This is gonna be fun... I marvel at the people who do not realize that America is changing, we are becoming more liberal.. whether some like it or not, its inevitable... Since Reagan and the so called conservative movement, the Republicans have been exposed for what they are and what they really want to do... They want to hate gays for no good reason, they will tell you what to say and what to beleive, they will use fear as a way to push through agendas that benefit themselves only, they cater to the rich, they inject religion into almost everything, they are blindly pro business, they in short have failed to keep up with most Americans... The problem is that Republicans have lost touch.. Once most people have seen the real Republican agenda, they decided that they did not like it and I can't blame the people for that... Most current Republicans are a dying breed in this country and they have brought it on themselves, they do not represent most Americans... Let's see on taxes, THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE MOST MONEY ALREADY, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BEST OFF IN THE SYSTEM, do not under any circumstance need additional help in the form of tax cuts.. period.. Obama's position on rolling back the corrupt Bush tax cuts, let me remind you for the first time in history, a tax cut in a time of war, is exactly what should happen.. the rich do not need more help, I don't care how you try to spin it... give those cuts to the poor and middle class, they are the ones who need more money to spend... And as far as the rich paying the most taxes as you claim, ask Warren Buffett or ask a Hedge fund manager how much he pays in taxes and they will explain to you that they pay a lower percentage then people who make significantlly less then themselves... Its hard to beleive your claim when you have a billionare such as Buffett, an honest man, who decided to not get in line with the rest of the rich and screw everyone over, who exposes the real inequality with the tax code... when Republicans makes moves such as giving tax cuts to people who do not need them or deserve them then yes we will have class warfare... On Iraq, yes judgment is important, you may not think so, but a president needs good judgment, Bush does not have good judgment and you see where we have been taken over the last seven plus years... Not only was exection of the war obscene but the lies that got us into war was equally obscene, the mindset that got us into war needs to change... Saddam was NOT a threat yet Bushco made them out to be a threat, I beleive intentionally, in order to aid business and to privatize the army, which have both occurred on some level now.. Most Americans supported taking Saddam out of power because we were told he was a threat, that turned out to be untrue so to say that the American people supported taking him out of power, absent of a immediate threat, is a lie... How long do we stay in Iraq? Seven years now we have been there, how much money have we spent there? Tax payer money I remind you, this war, a war that has been funded on credit, has decreased the value of our currency and is hurting our economy... all the money we have wasted in Iraq and no one can say when we will get out... No one knows what will happen if we pull out, its a typical Republican move to scare the people that if we pull out it will be chaos, but no one really knows, I say we have been there long enough, spent enough money, lost enough American lives, that it is time to leave... otherwise be more specific.. when you don't do this you get what's gonna happen once Barack gets elected, we will pull out... You are right about one thing, the American name is tarnished, your worried about further damage, wake up the damage is already done... comparing Iraq to Germany and Japan is laughable... I cannot even comment on the audacity of that comparison... Colluson between the government and big business has a name, its called Fascism, let's be honest here... I don't want the government and business wiretapping my conversations with anyone.. I doesn't matter whether we are at war or not.. these companies knowingly broke the law and they should be subject to lawsuits... Just as Nixon wanted to take over Steel plants during vietnam, except now we have big business who have ties to the government and they see a win win situation for both if they work together... There was already an exisiting law if the president wanted to wiretap americans, the secret FISA court, but Bush decided that that took too long, so he acted like a monarch fascist and colluded with big business to compial data on citizens who are not terrorits.. a very dangerous circumstance in any free society... I don't see a problem with talking to our enemies, why not... ignoring them definately does not help, so why not talk to them, that would be better than no talking to them and just bullying them into submission, or if that doesn't work I suppose we can just invade and occupy like a good colonial power... There is a real terrorist threat out there I'm not naive to think there isn't, why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia after 9-11? Almost all the hijackers where from there, hmmmm i wonder why we havn't caught Bin Laden too? He's supposed to be enemy # 1, when you say one thing and then do other things that make no sense, like invading and occupying a country that posed no threat to us, then don't be surprised if people are suspect of your claims and your fear mongering surrounding the terrorist threat posed to this country... People aren't as dumb, or scared, as you would like them to be... Trade and immigrants, I want to round up all the ILLEGAL immigrants, why can't we do it? We should protect the people who came into this country the correct way and if you fail to offer any consequences for doing illegal actions that is not a good message to send to people.. if nothing happens to illegals then you are saying f*ck the law... NAFTA has hurt our economy, it is common sense, if big business can pay people less money someone else, such as China or Mexico, its common sense they will act on it, it will make their bottom line, and themselves more money... its not that hard of a concept... Free trade is a disaster for this country... I want to protect American workers, I don't want to lower the wage of the American worker which NAFTA ultimately does... again its business vs. the will of the people... Trade is good, free trade does not help America... Poverty gives us terrorists so to simply dismiss this as a soft issue is to simply be out of touch with reality, if we are serious about defeating hate and terror we need to address poverty... Obama's policies are exactly what we need and are closer to what the majority of Americans are seeking whether you like it or want to admit it or not... that's why he is so popular... I think that you, along with many if office, have lost touch with the people... the people are sick of pro business policies and are sick of old school foreign policy... the time for change is here, the time for change is now, vote for Obama

Dee,

For the sake of reading your posts, I would ask that you make use of paragraphs.

As far as the country becoming more liberal, I don't see where you can say that. The GOP controlled both houses back in 2000, and won the presidency. and Bush was re-elected in 2004. Sure, the dems made some gains in 2006, but that's the ONLY gain that they made during one of the most contentious presidencies in my lifetime. The fact of the matter is that the dems are not a lock for the presidency in 2008, and the fact that my post illicited a large blurb from you proves that. The only reason why Dems stand a good chance this year is because of widespread dissatisfaction of Bush and anything associated. But there has been no widespread rejection of the GOPs core principles. In fact, the largest gripe most people have about the GOP these days is that they cannot trust them to carry out the GOP platform (as the GOP failed to do when they controlled both houses, etc).

I really don't see how you can seriously claim an ongoing decline of republicanism, and you've not done anything to prove it in your post other than to make the claim.

As far as tax cuts, you'd be right if there were only very rich people and very poor people. But there aren't. The IRS considers people rich even if they are middle class. Most people living in larger cities such as New York know exactly what I am talking about. What would be considered a "rich" salary in Idaho is barely getting by in NYC. Yet the IRS does not make such differenciations. So when Obama is talking about taxing the rich, he isn't talking about millionaires, he is talking about working class families in larger cities too. And these people do vote.

As far as Iraq, you didn't really read what I was saying about judgement.

And I think we do know what will happen if we leave Iraq. Since comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam abound on the left, after we retreated from Vietnam, 2 million died. You can choose not to acknowledge that, or not care and that's fine. Withdrawal is certainly an option that should be debated on it's merits (although i think we've had the debate before). However, Obama was not being honest when he suggested that we would end the war there by simply leaving.

Lest I remind you, in the years following WWII, many thought that it was audacious to suggest we could ever be on good terms with Germany or Japan, and many thought that they would never recover. These days Germany is the 3rd largest economy in the world, with Japan in 2nd to the US in first place. For someone who follows a leader proposing the audacity of hope, you sure seem to be lacking both.

As far as attacking saudi arabia, come on now, you are just being silly. Even more silly considering your anti iraq stance. Would you really support a war against SA, one of our allies, even though they are one of our best allies in the war on terror? You are starting to show a lack of knowledge.

And NAFTA hasn't hurt American jobs. The growing global economy has changed the playing field. NAFTA tried to acknowledge this. You can debate this all you like, but bear in mind Democratic President Clinton supported NAFTA, and rightfully so. I would suggest clicking the link to the alan greenspan article and giving that a serious read.

As far as people being sick of pro-business policies, I don't think I buy that, most people with JOBS appreciate pro-business policies. And given the unemployment rates, most people in this country have jobs.

You may not like pro-business ideas, but that would put you in a decidedly anti-american position. I hope other readers see your posts for what they are.

One more thing Dee:

" if we are serious about defeating hate and terror we need to address poverty"

This is the biggest load of horse**** i've ever heard.

For one, poverty has always existing in the middle east, yet the history of terror attacks is relatively new.

For another, who we elect President won't change the type of despotic regimes in the middle east, and it's these people who are the cause of poverty in the middle east.

But most importantly of all, I'd like you to show me ONE INSTANCE where government, and not business, ever helped anyone out of poverty.

This country is one of the richest in the world, and even our poor are rich by global standards. This wasn't by luck, and it's not because of government. It's precisely because of our capitalism based society that allows and promotes people to try and make something of themselves, which in turn has a positive impact on the rest of society. The great economic cycle, etc.

Some of these concepts you suggest makes me wonder whether you've read or respect the constitution that this great country is based on.

Actually, I don't have to wonder.

As you point out, you are unlikely to agree with the policies of any liberal Democrat. So I'm not sure what the purpose of this long-winded piece actually is.

If a Democrat or a genuine political independent [you don't qualify, sorry; name the last 3 Dems you voted for for anything] wrote an essay about Obama's policies, that would be worth discussing and debating. You're just preaching to the choir, off-key though you may be.

And PS - the reason that I and others often avoid "debating" you on here is that you don't debate at all. You just restate your position, endlessly, in circles. Conversations like that are just meaningless - certainly no one's mind is going to be changed or enriched by them.

"As you point out, you are unlikely to agree with the policies of any liberal Democrat. So I'm not sure what the purpose of this long-winded piece actually is"

It's not really that long, but clearly too long for you to read given the question of the purpose of this article. Here is an excerpt from the article:

The candidate's stance on the issues have not been widely discussed so this article will dissect Obama's positions.

and another:

I hope that this article helps get the discussion back on track about what the candidates are saying they'd actually do, rather than simply how they make us feel when they give a speech. Now that would be a real change.

You are doing yourself a disservice by responding to articles you haven't bothered to read.


"If a Democrat or a genuine political independent [you don't qualify, sorry; name the last 3 Dems you voted for for anything]"

Voted for Clinton and Gore in 2000...

"wrote an essay about Obama's policies, that would be worth discussing and debating. You're just preaching to the choir, off-key though you may be."

Off-key how exactly? Why exactly isn't Obama's policies not worth debating?

"And PS - the reason that I and others often avoid "debating" you on here is that you don't debate at all. You just restate your position, endlessly, in circles. Conversations like that are just meaningless - certainly no one's mind is going to be changed or enriched by them."

What does me have to do with your doing anything? Do you deny the points in the article, do you deny that Obama is an extreme liberal posing as a moderate?

I've never stopped you from making your case in response. Blaming me for your inability to refute these valid points that I raise is putting your position on a very slim reed indeed. And I am just some blogger on some website. If your support of Obama can't withstand the scrutiny of some guy like the Obnoxious American, how do you expect hang in the general? By calling out your opponents voting records?

We have Dee in here on the one hand arguing about the need to resolve poverty and at the same time against free trade - a total paradox in views belying a lack of understanding of them, and you chastising me instead of the points I made. I guess my article on Obama has some merit afterall.

I don't like paragraphs dude, so read it if you want or don't... i don't care... I don't expect you to realize that the country is becomming more liberal, as I said, people like you and most republicans are so out of touch they can't see the winds changing, but it is no doubt... You can't understand why people are supporting such a tax and spend liberal (as you call him) like Obama, it is simply because they like his policies, his liberal policies, better than the conservative alternative... Its not only about his speeches, but they help... I again disagree, if you think old man McCain will beat the Democrat in the election, short of the electronic voting machines being rigged, you are in for a big suprise... no way in hell a republican is going to be elected the next president... The only people complaining about the GOP not carrying out their so called platform and the social conservatives.. and let's be honest, these people are crazy... pretty much everyone else is fed up with Republican rule, republicans included.. its not to say they like Democrats either, most people are becoming independents, realizing that both parties are bought off by corporate lobbyists that do not represent the will of the people... I'm not going to offer any proof to this claim but simply will say, I told you so... I would again disagree, we are moving towards a rich poor society... I see this, you do not... the tax cuts went primarily to people making over $150K a year, i don't care where you live, Idaho, New York, California, people who make that much money are living comfortably... I acknowledg that 2 million died in Vietname after we left, but it was inevitable, we interferred in a civil war, there has to be a winner whether we delay it for 13 years or not... I care about American lives, and too many were lost in Vietnam for nothing, and too many are being lost in Iraq again for nothing... History lesson, we were aware that the Versailles treaty helped in creating WWII, therefore we didn't make that mistake again after WWII, we decided that we would help these countries get back on their feet instead of making them pay for the war... to try to compare WWII to Iraq is absolutely insane... Saudi Arabia, all I'm saying is let's attack the people who attacked us, you can't deny the fact that most of the hijackers were form there... maybe if that is the type of ally you want, you enjoy them, I can't see how they can be viewed as an ally if there citizens attacked us... you can try to ignore that all you want... I know president Clinton gave us NAFTA, that's one reason why I don't want his wife to be president, because NAFTA has hurt American workers... you may beleive the global economy is an unstoppable force I disagree with that assessment... I have a job and I hate pro business policies so there... Low unemployment is great, but there comes a time to deal with wages, a job with a low wage is as shitty as being unemployed, which gets back to the global economy and NAFTA, you know those things that you claim are good for the American worker... And finally, I love American, what I hate is what the Republicans are doing to the country and what their policies and values are doing to the American people... to claim because I'm not pro business that I must be anti-american is again to show how out of touch you really are...

Dee

You can't be anti capitalism and still love America. I mean perhaps you love the land this country sits on, and thats great, but the principles of this country are built on the concept of freedom, and freedom only works hand in hand with capitalism.

I'd like to see you provide a single example of a truly free people who have no poverty, and all of the opportunities we have, in an environment that is anti business. It simply does not exist.

You bring up the tired special interest argument that Obama loves to talk about. His favorite, the lobbyists, who write their checks to help Exxon, who then banks record profits... yeah I've heard the whole rigamarole. Isn't moveon.org a special interest? Isn't huffingtonpost.com a lobbyist? This is how our government works, and it makes sense that people lobby politicians. That's not to say we shouldn't clean out the bad lobbying, and the resulting earmarking and other nonsense. We should. But don't pretend for a second the problem is that we have lobbyist. That's a nonsensical sound byte of an argument if I ever heard one.

As far as attacking SA, yes, most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia as was Osama bin Laden. Did you know that OBL and Al Qaeda hate the Saudis? Back when Saddam was threatening all of it's neighbors before the Gulf War, the Saudi's rejected Osama's request to assemble his jihadist warriors against Saddam. The Saudis chose the US to help them instead, which prompted the creation of US bases there. OBL was outraged that the Saudis would work with the infidel Americans and has ever since been plotting the Saudi Royal Fam overthrow.

And we should attack the Saudis why? I am not saying they are a pefect ally, they are far from it. Among many problems with them, they teach anti-semetic views in school, which bothers me greatly because I am Jewish.

Interestingly, this turn's Obama's claim of the bush admin not talking to it's enemies on it's head. This is an example of the Bush admin actually talking to enemies and getting the most out of them. Obviously, the Sauds are much more willing to be open to our requests than the Iranians, and thus we talk to them. The same offer is on the table for Iran or North Korea, and they know this.

I think it's yet another paradox to suggest we go to war against the Sauds, but it's bad to go against Iraq. Another paradox, to suggest we should talk with our enemies, but then chastise us because of relations with the Sauds. How do you respond to these contradictions?

As far as this country becoming more liberal, perhaps, but there is a pattern in American politics of people becoming more of one, then another. It's a pendulum. Perhaps it is swinging in the liberal direction. But that's not going to stop me from publishing articles such as this exposing the platforms of these candidates for what they are - orthodox liberalism.

You can be pro capitalism and still find UNREGULATED capitalism anti american.

Or have you actually READ "The Wealth of Nations"?

Capitalism requires liberal democracy to function.

And the other way around. I am not saying we should have completely unregulated capitalism. Certainly anti-trust and monopoly regulation have been invaluable, as have been labor laws, and a myriad of other government regulations.

But what Obama is suggesting turns the idea of capitalism on it's head. The government is here to support business, not the other way around. The "Government" is really us. And what do we need? Jobs so we can have homes and food and raise families and have the cycle repeat with better results in each incarnation. This has worked great for hundreds of years in this country and will continue, unless we decide that business and jobs are secondary to the operations of the government (as Obama is proposing in not so few words).

Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime. Obama is just talking about handouts, at the expense of people who do work and work hard to get to where they are. Take away the benefit of working hard, and we are living in soviet era russia.

And BTW, Aaron, I find you despicable, if at least a very good shot...

I can be anti capitalist and still love America because that is exactly what I am... so you can think that that's not possible but I am a living example of it... its funny to me that you can't even bring yourself to beleive that someone may be like that... to claim freedom is somehow entrenched with capitalism is insane... people can be free without capitalism... I never claimed that poverty and free people do not exist together, I'm speaking out against poverty, poverty is a huge moral disgrace for the richest country in the world, you are obviously pro business which is fine, I am not, I think poverty should be addressed before pro business ideals... I'm not sure what you are talking about with that one... to me it makes no sense that pro business people lobby politicians, they lobby for things that go against the will of the people, and in short benefit themselves and the ones accepting the money only, all lobbyist should be destroyed and banned from corrupting the government... You may be content with a government that acts like this, I am not, I don't think that it is a system that cannot be changed with of course the will of the people... Let's talk American foreign policy shall we, we supported Saddam against Iran, we funded OSBL against the Russians, how far do you want to go back... our foreign policy makes absolutely no sense, we are all over the place, why? because we are only worried about oil... don't pretend like we give a shit about anyone in the Middle East, anyone will be a ally of ours if they succum to what we want.. our foreign policy is f*cked up and needs an overhaul badly... I don't think we should act like God's gift to the world and claim that the only way we will talk to you is if you do what we want, it is an old school way of thinking, a way of thinking that needs to be changed... All I'm saying is that if we are serious about addressing the so called terrorist threat why not attack the people who attacked us? Iraq didn't attack us now did they? Why havn't we caught Osama? Your free to publish whatever you want, that's the beauty of a free country, Freedom of the Press... I don't want to stop you from laying out your case at all but I also have the freedom to respond to your negative attacks on Liberal positions and or liberal candidates... A liberal America is on its way once Barack gets elected so get ready...

Dee,

You are sliding off the deep end my friend. I'm not saying it's not possible to hold conflicting viewpoints. My point is that they are conflicting. You love America and hate business. OK I believe that's true. But that means you don't really understand America, or what you love about America is not it's founding principles of freedom. Which is why I suggested perhaps you love the land America sits on. Bottom line, you absolutely have a right to hold a position at odds with it self as well as a position that makes no sense. And I have the right to point it out.

It's funny how you talk badly about our being an ally with Saddam back in the eighties or once supporting OBL, then chastise Bush for not having more direct relations with our enemies in Iran or North Korea. I'm confused, do you support negotiations with our enemies or not?

Believe it or not, things change over time, people who are friends sometimes become enemies and vice versa. Are you suggesting that our foriegn policy not reflect the real situation in the world?

And sorry to inform you but the verdict is long in, in terms of being gods gift. I agree that we should not conduct this country from a position of hubris, but when it comes to what's right, I'd much rather the US, and no one else, be in the position of super power.

Dee, I've never said you can't respond. I am happy you responded and welcome your thoughts. To be quite honest, you are providing quite the fodder for me to show the faults in the common liberal mind set. I can only hope that some will read this and gain some enlightenment.

Between the loghorrea [bloghorrea?] of Dee and TOA, this thread will surely set some kind of record for number of words per post. Not a record to envy.

Handyguy,

Here are the stats thus far:

Posts complaining about the lack of brevity: 2
Posts talking about the points raised in the article: 0

Total posts: 2

:>

Capitalism isn't anyplace in the founding of the US constitution, and in fact was invented in the 19th century. The founders were inventors, farmers and small entrepeneurs, not amassers of capital.

The Constitution DOES contain protections for private property, extending to about the reach of your arm, but the excessive notions of modern Capitalism are foreign to the ideas of The founders. And modern capitalists are as abusive of private property as any communist, witness the seizure of private property through imminent domain for private uses.

Offhand, I'd guess that The Foundrs would be shocked at modern notions of the rights of Capitalism, including the peculiar notion of Cporporate Personage which is so easily and obviously abused for bribing public officials. YMMV.

Bliffle,

You are vastly understating the framers position. The right to own and protect your own property is one of the main and undisputed rights. The constitutional's lack of spelling out our rights is because it's supposed to be inclusive, not exclusive. Meaning, the assumption starts with the right, and what's written can only modify that right. Hence Hamilton's exception to the creation of the bill of rights - here is a quote from wikipedia on the topic:

"The idea of adding a bill of rights to the constitution was originally controversial because the constitution, as written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people, rather it listed the powers of the government and left all that remained to the states and the people. Alexander Hamilton, the author of Federalist No. 84, feared that such an enumeration, once written down explicitly, would later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had"

Freedom without capitalism is like eating without food. And no one has responded to my challenge to identify one nation, where the people are free and prosperous, and where capitalism is shunned.

I wanted to just point out two things:

How clearly Hamilton saw things from the vantage point of two decades ago is nothing short of amazing. Federalist #10 could not be more about the state of the country today.

And one other obvious point, to suggest capitalism was "invented in the 19th century" is quite possibly the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Ever heard of the bartering cavemen? I'm willing to offer you a mulligan on that one just because I like you bliffle...

a couple of corrections, centuries, not decades, and it was early man who bartered, not sure if that's the same as cavemen, but you get the point.

Obnoxious; you said:
Balancing the government's budget deficit is good business, but this has no meaningful impact on the nation's economy.
My response: Not true. The US government has to borrow that money, which put them in competition with citizens and, affects the interest rate. The interest rate is based on supply and demand, just like everything else. So, with how ever many trillion of government debt is that many trillion of credit that would be available to citizens. And, the the cost of interest on that debt is a fair slice of the federal budget every year that we would not have to pay in taxes.

That does not address the worst part of the issue which is the fact of where the money comes from to borrow: Who has that kind of money to lend on long-term basis in todays' world? You should be able figure that out.

There are glimmers of honesty and compassion in Sen. Obama which flare much more brightly than in Sen. Clinton. He seems far more likely to attempt to work by consensus than she does, and he seems more likely to diminish the racial divide in the U.S. Nor, unlike Sen. Clinton, does he inspire high levels of fear and hatred.

Substantive policies aside -- and his somewhat diaphanous policies as thus far articulated don't seem so very different from those of Sen. Clinton -- it seems to me that he would be a better president than she would. Substantive policies chosen for debate during election periods tend to be ephemeral anyway and to be covered in the press by short sound bites attractive to "one issue" voters. Of course, some of those policies will remain important long after the election but many will not; there will be new problems to face, largely unanticipated now or even in November. To face them, one must look to character and ability to build a policy consensus. At the moment, Sen. Obama seems to have a better chance than does Sen. Clinton.

Will I vote for Sen. Obama? I don't know. I have voted against several Democrats, but never for one. I have voted for many Republicans but never against one. This time, much depends on who is Sen. Obama's running mate and who is the Republican VP candidate. Like many people, I find the thought of Sen. Clinton as president (or president - in - waiting) abhorrent and very, very frightening. I don't feel -- and feel is the proper adjective here -- that way about Obama.

In the final analysis, I suspect that most voters go more on feel than on a very difficult rational analysis.

Dan

as they say in the old country - Es ist schmutzig Arbeit, aber jemand muss es tun :

'noxious - you say: *...to suggest capitalism was "invented in the 19th century" is quite possibly the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Ever heard of the bartering cavemen?*

and this has to be the most idiotic thing I've read in days - ! - by equating capitalism with barter you've stripped the concept of all significant meaning

and here: *You can't be anti capitalism mercantile and still love America.* ... fixed it for ya

Jamminsue,

I never said that the government's budget deficit isn't important or that it didn't have impacts. It does. However, only in a small way. Investment inducing, or savings inducing tax cuts might on the face look like a reduction in income for the government, but if they help the economy overall, they can have a very positive effect on taxes collected by the government.

Yes, I am suggesting that cutting taxes increases government revenue, and helps the economy, all at the same time. That's if it's done right of course. The tax cuts Obama is suggesting are not actually tax cuts if the people receiving them are not paying taxes in the first place. That's actually called a handout, and all that does is increase dependency on government assistance, see my comments earlier about teaching a man to fish...

The bottom line - the economy won't be any better because of a balanced budget and in my opinion, it would suffer under the policies of Obama.


Dan,

I thought your post was interesting and thoughtful. I am not sure who would be a better choice for president. I am really not fond of her health care plan (as noted in previous articles), but she does have the benefit of a husband with 8 years of experience. And despite the "party line" of experience not meaning a whole lot - I disagree, it does mean a lot. In fact, the more I look at Obama's platform, the more I am realizing just how much experience matters.

That said, let's not forget the choice isnt between Hillary or Obama, McCain is in there too. I've made no secret of my support of McCain. People may think he is the long shot, but they were saying that about him winning the primary back in December. Remember all those articles about how broke he was? He had to take out a bank loan...

If we really are talking about a true change candidate, and someone willing to reach across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion, then by every metric I can think of, that's McCain and not Obama. Not at all.

And I know the media can't stop talking about the GOP divide on McCain. It's yet another left wing paradox that the GOP is supposedly divided on their candidate, even though he has the delegates pretty much in the bag. Meanwhile the harmonious dems are in a 50/50 bitter split between an egomaniac and a nube who gives great speech. Interesting times.

Troll,

Here's a quote from wiki on Capitalism:

"Capitalist economic practices became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, although some features of capitalist organization existed in the ancient world, and early forms of merchant capitalism flourished during the Middle Ages.[3][4] "

I mean if you want to pretend that I am wrong that's all fine and good. I really don't care.

ya - but you've sidestepped my point...not that I care either

Did I? Not at all. This guy says capitalism was "invented" which by itself is wrong. He said it was invented in the 19th century which is wrong.

Is bartering the same kind of capitalism that we have today? I don't think I was ever saying that, but it's a system of good or services in exchange for other goods and services.


See, when people suggest that something is an invention, there is a suggestion that it's unnatural. To me, the idea of buying and selling goods and services is something that comes naturally to man. It's part of the inherent sense of fairness. They've done tests on certain primates that show they too have a sense of the exchange of one item of value for another. That early man bartered proves much more about what systems naturally work best for man. Capitalism is just an extension of those early days of bartering. But bartering was one of the early basis' of capitalism.

If you want to get into a debate of words with me about the differences of bartering systems and capitalism, that's your business. I think anyone reading this understands that bartering represents a subset of the full suite of what we call capitalism today.

On the other hand, what is not natural to man is communism or to a lesser degree, socialism. Why? Because when there is no incentive to work, work does not get done. And when you have a communist or socialist society, the people running the society (someone needs to be in charge) invariably take advantage of their position. You can see both of these problems manifest themselves to some degree in every failed socialism and capitalism.

At the end of the day, we are not worker bees. We are individual people, we yearn to be free, and to truly be free, we need to be able to engage in enterprises of our choosing, and bring to those enterprises a new view, or an additional value. Our worth in society should be based on what we bring to it. This, and not the Bush Tax Cuts, is what makes people rich. We shouldn't be in the practice of letting the value a person brings to society turn into a burden for that person.

"Obnoxious. . . " You wrote,

"she does have the benefit of a husband with 8 years of experience. And despite the "party line" of experience not meaning a whole lot - I disagree, it does mean a lot. In fact, the more I look at Obama's platform, the more I am realizing just how much experience matters."

Obviously, as you also point out, the choice will be between Sen. Clinton OR Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain. That's a given. However, right now the important question is whether the Democrat candidate will be Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama. Once that is known, we will be in a better position to decide between the Democrat candidate and Sen. McCain.

As to experience, I tend to agree with those who credit her with lots of experience, most of it the wrong kind and much of it linked to the reasons so many people despise her and her husband. As to the "benefit" of a husband who was president for eight years -- what an eight years. Greed, corruption, untruth, lust for power and a whole lot of other disagreeable things.

President Truman, whom I admire more than any other president during my lifetime had lots of experience in politics and in the Senate. He grew up with the Democrat machine and, ultimately, pretty much turned on it. At the end of his presidency, with an approval rating in the low twenties, he would have been envious of President Bush's current popularity.

The presidency is a very different experience from any other. As I recall, Vice President Truman had one (1) meeting alone with President Roosevelt between the 1944 election and President Roosevelt's death; he was kept unaware of the Manhattan project until he became president. His useful experience in the White House was nonexistent. He was shunned by President Roosevelt's inner circle (and managed to get rid of most of them after he assumed office). He was there, like Sen. Clinton, but was not involved in the dirty work and cover ups as she was. As commented above, I don't credit much of Sen. Clinton's experience. On balance, President Truman did a very good job in very difficult circumstances. After WWII, through his Secretary of War (or was it then of Defense -- I don't remember) Johnson, he cut defense spending to the bone and then some, leaving us in bad shape for the Korean Conflict. BUT -- he recognized his mistake and did his best to correct it.

Recognizing and acknowledging mistakes is not one of Sen. Clinton's strong points. Nor, do I think, is her vicarious experience through her husband, President Clinton.

Dan

so 'noxious - any *system of good or services in exchange for other goods and services* is capitalism as you use the word...hardly any point in continuing to use it then

and it's ridiculous propaganda to claim that capitalism is the 'natural' result of economic interaction imo

Troll,

Are you serious? Do you want me to reiterate again that bartering is a subset of what capitalism is today?

Look, I guess you are right, and wikipedia and everyone else who disagrees with you is somehow mysteriously wrong.

Dan,

I never said I would vote for Clinton. I agree that the Clinton years were fraught with issues, but overall the country came out of it OK. This is because while Bill Clinton was a victim of his own compulsion, he also didn't try to change this country into a socialism. Well he did initially, but when everyone (including dems) smacked down hillary care, he wised up.

Economically, President Clinton received kudos from Alan Greenspan, with Mr. Greenspan saying that he was the best conservative president that he worked with.

On foreign policy, he tried. I disagreed with the whole yassir arafat coddling, but at the end of that process, he wised up then too.

I am by no means defending the Clinton presidency. But the fact is Clinton did not represent a real threat to the ideals this country is based on - at the end of his term of these very important issues, he did alright.

Reading Obama's populist platform is kind of scary for someone who believes in the underlying concepts of this country. Hillary too. Both candidates are leaning extreme left. Difference being Obama is truly a liberal, while Hillary just plays one on TV. All this said, I am voting McCain in November.

Dan,

One other thing, I do agree with your point, no one is every truly experienced. I think from term to term, the experience, the skills needed change. How can you possibly have the experience necessary for that? I don't think you can.

But I am really talking about a different kind of experience, almost a worldly wisdom. For example, Obama's change rhetoric sounds refreshing. But I can guaruntee that it drives hillary mad, because Obama probably reminds her of a younger, more idealistic version of herself, but with a much better talking game. And it's this type of experience that I'm talking about. Idealism, naivete, and a lot of power is a very bad combination, and that's the combination we end up with with a President Obama.

*Do you want me to reiterate again that bartering is a subset of what capitalism is today?* - and it is a subset of every economic system of exchange to date and it will be a subset of communism come the revolution...your bartering cavemen were not engaged in some sort of proto-capitalism despite your creation myth

There is no trade in a true communism. Everything is owned by everyone, and by the same token, no one. But ok sure, whatever you say...

once again showing your poor grip on this subject

unless you think that communism is going to do away with consumption it will have to involve exchange as ownership and possession are not the same thing by necessity...but then your argument is that all exchange is capitalism so communism is just a jub jub bird to scare the children with

but as you say: "ok sure, whatever you say..."

Obnoxious,

I think we agree more than we disagree.

My focus in these posts has been on Sen. Clinton vs. Sen. Obama. When we know who the Democrat candidate is (and conceivably it may be neither, not likely but possible, I suppose) I will decide between him or her and Sen. McCain.

The Republic has survived some pretty horrible presidents. I think it could survive either Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain and probably even Sen. Clinton. However, survival is not quite enough. The country is already excessively polarized, and with Sen. Clinton in office that problem would only get worse.

Based on recent polls (reliable polls is an oxymoron), I get the sense that Sen. McCain doesn't have a chance against Sen. Obama and only a slightly better chance against Sen. Clinton. Unfortunately, we have to consider the possibility that either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama will win the election. As between the two, I much prefer Sen Obama, warts and all, to Sen. Clinton.

If you ever get down south, to the mountains of the Republic of Panama, come for a visit. We will toast whomever gets elected with some great Panamanian rum.

Dan

Obnoxious,

Just one more point on experience:

Look at how the campaigns for Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama have been run. Despite her "experience," Sen. Clinton has run a pretty miserable campaign. Despite his inexperience, Sen. Obama has run a pretty successful campaign. From an upstart with no chance, he now has more delegates than Senator Clinton. The inevitable winner, Sen. Clinton, seems to be less and less the choice of the party.

Much of a president's success in office depends upon whom he selects as his advisers, from Cabinet members down -- and, of course on his personal charisma. Sen. Clinton, thus far and despite her "experience," has done poorly. Is there any reason to anticipate that she will pick better advisers or demonstrate more charisma as president? I rather doubt it.

Dan

Ah, who cares about policies? I just want me some HOPE and CHANGE!

Exactly! We can always 'Hope' terrorism goes away and the budget balances itself and Iraq won't go into chaos and just 'Change' Iran and N. Korea's minds about the nuclear issues.

Obama is right that our system of taxes is unfair, but he is wrong about who it's unfair to. Americans who are in the top 50% of earners pay over 96% of all income taxes.

This figure is correct. But you, too, are wrong about to whom the tax system is unfair.

The top 10% of American earners control 90% of all the wealth in this country.

Thus the problem isn't that the top 50 percent pay too much in taxes...it's that the top 10 percent pay too little.

If you reshuffled the numbers so that the top 10 percent of earners paid 90 percent of the taxes, then the next 40 percent of earners paid 6 percent of the taxes, why, then, the 96% of the taxes that that 50% of the earners paid, would be absolutely fair.

The top 10% of American earners control 90% of all the wealth in this country.

There's a flaw in your reasoning, Michael. We don't tax WEALTH, we tax INCOME. If we tax wealth we tax the same assets over and over and over again which is grossly unfair.

I agree that taxation should be proportional to earnings. Obviously the top earners should pay a LOT more taxes than those who earn less. But they should not pay more out of each dollar they earn just because they earn more.

Dave

"Idealism, naivete, and a lot of power is a very bad combination, and that's the combination we end up with with a President Obama."
- Obnoxious American

So is that worse than GW Bush's combination of Desertion, lying (WMDs) and a lot of power?

Dee writes: There is a real terrorist threat out there I'm not naive to think there isn't, why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia after 9-11? Almost all the hijackers where from there, hmmmm i wonder why we havn't caught Bin Laden too? He's supposed to be enemy # 1, when you say one thing and then do other things that make no sense, like invading and occupying a country that posed no threat to us, then don't be surprised if people are suspect of your claims and your fear mongering surrounding the terrorist threat posed to this country...

OA answers: As far as attacking saudi arabia, come on now, you are just being silly. Even more silly considering your anti iraq stance. Would you really support a war against SA, one of our allies, even though they are one of our best allies in the war on terror? You are starting to show a lack of knowledge.

Dee, you need to use paragraphs - not because you are writing to entertain yourself, but because, whether you realize it or not, you're writing here to persuade people. On your blog or diary, if you don't ant to use paragraphs, others are free to walk away. This place is a bit different....

Having said that, you are the one with the intelligent point here. OA, you show your own lack of knowledge. The Saudis regard America as an enemy for the same reason that they regard all non-Moslems as enemies. They are not Moslems.

WAKE UP, DUDE!!!

There's a flaw in your reasoning, Michael. We don't tax WEALTH, we tax INCOME.

Yes, Dave, but wealth derives from income. If I have wealth, I have to have received it from somewhere - via some form of income.

1.) I can't decide to vote for McCain until I know who his running mate will be, because of the chance that's who we'll wind up with sometime in the future.

2.) Bush has lots of experience; what good has it been to us?

Rhetoric and bad habit can get in the way even for smart, reasonable people trying to discuss taxes. I'll repeat here a quote from a wonderful NY Times article from last fall called "Plain Truth About Taxes and Cuts" [just read it, it's not a partisan argument]. The cold water of facts sometimes helps in a discussion like this.

A family in that top 1 percent of earners paid a total federal tax rate -- including everything from payroll taxes to income taxes to capital gains taxes -- of 30 percent in 2004. That was down from 41 percent a decade before. Since the 1950s, tax rates on high-income families have generally been falling.

The top earners pay a bigger share of the government tab than in the past because their incomes have risen so sharply -- even more sharply than their tax bills.

I agree with Dan Miller that Obama seems more bipartisan than Clinton. Clinton could say that the sky is blue and get 40 votes against it in the Senate. But if Obama and Clinton have the same agenda, does it matter which one is more divisive?

Obama is running an ad in which he says that he will make health care affordable for everyone by bringing together Democrats and Republicans. Sorry, but you're not going to bring me together for that. Not for higher taxes, retreat, or abortion either. Obama's bipartisanship is the type that says "let's you and I agree I'm right".

I do agree with #14 about Obama seeming more bipartisan than Clinton. However the reason he 'seems' that way is because he hasn't done anything of substance in the Senate. He has played it safe, avoided confrontation and hasn't introduced any major legislation or cast a controversial vote on a bill that would cause rift with Republicans. Hell, he even avoided confrontation in the heavily Democratic IL Senate by casting numerous 'present' votes instead of Yes/No.
Not that I'm a big fan of the Clintons but I have to agree with Bill Clinton when he said that the Illinois senator was promoting a position that it's "actually an advantage to not have any experience because you've not made anybody mad."
So of course Obama seems bipartisan!

Handyguy, if rich people are paying more of my share of the tax burden, then I don't begrudge them having sharply higher earnings.

This was an anticipated effect of the tax cuts.

One other striking feature of the NY Times article was the treatment of corporate taxes by the author. He seems to think corporate taxes should be higher, and that there are too many loopholes in paying them.

Corporate taxes are just an add on. It's passed on to the consumer, just as surely as a sales tax is. The corporations don't actually pay it, they collect it for the government.

Liberals pretend to not understand this. But if you were to argue to them that poor people who rent housing don't pay property taxes, they are quick to point out that the landlord must collect the property tax as an add on to the rent. So obviously they're just being dishonest.

Warren Buffett is likewise misleading when he claims he payed a lesser rate of income tax than his secretary.

Buffett's "income" was from capital gains on investment. Like shares of stock. His corporation doesn't pay him a dime. So he doesn't pay income tax. If his secretary wanted to take some of her earned money and risk it in the market, she would get that same rate.

Obama wants to almost double capital gains tax to 28%.

This article is about the best analysis of Obama policies I've seen so far. Good work obnoxious.

But if Obama and Clinton have the same agenda, does it matter which one is more divisive?

Depends on if you like the agenda.

Dan should read more carefully: The Times article said we should have lower corporate taxes with fewer loopholes, instead of higher rates with lotsa loopholes as we have now.

It also didn't say people made more money because of tax cuts. It said sharply higher incomes led to a higher proportion of total tax revenue from the wealthiest segment of the population. So it's misleading of Obnoxious to complain that the rich are paying too much tax because of higher rates - the rates are lower but the incomes are higher.

It also points out that after the Bush Senior and Clinton tax increases, the 90s were still a long period of economic growth, just as there has been growth since the Bush tax cuts. Meaning the tax hikes and cuts may not be the main thing driving growth or the lack thereof, even though Republicans accept this as unquestioned gospel.

The cause and effect of tax cuts and hikes are not as straightforward as the author of this piece and others would like to believe.

It's also worth remembering that although John McCain gives other reasons now, at the time he said the Bush tax cuts were too slanted toward the rich [as well as an irresponsible reversal of the budget surplus]. And he was right the first time.

Yes, Dave, but wealth derives from income. If I have wealth, I have to have received it from somewhere - via some form of income.

Income also derives from wealth, and wealth certainly doesn't always come from earned income. Wealth can be transferred directly through inheritance or other forms of capital exchange. Wealth can be built directly through investment. It can be created through entrepreneurism and pure hard work which creates an asset which can then be sold. Most large amounts of wealth certainly DO NOT come from simple income.

Dave

The media, the Democrats, and even independents and Republicans have given Obama a free pass on talking about his policy...The candidate's stance on the issues have not been widely discussed so this article will dissect Obama's positions.

This isn't true. So the whole premise of the article is false. Mr. Obnoxious is not the first to note that Obama's campaign is about inspiration rather than policy wonkishness. Hillary Clinton, for one, and nearly all the media, despite OA's claim otherwise, have brought this up several times a day every day since Super Tuesday, and many times before that as well.

One of the reasons for Obama's lack of emphasis on policy specifics is the lack of strong policy differences with HRC herself. Because they are largely in agreement, there isn't much policy to debate. There will be more focus on policy in the general election campaign.

Simply saying: "He's a liberal; I don't like liberals; so he's not going to change me; if he can't change me, he can't change politics or the country" first of all puts too much importance on your own opinions and worldview, and second and most importantly, misses the point:

Obama's ability to inspire people has more to do with appealing to their better nature. He really reaches people. Don't underestimate the genuine power of this - not just to get votes, but to change the country. Certainly there are no guarantees, certainly not in government or politics. But there is excitement in seeing people genuinely moved by a positive message. We can react cynically, or we can hope it leads somewhere good.

You seem to think that in order to accomplish this, Obama has to change his views and become more conservative. A counterexample would be Ronald Reagan: Asked about his individual policies, a majority of Americans often disagreed with them; but they liked him and found him inspirational, and so they went along with the policies. They hadn't suddenly become rabid right-wingers; they were following a strong leader.

The same thing could happen this time with Obama. You won't like it if it does, just as I cringed to see people loving Ronald Reagan. But that won't keep it from happening.

Finally, you ignore the single most important aspect of "Change" in this election:
Either of the leading Democrats will be a sharp change from the current president, eh?

Here are more specific rebuttals to the foreign-policy issues Mr. Obnoxious brings up. Some of this is similar to other comments I've made on Blogcritics, because, well, I was right then too. =)

On Iraq

In the fall, when McCain says he wants to keep combat troops in Iraq, indefinitely, he will be on the losing side of public opinion. When Obama says he will withdraw the troops, he will be on the winning side of public opinion. No, you're not going to agree with him; doesn't matter. Yes, there are serious complications to be considered whether the troops stay or go; but the only equation that counts is Whoever will get us out = wins.


On the Larger War on Terror

First, a smaller point on the wiretapping controversy: the phone companies are being immunized against prosecution, because they broke the law, not just against lawsuits.

And this canard is offensive, and false:
Historically, Americans have given up some liberties in times of war.

I happen to believe that the "War on Terror" is not a war at all; it is a propaganda campaign. Using it as an excuse to subvert the Constitution ought to disturb you if you love this country as much as you say.

And in fact, John McCain is not nearly as keen on curbing Americans' personal liberties or ignoring the rights of non-Americans as you seem to be. He's on record as being strongly anti-torture, and wants to close Guantanamo. No matter who wins in the fall, the next government will have better policies on detainees and Americans' liberties than we have now under Bush.

What the Bush administration has done overall is to alienate moderate Islam [the vast majority] through sins of both omission and commission. If we made a genuine effort to win the hearts and minds of the Islamic world, instead of living up to the worst caricatures of our behavior and policies, there might actually be hope for this.

Think of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the Iraq invasion itself, the USA Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, wireless wiretapping, our continued, uncritical 'friendships' with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and yes, certainly, our one-sided attitude in the Palestinian situation. When moderates in Iran sent an olive branch [pre-Ahmadinejad], Bush ignored it.

If we don't seriously attempt to refute and prove wrong the propaganda of the Islamists, their propaganda will of course win. Obama is more likely to be able to do this successfully than John McCain.

So 9/11 was what, an aberration? Dumb luck?

Not provable or disprovable. But it's beginning to look more and more like that's a possibility, yes. Most of the plots since then have been smaller in scale, only tenuously connected to each other if at all, often incompetent [e.g. Glasgow airport], or in fact mostly imaginary [this includes most of the guys arrested inside the US, like that pitiful crew in Miami].

This did not stop the government from wasting taxpayer money in prosecuting them, or from patting itself on the back for thus "keeping us safe." Pretty nauseating, really.

There is not one convincing case of another US-based plot, one that would ever have succeeded at any rate. If you believe this is because Bush's team are brilliant at law enforcement...well, I have a nice bridge for sale in Brooklyn you'll want to come look at.

Yes, there are fanatics in the world who are willing to do unspeakable, unthinkable things. The question is whether we can actually prevent them from these acts, or whether it makes more sense to reduce the appeal of the fanatics' message and increase the appeal of our own.

By always responding to threats with more threats and with violence and with restriction of civil rights, and by invading countries without good cause, we increase the numbers of alienated young men who hate us and who are open to the ideas of fanatics. We make the world more dangerous, not safer.

I know that you and your fellow militarists and right-wingers will never buy it, but I believe the diplomacy of Obama will make us safer than the militarism of McCain.

Historically, Americans have given up some liberties in times of war.

Well now, that's a dangerous syllogism. It might lead an unscrupulous person desiring dictatorial power to use any means, lying, cheating, dissembling, etc., to create a war just to gain power.

Say, you don't suppose...

Handyguy,
On your point about Iraq, if you really believe any Democrat will withdraw troops right away as they promise to do - you'll be in for a rude awakening. It would be political suicide to do so as well as serious threats to the security of Iraq and hence the broader middle east.

I have a great article for you to read by David Brooks of the New York Times. Search for the article on NYtimes.com (titled 'When Reality Bites' dated Feb 08,2008).

To quote an important point from that article:

"But if either (Clinton or Obama) of them actually did that (withdraw troops), he or she would instantly make Iraq the consuming partisan fight of their presidency.

There would be private but powerful opposition from Arab leaders, who would fear a return to 2006 chaos. There would be irate opposition from important sections of the military, who would feel that the U.S. was squandering the gains of the previous year.

A Democratic president with few military credentials would confront outraged and highly photogenic colonels screaming betrayal.

There would be furious opposition from Republicans and many independents. They would argue that you can't evacuate troops just as Iraqis are about to hold national elections and tensions are at their highest.

They would point out that it's insanity to end local reconstruction and Iraqi training efforts just when they are producing results. They would accuse the new administration of reverse-Rumsfeldism, of ignoring postsurge realities and of imposing an ideological solution on a complex situation.

All dreams of changing the tone in Washington would be gone. All of Obama's unity hopes would evaporate. And if the situation did deteriorate after a quick withdrawal, as the National Intelligence Estimate warns, the bloodshed would be on the new president's head."


And as for your point on the war on terror, it is dangerously naive and idealistic (much like Obama).

Until you and Obama convince Osama and Hezbollah and others to give up their arms I would like their phones and emails monitored.

I'd also like Iran to know that the military option is on the table and I would like 'the fluke' (as you claim it is) of us not having been attacked in more than 6 years to continue.

I don't know about you but I just feel safer that way.

"Dan should read more carefully: The Times article said we should have lower corporate taxes with fewer loopholes, instead of higher rates with lotsa loopholes as we have now."

Actually, I stated this interpretation in my comment.

After explaining why corporate taxes are an add on passed down to the consumer, I didn't think further comment was necessary.

"Loopholes" is just a word to mislead readers to believe corporations are sneaking income past tax collecters, when really it is usually just a common and justifiable write off for research, expansion, and developement. Good things that increase employment, lower costs, and improve products.

The Times article is bogus.

Your saying that a thoughtful, fact-filled, non-partisan article is bogus just exposes your own bias.

Krutic:
I read the David Brooks article and it makes a good point, although assuming that this is exactly what will happen requires a degree of clairvoyance that you, I and Mr. Brooks all lack.

My point was that Obama's position on Iraq is the most likely to win votes in the fall election.

And calling my position on terrorism naive is the easy way out. Where are the terrorist plots inside the US? Why have the ones that have been "prevented" turned out to be so puny or even just fantasies? Why isn't it a good idea to try addressing the reasons so many others in the world [not just Muslims] fear and despise us? Maybe insisting on militarism at the expense of good sense is the real naivete.

Handyguy, I read the article, found fault with it, and explained why.

If that makes me biased, then I prefer to remain that way until my criticism's are countered.

You only repeated an opinion you had already set in concrete, in your completely non-open mind, about corporate taxes, which is maybe a fifth or less of the article [written by David Leonhardt, who has been writing excellent pieces on economics in the Times for 8 years]. You do not directly refute anything in the article. You just call the whole thing bogus. Then you pretend to be surprised that anyone would call you on it.

I have watched you pull this "I'm just being reasonable and logical" bit before, when the subject was gay marriage. Then as now, the real subject is your own narrow range of knowledge and opinion, and your utter intolerance for anything outside that range.

What the F are you yacking about OA? Put something resembling a point in the first page for god's sake. I have better things to do than read more than one full page of nonsense!

Yay, CindyD is back! Although you have been more eloquent in the past. Is this the same Cindy?

HEY!!!!

(looking around)

Is this the "Official Obama Hit Piece" site? I gotta couple good ones:

"I went to an Obama rally and it was just like a religious revival meeting! But this is the first time that Jesus himself spoke!"

BA DING


"We have two democratic candidates for president. On is from New York and was born in Illinois, the other is from Illinois and was born in a manger".

BA DA BING

"I have watched you pull this "I'm just being reasonable and logical" bit before, when the subject was gay marriage. Then as now, the real subject is your own narrow range of knowledge and opinion, and your utter intolerance for anything outside that range."

The subject then wasn't just "gay marriage" anymore than the subject now is just taxes.

If you can't counter the arguments, or even seperate the issues, then your charge of my "intolerance" or "narrow range of knowledge" has little impact.

HandyGuy:

"the candidate's stance on the issues have not been widely discussed so this article will dissect Obama's positions.

This isn't true. So the whole premise of the article is false. "

Handyguy, if you are going to suggest that Obama's policies have been a focus over the last weeks or even days, you are not dealing with reality. This is one of the first if not the first article on BC that talks exclusively about Obama's policies. That alone goes to my point. But the sheer fact that Obama is viewed as a "bi-partisan" candidate goes further to the issue of his policies not really being known by the public.

You need to do more than make a statement with nothing to back it up. Further to wit:

"Simply saying: "He's a liberal; I don't like liberals; so he's not going to change me; if he can't change me, he can't change politics or the country" first of all puts too much importance on your own opinions and worldview, and second and most importantly, misses the point:"

Did I simply say that? Please. This 5 page article goes into depth about why he is a liberal, and picks apart each stance he's taken. I've quoted Obama, I've linked to each issue on his website. If that to you equals me "simply saying: he's a liberal" then let's just stop conversing now.

"Obama's ability to inspire people has more to do with appealing to their better nature. He really reaches people. Don't underestimate the genuine power of this"

This isn't about his ability to inspire (which I acknowledge in the first few paragraphs anyway). This is about the free pass he's gotten on the issues. It's important for people who are inspired by this guy to understand his platform. That's the point of this article. Hitler inspired people too, not that Obama is comparable from a policy standpoint :>.

"You seem to think that in order to accomplish this, Obama has to change his views and become more conservative."

No, I think that for a guy running under the banner of change and bi-partisanship, people don't realize just how liberal this guy really is. It's not just his voting history that's liberal, it's the very stances he is running on in 08. I don't expect Obama to change, but I do expect voters, once given a glimpse of his platforms, to change who they are voting for.


"Finally, you ignore the single most important aspect of "Change" in this election:
Either of the leading Democrats will be a sharp change from the current president, eh?"

I hardly think I missed it. In fact, your comments bely a missing of the point. Not just a change from the current president, but also a change to the long held values of this country that focus on free enterprise, and capitalism, in lieu of some socialism posing as change, from a candidate with scant experience. It's this that I object to. Perhaps he will be elected, perhaps people will love him. I don't question or predict either. THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT POLICIES.

"but the only equation that counts is Whoever will get us out = wins."

OK, that's your position. But you are in the minority. Most Americans do want the war to end, but most Americans also do not want us to just up and leave, and most Americans don't want us leave Iraq a failed state.

Moreover, military experts disagree with YOU whole heartedly. So you and Obama can enjoy your shared views with the rest of the extreme liberal orthodoxy. But don't pretend that your personal axe grinding of Bush and "his" war in Iraq is the same as a real way forward for this country. Nor have you answered the complex issues I raised regarding such a withdrawal, other than to allude to them.


"First, a smaller point on the wiretapping controversy: the phone companies are being immunized against prosecution, because they broke the law, not just against lawsuits.

And this canard is offensive, and false:
Historically, Americans have given up some liberties in times of war."

Right, so the presidential directive of telecom to work with the CIA and NSA in the face of a terrorist threat is plainly against the law? Not really, in fact the president has special wartime powers. I know, I know most dems have forgotten about these powers as a result of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and this isn't a real war anyway right? Continuing on your piece:

"I happen to believe that the "War on Terror" is not a war at all; it is a propaganda campaign. "

Seemed pretty real to me when I looked south and saw the twin towers on fire. This is the most important thing you can say, that you don't believe in the war on terror.

I think that's what seperates you and I, I see a real threat, I want to deal with it. You pretend the threat isn't real, and the Dem talking points chutzpah knows no bounds to suggest that it is me who is operating from a position of fear (see politics of fear). To me, it's not the guy who tries to fight battles that operates from a position of fear, it's the guys who bury their heads in the sand when faced with a threat, and pretend it does not exist...

"Using it as an excuse to subvert the Constitution ought to disturb you if you love this country as much as you say. "

It does, and I mention that in the article. Did you read it? Can you provide a few examples where ordinary American's rights were systematically trashed in the name of the WOT?

"And in fact, John McCain is not nearly as keen on curbing Americans' personal liberties or ignoring the rights of non-Americans as you seem to be."

As I seem to be? Re-read the section. I support McCain, and one of the things I like about him is that he truly is a bi-partisan, as opposed to Obama's faux bi-partisanship. Interesting that you talk about McCain so much, perhaps you should be casting your vote for him in November.

Here is where you really start to lose me:

"What the Bush administration has done overall is to alienate moderate Islam [the vast majority] through sins of both omission and commission."

Look, I won't continue arguing with someone who thinks the US is at root for the whole jihadist mentality of OBL and his ilk. I'm not in the business of making excuses for murderous gangs and criminals. Sure, we've allied where we were not supposed to, sure we've done things that we should not be proud of. So has every single country on this planet. No excuse to blow people up on a bus or fly a plane into a building of civillians.

Fact is, the biggest enemy to moderate Islam is the leaders of these middle eastern countries themselves. And even in cases where the populace was allowed to vote, they chose these very terrorist regimes, belying a whole lot of misinformation. Of course that misinformation rules the day in a developing nation is not a surprise to me. What is surprising is how much misinformation rules the day here in this fully developed nation (your points to wit).

"Most of the plots since then have been smaller in scale, only tenuously connected to each other if at all, often incompetent [e.g. Glasgow airport], or in fact mostly imaginary [this includes most of the guys arrested inside the US, like that pitiful crew in Miami]."

Foolishness to suggest that this issue isn't important because some of the attacks that WE KNOW ABOUT were crude in nature. Some that we know about were not crude. And as 911 proved, even a crude attack, with razor blades and seatbelt extensions, can cause a whole lot of damage to a society. It will only take a few crude attacks to cause massive problems in our society.

"I know that you and your fellow militarists and right-wingers will never buy it, but I believe the diplomacy of Obama will make us safer than the militarism of McCain"

Based on what exactly? McCain's sober reading of the situation on the ground in Iraq, versus Obama's fantasy that the war in Iraq will "End" once we withdraw?


Cindy,

Love that you couldn't be bothered to read this. I'm sure the lack of knowledge won't stop you from voting Obama. Enjoy that.

Ruvy,

You are very disappointing to me. Dee is right? Sure.

I really hope for the sake of Israel, that Obama does not get elected President. But if he does get elected, as his foreign policy plays out, I will gain a measure of pleasure knowing that you supported him. Wake up dude.

Quick answer for you, Obnoxious. Fooliahness apparently becomes you. For Jews who support Israel, THERE IS NO DECENT CHOICE AMONG THE GOYISHER PRINCES. Full Stop.

Each and every one of the pricks running for president in your country will follow an anti-Israel agenda, the agenda dictated by the CFR. Each of them will clothe it differently, but the bottom line will be to destroy slowly the Jewish entity here. This is the policy of the sitting "prick-in-chief" the grandson of an active supporter of Adolf Hitler, and the headwaiter of the ibn Sauds.

That you cannot see that the Wahhabis are enemies of your country, you are as blind as the "rabbi" who heads up the Reform back-stabbers in your country, Eric Yoffie.

Saddam Hussein was nothing but a thug who spawned rapists, but he was a loyal thug. The asshole stayed bought. It was the United States that double-crossed him in 1990 when it pretended to give him the go-ahead to occupy Kuweit and then turned around, played with the satellite photos of Iraqi positions in Kuweit, and parlayed those lies into an American troop presence in Saudi Arabia.

I leave you to figure out why.

Again, I repeat my advice to Jews in America. Turn the page and boycott these elections. Vote for everybody but the president. There is nobody running who will not double-cross you.

"That you cannot see that the Wahhabis are enemies of your country, you are as blind as the "rabbi" who heads up the Reform back-stabbers in your country, Eric Yoffie."

Firstly, I never said the Saudis were our friends. In fact, if you read my response fully, you'd see that what I was saying is that our diplomacy with them is proof that Bush does talk to our enemies. Not all enemies are created equal, and different policies need to be applied accordingly.

Here is the full comment for your edification:

"And we should attack the Saudis why? I am not saying they are a pefect ally, they are far from it. Among many problems with them, they teach anti-semetic views in school, which bothers me greatly because I am Jewish.

Interestingly, this turn's Obama's claim of the bush admin not talking to it's enemies on it's head. This is an example of the Bush admin actually talking to enemies and getting the most out of them. Obviously, the Sauds are much more willing to be open to our requests than the Iranians, and thus we talk to them. The same offer is on the table for Iran or North Korea, and they know this."

And I have to say, your hatred for fellow Jews who happen to follow a different, but still peaceful, still respectable version of Judaism is perplexing to say the least, but also outright self hating and prejudice.

I happened to have grown up around orthodox Judaism, but the idea of hating other Jews for following a less strict version of Judaism is just silly. And considering the vast amount of anti-semitism out there, plain stupid.

There are simply not enough Jews in this world to hate any one of them. You should be ashamed!

Just so everyone is clear on the Jew that Ruvy is trashing, here is an excerpt from Yoffie when meeting with the Islamic Society of North America:

"And what can we do, American Muslims and Jews? Three things, I believe.

First, while the terms of a settlement must be negotiated by the two parties, an American role in achieving such a settlement will be essential. Therefore, we must urge our government to commit itself to active, high-level engagement, in order to move the parties toward peace.

Second, if the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is seen in religious rather than political terms, resolving it becomes impossible. If Israel is portrayed as "a dagger pushed into the heart of Islam," rather than a nation-state disputing matters of land and water with the Palestinians, we are lost. As religious Jews and religious Muslims, let us do everything in our power to prevent a political battle from being transformed into a holy war.

And finally, to all those who desecrate God's name by using religion to justify killing and terror, let us say together: enough.

No cause in the world, and surely no religious cause, can ever justify murdering the innocent or targeting the uninvolved. You cannot honor a religion of peace through violence; you cannot honor God if you do not honor the image of God in every human being; and you cannot get to heaven by creating hell on earth. If we can agree on nothing else, let us agree on this, and let us remain united on this point, come what may."

I take issue with Yoffie's apparent softness on the issue of Islamic terror and his willingness to give a benefit of the doubt. However, to refer to this man, this Jew, this Rabbi, as a "reform back-stabber" is plainly disgusting.

"And we should attack the Saudis. Why? I am not saying they are a perfect ally, they are far from it. Among many problems with them, they teach anti-Semitic views in school, which bothers me greatly because I am Jewish."

Interestingly, this turns Obama's claim of the Bush admin not talking to its enemies on its head. This is an example of the Bush admin actually talking to enemies and getting the most out of them.

I fixed your spelling - you're welcome.

Like most American Jews, you are an expert at lying to yourself. If you want to lie to yourself, you only endanger yourself, but when you expect others to believe those lies, you endanger them. George Bush is not "talking to the enemy" in talking to the ibn Sauds - HE IS TALKING TO HIS EMPLOYER!!! The big reason that no Saudis were ever arrested over 9/11 is that George Bush would have been pissing on his boss' shoes! That is why all the attention was focused away from the Wahhabis in Riyadh, to the black sheep of the bin-Laden family, Obama Osama. The whole Wahhabi movewment is designed to undermine the United States and all other countries in the Dar al-harb, as well as all Moslems who are not Wahhabi. Your basic ignorance of this reality colors your perceptions, and allows you to lie to yourself about the intentions of the Bush administration regarding a whole host of things, including the ultimate fate of your homeland - ISRAEL.

You additionally lie to yourself in thinking that because Jews haven't been waterboarded by Catholic priests in an inquisition, or burned at the stake, or driven out of their homes in pogroms, that America is better than Israel, and that you do not need Israel. You are not alone in following this delusion and in wrapping yourself in the Stars and Stripes. Millions of Jews are just like you, regard Israel as a mere hobby at best, and you will all suffer for this in the not too distant future, when the American economy tanks and your non-Jewish neighbors turn on you in a fury of blame. I do not hate you for this. I honestly pity you; and not just you. I pity my sister, my nephews, their children, and if they have them, their children as well. I pity my cousins who resolutely refuse to come here even for a visit. So what I write is not written out of hatred. It is written out of pain and sorrow. New York is not Jerusalem and neither is Las Vegas or Atlantic City. But only in sorrow will you learn this, if you ever learn this at all.

As for the back-stabber who heads the Reform movement, he is a traitor to the Jewish people for saying that he will support "concessions" over Jerusalem. He has no right to intervene in the politics of this country and put my sons, who will have to wear a uniform to defend this country, in any danger at all with his irresponsible babbling. If I pursue this further, I'll pursue this in my own article. The goal is not to hijack yours.

Ruvy,

Why are we talking about Bush? This article is about Obama. We in the US are going to have an election to pick the next president, not the current one.

McCain, linked in the left wing mainstream media to Bush, and linked in extreme GOP circles to Hillary, is clearly not continuing the policies of Bush. And given that both the extreme left and right seem to have issue with him, he must be doing something right.

Contrast that with Obama who by all accounts (at least those that have knowledge of his platform) is an extreme liberal. Notice the Obama defenders in this thread, not a moderate Democrat among them. I'd even defend Mr. Obama if he was as moderate - he isn't.

You talk badly about Jews, rabbi's no less, offering concessions on Jerusalem, yet you chastise me when I take Obama to task. This makes no sense at all. Do you think the American liberal ideology, and Obama's ideology specifically would support Israel to your standards of no concessions? Do you really think that Obama's policy to have open negotiations with our enemies would help protect Jerusalem as much as McCain's more hawkish positions on foreign policy and support on Israel?

It's worth reiterating that both Obama and McCain are supporters of Israel, but Obama's leftist ties and commitment to open negotiations with enemies makes me question just how much he'd support Israel when the chips are down, or when the bargaining point is something like a specific town such as Jerusalem. At the very least, Obama's position at the start hampers his ability to support more hawkish actions taken by the Israelies.

So much hate in you, so much hate directed towards other Jews. It makes me wonder whether you are real, or whether you are a charicature made up by people who actually hate Israel and use your persona to convince others to feel the same.

Let's return one last time to this issue before I work on my own article.

1. I'm not talking about Bush, I'm talking about the fact that you are lying to yourself. It's worth reiterating that both Obama and McCain are supporters of Israel, Say what?! No supporter of this country will support the expulsion of over a quarter million Jews from their homes, and that is what what both Barack Obama and John McCain support. Is that "support of Israel" because these idiots do not support the total destruction of the Jewish entity here?

That's called self-delusion, OB. So long at you do not put it out for the rest of the world to read, you endanger yourself alone. The minute you do, you endanger others.

2. Previously, you yourself have stated "I support a Palestinian state" - your words, not mine. From where you sit, if you want to support a twenty-third Arab state on Jewish land, get your damned ass over here and stay in S'derot for a few months, so you comprehend what yet another Arab state means!! To put it bluntly, you have no comprehension of what you are talking about. Put you ass where your mouth is, like I do!!

3. Neither you not any other Jew has the right to endanger those of us who have come home to live in our country from the "comforts" of exile. And you have no right to peddle your bullshit anywhere in the name of Jews, American or otherwise. That goes double for that loud mouthed son of a bitch, Eric Yoffie, who uses his position and power to undermine my safety and that of my children. When you get here and put your own life on the line to defend this nation, then you can open your mouth - not before!!

Finally, to repeat what I said earlier - there is no good choice for Jews in this election THAT MEANS THAT OBAMA IS GARBAGE, McCAIN IS GARBAGE AND CLINTON IS GARBAGE. That is why I suggest repeatedly to Jews in America - "turn the page, vote for everybody but the president; do that and the politicians will notice; they count votes seven ways from Sunday and will want to know why they can't snow snow Jews anymore with their bullshit on Israel."

Ruvy,

I welcome your article. In the meantime:

1) You're wrong about McCain. He backed the lebanese action (as did Obama), and he is a staunch supporter of Israel. Comparitively, Obama may have a hard time being as hawkish given his liberal credentials. McCain won't and that's why he would be better for Israel.

2) Yes, I have said that, and I still stand by it. I don't support the "right to return" don't support concessions on Jerusalem. But if you want to try and demonize me and turn me into some anti jewish monster because I also happen to believe that the 1.5 million or so Palestinians should also have an actual state to call their own then so be it.

You know, you can support palestinian statehood and still be a staunch supporter of Israel. In fact, I think it's a bit hypocritical, given the fact that a mere 60 years or so ago that it was the Jews who were asking for the same thing.

3) I'd like you to provide even one shred, one hint, one ioda of evidence that there has been anything I've done to endanger Jews. Your antics here have done more than enough damage to Jews.

4) In a general election between two candidates, Obama and McCain, one will win. If you want to ask American Jews to choose "none of the above," then you are advocating that they squelch their own voices on the matter. Realize someone will win regardless of whether Jews, a scant 2.2% of the entire populace votes.

So the question you should ask yourself, do you want American Jews voting for a liberal, who is anti-war but voices support for Israel, versus a decorated war veteran, who made public comments in support of Israel's war against Lebanon, and is the most hawkish candidate amongst the three in front of us now?

"None of the above" may be a great choice for Monty Brewster, but that was a movie. This is real life. In what will be one of the most tightest elections in history, everyone should be casting a vote for one of the two candidates, based on their policies. To do otherwise is a waste.

Obnoxious conveniently ignores the most direct rebuttal to his argument I put forward, comparing Obama to Reagan. If Obama wins, it will be a left version of what happened in 1980 and 1984: people who were not necessarily convinced by policy positions were still convinced we needed change and charismatic leadership, so they voted outside their previous comfort zone.

Thus the term "Reagan Democrats"; and thus the possibility of "Obama Republicans," of whom the most prominent Blogcritics example is Clavos, and about whom Obama did a very funny comedy routine ["Why are we whispering?"] the other day.

I was unhappy about those two 80s elections. It's possible Obnoxious and Friends will be unhappy this November. I'd say they've earned it.

Look, I won't continue arguing with someone who thinks the US is at root for the whole jihadist mentality of OBL and his ilk.
Foolishness to suggest that this issue isn't important because some of the attacks that WE KNOW ABOUT were crude in nature. Some that we know about were not crude.

Of course I think this issue is important, and it's offensive and simplistic of you to say otherwise. I just think the current administration has bungled the response to terror very badly. Most of the world was on our side as of Sept. 12, 2001, the day after the attacks. Much of the world despises us now.

Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but possibly, just possibly, we could have responded to the terrorist threat in ways that didn't alienate more than half the rest of the earth's population. It will take decades to undo that very real damage.

It's as if we set out to infuriate as many young Muslim men and create as many new and committed terrorists as we could: Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the subversion of the very freedoms we claim to fight for.

I'm not making excuses for 9/11, I'm talking about the harm we've done since - harm that has made the world a much more dangerous place to live in.

Six years ago we could have started changing peoples' minds. Instead we chose to say "We don't care what the rest of the world thinks; and if that makes you angry, screw you."

You imply that there are more convincing examples of terrorist plots, but we just don't know about them. And you actually call me naive? Go ahead, believe every nightmare bedtime story Dick Cheney tells you. I think the administration has used fear, shamelessly, to win votes. And you repeat a lot of the same empty rhetoric. I hope, pray, and believe it's losing its power.

And yes, I do believe Barack Obama offers a very real alternative, and is potentially a great president.

"and about whom Obama did a very funny comedy routine ["Why are we whispering?"] the other day."

Wasn't the punch line actually, "Thank you"?

It's much funnier that way...

Obama did a comedy routine about Clavos??!

And you thought I was only a used boat salesman in Miami...

That was the joke, wasn't it?

"There was this used boat salesman in Miami..."