Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
McCain had a hard time explaining why a progressive taxation system (which we do have here in the US) is not about spreading the wealth. He said it's a "far cry from taking from one group of Americans and giving to another," as he suggests Obama is proposing. Except that's exactly what a progressive taxation system does. The more money you earn, the more you pay progressively in taxes. So that's the taking part. Then McCain says that part of what taxes do is "to help those who can't help themselves." That's the giving to another part. So please explain again Senator McCain what is so big, bad, and evil about what Obama is proposing to do and how it so radically differs from what we already do. I'm not saying that the progressive taxation system is good or bad, just that McCain is attacking Obama for something we already do, and which McCain himself has acknowledged in the past is the right thing to do.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Here's the kicker. If Khalidi is really such a horrible guy, the McCain's got some explaining to do for his own ties to him. You see, McCain was the chairman of a group called the International Republican Institute. In their infinite wisdom, they gave Khalidi's organization a grant for nearly half a million dollars. Here's the group's tax form to prove it. It was grant 5180 and CRPS stands for Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies. McCain's association with Khalidi through the IRI goes back all the way to 1993, though the grant above was given in 1998.
So let me get this straight. The McCain campaign wants a video released which shows Obama and Khalidi at a dinner together, and that's bad. McCain is the chairman of a group that gives Khalidi hundreds of thousands of dollars, and no problem. Nice logic at work there.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Alaska's largest newspaper, the Anchorage Daily News, and essentially the hometown newspaper of Palin, has endorsed Obama. This what the newspaper had to say about Palin:
Yet despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.
If McCain really wants to be mad at someone, he should be mad at Fox. "We’re just missing the pregame, which isn’t a big deal for us. It was a business decision." That's right, Fox puts its profits above America's favorite past time.
Monday, October 27, 2008
"And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”
That's Palin describing oil up in Alaska. So let me get this straight. Everybody in Alaska owns the oil resources collectively,? And everybody gets the same check no matter what they may or may not have done to earn it? And that's not socialism?
The entire article can be read here.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
"At the time of the meeting, in the late afternoon of December 30, the U.S. Justice Department was seeking the extradition of two close Pinochet associates for an act of terrorism in Washington DC, the 1976 assassination of former ambassador to the U.S. and former Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier. The car bombing on Sheridan Circle in the U.S. capital was widely described at the time as the most egregious act of international terrorism perpetrated on U.S. soil by a foreign power."
Check out the wikipedia article on Orlando Letelier. In it, you'll notice that the head of the Chilean Secret Police claims the orders came directly from Pinochet. So if true, this would be what we might call a twofer: McCain has no problems sitting down with dictators and he seems to pal around with terrorists.
"Not Randy Scheunemann, Mr. McCain’s chief foreign policy adviser; not Nicolle Wallace, his senior communications staffer. It was Amy Strozzi, Gov. Sarah Palin’s traveling makeup artist, according to a new filing with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday night."
Let me be a political consultant for second. McCain comes asks me why he's behind in the polls. I ponder and I make funny faces, and then exclaim "Because, you idiot, you're spending more money on Mary Kay products for your sidekick then you are for any other person on your staff." Damn, I just gave away a whole bunch of consulting for free.
“The reason the Republicans found Joe the Plumber was to find someone hanging around a toilet other than [Sen.] Larry Craig.”
"Myself, along with my siblings and a few cousins, will not be supporting the Republican presidential candidates this year. We believe strongly in what our grandfather stood for: honesty, integrity, and personal freedom, free from political maneuvering and fear tactics. I learned a lot about my grandfather while producing the documentary, Mr. Conservative Goldwater on Goldwater. Our generation of Goldwaters expects government to provide for constitutional protections. We reject the constant intrusion into our personal lives, along with other crucial policy issues of the McCain/Palin ticket.
My grandfather (Paka) would never suggest denying a woman's right to choose. My grandmother co-founded Planned Parenthood in Arizona in the 1930's, a cause my grandfather supported. I'm not sure about how he would feel about marriage rights based on same-sex orientation. I think he would feel that love and respect for ones privacy is what matters most and not the intolerance and poor judgment displayed by McCain over the years. Paka respected our civil liberties and passed on the message that that we should conduct our lives standing up for the basic freedoms we hold so dear. "
Full article can be read here.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
What kind of socialist said those kinds of things, and believes that wealthy people should pay more than less wealthy people? The Bush tax cuts weren't even calling for people to be taxed at the same rates, just lowering the amount rich people paid but still paying more than less wealthy people. So there would still be progressive taxation, that is, the rich pay proportionally more than the poor. Could it be the same guy who said:
"I think your question -- questioning the fundamentals of a progressive tax system where people who make more money pay more in taxes than a flat, across-the-board percentage. I think it's to some degree because we feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more.
But I believe that when you really look at the tax code today, the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don't pay nearly as much as you think they do when you just look at the percentages. And I think middle-income Americans, working Americans, when the account and payroll taxes, sales taxes, mortgage pay -- all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think they -- you would think that they also deserve significant relief, in my view..."
This was a response to a student's question. When the same student asked if this was all not a step towards socialism, the same person responded:
"So, look, here's what I really believe, that when you are -- reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.
And frankly, I think the first people who deserve a tax cut are working Americans with children that need to educate their children, and they're the ones that I would support tax cuts for first."
There's nothing wrong with the wealthy paying somewhat more, and working people should get tax cuts first? Doesn't that sound a bit like the wealth redistribution that McCain accused Obama of and calling it socialist? Oh wait, McCain said all of this. Check out the video.
So while McCain likes to portray himself as some great supporter of the military, in truth, he offers little that is different from what Obama has to offer. The full article can be read here.
270 To Win
Real Clear Politics
New York Times
Princeton Election Consortium
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
“I genuinely did not recall making the statement and, after reading it, there is no doubt that it came out completely the wrong way. I actually was trying to work to keep the crowd as respectful as possible, so this is definitely not what I intended.”
The charges included costs for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race, and a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel.
I don't know if she broke any laws are not, but she's definitely not coming across as a money saving reformer.
What I think is more telling though, is that after reporters asked to see the records, she started to amend the reports so it looked like her daughters were doing official state business. In one of them she stated that her daughters were "to draw two separate raffle tickets." Man, give me that job. I'll stay in first class hotels if all I have to do is draw a raffle ticket.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Peace and all good.
"Eric Russell, who worked for a Sproul & Associates group called Voter Outreach of America, said he had personally witnessed his boss take out eight to ten Democratic registration forms from a pile and shred them in Nevada."
And that's who McCain has working for him while he complains about ACORN. Let me state again, any fraud is wrong and should be condemned, but it seems strange me to that McCain just wants to know what "ties" Obama may have to ACORN, however tenuous, but he somehow doesn't say a word about the guy who is directly receiving a check from himself.
"When I pushed Obama, it jumped to McCain. When I went down to governor's office and punched [Gov. Joe] Manchin, it went to the other dude. When I went to Karen Facemyer [the incumbent Republican state senator], I pushed the Democrat, but it jumped again.
"The rest of them were OK, but the machine sent my votes for those top three offices from the Democrat to the Republican," Thomas said.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
So the people who live in the northern area of Virginia are not real Virginians? What's interesting is that the interviewer immediately picks up on this, and even offers her the chance to think about what she said. But I guess she figured once the foot was in the mouth, you might as well just keep stuffing.
However I am particularly troubled by McCain's statement:
"It doesn’t come as a surprise," McCain said. "I'm very pleased to have the endorsement of four former secretaries of state, well over 200 retired generals and admirals. I've admired and continue to respect Secretary Powell."
It doesn't come as a surprise? Powell's a Republican, gave you money to run for president, was in the cabinet of the current Republican president, and it's doesn't surprise you that he endorsed your Democratic opponent? It would surprise me, and I'd be a bit angry. Or perhaps McCain realizes how badly he has ran his campaign, and figures "hey, can't blame the guy for wanting to get away from this train wreck."
Saturday, October 18, 2008
“Let’s skip your typical trivialities and get to the ONLY meat of the matter in your typically silly post (economists who allegedly support Obama AND his TAX PLAN):”
Trivialities? The next president may be constitutionally ineligible for the office, and you call that trivial? By the way, the things you are calling trivial are all things you brought up. Now, just because you can’t defend you arguments doesn’t make them trivial. It just means you’re not intellectually honest enough to acknowledge you don’t have an adequate response.
By the way, you asked me to show you one economist who supported Obama’s economic plan. Now you are changing it to Obama’s tax plan. There’s a significant difference in someone’s tax plan and someone’s economic plan, because the former comprises a part of the latter. You really should be consistent in what you ask for, otherwise it looks like you are trying to finagle your way out by changing what we are discussing.
“You listed, without substantiation (as usual), the following economists whom you allege support Obama:”
Quite simply, you didn’t ask for substantiation. You asked for one name and one credential. I simply went above and beyond that and gave you several. But if substantiation is all you need, here you go:
Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel laureate link
Edmund Phelps, 2006 Nobel laureate link
Dan McFadden, 2000 Nobel laureate link
Robert Solow, 1987 Nobel laureate link
Here’s a list of some of those on Obama’s economic advisory team:
Jason Furman (director of economic policy) source bio
Austan Goolsbee (senior economic policy advisor), University of Chicago tax policy expert source Wikipedia website
Karen Kornbluh (policy director) source bio Wikipedia
David Cutler, Harvard health policy expert source Wikipedia website
Jeff Liebman, Harvard welfare expert source Wikipedia website
Michael Froman, Citigroup executive source bio
Daniel Tarullo, Georgetown law professor source bio
David Romer, Berkeley macroeconomist source website
Christina Romer, Berkeley economic historian source website
Richard Thaler, University of Chicago behavioral finance expert source Wikipedia
Robert Rubin, former Treasury Secretary source Wikipedia bio
Larry Summers, former Treasury Secretary source Wikipedia bio
Alan Blinder, former Vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve source Wikipedia bio website
Jared Bernstein, Economic Policy Institute labor economist source bio
James Galbraith, University of Texas macroeconomist source Wikipedia website
Paul Volcker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve 1979-1987 source Wikipedia
Laura Tyson, Berkeley international economist, Bill Clinton economic adviser source Wikipedia
Robert Reich, Berkeley public policy professor, former Secretary of Labor source Wikipedia weblog
Peter Henry, Stanford international economist source website
Gene Sperling, former White House economic adviser source Wikipedia
Since there are people who are actually advising Obama, and not just mere endorsers or supporters of him for president, then we can probably safely assume they support Obama’s economic plan, since they themselves helped create it. However, there is a link next to each of them so you can see what they have said and decide for yourself if it meets your criteria of whether they support Obama’s economic plan or not. If you can show me that every single one of these economists does not support Obama’s economic plan, then I’ll let you have your victory. Or you’re going to have to give me better definition of what you mean by “support.”
Also, have a look at the Economist study. They polled economists from the National Bureau of Economic Research. While admittedly they don’t list names, you can see that far more than one economist responded that Obama’s economic plan was better than McCain’s.
Sbvor said:“But, the question was which economists support Obama’s TAX PLAN!My research reveals that only ONE (Solow) is on record PARTIALLY supporting Obama’s tax policy. Okay, we’ve got ONE HALF of ONE economist vs. one HUNDRED economists on record as being 100% opposed to Obama’s tax plan. CLEARLY, I WIN!”
As I already noted, that wasn’t the question. And I would encourage people to look at the link provided. While it does state that these economists think Obama’s plan would be bad for the economy, curiously, there is not a single word in the whole thing about whether think they McCain’s economic plan would be good for the economy. Not a single word. Since it’s not an either/or situation, one could easily think Obama’s plan and McCain’s plan was bad for the economy. So one could easily have a Republican who absolutely thinks McCain’s plan is horrible for the economy, but because they are supporting McCain anyways because of party affiliation, sign this document stating Obama’s plan is bad for the economy. I would have much preferred to see a document stating why they thought McCain’s plan was good for the economy. I particularly like the line, “the prospect of such tax increases (referring to Obama’s) in 2010 is already a drag on the economy.” That’s right, they are saying that one of the reasons for the bad economy right now is a tax increase that may or may not go into effect in 2010. How they measure that we have no way of knowing, but they said it.
Just curious what you think you have won? But like I said, if you can show me that every single one of the economists listed, this time with citations, do not support Obama’s economic plan, then I’ll concede victory to you. But until then, you’re a bit premature.
It is, though, hard to figure John McCain these days. He argued that President Bush's tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, but he now supports them. He promises a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but his tax cut plan would add an estimated $4.2 trillion in debt over 10 years. He has responded to the economic crisis with an angry, populist message and a misguided, $300 billion proposal to buy up bad mortgages.
We do, though, think Obama would govern as much more of a pragmatic centrist than many people expect. His economic policy team is peppered with advisers who support free trade. He has been called a "University of Chicago Democrat"--a reference to the famed free-market Chicago school of economics, which puts faith in markets.
Hmnn, someone I was recently having a discussion with argued that Obama would be disastrous for the country economically. It seems that not even conservative newspapers believe that argument.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Sbvor has been kind enough to leave comments on my blog, expressing his disagreements with some of the things on it. I was going to respond to him in the comments section, but I thought it would be better to do so here in the main section. First, so I can address some of the assertions he makes and this way the debate gets a larger audience. But also, so I can respond to some of the logical fallacies that are in his post, and hopefully illustrate how those on the right will often resort to all kinds of strange things when they cannot make a point. One should never feel intimidated by someone on the other side of the political spectrum, and you don’t have to just stand by when they make ridiculous assertions or try to wow you with citations that, once you look at them, don’t even support their point.
“Crooked Talk on McCain,”
This is the first thing you should notice. Those on the right like to use petty nicknames and attack the character of the other person. They think it’s clever. I have a friend at work who won’t say Obama in an email, but instead comes up with every derogatory nickname he can think of when referring to him. I asked him why, and said I always called McCain by his name, as that was the respectful thing to do. He had no answer. You see that a lot, people resort to name calling when they can’t hold up their side of the argument anymore. But since the implication is that I have said something untrue about Mcain, please show me where I have and I will take it off the site.
Sbvor said:“1) IF you are not voting for Obama, my guess is you will be voting to the Left of Obama. Cynthia McKinney perhaps? I’m voting McCain/Palin. Who will you vote for?”
Why would you guess that? And why does it matter? Either what I am saying is true or it isn’t. Either I am making logical arguments or I am not. If who I am voting for changes your mind on whether to believe anything I write, then there’s the problem right there. Here’s a list of who I don’t plan to vote for: McCain, Obama, Nader, McKinney, Barr or Keyes. I think that’s everyone who is on the ballot in my state. Of course, as I have stated elsewhere, because of our archaic election laws and because I live in a safe state, I have the luxury of knowing I can do with my vote as I want. But let’s say that you’re right, what does it matter? My guess is because then you can feel you can just write off anything I say because of who I may be voting for. In other words, you won’t respond to the point I make but instead just attack me because who I am associating with. Sound familiar? I am taking you seriously even if you are voting for McCain, you should give me the same courtesy.
“2) As best I recall, the one comment you offered on my blog presented a slew of utterly unsubstantiated smears against McCain. I don’t tolerate that and I say so plainly in my profile information. If you want your comments published on my blog, at least ATTEMPT to substantiate them.”
If I recall correctly, I posted something on the Community Reinvestment Act and how some are saying it is to blame for the sub-prime crises as the CRA “forced” banks to give loans to people who couldn’t afford it. I pointed out that the majority of sub-prime loans were made outside of CRA regulation and it doesn’t makes sense to blame the CRA for something that the CRA did not have regulatory power over. Furthermore, I included a link to a Business Week(I purposely chose a magazine that was conservative) article that argued the same thing. No smears, and nothing even in particular about McCain. And I’ll let others decide by looking at my blog if it’s even reasonable to believe that I would post something that was nothing but unsubstantiated smears. But I would note that the standards you hold for your own blog you don’t respect when posting on someone else’s blog. On my blog, you’ve called people morons, ignorant, accused them of drinking the kool-aid, etc. I’m glad you hold yourself to the same high standard you want others held to.
“3) Offering a photocopy of a purported birth certificate absent a seal is NOT sufficient! The FACT is that Obama has been challenged in a court of law and has NOT produced the ORIGINAL birth certificate. WHY would Obama NOT want to settle this issue (assuming he COULD)?”
You are absolutely right that Philp Berg has filed a lawsuit against Obama and that is indeed a fact. While that sounds impressive, just remember that pretty much anybody can file a lawsuit about pretty much anything. My wife could go in Monday morning and file a paternity lawsuit against McCain. Monday night I could go around the Internet rightfully and factually claiming that McCain has a pending paternity lawsuit against him. Is it credible? Well, let’s hope not for my sake, but simply having a lawsuit brought against you doesn’t mean the case has any merit. I should note that similar lawsuits to Berg’s were also filed against McCain and Barry Goldwater. So I can just as easily point out that McCain’s citizenship has also been challenged by a lawsuit.
I watched the video you provided and was less than overwhelmed. Mr. Berg doesn’t even get simple facts right. Obama never sat on the Annenberg Foundation Board. He sat on the board of a project that was funded by a grant from the Annenberg Foundation. Pretty big difference, and if Mr. Berg can’t get those simple things right, well, he loses some credibility. And please note, I have no vested interest in Obama proving his case because I have no intention of voting for him.
Obama has provided a copy of the birth certificate. It’s easily found on the Internet. Of course, those who are inclined to, will challenge it as well. As for Obama’s grandmother saying he was born in Kenya, I could find no credible source for that statement. If you have one, besides Berg’s lawsuit, please let me know. I find the whole thing desperate, but Berg and his supporters don’t really care if they win the case or not. They’re getting a bunch of media attention and planting in people’s minds the idea that Obama is not one of “us”. And that’s really the point of the lawsuit.
And to prove that point, just go the Department of Health website for the state of Hawaii. There, anyone, at least to my understanding of the webpage, can request a letter of verification that a birth certificate was issued for Obama. The price? A lousy 5 bucks. So for 5 bucks, anyone who doubts that Obama was born in Hawaii can ask the state to verify that he has a birth certificate. Why hasn’t anyone who questions whether he was born in Hawaii done it yet? It wasn’t that hard to find, took me about five minutes on google to figure out I could do it.
Sbvor said:“4) Economists did not get us into this mess, the overwhelming body of evidence PROVES that DEMOCRATS DID!”
Because you put PROVES in capitals, it doesn’t prove anything. And I encourage people to check out the first comment that responds to your post that your link takes us to. There is a link there which leads to a speech by the President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco in which she states that it would be wrong to conflate the role of the CRA with the sub-prime crisis. I have stated above as well why it’s a bit silly to blame the CRA when most of the sub-prime loans were given out fell outside of the regulations of the CRA. And as Robert Gordon, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, even said “It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis.” I know it would be helpful to blame all this on the big bad Democrats, and I think they may as well be guilty as the Republicans, but conservatives are going to have to point to something more substantial than this.
Sbvor said:“5) The Economist is NOT a “right wing” magazine. As I recall, the article you cited in a previous post was published on the Economist web site, but was written by the extremely biased Associated Press.If there is even ONE economist who supports Obama’s economic plan, show me the NAME and the CREDENTIALS! ONLY McCain has done that!”
The Economist is indeed a right wing magazine. That’s not a pejorative, any more than me calling The Nation a left wing magazine is a pejorative. It’s not a bad thing, it’s just how they view the world. (They themselves claim they are for free markets and free trade, hardly left wing or socialist) You don’t recall very well, and if you are going to throw out accusations of bias you should at least do the minimal amount of research and find out for sure, because you could have went to the website and saw for yourself that it wasn’t an AP article. Here’s the link. You can’t call everything biased, or attribute it to a group you don’t like (like the AP), just because you don’t like what they are reporting. Besides, Sarah Palin even said she reads the Economist, so me and her have something in common.
Here’s another thing that gets me. One should never make absolute statements or ridiculous assertions. You manage to do both in one statement. By challenging me to name just one economist that supports Obama, you are making the absolute statement that no economist supports Obama. Absolute statements are hardly ever true, and they cause the person making them to look ill informed. So it’s ridiculous to challenge to me to name just one economist when you yourself could have spent 30 seconds on the Internet and proven your own assertion false.
Here’s four who have said they back or endorse Obama:
Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel laureate
Edmund Phelps, 2006 Nobel laureate
Dan McFadden, 2000 Nobel laureate
Robert Solow, 1987 Nobel laureate
I only picked the four who were Nobel laureates, because hey, that might impress you.
And while not economists, these people are involved in the business of finance:
William Donaldson, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair 2003-05
Arthur Levitt, SEC chair 1993-2001
David Ruder, SEC chair 1987-1989
And the richest person in the world, a man who made his billions by understanding how business works, Warren Buffet, endorsed Obama.
Now I am not saying you should vote for Obama or McCain because of the economists who support them. I just think you ought to quit making ridiculous claims that easily proven false.
“6) Your moronic response on the Socialist charge only serves to prove that you have NOT examined the evidence .Rather, you display the usual indoctrination which, in ignorant/arrogant knee jerk fashion, blindly assumes there are no Socialists among the Democrats. Even the extremely “Liberal” Time Magazine knows better!Try again. This time, EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE! Pay special attention to this series and this series.”
Your first piece of “evidence” is the McCain video linking Obama to Ayers. I’m not sure if you’ve watched the video or not yourself, but it makes no claims that Obama is a socialist. Heck, the word is never even used in the video. If your argument is that because Obama worked with Ayers on a particular group, he’s a socialist, then that’s kind of weak. Because then you’re also calling the president of the University of Illinois, a vice-president of Ameritech, a former president of the Continental Illinois Bank, and the CEO of the Chicago Tribune all socialists as well because they worked with Ayers on the project. And check this out, I have friends who are Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, and Socialists. What does that make me? Well, first, it makes me a person who is mature enough to have friends who I don’t necessarily agree with politically, but it also means that just because you sat on a board with someone, it doesn’t mean you have the same politics as everyone else on the board.
The Time article that you reference is about Henry Wallace in the 1940s. How an article about Wallace proves that there are socialists in the Democratic Party today is beyond me. What is interesting to note that Wallace was originally a Republican, and in 1960 supported Nixon over Kennedy. So I guess the same article proves that there are socialists in the Republican Party, which historically is true because some people did leave the Socialist Party for the Republican party believing they could make it a socialist party, but that was quite awhile ago. More recently, Reagan had people like Jeanne Kirkpatrick in his administration who belonged to the Young People’s Socialist League and Elliot Abrams, who was a member of the Social Democrats, USA, one of the American chapters of the Socialist International. So I just did a much better job of showing that there are socialists in the Republican Party than you did of showing that there are socialists in the Democratic Party. So are there socialists in the Democratic party? Undoubtedly, but the Republicans’s hands are not clean either.
As for Obama, how do you know my reaction was knee jerk, arrogant, or ignorant? You have no idea how much time I spent thinking about my response, or looking on the Internet to see if the assertion was true. You’ve yet to show any evidence that he is a socialist. I’ve yet to see Obama ever call himself a Socialist. He doesn’t talk about nationalizing the commanding heights of the economy. He doesn’t talk about worker ownership of industry. He doesn’t talk about the social ownership of the means of production. He doesn’t talk about dialectical materialism and the coming class war. In other words, he doesn’t say or do anything that would lead one to believe he a socialist. And my socialist friends sure as heck would tell you he is not a socialist. But because you don’t like him, he’s a socialist. That’s what I meant by saying you are using it as a boogey man argument. We hear it every four years. Kerry was a socialist. Gore was a socialist. Clinton was a socialist. How is that every Democratic presidential candidate just happens to be a socialist? Hate Obama all you want, and you have the right to do that, but at least be intellectually honest. He’s not a socialist, and he won’t make America socialist. Sorry to break the news to you. He is a capitalist who has liberal leanings. That doesn’t make him good or bad, but that’s what he is. By the way, there is a real live socialist in the US senate. His name is Bernie Sanders.
“7) I supported Bush on many issues, voted for him twice and would do so again (as the lesser of available evils). I also freely acknowledge that Bush 43 proved to be the single most Socialist President since LBJ (who somehow managed to out Socialist the infamous FDR). This housing bailout is a travesty.However, in the long run, the housing bailout will (hopefully) be peanuts compared to signing into law the single largest expansion of Entitlements since LBJ (Medicare Drug Entitlements). The “Big Three” Entitlements are killing us! Expanding Entitlements was the single BIGGEST mistake of the Bush Presidency (and history will prove it so).That said, Bush was FAR LESS of a Socialist than either Gore or Kerry would have been. These days, I settle for the lesser of evils. Until the American voters better educate yourselves, that will remain our only option.”
If you have your reasons for supporting Bush or McCain, that’s great. As for Bush, or any president in history for that matter, being socialist, well, unfortunately history doesn’t exactly agree with you. Again, it’s a word you’ve been taught to throw out because it’s “bad.” Don’t like something? Call it socialist. And I looked at your charts, and unfortunately they don’t actually prove your point. They are interesting, but don’t actually back up what you are saying.
"8) On Iraq, the American people were certainly lied to. But, Bush was NOT the liar!"
So we can’t trust the AP, but the American Thinker is totally unbiased? I hope you see your own bias, and are willing to own up to it. Your link just shows that Congress voted for an authorization of force, not that Bush and his administration may or may not have lied or manipulated intelligence. The two are not mutually exclusive. And while the post you refer to tries to parse out things like saying the resolution only states that Iraq “had” WMDs, when Bush and his administration were talking to the American people, they said that Iraq “has” WMDs. Here’s at least one montage of clips that shows Bush and his administration talking in the present tense, and not the past tense. Another thing that your link says is that the resolution does not link 9/11 to the Iraq terrorists. Again, no argument from me, except that doesn’t mean that the Bush administration didn’t lie. It just means whoever wrote the bill didn’t lie. However, I would point out that the bill does try to implicitly link 9/11 and Iraq by continuing referencing it when there is no need to. Everyone may view the bill for themselves here.
Sbvor said:“9) Stop drinking the Kool-Aid! EDUCATE YOURSELF!”
Again, cheap shots with no substance. Just trying to attack me with nothing to back it up. As for educating myself, as you can see I looked at all of your citations, and responded to them, and provided my own documentation whenever I disagreed with you. You’ll notice, that unlike you, I didn’t only give you links that confirmed my bias (mostly because you gave me links to your own website), but provided you with links from a wide variety of sources, including several conservative ones. In other words, I didn’t try to stack the sources in my favor like you did. You’ll also noticed that I responded directly to your assertions, and that my documentation was used to provide back-up to what I was saying. Unlike you, who, for instance, gave me a link to a video linking Ayers to Obama and tried to show that as proof that Obama was socialist when it did no such thing.
You’ll notice that I didn’t call you names (didn’t say you were ignorant, naïve, arrogant, etc) but simply pointed out where I felt you were wrong. I should point that that I have many friends who are going to vote for McCain, and I don’t believe them to be ignorant, naïve, arrogant, or even evil. We just have a difference of opinion.
It really is sad the campaign that McCain has ran. It’s quite possible that if he had picked a campaign manager other than Steve Schmidt, chosen a VP candidate other than Plain, and stayed true to himself and not allowed himself to get involved in such dirty politics, he might have won. I’m not saying I would have voted for him, but he probably would have done much better than he currently is doing. I wish your candidate well, and we’ll see what he decides to do in these final two and a half weeks.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
"I didn't see it the way that it's being taken. I never connected," she said. "It was just food to me. It didn't mean anything else." So she chose watermelon, fried chicken, ribs, and Kool-Aid just out of thin air? See, that's what I can't stand. If you're going to be racist, be racist, and when you're called on it, proudly say you don't give a damn because that's exactly how you feel about those people. I can respect that kind of honesty. But cowards who backtrack when they're called on it shouldn't be running the country, let alone the local Republican women's club. You can find the article here, in my hometown paper.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
"You launched your political campaign in Mr. Ayers' living room," McCain responded.
"That is absolutely not true," Obama retorted.
I've been following the whole Ayers thing, and especially where Obama launched his campaign, because it seems so silly to me to make an assertion you can't possibly know is true. McCain and his campaign constantly throw this "fact" out, but have never once tried to back it up. Do they have Obama's diary where it says "On this date, I launched my campaign at Ayers' house?" Do they have his calendar where it shows that day was the first day ever that Obama talked about a political career? Look, Obama has said he had a meet and greet coffee meeting at Ayers' house. If McCain would stick with that, I would have no problem with it. That is factual. But to exaggerate the story to score cheap political points, that's not straight talk.
By the way, I have tried to figure out when and how Obama launched his political career. This article from the Chicago Sun-Times seems to be the best I can do. They provide a sketchy timeline, but nonetheless, it doesn't appear that Obama's political career was launched in Ayers' front room.
This is a bit lazy on my part, but this short video does a better job visually explaining some of the hatred of McCain supporters than I can in words. I especially like when Palin says it's not negativity but truthfulness. Unfortunately, the McCain is reaping what it has sowed, and it's a bit sad that McCain is not doing the honorable thing and owning up to it.
Peace and all good.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
What? What kind of event is this? Is it a rally co-sponsored by ACORN? And whose the keynote speaker? Is it really McCain?
Yep, McCain was a keynote speaker at a rally sponsored by a group that he is now trying to paint as evil. And did you hear some of the groups mentioned? Those are community organizing groups, the ones that McCain says in the video makes America special. His campaign now mocks those groups and tries to paint them as terrorists and lawbreakers. By the way, the video is only from 2006. Guess a lot has changed in two years, like now he has to pander to the extreme right of his party.
I guess Palin is just used to people protesting her. She couldn't believe that people would actually want to hear her talk. The guy at the end, by the way, tells her to speak louder, that they just can't hear her. It doesn't seem to register though.
''When I have time to help, I'll try to do that."
Sheesh, with friends like that............................................
Monday, October 13, 2008
For full disclosure, I consider myself a Christian. Probably not the best one in the world, and probably not the most orthodox one, but a Christian nonetheless. This video is offensive on so many levels. First, he's basically threatening God. Second, he's a bigot. Third, to believe that every non-Christian in the world is praying for Obama to win is asinine. Fourth, to believe that God somehow wants McCain to win, or that we know it's in God 's best interest that he win, is even more asinine. It's crap like this that prevented me from being a Christian for so many years, and if I didn't believe he represents a perversion of Christianity as much as Al Qaeda represents a perversion of Islam, I'd probably give it all up. I'll be completely honest and tell you I don't have a clue who God wants to be elected. But to use God's name in the way that this preacher has used it is a violation of the third commandment. I'm not saying I expect him to understand it, it's just something good to know.
I thought you might be interested in what one of McCain's admittedly wisest people in his life had to say this past week.
"As one who was a victim of violence and hate during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign. What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse.
As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all. They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy. We can do better. The American people deserve better."
As you may know, I don't often agree with McCain. But I think he is right, John Lewis is a very wise man.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
However, a year before, Governor Palin vetoed the exact same request. Her reason for the veto? She claimed it was "not a state responsibility" to fund such a request. So what changed in only one year? What made her go from saying it was not a state responsibility to something that she personally needed to endorse on official letterhead? It seems she started attending the church and started citing the pastor as a spiritual mentor. Or perhaps she had a massive change in how she views the government's role in society. One of the two.
As for the kitchen, Palin approved over $600,000 of state money to be used to build a kitchen in a small town hockey arena. Where is the hockey arena located? You guessed it, Wasilla.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
"He is not the McCain I endorsed.He keeps saying, 'Who is Barack Obama?' I would ask the question, 'Who is John McCain?' because his campaign has become rather disappointing to me."
That's the former Republican Governor of Michigan, William Milliken.
"That's not my kind of Republicanism."
That's former Republican Senator, Lincoln Chafee.
And if I were to ask most students of political history who is most responsible for the modern conservative movement, the name you might hear the most often is William F. Buckley Jr. His son, Christopher Buckley inherited the same politics from his father. Christopher Buckly has known McCain for nearly three decades and even wrote a speech for him. So this is what Buckley said:
"John McCain has changed. He said, famously, apropos the Republican debacle post-1994, “We came to Washington to change it, and Washington changed us.” This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget “by the end of my first term.” Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?"
By the way, Buckley just endorsed Obama.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Since in the ad, we keep hearing about a foundation, which foundation are they talking about? Well, the foundation that supported the project was the Annenberg foundation. You can find out more about them by going to their website. It's a pretty cool website as they list what grants they have given out, so you can decide for yourself if they are a radical education foundation.
But here's the funny part. McCain released a press release of US Ambassadors who support McCain. Interesting. If we take a peek at them we see the name of one Lenore Annenberg. Hmmn, that names sounds familiar. Could she be the same Annenberg of the Annenberg Foundation. Take a look at her bio for yourself. She is the widow of Walter H. Annenberg, who started the foundation. And currently, according to the website, "She is president and chairman of the Annenberg Foundation, a charter member of the Board of Overseers of the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University, and a founding member of the governing boards of the Annenberg Schools for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Southern California."
So let's get this straight. A group that Obama is associated with gets money from the Annenberg Foundation to improve Chicago schools, and that's bad. The President and Chairman of the exact same foundation, the one that McCain's ad called a radical education foundation, endorses McCain, and McCain includes her name in a press release, and it's a good thing. Let me make this a little clearer. If McCain is going to make the arguement that Obama was involved in a group with a domestic terrorist, then he should also be honest and say one of his supporters gives money to a group that includes a known domestic terrorist. So how abou it McCain, are you going to renounce Annenberg's support for you? You should probably also give her back the $2300 she gave for this election as well.
I also like how Palins attorney said "In order to violate the ethics law, there has to be some personal gain, usually financial. Mr. Branchflower has failed to identify any financial gain." Now I ain't no layer but I looked up the ALASKA EXECUTIVE BRANCH ETHICS ACT on the Internet, and this is what it says:
The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.
It further states:
A public officer may not attempt to benefit a personal or financial interest through coercion of a subordinate or require another public officer to perform services for the private benefit of the public officer at any time.
Notice that it says "personal OR financial interest.' One can easily violate the law and not receive any financial gain from it. Palin should think about firing her attorney because if that's his argument, then he's a lawyer who can't even read the law.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Juicy stuff, huh? Almost sounds so sensationalistic that I must be making it up right? Nope, it comes from an article from that reliably conservative magazine, Forbes. You see, McCain was on the advisory board for the U.S. Council for World Freedom. Sounds innocent enough, I agree. But as the article states, "The council created by retired Army Maj. Gen. John Singlaub was the U.S. chapter of the World Anti-Communist League, an international organization linked to former Nazi collaborators and ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America." Not so innocent after all.
But like those late night infomercials, wait, there's more. The Council ended up being a front group for arms being shipped to Nicaragua. Congress had cut off military assistance to the Contras, but Reagan didn't think he should have to play by the rules. So in came the Council so it didn't look like the government was involved. And where was the money coming from to buy these arms. Come on everybody, it's the Iran-Contra Scandal. We were selling weapons to our arch enemy Iran, the very same one that McCain thinks he now wants to bomb.
So McCain has associations with people involved with the three largest scandals in American politics for the last half century; The Iran-Contra Affair, The Keating Five and S&L Scandal, and Watergate. But let me throw in one little more tidbit of history. The journalist who broke the stories about the death squad killings associated with this group was a guy by the name of Jack Anderson. Sound familiar? It should to readers of my blog. It's the same Jack Anderson that G. Gordon Liddy admitted to in his autobiography of plotting to kill.