Views expressed in guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media.
Visit the complete Guest Column archives.
What is wrong with that?
Guest Column | By Olavo de Carvalho | July 25, 2008
Barack Hussein Obama is, in so many aspects, so different from what one
normally assumes to be a candidate to the presidency of the U.S. that only by an
enormous stretch of the imagination could anyone think that the most significant
detail about him is the color of his skin. The motto of his campaign is
"change", but to bring it about he needs not even get elected: he has already
changed everything about the electoral ways and customs of the American people,
and he has changed it so much for the worse that many decades will be necessary
to repair the damage, if indeed that is possible.
For one thing, he is the first candidate without any administrative
experience - and with below-minimal political experience - to be accepted by any
party to run for such a high office. He also had no military or professional
experience, except as an NGO operative. But if you tell that to an Obamaniac,
they will invariably answer: "What's wrong with that?" The natural sense of
strangeness about what is truly odd has become anti-natural, offensive and
intolerable.
With the possible exception of Brazilian president Lula, whose ignorance was
actually praised as a superior form of wisdom, never has so little been demanded
of one seeking maximum authority. Even in Third World countries, the bearer of
such an insignificant resume would hardly be accepted as a candidate for the top
public office. In the Democratic Party and U.S. big media, nobody seems to find
anything strange about Obama. Even among supporters of John McCain there is some
sort of tacit agreement not to hurt the opponent's feelings with demands beyond
his capacity. Everyone prefers to ask: "What's wrong with that?"
Furthermore, the candidate lacks not only a resume but even a trustworthy
biography. Suggestions that he is a Muslim in disguise pop up every day, but
their quantity seems to be inversely proportional to the interest that his
adversary and the big media have in clarifying the matter. All seem to want the
electorate to accept as utterly normal and unproblematic the hypothesis of
voting for an unknown candidate who conceals his origins, even if these somehow
connect him to the enemy that is fighting his country in the battlefield, and
even if his dedication to covering up his past prompts him to hide his own birth
certificate. Evidence of the candidate's proximity to communist and
pro-terrorist organizations is piling up, but raises nary a shred of curiosity
among bien-pensants. After all, what's wrong with that?
Even in the most elementary issue of respect for national symbols - the
minimum of etiquette that candidates from all parties have always observed -
Obama seems to have acquired the right to mess everything up, without any hint
from the establishment that they are offended by it. He listens to the
Star-Spangled Banner with his hands on his genitals, and not on his heart, he
tampers with the national coat of arms and turns it into a grotesque electoral
ad, and, to top it all off, he says that the flag of the country he wishes to
represent before the world is "to many people a symbol of violence." But if you
think about it, what's wrong with that?
Still, it is in violating the law with an innocent face that the candidate
displays the kind of absolute trust in his own invulnerability that is so
typical of revolutionary sociopaths. Every week new abuses turn up that would
normally be enough to destroy the career of any politician or, worse, send him
to jail. But Obama seems to be immunized to the consequences of his actions.
This week's latest abuses were: (1) To collect funds for his campaign, he
organized a lottery system - which is illegal in all 50 American states. (2) He
flies everywhere in an airplane that does not meet the required security
standards, and was recently forced to make an emergency landing. But again, the
general reaction is the same: "What's wrong with that?"
Obama is so utterly weird that apparently the only way to attenuate the
embarrassment of his presence in the presidential contest is to pretend that he
is normal. But the prohibition of finding anything odd is truly a prohibition of
the act of understanding, a veto against the formal exercise of intelligence.
The readiness to accept this imposition reveals an alarming weakness of
character and the almost diabolical effectiveness of the "politically correct"
blackmail that produced it.
Olavo de Carvalho is a philosopher and the author of several books. He writes for three very influential dailies in Brazil. His articles can be found at [url=http://www.olavodecarvalho.org]http://www.olavodecarvalho.org[/url] and [url=http://www.midiasemmascara.org]http://www.midiasemmascara.org[/url]
Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.
106 Comments | Post a Comment
Dave and just how is it fatuous?
You truly do remind me of so many parrots that dominate blogs and the media in general with the tired “worst President” line. My gut tells me you are bought and paid for and not very open to new ideas.
Is Bush running? Please tell me how much Executive and Military experience Obama has? Or are you a Ron Paul supporter. If so tell me about his experience.
so your gut tells you I’m bought and paid for, eh? Well your gut is no better than your brain.
the rest of your post is simply a string of non sequiturs.
Dave proclaims: “… and there are REAL question marks regarding (GWB’s military experience).”
Let me help you, Dave. Bush, while in the Texas Air National Guard, trained in and flew a difficult and dangerous fighter aircraft - the F-102 - that, at the time he first volunteered for that assignmant, was being used in combat in the Vietnam War. He could well have gone to war if that aircraft had not subsequently been replaced by a newer model.
If being Governor of Texas for four years and four years in the White House, working in his father’s administration, is insufficient “administrative experience,” then 90% of our presidents have been similarily underqualified.
Admit it. You hate Bush - and maybe all Republicans - and you worship the ground Obama walks on. Other than that, you have nothing to say.
Dave proves the mindset mentioned in the article. The frightening part of this is that these vacant-minded liberals are hell-bent on putting the empty suit with a phony halo into the presidency without questioning his terrible judgment. Obama lies continually, stutters and bumbles when he is questioned about his “change” of stance, and has such grandiose ideas of what the job of POTUS is.
Say what you will about GW Bush - He has proven that he loves this country above all others and has done his best to avoid another terrorist attack. Obama occasionally states that he loves this country, but most of his words show that he only loves the thought of changing it to become more socialist and weaker.
richard-
I don’t need your help, but thanks. i said there were serious questions and there are. when GWB was in the service there is a period of time when he was, uh, nowhere to be found. Four years as the subordinate to the lieutenant governor of Texas is OK, but hardly a mother lode of administrative experience.
I don’t hate Bush. I have little respect for him, and I feel he is by far the worst leader we’ve ever had. I don’t hate Republicans you dimbulb, I am a registered Republican. Until I’m convinced otherwise I regard Obama another typical politician.
there now, don’t you feel stupid? you should.
slinky thinks Obama has terrible judgement. Who’s the one who invaded Iraq, condones torture and wants to keep redacting the constitution, einstein? Oh that’s right, the one who ‘loves this country above all others.’
Go tune Rush in for your talking points.
There was a majority of our elected leaders who spoke out long and loudly even before GW Bush took office about the need to remove Saddam. The president was right in following their direction. Empty threats show weakness, and that is what emboldened bin Laden to attack us on 9/11. Obama would have kept his head in the sand like Clinton did after multiple attacks on us during the 1990s.
Bush has declared many times that he does not allow or condone any kind of torture. As far as not following the Constitution, don’t forget that he nominated two of the finest Constitutionalist justices to the Supreme Court in Roberts and Alito. Too bad we still have the four liberals who don’t believe in our Constitution as written.
Dave:History will decide if the war was wrong, not you. Obama was in the Illinois legislature when he decided on the basis of no inside information at all, that the war was wrong then subsequently voted for funds for the war as a senator. I wonder what he would have done as president if every secret service in the world was telling him Saddam had WMD and he was responsible for the nations safety?
The torture stuff if really being overdone by the critics. And the constitutional stuff is silly given the freedoms on a daily basis being taken from us by liberals, like our property, ability to use certain words, and the kind of lightbulbs we must use.
Dave,
Perhaps you ought to look up words like “fatuous” before using them. You may disagree with what has been asserted here, but it is hardly dull or stupid.
In the future, please confine your remarks to the candidate or politician under discussion. There is nothing--zero, zilch, nada, bupkis--about President Bush that bears upon Senator Obama’s suitability for office, or lack thereof.
To attack President Bush as a counter argument actually becomes an ad hominem attack on the judgment of the person criticizing Senator Obama.
Unfortunately, this sort of commentary has become all too typical of Democrats and other leftists, and especially so on the internet.
Mr. Limbaugh is hardly authoritative, nor is he the last word in anti-left thinking. I suggest you listen to Dennis Prager, Ron Smith and Brian Wilson to hear a bit more of the spectrum of people who oppose Obama. Or read Shelby Steele, Walter E. Washington, L. Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman.
Meanwhile, how’s about contributing a counter-argument that actually addresses de Carvalho’s points in the article?
Or, you could just shut up, if you have nothing to contribute on the topic.
elected leaders spoke about the need to remove Sadaam? Do tell, o enlightened one? And please mention if they suggested that we remove him by invading and occupying his country, suffering the loss of over 4,000 troops in a war with zero exit strategy.
I’m all ears.
Ioco-
I’ll judge what I want to. This was war the biggest US mistake we’ll see in our lifetimes, and that’s saying plenty.
your comment that “every secret service” was telling us that sadaam had WMD shows how little you know. Look up the “Office of Special Plans” and become educated.
The “toruture stuff” is “overdone by critics”, eh? Critics of torture? What a dope!
Slinkie, Loco and others: Please do not allow Dave to hijack this thread by responding to his criticisms of President Bush or the Iraq war.
We have tolerated this form of “argument” for all too long here on AIM.
Part of the Obama technique seems to be to create some other issue distracting attention from any genuine discussion of himself. For example, there was the way he went-off on the President over some artfully indirect remarks that Mr. Bush made while addressing the Knesset.
If we insist that the trolls stay on topic, by not responding to their spewing, they will either lose interest or be forced to address the actual issue at hand.
blogger-
I can assure you I know the meaning of the word “fatuous” and used it correctly. Don’t tell me to “confine my remarks”. If someone says obama is not ‘experienced’ enough to be president, it is certainly fair to bring up other similarly inexperienced folks who became president. It’s called following the thread of the conversation. try it, you’ll like it.
‘to attack president bush as a counter argument actually becomes an ad hominem attack on the judgement of the person criticizing Obama.’
wow. award-winning bizarro logic. congrats.
blogger-
your admonition to the clowns on this thread is HILARIOUS! “Please don’t allow dave to cause you to THINK; rather keep attacking those who know much more than you do. “
Excellent!
Thank you, Loco and Blogger, for pointing out the troll’s MO. As for going back and digging up the many documented videos and transcripts of the Clintons, Pelosi, Kennedy, Reno, et. al., stating how dangerous Saddam was, and how Clinton authored a resolution in Congress that made it our national policy to remove Saddam, let the troll do his own work.
Back on topic, Obama’s “change” brings to mind another time and country where a young eloquent and ambitious politician sold a country on the bright promise of hope and change with little experience or qualification for the presidency.
That country elected him and celebrated this new “savior” who would deliver them from all their troubles. He began by taking away their guns, controlling their businesses and their courts. The once fluorishing economy went down the tube, and equality reigned. Everybody became poor, disillusioned and desperate. A million people escaped by any means available, risking their lives to abandon the country and find refuge in America, the Land of the Free.
Yes, that country is Cuba, and it was Fidel Castro who rode in on his white horse with empty resume, empty promises, and grandiose views of what he could do to change a country.
Beware. America seems blind to what can happen if an unqualified socialist/Marxist becomes the leader.
blogger asked me (nicely, right before he told me to shut up) to contribute a counter argument to the hit-piece above:
1) The notion that the Malkin-like suggestion that Obama is a Muslim needs to be addressed is preposterous. But it neatly gives the author to blithely state that this may “connect” Obama to “our enemies in the battelfield.” Good rhetoric for stooges. You guys must have lapped it up!
2)’He listens to the Star Spangled Banner with his hands on his genitals.’ How can anyone take a comment like that seriously? If you stand with your hands folded in front of you, they are “on your genitals???” This sentence, perhaps above all, shows the level of this “article"…
3)Obama says that the US Flag “to many people is a symbol of violence.” Uh, can anyone here refute that? Didn’t think so.
4) “Every week abuses turn up that would normally be enought to destroy the career of any politician, or worse, send him to jail.”
wishful thinking. the two examples given are nonsense.
So there you go, blogger. And be assured that your suggestion that I tune in to some Obama bashers will be given the attention it deserves.
Holy crap, slinky just played the Fidel Castro card!
Yeah, you have a lot of credibility comparing Obama to Fidel. Only in your “mind”, which is to say what the right wing talk show cheerleaders TELL you to think, could Obama be considered a “socialist/Marxist”.
As far as Saddam as a threat, let’s not forget that Colin Powell stated in early 2001 that Saddam was not only NOT a threat to the world, he wasn’t even a threat IN THE MIDDLE EAST! Later this was re-written, thanks to the Office of Special Plans, Bush’s tool to run around legitimate intelligence sources which were telling him the truth. And of course the truth didn’t sit well with him and his band of neoconmen.
Do your homework, lamebrain. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Dave: I still see no counter-argument, just a list of the things you did not like.
FWIW, if you found the article “fatuous,” i.e. dull, you are certainly wasting a lot of time criticizing it.
Most Americans, when they encounter something the find dull, move on to something else.
In #17 you have misused the word “refute.”
You would not happen to be a “surrogate” for anyone, would you?
To ask you a specific question, would you prefer that people think of Sen. Obama as a Christian, under the tutelage of Reverend Wright, or a Muslim, under the influence of the Koran? If neither of those, then what IS his religious identity?
The opposition made a big deal out of Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, and many so-called liberals have expressed concern that part of the Bush agenda was to establish a “theocracy,” so in that light, I suppose a candidate’s religious views are pertinent. (They were pertinent in the campaigns of JFK, Al Smith and Joe Lieberman and Barry Goldwater.)
As for “shut up,” would you prefer “go away,” “bugger off” or “drop dead?” You have not been stingy with the insults here, so don’t act coy when you are addressed in like fashion.
Blogger-
you clearly have cognitive issues. If you can’t see that my responses to specific “points” Olavo made constitute a counter-argument, that’s a result of your poor skills of comprehension. As to the charge that I’m spending too much time discussing the article at the top of the page, I was responding to your call to stick to the subject; I still find the above steaming pile of “journalism” fatuous in the extreme.
your imtimation that I’m a ‘surrogate’ would be strange if I didn’t know already that you are a cipher.
I used the word ‘refute’ correctly. I was referring to Obama’s statement, asking if any of the lamebrain-trust on this thread could refute it. The question stands, and the answer is still “no.” Add a lack of understanding of basic English to the list of your failings.
I don’t give a crap about Obama’s religious affiliation, and I certainly can’t be bothered worrying about what others think his “religious identity” is. I was simply pointing out that the “author” above was trying to link Obama to the “enemy” in a pathetically transparent way.
Dave,
As for MY being a “cipher,” where is the link to YOUR blog? At least someone can look me up and read the context in which my opinions are given. (No offense intended to the others here who don’t provide a web link.)
I think you’re just indulging in intellectual masturbation, and I have no intention of enabling it further.
Congratulations on having killed another AIM discussion.
Oh, wait a minute. I get it. You expect someone here to refute the notion that the US flag is a “symbol of violence.”
I could introduce you to a few hundred people who would deliver that refute in the form of a knuckle sandwich. Would that do?
I guess I hit a sore spot with the parallel to Fidel Castro. Poor Dave - He can’t stand to have a bit of history thrown in to cloud his preconceived idea of what a politician’s “change” means to a country. Maybe I should have added a paragraph on Hitler and how he wowed the German people with his empty promises too.
Blogger, his denigration of our flag was beneath contempt, and I hope he voices it in a public place where the sandwich can be served by a military hero. The millions of Americans who have given their lives for that symbol have consecrated it forever. Trolls and terrorists may trample and burn it, but they can’t destroy the patriotism it symbolizes in Americans.
It will always be “God bless America,” not the hideous words of Obama’s beloved Rev. Wright.
blogger-having a blog is, sadly for you, not the cure for being a non-entity. But I’m sure it satisfies YOUR need for mental masturbation, in between frequent bouts of the real thing...and as per #22, no, you certainly DON’T get it. I was asking if anyone could refute Obama’s comment that the flag is PERCEIVED as a symbol of violence by many people. No surprise that you didn’t understand, given your abject lack of critical thinking skills.
your knuckle sandwich salvo is the very definition of an empty threat.
Slink- You didn’t hit a sore spot, skeezix, so far you’ve missed the mark entirely. Your pathetic attempts to draw a parallel between Obama and Castro and now Obama and Hitler is the latest in a string of nonsensical postings. You’re like an idiot savant, except without that whole “savant” part…
Slinkie - to paraphrase Joseph Göebbels, any time I hear a politician refer to “change” or “unity,” I make damn sure I have a supply of ammo.
The nature of this federated republic of ours is that the government needs to be noisy and argumentive, lest one faction or another take over. “Publius” was pretty clear about that.
You COULD make the argument that any nation’s (or state’s) flag is a “symbol of violence,” but such an assertion would be the sign of total nihilism.
We need to quit enabling trolls here generally, though. Seems to me we let one shut down some prior Obama thread. I would not be surprised to learn that some of these people are “surrogates,” the use of which seems to be a new tactic used by both sides in this campaign. A “surrogate” makes an outrageous assertion on behalf of the campaign, and after letting it sink in for one news cycle, the candidate vigorously disavows it. Among most people that has approximately the same effect as a judge telling a jury to disregard a certain remark made in the courtroom.
I sure wish there was a back-channel way to communicate amongst us. You could, I suppose, go to my blog and drop a comment on an entry at random, giving an email address. But many forums enable private messaging, and I wish AIM would follow suit.
This has been a highly instructive little exercise, displaying, as it does, the nasty, anti-intellectual tactics of some (many? most?) Obama supporters.
Dave, an undisputed master of the clever retort, has proven himself circumstantially to be a liar. He claimed earlier to be a “registered Republican” (and having done so, then called me “stupid.” Wow!! That really smarted!). Yet, he has not mentioned Obama’s Republican opponent in any of his discussion of the relative merits of his candidate.
The simple fact is, Davey, that Obama is running against a candidate who would bring a vast amount of many types of experience to his Presidency. But, following the Obama campaign’s talking points you want to have us believe that Bush=McCain and by slamming President Bush (with gross distortions of fact), we’ll all ignore McCain’s background and experience and vote for as-yet undefined “CHANGE.”
Thanks for playing with us, Davey. Now, go back to your sandbox.
wow. blogger quotes Goebbels to support his arguments. VERY telling.
for the final time, I did not make any reference suggestin that MY opinion is that the flag is a symbol of violence. I asked if anyone could refute the notion that many people may perceive it as such. The fact that you (and that slinky, who makes you look like an intellectual titan by comparison)don’t comprehend is not my problem. Your assertion that calling a flag a symbol of violence would be a sign of nihilism is yet another non-sequitur.
Again with the surrogate nonsense. What the hell is that all about?
Richard- thanks for the kind words. Sorry I can’t respond in kind.
My claim to be a registered Republican is absolutely true. So where’s the lie?
If anyone bothered to read what my first post said, you’d know that I AGREED with the “author” above that experience counts, or at least that the lack thereof is cause for serious concern. (I just found the bulk of his “piece” to range from silly to stupid, and said so) I NEVER said anything to suggest “Bush=McCain” and I never distorted a single fact.
Finally, I NEVER ONCE suggested that I in any way shape or form support Obama.
Other than that, a splendid fact-free post, Richard.
Blogger’s brilliant contribution:
Don’t feed the trolls.
Translation:
Don’t talk to anyone who can call your knee-jerk dittohead talking point blather into question.
Keep those blinders on, chumps!
Has anyone heard from Dave lately? I hope his computer isn’t down.
blogger-
you remind me of the knight in the famous fight scene in Monty Python’s Holy Grail. dis-armed, de-legged and un-trunked, and still insisting he’s in the fight.
A sadder sad sack than you there never was…
Dave:
Read up on the Iraq Liberation Act
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:
in particular Section 3 of it which states:
“It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”
and the roll call of votes on it:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll482.xml
Much as Monday-morning quarterbacks and armchair generals may want to litigate the past, the fact is Bush simply made real the official policy of the United States with regard to Saddam and his regime of thugs.
Dave:
The point of the article (badly written though it may be) is that nobody seems to be seriously addressing the questions about Obama’s agenda, background or character. Anyone who does bring up such questions is assailed with the type of irrational diversions and personal attacks you so vividly displayed above. It would seem your reaction proves the very premise of the article.
QED.
I wonder what happened to “Dave.” I don’t see any more messages from him.
You don’t suppose he did something and got himself banned from AIM, do ya?
Do they ban you here for telling the truth? If so I’m vulnerable…
the rest of you, however, appear safe.
John Galt-
It’s absolutely REQUIRED to “question” someone’s character or background, but come on! Suggesting he “may “ have a Muslim background and IMMEDIATELY connecting the dots to infer a connection to our enemy in the battlefield? Saying he pledges allegiance WITH HIS HANDS ON HIS GENITALS? This doesn’t ask any questions, it smears.
As to the Iraq Liberation Act, two points. First I think it is a stretch to suggest that unprovoked invasion/occupation was on the table as a way to comply with the Act. Secondly, the
years following 1998 saw Iraq weakened considerably, by sanctions. This is supported by the comments of Condi Rice and Colin Powell in the early Spring of 2001; they are both on record as saying the threat from Iraq was negligible. Powell said Iraq was not only not a world threat, but wasn’t even a threat IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
Quite frankly, this has always been my first problem with our conflict in Iraq: WHAT WAS THE RUSH? I just couldn’t, at the time (and ABSOLUTELY cannot now), figure out the urgency. The whole “two days to get out of Dodge” thing wasn’t just trite, it made no sense.
Is it possible that we could have found a way to effect “regime change” in Iraq without the loss of life and limb on the part of our soldiers, without the massive loss of innocent Iraqi civilians, without the enormous cost? This is an important question to me.
You may think this is an “irrational diversion,”
I think not. If you think my reaction to the article (and to the people who responded to my posts)PROVES the premise of the article… I’m sorry, but that is nonsense.
Well, thank God “Dave” decided to drop out of this discussion. Don’t you just hate those people who are not content to disagree, but have to go so far as to attack your qualifications to form an opinion?
John Galt-
Interesting to note that the Iraq Liberation Act was essentially the brainchild of the PNAC.
John Galt-
Of further interest is the role Randy Scheunemann would likely play in a McCain cabinet.
“...Interesting to note that the Iraq Liberation Act was essentially the brainchild of the PNAC....”
That’s not surprising at all. PNAC (the Project for a New American Century) is a creation of so-called “neo-conservatives.” Look up Irving Kristol the “godfather of neo-conservatism” sometime.
“"Ever since I can remember, I’ve been a neo-something: a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskyist, a neo-liberal, a neo-conservative; in religion a neo-orthodox even while I was a neo-Trotskyist and a neo-Marxist.” - Irving Kristol
Neo-Cons are socialists/leftists who were fed up with the incompetence and dithering of the Democrats in implementation of their altruistic goals, one of which was using the US Military to address “the common good” of citizens of nations OTHER than the United States.
I didn’t say “surprising”, I said “interesting”.
I’d say that calling neocons leftists as opposed to “ex-leftists” is debatable.
To me it’s interesting that these people hold sway in such a major manner. They invented the presently employed (and horrifying) pre-empive attack mindset, and members of their vanguard are among the biggest screw-ups in a huge pantheon of screw-ups. (Wolfowitz Rumsfeld and Perle come to mind)It should be frightening to all of us that they continue to wield REAL influence.
The common thread, dave, is altruism, the worship of sacrifice for the good of everyone but one’s self. The notion that the measure of value of an individual is how much he devalues himself in favor of others. In short, altruism == collectivism.
I find that not “interesting” but alarming.
And before anyone wants to bring up “compassionate conservatism” I will point out that the “conservative” part is deception itself. The socialists/collectivists and compassionate conservatives agree that government money should be used to implement a welfare state. The only difference between them is the collectivists think the government should decide who benefits while the “conservatives” think that religious groups should decide.
Both deride and devalue individual rights, especially property rights. Both are equally dangerous to Capitalism and individualism.
“… government money should be used to implement a welfare state ...”
Modify that to read: “… taxpayers’ money should be used to implement a welfare state ...”
John Galt-
OK, you lost me. PNAC members drive a poorly conceived and uneffingBELIEVABLY poorly executed invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation. How does this connect to your highly questionable definition of altruism?
And do you think anyone subscribes to “the notion that the measure of value of an individual is how much he devalues himself in favor of others”? If so, who?
OK, just saw your post re: compassionate conservatism, and I think I see what you’re saying. I’d have to agree, generally. Your description of the two “sides” is, however, a bit hyperbolic, don’tcha think?
The motive behind the Iraq Liberation Act, and to a large degree, the invasion of Iraq was that American blood and treasure should be sacrificed for the good of the Iraqi people. Granted there were many other motives, but I wish only to address your question as how it related to altruism.
Many people believe the notion that sacrifice is a measure of a person’s worth. For a more detailed definition, please refer to wikipedia:
“… poorly executed invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation ...”
I would only disagree with the first part of that statement. The invasion was brilliantly executed.
Saddam and his military’s cohesion and effectiveness were destroyed incredibly quickly. It took something like 21 days to accomplish what the Iranians couldn’t accomplish in nearly 8 years.
I know you’re not siding with the folks in the PNAC, but you’re FAR too kind. Giving those folks the benefit of grave doubt by suggesting they want what’s good for the Iraqi people sounds like fantasy.
It’s much easier (and, I believe, more accurate) to say that the motive behind the Iraq Liberation Act was that American blood and treasure should be sacrificed for access to AN UNBELIEVABLE EFFING AMOUNT OF OIL.
I know “blood for oil” seems simplistic, but Occam’s Razor cuts true.
Bad matching of adverbs with the words they modify, sorry. “poorly conceived invasion and uneffingbelievably poorly executed occupation” is what I should have said.
While militarily the drive into Iraq was done right, it was not the right thing to do.
Dave,
I’m a little puzzled about your claim of being a registered Republican.
A few days ago, on the topic of global warming, when I spoke of Algore being either a fraud or an elitist and asked how anyone could vote for an elitist, here was your response to me -
“I’m not a Gore apologist. I held my nose when I voted for him just as I did with Kerry. But who in their right mind would deny that we did far worse than we would have with either of those two clowns?”
I don’t understand why a registered Republican (even if he were a moderate) would vote for those two candidates rather than to just sit out those elections if he wouldn’t vote for Bush.
I just want to know where you’re coming from because any future discussions with you on other topics would be pointless and a waste of time for us in this forum if you are not who you claim to be.
Pizcaj wonders about Dave: I’m a little puzzled about your claim of being a registered Republican. ...
Puzzled? It’s clear the guy’s a liar. He may have “registered” somewhere as a Republican (for reasons I know not), but there’s nothing Republican about anything he’s said here.
His initial comment was his defense of Obama (against charges of absence of meaningful experience) by slamming President Bush. If he were a Repub., he would have agreed with the article and noted that the difficult task facing like-minded Repubs. is getting the very experienced and far wiser John McCain elected. But, he hasn’t even mentioned McCain’s name.
Instead, he’s - successfully, it seems - hijacked the thread and turned it (with the help of Ms. Rand’s hero) into a meaningless ramble on the value of our military action (it’s hardly a war) in Iraq.
Now, he’s got this sandbox all to himself and we Republicans are out looking for the next bit of evidence that Obama is not only inept and incapable, but poses a real threat to our country and the values that have made it strong.
Thanks for the game Davey.
pizcaj-
fair question. I was NOT a Republican in 2000 or 2004, but I am now. I am who I claim to be, but more importantly I clearly make cogent points, albeit sometimes abrasively.
Richard-
holy crap. You’re like out of central casting or something. To re-cap, I am NOT a liar, and you apparently lack even rudimentary reading comprehension skills.
I did NOT defend Obama. Read what I said. I said there might be something to the admonition regarding electing the inexperienced, based on how we got hosed “electing” the inexperienced Pres we are presently saddled with. (I’ll use small words, Rich: this means that I agreed with one point the “author” made.)
But the two things most telling: Richard’s claim that if I was a Republican (which I am!) I would agree with the above article. So much for the notion that a Republican can think for him/herself. The second is that I’m taken to task for not sticking to the topic, but also berated for not mentioning John McCain, who is nowhere mentioned in the “article”. (Uh, don’t look now, Richard, but that’s contradictory.)
Somebody explain “contradictory” to Richard, OK?
Poor Davey. He’s being “berated for not mentioning John McCain, who is nowhere mentioned in the article.”
Neither was President Bush, but you sure mentioned him. In fact, McCain IS briefly mentioned. Look at the third paragraph, if you can count that high.
Richard-
I stand (almost) corrected; the reference was to McCain’s supporters, not the man himself.
But again, your tepid and meager attempt at sarcasm notwithstanding, YOU are the one to miss the point entirely. I’ll say one thing: you’re consistent. You miss the point every time. Bravo.
read this part slowly, Richie: I was taken to task for mentioning Bush, which according to deep thinkers on this board was off-topic, an absurd position to take. Then I was likewise criticized for NOT mentioning John McCain, which would similarly be off topic. If you don’t see the inconsistency, I can’t help you.
Perhaps a remedial reading course could help you, but I cannot.
Dave,
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt of your claim to being a registered Republican, however, I’m curious to what your reason was in making such a dramatic switch.
Also, who do you think you’ll be supporting in the Presidential elections this November?
To be fair, if you know anything about me from my past forum responses, I’m an avowed Conservative who reluctantly voted for Bush in 2000 after Buchanan dropped out of the general election.
I sat out the election in 2004 after seeing how liberal Bush turned out to be with his excessive domestic spending, unwillingness to identify the enemy in his war on terror, refusal to secure our borders after 9/11, and politically correct handling of the Iraq situation which resulted in a lot of needless casualties on our troops.
Sorry Richard, I did not intend to turn this “into a meaningless ramble on the value of our military action.” I was trying to make the point that altruism, the shared core belief of both Republicans and Democrats is what “poses a real threat to our country and the values that have made it strong” using the ILA for illustrative purpose.
Guess I should have left it alone after my comment #35. 
pizcaj-
Fair question, and of course the truth will out! I registered as a Republican several years ago because my brother-in-law was running in a closed primary. It certainly was no dramatic switch for me. I was a DINO, now I’m a RINO. I have no allegiance to either party. (I’m probably closest to the “party” invented by John Hughes and PJ O’Rourke, namely the “Pants Down Republican Party”. I don’t know if you can look that up, but if you can it should provide some laughs. It appeared in The National Lampoon about 30 years ago.)
On paper there is a serious difference, but in the real world, Dems and Republicans are as different as Coke and Pepsi.
In closing (really, I’ve inflicted myself on this board for far too long) I’d like to point out that not ONCE was the substance of ANY of my posts referenced in all of the rabid attacks on what I had to say. I essentially agreed with the piece, but was immediately branded a parrot, Bush hater, Republican hater, Obama worshipper, troll, surrogate, etc. Not a whit of thought went into the barrage. Just an endless stream of “let’s get him! He doesn’t think like us!” Pretty grim.
So long, girls!
Nothing to apologize for, Mr. Galt. I was mostly just “playing” with Dave, one of the ruder participants I’ve seen on these conversations.
I would have interjected what I will do now:
The motive(s) for the ILA and the subsequent military action were not altruistic but Machiavellian. We needed to rid the world of Saddam, who had already tried twice to take control (through conquest) of neighboring countries’ oil resources, and given time to rebuild his military strength, would have done so again. As France and Russia were pushing hard for a complete rescinding of UN sanctions on Iraq (so they could resume selling Saddam their highly profitable weapons systems), we had to act fairly quickly.
However, the primary motive was securing the region for Israel by emasculating - and possibly disassembling (ala Yugoslavia) - the most powerful Arab country (Egypt having been subdued in the ‘70s).
The co-founder (with William Kristol) of PNAC was Robert Kagan, a writer, essayist, occasional columnist (Washington Post, which, if you’ll recall, supported going to war against Saddam) and a scion of an actively pro-Israel (Zionist) family. He is married to Foreign Service Officer Victoria ("Tori") Nuland, who is currently our Ambassador to NATO. From 2001 - 2003, she worked as a senior advisor on foreign affairs in the Office of the Vice President, the Administration’s nerve center for war planning. (Her reward for a job well done was the Ambassadorship.)
The State Department and DoD also had an ample supply of PNAC members or supporters - Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy dawg, Doug Feith being perhaps the most notorious. (Feith headed the “Office of Special Plans,” to which Dave correctly alluded.) The plan seems to have been to install a long-time favorite of PNAC, Iraqi-in-exile Ahmed Chalabi, as a sort of viceroy following the fall of Saddam. Chalabi, whose family fled Iraq when he was a child, was educated in the US. Upon graduating from Harvard in the early ‘80s, he went to Lebanon to work, ostensibly, as a math professor. It’s been alleged, however, that he was actively supporting one of the Druze factions (Chalabi’s family is Druze) in the civil war there, and was doing so under instructions and with the support of the Mossad. (The faction he was supporting - I’ve forgotten its name - opposed the nascent Hisballah and refrained from attacking Israeli forces in Lebanon at the time.)
I firmly believe that many of the people calling today for a quick, complete withdrawal of our forces from Iraq are increasingly worried that Iraq is stabilizing itself under new Iraqi leadership and won’t disintegrate in the manner they had hoped. This is far too complex for Obama to figure out, but he’s got advisors who give him tralking points.
Anyway, them’s my thoughts, Mr. Galt. BTW, you and are in firm agereement, it seems, on the need for primacy of the individual, as opposed to the collective, in maintaining and strengthening our great country. You do Ms. Rand proud.
Dave
You seem to forget that Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq. I also love you how let off those Dems who spoke of removing Saddam. If not forcefully ----just how were they going to do so?
Please tell me of their specific plan. They definitely did not offer many alternatives.
I suspect it was one those deals in which President Clinton supported it because it sounded good but he wasn’t willing to take any real action thus allowing Saddam to stay in power for many more years.
You even went to the “ blood for Oil”. Didn’t you mean to add “It is for Israel too.”?
I love your use of the “Rush” tool as some way to stifle debate. It sure beats having to actually back up what you say.
You state there was no exit strategy in Iraq. You likely have said there was no war plan. This is just silly. Go talk to the Generals involved they had a plan for the war and an exit plan. Obviously it did not turn out as they had hoped and things changed as they do in all wars. Where do you get your inside information that there was no exit strategy? I would love to see the documentation.
It takes just a little digging-- http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/index.htm
This article is very critical of the war but notes the plan was to have only 5000 troops left in Iraq in 2006. It seems that yes there were plans regarding the operation of the war including a plan to exit Iraq.
Dave you posted: “Interesting to note that the Iraq Liberation Act was essentially the brainchild of the PNAC.” and????? So if the PNAC is involved that negates the support it received?
Previously, I asked- just how is it fatuous? You could not support your own statement.
What does Bush’s background have to do with Obama? I would still love an answer.
Is Bush running? As he is not I have trouble understanding what that has to do with Obama.
- In regards to Iraq, people can respectfully disagree about the merits of the war and whether it should have been started. Childish debate tactics though have little place in the discussion.
- Dave you are far from the intelligent person that you believe resides in your body. You are not the free thinker that you want to believe you are. Far too many of your posts are simplistic and reiterations of those who oppose Bush. I can go to Dkos or Huffpo and read the same rants. You almost appear robotic. Your use of the aforementioned tactics is quite indicative of an immature person.
Good day.
Jim-
I’ve explained why I feel the article is fatuous. I’ve explained why I feel it is relevant to bring up Bush’s experience level pre-election to that of Obama. You just don’t (or can’t) get it. Your problem, not mine.
PNAC has hijacked the foreign policy of the US, and what do they want? Unfettered access to Middle East oil, and the Holy Land for Israel. They were instrumental in the cooking up of intelligence in the run up to the war. (So if the “merits of the war and whether it should have been started” can be debated, this would be a swell place to begin the debate.) To educate yourself in this regard, look up General Zinni. This will, assuming you can comprehend it, which is questionable, also speak to your comments about exit strategy. Also look into why GHW Bush chose not to overthrow Sadaam at the conclusion of the Gulf War. He was right on the money, down to the word quagmire.
Lastly, I am in fact very close to the intelligent person that resides in my body. You have no clue how much of a free thinker I am (or am NOT). You are not even a thinker, free or otherwise. Your claim that my posts are simplistic indicate that, rather, you are simple.
the last two ad hominems are just too stupid to address.
No Dave you ...not surprisingly...have not explained yourself. You post tired worn out talking points. That is a fact. Search out Huffpo and you will find hundreds just like you. Fact. You are an immature person and not free thinking. It is evident in your posts. I do love your choice of words however . I bet you think you have a big vocabulary. I always can spot the fakers by their use of words in such posts.
I find it interesting your cherry picking of my point such as ignoring my point about your “RUSH” tool and about the Dems previous support for the ouster of Saddam. You also ignored the point that Clinton and the Dems loved to talk big but do nothing. You never told me what plans the Dems had for Saddam. I suspect you know of none.
Interesting in a very short amount of time I was able to post information that refutes your case that there wasn’t an exit strategy.
Interesting in one post you claim to be Republican as if it had some meaning. In another post you state you are a RINO and in another you simply changed affiliations as someone you know was running for office. You were apparently deceitful when you registered as a Republican. I am not surprised.
The reality is you cannot refute my points. You hold onto your points much like a child who cannot bear to see things differently. It is quite clear you are predisposed to one point of view.
Down deep you know you are as programmed as they get. You know it and I know it. As you have had two chances to support your contentions directly and have not I am done with your idiocy.
Later Dave.... THINK for YOURSELF
Jim-
You’re confusing your inability to read and comprehend my words with my ability to explain myself. You equate “fakers” with people who employ a “big vocabulary”, which is just bizarre.
I thought the issue of Rush too trivial to comment on. I pointed out that the case for war, which the Democrats reluctantly agreed to, was based on cooked info by the PNAC. You don’t, apparently, know what that means. I ALSO pointed out, if you can read between the lines, that an “exit” strategy is meaningless when the advice of people like General Zinni is summarily ignored. I don’t have any reason to show what the Dems had in mind in dealing with Saddam; I’m not defending Democrats. The sanctions and weapons inspections seemed to be working well, however…
I am a Republican. How did I state that as if it “had some meaning”? How was I “deceitful” when I registered as a Republican? and for crissake, WHAT POINT HAVE YOU MADE THAT I “CANNOT REFUTE”??? jesus, you’re dim!
Sorry, I have to ask: are you out of high school yet? I just get the sense I’m dealing with a kid.
If so, stay in school, you need it!
Dave,
I agree that, these days especially, there’s not much of a difference between the two-party duopoly.
However, in the whole spectrum of various political issues that are discussed such as abortion, taxes, the role of government, foreign policy, illegal immigration, etc., do you see yourself as someone who generally feels that we should adhere to the Constitution as it was originally written in dealing with these various issues, or do you view the Constitution more as a ‘living document’?
Also, who would be your ‘fantasy candidate’ to win the presidency this year?
Of course, mine would be Pat Buchanan.
I promise that this will be the end of the interrogation.
Fair questions, all, but I think the answer to “do you think we should adhere to the Contstitution as written, or do you view it as a living document?” is: both.
Supporting the right to terminate pregnancy is not an easy stance to take, since a thinking person has to agree that there is the possibility that a fetus is a human being. For me, it comes down to deciding that the rights of a woman, who is unquestionably a human, supercede the rights of a being that is questionably human. Ouch. I wish the number of abortions was zero, but not by government proscription.
On taxes, foreign policy etc, I would side with those who call themselves Republicans or even Libertarians. The government that governs least governs best, and all that, although I do believe we need to take care of those who cannot care for themselves. (This is a slippery slope indded.)
We are NOT the world’s police. The present administration, which could accurately be described as a branch of the Born Again Party, feels quite differently, and has farked things up immeasurably as a result. I’m not anti-religion, I just don’t think fanatical Christians should control the executive branch. They do now, and have caused damage that will take a long long time to calculate.
You’ll think I’m kidding, but my “fantasy candidate” would be the late Frank Zappa. He was one of the most intelligent voices of my generation, despite song titles like “Why Does It Hurt When I Pee?” giving him a reputation as some sort of loon. There is plenty of available info on his political views, including his relationship with the Chech republic’s Havel, that shows his clarity of thought, his ability to express himself, and his eye for the “big picture”. He was considering a run for office in the early 90’s, but died in 1993.
Dave,
Just got back from researching Zappa’s political views on various sites and they can basically be summed up according to the following excerpt from a columnist’s review of the book, “The Real Frank Zappa” -
["Zappa was actually more conservative than liberal in his political views. Zappa was the old-fashioned civil libertarian kind of conservative, in the manner, perhaps, of William F. Buckley, not the kind of conservatives that predominate today – the neo-cons and the religious right. The issues that he addresses in the chapter are largely out-of-date, today, but we can fairly judge that Zappa was more isolationist than interventionist, adamantly disliked both Communism and labor unions, supported Capitalist innovation (but believed America was failing to promote research and development adequately), preferred a regressive tax on spending to taxes on income, and believed that people have rights to such choices as recreational drug use or suicide. Zappa often lashed out against Republicans in his song lyrics, but his views were actually aligned with what the Republican Party once stood for, before the era of televangelists and neo-conservatives."]
I saw from various interviews of him (from the 1980’s) that he seemed to criticize Reagan a lot, while not mentioning LBJ and Carter. I found this odd because it was LBJ who escalated our involvement in Vietnam and both LBJ and Carter were Big Government, high tax advocates - something a pro-isolationist, limited government person would be against.
In one interview, he pointed out the dangers of Bush’s father calling for “A new world order” while he spoke before Congress.
This has turned out to be an accurate warning on Zappa’s part considering the father and son’s globalist policies of nation-building, throwing out large sums of money to Africa, so-called ‘free trade’ agreements, unwillingness to secure our borders, granting visas to people from hostile Middle Eastern countries, etc.
I would hope, though, that Zappa would have also criticized the Democrats for the same, were he alive today.
I now have a much better idea where you stand politically, however, considering Zappa’s viewpoints and the fact that he would be your “fantasy candidate”, I still can’t understand why you voted for Algore and Kerry. Those two candidates beliefs were pretty much the antithesis of yours and Zappa’s viewpoints, except with maybe the abortion issue.
“...there is the possibility that a fetus is a human being...”
Oh boy! This is going to generate a lot of off-topic ranting, but brother you asked for it!
Life does not begin at conception: life is a pre-condition of conception. (Try fertilizing a dead egg with live sperm or a live egg with dead sperm, or a dead egg with a dead sperm.)
Sperm, egg, fertilized egg (zygote), or fetus, ALL are identifiably HUMAN and unique.
The question of which has rights or once choosing, which has enforceable or preemptive rights, is indeed a very slippery slope. Arbitrarily choosing some point in the process (say 1st trimester of gestation) cannot be justified in any rational manner.
heh heh heh...Zappa scorned the Dems, saying that they mainly just wish they were Republicans…
Gore was easy, eight years in the administration that oversaw the balancing of the budget and produced a surplus. Pretty smart guy. Kerry was easier, I would have voted for a cocker spaniel if they ran one against Bush.
the above synopsis of Zappa’s views show him to be an open minded conservative. I guess that’s what I’d like to think I am…
JG-
You are absolutely correct, life does NOT begin at conception. And your example (dead sperm/live egg etc), believe it or not, is precisely one I’ve used in debating this topic; conception is the merging of two LIVING cells.
But we’re talking about when that life becomes human. As I said, I defer to the unquestionably human, though I do not do so blithely.
... we’re talking about when that life becomes human. As I said, I defer to the unquestionably human ...
Well, now that we’ve left Obama and Bush in the dustbin (where they both probably belong), I agree here almost totally with Dave, but believe more finely defined terminology is need, plus a so-far ignored factor - the prospective father.
We have several words used to identify unborn humans: zygot, embryo, fetus, - are there others? Anyway, the distinction made by those who believe that a woman’s “reproductive rights” (based, I guess on the non-Constitutional “right to privacy") allow her to dispose of the being she’s carrying on her own decision often cite “viability” as the only possibly limiting criterion. (This, of course, is often substituted for with “third trimester.) What’s being ignored, though, is the fact that “it takes two to tango.” There’s no question about a rapist having anything to say about the resulting pregnancy, and I would say the same about a girl impregnated - willingly or not - by a man who wants/intends to be a father. (The definition of “girl” - vs. woman - is a seperate issue.)
So, perhaps the only workable (as opposed to “moral") solution is to give - in fact require - the father a degree of say in the decision to end the unborn human life.
I don’t know; it’s a very difficult subject, and I wish it wasn’t constantly being dragged into national politics when there are so many more important issues that need to be debated by candidates for “the most powerful job in the World.”
Dave,
Actually, the balanced budget during the Clinton years was due to Newt Gingrich and the Republican Majority who forced Clinton to go along with it. Clinton submitted about a half dozen budget proposals before Congress finally approved of what was to become the balanced budget of ‘95.
Clinton had shown what he was truly all about when in ‘93 he put through, what was then, the largest tax increase in history after lying to the American people about his ‘middle-class tax cut’ plan during the ‘92 campaign.
Of course, he’s not the only Presidential campaigner to blatantly lie about his real intentions during a campaign (Bush the father with his “read my lips” scam and his son’s promise to veto the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill if elected.
It’s still hard for me to believe why any open-minded conservative would vote for two far-left candidates such as Kerry and Gore rather than just sitting out the election if he finds Bush so repulsive, or maybe voting for a third-party candidate whose beliefs are more closer to his.
I don’t get what Zappa meant when he said that “Democrats mainly just wish they were Republicans”
“I don’t get what Zappa meant when he said that “Democrats mainly just wish they were Republicans””
Perhaps just a poor choice of words? Maybe he meant something like “Lefties just wish they could understand and utilize reason and logic rather than just emoting.”
Pizcaj-
that’s a new one. The revisionist historians usually say the economy was so good in the nineties because of the Reagan policies of the eighties...I never cease to be amazed at the worship of Reagan, whose economic plans quadrupled our debt, mostly in the name of a ginormous arms buildup to counter what was revealed to be a moribund Soviet Union.
There is fairly good evidence that Reagan, of all people, presided over the biggest tax increase in history. Also, a tax increase on the affluent was ALWAYS a part of Clinton’s proposal. So there was no lie, except about where he was getting his knob polished.
Kerry and Gore may be lame, but they are by no means “far left”. This is a phrase so worn out by loons like O’Reilly and Hannity as to virtually be meaningless, much as “Marxist” and “socialist” are on these boards. I prefer to vote for people who might actually be elected. Otherwise I’d have written in FZ every time…
I’m probably misquoting Zappa. He deserves better than a clown like me mangling his words, but I think the gist is that the Dems simply envy the Republicans. I personally call the Dems the “death wish” party based on the unbefrigginglievably lame procession of candidates they trot out every four years. (Mondale/Ferrarro? are you bleeping KIDDING ME?)
Dave,
In response to the first line of your response to me - actually, it’s an old one and very familiar to anyone who read the newspapers during that period.
The fact is, is that Clinton was forced to sign on to a balanced budget agreement after the Republican Congress rejected about a half dozen of his budget proposals.
I remember reading this stuff in the newspapers as it was happening during that time, just as I remember reading about how Clinton kept vetoing Congress’s welfare reform proposals until a very watered-down version was finally approved by him.
Also, I wasn’t the one who brought up Reagan...you did. I always felt it to be conjecture whether Reagan’s policy’s were responsible for the 90’s economy.
The balanced budget issue aside,though, the 90’s economy was not what the Liberal media likes to claim it was. I remember it being a decade, along with this decade, of numerous downsizing’s and a shameful amount of corporations leaving the country because of NAFTA, GATT, etc., which both Parties signed on to.
Also, the sociopath Clinton and all the scandals connected with him, which would have taken down any Republican president because of the political double-standard, had greatly accelerated the cultural down slide of this once great country.
You said that “a tax increase on the affluent was ALWAYS a part of Clinton’s proposal”. If you read my previous reply more carefully, I was referring to his promise of a ‘middle-class tax cut’, which, as a life-long tax and spend Liberal, he had no intention of enacting.
As far as Kerry and Gore, the next step up from being far-left would be ‘moderate’, and I don’t think any fair-minded person who follows politics and these two candidates could see them as moderate Democrats.
About your supposition of what Zappa meant about Dems envying Republicans, I still don’t get it. Although I always assumed that because of their hypocrisy, most Democrat politicians secretly wish to live as Capitalists, while the common American lives as Socialists.
pizcaj-
It is true that serial adulterer Newt G took time off from cheating on whoever he was married to at the time (or having her sign divorce papers on her hospital bed) to show fiscal responsibility.
the 90’s economy WAS what it was cracked up to be. It was certainly not an invention of the media. ("liberal media”? the greatest canard of our age, and that’s saying something!) There were some whose hatred for Clinton was so visceral they even claimed that the surplus did not exist! the fact that Clinton wasn’t taken down was NOT because the media gave him a pass; it was all monica all the time for a LONG time!
I don’t want to sound like a pollyanna, but I didn’t vote for BC either time, based on his philandering. My thought was simple: if he can’t be trusted to keep his vows of marriage, I’m not going to trust him with the oath of office of the President of the US. And one thing can’t be sugar-coated: while it was not related to something as critical as lying us into war, of which our present President is clearly guilty, but rather merely about his being gobbled by monica, BC’s big lie was UNDER OATH. That’s perjury, period.
No offense, but I think that most people on this board feel that the only example of a “moderate Democrat” is Joe Lieberman…
pizcaj-
regarding my comment that giving Republicans credit for balancing the budget was a “new one” to me…
“...its’ an old one and very familiar to anyone who read the newspapers during that period.
Did any of the newspapers during that period mention the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. It passed without a Republican vote and mandated a balanced budget. Among those that feel it was largely responsible for the eventual balanced budget: the Congressional Budget Office.
Dave,
I bring up “the sociopath Clinton and all the scandals connected with him” and you draw an unfair analogy to Gingrich.
Gingrich is indeed a scoundrel for what he did to his wife, but how do you compare him to a sexual predator who tried to force himself on many female staff who worked for him. Kathleen Willey had nothing to gain and everything to lose by speaking out, and God knows what he did to Juanita Broderick.
If my criticism of Clinton only had to do with adultery, such as Gingrich was also guilty of, then I could definitely be accused of having it in for the guy.
I’m referring to all his political scandals such as -
the unfair firing of White House Travel Office staffers to put in his cronies, firing and replacing of All 100 US Attorneys when he first got into office. (The media made such a big deal over Bush firing a small handful of same)Would they have had apoplexy if Bush did what Clinton did? Filegate, the pardoning of FALN terrorists as well as fugitive Mark Rich, the unlawful removal of documents from Vince Foster’s office by Bernie Nussbaum and Maggie Williams right after Foster’s ‘suicide’, Hillary’s billing records appearing in a White House study, Bill Clintons refusal to reveal his medical records, etc.
He also reinstalled the Communist Haitian dictator Aristede back into office and didn’t fire Janet Reno for the Waco debacle, which the media would have crucified any Republican administration doing the same. (I could just hear them screaming in utter outrage about burning alive innocent women and children and demanding that heads role.)
Your denial of the obvious fact that the media is Liberal, even though 89% of them admitted to voting for Clinton in ‘96, is very revealing. I’m now beginning to feel as if I’ve been debating a Paul Begala or James Carville type of personality, which makes for a very boring forum discussion.
On the subject of “lying us into war”, Clinton and his cronies in the media did the same when he sent our forces into Bosnia. I don’t claim to be an expert of this subject, but the media hid the fact that the Albanians, the so-called ‘good guys’ were Muslims who were expanding their way into Serbian territory. The Serbs were basically trying to keep them at bay. The media did a good job of covering up the damage from our extensive air-bombing over there (2000 Serbian civilians killed) unlike the day to day detailed accounts of our soldiers killing the enemy in Iraq. Any atrocities committed by the Muslim Albanians were ignored while we kept hearing about the Serb’s
‘ethnic cleansing’.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act did cut government spending but also included the highest retroactive tax increase in the nation’s history. (The reason for the deficits of the 80’s was that Reagan’s vetoes of numerous Democrat spending bills were over-ridden by the veto-proof Democrat majority in Congress.)
Lastly....Reagan Presided Over The Biggest Tax Increase In History???!!!!
I’ll pretend I didn’t hear that.
All disagreements aside, Dave, I think the most poignant thing that you’ve stated in this week-long joust of ours is that “We are Not the world’s police”
Amen to that!
pizcaj-
I’ll take it you’re no Bill Clinton fan. I believe the laundry list of anti BC ammo you’ve listed is lightweight, except for his treatment of women. Scaife tried hard to make BC look like a criminal and not just a lech. So far no dice.
the notion that the media is liberal is inane. You cite an often used “proof” which is, to me, just funny. Three important points in demolishing such proof: first, when did 89% of the media say they voted for BC?, second, how does that make them “liberal”, and third and most important, how does that affect the reporting of news, which is, I hope, how one would conclude the media is “liberal.” The media is comprised of less than ten multibillion dollar global entities. No hotbed of liberalism there…
The difference(s) between “war” in Bosnia and our last five years in Iraq is (are) a couple of quantums.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, again, is credited for the balanced budget by the CBO. The reason for the deficits in the 80’s was that Reagan spent so much BORROWED money on a defense buildup to counter an enemy that would have collapsed on its own. (A shame on at least two fronts: we spent ourselves into a hole we’ve yet to recover from, and missed an opportunity to forge important alliances...)
the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 represented .8% of GDP, Clinton’s tax increase .5%...you can pretend not to hear that if you wish, but it’s fact.
And for the record, the budgets finally approved year to year in the 80’s were almost ALL smaller than those proposed by Reagan.
Dave,
As far as 89% of media voting for Clinton, go to
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
If you believe that the list of Clinton scandals I mentioned is ‘lightweight’, and that the media are not Liberal, then that only confirms my suspicions that you are a Liberal.
I don’t mind you being a Liberal, but I do resent it, as I’m sure others do in this forum, when you deny it, even though you may be registered as a Republican. (Former right-wing radio show host Jay Diamond stated that he remains registered as a Democrat to better monitor their political strategy’s.)
I notice that in all of our discussions that not once, did you have anything good to say about any Republican, and are yet reflexively defensive of any criticisms of Democrats.
Your denial of Gore and Kerry (especially Gore)of being on the far left is ludicrous and not worth any more of my time trying to ‘convince’ you of it. It’s like someone denying that the sun was not visible during a sunny day.
Any ‘criticisms’ of Clinton you displayed are tepid, at best (ie, his philandering), similar to the tepid criticisms of Bush by the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity.
But then again, I noticed in the video interviews and articles about Frank Zappa, your ‘fantasy candidate’, that he reserved all his criticisms for Republicans, especially Reagan, and never had anything bad to say about LBJ, Carter, and other Democrats.(Hardly the actions of an ‘open-minded Conservative)
You stated in an earlier reply to me that “On taxes, foreign policy, etc, that you side with those who call themselves Republicans or even Libertarians”, yet you defend Clinton’s biggest ever tax increase in ‘93. Any so-called ‘open-minded Conservative’ would never call for a tax increase of any kind; and to vote for two tax and spend Democrat presidential candidates such as Gore and Kerry is a paradox and non-sensible, to say the least.
In that same reply, you stated that “The government that governs least governs best” yet again, you put your support behind the two big-government Democrat candidates previously mentioned and give no credit at all to Reagan who spoke of “getting government out of our lives”. The Democrat Congress, with the veto-proof majority they enjoyed during the ‘80’s, made sure that wouldn’t happen.
For someone who states that “We are Not the world’s police”, you seem to hold a double-standard with Clinton and Bush in regards to Bosnia/Haiti and Iraq. ANY foreign entanglement is considered a breach of that belief, unless the safety of our country is in peril.
The Balanced Budget Act that’s occasionally brought up in political discussions refers to the legislation that Clinton was FORCED to sign in
1995 by the Republican majority in Congress.
On the other hand, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act contained the biggest ever retroactive tax increase imposed on the American people. They revolted against this scam by electing
July 27 at 12:49 pm | #1 | Link
hmmm, you mention administrative experience and military experience. Our present president was very short on the former and there are REAL question marks regarding the latter.
the fact that GWB ended up being the worst president in US history shows that indeed, there can be “something wrong with that.”
the rest of this anti-Obama screed is fatuous.