government infecting blacks with HIV is a fine example of how the left will promote a lie to nurture alienation and grievance. To listen to Wright — more an apostle of the left than the Christian church — the model for blacks is alienation, deep resentment, separation and grievance. All of which leads to militancy. Militancy is important. It’s the sword dangled over the head of society. Either fork over more tax dollars, government services and patronage or else. And unlike the Reverend Moss and his kindred, I’ll specify the “else.” Civil unrest. Disruptions in cities. Riot in the streets.
Keeping blacks who fall into the orbit of a Reverend Wright at a near-boil is a card used by leftist agitators to serve their ends: they want bigger and more pervasive government — and they want badly to run it.
If any further proof is needed that black liberation theology has nothing to do with the vision of Martin Luther King — with reconciliation, brotherhood and universality — the words of James H. Cone, on faculty at New York’s Union Theological Seminary, may persuade. Cone, not incidentally, originated the movement known as black liberation theology. He said to The Washington Post:
“The Christian faith has been interpreted largely by those who enslaved black people, and by the people who segregated them.”
No mention of the Civil War involving the sacrifices of tens of thousands of lives; no abolition or civil rights movements. No Abraham Lincoln. No Harriet Beecher Stowe. No white civil rights workers who risked and, in some instances, lost their lives crusading in the south to end segregation. And since the civil rights movement, society hasn’t opened up; blacks have no better access to jobs and housing; no greater opportunities. The federal government, led by a white liberal, Lyndon Johnson, did not pour billions of dollars into welfare programs and education targeted at inner cities in an attempt to right old wrongs. And still does so. A black man, Barak Obama, on the threshold of winning his party’s nomination for president, has in no way done so with the help of white voters in communities across the land.
In the closed world of Cone, Wright and Moss, Jefferson Davis and Bull Connor are alive and well. Black victimhood is the doing of white society, not the doing of angry black leaders and leftists, who see advantage and profit in keeping too many people in black communities captive.
Barack Obama knows all this, as a seventeen year congregant at Wright’s church, and as a liberal community activist prior to his election to the Illinois Senate. That he feigns innocence, or that he professes forbearance for some of Wright’s words because of the goodness of others, is not the line one expects from a post-racial politician. It is what is expected from a man whose career is steeped in racial politics, a politics that does great harm to the very people it purports to serve.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_real_agenda_of_black_liber.html at October 04, 2008 – 11:01:14 PM EDT
David,
It gets worse for the global warming worshipers. Recent slowdown and complete disappearance in sunspot activity actually points to a cool down.
The last time the sun had this type of phenomena it was the start of the “little ice age”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Priceless……wonder what the excuse is now.
Did you ever wonder why the term global warming has now been changed to global climate change?
Oh really? The global climate changes…who knew?
The friends you keep??
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/03/fbi-raids-obama-friends-office/
Another Obama friend gets investigated….
Peter,
Who is Jeffrey Schmidt, and why should I trust him?
Here is the link to the sunspot activity
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31:vanishing-sunspots-prelude-to-global-cooling&catid=1:latest
Patrick – I just present a ream of facts that are contrary evidence to global warming* and you ask “what I find so objectionable ?” Nothing accept one cannot just ignore all the facts that do not fit.
I have seen the Mississippi dry down and the ‘environmental science’ crowd claim it had never happened before (although Currier & Ives prints showed the exact same dry down 100 years before) and that it would take decades to recover – within 2 years the river was spilling it’s banks.
I have lived In Santa Barbara during a drought where the same ’10 years to recover’ claim was made about their reservoir. Almost to the day the city completed a desalination plant the rains started and the reservoir literally refilled almost overnight. I asked two PhD environmentalists how they could be so wrong … their model did not accurately reflect runoff.
* These are footnotes from State of Fear
Peter: From the 1974 Times article you cited, “Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service’s long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth’s climate.”
It seems to me that your objection to global warming is that the scientists are crying wolf. If there is a cooling trend, the scientists say “ice age” and if there is a heating trend, they say “global warming”, and because of their flip-flopping, we should be unduly skeptical about them even when they admit that the trend might be temporary. As I said previously, we must not abandon our critical thinking, but while we may criticize the now widely accepted point-of-view, the danger of ignoring this particular point-of-view is great. Nonetheless, there are vast reasons other than global warming to stop consuming so much oil, so the scientists’ opinions are moot regarding oil consumption.
At least, in the excerpt of the article you provided, it’s mentioned that in 1974 the scientists knew that they needed more information. I’m sure that’s still the case today — more data always reinforces or changes analyses. Today they have 34 more years of data than in 1974. I am not surprised that their conclusions have changed. The key here is that their conclusions changed not from guesses, but from evidence. As the film “An Inconvenient Truth” highlighted, polar ice cores reveal that for the last 600,000 years the CO2 content in the air has been 180-280 ppm, but today it’s closer to 400 ppm and rising. It’s harsh to criticize scientists for good faith opinions. The story of science is that conclusions change, and in this case, they have.
I agree that Al Gore is hypocritical, for him to use so much energy while preaching that we should be conservative in our energy use. However, this does seem to me to be a “shoot the messenger” complaint. Regardless of what Gore does, we should evaluate the message rather than the messenger. Imagine one drunk telling another that alcoholism is bad, and the other dismissing the message because the messenger is a drunkard.
Finally, as Patrick Enders wrote, Obama’s past has been the subject of news stories. I don’t know what stories you know about that the media is not reporting, which begs me to ask how you would know about them. Even if you are right and the media is being unfairly gentle with Obama, I don’t know why you conclude that it’s because he’s black. It could be because he’s a Democrat or any number of other reasons, yet you conclude that there are unreported stories, and they’re unreported because the media wants to soothe race relations.
Sincerely, I am not complaining that you tell us about your controversial opinions. Understand that I don’t adopt controversial opinions unless they’re supported by a great deal more than guesses or speculation. It’s my policy not to take guesses as facts whether we’re talking personally, or whether I’m elected as a City Councilor. If you have facts to support your conclusions, about global warming or the media’s ‘reverse’ racism, I look forward to your next post.
Peter: You might take interest in this analysis of your Times article from a scientist friend of mine.
“I have just read the Times article from 1972, and find it discreditable. Local climates are known to fluctuate on the order of several years and decades, so all the examples given, such as Baffin Island ice thickness and the Midwest’s migration of armadillos don’t mean much. The only global measurement of temperature mentioned in the article states that, ‘Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate …’ Any figure that is ‘at best an estimate’ is not data, and is certainly wrong according to modern knowledge.”
His response reinforces the relevance of 600,000 years of CO2 data gleaned from “An Inconvenient Truth”.
So, who can list a few MAJOR things that OBAMA Or MCCAIN have done for this country over the last FIVE YEARS?
I don’t understand why you ask these questions, bright. A simple google search will find you the answers.
I suggest you read these 2 sites
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
http://www.johnmccain.com/
its the best way to be informed. Read both sites, then read cnn.com ( I am pretty sure it has a search feature there too). then read the fox news site.
nothing to do with issues in this next site, but I think everyone here should read it. peggy noonan is saying stuff right now that we should be listening to.
http://www.peggynoonan.com/article.php?article=435
I do thank you, Anthony, for the Peggy Noonan link. I used to admire her quite a bit but she vanished from my awareness a few years ago. I have to say that I have not been in a commercial flight since the tragic and outrageously terrible events of Septemer 11, 2001, for all the reasons and more that Noonan relates.
Anthony, May I ask why you deflect and divert attention from my simple questions? I know where the Internet is, do you know what your candidates have done for this country in the past five years?
I think you missed the analogy noonan was trying to peg.
hes not my candidate, yet. would you rather get it from the raw source or from someone else’s filtered view?
AP,
Funny, hahaha. I don’t have time to comment on Peg’s article. Or to make pirate jokes right now. Blueberry pancakes are coming up right away.
btw, who is not your candidate yet?
bright, Ralph Nader.
He seems to be as pissed off at the govt as the rest of america
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=ralph%20nader%20bill%20maher&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv#q=ralph%20nader%20bill%20maher&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv&so=1&start=10
Ralph Nader is a great man, (which is why you allow him to keep his name’s capital letters ?). He has run for US President numerous times. He often gets a few votes. A lot of people like him and think he is right in his assertions, however, he never pulls it off. Either the media won’t cover him, or he just doesn’t understand grass roots movements, or he asks too much of the American people. I am not sure why. He doesn’t appear healthy, and his suits seem crumpled and don’t quite fit right, even though they really are good suits, I believe from the way the fabric moves and catches the lights.
He has been called a spoiler, and he does serve a great purpose of speaking truth to the issues, but comes off as an eccentric, and that combination doesn’t work across the board.
that’ all for today, gotta go
Nader’s greatness is revealed here, where Nader comes up short against a dog puppet:
robert smiegol (the guy who does the voice of triumph) is a comic genius.
Peter, I usually respect your comments but Obama stuff is ridiculous — for WEEKS Fox was playing nothing but Ayers and Wright, over and over and over.
Let’s face it, the usual thing is to throw this garbage up and see what sticks: some of it stuck with Obama, some of it didn’t. Some of it sticks with Palin, some doesn’t. Ultimately, NONE of it is why we vote, or don’t, for them.
And the global warming, Good God. It is getting harder and harder to find a scientist employed by anything resembling an accredited university who thinks this is a true controversy. But I suppose that’s because professors are liberal, right?
So I am guessing Obamas radical links don’t matter to most of you. Ok I can live with that, to me they do matter.
It reveals the real Obama. He might be seeking the middle ground now, but he is a leftist radical who wants to put America on the path of socialism.
A system that I was trying to get away from when I came to the US.
On ward and upward then.
Global warming? Yes. Man made. Nope.
Until the hypothesis has been proven I don’t believe it, especially when the very groups proclaiming this are profiting from this.
Jerold I do accept your analysis, but I disagree wiuth your conclusion. Let’s just leave it at that.
Cheers.
Peter, I offer you this:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/A_shot_across_the_bows.html
No, the fact that Obama was on a board with Ayers doesn’t much interest me. The fact that Ayers held an event for Obama in 1995 doesn’t much interest me. People in politics on both sides always find themselves interacting tangentially with some extremists.
I have friends who question evolution and global warming, I’ve had many close friends who regularly used illegal drugs, and I know at least one person who holds a Biblical world view. I’ve exchanged pleasantries with Bob Dole, and Jeffrey Dahmer was my neighbor.
None of those relationships is an accurate reflection of who I am. As noted above, “there is no shortage of mud like this on both sides.”
Obama Nation
Peter, I would also add that the actual, real, already been done radical (in the TRUE sense of the word as a —-a marked change from the usual —not the hackneyed radical = left) changes brought about by George Bush and pals are WAY more concerning to me. Even if Obama were some kind of crazy left-winger (and not only do I not believe he is, but I am acquainted with more than a few people who will not vote for him because they find him a sell-out to true left causes), how do you imagine he could push forward his radical agenda?
I’m disappointed that the youtube link was to Corsi’s widely discredited (by Republicans, not just terrorists) swiftboating book. This guy is widely known as a racist hack. Peter, I think you have to assume not that Obama’s supposed left-wing agenda and terrorist links are unknown to Americans, but that they have heard the case. Some, like you, apparently believe the case. Others, like me, think it’s a load. I think that you are simply missing some information. You think that I am simply missing some information. Neither of us is right: we have each paid attention to the information and make different sense of it. If the best that can be offered here is “dr” Jerome Corsi, I rest easy.
Peter,
Here’s the conservative The Next Right blog on Corsi and his Obama Nation smear:
http://www.thenextright.com/jon-henke/jerome-corsi
If you go to the original blog, and you’ll find links to various supporting materials.
Kiffi- You said, “…I can’t understand how differing beliefs “threaten” your world, unless laws were made that didn’t allow you to THINK or BELIEVE your preference.” I’m sorry my comments gave you the impression that other peoples’ “beliefs” threatened my “beliefs. I don’t think I said that. My concern is about my freedom to express my beliefs. When Biblical passages about the homosexual lifestyle are included in the definition of hate speach, which they are in Canada,
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=794950
then I think I have a case to say the free expression of my beliefs is being threatened. There is pressure on our government to pass similar legislation.
Jerold- I still have a hard time trusting the preponderance of scientific studies you refer to. I may be proven wrong in my mistrust, or I may be proven right. I remember what we as a family went through 9 years ago preparing for Y2K. I did end up with a nice wood stove in my other house, but nothing happened. I have no problem cutting down fuel consumption or finding energy sources that are not carbon based. What I do not believe is that these steps will have any consequence in affecting the climate changes going on, and I do not like long range decisions being made out of fear. I suppose you could use the argument that a mistake is evidence that someone tried to do something. I just wish it was a little more clear what specific measures we should be taking. I am open to consider the argument that we may not have time to do so, though, but I think the media has done more to stir up an emotional reaction in people rather than a reasoned response to whatever is going on.
Anthony- I’m sorry I did not respond to your post #370 sooner. I must have just missed it, or there was some chronological thing with the posting time and when I looked at the stream. I think the “public largesse” Mccauley is refering to is the public treasury, the collected taxes. I don’t believe the deregulation of businesses you refer to is tapping into the largesse (perhaps smallgesse would be a better term, now). Now, the $700+ billion bailout is definitely dipping into this. I suppose it could be argued that the former led to the latter, but I’m not sure this was the intent of the original quote. I don’t have the original context from which the quote was drawn.
John G.: As a computer professional, I knew that Y2K was not a serious threat. I’m sorry that you were duped. As a mindful citizen, I know that the media tends to make stories that draw in advertising dollars. For every story they tell about a plane that crashes, I wish that they’d tell the thousands of stories of planes arriving safely. The media has a profit motive.
However, there isn’t a crack team of scientists telling us that planes will be falling out of the sky even if that’s what the media wants us to think. The scientists by and large agree that temperatures are rising, which will cause increasing problems. Whatever the source, humans, cows, the sun, humans should drastically reduce all the greenhouse gasses that they can.
How can we do that? The easy thing is to consume less oil. We can do that by buying local. I remember once buying frozen veggies from Denmark. I have nothing against the Danes, but when I considered the fuel costs to send their veggies here, I never bought from them again. Drive less. That means take a bike, bus, or walk whenever feasible. Consider a moped. When you’re ready to buy a new car, consider a hybrid or something that uses vegetable oil. I have a hybrid that averages 54 MPG. It’s imperfect, still using gasoline, but it’s hard to complain about that mileage. Some people complain about this, but consider eating fewer cows (assuming that you eat any). Not only do cows produce plenty of greenhouse gasses, but the supporting industry behind them makes plenty too. A vast number of combustion engine tractors are used to grow a vast amount of cattle feed. There was a report from Australia discussing a switch to eating kangaroos, as being preferable to cattle (probably written by vested interests). These are things that individuals can do without much trouble, and I’m sure I’m missing several more. Contacting your state and federal representatives to demand alternative fuels is the next step. Whomever assumes the White House should hear from all Americans demanding that we finally give up our oil addiction.
My fear is that people will think that they can do nothing, so they will do nothing. Preferring to buy from local farms and manufacturers is one good step. The more you can do, the more you can encourage your friends to do, will have an effect.
John : I would ask you to consider this… what if in some future time, the mainstream lifestyle was homosexual, and you were not allowed, either by social custom or law, to follow your preferred heterosexual lifestyle? Can you imagine all that is valuable to you about your committed relationship not being supported by social practice or law?
Your wife could not visit you in the hospital when you were seriously ill in intensive care…
Your wife could not make medical decisions relating to you, although you had had long discussions about your preferences…
You could not legally designate your wife as the closest person to you for the sake of insurance benefits…
And then imagine a society where your heterosexual son is taken from a bar in Laramie , Wyoming … tied to a fence, tortured, and left for days to slowly die…
How would you feel about that? Might you think it was a “hate crime”?
Obama nation wasn’t a reference to whatever book you are referring to, it was my spin on the linked youtube video.
Despite what some of you may think I am not a mindless “Ditto head”. Obama’s connection to radical terrorists are important to me. He is a product of the left wing think tanks in this country. His whole live is that of agitation and leftist radical dogma, that has it’s roots in some of the universities in this country.
You can chose not to believe it, but I have seen this before. Once Obama is POTUS and has the support of the congress and senate he has pretty much a free hand in what he can do.
His platform (and McCain) is nothing more then a compilation of pandering, which we know they can’t pay for.
So what’s left? A radical shift to the left where government will become the nanny state that takes care of everything and in the process will tell what you can or can not do. VERY UN AMERICAN IMHO.
Kiffi,
Aren’t the laws that punish “normal” people not sufficient enough to deal with “hate crime”?
Seems to me that “hate crime” gives preferential” treatment to those that kill homosexuals…in a twisted way.
Murder is murder regardless of the sexual preference of a person and they should be equally punished. The double whammy of hate crime seems a strange concept.
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/971106/justice.shtml
Ayers a guy “just living down the street”…??
John G.,
Thanks for your good posting #380, responding to some of my questions in #371. What you wrote helps me better understand your perspective. Kiffi and others have offered some reactions, so let me add just two.
In reference to global warming, aka climate change: I don’t claim any personal expertise on the subject, as I believe you don’t. And as a convinced skeptic (by vocation and by avocation) myself I’m always in favor of questioning dogmas. And I’m well aware that some legitimate experts question basic tenets of global warming theory — as you doubtless know that the preponderance of expert opinion goes the other way. That’s fair enough: science is not a majority-rules enterprise but a search, often through errors, for better and better approximations to the truth.
So much said, I’ll confess that, rightly or wrongly, my skepticism meter rises around scientific opinions from people who appear to deny fundamental scientific principles, like basic evolutionary theory, for which the concrete evidence is abundant and overwhelming. It’s possible, of course, to be right about one thing and wrong about another, and I’d like to think I’ve been in that position myself.
In reference to gay rights and associated issues: I respect your desire not to be demonized for sincerely held views, even if others find them mistaken. But I think that the most important question for many gays and their friends has less to do with attitudes and opinions like yours (or mine, for that matter) than it does with practical, concrete, on-the-ground laws and policies on such things as adoption, marriage or civil unions, etc. So it seems fair to me that those who disapprove of gay rights and lifestyles should also be aware that their views—and concrete laws and policies driven by those views—can be genuinely hurtful, sometimes in practical ways, to the human objects of their disapprobation.
Is it OK for ministers to endorse candidates from the pulpit? Is the issue really about church/state separation, tax exemption, freedom of speech, or some combo thereof?
What do y’all think about this story?
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/30456179.html?elr=KArksUUUU
Every citizen in this country has the right to his or her opinion.
The sub story to your article is more disturbing. Again this issue is being made in to a christian right issue, while ignoring the fact that Obama has the same support.
And some of you think I am paranoid about the press…..LOL
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/DN-blackchurches_05pol.ART.State.Edition1.26a340a.html
The Star Tribune is just another leftist publication….why do they ignore this..
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080829/COL10/808290318
Paul: It’s OK for ministers to endorse candidates so long as it’s not part of an IRS Code 501(c)(3) organization. If the minister is speaking for his church, and if the church is 501(c)(3) tax exempt, the IRS should investigate.
501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from making endorsements on elections (for or against). They may, however, endorse someone who seeks an appointment (i.e., no vote). Along with federal tax violations, the church may have violated Minnesota tax laws.
Which begs me to ask, shouldn’t a law abiding church find legal ways to express their opinions? The church could inform its members of the abortion voting records of all the candidates, without saying which candidate they endorse. So long as the information is objective and presented in a neutral way, the church is not violating tax law.
Paul, it’s a great question. One of the ten commandments states, “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. I come from a Catholic background, but have closely associated myself and learned from various other denominations, none Christian. Although there was this one tv preacher I used to see in Tulsa, who spent a lot of time talking about the meaning of biblical terms. Like he would explain that the “eye of the needle” is not about a sewing needle, but about a entryway into a town that any man on any camel could ride through. It was a reference to how easy it was to get to heaven.
However, the rest of the Christians I have seen on tv all holler. I won’t be hollered at. I didn’t grow up that way. So I never spent any time with them. I don’t even know if that’s what the evangelists do in church, minus the tv.
That all being said, it’s wrong to kill. Yes, it is wrong to kill a life within a womb, and it is wrong to kill a woman who is trying to have an illegal abortion. Killing is wrong unless you are defending life without setting up the situation to make the killing look like defense.
But, also to the point, is that we must not muzzle our religious leaders, con men, or con women, unless they are breaking the existing laws. We must preserve our freedom of speech laws. And I hope that people come to know that if they really want change, they must look into their own hearts and souls. We can no longer rely on authority figures in any field. We have made it too easy for them to lead us around by our fears and dependencies.
We are turning on each other, and that is how they get us, a house divided will fall every time.
Stand up, America. Stand up and be responsible for your own lives, give up things that make for a dysfunctional life, and give freely to those who have less than you do, through no fault of their own. That is where real blessings and the truly fulfilled life comes from. Thou Shalt Not Kill also refers to you killing yourselves with too much of this and too much of that.
If you don’t want to support a churches with your taxes, I think that is fine, too. Charity will happen one way or the other, as it has done in the past without taxes. We have so little say over what happens to our money, that this would be the least of my concerns right now.
Please don’t bombard me with how I don’t care and I am all this other stuff I didn’t say or mean. Filter your projections a little…I am not the bad guy or gal here.
Paul,
As Jerold said, it is absolutely fine for churches to take a partisan political stand. However, they can’t remain tax-exempt organizations under IRS Code 501(c)(3) if they do so.
Of course – given the current plurality of conservative activist judges on the Supreme Court – that law may be changed. Which is the whole point of this exercise.
Revising my previous post in order to not misrepresent Jerold’s statement…
Paul,
It is absolutely fine for churches to take a partisan political stand. However, as Jerold said, they can’t remain tax-exempt organizations under IRS Code 501(c)(3) if they do so.
Of course – given the current plurality of conservative activist judges on the Supreme Court – that law may be changed. Which is the whole point of this exercise.
Peter,
You’ll be glad to know that the media is covering McCain’s concerns about Barack Obama. Anyway, here’s one of Time’s bloggers (i.e., from the opinion section of the magazine, not the news section) on the new McCain speech:
Okay, so he’s not buying the line of attack. Still, he did post some of McCain’s speech (the rest was posted elsewhere) – and it looks like McCain’s taking your advice on how to attack Obama:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/mccains_manchurian_candidate_a.html
Do you think this new line of attack will work?
Patrick: Subtle correction. 501(c)(3) organizations can remain tax exempt and be “partisan” if the matter is not related to voting. If a Democrat or Republican is being considered for a governmental appointment, it does not violate tax law for a 501(c)(3) to try to support or foul the appointment.
Agreeing with you, if there is going to be a vote, a 501(c)(3) can be involved in a non-partisan way. I gave an example of this by a church providing its members with the abortion voting records of candidates, presented in an objective and neutral way. This form of tacit partisanship is OK — but it must be exceedingly tacit.
Of course you revealed the most important aspect, whether the IRS will investigate based on their workload and the political climate.
Peter,
Ugh. Tax law. I’ll be glad to let you read it and summarize it for me.
Still, you give me too much credit:
Actually, I didn’t bring that up, but it is important. In this case, though – if I understand the point of this exercise correctly – the churches in question actually want to be investigated/charged (or whatever the term would be for an IRS action against them), with the hope that the law will ultimately be struck down by the Supreme Court.
As for selective prosecution/investigation, I really hope that’s something we will see less of (preferably none of) in the future. The systematic politicization of the Justice Dept over the last several years (I know little about the IRS however) will complicate that. Barack Obama has a strong background in the law, so I hope he will work hard to restore the independence of the Justice Dept., and not use it as a tool for his own political ends.
Sorry Jerold (and Peter),
Obviously, that last post should’ve been addressed to Jerold.
Patrick: I paid special attention to nonprofit tax law in my law school days. The rule I remember is that tax-exempt organizations should stay away from elections unless they know the nuances. Land mines in tax-exempt tax law are the rule, not the exception.
It’s a hard road to take, violating the law and then hoping for a favorable decision in the courts. A church risks a great deal to take that route. It’s much safer for members of tax-exempt organizations to petition the government for that change. I would be surprised if even a right-wing court or IRS (which I am not alleging is the case) would want that, because it would flood the election process with very influential dollars at a time when everyone seems to want dollars to have less influence in elections. The church’s tact from the article might be ignorance of the law, or indifference, thinking that the IRS is too busy to investigate them or there are so many violators that they have good chances not to be the martyr.
As far as I know, the IRS has been more critical of 501(c)(3) organizations only as it relates to sending money to “terrorist” organizations. I haven’t heard of any other policy change in the IRS, though I admit that I might be the last to know about a policy change anyway.
Patrick: No worries. So long as on election day, if you intend to vote for me, don’t write in “Peter”.
Peter,
McCain is now asking the question, “Who is the real Barack Obama?”
At least one of his followers has a simple answer: “Terrorist!”
The crowd laughs. McCain does not dispute it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buyVS9fRqkw
Scary.
Jerold,
I won’t be writing anyone in for Council. That decision is easy. (At least I don’t think I will – we’re not using Diebold, are we?)
As for the second half of that difficult voting decision: I look forward to the candidates’ forum.
Obama is no terrorist and McCain is obviously getting desperate.
It shouldn’t be him asking the question anyway.
Why hasn’t the press done it’s job on this? We know just about every little detail on Palins life, we should have the same level of investigation on Obama.
Especially since his finger will be on the trigger soon.
Wouldn’t you want to know?
I don’t understand why politicians have such a hard time with the truth. If Obama would have come out and said, yeah I know the guy I used to believe in his nonsense, but then I grew up……this discussion would be over.
Instead he get caught up in double talk and half truths. remember when Clinton was asked about smoking pot?
All he had to say…yes I tried it and I didn;t like it. Instead he thought we were stupid and said ” I didn’t inhale”???? Oh Please.
I wonder when Obama wins Ohio (or any other state) in a tight vote, if the Diebold issue still will be alive or just fade away….LOL
Peter, you wrote:
We do. Thanks to the due diligence of the media, I know more about Obama’s neighbors, church, schooling, and tangential social contacts than I know about most people.
Because there is no evidence to suggest that Barack Obama has ever believed such things. And given a lack of contradictory evidence, I give people the benefit of the doubt by judging them by what they say, and what they do. Not by who they’ve been peripherally associated with.
If there’s one thing that’s pretty clear about Barack Obama, it is that he is actually pretty conventional in his perspective. (Conventional Democrat, of course.) I hope – and expect – that what we’ll get with Barack Obama as President is steady, competent, moderate-to-liberal government, with an ongoing effort to play to the center throughout his Presidency.
I couldn’t hope for anything better – except perhaps a Socialist revolution. 😉
(FYI Peter: that’s a joke.)
This is from the GOP website, but it provides enough sources for you to cross check.
I have done sometimes questionable things in my past,…..why just not admit to it?
———————————————————–
The Obama Ayers Relationship
The Relationship Between Barack Obama And Bill Ayers Is Much More Extensive Than Obama’s Campaign Is Willing To Admit
Obama’s Top Campaign Staff Have Attempted To Downplay The Relationship Between Obama And Bill Ayers:
Obama Spokesman Robert Gibbs Said That Obama And Ayers Weren’t Close And That Obama Was Only 8 Years Old When Ayers Was Bombing Buildings. Robert Gibbs: “If you read the article … it says these two men weren’t close, this man isn’t involved in our campaign. Bill Ayers is somebody that Barack Obama said his actions were despicable and these happened when Barack Obama was 8 years old.” (FOX News’ “FOX & Friends,” 10/6/08)
Gibbs Has Also Limited The Relationship Between Obama And Ayers To Serving On Two Boards Together. John Roberts: “Barack Obama knew Bill Ayers and had contact with him between 1995 and 2005. Exactly what was the nature of the relationship?” Robert Gibbs: “Well, John, as The New York Times reported this weekend, they served on two boards together during that time period.” (CNN’s “American Morning,” 10/6/08)
Even Obama Has Previously Referred To Ayers As “A Guy Who Lives In My Neighborhood” And Not Someone He Exchanges Ideas With “On A Regular Basis.” Obama: “George, but this is an example of what I’m talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense, George.” (Sen. Barack Obama, ABC Democrat Candidates Presidential Debate, Philadelphia, PA, 4/16/08)
But Obama’s Connections With Bill Ayers Are Much More Extensive Than He Or His Campaign Staff Is Willing To Admit:
In 1995, During Obama’s First State Senate Campaign, William Ayers And Wife Bernadine Dohrn Hosted A Meeting Of Chicago Liberals At Their Home For Obama, Which One Attendee Said Was Aimed At “Launching Him.” “In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement. … ‘I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,’ said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the info rmal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. ‘[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.’ … Dr. Young and another guest, Maria Warren, described it similarly: as an introduction to Hyde Park liberals of the handpicked successor to Palmer, a well-regarded figure on the left. ‘When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn,’ Warren wrote on her blog in 2005. ‘They were launching him — introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.'” (Ben Smith, “Obama Once Visited ’60s Radicals,” The Politico, 1/22/08)
From March Of 1995 Until September Of 1997, Obama And Ayers Attended At Least Seven Meetings Together Relating To The Chicago Annenberg Challenge. (Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Board Of Directors Meeting, Minutes Of The Board, 3/15/95, 3/31/95, 4/13/95, 6/5/95, 9/30/97; National Annenberg Challenge Evaluation Meeting, List Of Participants, 5/24/95; Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Chicago School Reform Collaborative Meeting, Minutes, 10/23/96)
NOTE: Bill Ayers Was Asked To Help Obama Formulate The Chicago Annenberg Challenge By-Laws. (Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board Of Directors Minutes, 3/15/95)
In 1997, Obama Praised Ayers’ Book On The Juvenile Justice System. “The two men were involved in efforts to reform the city’s education system. They appeared together on academic panels, including one organized by Michelle Obama to discuss the juvenile justice system, an area of mutual concern. Mr. Ayers’s book on the subject won a rave review in The Chicago Tribune by Mr. Obama, who called it ‘a searing and timely account.'” (Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, “Pragmatic Politics, Forged On The South Side,” The New York Times, 5/11/08)
Obama On William Ayers’ “A Kind And Just Parent: The Children Of Juvenile Court”: “A searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair.” (Chicago Tribune, 12/21/97)
“[Obama And Ayers] Have Also Appeared Jointly On Two Academic Panels, One In 1997 And Another In 2001.” (Russell Berman, “Obama’s Ties To Left Come Under Scrutiny,” The New York Sun, 2/19/08)
From 1999 To 2002, Obama Served With Ayers On The Board Of Directors For Woods Fund Of Chicago. “[Ayers] served with [Obama] from 1999 to 2002 on the board of the Woods Fund, an anti-poverty group.” (Timothy J. Burger, “Obama’s Chicago Ties Might Fuel ‘Republican Attack Machine’,” Bloomberg, 2/15/08)
During The Time Obama And Ayers Served Together On The Woods Fund, Ayers Was Quoted Saying “I Don’t Regret Setting Bombs … I Feel We Didn’t Do Enough.” “‘I don’t regret setting bombs,’ Bill Ayers said. ‘I feel we didn’t do enough.’ Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970’s as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago.” (Dinitia Smith, “No Regrets For A Love Of Explosives,” The New York Times, 9/11/01)
NOTE: Obama, Born August 14th, 1961, Was 40 Years Old When Ayers Was Quoted. (Obama For America Website, http://www.barackobama.com, Accessed 10/6/08; Dinitia Smith, “No Regrets For A Love Of Explosives,” The New York Times, 9/11/01)
While Obama And Ayers Were Serving On The Woods Fund Together, Ayers Posed Standing On An American Flag For An Article In Chicago Magazine Entitled “No Regrets.” (Marcia Froelke Coburn, “No Regrets,” Chicago Magazine, 8/01)
Obama And Ayers Are Neighbors In Chicago’s Hyde Park Neighborhood. “Twenty-six years later, at a lunchtime meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper, Barack Obama met Mr. Ayers, by then an education professor. Their paths have crossed sporadically since then, at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obama’s first run for office, on the schools project and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors.” (Scott Shane, “Obama And ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” The New York Times, 10/4/08)
Obama Spokesman Ben LaBolt Told The New York Times That Last Year Obama And Ayers “Bumped Into Each Other On The Street In Hyde Park.” “[Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt] said they have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States Senate in January 2005 and last met more than a year ago when they bumped into each other on the street in Hyde Park.” (Scott Shane, “Obama And ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” The New York Times, 10/4/08)
Neighbors Have Said “It’s Only Natural” That Obama Would Know Ayers, Who Often Opens His Home For Gatherings, As Obama And His Wife “Are A Part Of Our Neighborhood And Part Of Our Social Circle.” “Since coming out of hiding in 1980, the couple have raised three boys in Chicago and become part of the fabric of their liberal South Side neighborhood. Neighbors said it’s only natural that Obama would know Ayers and Dohrn, who often open their homes for gatherings filled with lively discussions about politics, arts and social issues. Obama and his wife ‘are part of our neighborhood and part of our social circle,’ said Elizabeth Chandler, a neighbor of Ayers’.” (Trevor Jensen, Robert Mitchum and Mary Owen, “Bill Ayers’ Turbulent Past Contrasts With Quiet Academ ic Life,” Chicago Tribune, 4/17/08)
Ayers’ Organization, The Weather Underground, Was A “Violent Left-Wing Activist Group”:
“William Ayers … [Was] A Founding Member Of The Group That Bombed The U.S. Capitol And The Pentagon During The 1970s.” (Russell Berman, “Obama’s Ties To Left Come Under Scrutiny,” The New York Sun, 2/19/08)
Ayers’ Group, The Weather Underground, Is A “Violent Left-Wing Activist Group.” “Senator Obama’s ties to a former leader of the violent left-wing activist group the Weather Underground are drawing new scrutiny as he battles Senator Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.” (Russell Berman, “Obama’s Ties To Left Come Under Scrutiny,” The New York Sun, 2/19/08)
The Weather Underground Produced A Manual Which Begins, “We Are A Guerrilla Organization. We Are Communist Women And Men, Underground In The United States For More Than Four Years.” “The coalition was said to be a violence-prone faction inspired by the Weather Underground’s ”Prairie Fire,” a guerrilla warfare manual published in 1974. The manual begins, ‘We are a guerrilla organization. We are Communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years.'” (Paul L. Montgomery, “2 Women In Brink’s Case Identified With Weathermen From Start In ’69,” The New York Times, 10/ 22/81)
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/crl-testimony-acorns-voter-fraud/story.aspx?guid={573B31D0-6AB7-4353-B8E7-91300F4DFF81}&dist=hppr
…and of course there is Acorn.
Who btw just won a federal court ruling allowing same day voter registrations in early voting…..must be Diebold.
Peter,
All of that has been covered in the news already. All it shows is that Obama and Ayers moved in the same political community. That is: guilt by association.
Which part of that demonstrates that Obama has bad ideas or secret plans?
Peter wrote,
Good for Acorn. We have similar sensible policies here in Minnesota.
In 2004, I walked into the Rochester City Hall, registered to vote, and filled out an absentee ballot.
Jerold- I made this comment above, “…I have no problem cutting down fuel consumption or finding energy sources that are not carbon based. What I do not believe is that these steps will have any consequence in affecting the climate changes going on…”, and I believe that good stewardship is appropose. In that we are carbon based beings, it seems our dependence upon carbon based food and fuel just follows. In my opinion, one of the results of the industrial revolution is our drift toward consumerism rather than self sufficency. I remember growing up on a small farm that was yet large enough to produce enough food for us to eat and still have some to sell allowing us to buy those products we could not produce ourselves. We did not use manmade fertilizers, but through what the cattle produced and good crop rotation, we had good yields. It would be great to be able to return to that simplicity of life, and, perhaps with the events in out economy right now, we may be forced to return to that level. Time will tell, I suppose. In the mean time, any way one could choose to reverse this pattern in their own lives will certainly not be detrimental. My question is whether it is possible to reverse the climactic changes just by all of us adjusting our lifestyle? I haven’t seen any good observable data to support this theory of reversing climate change. I may have missed it, but I haven’t seen it.
Kiffi- I think you missed my comment above, “…What I have experienced in responses to my questions has been the opinion that I must be a homo-phobe and steeped in hatred of the lifestyle. What I hear in the unspoken inferences is that if I were not this, then I would have no reason to question homosexuality…” Do you believe me when I say my opposition to homosexuality is not based in hatred? Are you suggesting that Christianity is somehow responsible for all the hate crimes commited against gays? Do you consider the scriptural admonitions about homosexuality hate speech?Just wondering.
As far as the hatred you talk about being acted out in your post, this type of treatment is common today in about every Islamic country. If you do a little investigation, I think you will find that homosexuals and Christians are treated with equal contempt. It is only in America that I could ever have the freedom to speak openly like this without fear of retribution. I would hope that my grandchildren would have the same freedoms extended to their generation. If I don’t take action in my time, they will not have them.
John G.: My observations based on the order of your post (#446)…
1. We’re about 18% carbon, so carbon-based food is important, but I don’t know how that relates to our reliance on carbon-based fuel.
2. It will take a large number of people to reverse the effect of the last several generations, but we can do it. Last I checked, the top two sources of greenhouse gas are combustion engines and cows. The cumulative effect of a large number of Americans switching to non-combustion (or extremely high efficiency) cars and eating fewer cows would predictably reduce America’s greenhouse gas production. It is very hard to make these changes on a large scale, which makes it all the more important for people who believe the data to take these steps. As more people make these changes, the more “normal” these changes are to society, and the more accepted they become. I have an all-electric scooter (“Skeuter” brand) at my old home. As soon as I can get it shipped to Northfield, I’ll be buzzing around the city using 20 cents of electricity every 40 miles. Every bit helps.
Patrick…..Acorn has several court rulings against them for voter fraud…just google it I am too lazy.
Further Acorn is on the receiving end of some of the bailout money…..
Jerold,
I will look for you on a scooter in January 🙂
Peter wrote,
Me too.
Peter: I read your post #442, regarding Obama and Ayers, with considerable alarm. Articles like the one you posted have no evidence of Obama’s intentions being anything kin to the Weather Underground’s, and articles like these are the favored material for character assassinations because of the vast free speech protections of journalism.
I have crossed paths with women’s activist Tammy Bruce, but that does not make me a lesbian. I have crossed paths with illusionist James Randi, but that does not make me a magician. I have crossed paths with you, and I’m unchanged. Your analysis suggests that all of Northfield’s city council has some culpability of Mayor Lansing’s ethical violations, because they served together for nearly 2 or 4 years.
I have no doubt that Ayers has political interests on the left side of the spectrum, and I have no doubt the same for Obama. They are both politically active in the same region. Of course, they would run in the same circles, but to infer that Obama has a criminal or terrorist agenda because of Ayers being politically active in the same neighborhood is a terrorizing verdict of guilt by association.
If you have a grudge against Obama, that’s your prerogative. Insinuating that he has past or present criminal or terrorist motives is not consistent with the evidence, and it saddens me that you perpetuate these insinuations.
Warning: Thread drift comment (in response to earlier thread drift):
JohnG (446): You write, “this type of treatment is common today in about every Islamic country. If you do a little investigation, I think you will find that homosexuals and Christians are treated with equal contempt.”
I don’t know where you get this information. I have known people (Christians) who have traveled in the Palestinian areas of the Holy Land, and others who have traveled in Turkey, Pakistan and Indonesia (majority Muslim), and their experience has been very different. In some countries, there are internal struggles, granted. In some, homosexuals are certainly persecuted.
But since when should the most extreme actions of certain Mulsim nations become the moral yardstick by which Christians measure their own actions? Just because Muslims do it, does that help make it OK? JohnG, I don’t get your point. So some Muslims and Muslim nations do it, and in the US we have freedom of speech — I don’t follow.
PaulZ, JeroldF & Patrick: Regarding preachers, endorsements and the IRS, we should realize that the IRS claims they don’t even have enough staff to go after much of the tax fraud that they claim would bring in extra millions. Realistically, churches and ministers will not be investigated anytime soon, not before the election.
I think it was Napoleon who once said something to the effect that you don’t have to lie forever, or have your lies believed forever; just until it doesn’t matter anymore.
Patrick (re: your post of October 6 at 7:36 p.m.):
Same-day registration, at least the way it works in Minnesota, opens the door to vote fraud in several ways. Here are a few of them:
1. A voter can vote in his or her home state by absentee ballot and vote again in Minnesota on election day. There’s no system in place for cross-checking between states, so detection is unlikely. This one works especially well for college students, who meet the criteria for voting in their home state as well as in the state in which they attend school. (They’re free to choose to vote in either state, but not both.)
2. A voter could vote in a nearby state in the morning, and come to Minnesota and vote again in the afternoon. Again, detection would be unlikely.
3. A voter could vote in more than one precinct in Minnesota. The rolls are eventually checked, and when duplicate entries are found, such voters could be charged, but I’m not aware that the state bothers with this. They usually just note problems on the rolls for next time. And anyway, there’s no way to “unvote” such a voter in the excess precincts.
4. Foreign nationals can vote and have their votes counted. They have to lie by checking the box at the top of the form to indicate that they’re U.S. citizens, and they have to fill in four digits and claim them as the last four digits of their social security numbers, but if they’re willing to do that, they can vote, and can’t be “unvoted” even if they’re eventually found out, which again is unlikely.
These are just some of the better known ways to beat the system. Anybody so inclined already knows about them, so I don’t think I’m giving anything away by mentioning them here. As long as a multi-voter says the right things (and refrains from saying the wrong things) when registering, there’s no way to stop them on the spot from breaking the law. It’s basically an honor system.
Jerold,
I don’t know where I ever insinuated that Obama was a terrorist. I was merely examining his personal connections.
I think it speaks to a mans character as to what people he surrounds himself with. I am pretty certain that you didn’t have the same type of relationship, that Obama has/had with Ayers or Wright, in your dealings with whomever you cited.
Obama is as far left in the spectrum as one can get without being a communist. This in combination with his personal relationships are enough for me to get my attention. From there to call him a terrorist is a bit of stretch even for me.
If Mccain would have similar ties to any right wing groups i would be as vigilant.
My core belief is that I know better then anybody in government what’s best for me and my family. I don’t need a bureaucrat to tell me what to do with my life, thank you.
Obama stands for what I was trying to escape its called government involvement and socialism and McCain only differs in shades. Neither one of them has my best interest in mind…and if you think about they neither have yours, unless of course you work for the government.
Scott,
Foolishly enough I thought that your post was common knowledge.
Thanks for the enlightenment.
Chalmers Johnson reflects at TomDispatch.com about how there have been only two major elections of realignment since Lincoln: FDR (which ended what had been a period of mostly Republican government in the US since Lincoln) and Nixon (which ended the period of mostly Democratic government since FDR).
http://tomdispatch.com/post/174987/chalmers_johnson_the_ultimate_election
Voting the Fate of the Nation
Will Economic Meltdown, Race, or Regional Loyalty Be the Trump Card in Election 2008?
By Chalmers Johnson
(published 10-7)
Some clips:
….
Such a development, however, is extremely rare and surrounded by contingencies normally beyond the control of the advocates of reform. So let me speculate about whether the 2008 election might set in motion a political reconfiguration — and even a political renaissance — in the United States, restoring a modicum of democracy to the country’s political system, while ending our march toward imperialism, perpetual warfare, and bankruptcy that began with the Cold War.
The political blunders, serious mistakes, and governmental failures of the last eight years so discredited the administration of George W. Bush — his average approval rating has fallen to 27% and some polls now show him dipping into the low twenties — that his name was barely mentioned in the major speeches at the Republican convention. Even John McCain has chosen to run under the banner of “maverick” as a candidate of “change,” despite the fact that his own party’s misgoverning has elicited those demands for change.
Bringing the opposition party to power, however, is not in itself likely to restore the American republic to good working order. It is almost inconceivable that any president could stand up to the overwhelming pressures of the military-industrial complex, as well as the extra-constitutional powers of the 16 intelligence agencies that make up the U.S. Intelligence Community, and the entrenched interests they represent. The subversive influence of the imperial presidency (and vice presidency), the vast expansion of official secrecy and of the police and spying powers of the state, the institution of a second Defense Department in the form of the Department of Homeland Security, and the irrational commitments of American imperialism (761 active military bases in 151 foreign countries as of 2008) will not easily be rolled back by the normal workings of the political system.
For even a possibility of that occurring, the vote in November would have to result in a “realigning election,” of which there have been only two during the past century — the election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 and of Richard Nixon in 1968. Until 1932, the Republicans had controlled the presidency for 56 of the previous 72 years, beginning with Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860. After 1932, the Democrats occupied the White House for 28 of the next 36 years.
….
Of these two realigning elections, the Roosevelt election is certainly the more important for our moment, ushering in as it did one of the few truly democratic periods in American political history. In his new book, Democracy Incorporated, Princeton political theorist Sheldon Wolin suggests the following: “Democracy is about the conditions that make it possible for ordinary people to better their lives by becoming political beings and by making power responsive to their hopes and needs.”
However, the founders of this country and virtually all subsequent political leaders have been hostile to democracy in this sense. They favored checks and balances, republicanism, and rule by elites rather than rule by the common man or woman. Wolin writes, “The American political system was not born a democracy, but born with a bias against democracy. It was constructed by those who were either skeptical about democracy or hostile to it. Democratic advance proved to be slow, uphill, forever incomplete.
….
Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal introduced a brief period of approximate democracy. This ended with the U.S. entry into World War II, when the New Deal was replaced by a wartime economy based on munitions manufacture and the support of weapons producers. This development had a powerful effect on the American political psyche, since only war production ultimately overcame the conditions of the Great Depression and restored full employment. Ever since that time, the United States has experimented with maintaining a military economy and a civilian economy simultaneously. Over time, this has had the effect of misallocating vital resources away from investment and consumption, while sapping the country’s international competitiveness.
Socioeconomic conditions in 2008 bear a certain resemblance to those of 1932, making a realigning election conceivable. Unemployment in 1932 was a record 33%. In the fall of 2008, the rate is a much lower 6.1%, but other severe economic pressures abound. These include massive mortgage foreclosures, bank and investment house failures, rapid inflation in the prices of food and fuel, the failure of the health care system to deliver service to all citizens, a growing global-warming environmental catastrophe due to the over-consumption of fossil fuels, continuing costly military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, with more on the horizon due to foreign policy failures (in Georgia, Ukraine, Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, Pakistan, and elsewhere), and record-setting budgetary and trade deficits.
The question is: Can the electorate be mobilized, as in 1932, and will this indeed lead to a realigning election? The answer to neither question is an unambiguous yes.
….
………………………….
Johnson goes on to consider “The Race Factor” and “The Regional Factor,” and then “Why This Might Still Be a Turning-Point Election.” The whole article is worth a look.
Scott and Peter,
The problem with your criticism of Minnesota’s voting system is that you haven’t shown that same-day voting is leading to abuse.
A quick google of “Minnesota voter fraud” only came up with lots of right-wing (and HRC) concern about the potential for fraud, and one actual instance of fraud in 2002, which was being prosecuted:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/771022/posts
Jerold F.- Your scooter sounds like a good deal, but not for my trip to Lakeville in January. I would add that until you can get your battery charged with all the electricity coming from a renewable energy source, such as solar or wind, most of it still comes from some carbon based fuel. Just a question, I know that photo-voltaic panels convert sunlight directly into electrical energy. What is the base for these chemicals? If they are carbon based, then I question how much edvantage it actually provides. I won’t touch on nuclear as a source. Although it is not carbon based, it is not renewable and definitely not waste free.
Paul F.- Thanks for pointing out an error in my editing when I said, “…about every Islamic country…” That is not an accurate statement, and I thought I had corrected it to read, “many Islamic countries.” My point here is that hatred and extremism relative to homosexuality is not a Christian phenominon. In fact, it is not Christian at all. Hatred and violence are a characteristic of the old nature. The hope that my walk with God has given me is the victory over this old nature. My freedom to live this faith is important to me, and I want to see that passed on to my children and grandchildren. I will expose and oppose anything that I percieve as a threat to this freedom.
Patrick (re: your post of October 7 at 11:59 a.m.): You’ve essentially restated my point, but I don’t think you’re drawing the same conclusions as I do. You say that you’ve only found one case being prosecuted (although it actually involves 95 people, so you could call it 95 instances in one precinct alone). My point was that there’s no system in place for uncovering and prosecuting vote fraud of the types I listed, and that the state is reluctant to prosecute anyway. I’m guessing that you see the lack of prosecutions as evidence that the fraud isn’t happening. I’m not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. Just hypothetically, what sort of evidence would you need to be convinced that fraud is a real problem?
If fraud is taking place on a large scale in individual precincts, it would be possible to uncover some evidence of it using publicly available information. It would involve a “fishing expedition,” so to speak, but if you know the weaknesses of the system, and the community in question, it shouldn’t be too hard; you’d have a head start on where to look. If anyone’s interested in looking at the 2004 and 2006 elections, and can volunteer a few hours a week, let me know.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=275242
John G.: Battery power can come from fossil (carbon-based) fuel, solar (including wind and hydro-), or nuclear. Assuming it comes from fossil fuels, it is tremendously more efficient to control one power station than to control millions of small combustion engines in private cars. Even in this imperfect instance, it will reduce carbon emissions. If Northfield and our neighbors invest in solar-related power, it would be that much better.
I understand that a 40-mile charge won’t suffice for your distant trips. If, however, you add up all of your local trips and use electricity instead, I predict that you’ll find a great savings in fuel costs and you’ll cause much less pollution. And as I stated earlier, when your friends and neighbors see you jetting around on an all-electric scooter, they might be inspired to do the same.
The best fuel, of course, would be muscle power. Don’t let my suggestion of electrical power trump your bicycle and pedestrian fancies.
Speaking of ACORN
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93LPR783&show_article=1
Scott wrote,
I see the lack of prosecutions as a lack of evidence that fraud is happening.
Let me know if you find evidence that fraudulent ballots are being cast in Minnesota.
Patrick (re: your post of October 7 at 2:33 p.m.): You wrote,
Again, I’m not sure exactly what sort of evidence you want. There are some well-known examples. Kathleen Soliah, when she was a fugitive, voted a few times using the alias “Sarah Jane Olson,” but she was never prosecuted for it as far as I know. And that was the least of her worries, so who really cares. I’m assuming you’re looking for more dramatic evidence than that.
If you’re only willing to accept prosecutions, I’m afraid you’re out of luck. I could come up with a few examples in this state, but not so many that would account for enough votes to throw an election. But I still don’t see how you jump from “not many prosecutions” to “not happening.” Would you be willing to take a couple of minutes to explain it? Or are you not saying that? I still don’t get it, really.
Here’s an example of a girl who got caught voting twice:
Here’s a link to the source:
http://indee.info/BRIEFS/06/10OCT/10oct16-31.html#KREMa
Her problem was that she voted twice in the same state, and also that the people in Winona were up in arms that year about a property tax increase that narrowly passed.
Here’s an article about people whose immigration status is such that they’re not eligible to vote but who nevertheless vote anyway in U.S. elections and the difficulties in preventing it:
Illegal Immigrants Are Voting in American Elections
This article also mentions a few individual cases of people who did get caught.
Scott, you wrote,
Scott,
I’m just saying that I don’t see any evidence that voter fraud is happening in Minnesota. I understand the theoretical risk that someone could vote fraudulently. However, the punishment for fraudulent voting by an individual is great, while the potential benefit to that individual is small. Therefore, I believe there are already significant disincentives to prevent it from happening.
Your mentioning of the ex-fugitive is one piece of evidence that at least one person has voted fraudulently. Of course, she is now being punished for her crimes in general, if not this one in particular. If there are many other such examples – especially ones of fraudulent voting without consequence – that would constitute evidence that our current system needs revision.
This just in from Bizarro World:
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081007/NEWS0206/81007055
patrick:
republicans are really good at taking their weaknesses and projecting them on their opponents. I heard a surrogate today call obama a liar….
Scott and Patrick: Voter fraud should be resisted. It exploits the democratic principle of one vote per person. I assume that voter fraud occurs in Minnesota, and in all states, even without prosecutions.
However, voter fraud pales in comparison to the danger of election fraud. I imagine there is a rare instance when voter fraud will change the outcome of an election, like the story where 90 people were registered in a town of 133 population. I’m glad that was caught. Nonetheless, I’d rather the focus of the government, and the citizens, be on election fraud.
In so many words, I’d rather have a relatively few voters exploit democracy than have special interests thwart it.
There is an interesting assessment of voter fraud allegations at
http://www.demos-usa.org/pubs/EDR%20VF.pdf
It includes an update on the Jake’s Gentlemen’s Club Coates case, from March 14, 2007:
“Dakota County Attorney James C. Backstrom announced today that a Dakota County jury has found Richard Jacobson, age 36, formerly of Prescott, Wisconsin, not guilty of Conspiracy to Procure Unlawful Voting and Conspiracy to Commit Forgery, both felonies, in connection with a scheme to have 93 patrons, employees and other persons solicited elsewhere register to vote falsely in a 2002 election in the city of Coates, listing the strip club as their residence.”
Demos.org appears to be a combination think tank and advocacy group. My guess is it leans slightly to the left of the American Enterprise Institute….
Jerold (re: your post of October 7 at 6:42 p.m.): What do you mean by election fraud? Do you mean like a rigged election or something (e.g., where a candidate has all of his opponents kicked off the ballot)? If you’re talking about Illinois, there were lawyers involved, so it was probably actually legal, even though some people didn’t like it. Or do you mean something else?
Scott: For simplicity, you may choose to reference posts by the gray number at its lower right.
Voter fraud is when the voter fouls the system, such as by voting twice. Election fraud is when any one else fouls the system, such as the allegations of disenfranchising predominately Democratic voters in Florida in 2000, and the allegations of inaccurate electronic election machines in Ohio in 2004. The list of alleged election fraud from the past two presidential elections is rather long.
That’s why election fraud should be scrutinized much more than voter fraud. If Abigail Anne-Mariee Kremer votes twice in the same election, chances are slim that she will have an effect. Chances are not as slim, but still rather small, if hundreds of aliens vote who are spread across a state. If hundreds of voters are unlawfully turned away from a single poll, or if electronic voting machines are defective (perhaps intentionally so), then the chances of a fouled election are much greater.
There are many credible election fraud articles on the internet. This article states that the Republicans prevented 350,000 Ohio residents from voting in the 2004 election:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
Consider this excerpt from the article: “A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states, was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.”
So I think it’s fine and good to complain about voter fraud unless election fraud is overlooked in the process.
Patrick (re: your post of October 7 at 5:19 p.m.): I can offer one piece of indirect evidence of a pattern of vote fraud in Minnesota related to same-day registration; at least I think it points to some kind of a problem with the system as it is now.
When you register to vote on election day, you fill out a form and then vote; your vote counts, no matter what happens later. Shortly after election day, postcards are mailed to everyone who registered at the polls. When you receive one, you don’t have to do anything with it; it just means you’re registered, and that you’ll be on the rolls for the next election. But if the letter carrier can’t deliver the card–if the address is for a vacant lot or an abandoned building, for example–the post office returns the card to the county. Then, when the list is printed out for the next election, the voter’s name and problem address appear, but with a notation of the postal return. If the voter shows up again and tries to vote giving the same (presumably) bogus address, it’s up to the election judge to straighten things out before allowing the person to vote. I’ve worked as an election judge a few times, and I’ve seen many notations of postal returns on the rolls, but I don’t recall anyone showing up and trying to vote again; it seems like they just vote once and then they’re gone.
Based on the numbers below our economy can’t be that bad…just look at all the donations these guys are getting.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/10/obamas_spending_edge.html
Jerold (10/7 at 8:58 p.m.): I used to use those comment numbers to refer to posts on Locally Grown, but then someone pointed out that they change when comments are added or deleted by the moderators. If Griff has found a way around that, I’ll go back to using them. Except for the confusion caused by the renumbering, they worked out pretty well.
Thanks for clarifying your distinction between voter fraud and election fraud. I think it’s a good one, and both problems deserve attention. I had been using the term “vote fraud” to cover both individual voters who come up with a plan to cheat and also organized efforts to disenfranchise large numbers of voters, whether by preventing them from voting or through over-voting. Here are a couple of articles that refer to “voter fraud,” but I think what they’re describing would be “election fraud” under your definition:
Ellison Endorsed by Group Implicated in Several Voter Fraud Cases
Rep. Keith Ellison, ACORN and Voter Fraud!
The second one may actually be an example of election fraud perpetrated to enable voter fraud, if I understand the distinction correctly.
I don’t trust electronic voting machines either. In Minnesota, though, we have paper ballots to fall back on if there’s a problem, whether at an individual polling place or statewide. When you put your ballot into the machine, it counts your votes, but the ballot itself is saved inside a locked compartment. After polls close, the ballots are removed under the observation of judges from more than one party, sealed up, and saved. If there’s a problem (say, if 90% of the voters are baffled by the outcome), the ballots are available for recount, by hand if necessary.
Scott: I’m not used to moderated fora so thanks for the tip. I’ll start using date and time.
I’ve heard of the voter fraud/election fraud distinction used a lot as a dichotomy, but now it sounds more definitive to say that election fraud is general, and voter fraud is a type of election fraud, so it should be used as the more precise term when addressing voters defrauding the election.
Thanks for the links!
http://www.lvrj.com/news/30613864.html
Call it what you will, but Acorn is rigging the election……..must be Diebold behind it..LOL
Here’s an important issue that the candidates need to take a bold stand on, right now:
The Israeli-Palestinian Hummus dispute.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/9986
And the scary thing is, the legal battle may hinge on arguments over “the Feta Precedent.”
As a partial reality check on the vote-fraud allegations, here’s a snippet from a NY Times article, available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html
In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud
By ERIC LIPTON and IAN URBINA
Published: April 12, 2007
Correction Appended
WASHINGTON, April 11 — Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.
Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.
Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.
Re: Acorn & voter fraud, fired US attorney David Iglesias was interviewed by Teri Gross of Fresh Air at NPR (broadcast tonight), and he talked about voter fraud and touched on Acorn. The picture from him was very different from the one suggested on this thread (Peter, and Scott’s link?):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95489844
Click the red speaker icon to listen to the 19 min 50 second program.
Iglesias wasn’t Republican enough, it seems, and was being asked to go after small voter fraud cases of questionable merit. He set up a commission to look into it to avoid making it become partisan, but they found no merit, and lots of partisan pressure from local Republicans to get him to go partisan. He would not, so he lost his job.
He mentions an Acorn case in which a woman was working for Acorn and being paid for how many voters she registered, but her motive was not to sway elections, just to get a paycheck. He says a judge would have thrown it out, but the Republicans would have loved a lot of negative press in such cases right around election time.
So Republican US attorneys lost their jobs because they were not willing to use their office to play partisan politics. From the stats Barry supplies (October 8, 2008 7:24 pm, currently #479), it seems some of them may have been willing to play that game.
Now for something completely different.
What if the election were held worldwide? Try to guess before clicking below what fraction of “world electoral votes” Obama and McCain would receive.
http://www.economist.com/vote2008/
Any comments?
Just following up on Paul’s posting (#480), here’s a snippet from an article published in 2007 by the (presumably left-leaning) National Housing Institute, available at
http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/150/mockthevote.html
“Voter-fraud accusations against ACORN surfaced in 2004 in Florida, Ohio, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Wisconsin. None of these allegations panned out; most involved incomplete or duplicate applications, and even bad handwriting. Yet most journalists covered the fights over voter registration and participation as a kind of he-said, she-said story, suspending judgment on the relative accuracy of Democrats accusing Republicans of voter repression and Republicans accusing Democrats of voter fraud. Perhaps striving for evenhandedness, mainstream media, including public radio, treated the subject as if voter access by minorities and voter fraud were like siblings who complain that the other gets too much attention: The Democrats yell and scream about access; Republicans about fraud.”
To be crystal clear, I meant Paul F. in my previous post, not that Paul Z. guy….
Paul (Z. this time), in regard to your worldwide Electoral College, I say we tax the bastards before we let ’em vote! No Representation Without Taxation!
And now this, indicative more of bureaucratic incompetence than of fraud, from the first couple of paragraphs of an article in the NY Times, available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us/politics/09voting.html
States’ Actions to Block Voters Appear Illegal
By IAN URBINA
Published: October 8, 2008
Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law, according to a review of state records and Social Security data by The New York Times.
The actions do not seem to be coordinated by one party or the other, nor do they appear to be the result of election officials intentionally breaking rules, but are apparently the result of mistakes in the handling of the registrations and voter files as the states tried to comply with a 2002 federal law, intended to overhaul the way elections are run.
There’s been a lot of coverage on implementing the 2002 election law in Wisconsin, where the Republican Attorney General wants to hastily implement that law between now and November. (Why the databases weren’t reviewed sooner is of course a more complicated problem, including the fact that until now a lot of these voter registrations were kept locally, and on paper. Beyond that, I’ve actually worked with some WI state databases, and let me just say that even those are not much better than working with pen on paper anyway.)
http://www.madison.com/wsj/topstories/304321
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/304606
http://www.lvrj.com/news/30613864.html
Peter, you already posted the LVJ article once. What’s your point?
Let me quote a selective excerpt from the article:
“[Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry] Lomax said he did not think there was a systematic attempt to submit phony forms.”
In other words, when you look closely at these voter fraud allegations, you find scant evidence of some vast left-wing conspiracy to steal the election. I’m by no means defending ACORN — offhand, it seems they have some serious quality-control problems — but these efforts to discredit them are really pretty flimsy. If you can find an example where the authorities suspect (not even know, just suspect) there is an actual effort to fraudulently register people who are actually going to vote when they’re actually not eligible, rather than these cases where some lazy or overworked slob fills out forms to meet a quota, please post it!
From Ben Smith of Politico:
Link for my previous pasting:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Two_kinds_of_fraud.html?showall
So glad am I that this vote and election fraud is being discussed, and I have not had time to read all the input, so please forgive me if I cover that which has already been covered. Several months ago, I wrote in LOGRONO, about the insidious habit of getting older folks in nursing homes and such, who have voted one way or the other for a lifetime to now be persuaded or intimidated to change their votes, when they no longer can remember from one hour to the next who they spoke to or what was said, yet they signed or pledged to vote another way.
This is stuff you can’t really catch unless you look at voting records and have a conversation with the person who got their preference changed. It may be the most damaging of all voter fraud. I am sure there are all kinds of other ways, but I was told that this is going on right here in Northfield a few years ago.
I have no proof, so I can’t do anything but ask people again to refrain, to watch out for and to at least let us have the integrity of our voting process.
No candidate is worth loosing that for, are they?
More scariness from McCain/Paling supporters in Ohio: “He’s got the blood lines.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/Obama_as_terrorist.html?showall
HI, Patrick. Interesting video, which I am very sad to see. From the beginning of our campaign discussions, I said there was no proper candidate for president, and I have been swinging back and forth, there is so much material to cover.
In the past, I never paid much attention to the media’s coverage of the “silly season” (the last stretch of the campaigns, where everyone says and does some wild and intractible things) and I never knew just how crazy it gets.
I am also sad to say that I think we are still choosing candidates by their TV images, because that is what we are used to seeing and comparing people to. If Obama puts on any more make up, I won’t vote at all, and McCain just looks weak, but right now I think I am going to go with my imaginery Ralph Nader and Mitt Romney team. But I will recommend a stylist for Nader.
We really need someone who can do finances better. “Its the economy, stupid!” is a very old saying and it’s a good one to remember. We won’t have any successful aid programs without money flowing around like manure in the spring and autumn.
Neither candidate has the ability to make themselves heard on Capitol Hill when they do have a good idea, and no one at all seems to know how to handle this global market. Oh, sure Friday, G7 will meet, but it’s like an afterthought. “Hey, guys, want to get together for lunch and a beer and chat for awhile, make it look like we are trying to do something?”
And the head of the world finance international fellow, he doesn’t know what to do either. Damn. Set up World Trade and then let experiment. What the heck!
Oh, and what about those Nobel Prize winning physicists who wrote up these formulas for the subprime mortgage security documents…things that no one could possibly decipher. Where are those guys hiding?
Sorry, for the rant, but I think I may be talking for more people than just me.
In posting #492, Patrick links to a video presenting “[m]ore scariness from McCain/Paling supporters.”
Sites and videos like this one are a wonderful litmus test in partisan politics. What one side sees as scariness the other views as the persistent pestering and selective editing of an opposition hack. I suspect someone could elicit similar stupidity from ignorant enthusiasts at an O-B rally.
Of greater concern to me is this, from an AP report on a Palin rally last week in Clearwater, FL.
“Reporters weren’t permitted to wander around inside Coachman Park in Clearwater to talk to Palin’s audience, the St. Petersburg Times reported.
“When reporters tried to leave the designated press area and head to where the crowd was seated, an escort would dart out, confront him or her and say, “Can I help you?” and turn the person around, Times staff writer Eileen Schulte wrote on the paper’s Web site. When one reporter asked an escort, who would not give her name, why the press wasn’t allowed to mingle, she said that in the past, negative things had been written, Schulte reported.”
Given the partisan nature of our press I am not surprised that candidates don’t treat each outlet equally.
It is no fun and not in their interest having your words turned and your interview edited to present a certain personality.
This btw goes both ways.
Here’s a video of Obama campaigning for Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist (his self-description) senator from Vermont:
Has Obama disavowed Sanders yet? Sanders only ran for the Senate in 2006, so it might be difficult. Obama can’t claim that he was only eight years old at the time.
Here’s something that might help to put some people’s concerns with Obama into context:
Robert Koehler – a Chicago-based writer and editor for (Chicago?) tribune, lists some ways Republicans work to use the voter fraud angle and disenfranchise voters:
…………………
1. Use the bureaucracy of the state to kill, or at least maim, the democratic process. In Florida and other states, as the Ledger reported, something known as the “no match, no vote” law is being used to strike as many voters as possible from the rolls. Where voters’ registration information doesn’t precisely match driver’s license and other information in state data bases to a T, sorry, you aren’t eligible to vote. Think of it as disenfranchisement by typo. And certain ethnic groups, such as Hispanics and Asians, would likely be disproportionately affected (which is the point), because their surnames are more likely to be transposed or bungled at least once.
2. Send out bad information to target groups, such as out-of-state students. For instance, the Republican clerk of El Paso County, Colo., informed local students: “. . . if your parents still claim you on their income tax returns, and they file that return in a state other than Colorado, you are not eligible to register to vote or vote in Colorado.” Not only is this an outright falsehood, it’s virtually the same falsehood that Republican bureaucrats tried to fob off on students in Virginia and South Carolina as well, belying their protests that this was somehow an honest mistake.
3. Spread creepy misinformation anonymously. According to the Philadelphia Daily News, fliers in black neighborhoods of Philadelphia recently showed up warning residents that undercover cops would be prowling the polling places, arresting would-be voters with so much as an unpaid traffic ticket on his or her record.
4. Balance every accusation of vote suppression with the charge that Democrats are perpetrating voter fraud with their hugely successful registration drives. Throw as many obstacles as possible into the voting process, especially in low-income, ethnic and student neighborhoods. Find as many legalistic excuses as possible to challenge voters and, win or lose the challenge, you slow the lines and cause people to leave without voting.
And of course, supplementing these and many other dirty tricks will be the X-factor, the hackability of touchscreen and other forms of electronic voting. When – or, let us pray, if – the vote confounds polls and expectations, shrug and call it closet racism.
…………………….
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/09-2
Wow, Scott. Regarding the first youtube link you provide (in comment 496, 6:04 p.m., October 9 2008): 68% of Vermont’s voters voted for Bernie Sanders in 2006 after he had served for 18 years in the US House. Were 68% of the good citizens of Vermont duped into voting for a (shudder) democratic socialist (read pinko leftist), or were they voting for a man who they felt would serve their interests well in Washington?
As for the second youtube link titled “CAPITALISM has Failed ‘Obama’s SOCIALIST TIRADE RANT’, IMHO, what a piece of nasty, propagandistic crap. I agree with you that it “might help to put some people’s concerns with Obama into context.” However, I certainly don’t agree with what the video says directly, and you seem to be implying: that we should be afraid, indeed very afraid, about Obama’s intentions (i.e. that he wants to DESTROY CAPITALISM–EVERY MARXIST’S WORST ENEMY as the video proclaims in bold capitol letters, to a totalitarian soundtrack). If that was a socialist rant, I say bring on the socialists. The fairy tale that all would be well in the world if we just let an unregulated capitalist free market run has been so thoroughly disproved so many times in so many places that I reel in amazement to hear the argument advanced here and now.
I am sick to death of the politics of fear. I hate seeing it injected into this campaign. We’ve been whacked with the politics of fear since 9/11 (and since well before in various forms, as readers old enough to remember the infamous Willie Horton campaign ads of the 1988 presidential campaign can attest). Every time I drive by the airport and see the “Threat Level Orange” sign I wish I had a sledge hammer in my trunk so I could slam on my brakes and beat it to pieces. However, if you want something to be afraid of, I just last night finished reading the incredibly sobering book The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals by highly regarded investigative journalist Jane Mayer, detailing the Bush Administration’s decision to “take the gloves off” after 9/11, and its systematic disregard for the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution and betrayal of American ideals regarding treatment of terrorism suspects (many of whom were, of course, innocent to begin with). And how about a 39% drop in the Dow Jones Industrial average over the past 12 months? Now there’s something to be afraid of, especially if you’re nearing retirement age or put kids through college.
Isn’t anyone concerned, besides Peter, I would imagine, that the govt is looking or planning to buy and own part of the National banking system?
It is amusing when a leftist accuses the right of fear mongering. Especially since the left has literally invented class warfare.
The left playbook is full of “Throwing old people out of their houses”…”Starving children”…”taking social security away from old people” etc..etc…
…and the right is fear mongering?? Nice try.
Bruce,
Let’s don’t forget where the financial crisis started. It started with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Who created those entities? Who super charged them in 1999?
The answer to this question might surprise you. To pin this on Bush alone is unfair and just plain wrong. Check your facts.
Yes, the right is fear-mongering and has been doing so for quite some time. The entire Bush administration has been built on it:
As to “The left playbook is full of “Throwing old people out of their houses”…”Starving children”…”taking social security away from old people” etc..etc…” do you dispute that children are starving, that (some) old people are being tossed out of their houses ? (I have no idea about social security. Notice this “fear-mongering” on the left requires taxes to “fix” whereas the fear-mongering on the right: “non-descript terrorists vaguely somehow related to the middle east want to kill us” requires homicide. And suspending civil rights. And the constitution. (and yet, conveniently, actual emergencies, e.g. Katrina, are not worthy of their attention….until they can figure out a way to help their friends profit from them….see The Shock Doctrine)
Give me taxes any day. They may hurt, but they so rarely kill.
Noted liberal(?) columnist George Will has the following to say about McCain’s campaign:
(link won’t post)
link:
realclearpolitics.com
/articles/2008/10/
a_landslide_coming.html
(all one address)
(test?)
“It’s really important for Americans to start knowing who the real Barack Obama is.”
“That one”
“a guy of the street”
“is not a man who sees America as you and I see America”
“palling around with terrorists”
And so, their followers shout,
“Terrorist!”
“Kill him!”
You do the math.
Obama is the one who is not qualified to comment on where life begins, by his own words. When I do the math I come up with 50 million dead infants and the right to kill them is in direct agreement with the democratic party line.
Nothing is worse than that to me. Nothing says this country cannot take care of it’s own more than that. And nothing adds up to a greater loss to our culture. You teach them it’s alright to kill their own offspring and what do you think they will have respect for after that?
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please stop. What about all of the women, pregnant women (i.e. mothers and the unborn), children, young men, innocent humanity killed, slaughtered by bombs and unjust wars?
Is “ABORTION” the sole issue that dictates your vote? IF that is your sole issue, please be consistent. LIFE IS LIFE. Hunt, punish the terrorist — leave the innocent unharmed — be consistent.
And, oh by the way, I do cherish life. Without it I would not have my two wonderful children (parents chose to bear their child and gave other parents the opportunity to be parents) — I would not have lost my husband — I would not have lost my sister-in-law and brother-in-law. So, please do not lecture me on “cherishing life”. I do — I get it better than most people I know — it is not a rhetorical or religious issue — it is my humanity. However, there are many facets to my life and the lives of all whom I love.
If you are going to take shots at any candidate, consider all of their platform issues.
The last poll I paid attention to was the exit poll that had Kerry up by 5%…
Martha, I guess you missed an earlier post where we discussed the fact that not all the wars and injustices and genocides put together since the 19th century at least, equal the amount of murdering the American man and woman have done of their own unborn infants.
I am no war monger, and you have no right to tell me when to stop or if I can be allowed to change my mind. This is just the kind of controlling mandates freedom loving Americans try to avoid.
Good day to you.
Patrick,
George Will is right..it is time to name those who are responsible for the crisis and those that are in the pockets of those that benefited from the bailout.
The Ayers/Wright connection is important because it speaks to the character of Obama just like McCains association with Bush speaks to his. BUT this is small potatoes in comparison to those who are responsible for the devaluation of our 401K.
Dodd, Frank, Clinton, Gramm and others come to mind.
The media is flat out lying blaming this on Wall Street alone.
Bruce (10/9 at 7:37 p.m.): When you ask,
that’s quite a leap. I spent a lot of time in Vermont when I was young, and the state was full of old Yankee farmers. But that was forty years ago, and I think by now the state is pretty far to the left. The Republican challenger did manage to get 32% of the vote, though, so there must be some old-timers there.
As for your comment on the second YouTube link in my post,
thanks. I think it’s a well-done video and does the job, and that’s why I posted it.
Regarding your comment,
that’s really too bad. You used to seem like such a pleasant, mild-mannered guy when you worked at the library. I’ve already been thinking that this campaign season is making everybody crazy. I’ve wondered myself from time to time if I would survive it.
In the interest of being fair and balanced, here are some kids from YouTube who more unabashedly support Obama:
From this and many other links I would be happy to supply, feel free to conclude that I spend way too much time on YouTube when I’m at work.
Scott says, “here are some kids from YouTube who more unabashedly support Obama”
Scott, that’s a cute little video, but is there any indication that it’s anything more than somebody’s made-up subtitles superimposed on a video clip? Patrick’s clip in posting #492 was at least a real video showing real McCain/Palin supporters speaking their own narrow little minds.
Scott (10/19 10:46 a.m.): Thanks for your concern about my mental health! I DID always try to maintain a calm and mild-mannered demeanor while humbly serving the public at the library back in the day, so I’m glad I was perceived in such a manner by at least one faithful patron. I still try to do so as a general practice, but there are times when the raging inner beast rears its head (it seems to have happened more frequently than usual in the past eight years for some reason). Happily, I general keep the raging beast in the cage, letting it roar only occasionally, and generally through my fingertips at the keyboard. Even though I own a sledge hammer, which I use in splitting fire wood with wedge(s) on particularly knotty and/or large bits of hardwood, and could easily toss it in my trunk any time I know I’ll be driving by MSP airport with the opportunity to obliterate the Orange Alert sign, I haven’t actually DONE so (yet), so I think I’m maintaining reasonably well.
If you really want fair and balanced youtubage on the madness of this election season, you can’t do better than the take-no-prisoners, equal opportunity satire of Red State Update. A few of my personal favorites:
Red State Update: Obama Internet Rumors
Red State Update: Sarah Palin Picked As McCain’s VP and
Red State Update: Neil Young The Liberal Dummy/Greendale (in which Jackie and Dunlap rip on my favorite musician).
Warning: RSU can be addictive. Gotta go.
To conclude…there is the radical right and there is the fringe left., which in my estimate make up about 20%.
Most of us are somewhere in between.
Peter, I concur with your conclusion (though, as usual, I’m uncertain of your numbers…), but let’s also not forget the wise words of another Barry, Goldwater in this case: Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
Paul (10/9 at 7:00 p.m.): You listed the following as one of the ways that “Republicans work to use the voter fraud angle and disenfranchise voters”:
Have you ever seen any evidence of these tactics being used in Northfield? I never have, but if you’ve seen large numbers of people being turned away for bogus reasons, I wish you would share your experience. From what I’ve seen, if someone shows up at a busy time and hasn’t bothered to register yet, it might take them a half hour, but the wait isn’t any worse than you’d encounter at the Post Office near Christmas.
Peter: You conclude (#516) that “there is the radical right and there is the fringe left, which in my estimate make up about 20%.
Most of us are somewhere in between.” Would you place yourself in the 10% (?) radical right, or pigeonhole me in the 10% (?) fringe left on the basis of the minimal amount you know about me? Just curious as to where and how you draw your lines. I (and others) have been dismissed as “bobos” and “NIMPUs” (Not In My Private Utopia) by another LoGroNo commenter, and now I’m called a leftist (#500), both times by people who know me solely, as far as I know, on the basis of a few exchanges on this website. Innaresting.
By the way, I agree with the statement at the end of your comment #500 that “to pin this (the financial crisis) on Bush alone is unfair and just plain wrong.” I agree completely–there’s blame aplenty to spread around, across the political spectrum and in the private sector. I never said that I blamed Bush alone.
The 10% rule on the left and right fringe is based only on my personal experience. It is by no means scientific.
Okay, it’s not the presidential election, but the MN Senate election is getting very interesting.
Today, Sen. Coleman announced that he would not attend the McCain rally in Lakeville, and that he was suspending all of his negative ads.
And there was this very strange press briefing by a Sen. Coleman lackey, regarding the Senator’s suits (and electric bills):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VySnpLoaUrI
I have to admit, I didn’t think Al Franken had a prayer in this election, but recent polls – and events – have suggested he may have a chance.
Patrick notes that “the MN Senate election is getting very interesting.”
The Iowa Electronic Markets website — I’d put the link here, but the LGN spam censor doesn’t seem to allow it! — is a fun place to go for a glimpse of how the “smart money” thinks various elections are heading. Interestingly (as Patrick notes), the winner-take-all price daily price graph had Coleman leading Franken roughly 60:40 up till a couple of days ago, when the odds suddenly reversed. What’s really odd is that their vote-share market still thinks Coleman is going to get slightly more votes! Wise crowds indeed!
The IEM presidential market is somewhat more consistent. It shows Obama over McCain at 85:15 in the winner-take-all market, and leading in the vote-share market. They currently put those results at 55% for Obama and 45% for McCain.
One hastens to add, of course, that past performance is no guarantee of future results. As if anyone watching the stock market these days needs to be reminded of that!
Scott (10-10 3:16 p.m.):
As I said at the start of my post you refer to (10/9 at 7:00 p.m.) , those were from a Chicago writer and editor: “Robert Koehler – a Chicago-based writer and editor” for the Trubune(?) – writing perhaps from experience, or from journalistic research. He wrote it in an editorial. You’d have to ask him. I think things are generally better in Northfield, but I can’t speak for Chicago, or his research.
But there were similar observations by one of the fired US attornies who wasn’t a “Bushy” enough Republican, and would not pursue, at election time, charges against ACORN that his office believed had no merit.
I don’t know, though: If he was just Republican, but not Bushy enough, can we trust him, or shall we discredit him, and add to the general blue-red rift, by calling him a RINO? Or perhaps a terrorist sympathizer, as the Republicans said of Sen. Max Cleland when they beat him for his seat?
Here’s the link to the interview again:
Fired US attorney David Iglesias interviewed by Teri Gross of Fresh Air at NPR
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95489844
Click the red speaker icon to listen to the 19 min 50 second program.
McCain booed after moderating some of his fans’ comments against Obama:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us/politics/11campaign.html?ref=us
Alaska ethics probe finds against Palin:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4998X420081011
What a great season it must be to be a Saturday Night Live comedian.
I’m thinking back to Bright’s hypothetical, and wondering….
What about this:
Obama & Harry Potter vs. Cheney & Voldemort?
Or this:
Palin & Ann Coulter vs. Obama & Desmond Tutu?
I’m worried Palin & Coulter might be too much like Bush (the front man) and Cheney (the manipulater behind the scenes).
What about this:
Donnie & Marie vs. Romney & Arnold Schwarzenegger?
(Yikes, I think Arnold would terminate the other three!)
Do both McCain and Obama support nuclear power? This would seem to call out for a strong third party (or better yet party-free candidate)
David Henson, sort of…
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/us/politics/10nuclear.html
?_r=1&pagewanted=2&em&oref=slogin
While I am here, I just want to say, McCain is looking weak to his constituency
for not putting Obama down even more and Obama is looking rather sad as well. I just heard Obama say that he is planning to create jobs for out of work Philedelphians of making houses energy efficient. Good luck with that as far as it goes. The crowd was understandably let down after the big top circus introduction used to pump them up. Oh, well.
I was also disappointed to hear that Obama broke his promise not to use non public funding, and was heartened to hear that McCain who made the same promise has so far kept it. I really don’t need to see and hear one more campaign ad on any media. I really don’t. I guess the big ad companies are delighted however. Maybe that $$$ will trickle down to the lowly masses.
When I talk to Republicans, I get the sense that they believe ACORN is the antichrist. Here are two pieces on the desperate attempts by the GOP to discredit ACORN and disenfranchise voters:
GOP Attacks on American Voters Turn Desperate, Ugly and Dangerous
by Bob Fitrakis/Harvey Wasserman
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/11-4
And from ACORN:
The Truth About ACORN’s Voter Registration Drive
by Bertha Lewis and Steve Kest
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/10
There is now a third viable candidate for president, not part of any political party:
http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=370743&altf=Kfspme&altl=Gsjfenbo
Paul: Excellent article by ACORN. It reminds me of the ardent efforts only a few decades ago to register southern black voters and the repressive reaction that followed.
That’s a good, objective NY Times link, Bright (comment #527). As the Times points out,
Obama’s specific stance on nuclear energy (which I don’t agree with in its entirety by any means–I am more negative about the role nuclear energy should play in our future energy mix, for reasons I don’t have time and the inclination to go into here), from the energy and environmental policy area of Obama’s website:
I disagree strongly, however, with your perspective in your comment on Obama’s discussion of weatherizing low-income houses (I apologize for the length of the following; this is a subject near and dear to my heart):
Obama’s plan to weatherize one million homes per year over the next decade is just one element of a fairly impressive commitment to energy efficiency, which should be the cornerstone of any rational energy policy. McCain’s energy policy, while actually looking quite good compared to his Republican predecessor’s abysmal energy policy, makes no mention whatsoever of energy efficiency (apart from indirectly in a couple of auto-related points). Overall, I feel Obama’s energy policy is much more aggressive, and much more likely to move our nation away from dangerous dependence on imported oil, much more likely to help us weather the coming dual storm of Peak Oil and global climate change without catastrophic economic and social consequences, than McCain’s with its heavy emphasis on energy production (especially domestic oil and natural gas). Drill baby, drill ain’t gonna get us where we need to go.
Obama would expand the low-income Weatherization Assistance Program, which has been in existence since the Ford administration (1976), and has cost-effectively weatherized 5.6 million low-income houses in that time. I actually did energy audits, spec’ed and inspected work for this program in the east Metro area from 1985 through 1991. I can personally attest: it works. I sat down at over a thousand kitchen tables with fixed-income widowers, disabled vets, hard-working recent immigrants, etc. and I KNOW this is an important issue for low-income households, especially in cold-weather states such as Minnesota..
Obama’s complete energy efficiency policy, again from his website:
Thanks for adding the details, Paul F. I was really referring to the crowd’s disappointment, audible sighs of despair was my interpretation after hearing them respond on a much higher note to his talking points. I think they thought they were going to get some higher paying jobs. Those weatherization jobs are most likely minimum wage, at least that’s what me and the audience thought. Whereas the building and running of nuclear plants jobs are much higher paying.
I have heard that France does reuse it’s nuclear waste. If they can, we can. They are 80% nuclear, and sell their energy all over Europe, but we won’t because that’s too socialistic, not my opinion, I don’t have one yet, but it’s what I have heard on the street.
Anyway, both candidates have said over and over it will have to be some combination. But, I have seen this before, everytime gas goes down the pressure to change and update energy sources also subsides and we are foreign oil addicts again. But the difference now is that we know when we reduce use, they reduce price. It’s supply and demand, just like always.
For people who don’t know how to reduce use, make every trip out count for more than one or two errands. Plan your day accordingly.
Actually, Bright, weatherization jobs would not be minimum wage. They certainly could and should be living wage jobs. And there would be a LOT of them. The crews doing weatherization work in the east Metro area back in the day were exclusively union carpenters (journeyman and apprentice); mechanical work on heating and cooling systems (both cleaning and tuning, and major repairs and installation of new high-efficiency furnaces with supplemental funding when required) were done by licensed HVAC contractors.
Again, this is only one of MANY Obama’s proposed efficiency and other renewable/clean energy initiatives, all of which would put people to work.
If you’re interested in a more sane energy policy, with greater emphasis on energy efficiency, smart growth, more transit options, more efficient vehicles, aggressive development of renewables, hard targets for greenhouse gas emissions reductions (80% by 2050, the level called for by the scientific community and codified by overwhelming bipartisan votes in the MN Legislature in 2007 with the Pawlenty Administration’s strong leadership and support), Obama is your man, hands down.
I feel very sad that there are posts in this thread that appear to perpetuate vitriolic hate and harm for a person (presidential candidate) they really do not know. Disagree with the candidate and their platform — do not speak or write hateful posts — contest with facts — not hurtful hate. At the end of the day we are all Americans. Vote for the candidate of your choice but do not wish ill will or hateful actions to the victor because you do not agree with them. Suck it in and live with it for four years. Life in the neighborhood is what matters. No matter which way the election goes, someone will live with it for four years.
Hello, Bruce Anderson. Umm,let’s see, three points, one is the ability of politicans and con men to word their ideas so loosely as to be widely interpreted.
The second is my experience of having my home weatherized by the govt in the late 70s and that included popping holes in the side of the cedar side panels and blowing in shredded newspaper til the air gaps were closed, and caulking the windows. The house became air tight and the heating bills were cut in half, but the jobs were minimum wage.
The third point is that perhaps, if the audience thought as you do, Bruce, maybe they were sighing because they are not skilled laborers. Obama’s speech included words about getting the fellows off the street on the west side of Philly, and to me that meant unskilled workers, but it also could mean skilled workers who have not worked for a long time. Maybe they were not skilled and thought Obama was pandering to, ooops, I mean appealing to your “union carpenters (journeyman and apprentice); mechanical work on heating and cooling systems (both cleaning and tuning, and major repairs and installation of new high-efficiency furnaces with supplemental funding when required) were done by licensed HVAC contractors.” and that they weren’t being considered at all.
Oh, four, I’ll throw in one more for good measure…Obama may intend to cover more areas for jobs, but in this speech at least, he mentioned them not. Which brings me to believe that he would most likely be speaking to his audience du jur and relating directly to them so’s he could attract a little thing called their V O T E S ! Or maybe not.
Bright,
A politician seeking VOTES?!? I’m shocked–schocked!!!
Bruce, lol! Was is what I said, or did that lightning that I saw outside my window strike your computer? 🙂
I have just spent an hour listening to poliifact.org’s guy on CSpan and the conclusion is both Obama and McCain have stretched the truth, bent the truth, skirted the truth and ignored the truth throughout the campaign.
They BOTH have voted with their own parties over 90% of the time.
I still say;
Neither one are ready to be president of the usa.
Both VP candy dates are kinda wacky, too.
Obama is still a Daley and Kennedy’s man.
McCain is not able to get his message out properly, which is a big weakness.
The Clintons are like circling turkey vultures at this point.
I hope the American people can show they can run their own economy, help the needful, progress and keep up with the rest of the world or learn quick how to isolate and prosper without strong government intervention.
For those of you who might be interested, here is a link to an article about freedom to tell the truth in an organization. This is specifically geared toward church structure, so all of you with no predilictions that way, please don’t be offended by that. The reason I even share it here is that I think it very accurately demonstrates human nature, and, as you can see from the examples, it is applicable in any organization with an authority structure. I also think it underscores the importance in this pre-election time that we find out who the advisers may be that will surround the next president.
http://www.harvestnet.org/teachings/truthteller.htm
Good reading! I’m interested in anyone’s feedback on it.
Judge people by their results not by their intentions. The last time our government got involved with alternative fuels we end up costing us dearly.
Anyone remember Ethanol? Besides it being subsidized to the tune of 51 cents per gallon(with our tax money), it is directly responsible for skyrocketing food prices. So punishing those who are scrimping already.
Besides doesn’t anyone else think that burning food for energy, while others starve, is immoral?
Point is, why does anyone believe that government should be in charge of alternative fuels?
Given their track record it will be another bottom less entitlement program.
Peter, I advised thru logrono against ethanol. My argument; food into fuel?
It seemed very simple to me. When you start with a twisted premise, you’re gonna wind up…with a twisted result…kinda like dna but different.
Sorry, but not much,I am all about word associations this morning.
Peter: One role of government is to stimulate progress through public benefits. This is the case of giving ethanol subsidies and student loans. If some programs fail, it’s no reason to condemn all programs.
I don’t think that gov’t has tried to be “in charge of” alternative fuels, but it has tried to stimulate progress in that industry.
How can you call this progress and public benefit, when most people suffer from the consequences?
The only way government should be involved is getting out of the way, and providing a climate where ideas can flourish…ALL IDEAS.
By artificially subsidizing ethanol from corn government has effectively shutdown all incentives to look for something different.
Never mind that the production of ethanol from corn uses more natural resources(like water) and the effective return on energy is very low.
Also if we would plant all available land in the US with corn to make ethanol, it would only cover 20% of our energy needs.
If we think that Ethanol is the future why don’t we allow cheap ethanol from Brazil?
Let’s face it ethanol from corn is nothing more then a pander to the corn belt, initiated by a very strong farm lobby.
Jerold- Your comment, “…One role of government is to stimulate progress through public benefits…” reminds me of the WPA programs. This was a very successful program, and we still have evidence of much of this work in many state and national parks. It not only produced a benefit for society in general, it gave many men a great sense of accomplishment and self worth. I’ve often felt it unfortunate that this system was set aside in favor of some of the welfare programs that are around now. In my opinion, too many of these programs, by simply pouring money into the system, do not give either of these benefits and produce dependence on the system rather than independence. Where are the FDR and Kennedy (“It is not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”) Democrats today? Sorry, I have just not heard this level of reasoning coming from either side. The only thing close is that sherrif down in Arizona. Perhaps it is too pragmatic to be a good political platform.
http://www.alec.org/am/pdf/richpoor/minnesota.pdf
Interesting stats.
Some evidence that ACORN has not always been quite the radical specter that McCain now considers it:
Jerold, notice that Victor Summa will give you a run for your money in the presidential write-in race:
http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=370743&altf=Wjdups&altl=Tvnnb
More on ACORN from Madison (Wisconsin) Capital Times:
http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/308983
Makes you wonder why some Republicans are so against the reform of convicted felons.
What should these ex-cons do? Manage mortgage-based securities?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122394051071230749.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
If ACORN is much to do about nothing, how come OBAMA is distancing himself now?
Can you blame him though? He learned about vote rigging from the best during his time in Chicago. AHHHH history does repeat itself.
[…] U.S. President […]
Tom Matzzie has an article about ACORN that deals with the Kennedy-Chicago myth:
“How McCain Will Steal the Election from Obama (Sort Of)”
Here’s a clip:
The facts about ACORN are worth getting out. ACORN is an organization that, among other things, registers low-income people to vote. One of the ways they do this is to hire door-to-door canvassers from the neighborhoods they are working in. This sort of work is tightly regulated. So, when one of the thousands of people they give jobs to doesn’t do their work right and brings back bogus or phony voter registration cards, the law REQUIRES that ACORN turn the forms in to the voter registration office. The law, rightly, doesn’t want anybody throwing out voter registration forms for any reason.
But ACORN goes a step farther. They have people assigned to do quality control on all the cards–calling people on the forms after they fill them out. When they find bad information on the cards they attach a cover sheet to the card but, as mentioned above, they turn in the cards as required by law. The effect is that a few bad canvassers or a poorly run office will mean that bad cards are submitted as part of the normal process. But ACORN has done everything possible to make sure voting officials know to check the forms.
The sad fact is that in at least one state–Nevada–the voting officials disregarded ACORN’s cover sheets flagging the voter registration forms. That should have never happened. The resulting blowup was a scandal in search of a scandal.
The stunning con of this whole thing is the assumption that bad voter registration cards being submitted will lead to vote fraud. If somebody submits a card for Mickey Mouse it isn’t like Mr. Mouse is going to show up to vote. There is no voter fraud if nobody votes.
But the big story here is what the Right is doing. Their attacks on ACORN open up the door for two things.
First, the ACORN myth allows the Republicans to do more purging of the voter rolls–the process of removing people from the voter rolls because of arbitrary anomalies in the voter registration databases. Richard L Hasen, author of the Election Law Blog and a distinguished law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles recently wrote, “Careless purging–driven by unsubstantiated fears about voter fraud–can lead to many eligible voters being incorrectly removed from the polls.” Already in Ohio the Republican Party is pushing for more purging and they found a federal judge who agreed citing ACORN’s activities.
Second, in the event that campaigning, purging and intimidating voters doesn’t work, the Right is creating a myth like they did in 1960. They are creating the myth of a stolen election. Conservatives plan to claim that ACORN and Barack Obama stole the election. Their hope is to steal the legitimacy of what is looking like a massive repudiation of Bush, conservatives and the Republican Party. The Right plans to steal the election by trying to steal the legitimate defeat of them by progressive forces.
And why wouldn’t they? The entire Republican coalition could be shattered with this election. White suburban voters who once voted Republican on tax issues are running away from Republicans on a host of issues–including taxes. Independent are looking more and more like Democratic voters. Barack Obama may even win a majority of male voters. All of them are joining with urban votes, voters of color, young people, working class union members and others to form a long-term governing majority for progressives–a progressive majority.
Conservatives are scared of a progressive majority. And they’re going to lie, cheat and steal to prevent it from happening. But they can only be successful if we let them.
…………………………………..(End clip)……………..
(Well, as far as lies go, they’re doing a good job about ACORN so far. I never knew the law required that even the “Micky Mouse” forms be turned in. And just how would Micky vote anyway? He doesn’t have a current ID, so the voting judges would think he was wearing some kid’s Haloween costume, for crying out loud. And he’d probably have to stand up on Pluto’s back to reach the desk-thingie where you fill out the ballot, and that would draw too much attention.
Why are the Republicans spreading all those lies about ACORN? Have they always been fascist-terrorist sympathizers, or is it just lately?
Why Obama’s connection to Ayers matters
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2101344/posts
peter: isnt this more troubling?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/mccain-transition-chief-a_n_134595.html
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1125393&srvc=2008campaign&position=12
Why Acorn matters…..
Anthony……two wrongs never equal one right…
peter I don’t know where you get 2 wrongs.
And I think the ACORN issue is really a non issue.
Do you know the difference between voter registration fraud and voter fraud?
if acorn does anything it gives the republicans an excuse to disenfranchise voters (again)
This Acorn issue and so many others is the reason I have distanced myself from politics in years past. I have to say right now that the way the media is treating McCain, (whom I cannot say is the man for the job at this point and from the beginning) but whom deserves a fair shake at any rate.
FIrst of all the ageism is rampant against him.
The next thing is the media’s trampelling all over his debate performance for not facing his opponent…NEWS FLASH… in the rules of debate set forth by both the RNC and DNC who run the commission on presidential debates, a non governmental organization,
call for the candidates not to speak to each other. Is this media so uninformed about the debates that they are commenting on as to now know of this rule? Or are they just going to gloss over the fact that Obama is not following the rules and making his opponent look bad because he did? This is just one of many one sided examples I have seen from very, very biased tv reporting.
Anthony,
Do you have any legit proof that Republicans are “disenfranchise voters (again)”?
Last time I checked not a single Republican was ever convicted of this….this is just more myths…nice try.
Question to ACORN are low income voters incapable of getting out to vote for themselves?
Seems like this implies that low income voters are somehow stupid?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/ccrdraft060401.htm
right there peter.
o ya and also, remember the supreme court decision that was not to be used as a precedent?
Peter, I hear that loud and clear. Many of the poor work very hard, harder physically than many others do. They might have to work hard just to get to their jobs and back. Maybe they made a decision early in life not to join the main stream of society. Maybe it meant too many trade offs idealistically, Maybe they spend more time with their families or hobbies, or maybe they are a little anti social. None of that is something they need to be rescued from or out of. Some people actually don’t want to live to be 100. That is an idea put upon all of us to make the system move more. You can say it’s compassion, but some people see it as imposition of an ideal onto the masses.
Whenever I say that to a mainstreamer, I get the eyebrows and no response, but it’s true.
Maybe people don’t want to vote, even if it’s their right and even it people died for that right and even if they like a candidate. Maybe they have made their own decisions about what they want and need to do intheir own lives, and that is what makes America what it is, too…the right to live your life like you want to do.
We don’t all have to be rich millionaire voters, no matter how difficult that may be for some to understand, I find it true in many of my interactions with people.
hey peter, how much are you going to save with the obama tax plan
http://taxcut.barackobama.com/
Anthony: Not only is it scary, how the Florida Republican leadership and party were able to ignore or perpetuate the disenfranchisement of any voters, but that Republicans today don’t seem to care about it.
I don’t affiliate myself with any political party, but pretending to be a Republican, to see any Americans denied the vote would have me up in arms. Worse, if my own party was responsible, I’d be looking for coup within my own tribe, or another political tribe to join.
Thanks for posting the article. It seems 8 years too late to fix Florida’s problems in 2000, but at least it serves as a warning for future elections.
I don’t believe that much in plans, or things the candidates worry about. I have to see
things they have done in the past, where have
they been effective. Anybody can say what they would like to see if they could have it all their way. We can call dream, can’t we?
I dream of a new and fresh candidate. I have seen enough of these DNC and RNC offerings for a lifetime.
Fraud does not appear to be a major factor in the Florida election. Instead, overzealous efforts conducted under the guise of an anti-fraud campaign
———————————————————-
Anthony…from your own link
Jerold,
Please be honest about your political affiliation. Your whole plattform is in line with Mr. Bly and the Democratic Party.
Why don’t you want to admit that you are a Democrat? It’s ok this is a safe county for you..LOL
Jerold,
I freely admit that I am a conservative….
Peter,
…but are you a Republican?
I’ve been a liberal for far longer than I’ve been a Democrat.
Peter: Your inability to deduce my political party (especially after I told you that I have none), reinforced by your selective quoting of Anthony’s article (you cited that there was no evidence of fraud, but you conveniently overlooked the systemic if not tacit disenfranchisement of black voters by Republican authorities), has me deduce that you don’t care about what left-of-center people say. Why do you participate in a forum if you don’t care?
Jerold,
What was done in Florida did clearly not rise to the level of fraud. There is enough lawyers in this country that would have taken up this cause if there was any meat to it. As it stands it’s just another attempt by some to defend the actions of ACORN., by rehashing Florida.
You are the one that sees problems only from one point of view, which is left in your case.
I have consistently trying to point out, that our current crop of politicians is corrupt, pandering and has no other interest in mind but their own.
Sorry, that you feel offended by this, but Obama claims change…. but he is no better or worse than McCain.
They are both part of the problem not the solution. Neither of them tells the truth.
Patrick…I am not Republican or Democrat I am an American, who believes that we should preserve what has made this country great in the first place.
There is those who think, that America is the root of all evil in this world and that are those that think that America has always been a force for good. I believe the latter.
Do you consider yourself a “Classic liberal”? Or are you a social liberal?
Social liberalism is nothing more then socialism in disguise….
Here are the two definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Anthony,
Under Obama’s plan (if he follows through with it) I saved $150 per month.
Which I already have lost due to an increase in property taxes, gasoline taxes and increased food prices (due to Ethanol)
Plus what do you think happens when Obama raises taxes for businesses? Who will pay for those tax increases?
You and me.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08289/920064-100.stm
Murtha is calling people in Western PA racist?? Who is playing the race card now?
Peter:
You have stated that you do not think America is ready for a black president. Why do you think that?
And…regarding the Ayer’s speech you link to in post #551…I read a fairly straight forward speech by an educator with a radical political perspective. What does that have to do with Obama?
Also…both parties work to register voters and then turn out ‘their’ vote on election day, it is an activity that is as American as apple pie. Some acorn field workers got carried away…regretable…but really is that a huge deal? There has been no voter fraud.
Ayers is a diversion from the issue. Acorn is a diversion from the issue. The economy is in the tank after 8 years of a republican president. Voters rightly have their mind on that issue. 10 trillion dollars of wealth has disappeared. Almost everyone has been effected by this melt down. The incumbent president and his party get blamed…no amount of diversion can change that. Best get ready for that black president.
The market was down another 700 points today…a perfect background for tonight’s debate.
Don’t know what to think about where to place the exact blame, but the stock market is a place of inherent risk. It’s not guaranteed money.
“There is no such thing as a free lunch.” as my
father and many others used to say.
On the other hand, what if this was all set up by the DNC to frame the RNC ,or vice versa?
Here’s an alternative. This I man is kinda like the old Republicans.
http://www.bobbarr2008.com
I don’t care if our next POTUS is black, yellow or red. I hope I didn’t create the impression that I think we are not ready for a black POTUS.
My concern is that we are not being critical enough of Obama because he is black.
Your conclusions of the economy are very shortsighted. We had a great economy for the past eight years. Compare the GDP of the Clinton years against the GDP of the Bush years. Further I suggest you compare the debt as a % of GDP against those same periods. You will be surprised.
To blame the current financial meltdown on Bush alone is bias and partisan, because the facts conclude something else.
There is a few things I blame Bush for. 1) His expansion of medicare which has accelerated the debt on entitlements. 2) His war in Iraq. Although I supported it first i come to the conclusion that it is futile to force western style democracy on to anME country.
3) His out of control spending, with the help of congress, both Republican and Democrats.
Peter, you are shameless! I pointed you once before to a graph of the national history at http://zfacts.com/p/318.html which clearly shows that debt as a % of GDP steadily grew during the Reagan/Bush pere years 1981-1993, turned around to a promising decrease during the Clinton years, and has reverted to its increasing ways under Bush fils.
As for GDP itself, you are correct insofar as GDP has continued to grow the last 8 years, both in nominal and constant dollars, as can be seen in the table at http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=353. But let’s compare the constant-dollar growth for the 7-year periods January 2001 to January 2008 and January 1993 to January 2000. Under Clinton, GDP (in constant 2000 dollars) went from $7.5 trillion to $9.7 trillion — growth of about 29%. Under Bush, it’s gone from $9.9 to $11.6 — growth of about 17%.
Oops, I meant graph of the national *debt* history.
Barry you did, but your sources are wrong.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1820.cfm
Here is more and the cause is not the current administration.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2057.cfm
The deficit is not due to lack of money…..it’s the spending stupid.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1411.html
Peter, you are really amazing. Even your own graph (Chart I in the link you gave) puts the lie to what you say. Both your graph and the one at the link I gave show the same behavior: a more or less steady increase through the 1980s, followed by a decrease during the Clinton years, followed by an increase since 2001. The only difference is that the graph I pointed to tracks gross federal debt, while yours tracks the portion held by the public. (Each graph is traceable to reliable public information.)
Do you really not care what the numbers say? That I could accept. But to claim these numbers support your argument is absurd.
omg, the direction this discussion has taken makes me sick. Maybe some should take a step back and look at important things on the table. Better to let Peter talk into the wind.
goodbye LoGroNo! 🙂
Holly: You and I have drawn the same conclusion.
Peter, Barry,
Below is a fun web site that takes you all the way back to 1902 for both federal and state and local spending. change the view from default to people to radical (my personal favorite) ect. change by $ or percent of GDP. At the end of the day entitlements , education at local level and welfare and defense are the biggest percentages of GDP, especially when compared to early years 100yrs ago like 1908.
All, Government is closing in on 40% of GDP. this is NOT sustainable! 1 in 2.7 working for or taking handouts from the Government!
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/#usgs302
Congratulations to Holly and Jerold….
For entertainment purposes only:
http://palinaspresident.com/
Thanks Holly, Jerold and others. I really appreciate your tolerance and openness.
Good luck.
Moderator.
Could you please remove me from the this blog and archive or delete my connections to this?
Thanks
Peter
Peter, your email address appears to no longer be subscribed to notifications for this discussion thread. Let me know if that’s not the case.
Much appreciated.
thanks
Hint on Patrick’s “PalinAsPresident” post… click stuff, but click the red phone LAST.
That’s too bad, I was thinking Peter was getting my points across really well.
Griff, maybe you can remove that last comment of mine. Everyone deserves respect, and that was flippant.
Anthony wrote,
It might be heresy (given the positions of both Obama and McCain), but does anyone other than me think we shouldn’t be giving a tax cut to anyone right now?
The budget’s already deep into deficit spending, and I’m sick of living off my still-hypothetical childrens’ future largesse – as well as all that oh-yes-there’ll-be-strings-attached lending from China.
These tax giveaways seem to smack of the same kind of pandering, lowest common denominator politics that Bruce Morlan was complaining of elsewhere regarding governmental programs/handouts.
Peter (Gone but not Forgotten):
For what it’s worth I have no real idea why Holly and Jerold were sickened by the direction of this discussion. Could it have been your concern that “we are not being critical enough of Obama because he is black.” If so, don’t be dismayed, that sentiment was also expressed by Bill Clinton, and many others in the Clinton camp, during the primary elections. It’s not as if your comment was that far out of line. So come on back. It’s ok to reconsider…happens all the time around here.
William: I had and would not use the term “sickened”. Through this thread’s 500+ posts, several people gave well thought if not compelling positions contrary to Peter’s. Peter showed himself impervious to them.
It became apparent to me that Peter was not here to be involved, only to pontificate. I continued to read Peter’s posts but decided not to take his bait nor respond to his extremely partisan perspective. When the Florida Commission on Human Rights said that the Florida Republican Party created a systemic disenfranchisement of black voters, but all Peter focused on was that there was no evidence of fraud by the Republicans — implying that the Republicans were blameless — I was done.
So Peter quit, seeing that Holly and I were tired of his refusal to weigh contrary facts or opinions. As Kurt Vonnegut might say, “So it goes.”
Holly in comment #592–that was priceless and I really appreciated it. I have not been commenting because of some of the bizarre twists here.
The Republicans are getting their cumuppence–and they are fighting back. I know that I approach this from my perspective as a liberal Democrat–but I believe that the Republicans have been soooo nasty while the Democrats continue to present arguments with logic and information. I know that there is blame to go around–it just seems that there are more dirty tricks by Republicans.
A lot of it seems to go back to when Clinton took office with a Congressional majority–kind of what we will be facing this coming year–and Republicans used every tool in their box to foil any attempt at getting work done. Newt Gingrich was down right nasty-claiming family values while having an affair and walking out on his cancer-striken wife. Then we get “W” who took office by appointment rather than winning the vote–and used every legal dirty trick to make sure votes were not counted. Four years later, W and his party friends disenfranchised voters, stealth-boated the candidates, and probably committed voter fraud to ensure a win. And look what we got–all of our worst fears were realized–we have a bankrupted economy, an endless war, torturing and spying and general “secret police” government.
So Democrats are a bit sensitive.
I just think the ads are especially nasty this time, the campaign is especially nasty–and it is all flowing down to us–where we try to use propaganda against each other’s arguments.
I am a liberal and I think there is a place for government in our lives. I don’t think it should be 40% of GDP, and I think a good way to cut that back is to cut back on the military, which also appeals to my social liberalism. I am not a communist or a socialist, whether Wikipedia says that a social liberal is a socialist. I am an American, but I do not see our country in black and white–we have been world leaders and saviors and we have also done terrible things and are doing terrible things that hurt the world and hurt ourselves.
Republicans are constantly making vague and unspecified claims to make us afraid of being or voting for Democrats–including “they will raise your taxes” and “they want big government.” It is all a ploy to frighten voters into voting AGAINST Democrats. Democrats, on the other hand, make vague “he is just like Bush,” which is a bit more specific but still getting out the “AGAINST” vote. I would like to see more reasons why we should vote FOR someone.
Bright, you may call it ageism but McCain is OLD. And he has picked an incompetent bit of fluff as his VP. His age is very important when you consider the risk that he would die in office and who would then be in charge. Voters like to think that the person they pick will be able to stay there for at least 4 years–you can’t count on that with McCain.
Jerold… I was going by this statement…”Holly: You and I have drawn the same conclusion.” I guess I was wrong about what you were concluding.
Here I am commenting again. Seems like there is a bit of sense out there.
Jane said:
Me, too. That is what I mean when I think many Dems don’t do a good job describing what they want to do. Simple message. Repeat. Don’t alienate on the little stuff. Many Dems are hunters, love their spouse and children, don’t like abortion, want clean water and good land but know we have to take care of our famers, etc.
But do we hear that? I don’t hear it enough. Instead we let the Republicans talk it up with their simple message, and we Dems go on and on with the complicated answer that loses the reader/ listener. It’s consistent. And while we’re talking about negatives, the negative ads Dems run seem to make me say “so what” or “what?” while the Republican ads appeal to my values.
William: No worries. My statement was vague, really only intended to support Holly since she was sticking her neck out.
Jane, Hello! Well, as usual, the whole story would be left out there hanging in the ethers if people like me didn’t pipe up. If you look at John’s eyes, they are full of life, like the 93-98 year young man I used to work with at the International Friendship Gardens, Music Festival, Inc. during my five year stint as a landscape and wedding planner person. He had more spark and drive and plans for the future of his company than any one I knew.
On the other hand, Barack has a mother who died of cancer when she wasn’t much older than he is now(bless her soul, that was for me, not you all) and a father who was killed in 1982 in a car accident, bless his soul, too. But maybe he was accident prone.
Or maybe he would die early from disease,too, we don’t know.
So, and the fact that Biden is up there, 65, has had two brain anerisms, bless his heart, and has had no real ability to put a squelch on it, his verbiage, that is. That and the fact that if a person like John McCain, who’s mother by the way is like 95 and active as anyone can be, John is active and sharp, when a person grows in age like that, a new sort of life force happens with them. I have know elderly who barely eat and run around all day long. the body becomes more efficient, the mind even sharper and even more acute, especially when an individual has taken on an active career in one area for decades, like John McCain has and taken care of their nutrition like he does and doesn’t smoke and wear the patch like Obama.
Last night McCain had Barack running a couple of times, when Barack couldn’t rely on the pre set lines, he was hemming and hawing….look, uh , uh, uh, he does it everytime, then he avoided the debate question that he agreed to even before the debates aired, and changed the subject a few times saying, OH that’s not what the American people are interested in. Some are, some aren’t, some were looking to see if you could answer the question satisfactorily.
I also love Obama’s $25, 000 and $30,800 per person meals. I guess his base is pretty poor. 🙁
Oh, and Jane,that was funny when you used the term ‘legal dirty tricks” that says it all.
Like when Obama said he would go with public financing of the campaign and then out spends McCain three to one on ads against him.
Anyway, it doesn’t matter anymore. No one respects honor or country, it’s all about me, me, me, what can I get! I am sadly disappointed in most everyone and everything. I dislike my frolic in politics, I find it negatively stimulating and really something to avoid in the future. I hope all that spinning gets the spinners a lovely hole to dwell in for a long time…especially George Stephanopolis. Aristolte and Sophicles, where are you now? Oh? they said,” tragedy educates”, okay, i’m down with that.
Oh, and Jane, one more thing. Don’t underestimate Palin. You don’t know her and you don’t know what she is capable of at all, because you haven’t given her near the chance you gave to Obama with the same amount of time in public service. Yesterday he was talking about being ‘spanked’ when referringto a lesson regarding a nomination that Hillary won. I don’t care for my country’s leaders to be talking like that no matter what level you take it to, it’s slang and not appropriate for this country’s leaders. So, Sarah gets a little too colloquial, too. Eh, you can’t have everything. Plus I don’t blame her for trying to get rid of a trooper who threatened her father’s life.
Thanks Jerold. Phew.
It’s hot in here, again. Bright, you probably are right about not underestimating Palin. However, you probably can admit that McCain is pretty rickety looking and not bright and beautiful. His second wife is bright and beautiful, but he’s a bit rickety.
Biden’s old, too. Obama is handsome and young. He’s got that going for him.
Ageism is a bad “ism”, but I can see where Jane is coming from. People vote for the President, not the VP. So, I would think it matters to Republicans that McCain is old and ailing. He acquired many of his hurts and pains from an experience that few have had, but honestly, if he’s gone he’s not the leader. Palin would be the one with her finger on THE button.
Who’s seen the movie Fail Safe? Henry Fonda and JR. One of my favorites. If you have, you’ll get it when I say that if Palin is Pres, we’d better not go shopping in New York.
My other favorite book (and movie for that matter, the black and white ’60’s or ’70’s version we have around here) is WG’s Lord of the Flies. In that book, “no rules” ended up being negative, too. Just like with our financial mess. Kill the Pig, make the money. In LoftheF, I was relieved when the soldiers saved the kids. The soldiers stood for regulation, humans working in kind and together, protection of the weak, brain power over “survival of the fittest”, etc. It was obvious to me how far humankind had come in a Democracy.
I’d like us to learn from LoftheF and get back to taking care of the little guy here in this America. We’ve let things get out of hand. Three months from now when the manufacturing numbers hit the scene, we’ll see how far things have gotten out of hand. We need to move on this, and fast, so we don’t see more layoffs. The little guy is going to hurt the worst if we don’t. People that lose money and still have a giganto house won’t be hurting as bad as those who need food and a roof but cannot afford it… I think.
Spin if you must Holly, but no ONE person has any finger on any button and life in not spelled LotF. Way back in the 20th century a bunch of Americans decided that they didn’t want no manufacturing jobs. It was called the age of Informatin, but then, they didn’t want that either. They just wanted companies to move them around at company expense. Nice way to grow GDP.
Furthermore, FDR had polio, JFK had Grave’s disease and was on pain medication most of his presidency. OUr Presidents are well cared for mediacally and surrounded by people who advise and insulate a sick president. It is they who will lead the country, not so much the VP unless they are super able. Biden has no reputation for being a great leader, and Warren Buffet is up there in age, as well. You don’t have a toothpick to lean on.
Hmph. Well then.
Very few presidents have died in office. Ronald Reagan was the oldest president, a few days shy of 70 on his first day in office. Bright is right, that McCain currently has and will continue to have the best healthcare, and for that reason, I don’t hold his age against him. One of my good friends is 81, suffered a stroke, and is still sharper than a lot of 35-year-olds I know.
I’ve heard others comment that Palin has more executive experience than Obama, Biden or McCain. As meritorious as that sounds, Alaska does not face the issues that the U.S. faces. At least Reagan was the governor of California, a much better proving ground for a would-be-president.
It is interesting to note that NOW (National Organization of Women) which does not usually endorse candidates, has issued a position paper on the candidacy of Sarah Palin. It does not criticize her as a person, but as a suitably qualified candidate.
This is a major departure of policy for NOW; you should look at it…
Since this thread is of such an unwieldy length, we’re experimenting with paginated comments.
This means that comments are now in reverse chronological order, with the most recent on top.Love it? Hate it? Let me know in the site thread.Kiffi, what position paper are you referring to? The only one I could find dates back to late August, when Palin was first announced as McCain’s VP pick. It doesn’t criticize her qualifications (in the sense of, Is she up to the job?), but rather her positions and track record on women’s issues, contrasting them with Biden’s:
“Sen. Joe Biden is the VP candidate who appeals to women, with his authorship and championing of landmark domestic violence legislation, support for pay equity, and advocacy for women around the world.”
As for endorsing candidates, here’s a snippet from NPR’s website, synopsizing an interview on Sept. 16 with the president of NOW:
“Morning Edition, September 16, 2008 · Rarely does the National Organization For Women endorse a presidential candidate. On Tuesday, the group announced it is endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.”
It also includes a correction:
“In the interview, we said that a NOW endorsement of a candidate in a general presidential election is “almost unprecedented.” However, NOW endorsed Walter Mondale in 1984, and in 2004 it issued a press release titled, “NOW/PAC Urges All Women to Vote for John Kerry.”
Barry: It was forwarded to me by a LWV friend, from the NOW website … no date obvious. so maybe it is not ‘brand’ new?
Like Rwanda turned to a genocide frenzy in the ’90’s, it seems some are intent on hate speech and threats in this election. Here’s a cip from the start of a piece by Richard Kim:
………….
Waiting for the Barbarians
by Richard Kim
In case you haven’t heard, there’s a guy running for president named Barack Hussein Osama Nobama. This Nobama was born outside America and secretly schooled in Islamic terrorism at a Wahhabi madrassa. He then moved to the United States to take up the radical ’60s teachings of the Weather Underground’s Bill Ayers, while also organizing for ACORN, a subprime-lending, voter fraud-committing collective of affirmative-action welfare queens. All this happened before he became an elitist celebrity advocate of socialism, infanticide, the sexual abuse of children and treason.
Suffice it to say, this caricature stretches even the limits of comic imagination. The real Obama’s Christianity, his patriotism, moderation and commitment to capitalism, law and order, and national security are matters of abundant public record–some of which displeases the left wing of his party. But this is of little import to the Republican rank and file. For them, the fallaciousness of the whole counts for less than the suggestive appeal of the parts. All John McCain, Sarah Palin and their surrogates need to do is raise the insidious question–“Who is the real Barack Obama?”–and the zealots conjure the rest, along with cries of “Treason!” “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” The virulence of such rhetoric makes even Palin seem thoughtful; she at least inserts whole verb phrases like “palling around with” in between nouns like “Barack Obama” and “terrorists.”
Such scenes are alarming not only because of the McCain campaign’s willingness to stoke such murderous mania but also because of its apparent inability to control the madness once it has been unleashed. At more than one rally, McCain has been booed by the audience for attempting to interrupt panicked rants about the impending socialist or terrorist takeover of America. The crowd’s immediate anger is directed not at Obama and the Democrats but at their own party’s standard-bearers, who should be “representing us” but have so far refused to “take the gloves off” and “take it to Obama” and “hit him” in “a soft spot.” If the GOP leaders don’t give these folks what they want, they had best watch their own soft spots, for there is no shortage of backbenchers ready to seize the helm. Take Jeffrey Frederick, the 33-year-old chair of the Virginia Republican Party, who said that Obama and Osama bin Laden “both have friends that bombed the Pentagon.” Denounced by the McCain campaign, Frederick has defiantly refused to apologize for his remark.
Perhaps he knows which way the wind blows: the Republican Party’s electoral strategy of sowing resentment and fear–sprung from Nixon and nurtured by admen like Lee Atwater, Floyd Brown and the Swiftboaters–has finally taken on a life of its own. It thrives as a postmodern pastiche of conservative hate speech that no longer requires a master–a Frankenstein monster freed from his creator.
….
The rest is at “The Nation,” wouldn’t you guess, complaining about all those threats….
Are we headed the way of Rwanda in the ’90’s? “Shoot a Liberal” and all that?
There’s an interesting story in the Wash Post about controversies over new voter databases:
“Thousands Face Mix-Ups In Voter Registrations
In New Databases, Many Are Wrongly Flagged as Ineligible”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/17/AR2008101703360.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008101702930&s_pos=
I had a comment about it, but I lost it in my first attempt to post, so I’ll just give the link this time.
Many have speculated about a possible assasination, but perhaps an ACORN staffer will be the first victim, if there are victims (clip):
……………………………
Death Threat, Vandalism Hit ACORN After Accusations
by Greg Gordon
WASHINGTON — An ACORN community organizer received a death threat and the liberal-leaning voter registration group’s Boston and Seattle offices were vandalized Thursday, reflecting mounting tensions over its role in registering 1.3 million mostly poor and minority Americans to vote next month.
Attorneys for the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now were notifying the FBI and the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division of the incidents, said Brian Kettenring, a Florida-based spokesman for the group.
Republicans, including presidential candidate John McCain, have verbally attacked the group repeatedly in recent days, alleging a widespread vote-fraud scheme, although they’ve provided little proof. It was disclosed Thursday that the FBI is examining whether thousands of fraudulent voter-registration applications submitted by some ACORN workers were part of a systematic effort or isolated incidents.
Kettenring said that a senior ACORN staffer in Cleveland, after appearing on television this week, got an e-mail that said she “is going to have her life ended.”
A female staffer in Providence, R.I., got a threatening call from someone who said words to the effect of “We know you get off work at 9,” then uttered racial epithets, he said.
McClatchy Newspapers is withholding the women’s names because of the threats.
Separately, vandals broke into the group’s Boston and Seattle offices and stole computers, Kettenring said.
……
After WWII, besides executing some key Nazi officials after the Nuremberg trials, they also executed one journalist for spreading propaganda. In Rwanda, radio talk-show hosts were found to have played a crucial role in inciting people to violence.
Who shall we look to for inciting violence against ACORN and liberals it comes? McCain, Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reily, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter?
Obama may be ahead in polls, but McCain may win due to GOB suppression and disqualification of voter registration, which many people may have underestimated:
GOP Strategy: Voter Suppression
Michael Spears
in The Oregonian
http://blog.oregonlive.com/community_writers/2008/10/gop_strategy_vote_tampering.html
Paul writes: “McCain may win due to GOB suppression…”
GOB? Good Ol’ Boys?
Colin Powell endorsed Obama on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ this morning. NY Times article here.
Paul F.- From the articles you have cited here, it seems to me that neither party has a monopoly on radical extremists. The unfortunate effect of the disimination of these types of articles, which are in my opinion not facts but opinions, cited by you and others, both conservative and liberal, is to fan the flames of suspicion and distrust between ordinary citizens rather than bringing understanding and unity. I see it as an unfortunate byproduct of election year politics. So far, these things have been laid to rest after the elections, but when grievences from 4, 8, and 12 years ago begin to surface as festering wounds, then I do begin to fear that at some point we will choose not to lay them aside. Will there be a point where we become factitious and respond like societies such as Rwanda, or Iraq? Let us hope not. I am not voting for Obama, but I am certainly not going to go hunt down my liberal neighbors if he wins.
Another observation of mine is that if a liberal voter registration organization, such as ACORN registers monority voters and tells them to vote Democratic, is this a type of unregulated political activity? Just wondering. I wonder what the Democrats would say if the Republicans began registering “disenfranchised” voters by reaching out to them with financial and physical aid and told them to vote Republican? Would you be cheering us on in our endeavors? Just wondering.
John G: My first reaction to your post has more to do with the vested interests surrounding the president’s office. Since so much money rests on who gets elected, the pressure is ever-increasing to win the race at any cost. This is nicely illustrated by the pride some people take in the “blue” or “red” states, as a sign of how divided the union has become.
I believe we’d have more democracy in a more-than-two-party system, but the two parties have so much popularity, so much control, that third parties aren’t invited to nonpartisan events and few people lament.
This is one reason why I am not affiliated with any political party. I vote on the issues, I vote for people whom I believe will promote the issues I care about. (I happened to volunteer for the DFL party this election because I support Obama over McCain and Franken over Coleman. I may volunteer for another party, or no party, next election.)
Does Colin Powell expect that endorsing Obama will redeem himself for his performance in front of the UN in 2003?
Saw “W” tonite. Mr Powell was shown as the lone decenter in the Bush administration.
The main focus of the movie revolved around Bush’s life and his relationship with his father. However, it does lay bare the true reasons for the Iraq war, although Mr Stone bypasses the Congresses complicity in the operation.
People who believe in American exceptional-ism(most Americans) will be truly disgusted by this movie, and folk’s who are reality based will be entertained.
At one Time, I was impressed by Colin Powell.
And at one time, Colin Powell heartily endorsed Bush-Cheney. I guess we can all be wrong at one time or another.
Powell jumped ship. A true warrior makes the best of any situation and does not let his men and women down. Powell is a truthful ship jumper and nothing more.
Some of my posts were being held because I didn’t fill out the comment form in full. ( I miss the days when the form was self filling.)
Collin Powell is the perfect example of a RINO.
Where has he (Powell) been the last 20 years? The GOP has had conservative social planks in every election since Ronald Reagan. Powell is mortal just like the rest of us; he misstated at least 2 things about Barack Obama. I will point out one mistake: Barack has not always been a Christian. Powell said he had always been a Christian or in the Christian faith. Yes, Senator Obama claims Christianity as his faith but he tells in his own book about a preacher who was instrumental in his awakening.
GHWB is the least socially conservative President since Reagan. He (Powell) knew that 41 had to get the support of the base. Was Powell that involved in the war-stuff that he didn’t pay attention to his party platform?
Powell knew exactly where the party was going. He would still be in the administration if he didn’t have such differing views. He showed his real card when he told Brokaw he didn’t want to see more Supreme court Justices like the last 2. If he really was a Lincoln Republican he would not be so adamant about the Supreme Court Justices. He seems to imply the use of a litmus test for judges. I truly believe his strong social views outweighed his pro-military past.
I like/liked Powell as a Military Leader, I am glad he showed his true colors before he ran as a Republican.
If I were a betting man, 5 to 1 odds he becomes a Democrat.
He would probably fair well as the Secretary of Defense.
Being a Veteran, I will always honor his service to our country. Party affiliation has no bearing when you are in a Fox hole.
.
Joe:
I think he may have meant something along the lines of “has always been a Christian during the period in which these accusations were made.” But regardless, it’s a rather fine hair to split, and as Powell said, it shouldn’t be an issue if Obama were a Muslim.
Judicial appointments always involve matching some political views. I think John McCain emphasized this in his ridiculous claim in the last debate that he only focuses on qualifications, but anybody who doesn’t agree with him on Roe v. Wade lacks necessary qualifications. Roberts and Alito were radically right-wing appointments — I hardly think that him saying he doesn’t want more where they came from means he has unreasonable standards for appointments.
JohnG wrote, “The unfortunate effect of the disimination of these types of articles, which are in my opinion not facts but opinions, cited by you and others, both conservative and liberal, is to fan the flames of suspicion and distrust between ordinary citizens rather than bringing understanding and unity. I see it as an unfortunate byproduct of election year politics.”
Naw. Not election year politics. It’s like when people complain about the loss of habeas corpus, or torture, or wiretapping, or the persecution of government whistleblowers, and then the response is this:
“You must be a Bush-hater. Why are you so filled with hate? Why not open your heart and learn to love torture, the loss of rights, the persecution of whistleblowers, and all the other things Republicans love? You are simply a Bush-hater, and a terrorist-sympathizer.”
So how can a guy respond to that kind of psychoanalysis?
So they’re whipping people up into an assasination frenzy, but we’re not allowed to speak negatively about it or we’re just haters ‘n’ stuff? Is that what you mean? Or only if we do it during election season?
Now JohnG, on another subject you raised, why do you think or assume or suggest that when some ACORN worker signs up Micky Mouse to vote, that they’re asking Micky to vote Democrat, or Nader, or Libertarian, or anything but Republican? Why do you assume they encourage a certain kind of vote at all? It’s known that they work to get minority and low-income registration, and it’s assumed that this will yield more Dem votes than GOP votes, but why assume? Have you anecdotal evidence showing that it happened in three cases, and you wish to extrapolate and claim that this must happen in 51% or 79% of all cases?
If you go that route, you know, then you might have some atheists claiming (also from anecdotal evidence) that because some priests and ministers of various Christian denominations have sexually abused children, that all Christians are therefore sexual abusers of children, and you know that would not be true.
So do you really want to go down that path?
Bright…You said…”Powell jumped ship. A true warrior makes the best of any situation and does not let his men and women down. Powell is a truthful ship jumper and nothing more.”
Nothing more than a ship jumper? Even for you, that one takes the cake. In one sentence you attempt to diminish a man’s lifetime of service. That is one mean spirited statement.
But for argument’s sake, let’s talk about the ‘truthful’ angle.
How did Powell (as a ‘true warrior’) let his men and women down? Bush and Cheney are not ‘his’ men. Mc Cain is not ‘his’ man. Powell is indeed truthful in his assesment of McCain and the republican party. And what is wrong with jumping ship when that ship (the McCain campaign) is filled with lies, innuendo and divisiveness?
He is ‘truthful’…the McCain campaign is resorting to lies, calling Obama a terrorist, a muslim, and now that the ‘liberal’ tag no longer fools folks, a socialist. And he was ‘truthful’ in stating that Bachmann’s call for an investigation of ‘anti-American’ congress members was outrageous.
It seems to me Powell made a thoughtful endorsement. I saw him talk about his reasons for over 6 minutes without notes…obviously he made a well considered judgment in his endorsment of Obama. I very much hope he will play a role in the new administration, regardless of the outcome.
Hi, WIlliam. First of all, I might be insulted when you say, “even for you” What do you mean by that?
Second of all, let me please say once again, that a lot of what I say is just me thinking out loud and hoping for some real discussion and not just party line lies. I am no big fan of lies and I am finding out that just about everyone is either lying or tweaking the truth to death.
I am glad to hear of any good and truthful stories about Powell. I used to think he was the cat’s meow. But, In my philosophy that I hold for everything, the man should have stuck to his proverbial guns and held down Rumsfeld, because everyone was saying how bad Rumsfeld was and Bush would just keep saying how he wanted to give it a chance to work. Most presidents have not been given such free reigh, and if it was all about the fix of money being what drove them to this point, someone should be out there hollering their heads off and exposing the story, but no one is. I blame the good guys as well as the bad. FOr a bad guy to thrive, it only takes a good guy doing nothing.
Come on, tell me how Powell helped to stop Rumsfeld besides quitting. Few men stay in those positions for more than a year or two because it is so stressful, so quitting alone doesn’t make much of an impact, if that’s what you are gonna claim. Peace.
Sean,
Which debate were you watching when McCain even eluded to a litmus test? If anyone hinted about values playing a role in their decision making it was Obama. I think McCain has voted “yes” on every Supreme Court nominee. (Including the “liberal” judges.)
What in your opinion makes Roberts and Alito “radically right-wing appointments”? If their view on abortion and traditional marriage is the tipping factor, then nearly half of Americans are in the same camp.
Sean the big elephant in the room has always been morality (primarily Abortion). For the Democrats they talk about fairness to everyone if they will be judging. What they really mean is what your view on Roe v. Wade is? For the Republicans they talk about being strict constructionists. They think that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision based on some crazy extrapolation of the right to privacy. Both parties couch their questions in flowing words and disguised language but it always comes back to the Moral issues.
A similar point can be made using Sarah Palin as the test sample. The moment she (Palin) was announced all of the brilliant media pundits prognosticated women (Hillary supporters) would not cross over and vote for Palin. I listened very carefully to their reasons and the most frequent first response was she was not pro-choice. The knee-jerk responses of most people are usually quite revealing.
Abortion is the big Elephant in the room and whether we admit it or not it brings more “base” voters to the booth than any other. It has always been one of the top 3 issues that guide voters to specific candidates. This year may be different; the economic crisis is the driving factor. The war is a big factor. Terrorism will be a motivating factor. I predict Abortion will be one of the top 5 issues in the voting booth.
Powell has always struggled with the GOP’s social planks. He really is a “political turncoat”. Even Arlen Specter supports John McCain and he is more moderate than Powell. I would have expected Olympia Snow or Susan Collins to be more likely to “publicly” cross-over.
From the third debate:
I think we’re in agreement that there are always some political standards for judicial appointees. But, at the end of the day, I’d rather see Democratic standards than Republican.
Joe, you hit the nail on the head. Roberts’ and Alito’s views on abortion and the gender specificity of marriage are extremely right-wing. I don’t think it would be unfair to classify ordinary citizens who share those views at right-wing. As I’m sure you already know, however, Barack Obama does not publicly support equal access to marriage for gay couples; it pisses me off, but it should get him some brownie points with you.
I don’t see why you think it’s unreasonable that a female voter would be less likely to vote for Sarah Palin, somebody who opposes this fundamental right of women, than Hillary Clinton, who supports it. I think that males should support the right to choose, too, but it really doesn’t directly affect us; women have the most direct interest in women’s rights.
Sean, a child belongs also to the father, the grandparents and to the future generations he or she may help bring into the world.
We do not end at our skin, we are all part of the human race. We should have respect for every aspect. The woman’s right to choose begins and ends with her decision to lay down with a potential mate. The rest is a fairy tale we can no longer promote in good consciousness.
Bright, you’re right, a child does belong to the father as well. Fortunately, we’re not talking about children, we’re talking about fetuses.
Until it is born, that fetus is a part of the woman’s body, and it’s that woman’s choice whether or not to carry it to term.
Bright and Sean: In my college ethics class, I winced when I saw that abortion was going to be one of the topics. What impressed me was that neither of the two essays we read were the traditional “pro-life” or “pro-choice” platforms. One essay was almost pro-life, but not really. The other was almost pro-choice, but not really.
Do either of you think that the very large pro-life and pro-choice movements have stifled discussion on other perspectives? It reminds me of the polarization of the Republicans and Democrats, not leaving much room for other parties. Do either of you agree?
Bright,
Re: post #633. Life is life. It astounds me that when ‘pro-lifers’ do not include the lives of men, fathers, women, mothers, and all of the innocent victims of war in their argument. Be consistent — life is life.
Sean,
What I have learned from your dialogue is you have to be the right or “left” kind of women to break the glass ceiling.
That means you have to be the right kind of African American to break the civil rights barrier.
Republican’s like Condoleezza Rice don’t qualify because of their political views.
I thought somebody once said that people should be chosen based on the content of their character.
“Moral character or character is an evaluation of a particular individual’s moral qualities. The concept of character can imply a variety of attributes including the existence or lack of virtues such as integrity, courage, fortitude, honesty, and loyalty, or of good behaviors or habits. When someone is a moral character, it is primarily referring to the assemblage of qualities that distinguish one individual from another”. Psychologist Lawrence Pervin defines moral character as “a disposition to behave expressing itself in consistent patterns of functioning across a range of situations”
“The function of education, therefore, is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society. The most dangerous criminal may be the man gifted with reason, but with no morals…We must remember that intelligence is not enough. Intelligence plus character — that is the goal of true education. The complete education gives one not only power of concentration, but worthy objectives upon which to concentrate”…– Martin Luther King Jr, The Purpose of Education
I am guessing MLK based his moral code on Biblical standards like the Ten Commandments.
I don’t think he put his finger in the air and went with current flow of philosophy. That’s what a lot of politicians do when they look for votes.
Tim Penny is the perfect example.
At least Tim Walz has been true to his convictions.
My personal opinion is character is found in both liberals and conservatives, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are in both Political parties and they understand character.
Sean,
When is the last time you heard of any expectant mother calling her child a fetus?
“My fetus just kicked me.”
“Part of my body just kicked me.”
In my 46 years of life I have never heard either retort.
Sorry, this is my last post for now.
I have to work, or something like that….
Good question, Jerold. But the real question is where does life begin. Since there is no answer to that based in fact besides at the point where the sperm and egg meet and agree to become one item, that’s where it begins. If the pro choicers agree that killing a human is wrong, then they must subscribe to the not so extreme case that killing a fetus is a wrong as well. But because they won’t admit that much, then there is no place to agree. If everyone has choice over their bodies, why is suicide illegal? It’s because we cost society with our suicides…leaving starving children, perhaps, or jumping in front of a train where the engineer becomes an unwilling contributor to a death of another human being. SO many instances.
A woman chooses who she lays with and that’s her choice. Or if she wants to lay with anyone, that’s her choice. She can choose to become a nun or a hermit if she doesn’t want have anything to do with people or babies or commitment, we have a lot of choices there. Why choose to get pregnant and then abort?
It makes no sense. If she gets pregnant by force, someone can care for that baby if the mother is sickened by the sight of the baby.
Abortion, especially at these elective types and numbers levels are simply not necessary. People all over the world have their babies and have next to nothing. But they have the dignity of not killing their babies.
Take a lesson there.
Martha, I am not getting kicked off cuz of your
insistence on trying to make me look bad yet again. I am no war monger, but if I want to be inconsistent, I surely will.
Joe I agree with a lot of what you say. Character and ethics are important, though I would not say that character is the same thing as adherence to religious rules.
One thing I do take issue with:
I don’t know how you got that. I said that women have an interest in voting for a candidate who supports women’s rights. Gays and lesbians might want a gay president, but if it’s one who is against gay adoptive and marriage rights, they’re probably not going to support that person.
If Sarah Palin becomes VP, or — God forbid — president, she will have broken a glass ceiling. But that doesn’t mean her policies will do anything for women’s interests. So why should we expect people to support her just because of her sex?
Bright wrote,
Bright, your argument is undermined slightly by the fact that suicide is not illegal in any of the 50 states.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_it_illegal_for_people_to_kill_themselves
…and elsewhere.
Joe, you wrote,
No, Condoleezza Rice is a poor candidate for President because she’s spent the last 8 years working on the Bush foreign policy. It’s not a very good track record to run on.
Also, think of Jesse Jackson’s opinion of Obama’s anatomy (specifically, what he thinks should be done to certain parts of it.) It would be reasonable to argue that one of Barack Obama’s greatest strengths as a candidate is that he is not what old civil rights leaders think of as “the right kind of African American to break the civil rights barrier.”
Patrick, you are right about the legality of suicide, and of course, a person who is successful at suicide cannot be prosecuted at any rate. This was always a sticking point with me, but verily, I did not look up the point since the 80s or early 90s when it still was illegal. However, my point about us all being there for one another in these cases where death seems to be the only viable answer for some people, not me, not me, but some people…this will prove my point about the state taking interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_views_of_suicide
“In many jurisdictions medical facilities are empowered or required to commit anyone whom they believe to be suicidal for evaluation and treatment. See Code 5150 for example.”
As a doctor, Patrick, I am sure you have come across this idea and chose not to expound upon it. I wonder why.
Bright wrote,
Bright, I have come across a great number of excellent ideas in my life. I cannot share all of them with LGN. In this case, the fact I presented seemed relevant.
Sean and Patrick,
I think your responses to my thoughts bear the correctness of my premise.
Pat said,
“No, Condoleezza Rice is a poor candidate for President because she’s spent the last 8 years working on the Bush foreign policy. It’s not a very good track record to run on.”
I differ with your conclusions, the majority of African Americans will not vote for her simply because she is not a Democrat. Please don’t think I am insulting the intelligence of a certain voting bloc.
White “country club” voters are just as prone to vote Republican with no careful deliberation.
DFL’ers won’t vote for her because she is a Republican. They would never cross over!
African American voters are well-versed knowledgeable citizens. Yet we are all prone to fall into lock-step with our circles of love and friendship. The Republican Party did a terrible job of convincing African Americans they have a place, a needed place at the GOP helm. FYI: Southern Democrats were just as guilty of stalling civil rights as any other institution.
It would take too much space to explain cultural and historical tendencies as they relate to the typical American voter. I am proof positive, of this influence. My voting patterns were initially shaped by my Father’s views. 28 years have passed since I first pulled the lever, and my voting patterns have not changed.
Yet, my father was raised in a DFL home by a father of Union persuasion. He joined the USAF and began to see things from a different vantage point. Even his mother, who voted DFL,” because it was the right thing to do”, slowly embraced the values of GOP. They are the exception not the norm. I have only voted for 2 Democrats in my tenure of election participation.
I watched with great interest the PBS show about LBJ last night. The way our country treated African Americans was deplorable. Thank fully as a nation we have corrected some of our mistakes. No one questions the historical intentions of Lincoln. Yet LBJ was not on board with civil rights until he had his epiphany.
Many more Americans need an “epiphany” about “all Men (Mankind) being created equal”.
As a conservative I will fight for the rights of all Americans because it is the right thing to do!
Sean I realize you feel a certain level of marginalization by the GOP and even Obama’s view on traditional marriage leaves a bitter taste in your mouth.
The GOP will probably never be the party which attempts to change the definition of marriage.
Maybe you should be settled with what Obama brings to the table for you at this moment in history. McCain was not my first choice, but he will get my vote.
Bright: Your question, “[when] does life begin,” is easier to answer than you might think. Life began about 4.5 billion years ago. Gonads and gametes are very much alive, so asking when life begins is not the issue, but when does life deserve protection.
I think the question that the pro-choice movement asks is not when did life begin, but why does a single human cell, or a small collection of cells, have a right to life if there is no mind yet developed. What makes the one-cell zygote worth protecting but not the living cells inside your cheek when a doctor takes a swab of them?
Joe, you wrote,
“the majority of African Americans will not vote for her simply because she is not a Democrat.”
Of course not: they have political beliefs, and they vote accordingly.
If Condoleeza Rice were to run for President, the first group of people she would have to win over would be her own Republicans.
Do you think that Republicans wouldn’t support her? I do, and here’s why:
She’s a smart, knowledgable, level-headed conservative. I would’ve considered her a highly qualified choice for a Republican VP. Unfortunately, her strong ties to the Bush Administration are something the Republicans are currently trying to run from as fast as possible.
Therefore, I stand by my assessment:
That’s another good point, Jerold. Well, if you had started out life in someone’s cheek, I’d be standing up for your right to develop, and then I would call you ‘cheeky monkey’. 🙂
I think the pro death movement is a lot of lazy people who are spoiled and don’t want to take responsibility for their actions. And I am speaking only of elective for convenience abortions and the aborters. For the rest, I leave that to the Pope, cuz he looks deep into the future and considers all possiblities.
I am not against the people who make abortions happen. I feel sorry for so many of them who feel so guilty after they have done what they do, that several of them have told me, before I even know their names, that they have had an abortion. In a casual social setting, they tell me, “I had an abortion.” I am so shocked. Why are they telling me? I am not a social worker. It is because they are ridden with guilt. And so I talk to them, and I listen to them and they cry and cry. And I say things to them to show them compassion, and they cry some more, and they are forgiven for a moment, but then they go home and cry some more. It’s not right and everyone knows it.
This talk about cells and cheeks and swabs and all the various variations you can come up with on this theme are complete balderdash. Please stop killing the babies.
1. Did you seriously just write that, Bright?
2. Is a child really a good way to punish somebody for an irresponsible decision?
Bright: By the “pro-death movement,” do you mean the Hemlock Society?
My question is serious. Why protect a one-cell zygote and not one cell from your cheek? Calling it balderdash is inaccurate and impolite.
Jerold, Can you say eu·phe·mism ? I am not mincing words for your amusement.
Sean, a child is no punishment. I can see that society has found a way to make your generation feel like they don’t deserve to
procreate like most species do when they
want their species to survive. Now that
to me is sad and rude and incredibly impolite.
Has anyone else noticed that this discussion is rapidly closing in on the Sign of the Beast? Who wants to make posting #666?
Barry,
Made me Laugh!
Maybe the moderator will step in before anarchy hits the LGN blog site. LOL
Barry: Post #666 only matters if it’s on page 13, so don’t worry.
Bright: I’m sorry if my question annoys you, but answering “balderdash” and “euphemism” hasn’t helped me understand your point of view.
Here’s a clip from Jim Wallis, writing on 10-16-08 after the debate, about a new conversation needed on abortion, and some signs we may be ready:
……………………………
There are indeed profound moral issues involved in the decisions to have or not to have an abortion, and most Americans believe that. Most also believe the abortion rate in America is far too high but are hesitant to completely deny the difficult choice to have one.
Abortion reduction is the clear common ground that could unite the pro-choice and pro-life polarities and bring us together to find some real solutions and finally see some results. John McCain and Barack Obama last evening opened up the possibility of finding some new common ground in reducing abortions, reflecting the 2008 Democratic and Republican platforms. There is also now some movement in the Congress with pro-life and pro-choice members looking for common ground solutions for reducing the number of abortions that are proven to work. New and compelling studies make the clear connection between abortion and poverty, with fully three-fourths of the women who have abortions saying that they just couldn’t afford to have the child. It will be a great day when both poverty reduction and abortion reduction become non-partisan issues and bipartisan causes.
Life is precious. John McCain believes that, Barack Obama believes that, Sarah Palin believes that, and so does Joe Biden. In fact, I’m not sure I have ever met a person who believes otherwise.
Freedom is fundamental. John McCain believes that, Barack Obama believes that, Sarah Palin believes that, and so does Joe Biden. Again, I’m not sure I have ever met a person who believes otherwise.
Americans are for life. Americans are for choice. The challenge for our political leaders, our religious leaders, and every American is to hold freedom and life together even when they seem to collide. We should do all we can to make sure we have as much of both as possible. And we can start by having a better conversation about abortion in this election and beyond. Thankfully, the first steps toward that conversation were taken last evening.
……………………………
(End of clip)
Yes, from one perspective, a fetus is a part of a woman’s body, and depends on it. Sure. But from another perspective, it’s very different. A woman doesn’t, sometimes, grow an extra finger due to intercourse, and hope that the finger will go to college and learn to play the violin.
We have to get beyond the “part of her body” discussion. A fetus is not the same as a fingernail, or the part of a nose that might be removed in a nose job. It simply isn’t. It’s a very unique situation, calling for unique treatment as a moral issue, unlike the way we treat other parts of the body that might be clearly harmful and expendable, like a wart or tumor.
But making progress on abortion reduction as the common ground would certainly be helpful.
Jerold, your questions don’t annoy me at all. I think questions are great ways to learn and teach. The euphemisms like abort, listen, this isn’t a fantasy star trek space ship mission that you end dramatically. This is human life to be cherished and protected, imo.
And to play with words saying when the fetus is a human baby and when it’s nothing more than cheek swabs is imo nonsense. IF you or others don’t value life, and are just using my posts as fodder for your next round of inquiries or attacks, as the case may be, I cannot change your minds, but if someone who loves life and has respect, maybe a little faith and hope, and honors life is maybe considering abortion as a solution to their situation, and if my words may fall on welcoming ears, it’s all worth it to me, and hopefully to them when they hold their fine little baby in their arms and when that child begins to wriggle around and grope into the almost dark work and you can take their hand and show them, it’s okay, I am here and I will protect you and show you life.
Well, Paul, I don’t agree completely, but your main point is definitely a reasonable one. Even if somebody gives absolutely no value to a fetus, an abortion is a procedure that can harm the woman’s body, and very often harms the woman emotionally.
While, for the foreseeable future, unwanted pregnancies will always occur — and abortion must always be an option — you’re right to point out that Barack Obama and John McCain both want to reduce the number of those pregnancies.
Curiously, though, I don’t recall hearing anything in the debates on sex-ed. Did I miss something?
Bright, a child is a punishment if you’re saying it’s something you should have to deal with as a consequence of unsafe sex. {Preventable (by abortion), undesired consequence} = {punishment}, or close enough.
Paul- You had this statement in quotation marks, “…“You must be a Bush-hater. Why are you so filled with hate? Why not open your heart and learn to love torture, the loss of rights, the persecution of whistleblowers, and all the other things Republicans love? You are simply a Bush-hater, and a terrorist-sympathizer.” …”. What on earth are you quoting here? I don’t remember ever making any assertion like that. As far as this type of hatred goes, I think it is seething under the surface all the time. That is why I try to focus on an individual’s heart attitude. I can’t change someone in Ohio or New Jersy, but I can have a positive influence on those I come into contact with on a daily basis.
As far as anecdotal evidence on ACORN, I can only tell of the experience my co-worker had a couple weeks ago with one of their representatives in downtown Mpls. She was encouraged to reister as a Democrat. When she told the person she lived in one of the suburbs, she was told that she should go ahead and register, as the information was reviewed by the State, and they would be sure it was straightened out. My co-worker asked me if I thought her name would be used in the other precinct from where she lives. I told her that I didn’t think this was possible, although there was a news article in the Strib a couple weeks ago where a Winona State student had registered and voted under both her college and home addresses. Hopefully, this was an isolated incident, but it makes me wonder if this is a greater pattern. I know another person who just went through a ridiculous situation with some absentee ballots. I will not divulge the incident here because of privacy considerations, but it did give us both pause to consider what happens with these ballots.
Jerold- We already have more than two parties in this country. I think it is safe to say that many people don’t believe that voting for a candidate in other than one of the two major parties will get them anywhere. I agree with your statement, “…Since so much money rests on who gets elected, the pressure is ever-increasing to win the race at any cost…” I believe people will cast their lot with whichever party they believe will best serve their own interests. They may not agree with everything in the party platform, but they have an identificatioin in a few issues important to themselves. This would explain pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans.
Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life
Overturning Roe v. Wade
John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.
Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.
However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion – the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As John McCain has publicly noted, “At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level.”
and
The Greatest Honor is to Serve the Cause of Human Dignity
There is no greater nobility than to sacrifice for a great cause and no cause greater than protection of human dignity. Decency, human compassion, self-sacrifice and the defense of innocent life are at the core of John McCain’s value system and will be the guiding principles of a McCain Presidency.
“To sacrifice for a cause greater than yourself, and to sacrifice your life to the eminence of that cause, is the noblest activity of all.”
John McCain is against abortion.
The above post is from McCain’s website:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/
95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm
That’s Un-American, Bright
A surprising number of facts are either un-American or at least non-real American.
Hmm, un-American? Hopefully that is an inside joke instead of a real jab 🙂
If we step back and look at everyone’s views, I bet we’re all pretty much thinking the same thing. Paul brought in Jim Wallis’ thinking:
and I thought it was a pretty good way to come together on this issue.
Bright and other women, if you were in the hospital, and you had to die for your baby, you might. But wouldn’t it be nice to be able to decide that you’d like to live? If we mandate the woman dies, it will be hard on families and doctors.
You men and women, would you like to be in the position to tell a raped women they have to give birth? Can you picture yourself telling her she has to? If you wouldn’t like to do that, it’s unreasonable to ask doctors to do that.
If you’re “pro-life”, to me that means you don’t ever believe there is a good reason for an abortion. I think we should change the verbiage so it is clear: Pro-Woman’s life. Not pro-life, not pro-abortion, maybe pro-choice… but pro-choice has perhaps come to symbolize that a lot of easy abortions are okay.
We can come together on the idea that abortions are horrible, especially if we think specifics. For instance (look away gentle reader) my daughter came home the other day saying someone in her class was talking about her abortion and now everyone was saying “she had her uterus sucked out.”
My daughter was horrified. I felt sick, too. I bet that girl is going through tough times, and I feel bad for her. I hope she’s okay.
Accidents happen, but I bet we can come together here: Let’s do a great job educating. Abortions are horrible, horrible alternatives. Many women who have them are very sorry later on.
Sad to say abortion foes have had 36 years to end abortion through compassion and support and love and it hasn’t happened. Teachers of abstinence-only birth control have had centuries to perfect their efforts. And here we are, talking about putting people in jail or letting them die in illegal procedures.
This is like Prohibition and the drug wars, where people rot in jail for dumb mistakes and die from poisons they need and for which they have no safe alternative.
Abortion foes say that once abortion is illegal the support will be there, but the hundreds of thousands of children languishing in foster care and dead from abuse and neglect and the women in mental hospitals and jails show pretty clearly that hasn’t happened yet.
To me, all this talk about overturning Roe v. Wade is about punishing women and not about helping babies. You can help babies now, and thousands of agencies are ready to assist you. All those people waiting to adopt can adopt older children and toddlers if their purpose is to help children instead of getting a perfect, white, living Cabbage Patch Doll to adore them and reflect their own needs. They can adopt a teen mom and her child if the goal is what is best for them and not what is best for the couple.
As for the beginning of life, until the 1930s the Catholic Church didn’t have a formal policy against abortion before the ‘quickening,’ although it and most of society were willing to shame women into marriage or secret adoptions.
Mother Nature has her own abortion standards, killing off half of all embryos during the first few weeks. How do we hold her accountable?
The bottom line is that putting women and doctors in jail isn’t an effective form of birth control. To make this fair, to believe an embryo is a person who must be brought to term and supported, then you will have to have police doing DNA tests and jailing the fathers of babies as well. I think the first court case where the woman proves she was treated differently from the father in an abortion case will mark the point at which legislatures drop all talk of banning abortion.
It also is a major intrusion of government into the personal lives of people, which is the piece of this whole issue flies in the face of conservatives’ cries of limiting government. Legalized abortion does nothing to deny you the right to have as many babies as you want. Gay marriage does nothing to limit your rights to straight marriage.
Let me end by saying I am against abortion, really and truly against it. I believe men and women should be equally accountable for the beginning of a pregnancy and for all the decisions about the child’s life from that moment on. Even so, I am surrounded by women I admire and respect who have made different choices for different reasons. I don’t require them to prove their worth by wallowing in guilt and remorse for the rest of their lives.
I think abortion is one of the last tests left in our search for a society of tolerance and compassion and responsibility. Medical science and Mother Nature have given us most of the answers we need to prevent unwanted pregnancies, we must search inside ourselves for the wisdom to use them well.
I think most right wing Christians are ‘anti-abortion’ and not ‘pro-life.’ If they are ‘pro-life’ then they would spend their time and energy letting young pregnant mothers know pro-life Christians and churches could be relied upon to help raise and support these children. Being only anti-abortion is easy and appeals to mankind’s worst judgmental & militant nature. Being supportive and charitable requires so much more work and effort without all the finger pointing fun – but this is where pro-life Christians should be putting their efforts.
I haven’t had a chance to say this before, so I’d just like to say:
I completely agree with what David Henson just wrote.
And dang nab it, I went and wrote it in third person, and there’s no edit button. That is to say,
David, I completely agree with what you just wrote.
(Is this post #666 yet?)
I would like to throw in this one observation on abortion. It did not just spring onto the scene when the courts decided the Roe vs. Wade issue. What before that was a medical decision, decided in the privacy of a woman and her physician now became a decision for the woman only to make, hence the term- abortion on demand. What this opened up was the possibility for the abortion proceedure to be used as a means of birth control and be paid for by the government welfare system. This is what many of us object to- some of our tax money being used to pay for these proceedures. Though there are moral issues associated with this by many people, me included, the crux of the matter comes down to money, and how much say-so we taxpayers have over how our taxes are used. This is one reason I hold that this is taxation without representation. Of course, no one person or party can ever represent the divergent points of view in this country.
John, I would guess that dying women in need of emergency help might use tax payer money for an abortion (in the hospital, quick surgery, etc.). Otherwise, I think women quietly use their own credit card to pay for an abortion.
Or, tell me specifically where the tax dollar is being used. I’ve heard the money argument before and want to hear the specifics so I can understand your point of view. Is it your dollar that goes into the doctor’s pocket?
Anne, good points. Ultimately, I don’t think many women or doctors would land in jail, but we would probably see a rise in the number of women who are “hidden away” because they got pregnant, and a rise in the number of “try this at home abortion techniques” and ultimately deaths due to those same techniques.
Maybe Democrats should start placing “anti-abortion” stickers on their cars. Most of us don’t like abortions but don’t want the government mandating in this area… wait, that’s not what David was saying. His point is that pro-lifers were really anti-abortioners… who wants what, again?
…and as to the idea that Christians just point fingers instead of helping pregnant women and babies– bah! There’s plenty of good Christian people out there that already do lend a hand in this area.
and Anne, right in the middle of your long post you slip in
That sentence doesn’t go with your surrounding text. Trying to use subliminal message technique? Or how does that factor into your argument?
Holly, didn’t mean to indicate that nothing was being done. As I mentioned, there are thousands of agencies and millions of people trying to help. I just grow tired of the argument that a law will somehow solve this problem.
Sorry for the line about gay marriage. The principle is the same, but the post was too long as it was to make the comparison. I meant to delete that and save it for another thread.
Thanks for reading the whole thing. I was in a hurry and it’s always easier to write long than short.
And John, I might prefer that my tax money isn’t used in a pointless war. In fact we have representation — that means we have the right to be heard, not the right to be heard over everyone else.
Well Anne! A timely response from you. 🙂
I think it was David H and Patrick that were talking about Christians and finger pointing. David by original text, and Patrick by seconding.
And I was being funny about the odd line in your post! Ha ha! 🙂
I don’t think I was finger pointing. I just hold the highest regard for people who walk their talk.
When I was young, I was quite struck by the seeming philosophical inconsistency of many demagogues who called themselves Christians, and my opinion of religious people generally was colored negatively by exposure to those bad apples.
Later, I learned respect for religious people when I met many caring Christians who led by positive actions, rather than by negative denunciations.
Anne, there are not millions of women dying or about to die from child birth, or millions of women going crazy. Or millions of mentally ill women who should not give birth.
Just because you say “the bottom line” in many of your posts, does not mean any of it actually is.
The fact is that once you say it’s okay to kill the offspring, then it’s okay to disregard a whole lot of other life, too. My vote is no
compromise. For extreme cases as they do come up, let there be laws to cover each of those situations adequately. Amen?
Soldiers can defend and fend for themselves, little innocents cannot. Don’t be a bully.
Super comment of the day:
Patrick says:
I agree completely.
Bright, I see you are ignoring my comments… I’d like for you to respond. Please? 🙂
In case you were wondering Bright, I like to read your posts and John G’s posts because you both seem to think the opposite of what I think on many issues. And you don’t just point out what is wrong with what other people said, you go on limbs to tell what you think. And you’re generally kind. 🙂 Yes indeedy! Unless things have changed….
Hi, Holly. Well, I don’t know exactly what you
want me to respond to. I am glad to hear that you are getting something out of all John’s and my variations on a theme.
I am normally a pretty agreeable person, but
not on this issue. I don’t hear enough about it from my point of view. The other thing I like to promote is reading and literacy volunteer programs, so more people can read my posts. 🙂 I am kidding about that last part.
John G, in post 666 you claim that before Roe v. Wade abortion was a private matter between a woman and her doctor. NOT. Before Roe v. Wade it was illegal to have an abortion and, sometime a Doctor did a D & C and called it a D & C so nobody knew, but mostly abortions were illegal affairs where women were maimed or killed by the procedure. Roe v. Wade made it a private matter between a woman and her doctor. Anti-abortion zealots have attemted to bridge the Doctor-patient privelege with legal wrangling.
Most abortions today are safe and a serious decision that is well contemplated. Unfortunately, the radical anti-abortionists spread false information about women blithly requesting an abortion and regularly using abortion for birth control. It is not true.
There are certainly women out there of little or no conscience who think of pregnancy as a minor inconvenience–but they rarely have the financial ability to actually seek and complete an abortion.
The majority of women who have abortions are regular, real people who agonize over their decision. This issue is too complex for everyone slinging the same crap.
And women in America die due to pregnancy and childbirth at a rate 4 time higher than Sweden. The risk for a woman dying in the USA due to pregnancy is one in a little over 4000. That is a real risk that the state should not have the right to enforce on anyone.
Whether you like it or not, a pregnancy is part of a woman’s body, and she has more rights than ANYONE ELSE in deciding what will happen to her body and what risks she is willing to accept. She should not have to give up the right just because she had sex.
Jane, thanks, you reminded me of a couple of things I have left out.
1. It isn’t all that difficult to abstain from sex.
Just as one minor example, I have a six year old dog who has all his stuff, and has never had a mate. He’s fine. He is very mellow and he is an intelligent and active, but not overly active dog.
I know that people can go without partner sex forever.
2. 1 in 4000 .0002% of pregnant women, which is a very small percentage of all women of child bearing age.
Anne- Good point, your comment, “…In fact we have representation — that means we have the right to be heard, not the right to be heard over everyone else…” I agree. Sometimes, though, the minoruty is heard over the majority, especially when something is slipped in like Roe vs. Wade. My hope would be to get enough representation to reverse the ruling, but that is just my opinion.
Holly- Thanks. I appreciate discussing issues with you, also. As I’ve said before, I think it is healthy for us to expose our opinions to people who think differently than us.
Sorry, something hijacked my post…
3. Jane said, “Anti-abortion zealots have attemted to bridge the Doctor-patient privelege with legal wrangling.” No one
here understands this sentence.
4. And you, Jane, said; “Unfortunately, the radical anti-abortionists spread false information about women blithly requesting an abortion and regularly using abortion for birth control. It is not true.”
I know first this statement is untrue because the woman I have spoken to have ended their pregnancies for reasons so superficial, it actually sickens me. Most abortions are elective.
5. All people should be allowed to procreate if they choose and not have to succumb to everyone’s materialistic values.
Let see, that was more than a couple points. But, it wasn’t 50,000,000.
Jane- I looked up the history of laws concerning abortion. It was begun to be outlawed around 1820. By 1965, all states outlawed abortion, except in some states where instances of rape, incest or medical threats to the life of the mother were allowed. Roe.v. Wade changed this whole thing to where a woman could demand an abortion for no medical reason. The latest statistics are as follows-
Nearly half of all pregnancies to American women are unintended; four in 10 of these end in abortion.
About half of American women have experienced an unintended pregnancy, and at current rates more than one-third (35%) will have had an abortion by age 45.
Overall unintended pregnancy rates have stagnated over the past decade, yet unintended pregnancy increased by 29% among poor women while decreasing 20% among higher-income women.
In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million abortions in 2000.
Nine in 10 abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
A broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions:
56% of women having abortions are in their 20s;
61% have one or more children;
67% have never married;
57% are economically disadvantaged;
88% live in a metropolitan area; and
78% report a religious affiliation.
According to these stats, about half of the abortions (43%) performed are for people who can afford it. This sounds like a matter of convenience to me, but that is just my opinion. It seems this horse has been beaten many times over, but it refuses to die. I do know that in other countries, especially Russia, where abortions are paid for by the government and contraceptives are not, that abortion is the only economically feasable birth control available to many. I have met many women in my travels there who have had 15 or more abortions. That is not the case in this country.
It seems that this is, unfortunately, the single issue that divides many in this country when it comes to the election. It is a litmus test for both pro- and anti- abortion voters. I don’t mean to diminish its importance, but that, I think, is unfortunate, as we have a lot of other pressing issues. I personally tend to trust a person’s judgement on these other issues, if they have any expertise in the field, when I agree with their evaluation of abortion, but that is just my opinion. I believe it belies part of their moral fiber.
As far as a woman’s rights, she can stand up and demand them, but what about the innocent person forming inside her? Who stands up for their rights? Is this a case where one person has rights greater than another person, so that person can be eliminated? I’m fearful of this line of reasoning. Call this “zygot” what you will, but it always developes into a human being, if allowed to do so, and not some other life form.
Holly 667 – there are very very few anti-abortion ideologues who have invited in a pregnant mother and offered to support her and to raise the child – and most the billboards I have seen do not promote the idea.
Patrick and I agree on this issue because he does not think the government should make abortion criminal and I believe, in all cases, the government that governs least, governs best (or that the government should have the smallest possible footprint in society).
Hey, Joe. Can you believe that? Because of some moderated posts, mine got kicked into the 666th. one. Of all the…. Wonder what God has in that one? Look up Eccl. 9:11.
Nice biblical passage, John. And I hear that,
and I know that what will be will be. Que sera sera. God willing.
Now, as a teacher, I will continue and say that unintended consequences of making abortion legal…people rely on the fact that there is always a way out of ‘trouble’ when ever sex results in child bearing. Therefore, they may tend to engage more often than otherwise they might. They base their relationships on sex. When the sexy part gets old and boring or whatever happens to it, then all that is left is the people and their characters, which they have overlooked the development of, because they were too busy going all Hollywood on themselves and everyone. Hollywood created all this have to look good, have to be sexy, have to be fine and fly, and have to go crazy all the time to live the ‘good life’. It’s not good to live a lie, or a fantasy life. When the sand castles fall, children become the victims before and after they are born. When you start with a bad premise, you are going to end up badly.
I said that about ethanol and I am saying it now.
I have never seen any group info on abortion. I have come to this from my heart and my spirit and my experience with people around me, from the day I first heard of RvW, I knew it was a bad deal.
Then, the birth control pill which is responsible for many ailments and a substantial change in the personality of the female species who take those pills every day, or now I guess once a month. Unnatural altering of the human being. Evolution, no, creation, no, lab altered, yes. Come on, people. Wakey Uppy, tell Hollywood to go back under the rock it crawled out from and take those men and women in white lab coats with them. Get Rrrreal again.
Jane, we can focus on rights, or simply “yes” or “no” to abortion. If we leave out the grey, and only focus on the black and white, there can be adequate argument for representation/ mandates. Yes to abortion, or no to abortion. Unless we want to start regulating based on “does the woman have rights.”
John, I thought you were singing a Hendrix song, there, for a while. Hey Joe…
David, I see. Yes, help for pregnant people often does involve separation of baby and mother. Interesting thought… Hmm.
It’s really great to see that after only 683 posts that we’ve finally arrived at the only defining issue (abortion) that materially differentiates these two big government candidates!
Con grates to all!
Thinking about these presidential issues, some of you might be interested in the newly formed (or forming) Northfield Civil Liberties Union, modeled after the ACLU. Its first meeting is at Tiny’s restaurant in downtown, Friday (10/24) at 7:00 p.m.
I hope that Obama and McCain are invited. Assuming they won’t be there, I’ll be there to show my support.
Mike, you’re funny. Maybe it’s time for me talk about why I vote Democrat… nah. Never mind.
Cool Jerold.
McCain’s campaign gave $175,000 to a guy frequently accused of voter fraud, involving charges that he and his organization were registering Republicans only, and then throwing away any registration forms from Democrats.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4992730.ece
Now if ACORN is abiding by the law inasmuch as they turn in and flag questionable forms, then why should ACORN be the issue and not Nathan Sproul, Lincoln Strategy, and Sproul and Associates?
Answer: The Republican strategy is to accuse your opponent(s) of the very thing you, yourself are guilty of, and to generate more PR for your own accusations against your opponent than might reasonably come from the revelations about your own wrongdoing.
So if you’re Republcian and paying someone who has been involved in voter fraud, then accuse ACORN of fraud, and draw as much attention to that as possible. This is the Karl Rove strategy of first strike, or of “Best Defense is aggressive offense.” And it works.
Just to give the Sproul scandal a little local flavor, here’s a snippet I came across quoting from a story in the Star Trib back in 2004:
In Minnesota, Sproul Was Accused Of Firing Workers For Bringing Back Democratic Registration Forms, Incentivizing Discrimination Against Democratic Registrations. According to the Star Tribune, “Three former canvassers for a company working in Minnesota to reelect President Bush have come forward to say they were paid bonuses for registering Bush supporters but got nothing for registering voters who favor challenger John Kerry. One man, who worked for only a few hours for the company, Sproul and Associates, said it was implied that he could be fired for coming back with only Kerry registration cards.” Other canvassers said they were paid “$13 an hour, with the $3 bonus for every Bush, undecided or Ralph Nader voter registration. Canvassers returned that information, and verifiers called those who registered to confirm their support for Bush. In one case, Banse said, he registered his brother, who is a Kerry supporter. When the verifiers called to check the brother’s support for Bush, the brother lied to get Banse the bonus.” [Star Tribune, 10/27/04]
(The Star Trib’s online search feature confirms the existence of the article, but requires payment to read more than the first couple of paragraphs.)
Obama: Burying ACORNs
The ad says that “Obama’s ties to ACORN run long and deep” – that he “taught classes” for the group, paid a “front” $800,000 for get-out-the-vote efforts, and was endorsed by ACORN for president. That last one’s true – ACORN’s political action committee did offer an Obama endorsement. It’s also true that Obama has worked with the group in the past. In 1995, Obama helped represent ACORN in a successful lawsuit to require the state of Illinois to offer “motor voter” registration at DMV offices. Obama has said that this is his only association with ACORN, but that’s not the case – he has had other, though less direct, interactions with the organization.
When Obama was on the board of directors of the Woods Fund, the foundation gave grants of $75,000 in 2001 and $70,000 in 2002 to ACORN’s Chicago office. The McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee cite an additional grant of $45,000 in 2000. The Woods Fund has not responded to our calls about their 2000 grants.
The Obama campaign also paid Citizens Services Inc., a group affiliated with ACORN, more than $800,000 for get-out-the-vote (not voter registration) efforts during the primary election. The nature of CSI’s services was initially misrepresented on the Obama campaign’s disclosures to the Federal Election Commission, which the campaign describes as an oversight. The Obama campaign says it has not been involved with ACORN during the general election.
In addition, after law school, Obama may have had contact with ACORN when he directed a Chicago registration drive for Project Vote in 1992. According to Sanford Newman, who was the program’s national director at the time, ACORN may have been one of dozens of organizations that participated in registration drives that year with Project Vote personnel like Obama. But Project Vote didn’t begin contracting exclusively with ACORN until after Obama worked for the group in 1992. “Working for Project Vote at the time was by no means working for ACORN,” Newman told us. ACORN had no influence on Project Vote policy and no representation on its board.
As for “teaching classes” for the group, the McCain campaign cites a March 2008 Newsday article, which says that ACORN organizer Madeleine Talbot “initially considered Obama a competitor” when both were working to get asbestos insulation removed from a Chicago housing project, but that “she became so impressed with his work that she invited him to help train her staff.” Newsday does not say whether Obama accepted the invitation. An article by Chicago alderman Toni Foulkes says that “we [ACORN] have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year” between 1992 and 2004, when the article was written. The Obama campaign says that Obama participated in two, one-hour trainings in a volunteer capacity. Foulkes could not be reached for comment.
Neither ACORN’s Chicago office nor CSI has been accused of voter registration irregularities.
House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks
Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.
House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.
A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.
At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.
Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.
The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.
“I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”
Under the current 401(k) system, investors are charged relatively high retail fees, Ghilarducci said.
“I want to spend our nation’s dollar for retirement security better. Everybody would now be covered” if the plan were adopted, Ghilarducci said.
She has been in contact with Miller and McDermott about her plan, and they are interested in pursuing it, she said.
“This [plan] certainly is intriguing,” said Mike DeCesare, press secretary for McDermott.
“That is part of the discussion,” he said.
While Miller stopped short of calling for Ghilarducci’s plan at the hearing last week, he was clearly against continuing tax breaks as they currently exist.
Savings rate
“The savings rate isn’t going up for the investment of $80 billion,” he said. “We have to start to think about … whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that’s not generating what we now say it should.”
“From where I sit that’s just crazy,” said John Belluardo, president of Stewardship Financial Services Inc. in Tarrytown, New York. “A lot of people contribute to their 401(k)s because of the match of the employer,” he said. Belluardo’s firm does not manage assets directly.
Higher-income employers provide matching funds to employee plans so that they can qualify for tax benefits for their own defined-contribution plans, he said.
“If the tax deferral goes away, the employers have no reason to do the matches, which primarily help people in the lower income brackets,” Belluardo said.
“This is a battle between liberalism and conservatism,” said Christopher Van Slyke, a partner in the La Jolla, California, advisory firm Trovena, which manages $400 million. “People are afraid because their accounts are seeing some volatility, so Democrats will seize on the opportunity to attack a program where investors control their own destiny,” he said.
The Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America in Chicago, which represents employers that sponsor defined-contribution plans, is “staunchly committed to keeping the employee benefit system in America voluntary,” said Ed Ferrigno, vice president in the Washington office.
“Some of the tenor [of the hearing last week] that the entire system should be based on the activities of the markets in the last 90 days is not the way to judge the system,” he said.
No legislative proposals have been introduced and Congress is out of session until next year.
However, most political observers believe that Democrats are poised to gain seats in both the House and the Senate, so comments made by the mostly Democratic members who attended the hearing could be a harbinger of things to come.
Advice at issue
In addition to tax breaks for 401(k)s, the issue of allowing investment advisors to provide advice for 401(k) plans was also addressed at the hearing. Rep. Robert Andrews, D-New Jersey, was critical of Department of Labor proposals made in August that would allow advisors to give individual advice if the advice was generated using a computer model.
Andrews characterized the proposals as “loopholes” and said that investment advice should not be given by advisors who have a direct interest in the sale of financial products.
The Pension Protection Act of 2006 contains provisions making it easier for investment advisors to give individualized counseling to 401(k) holders.
“In retrospect that doesn’t seem like such a good idea to me,” Andrews said. “This is an issue I think we have to revisit. I frankly think that the compromise we struck in 2006 is not terribly workable or wise,” he said.
On Thursday, October 9, the Department of Labor hastily scheduled a public hearing on the issue in Washington for Tuesday, October 21.
The agency does not frequently hold public hearings on its proposals.
Filed by Sara Hansard of Investment News, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.
My previous post was intended in part to demonstrate the fun one can have with selective snippetting. Here is the complete up-front summary at FactCheck.org:
“The McCain-Palin campaign accuses ACORN, a community activist group that operates nationwide, of perpetrating “massive voter fraud.” It says Obama has “long and deep” ties to the group. We find both claims to be exaggerated. But we also find Obama has understated the extent of his work with the group.
“Neither ACORN nor its employees have been found guilty of, or even charged with, casting fraudulent votes. What a McCain-Palin Web ad calls “voter fraud” is actually voter registration fraud. Several ACORN canvassers have been found guilty of faking registration forms and others are being investigated. But the evidence that has surfaced so far shows they faked forms to get paid for work they didn’t do, not to stuff ballot boxes.
“Obama’s path has intersected with ACORN on several occasions – more often than he allowed in the final debate.”
The Obama campaign also paid Citizens Services Inc., a group affiliated with ACORN, more than $800,000 for get-out-the-vote (not voter registration) efforts during the primary election. The nature of CSI’s services was initially misrepresented on the Obama campaign’s disclosures to the Federal Election Commission, which the campaign describes as an oversight. The Obama campaign says it has not been involved with ACORN during the general election.
—————————————————–
We would have to wait for the FBI investigation before we decide if ACORN has committed fraud or not.
The fact that Obama has donated $800000 to Acrn is and interesting footnote.
I wonder how many investigations will be launched by the press should OBAMA win Ohio by the smallest of margins.
Here is my prediction…NONE
http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php
Link to 401K story
elections stolen via fraud by republicans: 2
elections stolen via fraud by democrats: 0
Peter, As far as the 401(k) article goes, I’m with you, I think. (I’m assuming you’re appalled by the Ghilarducci proposal, and posted the article as a way of sounding the alarm — please correct me if I’m wrong!) However, the topic seems more pertinent to the Fiscal Crisis thread, so I’m moving the rest of my reply there. But if you want to argue that an Obama Administration will facilitate the fiscal shenanigans of a Congress overrun with Democrats, this is probably the better thread.
Florida GOP has been disenfranchising Democratic voters by restricting the hours and locations for early voting, resulting in hous-long waiting times and lines that stretch for a block or more.
Senior citizens show up to vote early with the hope of avoiding long lines and waits, only to find long lines and waits.
ALl this, courtesy of Florida GOP-majority votes to reduce the number of voting locations and reduce the hours of early voting from 12 down to 8 hours.
Statistics from the Florida Democratic party show that early voting favors democrats by 58%, with independents and GOP taking distant second and third place.
Here’s the URL for the McClatchy story:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/54582.html
The GOP is afraid that if everyone who wants to vote is allowed to vote, they will lose, and lose big.
They will lie and cheat and use any method they can devise to discourage high voter turnout (except for their base).
I think we should convert Guantanamo to be used for these GOP masterminds of voter suppression. They are no better than terrorists, and are a huge risk to our national security. They want to guarantee that the status quo is unchallenged, and that we commit political suicide by way of the foolish and discredited Republican policies.
Perhaps we need to treat the Republican party in the US the way Germany treated the Nazi party. Make it a crime. No waterboarding, but make the Guantanamo prisons useful. The idea of having a prison atGuantanamo was a Republican invention, so it would be a kind of justice to see it used against key Republican strategists.
To make my position perfectly clear: John G, David H., and the rank-and-file GOP members (including many friends and neighbors) could stay in the US, but only the criminal GOP strategists and propaganda-purveyors should be taken to Guantanamo, where they would have to wear orange suits, yes, but where they would not be tortured.
So in other words, if you uncritically forward too many GOP propaganda emails (Obama as terrorist, Obama as Muslim, etc.), you might be considered a propaganda-purveyor, and might have to go to Guantanamo. Then eventually there would have to be international courts like the Nuremberg trials, where these people would be tried as criminals.
I’m still developing the details, but please contribute your ideas for refinements.
Paul and everyone! It is time to stop the finger pointing at parties. We all now know that both parties are responsible for various blunders, criminal activity and all of that. We know that both parties are responsible for having things run well as can be expected most of the time.
SO, lets look at issues and see what needs to be ironed out and let’s have that discussion,
both here and the financial thread. Thanks.
Paul, you could also periodically drop all charges against your detainees, but continue to keep them in detention….
Joe the Plumber. What a guy. He’s worried that if he buys a plumbing business for $280,000, Obama’s income tax plan will cost him money and put the business at risk. And he remains worried even though he is told that under Obama’s plan he would pay more income tax only if his personal income was more than $250,000 per year.
So he thinks that this business, that costs $280, 000, will produce personal income of more than $250,000 per year. If that’s true…I WANT THAT BUSINESS. I’ll hire a real sharp young plumber to run it, pay him $125,000 a year (not bad, even for a plumber) and take home $125,000 a year. What a deal.
Barry: Yes, Guantanamo is a mess, but at least some military lawyer-prosecutors have enough honor and moral backbone to resign and bring the shame that is due to the mess. The Supreme Court had the wisdom to rule this summer that parts of the Military Commissions act of 2006 were unconstitutional as they related to Guantanamo and habeas corpus, etc.
Bright: Go back and read my comments. I said the rank-and-file would not have to go to Guantanamo, but that the voter-disenfranchisement masterminds and purveyors of falsehoods/propaganda should go there. This is not about a party, really, although Bush and Cheney belong there too. I would not advocate that Olympia Snowe of Maine be imprisoned at Guantanamo, or Ron Paul, or Republican John Dunan of Tennesee.
And there may be some Democrats who belong in Guantanamo too, especially some who voted to give the President the power to invade Iraq. To be fair, we could outlaw both parties, but especially the Republicans, and only imprison the key criminals.
Bright, why so defensive about blaming Republicans for some of the most shameful crimes against humanity committed by our country? You USUALLY seem to want to assign blame where blame is due, but when it comes to Republicans, you’re so defensive! You sometimes claim to be undecided, but I think you’re a stealth Republican who has only been claiming, now and then, to be objective.
Are you only saying “don’t point fingers at parties” so that you can protect your undercover status and stay out of the group I’d send to Guantanamo? Why so sensitive on this?
We know that Bush gutted the constitution and committed war crimes, and he, Cheney and Rove worked very hard to silence opposition from his own party, sometimes resorting to what was probably illegal bribes and blackmail in return for key votes: Vote for this Bush initiative, or you won’t receive Republican funding, and your primary opponents may get the funding and endorsements, etc. Many Republicans played along. Most of the time.
Democratic elected officials have been placed on watch lists, and searched at airports when traveling overseas; target and intimidate so as to silence critics. This was a Nazi tactic. Bright, I did not hear you complain about these practices.
Why defend criminal scum and complicit cowards? This is not about party, but about crimes that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. Give credit where credit is due, and assign blame where blame is due.
The funny thing is that Republicans were fine with the move toward Fascism when Bush and the Republicans were in charge and in the majority, but as soon as someone suggests turning the tables so that Republicans should become the victims of fascist oppression like that advanced by Bush-Cheney and the Republicans, suddenly you squirm and beg for mercy.
I’m sorry, Bright, but it would be poetic justice. I say send Bush, Cheney and Rove, along with a list of about 300 top Republican strategists, to Guantanamo. Keep them isolated from each other. Serve them nice meals, and make them watch demonstrations of waterboarding on maniquins. Make them spend five minutes in extreme temperatures to which interrogated prisoners were subjected. I think we need some carefully controlled way to demonstrate to some of these people the destruction they have caused. Make them visit and deliver meals to Iraqi citizens who lost loved ones in the war. Make them tutor Iraqi children who were orphaned.
I’m not advocating torture for these key Republican strategists and propaganda purveyors. I’m just advocating a well-designed and effective system for rehabilitation.
Bright, how could you be against rehabilitation? How could you be against justice?
Well, Paul, if you read any of my earlier posts, which I don’t expect anyone to pay much atttention to me, as I am just an ordinary person trying to make sense of politics. The more I know, the least I want to be involved in this area of discussion. It’s a road to nowhere…no references intended. I cannot bare the levels of negativity and prefer to discuss things in more genteel terms. I am sorry for trying to derail your paths. Carry on.
I think it’s time for a good plumber joke. This brain surgeon had a party at his house one weekend. The guests overtaxed his plumbing and got the drain clogged. The surgeon called a plumber who was able to come over right away. He was only there 10 minutes and had the drains going just great. As he was leaving, the surgeon told him to give him his charge and he would just pay him there and asave everyone the billing procedure. The plumber said fine, it is $950.00. The surgeon was incredulous. He said, “Good grief, man! I’m a famous brain surgeon, and I don’t make $950.00 for 10 minutes of work!” The plumber answered, ” Yep. When I was a surgeon, I couldn’t make $950.00 in 10 minutes, either.”
By the way Paul, I was looking forward to retiring in a warmer climate. Perhaps Guantanamo would fit the bill. Room and board in a warm climate at the expense of the US taxpayers. Unfortunately, my wife will probably not want to go along with it. Actually, I’m really stretching the humor line, here. This is another one of those “hall of shame” issues for our history books. I’ll stick to good old Northfield, MN.
Paul, if you want to keep John G. out of warm climes, maybe you should relocate the whole operation to Prudhoe Bay. You could put Sarah P. in charge, and put the detainees to work on the pipeline — some of them, after all, do have expertise in oil.
Did anyone see the politically incorrect 20/20 last friday? It’s a pretty good review of what government cannot do for us. the link below is a youtube copy broken up in 6 parts.
Paul,
Don’t leave out the War enablers in Congress(both R’s and D’s) that supported and STILL support/fund the war.
Could Biden still be VP while in Guantanamo?
Also, don’t forget the AIPAC folks!
JohnG: Your plumber joke seems a stealth parable for reversing the current trend in which wealth has been redistributed upward. You’re not a closet progressive, are you?
Regarding the warmer climate in Guantanamo, you’re probably aware of the Jesuit tradition in which they go on 30-day slilent retreats (and sometimes experience waking dreams, or visions, inspired by their meditation on scripture). There are positive Christian-mystical possibilities, but these don’t require Guantanamo. Anwar Saddat and Nelson Mandela both experienced profound spiritual experiences in prison, and the novel, “The Fixer” by Bernard Malamud depicts a similar phenomenon.
Maybe the Nfld or Rice County jails could rent retreat space, so that such spiritual quests could be experienced in a more environmentally sustainable way: less energy expended, and CO2 produced, if we make it available locally.
Barry: Prudhoe Bay would be fine. Reminds me of the Robert Frost poem about whether the world would end in fire or ice….
Mike: Regarding what government can’t or won’t do, here’s an article you might like:
Published on Thursday, October 23, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
Taking Politics Seriously: Looking Beyond the Election and Beyond Elections
by Robert Jensen and Pat Youngblood
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/23-1
It talks about economics, empire, and ecology as key categories. It sounded like something you’d appreciate, and I liked the emphasis that there are needs beyond which our current slate of politicians seems willing to take us.
When the GOP spent $159,000 on wardrobe for Palin and family, did they think this would make them appear to be more like the rest of us moose-hunting yokels?
Or while some women really “clean up good” when they put on clean jeans and a clean flannel shirt, did they figger it would take more to clean up the Palins, and was a necessary expense? I’m trying to figger this news tidbit out….
If McCain and Palin win, would they bring $159,000-worth of family clothing, to be used over about 60 days, within the reaches of the average middle-class family budget?
Or would they continue to redistribute wealth upwards by taking donations and using it to dress up the Palins?
Paul F.- It seems to me, from some of the things you write, that you are constantly looking for some kind of hidden agenda or conspiracy. Am I just not understanding you? Actually, I think I just answered my own question- I don’t understand some of your comments. The joke is a joke, for heavens sake! I was just trying to tie into the comment about all the attention Joe the Plumber is getting. Sorry if I stirred up some other fear in you.
As far as needing a retreat place, my encounters with God are in my daily life experiences. I look for Him there, and I find Him there. It lines up with His promise- I will never leave you nor forsake you. Now, back to finding a warm climate to retire in, actually, I have an inside connection with a small pineapple farm in Costa Rica. And, it won’t cost the American taxpayers anything. And, most important of all, I have the complete enthusiastic support of my wife. Besides, it sounds like work at Prudhoe Bay would be very “boring.”
Paul: Don’t forget Malcolm X’s spiritual transformation in prison. He was a petty criminal turned violence-advocating civil rights leader.
Needless to say, John George is safe as one doesn’t need prison for a transformation. Henry David Thoreau, Susan B. Anthony, Mohandas Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King, were all inspired before they served time in jail.
Peter, as a courtesy to other readers, please give a source, preferably in the form of a link, to stuff you pull off the Web. It wasn’t hard in this case to find the source (googling on a random phrase takes one straight to http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/acorn_accusations.html) but in other cases it’s not clear if you are getting stuff from an original source or through some intermediary.
As for what’s at the FactCheck website, its up-front summary gives a pretty clear picture:
“The McCain-Palin campaign accuses ACORN, a community activist group that operates nationwide, of perpetrating “massive voter fraud.” It says Obama has “long and deep” ties to the group. We find both claims to be exaggerated.”
My English might not be as good as yours Barry…but exaggerated doesn’t mean it’s untrue? Right?
The whole Palin wardrobe gate just illustrates just how out of touch the elitist media is in this country.
OMG the RNC actually bought wardrobe for Palin oh the horror of paying for your own clothes!!!
I have yet to see anybody comment on the fact that most politicians actually get their clothes free from their respective designers. Like Hillary having her pant suits “donated” by her designer at $ 6000 a piece??? Doesn’t that in a way violate the limit of individual donations???
Geez I wonder how much Pelosi’s pearl necklaces cost she wears on a regular basis?? I would guess a lot more then Palin’s wardrobe.
Goosh don’t we have more important issues to discuss??
Peter,
If, for example, one says that a basketball player is “ten feet tall,” it is both an exaggeration as well as untrue. In this case, McCain’s lies seem to be of the same kind.
Peter don’t you understand that palin is from real america and she bought the clothes in fake america. That is un-american!
Patrick,
Maybe he is only 6 foot tall but he is still a basketball player….
Surprise…surprise the media is in the tank for Obama
Looking at this site I am not surprised.LOL
http://www.journalism.org/node/13307
Anthony,
I was under the impression that the Democrats are claiming the throne of being for the little guy? What am I missing?
its unamerican of you to ask that question
Paul re: #708, now wardrobe is a conversation I can hang with, pun intended. Say, listen
they spend the money in Minnesota. Doesn’t that count for anything?
Anyway with inflation this year a nice blouse costs upwards of $300. Yeah, you can find a nice blouse for $100, but you will have to hunt and time is money.
The image is important because the candidate wants people to know that it is possible to do well, weather you are from a background of poor teachers, single mothers, admirals, who btw don’t make a heck of a lot of money, either, or whether your wife’s family distributes beer and you never take any of that money at all.
Everyone wants to live the good life, but to do that you have to provide service and dig into places that others don’t want to go. I feel sorry for all politicians on that note.
It is only because of the speed at which info now travels over paper, internet, tv, radio, mouth, that anyone even knows or cares about candidate ward robe. Candidates used to make an impression by showing up in fine cars. Now everyone has a fine car, so it’s not newsworthy anymore, and in two days, neither will this story be.
I think this is newsworthy tho, check this out. Palin made a stink about not having nice enough clothes on SNL
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×7577449
Peter, in regard to your journalism.org article, this is exactly why I have been talking up McCain more because since the beginning the press which has been pro Dem for sometime now, has been carefully walking on eggshells around and favoring Obama before any one knew anything about him except that he voted against the war, which turned out to be an excellent strategic move on his part to gain the press’s favor, bar all other votes and non votes and future promises of things he’ll ‘look at’.
Here’s my advice for the day:
Don’t Believe the Hype
Sean, something weird has happened with one of my postings, making a bit of a hash out of things. What currently appears as posting #711 was actually posted yesterday (Oct. 23), in reply to Peter’s posting #690 and immediately *before* my “follow-up” posting #691. They both appeared in the correct order yesterday. I don’t know why the first of the two got moved and re-timestamped.
Could you kindly move posting back where it belongs? (I think it had 1:37pm as its official time.) If so, it might help to insert a comment into Peter’s posting #712 that he’s referring to #691. I don’t believe any of the intervening posts are referred to anywhere by number, so there shouldn’t be any other unintended consequences.
Darn, I just noticed Bright’s reference to #708.
In the spirit of the daily kos…..enjoy
http://www.nakedemperornews.com/
I read the journalism.org article as well, and it talks about the reflective quality of coverage.
Journalism is all about reflecting reality. So if Britney Spears gains 50 pounds and Beyonce stays in shape, you can’t blame the mirror for reflecting the change in the situation or noting that people think Beyonce is hotter and that her record sales are higher.
Same is true in politics. For example, McCain goes down in the polls, and when reporters seek analysis, people say things don’t look good for him and then comment on what a strong campaign Obama has run. Is that negative coverage of McCain or just a reflection of reality?
Let’s face it, even his opponents have marveled at Obama’s discipline and organizational skills. And there’s no denying that the GOP is in disarray, even they admit that the McCain camp and the RNC are barely talking to each other.
Fox is the number 1 news channel and it has been giving the Republican spin all along, but it’s not changing public opinion.
McCain has had his chance at three debates and Palin at one, and viewers made up their own minds that Obama/Biden swept them.
The public groundswell for Obama has happened through non-news sites, from YouTube videos to online voter registration drives to e-mail get-out-the-vote reminders.
Mainstream media really has a declining impact on elections. If it had an impact, people wouldn’t still be repeating the lie that Obama is a Muslim.
With respect to wardrobe, how we yearn for the days of Richard Nixon:
“Pat doesn’t have a mink coat. But she does have a respectable Republican cloth coat, and I always tell her she’d look good in anything.”
Cloth coats won’t keep you warm if you are doing more than just hopping out of the limo and into the White House lower level.
Maybe that’s what drove Pat to the bottle, the recovery from which I am sure taxpayers had something to do with.
And just a reminder, I still don’t think either McCain or Obama are presidential enough for me, and I am not voting for either one of them, unless I get to vote twice and then I’ll give them each one vote. 🙂 Just kidding about the last part.
Both of them should stay in the Senate and
slug it out there.
Okay, Let’s talk wardrobe: See who is dancing with the stars now…
http://www.beautywood.com
I am going to take that photo down now, cuz
it’s funny, but only temporarily so. For those of you who didn’t get to see it, it was a photo of
Obama and Palin dancing on Dancing with
the Stars, looking very professional and entertaining. See other people do think like I do…see post no. 1.
This is an issue we haven’t talked much about;
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying
/areyoulivinginaconstitutionfreezone.html
In reply to post #726, Anne, I think that the newsmedia and others have been pro Democratic ever since the Internet started threatening their customer base, which tends to be low to middle class individuals. It is a shame that they give their customers only half of the story, when full access to the truth should be the offering. If they had been doing that all along and if they would continue to do that full truth offering, they wouldn’t be struggling now, but people want to hear what they believe and they believe what they read because it’s all the input they have. It’s a sorry state of affairs. And that is the truth.
Obama is spending $2,000,000.00 dollars on his victory party. I’m sure everyone in attendance will be receiving a limited edition Obama T-shirt. Union made nonetheless.
Sarah Palin how dare you use campaign money in such a temporal way.
Somebody has to put a stop to all this frivolity!
Bright, you’re taking a great risk posting such a link as you did in #732 — you’ll surely end up on a government watch list….
The steady erosion of our civil liberties is, ultimately, of far greater concern than the recent erosion of our 401(k)s. The stock market will eventually bounce back of its own accord; our constitutional rights will not. It’s a shame this isn’t THE issue in every election. Kudos to Bright for bringing it up.
Rats, either I can’t count or another delayed posting has snuck in. I was referring to Bright’s ACLU posting (currently now #733), not her Dancing With the Candidates follow-up!
Thanks for the warning, but I am probably already on one and so are a lot of simple innocent folks like me. 🙁
Bright, you are entitled to believe whatever truth you find in your heart, of course. Still, there’s a ton of documentation over 20 years showing the many reasons for the erosion of newspaper circulation, or shall I say its transformation from print to online news. In fact, slowing the slide of print editions has been an obsession with newspaper management, so they spend lots of time asking readers and non-readers what they want.
One early factor for the slide was two-earner couples with no time to read in the morning and no need to read old news when they get home. Afternoon papers died and morning papers struggled to make 5 a.m. deliveries.
The bigger change is the same one that moved people from radio to television and from land lines to cell phones. Better, faster, more convenient and fun technology wins out every time.
Fox News is extremely successful, but so is the Huffington Post. There are newspapers that are left-leaning and those that are Republican. For example, the Chicago Tribune is a familiar Republican bulwark in the heart of a Democratic city — and one that for 147 years has endorsed Republican presidential candidates. This year it endorsed Obama, as many Republicans have done.
It’s an amazing, transformational time. How exciting to be part of such an important chapter in history.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/24/joe.html?sid=101
???????????????
Back to your point about newspapers being mirrors. I think not. If they are mirrors, it would be antique, thick glass mirrors with
the silver backing largely worn away. The media leads thought and promotes people as it sees fit and people follow on a regular basis. (I am not promoting or demoting any candidate here, as I am done with that.)
The great motivator for newspapers is to sell newspapers, and whomever they think will help them do that, that’s where they will take it. Itsn’t it funny that it took the Trib til last week to make that endorsement.
Bright, you give the media too much credit for determining public opinion. The critics have praised Ad Men and promoted it all to heck and the public hates it. Public television does tons of serious reporting and the public watches World Wrestling Federation matches.
Look at all the websites that track traffic and you’ll see that people choose the news they want to read.
I am pleased that the debates, which were fair and gave both candidates the same exposure, had record viewership. The viewers were the ones who indicated Obama won them.
I guess your forgot that until Obama’s win in Iowa, the media was sure Clinton would win and considered Obama an impressive rookie who might have a chance in 2016. He was not looking for news coverage, but building a network of supporters who turned out the vote and drew contributions that confirmed his support.
The Tribune and other newspapers always endorse very late in the game to make sure they don’t jump the gun and get stuck supporting a campaign that does something insanely foolish at the last minute.
Jerold: Yes, starting the rich spiritual quest before you go to jail is always a good thing. Then you’re ahead of the rest of the pack by the time you land in jail for Thoreau-style civil disobedience.
As St. Paul (another jailed spiritual quest dude) says, it is a race, after all.
JohnG: Yeah, “Stealth progressive” and much of that jail jazz was a joke, or at least a mostly rhetorical position. But I do believe that Bush, Cheney and some of the Republican strategists and propaganda purveyors need serious and long-term rehabilitation (till it’s proven effective, and probation till it is), and they deserve prison. If it was done in a humane way at Guantanamo, at least all the taxpayer money for the prison facilities there would not go to waste.
And you know how much conservatives hate wasteful spending.
So to that extent, my proposal for imprisoning them at Guantanamo was actually in harmony with consesrvative thinking. Ya gotta give me a break here for the effort to find common ground….
Peter and Bright, even if you are right (which I do not believe) and the media is “in the tank” for Obama, or the voter registration fraud (which i disgustedly acknowledge) amounts to actual voter fraud (which is *extremely* unlikely), my frank opinion of that is:
elections stolen by republicans: 3 (counting Hayes, of course)
elections stolen by democrats: 0
Nick, I don’t think it matters the score. Over the ages, this dabbling in illegal vote registration or count tampering has occurred throughout time and those that did it last time are prolly don’t sleep well at night.
But when I think of it, somehow I cannot imagine that Smokin’ Al Gore would have done much better. He’d of found another way to muck things up. They all do about half good and half bad, depending on your point of view. Somehow, we all muddle through, but still better off than 5/6 of the world, if not more. For that I am grateful.
There has not been any proof of voter registration fraud–only allegations by partisan critics. ACORN has been investigated repeatedly–and the Bush administration has proved that it used its power to unfairly influence the Justice Department in order to bring charges of voter registration fraud.
Almost all of the “bad” so far has been on the part of the Republican party backed-up by police-state-style tactics, while any actual fraud on the Democrat side has been minor (and easily remedied) by “over-zealous” or greedy ACORN workers.
Meanwhile, the Republicans have made strong moves to purge valid voters enmasse by partisan influence of various states’ Secretary of State. The difference is a few hundred incomplete or questionable registrations versus thousands of disenfranchised legal voters.
How to silence opposition
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2008/10/obama-campaign.html
Nick,
So if the Republicans have stolen three elections it’s now the Democrats turn to do so?
Makes sense to me. Let’s wait three elections before we have normal elections?
More on media bias….
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78921
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23776.html.
Ignorance is our most expensive commodity.
——————————————————Finally, on the issue of small businesses, Sen. Obama said this in defense of his tax plan’s impact on small businesses:
The last point I’ll make about small businesses. Not only do 98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000, but I also want to give them additional tax breaks, because they are the drivers of the economy. They produce the most jobs.
That “98 percent” figure is technically correct under certain assumptions, but it’s basically irrelevant given the latter point he wanted to make. Under Sen. Obama’s metric where the mere number of tax returns affected by his tax plan is what matters (2 percent), a small business that earned $100 in business income and had only one employee would have the same “drive” of the economy as a small business that earned $500,000 in net income and had 50 employees. Obviously, that’s ridiculous, but it fits with the theme of this campaign: if it sounds good, say it, even if it’s misleading (or not true).
Peter: Just because Nick pointed out the fact that the Republicans have stolen 3 elections does not infer any endorsement of this practice nor condone any actions on the part of any other party to attempt to steal any election, including this one coming up.
Your flippant remark in #748 is disengenous and another way Republicans turn their defense for wrongfull acts into an offense–when wrongdoing is pointed out, just accuse the other side of what you are considering to distract from your own wrongdoing. The Republicans have acted in bad faith all around–they have repeatedly been guilty of trying to prevent voters from registering, prevent voters from voting, and prevent the vote from being counted. The Democrats are only gulity of trying to get everybody to vote.
Peter, in #749 you quote an ultra-right-wing article on an ultra-right-wing website by authors who obviously do not have the corner on understanding business nor tax policy. Obama never said that a business that makes $100 is the same as a business that makes $500,000. Obama said that his tax plan would not raise taxes on businesses that earn less than $250,000. He also said that small businesses drive the economy by providing jobs. What Obama said is true and not misleading.
The Tax Foundation does not want any taxes on small businesses–what they should be arguing with Obama about is raising the earnings that they believe should be exempt-but I, for one, think that taxpayers earning more than $250,000 can kick in more taxes than taxpayers earning less–so I think that setting a reasonable level for progressive taxation is a start to getting the economy on the right foot.
What you don’t see nor see discussed, is that most of these small businesses use pass-thru tax entities for their businesses–meaning that the earnings of their business are taxes only once at the individual tax level–and at that level, Obama is consistent in saying that he will repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy–and that is at the income level of $250,000. What that means is a small business making $750,000 with 3 equal and unrelated owners (they are not married to each other and so do not file a joint return) would each be taxed on $250,000 of earnings from their business–and their taxes would not go up under the Obama plan–so I think that what Obama said is wrong in that there are many more small businesses whose taxes will not go up then is indicated by the Tax Foundation article.
Peter, of course I don’t think it’s 0.k. to steal elections; Jane, thanks for pointing out this obvious fact. My point, Peter, was that this great concern with fraudulent votes seems exclusive to elections where democrats are leading. And I must say that some of the websites you are linking to are borderline offensive to me; especially the “shocking” and “amazing” videos revealing Obama’s ”
REAL” stance on xy or z, which are in fact 2% Obama speaking and 98% other people pasted in, in an effort to link him to their radical ideas. If I did the same in order to “represent” the “real” John McCain, you would rightly point out how bogus it was.
This whole thing about media bias would be laughable if it were not so truly un-funny. Let’s count right-wing radio and tv hosts: Rush, Glenn, Sean, Bill (oh, right, an “independent!) , etc etc etc. Let’s count left wing radio: uh, Air America. (And Bright has previously asserted that we should count NPR, but I won’t) . And left wing tv? Recently appearing, in the form of, I suppose, Olbermann and now Maddow. Are you kidding me? You run out of fingers counting clear right wing media examples WAY before you can get up to 4 or 5 left wingers. If this country had any decent kind of left wing media, and if it had any influence, the unmitigated corruption and immorality of the BUsh/Cheney administration could hardly have proceeded as unimpeded as it did (and continues to). I am so sick of having the whole left-wing media trope continue to be dredged up every time it’s convenient. I suppose the strib’s endorsement of Norm was just an attempt to cover up this bias?
The White House, thwarted in efforts to purge 200,000 OHIO voters whose names do not EXACTLY MATCH their driver’s license (many times because of typos on the driver’s license not the fault of the citizen) has asked the Department of Justice to intervene and force 200,000 registered voters in OHIO to use provisional ballots.
This is the type of harassment that the Republicans continue to use to disenfranchise voters in several states. Can you imagine if you went to vote and the judges pulled you out of the regular line and told you that your registration was not good enough and they had a “special” ballot for people like you?
Of course, these methods gave Bush the White House–why shouldn’t he use them for his buddy McCain.
Ditto on everything you said, Nick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
From a right wing source. They probably had Frank Caliendo imitate his voice.
Nick,
if there would be a market for left wing radio there would be one. Te right wing sources you mentioned are a direct result of people being fed up just hearing one side of the story.
There is a reason why most of the established media is suffering from a decline in reader and viewer ship. News programs have turned in to infomercials, murder counts and gloom and doom reporting. People are tired of this and have tuned out.
When I used to watch local news it was a fun game to count how many deaths or injuries are being reported in the first five minutes of every newscast.
Is that all that is news worthy in this town?
Yesterday I try to watch Stephanapolus (probably miss spelled) . The panel he had yesterday did not have anybody but democratic supporters on it???
Needless to say after 30 minutes I turned it off.
Finally somebody speaks the truth and is none other then ABC.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1
Don’t you really think the ‘media bias’ that you talk about is really the effect you get when you get an organized campaign running against a piss poor campaign?
I heard some people calling liberal bias on politico.
anyone going to see arianna huffington tonight? 7pm at boe.
Anthony,
How about just reporting the news?
Aren’t they reporting the news? Probably the biggest story of this election cycle is how poorly the republican ticket is organized.
The current “poor” performance is more a result of the financial crisis than it is anything that McCain did. Even Kennedy could pull this one off.
McCain used to be the darling of the left and the Rinos amazing how they turned on him.
With his lack of conservative support he will lose….good riddens.
It took Carter to get a conservative it will take Obama to get another one.
Plus the Republicans have a chance to rid themselves of the RINOs in the party and get back to their roots.
In absence of a conservative party, the Republicans of the future remain my biggest hope for being heard.
Huffington and women who act like her are like the Queen of Hearts from”Alice in Wonderland”.
McCain of 2000 and McCain of 2008 are 2 different people. Mc2000 didn’t vote for bush mc2008 loves bush to no end.
Anybody else keeping up with this story, about Palin’s private e-mail account that she used to conduct state business, hence evading transparency laws?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2332681,00.asp
If you don’t want to read the article, she had her account deleted after it was hacked into. Now that it’s deleted, her e-mails may be permanently deleted. Not good for gov’t transparency before or after the hack.
Peter, I agree that those right wing radio and tv programs are the result of people being tired of hearing one side of the story, but one can’t help notice how dependent they are on innuendo, rumor, and smearing as opposed to facts, since the facts don’t always swing their way. Bright, what on earth does your comment about Huffington “and women who act like her” mean?
As for “it took Carter to get a conservative” you may as well say “it took Bush I to get a moderate” and it has taken Bush II to get another moderate. Yup, I said it. I’m voting for Obama, but I do not find him liberal. Only in this country can those politics be classified as “liberal.” Ralph Nader is liberal. Don’t jump down my throat, I’m not voting for him, but *that* is a liberal.
Jerold, what is transparent about the Kennedy Clan or the Daley Machine, the paths of rise Obama has taken? Or what is so transparent the 600 page instruments that no one can understand or begin to read that were the legal documents that explained to the people who held the securities what exactly they were buying and what were the formulas that described the inherent risks regarding the nation’s recent financial crisis?
Transparency is a huge myth. Even here, where people seem to be telling the truth, they conveniently leave out the elephants in the various rooms.
AND..
Why are men so afraid to see a woman actually take higher office and really succeed?
Bright, why do you think “men (are) so afraid to see a women actually take higher office and really succeed?” If this were so true, how could Hillary have gotten so many primary votes. And if you are referring to Palin, I don’t think anyone is afraid of her success. I for one am afraid of her cock-sureness, her total lack of curiousity, her inability to complete a sentence rather than to string together folksy sounding bits of nothing, and would be very fearful if that sort of “leadership” were heading up my country.
nick are you describing palin or bush?
It has become increasingly more difficult to separate facts from fiction on the net.
Sites look more and more professional and not all reveal who is behind them..sigh.
I predict that some smart entrepreneur will seize the opportunity after the election and start an media outlet that is truly objective.
There is a market for it and we really need it. I am pretty net savy and I have hard time separating the real sites from the wannabe sites.
Peter,
Have you tried Fox News? They’re both Fair and Balanced (TM). Besides, they already covering most of the issues that you’ve been posting about here.
Real news update: Okay, it’s not as important as the local heroin busts, but for anyone with a passing interest in national politics one step below the Presidential level, this is pretty big:
“[Ted] Stevens was found guilty on all seven counts of making false statements on Senate financial documents.”
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1854264,00.html
Peter,
Sincerely, you might be interested in http://www.thenextright.com/
It’s not my cup of tea, but from what I’ve read on it, it seems to be a haven for more sensible, forward-looking conservative perspectives.
Thanks again for the links. Not sure about how balanced Fox really is??
Bright: One can frame questions to get an advantage in the ensuing debate. For example, “Do you think hippies are un-American?” is biased, but “What do you think of hippies?” is not. You have framed my skepticism about Palin based on her gender, but her gender is not my concern.
Transparency is sometimes difficult but it’s not a myth. The COINTELPRO program by the FBI was top secret when it was being carried out, but decades later transparency laws (in this case, the Freedom of Information Act) brought it to the public. The documents discovered through FOIA showed criminal activity by the FBI, all in writing. If government transparency was a myth, we’d never have learned about the FBI’s illegal program.
It frightens me to see a president, vice president, governor, or city councilor, any government official, thwart transparency laws. Palin knew that she was supposed to use the gov’t e-mail account for gov’t business, but she didn’t. Why? Why doesn’t Bush jr. use e-mail, as he claimed several years ago?
Transparency in gov’t will be a myth if we elect people who go out of their way to make it a myth.
This topic has me wonder why Scott Davis uses a private e-mail account. Scott, can you answer?
See:
http://www.ci.northfield.mn.us/government/citycouncil
http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIs.aspx?domain=ward2.net&prog_id=godaddy
Jerold, the reason I framed my question that way is because Palin is being hounded like no other vp has ever been hounded overall. They blame it on everything but the one thing that is so in evidence, imho. It’s the glass ceiling old boy network AS USUAL.
As for transparency, I get very upset whenever politicians avoid questions and talk in circles, and that’s way more than most of the time, and they sit back and let people read into their words whatever they want to project onto the politician, but they never have any proof that the politician actually said anything potentially lethal to the politicians career, but then I realized why they do avoid saying anything concrete, and that is because if they do say something that seems to take a stance, someone will bombast them for it. The more you seek transparency, the more underground politicians will go to avoid exposure, even if they are doing something good for most or some of the people.
Just like here, if I say anything strong on a side of any issue, I will be buried by the opposition. No problem. I have been buried a lot in my life but it doesn’t take.
Bright: Why do you target Ariana Huffington’s gender in your post #759:
and you complain when you think that I am targeting Sarah Palin’s gender in your post #763:
If I didn’t know better, I’d think that you defend Palin because of her politics, and you criticize “Huffington and women who act like her” for their politics.
I was offended when I came out of church on Sunday to find a flyer entitled “Is it immoral to vote for Obama for President?” stuck to my windshield. I guess the anonymous producers of the flyer (which contained a lengthy anti-choice piece by Randall A. Terry) assumed that anyone parked outside a church would naturally be anti-abortion. Interesting that they seem to assume that moral vs. immoral voting can only be about one issue–abortion–never mind other ethically charged issues such as war, poverty, health care.
Jerold, I am not dissiing Ariana for her politics. I have not kept up with that. I was talking about how she acts, which to me is like the Lewis Caroll’s Queen of Hearts who runs around madly and says “Off with their heads!” I don’t think that is a very good way for a woman to present herself. That is my opinion.
I do defend Palin because so many politicians have done so much worse and all is forgiven, even manslaughter.
Now, will tell us why you think the deleted Palin emails are so important?
During this final week, the McCain campaign and their allied media are blasting away on the “income redistribution” issue. This ‘tenet of socialism’ (according to Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, et al) is one of Obama’s core beliefs. This is all based on one 2001 radio interview with Obama that was posted (and critiqued) on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
Why are they using this as their ‘hail mary’ strategy during this last week? I think it is because, as Bill O’reilly said yesterday, many Americans ‘don’t have a clue’ what this is all about. Now he said this because of what he sees as the danger Obama poses to ‘the American way of life”. I think it’s because many Americans have very little understanding of economic philosophy and its history. The right wing is trying to paint this in simplistic terms: Obama wants to take money from one (rich) person and send it to another (poor) person. Of course this strikes many Americans as unfair.
But, Obama has never said that. That is beside the point in these last desperate days of the McCain campaign.
Fact: We have had a progressive income tax for nearly 100 years. McCain’s hero, Teddy Roosevelt, was instrumental in encacting it. A progressive income tax is an instrument of income redistribution.
The problem is Obama calls it what it is. If Obama is a socialist, so was McCain’s hero, and so was Ronald Reagan, because Obama is only calling for a return to tax rates that were in effect during the Reagan era.
We have had an era of redistribution of wealth under the Bush/McCain tax plan. Redistribution from the poor and middle class to the rich. I hope that is one of the answers the Obama campaign will make to these latest smears.
William,
The Obama interview on NPR goes way beyond the concept of redistribution.
He actually claims that our constitution is flawed because it doesn’t define what the government should do for the people.
He also raises the issue that the courts are not aggressive enough in forcing redistribution. HUH?
Redistribution of wealth is called socialism where I come from. It inherently means that you take money from those that work hard and give it to those that chose to sit at home.
I think we have tried this with the new deal. Since the new deal was put in affect we have spent nearly $ 7 trillion dollars to support it.
According to the left our country is worse off then ever and our bets days are over.
Seems to me that the new deal has failed.
Called it what you will to me this is very troublesome, especially for somebody that has to defend the very constitution he thinks is flawed.
peter, there was the most massive redistribution of wealth ever in the last 8 years. don’t you think it follows that the money should be flowing our way for a little bit?
Margaret O: I had the same flyer on my windshield. It had a picture of John Paul II, but no quotes from his condemnations of the Iraq war, no quotes from Catholic teachings about immigration and economic justice, no quotes from Catholic teachings about the importance of truth in journalism. Just abortion. Propaganda.
Peter, you say there’s no conservative party, but there’s Bob Barr, who stood against some of the worst constitutional abuses of the Bush administration.
You cite the ABC columnist/opinion piece as identifying media bias. Here’s what I think: Some in the media feel guilty for giving Bush an eight-year honeymoon. It’s like having an election where Hitler is running against Mother Theresa. To what extent should the media, in such an election, bend over backwards to say nothing negative about Hitler? So now we have a balooning national debt related to the Iraq war, and we have terrible standing in the world, which might hurt US trade, and in the end, the Bush administration might have been the worst thing to happen to media advertising revenue in a century, so the media finally wakes up to their mistake.
Instead of being too kind to Palin and McCain, they’re doing their job and asking the hardest questions to the folks who need them most. Finally. What took them so long?
William S: Thanks for your comments on redistribution of wealth. The richest 10% (and especially, 2%) pay a lower percent of their income in taxes than the middle class, and yet they have more disposable income. The rich often get rich through clever economic exploitation: Find the cheapest sources for goods, resources and labor, and sell your products and services at the highest price the market will bear. Redistribution for the common good needs a better name.
But unfortunately, with the military-industrial-security complex, the redistribution often goes not for the common good, but for the profit of a few. Taxing the rich to continue to pay for a military budget larger than all other nation’s military budgets combined is not the way to go.
Obama’s wealth redistribution works best if Dennis Kucinich is Secretary of Defense…. ( 0 ;
Here’s an interesting story on the issue of bias in campaign news coverage:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14982.html
I like to compare this all to sports coverage. When your team is undefeated and the coach is going for a career record and your quarterback hasn’t thrown an interception since last season and you have a new stadium, the news coverage is pretty positive.
When you’re 0-10 and the coaching staff is playing the blame game instead of football and when your quarterback is fighting 20 years of injuries with denial and dropped balls and the backup hasn’t read the playbook, the news stories are going to trend a bit negative.
If you want cheerleaders, look for the cute gals on the sidelines, not the press box.
Let’s face it, Obama’s people haven’t leaked so much as his favorite flavor of ice cream. His crowds are hitting 100,000 while McCain might get 10,000. Obama has raised more money, received more endorsements — and done it all without a single wardrobe malfunction or personal smear against his opponents. There are even photos of him with his feet up, showing the holes in the soles of his worn out old shoes.
Even SNL writers have complained that they can’t find enough crazy stuff to parody.
This doesn’t mean that Obama is perfect, it’s just that when you’re doing advance stories on the Superbowl, the predictions aren’t going to be even, even if they’re fair.
Fair Taxation?
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23319.html.
In 1999, about 30 million tax filers had no income tax liability after taking advantage of their credits and deductions. By 2006, the number of non-payers had grown to nearly 44 million, one-third of all income tax filers.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2005, the top 20 percent of households paid 86.3 percent of income taxes while the bottom 80 percent paid a collective 13.7 percent of the income tax burden. The top 1 percent of households paid 38.8 percent of income taxes.
Looking at all federal taxes, in 1990, the bottom 80 percent of households paid 42 percent of the tax burden while the top 1 percent of households paid about 16 percent. By 2005, the share of all federal taxes paid by the bottom 80 percent of households had fallen to 31 percent, while the share paid by the wealthiest households had risen to nearly 28 percent.
A recent Tax Foundation study found that in 2004, the nation’s tax and spending policies redistributed more than $1 trillion in income from the top 40 percent of American households to the bottom 60 percent of households.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/54838.html
Anyone else grew their money by 13% lately?
The only difference between greedy companies and politicians is that companies actually produce jobs and goods, while politicians just spend our hard earned money.
This goes to the heart of my soap box I am standing on.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081027/D94334KG0.html
Maybe most of you here don’t think the media is bias…..most Americans feel differently.
There is one issue for which I am looking for an answer and not really finding any. It has been pointed out, and accurately, I believe, in many posts here that over the last decade or so, our federal government has increased in size. Looking at where we are financially and internationally as a country, how has the size of our government helped us? Which candidate is commited to reducing the size, or at least increasing the efficiency of our government? This is not my only issue, but one for which I would like an answer. I personally have more trust in the GOP ticket to accomplish this. If there is a majority take-over by the Democarts in both the executive and legislative branches, where will we have any balance? Perhaps my concerns are unfounded, but one of the preceps of the founding fathers in their establishing a representative type of government was to try to set in place a safeguard against any one ideology having free reign over the country. Having a sweep of these two branches does not accomplish this, IMHO. And, I am not convinced that the Democratic plan is any better than the GOP plan has been for compassionately distributing wealth.
Oops! In my last post, I mispelled Democrats as “Democarts”! I certainly did not mean this as anything derogatory. It only is more evidence of my lack of prowess on this blasted keyboard.
I went to Arianna Huffington’s talk at St. Olaf last night, and contrary to Bright’s opinion, she never once said “off with their heads.” She was very interesting and spoke of her conversion from Republican to Democrat. She also scoffed at the radical-right-wing pundits claim that Obama is a socialist–and rightly pointed out that we have had progressive taxation since the beginning of the tax system in this country.
Peter, I am offended by your continual rant that support of progressive taxation or just being a Democrat means that I (and Obama) are socialists. Please quit repeating the wild-right-wing radical lies and start making a real case why wealthy people should not pay a progressive income tax.
The most socialist thing we have done is the Republican administration bail-out of the financial institutions–not our progressive tax systems.
Economists have long sited the progressive tax system as being one of the lynch-pins of our successful economy–and it seem to be proven out that when the Republicans dismantle the progressive part of that tax system–we have unfettered greed and —oh oh–the biggest economic crisis in our countries history.
Republicans have proven that their policies don’t work and are bad for the country.
Peter, you got it half right. The rich pay more taxes — because they control the wealth! Figures I found show that in the U.S. in 2001, 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84% of its wealth, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%.
So if 20 percent of the people have 84 % of the wealth and pay 87% of the taxes, it sounds about right (remembering that the percentage share of earnings has gone up since 2001).
Peter: The Tax Foundation is an ultra-right wing source. Regardless, why do you think it is unfair for the people who have the most money to pay the most taxes? Why do you think that poor people should pay more taxes? What the Tax Foundation is not telling you is that the reason the “bottom” 80% of taxpayers only pay 31% of the taxes compared to 42% 15-years earlier is because of the stratification of the classes–the wealthy have gained more of the share of the income while the incomes of the middle class have decreased. What the Tax Foundation is saying is “Let them eat cake.”
One thing we have learned–trickle-down economics DOES NOT WORK. Cutting taxes for rich people does not increase jobs or create more opportunity–it just cuts taxes for rich people so they have more money.
Cutting taxes for corporations MAY help to create jobs and increase investment–but cutting taxes for individuals does not.
Cutting taxes for rich people means they can go on more vacations, buy luxury goods, and get that Louis Vuitton bag they have had their eyes on.
It also meant that hedge-fund managers claimed that they were driving the economy by pulling in $10 miillion dollar salaries taxed as capital gains–when nothing of the sort was happeneing–instead they were taking value out of the economy.
The biggest issue in this election is the economy–because the Republicans have had their way, deregulating and giving tax breaks to oil companies and millionaires–and we are all suffering the consequences.
Progressive taxation is not socialism–it is smart governance. Lets get back to doing it right.
In posting #779, Paul F. writes:
“The richest 10% (and especially, 2%) pay a lower percent of their income in taxes than the middle class…”
Paul, can you back that up? I don’t think it’s correct. I’ve tried chasing the numbers, but the most believable ones I’ve found are in a paper by a pair of economists at http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf
Table 1 (page 6) there indicates the middle class pays around 20% of its income in total federal taxes, while the top 10% start at around 25% and the top 2% start at around 33%. (These are numbers for 2004. Table 2 on page 13 provides a fascinating summary of effective changes in the tax code’s progressivity since 1960, when the top marginal tax rate was a whopping 91%, compared to today’s 35% — see also http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php.)
Jane- I think your comment, “…Cutting taxes for rich people means they can go on more vacations, buy luxury goods, and get that Louis Vuitton bag they have had their eyes on…” is probably no different than Peter’s accusation that all Democrats are socialists. I see two different ways to redistribute the wealth that “rich people” have accumulated. One is through coerceion, via taxes, and the other is through their purchases, which do go to pay for salaries of those people who make the goods they purchase.
I just don’t understand this angst against “rich people”. If I had the choice between rich or poor, I think I would chose rich. It certainly makes life easier. Unfortunately, we only have a certain amount of choice in this matter, depending on opportunities that come our way and how we respond to them. To penalize those who have succeeded in business or whatever through their own efforts seems wrong to me. I really don’t see how this position is not motivated by greed, either.
I find the whole discussion of who pays more or less taxes misses the point completely. I only sourced the numbers to illustrate the absurdity of the current arguments that both camps make.
Personally I think all of us pay enough taxes already. Go to the IRS site and take a look at total tax dollars collected over the last few years.
The total tax revenue collected by the Feds has gone up consistently and what do we get in return?
How about talking about CUTTING SPENDING? What do we get instead? More tax cuts, another stimulus package and more promises that cost money……..and more tax hikes later (according to Barney Frank).
What’s wrong with this picture???
John: I am not driving a mean-spirited campaign against rich people. Nor do I see paying progressive taxes as a penalty on rich people. Paying taxes is part of being an American–it is patriotic. Avoiding taxes is unpatriotic and against the law.
As Barry pointed out, our top individual rate has dropped substantially since 1960. I believe it is fair that the tax system is progressive. I am not condoning a penalty–I just don’t think that the wealthy need a tax cut.
Historically, when we have cut taxes in the past, we have suffered economically as a country–when we have raised taxes, we have prospered. I do not endorse raising taxes–but I think that tax cuts for the wealthy should be abandoned.
I agree, Peter, that we should cut spending and we could start with the War Department.
Peter, please explain how the article you linked to in posting #783 in any way supports your apparent conclusion that “most Americans” feel the media is biased. The article merely documents a decline in newspapers’ print circulation, mainly due to migration of readership to the Internet. Indeed, it notes that “usage of newspaper Web sites grew nearly 16 percent in the third quarter, compared with last year, to an average of more than 68 million monthly unique visitors, the newspaper group said last week.” Is that a sign of growing disgust with media bias?
Paying taxes is patriotic? I guess the Boston tea party was about bad tea?
The “War Department” is a necessary evil and we better keep it funded well. To what degree is a matter of discussion.
Entitlement spending will make defense spending soon look like pocket change.
Sorry, Jane it is a fact that since the Bush tax cut the dollars collected in taxes are at an all time high.
The problem is not a lack of tax money the problem is that both parties don’t know how to manage a budget.
People are turning away from the “old media” and are more and more looking for alternatives.
The decline in newspaper circulation can partially explained with the influence of the internet, but not all that turn away from the “old media” continue on the respective websites.
I used to read the Star Tribune, but I got disgusted with their bias reporting and have certainly not continue reading it on their website.
Our own Northfield News does a good job in just stating facts.
Peter (#794),
Yes, paying taxes is patriotic. Paying taxes is a patriotic duty in a civilized society. Reasonable people can differ as to exactly how much should be paid, and by whom, but there ain’t no free lunch.
The Boston Tea Party was a protest of taxation without representation. Taxation without representation is what We the People got in the case of the massively expensive, immoral, preemptive war in Iraq waged by the Bush Administration, which cynically manipulated intelligence information to fool Congress and the American public and dupe some of them into thinking that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, providing the supposed justification for going to war in March 2003.
As to your statement that:
You are correct (see the Historic Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary provided by the Tax Policy Center. This fascinating data table, tracking federal receipts and expenditures back to 1940, shows that, with the exception of the huge deficits of the World War II years, the largest percentage deficits (measured as a percentage of GDP) were in the Reagan and Bush the Elder years, followed by Bush the Younger. (Gerald Ford didn’t do too badly, either, as a deficit spender, in his two years picking up the pieces after Nixon, the only other Republican president of the past 40 years, left office in disgrace.) Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were absolute pikers in comparison, mere babes in the woods when it comes to mis-managing a budget.
I wouldn’t say “a pox on both their houses.” I’d say let’s give the D’s a chance. In this and many other ways, the R’s have blown it over the past eight years.
I feel like I am being taxed without being represented. I play by the rules I work hard and I have taken maybe 10 sick days in the last 35 years of work. My average work week even today is around 50 hours a week. It used to be in the 70’s.
Yet I do have a hard time keeping everything afloat. Every year I look at my paycheck the take home pay get’s smaller and smaller, and that doesn’t account for all the other taxes I have to pay outside of the income tax.
I see my government spending like it’s going out of style and then they turn to me very single year and want more.
They always tell me “Oh what’s another $50 ?”, but yet my take home gets smaller and smaller.
Despite all of that I am still being asked to give more when will it end?
If you poor you don’t pay taxes. if you are rich you don’t care what your tax bill is………who speaks for me?
Yes I do feel that I am being taxed without being represented.
Peter,
your problem isn’t with taxes, your problems is that your paycheck isn’t increasing the same rate as inflation.
Anthony,
A combined 25% deduction from my paycheck is not a problem?? I disagree.
Plus about $200 (net) a month in property taxes. Plus all the other net taxes I can’t think of right now?
BTW I do get an adjustment for inflation and plus some.
Peter, Even though I lean left I agree with you that this taxation seems excessive, and Id love to see less of my paycheck disappear. Have you actually compared (yourself) what Obama and McCain’s tax proposals would do to you in your own situation? Believe me, I know I can’t turn you into an Obama voter, but it sure sounds to me like you would do better under that plan.
I can mostly only find calculators sponsored by one side or the other, but i did find one which is non-partisan and sponsored by the univ of maine at electiontaxes.com
Since taxes have come up as a campaign issue, I will submit this link- http://mises.org/story/1243, by Frank Shostak. In this article, he makes the astute observation that government consumes real wealth, it does not produce it. This supports my question in post #794 (at this point in time) about who is promising any reduction in the size of the Federal Government. My best hope at this time is with the GOP. Even though there has been unbridled growth in the government over the last decade, I still have a greater hope in the real conservatives having some influence through their party to actually bring this about. I have not heard any idea like this coming out of the Democrats. In my opinion, if this doesn’t happen soon, the size of the government will outstrip the ability of the private sector to support it. This will either trigger a complete failure in the economic system or open the doors for a socialist take-over of the production of goods and services and the accompanying dictator to enforce it. I don’t want to pass this heritage on to my children and grandchildren.
Jane- I didn’t mean to infer that your comments were “mean spirited”. I just detect an attitude that the rich are somehow a scourge on society and they need to be separated from their riches for justice to prevail. I pick up this same attitude from some of my relatives who live in a depressed part of the country. Their attitude comes across this way- if someone is “rich”, then they must have gotten that way by some illegal or greed-motivated means. I like to differentiate between “equality” and “sameness.” I believe there can be equality within a society where there are different levels of wealth. In my opinion, the most just tax would be a flat tax, where everyone contributes the same percentage of their income. As we are set up with the progressive tax system we have now, a very small portion of the society carries a very large portion of the expense of government. This does provide a motivation for this portion to try to buy influence in government through lobbying, which they can afford, to provide shelters from taxes wherever they can. This is something the lower income portion of society cannot accomplish.
John: The real conservatives are not in the GOP. The real conservatives have endorsed Obama. The GOP gives lip-service to being conservative, but have proven themselves out of control. Your best bet is the Democrats.
Peter, you may think that the Bush tax cuts led to high tax revenues, but there is no cause-effect correlation. However, there is a direct correlation between the Bush spending agenda and the GOP–if you want lower spending, don’t vote for the same group that gave us 8 years of wasteful spending.
The proof is in the pudding–the Republicans stink. Vote for change.
Jane- Thanks for the betting suggestion, but I’m sorry, I don’t gamble like that. If I thought there was any hope in the Democrats, I would have said so before. Like the old saying, when the chips are down, watch your step.
As far as wasteful spending, I think I am with Peter here in suggesting that most, but not all, government spending is wasteful. If it doesn’t relate to infrastructure, defense, or law enforcement, I question its importance.
John, would you really limit spending to infrastructure, law enforcement, and defense? If so, wouldn’t you like your defense dollars actually defending your country, as opposed to meddling in area conveniently on top of lots of oil? Does education qualify as a reasonable expense to you (i’m not talking about wasteful education spending)?
John: You just cannot imagine how fond I am of rich people. They are absolutely my best clients. I in no way believe that they have come by their riches unscrupulously. (Well, except for maybe Tom Petters–and that is only alleged, and he is not a client.) In no way do I think they are a scourge on society. I would like it much better if everyone were rich. You really cannot have too many rich people.
But that is not how it works–today in our society, it is very difficult for the middle class or poor to improve their level of income. Affording a decent education is difficult if not imporssible for many young people. Our society is becoming ever-more stratified with the rich getting richer and the middle class sliding off into poor. This is not good for anyone–especially the rich, as they will not have a capable work force to create wealth. We know from history that it is especially dangerous to a country to have such a wide gap between rich and poor. We need to narrow that gap and make sure there are opportunities for those that are willing to work hard and seek them. It is impossible to have an impact without government intervention. So we have a conundrum.
I just think that the Republicans have had their chance and mucked it all up pretty good–time to try something different.
Nick- I include public education as part of the infrastructure. I realize I did not make that clear in my previous statement. In my simplistic approach, the government should be taking responsibility for those services that cannot be feasibly handled on the individual level, such as building and maintaining roads, utilities, etc. Education can be and is successfully done on the individual level, but I’m not sure this is possible for every family to do this. That is why I lump it into this catagory. As far as spending our taxes wisely, though, that is another area of opinion open for much discussion. I think this is what necessitates election of public officials.
Real conservatives vote for Obama? Not even close.
I agree the Republicans stink because they left their base in order to appeal to the middle and they will pay the price in this election.
I am all for change, but Obama doesn’t offer change, he offers old 70’s idea repackaged. Sorry, but I have seen the same ideas 30 years ago in Germany when the SPD came in to power. You wanna know what the US will look like thirty years from now? Take a look at Germany today.
I still don’t know why you continue to call me a right wing radical???I am far from that.
Jane,
Yes I am against progressive taxes because they are unfair. What makes us believe that we can “punish” people for being high achievers. By taking more of their hard earn money? We wouldn’t apply the same rules in an educational setting, there we award high achievers.
Jane – your position in 805 is very hard to support historically, as government has gotten bigger, the gap between the rich and poor has also gotten bigger. Business pays a fortune to government in special interest money (like Obama’s 125,000 from Fannie)to insure that their market is tilted unfairly in their favor. Smaller government and a more decentralized industrial space evens the playing field and favors innovation and marketing over what is in effect sophisticated public bribery toward monopolistic purposes.
Jane- Concerning the shrinking middle class, there is a very good article on this site- http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962753,00.html. This is not just a new phenominum.
there has been an awareness of this for close to 30 years. This spans both Republican and Democratic admimnistrations. If your asertion , “…It is impossible to have an impact without government intervention…” were actually correct, I think we would have seen some change in this by now. I just don’t believe this is something that can be legislated. Unless there is a fundamental change of heart in the American public as a whole, I do not believe there will be any change in this shift. This change can only come about by individual changes in what we embrace as our moral base, IMHO. I know many here do not agree with that, but when I look at history, in societies where there has been true revival, there has been economic change accompanying it. Look at the turn around in Scotland after William Wallace’s leading. Check out England and Wales after the great revivals there. Even look at this country after the revivals of the thirties and forties. We had a couple decades of economic prosperity after that. It has been since the rebellion of the 70’s against moral teachings that there has been a moral slide that has affected the economic slide we are experiencing today. That is why I do not have any hope in any political party that is not open to the things of God. I’m not looking for perfection. I’m looking for honesty in a person’s recognition of their need for God.
John G, Spot on again with the commentary!
Everyone should read Mises and understand Austrian economics if they want to understand macroeconomics.
My idea of “FAIR” tax is the same as when everyone at the office chips in on a gift 10 people divde the cost 10 ways!
So, Federal Gov expeditures=$3 trillion. US population=300Million (men ,women, children)
3 Tril/300Mil = $10,000/person!
Has your family of 4 paid their “FAIR” share of $40,000 this year to the FED IRS?
By the way the 16th amendment(Income Tax) to the Constitution was Ratified (although it could be disputed since 3/4 of the States did not officially ratify it) in 1913, the same year that the Federal Reserve(US Central PRIVATE Bank) was created. Coincidence, Maybe! This was also the beginning of Monetary Inflation, the hidden TAX!
Also, it’s disputed that Income is NOT the same as Wages!
Peter: Taxes are not punishment.
David Henson–Yes Yes Yes–the most important reform is probably in government access. We should not be electing officials so that they can be bribed by big business. I agree wholeheartedly. My historical ranting was that we may be looking at a New Deal–hopefully some of those working at the WPA will be lobbyists who have lost their jobs.
Jane,
You said, “My historical ranting was that we may be looking at a New Deal–hopefully some of those working at the WPA will be lobbyists who have lost their jobs.”
I sure hope not. What the new WPA will need will be Wealth builders and creators, not more government parasites!
John G: Regarding the party that promises smaller government, I don’t see either party doing so … ever. One thing I appreciate from author Ayn Rand is her cynicism about federal government, that their design is for job security and hiring others to do their work. In that formula, government only gets larger. I am not as cynical, but I don’t see either party having the motivation for reduction beyond the promises made to voters.
Some government growth is well intended even if it’s not necessary. For example, here in Northfield we have a new rental ordinance that comes with an appeals board for homeowners who want to exceed the 20% density rule. In a city our size, we won’t need to hire staff to manage the appeals board. In larger jurisdictions, adding new laws may compel the city to hire staff to manage the consequences.
I recall several years ago, San Francisco purged 50 laws from its books that were no longer relevant. It’s a rare example of government working toward simplicity. I have heard the rhetoric, but I have not seen evidence that either candidate will follow San Francisco’s lead.
Incidentally, I recall that in Beverly Hills, CA, it’s illegal to have more than three tennis balls on the court at the same time. In Charlotte, NC, it’s illegal for a mortician to use profanity in the presence of a corpse. I am constantly amused by some of the laws out there… really out there.
Yes, Mike, I was kidding–but I really hope we can come up with a great government program to remove lobbyists from the DC scene. If people want to testify before congress, make them be real people who work in an industry or are speaking on their own behalf–not hired guns. (Lobbying used to work–it helped educate lawmakers–now it is weilding undue influence for corporations.)
Jerold–I am all for the no swearing–no excuses if you are keeping company with the dead–but it should extend to live people, too. They went too far with the tennis balls, though.
Jerold- I know there are strange laws on the books, but I really don’t see these as being the problem. Your example of the rental density enforcement is better. What we are facing is too many government employees. They are just doing their job, but there work does not produce any increase in real wealth. That is what needs to be changed in our government. Just observing the last couple administrations, I would have to agree with you as far as any hope in either party decreasing the size of the government. I will still cast my lot in with the GOP just because their history is to try to decrease government size. I don’t see that pattern in the Democratic party.
John G: The strange laws on the books were in my “incidentally” paragraph, which is incidental to the subject of discussion. I wish that I kept the news article about San Francisco’s purge. They had some dooseys.
If neither party actually reduces government size, you still favor the Republicans on this issue? It seems to me that if the Democrats don’t promise anything, but the Republicans promise smaller government and don’t deliver, I would rather not vote for the party who’s lying to me.
Well, Jerold, it appears to me the choice is between a party that has actually reduced the size of government in the past and a party that has always increased the size of government in the past, and seems to be heading down that road yet. It doesn’t seem like rocket science to me. I just heard a comment by Groucho Marx the other day, and I think it went something like this: A politician is one who looks for problems, finds them everywhere, proposes the wrong solutions to them, and gets the wrong results. If I can find it somewhere, I will try to link it. I thought it was pretty funny and appropose.
Jerold- Here is that link. There are a few other good ones in the list, too. Hope you enjoy it.
http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/12-great-election-quotes/article104385.html
Jane,
Maybe taxes aren’t punishment in themselves, but to take more money from people that happen to be successful doesn’t sit right with me.
I guess I don’t agree with Karl Marx on “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) “
Peter: Obviously you prefer a flat-tax that would favor the wealthy. The progressive tax system was working great until the Republicans tinkered with it–the United States has used a progressive system since the inception of income taxation.
People who do not make enough income do not pay ANY tax. People who make a moderate amount of income pay a moderate tax, and people who make a whole bunch of lots of money pay –less (as a percentage of income) tax–this is still a lot of tax, but I really don’t feel sorry for them.
I think we should consider suspension of the beneficial capital gains rate tax if your income exceeds, say a million.
Currently, our tax system taxes many high income individuals at a lower rate than what the middle-class taxpayer is paying. That is not fair. They should at least pay an equal percentage.
Not sure if I like the flat tax I would be more in favor of a consumption based tax.
Jane,
On this issue we have to agree to disagree.
Jane: I don’t see how a flat tax is unfair. A flat tax can be equal but not the same. As was mentioned above, equal and the same are 2 different things. Saying everyone needs to pay a fixed amount is unrealistic (and you didn’t say that) but saying that everyone pays 25% is equal, a flat tax, and fair.
Furthermore, folks that earn little, or nothing actually get paid by the government through EIC and other tax credits. You should never get back more than you paid in at return time, it just baffles my mind.
I’ve had about enough with both the GOP and the DFL, I’ll be voting the Constitution party this year.
Peter, or anyone else, I was wondering if you took a look at that tax calculator of McCain and Obama’s tax plans I posted a while back (electiontaxes.com) would really love to hear your opinion about the differences at various income levels and household situations.
Concerning the “fairness” of flat taxes, head taxes, sales taxes, etc., and the McCain campaign’s efforts to convert the coming election to a referendum on socialism … here are quotes from two (by McCain campaign’s standards) dangerously seditious redistributionists.
Try guessing the authors before peeking.
The first one’s a bit dated by its language:
1. The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
The second sounds more modern:
YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
MYSTERY MAN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.
Dangerous socialists, no?
Well, not exactly … the answers are (i) Adam Smith; (ii) John McCain.
Snoop around on http://www.newyorker.com for more in this vein.
Paul (Z.), why do you bring up such ancient history? It’s quite clear that John McCain is simply not the same man who ran against (as opposed to away from) Bush 8 years ago….
Nick- I went to your taxes site and ran through the calculator. Under Obama’s plan, I would pay more taxes. This is no surprise to me, and it just confirms my suspicions. There was not a significant increase in the amount, but it was more. Sometimes, these little increases are a little like getting nibbled to death by ducks. Thanks for the link.
Still no comments from Peter (or Guy?) on Bob Barr. No thoughts?
Barry: Regarding the rich paying a lower percent in taxes than the middle class, this relates to state taxes in MN, based on MN tax incidence studies. The federal situation is a different picture, and I should have specified MN state taxes.
At the federal level, do your figures include social security withholding — which is still treated like a slush-fund? While Republicans have been pushing (and getting) tax breaks for years, social security withholding has been going up for the middle class, and the rich have been benefitting from tax breaks, without having increases in their SS withholding. Depending on which taxes you include (the MN studies include real estate, sales tax, etc.), you may get a different picture.
Paul- You do bring up an interesting point on SS tax liability. I think that the max contribution is around $62,000. If the tax was collected equally across the income spectrum, then those making $2 million+ could be contributing much more into the system. Perhaps there is another support for a flat tax.
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
-Benjamin Franklin
which “Master” are we going to pick next week?
Pardon a newcomer to the discussion, but here are my two cents – take them at face value.
Jerold: I love the Ayn Rand reference – she is no doubt rolling in her grave now. (insert mortician vulgarity joke here) We can apply so much of what she predicted to our current financial crisis, it is quite eerie. Her philosophy of Objectivism is what we badly need now to curtail the downward spiral towards a socialist state.
John G: I agree completely that the scope-of-government debate favors the Republicans. You’re right, there is no basis for an argument that either party would reduce government power, but Obama’s goals of socialized health-care, education, and banking certainly promise an drastic increase in the size of the federal government.
Jane: Saying that a “flat-tax would favor the wealthy” is inherently contradictory. A flat-tax by definition favors no-one by taxing everyone’s income at the same rate. I fail to follow the liberal logic that taking something that belongs to me (my wages) and giving it to someone else – regardless of the circumstances – can be justified. Obama’s proposal of spreading the wealth and his tax policy that rich should pay more taxes “because they can afford it” doesn’t just border on communism – it is straight from Marx’s manifesto. I find it comical that the McCain campaign has been questioned by the media for applying the term socialism to Obama’s views. Anyone with a dictionary can clearly make that assessment for themselves.
Paul: The “Father of Capitalism” would be disappointed with the misrepresentation of his quotation. Smith (taken from book 5, Ch 2 – p.907 in my version) is referring to property taxes and NOT income taxes. Directly preceding the third part of your quote (your ellipses) states “A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable.” I also agree with Barry that the McCain quote is outdated and quite possibly out of context.
Sincerely,
A Staunch Libertarian
drew said:
Obama’s proposal of spreading the wealth and his tax policy that rich should pay more taxes “because they can afford it” doesn’t just border on communism – it is straight from Marx’s manifesto.
———————————————–
from wikipedia
For 2008, the Federal tax brackets for a single (unmarried) person are:[1]
* 10%: from $0 to $8,025
* 15%: from $8,026 to $32,550
* 25%: from $32,551 to $78,850
* 28%: from $78,851 to $164,550
* 33%: from $164,551 to $357,700
* 35%: $357,701 and above
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket
does that make us a marxist country?
I ran the election taxes calculator with several different incomes (using H of Household and 10 K in mortgage interest), first using my own income
45,000
then
35,000, and in 10,000 increments. This is what I found:
up til 85,000, things were about $500 lower per year under Obama’s plan. At 85,000, though, they became exactly the same under McCain and Obama’s plan, same at:
85,000
85,000
110,000
So I finally ran 220,000 to see if I could change anything, and at that point I got:
taxes under McCain: 58,040
taxes under Obama 58,616
Then i entered 220,000 (who are these people!?) and got:
taxes under McCain: 570,007
taxes under Obama 71, 975
I’d be interested to hear the results of others running different variables.
Sorry, I should have swallowed the rest of my coffee before posting that, two errors:
1. At 85,000, though, they became exactly the same under McCain and Obama’s plan, same at:
85,000
*95,000*
110,000
and 2)
So I finally ran *110,000* to see if I could change anything, and at that point I got:
taxes under McCain: 58,040
taxes under Obama 58,616
JohnG: Social security withholding in 2008 is “6.2% of your wages up to $102,000,” which means that if you earn 10 million, you only pay SS on the first $102,000 of that, and on none of the rest, while a person earning only (only?) $102K pays 6.2% on 100% of it.
Anthony: The figures for tax brackets are correct, but there are many creative ways in which the very wealthy shelter their income from taxes. Some of this was revealed in relation to the sub-prime scandal and folks trading derivatives. Instead of claiming the income as income, like the rest of us, many claimed it as capital gains, or in other ways that are taxed at a lower rate. You can also take wealth offshore and shelter even interest elsewhere.
So income tax brackets only tell one hypothetical story, but not the real story. What the rich actually pay (by way of what deductions or shelters they use) may tell a very different story.
Warren Buffet says he pays less in taxes (as a percent? overall? I don’t recall) than his secretary (executive assistant?) — I forgot to add this to my previous comment.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Article title:
Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary
“Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.
Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.
The comments are among the most signficant yet in a debate raging on both sides of the Atlantic about growing income inequality and how the super-wealthy are taxed. ” [….]
All: I suppose I also should apologize for jumping into the conversation late.
Paul: From Libertarian Party site
“Only one party has consistently stood up for the Constitution and against expansive executive power: the Libertarian Party. Only one party has consistently demanded a quick and full withdrawal from Iraq: the Libertarian Party. Only one party has demanded that all administration officials, legislators, and bureaucrats be held accountable for violating the law or the Constitution: the Libertarian Party. ”
as opposed to from the Constitution Party website –
“Baldwin has distinguished himself as the only candidate running who is for secure borders, ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for overturning Roe v Wade and abolishing the IRS and the Federal Reserve. Baldwin has received an A rating from Gun Owners of America (www.gunownersofamerica.org) and Numbers USA, (www.numbersusa.org the pro-secure borders, anti- illegal immigration group in contrast to McCain and Obama’s F- ratings. ”
I find that the Constitution Party resonates with me better; and if I’m going to vote 3rd party, I may as well vote my conscience.
As far as Warren Buffet goes, my belief is that given his vast resources, he is able to ‘hide’ his money by hiring financial lawyers and accountants – which is his right, and (as long as it is legal) is exactly what his 46mil per annum is supposed to do for him. It’s my fondest dream that I get rich enough that I can hire people to hide my income from the government.
Nick: Ran my numbers under the tax site, I get to pay more under Obama. But I guess that’s what I expect when comparing a liberal to a Marxist.
Easy to say for Warren, if you are a billionaire do you really care if your tax bill is 1 million or two million
so, do people making 250k a year care if they are being taxed 87.5 (35%) or 97.5k (39% the same % under clinton)
Anthony,
This is about principle not amount. Why should somebody pay more taxes just because he makes more money?
Why pick the $250000 number, which btw has now been lowered by Biden to $150000.
I think it’s a slippery slope when government decides on who has enough money and who hasn’t.
This is not the America I know.
The America I know gives everybody the chance to be the best they can be, without government interference.
The current gospel according to Obama is nothing more then class warfare a concept tried and failed in the UDSSR and China.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/29/joe30.html?sid=101
Can you say Gestapo and KGB?
It is interesting that we spend investigating some plumber, but don’t spend the same effort on Obama.
Obama’s opinion on Wright
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh7xMhsLnac
Obama compares the US to Nazi Germany
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX5nZ_svS7E
Obama on the redistribution of wealth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj4yIE9Dd90
Obama on our constitution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4
Obamas sources of Marxist views
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDTluWDUBEY
Obama “The Messiah”?
Here is an interesting twist of the possibility of a filibuster proof in the senate. Lieberman could hold the deciding vote.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/30/lieberman-may-still-hold-key-to-chamber/
Venting: I am entirely disappointed in Wellstone Action http://www.wellstone.com
Here’s what http://www.wellstone.org website says about themselves: Wellstone Action is a national center for training and leadership development for the progressive movement.
I called to find out what the word “progressive” means.
The guy who answered the phone at Wellstone Action! told me Progressive can mean whatever I want it to mean. I told him the radical right would start to define that negatively unless someone got on the ball, and he said maybe we’re not understanding each other.
I asked what Wellstone Action was for? He answered something to the tune of: It doesn’t matter what group you’re from, we teach people how to get the results they want.
I asked if Wellstone’s Action camps could be used to train the radical right? He said yes.
And so, it is with disappointment I see Wellstone’s legacy being used to elect the radical right, if they want to participate in the camps.
Apparently Wellstone’s political views aren’t a factor. I feel his name is being incorrectly used.
Correct me if I’m wrong, and I have misunderstood this whole deal.
Here’s what I learned from my conversations: Do not use that word in place of “liberal.”
If you google “what does progressive mean?” you’ll find many people guess but aren’t sure..
Peter asks, “This is about principle not amount. Why should somebody pay more taxes just because he makes more money?”
Warren Buffett says he pays a lower percent on the millions he makes a year than his secretary, who makes $60,000. Why should she pay a higher percent?
Another way to put the question: “Why should the person who makes more per hour pay a lower percent in taxes?”
Or this: “Why should we expect that the person who makes minimum wage, can’t afford health insurance, and needs to go to the food shelf to feed the family, should pay the same amount in (flat? head?) taxes as Warren Buffett (say, if everyone was required to pay a thousand bucks in taxes, whether you’re rich or poor)?
Why should we expect the secretary who makes $60k and has less disposable income to contribute a larger percent toward the general good of the society than Warren Buffett, who has more disposable income than the secretary has income?
Because of greed. Because of short-sighted greed that hides behind the name of “conservatism,” but in the end, is not conservative in the usual sense of defending traditional values.
Unless greed is the new traditional value. (It’s actually the dark side of history–been a tradition all along.)
Paul,
You call it greed I call it fairness. A lot of the people who are better off did get there by working hard. Many times a lot more then those that chose to hold a minimum wage job for the rest of their lives.
Why should we punish the person that through his work has given other people a job and support the person who bags groceries for a living?
A minimum wage job was never designed to be a “living wage” job, and never should be.
Most of you don’t realize that every time we raise the minimum wage we either reduce the amount of them or pay for them through higher prices. Because companies have to find a way to make up for the increased cost.
No person should pay a lower or higher tax rate it should be the same tax rate for everybody…period. Anything else is social engineering and redistribution of wealth. Both concepts have failed so far to solve the intended goals of them.
By your own admission the poor have gotten poorer and the rich have gotten richer. Despite the new deal which so far has cost us $7 Trillion dollars. It seems to me that the program is not working and it’s time to rethink the whole system.
So I am greedy? When all I want is to feed my family and make a better life for them then i had?
I chose to work hard and expect that by working hard I get to reap the benefits of my work. Without having somebody reach in to my back pocket and take it out to support those who want to take it easy.
The great thing about this country is, that you have all the opportunity and freedom you ever want. Unless you are sick or disabled there is absolutely no excuse for anybody not to work or get an education.
Drew,
In your posting # 831 your wrote:
Paul: The “Father of Capitalism” would be disappointed with the misrepresentation of his quotation. Smith (taken from book 5, Ch 2 – p.907 in my version) is referring to property taxes and NOT income taxes. Directly preceding the third part of your quote (your ellipses) states “A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable.”
Indeed, Smith was referring to property taxes. Income taxes weren’t “invented” until a few years after Smith’s death. But Smith’s point about the OK-ness of progressive taxation, whether of income or of other assets, is what (I think) counts in this discussion. Or do you see some reason why one tax should be progressive but not another?
You continued:
I also agree with Barry that the McCain quote is outdated and quite possibly out of context.
Re context … indeed, I didn’t provide any, but the comment seems clear enough. Does it seem ambiguous to you? Re outdatedness … I believe McCain said this only 8 years ago, in the context of another political campaign? What’s the statute of limitations on political/philosophical opinions?
Paul – why are you so interesting in spending everybody’s money ?
The question of taxation boils down to a simple moral principle. By assuming that one person should be taxed at a different rate than another, we are judging that person inversely based on the merits of their income. We don’t apply this principle to property tax, sales tax, or any other tax, so why income?
The argument about income tax isn’t really about how much we have to pay the government, it boils down to how much the government allows us to keep.
I would like to propose that income be taxed at a flat rate of 0%. That is not a typo – zero percent was the income tax rate for 140 years, including during our most prosperous years in the late 1800’s when our government did not serve as a bureaucratic funnel for public works that were then private enterprises. By imposing an income tax, the federal government is asserting a right to the wages we work for, hence positing that we work to serve the government.
I believe our government is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” not the other way around. We need a drastic shift in public opinion of the role of our federal government before any of the greed, waste, or corruption can be curtailed. If we continue to believe that our government needs to babysit us and ration our resources according to need then we are only going to see this economic crisis worsen.
Paul: I think the distinction between property tax and income tax is important. Smith goes on to say later in that section that “If the [house-rent] tax was very high, the greater part of people would evade it, as much as they could, by contenting themselves with smaller houses, and by turning the greater part of their expence into some other channel.” He is saying that the result of a large proportional difference in tax will cause people to avoid that proportional increase. Apply that logic to income tax and the result will be people spending less of their energy on industrious production. We will see the “Atlas Shrugged” effect, where all the great industrious minds withdraw from productive society as a result of undue government restraints – in this case taxes.
I concede that McCain may have been referring to progressive taxation with his comment, however I must end with a disclaimer that I am engaging in the wrong debate. We should not be deciding what rate is best to tax an individuals income, but rather whether or not to tax personal income at all.
Paul F wrote:
“Because of greed. Because of short-sighted greed that hides behind the name of “conservatism,” but in the end, is not conservative in the usual sense of defending traditional values.”
I find it absolutely inconceivable that you actually believe that it’s OK to take more money from those that put the time in to get the college degrees, build careers, to earn the higher salary. Many of these people, myself included, borrowed money to get through college. I did not come to you with my hand out when I needed money to get through college. I did not default on my student loans and leave the tax payers to pick up the tab of my delinquency. Why on earth would you feel that it was OK to come ask me for a piece of the rewards (my salary) that I am reaping from my investment of blood, sweat, tears, & interest; with the intent of giving it to others that are cruising along on the county dole, not paying their fair share? How is that fair or democratic? It’s not, it’s Marxist – and I spent the first decade of my adult life fighting that type of tyranny, and I will not raise my children under that yoke. If you feel that these opinions are an extension of my greed, so be it.
From Wikipedia – ‘The American Way’:
“. . . American popular culture broadly embraced the idea that anyone, regardless of the circumstances of his or her birth, could significantly increase his or her standard of living through determination, hard work, and natural ability. ”
Under Obama and his Marxist allies, everyone, regardless of ability will be the same (not equal), some will work hard and have their money taken from them and given to others whom will not feel the need to work, because they can collect the aforementioned monies. This is not only un-American, it’s just plain wrong.
I can only hope that in a weeks time, we have not joined China & North Korea as one of the bastions of Communism.
Drew: You said
“The question of taxation boils down to a simple moral principle”
Unfortunately, it boils down to a complex economic principal. How do you pay for things that are beneficial to society but no one person is willing to pay for on their own? Like roads.
And Guy, why do you think that someone who earns their living by investing their inheritance should pay a lesser proportion of their taxes than the guy with a factory job who is literally working for his wages?
Regardless, this thread is about the Presidential candidates-if the entire United States wants to throw out the tax code and start over with a flat tax, you better start lobbying our next president. Good luck.
Perhaps we should have a different thread that just discusses the philosophy of taxation so all you econ majors can get your opinions aired.
Drew,
In #850 you assert, but don’t really defend (as far as I can see) the claim that there’s a big difference between income taxes and other forms of taxation. Seems to me that the basic principle you cite — excessive taxes discourage gainful work — applies substantially to all forms of taxation. I don’t have many big dogs in the fight over one form of taxation rather than another, but I’d like to understand what seems to be your special aversion to income as opposed to other taxes.
In any case, the basic principle you mention seems obviously true in some extreme sense: If government takes *all* my money then of course I won’t bother to work. And, obviously, everyone would rather pay zero tax than pay any tax. And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
But the government clearly needs to raise *some* money, and so the no-tax option just isn’t available. The live question is how to raise the money government needs (we can disagree on the amount, of course, and on what the money should be used for) at the least possible cost to incentives, fairness, justice, and other Good Things.
I’m no economist, but it seems to me the least disruptive way to raise necessary money is to tax a broader range of things at a lower rate rather than to tax a few things at a higher rate. So why not income among them?
peeeeeeter, oh peeeeeeeter, won’t you pleeeeeeeease try the tax calculator?
I’m flummoxed by those saying they come out paying more with Obama’s plan; I didn’t just run my own numbers but all kinds of salaries. Maybe I shouldn’t have plugged in mortgage interest? Or do you guys all make 252,000?
Nick- Why are you flummoxed by those saying they would pay more under Obama’s plan? It was your link, and the way it calculates the answers, there is no way to massage the numbers between the two candidates. ????? And, the combined income for both my wife and I does not even reach 6 figures, let alone a quarter million!
Jane- Since the next administration is going to face how we actually work through this trillion dollar bail-out, I would really like to know where they plan to get their money. In all the rest of my life, they have always obtained it through taxation. I haven’t heard any candidate suggesting opening a fish & chips stand in London, or a hot dog stand in Frankfurt. Since the government does not have the capacity to increase wealth, its pretty important to me how much of mine they intend to take. All I have to go on is past history, and my interpretation leads me to trust the GOP rather than the Dems. The thing I am actually losing hope on from anyone is someone to decrease the size of the government.
As far as a flat tax, a 15% tax across the board would cost a person with a taxable income of, say, $20,000 would pay $3,000. A person with a $200,000 income would pay $30,000. Both have the same percentage of their income, 85%, to live on. The gross dollars available are quite different. If all the other costs of living were equal, this would appear to be unfair. The truth of the matter is that these costs of living are not equal. The person with the higher income definitely has a greater choice of options because of his purchasing power. I don’t think this factor alone makes a flat tax unfair. With a progressive system, the person with the $20,000 may only pay $1500, and the person making $200,000 may pay $65,000 or more. The lower income person has about 92.5% of his income to spend, but the higher salaried person only has 67.5% left. Is this actually fair?
Hi John, I was flummoxed because I, as I outlined, I entered many different income levels, and it showed the Obama plan at about $500 less per year until 85,000, at which point it became the same (to the penny) as McCain’s, and not until 220,000 could I make it show Obama’s plan as the more expensive. That’s why I mentioned that I had included mortage interest, and perhaps that generates the difference in outcome?
Nick,
I already did some time back and came out to bean an additional $100 per month.
Which have of it I have already lost by this years increase in gas taxes. Big deal.
I don’t mind paying taxes as long I see that the money is being put to good use, but most of it dissapears in entitlement programs, pork barrel spending and other nonsense.
BTW I am taking bets, that within the next two years this tax break will completely go away. Unless government cuts spending there will never be lower taxes.
Nick- Your break even point is about the income level I entered. The Obama plan cost me about $300 more per year, if I remember correctly. We do give away about 20% of our income, so perhaps this makes a difference. If that is the case, then I am even more dissatisfied with the Obama plan as it would appear to penalize charitable contributions. I don’t know what other factors could enter in here, because that link is the only thing I have seen where I could actually apply real figures.
Classless act of the day: Some punk has stolen our Obama sign. And a couple more down the street.
I guess McCain does have a local campaign effort, after all.
John G: Comment #856. YES
But that guy making 252,000 should consider getting a new tax preparer.
Patrick…it was me….just kidding.
http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/erica-jong-tells-italians-obama-loss-will-spark-second-american-civil-war-blood-will-r
UUHHH what a nutcase….
How did Obama say so eloquently on his acceptance speech in Denver
” I am my brothers and sisters keeper”
http://bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1128958&format=text
http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news/3524
Jane- Actually, the whole process is taxing. I always do my own.
Patrick- My friend had two of his McCain signs stolen. I assumed it was the higher quality of plastic used this year. Perhaps this is just a “sign” of the times?
The strange thing is that I commented on Warren Buffett (second wealthiest man in the world) and his observation that he pays a lower percent in taxes than his secretary who makes $60,000. He believes he, and other rich folks like him, should pay higher taxes.
But then conservatives like you, DavidH, and Guy, and Peter, came to Warren’s defense. Why am I so quick to spend other people’s money, etc. Gosh, Bush and Cheney have been pretty good at that, but they want to lower our taxes while they run up the debt.
Some of you talk about an income tax of 0% perhaps because, at heart, you’re opposed to the military-industrial complex like the peaceniks? Or perhaps you’re in league with the terrorists and want to weaken America?
As it is, we already tax lots of people. When you include social security and medicare deductions, which go into a slush fund, we tax the middle class at a higher percent than the richest, and we as a nation do spend other people’s money all the time. All the time.
So Buffett says we should tax rich folks like him MORE than the rest, and I don’t know of anyone on this forum who makes as much money as Warren.
But suddenly folks come to his defense, or to the defense of the idea of letting folks like Warren pay a lower percent, which they already do. Shall we defend the current system, by which the middle class pays a higher percent than Warren?
So please explain: Did you conservatives become peaceniks, and wish to stop military spending (which would have to happen if we went to a 0% tax), or become interested in helping the terrorists by weakening our defenses through these radical changes to government funding?
I have a nephew who has a good job with Lockheed-Martin, and he’s be out of a job if you go to 0% income tax. He had a double major in electrical and mechanical engineering and graduated near the top of his class. Doesn’t he deserve to be the recipient of government entitlements that get channeled through the military-industrial complex? Why are you against his job? It would be gone at 0% income tax.
And if this doesn’t describe you at all, but you’re in favor of continuing our current level of military funding, how would you replace the lost funding from the switch to 0% income? Sales tax? Property tax?
Paul – the question was why are YOU so concerned with spending other peoples money ? Your answer deflected the question.
Paul,
Why don’t you stop beating around the bush on the tax issue, and say what you want to say!
“It’s the Christian thing to do for government to “Take from Peter (M), to give to Paul (F)””
Sorry Paul, I could help myself! 🙂
Mike: If only Peter made as much money as Warren, Warren and I would be in favor of your plan…. ( O ;
DavidH: When income taxes go down mostly for the rich and social security and medicare withholding go up mostly for the middle class, you don’t ask, “Why are they so concerned about spending the money of the middle class?” But when I advocate with my pal Warren that the rich should not pay a lower percent, then you say I’m avoiding the question, which you want to read, “why are YOU so concerned with spending other peoples money ?”
You accuse ME of deflecting, when that’s exactly what tax cuts for the rich have done.
We’ll have to agree to disagree — but only until one of us can impose a tyranny of the majority on the other.
Jane: I don’t recall drawing a line between someone earning a living from investment INCOME and wage INCOME, to me, income is income (and this will drive my Libertarian & Constitution Party brethren nuts) but it should be taxed at the same rate.
The duties of the Federal government are spelled out quite clearly in the Constitution, Defend the Borders, Coin Money, Maintain Interstate Trade (build roads); there are a few others, but these are the big 3. All other activities, such as a Federal Welfare System (New Deal/Old Deal/Social Security), Federal Education Standards, Federal Police Force, etc are beyond the scope of the Federal government, as authorized by the Constitution, and as such are arguably illegal activities on the part of the federal government.
My point is that pragmatically, the government needs the income tax to do what it’s legally authorized to do. If it stuck to it’s legal functions, we’d probably only need to be taxed in the 10% range.
Paul F: As indicated above, I do not believe we can have 0% taxes, not quite sure where that came from. As someone who did my time in ODS, I’m a fond believer in ‘Peace through superior firepower’ – does that qualify me as a ‘peacenick’? Have you ever seen what a Harpoon does to an oil platform? I’ve got a really cool video of it if you want to see it. I’ve also got some good feed of 16″ NGFS (Naval Gun Fire Support) on a truck convoy.
WRT Warren – my point was simply that if he can afford to hide his money, through loopholes that government left in their own laws, good for him (more evidence that if civil servants were truly talented, they wouldn’t be civil servants?). Despite his misguided opinions, I think that he stands as a hope that the rest of us will one day be rich enough to break the chains of taxation, and have enough disposable income to avoid paying excessive taxes. Remember, wealthy people got that way by NOT allowing others to take their money.
But back to the election: Neither of the 2 main candidates are going to make the types of cuts to the Federal government that would help significantly reduce taxes. So unless you are like me, and have a separate axe to grind (mine is the bailout bill) it only makes sense to vote for the lesser of 2 evils – McCain will grow government less than Obama. McCain will take less of your money annually. McCain will let you keep your guns. McCain will not try to steal your 401K (received that one today – not had much time to research it).
Following up on my post #771, “[Sarah Palin’s use of a private e-mail account for government business] has me wonder why Scott Davis uses a private e-mail account. Scott, can you answer?”
I’ve had a written discussion with City Attorney Maren Swanson covering public record concerns as well as preserving relevant e-mails for Betsey or myself, whomever is elected. Scott Davis, Melissa Reeder and Betsey Buckheit were copied on most of the exchanges.
Maren explains, “Under the City’s records retention schedule (which is based on the state’s recommended schedule), transitory messages, email or phone messages of short-term interest which are considered incidental and non-vital correspondence about city business are public data but are not required to be kept after reading. The records retention schedule is different for correspondence which constitutes an official record of government action, but usually email communications do not rise to that level.”
First, I think it’s bad policy to have government officials using private e-mail accounts. If elected, I’ll use the city’s e-mail for all city business. I intend to introduce legislation for using the city’s e-mail service mandatory for all city employees.
I am not insinuating any wrong doing by Scott as I believe that it is possible to have a private e-mail account and comply with the law, as represented by Maren. However, just like the controversy over Sarah Palin’s private e-mail account, there is now a non-government entity in control of government e-mail, which I believe is a problem waiting to happen, at least for litigation-discovery requests, and also for continuity between Ward 2’s council members. Whomever transitions into the Ward 2 seat may need access to Scott’s e-mails for unfinished business. Rather than have all of his e-mails contained within the city’s system, the next Ward 2 City Councilperson will have to work with two accounts for some time. Also, I don’t know ward2.net’s data retention practices. I don’t know if its practice complies with state law. If Scott used the city’s e-mail, I wouldn’t have to wonder if it was being saved and stored correctly.
I’m happy that Scott’s e-mail address was openly presented to everyone. If I recall the story correctly, Sarah Palin had at least two Yahoo! addresses that were used in addition to her official government address. Had Sarah Palin only used one address, there probably would not have been a story about it.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D945TEE01&show_article=1
The aunt that just won’t go away…….turns out now that she is an illegal immigrant.
Folks you can’t make this up.
Here is the irony on the redistribution scheme of the democrats.
While Obama and Biden trying to convince us that paying more taxes is patriotic and that we should be our brothers keeper.
Both of them don’t practice what they preach. Obama let’s his aunt live illegally in a housing project and his brother in a Kenyan slum. While donating $20000 dollars to a church that preaches hate rather then forgiveness.
Biden on the other who is a multi millionaire making $2.5 million last year donates $3600 to charities!!!!!
He also be cries CEO pension plans while himself will be taken care of nicely by the tax payers once he retires.
Do as I say not as I do…..right?
Paul – I think one private employee creates more wealth for society than a 100 government employees (accepting a few like the post office). So I would not take money out of private hands for any purpose – I would cut back taxes as far as possible. Warren aside, wealth is voting every day right now as a tidal wave is leaving the country in anticipation of a new administration.
Peter, churches don’t preach, preachers do. Perhaps Obama wanted to continue to support a church and a congregation he had become close to. Preachers are transitory. And must we resort to the brother in the Kenyan slum? Good God.
WHat about the massive redistribution plan of the republicans for the last 8 years? Redistribute government functions (soldiering, disaster help) to private firms (buddies, natch) at greater cost. Happy with that use of your tax dollars? Redistribute public money to private firms. Doesn’t it even slighly bother you that exxon/mobil posts its highest gain EVER as it’s pocketing more public monies than ever? All government involves redistribution of wealth. How you can prefer this corrupt republican redistribution to the democratic one is beyond me. How anyone except the rich can prefer it is beyond me. And I’d rather by my brother’s keeper any day than be the guy who profits from my brother’s misery, my brother’s lack of health care, my brother’s lack of access to education, and my brother’s lack of work.
Nick- You said, “… churches don’t preach, preachers do…” Seems like I have heard this same line of reasoning with the NRA. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Is this a correct evaluation on my part? You also said, “…Preachers are transitory…” Seems like this Wright preacher has been at that church for 20 years, and is still the pastor. That doesn’t sound very transcient to me. I guess I just don’t think your line of reasoning lessens the significance of the data. If it did, then all the flap over Sarah Palin’s e-mail account could just as well be shrugged off. I don’t believe that any of these specific events in the candidates’ pasts is a gotcha. But the sum total of them gives me some insight into the character of the people involved. I still think it is interesting that all kinds of dirt can be dug up on someone like Palin and be labled objective journalism. But if anything is dredged up out of Obama’s past, it is considered mud-slinging. Am I the only one perceiving a double standard here?
I also don’t believe there is a political candidate out there without some questionable actions in his/her past. To look for any person with this type of pristine history is, I think, an exercise in futility. There is One coming who is of perfect character, but He has not yet chosen to appear on the world scene. He will, but at a time that no living person can determine. So until that time, I am going to have to choose from the available lot.
DavidH: you wrote, “I think one private employee creates more wealth for society than a 100 government employees (accepting a few like the post office).”
Certainly this is true if you consider that roads and delievered mail are things of value, but don’t directly create wealth. Having freeways instead of private toll roads saves money, but doesn’t create wealth. Paying Blackwater and other private security firms creates some wealthy executives, but only through entitlements–through taxpayer money.
The question is not only “Does it create wealth” but “does it give something of value.”
So you’re implying that when the government invests in roads and bridges, the jobs funded by overnment in this way each creates one unit of wealth (or value?), while the private sector job creates 100 times that value?
Or are you simply saying that it happens to be the case that we could find one private sector job where a person gets paid 100 times as much as the legislator, or governor, or the highway construction worker? That’s obvious. But it really doesn’t prove your point.
Comrade Anderson here for this brief comment. We’re heading for a Sea Change. I think we’re ready now.
Peter:
Sen. Joseph Biden and his wife, Jill, earned $319,853 last year, according to tax returns released Friday, making them one of the least wealthy U.S. Senate families.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Joe_biden's_income
Paul now you and I are on the exact same page – roads and transportation are where the government should be focused (especially since 45,000 deaths occur on the roads each year – nary a mention in the debates). A comparison of road improvement over your lifetime to telecoms improvements is a case study for private vs public undertakings. It’s the other 90% of the government that I would trim. Look up the concept of “the velocity of money” to understand why the private sector is so important. You are so immersed in an ideology of spending other peoples money that you site companies as private that exist solely off taxpayers – these are not private companies just because you do not like their expenditures – trim taxes and you would trim them as well. Real private activity Paul, are those activities not coerced through threat of violence (taxes). These non-coerced private activities generate nearly all of our societal wealth. Taking the fruits of these activities as taxes and handing this money over to bureaucrats is a total waste of resources – it makes poor people poorer.
BTW: McCain Saturday night live was funny:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl122
David H,
In #867 you asked:
Paul – the question was why are YOU so concerned with spending other peoples money ? Your answer deflected the question.
I’m not sure which among the Pauls you meant, but as a member of that elite (but not elitist) group I’ll venture a thought.
Mainly, the question itself isn’t clear to me — apart from which Paul it addresses. Are you suggesting that “Paul” wants to spend other people’s money but not his own on do-gooding projects? If so, how could you know how generous or stingy any of us Pauls might be?
Or might you mean that liberals generally want to spend others’ money but not their own? If so, do you have data (as opposed to anecdotes) to support such a charge? If liberals as a group want everyone but themselves to pay for the stuff they want, that would indeed be hypocrisy, and blameworthy . But are you suggesting that liberals are more hypocritical than others?
Or maybe you mean that we, collectively through government, shouldn’t spend money collected from “other people”. If so, how do you propose that costs for things like defense and interest on the national debt be paid?
Or maybe all these interpretations are wrong. Could you clarify the question?
Paul (Zorn)
I’ll try to be more Paul specific. I meant Paul F. I assume all Paul’s are wildly generous with their personal funds. This is appropriate, it’s being wildly generous with others funds that I was inquiring about.
Both Pauls have mentioned roads. – If the road system was private in the USA then lawsuits would be flying as the safety factor is pathetic. The government would never allow the 45,000 fatalities if they did not build the system. Because of crossing land there will always be a legal aspect to transportation but the system does not have to depend on taxation.
The Stone Arch bridge (the one still standing) in Mpls was a private undertaking:
… Stone Arch Bridge was built in 1883 by railroad tycoon James J. Hill for his Great Northern Railway, and accessed the former passenger station located about a mile to the west, on the west bank of the river. … Wiki
I’ll vote McCain but I don’t think either McCain or Obama will be the change people really want.
I think we will see much stronger candidates with Libertarian ideas in 2012.
DavidH: It’s strange you say that money is taken by violence (you could refuse to pay, and might get away with it for a long time — some do). Then you might get thrown in jail, but the taxes many people pay willingly are not taken by violence. There’s a willing submission involved, even when our tax dollars are used to kill people with dark hair in Islamic countries, in wars based on lies. We might agree that the willing submission is, at times, tragic. But it’s based in part on the idea (or illusion) of taxation by representation. The people elected to make such decisions decide to spend our money, and we’re not complaining enougn about it to end it.
And regarding the violence, or lack thereof: I’d gladly pay taxes for universal, single–payer health care. It would cost less than what I pay now if based on the medicare model. And if my neighbor needs, but can’t afford, some treatment, she or he could get it instead of being told that health care is only for those who can afford it. I would not see this as involving violence, although some might take it that far if they were not interested in supporting it.
Regarding the lack of safety on the roads, it’s all related to oil and cars. The tire companies bought up the streetcars; with cars, suburbs were developed so that we could wait in our cars during rush hour; shopping malls were developed, and the illusion of tax savings by omitting sidewalks from city planning, so that we could get everywhere by car, and gas, and oil. Oil is an addiction and, in a way, a monopoly.
Sometimes Dodge City needs a sheriff with a gun. Sometimes societies need regulations, taxes, and anti-trust laws. If even the Rockefellers can’t convince the oil companies to invest in future energy sources, then we should nationalize the oil companies and see what we can do to affect the velocity of monies heading toward renewables.
Paul when my Dad was growing up anyone in the lower middle class could visit a doctor and pay cash for the services – the services were in line with all other goods and services. The problem is you thinking is you keep want to tax and create big government to solve problems that are created by big government.
Look at the speed with which phones evolved after the Bells were deregulated. Look at the spread of computer technology, software and internet technology – the number of people employed is staggering. Why would you want to waste that type of potential by putting money into the hands of the government ? You and I see the same problems but your solution of taxing and growing the government is to me the root cause of all the problems you see and will never be a solution.
A couple of good links for reading on this Election Eve Day:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/if_it_redistributes_like_a_duc.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/30/AR2008103003636.html
Here’s another. It’s worth the watch.
From the tech perspective,
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=857&tag=nl.e101
From the Guardian, some good clips:
“Although every conservative administration since Ronald Reagan has promised to deliver, through supply-side stimulation, economic growth without bloated deficits, they have never been vindicated in their blind faith in what Bush senior once rashly called “voodoo economics”. Consistently, they have brought the US Wall Street crashes and recessions along with massive deficits; and yet somehow, the stake that history attempts to drive through the heart of their economic theology never puts the ghoul away.
No weight of evidence to the contrary has ever shaken the totemic belief that tax cuts can grow the economy robustly enough to compensate for drastic shortfalls in revenue. George W Bush clung to this belief even as the Clinton budget surplus was converted into a mountainous deficit, and John McCain continues to parrot the same belief with the shining face of a true believer.
Not even Gibbon could supply a story as fatefully bizarre as the ultimate consummation of Reagan-Bush conservatism, its last act: the most massive shift of financial power from the private to the public sector since the New Deal. Rather like the Pope deciding that all along he really wanted a barmitzvah.
[….]
And even at the height of the Kennedy-Johnson apogee, Prescott and George Herbert Walker Bush were turning the pages of Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative. They could smell the wind direction changing. The future of Republican money and Republican power lay elsewhere; with Texas oil. Hence the migration to Midland Texas of George Herbert Walker Bush and his makeover into a Texan who knew the ways of the corporate world; and how to bring about the Great Cosiness between government and business that seemed like the perfect feedback loop: money to power, power to money; tax breaks for the corporations; donations to those who might command the heights.
This is the politics George W Bush inherited, and he has been its faithful disciple; to the point of purging it of any remaining traces of pragmatism. It is astounding to hear rightwing talkshow bloviators rant about the predicament of the Bush administration being caused by its failure to carry out the true conservative agenda. For there never has been and never will be a more doctrinally faithful instrument of the creed. Never mind the hanging chads of 2000, the Cheney-Bush administration seized the moment to bring on the Goldwater-Reagan Rapture in which government was once and for all got out of the way of business.
So it hasn’t really been all George Bush’s fault, the stupendous American fiasco. He came to power armed with an ideology that was about to crash and burn; that was, years before the present tumult, already fatally disconnected from historical reality. It was on his watch that American government needed reinventing. It was responsible government that was needed in Iraq and Afghanistan; government that was desperately needed in New Orleans after Katrina, while all George Bush could manage was a fly-by. It is government that this most anti-governmental of all American administrations is learning that is needed now to save the United States from a second Depression.
In his heart of hearts I actually think the shell-shocked Dubya, somewhere in the bowels of his presidency knows this. But he is nowhere to be found, and so on goes the mad rant that health care reform and progressive taxes are the Trojan horse for socialist revolution. To which those who have another view altogether might want to say, fear not, for yours, as a Republican president once said, is a government of the people, by the people. And really it will not perish from the earth.”
[end clips]
From
Nowhere Man: A Farewell to Dubya, All-Time Loser in Presidential History
by Simon Schama
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/03/george-bush-legacy-dubya
Normally I would check it off as a freak incident, but I have heard a couple of people share the same story on the radio this morning.
This morning I showed up at the polling place, but although I voted in the primaries and received a voter registration card my name wasn’t on the list.
This happened to several other people. Then on my way to work another person called in on the talk show to report the same.
His case was even stranger, besides him not being on the list, although he has voted several times, his sister who got married five years ago is still on there with her maiden name.
Further his brother that is a ten year convict still appears on the list.
I am not implying anything here, but it seems a bit weird. Maybe our reporters should look in to this?
Paul,
Give it up your boy Obama will win move on!!!
I actually hope that the Democrats will get to 61 seats in the senate, get a large majority in the house and Obama becomes POTUS.
That way they are out of people to blame. This will be fun to watch.
Peter: Did they not let you vote? Or did you get to vote?
I think you have voiced the Republican mantra–let McCain be the fall guy–the Republicans made this big mess, let the Democrats take the blame for it.
We know. We are strong, and ready to do the hard work of fixing Republican greed.
Let’s go back to the kind of taxes and “spreading the wealth around” advocated by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower! (So THAT’s where Obama learned it!)
Clip from Op-Ed:
…………………………………
Nearly 50 years ago, a famous American gave a speech that advocated spreading the wealth.
In some countries, this notable stated, “a few families are fabulously wealthy, contribute far less than they should in taxes, and are indifferent to the poverty of the great masses of the people.” “A country in this situation,” he went on, “is fraught with continual instability.”
Just who made this spread-the-wealth declaration against the dangers societies invite when they let wealth concentrate? The then-president of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Ike’s words back in 1960 created no controversy. Americans overwhelmingly shared his spread-the-wealth convictions. Societies that discourage vast accumulations of private wealth, they believed, simply work better.
The U.S. tax code, back then, reflected this consensus. Income more than $400,000 a year — that’s a bit more than $3 million today, after adjusting for inflation — faced a 91 percent tax rate.
The rich of Ike’s day, of course, exploited tax loopholes, just like today’s rich. But even after exploiting loopholes, the wealthy of the Eisenhower years still paid a hefty share of their income in taxes.
In 1955, for instance, America’s 400 highest-income taxpayers averaged about $12 million in income, in today’s dollars. They paid, after loopholes, 51.2 percent of that in tax.
Let’s put these numbers in contemporary perspective. In 2005, our 400 richest taxpayers averaged $214 million and paid federal taxes on that princely sum, after exploiting loopholes, at a mere 18.5 percent rate.
In other words, today’s rich are taking home much more in income than Ike’s rich and paying taxes at a much lower rate.
[End Clip]
……………………………………………………………………
Some who advocate eliminating the income tax might claim that Ike only did this for popularity, or because they were still getting over the hangover from FDR and the New Deal. I don’t buy it. I think there were some compassionate Republicans like Eisenhower who actually cared about poverty, and who believed taxing he rich at a higher rate actually worked.
Source of clip: From the IPS
(Institute for Policy Studies)
Title: Ike Wanted to Spread Wealth, Too
Op-Ed by Chuck Collins, Sam Pizzigati.
Published November 3, 2008 12:00AM
The wealthy of the Eisenhower years paid a hefty share of their income in taxes.
Jane,
They did let me vote. I have send my concerns to the Northfield News and they made some calls. In my case they found out that my name was on the list but it was miss spelled.
Peter- They actually let me vote, too! Isn’t that something? And I didn’t even have my wife along. She is so noncontroversial, she can get in anywhere.
Jane- Thanks for being willing to fix our greed. I guess we have been too distracted with trying to fix the leaks the Democrats keep poking in the boat. Ha! Ha!
The choice of Vilsack for secy of ag has really laid me low. Maybe agribusiness and gmo interests were too formidable and the Obama team chose to play it safe, for now.