Forget Train Wreck: Obama Is a Jet Crash
Progressives recognize that they face a center-right electorate, with no desire to exchange unique American liberties for the international socialist model, and know that their only feasible course is through the courts and aggressive judicial activism.
As the Weekly Standard summarized:
The left makes no secret of its intentions where the Constitution is concerned. It wants to change it, in ways that have nothing to do with what the document actually says. It wants the Constitution to enshrine its own policy preferences — thus freeing it from the tiresome necessity of winning elections.
The next president may have the opportunity to appoint up to three members of an aging Supreme Court. With Obama in the White House, a filibuster-proof Democrat majority in the Senate, and George Soros pulling his power levers offstage, we can certainly expect justices in the model of a Ginsburg or Souter, who have amply demonstrated their utter disregard for our own Constitution, while at the same time being enamored of international law.
Progressives could well do to America through a super-majority on the Supreme Court what they could never do through elections, and produce a catastrophe for our children on the scale of a mid-air plane explosion, not the kind of train wreck from which a recognizable America could walk away.
The forward march of Islamo-fascism
Whenever I try to imagine what life in America might be like under the jackboot of Islamo-fascism and the worldwide Muslim caliphate, it’s as hard for me to picture as it was for 1930s Germans to believe that in less than one decade, their freedoms could completely disappear. Tyranny in America is as hard for me to conceive of as it was for Cubans just prior to Castro’s era of change or for free Chinese hailing the changes Mao would bring. Right now in Venezuela, a free people are learning the hard way about change, Chavez style.
Think it can’t happen here?
Perhaps it was easy to miss last month, during Congressional hearings on oil company profits, when a proud member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Maxine Waters, made the public threat to “socialize our oil companies.” Consolidating government control of the economy is the fastest way, in my opinion, to make America vulnerable to foreign enemies.
Couple this driving desire on the part of “good” progressives everywhere with a completely naïve view of human nature, such as that of Barack Obama, who honestly believes that Islamic terrorism and war are merely the natural result of poverty, oppression, and inequalities among nations. The result is not only appeasement and a continuing drain on America’s economic resources, but a capitulation to evil that, unfortunately, Barack Obama and his backers do not even recognize.
Barack Obama has a plan that would effectively disarm America in the hopes that all others would follow suit. Gutting military programs in favor of global poverty initiatives is the left’s newest delusion, and one that promises to make us more vulnerable than ever to a nuclear 9/11, which has been the stated intention of al-Qaeda and Iran.
Safe or sorry?
I’m not a big believer in attempting to foretell the future. There is no reliable way for any of us to know, beyond doubt, the precise scope of changes an Obama presidency could produce. Nor is there any way for us to know whether the Islamo-fascist forces will make sufficient progress under a unilaterally disarmed America to bring us to our knees in relatively short order.
This much we do know, however.
The changes that progressives plan to make are huge, and unless Americans choose to mount a violent revolution to overthrow our own government and its court, then we would be stuck with the socialist vision, with no recourse to our legislative and executive branches.
The Islamo-fascists aren’t going anywhere. The money we give them, ostensibly to feed people, will instead be used to make more weapons with which to murder our families. Barack Obama is firmly convinced that his silver tongue can appease them.
As for me and my vote, we will elect to stay the course with America, proudly go with McCain, a known patriot, and be safe rather than sorry.
hoo lady, the Obamabots are going to hammer you today. Be prepared. They can’t handle it.
On the money, Ms. Shiver!
In addition to the horrenodus Supreme Court appointments a “Prez Obamboozler” might bring on board, such “conservative” friends as you mention might well as themselves:
“Just how much of Lyndon Baines Johnson’s (1964-1968, for the kids) “Great Society” was even Ronald Reagan able to dismantle, and how much stands today?”
My opinion is that their “theory” is just wishful thinking. I really hope the hypothesis is never tested.
If the dems get a filibuster proof senate it’s all over. Either, the pure marxist or ‘across-the-aisle-johnny’, will destroy the country with their actions (so talk to me about johnny’s actions, not his campaign promises) and cooperation with the low-life dem congress.
Obama’s by far the most dangerous candidate for the presidency “EVER”.
Obama’s supporters: William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Malik Zulu Shabazz, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, Jodie Evans, Maria Isabel, Ali Abunimah, Louis Farrakhan, Carl Davidson,Sam Graham-Felsen, Father Michael Pfleger, Rashid Khalidi, Moammar Qaddafi, Kim Jong Il, Mike Klonsky, Marilyn Katz, Carl Davidson, Ali Abunimah, Frank Marshal Davis, Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Kieth Ellison, Sam Graham-Felsen, Raila Ordinga, Fidel & Raul Castro, George Galloway, Segolene Royal, Zakiyah Omar, Mike Klonsky, Tom Hayden, Bob Pardun, Paul Buhle, Mickey and Dick Flacks, Todd Gitlin, Sami Al-Arian, Rev James Meeks et al
Organizations – The Socialist Party USA, New Black Panther Party, HAMAS, Communist Party USA, Muslim Americans for Obama, Islamic Society of North America or ISNA., ACORN et al.
There’s not a BUS built large enoungh on the planet to rid these under.
It would be pure insanity to vote for this guy.
Amen. The left have been indoctinating the youth of this country through the government school system for decades. The media is obviously biased towards the left. I believe conservatives have been fighting the last fight for more than a few years while the left has been tirelessly advancing their agenda thoughout our institutions. The last few elections should have woken us up to the fact that there is a cancerous mass of people in this county who believe in facism/socialism, who think that the government should be our provider. Who believe that the government can right all wrongs; real and imagined. This mass is metastizing. The fact that the Dali-Bama pols approx.50% should tell everyone how close this country is to the edge. After complete Democrat control, I don’t see a recovery or even survival as a 50 (not 57) state entity. what’s going to happen when BHO’s civilian control force comes to your town? When his supreme court revisits the second amendment, homeschooling, racial preferences? America is not as it was when I grew up, it is radically different and I don’t think most realise how far down the slippery slope we’ve traveled. Conservatives need to start dragging the country back to the center.
If it comes to that let Red Middle America stand up to declare that the Blue Coasts have illegally seceded and set up a Fictional Counter Constitution we do not recognize, and Enlist the Military, which should stand with us, to defend the Middle until the voters on the Edges come to their senses. Could Middle America fight a defensive civil war Centered on Real Values with the Mississippi as Backbone, where Davis and Lee could not do it where they were defending Human Slavery, with the Mississippi fractured at Cairo? Hope this is just a nightmare we never have to test.
And I will add my Amen to everything you said.
Very good article, Mrs. Shiver. However, I think the corporations are already “socialized” and have long ago adopted the secular socialist agenda….as have our public schools and all of the old media. Diversity, affirmative action, climate change remedies and homosexual rights have all been assimilated into these organizations and the energy sector is poised to profit from the alternative energy scam that is being thrust upon us disguised as the latest “crisis” rather than the monumental testament to the stupidity of our elected officials to allow our energy program to be directed by the sierra club.
It is surreal that Americans continue to allow these “pretend crises” to be created and then addressed by government and corporate strategies that always provide more revenues for governments and another profit center for the companies.
Don’t forget: open borders with illegals given the right to vote, either legally or with a wink and a nudge. At that point, it’s all gone and this country will become just another third-world socialist hell-hole.
There’s one important point that the anti-McCain, ‘Obama will screw up and we’ll be back in four years’, Republicans seem to forget.
America won’t KNOW that Obama’s screwed up, because the MSM won’t report it. Remember how they buried the raft of good economic news in the run-up to the 2006 elections? How they were the last to acknowledge progress in Iraq?
They will spin the next four years as ‘we’ve never had it so good’, regardless of what happens. If Iraq continues to improve they’ll give Obama the credit, not Bush or McCain. If the economy continues to decline they’ll play it down, or blame ‘global’ forces. If global warming continues to not happen Obama will get the credit for saving the planet.
For the Republicans to make gains in 2010 Obama would have to screw up so badly that even the media couldn’t ignore it, and Republicans shouldn’t be wishing bad things on America just so they can get the candidate they want.
They didn’t get a ‘true’ conservative because there wasn’t one to vote for, and that’s the fault of the party. America shouldn’t be punished for that failing by the ushering-in of socialism, and the West shouldn’t be punished with the global socialist governance that would follow.
If Obama gets in he’s in for eight years. As others have said above, America will never recover from the damage.
Just when I think you can’t top your last article, you go and top your last article. This is clear-thinking, concise writing with a heavy dollop of truth, justice and the American Way. Do you have a set of leotards and a cape under your street clothes, Kyle-Anne? Your vision of life under complete democRAT rule is my nightmare. Yet, I converse with people who actually think that Bush has trampled on the Constitution. We will not recognize this country, if Bambi is elected for two terms. Maybe even in just one term. But there is hope.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/straw-poll
Unscientific but it could be more accurate than the rigged polls we have been fed of late.
Since when has the dynamic of battle,struggle and conflict been to lose in order to achieve victory?
The complete blinding sheer stupidity is so overwhelming as to invite parallels. How about drowning instead of swimming ? How about killing your children instead of seeing them grow hungry? How about surrendering to Islam instead of resisting their murderous religion?
How could mankind have been so blind to have not noticed all along that the path to survival is to submit?
Today there is speculation, once again, that Joe Lieberman might be a VP for John McCain. Last night, Geraldine Ferraro, former Democratic nominee for vice president, refused to say who would have her vote, as between the presumptive Democratic nominee and the presumptive Republican nominee. These are both very telling bellwethers.
The Republicans are being offered help because an awful lot of moderate Democrats have their cr@p detectors buzzing. We have an obscure, unvetted, unaccomplished candidate being sold like Coca-Cola.
While I don’t disagree with this article, I just don’t know how much these “scare tactics” will work.
Why do you think the Left has been so successful in painting McCain as Bush’s third term, or offering a “hopey-changey” nonsense with NOTHING of substance or policies that, in-fact, make the economy WORSE??
Because, the “Bush” brand of Republicanism has been so damaged and lost it’s way…it is an easy target, especially with gas prices and the housing crisis, things that Bush had VERY little if ANY control over.
What WE (Kyle-Anne, this means YOU, and other like-minded conservatives with a NATIONAL voice) need to laser-like FOCUS on is the DIFFERENCE between a Democratic Do-Nothing Congress that is DIRECTLY making the price at the pump WORSE, and the efforts of McCain (and even Bush!) to do those things that effectively lower the price of oil, and the TRUE RECORD of making our country safe for the last 7 years, while WINNING in Iraq.
If there’s ONE THING that McCain and Republicans can win on it’s energy…and the mantra of DRILL, DRILL, DRILL!! Obama and the left have effectively boxed themselves into a corner on Iraq, it is pretty-much a non-issue now with most voters…but NOT GAS PRICES!
You won’t win many “hearts and minds” by playing into Obama’s hands of “scare tactics”…you will by showing them the DIFFERENCE that effective energy policies have on prices at the pump.
What we should be repeating, and REALLY scaring voters with is Obama’s “plan” to help with oil prices:
“Properly inflate your tires…”
YOWZA!!! Now THAT’S FRIGHTENING!!!!
Obama is headed for a train wreck, but his candidacy will implode well before the election. Rasmussen reports this morning that 19% of white Democrats will vote for McCain. It seems the “bitter clinger” comments have stuck in the craw of more than a few people. This should come as no surprise; we saw similar results in the PA, WV, and KY primaries.
In addition, the congress as led by Pelosi and Reid has proved itself utterly incompetent to address pressing problems such as the current energy crisis. Their fairyland policies only mirror the mindset of the Democratic base. Obama has the MSM firmly in the bag, but that only proves how far out of touch the media are with middle America.
Add to the above Obama’s increasing narcissism and you see a campaign hurtling toward perdition without an adult behind the wheel to apply the brakes. Susan Estrich sees it clearly enough, but nobody is listening. And when the likes of a LudiChris (whatever he calls himself) opens his yap, it only serves to scare middle class voters. He might be under the bus, but his words still resonate.
Fear not, fellow conservatives, the republic will survive.
Burdell nailed it. The corporations have embraced the socialist model. Media and education have been socialist organizations for decades. Now even local governments are embracing the socialist agenda, enacting nanny government policies and micro-controlling our personal lives (what we can eat, what we put our groceries in, etc.). The EU socialist bureaucracy is the model that stealthily creeps into being killing freedom by the death-of-a-thousand cuts.
Obama and McCain are proof that socialism is here now. We have a far left and a center-leftist candidate. Those are the choices today.
In a few years entitlements will be 70% of city, county, state and federal budgets. Obama has proposed international taxes for US citizens (S2433) with entitlements for the world.
The Constitution and the American people have been sold out. We have been living in a socialist nation for 20 years. The housing/mortgage crisis is a result of socialist government policies of Clinton, Bush and the US Congress.
At this point it will take an invocation of the Declaration of Independence right to throw off the yoke of tyranny but I don’t expect that will happen. Americans are too vested in the present system to risk everything. The power of the people is gone, thrown away for the tyranny of security.
America. Welcome to slavery. It will get worse.
Hahahaha, what a bunch of BS. You and your lackeys here are pathetic. First of all, you say that conservatives will rise up and reclaim liberties. That was the first hilarious point you made. Conservatives can’t give their liberty away quick enough! From the Patriot Act to FISA to “family values” legislation, conservatism’s great triumph has been to increase the power of the government at the expense of the liberty of the individual, unless of course we’re talking about taxes, where they have been slightly better than the Democrats.
Another laughable line: you’re somehow a social conservative AND a small-government conservative? Social conservatives LOVE the government because it lets them push whatever fringe form of “Christianity” that they espouse onto everybody else, picking and choosing parts of the Bible to enact into law. Social conservatives want to extend the reach of the government into your body, mind, and bedroom. Social conservatives want to appoint judges who fall over themselves to rubber stamp the actions of the government, whether it be I fail to see how anyone could hold both social conservatism and small-government conservatism simultaneously without resorting to some sort of Doublethink.
The Founders were social, fiscal, and small-government conservatives? Just because you say it doesn’t make it so. They were obviously quite liberal for their time, some of them even believed in such ridiculous notions as ending slavery or giving women some sort of rights. Even instituting representative democracy, division of powers, setting up a court system to limit the tyranny of the majority, and other such crazy ideas!
I issue this challenge to all you conservatives out there (some of whom seem reasonable, and others of whom seem borderline retarded): tell me why you blindly trust the government when it’s either 1) telling you it needs to kill people, or 2) deciding what the “moral fabric” of society should be, but your heads start exploding once the government tries to help people.
Now, as far as Obama, just a couple things. First, yes, I too find his rhetoric to be tiresome sometimes. Changeitude is not exactly a platform I am thrilled about. But, as far as the big liberty issues of our time, which are getting justices on the Supreme Court who will properly interpret the Constitution as a pro-liberty (and not pro-government power like Scalia and his ilk) document, dismantling the unitary executive, reducing domestic surveillance and other Big Brother-like policies of the current administration, and ensuring a Constitution-respecting presidency, Obama has to beat McCain on all fronts.
Oh, and as for media bias? The numbers don’t lie: a recent survey of the big networks shows that they have been far harder on Obama, with well over 70% of stories about him being negative, and only like 25% positive, whereas McCain has about 47% positive. So please, keep your media bias hype to yourself, it is an establishment media, and will reflect those biases.
Agree the mindnumbing idiotcy of teaching a lesson will only get us something much worse than turning the Congress over to the socialist Democrats in 2006. Vote Nobama, your family’s life depends on that!
Trying to link poverty to terrorism (really global jihad, but that’s doubleplusungoodthink) is particularly idiotic. The comparatively wealthy Arabs are slaughtering the poor anamist blacks in Darfur while wealthy Saudis and Chinese support the regime. In Iraq wealthy Saudis support bombings of poor Shia. But not to be outdone, wealthy Iranians support jihad everywhere, especially now in Lebanon. But reality has no effect on the ‘progressive’ worldview. They’ve supported the Islamic revival since they perceived it as favoring the Soviets over the Shah and the US in 1979.
Of course Khomeini’s first actions were to slaughter his ‘progressive’ allies. Couldn’t happen to a nicer group of genocidal do gooders.
I appreciate the overall pessimism of the article as it matches mine almost thought for thought. They (transnational progressive authoritarians) view politics as war and war as making new friends. Listen to what they say. They’ve claimed Bush jails Americans who disagree with him to justify it when they take power. But they can’t wait to talk to anyone who wants to destroy our way of life.
Oh, I forgot to address the “socialism” thing too. While Obama is certainly further to the left than McCain, you seem to fail to realize that the Democrats, in the grand scheme of things, are really just a centrist political party, and the Republicans (used to be) a center-right party. That’s it, center, and center-right. And your heads can explode with MARXISM screams all they want, but that doesn’t make Obama’s plans socialist. I know it makes it easier for you to grasp to simply label it away, but it doesn’t make it true.
If you recall anytime you may have studied socialism, you’ll recall that socialism means that the government owns the means of production. The abolition of private property. I’m pretty sure that as much as you’d like Obama to, he doesn’t want to accomplish either of those things. Government programs for the old and sick, while often flawed, can in reality be traced back to such crazy leftists such as Otto von Bismarck. Yeah, he was a crazy lefty all right!
You are perfectly within your rights to dislike and oppose Obama’s policies. I oppose very many of them myself. But calling them socialist does nothing for the discourse, as any of you who are reasonable must realize. That accomplishes about as much as calling Bush a fascist, which although a tempting comparison, again does nothing but trigger emotions as a response. If you want to argue logically (a difficult thing for many to accomplish, especially for those who are anti-liberty such as many of you, and the P.C. “liberals” out there) then please find another way to do it if you want to be taken seriously.
…Barack Obama, who honestly believes that Islamic terrorism and war are merely the natural result of poverty, oppression, and inequalities among nations.
This mindset is troubling when you read Obama’s comments shortly after 9/11, recently re-quoted in the New Yorker article accompanying the (now) infamous cartoon.
LINK: Our Task: Un-embitter the world’s children
While Al Qaeda (well to do and internationally connected) works hard at re-establishing the base in Northern Africa, (conscientiously infesting Morocco, Libya, Algeria…) laughing all the way to the bank and thoroughly enjoying the naiveté of American politicians.
Good article. I’m just hoping that a discussion of the Saul Alinsky model of community activism and its relationship to Obama’s roots as a community activist in Chicago as an October surprise will be the cataclysm that sinks Obama. Saul Alinsky is Rev. Wright on steroids because it will be so difficult for the far left to disengage Obama from that.
Libertyman13, your challenge might have been fun had you not gone to the borderline retarded bit.
Insulting others is not a way to win an argument, it is the way to show that you don’t have much of an argument and is intended only to shut down argument.
So, this small government & fiscal conservative bids you adieu.
What Maxine Waters threatens (Maxine couldn’t even recall the word “socialism” in chastising the oil executives in front of her committee)…is “socialism”.
Growing government to the extent desired by today’s Democrat candidates is exactly what “The Founders” feared most in assigning “powers” to branches of government and designing our Constitution.
Everyone seems to be overstepping these days, including the Supreme Court looking to European precedent, making law as opposed to its single task of determining whether or not current or proposed law conflicts with the US Constitution.
The only question I would ask of a current candidate for President is…Where in the US Constitution does the Executive even have such powers as you would exercise ?
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
~Thomas Jefferson
Come on now, have you read some of these posts? First of all, some do nothing BUT ad hominem attacks, whereas I clearly list arguments. George Clark wants to defend Middle America in some sort of weird civil war. How many “socialism” references, unclever misspellings of Obama’s name, and mentions of some nonexistent fascist/communist Democratic party must we all endure before we let our guard down and mention the utter asininity of such things. Let’s call a spade a spade here! And as I wasn’t attacking any particular person, I fail to see how it seeks to shut down argument, as I explicitly invited argument.
But I didn’t mean to offend anyone who isn’t borderline retarded, so if I did, sorry to you.
And, if you’re one of the reasonable ones (as I suspect from the lack of social conservative on your list), please come on down. Unfortunately, since you’re not a social conservative, I doubt you’d care much for the moral fabric of society, thus defeating half the purpose at least.
Remember when Clinton was elected and he ruined the economy….remember?
Yeah, this article was pretty dumb.
I insulted some, and complimented some. I didn’t say conservatism was stupid. I said some of the people here are. Which is obviously true, read some of these comments. Some of you are not. Those are the ones I was attempting to engage. I freely admit that most people, in fact, are stupid, including most Democrats, all socialists, all theocrats, and any other political leaning you can come up with.
Not much of an argument? I make many valid points. Instead on concentrating on where I call a spade a spade, feel free to respond.
Your description of an “Obamanation” is right on, but I think we need to take the risk of the plane crash now while we may still have some meager chance of survival. True conservatives (“Constitutionalists”?) currently have no candidate and no party. If we vote for McCain now it only delays the enevitable slide into socialism and encourages the Republican Party to continue to field left-of-center RINOs for us to choose as “the lesser of two evils”. The longer we slide down the slope, the harder to stop. The majority of Americans are so complacent and so ignorant that nothing short of a “plane crash” or worse will stop or reverse the direction we’re heading. Best grit our teeth and “let’s roll” now or just roll over and give up completely. It’s probably going to take a real Revolution at some point and unfortunately there’s very little of the “Spirit of ’76″ left in today’s America.
Libertyman13
“with well over 70% of stories about him being negative, and only like 25% positive, whereas McCain has about 47% positive. So please, keep your media bias hype to yourself, it is an establishment media, and will reflect those biases.”
Yea, they where real hard on him with the “Inside Edition” interview and don’t forget about the hard hitting “journalist” with the tingles up his thighs Obama gave him. Or how about when he was playing basketball and the one “journalist” said he didn’t even sweat, ouch. Yea they’ve been real hard on our poor misunderstood Obama.
“Yea they’ve been real hard on our poor misunderstood Obama.”
Jeremiah Wright is a household name, and John Hagee isn’t. QED.
If Obama is set up to be a plane crash what does that make Bush, a nuclear holocaust?
John, yes, we can all pull out individual instances. But the liberal media myth simply isn’t true, it’s proven that, at least in terms of the network media, they have taken a pro-McCain stance in this election.
I didn’t say Obama was poor and misunderstood. I said that it is a FACT that the coverage of McCain has been more positive.
Cable networks might be a little different. But, of course, any pro-Obama cable stations will be balanced out by Fox News.
Thank you for your essay. An Obama presidency scares me to death. I do not want to go into what he can do with a Democratic congress. You can see how he responds to Democrats who criticize him but can you imagine what he will do to our civil liberties if he is president. Anyone that thinks they can sit out this election better think about it long and hard no matter how McCain may disappoint. No one seriously can dispute that McCain would do less damage to the Country and even the Democrats that have any sanity left know that there is no question that he will do a better job protecting us from dangers abroad. Parents we also have a duty to tell our children that a voter for President is a serious decision that has real consequences.
Libertyman
Your “news” thesis dies on the simple fact alone of who the “alphabet” MSM (CBS, NBC, ABC) recently (and slavishly) followed abroad on his not so excellent adventures.
Dies, kaput, put a fork in the thesis…
McCain is not a conservative nor a Constitutionalist by any stretch of the imagination. The media fawns over Obama’s cult of personality, to the point of being a propaganda tool for the socialist, racist candidate. The media no longer has any moral authority in the presentation of news.
Our educational system is so bad that one poster doesn’t even understand socialism and Marxism. Let me help; “socialism is a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done with the goal of creating a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community…”.
So…Obama wants the ‘community’ to redistribute wealth. That fact makes him a socialist. Can any poster refute these facts?
Worse, Obama intends to restructure the community to be ‘fair’ to ‘oppressed people’. Not only is Obama an economic socialist but social totalitarian in the making. What does Obama wnat to use that civilian defense force for? Can anyone say KGB? Gulag?
pch1013:
Jeremiah Wright is a household name, and John Hagee isn’t. QED.
Jul 31, 2008 – 9:08 am
Obama went to Wright’s church for 20 years, Wright was his spiritual mentor, Wright married him and baptized his children.
McCain got an endorsement from Hagee, but reconsidered and dropped him.
Takes a liar to equate the two.
It seems to me that the let it crash, a then we will pick up the pieces and win people, suffer from a basic misunderstanding. This is not a battle that can be won. It is battle that you can be winning, or losing, but it will never be over.
The notion that if we let people see how wrong they were, they will learn and change their mind, is flawed, the kind of catastrophe that it would take, to really have that happen. Means that we have no clue what the country would be like, coming out the other side. 9/11 was not a big enough of a catastrophe, for these people to learn, there is no reason to think that if they do change their minds, it will be in a better direction. This website http://www.whenprophecyfails.info/ give some nuggets of wisdom to chew on about people changing their minds.
McCain, may not be an example of winning the battle, but he is loosing the battle less quickly. If we are to get in a position to be winning the battle. It will have to be done by changing the terrain of the battlefield so that some one better than McCain can be chosen to oppose the left, not by leaving the battlefield.
I love how the MSM is now calling the America loving Michelle Obama the new Jackie O (O as in Obama?) they due the split screen and show the similar fashion sense. Yea they’re really socking it to the Obamas. Cute kids too. They do a good hard-hitting interview.
Libertyman13- Thanks for coming here! You did make some good points (not that I agree with all them) but one thing you did was reinforce my opinion that labeling Obama a socialist/Marxist/communist, etc., is just counterproductive and essentially useless when it comes to actually confronting Obama’s policies or direction.
Funny thing though, while you rightly are concerned about government intrusion on your liberties…you back a candidate who flipped on FISA, and would have him appoint MORE judges like Ginsberg and Souter who voted FOR government’s ability to take YOUR land and house by eminent domain for big developers, and voted FOR the FEDERAL government’s ability to go after medical marijuana patients who’s states allowed such use. Not a single “liberal” Justice on the Court was willing to tolerate a limitation of the power of the federal government, so don’t give me that crap about liberals being “libertarian” because they AREN’T! “Respecting the Constitution” means interpreting it as it is…not as you think it SHOULD BE, or want it to be for the sake of some issue near and dear to your heart.
But speaking of FISA and the Patriot Act…tell me..HOW have YOUR “civil liberties” been infringed upon in ANY WAY by the government’s ability to fight terrorism and protect America? Hmmm…not one bit, right? I thought so.
As for your “challenges” I DON’T blindly trust the government…that is why I’m against the draft, unlike Democrat Charlie Rangel and other dems who want to see it renewed, and I DON’T want to see the government sticking itself into the private lives of it’s citizens…which ALSO means letting them exercise their beliefs and religion as they want to without being harrassed or condemned (which means freedom OF religion…NOT freedom FROM religion!), exercise their free speech on radio, TV, and the internet without “fairness” doctrines or other government intrusion, and letting them contribute to candidates and causes they agree with without restrictions (yes, McCain lost me on this one…but then Obama was a TOTAL HYPOCRITE himself when he opted out of public financing for “bundled” money).
It seems you are “libertarian” as long as you agree with the issue, but if not…you resort to the big-time liberal you are. Typical.
The bottom-line is this:
ANYTIME the government wants to take MORE of your money (and believe me, that WILL happen under an Obama Presidency and Dem-controlled congress, not even a doubt there) it is INTRUDING into your life and liberty. You want to give more of your money to the underprivileged and down-trodden in society? Be my guest…there’s PLENTY of charities that need your help. Just don’t ask me to trust the government to do the best job there…and that goes DOUBLE for Obama’s 800+ BILLION give-away to corrupt dictators and third-world basket cases that will do absolutely NOTHING to decrease poverty in the world!
they due the split screen =
they do the split screen, oops
@TomJW: However, the fact remains that everyone knows about Jeremiah Wright. If the media were so slavishly pro-Obama as almost everyone here is insisting, would that be the case?
And another thing: I think it’s fascinating that some commenters here are fantasizing about another Revolution or another Civil War in the event of an Obama victory. If some loony leftist were to do the same vis-a-vis McCain, I’m sure the right wing would be shrieking “Treason!” at the top of its lungs.
Boris:
Bill Clinton did set out to ruin the economy with increased taxes and socialized medicine. The Republicans had enough votes to stop the latter and Bill Gates changed the nature of the national production to bail out the economy.
The economy grew because of the information technology revolution powered by microsoft and intel changed the way American and the world did business. It increased the rate of return on capital to levels that more then offset the negative effect of the tax increase. When the marginal productiviy of IT began to decline the high tax regime caused the economy to stumble and fall into recession. You do remember that Bush took over and ailing economy don’t you?
Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Dictionary.com, thefreedictionary.com, merriam-webster.com
“As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, cooperative, or worker ownership of the means of production…” Wikipedia, the line right after you quoted.
Even allwords.com refutes your theory, even within the Marxist framework: “The intermediate phase of social development between capitalism and full communism. This is a strategy whereby the State has control of all key resource-producing industries and manages most aspects of the market, in contrast to laissez faire capitalism.”
So, your rhetorical weapons consist of the predefinition of Obama as a Marxist, and then applying the Marxist definition of socialism to him. Obama fits neither the Marxist definition, nor the more accepted definition. Obama clearly doesn’t advocate collectivism, nor does he advocate wealth redistribution. If you can show me where he does advocate such policies, I’ll be happy to recant.
“So…Obama wants the ‘community’ to redistribute wealth. That fact makes him a socialist. Can any poster refute these facts?” Where does he suggest this?
You cannot assert that he is a socialist because he does what socialists want to do, and you know he wants to do these things because he is a socialist. This is what is known as “begging the question.” I’ll be happy to engage in a debate over this, but unless your arguments are rational, I can’t help you.
In fact, if anybody can show me where Obama advocates socialism, I’ll vote for McCain.
Much of an Obama presidency could be reversed, but not everything. His judicial appointments and the laws they would procreate out of thin air are extremely scary. His evolving Obamacare (Hillary Care II) is another point that would be difficult if not impossible to reverse.
The only way to prevent these disasters would be to elect McCain. He is not great, but when compared to Obama, he is light years ahead.
When a candidate such as Obama votes left of the one Socialists in the Senate, then its time to be scared of him. Its not his skin color that is scary, its the color of his politics !!!!
just wondering- is any political position which advocates the redistribution of wealth by the community inherently ‘socialist’? If so we had better dismantle the IRS. And I guess Bush is a socialist too, then.
You are right on the money and I have been saying much the same for a couple of months now. The American people want change and they will get it, but hopefully before Obama and the Democrats can do too much lasting damage, the public will wake up and toss them out starting in 2010. The trick will be not to replace them with just a different group of career politicians, but people that have real lives and won’t make Congress the last job they ever hold. We will just have to hold on for a couple of years then we can start to make a fundamental change in this country and return it to what our Founding Fathers intended. The Representatives that we send to Washington should have term limits on them and be required to follow the wishes of the people right or wrong and not the wishes of special interest groups. I know that this isn’t popular but our Founding Fathers never intended to have career politicians because back then it was a hardship to serve in the Congress and not a ticket to wealth and power. They never saw the need for term limits because they never imagined that someone would purposely endure the hardship for any length of time, but we have seen with the President that term limits work and every branch should be subject to them, including the courts.
A good article (as is usually the case), Kyle-Anne, but:
1) “as it was for 1930s Germans to believe that in less than one decade, their freedoms could completely disappear.” – untrue. They knew that Hitler was a vile politician. But they wanted him to conquer foreign countries, because they believe that everyone except the Germans themselves is an Untermensch.
2) “The next president may have the opportunity to appoint up to three members of an aging Supreme Court.” – Actually, he may appoint even as many as 5 members of the SCOTUS.
3) “Lawrence” – what was the full name of the Lawrence case?
4) I was a proponent of this theory as well, some time ago. But later I’ve discovered that this theory was false, that this theory was not feasible.
To sum up, this was a good debut on Pajamas Media. Congratulations!
Dave II, thanks for responding in a reasonable manner! We’ll all do a lot better if we can do this in at least a somewhat civil way.
I agree, “my” candidate did flip-flop on FISA (vomits), but I have to disagree on the rest of your argument as to judges. Now, I agree that judges should interpret the Constitution and should not make it up, but where we differ is on the proper interpretation of the Constitution. It is clear that the Constitution was written as a safeguard against tyranny, whether it be from the executive, legislative, or judicial. Conservative judges choose to ignore parts of the Constitution, such as the 9th Amendment, and also prefer to give the narrowest possible reading to the provisions that ensure individual liberty. When we look at search & seizure, criminal procedure, due process, and any myriad of other things that are clearly within the Constitution, the judges that McCain would appoint fail to stand up to government.
I don’t agree with Raich (note: Scalia reversed himself of commerce clause jurisprudence here for purely anti-drug reasons) or Kelo, for the record, but I don’t think Kelo is as bad as it is made out to be. The Constitution explicitly provides for the taking of private property for public use, and if you look at the Kelo test, it is actually a somewhat stringent standard that must be met. And of course you must be compensated for the taking. But I hear you on it.
The fact remains, though, that for every other case out there, the conservative judges go against liberty. Kelo and Raich are travesties, but for every other issue, the liberal judges support individual liberty. Thus, if you like liberty, you should want liberal judges MORE than conservative ones. Remember, as far as conservative judges are concerned, if 50% + 1 of people say you can’t do something, you’re pretty much out of luck.
As an aside, Thomas considers himself to be a libertarian judge, and he is pretty willing to cede control to the government in pretty much everything.
As for MY civil liberties, I can’t tell you if they have been abridged or not. The nontransparency of the process doesn’t permit me to say. But I can also tell you that when it comes to civil liberties, we can’t look at it like “oh well, that won’t affect me” because of the extraordinarily dangerous precedent it sets. We must oppose governmental surveillance and the rollback of constitutional protections. And Obama is going to be better on these issues.
If you don’t blindly follow the government in terms of war or morality, then you obviously cannot vote for McCain who believed there was some threat from Iraq, and who is all too willing to cave in to the theocratic policies of the lunatic right. The real issue here is, why do so many conservatives (perhaps not you) support big government for war and morality, but then hate when a government tries to help people? It’s cool when they want to kill someone for some shady sketchy reason they won’t explain, or make you follow the moral precepts of some fringe group of “Christianity,” but if they want to feed the hungry (ahem, evangelical Christians, where are you on this one?) you’re a big-government bastard? It just doesn’t follow logically for me. I don’t necessarily advocate big government, but if they’re going to take some action, I’d rather have them trying (however poorly) to help people rather than to destroy them or indoctrinate them.
I fully support people’s right to engage in religious activity, or all the other things you suggested. I’m pretty sure that Obama is right with you on many of those things (of course, as you mention, both candidates are rather unfortunate on free speech in terms of campaign finance). I really don’t see anybody telling anybody what religious activity they can and cannot engage in. People are free to make religious statements or to engage in religious protest. I wouldn’t oppose either of those things. I don’t support fairness doctrines or actual P.C. limitations on speech (but then again, I’m pretty sure that nobody really does) but I also don’t support the obscenity police at the FCC.
I guess my main question is how do you know where I stand on these issues, and why would you ascribe any opposition on my part to them? Because I support Obama? Again, it comes down to a few key civil liberties issues for me first and foremost, issues I don’t trust McCain with at all.
At last, the taxes. I first of all don’t think there’d be a realistic difference in taxes as far as most people are concerned (some would probably pay lower with Obama, some would pay lower with McCain) but the differences will be negligible. If it turns out I am wrong on this, I’ll reconsider. You are correct that taxes are a form of social control, albeit in my opinion, at the levels they are likely to be at no matter who is elected, a rather insignificant one, and, unfortunately at least at some level, a necessary one.
I am not going to vote Obama for the underprivileged or downtrodden, although I think that it is important to consider how our policies affect them (and I’d likely have different answers) but I’ll tell you, I’d rather have a hundred more Souters than one more Scalia. I’d rather have Obama’s future FISA plans than McCain’s. I prefer to keep the heirs of Dobson out of public policy decisionmaking, and Obama is the way to prevent that.
Help me. ummm right.
Obama introduced S2433, the global poverty act whereas 0.7% of American GDP will be transferred to the UN and redistributed to the poor of the world. Americans taxed to give money to ‘the poor’ of the world, oops thugs who will steal the money and let their own poor starve.
That is socialism, which is the road to Marxism.
Hmmm.
And Obama said in Hawaii that only ‘deeds’ will make up for past social injustices. What kinds of deeds is the messiah talking about? Money? A free house?
Ya’ll go ahead and worship your Lord Messiah Obama. The slavish adulation will serve ya’ll just like it served Germans devotion to Hitler and Marxists devotion to Stalin. Cult of personality always ends badly.
Pst….Bush is a socialist too.
Can’t be said enough. (I’ll even link-whore my article last year How Karma is Like Pool.) Whatever McCain’s failings, we’ve really only got two choices, and Obama’s the lesser of them.
Mike said: Republicans shouldn’t be wishing bad things on America just so they can get the candidate they want.
Amen to that!
Good article.
p.s., OT, but what is Pelosi doing writing and publishing a book?! Shouldn’t she be doing her congressional work?
Liberty,
Do you truly believe that Obama’s religion of liberalism is not going to effect his decisions as President? You go on and on about the bad, bad people on the right with their Christian values and wanting to take your rights away, but in case you missed it the countries and governments taking away peoples rights are the leftist ones. I truly hope that if Obama gets elected that he doesn’t take this country to left like many of his supports would like because it has been proven the world over time and time again that it is not good for the poorest of their citizens. I just sorry you can’t ask the 20 million Russians that were killed under Stalin, how they liked leftist policies.
“Do you have a set of leotards and a cape under your street clothes”
What?
“a nuclear 9/11, which has been the stated intention of al-Qaeda and Iran.”
Yes, and also Russia and China.
Libertyman – the media bias in favour of Obama was documented by AT earlier this month. That’s the only one of your many false claims that I have replied to, because the rest isn’t even worth commenting on. If you like socialist policies like government-owned healthcare (which is socialist) and government-owned transport (which is socialist), please relocate to Europe.
Ms. Shiver has it completely right. 100% agreement.
Now, will someone please encapsulate this into one very effective ad for those who won’t spend the time to read it?
There are alot of Americans that need to know what’s at stake.
Libertyman 13:
Fascism: A collectivist political theory built around a central organizing narrative.
Socialism: a central organizing narrative.
Socialism was the first crude form of Fascism before the term got coined.
Marx developed the “Scientific” theory of socialism from various strains of economic and political thought in the mid 19th century. By the turn of the century it was clear to political theorists and activists alike that the economics behind Marxism were a crock and that what Marx called capitalism, and what normal people call free markets, was the accurate description of how the world’s wealth was created.
The radical syndicalist Georges Sorel advanced collectivist theory by stripping away Marxist economic nonsense from his theory of the revolutionary elite. Benito Mussolini picked up on Sorel and gave flesh to his theory of social, political and economic organization. Mussolini always recognized the socialist heritage of Fascism. He corresponded and debated with Lenin on the true nature of collective society. I think an open minded person would recognize that Mussolini and Sorel had a truer description of the nature of a collectivist society then did Lenin and Marx. The socialist variant of Fascism is in practice the least successful form because its narrative is built upon false economic premises. The socialist has always viewed entrepreneurial activity as little more then theft and the goal of the socialist is to displace the current ruling elite and take over the business. That is why socialists always end up looting the economy (see Tony Rezko and slum housing in Chicago) and impoverishing society.
Fascism, as truly defined, existed long before Mussolini wrote it down. Most of the modern nation states that emerged in the aftermath of the 30 Years War could be termed Fascist with their central organizing myth of “the Divine Right of Kings” Only England, backed by the Magna Carta, had a tradition of individualism over collectivism which is why the entire modern conception of free markets and free peoples was only taken for granted in the English Speaking world.
So, I think it is appropriate for Obama and his acolytes to be commonly called socialists because they are collectivists but in truth they should properly be called Fascists whose central organizing narrative is what is commonly referred to as socialism
Obama and Stalin in the same boat now? I obviously don’t care for communists. I don’t see where communism and Obama have anything to do with each other, and I have yet to receive any proof of that.
“The countries and governments taking rights away are the leftist ones.” First of all, LEFTIST countries do usually take rights away, see USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc. Obama is hardly a leftist. He doesn’t want to have collective ownership of industry, he doesn’t advocate the redistribution of land or capital, he doesn’t want to replace the free market with a command economy… Where are you people getting these things to the contrary? As I’ve mentioned before, Democrats are a CENTRIST party on the world scale.
As much as leftist countries have been vilified by me and others, lest we forget, the rightist countries have contributed at least as much to world suffering, if not more (it’s more). I’m not just talking about the fascists and syndicalists of Germany, Italy, Spain, and Portugal, but how about the Empire of Japan? Pinochet’s Chile, and Peron’s Argentina? Every military dictatorship in the world? And, as the clincher, the ones you love to hate, the Islamic states. You want to know why I’m so scared of religious extremism? THEM.
Zbigniew: First of all, you spelled “favour” in the European fashion, so perhaps it is you who belongs there. Second, if you consider government owned transportation or universal medicine (which isn’t what Obama supports, by the way) to be socialism, then what about any other government-owned services? We should really get rid of socialist education. Also, those socialist police forces are really hassling everyone. And of course, the dark specter of socialized fire departments hangs over the land.
We should really privatize that damned socialized Army, too. Who needs universal defense? Let each person form his own army. Lousy socialized FBI always ruining everyone’s fun. And lest we forget, the socialized FAA is always destroying our ability to create our own flight paths and flight regulations. The socialized Coast Guard limits our ability to repel smugglers on our own. The socialized VA provides benefits for those lousy veterans who already sucked off the government teat when they were in the forces.
Once we get rid of all that socialism, we’ll have a true paradise.
Oh, also, could you provide this AT source of media bias? Thanks.
Socialism, marxism, whatever you want to call it. The real danger is utopian idealism.
Utopian idealists are fools, and dangerous fools at that, because they are convinced they are morally right. I’ve said it before- there has never been a perfect society, and there probably never will be. What there has been, is much misery created by those who had the conceit to believe they could create one.
I was one briefly in college, until I sat down and thought it through. I realized that the animal drive for self-preservation, which manifests itself in human greed, trumps any form of altruism, and would eventually destroy any society built upon the tenets of fairness and human generosity.
Our founding fathers were smarter than that. They designed a system built upon the belief in the “ideal” of equality. But they were cynical and wise enough to recognize that the only way to even remotely approach that impossible state of perfection, is to limit the ability of ego-driven people to force their will upon others. Hence the need for checks and balances of power.
Obama panders to the utopian idealists of the world. And worse, I think he is starting to believe his own hype. Give me someone whose feet are planted on solid ground with the rest of us mere mortals, not soaring in the heavens with the gods on non-reality.
Jerry, very interesting. The first thing that jumped out at me was that fascism is inherently nationalist, whereas socialism inherently internationalist, but there are many other differences that are involved.
Mussolini was a socialist BEFORE he became a fascist. Guess he didn’t learn from his mistakes, huh?
Fascism and socialism DO both limit free markets. Fascism, for the “good of the nation,” socialism, “for the good of humanity.” However, fascism promotes class cooperation, whereas socialism promotes class warfare.
Here’s a definition of fascism that i think hits pretty close to the mark: “A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.” By Robert O. Paxton, via wikipedia.
Now, if that’s Obama (and yes, I mean all of it, not just the one mention of unity), I’m going to shoot myself right after I mail in my absentee ballot for the Constitution Party.
Libertyman – I did not spell “favour” in a European fashion, I spelled it in a British fashion. Britain is not a European country. There’s a wide English Channel separating it from the European continent.
I use British spelling and vocabulary because I am a journalist writing articles for British mags, unlike Kyle-Anne, who writes for American mags.
Liberty,
You are wrong about Obama not wanting to redistribute capital because he wants to tax the rich and give it to the poor. He also want to socialize medicine by putting the federal government in charge, which hasn’t worked for anything else so why would it work for medicine. I do appreciate your jump from leftist governments to Islamofacists, but they are leftist as well because they want a theocratic government in charge of every thing in people’s lives. That is not conservative by anyones definition. Obama is not Stalin, but only time would tell if his policies would move this country to a more leftist or centrist position. I have a funny feeling that America will survive Obama either way. I also truly believe that after a couple of years of the New and Improved America Obama wants for us that the country will swing hard right and greatly reduce the power of the federal government.
Libertyman13, how do you “receive truth”? If you intend to “receive truth” then you must get it from somewhere or someone. Who is this deliverer of truth that you want?
Lord Messiah Obama has been thrust onto the national nomination stage by the Democrat Party. More specifically by the extreme left wing of said party. How do these leftwingers refer to their ideology? Progressive? Liberal? Democrat Congress-critter Maxine Watters proudly states that she wants to “socialize” oil companies. Could we call her an economic socialist? Which party does Maxine represent? Is the Democat party socialist? What is the truth to “receive” here?
I have always believed that truth is not received but is found by evaluating facts. The facts show that Obama is not conservative, nor is he centrist. Obama is a socialist, supported by the socialist wing of the Democrat socialist party. Did you receive that?
pch1013:
@TomJW: However, the fact remains that everyone knows about Jeremiah Wright. If the media were so slavishly pro-Obama as almost everyone here is insisting, would that be the case?
Jul 31, 2008 – 10:23 am
It is because the MSM never shuts up about Obama is why every little thing about him ends up played, replayed, and rereplayed on the news. That is why we heard so much about Wright.
To top it off, when the Wright church first hit the news, the MSM tried to make it sound like a main stream black church. Only after the ‘God Damn America’ stuff came out did the MSM hear other black church officials condemn the Wright church as unchristian. Obama had to make 2 speeches about him as well that were ‘carefully’ explained to us by the MSM.
When the MSM takes so long to get the story straight, it is remembered.
Again, you cannot equate Obama’s relationship with Wright with McCain’s relationship with Hagee without lying.
John the Libertarian:
Mike said: Republicans shouldn’t be wishing bad things on America just so they can get the candidate they want.
Jul 31, 2008 – 11:22 am
You and Mike wish us to lose our nation’s sovereignty when McCain grants amnesty to the illegal immigrants in this country? I consider that wishing bad things on America. Obama will try the same thing, but most Repubs and blue dog Dems might resist it. I see no such hope with McCain at the helm. By the way: Conservatives are leaving the Repub Party in droves over the nomination of McCain and amnesty for illegals issue. We are the ones who won’t donate money or volunteer for McCain. Some will and some won’t vote for him either.
“the MSM tried to make it sound like a main stream black church”
If that’s the case, then the MSM got it wrong; the UCC is not a historically black church, mainstream or otherwise. It’s an offshoot of the Congregationalist denomination, which had its roots in colonial New England.
And if you’re so concerned with people “lying” about Presidential candidates, I suggest you focus your ire on those on the Right who continue to insist that Obama is a crypto-Muslim.
Have you looked into Dr. Ron Paul’s “Campaign for Liberty”? Being a conservative in the “1776″ sense, you must look into Dr. Paul. His movement is getting bigger everyday. He will be holding a “Rally for the Republic” at the same time as the Republican convention in an arena that seats about 15,000. The Constitution is what our leaders need to be following. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
Libertyman:
Some forms of Fascism fit your description but not all. Contrary to popular view Mussolini did not endorse purity. In fact he believed hybridization of humanity because it would bring out the best traits in man. He was the polar opposite of Hitler.
Fascism is willing to put limits on free markets but it acknowledges that they are efficient. Socialists don’t believe in markets at all. To the socialist all market based transactions are theft. Any concession to market economics is a temporary expediency.
Your views of Fascism are colored by the Stalinist usage of the term, i.e., anybody or system that opposes the advance of socialism. As I explained Fascism is a much deeper political theory and includes socialism as a lesser case.
Your definition of socialism as internationalist and Fascism as nationalist contain a grain of truth but if you read Mussolini you would see that he agrees with you. He realized the Marxist internationalism was a fable. He clearly stated that there was no reason for the working class in one country to have the same interests as all other working classes. He believed, correctly as history has shown, that all socialism is local. He better understood the nature of society then did Marx or his followers.
Socialists have shaped the use of the term Fascism to fit their political agenda. They have robbed it of its meaning specifically because they recognize that socialism is just one kind of Fascism. The Fascist model of collectivist society is a superior model to socialism and they know it. You can trace the rise of modern China to the date when they traded Marx, Lenin and Mao for Mussolini. China is successful because it has transformed itself from the usual socialist cesspool into a state more akin to a competently run version of Fascist Italy.
Zbigniew, old friend:
““Do you have a set of leotards and a cape under your street clothes”
What?”
I’m alluding to the fact that I think Kyle-Anne is a super-hero, akin to Superman…er…Woman.
How’s the weather over there?
Yes, madam. It is unthinkable to sit out or vote for Barr, as some ‘true conservatives’ claiming “I vote for Barr because I stand on principles. Don’t you dare call my vote as a vote for Obama.”
The only thing left to do is to ensure we elect enough true conservative representatives up and down the government, especially in the Congress, to make sure McCain doesn’t stray too far.
In my (highly simplistic
)view of the planet, all the “isms” are variations on the same theme.
Power
Barack Obama would use the federal government’s power of taxation to redistribute wealth in this country. (Even more extremely than is already the case, since in excess of 90% of taxes are now paid by a very small percentage of the wealthiest people. Barack apparently believes the tax burden on the wealthy isn’t big enough.)
His view of how to use the federal government’s power of taxation for redistribution of income qualifies for the label “socialism”. His “vision” is in direct violation to the very limited power of taxation granted to Congress (not the Executive).
Winston Churchill nailed Barack’s approach to taxation over a century ago, when he said…
I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
Here’s another truism, from George Bernard Shaw…
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
“An Obama victory, these theorists contend, would inevitably result in one heck of a big-blast train wreck. A wrecked economy.”
Are you serious? The economy has already been wrecked by a president that has spent trillions of dollars on a war that should never have been waged.
Ms. Shiver makes a decent case, but I’m not yet convinced she’s correct.
Our constitution is clearer than any of the other countries she mentions, and our people as a group are still less mystical / more rational, more pro-individual rights and pro-freedom, more gun- and gold-owning.
I also don’t see the Supreme Court, no matter how packed with statists it becomes, eliminating it’s own function for at least perhaps another generation or two.
Additionally, don’t forget McCain-Feingold’s censorship of political debate. As long as we have the right to free speech there is still hope. Take that away, as the right is wont to do, and there is no longer any means to even protest as we’re doing here. I believe the left is further from destroying the right to free speech than the conservatives are.
There is also the issue of justice: since the Great Depression, the Republicans, as a group, have managed to dismantle our economy at a far faster rate than Democrats (perhaps prior to Obama) had ever dreamed of.
I am considering voting straight Democratic as my most effective means of telling the Republicans that their empty bromides are no longer worthy of my vote — that I demand results: more freedom, less controls, lower taxes, a foreign policy that protects my right to live, objective money, etc. NOW – in MY life – in the next 4 years.
If we’re as close to the edge as Ms. Shiver thinks, then it’s way too late for more appeasement.
I say if we vote all the Rebuplicans out, in four years we’ll see a true alternative to the statism both parties have been advancing for the past century.
“always right” at Jul 31, 2008 – 2:30 pm, said :
Yes, madam. It is unthinkable to sit out or vote for Barr, as some ‘true conservatives’ claiming “I vote for Barr because I stand on principles. Don’t you dare call my vote as a vote for Obama.” The only thing left to do is to ensure we elect enough true conservative representatives up and down the government, especially in the Congress, to make sure McCain doesn’t stray too far.
DOWNSTREAM CONSERVATIVE VOTING IS A GOOD IDEA IN AND OF ITSELF…one which – however – WILL BE UTTERLY WORTHLESS UNDER A “Prez Obama”…in which case, YOU CAN ALL KISS YOUR SO-CALLED “CONSERVATIVE” POSTERIORS GOODBYE.
VOTE McCain!
There might be something to be said for the idea that another Carter will net us another Reagan, but these times are too dangerous to play around like that. Whenever someone comes up to me with that theory, I like to point out that we’re still recovering from Carter, and he was only in for one term.
Then I point out how Obama’s worse.
My knowledge is too limited and Fat Jolly Penguin’s post is too condensed for me to grasp the reasoning behind his point.
How, specifically, are we “still recovering from Carter?”
Carter blamed Americans for “malaise,” froze Iranian assets thereby driving gold through the roof, and most despicably, appeased Islamic fundamentalists by allowing our hostages to be held (until Reagan was elected).
But our leaders have been appeasing thugs since Truman let arabs begin stealing our oil wells. Ahmadinejad at Columbia, Chavez in NY, Saud at Bush’s ranch – what’s new today?
What am I missing? Won’t Carter go down in history as just another lame appeaser whose guilt led him to more wholesale appeasement after his presidency? What out-of-the-ordinary remnants are there?
I take the long view of this struggle to preserve the Constitution and American exceptionalism. Even if we manage to defeat this hiding-in-plain-sight Marxist, what the Gramscian Marxists have achieved over the course of four decades is formidable. It just keeps building and building, without letup. I know how it works and that it IS working for them, because in the late seventies and on through the mid-eighties I was a neo-Marxist, Jesuit grad student studying philosophy. These people control the national narrative now, and they control almost every transmission belt of information and perception. Something has to be done to counter this.
Here we are, early in the 21st century and socialism has been discredited in pretty much the rest of the world. The only place it has not been discredited inside of is here: the United States of America. The story of how this has come to be needs to be told anywhere we can get a toehold.
This is the kind of paranoid red baiting trash that makes legitimate critics of Obama and his ilk cringe cause it is lunatic fringe paranoia. If these progressives want certain socialistic amendments to the constitution, then they still have to add those the old fashioned way: pass by Congress and approved by 3/4s of the states. That this Shiver is willing to take David Horowitz as a credible source, shows she is short on truth and analysis skills.
They couldn’t even pass the ERA to the constitution during the Carter years yet this woman has Obama on par with Stalin. It’s pandering fanatic trash like this that sinks what little credibility PM ever had. It is just a super right wing blog with delusions of integrity and intelligence.
jerry,
While much of what you said about Fascism is true, it is not some localized version of Marxism or socialism. Fascism was never about the equality of all, there was to be a hierarchy from the start and the people on the bottom, tough luck. You can argue that the Communist were hypocrites with certain party people were more equal than others, but that was a paradox that undermined it. Fascism, modeled closely after teh military where it drew it’s most of it’s support from disgruntled soldiers serving and discharged, had gradations of rank just like it.
As soon as I read a post that shouts “red baiting” I pretty much know that the article touched a raw nerve. These people really, really have a problem with being open and honest about who they are and what they believe in. I know this, because I lived it firsthand years ago. In fact, the bookish, honest guy I was wanted to chat about Marxist theory with people who went to the CISPES rallies on campus and elsewhere, but the Communist leaders of the activist groups warned me not to be so honest about who we were. They said it would give the cause bad press and scare away new recruits. In other words, I was told to STFU.
These people are practiced in deception. And they don’t like it one bit when they are called out.
How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin …
How do you tell an anti-communst? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan.
Obama doesn’t understand Marx and Lenin.
tedders,
I read Marx and all the leading Marxist theoreticians of the 20th century. Hardly any of the activist leaders I met had my command of this material. Today’s Leftist Kiddies have read probably nothing of Marx and other Leftist intellectuals. A lot of them never even heard of Marx.
I think Obama has never read these people. And understanding nothing about it, he can go on into his forties and remain a Marxist. I left it when I was 32, because I understood what the issues were. Yes, William Buckley and Michael Novak’s critiques of it had an impression on me. Even in my Marxist days I was always THINKING of how to theoretically get around their critiques. Eventually I realized socialism could never succeed. Plus, socialist societies were not producing more moral human beings. Today, I have to explain to the kids that all Leftist thinking is utopian in its telos, even if not explicitly so. Utopian thought is a flight of the imagination with no bearing on reality. In fact I was just explaining to my wife this evening why socialist thought is utopian in its ultimate aims. She didn’t know this.
Obama is an intellectual lightweight. He would really struggle in most philosophy courses AT THE UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL.
Pat: “How, specifically, are we “still recovering from Carter?””
Sorry for not responding — I had to leave for a while. I mostly meant the chaos in Iran, but a lot of his other idiot policies are still with us. The Departments of Education and Energy come most strongly to mind, as does his continued work against Israel.
Kyle-Anne is right on the money, as always. Congrats on a great article!
However, I do wish we conservatives would stop buying into the “progressive” label as well as the “moderate” label the media loves to use. Conservatives are regularly called “right wingers” but people such as Schumer, the Clintons, and their ilk are generally referred to as progressives and moderates.
We’ve been duped again, just as we were duped into calling homosexuals “gays” when, in fact, there’s nothing gay about them and calling the abortion lobby “pro-choice,” whereas they are clearly anti-choice and pro-fetus death.
Let’s call a spade a spade: Progressives are leftists! As for Obama, EXTREME leftist is more apt.
(And, for some great articles on Osama/Obama, please see my website. I know that’s shameless self-promotion but, with 60, mostly original, articles on Obama, I think it’s worth a visit.)
Umm, my website is http://genelalor.com/
Gene Lalor,
I’ve noticed over the years that crackpots, liars and children love to play little word games. You are just talking a bunch of hysterical nonsense.
Jarhead – the weather is good these days, it’s hot and sunny. How’s the weather in your neighbourhood?
Kyle-Ann,
Now just calm down young lady. Either your thong is too tight or medication to weak.
Little lady, you could make coffee nervous with all those worries.
Now, let me try to allay your fears. First, the military.
America’s disarming of her military will totally disarm our enemies. This is the brilliance of Obama’s genius.
Because they no longer fear us, they will no longer be a threat to us. And should any country or terrorist organization attack a militarily neutered America, a combination of the world court and United Nations would be authorized by unaminous vote to impose strong but fair sanctions on them. If an American city were attacked with hi-tech weapons of mass destruction, President Obama would authorize Israel to issue a full retaliatory response. So any heinous acts against the U.S. would not go unpunished. Calming down, Ms. Shiver?
Second, the Supreme Court will be safe under a President Obama. Any legislation from the bench that they initiate will be in the best interests of all Americans of every race and creed. A hallmark of the supremes under Obama will be equal treatment for all; yes, including those less fortunate like recent immigrants, both legal and legal by desire.
C: President Obama will refill the Bush-drained coffers of America. I know for some rich people this is a bitter pill to swallow, but Barack will increase the capital gains taxes on private home sales to 30%. Now if you sell your home, the government gets nothing. How fair is that? So if, say you sell a $200,000 home, under a Barack administration, the government would get $60,000. Capital gains on stock sales would also be put at 30%. Add this to the tax money the government will save when Barack gives up an unwinnable war in Iraq and the American government will again be financially solvent.
Four: Under Barack, they’ll be no off-shore drilling for oil. No clean coal exploration. No nuclear energy. And no natural gas exploration. Why? Because Barack will initiate not only the four day work week, but he’ll let the law of supply and demand work its magic. When gas hits $10.00 a gallon, Americans will drive much less and the price will plummet like a rock.
And E: By executive order, President Obama will bring back the Fairness Doctrine which will prevent naysayers from choking the radio airwaves with hateful propagnda. There is no inherent right by which conservative idiologues can brainwash our citizens. If they agree to start broadcasting what’s right and in our national interest, then President Obama then they have nothing to fear from the Fairness Doctrine. The name says it all.
Six: For the good of our children, the oil companies must be socialized. Today they are making unconscionable profits. Taking money that should be spent on healthcare, welfare and undocumented aliens. The Statue of Liberty says, “Give us your poor, your tired and your meak.” Well, President Obama will see to it that they have a shot at the American dream, too. The redistribution of wealth is a touchstone of the new traditions that Obama augers in which will lead to a chorus of combined cultures and races; one America singing, “Today, I’m more proud than ever, it is true, of the red, white and blue”. I can hear America singing.
7. Abortion rights is as sacred a right as the freedom of speech. Under President Obama, it not only will be preserved but extended to cover our youngest, most powerless citizens. Back alley abortions, like lynchings, must be a thing of the past.
Finally, in this point in American history, we are faced with a Presidential election choice. On the one hand, a candidate who’s only claim to fame was to be a prisoner of war for a time.
On the other, we have Barack Obama, with a wealth of experience in bringing people together. A community organizer. A Senator. A visionary who’s poised to be the next President of the United States. His enemies compare him to Britney Spears. But people who know him compare him to the prophet Muhammad. All knowing. All seeing. All wise.
Yet, Barack is criticized. He breathes new life and hope into the continent of Europe and is criticized for not visiting wounded American troops.
Well, guess, what. Wounds heal. Barack, though, is going about the business of healing this nation. With the force of right, the vigor of youth and the gift of intelligence, Barack will bring the kind of change to America that Americans will be glowingly writing about in history books long after we’re all gone.
Rachel Peepers, I think you’ve captured the true spirit of “progressivism” in all its zany, chaotic, technocrat-nerd and ironic [glory]. Cheers.
Rachel Peepers – assuming that your post was not a joke, assuming that it was serious – then let me tell you that it’s inappropriate to call the article’s author a little lady or a young lady and tell her to get medicines, even if you disagree with her. Regardless of her age.
Libertyman:
Your arguments about conservatives ‘giving away their liberty’ appear to be based largely on their acceptance of the Patriot Act and FISA. Now I understand that you could have objections to these acts in principle, but would you like to provide examples of any US citizens who have been mistreated, or even seriously inconvenienced, by these acts, to a degree that outweighs the contribution those acts have made to keeping the US safe from further terror attacks for seven years?
Do you simply inhabit a hypothetical wonderland, insulated from unpleasant reality and where no difficult decisions ever have to be made, or are you one of those ultra-principled liberal types who doesn’t care how many Americans are murdered, so long as the survivors exist in a state of near-Utopian bliss, maintaining the moral high ground until the bitter end?
Seriously – you make some interesting points and you’re intermittently reasonable, so I’m curious as to where you think your ideas, if fully enacted by an Obama government, would lead the US.
“Remember when Clinton was elected and he ruined the economy….remember?”
Clinton was well on the way to ruining the economy, then the Republicans won both houses (Did this have something to do with Clinton’s policies?).
pch1013:
And if you’re so concerned with people “lying” about Presidential candidates, I suggest you focus your ire on those on the Right who continue to insist that Obama is a crypto-Muslim.
Jul 31, 2008 – 12:58 pm
You’re the only one, on this thread, to bring up the Muslim thing. I don’t have to go after anyone else.
Your equating the Obama/Wright relationship to the McCain/Hagee relationship still stands as a lie. Address that and don’t make up distracting topics.
pch1013:
“the MSM tried to make it sound like a main stream black church”
If that’s the case, then the MSM got it wrong; the UCC is not a historically black church, mainstream or otherwise.
Jul 31, 2008 – 12:58 pm
And that is why everyone knows about Wright and few know about Hagee. The MSM got it wrong, so they wouldn’t expose Obama’s church as radical. When it came out that the church was radical, the MSM had to cover there lies about all the other black churches. So much so that eveyone remembers Wright. They shot themselves and Obama in the foot on that one.
I will be the third person to mention Muslim. What is a crypto-Muslim?
This probably captures the one fundamental thing that bothers me most about the Obamanible Showman.
A habit of grandiosity in speechifying that totally ignores facts (already) on the ground.
Allies Obama Overlooked
BTW, Kyle-Anne, thank you for writing once again about the most important issue: the military. You’ve written several articles about it in the past, and I’d recommend them to anyone.
But you wrote:
“My husband has been an ardent proponent of this theory”
What will be the results? Will your husband vote for a candidate other than McCain, or will he vote for the AZ Senator, or will he refrain from voting? What are your children’s opinions and plans about this election? You rarely write about the political opinions and political plans of your family members. Do they wish to keep them private?
Thanks for a concise, yet-comprehensively stated explanation of why conservatives can’t sit out this election.
Truly, our only hope with an Obama presidency is that his inexperience and lack of abilities (beyond reading a teleprompter) will prevent him from enacting his socialistic agenda.
In other words, if Obama isn’t incompetent, we’re doomed.
If Obama is elected I believe he will have many Dems in congress helping him with his agenda. Only if he gets as arrogantly mean as Hillary was with her promoting healthcare program, back in the day, will he lose their cooperation.
Yet, I still find it hard to justify voting for a man who is trying to end the sovereignty of this country with his ‘day one’ amnesty plans.
Rachel, I think you’re the one that needs meds. That is the sort of satire only a delusional schizophrenic could conjure up! God I hope you’re being ironic. BTW, do you work for the New Yorker?
Oops. I forgot to mention, if you have plans for the weekend, change them. Hurry down to Borders and pick up the hot off the presses, “Obama Nation”, a terrific expose that traces Obama from his roots, to his Muslim training and liberal brainwashing in Indonesia to his arrival in Chicago where he metamorphysized into a born again politician under the tutilege of the American hating, infamous Reverend Wright. “Obama Nation” is a week away from being the number one read on the NY Times best seller list because it fits all the pieces of the biggest threat to the United States since the Axis, Germany and Japan, into stark perspective.
Rachel wrote: “America’s disarming of her military will totally disarm our enemies. This is the brilliance of Obama’s genius. Because they no longer fear us, they will no longer be a threat to us.”
Even if this is satire, the issue too important to ignore without explicit clarity.
Rachel’s is the premise of pacificism. Pacifism has never worked – not for the Greeks against the Peloponnesians, not for the Romans against Carthage, not for the French and their “Maginot Line,” and not now for “Homeland Security” and our wasted hours in airport security lines. History shows 100% of the time that victims of force or those threatened by force must *always* destroy the enemy’s *will* to fight by taking the fight to the enemy’s homeland. “Turn the other cheek” is always and everywhere the prescription for death at the hands of the parasitic thugs.
Even our own civil war would have ended far sooner with far fewer lives lost had Sherman been able to take Atlanta earlier rather than later.
Now I know you’re joking Rachel.
Couldn’t agree with you more Pat. Too bad we’ve been made too weak by our modern lives to effectively “take it to the homeland”. Stupid hippies.
Rachel Peeps: Great piece of satirical writing. I rolf’d.
Zbigniew, the weather here in NY is hot and humid but not unbearable.
Kyle-Anne, keep leaping those tall buildings in a single bound.
Palintropos:
Pat:
Mark:
Jarhead:
et al:
I find the essence of progressive thinking difficult to put my finger on, but I keep trying to get a hold of it. I feel like I’m trying to catch a greased pig.
In a more literal way, I believe that most of you have a better understanding of its nuances.
By the way, I thought “the little lady who could make coffee nervous” wrote a magnificent article. Love her work.
RP
With Barack Obama’s popularity falling like a lead balloon, and with people learning about his true nature, and his making an ass of himself overseas — there’s a good chance he will trip over himself.
His economic plan shows that he is willing to try to trick Americans into believing he has something to offer. The increase in gas price has already pushed up the prices of goods and services.
Obama’s taxes on oil companies will do the same because corporations consider taxes a “cost of doing business,” as do most businesses; and they will simply increase the prices of goods and services to Americans to cover the tax increase.
Seems as if Obama got his “Economics 101″ manual from a Cracker Jack box.
No thanks, Obama. Keep those socialist-communist ideas to yourself.
Read about Barack Obama and his true nature:
Nowadays, Obama’s numbers are falling like a lead balloon.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108433/Gallup-Daily-Obama-McCain-Still-Tied-44.aspx (Gallup Polls August 1, 2008)
http://www.nextgenerationcorp.com/nextgenblog/
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/
Rachel:
To exchange the grease for a leash, just work on thinking in principles. That’s what every great “progressive” in history was able to do. That’s also what virtually no politicians or business leaders today do. Today, it’s myopic pragmatism and concretes, not universal principles. Today, it’s how to get the trustbusters to throttle your competitor this month (e.g. Netscape or Google v. Microsoft); or how to appoint 10 subcommittees to study the effects of this particular tax on that particular class of producers from this income sector during these months… – rather than the principle of a producer’s right to the fruits of his labor, the nature of competition (a byproduct of productive work) or the nature of government (as the policeman to protect individual rights), the nature of taxation (legalized theft), etc..
We’re continually taught that ours is a “complex” world where true understanding is elusive (unless you’re a philosopher king like, say, Mssrs. Obama or Limbaugh).
But true principles reduce the complex to the simple; then seeing and fighting for a progressive future becomes simpler and success more likely.
Another frightening thing to consider in a far-left Obama government is this:
The abandonment of Israel, and the achievement of nuclear weapons by Iran, which, coupled with missiles, would lead to a second Shoah.
If Obama is elected in November, Israel must strike against Iran prior to January 20, and do all she can to stop their program.
If Obama is elected:
He will legalize gay marriage and outlaw straight marriage.
He will outlaw Christianity unless it has been approved by Reverend Wright or Father Fleger
He will collectivize agriculture on the Maoist commune model.
he will make Ludicrous his Secretary of Education and establish Rap ‘n’ Ebonics as the core curriculum
He will establish mass reparations
He will enslaves whites who can’t pay reparations.
He will make afrocentric studies the center of all learning, starting with Physics and Math
He will deport all legal WASP Americans and use the Air Force and AMTRAK to bring in as many illegals as possible.
He will start class warfare by giving black and hispanic gangs permission to loot and kill rich and racist whites.
He will disarm America except for his secret police force of African illegals like his Kenyan clan.
He will require all schoolkids to be instructed personally in gay and straight sex.
He will appoint Ron Kuby as Chief Justice and try to get the Soviet Constitution of Stalin adopted through legislation from the bench.
Finally::
He will not only make Islam the State Religion and ban pork and alcohol –
He will ban all Star Trek reruns except The Next Generation ones.
Javelin,
Pretty funny stuff. You’re perfect for Letterman. Head for the west coast and become a writer. You can use me as a reference. I think you’re great.
Yes, batten down the hatches and sound the alarms. Sheesh.
Does the OP really consider the last 7 years a Bush and company a crashing success? As a hard working parent of 3, I have never worked harder and been in worse financial shape. The Bush administration has been nothing short of a full-fledged disaster. Our economy and reputation as a world leader has been trashed. I believe Obama is smart,will seek reasonable and intelligent solutions to problems, and may even restore our reputation in the world. We can’t afford to elect another bumbling idiot. Obama is no Carter.
RE: Rachel Peepers RE Glibama’s Twelve Luminous Marching Points
(filed under “Turtle Dashing Across Freeway; Witness Impressed”)
Rachel Peeper/Obama/Point Four: Under Barack, they’ll be no off-shore drilling for oil. No clean coal exploration. No nuclear energy. And no natural gas exploration. Why? Because Barack will initiate not only the four day work week, but he’ll let the law of supply and demand work its magic. When gas hits $10.00 a gallon, Americans will drive much less and the price will plummet like a rock. (Aug. 1st)
Aug. 2nd/CNN – CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (CNN)
Obama says offshore drilling stance nothing new/McCain supports drilling proposal; Obama has opposed it in the past/
Sen. Barack Obama responded Saturday to criticism that he has changed his position on opposing offshore oil drilling.
——————————— * ————————-
Rachel Peeper, my dashing turtle, unless your piece is parody I don’t get, you are migthtily wrong vis-a-vis Glibama’s super-dash into the Republican Party’s folds.
As far as “[...] Kyle-Ann, now just calm down young lady. Either your thong is too tight or medication to weak. Little lady, you could make coffee nervous with all those worries. Now, let me try to allay your fears [...]” – wit-wise, this goes under a different filing tab: “Donkey Named Rachel Peepers Posts On PJM; Scientists Skeptical, Yet Upon Post Examination Agree That Post Belongs to Donkey, Use Stupidity As Evidence.”
Mr. MisAnn,
I’m the first to admit, because I’m just a college girl, a Freshman in Evanston, Il (came all the way from Hungtington Beach Ca.), so I don’t have the width or breath of political experience like the rest of you guys.
I was just trying to call em’ as I see em’, while injecting a little humor into the discussion, but, like, if I my thoughts come off as dizzy and replete with stupidity, I guess I’ll move on to another website. I thought you guys would think my stuff was kinda funny. But, oh, well. I know where I’m not wanted. I might be just a school girl, but I get the message. This is Rachel Peepers signing off.
I agree whole-heartedly with Kyle-Anne on this one except the 747 plane crash part. Obama is a puppet of the secret elite crowd with a purpose for the NWO. A powerful luciferian worshipping group who worship the SUN. Numerology plays an extremely big part in their twisted religious beliefs as number 8 is the number of the SUN. The China Olympics will begin year-08/ Month-08/ time-08. Get it! China’s recent economic success wasn’t self made, but created with the driving force of these invisible powers that also control western civilizations & our politicians. Obama will not crash a 747 onto earth, rather he will crash earth into their SUN FIRE GOD.
Kylie-Anne is nearly unique among published writers in actually having the measure of this evil individual.
I have not seen her discoursing on the topic specifically, but I suspect that if she has or were she to she would observe that Zerobama — who I think fits the image of the 12th Imam, and may do even self-consciously — is anything but “an empty suit” or “inexperienced” or “an unknown.” He has very definite content — as does his domestic partner — and very great depth of experience promoting it and is fully in plain view about all of that every minute of his day.
Nor does “the MSN” hide anything about him. Their very renunciation of reason in the penumbra of his aura says exactly who he is and for all to see. The guy is an open book in the behavior of his cadres.
Yet, it has been difficult for those, myself included, who are not misanthropic to realize the full horror this individual intends to visit upon humanity. It is not in our nature to think the way he thinks, to plan what he and his spouse and sponsors plan, to deceive as he and his spouse and sponsors relish doing.
Humans are not built the way Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and their race are built.
This fellow is.
Humans simply do not have the impulses he has and so it is difficult for them to realize what he is and what he and his myrmidons sponsors are up to.
Kylie-Anne does.
I concur with the thought that he is a puppet of some very wealthy individuals, e.g., George Soros. But I think that, though true, this is a trivial observation.
Ultimately, this individual rises and falls from his own sovereign impulses, the contents of his own heart, just as every creature does, In his case, those sovereign impulses are evil and if he ever lays hands on the mechanisms of government of this nation, this nation and many more with it will jet crash.
The take-home of that realization is that this individual and his mentors in academe, ecclesia and finance and his myrmidons want that outcome. They want the United States replaced with flat-lined collectivism (Lileks’ term is “aggressive messianic collectivism”).
They want to eliminate the moral act, which constitutes an individual person, from the life of society and the dynamics of history. They want collective rights and consciousness and no individual ones. Conformity, not creativity. Uniformity, not deservedness.
This individual and his retinue are determined spokesmen for and implementers of the collectivist/revenge-taking character of “liberation theology” (a redundant phrase designating an ideology that promotes neither liberation nor theology). They are Popper’s personalities.
Wow, Kyle-Anne, your article remains among the most popular PJM articles even 3 days after it was published! Congratulations!
This jet plane crash … would it be “O-Force One”?
“O”-Force One … Or Err-Farce One
It must be good to be the “O”, or as Maureen Dowd would say – The ONE!
A man of the people has a newly, refurbished Boeing 757 campaign plane upon which to transport the adoring members of the fourth estate.
The most interesting change from Barack Obama’s previous campaign plane set-up was the removal of the American flag that flew on the tail in favor of the Obama campaign stylized “O” logo.
That is just plain weird. A man who wishes to become the leader of the free world and the most powerful nation on Earth … doesn’t care to have the mention on his plane The United States of America.
We, here at MAXINE, have another suggestion for a graphic on the tail of the North American Airlines leasing operated Boeing 757 … add an “N”!
NObama campaign graphic for lawn signs, bumper stickers and … airplane tails.
Source (includes graphic):
http://tinyurl.com/5kym46
I’m not sure who actually died in the plane crash of the photo that you use to illustrate this post, but if I were related to one of the victims, I’d be pissed. It’s exploitative.
Wow, still going strong. This election is about the future and what we want the future to be. I have no great faith in either of the choosen two, but if I must then I am going for the one with a proven track record even if it has some potholes. We the people must take back the Congress and vote people in that share our values and desires for this country. I don’t advocate trading one set of career politicians for another, but put people in that aren’t beholden to special interests and don’t plan on making this the last job they will ever have. The longer a person stays in Washington the less likely they are going to have your interests in mind. The Presidental election is important, but more so are the people we elect to Congress to represent us. The scariest comment I saw was the one about pulling a straight Democratic ticket with zero thought. There are going to be good people running in both parties, so elect the one the most represents what you stand for regardless of party.
Obama is no Bill Clinton, Clinton did reform welfare and it was his administration that put the tougher sentence on crack dealers. Obama was a crack dealer.
Woo hoo ! Let’s have a look at this one !
<>
Sarah Palin: won “Miss Congeniality” in the Wasilla, Alaska pageant; city council member and mayor of Wasilla (population 5469); Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (she quit .. didn’t care for the lack of ethics of Alaskan leaders; now there’s a woman with the gumption to stick to a task!); Governor of Alaska (population 600,000) for a year and a half … in short, a true powerhouse candidate with the kind of real world experience and tenacity required of the leader of the free world; why wait for 2016 if this babe is eligible now?
Puyish Jindal (that’s his name, not “Bobby”) …. Hey, we won’t hold the name against him but ‘ya gotta get these things right: two terms in the House and half a year as Governor of Louisiana. Puyish would deny an abortion to a rape victim, favors chemical castration, opposes stem cell research, would teach so-called “intelligent design” in the public schools and favors a constitutional amendment banning flag burning … This is the kind of stuff we need in a President … the things that will make America great again … personally, I just can’t wait until Barack’s done being president so we can have either Sarah or Puyish riding in the front cabin of Air Force One!
Look, if nothing else, either one of these kids is gonna stop abortion and put a screeching halt to the homosexual threat … and that alone oughta be enough
<>
It’s just a weeeeee bit hard to figure how a “social conservative” can get behind a candidate who screwed around on his first wife and then deserted and divorced her because she was four inches shorter and fifty pounds heavier following a near-fatal auto accident … all to marry a wealthy heiress with a voracious appetite for opioid painkillers (supposedly taken to ease the stress of the investigation into her virtuous husband’s dealings with Charles Keating of S&L scandal fame) … I guess it’s okay, though … Sindy once was a Junior Rodeo Queen.
As for the other two kinds of conservative, let the record show that in the past fifty years Republican presidents have outspent and increased the size of government more than Democratic presidents. Look it up.
<>
Meaning, basically, a mindless conservative … an “I don’t care WHAT’s going on in the world, I don’t care who the candidate is, I don’t care what his record is, I am a conservative, dammit!”
That’s it … I can’t deal with any more of this paranoiac nonsense … anyone buying into this garbage deserves the Jindal Justice they’ll get when the next Joe McCarthy finds them insufficiently patriotic
Thank you! Thank you! Thank YOU!!! Libertyman13. I haven’t laughed so hard in years. The dead-pan sincerity coupled with the over the top arrogance, sanctimony, and ignorance of your offerings almost succeded in sounding like a real opinion. It wasn’t until I reread your posts that I realized that no one could possibly be such a charicature of political thought, and I was able to fully enjoy them for the farce that they were obviously intended as.
Thank you again, such wit is truly rare today. What? You WERE serious? nevermind.
But speaking of FISA and the Patriot Act…tell me..HOW have YOUR “civil liberties” been infringed upon in ANY WAY by the government’s ability to fight terrorism and protect America? Hmmm…not one bit, right? I thought so.
This is the fundamental flaw in conservative argument, whether it pertains to civil liberties, national defense, economic issues or any other; the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land to protect MY liberties, YOUR liberties or SOME people’s liberties … it’s there to protect EVERYONE’S liberties, period.
And it’s not the government’s ability to fight terrorism which impinges liberty, it’s the government’s methods which sometimes impinge liberty, and ever has it been so. You wanna snoop, get a warrant; that’s what the Constitution requires, in black and white plain English.
well, well, well …. once again the news of the day must be brought into the light of day …
the erudite Ms. Shiver wrote in this space that if Barack Obama is elected President, “we can certainly expect justices in the model of a Ginsburg or Souter [a Bush I appointee], who have amply demonstrated their utter disregard for our own Constitution, while at the same time being enamored of international law”
BUT today, we learn that State of Texas executed José E. Medellín on Tuesday night in defiance of an international court ruling and despite pleas from the Bush administration for a new hearing. Yes, you read that correctly … the Bush administration … the Attorney General, the State Department and the Solicitor General of the United States, at the president’s behest, argued before the Supreme Court that the United States was compelled to acquiesce in the International Court of Justice’s (aka “The World Court”) ruling that Medellin’s case must be reexamined since he was denied the opportunity to confer with the Mexican consul at the time of his arrest. So what was behind all of this? “Mr. Medellín and five other teenage boys in his street gang took part in the rape and murder of the girls, Elizabeth Pena, 16, and Jennifer Ertman, 14. The gang raped the girls for an hour, then strangled them.”
THAT is what you get from conservatives, AND YET SOMEHOW Ms. Shiver has worked herself into a frenzy over “progressives” “enamored of international law” (which they are not)
Shame on you.
Ms. Shiver also wrote here:
“The Islamo-fascists aren’t going anywhere. The money we give them, ostensibly to feed people, will instead be used to make more weapons with which to murder our families. Barack Obama is firmly convinced that his silver tongue can appease them.”
Well, Ms. Shiver, it remains to be seen what Mr. Obama will do in the White House but what we know right now is that the White House announced this morning that it would be “inappropriate” to ask the Iraqis to spend any of the $79 billion in oil profits they have banked (including in the U.S. at the Federal Reserve) to re-build their own country.
Hello, ProgMeister, You make some undeniable points in your last two posts. However, republican does not mean automatically mean conservative, just as democrat does not automatically mean liberal. I would submit that Mr. Bush, despite being so labeled, is no conservative. If you look at the polls that declare that 80% of the respondents think that the country is headed in the wrong direction, with Bush as the perceived figure-head of that direction, they give a misleading impression. It does not mean that 80% of the populace want a more liberal Govt. and want to leave behind all conservative principles. Roughly 40% want it more liberal, and name him an evil conservative (Sorry for the redundancy). The other 40% want it more conservative, and name him a sell-out. Consequently, just because the non-conservative-Republican Bush pursues a Liberal/Progressive policy does not mean that Obama would not be even more inclined to do so. I consider it quite likely that he would. Bush, who has enough people on the left screaming for his head to be labeled a conservative, has done so. It seems entirely unreasonable to expect that Obama, with the stong internationalist influences in his life (and please, don’t take my word for it go read about the man and look at who his great influences are yourself), would be less inclined to do so.
Final note YOU as a progressive may not be enamored of international law, but the progressive movement as a whole certainly is. Again, don’t take my word for it, go read about it yourself. Franklin Delano and his cousin Teddy certainly considered themselves part of the movement, and Woodrow Wilson could practically be their poster boy.
Not that I expect that any of what I have to say will change your opinion one whit. Such is the nature of blogging.
Misantrop:
On 2, August, you chided me and compared me to a donkey. Which I think are cute animals, though a bit stubborn at times. Well, after my August 1, message, I think you have to admit I know a bit what I’m talking about.
Rachel Peepers: (Aug 1, 2008 – 10:58)
Oops. I forgot to mention, if you have plans for the weekend, change them. Hurry down to Borders and pick up the hot off the presses, “Obama Nation”, a terrific expose that traces Obama from his roots, to his Muslim training and liberal brainwashing in Indonesia to his arrival in Chicago where he metamorphysized into a born again politician under the tutilege of the American hating, infamous Reverend Wright. “Obama Nation” is a week away from being the number one read on the NY Times best seller list because it fits all the pieces of the biggest threat to the United States since the Axis, Germany and Japan, into stark perspective.
August 1.
Now August 7:
Misantrop:
To make it as clear as the nose on your blushing face, As I predicted, “Obama Nation” is now number 1 on the NY Times Best Seller list.
Misantrop: You were wrong to judge me so harshly. So I have no choice but to compare you to the north end of a south bound horse.
Have a nice day.
Aug 1, 2008 – 10:58 am
BillG –
Needless to day there is some truth in your comments, but who’s kidding who here? The context of my observations and presentation of some hard facts is the response to an insane and paranoid rant from Ms. Shiver about how progressives and Obama will ruin the country, if not the world, if not the solar system … For her sake, I hope she’s just a shill and doesn’t believe half of what she writes because if she does, she’s ripe for a civil commitment hearing.
There is little to be gained here from extensive parsing of the words “republican,” “conservative,” “liberal,” “progressive” etc etc. The thing people need to understand is that IF they go and vote Republican they are not insulating themselves from any of the real or perceived evils Shiver would have them think they are. Mr. Bush’s actions in the Medellin case prove the point conclusively.
If Barack Obama instead of George Bush had called for a reexamination of the Medellin case yesterday, it would have permanently decimated his chances of being elected to ANY office. Without a doubt, the Democratic convention would have replaced him as the nominee … and properly so since his chances of being elected would have been NILL. Yet … George Bush will get a pass on this not only from the press but also from Republicans, Conservatives and all other like-minded folk. Why is this so? People need to understand this issue. And people need to understand that phrases like “the progressive movement as a whole” or the “conservative movement as a whole” ultimately mean nothing. Our form of government is very well structured to accommodate the middle ground where real people actually live, provided that everyone understands that in real democracies NOBODY gets everything they want, and that in a well-functioning democracy you don’t need to get EVERYTHING you want to have a quite happy and productive life.
Rachel Peepers wrote:
… Barack will increase the capital gains taxes on private home sales to 30%. Now if you sell your home, the government gets nothing. How fair is that? So if, say you sell a $200,000 home, under a Barack administration, the government would get $60,000
only if your basis in the home is $0 … please, Rachel, I know you’re only a college kid, but how about learning just a touch of accounting before you critique tax policy
BUT one more thing, there’s a $500,000 exemption on the proceeds of a home sale for married people ($250K for singles) that was signed into law by Bill Clinton …. Barack does not oppose the exemption; so, feel free to sell your $200,000 home .. the government gets nothing
and then there’s this:
To make it as clear as the nose on your blushing face, As I predicted, “Obama Nation” is now number 1 on the NY Times Best Seller list
did it make the list for one day? maybe it’s in the Fiction section?? because it’s not to be found anywhere today; I have no doubt that large numbers of the 22% of America who approve of the job Bush is doing will buy this book, though … and that ends up being a lot of books … but not enough voters for John McCain to be giving a whole hell of a lot of thought to forming a transition team
keep your eye on Amazon; you should be able to pick up a copy of this POS for $0.98 within a few weeks
Hello, Progmeister.
Thank you for the polite reply. I certainly can’t claim that I agree with everything that you said, but at least you didn’t call me any names, or call my integrity into question simply for disagreeing with you. By that act alone you are heads and shoulders above most political bloggers. Well done.
You are absolutely correct that voting “Republican” does not insulate people “from any of the real or perceived evils Shiver would have them think they are.” However, By voting for a conservative instead of simply someone with the “R” next to their name, they just might. Which leads to my next point … I do disagree that there is little point to clarifying what the various terms of political labeling mean. If we don’t clarify their meaning, can we actually have any meaningful communication? But we can certainly forgo that here. It is not as though any comments that we make will have any impact beyond the time that it takes for us to make them.
Further, I would contend your assertion that Bush will get a free pass, and that if Obama had acted as Bush did that “it would have permanently decimated his chances of being elected to ANY office.” Similar to how I mentioned in my last post that 40% of the people want a more “liberal” government and 40% of the people want a more conservative government, similar percentages of the country’s population will vote Republican or Democrat regardless of who the candidate is or what he/she may have said/done or what her/his qualifications may or may not be. Bush is certainly not getting a free pass from me. Conservative talk radio (from the few moments that I hear – and before you dismiss any of my comments as those of a rabid right-wing nut case [again, pardon the redundancy] – I also listen to NPR, no one’s right-wing propaganda machine there)is also eating him alive for that … and well they should. The school term is over and Mr. Bush’s grades are already posted on his report card from me, and they are not pretty. In the same vein, again, YOU as a progressive may not be enamored with internationalism and the increase in the exercise of power by multinational organizations, but it seems equally clear that a very sizable portion of the democratic electorate is. I am sorry that you think that phrases like “X as a whole” are meaningless, but when an organization, group, whatever, continues to act in such a fashion as to further certain goals, it logically must be concluded that the organization and its membership, as a whole (regardless of any dissenting opinion from individual members), must support that goal, or they would disassociate themselves from it (unless they saw no other viable alternative), or it would adopt different policies (I refer you to your own very astute observation concerning the nature of democracy). I think that gives those phrases legitimacy. Clearly, we can disagree on that. My point on that, though, is that I encourage you to read up on the progressive movement, its founders and its goals, particularly Woodrow Wilson.
AND, you are absolutely correct that our government is well structured and that in a properly functioning democracy nobody gets everything that they want. The tricky part is making sure that the things that people are getting are not detrimental to the continued functioning of that democracy, or to the people as a whole. I personally believe that Obama will not do that. Before you tar and feather me, though, I really don’t think that McCain will really be any better, because of some of the quite valid statements that you have made. I, honestly, do not have a horse in this two man race. I wish that we had the option of “none of the above.”
Thanks, again. I have enjoyed conversing with you.
Progmeister,
Listen, sport, my comments had nothing to do with a critique of accounting. Rather, they were stating a simple fact. If elected, Senator Obama plans to increase the capital gains tax on private home sales.
Barack doesn’t oppose the exemption?
Is that what you think? Is this view backed by any kind of evidence? If you really believe that Barack won’t take away the exemption, then, in my opinion, you need to take a closer look.
Getting back to the crack you made about, “Learning a touch of accounting”, I, good fellow, in all seriousness, suggest that you also sign up for an academic course; a basic course in high school grammar.
Rather than critique all your errors, from split infinitives to comma splices, to your annoying misuse of ellipses, permit me, for grammatical correctness, to examine your opening sentence. It’s the opening sentence in your message to “Bill G.
You write, ” Needless to day there is some truth in your comments, but who’s kidding who here”?
If you take the course I’m suggesting, you’ll learn that the phrase, “Needless to day” should get a comma.
What’s more, the correct way to say, “who’s kidding who” is to put your second “who” in the objective case. Thus, it becomes “whom.” Note, I’m simply ignoring your typo. Proofreading, I venture to say, is a lost art.
The reason I cite these writing mistakes: Sloppy writing leads to sloppy thinking.
Although I do admit that I fail to detect any sloppiness in your logic, better to be on the safe side, and not let some wiseass college girl give you a lesson in any of the three “R’s.”
One more thing, when I said, “Obama Nation” was on the N.Y. Times best seller list, I must have been dreaming. Because, you’re right. It’s not even close. Kind sir, I stand corrected.
Finally, I wouldn’t have gone to the trouble of trying to respond to your message if it wasn’t so nasty. When I showed it to my boyfriend, he laughed at me. Fact is, you hurt my feelings. I hate when that happens.
BillG –
Can we stand all of this civility here? … I will hope so. I’m not going go point for point on your post but will add a few observations that hopefully will be somewhere on point
What is SO troubling about political discourse is the rather obvious polarization, the “you’re with me or your agin me mentality” (where have we heard that lately?) Personally I have an extraordinarily difficult time with this; you’re labeling me a “progressive,” which I am in part (and of course I am responsible for that handle here) … but on a lot of issues I may well out-conserve the conservatives by a comfortable measure; in part because self-proclaimed conservatives are not all that conservative when all is said and done. Indulge me as I run through my positions and let’s see where we get:
(a) the United States must have the strongest and best equipped military we can muster
(b) the Iraq war was beyond question a mistake and we need to get out without leaving a mess nobody can clean up
(c) budgets must be balanced but we must recognize that one must at times be flexible and patient on the matter
(d) big government is dangerous to our health
(e) big business is dangerous to our health
(f) everyone must have health care and way to do it is to, once and for all, make certain that there is an actual functioning market for medical services (which employers play NO part in whatsoever)
(g) education must be improved significantly (too long a story for this post)
(h) government is not empowered under the constitution to set rules on abortion
(i) we need to do something to reduce the number of abortions but that does not imply that it’s the government’s job
(j) the US family, for a number of reasons, is in serious trouble and we (not the government) need to support it
(k) gay rights campaigns, affirmative action and rabid feminism are counteproductive
(l) the equal protection clause means what it says and it’s high time we “get over it” and make sure that women, gays and blacks are in no way second-class citizens
(m) parents who do not want their young children taught about homosexuality in school should not have to put up with such teaching
(n) religion and church are vitally important but think they have NO place in government
(o) the republic cannot survive without vigorous free speech in ALL of its forms
(p) all veterans should get the medical care and education they deserve for the service they have given
(q) we are at the tipping point on energy and we should invest heavily in all forms of domestic energy and conservation measures
(r) we cannot “drill our way out” of the “energy crisis” but we should drill OCS and ANWR
(s) our national drug policy has created an enormous illicit market for drugs and we need to reverse course on it immediately
(t) the death penalty is barbaric and too many innocent people have been and will be executed
(u) the American people that built the physical and social infrastructure which has enabled our largest corporations to become what they are and that, accordingly, they owe the American people/worker the “courtesy” of doing all in their power to assure that the inexorable march to “globalism” is the least painful it can be
(v) the nation must get to work in earnest on the repair of our roads, bridges, aqueducts, railroads
(w) this country must embrace again the value of a “sound mind in a sound body” and re-insinuate this simple, salutary principle back into our schools and all of our institutions; physical fitness and lifelong learning are essential to the national welfare
(x) the United States need not become embroiled in every foreign problem and controversy but we must, within reasonable bounds, continue to be good citizens of the world and help promote a dialogue of peaceful co-existence
(y) we must recognize that we have for a long time enjoyed our hearty consumption of a vastly disproportionate share of the earth’s resources and further recognize that we will not be able to continue on that path; we must summon our talents and best instincts to find new ways to sustain our way of life without provoking the emnity of the 6-7 billion other people with whom we share the planet
(z) we, and the people of all nations, must always respect the sovereignty of nations, of local political units, of the person and, ultimately, of nature, which ALWAYS has the final say.
There you have it, A-Z … my “platform” … how much disagreement is there among Americans on these ideas? Is this a “progressive” set of values? Liberal? Conservative? Libertarian? Republican? Hybrid? Does it matter?
Assuming that there is at least a modicum of consensus with regard to some set of values, there remains of course the ever-vexing question of HOW … personally, I think “bigness” is the greatest nemesis we face; the very size of our government and private institutions has left far too many people wholly alienated from the process of arranging our very own world; too many people lack the authority to even do the work for which they have been trained … through technology, we can (in theory) speak to the whole world but, collectively, too many of us are kept from making even the simplest decisions in our work, in our homes and where we play. I see too many people who do not really understand the nature of the work they do in any meaningful way. Only 100 years ago, a majority of people could say, honestly, that they were self-reliant. How many can make that claim now? It is a very dangerous disempowerment which results in an extraordinary level of frustration and anger … and hence the polarization that we see 24 hours each day if we so choose.
You might assume that I am making the case, perhaps inadvertantly, that the times call for a conservative candidate. It actually is of no import in those terms; people come before ideologies and the people are losing that match for the time being. Whatever your political stripe, it is time for all of us to reach that point in our political life where we recapture a workable measure of control over our own destinies. For some that may mean things like school vouchers, for others it may mean the capacity to prepare for and do useful work in a dignified environment … still others are more focused yet on basic survival: making sure their children are fed and clothed, being able to meet the mortgage payment and utility bills.
We can have whatever we want if we are only willing to stand up and demand it of those who present themselves as our prospective leaders … we can tell those who would “lead” that we are tired of hearing a lot of TALK about free markets and that we want ACTUAL FREE MARKETS … so that when you go to a doctors’ office or a pharmacy, when you get the bill, it’s a bill you can afford to pay without putting it “on the card” and postponing the inevitable … and when you go to the grocery store there is an adequate supply of healthful foods at another price that you can afford … and so too with the gasoline pump. What kind of economy is it that requires that both parents be in the workplace 40-50 hours a week? to hold two and three jobs? to borrow incessantly for basic needs? to go without basic needs entirely? It’s a dysfunctional economy, plain and simple. It’s not the only one, to be sure … but we’re supposed to be capable of better than that.
Choose your candidate as you will but remember that we have FAR more that unites us as a nation than divides us; politics and law being ultimately about the allocation of goods, I think the primary issue is now, and always, the economy. Some like to focus on what they call “cultural issues,” and I would not propose that such are of no import … that said, when people have the things they need and a reasonable measure of the things they want, they are far too busy, happy and content to make much of other people’s lifestyle choices and the like.
Either of the presidential candidates will “get the job done” … both have strengths and weaknesses .. and the reality is that the Presidency is unique: nobody knows how to do the job until they do it. The good news is that every president gets an amazing retinue of able people to prop him or her up .. to inform, advise, and to execute on policy.
Where these two candidates diverge is in terms of which groups of people will benefit more by their office. The November choice is who do you think should or must benefit more?
Progmeister,
I agree. More unites us than divides us. I, too, am sick and tired (see Bill Cosby’s wonderful observation about that partucular phrase) that every political discussion begins with the assumption that the other guy is either the spawn of satan, or satan himself. Now, having seen YOUR platform, I’ll be voting for YOU in November, and neither of the other two major candidates. From my perspective you are head, shoulders, torso, and a fair portion of the leggs a better candidate than Obama or McCain. No, I don’t agree with all of your platform but I would happily vote for either of the other two “real choices” if they were even 75% of the way to being where you are. But, again from my perspective, neither one is, and neither one really shows any inclination to get there. Too bad. Were it not so stinking late at night/early in morning with me suffering from weapons-grade insomia I would attempt to craft a more suitable response to your post, but, bluntly, at this point I’m not convinced that I could think my way out of a wet paper bag. Hopefully I will have time to do so later. If not, it has been a pleasure.
Ms. Peepers:
Listen, sport, my comments had nothing to do with a critique of accounting. Rather, they were stating a simple fact
You need to know the accounting to do the policy critique, unless of course your intent was to make an Obama policy which does not exist sounds worse than it would be if it did exist.
If elected, Senator Obama plans to increase the capital gains tax on private home sales
He’s talked about increasing the capital gains tax; he has not said he would eliminate the home sale exemption (which HE cannot do in the first place). If a gain is exempt, it isn’t taxed at all.
Is that what you think? Is this view backed by any kind of evidence? If you really believe that Barack won’t take away the exemption, then, in my opinion, you need to take a closer look
take a closer look at what? you made the assertion re the tax, you bear the burden of establishing it … that’s the way the game works
Getting back to the crack you made about, “Learning a touch of accounting”, I, good fellow, in all seriousness, suggest that you also sign up for an academic course; a basic course in high school grammar
When I was a tad older than I suspect you currently are, I edited a prestigious law review … think I’ll take a pass on that course; at this stage in my life, I get to make typos and minor grammatical errors … by personal fiat
The reason I cite these writing mistakes: Sloppy writing leads to sloppy thinking
so does unsloppy writing lead to unsloppy fact checks? your post does not seem to provide much evidence of it; wait a second .. is your writing that good?? I haven’t taken any time to evaluate it
Although I do admit that I fail to detect any sloppiness in your logic, better to be on the safe side, and not let some wiseass college girl give you a lesson in any of the three “R’s.”
hmmmm … maybe I can handle it … btw, that second comma should be omitted and you really kinda need a verb of some sort before the “better to be …” clause
Hello, I managed to stop in and say hi, caught this thread..and I totally agree. There are some very seedy characters in his past that are ducking and diving away from the light of the drive-by media who did a piece on Obama last night quoting excerpts from his book apparently. These people are Islamic fundamentalists that he was in cohorts with during his college days and do not want the media spotlight on them at this time.
These people we call terrorists use fear to take the focus off the real agenda. While they gloat and glory over the obvious pain and suffering the real hostile take over begins. Islam or die. Little by little countries like the United Kingdom, France and so on, all gradually bend to the will of Islam and its laws and way of life until before you know it, there is definately a sympathizer if not a person who professes his Muslim faith publicly, in power. Once you raise your finger to Allah you can never denounce your beliefs. What these fanaticals could do with a sympathizer in the white house just defies description! What do we do? Is there anything we can do?
If Obama’s resume would fit on the back of a driver’s license, Palin’s would fit on the head of a pin’s! Laughable.
Well that ended up fairly accurately so far.