View Full Version : Obama, speaking before the VFW, made a good point
That Senator McCain, for all his talk about "following bin Laden to the gates of hell," opposes even following bin Laden as far as the border region of Pakistan. Obama has said we should strike Al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan, should we have them in our sights. McCain's position? That a strike in Pakistan would be "bombing an ally."
I'm normally for caution whenever getting another country involved in any conflict, but when it comes to bin Laden or any Al Qaeda leadership, especially given the length of time that they've holed up in the ungovernable border with Afghanistan, if one of our intelligence services has them in their sights, we should take them out, and Pakistan will get over it.
Afghanistan harbored Al Qaeda before 9-11, and many on the right condemned the Clinton administration for not putting them out of commission. The Afghan government, controlled by the Taliban, was powerless to cooperate with us, even if the majority of Afghanis had been in favor of it. Did Pakistan under Musharraf differ all that much? He took billions in our aid, refused us access to the border region, and insisted they could not root out Al Qaeda in that region. Yes, Pakistan is in some sense an ally, and yes, we must be mindful they are a nuclear power, but McCain has been just like Bush in his feeble approach to their real unwillingness to cooperate where it ought to matter most: getting rid of Al Qaeda.
mnottfam
08-19-2008, 16:34
OK, so Mr. Obama can point out a flaw with his opponent. Whoopie. And Mr. Obama's policy on what to do in that situation would be?:blink:
"Oooopps...I can't attack my downtrodden brethren.":lol:
OK, so Mr. Obama can point out a flaw with his opponent. Whoopie.
Yeah, just a minor issue like a hollow promise to pursue bin Laden "to the gates of hell."
We can overlook that. <_<
Not to mention that McCain is likely to pick up where Bush left off in using 9-11 as an excuse to redirect the "war on terror" towards ordinary Americans, as an excuse to expand the government's internal surveillance capabilities, and further restrict citizens' travel and civil rights. Hey, just details though, right?
And Mr. Obama's policy on what to do in that situation would be?:blink:
"Oooopps...I can't attack my downtrodden brethren.":lol:
Say what?
Obama has been consistent for over a year about this point.
In July of last year, Obama said:
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm
He has not wavered from that position.
McCain has no idea where the gates of hell are, so his habitual assertions that he'll "follow bin Laden to the gates of hell" is easy rhetoric, like so many of his promises are. Obama, on the other hand, has made a tangible proposal on exactly how he would deal with Al Qaeda. Once he's president, he'll work out an arrangement with the new Pakistani government, and then it will be bin Laden and Al Qaeda going to the gates of hell.
Somehow, I can't see someone as sensitive as Obama going to Pakistan or the UN or wherever and hammering out a deal allowing US forces to pursue terrorists when they run across the nearest border. To many of us, the term for that is Fair Chase, and tends to be a hunting or law enforcement term, areas that Obama hasn't established himself in to my knowledge.
The facts on the candidates' proposals are what they are. I see no reason to doubt Obama's intention nor capacity to deliver on his proposal once he becomes president.
Obama wouldn't be where hs is now if he were unwilling to do what needs to be done in difficult circumstances. And he's far more likely to be effective in negotiating with foreign leaders, including those that will be governing Pakistan within a few months, than McCain. No matter what, McCain is saddled by the Bush administration's blundering diplomatic track record.
Jack Cafferty says it all to me.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/cafferty.mccain/index.html
Politicians say a lot of things during a campaign. Both these guys have had to "revise" and clarify their positions already. Personally, I'll believe a candidate means something when I see concrete efforts to achieve the goal.
I do believe Obama when he's said he would further restrict our 2A rights. About that he has been consistent, unlike his new found support for hunting. It rings pretty hollow to support the 2A and linking it to hunting. We've heard that too many times before.
I'm still waiting for another Theodore Roosevelt to vote for, but I'm not hopeful.
The facts on the candidates' proposals are what they are. I see no reason to doubt Obama's intention nor capacity to deliver on his proposal once he becomes president.
Obama wouldn't be where hs is now if he were unwilling to do what needs to be done in difficult circumstances. And he's far more likely to be effective in negotiating with foreign leaders, including those that will be governing Pakistan within a few months, than McCain. No matter what, McCain is saddled by the Bush administration's blundering diplomatic track record.This is fairy tale. The fact Obama let the Clintons bully him on the convention speaks volumes about his fortitude.
I bet Putin, among others, is just giddy with the possibility of Obama becoming president. He knows he will handle Obama like a school yard bully. And before we want to turn this into a Bush... blah, blah, blah session, Putin knows Bush will only tolerate so much. Our adversaries need to respect us and if it's out of fear, better that way than no respect at all.
Obama's proposal about taking care of business in Pakistan shows his ignorance and anyone who thinks it sound policy is showing theirs as well.
handirifle
08-20-2008, 08:18
McCain has no idea where the gates of hell are
I beg to differ strongly with this point. Until you do the time he did in Hanoi Hilton, you nor I cannot fathom the depths of Hell he and the others were subjected to.
I disagree with your stance on Obama but will not argue that point, but I will strongly defend that statement that he made. Mc Cain and he ancestors were and are proud defenders of this nation, and I do not believe he would ever turn his power against this nation.
I personally shudder to think who Obama will sell this nation to. He believes we need to be more European, I cannot disagree strongly enough. No one, I mean no one, in any other nation has ever helped as many other nations as this one, in their times of need. We're not perfect, but we are a far sight better than any European nation, most of which have been on the receiving end of our assistance, and in my opinion, being more like them is the last direction we need to go.
handirifle
08-20-2008, 08:20
This is fairy tale. The fact Obama let the Clintons bully him on the convention speaks volumes about his fortitude.
I bet Putin, among others, is just giddy with the possibility of Obama becoming president. He knows he will handle Obama like a school yard bully. And before we want to turn this into a Bush... blah, blah, blah session, Putin knows Bush will only tolerate so much. Our adversaries need to respect us and if it's out of fear, better that way than no respect at all.
Obama's proposal about taking care of business in Pakistan shows his ignorance and anyone who thinks it sound policy is showing theirs as well.
I couldn't agree more, well said.
I beg to differ strongly with this point. Until you do the time he did in Hanoi Hilton, you nor I cannot fathom the depths of Hell he and the others were subjected to.
Amen, +1000 to that.
jmsfmtex
08-20-2008, 13:25
I cannot disagree with Obama more about his ridiculous gun control ideas. But I would like to point out that this is just the tip of the iceberg. People like him want to control everything you do in you lives. They want to tell you what food you can eat, where you send you children to school, what subjects are to be taught, what Holidays we should celebrate... I am firmly convinced that by looking at how he and others approache the gun issue that this is the same way he will approach everything else. They want control and will not rest until they have total control The believe that they know more than we do and set themselves up as all knowling. What every happened to "WE THE PEOPLE"? It has already gone too far. Stop the dictatorship now.
But lately he's become hypocritical and dishonest. I've seen footage of him specifically saying that he ran in 2000 primarily for personal ambition, yet he's made a major campaign point of accusing Obama of the same. See, for example:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_admitted_ambition_drove_desire_to_0820.html
Just today he claimed he never challenged Obama's patriotism, yet he made a major campaign point of saying that, unlike Obama, he would rather lose a campaign than lose a war. Now he's backing off from that by "redefining" what he said. And it's not like he said it just once: it was a major point of his, which he repeated at stump after stump.
These are just a couple of examples.
"Backing off"....."Redefining".....Well gooooleee! Whoda ever thunk a politician
would stoop so low. I'll just bet my little red wagon that dad burn McCain's
the first one to ever do THAT!
J.McCain certainly wouldn't have been my first choice,but I think things are going to have to get alot worse before America will again have the guts/sense to elect a real conservative. But then again,maybe it's too late.
I don't know McCain any more than anyone else here does, but I'd bet he's
gonna be more willing to work with the Dems than Obama would be with the GOP.
Ole W and his admin. isn't running, so why don't we drop the "comparisons" and let McCain either geterdone or fail on his own without steppin on someone who's gonna be out soon. Bush has been blamed for everything
from the attacks on 9/11 to the levies breaking to saying incredibly
stupid, unbelievable things like uh, yea ,I tried it, but I didn't inhale......No
wait. That was somebody else:blink:
handirifle
08-20-2008, 20:06
"Backing off"....."Redefining".....Well gooooleee! Whoda ever thunk a politician
would stoop so low. I'll just bet my little red wagon that dad burn McCain's
the first one to ever do THAT!
J.McCain certainly wouldn't have been my first choice,but I think things are going to have to get alot worse before America will again have the guts/sense to elect a real conservative. But then again,maybe it's too late.
I don't know McCain any more than anyone else here does, but I'd bet he's
gonna be more willing to work with the Dems than Obama would be with the GOP.
Ole W and his admin. isn't running, so why don't we drop the "comparisons" and let McCain either geterdone or fail on his own without steppin on someone who's gonna be out soon. Bush has been blamed for everything
from the attacks on 9/11 to the levies breaking to saying incredibly
stupid, unbelievable things like uh, yea ,I tried it, but I didn't inhale......No
wait. That was somebody else:blink:
Yea, I've about had it with the "more of the same" chatter from the liberals. McCain has opposed Bush on a number of issues in the past and I see him as nothing like bush. The libs need to get a new dark horse to compare him to. They do that, ONLY because it's THEY who talk the politics of fear, they FEAR they'll not have the CONTROL of America they want.
Hey freesw,
You want to see screwed up, take a LONG HARD look at our liberal run Government here in good ole CA. This state is about bankrupt because of liberal morons that give the illegals everything free.
Free lunches for their kids getting a free education, because their parents are getting free welfare and food stamps, while I pay for it.
Want to hear more? How about all the Hispanic liberal politicians in this state that support giving MORE to them including amnesty, drivers liscenses (which gives them ALL SORTS of free bennies). Plus we have liberals here now outlawing "trans fats" in any restuaraunt food. Come on, let ME pick what I want to eat and not eat.
Liberals here tell us if our dog gets complained about it has to get neutered (I don't own a dog, but it's none of their business).
These idiots are hung up on a bill that will provide over a BILLION dollars of my tax money to bail out finance companies that gave out high risk home loans. What's high risk. HUGE numbers of families getting home loans on STATED INCOME!!!!
No proof necessary. Imagine you going for a home loan for a $650K home (not at all high during the peak of the flurry of the home buying) and being asked how much you make. You comment is $120K, and they buy it with any proof, or any pay stubb etc. These morons deserve to go bankrupt. It's called stupid business, BUT the liberals in the state legislature want them to get the money NOW in the form of a state tax refund.
You go ahead and vote for Obama, but when this country becomes less free, less like the America of old, more like Europe, where they have no first or second amandments, and we are at the whim of what ever the UN wants, then remember it's exactly what YOU asked for.
Obama talks a big story, but where are his ideas? What will be his foreign policies, give the radicals anything they ask for? He's already allow the Clintons to have a lions share of the Dem convention, how will he hold up agains the Russian president?
You go ahead and take your chance on him, but me, I'll cling to my faith and my guns, than you.
[QUOTE=copen;480593
I don't know McCain any more than anyone else here does, but :[/QUOTE]
BUT the people that served with him DOES know him. He's not the "golden boy" you are hoping for. If you don't understand that now, you will later.
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/.
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/video/McCainKhai.wmv
handirifle
08-20-2008, 21:15
John McCain was not my first choice either, and unlike the Obama disciples I'm not calling him "savior", but he's a far sight better than the opposition.
I'm much more likely to call Barry "The 143 Day Wonder" than anything else.
Let him do a couple terms in the Senate, if he can, and work that moniker off.
Obama can deliver a good prepared speech, but he stumbles when it comes to the kind of questions asked in the Saddleback Forum. I don't believe the man. He will say what is necessary to get elected. Like all politicians. Also, it's not that he doesn't love America, but that he doesn't love America the way that I believe someone running for president should.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121918996082755013.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries
That's the kind of change you can believe in!
handirifle
08-21-2008, 08:01
Yea and his latest, on Fox news they showed a video clip of him calling a certain group of people, liars. This group says Obama who claims to be in favor of a federal bill that will allow a baby meant to be aborted, that comes out alive (makes me sick to think about it) shall be allowed to live.
When in fact, by many witness accounts, he strongly campaigned against an exact same bill in the illinois state when he was state senator. He claimed the bill were nowhere near alike. Witnesses all showed the bills were the same and Obama was just afraid it would undermine Roe v Wade, kinda like the liberals try to undermine all of the 2nd amendment.
One witness was a nurse, that within hours after he voted against the bill, she held a Downs Syndrome baby, meant for abortion but lived, in her arms for over 45 minutes till it died. She was not allowed, by law to help it live.
Very sad thing we've come to in this country. Sir Francis Schafer said it would happen like this in his film series over 30 years ago.
evlblkwpnz
08-21-2008, 10:36
GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR THE RADICAL OSAMA. While you are at it, turn in all of your guns, sell your cars, downgrade to a smaller home, get ready for the long line at the doctor's office for when we ALL have free healthcare, quit that good job, and work at Mc Donalds so you can fit into the liberal equalist agenda. Never know, you might even get someone from the government to tell you what to watch on TV too. This is the plan.... for those who can't wait to be fleeced.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121918996082755013.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries
I wouldn't count on Freddoso, who just released an anti-Obama book, to provide an accurate summary of Obama's record.
Here is what Media Matters has found in Frddoso's book - and before you say "Media Matters, that left-wing outfit!" - I ask, who should wade through all the poorly-sourced and outright fraudulent verbiage being written about Obama? You think the MSM is going to do it and report on it? Hardly. I sure don't want to do it. I'm glad someone else is. Then I can look at what they found. And what they found is persuasive evidence that, while not nearly the abomination Corsi's book is, it's still an error-ridden hatchet job.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200808050011
Even one of Fredosso's colleagues at the National Review admits it has errors (though he otherwise praises the book, unsurprisingly):
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmQ1OTJlZjViYTU1ODQ3MDcyMDRiZmY3ODJhNDk1Zjg=
Other than that, this thread has taken a turn towards the unsourced and outlandish. Nothing works in an election cycle like floating rumors though, right?
At least let us know where you read the rumor.
and before you say "Media Matters, that left-wing outfit!" - I'm glad you said, now I won't have to. It was actually started by the Clintons
I wouldn't count on Freddoso, who just released an anti-Obama book, to provide an accurate summary of Obama's record.
Here is what Media Matters has found in Frddoso's book - and before you say "Media Matters, that left-wing outfit!" - I ask, who should wade through all the poorly-sourced and outright fraudulent verbiage being written about Obama? You think the MSM is going to do it and report on it? Hardly. I sure don't want to do it. I'm glad someone else is. Then I can look at what they found. And what they found is persuasive evidence that, while not nearly the abomination Corsi's book is, it's still an error-ridden hatchet job.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200808050011
Even one of Fredosso's colleagues at the National Review admits it has errors (though he otherwise praises the book, unsurprisingly):
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmQ1OTJlZjViYTU1ODQ3MDcyMDRiZmY3ODJhNDk1Zjg=
Other than that, this thread has taken a turn towards the unsourced and outlandish. Nothing works in an election cycle like floating rumors though, right?
At least let us know where you read the rumor.
Well, at least it was on the opinion page...and the "Osama" references are kinda sophmoric. Osama isn't a Marxist.
Well, at least it was on the opinion page...and the "Osama" references are kinda sophmoric. Osama isn't a Marxist.
Right.
Osama = Muslim extremist and mass murderer
Obama = Christian liberal and American politician
See how easy they are to tell apart? <_<
I'm glad you said, now I won't have to. It was actually started by the Clintons
At least let us know where you read the rumor.
From a right-wing source, just to be fair:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150
Established in May 2004, Media Matters for America is a "web-based, not-for-profit … progressive research and information center" seeking to "systematically monitor a cross-section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation." But in addition to "news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible," the organization's concept of "misinformation" includes anything that "forwards the conservative agenda." Thus political differences of opinion are often portrayed by Media Matters as lies or worse. [so this source claims; I've yet to see evidence for it -- freesw]
Media Matters' founder and CEO is David Brock. A reporter for the conservative magazine The American Spectator in the 1990s, Brock (in the aftermath of his biography of Hillary Clinton that brought disastrous reviews) engaged in a public self-denunciation, characterizing all his past writings critical of liberal figures as a confection of lies and slanders. In Brock's present judgment, the mainstream media have fallen under the sway of conservative ideology. He believes that conservatives have moved the mainstream media "to the right and therefore they've moved American politics to the right. … I wanted to create an institution [Media Matters] to combat what they're doing."
Standing behind Brock was John Podesta, a former chief of staff in the Clinton administration and the head of the "progressive" Washington, DC think tank, the Center for American Progress. In 2004 Podesta provided Brock with office space for his fledgling enterprise. Soon after, Media Matters received over $2 million in seed donations from a roster of affluent donors including Leo Hindery Jr., a former cable magnate; Susie Tompkins Buell, a co-founder of the fashion company Esprit and a close ally of Senator Hillary Clinton; James Hormel, a San Francisco philanthropist who nearly served as ambassador to Luxembourg during the Clinton administration; Bren Simon, a Democratic activist and the wife of shopping-mall developer Mel Simon; and New York psychologist and philanthropist Gail Furman. Media Matters, which can accept tax-deductible contributions under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, has also benefited from the patronage of Peter Lewis, chairman of Progressive Corporation and a longtime consort of leftist financier George Soros.
Media Matters has not always been forthcoming about its high-profile backers. In particular, the group has long labored to obscure any financial ties to George Soros. But in March 2003, the Cybercast News Service (CNS) detailed the copious links between Media Matters and several Soros "affiliates"—among them MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress, and Peter Lewis. Confronted with this story, a spokesman for the organization explained that "Media Matters for America has never received funding directly from George Soros" (emphasis added), a transparent evasion. [what they call a "transparent evasion" I'd call nothing other than holding one's cards close to the vest; they're under no obligation to assist their detractors -- freesw]
...
...
Hey freesw,
You want to see screwed up, take a LONG HARD look at our liberal run Government here in good ole CA.
Sounds more like bad government than liberal government, but even with that and the fires and the earthquakes, plenty of people still like living in California. California is apparently, from what I've read, ahead of the curve on matters of environmental quality, so perhaps that has something to do with the quality of life there. Well, outside of LA, anyway. I hardly know anything about California's state government, but with regard to California's government in general, wasn't the election of Republican Arnold S. supposed to turn that around? Did all those people that voted for Arnold also return a bunch of incompetents to the legislature?
Look, we've had a bad government at the national level with the Bush administration. I strongly disagree with anyone that thinks McCain would be significantly different than Bush. It would be more of the same corruption, cronyism, secret deals with industry, belligerence abroad, deliberate incompetence in regulatory agencies (which directly applies to your housing example), and failure to lead on energy issues (more drilling is not the way out of our predicament). Every day that he campaigns, McCain just shows that much more how willing he is to settle into the Bush mold. The independent, maverick McCain is no more.
handirifle
08-21-2008, 17:33
Sounds more like bad government than liberal government, but even with that and the fires and the earthquakes, plenty of people still like living in California. California is apparently, from what I've read, ahead of the curve on matters of environmental quality, so perhaps that has something to do with the quality of life there. Well, outside of LA, anyway. I hardly know anything about California's state government, but with regard to California's government in general, wasn't the election of Republican Arnold S. supposed to turn that around? Did all those people that voted for Arnold also return a bunch of incompetents to the legislature?
Look, we've had a bad government at the national level with the Bush administration. I strongly disagree with anyone that thinks McCain would be significantly different than Bush. It would be more of the same corruption, cronyism, secret deals with industry, belligerence abroad, deliberate incompetence in regulatory agencies (which directly applies to your housing example), and failure to lead on energy issues (more drilling is not the way out of our predicament). Every day that he campaigns, McCain just shows that much more how willing he is to settle into the Bush mold. The independent, maverick McCain is no more.
Well, without trying to disect all of what you said, my opinion is more than half of all the economy problems are related to greedy banks and pathetic loan practices.
Our bad government here has been Dem controlled for at least 20 years, and every month there's a new attack on our freedoms, both gun and otherwise.
Ahnold was voted in beacuse Grey Davis, the formor gov, was not paying any attention to what was going on and he was driving the finances into the ground, and we still haven't recovered. They just put in the paper today that Arnold want to raise the sale tax 1%, plus LA county ( I live in northern LA county, 70 miles north of LA city) wants to increase it an additional 1%,. that will make our sales tax here 10.25%:angry::o.
You cannot get a conservative bill passed here since the Dems shut them down, plus the dems are always spending like they have it and authorizing all kinds of freebies like the bail out of the high risk banks yada yada.
Like ANY president, the Gov can only approve or sign bills. They cannot make laws on their own.
And if you think "It would be more of the same corruption, cronyism, secret deals with industry, belligerence abroad, deliberate incompetence in regulatory agencies (which directly applies to your housing example), and failure to lead on energy issues (more drilling is not the way out of our predicament" is limited to Bush (not getting into whether or not I agree) or republicans, you need to take your democratic rose colored glasses off.
Your boy Obama plays dirty politics just like the rest of them. The only CHANGE will be from Rep to Dem, period. Take a long hard look at how he got his states seats, by eliminating every other candidate on the ballot before the elections. But that's just how they do politics in Chicago. Yep, just more of the same, with a different name.
I'll tell ya, I'm so fed up with the Liberal viewpoints at work I want to puke. They are about ready to bow down and face Chicago for their new savior and everything Bush is evil.
We lost more troops to suicide attacks during Clintons reign than we have in the war, and yet they kept coming here to do more. They make one huge attack here (9-11) and have not touched our soil since, but I'm sure that's pure coincidence.
I know all has not gone exceptional, but we had a LOT of good years of the market, and jobs. Economies do not grow continously, never ending. Like all things they fluctuate up and down, just like the earth's temperature, and there's not a thing we can do to stop it usually.
Had the feds jacked up the interest rate when the housing was going ballistic, he would have been blamed for a slowdown. By not jacking them up, he's blamed for a recession cause idiots bought twice what they could afford.
Look, if you make 50K a year, and someone tells you you qualify for a 300K house, cause the pmt is only $1700 a month at this 4% rate (variable) wouldn't a REASONABLE person want to know if they could still afford it when it goes up?
I blame the management of Rumsfeld on Bush, he should have dumped him when the prison scandle broke out, but he didn't. They didn't plan for the "after" part of the war well enough, but in my opinion, going in there was right and just.
Sadam has snubbed his nose at the UN mandates for 10 years. Would we have let germany or japan get away with genocide AFTER the wars were over? The UN was with Sadam. Anyone that helped us in the first war was killed.
As for the WMD's, I do not believe it was fabricated, and had Bush done nothing (ala Clinton) and we WERE bombed, we lose big time.
We have never been pre-emptive before but we had never been attacked on our soil either.
EVERY politician that voted on the war believed in the same data GW saw, and unlike what Obama claimed for it to be his "toughest discision ever" to vote against the war, they all voted for it.
By the way, Mr. Change, wasn't even IN the US Senate when that vote came, AND how come it was so gut wrenching for (according to his comment on the Saddleback debate) Mr. Change to vote against something he felt so strongly (according to his earlier comments) against?
Talk about double talk!!
The end result is, Dems will never believe Bush did anything right and will worship this moron like he's a god (he's not). I seriously doubt he'll win, but if he does, enjoy your savior!
I see him as a liar and a politician, no better, no worse.
You say that much of the problems you're aware are due to irresponsible and shortsighted actions by banks and the mortgage industry. Be aware that one of the cardinal principles of the Bush adminstration was to gut the ability of regulatatory agencies to do their jobs. If we get more of the same, as we will if McCain is elected, then we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. I don't think McCain fully realizes what he's in for if elected. The people that control today's Republican party want to open the floodgates and let their cronies in to loot everything they can carry off, regardless of the consequences to the future of the American people. They've already done a lot of damage, and they can and will do far more. They've sold out to people that can't even see beyond the next quarter. There is a big difference between the two parties in that regard.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/14/thomas-franks-wrecking-crew-fires-on/
Tailgunner
08-21-2008, 18:00
NEW YORK (CNN) -- "I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty but leading them or driving them out of it."
What hate-mongering politician would be so politically incorrect as to suggest that things like higher minimum wages and more government handouts don't actually help the poor? I'll identify the culprit at the end of this column, but for now, I'm more interested in figuring out why that statement sounds so controversial.
Poverty is one of the few national issues that, at least on the surface, unites us all. It's not a political condition; it's a human one. After all, when's the last time you've heard a politician campaign on a pro-poverty platform?
But although the problem may unite us, the solutions don't. And perhaps nothing illustrates that better than what's been happening in Detroit, Michigan, and Buffalo, New York.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly a third of the residents in those cities are living beneath the poverty line, the highest rates among large cities in the entire country.
No matter what side of the political aisle you're on, that is nothing short of appalling. Yet if you ask people what we should do about it, you'll probably hear answers that inexplicably break down right along party lines.
Is there a perfect answer? Probably not. But what bothers me is that people stubbornly stick to their solution, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it's not working.
For example, Detroit, whose mayor has been indicted on felony charges, hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo has been even more stubborn. It started putting a Democrat in office back in 1954, and it hasn't stopped since.
Unfortunately, those two cities may be alone at the top of the poverty rate list, but they're not alone in their love for Democrats. Cincinnati, Ohio (third on the poverty rate list), hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland, Ohio (fourth on the list), has been led by a Democrat since 1989. St. Louis, Missouri (sixth), hasn't had a Republican since 1949, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (eighth), since 1908, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (ninth), since 1952 and Newark, New Jersey (10th), since 1907.
The only two cities in the top 10 that I didn't mention (Miami, Florida, and El Paso, Texas) haven't had Republicans in office either -- just Democrats, independents or nonpartisans.
Over the past 50 years, the eight cities listed above have had Republican leadership for a combined 36 years. The rest of the time -- a combined 364 years -- they've been led by Democrats.
Five of the 10 cities with the highest poverty rates (Detroit, Buffalo, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Newark) have had a Democratic stranglehold since at least 1961: more than 45 years. Two of the cities (Milwaukee and Newark) have been electing Democrats since the first Model T rolled off the assembly line in 1908.
Two cities, 100 years, all Democrats.
If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, the asylums in those cities must be as full as the soup kitchens.
Not too long ago, I had the great honor of being invited to a charity dinner hosted by Chris Gardner. He's the guy whose rags-to-riches life was portrayed by Will Smith in the movie "Pursuit of Happyness." Chris had been on my show a few times, and I've always admired his story and his message of hope through personal responsibility.
As I prepared for the dinner and looked into Chris' charity, I started to get nervous. The roster was filled with liberals, most of whom would probably hate me. Hillary Clinton, Mario Cuomo, Alan Alda, Kenneth Cole and Charles Grodin were just a few of the people I was worried about running into.
But the question I kept asking myself was, why? Why can't people from wildly different political stripes come together in support of a common cause without feeling alienated? Why is an issue like poverty "owned" by one political party?
I consider myself a conservative, but I consider myself an American and a human being first. When people whom I normally agree with screw things up, I call them on it. Yet the people in these cities apparently don't. Newark keeps drinking the Kool-Aid, electing the same people with the same ideas, slipping down the poverty list (along with the "Places Never to Visit Unless it's the Airport" list) and wondering why.
We've talked a lot about "change" in this country recently, but there's a much more important catchphrase that we've neglected: "All politics is local." Maybe instead of focusing so much on who we put in charge of our country, we should focus more on who we put in charge of our cities.
Oh, and before I forget. The hateful politician who suggested that we should be "driving" or "leading" the poor out of poverty? It was Benjamin Franklin.
Good thing he never tried to run for mayor of Newark
I saw the news clip where she said it and tracked it down on you tube.
RE: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/01/hillary-clinton-told-yearlykos-convention-she-helped-start-media-matt
To be sure, folks on the left, and in the media that support them, will either deny this connection, or ignore it.
In the end, that's going to be hard to do, for on August 4, while speaking at the YearlyKos convention in Chicago, the junior senator from New York boasted of "institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress."
So jump to 2:40 and hit the play button
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbzC6-N9mwM
It would help if you'd post your source. It's Glenn Beck, not that there's anything wrong with that.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/20/beck.cities/
It would be an interesting experiment if the citizens of one of these cities Beck referred to, just once, elected Republicans to their city council and as mayor. I bet things would improve.
You didn't expect me to say that, did you.
It's about rooting the rot out, and that's what we need to do with the Bush cabal, which McCain is part of whether he likes it or not.
I saw the news clip where she said it and tracked it down on you tube.
RE: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/01/hillary-clinton-told-yearlykos-convention-she-helped-start-media-matt
So jump to 2:40 and hit the play button
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbzC6-N9mwM
I'll take your word for that, but Hillary being a supporter or even having a role in its inception is not at all the same as it being "actually started by the Clintons."
I'll take your word for that, but Hillary being a supporter or even having a role in its inception is not at all the same as it being "actually started by the Clintons."I read a report (don't have time to track it down but you can take my word on that one as well) that says if you follow the money, the Clintons were the main push behind it. The idea was to expand their 'War Room' into the blogosphere. Given all the ex-Clintonistas you listed above, I'd say her words are probably not nearly as big an embellishment as Gore creating the internet. It's all the same unless we're parsing the meaning of the word 'is'.
The "Bush's third term" mantra really doesn't fly. I'm sure the libs eat it up, but any informed, TRUE independent/moderate will just brush it off. McCain has been quite the thorn in W's side for quite some time. The media loved to point out what a maverick McCain was everytime time he went against the party. They just don't want to talk about it as much now because that doesn't help their guy.
It really doesn't matter; they exist on the right in at least equal numbers (I cited one above). Their value lies in that we don't have to wade through all the horrible writing in these political season books and can cut straight to the distortions and outright errors, thanks to their labors.
Like I said, you won't see me reading Corsi's or any other political hack's book, but I do like to know about some of the more egregious howlers they contain.
And some right-wing fact-checking site can clue me in on the most over-the-top aspects of Michael Moore's next film, and I won't have to watch it either.
The "Bush's third term" mantra really doesn't fly. I'm sure the libs eat it up, but any informed, TRUE independent/moderate will just brush it off. McCain has been quite the thorn in W's side for quite some time. The media loved to point out what a maverick McCain was everytime time he went against the party. They just don't want to talk about it as much now because that doesn't help their guy.
You keep saying that, but McCain is running as the candidate of the very same politican party that nominated and managed G. W. Bush. If McCain wins, he's going to have to pay back his political backers, and he'll have to do it the exact same way Bush did: by opening up the government to the looters and vandals. The vandals that want to destroy the ability of government to do anything useful, while simultaneously spending it into mind-boggling deficits. All that spending is the perfect opportunity to loot. It's a two-fer for them. They get to wreck the government, discredit it by their appalling incompetence, and make it impossible for the next president and congress to do much of anything because the deficit is so large. That's a big part of the Bush legacy. And McCain will have no choice but to continue it, should the American people make the mistake of electing him.
So Obama is not going to bring his looters and vandals from the extremely corrupt city of Chicago if he wins? The name Daly has long been associated with political corruption. As an independent voter I don't buy the McCain is Bush's third term rhetoric.
And McCain will have no choice but to continue it, should the American people make the mistake of electing him.So McCain's history of wanting spending cuts and going after earmarks is just a continuation of Bush policies? Sorry, but that's a hard case to make.
And McCain will have no choice but to continue it, should the American people make the mistake of electing him.
AFAIK, nobody elected President is locked into anything, other than maybe trying to make the best conclusion possible for an inherited war.
Politicians rely on the ignorance of their constituents; the mantra of a "3rd Bush Term" is a perfect example of exactly that.
It amazes me that Obama tries to sell McCain as a Bush puppet because of his position on the Iraq war, yet Obama has voted to keep funding the same war. I know he keeps trying to tell people he "voted" against the war but he wasn't in office then so it's nonsense.
Unfortunately for those of us that read and follow along, the vast majority of people who are for Obama are people who want to get their hands on someone elses money. Whether it be students who want a free ride, welfare recipients or the elderly. The rest of the bunch have some socially unacceptable reason like "infanticide on demand" or some other perversion.
Until we break the cycle of dependence, we are going to continue to fall further into the abyss of Marxism.
Today's GOP does not represent ordinary Americans.
How much "independence" did John McCain give up to become the nominee and garner the support of party insiders?
To understand what happened to the Republican party during the last two decades, the example of Jack Abramoff is instructive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff
It reads like a who's who of corruption. If you want more influence peddling, more selling out to multinational corporations, more deficit spending, more pollution, heightened problems abroad, and yes, more anti-Americanism throughout the world, go ahead and vote for McCain.
COBRADOC
08-22-2008, 13:07
Unfortunately there are no Harry Trumans or Ronald Reagans waiting in the wings, so we will have to make the best of what is offered.
Forget George W. Bush. Like all presidents before him, ”W” has made some good decisions and he’s made some bad ones, but he isn’t running and won’t have any real influence on the next administration.
Of McCain and Obama, Obama is by far the better orator. But despite how his handlers are trying to portray him, he is inexperienced and there are just too many things about him that scare me, most of all is his political philosophy (liberal, progressive, socialist, Marxist - pick the term of your choice – in the end they are all the same). And his position (or lack of position) on national security is just as scary – if the SHTF, will he have the fortitude and decisiveness to defend America? I have serious doubts about this also. In a word, Obama is weak. And with both houses of Congress controlled by (liberal, progressive, socialist, Marxist - pick the term of your choice – in the end they are all the same) people of like socio/economic philosophy, this country would be headed for an economic train wreck. Congress will have their way with him. And if you think the last two years have been an economic disaster, we ‘ain’t seen nothing yet!!
McCain is old (well, he's two years older than me) and sometimes is hard to figure out which way he is going to fly, but he leaves no doubts where he stands on the economy and on national security - and these are the two major challenges facing America today. He will work with congress as long as they play by his rules. But unlike “W”, McCain has the balls, and is just mean enough to jerk a knot in Congress’ collective tails and will get their attention and will get if fast. And when the time comes, I think McCain will be able to use the "Bully Pulpit" very effectively.
I may not agree with McCain on all the small details, but I would trust him more at the helm of this great nation.
Fair enough, COBRADOC, you make a good case.
I've reached a very different conclusion, primarily based on what I've seen watching the moral degeneration of the GOP; I truly believe it is a huge mistake putting any of them, even John McCain, for all his good points, back into the presidency.
Unfortunately, like many here, I'll be voting at least as much "against" a candidate as "for." But Obama isn't just the better of two imperfect candidates, I see quite a lot of potential for improvement in the economy, foreign relations, the environment and consumer safety, health care, and civil liberties.
Put the GOP back in charge and I bet you're going to wonder what went wrong in two years.
Tailgunner
08-22-2008, 13:27
I've reached a very different conclusion, primarily based on what I've seen watching the moral degeneration of the GOP;
You mean the GOP that's now where the Dem's were at the 70's vs the Dems that are now where the ASP and ACP were at in the 70's?
(That's Americian Socialist and Communest Party)
I obviously don't buy the premise, to begin with.
And today's GOP has gone where no US political party has ever gone before. It's unprecedented.
The GOP has gone left and the Dems have gone......Well,Elvis has left the building.:lol:
evlblkwpnz
08-22-2008, 23:46
AMEN. Politics are politics are politics. Not much of it pleases me, ever. I am thoroughly scared to death of what may come in the next four years if Osama is elected. I just have a hard time believing there are that many people saying "Yay!! A community organizer is going to represent our nation!!" The messiah (Osama) is going to bring change (I guess change in our pockets is better than lint!). He is just short of promising it. When he says he is bringing change, I believe it. It's the only thing he says that I do truly believe. Did he say the citizens in this country who want to preserve our rights and liberties would like it? No.
evlblkwpnz
08-23-2008, 00:43
(more drilling is not the way out of our predicament). Every day that he campaigns, McCain just shows that much more how willing he is to settle into the Bush mold. The independent, maverick McCain is no more.
Last time I checked, all of my vehicles ran on fossil fuel. Isn't that AKA oil? Last time I checked you have to drill to get it. No, I will not drive a subcompact car because someone tells me it's my duty as a responsible citizen. I am a LAW ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZEN and it is my right to drive what I want to no matter how much gas it drinks (such as: Lincoln Town Car 4.6 V8, 1970 Cadillac with 500ci BB, 1980 Cadillac with 368 ci BB). What about the people who can't afford the latest Hybrid technology? The ones who have to keep driving that guzzler. All of this crap about alternative energy doesn't do a thing about the price of a gallon of gas. Not drilling now and continuing to buy fuel from the people that want to see us all die isn't going to get more oil either. Save the planet? Last time I checked it was our resource....USE the PLANET.
As far as settling into the Bush mold, I am all for it. I have made more than double every year Bush has been in office than I made with Clinton, except the first two years. Not to mention, look at the guns we can buy and build now. Even with the economy being what it is.... I am still making more. Go ahead and buy the Liberal agenda if you want, but don't try to sell it to me. A lot of the guys I work with buy that liberal-dem jazz (traditional union mentality). They almost hate me because I'm a Republican, because I "get it". When Clinton was in office, our Union had an average of 70 people on the bench (not working). BTW at that time we had about 240 members. How many of my Union brethren don't have jobs now? None. Every member of our Union has a job. Who is in office? A Republican. It's not rocket science. They, as well as a few here, just don't get it.
OT, but you can get a entirely adequate 36mpg Corolla for way under what they want for a hybrid. I've been moving to better mpg vehicles simply due to economics. I got a loan for a new Tundra, but I couldn't get a loan for fuel for my old Chevy K20. I'm still waiting for a good hybrid 1/2ton 4wd pickup though.
evlblkwpnz
08-23-2008, 10:27
That's great if you don't mind driving a vehicle like that. My point is.... I just don't want to. I like large, crashworthy American made products. Quite frankly, I don't care how much fuel costs are, I will still drive the cars I love. It would be nice if we drilled and gained some level of independence from foreign sources of fuel, even if it doesn't happen right away. There is no magic instant fix to the issue. Osama's bright idea of taxing the oil companies more is just plain dumb(windfall profits). I am a Union member and I also own a business. When my costs (and taxes) go up, the price for the service I offer does too. So, the end result is going to be an expense incurred by the comsumer. When Osama bashes "evil oil" everyone gets all hyped up and they love it, but they don't even comprehend what is really being said. In our current situation, the oil companies get the oil from foreign sources and the sources raise the price. What are the oil companies supposed to do? Not raise the price? It doesn't make good business sense. Why doesn't the good old govt give up some of the taxes it makes off of the oil it had nothing to do with getting. That sounds more like windfall profit to me, doing nothing and making money.
It seems to me that Osama just says what he thinks the general ingnorant public wants to hear at the same time of really saying nothing at all. What happens? They buy it.
I never understood the leftist fixation on taxing corporations. It's like they can't figure out it all gets passed down to the customer. Besides, in the oil business, the majority of the "profit" has to get plowed back into production, transportation, and importing what you aren't producing. It's not a low-overhead operation.
COBRADOC
08-24-2008, 15:06
I never understood the leftist fixation on taxing corporations. It's like they can't figure out it all gets passed down to the customer. Besides, in the oil business, the majority of the "profit" has to get plowed back into production, transportation, and importing what you aren't producing. It's not a low-overhead operation.
Mark, you are dead on with this one. The profits of the oil companies have been fairly level as a percent of sales for many years, but no one noticed, because we weren't paying $4.00 per gallon for gasoline. It was only when the price of gasoline started hitting us consumers in the pocked did we start to take notice. But instead of addressing the causes of the rising cost of crude, which was the primary factor in the increased cost of oil products, our brilliant politicians and the talking heads in the "media" began attacking the oil companies.
When demand for a product begins to excede supply, the price always goes up. If you want the the price to come down, you must either increase supply or decrease demand, or a combination of both. The reason the domestic supply of oil is limited is because our elected politicians have placed restrictions on domestic production.
In the world market when demand for any raw material begins to excede supply, the leeches (speculators) move in and almost always impose an artificial increase in demand, which further increases the price. But did you notice the immediate drop in oil the day that President Bush announced that he was removing the restriction on domestic drilling that had been imposed by a former president? The speculators immediately departed the market - the artificial demand was removed, and the price dropped.
Now, Congress needs do the same thing, i.e. remove their restrictions on domestic drilling, remove their restrictions on building more refineries, building more nuclear power palnts, using coal and shale to develop clean burning fuels. Then, not only will the price of oil continue to drop, but we will become an energe independent country again and will rid ourselves for our dependency on foreign supplies of oil. Only time will tell if Congress has the will to address the real reasons that the price for oil is so high, or will they continue to posture and play games with utopian ideas about alternative fuels, etc.
And yes, the automotive industry needs to be incouraged to develop more fuel efficient automobiles, and these automobile have to be something that people will drive, and not a bunch of small two-seated death traps.
Sorry to have gotten so long winded, but I've about had it up to here with this "green" thing. The sooner we began to attack our energy problems with realistic alternatives, the sooner we will solve our problems - and we can begin with the technologies we already have, and, protect the environment in the proccess. WE DON'T HAVE TO REINVENT THE WHEEL!!
I'd take a two-seater death trap if it went 400mph, got 15mpg, had a bubble canopy, ejection seats, and a ceiling of 28,000ft.
I still believe we'd be a lot better off if everyday automobiles were powered by something besides petroleum, leaving industrial uses like locomotive, marine, and truck powerplants to use it. I can do without the uproar when something like this last price spike occurs. Let the oil companies deal with their industrial giant brethren when it happens again. I'd like to see if the price spikes as quickly if that were the case.
COBRADOC
08-24-2008, 17:04
I'd take a two-seater death trap if it went 400mph, got 15mpg, had a bubble canopy, ejection seats, and a ceiling of 28,000ft.
I still believe we'd be a lot better off if everyday automobiles were powered by something besides petroleum, leaving industrial uses like locomotive, marine, and truck powerplants to use it. I can do without the uproar when something like this last price spike occurs. Let the oil companies deal with their industrial giant brethren when it happens again. I'd like to see if the price spikes as quickly if that were the case.
Mark, I agree that the automobile industry needs to work toward a reliable and utilitarian vehicle that doesn't require oil as a primary source of fuel - and despite all the hype, biofuels just 'ain't 'gona cut it. The technology is there today for vehicles powered by natural gas, but the problem is the lack of an infrastructure to support the change over. In the mean time, we need to work toward the day they this country is not dependent on any foreign supplier for any of our fuels.
And yes, that two-seater death trap that does 400mph would be fun, but I doubt you will find one that can do that on 15mpg - that will take more like 15 gallons per minute.
Well, at 400, that'd only be a couple gallons per mile. I don't think it's difficult to get 3-4mpg in small aircraft, but more would extend the fun. One of those European mini jet trainers would be just the ticket, regardless the fuel consumption.
Biofuel is no more than an extender, a gap filler or source for individuals, not the public at large. All that waste fryer oil should be used though I think. There may be seed grasses that can provide feedstock for higher production, time will tell.
jmsfmtex
08-25-2008, 04:59
We do need all forms of energy. People have to stop thinking that fueling our vehicles is the only reason for oil. It is used in many production processes. We need to increase our independence of foreign oil and increase other energy sources. A combination of energy sources should be used. I am not an expert, by any stretch of the imagination, but I say find the most reliable efficient source of energy for the product that uses it. We have the technology if only the idiots in government would get out of the way.
Unfortunately, for the most part, our elected officials only say what their constituents want to hear. Their main concern is staying in office at any cost. Just as long as they are in power. We, as Americans, must see this clearly and vote to remove those that do not have America and our citizens concerns FIRST. We must remember that actions speak louder than words and vote accordingly.
collegeb
08-25-2008, 05:49
Actually its not difficult at all to see how one can be a muslim and a communist. Most of the arab countries are very social/communist. I'm sure Osama and Obama both believe in subservience to the state at least. Granted Obama does not want everyone to read the Koran by force so thats something nice about him.
:usa::2guns:
evlblkwpnz
08-25-2008, 17:47
There is nothing like the sound of an 500 cubic inch American BIG Block V8 internal combustion engine. Having said that, LET'S DRILL! My Cadillacs are thirsty!
Actually its not difficult at all to see how one can be a muslim and a communist.
The two are mutually exclusive, collegeb.
There is nothing like the sound of an 500 cubic inch American BIG Block V8 internal combustion engine. Having said that, LET'S DRILL! My Cadillacs are thirsty!
You do realize that every gallon you burn, is a gallon that will not be available to someone in the future.
Might even be someone that really needs it.
So I ask, how much do you need that gallon of gas?
mnottfam
08-26-2008, 07:52
Sorry, SW, but therein lies the problem. What I do with that gallon of gas is MY business, not yours or anyone elses. I PAID FOR IT WITH MY OWN HARD-EARNED $$$$$. How I prioritize how I spend my fuel budget is NONE OF ANYONE ELSES BUSINESS!!! To fein dictation as to how someone else should spend their fuel budget REEKS of socialism.:angry:
http://history1900s.about.com/library/photos/blywwiip44.htm
Sorry, SW, but therein lies the problem. What I do with that gallon of gas is MY business, not yours or anyone elses. I PAID FOR IT WITH MY OWN HARD-EARNED $$$$$. How I prioritize how I spend my fuel budget is NONE OF ANYONE ELSES BUSINESS!!! To fein dictation as to how someone else should spend their fuel budget REEKS of socialism.:angry: That's fine up to a point, you are indeed paying for it and can do what you want, except for arson I guess, but there is the bigger picture: If you share this view with a large portion of the country, and I believe you do, all it will really do is hasten future demands on supply and increasing prices. It is, after all, a finite resource limited primarily by the ability to bring it to market.
IMO the wise thing to do with fuel, as in ammunition or anything else when supply exceeds demand, is to hunker down a bit and think twice before expending it. The days of blasting away with half a case of 7.62 NATO is over unless you've got money to burn, and I'm afraid the same can be said of many ways we used to burn up gasoline. Not saying you shouldn't use it the way you want, but face it: The wallet is very likely to be the limiting factor when it comes to fuel. People that are efficient with it will get to do more with it.
Snowman366
08-26-2008, 16:26
Right.
Osama = Muslim extremist and mass murderer
Obama = Marxist liberal and "God DAMN America" politician <_<
There...fixed it for ya. :rolleyes:
Now why did you go and take a perfectly true statement and mess it up like that?
To fein dictation as to how someone else should spend their fuel budget REEKS of socialism.:angry:
I'm not feigning anything. Also, notice: I said nothing about mandating anything.
I'm simply appealing to everyone's sense of responsibility towards future generations. If you don't have any, then by all means, burn it all up. But I think you do, and sooner or later you'll see the light too.
Also, be aware that gas prices are heavily subsidized in this country. The Gulf War and the current war in Iraq were in large part justified by the need to keep oil flowing into our cars. This was particularly explicit in 1990:
The real reason that the United States went into that war was to assure the flow of oil and reasonable prices and that no country such as Iraq would have large control over the region. That was not what was usually given as the reason -- except when the Secretary of State James Baker, when asked why we went into Iraq at that time, said the reason was jobs, jobs, jobs… That was as close as he came to really speaking openly about the notion that a vital resource could be denied the United States.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/historians_7-31.html
There were other reasons, of course, but the reason our government, under a Bush presidency both times,opted to intervene in Iraq and not in other similary troubled spots, was due primarily to oil.
With most of the known oil reserves in the volatile Middle East, it takes the U.S. military to protect our oil imports, which total 60 percent of U.S. consumption.
http://www.startribune.com/business/18148539.html?page=2&c=y
There's another sense in which gas is subsidized:
The Environmental Defense Fund, a lobby and research organization, criticizes the oil industry because of a "hidden subsidy," in that it doesn't have to pay for the environmental damage done by its emissions of carbon dioxide. Many environmental and industry groups, including the U.S. automakers and British Petroleum, have joined with the defense fund in calling for a U.S. law that will cap carbon emissions, the leading cause of global warming.
http://www.startribune.com/business/18148539.html?page=2&c=y
Driving is particularly essential for those that live in rural areas, and almost everyone in America has grown to really like the freedom of movement that cars give us, in a way no other form of transportation can. Giving up driving would be a big sacrifice, but driving more sensibly would not be such a big sacrifice at all. Yet, when we waste gas senselessly today, we deprive future generations of the gas they may very well need. We assume there will be a good replacement for this finite resource, but is that assumption really warranted? I think it is not. Oil is a unique commodity, and unlike other commodities such as metals, once it's burned up, it's gone. Nature only makes more of it very slowly, Corsi's fantasies notwithstanding.
The "Bush's third term" mantra really doesn't fly. I'm sure the libs eat it up, but any informed, TRUE independent/moderate will just brush it off. McCain has been quite the thorn in W's side for quite some time. The media loved to point out what a maverick McCain was everytime time he went against the party. They just don't want to talk about it as much now because that doesn't help their guy.
RE: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/demss_big_blunder_and_mccains.html
McCain is the most unlike Bush of any of the Republican senators. (When Obama's people claim that Bush and McCain voted the same 94 percent of the time, they forget that most of the votes in the Senate are unanimous.) The fact that McCain backs commending a basketball team on its victory doesn't mean that he is in lockstep ideologically with the president.
The issues on which McCain and Bush differ are legion:
• McCain fought for campaign finance reform — McCain-Feingold — that Bush fought and ultimately signed because he had no choice.
• McCain led the battle to restrict interrogation techniques of terror suspects and to ban torture.
• McCain went with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on a tough measure to curb climate change, something Bush denies is going on.
• McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts when they passed.
• McCain urged the Iraq surge, a posture Bush rejected for years before conceding its wisdom.
• McCain favors FDA regulation of tobacco and sponsored legislation to that effect, a position all but a handful of Republican Senators oppose.
• McCain's energy bill, also with Lieberman, is a virtual blueprint for energy independence and development of alternate sources.
• After the Enron scandal, McCain introduced sweeping reforms in corporate governance and legislation to guarantee pensions and prohibit golden parachutes for executives. Bush opposed McCain's changes and the watered-down Sarbanes-Oxley bill eventuated.
• McCain has been harshly critical of congressional overspending, particularly of budgetary earmarks, a position Bush only lately adopted (after the Democrats took over Congress).
Note that McCain has flipped flopped on just about all of that in which he would still differ with Bush.
"In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.
McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.
McCain was against Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy before he was for them. In 2005 he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this.
McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t. In May 2008, McCain approved a ban on lobbyists working for his campaign. In July 2008, his campaign reversed course and said lobbyists could work for his campaign.
In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser."
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops
evlblkwpnz
08-28-2008, 19:04
I will not disagree that he has changed positions on some issues. Keep in mind that some of the facts in these issues have changed and IMO a change in position is acceptable due to the facts changing. Personally, I do not like his attempt at "catering" to the liberals but at least he is not radically liberal like Osama. What other choice do I have as a Conservative minded voter?
As far as "Combatting Global Warming", I'm glad he changed positions because "Global Warming" is a load of bull anyway. Maybe he realized that himself. FYI the hottest temperatures were recorded in the '30s, almost 80 years ago. Last time I checked, there were not a butt ton of cars on the road back then to blame it on. Must have been the volcanos, lightning, campfires, cigar smoking, Thompson submachineguns, and wood burning stoves. Please don't think I'm serious.
If I say I always go for a ride in my gas guzzling Cadillac on the weekends and, as soon as the gas goes to $4 , then I stop doing it. Did I flip-flop? Or did my position change due to the change in facts? We all have the right to change our minds when the factors in which our position was originally formed change.
Wow, that President Bush doesn't seem to be right about anything, is he?So to take this to its logical conclusion, Bush is wrong so McCain must be right. If McCain is right and he disagrees with Obamulus, then O-polo must be wrong as well.
works for me :o
I'm normally for caution whenever getting another country involved in any conflict, but when it comes to bin Laden or any Al Qaeda leadership, especially given the length of time that they've holed up in the ungovernable border with Afghanistan, if one of our intelligence services has them in their sights, we should take them out, and Pakistan will get over it.
McCain has been just like Bush in his feeble approach to their real unwillingness to cooperate where it ought to matter most: getting rid of Al Qaeda.
U.S. Troops Crossed Border, Pakistan Says
20 Locals Reported Killed in Assault
By Gene Thorp - The Washington Post
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, September 4, 2008; Page A01
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Sept. 3 -- Helicopters carried U.S. and Afghan commandos many miles into Pakistan on Wednesday to stage the first U.S. ground attack against a Taliban target inside the country, Pakistani officials said. At least 20 local people died in the raid, according to the officials.
Pakistan filed a formal protest with the U.S. government, which had no comment on what appeared to be a new escalation of U.S. pressure on Taliban and al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan's mountainous border regions....
U.S. forces based in Afghanistan have periodically conducted air and artillery strikes against insurgents across the border in Pakistani territory, and new hot-pursuit rules provide some room for American troops to maneuver during battle. But the arrival of U.S. helicopters in the village of Musa Nika, deep in undisputed Pakistani territory, would constitute a new tactic.
Mohammed Sadiq, a spokesman for Pakistan's Foreign Ministry, condemned a "gross violation of Pakistan's territory" and "a grave provocation." In a written statement, he said his office lodged a formal complaint with the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad.
"Such actions are counterproductive and certainly do not help our joint efforts to fight terrorism," Sadiq said. "On the contrary, they undermine the very basis of cooperation and may fuel the fire of hatred and violence that we are trying to extinguish." ...
Freesw, now that Bush is attacking Pakistan, are you going to denounce this as an illegal invasion and demand that we "redeploy" somewhere else?
collegeb
09-04-2008, 06:12
A story from redstate.com got put on washington journal this morning. It said that about half way through Palin's speech last night her teleprompter had a glitch and she had to wing the rest of her speech. I didn't catch the speech, but considering I didnt hear about her ramble on about irrelevant details and blabber out filler words such as The Great Orator does when on the fly, i'd imagine she did pretty well. It's on their front page so check it out.
...ramble on about irrelevant details and blabber out filler words such as The Great Orator does when on the fly...
awww, you shouldn't pick on Joe Biden like that. He's blue collar you know.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.