Political Hay
The Unholy Triumvirate
Will Obama, Pelosi, and Reid take their liberal revolution to its conclusion?
If Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid had to write the Declaration of Independence and Constitution from scratch, what would those documents say? Would they read like the current ones? No, they would read like the platform of the Democratic Party.
Barack Obama’s America started not in 1776 but around 2006. By letting slip the comment, “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country,” Michelle Obama said as much.
The only question that remains is: If Obama wins, will the Democrats have the courage of their convictions? Will they hold a sort of ongoing constitutional convention and transform America into the liberal country of their dreams — the America in their minds which they identify now as the source of true patriotism?
Politics and parasitism would appear to be the only obstacles that could stop them: fearing a backlash, they might temporize and moderate their plans, or like Bill Clinton they might not want to risk total chaos by devouring the conservative host whole. Liberalism, after all, has to feed off the lingering order of conservatism for it to exist at all. Were liberalism implemented fully and purely, the disorder unleashed, as even Clinton sensed, would make life increasingly impossible.
Then again, absolute power could corrupt absolutely and Clinton-era circumspection may now appear to the Democrats hopelessly passé. Debates in D.C. seem to shift ever leftward, with last year’s liberal positions becoming this year’s unacceptably reactionary ones — a trend that is bound to accelerate under a Democratic monopoly of all three branches of government.
The extent to which the 1960s counter-culture has become the culture and 1960s anti-Americanism become the new patriotism is amazing. That’s why Obama could launch his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist and pay almost no price for it. As Chris Matthews lectured Pat Buchanan on Hardball last Friday night, Ayers was a terrorist with a worthy motivation: he bombed the Pentagon because he wanted America out of Vietnam, a blameless goal indeed. Under the Left’s tortured understanding of the new patriotism, even Jeremiah Wright is pro-American: his fulminations had the purpose of drawing America into the light.
Patriotism is now measured not by respect for the conservatism contained in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution but by the level of one’s enthusiasm for the America to come.
To be a good American now means you nod vigorously as an Obama supporter at a cocktail party bashes the Boy Scouts as bigots while explaining to you why Obama’s association with the “distinguished” education professor (as Congressman Rahm Emanuel put it) Bill Ayers is no big deal. It means you chuckle along with Joe Biden as he tells Ellen DeGeneres that conservative Californians are deluded to oppose gay marriage.
Or it means listening in hushed awe as unimpeachable American hero Colin Powell calls the most liberal Republican presidential nominee ever “narrow” and insufficiently “inclusive,” and scolds unnamed Americans for objecting to the notion of a Muslim president. (I was half-expecting him to join Barney Frank in calling for the elimination of the Constitution’s prohibition on foreign-born presidents. Surely that’s not “inclusive” either.)
What was once considered the anti-American Left now has the power to define who is and who is not a good American. Seeing victory in sight, they grow more bold and unapologetic. Over the last few days, instead of denying charges thrown at Obama, they have readily conceded them and basically said: So what?
To them, Obama’s “spreading the wealth around” comment isn’t a cringe-inducing gaffe but an appaluse line and sound basis for policy. What’s wrong with the state redistributing wealth? more than a few of them have asked, including, by the way, Colin Powell after his Meet the Press appearance before reporters.
Here, too, we see the new Americanism at work: where the founding fathers saw King George III’s overtaxation as an occasion to start the country, an enlightened modern American is expected to join Joe Biden in welcoming new taxes as a “patriotic” duty.
Under the unholy triumvirate of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, good Americans will be expected to entrust their economy to redistributionists, their defense to pacifists, and their culture to proponents of abortion and gay marriage. Expect a crisis within six months should Obama win, promises Joe Biden. Perhaps he is right, but the first one is more likely to be domestic than international.
About the Author
George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (292) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by George Neumayr
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/10/22/the-unholy-triumvirate
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Texan| 10.22.08 @ 7:16AM
Mr. Neumayr nails it with this one. I've been increasingly troubled over the past several decades by the witness of an insidious destruction from within, of the most basic tenants of who and what we are. And Bill Ayers is the poster boy for this radical leftist chutzpah. With an Obama victory, the inmates will be in charge of the asylum and we'll all likely feel we're living in a parallel universe.
Danny| 10.22.08 @ 7:30AM
Under the Socialist Democrats, America will default on its debts and there will be Revolution in the streets. The Revolution will not be with ballot boxes.
Rocco| 10.22.08 @ 7:32AM
If everything which has been revealed about His Holiness, the Chosen One, including the recent remarks by Biden concerning the supposed upcoming international crisis, hasn't made a dent yet and has gone over the head of the average voter, then I think Mr. Neumayer's anticipation of a domestic crisis is just wishful thinking. Otherwise, this fraud wouldn't be in a position to be elected.
Rocco| 10.22.08 @ 7:37AM
In addition to Danny's remarks at 6:30, what has happened yesterday in Argentina is instructive. In the early 1990s, Argentina, like Chile and most of Latin America, went to a privatized Social Security system, which helped to build up the capital markets in an otherwise dysfunctional economy. Now, the Peronist (Socialist) government wants to nationalize these accounts (like our 401K's), basically plunder them and "spread out the wealth." Where have we heard that before? Read today's Wall Street Journal. The average Argentine worker has no recourse, and he/she stands to lose nearly 15 years of capital accumulation/appreciation. If you say it can't happen here, then you are deluding yourself.
Melvin| 10.22.08 @ 8:58AM
In response to Danny, "This is the feeling that many share. The American people after this election will have tried to convince our politicians of both parties to listen and follow the Constitution. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have paid scant attention to this document and are totally unresponsive to the people.
Pray tell what choice to the people have left but open rebellion?
JMarra| 10.22.08 @ 9:17AM
Oh boo hoo. The level of self-pity on the part of McCain Morons is SKY-HIGH.
This article is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING but the dribble of some old senile person who mistakes his nighttime accidents for a Democratic incursion.
There are no facts, no evidence--not EVEN a quote from the Constitution that this MCCAIN MORON pretends to revere so much.
Melvin| 10.22.08 @ 9:37AM
JMarra,
I thought that your political party and candidates, were tolerant, and wanted everyone to be inclusive of your candidate.
Does your posted opinion mean that your bigoted to-wards those who are not of your political party?
TheCorrector| 10.22.08 @ 10:07AM
Yo JMarra,
It's drivel, not '..dribble..' In addition to improving your vocabulary, you might want read a little about American history and the founding of this nation.
The Americans of the 1770s revolted for much less than what we Americans endure now. King George had nothing on the current Federal imperial government.
Neither Obama or McCain can stop the slowly progressive destruction of the American way of life, but Obama will accelerate the process (much like FDR and LBJ).
Berl Goetz| 10.22.08 @ 10:55AM
As far as the wretched progressives are concerned, the Constitution can be summarized as nothing more than an antiquated matrix necessary for the transmission of the holy "equal protection" clause, curses be on all of them.
On the cover of my hometown newspaper there is a photo of folks lining up to vote early. Above the photo is the headline: "I want to make sure I'm good and taken care of." To me, that says it all.
Patrick Henry| 10.22.08 @ 11:42AM
George; Why would the Democrats want or need to hold a constitutional convention? Why mess with a good thing and let the citizens upset the 40 yr game plan? After all, the corruption and dismantling of the components of our republic has been going on smoothly for decades. All facits of our constitutional republic have been corrupted, from an oligarchical, decidedly unconstitutional judicary to an entrenched, unaccountable bureaucracy. From a totally dishonest and intellectually bankrupt media to a professional ruling class in Washington, brought about by the power of incumbency. No, I think the Left is quite happy with how things are progessing. An Obama presidency will be the culmination of 40 yrs of the leftist, Marxist assault on America. The transformation will have been completed. But history does have a way of repeting itself. As Jefferson said, a revolution every 20 yrs isn't a bad thing. Looks like we're a bit over due.
Richard| 10.22.08 @ 12:02PM
Danny, I hope you're right.
I think we will see the spark once the economic strain becomes too unbearable and there won't be too much to lose on the part of the electorate.
outofworkrose | 10.22.08 @ 1:05PM
GOD HELP US!, THIS IS THE TRIFECTA OF EVIL. The Democrats keep bragging how Clinton left us a surplus. However, they fail to mention that we had a Republican Congress. If these three psychos are in charge there will be NO CHECKS AND BALANCES, OR ANY OPPOSITION to their whims. DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN. ALSO DO NOT LET THE POLLS DISCOURAGE YOU. VOTE MCCAIN!!
Donna Long| 10.22.08 @ 1:50PM
I'm constantly amazed at the perjorative way the word LIBERAL is constantly used by conservatives. And the interesting twist attributed to the Founders as being Conservative. They were actually the most liberal persons in the history of this country...believing in freedom and equality for ALL....a very simple definition exists: A liberal is a person who cares about someone(s) other than just him or herself. You don't need to take my word for it. Look it up and review some American History.
gwoe| 10.22.08 @ 2:20PM
Political Hay?
The Unholy Triumvirate?
wait... I need to stop laughing..
This drivel is More like what hay becomes
HORSE SH*T
OCPatriot| 10.22.08 @ 2:44PM
Yes, indeedy, it's all going to Hell if the Democrats gain a majority. As if it hasn't already all gone to Hell with the Republicans over the last two terms - and it has been the Republicans who backed George Bush and Dick Cheney and Rumsford and the neocons; the Republicans who fought for, and believed, in unfettered deregulation. We are in Hell right now, with untold debt and a dollar getting worth less by the day and our savings and IRAs going down the drain and our dependence on oil. I'm not saying the Democrats are blameless, by the way, but more Republican (and Bush) solutions don't represent real change. And we all know that, if you want a different result, you don't keep doing the same thing aagain and again, do you? For now Obama represents real change; by the time he and a Democratic majority gain enough power to be as corrupt as the current Republican majority, it will be time to oust them, but that's in the future and a better time to do so than now if we follow the tired, disorganized policies of Bush McCain.
OCPatriot| 10.22.08 @ 2:47PM
Ever notice that the schtick is PUTTING PEOPLE DOWN as opposed to pointing out the positives of the alternatives? Are such commentators actually scared, or are they using fear, as George Bush did, to enlist sympathy for their side?
Mully| 10.22.08 @ 3:41PM
Love these comments about "unfettered deregulation" under Bush. Just what was deregulated? And when did he do it? Why did the more regualted European banks fail if deregulation by GWB was the cause?
Sanrit| 10.22.08 @ 4:21PM
Considering you are part of the Republican Nazi Party, I don't get what you are trying to say.
dnha14| 10.22.08 @ 4:25PM
It's time to rename Orwell's book from "1984" to "2008". It's here baby, it's here.
ncatty| 10.22.08 @ 4:26PM
Its going to be "bottom rail on top" after Nov. 4.
curious| 10.22.08 @ 4:27PM
hahahahahaha.
someday you silly repugs will recognize that ALL governments redistribute wealth. you just can't stomach the idea that the direction of that redistribution in this country might change. very, very soon.
if you want to see a mockery of the american constitution, take a look around at what W and rove hath wrought.
oh, what ever will you do with yourselves in a time when this country is not engaged in perpetual warfare, and when gays are treated like normal people? your dear little heads might just 'splode!
ncatty| 10.22.08 @ 4:28PM
It is almost reparations time.
vic winkler| 10.22.08 @ 4:31PM
So much hatred. So un-American.
Daniel| 10.22.08 @ 4:31PM
this article is a joke, right? What the hell are you scared of? health care? jobs? being forced to be tolerant of people different than yourself rather than bigoted and prejudiced? Not rushing into bombing innocent civilians in countries across the globe?
The sycophantic blather in the comments of people who actually agree with this sad tired fear mongering premise is amusing to say the least, especially Rocco's imbecilic idea of Argentinian economic history.
Terence| 10.22.08 @ 4:31PM
Calling Clinton a moderate is like calling Gingrich a liberal. He had to deal with a republican and openly hostile congress. Conservatives have had the helm of the ship for 2 decades now and they continue to push our country further towards repressing peoples civil rights, tax cuts for the wealthy, dismantling social services instead of reforming them and using us versus them politics to stay in office.
I wish there were some old school federalist, intelligent republicans in congress so that we can have some lively debate on the issue and reach a middle ground based on reason and logic, instead of the current disgusting group of individuals who call themselves republicans and attempt to force their agenda through fear, questioning our patriotism and sending money back to thier donors with ear marked projects.
Marion Valentine | 10.22.08 @ 4:33PM
Davis
Ayers
Dohrn
Rezko
Wright
Odinga
The New Party
ACORN
The links of a radical chain, unbroken, ongoing associations of Obama, not random encounters with whackos everyone experiences.
The Davis Plan and Connections to Obama
In 1963, while serving in Navy Intelligence (from 1958-1967), I read the FBI file on Frank Marshall Davis. He had outlined the Communist plan to take over America from within, by installing educators at all levels of our educational system, gaining control of the media, getting Liberal judges appointed, recruiting, training and backing people to be elected to public office.
I have researched every piece of legislation I can find that the Liberal Democrats have passed since the early sixties, and if you will research for yourself, you will find that they have been slowly moving this country towards Socialism.
When Obama announced he was running for President as an unknown with only one major speech at the DNC (that the DNC and MSM made so much fuss over), he aroused my old Intel suspicions. So I started researching.
I have not found any evidence to convince me he is a Muslim, but I did find his radical associations were unusual. I found that Frank Marshall Davis, who had fled from Chicago to Hawaii in 1958 because of the FBI investigation, met Obama in Hawaii when Obama was 12 years old, and was Obama’s mentor from then till Davis died in 1987.
Davis put Obama in touch with the Socialist Party in Chicago (called the New Party) which Ayers is also a member of, therefore the first “Planned” contact with Ayres. The New Party helped launch and finance Obama’s political Career. Obama…..selected, trained, groomed, and scripted to become the “puppet” leader of the United Socialist States of America.
Since I am in the 4th and final stage of congestive heart failure and will be lucky to live long enough to see the next President take office, why should this election matter to me? Why does Obama’s statement, that he wants a "National Civilian Security Force" as strong and as well-funded as our military (conjuring up images of the old-style USSR police state) matter to me?
IT’S SIMPLE… I LOVE AMERICA
dnha14| 10.22.08 @ 4:34PM
Terrance:
Substitute democrats for the word republicans and you would be much closer to the truth
Marion Valentine | 10.22.08 @ 4:39PM
Obama is an evil cloud over this country — a cloud of One World Rule by radical Socialists with two classes of people: the “elite” ruling class who control the wealth and resources, and the poor workers who depend on the ruling class for their existence.
The dishonest radical Socialists who call themselves Democrats, used an unpopular war, charges of corruption (many false), and the "tell a lie until it becomes truth" tactic to win control of both houses. They did everything they could to cause America to lose in Iraq just to win elections, and hoped to ride the same jackass into the White House.
In June, the surge was working so well they had to go to plan "B" which was already in place, but just had to be executed. From 2001 until the present day, Democrats blocked every attempt to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Republican attempts are on record). This was the first part of plan “B”.
Check the numbers: from 2001 — 2006, the economy was growing at a steady pace, the stock market was setting new records, jobs were being created, and gas was $2.16 a gallon. Since 2007, the stock market has tanked, the economy has tanked, jobs are being lost, and gas is about $4.00 a gallon.
What happened?????
Democrats executed the second part of plan “B” by having their ultra wealthy cronies manipulate the stock market and futures markets so they could set out to tank the American Economy. They care nothing about the American people, they only care about gaining power.
vic winkler| 10.22.08 @ 4:39PM
I used to be a Republican. I am an Independent. I will vote for Obama for the same reasons I left the Republican party: Demonstrated Republican ineptness and extremism.
All that the Republican defenders of Bush and the current de-evolved Republican party have in this presidential cycle is: Hate, Fear and the parsed words of the only candidate in the race.
You really can't have a party without your very own party favors (ideas), and enough believers in the event.
Here is what is most likely to happen: Obama wins. Obama steers Dems toward a thoughtful center.
In 4 years, will the Republicans be more likely to move toward the center or will the bitter remnants cling to the far right edge where they will be seen as delusional by the rest of us here in the center?
If all you have is hate, fear and mud -- well, let's have your mud boys. Fling away.
go_figure| 10.22.08 @ 4:41PM
Our presidential choice between Left and Loony Left is a pathetic one.
Terence | 10.22.08 @ 4:42PM
Other than tougher restrictions on the 2nd amendmant I'm not sure how you can say the dems have stood in the way of civil rights. Dems are almost always in favor of social services(almost to a fault in some cases) and rehauling them when they fail to preform. Republicans question the patriotism of the democrats in just about every election cycle, even those who have served in the military.
So to dnha14, I respectfully disagree.
Gabriel| 10.22.08 @ 4:47PM
Yes, clearly America would do better under a phony Republican/Conservative government that upholds important American values like invading countries countries that never attacked us, botching said invasion to the tune of a trillion dollars, allowing a major American city to be completely destroyed by the WEATHER, failing to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, taking the government from a surplus to a record deficit, violating the Geneva Convention, oh and did I miss anything? Oh yeah, how's the economy doing, guys?
I haven't seen a group of people this uniformly delusional since the Jonestown Massacre.
Here's to the hopes that true conservatives will shed the baggage of the delusional, reactionary neo-Con/evangelical shouting section of the Right and resurface as the rational, intelligent party of Lincoln and Eisenhower. God knows America will need it.
Obama suppoter| 10.22.08 @ 4:55PM
I always hear people sayin' the dems are running the media and the dems are evil. etc,etc.. whatever. Get over it. I am sick and tired of those wanna be religous freaks at the republican corner. The TV show Family guy depicts the Republican party well- yer all evil and dizzy from yer own dumbness. heh.. Seriously, obama farts and the media are all over it trying to understand what he meant by that little fart of his, McCain picks a idiot VP and they repbulicans are all in love and glossy eye well fu*k you REPULICAN PARTY YOU WILL LOOOOOOSE in 2008 and just so you know I'll be laughing while each and everyone of you monsters are taken out of every section of goverment, till each of you are tossed away like the trash you are. HILLARY CLINTON was waay more quailfied then Sarah Palin, but all the folks at the republican party talked crap and now we suppose to respect yer chick, go suck a big fat one you loosers!
Southerner| 10.22.08 @ 4:56PM
Vic, the only problem with your analysis is that Obama is as far from the center as a politician can get. His actual voting record, his associations and his choices of past jobs show him to be as un-moderate as a person can get.
McCain, on the other hand, is about the most moderate politician in office today. Certainly at least the most moderate Presidential candidate in recent history. That's why Limpaugh has said so many bad things about him. That's who Ingraham flamed him so badly earlier this year. Because he REALLY IS a moderate.
Obama, on the other hand, is lauded by the Democratic Underground, the Daily Kos and other similar extreme lefty sites.
It does look like Obama is probably going to win. If that happens, the best case scenario is that he doesn't do anything irreversable in his first two years, at which point people will be wise to him and put Republicans in charge of the congress, just like they did to Clinton. Then, with gridlock back in the mix, only the less extreme proposals of either party will get passed, just like the founding fathers intended.
Peter| 10.22.08 @ 4:59PM
The factual errors in this article are unbelievable and discredit the entire argument. From claiming that Obama "launched" his political careers in Ayers's living room (a highly suspect claim at best), to saying that the Founding Fathers created this country because of OVERtaxation. In fact, it was because of taxation without representation in Congress. And the first real test of the nation was the Whiskey Rebellion in which farmers rebelled against a tax on whiskey believing it to be too high. What did Founding Father George Washington do? He took command of a militia the size of the entire Revolutionary Army and put the rebellion down, leaving the tax in place.
The fact that George Neumayr is the editor of the Catholic World Report almost makes me embarrassed to be a Catholic. Actually, it's probably more accurate that I'm embarrassed as a Catholic that George Neumayr is representing my religion in the press with such inaccurate distortions of reality.
Peter| 10.22.08 @ 5:00PM
To preempt criticism of my post, I meant to write that the Revolution occurred because of the lack of representation in Parliament, not Congress. Obviously Congress hadn't been created yet.
Bandicoot| 10.22.08 @ 5:01PM
I never thought I'd say this -- never thought it would be necessary. But the day is coming, and very soon now, when we will have to take back our country from the Obama thugocracy, as Michael Barone calls it. And there will be blood.
And here's the only good part: it's the idiot leftists who will (if they even have them) allow their guns to be confiscated. We on the right have our arms and we will keep them. And when the time comes, we will use them -- not to establish a right wing dictatorship, but to bring down a left wing one, and restore freedom.
Ultimately, the only real power a government holds over its populace is deadly force. And a well-armed citizenry is the only thing that can fight back.
Unfortunately, the time is coming.
Marion Valentine | 10.22.08 @ 5:03PM
What do Bart Simpson, Family Guy, Daffy Duck, King Kong, O.J. Simpson, and Raela Odinga have in common?
All are celebrities; and with the exception of Odinga and O.J. Simpson, they also are fictional characters. And yet, all of them gave money earlier this month to the campaign of Barack Obama, without any apparent effort by the campaign to screen them out as suspect donors.
The Obama fundraising machine may owe its sensational success in part to a relaxation of standard online merchant security practices, which has allowed illegal donations from foreign donors and from unknown individuals using anonymous “gift” cards, industry analysts and a confidential informant tell Newsmax.
An ongoing Newsmax investigation into the Obama campaign’s finance reports has exposed multiple instances of campaign finance violations and has been cited in a formal complaint to the Federal Election Commission filed by the Republican National Committee on Oct. 6.
Though many of the known violations include donations in excess of the $2,300 per election limit on individual contributions and contributions from foreign nationals, the extent of the amount of fraud is hidden because of a loophole in federal election law.
Campaigns are not required to disclose contributors who donate less than $200 — and Obama’s campaign refuses to release their names, addresses, and donation amounts. Obama has collected a staggering $603.2 million. Most of the money — $543.3 million — has come from individual contributors, half of it from “small” donors Obama won’t disclose.
Shining Dust| 10.22.08 @ 5:05PM
It is interesting to note that everyone thinks that America was born in 1776. Its only true if you are of European descent. For minorities like Native Americans and African Americans, 1776 is just another number with no meaning. The true, equal America did not even begin delivering the promise of America until the mid-1900s. And that's being generous.
OCPatriot| 10.22.08 @ 5:10PM
True conservatives are first and foremost fiscally responsible. They don't spend money unless they know where it is coming from. They also believe in government regulation when it protects our health or levels a playing field. Unfettered deregulation is not the mark of a true conservative. Cutting taxes is not conservative, strangely enough, but making the tax system is fair and not a transfer of wealth from those who have less income to those who have much more as Bush has done. Bush is neither compassionate or a conservative. Conservatives are honest in their beliefs. Good, honest conservatives are hard to find. Try fitting some of this on McCain and shake your head. We have been left with massive debt, and it climbs monthly at the rate of $12 billion dollars for the Iraq conflict, and someone has to pay for it. The Republicans, who can still, today, block the Congress have a lot of responsibility for the debt; not to excuse the Democrats who don't want to look "soft" because the Republicans will call them that if they don't join the spenders. Conservatives also don't primarily believe in privatization of everything; in some cases, the government does a good, less expensive, job: the best example of this is the healthcare that all of Congress receives; a second example is their government administered pension system; neither, of course, is available to you and me.
Calm Interjector| 10.22.08 @ 5:12PM
To me, this article came out of left feild. I would not consider my self particularly in favor of any side in this election. I am stunned, however, by the hate that has come from it. I see what seem like blind accusations from both sides. First of all, since when did the Democrats want to change the Constitution?
Furthermore, how can this author, or anyone else for that matter, claim that Obama is anti-American while he seems to completely hate half of the population. Democrats are Americans, too, no matter how much people disagree with them.
Just to throw this in, the only reason people think that Obama is Muslim is becuase his name sounds Muslim. If he was Joe Guy who had the same father, everyone would jsut think he is a black guy. Anyway, what's so bad with Muslims, as long as they are not extreme Jihadists.
IA faithful| 10.22.08 @ 5:14PM
To : Gabriel --- " allowing a major American city to be completely destroyed by the WEATHER " .......... wait just one minute, Jack ! Where is the personal responsibility of people who, knowing they live BELOW sea level, don't leave when told to ? With a hurricane approaching ? This government didn't ALLOW what happened, if they did, that would mean they could control the weather. And if you want to point fingers, start closer to home, ie, Mayor Nagan & the Governor !
Gavin| 10.22.08 @ 5:16PM
So much for America the Brave
/A Canadian on the outside looking in
Rick King| 10.22.08 @ 5:18PM
If Obama is elected, with the help of Pelosi and company he will institute Socialist Redistribution of our Wealth. That's everyone's hard-earned money, not just that of the rich. As one Columnist pointed out: when that action causes economic disaster, and in the long run it will, next will come the backlash. Thereafter, the Democrats will be lucky if they are able to have one of their party elected to any National office for the next thirty years.
Tired of angry ignorance| 10.22.08 @ 5:20PM
The evidence is clear that our economy does better under Democratic economic policies than the Republican idea of "trickle down." How is it that the Republicans have bamboozled the working class members of their party for so long -- maybe by feeding them hate and simplicity?? What a sorry and unchristian story!! Here's from a report of a study about the economic data of the last 60 years:
“The bottom line: During the past 60 years, Democrats have presided over much less unemployment and much more robust income growth. …McCain's proposals reflect the traditional Republican emphasis on cutting taxes for businesses and wealthy people in hopes of stimulating investment – "trickle down" economics, as it came to be called during Ronald Reagan's administration. But will proposals of this sort really "stop and reverse the rise of unemployment" and "create millions of new jobs" as McCain has claimed? The historical record suggests not. In fact, over the past 60 years, the real incomes of middle-income families have grown about twice as fast under Democratic presidents as they have under Republican presidents. The partisan difference is even greater for working poor families, whose real incomes have grown six times as fast under Democratic presidents as they have under Republican presidents.” -- Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 21, 2008 -- http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1021/p09s01-coop.html
Loafwondered| 10.22.08 @ 5:25PM
It's really time for America to get rid off those Republican Nightmares and return to the right path. And probably the wolrd learns to love the US again - but now there is just hatred and no respect for your country! Time for change, it's almost too late!
Patrick Henry| 10.22.08 @ 5:30PM
Thanks to poster Marion Valentine for the insightful, well researched, information. I wish you well and hope that God affords you an extended life and the defeat of the enemies you have come to recognize so well. The "National Civilian Security Force" should send us all into a cold sweat. Unfortunately, this Obama plan has received scant mention. And he wants it funded on par with the military. Isn't the military annual budget some $30 Billion? But judging from some of the leftist posters here, Obama will have no problem finding drones to swap their "Bush Sucks" tee shirts for brown shirts and jackboots. Finally, you provided the last piece to the puzzle as to how Fannie & Freddie managed to tank at such a propitious time for Obama. The bubble was always going to burst, but the Dems insistance on $4.50 a gal gas and the market manipulation by Soros, et al, was the final kicker to the collapse. I wonder of the drones will get a ride on Algore's 100 ft houseboat?
Dan R Smith| 10.22.08 @ 5:30PM
Time to buy a few guns! You don't want to be left helpless when things really begin to fall apart and neighborhood thugs & yahoos feel entitled to "redistribute" what you got left after the Gubmint takes their cut. Remember New Orleans after Katrina? That was t a preview - the Gubmint ain't gonna help you!
Jacob| 10.22.08 @ 5:30PM
This article is trash that does not deserve to be posted. It is nothing more than a right-wing rant against liberalism. Here's a bit of advice: stop ranting and start having an educated, informed argument over the pros and cons of actual policy proposals. Then, and only then, will the Republican party be able to take back some of its lost clout.
There are incredibly smart, pragmatic people on both sides of the aisle, both liberal and conservative. The world is not going to come crashing down with the advent of the Evil Triumvirate or whatever the hell you want to call Obama-Pelosi-Reid. Republicans need to start talking some sense to the American, and move away from the radicals in their own party, before they can start lecturing on the dangers liberals pose.
I am a proud independent. Both parties have their crazies who, like the author of this opinion piece, only exacerbate the problems we face with their rabble-rousing "liberals will destroy the fabric of our country" stupidity.
IA faithful| 10.22.08 @ 5:31PM
To : Tired of angry ignorance -- I'll meet you back here two years from today, and I bet you have to eat those words :) I don't care what the Christian Science Monitor said. He will not be good for this country. And I am neither angry or ignorant.
Charleton Heston| 10.22.08 @ 5:32PM
Bandicoot (at 4:01pm), I think you're on to something. I could say a whole lot more, but I ain't stupid. Suffice it to say that most people in this country (including the media) are unfamiliar with the rumblings among those who's quiet resolve is festering at the inevitability of an Obama win. People are wound so tight on these issues, and I worry about the unintended consequences.
happy patriot | 10.22.08 @ 5:34PM
"Patriotism is now measured ...by the level of one's enthusiasm for the America to come"
What an enlightening, joyful prospect! Thank you, Mr. Neumayr, for saying so well what I have always felt: the America I love is a work-in-progress perfectible union.
Thank you for this wonderful definition of patriotism; it is the one that I embrace and make mine everday.
laughing at the repugs| 10.22.08 @ 5:36PM
it feels so good to see repugs reeling as such. i find it so odd that they rant about what the dems may do to society while our economy, rights, etc are being destroyed all around us with (my humble opinion) about 80% of the blame on the repugs. but no, you guys want to keep repugs in power so, hey, maybe we can run this country into the ground.
and even on this website you guys over react, repeat OVER REACT to Ayers. Be real people, he has was put on the board by a Repug, let me repeat a republican put him on the board with Obama. but hey lets gloss over that and make up a story of obama siding with terrorists.
but at least i can sleep well at night b/c the more you guys cry and rant the more i know this country is finally going to heading in the right direction.
oh and did any one call it socialism with the 1st Bush raised taxes????? of course not...
Piter| 10.22.08 @ 5:37PM
Oh you poor bitters, so distraught about these socialist, Marxist, god-killing, terrorist-loving, America-hating DIMocrats taking over.
I hope I don't sound sarcastic, because you're really on to something here. This whole "serving in the government" scam in which Democrat senators and representatives have engaged was just a means of biding their time, waiting for the day when they could seize the reins of power and begin to redistribute the wealth of the nation!
Your humorous doomsday scenarios remind me of the days when Y2K was going to be the downfall of western civilization--now that's been replaced with the "unholy trinity" of Obama/Pelosi/Reid. I'm surprised you haven't sought out foreboding quatrains in the works of Nostradamus, but perhaps I've just provided Mr. Neumayr with his next topic.
Perhaps you are all suffering from a terrible amount of guilt, considering what kind of long-lasting damage this Republican administration has wrought. Not since the Civil War have we seen this great nation harmed so badly. The use of torture, spying on citizens, lying not only to the people but to congress as well, all while fattening their own oil-rich purses.
Look, I understand: this is deflected rage and anguish on your part. Once you're done pouting, feel free to pitch in and help clean up the mess that Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Wolfie have made. See, the difference between the leadership you have bilndly idolized for the past eight years, and the leadership offered by Senator Obama, is that the latter is inclusive.
Piter| 10.22.08 @ 5:42PM
@ Bandicoot and Charleton Heston (4:01 and 4:32 pm)
Hey, great idea guys! Brazen talk of armed insurrection and veiled threats of political assassination are a GREAT way to get some attention on the forums. I hope you're using Cheer with color guard when you launder your Confederate flag...wouldn't want those colors to run!
Jordan| 10.22.08 @ 5:44PM
Marion Valentine - I knew Sen. Joe McCarthy wasn't dead!!!
Some of these comments are some of the silliest crap I've ever read. I love how the repubs are trying to make "socialist" a bad word again. The wealthy are trying to scare the unintelligent into believing that help for the majority of the US is somehow bad to them. The best part is, many unintelligent people believe it! They come up with issues like: guns, abortion, gay marriage, etc. to hide the true issues like: the economy; corporations getting tax breaks while sending all the jobs to India and China; exxon drilling oil on US owned land, only to ship it to Japan, instead of selling it to US consumers; etc. I think most people have had enough of "the good-old boys" club. We're tired of being treated like 2nd class citizens, while the rich keep getting richer by encouraging us to borrow more to buy their foreign made products. We're tired of going to war so that the taxpayers can pay the VP's company to go rebuild the country after we bomb the hell out of it. We're tired of letting "american" companies, that make their products in mexico ship them across the border for basically nothing so the BODs and management can get more money. We're tired of paying CEO's huge chunks to run our retirements into the ground so that they can have their jets, vacations, and houses. The moral of the story is that if the people calling themselves "conservatives" hadn't been so damn greedy over the past 8 years, we probably wouldn't be rallying around a candidate promising change. If the "conservatives" had been a little conservative, we wouldn't have anything to complain about. Its when they start running good, hard-working folks lives and savings into the ground to make an extra $50 for their bonus that year, that we get pissed off and say that anyone who runs is better than what we've had the past 8 years. So no thanks John McCain, we're not going to buy your "abortion, gun control, *insert whatever other stupid issue you think will scare the common folk*" this time around, you boys got too greedy, you weren't actually conservative about anything except helping citizens. "I didn't leave the republican party, the republican party left me."
CP| 10.22.08 @ 5:46PM
The prospect of losing power must be very frightening to you, Neumayr! So scary must it be that you are trying to find comfort by trying to scare others as well so they can wallow in the fright alongside you. They say misery loves company, but fear must breed numbers, I guess.
Instead of looking into the mirror and reinventing conservatism and the GOP, you're just trying eThe prospect of losing power must be very frightening to you, Neumayr! So scary must it be that you are trying to find comfort by trying to scare others as well so they can wallow in the fright alongside you. They say misery loves company, but fear must breed numbers, I guess.
Instead of trying to reinvent the GOP and get back to true conservatism, you're just trying to monger fear amongst the population in a last-ditch effort to win. Adios and don't come back until you have done a thorough self-assessment.
Steve| 10.22.08 @ 5:47PM
I agree with those who have said a revolution in the streets is coming. This country is deadlocked in a pitched culture war, which will crescendo to an intolerable climax if Obama is elected. I'm ready to take to the streets with millions of others who are tired of seeing this country destroyed by corrupt, immoral, and misguided people. The time has come for us to take extreme measures to take back our country that was FOUNDED on CHRISTIAN principles. Just like the first revolutionaries who started this country, the beliefs and values we hold dear are worth dying for.
JJva| 10.22.08 @ 6:00PM
The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?
In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.
The First Amendment To The U.S. Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
What?| 10.22.08 @ 6:00PM
Steve, there is no civil war coming. (A revolution is just a change, not a war.) By the way, it would not be a culture war, it would be a political war. You basically just said that you would turn on and fight the nation that you claim to love so dearly. Anyway, you have to ask yourself, "What would Jesus do?" That's if you want to go the Christian way in this Christian country. I don't think Jesus would take to the streets and fight.
Piter| 10.22.08 @ 6:03PM
@ Steve:
Because killing supporters of an opposing political party is what Christianity is all about, right? If you're so willing to take up arms because you're SO tired of seeing American degraded by corrupt politicians, where were you and your private army of wingnuts during the Bush years?
JJva| 10.22.08 @ 6:03PM
Also don't forget phrases like "one nation under God" in the pledge and "In God We Trust" on currency was not added until the late 1950s.
Freedom of religion is one thing that separates the US from most other modern democracies. You have the right to believe in what ever faith or lack there of you choose, and the government doesn't take sides.
D Max| 10.22.08 @ 6:06PM
Funny article. Thanks.
JJva| 10.22.08 @ 6:11PM
Andrew Sullivan posted this Adam Smith quote today:
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/adam-smith-on-s.html
I guess you all will need to call the father of capitalism a socialist too. What a joke this election has become.
Michael Steib| 10.22.08 @ 6:12PM
The political attacks are planned to distract from our thinking about the capability to analyze and communicate, the capability to have this analysis and communication result in good judgment in choosing advisors and in coordinating the best ideas for America, not just the simplistic ideas. The simplistic distractions are planned to keep voters from thinking about how much poor judgment (Like Keating Five, the relationship with the Bin Ladin family and the last eight years of agreeing with the administration on war and deregulation) costs Americans in resources and in life and limb.
The special interests and lobby groups want to buy government decisions on the cheap and take advantage of Americans without having to deal with the complex results that might cripple our nation. They get people from the top of their class to represent them and manipulate to take advantage. We are too lax about the possibility that we might be represented by those from the bottom of their class and that we might be making it easy for the special interest lobby groups to take advantage of us. Again!!! They "spread the wealth" from the middle class up to the rich who pay for their services.
Having effective and timely studies by our government led by those from the top of their class has been lacking at great cost to us all. We have lost planes due to neglect in the timely study of flight manuals. We have lost lives and livelihood due to neglect in the timely study of intelligence information. We have lost a solid economy due to neglect in the timely study of needed regulations and deregulations. We have lost our standing in the world due to neglect in the timely study of diplomacy and when and how to successfully use it. Our country has had to have an expensive surge with financial payments to those who would oppose and expensive bailouts with hopes that these, although expensive, will fix some of the poor judgment and will work in the long run.
It is time to replace the simplistic attitudes and ideas useful in manipulation with a stronger understanding of ideas useful in doing the strong work needed to get us back on track. This needs to be led by a dedicated president from the top of his class, rather than by the special interest lobby groups who are carefully selected and paid to take advantage of America.
Again!!! Let's be careful in rebuilding our country's capabilities. We cannot buy off on Palin's advice not to be concerned about killing civilians. We cannot buy off on McCain's “I know how to” claims on how to win a war , fix the economy and so on. These are simplistic ideas of those from the bottom of their class, not based on effective studies. They are useful in delighting the emotions of supporters.
Joseph McNulty| 10.22.08 @ 6:12PM
For years, I have had the feeling that this is not the same country in which I grew up. I have suddenly become a grumpy old man to my children because my children, miseducated by the public schools, know more about Malcolm X than George Washington. Even the word "Negro" cannot be said because of the silly word "African-American." The past 30 years, the "Age of Reagan," has in some respects been a disaster.
TheAntiSteve| 10.22.08 @ 6:12PM
Steve, last time "liberals" came to power, people like you already tried the "violent revolution" thing. We don't need any more McVeighs, whacko.
JonWill| 10.22.08 @ 6:17PM
There are two fundamental reasons for the economic turmoil we now face; the sub-prime mortgage mess, and the quadrupling of the price of oil. Neither one has been caused by the free market or deregulation, but is the direct result of government intervention championed by democrats and their socialistic policies.
Fanny May and Freddie Mac were created, nurtured, protected, and ultimately run into the ground by the democrat party and the policies of the left. They created rules and regulations in order to encourage (and sometimes force) the free market to provide loans to those who did not qualify. This is at the root of the housing boom and bust, and the primary reason for our current financial crisis. These government sponsored enterprises bought up risky sub-prime mortgages from the secondary market, pooled them, and sold them as mortgage-backed securities to investors on the open market. These investors had faith in the security of these investments, believing they were backed by the federal government. When these mortgages went unpaid the market collapsed.
Although free market conservatives don’t believe in excess regulation of the private sector, they have little issue with regulating governmental entities. In fact, it was the democrats in congress that blocked any such oversight or regulation of their brain trusts (Fanny and Freddie). They not only looked the other way, but actually stood in the way of the Bush administration’s efforts to reform these GSA’s; in part to fulfill their utopian socialistic views, and in part due to the monies received from these intuitions in the form of contributions. Chris Dodd and Barak Obama have been the top two beneficiaries of these contributions.
The current oil shortage was also created by excess government regulation, supported by the liberal agenda, and paid for by the environmental lobbyists. We have trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. at a time while we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy. This is not only the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind; it is also artificially reducing the supply of oil on the world market. The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of U.S. energy exploration and production. Democrats have blocked the lifting of these restrictions and opposed any attempt to put our own reserves to use. The free market would allow states to contract oil companies to tap these energy reserves at zero cost to the U.S. tax payer. It would not only increase supply and reduce the direct cost of oil and gas, it would drastically reduce the corresponding inflation which has been hampering economic growth, and hurting the American family. Tapping these reserves would also directly provide state and federal revenues in the form both royalties and leases, while providing more American jobs. We would keep more of our dollars here in the U.S., lessen our foreign dependency, increase our domestic supplies, and reduce our trade deficit - 41% of which is due to oil imports.
The liberals are attempting to place blame on republican policies of lower taxes and deregulation for our current financial mess. Nothing could be further form the truth! The economy is not soft because the American people are not being taxed enough, or that the government is not spending enough. Lower taxes are the only reason that we haven’t yet fallen into a depression. However, Obama and his allies are promising more of the very policies that have caused these problems in the first place. More taxes, more spending and less energy exploration! The free market is where we need to look for redemption; unfortunately Obama and his party are once again looking to the failed policies of big government socialism.
Marion Valentine | 10.22.08 @ 6:21PM
Did I brag on rebublicans, hell most of them got to the beltway and became so corrupt as to put the Democrats to shame. Spending like drunken sailors, and since i once was one the comparison was insulting to me. They seem to like pork so much i wrote Sen. Cochran and told him to get his hams out of DC and take it home for good. We really need to kick all the bums from both sides, with few exceptions, and start over. With a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, not for the politicians and special interest groups.
JJva| 10.22.08 @ 6:28PM
JonWill
You should not take your economic talking points from election babble. Fannie and Freddie played a small role in what is currently happening. Most if not all respected economists have stated that. Bad loans from private institutions that were bundled, given a higher credit rating and resold time and time again is one of the main causes of our current economic issues.
Bad loans had bad ratings and were being repackaged and sold as solid AA+ rated investments. The unwinding of that corruption is why we are where we are at.
The OTC derivative market is over one quadrillion dollars. Yes I said quadrillion! http://www.bis.org/
JJva| 10.22.08 @ 6:34PM
Do you think if the credit agencies were better regulated that those poorly bundled loads would have received high credit ratings. Unregulated hedge fund leveraged 100x or more didn't have a hand in this problem?
There is plenty of blame to go around.
If you truly believe in free markets, then you have to let them fail when conditions dictate they should. Only then can they repair themselves and reach an equilibrium.
Don't blame oil for inflation. The PPT which has turned the US dollar into toilet paper are to blame for that.
Dik Taby| 10.22.08 @ 6:35PM
I guess I have to spell it for the radical right:
E-X-T-I-N-C-T-I-O-N. Bye-bye!
Dennis| 10.22.08 @ 6:35PM
I'm a libertarian-oriented person who will vote for Obama, despite his many flaws. We've survived liberal presidents before. I'm not sure we could survive a senile warmonger with a wacko runningmate who appears to have hot pants for Armageddon.
Maybe the GOP will come to its senses and nominate Ron Paul next time, but until that happens it deserves the thrashing it's about to get.
Ayan Majumdar| 10.22.08 @ 6:45PM
A very confusing article. What was "americanism" before the 1960s? And there are no citations or references offered for the same. Very roughly written.
ruth| 10.22.08 @ 6:49PM
Wow! So much liberal hatred being spewed in all directions. I see the future, people--and it ain't pretty.
ruth| 10.22.08 @ 6:49PM
Wow! So much liberal hatred being spewed in all directions. I see the future, people--and it ain't pretty.
ruth| 10.22.08 @ 6:49PM
Wow! So much liberal hatred being spewed in all directions. I see the future, people--and it ain't pretty.
Chris White| 10.22.08 @ 6:50PM
If Obama wins - you have to ask but one question - Who is John Galt, and how long until the real producers stop producing for looters and stop the motor of the world? I have already heard some coworkers saying they will just start living off of the government tit - and other who will refuse to work to support the 50% of the population who depend on government. at what point does Atlas Shrug?
Jim Baker| 10.22.08 @ 6:50PM
I see the Obamabots have arrived here. What a disgusting thing to watch the Democrats planning for the Peoples Republic of America. See you guys when the productive people give up on supporting you. Productive people will find their talents are needed in new ways.
Dave from Oregon| 10.22.08 @ 6:52PM
It is time for a realignment. The reason is that the Republican/conservative movement have failed at everything they have touched with the exception of winning elections. Their time is almost up. Conservatism, like communism, is a god that failed. There is no grand philosophy to take its place. Instead, we will muddle forth and hopefully clean up the mess of the past 28 years. Ronald Reagan is dead, Barry Goldwater is dead, William F. Buckley is dead, and it is past time to bury their bastard child.
Now, let's work with Senator Obama to fix this mess.
ruth| 10.22.08 @ 6:58PM
Biden has already warned us--let's see what happens to this country within the first six months of Obama's (gag) presidency.
marky | 10.22.08 @ 7:02PM
"What was once considered the anti-American Left now has the power to define who is and who is not a good American."
it is selfish deluded right-wingers who have been attempting to define anti-americans and then hang their heads in shame when called out. please.
there is nothing wrong with the truth even if it's ugly. however, fear of nothing and then lying about it is unconscionable.
Kuni| 10.22.08 @ 7:06PM
Speaking about being very proud of your country; which is very different that being proud of your country.
McCain’s real, unlike Michelle's who never said she wasn;t proud, unpatriotic words were caught on tape.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/22/mccains-unpatriotic-words-caught-on-tape/
“I didn’t really love America till. . .”
Marion Valentine | 10.22.08 @ 7:31PM
PATRICK HENRY
Thanks for the kind words. Sorry was so long getting back. New grand daughter was born at 11;41 last night, had to visit a while.
Steve| 10.22.08 @ 7:34PM
Just for the record...I'm not a "wacko" or a "wingnut." I'm an educated person with strong convictions who is fed up with the moral degredation and systematic attacks on Christianity in this country.
I never said that I would get violent. When I said I said I would "take to the streets" I meant I would rally people to make our voices heard loud and clear. Because liberals ferociously attack anyone who opposes them (e.g., Joe the plumber), who knows what will happen to us.
Obama-Pelosi-Reid and their goons will do everything possible to shut us up and shut us out, but I will fight for my Christian values (in a non-violent way) until I draw my last breath.
AB from Texas| 10.22.08 @ 7:35PM
For those that would vote Obama solely to register their disapproval of the Bush administration, especially libertarians, please note that certain Obama policies will be irreversible once up and running. 1) Union Card Check law that allows unions to be formed without allowing an informed vote on the issue by employees. Once entrenched, you can say goodbye to more jobs as they are shipped overseas. 2) Fairness Doctrine. Left wing effort to curtail freedom of speech by silencing the only mass media delivery system for dissent - talk radio. 3) Entitlement programs. Once spending is in the budget, it is impossible to cut out. 4) Shifting of power to unelected bureaucrats in the EPA, the DOE, etc. I agree that republican politicians have failed us, but if we allow these policies to be enacted and allow US business to continue to be taxed at the second highest level in the industrialized world, we could face long-lasting or permanent damage to this country.
Taktani| 10.22.08 @ 7:38PM
Amazing. Obama's plan is to NOT CHANGE TAXES for 95% of Americans - 95%. Only 5% would see an increase. This is a 'Socialist?'
The sad part about this discussion is that most of those bandying about the word 'socialist' couldn't describe even the basic premise of what socialism is.
Socialism isn't adjusting the income tax code to raise the percentage of taxable income.
Socialism's basic premise is state control or collective control of the means of production and distribution.
A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT is responsible for the huge deficits and mounting national debt. A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT is the one that proposed a $700 billion bailout - that's $700 billion as in close to $1 TRILLION dollars - that will have GOVERNMENT taking OWNERSHIP STAKES in financial institutions. THAT'S SOCIALIST!!!!
But, in a day and age when people make decisions based on 6-second sound bites (9 seconds was too long, as CBS found out one year when it tried having longer clips and found their ratings dropping), they are incredibly susceptible to one-word-slander. Unfortunately, McCain and company are ready to feed the fires and fan the flames.
Of course, the people who really think Obama is a socialist are also probably ready to defend Palin getting $150,000 for clothes, makeup, and hairstyling. That's more than she makes in an entire year as governor of Alaska. That's enough to pay a Head Start teacher's salary for FIVE YEARS is many places. Clothes, makeup, and hairstyling. Maybe we DO need some sharing of the wealth .....
jackson| 10.22.08 @ 7:42PM
Viva la revoltion, baby. Get used to it.
Smoke57| 10.22.08 @ 7:51PM
This article was so paranoid! I scanned many of the posts here and there are some dandies - such as the one where the great socialist conspiracy identified Obama at the age of 10 and has been backing him and grooming him for his rise to power ever since. That is so crazy that it's funny. And, if it's true, you might as well give up the fight right now. An orginazation that smooth and sophisticated will surely demolish whatever forces are led against them by chimps like Bush and McCain. McCain finished 895th out of his class of 899! While serving in the military his specialty was crashing airplanes, he was not so good at actually flying them. Since conservatives love to talk about the free market but seem to completely misunderstand it, how about a business metaphor for this presidential race? Quality matters. Merit matters. So quit trying to sell me a Yugo when I'm driving a Mercedes, because I'm not buying it. Oh, I also love the guy who completely misunderstands Ayn Rand. "Atlas Shrugged" is about the perils of CORPORATE socialism disguised as true capitalism. The corporate big shots influence government to look the other way while they profit from an inferior product through fraud and cronyism AND influence government to subsidize their inferior crap and supress competition. Hmmm, that sounds familiar.
Ali| 10.22.08 @ 8:06PM
oh come on! this is pure garbage of the highest degree. it is truly depressing that people are paid to buy into the ignoramous Palin's misuse of the term "socialist" and continue the rubbish by writing articles with empty words. I mean, don't you people get tired of sitting around calling everyone around you a "terrorist" because you are bored with your sex life. I mean, CHRIST!
Taktani| 10.22.08 @ 8:06PM
To Steve, the self-professed non-wacko, non-wingnut: YOU, sir, are representative of a major part of the problem with dialogue in our society today.
Why do I say that? Because you equate POLITICS and RELIGIOUS VALUES. If you are a liberal Democrat, you can't possibly possess Christian values. Liberal Democrats are out to destroy Christianity and its values.
Christianity and its values do not know political boundaries. Christian denominations have differing interpretations and weighting of 'values.' There's nothing in my Bible that I can find that says Jesus is both the way to God and the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Christians, in the name of Christianity, have been perpetrators of some of history's most awful episodes.
Sarah Palin slipped and talked about the 'real America' and 'pro-America' in the past few days - and there's no doubt about where she stands on Christianity.
I've been a born-again Christian for 38 years. For 32 years, I've been a Democrat, and oft times a liberal-leaning one at that. You'll find millions of us out here, Steve - and to suggest that I'm not a 'real' American or a 'real Christian' because I don't think like you doesn't even rise to the level of wacko or wingnut .... it's just seriously sad. What would Jesus say? Not quite sure - but I don't think he'd be spouting off a whole lot of what I hear that passes for 'religious righteousness' these days.
Religious extremists who belive they possess the only right, true understanding destroyed the World Trade Center. They bombed abortion clinics. They destroyed cities, countries, and civilizations.
The problem is rigid extremism that judges everyone from one's own narrow perspective. If you don't agree with me, then you're out to destroy me and my beliefs. That's a problem whether you're an extreme liberal or extreme conservative in your Christianity.
Save for that bit about upsetting the gamblers in the temple, Jesus's methodology seemed to depend a lot less on shouting and condemnation and claims of persecution, and a whole lot more on service, being among people, and living a life acceptable to God.
If you're scared about Obana-Reid-Pelosi actually being able to destroy Christianity, then maybe you'd better rethink your faith and look at history. After 2000-plus years, Christian beliefs, whatever their flavor, probably will survive four years of that triumverate virtually unscathed, don't you think? Unless, of course, God doesn't want them too. :)
jack| 10.22.08 @ 8:10PM
Why do we constantly hear about Ayers, but we never hear about Liddy, Keating 5 or Alaska Independence Party?
I mean seriously - GOP has flooded airways about Sen. Obama's connections to Ayers (Man of the year in Chicago, member of the board of education in Illinois and university professor), but Any comments about Liddy, Keating 5 or Alaska Independence party is a big "taboo".
On one hand we have Sen. Obama's relation to a respected member of community (regardless of the past) and on the other hand we have connection to convicted criminals and extremist movements - direct connection.
Liddy - "Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great." - close relation to a criminal I'll say.
Keating 5 - "At the heart of the scandal was Keating's Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which took advantage of deregulation in the 1980s to make risky investments with its depositors' money. McCain intervened on behalf of Charles Keating with federal regulators tasked with preventing banking fraud, and championed legislation to delay regulation of the savings and loan industry -- actions that allowed Keating to continue his fraud at an incredible cost to taxpayers." - congress declared that Sen. McCain used "extremely bad judgment" - looks like a pattern.
Alaska Independence Party Palin's husband belongs to it and is an ACTIVE member. I guess we don't care that feature VP associates with a party that "hates America" and pushes for Alaska’s independence from the USA - as long as the person associating with them is a member of the GOP - hmmm...
jack| 10.22.08 @ 8:21PM
Taktani,
GREAT POST!
I always wonder how is it possible that the same people who are "Real Christians" and "Pro-Life" (I'm against abortion, but pro choice - I don't want to force anyone into my believes) are also "pro guns" and are eager to go to war... Which part of "If someone strikes you in the left cheek, turn them the right one to strike again..." - Christianity is a religion of love, peace and understanding and although I don't agree with the "turn other cheek" but being pro guns and wars is worse than being pro abortion. The same people who are "true Christians" are also the ones who scream "murder" when they hear any mentioning about any social services - oh well - Isn't accumulation of wealth and greed big "no no" according to Jesus? "It will be easier for the elephant to fit trough the needle ear, then for the rich man to enter my father’s kingdom" - is something unclear here? The "real Christians" should decide where their priorities are...
Publius| 10.22.08 @ 8:22PM
It is my hope that the American people will thru their faith in this country and for its storied past, not drink the kool aid of this latest packaging of Socailist dogma. I have been here since the early 1960's and have fought against government control of my life or that of my posterity. The Democrats latest messenger is very capable in speech and his gift of gab easily converts the minds of weak Americans. He is their piper and they are his rats. Just like rats they infest and ruin all they touch. Examples are rats in education, we lag far behind in many areas. Rats in leadership roles, speech is limited some words are permitted but yet the mind is set free. We sanction killing the unborn but we protect the life of an animal because it is innocent. We protect those whom murder others, but protect the life of the murderer. We tax ourselves and our corporations into poverty for the sake of transferring the wealth to those whom do not produce. I am ashamed of the entire system. While the Republican candidate is not perfect the great Silent Majority must rise to defeat the Red Threat from the left. If not.................we must show them just as the Patriots and Lex and Concord. We must save our country.
jack| 10.22.08 @ 8:26PM
Jim Baker ,
I'm a productive person... Professional, 6 figure salary, hard working - and YES, I DO SUPPORT SEN. OBAMA
Jack| 10.22.08 @ 8:27PM
Publius ,
something for you to read... Get your facts straight
http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/perverted-idea-fairness
Publius| 10.22.08 @ 8:31PM
We have missed the entire meaning of being free, obviously the spporters of the Socialist Left have no concept of the word. The socialist wave the flag of freedom for themselves while binding chains of governmental slavery and tyranny on others. Sic Semper Tyrannus
Tundrapat| 10.22.08 @ 8:33PM
I find it remarkable how so many right-wingers are able to ignore the fact that their own party got us into the current mess.
Are you people truly blind, or do you suffer from selective memory loss? Can you never acknowledge the mistakes of your platform or your (collective) past? You tryo to stoke fears of a 'Socialist Movement', and pan FDR, somehow forgetting that the GOP president (Harding) got us into the Great Depression. You pan FDR, somehow ignoring that he, the only 4-term President ever (and after which you GOP'ers decided to limit presidential terms - sorry Reagan!), got us not only out of the Depression but also successfully prosecuted a massive war effort.
But I'm sure you're right - somehow, somewhere, there MUST be a way to place the blame on the left! Yeah!
And then you worry about 'assaults on your Christian values' across the country. Well, from my perspective, you values are fine - just leave them out where they don't belong. There is a reason the Founding Fathers called for a healthy separation of church and state. We are not a theocracy, and while I completely respect your right to your religion, 'Steve' et al. (I was raised Catholic, even if I'm now Unitarian), I do not want a Bible - or a Torah, or a Quran - involved in deciding the laws of my country. If you want theocracy, move to Iran.
And seeing the vitriol coming from the hard-right, can-do-no-wrong, gun-totin, self-proclaimed 'true patriots', I can't help but worry which of you will actually try to solve your mythical dilemma with a bullet.
Tundrapat| 10.22.08 @ 8:36PM
Publius - I'm a professional, near a 6-figure salary, with an advanced degree. I didn't get the degree(s) by acting thoughtless or mindlessly following. Wake up from your pathetic delusion that anyone who disagrees with you must be incapable of thought.
And per my previous post - thanks for supporting my worrisome claim that one of you right-wing nutjobs is going to try to 'take matters into his own hands' through violence. Simply amazing...
Publius| 10.22.08 @ 8:36PM
Jack,
I think you should check your facts. Reading articles written by those with the same slant is very dangerous. Read the Federalist Papers, a hand book on the US Constitution, something tells me that is is far less biased.................
Tundrapat| 10.22.08 @ 8:39PM
Jack -
don't you get it? You "can't possibly" be an actual, working contributor to our nation and its economy. Otherwise, you damage their irrevocable mindset that 'all lefties are mindless, poor supplicants trying to steal our hard-earned money'. It simplifies things that way, so there's no need for difficult discussions that challenge their beliefs.
Mouse| 10.22.08 @ 8:44PM
So what?
Publius| 10.22.08 @ 8:44PM
Jack,
Do not high hat me. I also hold advanced degrees and yes my salary is very satisfying. I do not throw that out there to establish any notion of superiority. That has nothing to do with the argument. It is very reflective of the left wing supporters that you must throw mud such as "rightwing nut" as a way to fight against individual freedom. You my friend should comedown to earth and live your life and do not interfere with the freedom of others to support your notions of intelectual superiority.
Tundrapat| 10.22.08 @ 8:54PM
Publius -
Do you not consider it HYPOCRISY to attack 'Jack' for name-calling ("right-wing nut") - and by the way, you should be attributing that to me - while not considering your own, prior "rats" comments to be anything but?
Some saying about glass houses and stones comes to mind here...
And maybe 'Jack' is somehow "interfering" with your freedom and tooting his own "intellectual superiority", but again, Ithink you're trying to address me. And at no point did I say I was superior. Just pointing out that most of the voters who will be electing Obama by a landslide in 13 days do, in fact, work and support our economy. Maybe you should really make sure you read the comments before replying.
Looper| 10.22.08 @ 8:56PM
This is the begining of the END! Come Lord Jesus!
Marion Valentine | 10.22.08 @ 9:00PM
I grew up as a sharecropper's son, but can never remember ever being "poor." Joined the Navy because that was the only way to further my education. I have never met anyone that I am "better" than, nor anyone "better" than me, nor have I ever met anyone I could not learn from.
In the case of some, a closed mind is like a locked door, and until the right key is found nothing enters. Unfortunately in most cases hindsight is the key.
Tundrapat| 10.22.08 @ 9:02PM
Well said, Marion. Well said.
Nathan | 10.22.08 @ 9:03PM
Well, considering the founding fathers were liberal east coast intellectuals, I'd say us Obamanites are in a position to know a thing or two about patriotism. After all, like Ayers, they did commit treason against their motherland in the name of making a better life for Americans.
The beauty of all this is that the leftward swing of the pendulum was driven more than anything by the Bush fear machine--I say this from personal experience--and it hasn't finished swinging.
Have you seen polls of the 18-25 year old demographic? Their views make Malcolm X look like Jesse Helms. So get used to it--best is yet to come.
-Nathan McKnight
Marion Valentine | 10.22.08 @ 9:21PM
TundraPat;
I think we could get along even though you lean a little left and me a little right. And I think if you were in a situation where you witnessing a wrong, and did not have the might with you to stop it, you may like me, resort to a little "bluff" and hope like hell it works.
Five guys harrassing a young black lady behind the mall in an alcove where the dumpsters were. called for them to stop, they yelled who's gonna make us, I yelled I am, they said think you can beat all of us, i said no i have no intention of beating you I intend to kill at leat 3 of you, and started towards them, thank goodness they ran, cause i can't.
Observer| 10.22.08 @ 9:38PM
I'm afraid the best is not yet to come. We were a nation blessed with thousands of miles of rich soil and clean waters and mighty forests. We were given wise leaders and strong immigrants who joyfully professed allegiance to their new land. We were a Christian nation. Now, in this post-Christian era we have a singular new religion: Anti-bigotry. A sad excuse for a national religion. Now we have a ruling party of arrogant anti-bigots who, from their lofty heights of superior intellect hammer and rage against anyone who speaks against them. I grieve for my lost America.
avery| 10.22.08 @ 9:38PM
Actually, the America people revolted because they were being taxed (indeed, highly) without being represented--not simply for being taxed. In addition, technically, all American tax policies "spread the wealth around" (you like the free schools right?) Obama simply wants to spread it around more to increase economic equality and opportunity.
Zach Wheeler| 10.22.08 @ 9:39PM
This article is a completely ridiculous, hate-filled piece of trash. Anyone believing this stuff should be ashamed of theirselves as Americans. BOTH candidates are obviously qualified. Its just a matter of where u want to take this country. On one side you have more War and spending
(Reform does not mean Change). And on the other side u see an intelligent human being that wants to try to fix our broken tax code. Obama doesnt want to give money to poor people. He wants to remove the Tax Cuts from 2000. How is that Socialism? I've never seen such hate in America from the Republicans!! McCain would be love to win by Default but its not gonna happen. Obama is an Intellectual and i believe thats what this country needs. Not War. Oh and one more thing to the weak-willed Religous Right: Your views about creation should not drive your thinking processes. Learn to think freely and not under the confines of a book full of moral stories and fairy tales. That is all for now. PEACE!!!
Stretch| 10.22.08 @ 9:41PM
Did you remember to mention that all us leftist maniacs will make churches illegal? I mean, if you're going to smear 60% of the public, be a man and go full tinfoil.
PS: We'll fine you if you don't eat your vegetables, too.
Zach Wheeler| 10.22.08 @ 9:47PM
I meant to say "Themselves" in my above statement (For all those who search for ways to tear down ones credibility and not look for "Substance").
KeepOnTopic| 10.22.08 @ 10:01PM
Marion,
Well done you are a truly brave and courageous person, I have different beliefs but I reallly respect your courage and convictions. Getting back to Obama getting elected I think we all need to have faith that he will surround himself with wise counsel and govern for the best interest of the whole country and not for the country club elites like W.
Back on Topic - The right wing folks like Steve and Co need to remember that there is no Red states versus Blue states there is only the United States - restraint, forebearance and respect - are the key. Obama will be legitimate president of this great country by legitimate means, if you are not happy with the countries direction then try and change it via legitimate methods in the next elections in 20012. If the Neocons etc want to erase the political rights of the rest of us then they are out of luck.
Mary| 10.22.08 @ 10:02PM
Obama is not an intellectual, he is a parrot, not a thinker. He is good at memorizing info fed to him but he couldn't think himself out of a paper bag. Unfortunately, he is probably going to be the next president (although he will never be my president). In a way, this may be good because this is the only way the foolish Americans who are voting for him will see how socialism is implemented and the economic disaster that he and the losers Pelosi and Reid will bring down upon us next year and for years after. For the record, I am an atheist and a registered independent so I don't have a dog in this hunt. The only thing I care about is my savings and having enough money to enjoy life. I just wonder how Obama is going to make the U.S. perfect, and everyone will love each other, there will be no poverty, no racism, no religion, no more wars, and all this in 4 years. And why is he different than all the democrats before him? I mean, look how divisive this "great" messiah has made the U.S. How is this going to come together? Is he going to lock everyone who disagrees with him in the slammer. You know, I always wondered how so many people were so naive and could have elected Hitler but I think I understand now, it's deja vu all over again.
Zach Wheeler| 10.22.08 @ 10:11PM
Obama was Valedictorian at Harvard. Then went on to be a professor there for a short time. McCain was 5th from the bottom in his graduating class in the Navy. He would have been kicked out but his daddy and granddaddy were Admirals so he was a shoe-in.Then in Vietnam he didnt last a full year before getting shot down on a bombing mission...He is not a Hero. Actually there is no comparison between the two. Obama is an intellectual and McCain is a post-tramatic syndrome Wash-up. Nuff Said.
Jane| 10.22.08 @ 10:18PM
With an Obama victory, the inmates will be in charge of the asylum and we'll all likely feel we're living in a parallel universe.
HMMMM ever read "One Flew Over The Cuckoo"s Nest"?
KeepOnTopic| 10.22.08 @ 10:26PM
Mary;
Obama is an intellectual and free thinker, he is the definitive intellectual and scholar due to his quality Harvard education as a constitutional lawyer. Obama will be your legally and democratically president - as he will be for the rest of the population - you need to check the various parts of the constitutional and election acts if you have a problem with that fact. The recent economic disaster and subsequent bailout of Wall street by the GOP Bush Administration is a "neccessary act of socialism" brought about about by GOP sponsored greed and lack of control of Wall Street. True Socialism is where the government owns the infrastructure - but then this recently applies to W now that his administration owns bank doesnt it? You would not know socialism if you fell over it. Remember that the neocon GOP is idealogically the same as the nationalist fascists of Germany and Italy before WW2. Nothing like the GOP exists in other western countries or the rest of the world as they have no relevance to enable them to gain power. Part of the reason why the USA has lost standing in other countries - especially Europe and the Coomonwealth is that the neocons are a repulsive idealogues. So comparing Obama to Hitler is particularly hilarious given that you have no real understanding of either Socialism or Fascism. The only one that locks folks in the slammer that does not agree with him is Cheney.
dogtree| 10.22.08 @ 10:31PM
Regardless of the election outcome, we are fairly evenly divided with most American's considering themselves 'moderate.' There is no such thing as a 'mandate.' If BO wins, the most liberal wing of the Democratic party will control the government for at least 2 years, maybe longer. BTW, I am not using the term 'liberal' with derision but as a realistic description.
The founders did not intend for the federal government to be everthing to all people. Someone show me where the Constitution says that the federal government will provide everything. Someone show me where it says it is a 'living document' or that we should be redistributing the wealth. The founders wanted equality, but somehow, the liberal view of the world equates that with the government determining who gets what and when.
The reality of BO is this...if you listen to what he says, read his books and speeches, examine his webiste, and review is fairly anemic record of legislative accomplishment, you will see that he is an extremely liberal politician, bordering on socialism. His apparent view is that the America we know, with all of her flaws, is the wrong one. He would rather see the US remade in the mold of France or Germany. If this is what you believe, then vote for him. But at least be sure that you know what you are getting. There is virtually nothing in his record that suggests that he will be any kind of 'post-partisan' leader. Think about it. The record of GWB as governor of Texas suggested that he could cross the aisle. Regardless of the reasons why we are so split in this country, I seriously doubt that any Democrat would agree that he unified anything. If, on the other hand, you think that the federal government should provide safety and security and guidance while leaving individuals to determine their own course of action, then vote for McCain. While he isn't exactly a conservative (he only looks that way to someone from the extreme left), at least he's got a record of voting his concious rather than a party line.
I wonder how far left we will drift? I wonder how long we as a nation will survive? I fear that if we don't start finding common ground (and stop all the ridiculous insults and name-calling...how do you ever think we'll fix anything by promoting division?), we will be ripe for another civil war.
remainder| 10.22.08 @ 10:42PM
"And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?"
Before trying to incite civil war, before we step up as the saviors we suspect we are and save the American people from themselves, let's ask some tough questions:
Who here wants a political process where people are fearful of the other party? --Where we seek to spread and inflame this fear --Where the other political party is to be demonized (and, if possible, marginalized), since there is no hope of tempering or converting their stubborn beliefs. (Never mind our own stubborn beliefs. They're the correct ones)
Right, left or moderate: Does anyone want this? Politics in such a system describes a nervous arena of domination by strength and luck, not that which has grown from the virtuous seeds planted by our founding fathers.
How do we prevent division and fear from infecting America? Well, it's easier said than done, so let's just have our cake and eat it too: chastise the other guy, but reserve criticism of ourselves. Fairness when it's convenient.
People being insulted won't take criticism to heart, they'll just react defensively and counterattack. People being presented with information they don't trust the source of will ignore said information.
Obama supporters:
If you take this opportunity to gloat, insult and marginalize Americans you don't like, you are shooting yourself in the foot like fools. Consider that you are hypocrites for supporting a presidential candidate who opposes such partisan hostility and narrow-mindedness. Go read Audacity of Hope. Listen to the abridged version on your hip as hell iPods. Seriously.
Obama detractors:
I would recommend you read Audacity of Hope too, but since you imagine you already know what the book contains, I know my recommendation will be ignored. Still, I would advise you not to shoot your fellow conservatives and fellow Americans in the feet either. There are a number of intelligent conservatives who understand that the party is more than a bit fractured (much as liberals were the past 8 years), has trouble keeping it's story straight, and needs to redefine itself. GO DO THAT. You have leaders who are already working on this. You'll want to be ready when our democracy's pendulum swings back your way in 2016.
There will certainly be a faction of the GOP that feels too pissed off and disenfranchised to be patient. This is the same feeling that drove all the liberal sentiment for impeaching Bush for so long. Your impatience will bring discredit to your party. Worse, it will hurt America. Am I I'm trying to use reverse psychology here? If you think so, perhaps you have a low opinion of your own gullibility. Earn some self esteem by treating other people nicely.
Before clammering for civil war, consider: what you think is in your short term interest may not be in your long term interest and what you think is in "America's" interest is not agreed upon by a majority of Americans for a reason. No, that reason is not hypnosis. Don't kid yourselves. It is not patriotic to have faith in your own righteousness, it's just selfish.
Steve Leonard| 10.22.08 @ 10:43PM
Yes, thank goodness as you moronic conservatives have poisoned our country for generations to come with your focus on privitization of everything, excess greed, bigotry, and worship of the "market" at all costs. Why do all your heroes, Shrub, Satan (Cheney), Reagan, Barbie and McSame all have combined IQ's less than the Square Root of 100 yet you have the audacity to criticize someone who has pulled himself up by his bootstraps, become educated and made something of himself. Oh yes, you would rather worship an idiot from Texas who will go down in history as the singularly worst individual to ever be awarded the office of President. Moronic times moronic = Conservatives. Take Barbie and her Beauty Queen pea brain back to the tundra and send Grandpa McCain back to the desert. Good grief, losers personified.
Zach Wheeler| 10.22.08 @ 10:44PM
Dogtree, i agree with some of your assessment but ... "leaving individuals to determine their own course of action"...We have something called GREED and the wealthiest companies really run this country. That is the problem. We need REGULATION to stop this evil. Minimum wage should be at least $12/hr and we need tighter restrictions on labor laws...Obama will help with that. He is not gonna "reward the lazy" as some might think. And also, there is ALWAYS a redistribution of wealth going on. Our govt. needs to regulate every few years to keep it FAIR. Letting the Greedy run this country is not the direction i want to go. Do you think it is fair that a CEO makes 100 times what his subordinates make? No man is worth 100 times another man in pay grade, period.
KeepOnTopic| 10.22.08 @ 10:51PM
Dogtree;
In your analysis you compared Obama's views to moving the USA towards France and Germany in political spectrum, however my own analysis indicates that Obama may well move the USA towards the Commonwealth countries political spectrum. Excepting for a moment that Canada and Australia are constitutional monarchies, the changes required are a lot less to make for the USA compared to France/Germany - say in regards to separation of church and state, regulation and Health services for example. I think we are looking at an extended period of economic recovery under a new deal version 2 that will be a dynamic process. I think that the True Republicans - not rapid neocons - will be part of the process of recovery and change. I also think that the GOP will fracture along idealogical lines into moderate Republican/Libertarian and Conservative/Christian Right - possibly with the Republicans holding the balance of power. I honestly dont think that we will drift into a civil war - the forces of modernism and progression via dialogue from the moderates will not allow this to occur.
Zach Wheeler| 10.22.08 @ 10:59PM
We should start tearing pages out of Japan's Labor Laws books!!! I think they have the right idea..The lowest paid in the company MUST make a certain percentage of the highest paid. Why cant we come up with something like that??!!
Mike Vanderboegh| 10.22.08 @ 10:59PM
Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep sitting down to vote on what, or who, to have for dinner.
Republic: Three wolves, a sheep and three million sheepdogs voting on whether the wolves have overstayed their welcome.
Sorry, but "progressives," or your old moniker "liberals," are still collectivists. Collectivists murdered hundreds of millions in the name of their "cult of personality" leaders pushing various perfectibility of man schemes during the 20th Century. But here's a clue, you know why they didn't here? Because the American citizenry is armed. It is, except for you liberal pukes who have willingly disarmed, still armed.
So tell me once more how it is that we are the Nazis when all we want is our God-given liberties? The fascists, nazis and communists, collectivists all, at least had guns to force their will on the rest of the disarmed population. What do you have? Hot air and bluster.
I tell you now, be careful what you wish for, you may get it. We're still the ones with the guns. And if you think we're going to give them up just because some government tells us to, you are extrapolating from your own cowardice. We will fight, and we will win.
My suggestion would to try it and see what happens.
Or as my bumper sticker reads:
Obama in 2008.
Revolution by 2010.
Change you CAN believe in.
Mike Vanderboegh
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
FreedomLover| 10.22.08 @ 11:03PM
Oh my God! Barack Obama served on the board of a charity with a terrorist. He should have just resigned in protest when he realized that Ayers was an unrepentent terrorist. I guess the other board members, including all those Republicans who served with Ayers should have resigned as well, leaving Ayers as the only board member who would then have sole control over all that money in the foundation. Yes, that is what happens when ideology and emotion control your thinking. It is the same reason we are in Iraq and and are teetering on the edge of economic disaster. Well done, ideologues. Keep fighting for your principles even as they foreclose on your house.
Zach Wheeler| 10.22.08 @ 11:04PM
McCain just wants to continue "Trickle-Down Economics" and hope the greedy will follow suit...Not gonna happen folks!! Its been proven over the last decade that it doesnt work. The Bush tax cuts is a prime example. What did it do for this country? Nothing except loss of jobs, outsourced jobs, no pay raises, and the rich got richer. OBAMA is the clear choice unless you are one of the 3 R's.......Rich, Religious, or Racist.
James| 10.22.08 @ 11:08PM
Can we stop using the word "liberal" to describe the Democrats please? They lost the right to use the word in the 60's when the party began its shift toward socialism/Marxism.
I fail to see what's so "liberal" about an ideology which seeks to plunder wealth from its rightful owners into the hands of people who didn't earn it. Nor do I see what's so "liberal" about the left's code of political correctness which has sought to trample over the idea of freedom of speech over the last 20 years or so.
And enough with the label "progressive." What's so progressive about ideas which should have been thrown in the dustbin by the late 70's?
pauliedoc| 10.22.08 @ 11:13PM
Conservatives=status quo, fear change
Liberals=change everything, fear conservatives
Moderates= do what works, with the goal of responsibly advancing human society.
the Founding Fathers were liberals who established a moderate government. Obama is a MODERATE.
The guy who wrote this article is clueless...
Zach Wheeler| 10.22.08 @ 11:14PM
On Ayers.....First of all it was 40 years ago. Even if he was convicted then, our justice system would have forgiven him so you should too. Second, HE IS A PROFESSOR at the university of illinois-chicago, And is deeply involved in charities and Education. So does that mean that the university accepts Terrorists? I think not. What is this "unrepentant" Bullsh*t?? Does he need to call you personally and apologize. Gimme a break. I forgive him for his actions when he was a young man and the University has as well. Its just a Non-Issue so drop it...You are grasping for air my friend.
G5| 10.22.08 @ 11:15PM
Many do not know this but many white supremecists will be voting for Obama. Why? They are hedging their bets that an Obama presidency will create a backlash among the white populace.
If a B.O. administration falters and events grow worse the white supremacy movement will excel.
If a B.O. administration fluorishes and events improve then one who has jealously in his heart will plot the demise of B.O..
Mark those words Joe Biden.
KeepOnTopic| 10.22.08 @ 11:15PM
Oh goodie a Neocon troll has dropped in for a chat. Hey buddie make sure that you dont shoot your self in the foot while you shoot your vile opinions over the 'net. I wonder if the CIA is profiling you based on your surname and your online posts? A little history lesson because you probably dont have the bandwidth for a big history lesson. Why dont you research the quote "When fascism comes to the USA it will be draped in the US flag and holding a bible" by Eisenhower before he left office. The only collectivists and human supremists believing in the perfectability of man in the USA are the nazi gun weilding wolves and brown shirts that you are undoubtly involved in supporting. Why dont you take your alcohol and roid fueled malice of others "not like us" elsewhere? - "we the people" are busy rebuilding our great country after W dropped the ball big time.
dogtree| 10.22.08 @ 11:17PM
Remainder -
I hope we don't ever see a civil war either. I was attempting to point out that the apparent inability for theoretically rational people who *should* have the same ultimate goal (while maybe disagreeing on the question of how we get there) to carry on a legitimate discussion of views/points. Without that, we'll never get anywhere. BO wants to hold discussions with Iran etc. Maybe we need to start here. Reading Steve Leonard's post, with all of the obvious hatred and name-calling, leads me to wonder if we'll ever get there.
Zach Wheeler -
Thanks for the comments. And I agree...greed is a huge problem. Looking at the current economic mess, I think that, while greed is part of it, it isn't all of it. Think of the 'law of unintended consequences' in that many fiscal policies were introduced by both parties (remember the Community Reinvestment Act - a good idea - help less-fortunate people buy houses while forgetting why some people are higher credit risks) as well as the Fed's policies (lower interest to keep the economy moving while contributing to the falling dollar on the world market) over the last 30+ years. WRT regulation, the golden question is 'how much is too much?' And, while we are at it, why not regulate everything? As for how much someone is worth, I have no idea. Is any athelete, actor, or musician really worth $25M? Who would get to decide how much anyone makes? Revising lawyer pay (especially in the field of malpractice) has long been a topic for discussion but no one has ever determined who would decided how much was too much. That being said, I think it's disgusting that corporate CEO's can get a $165M golden parachute while bankrupting Merrill-Lynch.
BG| 10.22.08 @ 11:17PM
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society. / There are different kinds of socialism - Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs (like Sweden); Libertarian socialism rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy. What many people refer to as socialism is actually a form called Leninism – where the proletariat can only achieve a successful revolutionary consciousness through the efforts of a vanguard party composed of full-time professional revolutionaries (the USSR). Since the number 2, 4 and 6 campaign donors to Obama are from Wall Street I don’t think that Wall Street thinks Obama fits into any of the descriptions above (well, maybe the Sweden model at this point!). For myself, I prefer people like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader since they talk about things as they are (different solutions and points of view however). Given how the Republicans have mismanaged things so badly, I will probably vote for Obama just because! - If you are going to buy something – lets say a war – is it better to tax the public to pay for it, or to borrow money and pay more for it than otherwise? Or is it better just to print more money, thus devaluing your currency over time?
kai| 10.22.08 @ 11:22PM
hmmm.... it is funny to see people who don;t believe their own lies keep on spewing in hope it will stick somewhere. the facts are simple:
Republicans destroyed this economy through incompetence and corruption. Neocons have hobbled our international standing and ability to effectively fight terrorists for years to come.
Things are actually rather simple. Would you keep a CEO who bankrupts his company? Who relies on incompetent cronies and yes-men? It is time to change the guard!
G5| 10.22.08 @ 11:24PM
Keep On Topic
Search You Tube; "Obama White Supremacy"
AP did a story on what I was referencing in my post.
The If statements were based on logical conclusions of what will motivate the far right into a collective rage.
Much like Bush motivated far left individuals to organizations like daily kos, move on, etc... And, yes while they are not calling for vigilante violence they did organize.
So will the far right. Look at the example of what happened during the Carter administration; a rise in Neo Nazi ideology. The Clinton administration; Tim McVeigh.
Is it fortune telling no. Just history repeating itself but I believe in a more amplified fashion.
Every Action Has An Equal and Opposite Reaction.
Zach Wheeler| 10.22.08 @ 11:31PM
I truly believe that if the common Working Man made a reasonable amount of money and the businesses at the top of the spectrum were more Regulated, we would not be having this economic crisis and inflation would not be as severe. As for Corporate Bailouts...I dont agree with any Bailouts of any form. Let them die...im disgusted with that topic. Our country is very fragile if our economy relies on just a few banking companies to lead us..What happened to our Monopoly laws??
KeepOnTopic| 10.22.08 @ 11:31PM
G5;
I think a lot of us have a real fear that the white supremists could act up with tragic consequences. However their day of reckoning is well overdue - and guess what they are subject to the rule of law like everyone else. If the supremists are really so supreme they would find a way of getting around a legitimate Obama presidency without resorting to violence - otherwise they are just homegrown terrorists like McVeigh.
davelnaf| 10.22.08 @ 11:38PM
The author is exactly right, Obama will be a disaster for the country in the short term. But he will be an even longer term disaster for the democrats which, as a party, may not survive an Obama administration. Still, there is the lingering suspicion that all those people that polled favorably for Obama might not represent a good sampling or were lying to the pollster. The idea that people will vote for Obama and thus punish themselves with a tax increase doesn't make sense.
James| 10.22.08 @ 11:39PM
Zach (and all the other "liberals" who are posting their nonsense here):
Why don't you just admit that you're socialists who don't believe that human beings should be allowed to trade freely of their own volition? Why don't you just come out and admit that the idea of individual freedom abhors you and that you'd rather we were a restricted, homogeneous society like Japan, or any of the European social-democracies? Do you want freedom or don't you?
Let me put it another way. If there were a way to guarantee an extra 2% of economic growth every year by planning everyone's lives and ordering people around, would you say "yes please," or would you admit the fact that no amount of economic growth would make up for the fact that we were not free?
Let me put it another way. If we could attain zero street crime by imposing strict curfews at night and banning any movement after dark, would the prospect of no crime trump your desire to be free? Or would you rather have your complete individual freedom and recognize that crime is something which we'll never fully eradicate but which we must nonetheless do what we can to minimize?
If you were a true American, you'd know what I'm talking about here. Our freedom is primary. We are a product of the Enlightenment and a long struggle, which began in Europe, to free man from the chains of serfdom.
I do not care which other countries with this or that oppressive rules impress you. Why not go and live there if you're so enamored? Would you really prefer it if America were more like Japan, where managers regularly work themselves to death, where the "dishonor" of being fired regularly drives people to suicide?
But aside from all this, there is so much about your economic ignorance which needs to be addressed here. There is not enough room to address it all.
Firstly, minimum wages cause unemployment in the long run. When a minimum wage is imposed, it prices out of the market workers whose skills are worth less than that wage. Companies can only hire them at that wage by cutting back on costs elsewhere, or raising their prices. If prices are raised then consumers have less to spend on other things, meaning job losses in other areas of industry. If costs are cut then this generally means layoffs or downsizing.
There is a myth on the left that workers wages could be so much higher if only the "greedy" fat cats at the top took a smaller profit. In other words, if they "redistributed" their profits. In reality, when you look at a common breakdown of revenues, you see that 60-70% pays labor, and profits are as low as 3%-6%. The rest is spent on production costs, materials, reinvestment and development. The idea that a fraction of that small profit ratio could be shaved off and redistributed to workers to give them higher wages is ridiculous. Sure we can give them a price rise - but it won't come out of profits...it'll come from higher consumer prices. But low consumer prices account for much of our prosperity. Raise them, and we're all poorer. The poorest are hit hardest by price rises.
This is why the behavior of unions is detrimental to economic growth. They have their place in demanding market wages and safe working conditions, but anything beyond that has done nothing but inflate prices and cause unemployment.
Next - "trickle down economics" is not a theory at all, no matter how much "liberals" will try and attribute it to Reagan. It's nothing more than a derogatory term that the left uses to describe the reality that capital is best concentrated in the hands of the people who have the ability to make it grow.
When the left moans that a large proportion of "the wealth" is concentrated in the hands of a few, what they forget is that most of that wealth is invested as capital. There is money which is consumed, and money which makes more money. By plundering that capital from the most productive in order to redistribute it to the poor as consumption, what you're doing is akin to taking the farmer's corn seed and feeding it to the villagers. The poor don't need handouts (stolen goods), they need economic growth and JOBS.
I could go on and on about the myths and legends and downright lies that "liberals" perpetuate about economics. They throw around words like "greed" and "selfishness" in order to emotionalize arguments which don't really stand up in court.
The "free market," as much as it exists in America, is responsible for our prosperity and is responsible for the fact that America is the #1 preferred destination for immigrants, while socialist countries don't have anyone beating on their door to get in. Capitalism doubled our average life expectancies and decimated our infant mortality rates in less than 250 years, perhaps the greatest achievement in human history. It's about time the left stopped whining about a process which caused an explosion of life on this planet, and started defending it. Not one of you would last two minutes in a socialist country before you would be clamoring to get back into the US.
Red Neck| 10.22.08 @ 11:45PM
"Obama steers Dems toward a thoughtful center. "
HA! More like the lefty side of the lefty party grabs this empty suit and swings it about like a bludgeon.
FloridaCounts| 10.22.08 @ 11:45PM
>>>Given how the Republicans have mismanaged things so badly, I will probably vote for Obama just because!
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Republicans had both branches till 2006. If Democrats control all 3 branches after 2008, it will be another case of absolute power corrupts absolutely. In 2012, voters will be sick of Democrats. By the way, Obama owes plenty of favors during the election which will be repaid after election and you can bet he will not govern from the center.
Zach Wheeler| 10.22.08 @ 11:51PM
James,
"Freedom" does not mean you are free to contol peoples lives just because you are wealthy. You apparently would be happy with Anarchy. Democracy is not survival of the fittest though we seem to be headed that direction. Is a professional Wrestler free to strangle the life out of anyone he chooses? Thats what some business owners are doing to their workers. I know we cant create a perfect society through regulation. We must find a balance and it has gotten way out of control..Companies like Wal-Mart need to be slapped down. But can you honestly tell me you are happy with McCain and his choice of VP?
jack| 10.22.08 @ 11:52PM
Publius,
I wasn't trying to "high hat" you, nor did I try to "establish any notion of superiority". I simply tried to state that though I do bear my responsibilities I also believe in socially civilized society. Again, socialism is NOT to be confused with the communism. All develop countries employ, as does US (just at the bare minimum - lower than any other developed country in the world), some sort of socialistic approach (hey, we just socialized the banking system - I guess you are ok with capitalization of profits and socialization of debt when big companies are concerned, right?). England, Germany, France, Japan, Canada and just about any other developed nation is way more socially advanced then US, which resembles more of the "monarchy" state (top 5% are not paying any, or paying minimum taxes - and yes, percentage matters and not just the number).
"Reading articles written by those with the same slant is very dangerous. " - yes it is - you are the best example supporting your own statement...
James| 10.22.08 @ 11:54PM
pauliedoc | 10.22.08 @ 10:13PM
The founding fathers were REAL liberals. Classic liberals had more in common with libertarians than today's so-called "liberals." They believed in individual freedom both socially and economically.
Your promotion of "moderates" suggests that you are a pragmatist. But to be a pragmatist is to reject principles and to adopt the mantra that "the end justifies the means." For instance, as I've already mentioned, imposing street curfews to eliminate crime. Does the end justify the means? It's certainly "pragmatic." After all, who could argue with zero crime and the saving of countless lives? But we choose to allow freedom of movement even with the consequences, because the PRINCIPLE of individual freedom is worth more to us.
If someone with good intentions but no principles is pitted against someone who is evil but whose principles are consistent, the evil person with consistent principles will always win. This is why, unless we stay true to our principles of individual freedom, we will ultimately lose the fight against radical Islamism. They are evil, but their principles are rock solid and they will find holes in the weak, patchwork of wishy-washy moral relativism and foggy pragmatism which has befallen Western culture.
Zach Wheeler| 10.22.08 @ 11:54PM
And you can call me a Socialist, thats fine. But my thoughts are not restricted to Labels... its ok to leave things Unnamable. If it makes u feel better than i guess its ok tho, i dont hate you.
remainder| 10.22.08 @ 11:56PM
Zach Wheeler,
I can appreciate your disgust with the management of our markets, the intense concentration of capital, policies that systematically abuse the idea of credit to extremely volatile ends and, I would add, massive foreign debt (which is a logical conclusion of the Bretton Woods system). The condensation of wealth upward and the transfer of risk downward sometimes gets pushed too hard and backfires on the top.
Nonetheless, in our ownership society, if the top is hurting, that's something that actually will trickle down into layoffs and bankruptcies and diminished extension of credit for struggling people. Although a light purge of our reliance on credit would not be a bad thing, something has to fill this gap for the many who are already set up to depend upon it. People with families, mortgages, and college educations to pay for, small businesses to expand etc. So the solution needs to be more complex than a cathartic dis to the top.
Although it can be hard to find wealth distribution data online, you might find it interesting. Maybe start by googling l-curve.
Willythekorn| 10.22.08 @ 11:57PM
Mr. Neumayr, I know neither you nor your works, so I am unwilling to immediately brand you as a flaming hypocrite. I assume that you are honest in railing against a possible "dictatorship" of liberal Democrats. I assume you are truly not aware of the "dictatorship" of the so-called Religious Right that The United States has suffered under for the last eight years under the Bush Administration.
This dictatorship of the religious right not only manifests itself in the injustices wrought upon the Justice Department by bright young graduates of Regent Law School who felt they could ignore the rules in favor of hiring lawyers that met their peculiar political-religious-mystical standards. Nor am I only thinking of the evisceration of research performed by the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health or the EPA, if that research yielded results that were politically offensive to the Bush Administration and/or his supporters from the Religious Right.
No, what I'm referring to are the hordes of graduates from colleges like Liberty University and Patrick Henry College, specifically trained to enter the federal bureaucracy and subvert that bureaucracy from within, generally without any notice at all save for a few honest (and currently unemployed) whistle-blowers.
The Religious Right does not now, and never has represented anywhere near a majority of Americans. Yet their infiltration into the bureaucracy and their undercover work to distort it to their ends represents a manifestation of political power far beyond their mandate. Moreover, they have done massive damage -- damage which will take years and years to repair.
One could hardly trust the very people who did this damage to clean it up, so I am sincerely praying that Barack Obama not only wins but carries on his coattails unbeatable majorities in both houses of Congress. I trust Democrats far more than I do Republicans to respect the rule of law and respect for the rules.
Earlier I said I would not want to call you a hypocrite. If, on the other hand, you have been aware of and approve these actions by the Religious Right, then I do brand you a hypocrite most foul. And I remind you that hypocrites were the only kind of people whom Jesus never did get around to forgiving.
Papdadio| 10.22.08 @ 11:58PM
Hmm...let's see what the godfather hero of the fiscal conservatives has to say about this matter.
In Wealth of Nations, Smith wrote:
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”
Now that's the kind of common sense conservatism that even we Obama supporters can get behind.
James| 10.22.08 @ 11:58PM
Zach Wheeler | 10.22.08 @ 10:14PM
To those who are claiming that this is just a "smear" against Obama and that his relationship with Ayers has no bearing on his present or his intent for America...hear this:
1) A national leader will always try to reshape the country he/she is leader of into the image of his own values.
2) A person's values are the result of an accumulation of past experiences, connections, attitudes and actions. We do not suddenly wake up one morning with our values - they develop over years.
3) With this in mind - if we wish to gain a better understanding of the values of a Presidential candidate and the ways in which these values will shape his or her agenda for America, then it is perfectly reasonable - in fact essential - to look at that person's past associations and actions.
There is simply no way on Earth that Obama's radical left wing past - Ayers, Acorn, the New Party etc - has not shaped an enormous part of who he is today, his values and how he intends to reshape America into the image of these values.
It's not just about one meeting, or serving on a board, or anything else in isolation. It's the sum total of his past and the ideological path he has consciously trodden throughout his adult life. When Obama talks about "spreading the wealth around," his past associations with Marxists and his membership of the New Party are 100% relevant.
As is his promise to ACORN last year - recorded on tape - that once elected as President he will allow them to shape his agenda for America.
ACORN itself is an organization forged from the same smash-the-system, anticapitalist Marxist roots as Ayers. It was founded by George Wiley who made a serious attempt to bring capitalism to its knees in the early 70's by organizing poor ghetto dwellers to storm welfare offices and demand everything that was possibly due to them. In just a few short years he more than doubled the number of single parent African Americans on welfare, with devastating consequences for black America.
I do not think any of this is "tenuous" or "irrelevant" or "a distraction" or "a smear." I think it's instrumental in telling us who Obama is and who and what has shaped him in the past. We have a right to know everything about the man who promises to "change" America. I'm sick of the way in which Obama supporters cite the concept of "change" as if it were not possible to make any kind of objective judgment of that "change." What kind of change? Look at Obama's past for the answers.
James| 10.23.08 @ 12:00AM
G5 | 10.22.08 @ 10:15PM
Do you have any empirical evidence for your theory concerning white supremacists voting for Obama, or is it just conjecture (or more likely, the product of an over-active imagination)?
Joseph| 10.23.08 @ 12:02AM
The stuff found in this article is absolutely insane and discredits the Republican Party's name. Not only is the majority of the article a contradiction of itself, the comments section is full of conspiracy theories and doomsday prophecies from religious zealots. Articles like this, and the closed-minded individuals who produce them, are the cause of this 'culture war' which 'threatens to tear our country apart'.
People should remember when Obama wins the election that he won because the majority of the country chose him. Conservatives have no right to claim they know better than the holy democracy of America (God Bless Us All).
If you think America is a Christian country, then why don't you let God handle it. Its a little presumptuous for you to go around raging and complaining about your Bossman's work.
The alternative is to be rational and informed and be involved in the political system.
Please don't do both.
jack| 10.23.08 @ 12:02AM
James,
All I can say that you would be perfectly happy 300 years ago in some Monarchy state (unless you were not in the top 5%). Thanks to the social developments and advancements people who are not from royal or aristocracy blood lines have a chance to better their lives. Unless you are a descendant of the aristocratic line you should be happy that the social revolution ever took place, because you may be now working for a lord, who would tell you how much goods can you keep for yourself - but I guess people have short memory and forget where their roots are...
jimfocus| 10.23.08 @ 12:03AM
Gee, do you think if Michelle Obama was alive when the original Constituion had been written that she would have been proud of it? Michelle's statement has been misinterpeted and so completely banged around the rightwing echo chamber few remember the context of her comments: after 7 years of Bush, her husband's early success in the primaries was restoring her faith, maybe for the first time in her adult life. That's not an unusual thing for a black American woman to say--she was a teen when Reagan was elected, and has seen many civil rights gains eroded or cynically attacked by the GOP. She makes perfect sense to me, many of us have been ashamed of the leadership of this country the last 30 yrs., and we are still Americans, live with it.
KeepOnTopic| 10.23.08 @ 12:06AM
James;
A stale idealology cannot be defended by line upon line of verbose GOP rhetoric. The fact of the matter is that the USA has been moving left politically for sometime, and Obama is the result not the cause. If it was not Obama it would have been Hillary that McCain had to face this year. Note that your charge of socialism for other you dont agree with is yet another example of GOP doctrine failure. You would not know socialism if you fell over it James. Note that one of the central tenants of any western democracy is one that the price of political and economic failure is to be forced out of government. This fact may equally apply to the Dems in either 2012 or 2016, it is entirely possible that the electorate could lose patience with Obama by 2012 - we just dont know.
Basically Obama will govern as a moderate and the regulatory landscape will be changed to prevent the worst excesses of future DEM or GOP governments occurring. The earlier examples I used of Commonwealth countries where to highlight the areas of change where we could learn something positive from our cousins. I am an independent and moderate and I dont presume the arrogance to think we have all the answers to our problems already - rather the "Last Best Hope for Mankind" is very much a work in progress even now.
boredwell| 10.23.08 @ 12:08AM
American colonists objected to the fact that the they were taxed without representation. Overtaxation, always vexing for all concerned, was not the issue. As for those "colonists" they were, in fact a cabal of merchants,Samuel Adams, John Hancock and other wealthy tea smugglers. These princes of commerce were incensed when Parliament allowed the East India Company who had a monopoly on tea to bypass British duty taxes and pay the lower American duty taxes.
This "taxation without representation" would have effectively put the American smugglers out of business. They were smuggling tea from the Netherlands and selling it WITHOUT having to pay any duty on it at all. They stood to lose and lose Big Time! This is the nerve that had been struck and induced the American ringleaders into action: the Boston Tea Party as it's now called.
Ultimately, our country was founded because George 1st had attacked the Americans' soft spot, the bottom line: money and the small group of financiers it affected the most. The mood which precipitated this act of defiance was the colonists' anger over the Stamp Act and and Townsend Act. The Tea Tax would have benefited the ailing East India, of course, but also the colonists who were addicted to tea and unwilling to give it up. In the long run, the monopoly would have diminished Adams and Hancock's fortunes but would have provided cheaper tea to the consumer.The Tea Party, therefore, was only a symbolic gesture and, in the end, an ineffectual one at that.
The 18th century POV on taxation has always been one to foment instant rebellion. Keeping capital firmly in the hands of those who made was the ethos. Spreading it around was conceived to be nothing short of insanity. The ideal of what we today call "fair and equitable" continues, unabated, to be a continuum of the same thinking: what's mine is mine, let no one put asunder. And the fruit of your labor from the sweat of your brow should remain your just reward.
James| 10.23.08 @ 12:10AM
BG | 10.22.08 @ 10:17PM
Obama is indeed a socialist - his past shows this, especially his membership of Chicago's New Party.
However, he is intelligent enough to know that you don't get elected as POTUS on a socialist ticket. The only way someone with socialist views gets elected is by playing the part of a centrist. Obama does this very well. However, his admittance that he intends to "spread the wealth" around shows that even if his plans for America aren't outright socialist, he certainly intends to lean that way.
It doesn't make any difference that a few top Wall Streeters support Obama. The filthy, stinking rich have made their wealth. Even if they did nothing for the rest of their lives, they'd be rolling in money. Even if Obama took half of it. A far more relevant group to ask would be small business owners who are hoping to expand inadvertently into Obama's tax-hike trap.
The likes of Warren Buffet aren't economists, they're entrepreneurs. And they've long since passed the point where tax hikes can make or break them. Go ask the Wall St Journal what they think of Obama's tax plan. Or Investors Business Daily.
valwayne| 10.23.08 @ 12:10AM
I decided to vote for Obama the day he told Joe the Plumber he was going to share the wealth. Billionaires, Multi-Millionaires Bill Gates, Warren Buffet. Oprah, Madonna, Barbara Streisand, George Soros et al, these people all have obscene amounts of money. Nobody in this country needs or deserves more than 2 million in net worth. Obama as President, Nancy Pelosi in the House, and Harry Reid in the Senate, with huge dem majorities will start the process to take the money away from the super rich and share it with the rest of us. We're only weeks away from real change that will strip the fat cats of their unneeded wealth and share it where its needed. He is the ONE we've been waiting for!!!
James| 10.23.08 @ 12:11AM
kai | 10.22.08 @ 10:22PM
When you are man enough to admit the Democrat's major part in the meltdown of our economy, then we'll talk.
James| 10.23.08 @ 12:14AM
Zach Wheeler | 10.22.08 @ 10:51PM
How do the wealthy "control" you? As long as your individual rights are protected by the state, you are free to pursue your own happiness of your own volition.
You are free to refuse to do business with whomever you like. You can refuse to buy goods from whomever you like. You can refuse to take employment from whomever you like. You are free to work for yourself.
Please do not misrepresent my views by calling me an "anarchist." I propose no such thing. I propose individual and economic freedom under a rule of law which says that one man cannot abrogate the rights of another. If you would like to get into a discussion with me on the nature of rights - what they are and what they aren't - then just say the word
James,
"Freedom" does not mean you are free to contol peoples lives just because you are wealthy. You apparently would be happy with Anarchy. Democracy is not survival of the fittest though we seem to be headed that direction. Is a professional Wrestler free to strangle the life out of anyone he chooses? Thats what some business owners are doing to their workers. I know we cant create a perfect society through regulation. We must find a balance and it has gotten way out of control..Companies like Wal-Mart need to be slapped down. But can you honestly tell me you are happy with McCain and his choice of VP?
James| 10.23.08 @ 12:16AM
Papdadio | 10.22.08 @ 10:58PM
Adam Smith did not count on the existence of a welfare state.
jack| 10.23.08 @ 12:19AM
You can't really have democracy without some sort of socialism - "government by the people for the people" does not translate to "government by the people for these who are rich" - for all people is the key. Many times these less fortunate ones are not what the upper "elite" class likes to call "losers". Society needs garbage man, cleaners, laborers just as much as doctors and lawyers (actually, the latter ones we could do with out - lol). They can't be left out without the opportunity to better their lives or without the basic social services such as "the right to healthcare" and "the right to education" because they chose simpler lives than others. If the entire country right now decided to go to school and get degrees, we would have "garbage man with PhD" making more than the researcher. Why the fast food worker shouldn't be able to afford preventive medicine - are these people just animals in your opinion? And how about these who did suffer an accident and simply can't take care of themselves? Are they to be forgotten and left to die? Get a life... I hope that you will not suffer the faith like my friend did - he was a brilliant programmer who unfortunately suffered a stroke and now can't work. What should happen to him and his family?
James| 10.23.08 @ 12:21AM
jack | 10.22.08 @ 11:02PM
I have nothing but contempt for the dishonest and disgraceful way in which you distort my views. Your representation of me as being a person who "would have been happy 300 years ago living in a monarchy" is nothing but a downright lie constructed from absolutely NOTHING that I said.
The European Enlightenment, which freed us from the chains of serfdom and slavery and into the Industrial Revolution, was the beginnings of capitalism, individual freedom and everything which separates us today from the miserable lives of subsistence we led before.
If you would like to qualify your ignorant and absurd claim with some particulars then you are free to do so.
Dennis D| 10.23.08 @ 12:22AM
Now their is a petition by some 3400 academics in support of Bill Ayers. Many names on the list who are teaching our kids in colleges. They call the terrorist acts of William Ayers " Just History". Do they teach with the same dishonesty?
James| 10.23.08 @ 12:23AM
jimfocus | 10.22.08 @ 11:03PM
Michelle Obama has had plenty of times during her lifetime to be proud of America. What she said was stupid and I'm not 100% convinced that she even knew fully what she was saying.
tom delayhole| 10.23.08 @ 12:26AM
Everytime I hear one of the right wing imams talking about the insidious and ever expanding cult of ACORN. That whole balloon of theirs, the worldwide envelopment of the sinister, octopus like ACORN. Dr. No is in ACORN. In reality, ACORN are those annoying people who ring your doorbell at dinnertime. They're about as dangerous to the republic as Jehova's Witnesses. And ACORN doesn't even leave behind a fun magazine like theWatchtower.
It's not working, guys. This neo Joe McCarthy right wing attempt to dredge up a specter of evil cold war world wide communist domination isn't catching hold. No one cares. But please, continue. Why don't you rant about fluoridation of water while you're at it?
James| 10.23.08 @ 12:31AM
KeepOnTopic | 10.22.08 @ 11:06PM
What exactly have I said that counts as "verbose GOP rhetoric"? I get sick of arguing with you leftists to be honest because there's nothing you won't do to distort and lie about the other person's point of view. Calling my views "GOP rhetoric" is just a lazy way of insulting me without actually disecting anything I said.
The left has not been "moving left for some time." And even if it were, that doesn't make it "right," unless your judge of the validity of an ideology is "how many people support it."
The line "your charge of socialism for other you dont agree with is yet another example of GOP doctrine failure" doesn't even make sense. My "charge" is an example of "GOP doctrine failure"? It's frustrating to say the least to debate with people who can't even string a legible sentence of English together.
I "would not know socialism if you fell over it"? What the hell do you even mean by that? I know damn well what socialism is, and in a broader sense, the philosophy of collectivism it springs from.
Next you appear to claim that I don't know what democracy is, by pointing out to me that people can vote out of office administrations they're not happy with. Is this how it's going to be - stating the obvious and falsely claiming that I'm not aware of it? You have to do better than this.
Obama will govern as a moderate? How do you know? There are those who worry that with the likes of leftists like Obama, Reid and Pelosi in the driving seat, this country could take a very dangerous swing to the left.
If you think we could "learn something from our Commonwealth cousins" then let's hear it, let's talk specifics.
remainder| 10.23.08 @ 12:31AM
dogtree (If you're still here),
I was responding directly to the article and not mistaking your original post as an endorsement of division. I agree that some commenters e.g. Steve Leonard are unproductive to conversation as any of his left-hating counterparts on the right. There is plenty of ignorance to go around. Yet despite the seeming impossibility, I think it's even less probable that we can have a dialog that doesn't try to address those who feel so vitriolic and defensive in some productive manner. A person or group written off is a self-fulfilling prophecy for a divided public. Then again prioritization in audience is important in conversation.
You seem to imply you've read Obama's books. Did you think AoH's early chapter "Republicans and Democrats" was not pragmatic or perhaps naive/disingenuine in some way? From it:
"Maybe the critics are right. Maybe there's no escaping our great political divide, an endless clash of armies, and any attempts to alter the rules of engagement are futile. Or maybe that the trivialization of politics has reached a point of no return, so that most people see it as just one more diversion, a sport, with politicians our paunch-bellied gladiators and those who bother to pay atention just fans on the sidelines: We paint our faces red or blue and cheer our side and boo their side, and if it takes a late hit or a cheap shot to beat the other team, so be it, for winning is all that matters. But I don't think so.[...]"
Among other things, the chapter "Our Constitution" also seemed convincing evidence of a deep respect, and understanding of, our founding documents and it's process. Relative to Reagan, Bush and in some areas dare I say Clinton, I would agree that Obama's policies are very liberal. Widening our historical lense though, What about compared to FDR or Carter?
Zach Wheeler| 10.23.08 @ 12:35AM
James,
Most people dont have the benefit of someone handing them a high position at a company, or work at their Daddy's company. Most people dont have the money to start their own business..You must fall under one of those categories to have the heartless attidude towards the common worker. Right now in this country there are plenty of jobs that resemble slavery, and not enough good paying jobs to fill the population. You must be in a position to have no idea what it means to work paycheck to paycheck and really dont care do you? You are ok with a company hiring 200 temp workers at minimum wage then laying them off after 3 months so they dont have to give benefits and pay raises? (Rinse and Repeat) If so you are an Elitist piece of sh*t and exactly the type of person that i would call Unpatriotic.
James| 10.23.08 @ 12:38AM
valwayne | 10.22.08 @ 11:10PM
Who the hell are you or anyone else to decide who has "too much money?" They earned it - so let them keep it.
The free price system is the best manifestation of democracy possible. When you buy a doll for your child and you choose one doll over another, you are in fact "voting" for that doll with your dollars. Someone who gets rich by providing something that millions of people want has been "voted" into their wealth.
I despise ignorant, lazy theives like you with all of my heart and soul. At the root of all socialists like you is the following: a hankering for the unearned. You wish to steal money from those that earned it? You're a criminal.
Socialism, or wealth redistribution, has never ever resulted in anything but poverty and oppression. You take away the wealth of the most productive then you take away their incentive to produce. Ignorant people like you have no idea where wealth comes from and what's behind its production. You're like children who believe that money grows on trees and is there to be "picked" and "shared equally."
Please, wake up. And grow up.
jack| 10.23.08 @ 12:41AM
James,
The percentage of people who are "living of the system" aka. on welfare is very small. I pity them and their lives are sad. They are envy all that have more than they do and yet don't want to get off their lazy a.. But I will not change my point of view about a social evolution because of the small percentage of people. When I get to 250K per year, which I will not too long from now, I will gladly distribute the wealth to help these less fortunate, yet just as important members of our society (I just don't want my tax money going to support senseless wars - like the one in Iraq). Your views are perverse and selfish. You emphasize the core problem of American Elite, which did put us in the economic crisis we are in right now, GREED. Many people simply don't work just to have better lives, but to have "more than the neighbor" - more money and more power. Remember, greed is a root of all evil...
Nathan | 10.23.08 @ 12:42AM
Observer,
The founding fathers never meant for this to be a Christian nation. The United States is a secular nation. As for their own beliefs, most of them were deists, some were closer to agnostics.
Again, any moderately detailed look into the lives of the founding fathers will reveal a very different picture than the one painted by self-described conservatives. These people were the hard-core militant leftist radicals of their day, and unlike the would-be revolutionaries of the 1960's, they finished the job and created a new form of government.
Sure, the founding fathers were hopelessly backwards by today's standards--but they were anything but conservative. Their driving aim was capital-P progress. And like our 18th century forbears, the radical left is still at the forefront of progress.
So, for those who cling to the recent strands of "conservatism" I urge you to take another look at your history books and look at all the great advances driven by radical liberals and rejoice, because: The best is yet to come.
-Nathan McKnight
jack| 10.23.08 @ 12:45AM
James,
I'll end this senseless badgering. You are simply too ignorant and too indulged in the greed and the feeling of your own self worth. I hope that you won't be forced, due to an unforeseen accident, to ask for a handout aka. Help yourself...
Matt B| 10.23.08 @ 12:46AM
In reguards to the national police force, do you realize just how easy it would be to implement. Lets just take a quick look at the second ammendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The need to allow people to keep and bear arms is specified as being to keep a well regulated militia. All that would need to be done would be to say that the emphasis should be placed on the beginning of the amendment as for a well regulated militia instead of emphasising the end of it where it said that the right would not be infringed.
Under this interpretation of the amendment, 2 things are accomplished, those that have guns are automatically called to service, and that they should then become a national police force. These have been known as the KGB, and Geshtapo in the past. And the one thing that any good dictator like Obama would need would be a police force, and there are many on the unemployment rolls at the moment that would probably jump at the chance to serve the new Messiah.
Zach Wheeler| 10.23.08 @ 12:46AM
Couldnt have said it better myself Jack!!! James is an obvious elitist that was fed from a silver spoon...Stick that spoon up your a$$ James and try to find your heart...Then chisel the ice from around it and you may see the light of Humanity.
jack| 10.23.08 @ 12:52AM
Matt B,
The key here is one word - amendment - and not constitutional right. Prohibition was an amendment and then came amendment amending prohibition. Right to bear arms is just an amendment, which was needed in the less civilized times. It should be amended soon.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - isn't this a definition of the police force?
Robert Thompson| 10.23.08 @ 12:52AM
Let me know when ur all meetin at the Green Dragon for a brew.
Robert | 10.23.08 @ 12:53AM
I know it's probably wasting my breath to tell you that, over the past eight years, REPUBLICANS, and no one else, have managed effectively to attack the Constitution and to intrude into the personal lives of women and families with an eye to barring them not only from abortion, but family planning, contraceptives -- and you have labored mightily to deprive young people of appropriate sex education -- chosing instead to spread misinformation to young people.
When you Republicans said, "Let's take government off your backs," the only backs you were talking about belonged to people like W's buddy, Ken Lay. Crooks and thieves, just like every Republican president since Nixon. You took government off their backs, all right -- and then you shoved it into our faces, our bedrooms, and our reproductive organs.
Republicans have attacked, and have set back the progress of, American science -- editing out any scientific finding in any government report that does not fit with their delusion that there is no human contribution to global warming; failing to fund vital medical research; and failing in every way to prepare this country for the future. You constitute a dangerously, ideologically retrograde, approach to the future (which you wish in your own way to be like the past, as you imagine it to have been).
Republicans now believe that it is OK for a president to lie to start a useless, counter-productive war; that it is OK to give the largest tax breaks to the 1 per cent of the population who do not need it (as the Chimp himself said, his "base" is the "haves and have mores"); Republicans believe it is OK to out a covert CIA agent as a act of sheer political revenge; to steal elections by official malfeasance (Florida, 2000); to torture and murder prisoners; to jail people indefinitely without charges; to spy illegally on Americans. YOU have been helping to shred the Constitution, and that is made clear by everything you do and everything you propose to do. You have not only set aside honorable and legal behavior -- you have, as a group, demonstrated a truly alarming lack of common decency in nearly every public act you do and every public policy you pursue.
Who has mounted the greater part of terrorist attacks on Americans other than those of 9/11? The "religious" REPUBLICAN right is the answer -- bombing the Olympics in Atlanta, bombing clinics, murdering physicians, security guards, receptionists, and others; burning clinics, stalking physicians and patients -- and it goes on and on and so do you. You KNOW that what you wrote in your piece is a pack of lies and distortions and irrelevancies -- but that, too, is OK with today's Republicans. You have lost all pretense to honesty. Republicans have completely, and apparently with deliberation, lost their moral compass, and actually seem to be proud of themselves for it.
The only difference between Hitler and George W is a matter of the scale with which he has spread devastation in the world, with the scale upon which he has murdered, tortured, and abused the human rights of Americans and non-Americans alike. Hitler murdered six million; Bush, maybe 600,000. The only difference is in the numbers -- Bush's techniques are lifted right from the Nazi's book of propaganda and bloodthirsty criminality.
You deserve to become a permanent minority. You will certainly NOT become the permanent majority your golem, Karl Rove, predicted.
James| 10.23.08 @ 12:56AM
You "can't really have democracy without some sort of socialism"? I beg to differ. What you're saying is that you can't have democracy unless that democracy takes the form of mob rule, where one group can plunder the wealth of another simply by virtue of number.
Sure, government shouldn't be just for the rich. That's why the government should stay out of the economy. Their role should be limited to national defense and law and order. As soon as you start giving politicians and faceless bureaucrats the power to commandeer the private property of individuals and to interfere in the trading between one human and another, then you have either the theft of wealth (socialism) or neomercantilism (crony capitalism, political entrepreneurship). The solution is to take that power away from the government entirely.
Where is your evidence that "the upper class likes to call less fortunate people 'losers'"? Do you have any? Jeez, you're just dripping with contempt for the rich and successful, aren't you?
Yes, society needs garbage men, cleaners and laborers. And we have them. They are free to work hard and accumulate some money and educate themselves and start businesses and climb up the economic ladder and leave those jobs for someone else who is just starting out in life.
There is no "right to health care." Since health care costs money, what you mean by that is that you think people have a "right" to demand that others pay for their health care. There is no getting around this. Rights cannot be cherry picked - they exist at the moment of our birth and are the same for everyone in the world no matter who they are. The difference lies in how different governments and regimes respect them. Many don't respect their citizen's rights at all. You have the right to your own life - which is the foundation of the right of property...the cornerstone of civilization. You also have the right to do whatever you need to do to survive and pursue happiness so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others to do the same. You cannot just decide to create further "rights" out of thin air, since they always involve demanding that someone else pay for your survival. The "right" to free health care is as invalid as the "right" to free housing. Neither exist.
If they do exist, then answer me this. Back in caveman times when there was no housing or health care, who was abrogating their rights? Think about it.
The reason why health care is so expensive in this country is because we have so many mandates and regulations that the health care industry cannot compete freely in the same way that other industries do. Because of free competition, even relatively poor households in America have microwaves, TVs and computers with processors in them that are thousands of times more powerful than the one which launched the first Space Shuttle. If free competition has brought down the price of other areas of science and technology to this extent then there is no reason why it couldn't do the same for health care if we'd let it. As it is, there is no real consumer choice or competition. Socialized health care is a disaster. British renal units have been described as "third world" in quality. People die on waiting lists. We have the best quality of health care in America bar none, and the highest levels of innovation. Let's just allow competition to make it cheaper so that it's more affordable.
Those who suffer an accident and who can't work should be able to appeal to private charity. In a society in which our earnings are not taxed for redistribution, i.e. in an individualist society in which personal responsibility is primary, people have more money to give to the charities of their choosing and people are nice enough to do so freely. When Reagan cut taxes in the 80's charitable donations ballooned. When people are free to decide where their charity does and does not go to, then charities can be accountable and directly answerable to their donors, unlike government institutions. If a charity is wasting money by providing charity to those who don't deserve it - as in the case of government welfare and the many scroungers who abuse it to the detriment of those who really need it - then people can decide to take their charity elsewhere. Surely this is a better system of charity than entrusting the system to faceless and corruptible bureaucrats whose job it is to spend the money of faceless taxpayers who are not likely to know what's happening to their money.
jack| 10.23.08 @ 12:56AM
Robert Thompson,
Green Iguana for me tonight - leaving now... :)
jack| 10.23.08 @ 1:01AM
James,
You can't be so ignorant... Or are you?
"Sure, government shouldn't be just for the rich. That's why the government should stay out of the economy" - so the economy should be governed by those who hold the key positions in the economical microstructure, right? If that's the case then I doubt that they would care about "the average folk". We are paying the price for this kind of attitude now - financiers didn't have a problem asking for a handout for their banks - why should people do?
I'm done with you - this time for good
James| 10.23.08 @ 1:02AM
Actually ACORN is an organization with extremely odious roots. It was founded by a Mr. George Wiley who, in the early 70's, embarked on a plan to "smash capitalism." His idea, adoped from two academics, was to flood the welfare rolls with so many claims that the economic system would collapse and lead to revolution. So he mobilized as much of ghetto America as he could and sent them marching to welfare offices up and down the country to stage noisy protests and to demand every single entitlement that could possibly be bestowed on them.
The result was that he more than doubled the number of African American single parent families on welfare in just two or three years. The long term consequences for black America have since been devastating.
ACORN also contributed a lot to the current financial meltdown by abusing the CRA to blackmail lenders into giving low income families loans that they had no way of paying back. They are now engaged in voting registration fraud up and down the country of the kind that makes people lose their confidence in democracy. They claim that it's "just low level workers" but they've been caught at it many times in the past and have never taken any steps to stop it.
Obama was caught on tape promising a meeting of ACORN workers that once he gets elected, he would "allow them to shape his agenda for America."
I find that very worrying indeed.
Robert Thompson| 10.23.08 @ 1:04AM
Not to be non-inclusive or anything, but after reading the last several posts (which I should have read first but I'm new at this game), of this lot, only James could find his way to the Green Dragon - I'm afraid you antagonists of his are already too lost to get there.
EK| 10.23.08 @ 1:11AM
This article is based on nothing but lies. I'm sick of "liberal" being a dirty word, I'm proud of it. This article is further proof that conservatives are a dumb bunch of racist rednecks who look for articles and people to reinforce their own hatred. You are the real anti-americans. You miserable hicks really do cling to your guns and religion, but obviously your religion isn't helping you.
The civil war never really ended, and I predict that if the economy continues like this there will be real violence and riots.
As for me, I don't like either Democrats or Republicans, both parties are completely corrupt. I'm voting for Ralph Nader.
James| 10.23.08 @ 1:11AM
Zach Wheeler | 10.22.08 @ 11:35PM
So what if many people "don't have the benefit of someone handing them a high position at a company, or work at their Daddy's company"? Firstly, if someone wishes to give their kid a leg up then that is their business. It's a private company, so what does this have to do with you? Secondly, a leg up is not required to climb the economic ladder. Many have done it through their own hard work and dedication and through having the right attitude. Note how in the 1900's, when our economy was freer than it is now, the phrase "rags to riches" was coined.
It is possible to save money to start your own business. There is nothing written in the metaphysics of human existence which says that anything's going to be easy. You have to work to survive. If some have good fortune, then so what? Ignore them and concentrate on YOU.
I don't have a "heartless" attitude to the common worker. In fact I have great esteem, having worked my way up the ladder from modest beginnings myself. Unlike you though, I do not see the common worker as a helpless victim, as baby who needs to be nannied.
Which jobs "resemble slavery"? Name one. I doubt you even know the definition of the word "slavery." Here's a hint - you don't get paid, and you can't quit to find work elsewhere.
Most people in low paid jobs are just starting out in life. So you rough it when you're young. If you have the right attitude, you'll climb. Use your money to buy books and educate yourself. Those who choose to stay ignorant and in the same low paid job their whole life have made that decision themselves. They are no concern of mine. It's about time society stopped acting like it's everyone's job to bail out everyone else's bad decisions. Some people choose to be lazy and never advance themselves. Most don't. Deal with it.
I've worked paycheck to paycheck. I've been poor. I've worked 3 jobs. When I was 21-22 I worked 16 hours a day. You know what? It didn't kill me. I learned a lot. I did what I could to get myself out of that situation. I taught myself everything I know today and now I run my own business.
If a company hires workers and then lays them off and then does it again and again then don't work for them. Such companies will never benefit from a high standard of work though.
Enough with all the "elitist piece of shit" nonsense. You just sound like a surly teen throwing a tantrum.
James| 10.23.08 @ 1:15AM
Robert | 10.22.08 @ 11:53PM
I simply don't have time to go over your patchwork quilt of left wing cliches and misrepresentations. Suffice to say you sound like the average contributor at the Daily Kos or Huffington Post. We could go into some of the ways in which "liberals" have wrecked this country too, if you'd like. And if you'd also like to get into a debate about the rights or wrongs of the Iraq war, then just say so. Let's just start by pointing out that Democrats had been calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein for ten years before they figured that opposing the war would bring them political gains.
Zach Wheeler| 10.23.08 @ 1:17AM
Thats right James..Sit there on your Crown and whine about how the peasants that built your castle want to be taken care of too....Pathetic. This economy was built and supported by the working man not the executives. Im so happy we have Obama =)
James| 10.23.08 @ 1:21AM
jack | 10.23.08 @ 12:01AM
A free economy is not just governed "by those who hold the key positions in the economical microstructure." Everyone who has dollars to make purchases governs the economy. It's a democratic system. Your dollars are votes which decide the success or failure of products and which ultimately decide prices. When you give a dollar to someone else for something in return, you have "voted" for them. If you have created wealth for yourself by legal means, then others have "voted" for you.
And no, banks should not be given bailouts. In fact if this were a free economy with no safety nets then the crisis would not have happened in the first place. Everyone makes irrational and reckless decisions when they know that they're not going to have to face the consequences in full. If the government had stayed out of the economy, if there was no Fed and if we were still on the Gold Standard then none of this would have happened. It did not help that the government coerced lenders into lowering their underwriting standards, either. Those standards were high for a very good reason. As soon as the government starts to poke it's nose into this stuff it introduces errors in the system. Those errors inspire the government to interfere more to "correct" them, which just continues the process.
I'm glad that you're "done with me." It's tedious having to make such obvious points to someone who is not likely to understand them.
James| 10.23.08 @ 1:23AM
EK | 10.23.08 @ 12:11AM
An astounding post. Where would we be without the obligatory pot head to chime in with a bunch of hooey about "rednecks" and "hicks" and "clinging to guns." Very intellectual stuff pal. Well done.
jack| 10.23.08 @ 1:23AM
James,
I know that I said "I'm done with this...", but your pure ignorance brings out the worse in me.
"Yes, society needs garbage men, cleaners and laborers. And we have them. They are free to work hard and accumulate some money and educate themselves and start businesses and climb up the economic ladder and leave those jobs for someone else who is just starting out in life. " - do you even know what are you talking about? You do belong in the monarchial society.
"There is no "right to health care." " - Healthcare IS the right for the citizens of England, France, Germany, Canada and many more advanced nations around the world - rich in these countries are doing just fine too. Many of them do support socialized medicine - they are civilized after all...
"Back in caveman times when there was no housing or health care, who was abrogating their rights? " - I would hope that we have evolved a bit since a "caveman days". We have evolved and became a civilized society - at least some of us did.
"Those who suffer an accident and who can't work should be able to appeal to private charity." - now you want people to ask for a handout, when it should be their right to be cared for when they aren't able to care for themselves.
Zach Wheeler| 10.23.08 @ 1:24AM
You ARE an elitist. And i doubt you "worked your way up" into anything. You were born into money. That is obvious. People shouldnt have to work their way up anyway buddy. If you work 40 hours a week doing ANYTHING you should be able to have whatever you want...Modest house, car(s), toys, whatever.
Probe| 10.23.08 @ 1:26AM
What is anti-Americanism? If it was counter reaction to 1960s "Love it or leave it" patriotism then it should be welcomed as the new breed of patriotism. Patriotism isn't blind acceptance of status quo. Patriotism is loving your country enough to find ways to improve it. If that's the new breed of patriotism, you should embrace it instead of fearing it.
Zach Wheeler| 10.23.08 @ 1:30AM
In the 70's thats how it was James...If you worked, you had what you wanted material wise..This country has taken a turn for the worse because of heartless people like you that think you are worth more than you are..the reason some people get rich is because our financial SCALE is broken and i believe Obama will try to fix it...Perfection is not the goal, but FAIRNESS is. Maybe he will succeed, maybe not. Im willing to give him a try considering the damage the GOP has done..McCain and Palin are a really bad joke.
James| 10.23.08 @ 1:31AM
Zach Wheeler | 10.23.08 @ 12:17AM
What "crown"? Are you still comparing me to a monarch? I earned all of my own money through my own hard work, good attitude and good ideas. Those who have worked for me have been paid well for their time. I owe them nothing more. We made a trade - their time and labor for my money. They are traders who make a profit too. Take what I pay them, subtract every expense they pay in order to work (travel, clothing, food etc) and everything that is left over was their "profit." I, like other employers, create a market for their labor through my own hard work and risk. My reward is my reward and has nothing to do with you. Stop whining, get off your butt and do something to improve your life instead of taking pot shots at others who have succeeded. You really do sound like a "peasant."
If "this economy was built and supported by the working man" then answer me this:
If you took 1000 workers and put them into an empty field with no capital investment, no tools, no equipment, no premises, no raw materials, no education of engineering or electronics or chemistry (or any other of the fields of knowledge that people spend years learning), no business plan, nothing but their "labor", how much wealth do you suppose they'd create? It is in fact the entrepreneur and the investor who has done the most to build this economy. You can hoot and bray all you like about how this reality is "elitist" or "disrespectful to the worker" - but that doesn't change the fact of its reality.
You're so happy we have Obama because you hate the side of the economy which has brought us the most prosperity in the form of mass distributed goods at low prices - big business. They are able to provide our everyday staples at low prices because of economies of scale. Obama wishes to plunder their wealth in order to distribute it to those who don't produce. Big business will recoup these losses in the form of higher prices and one way or another the consumer will pay for it.
jack| 10.23.08 @ 1:34AM
Zach Wheeler,
"McCain and Palin are a really bad joke._ - yep. If you like pain, vote for McCain - or should I combine their names? McPain?
Robert Thompson| 10.23.08 @ 1:37AM
Have some of you heard of the concept of limited government. Americans are the most charitable people in the world but it was never intended by our founders for the federal government to be the solver of all our problems - thanks anyway - we would do just fine with its original purposes and leave the rest to the states. And no one who is in opposition to the principles of the founding of this great nation is a Patriot.
remainder| 10.23.08 @ 1:38AM
James,
In your response to valwayne above, I thought it was an interesting simile when you mockingly compared the economy with a fruit tree. It begs the question: what is the basis of an economy?
In quite reductionist terms, agriculture and natural resource extraction have been the economy's basis throughout the flourishing of civilization. The ambiguity of who has a right to property, i.e. a right to use the earth, is a quagmire of an issue I won't go into here, though I think it is an important topic of philosophical and sociopolitical inquiry (models of inquiry such as "tragedy of the commons"). Leaving the propriety of the division of property among nations, empires, kingdoms and individuals as history saw fit as too large of an issue to pursue in this forum however, we can settle for being descriptive: Property rights and their enforcement are the underpinning of capitalist systems.
One rapidly increasingly sector of modern Western economies is information/tech. This is an interesting trend--not only with respect to it's essential lack of materiality, it's duplicability and the increasing breakdown of applying property laws encounter on the issue-- but because of it's transformative potential for the basis of the economy.
Nonetheless, speculation about future trends aside, it can still be reasonably argued that humanity is reliant on earth's natual resources as the raw material and energy that drives the global economy.
I'm aware that after Bretton-Woods, in 1971, the strain of the Vietnam war caused the U.S. to shift off the gold standard, essentially tying all currencies to the dollar. A floating standard.
What are the tendencies of capital and property in the free market? We could look at a Pareto distribution or somesuch, but a practical survey of SEC or census information might be just as good: wealth gets concentrated in the hands of a very few. Value judgements aside, this is a descriptive analysis of the dynamics in the American economy. Now, to bring values in, I'll make the claim that wealth is power. Thankfully, with our legal system, and enforced labor laws, human rights laws, and numerous other governmentally enforced protections, wealth is not absolute power. Yet wealth still buys vast political power, media influence, and ability to control the economy, affecting every worker. Pragmatically, in a democracy, it is in the interest of the electorate to have regulations.
At one point way back in high school, I had an affinity for the intellectual purity of Libertarianism and it's faith in the free market. I have since abandoned that ideal, my view muddled by reality.
James| 10.23.08 @ 1:39AM
jack | 10.23.08 @ 12:23AM
There is nothing ignorant in what I'm saying. It's purely a statement of reality. You are the ignorant one, because you continue to claim falsely that system in which people are free to trade as individuals and to move up the economic ladder of their own hard work and volition is a "monarchaial society." I submit that you don't even know what monarchial society is. Please do some cursory research before you attempt to make yourself sound intellectual with such big words.
I repeat - there is no "right" to free health care. If there is a right to free health care then you are saying that people have the right to demand taht others pay for that health care. This is what happens in the likes of the UK and other places. Even if you get all of your health care privately in the UK, you still have to pay for your neighbors whether you want to or not. This is wrong. It should be up to the individual to decide on his or her priorities for his or her money. Please do not cite the existence of socialized health care in other countries as proof that it is a "right," since those countries abrogate the rights of people who would rather pay for their own health care and make their own choices.
We may have evolved since caveman days, but the concept of rights has not. Human rights are timeless. You cannot create new "rights" at whim. You can only decide whether or not to respect and protect them.
And yes, those who can't work have the right to appeal to private charity for a handout. There is nothing wrong with a handout when that money has been given voluntarily. You condemn me for suggesting that they ask for a handout, but what the hell is it when they receive care from the state? This is a handout too. The difference is that the state's handout comes from people who did not ask to have their money redistributed.
jack| 10.23.08 @ 1:41AM
James,
"If you took 1000 workers and put them into an empty field with no capital investment, no tools, no equipment, no premises" - now ask yourself a question - what would you do with capital, tools.... etc, etc without these 1000 workers? Who would buy your "ideas" without "1000 customers"? You are not the pillar of economy. These workers and customers are - simple...
It's been fun boys and girls, but it's time for bed... nite nite, don't let the bed bugs bite (or as GOP would say - don't let the socialist bite into my stash of cash)
nilac| 10.23.08 @ 1:42AM
Valwayne,
Keep on dreaming, my friend
You're one of the "useful idiots"(Solzhenitsyn) that helped create Socialist/Communist societies in Eastern Euroope where I spent 27 years of my life(believe me I was one of the...luckeir one to escape).Obama and people like you think in terms of "social justice" , "community organizing" and "spreading the wealth around" for the "poor"
Problem is: if you take the monies from the "rich",like the Communists did (here is called ..stealing)you'll become "rich"(like the commies)and then you don't care about the "poor": but if you say "something"against the "new order" they will throw you in jail(accused of ...stealing monies!!).
So, don't plan to buy any condos in Chicago with the money that Barack is going to give you from Madona,Buffet ,Soros...etc.they will spread it among ..themselves; just work and try to make honest money, you'll feel better for yourself and possibly you'll become ..rich too!
Zach Wheeler| 10.23.08 @ 1:43AM
I guess you would believe that there wouldnt be any intellectuals with solid ideas in those 1000 workers? I think they could put their heads together to make something happen without a supreme being leading them and hoarding all of the profits...Answer me this..if you put 1000 executives in that same field nothing would ever get done because they would be fighting over who should be boss and many of them would shriek in disgust at the thought they might have to pick up a tool and actually do some real work, not sign documents and look at numbers all day on the laptop. Think about it.
James| 10.23.08 @ 1:43AM
Please don't make claims about me or my life when you know absolutely nothing about me. I am an elitist? Grow up. You sound like a 14 year old kid who has just discovered the word. Yes, I "worked my way up." I was not born into money. You are acting on the false assumption that it is not possible to be born into a modest life and to start your own business. Millions of Americans do exactly that. I'm sorry that you are not one of them. Perhaps you could try a little harder. People shouldn't have to work their way up? Translation - others should just provide for them without them having to do anything to earn it. Get real. You are nothing but a filthy scrounger. Your yearning for the unearned is obvious. You expect others to provide a living for you. You live in a dream world. I'm guessing that you smoke lots of pot. One day, you'll become an adult and have to live in the real world and deal with real life. Then you'll understand.
Robert| 10.23.08 @ 1:46AM
James, you wrote:
"I simply don't have time to go over your patchwork quilt of left wing cliches and misrepresentations. Suffice to say you sound like the average contributor at the Daily Kos or Huffington Post. We could go into some of the ways in which "liberals" have wrecked this country too, if you'd like. And if you'd also like to get into a debate about the rights or wrongs of the Iraq war, then just say so. Let's just start by pointing out that Democrats had been calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein for ten years before they figured that opposing the war would bring them political gains."
Lack of time seems to me to be an inadequate rebuttal. If you don't have the time to do something, then you shouldn't blab on about how you could, if you just would. Your actual problem is that you cannot refute a thing that I have written.
When you have provided any real counter-arguments that have any substance at all, I will be happy to engage you, and defeat you, in debate.
I see no argument, no facts, no clear statement -- nothing in your post that comprises anything more than a pack of assertions you will not be able to defend, some irrelevant comparisons of my words to those of others not present, as an "average" contributor to this or that forum. You use only false analogies, ad hominem arguments, and irrelevancies, and that makes your post much less than average, regardless of the comparison set.
You don't have time? What kind of excuse is that? Why don't you just go ahead and tell us why the Iraq war was a good or necessary thing, and maybe find your way to include a fact or two to support what you say.
Oh. You don't have time. Just like you and millions like you didn't have time to think about the damage your kind did by keeping a couple of your domestic animals in the White House, and then proposing to replace them with two more of the same, or worse.
If you post to say you can make an argument but you don't have time, then you simply do not have an argument.
I've said my piece -- you have said nothing to refute a bit of it. And you can't.
James| 10.23.08 @ 1:48AM
Zach Wheeler | 10.23.08 @ 12:30AM
Please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that the 70's was some kind of fantasy land in which everyone could afford anything they liked no matter what job they had. It was the same as it is now - if you work a modest job, you can't afford an affluent lifestyle. If you climb the ladder, you can. But wait - today, even low income families have personal computers, iPods, DVD players, cellphones and many other things that people could only dream about in the 70's.
I don't care how much you think I am worth. The money I make has been made honestly and is a reflection of how much others think I am worth. This is the beauty of the free price system. Obama wishes to screw with the free price system. He won't fix anything. Perhaps Ron Paul could have fixed it, but not Obama. Freedom is the goal. Freedom IS fairness. As long as your freedom is protected then that's all that matters.
In the 70's thats how it was James...If you worked, you had what you wanted material wise..This country has taken a turn for the worse because of heartless people like you that think you are worth more than you are..the reason some people get rich is because our financial SCALE is broken and i believe Obama will try to fix it...Perfection is not the goal, but FAIRNESS is. Maybe he will succeed, maybe not. Im willing to give him a try considering the damage the GOP has done..McCain and Palin are a really bad joke.
jack| 10.23.08 @ 1:49AM
James,
You are the one who should research the meaning of "monarchial society", please, don't try to sound smarter then you really are. There is no right to "free healthcare" in the USA, yet, but somehow citizens of other countries enjoy this "nonexistent" right.
"We may have evolved since caveman days, but the concept of rights has not. Human rights are timeless." - Well, during the "cavemen" days, the male was able to "claim" his female, regardless of her wishes. That was his right - his "caveman" right. I hope that you have evolved in that regard.
Zach Wheeler| 10.23.08 @ 1:52AM
You are not worth more than me James. I dont want millions. I just want to work to feel a sense of accomplishment. I want to work to feel like ive helped society. Hell, id work pro bono if i was already independently wealthy.And by jobs resembling slavery i meant many people work 40+ hours a week and can barely pay bills to live and that is not how i see America. No working man is asking for "Handouts"..Only an adjustment to the Scale. What if you are trapped in a society where there are few good paying jobs and you have no money to get out? Dont you feel bad for those people? You dont want to help them? Then you ARE an Elitist piece of shit. The reason people can build a ridiculous fortune is because of hard Physical labor of generations passed and i wish you could understand that. But you would rather Suspend Logic and Ethics it would seem...
James| 10.23.08 @ 1:55AM
remainder | 10.23.08 @ 12:38AM
You say that you had faith in libertarianism but that it was muddled by reality. What reality? We have never experienced anything like a free market in our lifetimes. Money buys political power BECAUSE we have government interference in the market. If the government was barred from interfering in the market then what kind of power could they buy?
And also, of course wealth gets concentrated in the hands of a few - those who are producing the most. Wealth is not a finite pie - it is there for anyone to create if they are up to it.
You don't like media influence? Don't read newspapers or watch TV. Would you prefer a state funded broadcasting media like the UK's BBC? It's overwhelmingly biased to the point of being a propaganda machine. So what is the solution?
The only human rights laws we need are the rule of law which says that we can't abrogate each others rights. I have already outlined what those rights are above, if you'd like to take issue with them then please do.
By the way, my comment above this one has mistakenly included the comment I replied to at the bottom. Although it should be pretty much obvious.
KeepOnTopic| 10.23.08 @ 2:02AM
James;
Well I got back here eventually - you seem to be under several false assumptions regarding my earlier posts and I can sense indignation - but so be it...
1. I already stated I was an independent and moderate - a compassionate and independent moderate.
2. Your critiques ignored several parts of my earlier posts relating to the probable splintering of the GOP along idealogical lines and the reasons why...so what do you think of this possibility?
3. You misrepresent the USA as the pinnacle of western societies, yet the societies of Canada and Australia especially, would have better claims. I am dual nationality myself so I have first hand knowledge of the merits of Commonwealth countries versus USA.
4. I am also self made, educated and self reliant...and yes my taxes are there for a reason and proudly paid as a responsible citizen.
5. Isnt the current GOP ethos of "winner take all / stuff everyone else I am alright" a particularly good example of obnoxious fascist collectivism?
6. The regulations are there to stop the little guys being eaten by the big buys - we are a civilisation not a bunch of narccists living in caves...
Moving on to the current theme of this debate, Zach Wheeler hit the nail right on the head, there is no fairness in the US system. Remainder also was spot on in his understanding and good explanation of the economy and why we live together in society.
Good luck with the ideal of libertarian purity being reconciled with the call to serve others made as an issue of faith.
Zach Wheeler| 10.23.08 @ 2:05AM
"wealth gets concentrated in the hands of the few- those who are producing the most." I believe your definition of Production is about as off as your Moral Compass....
James| 10.23.08 @ 2:05AM
Robert | 10.23.08 @ 12:46AM
Well, then let's go over this. A full rebuttal of everything you said would take up more room that I'm prepared to cover in one post. But we could start with the Iraq war.
Do you dispute that all throughout the years of Clinton, various Democrats had warned about the danger of Saddam Hussein, claimed that he had weapons of mass destruction and that he should be removed from power? There is a C-Span video in circulation of Al Gore in the 90's berating the first Bush for not doing more to take out Saddam.
In fact there was much intelligence leading up to the war which suggested that Saddam had WMD's, including a nuclear program. Intelligence from multiple countries with no persuasion from Bush. We also have the excellent book "The Bomb in my Garden" written by one of Saddam's ex nuclear scientists to confirm exactly what he was up to.
But even that wasn't mainly what the war was about. The main reason for the war was Saddam's refusal to comply with UN resolutions which were in place because, well, most of the countries of the UN agreed that he was a threat to the world and that everything should be done to prevent him from succeeding in a program of WMD's. We gave Saddan an ultimatum to prevent the war if you remember - he had the chance to step down as leader of Iraq and hand control to someone else in his party. This is all he had to do to prevent invasion. To leave Saddam in power with nothing but the spineless pussyfooting of the UN to deal with his threat would have been irresponsible.
I'm not saying that the conduct of the war didn't leave a lot to be desired, but the claim that the war was "100% unjust" is disingenous. We were right to unseat Saddam, and we're right to carry the occupation through until it's safe to leave.
James| 10.23.08 @ 2:10AM
jack | 10.23.08 @ 12:49AM
I do know the meaning of "monarchial society." We don't live in one, nor have I ever promoted one. We can go into this in as much depth as you like.
No, there is no "right to free health care." Just because other societies provide it, doesn't mean that it's a "right." Using the same logic you could argue that there is a right to welfare payments or anything else which exists. You could argue that everything that "is," is a "right."
Do the citizens of the UK have the "right" then to go onto waiting lists with operable cancer only to find that by the time the state run health care system has gotten around to operating on them that their cancer has spread beyond cure?
During the caveman days, by the way, the caveman was able to "claim" his female - that doesn't mean that it was his "right" to do so. He abrogated the right of the female to choose whomever she liked on her own terms. There was no such "caveman right." You still don't understand the first thing about the nature of rights - what they are and what they aren't.
Lucas| 10.23.08 @ 2:13AM
I have rarely seen an article so replete with hypocrisy. To complain that it is the Democrats who are defining what is and is not American is among the most delusional things I have ever heard. It brings me joy to realize just how righteous the Democratic cause is. Most hilarious and comforting is your humiliating assertion that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are "conservative." By definition, those were liberal documents. You look downright foolish holding otherwise. FDR was a liberal, and he led us out of the Great Depression. Your attacks are redounding to our benefit! You moron! Part of me thinks your paid by the Campaign for Change.
Thank you for once again confirming how lost, desperate, and finished the Republican Party is.
Zach Wheeler| 10.23.08 @ 2:15AM
Hahaha yea James your VAST knowledge could never fit on this page...What a joke! You are a close-minded Narcissist Elitist AT BEST. You think you are here to shed light on subjects for us peons? Oh yes, Master of all Subjects!! Tell us more! LMAO. You enjoy flattering yourself eh?The only thing i have learned from you is how heartless and unethical one person can be...You may be well spoken but im sure glad im not you=)
James| 10.23.08 @ 2:17AM
Zach Wheeler | 10.23.08 @ 12:52AM
I don't care how much you're "worth" - it is of no concern to me. I don't care if you choose to spend your whole life working for others, just so long as you don't suppose that you have the right to force me to live my life in a way that you approve of. I'll make those decisions.
You still don't understand the meaning of the word "slavery" so I'll suspend any discussion of it until you've looked it up in a dictionary.
Let me get this straight. If my concerns are primarily for myself and my own family, then I'm an "elitist piece of shit"? You're nothing but inconsequential scum to me. I mean every word of it.
The reason why people are able to build wealth is because they are free to do so. If their families have accumulated wealth and passed it down then good for them! I bear no ill will to anyone who has been born into good fortune. Neither should you.
It is not the fault of the wealthy that some are born into more modest circumstances. But the best way those people have of improving those circumstances is to work hard and save and educate themselves and climb the ladder. Please don't tell me that this is impossible because it is NOT. Millions of people do it. You're just a miserable loser with a pessimistic outlook on life. If I were you, I'd stay away from anyone who has ambition. Negativity spreads like a cancer.
Capitalism didn't create poverty, it inherited it from the Earth. Our most natural state is to be poor. Nothing has done more than capitalism to improve our prosperity and living conditions and to move us away from our natural state of poverty.
It's not me who has suspended logic it's you....you are denying the most basic facts of the reality of existence.
KeepOnTopic| 10.23.08 @ 2:23AM
James;
Does the modern day businessman on Wall Street have the right to use "other peoples money" to leverage extreme financial gains at the expense of folks on Main Street if he fails?
What is wrong with commonsense regulation of the finance and banking sectors to offer some protection to John Citizen if a robber baron cannodles the canine?
We obviously have speed rules on our roads for good reason - or should we do away with those because they impact on your rights a citizen?
We are after all living in a compassionate Western society not an urban jungle where survival of the fittest is the only rule.
You knock the health systems of the UK - but they also have timely private health care for those that can afford it and it is much more affordable than here. Also the standard health care in UK, Australia and Canada means that for most folks they wont lose their house if they get seriously ill like is commonplace here.
BlueTexan| 10.23.08 @ 2:24AM
Given the current state of the Republican Party, this article should be titled, "Obama and the Conservatives". It is not merely traditional liberals who strongly dislike the rhetoric coming from the McCain campaign or who have strong reservations about Sarah Palin.
Chris Buckley endorsed Obama and so did Ken Adelman. George Will and Peggy Noonan, not exactly a crew of deep blue bleeding hearts, have questioned Sarah Palin's selection as Vice President. And, yes, Colin Powell is voting for Obama because of the hateful, divisive campaign that McCain has run.
As far as "spreading the wealth around", the idea of a tax system that places a higher tax obligation on the wealthy than the poor came from Adam Smith, also not traditionally seen as liberal. I doubt anyone thinks higher taxes is an "an appaluse line" [sic], but it has been a "sound basis for policy" for the American tax code. It was, it's worth noting, President Regan who put the Earned Income Tax Credit into place to lighten the tax burden on the poor.
Questioning the patriotism of liberals and using a paper tiger such as Ayers is a feeble, self-defeating strategy.
And as far as the terrifying concept of a Democrat in the White House with a blue Congress? The deregulating domination of the GOP has provided us with an airline transportation system that no longer functions efficiently and an economic meltdown of catastrophic proportions. Reservations about what the Democrats will due with all that unchecked power are perfectly fair -- but could it be worse than the past eight years.
Doubt it.
Zach Wheeler| 10.23.08 @ 2:25AM
Yes you just described yourself as an Elitist yet i see nothing of my Ethics accusation? So you agree with me then? Im not pessimistic, i am doing fine financially but many that work very hard are not. Diseased is someone who thinks they need to be extremely wealthy. Its not Logical and its Unethical. BTW you didnt "break it down" like you thought..just danced around the topic like McCain does. Nice Job.
jack| 10.23.08 @ 2:25AM
James,
"He abrogated the right of the female to choose whomever she liked on her own terms. " - Translation - he "nullified, revoked or voided" female’s rights to choose. In some countries, not long ago it was males "right" to kill unfaithful wife. Don't try to use "big" words to make yourself sound smart. Free healthcare SHOULD be a "right" and hopefully it will be - sooner rather than later. "...operable cancer only to find that by the time the state run health care system has gotten around to operating on them that their cancer has spread beyond cure..." - you should stop listening to the HMO propaganda - I've lived in UK for 2 years and even though system has some problems, it is quite superior to US healthcare – I never did hear about such accident. I can also vouch for the healthcare system in Germany. However, US healthcare system is known for rejecting claims and denying procedures even to these who though that they had good coverage…
James| 10.23.08 @ 2:29AM
KeepOnTopic | 10.23.08 @ 1:02AM
I don't really care about your earlier posts, because I don't have time to go through this whole thread and respond to everything. It's enough of my time to deal with the incessant whining of kids like Zach.
I don't "misrepresent the US as the pinnacle of Western society" at all. It has gone wrong in lots of ways. But its founding principles are superior to any other country in history. I don't really care for the socialistic ways of Cananda and their recent attacks on free speech. Australia I admire but it has take a leftward turn of late - which apparently more and more are becoming sick of. The UK is also rejecting the left in a big way at the minute.
If you think taxes are there for a reason, then fine - I do too. But what makes you think part of that "responsiblity" is to accept any level of taxation and any use of that money? I object to many things that my taxes are spent on. Don't you? I do not wish them to be redistributed to people who haven't earned them. If you DO, then why not just redistribute your own money in a way of your own choosing? Why should I have to "get with the plan" when it comes to redistribution?
The GOP ethos isn't "winner take all, stuff everyone else." For instance, you're forgetting that no American president has done more in history to help the people of Africa. The UK activist Bob Geldof remarked recently that he was disgusted that the American liberal media hadn't even made one effort to report this. Oh and it has nothing to do with "fascist collectivism." You're criticizing the individualistic attitude of the GOP by comparing it to collectivism? I think you're somewhat confused at this point.
The only "regulations" we need are are rule of law which protects everyone's rights. We can go into this in more detail tomorrow if you like. That IS civilization.
What part of the US system do you think is "unfair"? Zach seems to think that stealing the wealth of those who earned it in order to give to those who didn't is "fair." I don't call this fair at all. I call it outright thuggery. It's mob rule, if you will.
I don't care about "issues of faith" beyond the fact that I respect the right of others to live how they please and do indulge in whatever faith they like so long as they don't impose it on me. In this respect, I condemn the religious right in many ways. But it is certainly not the role of the state to tell me how I should live my life or whether or not I have a duty to "serve" the needs of others. If I decide that all that matters is my own family and that my priority is 100% for them, then it is my basic human right to do so.
Zach Wheeler| 10.23.08 @ 2:30AM
Dude James...i know what Slavery is. In America slaves worked and what did they get in return? A place to live and food/water. Well many Americans do the same and dont even realize it...thats all i was saying. Calm down.
James| 10.23.08 @ 2:30AM
Zach Wheeler | 10.23.08 @ 1:05AM
What do you have against my definition of production, and what do you think my definition of production is? As usual, you are vague and confused. Explain yourself.
James| 10.23.08 @ 2:32AM
Zach Wheeler | 10.23.08 @ 1:15AM
Now you've lost the plot and have just resorted to mindless insults. Well done son.
Zach Wheeler| 10.23.08 @ 2:35AM
Im saying that people that have acquired Billions of dollars DID NOT earn it because our SCALE is broken. People that fall under that category are Diseased. Im not Whining. Why am i repeating myself?
James| 10.23.08 @ 2:36AM
KeepOnTopic | 10.23.08 @ 1:23AM
No, Wall St does not have the right to use other people's money to bail them out if they fail. I was and am against bailouts.
The only protection John Citizen needs is a free system in which those who screw up have to face the consequences and are not "bailed out".
It would also help if the state wasn't coercing lenders to lower their standards and introducing billions in bad loans into the economy.
The Germans have no speed limits on their roads and they do just fine. Go check out their accident statistics.
I'm not talking about the rule of the jungle, I'm talking about the rule of law. Go read all of my earlier posts.
Yes, I knock the health care system of the UK. It is inadequate and underfunded. Their private system is cheaper because they have fewer mandates and regulations and are able to compete. The Swiss have a consumer based system which, although not entirely free, does far better than any socialized system. If our health care system was free to compete there is no reason why costs won't come down the way they have in all other areas of consumer science and technology.
Redbourn | 10.23.08 @ 2:37AM
Republican support is already being stifled and there are posts like this now appearing on the web ..
25. There is no "Bradley Effect"
because Bradley's race years ago is the ONLY extant example of it, it cannot be given a name. I call it "bad polling". But there's a very real fear out there, and it isn't of 'terrorist violence' as you lamely put it. It's a fear of telling someone you don't know, who HAS your phone number, that you WON"T be voting for Obama. In this age, that's enough to be worried about a future episode of someone calling you a racist publicly. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if people are not answering correctly, not because they're racist but they fear to be CALLED racist.
Dave - USA (10/19/2008 19:51)
and if that seems worring then consider this ..
http://fairnessdoctrine.notlong.com/
Mike
James| 10.23.08 @ 2:40AM
BlueTexan | 10.23.08 @ 1:24AM
As I've said before, Adam Smith was not talking about a tax system which worked on the basis of wealth redistribution.
He was talking about a tax system which paid for the basic role of government services, not welfare.
I find it funny how liberals have heaped hatred upon Colin Powell for 8 years and now that he has lost his mind in endorsing Obama, he's to be respected as a man of great judgment. Oh brother!
I do not care how many have lost their heads and decided to believe in Obanta Claus. They are wrong.
All taxes should be lowered, not just that of the poor or rich in isolation.
By the way, you are another one who apparently refuses to acknowledge the Democrat's great role in our financial meltdown. I've yet to hear ONE liberal even admit to this. It's pathetic.
James| 10.23.08 @ 2:42AM
Zach Wheeler | 10.23.08 @ 1:25AM
I couldn't find one coherent point in this post to respond to. I didn't describe myself as elitist, and none of the rest of it makes sense.
You most certainly are pessimistic, by the way.
Zach Wheeler| 10.23.08 @ 2:46AM
Your definition of Freedom greatly differs from mine james. You believe that Freedom means free to step on anyone you feel that can be taken advantage of. Thats where we differ. Thats where the Government needs to step in. The freedom you wish is called Anarchy.
James| 10.23.08 @ 2:48AM
jack | 10.23.08 @ 1:25AM
Just because a country enforces some bogus "right" for a man to kill a woman does NOT mean that it is a true right.
I have already described what rights are. And like I said, a regime or state either respects those rights or it doesn't. A country that gives some bogus right to a man to kill his wife is not respecting her right to live, is it? Talk about stating the obvious.
Free health care should be a right? At whose expense? Again - what you are saying is "it should be a right to demand that others pay for your health care." You cannot get away from this.
By the way Jack, I'm originally from the UK - lived there for 25 years. I know all about the NHS. I'm not just citing propaganda. There is no way on Earth that the UK provides a superior quality of health care to ours.
If this is the case then find me one case of an American traveling to Britain to take advantage of their superior health care. I can find you many of Britains traveling to the US to receive care that the NHS refused them.
How do you explain this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7003268.stm
The US has the best quality health care in the world and most medical innovation originates here. How much originates from countries with socialized health care? How much from Canada, for instance? None. They take advantage of our innovation.
KeepOnTopic| 10.23.08 @ 2:49AM
James,
Well if you keep making excuses on time then how can you learn from a debate like this?
- Cut and paste for later review is what I do in places like this...
I admit I am learning heaps on differing POV's and I thank you for your time and patience.
I disagree with you on many things but so be it - I am a moderate, diverse and tolerant christian liberal and you are a libertarian non believer. My world view includes the values of christian charity but not christian overlordship - so I respect your decision none the less. I guess the GOP partnership with the neocons let alone the christian right can be terse on occasion?
The concept of value of use and right of use of taxation is an important one and I see your point of view. My point is that changes of western government parties in power allow different tax regimes to be implemented that benefit the whole community not just the rich and well to do. A bit like a pendulum swinging back and forth the dynamics of taxation change in Western countries, and this is a good thing. There are wealthy individuals in the UK, Canada and Australia you know...I just think that the whole GOP right wing here would benefit from a touch of empathy.
James| 10.23.08 @ 2:50AM
Zach Wheeler | 10.23.08 @ 1:30AM
If you're going to compare the slavery of African Americans with low paid jobs of today, which people are free to leave anytime and seek employment elsewhere, in which people aren't whipped and abused and raped....then please, go to hell. That is all. You are an idiot, what more can I say.
Zach Wheeler | 10.23.08 @ 2:50AM
Lets say there is a company with 200 workers making 20-30k per year. Is it Fair for the CEO to get 20Million? Did he earn every penny in your eyes? Just answer the question without dancing around.
remainder| 10.23.08 @ 2:51AM
James,
Ideas/information (intellectual property) are indeed infinite, but my main point is that any thing else that can be commodified is essentially finite. With the fruit tree metaphor, you need to own the land if you want to own the fruit. From a statistical review, I think it's clear that monopolization is an emergent quality of free market capitalism. The value judgement then becomes whether this is something society wants or not: to have a winner-take-all system. If you believe that having life be a game of monopoly is in the best interest of humanity, then this model is probably not so bad.
It believe it is a fallacy to claim that those who are producing the most are at the top of the economic food chain, having arrived in a purely meritocratic fashion. They are likely to be contributing some amount of their own labor to the economy, true, but their money and property is itself generating many magnitudes more interest than a single person's individual effort possibly could.
Contrast this with a person who has only their labor to sell. Such a person does have upward mobility, so far as the money they make can consistently exceed their expenditure on subsistence, rent, etc (all of which are price controlled by the market forces and individual decisions of those who own the real estate, means of production of consumer goods, etc.). There is no guarantee of this of course.
You're correct in stating "Money buys political power BECAUSE we have government interference in the market." That is by far the largest reason, usually to the ends of corporate deregulation or subsidy lobbying (I assume you would aplaud with the former but disapprove of the latter?). I am a bit confused by your statement, "If the government was barred from interfering in the market then what kind of power could they buy?" I think the 'they' you're referring to here is business. To me this seems quite obvious: An even greater expansion of all the things the wealth of corporations and individuals can already buy. The power to buy your company and lay you off for example.
From the standpoint
James| 10.23.08 @ 2:51AM
Zach Wheeler | 10.23.08 @ 1:35AM
People who earn billions of dollars are "diseased"?
In my eyes, people who WHINE about people earning billions of dollars are diseased.
The scale is the market. Those who earn billions were worth that to someone. If you don't like it, don't invest in their companies or buy their products.
Zach Wheeler| 10.23.08 @ 2:55AM
Its not the same as African Slavery you are right. But it is Comparable...As i said before, many do not have all these options u think they do..Most dont have the money to quit, or there may not be any other jobs available...If you have been paying attention to the numbers in the news, there are not that many jobs out there right now..You are again looking through the spyglass down on the peons from an elitist point of view. Finding another job is not that simple. Its expensive to move and many are stuck with what they have in the area.
O'Reilly'sEmmy| 10.23.08 @ 2:56AM
Is this really what passes for a column these days? I cant even read past the 5th paragraph. What a bunch of stupid republican rhetoric. I'm all for debate from both sides which is why I try to find coherent articles from the right but all I find are these fear mongering fact-less pieces. What a joke. As far as I can tell the conservative party has no idea what they are doing at this point... and that makes me smile. Keep it up guys. HA!
James| 10.23.08 @ 2:56AM
KeepOnTopic | 10.23.08 @ 1:49AM
I respect your right to have your world view and act upon it and believe whatever you like. I would just like it if others would respect my decisions, priorities, ambitions etc.
A tax policy which would help everyone is a tax policy which lowers taxes across the board. It's as simple as that.
By the way, on the subject of "the right" having no empathy....
Did you read of the recent study which showed that Republicans give more to charity, do more voluntary work, give more blood, are more likely to believe it's their responsiblity to look after a sick relative etc...the list goes on.
The reason for this is because the right is more likely to believe that charity is up to the individual, while the leftist is of the view that he should just sit back and leave it to faceless state bureaucrats.
I favor the path of self responsibility.
James| 10.23.08 @ 2:58AM
Zach Wheeler | 10.23.08 @ 1:50AM
Yes, if the CEO got $20 million then he was worth that to the company. It's a private company and those who own it make decisions as to who gets paid what. If he wasn't worth $20 million then why give him it? If he didn't earn that company far more than that through his work, then why make such a loss? Think.
Zach Wheeler| 10.23.08 @ 3:04AM
Is it fair to tell those workers they dont have the money to give raises even though the CEO made so much? Couldnt they have chipped a little bit off the 20M? Is it fair that the DRIVING FORCE of that business barely get by?
Zach Wheeler| 10.23.08 @ 3:07AM
All im saying is...If a company is successful, why not let everyone that made that company what it is be successful as well?
James| 10.23.08 @ 3:09AM
remainder | 10.23.08 @ 1:51AM
I don't think that monopolization is an emergent quality at all. There are good monopolies and bad monopolies. A bad one is one which the state creates by giving unfair advantage to a company, who manages to get away with charging high prices even thought their costs are low. A good monopoly is one in which through superior production and design, a company manages to produce quality goods at low cost and charges low prices. Such a monopoly should be permitted to exist until such a time as another company comes along and beats them at their own game. The benefit to the consumer is obvious.
It's not a "winner take all system" as long as the state doesn't act as the muscle to give unfair advantage to big business. If they get there by producing at the cheapest price then fine - and if it's a free system then anyone is free to attempt to break that monopoly by innovation.
If I produce some wealth by my own hard labor or ideas, and that wealth contributes to the economy by generating more wealth, then why should I not be rich? You seem to believe that the economy is somehow a stage on which to act out a play about morality. It's not. You think that it's somehow "unfair" that the owners of wealth are able to take advantage of the fact that their wealth creates more wealth. It's not.
Sure, a person who has their labor to sell has upward mobility. And if he or she plays her cards right and boxes clever and has good ideas and is prepared to put 110% into climbing the ladder, they can. Of course there are no guarantees. There are no guarantees that such a person will make the right decisions, for example. It's not just about a simple linear expenditure of effort - it's about effort placed in the right direction. It's about judging the market. A skill isn't profitable forever. The man who delivered coal by horse and cart wasn't guaranteed a job for life- things change and the market evolves.
Yes I approve of corporate deregulation and the end to lobbying. And what is wrong with a company using their wealth to buy another company? Those who believe they should be guaranteed a job for life in the same company are deluded. You have no "right" to demand that a company keep you on, or continue in the same way of doing business for your whole life. If you don't like being subject to the job market then that's all the more reason to broaden your horizons and diversify.
Anyway it's late and I gotta go to bed now. I've been debating with many people at once and I'm tired. There's only so much I can type in one night. I have a business to run in the morning. I'll check back here tomorrow night and answer anything else that comes up.
Zach Wheeler| 10.23.08 @ 3:13AM
Hahaha again you seem to believe you are answering questions for us..Narcissism. Thats you buddy. You are not here to enlighten us..im just interested in what your warped mind thinks on this subject..You are not always right man. Think=)
Zach Wheeler| 10.23.08 @ 3:14AM
These are Opinions. Not answers. Think=)
James| 10.23.08 @ 3:15AM
Zach Wheeler | 10.23.08 @ 2:04AM
*sheesh* OK, I'll answer your two points. First of all, a company in which the CEO makes $2million is liable to have labor costs far, far greater than that. Hundreds of times greater in fact.
Chipping a little off the $20 million to divide between thousands of workers, perhaps tens of thousands, does not make much of a difference.
If the workers of that business are "not getting by" then they should seek work elsewhere.
Next:
What you're proposing is socialism. The owners of the company are the ones who invested, took the risk, have the idea, deal with the big decisions that make things happen. It is their company, their profits.
The workers sell their labor for an agreed price which they can either take or leave. They are free to seek work elsewhere if they don't like it.
Put it this way. If I open a store and have it painted by a painter, and then go on to make a success of it, should I call the painter up and offer him a little more because his work helped create the store?
No. We did a fair trade and we both agreed on the price. My success is my success. If you and other socialists don't like this, then why the hell don't you open your own companies and operate them in the way that you constantly hassle others to operate theirs? I've never understood this. Get off your ass and open your own company!
Right, NOW it's time for bed! Good night everyone.
Zach Wheeler| 10.23.08 @ 3:17AM
But to get back on the subject of this Article i read hours ago written by George Neumayr...I am baffled by this guy. Ive read it a couple of times and WHEW..this dude is wacko. Im gonna bang my girlfriend. Night everyone, thanks for the intelligent conversation!
JD| 10.23.08 @ 3:19AM
"Were liberalism implemented fully and purely, the disorder unleashed, as even Clinton sensed, would make life increasingly impossible."
Last time I was in Copenhagen, the place was still standing.
Its not going to be so bad as you think. Obama wouldnt even count as left wing in Europe and we've done allright with Social Democratic governments.
Zach Wheeler| 10.23.08 @ 3:20AM
Our society would not work if everyone owned their own company...Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians...the little guy deserves better. But you dont believe that, i know..G'night Capitalist jerk
KeepOnTopic| 10.23.08 @ 4:21AM
James;
Your philophies works if it involves an honest and open fellow like yourself but it does little to protect the joe citizen from corporate wolves that regard the rest of us as prey or worse - and that is what frightens alot of us...Nite.
Zach = tooo much information! - but I hope you had a good one buddy!
JD makes a good point - Obama would be near left or inner left in a commonwealth country also.
remainder| 10.23.08 @ 4:29AM
James (In the event you return),
I'd urge you to look up 'tragedy of the commons' sometime.
It's not a challenge to any particular political or economic model per se, but it is both relevant and interesting. Approaching the description of market dynamics from a theoretical standpoint, is, I feel, ultimately more direct than trying to arrive at conclusions about it from personal ethical convictions or 'conventional wisdom' notions about our capitalist system.
And a final thought here: Besides the legitimacy of private property itself, the Objectivist concept of "rational self-interest" is a necessary underpinning of capitalism and "enlightened self-interest" is its essential corollary.
The 'muddying of Libertarianism with reality' (which I described as a personal experience earlier) is due to my developing the perspective that there is a range of self-serving behavior in people:
On one end of the spectrum is destructive selfishness, which hurts others and serves the individual in the short term. On the other end is action that serves the long term (i.e. sustainable) interests of the individual and thus the community. Human behavior is rarely fully at either end of this spectrum and the spectrum applies to all classes of people, whatever their economic bracket.
It is wishful or willfully distorted thinking to imagine that the destructively selfish / short-term-benefit variety of thinking is a negligible phenomena.
The degree and methods of a the government's role (or lack thereof), is, as a collective check to decrease destructive activity by corporations or individuals, while not penalizing constructive economic operations--is a larger debate. One in which I have some informed opinions, but no authoritative answers really. The fundamental idea of human behavior being a range, not a point, is my starting point anyway.
What's attractive about Libertarianism is that it postulates an ideal and asks reality to conform.
What's embarassing about Libertarianism is that it forgets (or conveniently refuses) to account for the ubiquity of myopic and exploitative self-interest that arises as a serious problem in a free market (and in society in general).
Rahul Ghosh| 10.23.08 @ 5:06AM
Ladies and Gentlemen
Let us not go over the top, like the esteemed Mr George Neumayr.
The American congressional elections are held every two years, and if things are done improperly by the triumvirate, there will be regular opportunities to correct the same. Mr. John Mccain as a person is quite commendable, his record (barring the closeness to the Bush doctrine over the last 8 years) is quite good. I personally believe that a man who gave more than 5 years of his life in a Vietnamese prison deserves respect. However (and I believe, much against his natural instinct) he seems to have sold his soul like Dr. Faustus to the 30's style Ku Klux Clan which the Republican party currently sees no shame in emulating (realpolitik aka Rove, cannot go that far). Obama comes as a breath of fresh air, in my opinion he has galvanised many in a manner like Robert Kennedy did before his untimely death.
If Hillary had won, then I would have leaned towards Mccain, however I think now is the time for Obama's cool intellect to be in charge of the country which faces one of its greatest challenges in her history. Perhaps coming from a particular ethnic background I wear the badge of liberal with honour. I find it very surprising that such a lot of venom is directed towards liberals in America. I also believe that the people who thought choosing Sarah Palin did a great disservice to the American people. We cannot promote dumbing down to such an extent that the America of the future turns into something like a society of the future as depicted in the film Idiocracy
remainder| 10.23.08 @ 5:06AM
Two articles off today's homepage of 'The Guardian' are eminently relevant to the thread of discussion:
"Not the death of capitalism, but the birth of a new order" and
"Wealth gap creating social time bomb, says UN report"
Vanderboegh| 10.23.08 @ 5:25AM
Robert sez: "Who has mounted the greater part of terrorist attacks on Americans other than those of 9/11? The 'religious' REPUBLICAN right is the answer -- bombing the Olympics in Atlanta, bombing clinics, murdering physicians, security guards, receptionists, and others; burning clinics, stalking physicians and patients -- and it goes on and on and so do you."
Sez I: I am not a "Republican." Haven't been for a decade or so. I AM a small "r" republican. I believe in the Founder's Republic and the inalienable rights of the Declaration. However, the GOP nor none of theirs carried out those actions. McVeigh was a neoNazi, Rudolph was Christian Identity (which is Nazism coated with 'religion" for pantywaists-- "its OK for us to hate blacks and Jews dear because God told us it was fine). Both were collectivists. The political spectrum is not a left-right line but a circle, with individual liberty, morality, faith and free markets at the top and collectivism, (godless or that given a religious patina -- Identity, Islamofascism, etc.) at the bottom. What functional difference is there between fascism, national socialism and communism? None.
As far as abortion attacks by people such as Paul Hill, I believe his name was, who proceed from a strictly religious angle, the deaths of 70 million unborn has a tendency to unhinge some people. As for yor statement,
"The only difference between Hitler and George W is a matter of the scale with which he has spread devastation in the world, with the scale upon which he has murdered, tortured, and abused the human rights of Americans and non-Americans alike. Hitler murdered six million; Bush, maybe 600,000. The only difference is in the numbers -- Bush's techniques are lifted right from the Nazi's book of propaganda and bloodthirsty criminality. "
I would say that it is you who have become factually unhinged. I despise George Bush, but I am not so factually challenged as to compare him to one of the great monsters of the 20th Century. And, as I said, American "liberals" have killed more innocents with Roe v. Wade than Hitler ever aspired to. You still have a ways to go to beat the Communists of the last century, but I have every expectation that you will.
Then sez you: "You deserve to become a permanent minority."
Well, if you mean the GOP, I hope they go the way of the Whigs. But what you must understand is that there are millions of us out here who are perfectly sanguine (in both definitions of that word) to be a permanent minority, for we have the means to secure our liberties without reference to rigged ACORN elections, talk radio killed by the Fairness Doctrine, or, what's coming next under the Obamanation, "hate speech" codes to throttle political discourse on the Internet.
Armed minorities never fear the leviathan majority. History is not made by "democratic majorities" but, for good or ill, by determined minorities. George Bush has done us one favor, at least. He has destroyed his own party of big government lite and set the stage for The Raw Deal, much as the Weimar Republicans set the stage for Hitler. But in doing so -- by enabling the Great Lightworker's Nanny State -- he has removed any chance of redress of our grievances by political means. In the unholy trinity of Obama-Reid-Pelosi we have people who will attempt to make sure of it by attacking more of our Constitutuional liberties. This is good. Finally we will be to the point where the masks are off and we will face each other without pretense. You, with your godless collectivism. Us with our faith, and our determination to maintain our traditional liberty as well as our property.
The flashpoint will come over firearms, for the trinity will not be able to resist their absolute power which corrupts. Good luck with that.
The day your side has destroyed the GOP and taken up the tyranny of the majority, the determined minority will still be here. We cannot be seduced, convinced or intimidated. Unlike you, we do not require the herd to make us comfortable.
And you'll have to deal with us, one way or the other. Of course, in doing so, you will force us to deal with you. May God defend the right. Or, to quote an old Chinese warning, be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
Mike Vanderboegh
remainder| 10.23.08 @ 6:56AM
Vanderboegh,
If you appreciate reading comments as much as writing them, I request you please find my original post on this page.
You have a very heroic- though not terribly original- vision: A determined minority apparently subject to constant temptation and threatening abuse, relishing the adversity that bolsters ones sense of purpose and further galvanizes the confidence in your moral superiority... Pining for and mentally rehearsing a time when you'll have a pretext to lash out, 'forced' to 'defend' yourself with righteous revenge, a sweet cathartic outpouring of God-given destiny.
I can't convince you of anything, you told me so. But do you you know what uncertainty is? It's what people have when inside them there's a courage to face a world when it's more complex than it is comfortable to admit. When you can accept with humility the human limitation that you don't have anywhere close to all the answers, and forgive others their faults as they do yours. Not just tolerate, forgive. And if you're really spiritually ambitious, you may even try loving your enemies, developing empathy for a human being that is hostile to you.
Imagine that. What was Christ thinking?? Didn't He know hatred is the path of least resistance!
Didn't he know how hard it is for a person to try and be more than themselves, to constantly grow?? How painful it is to reach out and care for people who seem not to even try.
Bask in the perpetually self-aggrandizing light of your own moral superiority if you must. I still care for you. Tell yourself otherwise if you must. But if it were otherwise, I wouldn't see fit to.
Tom| 10.23.08 @ 7:09AM
Change you can believe in? Yes, I can believe the U.S. is going to end up like France, with a massive welfare state and perpetual 10 percent unemployment. Bring it on, Barry! Let's see what ya got!
Tom| 10.23.08 @ 7:10AM
Change you can believe in? Yes, I can believe the U.S. is going to end up like France, with a massive welfare state and perpetual 10 percent unemployment. Bring it on, Barry! Let's see what ya got!
Rocco| 10.23.08 @ 7:29AM
RE: Daniel's comment at 3:31pm yesterday. This cretin's post is, unfortunately, typical of today's left wing whose collective mouth outruns their peabrain. They cover their ignorance with shouting and attacks on others. Instead of this pinhead enlightening us with HIS extensive knowledge of Argentina, he engages in ad hominem BS; he likely knows nothing and whatever knowledge he may have of the world is gained from cartoons and comic books. In the interest of disclosure, I lived in Brazil during that period and marketed money management services to the newly emerging Argentine and Chilean private pension funds. I translated the pension laws of both countries for the benefit of our technical staff at the institution where I was employed. I have been following events in the Southern Cone for 26 years, so I think I do know what I am talking about. I speak, read and write Spanish and Portuguese and continue to read the daily press online from South America. My message to this moron is, turn off Scooby Doo on the TV, learn to read, and if the words aren't too big for you, read yesterday's and today's Wall Street Journal and learn something. You may even want to go out and learn how to work for a living as well.
Mike Vanderboegh| 10.23.08 @ 7:30AM
Sez Remaunder:
"You have a very heroic- though not terribly original- vision: A determined minority apparently subject to constant temptation and threatening abuse, relishing the adversity that bolsters ones sense of purpose and further galvanizes the confidence in your moral superiority... "
MBV: Much as the Founders were convinced.
"Pining for and mentally rehearsing a time when you'll have a pretext to lash out, 'forced' to 'defend' yourself with righteous revenge, a sweet cathartic outpouring of God-given destiny. "
MBV: What moronic drivel. Do you think anybody WANTS a civil war? I have a son, two daughters and two grandsons. I want to live long enough to hold all my grandkids in my arms while I rock them to sleep singing Hobo's Lullabye or the Minstrel Boy as did my children. But I'll tell you what I want before that, is for the to grow up FREE. That Founder's thought that was worth risking their lives for. So do I.
"I can't convince you of anything, you told me so. But do you you know what uncertainty is? It's what people have when inside them there's a courage to face a world when it's more complex than it is comfortable to admit. "
MBV: It is I who is trying to convince you that the world is far more complex than your world view admits. I am a diligent student of history. And uncertainty in outcomes is always certain. What is not uncertain, however, is principle, honor, duty, faith. On all those things I am as certain as I can be, and so are millions of my friends.
"When you can accept with humility the human limitation that you don't have anywhere close to all the answers, and forgive others their faults as they do yours. Not just tolerate, forgive. And if you're really spiritually ambitious, you may even try loving your enemies, developing empathy for a human being that is hostile to you. "
MBV: "Loving my enemies" when they are shoving me into a boxcar at gunpoint to go to a camp where the sign at the gate says "Arbeit Macht Frei" is perhaps noble in someone's eyes. Not mine. You want empathy? Hell, I want empathy. How about when Obama says he was to spread the wealth around, he goes and spreads his own damn wealth around? How about getting your damn hands off my liberty and property? I'm not seeking you out to tell you how to live. I'm trying to tell you that YOU can't tell ME how to live. Not without a fight.
"Imagine that. What was Christ thinking?? Didn't He know hatred is the path of least resistance!"
MBV: Of course. That was the Son of God. The same one who commanded Peter to sell his cloak and go buy a sword. Besides, I don't hate you, or Obama, or your whole nanny state crowd. That won't keep me from shooting you in righteous self defense if you seek to oppress me further.
"Didn't he know how hard it is for a person to try and be more than themselves, to constantly grow?? How painful it is to reach out and care for people who seem not to even try."
MBV: You sound like Big Brother trying to convince Winston as he lets the rats come ever closer to his face. The notion that the collective force of the state misused to someone's divine purpose -- anyone's divine purpose -- is anything but a boot stamping on someone's face is a damnable lie. You can try to portray it as touchy feely "growth." It is still a lie
"Bask in the perpetually self-aggrandizing light of your own moral superiority if you must. I still care for you. Tell yourself otherwise if you must. But if it were otherwise, I wouldn't see fit to."
MBV: What hog slop. If you cared for me and mine, you'd get your oppressive nanny state off our necks and backs and out of our wallets. Faux politetess while you rob me of my liberty and my property and, perhaps, my life my convince you of your own good intentions. The end result is the same.
You want to care for somebody? How about for the 70 million innocents killed by Roe v. Wade. Convince yourself of your own moral superiority and care for them enough to stop it. The wonder is not that some abortionists have been killed over the past decades. The wonder is that it has been so few.
It is not hatred nor even moral superiority with which I warn you of the coming butchery which Obama's policies will provoke. It is simply out of duty. If you were driving a car recklessly toward a bridge that was out, would I not have the duty to warn you? To try to dissuade you from killing yourself?
This is the same thing. Your side of this argument been the individual and the collective has despised us, derided us, caricatured us, but worst, completely failed to comprehend us. There are some people who have principles that they are willing to die for. Most of these also consider those principles worthy of killing in defense of.
The flag of our fathers said "Don't tread on me."
It still goes, buster. Try to think through the unintended consequences of your "good intentions." It might save many lives, including your own.
Mike Vanderboegh
III
Hays Brickell| 10.23.08 @ 7:43AM
It is not out of the possibility that Obama is going to end up in a philosophical "no-man's" land once he gets into office. His strong leftist leanings, coupled with the Pelosi-Reid power axis and the corrupt liberal media, will pull him in one direction while his desire to maintain at least a 50% job approval rating and get re-elected in 2012 could pull him back to the middle. I for one am not as pessimistic about an Obama administration as some conservatives and believe his potential damage can be mitigated until he is out of office(hopefully in 2012).
Mike Vanderboegh| 10.23.08 @ 8:10AM
Hays Brickell sez: "It is not out of the possibility that Obama is going to end up in a philosophical 'no-man's' land once he gets into office. His strong leftist leanings, coupled with the Pelosi-Reid power axis and the corrupt liberal media, will pull him in one direction while his desire to maintain at least a 50% job approval rating and get re-elected in 2012 could pull him back to the middle. I for one am not as pessimistic about an Obama administration as some conservatives and believe his potential damage can be mitigated until he is out of office(hopefully in 2012). "
Hays, I hope you're right, but my brain and my gut says you're wrong. A filibuster-proof senate with doctrinaire collectivists in the driver's seat do not bode well. It would be the triumph of hope over experience.
Robert | 10.23.08 @ 8:18AM
James:
I had a substantive rebuttal written earlier, but lost the thing while doing something else on the computer.
If you will recall, the very first thing the Bush administration did after 9/11 was to start trying to tie it to Saddam Hussein. That was his rationale for the war, and violations of UN sanctions were among the excuses Bush came up with after no WMDs or connections to al-Qaeda were found. These ad hoc rationalizations included defeating tyranny, bringing democracy to the middle east, transforming the middle east, and so on.
Ten days after 9/11 the CIA's daily briefing to the White House told Bush that there was no credible evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 and that he had no substantive ties to al-Qaeda. This briefing was not shared with members of Congress as Bush pushed for his authorization to use force.
The sources the Bushies kept bringing up, over and over, were tainted. Chalibi told them what they wanted to hear; "Curveball's" intelligence was bogus; the mobiles labs were bogus; the story about yellow-cake from Niger was bogus -- as well as impossible, given the amount or yellow-cake the fake-intelligence salesman said was going to be loaded from one ship to another while at sea. The French operate the yellow-cake operation in Niger, and they said no one from Iraq had tried to buy any and that none had gone missing. An Iraq diplomat visited Niger on a routine matter, and that was what the informant used as the starting point for his fake intelligence.
In any case, Congress authorized the invasion (save for some members who, like Obama, did not believe the lies). The reasons given by Bush for this war at that time had to do with ties to al-Qaeda and 9/11 that simply did not exist, that were based on intelligence that the CIA and other intelligence agencies (Italy, France) knew to be false -- and had told the administration so.
What the Senate did NOT vote for was bringing democracy to Iraq; transforming the middle east; taking out tyrants, and all the excuses Bush tried to use when it was clear the administration had been lying about WMDs, yellow-cake, ties to al-Qaeda, connections to 9/11, and so on. The truth was anathema to the Cheney-Bush gang. But in any event, not one member of Congress voted for the authorization on the basis of ANYTHING other than the alleged, and tragically mendacious, ties to 9/11 and al-Qaeda.
Republicans love to say that the only problem is that the war was not executed well. While that is most certainly an amusing understatement, it is also untrue. It was an ill-advised adventure, from the get-go, pushed on the American people by means of a fabric of falsehoods, even after these lies had been definitively de-bunked. Bush gave us a rationalization de jour, every day, and whether it was violation of UN sanctions or the violence of Saddam, none of it had been approved by the people's representatives. They voted only on the basis of their fears about 9/11, and they permitted Bush to do it solely because they had been duped by him.
Republicans love to say we're "winning" the war, and that the "surge" is working. (The "surge" is just more of Bush's Orwellian wordsmithing -- "the death tax," "the people's money," and so on.)
The "surge" is just a fig-leaf to give us the impression of a very, very qualified "success." As long as there is a heavy American troop presence in Iraq, as long as we build walls around neighborhoods, and as long as we pay Sunni tribal leaders to fight al-Qaeda we'll have this stasis that Republicans are exaggerating into "success." When we leave, and we will, the factions will fall upon each other and sort things out.
Bush's war of choice emboldened and strengthed Iranian influence in Iraq; emboldened Hezbollah; and gave Iran a huge boost within their country and in the region.
The war was not necessary. Saddam Hussein did not have a military that could cause any difficulties; the country was weakened by sanctions; and Saddam Hussein could have been used to keep the lid on Iraq, while we went after bin-Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan. But 9/11, Afghanistan, the Taliban -- none of it meant a thing to George W. Bush, because all he wanted was -- some way, any way! -- to invade Iraq. By doing so, he destroyed the unity we Americans felt after 9/11 and soured the nations that had supported our efforts in Afghanistan,.
Bush basically turned his back on Afghanistan, forgot his pledge to "get bin-Laden dead or alive," and the cynically used 9/11 to justify the unjustifiable.
Is the war 100% unjustified? I'd say it was, yes. I didn't say that previously, but now that you mention it, yes. In the post 9/11 situation only one thing was paramount -- to pursue the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to their deaths or capture and to get our hands on bin-Laden. I supported that war, but as soon as Bush started pumping for another war in Iraq, I knew he was precisely the lying rat I'd always thought he was -- he did not give a damn about the attacks, he only cared about getting his way in Iraq.
And getting his way at home --trashing the Constitution, spying on Americans illegally, lying to start his war -- this is all that mattered to him. The Republican "thinking" is this: they "hate us for our freedom," therefore let's throw that precious commodity overboard, so we won't get caught with it in our possession. Al-Qaeda w0n the war when Bush began his trashing of the Constitution and the rule of law, his torture, his kidnappings, his lies, and his many absurd excuses for this war.
Basically, Republicans are cowards who would rather trash their liberties than to stand up for them. Republicans allowed Bush to out a covert CIA agent. Republicans think that it was okay to hire a phony journalist to the White House press corps; to present Pentagon propaganda as "news items;" to steal the 2000 election.
That is why I say the Republicans, having been self-serving crooks ever since Nixon, are still self-serving crooks, today; maybe worse than Nixon.
Well, I've been a bit long in my post anyway. Believe me, no one has enough time to refute the huge pile of twisted truth you Republicans bring to the table, so I guess we must do what we can.
The gang that couldn't shoot straight in this mess is not our military -- but the Cheney-operated secret shadow government whose designs were meant to circumvent legitimate government.
Robert | 10.23.08 @ 8:46AM
Hays, Mike -- you guys are really a hoot!
The earth looks tiny if you are standing on the surface of Mars. Today's Democrats, Obama included, look like "leftists" or "collectivists" (collectivists? What century are you stuck in?) only because you guys have gone so far to the extreme, extreme right. In your view, I'm sure, anyone who does something to help another person, or a community, is a leftist collectivist (unless they are Southern Baptists, and then you think it's okay. As long as our tax dollars are used strictly to fatten the fat cats and carry on the killing).
You talk about a president whose damage must be "mitigated," and you're talking about the proven destructive force in this country: George W. Bush. He is by far the most destructive leader on the world scene since the 1930s and '40s. Chaos and death and destruction follow in his wake.
I suppose what you mean by "mitigation" is a running war of liars, pimps, whores, scumbags, second-story men, and professional haters against Obama, same as you ran against Clinton.
While President Clinton was at the UN giving a speech warning of the potential of international terrorism, you guys were drooling over the broadcast of the President's deposition in the Paula Jones case. That's really a shame, I think, and the shame lies with you.
Yes, your liars and pundits and your bought-and-paid-for whores and their pimps will get a bundle out of you again as you try to discredit yet another good President.
Corrupt liberal media? Don't make me laugh! If CNN, ABC, the New York Times, look liberal to you, again it is because you run with the nutters like Limbaugh and the foreign creep who operates FOX "news." CNN touted this war along with FOX and the others. The New York Times sat on the illegal spying story for a year -- at the request of the Bush administration. The "media" is overwhelmingly central-right to far-right.
But, like Bush, your technique is to throw your crap over and over and over, and wait for some of it to start sticking to the wall.
Were you among the crowd of Republicans shouting "Kill Obama," and so on? If not, I know that in your hearts that's what you want.
And don't think I don't know you. My sister and my brother and their families are the kind of folks who put Bush in office, the kind whose refuge is ignorance and whose security is lies. When my nephew mentioned Obama to my sister, I am ashamed to admit, she said, "I HATE THAT NIGGER!!" THAT is one of today's Republicans -- my sister -- a bigot, an ignoramus, and a dupe.
Zama| 10.23.08 @ 9:59AM
It's quite fascinating to watch objectivists following the ideas of Any Rand battle for their rights. There are some problems down the road though. I *could* buy the idea of a free market, without any governmental oversight, if not for a few issues. *If* one accepts base tenants as full free will and a rational man, maybe a fully free market could work. Science is currently saying our will isn't necessarily free and that all of us can enter states where our minds will not let us be rational -- without us actually being aware that we're not. It could be interesting to try though, but from what the scientific studies of the human mind is coming up with in the last decade, it seems I wouldn't want to be in the trail group.
What's more though is how on earth anyone supporting ideas of personal freedom can vote for the party that has taken at the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 10th amendments at the very least out of the Bill of Rights, and that caters to a religious subset of the country that does its very best to remove personal rights every single day. For me, the cost of having McCain (and heavens forbid, Palin) control my personal freedom is scarier than the economic views of Obama.
As a specific note on health care, http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm is not at all a slanted view of world health care. You claim people die in queues for critical health issues in countries with socialized health care? Well, Americans die from a lack of health care. It's fascinating being in Scandinavia, seeing someone get diagnosed with cancer (at a free health checkup), and have it removed 18 days later at the cost of $60. You might not wish to support such a health scheme, and you're free not to. Just as you are free not to support building roads. You can vote "no" to these things, you can claim moral high ground, and you can move to a another country if your fellow citizens don't agree with your goals.
Personally? I'd love a small state. I really would. But the hybrid systems seem to work well enough. And I demand certain rights, which I cannot accept to live without, like abortion rights, like trial by jury, like protection against search and seizure. And I can't get that from the republicans anymore. That really does simplify my vote.
Kathi| 10.23.08 @ 10:29AM
Over and over I've read that Obama is the "most liberal" senator in the history of politics but I've yet to see even one shred of proof. I (who normally votes Republican for the presidency and voted for Bush) have read Obama's platform and find nothing "socialistic" about it. As someone who makes more than $250,000 a year, I will pay more in taxes but someone has to pay for the stupid war Bush started. Of course, I wish it weren't me but my husband who will pay more, but we both believe our higher tax is a small price to pay for having a president who actually deals with the issues and for not having to take the chance that the hate filled, bigoted, idiotic Palin may have any influence on any policy.
Global warming is the biggest threat to life as we know it on this planet. There is no longer any doubt in the scientific community about this. While, McCain's platform gives lip service to global warming, his plan is not sufficient to reduce greenhouse gases and it is full of mealy mouthed platitudes. He is more interested in protecting his oil company buddies than he is in protecting the planet.
The Republican party is filled with people who want to bury their head in the sand and pretend everything is ok. Pretend the "fundamentals of the economy" are ok, pretend there is no global warming, pretend we can keep running up a deficit to pay for a war that makes the world hate us, pretend we are still the only superpower in the world, pretend our health care is the best in the world, pretend out education is the best, pretend that banning gay marriage will somehow make the world better. You don't have to be a "socialist" or "UnAmerican" or even a "liberal" to know these things aren't true and to demand that our leaders address real problems with real solutions.
If Obama is the "most liberal" and "most UnAmerican" candidate simply because he has the guts to not pretend, the guts to admit that we are facing serious problems that that these problems require better answers than simply cutting taxes and banning gay marriage, than call this former Republican a socialist too. If any of you takes the time to actually read his platform, you'll find a lot of well thought out answers - answers missing from McCain's platform.
McCain is far behind in polls because of his and the Republican party's refusal to deal with the issues. Their focus has been on running a divisive campaign that is anti-anyone who isn't an Evangelical Christian and is not actually FOR anything but more tax cuts for wealthy people.
It is no wonder that McCain is behind in the polls of people with advanced degrees in science, engineering, business, medicine and law. Those of us working on the forefront of these subjects can see that Obama is on the curve while McCain is way behind it. Many of us would normally have been Republicans but we can no longer support either a "head in the sand" approach to world problems or the Republican part's looney hate filled rhetoric.
Cole| 10.23.08 @ 11:44AM
I find it interesting that in the 50 or so comments I've read on this pro-republican article, posted on a pro-republican website, there has to be way less than half of the posts that agree. And the rebuttals seem to be a lot more well-reasoned, in my opinion. I'm not for either of the two (very similar) parties getting a stranglehold on the system, but I (and I think the vast majority of the country) are desperate for some relief. I just can't see how the last 8 years can be defended by anyone.
Mike Vanderboegh| 10.23.08 @ 11:46AM
Sez you: "The earth looks tiny if you are standing on the surface of Mars. Today's Democrats, Obama included, look like "leftists" or "collectivists" (collectivists? What century are you stuck in?) only because you guys have gone so far to the extreme, extreme right. In your view, I'm sure, anyone who does something to help another person, or a community, is a leftist collectivist (unless they are Southern Baptists, and then you think it's okay. As long as our tax dollars are used strictly to fatten the fat cats and carry on the killing). "
MBV: I think we made it plain we are neither proponents of Bush or the GOP. You're still fighting the last war. We're different. We're the ones you cannot vote out of existence. We don't care if you pass any unconstitutional laws (which you will). We will disobey them at the point of a gun. Do you believe in anything that much?
Then sez you: "George W. Bush. He is by far the most destructive leader on the world scene since the 1930s and '40s. Chaos and death and destruction follow in his wake. "
MBV: As someone who has a son in Iraq on his second tour, and who still believes in the mission, if not the incompetent way Rumsfeld and Co. ran it, you have no idea what chaos and death is until you watch Obama and his colectivist buddies provoke a civil war here.
Defending Bill Clinton is rather like putting your hand in a lunch bag and pulling out a turd in front of your friends. You may munch upon it and proclaim it delicious. It is still a turd.
As I said, I'm not working for the GOP and especially not for the sellout McCain. You're stuck like a needle on a scratched record. Forget the GOP. You've beaten them. Now you have to deal with us.
Then sez you: "Corrupt liberal media? Don't make me laugh! If CNN, ABC, the New York Times, look liberal to you, again it is because you run with the nutters like Limbaugh and the foreign creep who operates FOX "news." CNN touted this war along with FOX and the others. The New York Times sat on the illegal spying story for a year -- at the request of the Bush administration. The "media" is overwhelmingly central-right to far-right. "
Your world view is remarkably skewed. Independent press monitors have declared the media overwhelmingly biased to the left. Such disconnection from reality will get you into trouble one day.
Then sez you: "But, like Bush, your technique is to throw your crap over and over and over, and wait for some of it to start sticking to the wall.
MBV: I'm not throwing anything, except pertinent factual advice.
Then sez you: "Were you among the crowd of Republicans shouting 'Kill Obama,' and so on? If not, I know that in your hearts that's what you want. "
Actually, I've written an essay on the 'Net titled "Assassination" where in I urged my fellow gunnies some time ago to help guard Obama at his Hitlerian "women-swoonings". Google it.
Then sez you: "And don't think I don't know you. My sister and my brother and their families are the kind of folks who put Bush in office, the kind whose refuge is ignorance and whose security is lies. When my nephew mentioned Obama to my sister, I am ashamed to admit, she said, 'I HATE THAT NIGGER!!' THAT is one of today's Republicans -- my sister -- a bigot, an ignoramus, and a dupe. "
MBV: Do doubt, but no more so than you. Most hard core racists come from the Yellow Dog wing of the Democrat party, and if you've been paying attention, you'll know that.
I don't care that Obama is mixed race. If Thomas sowell, Clarence Thomas or Walter Williams were running for President any of them would get my vote. I care about The Lightworker's hubris, his politics and the fact that a man who has no scars on his face from fighting for his his country or struggling for something bigger than himself is unfit to be President.
But in the case of the people I am presuming to speak for, I will offer you some advice my Michigan grandfather gave me: "Don't poke a wolverine with a sharp stick, son, he'll rip your balls off."
That is the advice I'm giving to you. You no longer will have the GOP to protect you. Don't poke us with a sharp stick. You'll regret it.
Mike Vanderboegh
Zama| 10.23.08 @ 1:47PM
MV:
The GOP doesn't protect me today, it hasn't for 7 years now. And it doesn't seem interested in doing it for the next four either. I cry when I look at the GOP these days, where are the real republicans in the *GOP*?
Mike Vanderboegh| 10.23.08 @ 3:56PM
Zama sez: "MV: The GOP doesn't protect me today, it hasn't for 7 years now. And it doesn't seem interested in doing it for the next four either. I cry when I look at the GOP these days, where are the real republicans in the *GOP*? "
MBV: You like flunked reading comprehension, didn't you? The only thing the GOP had protected ever since 1994 when we put them in power was the liberal Democrats. They stood with the false hope of political change between us and those who would strip us of our liberties. They have finally now succeeded in discrditing themselves completely. My point is that with zero degrees of separation now being us the libs, the libs are going to learn some harsh lessons.
remainder| 10.23.08 @ 5:50PM
Vanderboegh,
In your original post, the surety with which you speculate on the future gave me an impression of fatalism. However, failing to give you the benefit of the doubt, it appears I misconstrued your post: I thought it expressed a seeming affinity for martyrdom and victimhood that could function as a hair-trigger for violent retribution, any trivial perceived encroachment magnified into a nuclear-option reprisal. My perception of you is likely influenced by a stereotype, unfairly painting you as a volatile individual. Admittedly, I was being presumptuous.
In my own life experience, it is best to reserve hardest judgment for myself, working against self-criticism to emerge stronger. For others, and the world at large, I usually try to let optimism fill the gaps of what is beyond my knowledge and certainty. Expecting the worst from others and preparing for it, is in some ways a self-fulfilling prophecy. Expecting better is too, but in a positive direction. "For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged." I apologize if I've judged you too harshly.
I'm glad you agree that the future is necessarily uncertain. I'd add, "there is no fate but what we make." I am also happy to hear you don't want a civil war. I think it's by no means likely that we will have one.
James | 10.24.08 @ 12:14AM
JD | 10.23.08 @ 2:19AM
I don't know where you get the idea from that Obama wouldn't even count as "left wing" in Europe. Of course he would. That's why they're wetting their collective selves in excitement of the prospect of his Presidency.
The "social democracies" of Europe are still standing yes - but if "continuing to exist" is your standard of value then let's just have done with it and elect Richard Simmons. He's probably as "inspirational" as Obama. In truth - the countries you're talking about have had slow economic growth since the 70's when they increased taxes and created huge welfare states. They have mostly had higher rates of unemployment as us also. From reading various economic news outlets in Europe over the years I've noticed that many of them, for instance Sweden and Norway, are increasingly looking toward implementing freer markets to inspire economic growth. While we seem set to elect a man who will take us back to the failed experiements of the 70's, Europe may well be about to move slowly towards a freer system of economics (although don't hold your breath because the inevitable misanalysis of the current financial meltdown is bringing out all of the moth-eared anticapitalists out of the woodwork).
Another point to realize is that European countries with their left wing sensibilities of political correctness, open immigration and welfare have left themselves open to Islamic invasion. Muslim immigrants from North Africa have swarmed upon the social democracies of Europe, have clustered themselves into ghettos and refuse to assimilate, and have taken to claiming every welfare benefit they can lay their hands on. The welfare rolls are swelling - as are crime rates. In France, they riot because apparently their free housing and free spending money isn't considered enough for them. Additionally, they radicalize and form terrorist cells which plot to kill their gracious hosts. I don't think the European model is anything we need to emulate. Have you noticed that Muslim immigrants in America are completely different? They integrate, they speak the language and instead of claiming welfare and radicalizing, they want to start their own businesses and follow the American dream.
James| 10.24.08 @ 12:18AM
Zach Wheeler | 10.23.08 @ 2:20AM
So what if society would work if everyone owned their own business? Not everyone WANTS the stress of owning their own business. Have you ever owned yours? Do you know anything about the stresses involved? We all have different dreams, aspirations, ambitions and abilities. We are not all "the same." Not all of us have it in us to be employers. Not all of us want to be employers. Not all of us are good enough to compete in business. But don't you think that we should sustain the conditions of freedom in which those who have it in us have the chance to do what we have to do to acheive that goal?
You call me a "capitalist jerk." Well, I reject the "jerk" part but I am proud to be associated with a system which has doubled our average life expectancies in less than 250 years.
James| 10.24.08 @ 12:20AM
KeepOnTopic | 10.23.08 @ 3:21AM
I'm just curious - these "corporate wolves" that "prey" on us....what exactly do they do, and in what way do we not have the freedom to decide not to be "preyed on"? As far as I'm aware you do not have to work for a corporation or buy their products or invest in them if you don't wish to.
James| 10.24.08 @ 12:38AM
remainder | 10.23.08 @ 3:29AM
I'm familiar with the Tragedy of the Commons, sure. It's a good argument for private ownership. But there is no need to discount the moral argument for capitalism and free trade, because I believe it is vital to the issue.
I also understand your point about self serving interests, but I still believe that the free market and the price system is a better way to keep destructive interests in check than government. The danger of government is that it gives men power in which they have legal sanction over the use of force. While this is a good thing in the context of law enforcement and a state which is there to protect the rights of individuals, as soon as you start giving the government the power to regulate business then you just invite corruption. If you can point me toward one government on earth which isn't or hasn't been characterized by a bunch of power-hungry assholes slapping each others backs and doing shady deals with corrupt businessmen who see the state as a tool to further their own interests, then I'd sure like to hear of it. In the free market, we can vote with our dollars. The best way to deal with destructive behavior or anything else which is detrimental to the collective is by economic boycott.
I disagree with your claim that libertarianism postulates an ideal and asks reality to conform. The whole point of a laissez-faire system is that the best conditions are those in which individuals are free to pursue their own self-interest. In such a system, as long as the state is there to hold law and order and protect individual rights, there is no kind of "exploitation" that is not mutually agreed upon by both parties involved. In other words, if person A is an evil, exploitative bastard then the decision as to whether or not person B wishes to have anything to do with him is his alone - and if anyone tries to force him, then the state is there to protect his rights. I am not suggesting anarchy. I am a right leaning libertarian who believes that the rule of law is essential in sustaining conditions of freedom. But my idea of "rights" are very simple and don't include such fake, contrived rights as the "right to free housing" or "free health care." For very good reason.
James| 10.24.08 @ 1:03AM
Robert | 10.23.08 @ 7:18AM
I know that Bush tried to tie 9/11 to Saddam. But this was not the reason why we went to war. Tying 9/11 to Saddam was one of the ways - misguided and wrong for sure - that Bush sold the war to the American people. This is a very important difference and one that the anti-Bush left fails to understand. Every President in every democratic country in history who has gone to war has had to sell that war to the public. Whether or not their salesmanship matches the actual, objective reasons for going to war fully in every case is a different matter.
The same can be said for "bringing democracy to the Middle East." Again, this was not the rationaliztion for going to war. It was used as a "sweetener" on the American public. And not without merit - planting the seeds of democracy in the Middle East is a positive thing for sure. But it still was not the reason why we went to war.
Lastly - and I know this is going to inspire howls of derision from you - we did not go to war to "destroy Saddam's WMDs" as Al Gore put it (and for sure, Al Gore was one of the loudest voices that called for the removal of Saddam and his WMDS during the 90's - go check out the C-Span video of his speech in '92 on YouTube).
The first and only official rationale presented for the war by the Bush administration in every formal government statement about the war was not the destruction of WMDs but the removal of Saddam Hussein himself - regime change.
The reason for this regime change was because Saddam was an international outlaw who had violated the 1991 Gulf War truce and all the arms control agreements it embodied, which included UN resolutions 687 and 689 and the subsequent 15 UN resolutions designed to enforce them. If Saddam was "no threat to the world," then why the UN resolutions? UN Security Resolution 1441 was an ultimatum to Saddam giving him one final opportunity to disarm. He had every opportunity to abide by this resolution. We gave him every opportunity to prevent the war. The ultimatum expired on December 7, 2002, and we went to war three months later.
Everything else you mention was never given as official rationalization for the use of force. Bush was misguided to use certain other aspects as selling points to a public however, I'll certainly admit that. He should never have gone over the top like he did. But the UN resolutions were enough.
By the way, it has since been found that Saddam did have ties to Al-Qaeda, and he was indeed engaged in a program to develop nukes. To have done nothing, to have let him play endless games with the UN and to flaunt every resolution against him would have been wholly irresponsible in itself. What really amazes me is that the anti-Bush left has whined constantly about the fact that Bush did nothing about an innocuous document which landed on his desk in 2001 vaguely warning about Al-Qaeda's intent to strike inside the US - yet had Bush done nothing about the very clear threat that Saddam posed and had Saddam then gone on to succeed in his nuclear plans, he would have been far more complacent.
Actually the surge did work, and there are signs of progress all over Iraq. If you can point to one example in history in which a savage, oppressive dictatorship has turned into a peaceful, flourishing democracy overnight and with no upheaval or bloodshed, then I'd be interested to hear it. I take it you would then prefer that dictatorships would just stay that way. Here's a hint why that's idiotic - our only hope of ever seeing world peace is through the spread of democracy. In case you haven't noticed, democratic capitalist countries don't wage war against each other. Free trade is the path to peace and has been throughout history.
I'd also like to hear about the ways in which Bush interfered with your rights. Did he spy on you, or did he authorize the spying on terrorists who plot to kill us? Perhaps one day you might wise up to realize that the right to go about our daily lives without being blown to smithereens by a suicide bomber trumps our "right" to be able to plot terrorist activity without being spied on by agencies whose task it is to protect us against such savagery.
You obviously have Bush/Republican Derangement Syndrome. There is no cure, because it involves the complete and utter breakdown of reason in favor of shrill emotion and hatred.
Robert | 10.24.08 @ 1:21AM
James:
You wrote, "By the way, it has since been found that Saddam did have ties to Al-Qaeda, and he was indeed engaged in a program to develop nukes."
I think you are a good writer and reasoner, but like most Republicans, your command of reason is used to fashion somewhat subtle, but still fallacious, arguments. What the CIA reported to Mr. Bush and what he did NOT pass on to Congress was that Saddam had "no substantive ties" to al-Qaeda. Nevertheless, I think you need to say what your evidence is for the supposed ties to al-Qaeda and most certainly would like to know your evidence that Saddam was "indeed engaged in a program to develop nukes."
I am at work, so I can't tackle every misguided statement you made regarding my comments all at once.
So, please tell us, how do you know there were ties to al-Qaeda, what were they, and what's your source? Likewise, how do you know, as you imply, that Saddam was actively engaged in developing nuclear weapons? Frankly, I doubt that you can put together a convincing response.
As a P.S. -- I know for certain that my own phone was tapped, and I have never made an international call from my phone, ever, nor did I make any calls to any foreign nationals or anyone who could possibly be construed as a terrorist.
James| 10.24.08 @ 1:36AM
Zama | 10.23.08 @ 8:59AM
There is nothing wrong with fighting for your individual rights and freedom and while I don't agree with everything Ayn Rand said, she always hit the nail squarely on the head when it came to her definitions of the nature of rights and the invalidity of "collective rights."
It is not necessary for everyone to be "rational" for a free market to work. All that is necessary is that rational people have the freedom to trade with each other and do what they need to do to survive and pursue happiness so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others to do the same. As long as there is a rule of law to protect us from any criminals or irrationals who wish to abrogate said rights, then that is all that matters.
By the way, I'm certainly no fan of the current Republican Party, but the idea that they "cater to a religious subset" which "does its very best to remove personal rights every day" is just shrill nonsense. Give me one example of any of your rights being taken away over the last few days. Give me one example of a way in which you forsee McCain taking away your personal freedom.
In contrast, I'd like you to explain to me how this stark and honest representation given by Michelle Obama of her husband's plan for America satisfies your requirement for a free society in which personal freedoms are not abrogated:
"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed."
Now onto health care. Sure, Americans die from lack of health care. But that's because health care is too expensive. And that's because mandates and regulations choke the system with bureacracy and prevent any hope of the kind of consumer choice and freedom of competition which has made virtually everything else relatively affordable to us. Socialized health care may work up to a point in a Scandinavian country which has a very homogeneous culture, but since they have opened the flood gates to immigrants their burdens are bursting at the seams. How much longer do you think that the Swedes, for example, will tolerate paying extremely high income tax rates in order to fund the many North African immigrants who have descended upon them and who life welfare funded lives in ghettos and enclaves? The Swedes have found that their economic growth is hindered by high taxes, since workers are encouraged to cut hours to avoid them. Also, the guarantee of welfare without working has encouraged many potentially productive Swedes to stay at home - in fact as many as one fifth of them are home on sick leave on every day of the year. You ask for sick leave, you get it - no questions. This has hurt their economic growth tremendously and they are now looking to liberalize (free) their markets. Costs in Scandinavian health care have risen considerably over the years and waiting times are rising all the time. The Danes now have one of the lowest life expectancies in Western Europe.
It's true that many die needlessly on waiting lists in Europe. Many more see their conditions worsen during the wait, if not fatally. I am orginally British and am entitled to use the NHS even though I live in the US now. A couple of years ago I had skin cancer and wasn't insured. Everyone expected me to go back home to have it treated for free. I was told by my specialist here that I should not wait longer than 6 weeks for treatment because of the progression of the disease when they caught it. Inquiries back home revealed that I would wait 11-12 weeks for an operation. You know what? I saved my life by staying here and having treatment in the best hospitals in the world in the hands of one of the greatest cancer surgeons in the world. It cost me almost $10,000 and it was the best money I have ever spent. If the health care markets were freer I have no doubt that this would have been cheaper. Scandinavians don't just pay $60 for operations - they pay very high taxes every year whether they need an operation or not. Nothing is "free."
You may have decided that Obama's desire to redistribute private wealth is no cause for concern, but those who understand that property rights are the cornerstone of civilization and that wealth redistribution has never led to widespread prosperity and strong economic growth anywhere in the world anytime in history would disagree with you. I am one of those people.
James| 10.24.08 @ 1:51AM
Robert | 10.24.08 @ 12:21AM
As you will note, I did not claim that Bush was right to sell the war by claiming that Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda. But it has indeed been found that Saddam collaborated with known al-Qaeda affiliates and other Islamic terrorist groups. This was from the Pentagon review of 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war. The report was released by the Institute for Defense Analyses.
As for Saddam's nuclear intentions, you might like to read "The Bomb in my Garden" by one of Saddam's ex nuclear technicians, Mahdi Obeidi.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no4/bombs_in_garden.html
http://astore.amazon.com/theamericansp-20/detail/0471679658
Please do tell us how you know for sure that your phone was tapped. And by the way, isn't it funny how liberals conveniently forget the howling from civil liberties groups with Clinton's CESA act.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2000/01/33779
Robert| 10.24.08 @ 2:14AM
James:
Nuclear "intentions" are not an active nuclear program. Did Saddam have a viable, active nuclear program moving significantly toward a bomb?
And, begging your pardon, I have never howled in my life except when a doctor took a fluid sample from my knee.
robert| 10.24.08 @ 2:47AM
James, you wrote:
"You obviously have Bush/Republican Derangement Syndrome. There is no cure, because it involves the complete and utter breakdown of reason in favor of shrill emotion and hatred."
Fuck you, James, and the horse you rode in on.
Horatio| 10.24.08 @ 4:27PM
> If Obama wins - you have to ask but one question - Who
> is John Galt, and how long until the real producers
> stop producing for looters and stop the motor of the
> world? I have already heard some coworkers saying they
> will just start living off of the government tit - and
> other who will refuse to work to support the 50% of the
> population who depend on government. at what point does
> Atlas Shrug?
How true. If Obama wins, he, Reid and Pelosi will be the troika heading The Looters.
+++++++++++
For twelve years you’ve been asking “Who is John Galt?” This is John Galt speaking. I’m the man who’s taken away your victims and thus destroyed your world. You’ve heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis and that Man’s sins are destroying the world. But your chief virtue has been sacrifice, and you’ve demanded more sacrifices at every disaster. You’ve sacrificed justice to mercy and happiness to duty. So why should you be afraid of the world around you?
Your world is only the product of your sacrifices. While you were dragging the men who made your happiness possible to your sacrificial altars, I beat you to it. I reached them first and told them about the game you were playing and where it would take them. I explained the consequences of your ‘brother-love’ morality, which they had been too innocently generous to understand. You won’t find them now, when you need them more than ever.
We’re on strike against your creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. If you want to know how I made them quit, I told them exactly what I’m telling you tonight. I taught them the morality of Reason — that it was right to pursue one’s own happiness as one’s principal goal in life. I don’t consider the pleasure of others my goal in life, nor do I consider my pleasure the goal of anyone else’s life.
I am a trader. I earn what I get in trade for what I produce. I ask for nothing more or nothing less than what I earn. That is justice. I don’t force anyone to trade with me; I only trade for mutual benefit. Force is the great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force another human to act against his/her judgment. If you deny a man’s right to Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgment. Yet you have allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical.
You’ve allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by preaching that all men are evil from the moment they’re born. When men believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The name of this absurdity is ‘original sin’. That’s inmpossible. That which is outside the possibility of choice is also outside the province of morality. To call sin that which is outside man’s choice is a mockery of justice. To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous. If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn’t come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man’s will is not free.
And then there’s your ‘brother-love’ morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven’t earned it to accept it? If it’s virtuous to give, isn’t it then selfish to take?
Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he’s keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.
You know that you can’t give away everything and starve yourself. You’ve forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it’s your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn’t built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.
Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than ikts neighbors. Twelve years ago, I saw what was wrong with the world and where the battle for Life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality and that my acceptance of that morality was its only power. I was the first of the men who refused to give up the pursuit of his own happiness in order to serve others.
To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.
If you’ve understood what I’ve said, stop supporting your destroyers. Don’t accept their philosophy. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, and your love. Don’t exhaust yourself to help build the kind of world that you see around you now. In the name of the best within you, don’t sacrifice the world to those who will take away your happiness for it.
The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
“I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.”
+++++++++++
The only questions remaining are:
Can you name the real life analogues of Mr. Thompson, Balph Eubank, Floyd Ferris, James Taggart, Orren Boyle, Paul Larkin, Robert Stadler, Simon Pritchett, Wesley Mouch, Eugene Lawson, Cuffy Meigs. Nominations anyone?
Where are Galt, Francisco D’Anconia, Ragnar Danneskjöld, Henry Rearden, and Dagny Taggart?
remainder| 10.24.08 @ 6:29PM
James,
In response to your conviction that, "The best way to deal with destructive behavior or anything else which is detrimental to the collective is by economic boycott."--
Although the limited achievements of economic boycotts form a legacy that should be honored and remembered, not denigrated, this appreciation is due far more to the efforts and intentions, not the results, of these movements.
History speaks much more to the limitations of such methods of collective bargaining power, than of their practicality. The protracted Grape Boycott is a prominent example.
The efficacy of economic boycotts to counter the destructive/exploitative aspects in the market (which are unfortunately common, not anomalous), is very low. To a lesser degree, other strategies of collective bargaining power, unionization and stiking, share the verdict: inefficient, but much better than nothing.
"Voting with your dollars" may sound empowering to consumers, but it is misleading to emphasize only a part of the full story.
Proportions of U.S. total net worth by percentile:
----------------------------------------------------------
0-50 50-90 90-95 95-99 99-100
2.5 27.5 12.0 24.1 33.4
----------------------------------------------------------
(Federal Reserve SCF, 2004)
The economic pie breaks 50/50 above our top 95th percentile. The leverage of a boycott is, to say the least, "hampered" by the fulcrum sitting at 2.5%. Thus if the sole terms of negotiation for redress of market grievances are "dollar-votes", I think we can call that election now.
A competitive field naturally coalesces into resource monopolization via wealth condensation. Governmental regulations (trade, labor laws, etc.) do not fix the fundamentally deficient tendencies of free market dynamics. At best they ameliorate the problems and at worst they create inadvertent drag on market forces which are not detrimental.
For this reason, I can understand your distaste for government intervention. But to scapegoat government as the problem itself is just as misdirected or naive/optimistic as imagining that government can fix the fundamentally exploitative, destructively selfish and myopic tendencies of people (and thus the economy).
Of course, you're absolutely right that corrupt business interests try, and usually succeed, in wielding great influence in government to their advantage and at the expense of the electorate's majority and the integrity of democracy. Lobbying priorities include weakening and dismantling safeguards against corporate irresponsibility as well as obtaining corporate subsidies (e.g. for farms) and advantageous trade laws. I would suggest you have it generally backwards: government (the temptation of wielding the rule of law) does not corrupt corporations, corporations (the power of vast wealth) corrupt the government.
remainder| 10.24.08 @ 6:33PM
The values in the data table of my previous post got shifted. Hopefully it's still clear which percentages correspond to which percentile.
Trackback| 3.25.09 @ 1:04AM
Model Tall Ships, on Model Tall Ships, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Louis Vttion handbags | 12.9.10 @ 2:14AM
OhBummer's Healthcare Hijacking is nothing more than an atrocious act of vandalism, in the wake of which he struts around like the cxck-o-the-walk, arrogantly crowing that he has gotten away with this crime. He challenges those who would repeal this mess, daring them to lose votes in that enterprise, but one must remember that those who favor the Healthcare Hijacking would have voted for OhBummer and the OhBummer Wrecking Crew in any case. Perhaps OhBummer had better find a country with which we do not have an extradition treaty and start transferring his millions of dollars there now, as insurance against justice.