Thoughts on the Debate
John on September 27, 2008 at 1:51 am
McCain on points. No knockouts and no major gaffes. In the greater scheme that’s probably a plus for Obama who spent last week lowering expectations. Like Rocky, he can claim to still be standing, though as the list below will demonstrate, I think a lot of what he’s standing on is nonsense.
So, the things that bothered me tonight:
- Obama began the debate arguing that deregulation was the cause of the current crisis. This is theater of the absurd. His party fought several Republican attempts at regulation. The housing bubble resulted from pressure by the government to offer ever more subprime loans to unqualified borrowers. Obama hasn’t figured out the problem and hasn’t offered anything in the way of a solution.
- Another reference to China’s superiority, this time in going into space. Hello! Can you please stop writing copy for Communist Chinese agitprop. I assure you the citizens there do not thank you for it.
- Obama says we need to raise taxes to bring in more money. Raising taxes will not bring in more money in the long run. Bush’s tax cuts raised revenue to the treasury by 20%. Obama’s plan, as McCain noted, will simply lead more businesses to relocate and more wealthy individuals to find new ways to protect their money. This will be a drag on an economy that cannot afford any more drag.
- Obama, when asked where he would revise his plans and scale back on spending, proceeded to list about 5 things he wants to spend more money on. He seems constitutionally unable to think in terms of cutting government.
- Obama won’t admit he was wrong on the surge and that the consequences of his plan would have been disastrous. No surprise, but had Obama’s plan won the day, this really would have been Vietnam II.
- Barack Obama does not know the difference between a tactic and a strategy. Thank you McCain for pointing out something I said a month or more ago. So how is it that Obama hasn’t been excoriated for this before now?
- Obama’s willingness to meet Achmedinejad “without preconditions” is foolish. Saying that he would have “preparations” instead is an attempt to sidestep his own absurd commitment without admitting he was wrong. No US President should ever sit down with rogue leaders, thereby lending legitimacy to them, without major concessions and/or preconditions beforehand. As with the China thing, Obama simply doesn’t get how his willingness to gladhand dictators is harmful, stupid and, yes, dangerous.
That’s all for me. I’m going to bed.
Update: AP at Hot Air points out another troubling statement Obama has shifted ground on.
Category: Politics |
Quite obvious that the guy we pull for comes across in a little better light. Both of those guys couldn’t convince a man he was on fire.
Those are two great choices. We’re in for a great four years. I always watch it like it’s a SNL sketch, which I hope SNL does construct. Perhaps we can get a little humor out of that waste of time.
McCain looked like Warren G. Harding and Obama looked like Curious George. :)
September 27, 2008 @ 5:04 amBTW John – I just love hoe debates are graded as sporting events. Do the candidates change their stands during a debate?
One is pro-life the other is pro-choice.
Pretty much that settles it. The debates? Great theatre. Obama is much weaker than I thought he would be.
September 27, 2008 @ 5:38 amThe supposedly liberal BBC had it as a tie, the definitely liberal Guardian handed it to McCain and the conservative Telegraph to Obama. The Mail seemed more occupied with the fact that the daughter of Muslim firebrand Omar Bakri Mohammed is a topless pole dancer.
It may just have been my reading of things, but I seemed to see more coverage of Palin’s train wreck of an interview the day before than the debate.
September 27, 2008 @ 6:07 amI think Obama will be president, however I don’t think he has the capacity to get angry. (Jimmy Carter) Reagan got angry, Bush #1 got angry, Clinton got angry, even Bush #2 gets angry.
Anger when channeled can be a good thing. McCain seems always angey and not in a good way. His “I will never be Miss Congeniality” line is an attempt to explain away the fact that most senators don’t like him.
September 27, 2008 @ 6:17 amObama’s willingness to meet Achmedinejad “without preconditions” is foolish.
Were Reagan, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and hosts of other Presidents from the past fools for meeting with men and nations of, shall we say, disreputable status.
Kissinger’s own terms were taken by Obama to mean that he (Obama) as President could/would meet with anyone anywhere in any locale if “preparation” was right and any context of his own choosing.
And indeed, that IS the power of the office.
Contrast this to the Ayn Randians, who used to maintain that while you can certainly get the word out to these regimes, at a certain level these regimes are just multiplex versions of criminal syndicates and we no more need to talk to them than we spend inordinate amounts of time yapping it up in “noegatiations” with dope dealers and Mafioso.
We place them in cuffs and haul them off. Resist, the they are shot dead.
Whatever the case, there needs to be some consistency in foreign affairs. Conservative memories and liberal memes are selective on some points.
None of this fools those of us who have studied foreign policy and are charitably middle aged men.
I’m well aware the standard comeback for this is that states are fundamentally different from individuals, and that we have to negotiate on some things. OK. Then that kind of reasoning needs to be put out for the American people in detail. This whole bruha over “preparation” vs. “precondition” is to some people what is called a distinction without a difference. And while Obama didn’t make the best of this, McCain got the Couric pulled on him last night, just as Palin before him. Kissinger’s name came up once again.
oh boy….
Now–as to most senators not liking him. Good. Maybe he steps on toes. And in Washington he could use that to bolster his image as a “maverick.” McCain to his credit hardly fits either conservative wishes for the continuance for Bushiness or for liberals Bush III.
September 27, 2008 @ 7:34 amaww, Rick, you haven’t given up on Hilary, have you?
September 27, 2008 @ 8:18 amThanks, Keith, my wound had almost healed. :)
September 27, 2008 @ 8:35 amKeith,
I was fascinated by articles in The Mail and The Telegraph yesterday. I think what fascinated me the most was that it seemed pretty gutsy of Mohammed’s daughter to not just BE a semi-stripper/pole dancer, but to then be willing to admit to it in public.
If I were her, I think I would be at least slightly afraid of what Mohammed or some of his supporters might be considering in terms of how to make that situation “right.” Two words come to mind: honor killing.
September 27, 2008 @ 9:33 amAll the world’s a stage…including the Presidency.
None of them met foreign leaders of disrepute without preconditions. I thought McCain made this point, i.e. Reagan waited for Glasnost. Whatever lesson Obama took from Kissinger, he appears to have been in error.
Obama’s “preparations” are just another word for preconditions. He’s doing an end run around his own statement. Video here.
Personally, I would never take advice from Randians, though I think the comparison to a cartel is probably appropriate. Certainly better than Obama’s constant reference to their superior infrastructure. It is a lot like saying, “You know, those South American Narco-terrorists know shipping! UPS could learn a thing or two from the Medellin cartel.” Thanks, dummy.
September 27, 2008 @ 10:10 amYou are wrong on this, John. Johnson met with Kosygin in Glassboro (I was there) with no preconditions. Reagan’s strength brought Brezhnev to the table without any preconditions (that became obvious). Same with Gorbechov. There vare many good things that could come from meeting with a kook like Achmedinejad.
We could size him up better with probing questions.
We could see if he can be manipulated with carrots.
We could listen to see if he gives something away by a mistatement.
We could see how his cabinet people speak and their body language.
We could set up more meetings at a lower level to “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”.
The so called “credibility” could easily be diluted with statements later. Meeting the enemy face to face is usually desirable on many levels, including the outside chance of progress (see Gadafhi)
September 27, 2008 @ 10:53 amI find both of these guys fairly uninspiring. The single biggest issue outside of the economy (illegal immigration) is a non-issue in this election. Border jumpers are killing the medical industry in which I make my living. Our state prison system has close to 30% of them living off the taxpayers. Their kids clog our educational system driving up costs for teachers, supplies and additional facilities that we shouldn’t be paying for. I’ll probably have to hold my nose and vote for McCain because Obama is wrong on so many issues. Overall, it is a fairly depressing election.
By the way, Palin needs some more work if she’s going to continue talking with the MSM.
September 27, 2008 @ 11:04 amObama meeting with the kook from Iron – no pre-conditions:
Obama: So sir, I understand you deny the Holocaust, are developing nukes and want to kill every Jew that lives in the Middle East?
Kook: Yes, that is correct.
Obama: Well….uh….do you like “Dancing with the Stars”?
Kook: Yes, I do.
Obama: Great!! Now we have something we agree on. Would you like to watch an episode with me?
Kook: Sure. Afterwards, may be we can play a game of Twister.
Obama: I knew we good find common ground.
September 27, 2008 @ 11:13 amMy spelling!!! Iran. Got to check my work. LOL
September 27, 2008 @ 11:15 am“I find both of these guys fairly uninspiring.”
Jim – you and I have good common ground! Let us start a new political party and blame this blog for it! :lol:
September 27, 2008 @ 11:20 am“could” find common ground – another error. I’m losing it at fifty-four. And I only went to public school for three years!!
September 27, 2008 @ 11:20 amRick, not a bad idea. You come up with a name for the party and I’ll be your VP.
September 27, 2008 @ 11:23 amOrganized Anarchy
We have our convention in Las Vegas! Our debates are in Burmuda! :lol:
September 27, 2008 @ 11:26 amLib though I may be, I did find McCain at his most compelling last night. It reminded me of how much I enjoy his wit and respect his integrity. It’s just a pity y’all didn’t put the man up eight years ago…he’s a vastly better speaker and debater than Dubya.
That solid performance is a necessary thing for the GOP, given how 1) intensely erratic McCain has seemed in response to the economy and how 2) strongly he needs to get the narrative away from Palin.
The domestic debate will prove more challenging. I honestly think he’ll do fine, but it’s harder turf lately.
September 27, 2008 @ 1:53 pmQuestion – John, how can you define what happened with Fannie Mae specifically?
Answer – I remember when General MacArthur faced the Chinese and he said that America was his strength.
Good answer. :evil:
A fact check stated that McCain’s statement that Gen Eisenhower made a letter of resignation before D-Day was false. See Jim, those pesky facts! :lol:
September 27, 2008 @ 2:12 pmThe speech by Eisenhower, found by an aide, that was not made public at the time said “Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone.”
I would say McCane was close enough. Obama most likely doesn’t even know who Eisenhower was let alone his acceptance of responsibility. The latter would be alien to his beliefs of blaming someone else.
September 27, 2008 @ 3:09 pm“Obama most likely doesn’t even know who Eisenhower was let alone his acceptance of responsibility.”
Yes, an unbiased and fair assessment that in no way reveals your political leanings. :evil:
I love politics, it brings out the best!
September 27, 2008 @ 4:44 pmThanks for your input, John.
Yes, I realize from reading the full response from Kissinger that Couric tried to pull a fast one here.
My reference to the Randians is not one of outright advocacy of he (mostly stillborn) radical libertarianism, but that if the analogy to a regime being criminal and without utter merit, it is interesting. Her protege Peter Schwartz would harp on this to the effect that the way to deal is to deal in cities blown into the stratosphere.
Having said that, I think most leaders understand that we just can’t do that with most regimes. Despite their abhorrent nature, we must at SOME level deal with people we find morally repulsive.
As my wife looking over my shoulder whispered just now, after all we have Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi. Not to mention Twosome Newsome out in San Fran.
So there we have it, I guess….
I’ll have to get to the other points later, and there are many. Looks like the contributors here do a good job digging up the blogosphere’s refuse and addendums about Who Said What… Thus for example Obama’s “dying in vain” commentary….
September 27, 2008 @ 5:37 pmQuestion – John, how can you define what happened with Fannie Mae specifically?
Answer – I remember when General MacArthur faced the Chinese and he said that America was his strength.
Yeah. I heard that one too. Well, suffice it to say McCain is going to have to hit these kinds of things head on with somethine more than stories.
There IS a history to Freddie, and IMO Obama got away with one last night. FOUR times by my count, in blaming the current mess on rapacious capitalist greed. All four times unanswered by McCain as to the context on WHO did WHAT and advocated WHAT regarding Fannie and Freddie. His response was:
was…
WAS……(!!)
“I tried to push through reforms.” Or “I am a reformer”
Or to that effect
September 27, 2008 @ 5:41 pmWakefield: What do you think explains McCain’s failure to bring up Fannie/Freddie?
September 27, 2008 @ 5:54 pmRick, the point was he was offering his resignation implicitly. So McCain was right and you were wrong with your so called “fact check”.
Get it?
September 27, 2008 @ 6:11 pmFollowing those lines of honor, should not George Bush resign as well?
Oh yea, close enough. Politics is the serial killer of objectivity! :lol:
September 27, 2008 @ 6:15 pmWakefield, you are correct that he missed many opportunities to skewer the guy. You have Raines and Johnson who are his buddies and I believe Raines was the guy who screwed either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (like we should make a distinction between the two). Then, you have the Senate Majority leader, Reid, telling everyone ‘well once the election is over we will put the ban on offshore drilling back into effect’. Meanwhile, at the debate, Obama is going on about encouraging off shore drilling and talking about ‘hard working middle class people’. By the way, the initial “deal” on the “bailout” as the media calls it was to direct 20% of the 700 billion to ACORN which is just another group of agitators, left wing extremists, who claim to be for the “little guy”. By the way the organization has been convicted of voter fraud.
The reality is most people cannot or will not read about these issues and then some do not give a dam one way or the other. Between the two we have a guy who is a marxist wannabe capturing 1/2 the vote or more.
It is pathetic.
September 27, 2008 @ 6:31 pmRick, it may be difficult for you but try to think logically even if it is for a brief period.
1. McCain said Eisenhower offered his resignation in a speech if operation overlord failed. Fortunately, it succeeded and he pocketed the speech. Later an aide found it and made it public. The speech put the full blame on himself and as I stated it is an offer of resignation.
2. You stated McCain was wrong which people would think there was no 2nd speech he was ready to give.
3. I stated you were wrong because I gave you the verbatim speech and anyone can see he was offering his resignation.
4. You then mention Bush.
I would call that a non sequitur and more importantly you are dodging the issue of truthfulness. It is either a fact or is not a fact and if you believe it is not a fact then tell me why.
September 27, 2008 @ 6:48 pmIt is difficult for me to think logically. :cool:
September 27, 2008 @ 7:14 pmVince:
I understand this is sensitive ground for McCain, but he could have gone over the history.
I think McCain was unsure how to approach how to critique the whole mess without making is sound like, in effect, “the goverment really mucked things up by giving loans to poor and brown people.”
That’s not the whole story, no, but the according to some economists the whole bruha over redlining “encouraged” banks with Fed help to…shall we say…”overcome” their inhibitions ’bout loaning money to people with no money down and food stamps as collateral. Tragic as life sitations may be, banks historically have been more pragmatic and hard nosed than that.
It has come to my attention that on some of the hard core lefty sites like Pandagon (which btw shows Palin as a numbskill bible thumper in a miniskirt and features bumper sticker ads that say McSame/MILF 2008), and Daily Kos, they were FAST on the trigger to make sure that American knows Bush and Co. stuck it to the little guy for Freddie Mac’s meltdown. Now that was to be expected.
But this is not just the hard core lefty sites saying this. There are large segments of people suffering under the housing meltdown who–for whatever reason–are suffering but among the “Reagan Democrats”, union workers, skilled labor, etc., might still be swayed by McCain and are sensitive to this accusation. That’s McCain’s hope. I am not painting Palin as the moron that Amanda Marcotte and her Pandagon pals do self-rightiously preaching at people all the while her eldest has a bun in the oven, thinking Noah had a pet Brontosaur, and telling girls to just keep their pretty legs together with a bible between them. Verum Serum correctly skewed some of the big myths. Yes. But without being so vicious like this Marcotte harridan, I have some valid concerns that Palin’s effect is basically worn out by now.
She is not well-rehearsed in either foreign policy nor science issues like alleged global warming, nor a big voice on her claimed tax reform when Alaska has little tax if any in most areas. On education, yes, the myths were busted about banning books, but as Marcotte pointed out in her loopy way Alaska is indeed ranking HORRIBLE in education.
SO…..McCain’s hope lay in the massess of undecideds teetering on tall fences and wondering if the mother in law upstairs will have to be kicked out or eat Alpo next month. That’s his stake. That’s all he’s got at this point.
September 27, 2008 @ 7:27 pmI don’t know why we need to add more stool into the cesspool. It’s bad enough that Bush has to meet with Reid, Pelosi and the rest of these half-wits. Now we have the Messiah telling us he will meet with the kook from Iran with no pre-conditions. Maybe Hussein Obama, the kook from Iran and tha genius from North Korea can all go camping together and enjoy some male bonding. Maybe they could team up together and become community organizers. The bad news is, as the economy tanks, the nation will commit Obamacide and elect this bozo to ruin whatever is left of our republic. We’re headed for bad times. I feel awful for my kids.
September 27, 2008 @ 7:27 pmBy the way, I’ve seen it mentioned many times on this blog, but what the dickens does MILF stand for? I have no clue.
September 27, 2008 @ 7:31 pmRalph, your site seems to be from my own state of South Kakkalakka.
(I work in Atlanta but live here in Columbia).
Did you guys get nailed by the storm over there in Myrtle Beach?
September 27, 2008 @ 7:32 pmMILF = Mostly Infertile Lesbian Federation
September 27, 2008 @ 7:33 pmMy instincts are to stay quiet.
But MILF means MOMS I‘D LIKE TO F(**in one of its many forms, the street/common/vulgar wise term for sexual intercourse**)
September 27, 2008 @ 7:35 pmJIM,
Elsewhere I hope you are not correct, but we need to prepare for this possibility.
September 27, 2008 @ 7:38 pmRick you raise some interesting points.
What “preparations”, if any, do you think would be needed, in order to ascertain the moxie of this provencial disco Hitler over there in Iran? And do you think there is a fundamental difference in the highly SECULARIST and often pragmatic (even though ideological on most issues) Soviets who were dangerous but rational enough to get their knickers scared by US power VS. a guy like Ahmadenijhad, who so far seems to be playing chicken because either he thinks he can get away with it unscathed, AND/OR he’s not afraid of the afterlife. The US military is more than willing and able to grant his passage to the beyond. Is this real leverage, though?
The Soviets were obnoxious, did make use of “proxy warfare” and “balance of power” games, BUT would back down once their game and bluff was called. Secularists can be scared into submission. Marxism is a or WAS a powerful ideology but had no visions of afterlife. Die, and your next mission is compost for critters. We can scare secularists. They know for them this life is the full monty.
Would this be the same for Little Adolf? Is he all bluster on wanting to send Jerusalem into the stratosphere and ushering in the Age of the 12 Imams?
September 27, 2008 @ 9:46 pmShould we not head this off at the pass, as they say in Westerns, before his nuke quest is made all too real one day?
On one of the debate assessment programs, several points were mad about style. McCain never once looked at Obama which came across as dismissive and demeaning. Three times Obama praised McCain for something and each time McCain rewrded him with an attack, most prominent was hie line “Sen. Obama doesn’t understand” another dismissive phrase.
When McCain referenced his bracelet and the mother of the soldier, and when Obama showed his with a mother’s opposite response, McCain they said became more negative for the rest of the debate. I could never vote for Obama, but McCain is a geuinely angry man who obviously doesn’t even respect Obama. His mannerisms and demeanor may cost him votes.
September 28, 2008 @ 1:04 amRalph – if that part of the speech is the nearest you’ve got to a resignation (which I presume it is, or you would have picked another part) then it’s far from conclusive. I’m sorry, but if you consider that a tender of resignation, then you are wrong. It’s an apology and mea culpa, but no more.
Despite many requests from me, you’ve never justified you’re use of the term ‘marxist’ to describe Obama. I maintain that in appropriating this term to describe something for which a perfectly good word already exists (liberal) you are denying the English language a word for the followers of the teachings of Karl Marx. I expect you’ll ignore the question, stop doing it for a while and then start again, like you usually do.
September 28, 2008 @ 4:52 amKeith – the reason people call Obama a “Marxist” is because “A Night at the Opera” is his favorite movie!
September 28, 2008 @ 6:42 amRick, I liked the last one on Obama’s marxism and I have to admit I can only do the “logic” thing briefly myself. In fact after this entry I am going to another blog to vent.
Wakefield, we are in Garden City but hannah was not that bad. Winds never exceeded 60 mph. We are here because we love the coast and when people ask where we live I tell them “on a sandbar”.
September 28, 2008 @ 10:34 amOn the terminology, I might add that while neither Obama nor his supporters would use the term “marxist” to describe any portion of their idology, and to some this is no less hyperbole than “fascist jackboot” when used to describe an activist foreign policy under Reagan, there are some valid concerns here.
Anyone can deny it. Marx himself said “I am NOT a Marxist!”
“Fascist” might apply to some member of what is called the “paleoconservatives” IF (and only if) they approved of say, controlling or nationalizing large parts of the economy for security reasons. Left winger George Orwell chimed in to say that THAT term is so misused it no longer has any real world meaning as it did in the time of Mussolini. It only means “I hate your politics of faith and family.”
Any advocacy of large control over the economy by right wingers is very rare to here. This lack of connection is the reason why wild descriptions of the conservative social types are often off par. When the left does this adovcating of yet one more “FREE” grab bag goody download politics, it IS more appropriate to say that this is socialistic. We have now a moment where the Democrats are poised to advocate major control of the US economy for the putative purpose of saving polar bears, further regulation, and as we see from the health care issue and the current meltdown, more checks and laws on a variety of transaction. If the shoe fits…….
The historical term for Obama’s kind of populist approach before the time we allowed so much government intervention was:
Marxism.
And like it or not, the mentors for Obama where very well steeped in this. It’s just that the term has lost the connection to the RESULT of certain ideas since most groups and people in the past who used the term to describe themselves also happened to advocate violent revolutions, mixed in Revolution Theology, and played around with guns, bombs, and red flags. And the last several points Obama’s pal Bill Ayers did so, and his former pastor-mentor was partial to the North American version of the heretical Revolution Theology. Think of Jesus holding a machine gun and capped with a red beret instead of thorns.
September 28, 2008 @ 3:45 pmObama is a follower of Saul Alinksy style of social activism.
Obama actively sought the endorsement of the Marxist party Chicago DSA
http://www.chicagodsa.org/
“Our mission is to establish democratic socialism as a political force in the United States and around the world by training and mobilizing socialist activists to participate in a vibrant and diverse socialist organization at both the local and the national level. DSA both educates the public about democratic socialist values and policies and builds progressive coalitions to win victories that move the U.S. and the world toward social democracy. In the near term, democratic socialists struggle for reforms that shift power and resources away from corporate elites and put them in the hands of ordinary citizens. In the long term, democratic socialists fight for a world in which all people share equally in the governing of the economic, political and cultural institutions and relationships that shape their lives. ”
http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng42.html#anchor792932
“About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates … The NP’s political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to “win”. Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.
The political entourage included … Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer’s vacant seat
…The state government can also play a role in redistribution, the allocation of wages and jobs. As Barack Obama noted, when someone gets paid $10 million to eliminate 4,000 jobs, the voters in his district know this is an issue of power not economics. The government can use as tools labor law reform, public works and contracts.
===
For Congressman of the 1st Congressional District, the Executive Committee was faced with two very good candidates. As we are not making endorsements but merely recommendations, we felt no conflict in recommending both Bobby Rush and Barak Obama.
Barak Obama is serving only his second term in the Illinois State Senate so he might be fairly charged with ambition, but the same might have be said of Bobby Rush when he ran against Congressman Charles Hayes. Obama also has put in time at the grass roots, working for five years as a community organizer in Harlem and in Chicago. When Obama participated in a 1996 UofC YDS Townhall Meeting on Economic Insecurity, much of what he had to say was well within the mainstream of European social democracy. To volunteer, call 773 846 2262. Contributions may be sent to Obama for Congress 2000, PO Box 497987, Chicago, IL 60649
===============
So that Marxist group is pleased as punch with him.
Plus the church he goes Trinity United Church of Christ , adheres to a specific philosophy called Black Liberation Theology.. which has it roots in Communist Cuba .. it’s the fusion of Marxism and some sort of Christianty and Black Supremecy.
======
He lauched his one of his runs for office from the Marxist and Terrorist Ayers house.
So it’s very clear to me what Obama’s game is. That he doesn’t go out and wear a hammer and sickle on his lapel is just tactics.
One woujld have to be a fool to think that Obama can be associated with Marxists all of his adult life and that he doesn’t agree with them.
Obama is a deceiver.
September 28, 2008 @ 10:11 pmMaybe in America, I suppose.
You’ve demonstrated that that group was pleased to recommend his candidacy. But democratic socialism is so distantly related to Marxism, so different on some fundamental points, that it’s a very big stretch to call it a Marxist organisation. That’s like someone from a brethren assembly describing me as a Catholic because I attend a protestant church with a minister.
As for Obama being a deceiver – honestly, name me a top politician who isn’t. Bush, Blair, Brown, McCain, Obama, Berlusconi, Putin, Merkel, Sarkozy; not one of them do I trust.
September 29, 2008 @ 1:14 amBack to the topic at the top of the thread – this from the BBC ssems to imply most people saw things differently.
The next four years looks bleak, maybe not being in charge of it could be a blessing in disguise?
September 29, 2008 @ 4:26 amI think that’s putting it mildly. If Obama wins, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Russia, China, Pakistan, North Korea, Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Quaeda are going to play this guy like a fiddle. I think they’re salivating at the prospect even now.
The dictatorships of the world are embarking on their own semi-coordinated surge. As I think we’ve seen, Obama is more likely to cut and run than make hard choices. The world needs the US to be a fighter right now, not an idealist who will be taken advantage of from day one.
September 29, 2008 @ 8:44 amBleak? Not for those of us who know Him! It may be just setting the table! :)
September 29, 2008 @ 10:05 amWhoever wins, what’s going on on the finacial markets worldwide right now is playing into those guys hands. The US won’t be able to afford Iraq after this – nor will anyone else.
September 29, 2008 @ 11:48 amI always wondered by what means the United States would be rendered so irrelevant as to be unmentioned in prophecy.
I guess we’re starting down that road.
September 29, 2008 @ 5:35 pmKeith,
I appreciate your input.
I’ll keep this one shorter for sanity’s sake as well as brevity:
There are many people who lie, yes, but it is the horse of another color to lie about ideology. Or to be coy about radicalist-inspired goals.
While surely he is not on the order of an outright Marxist in the classical sense of the title, and while its true that democratic socialism is the “vote-in your guy” version of watered down Marxism, I find it’s rare that even very early or brief exposures to an idea or impressive moment–or ideology–dosen’t rub someone in profound ways. And exposed he was. And advocate he does.
And rubbing can get you polished or rougher for the exertion.
Unless you’re dumb. Which, of all the accusations yours truly has against the Adonis, that is not one of them.
September 29, 2008 @ 7:17 pmWakefield – thanks for that. I promise that’s the last time I pick someone up for describing ‘the Adonis’ thus.
I do still feel the way I described above -that if Obama is a Marxist then what word do you use for what used to be called marxist – but do see your reasoning.
September 30, 2008 @ 6:42 amEvery single person in Obama’s childhood and early adult life was a marxist or socialist. His grandfather, his grandfather’s friend “Frank” (communist), the person who wrote the letter to Harvard (disciple of Alinski, radical socialist), Wright (black liberation theology, socialist), Ayers (an admitted commie and terrorist), Pfleiger (a practicing bolshevik), and probably others. There is not one person of influence on his thinking that involves liberty, private property, being independent or any other western value that helped create this great nation.
His activities as a young adult prove where his values are grounded. He organized the “masses” to suck more from government, i.e. taxpayers. In the legislature he voted for every socialist scheme presented.
This is the most despicable person ever to have a serious chance of winning the presidency of the USA.
Anyone who does not believe he is at the absolute minimum a socialist, and at the worst a committed communist is simply not paying attention. There is nothing in his background from his youth, to young adult, to voting record to show otherwise.
Maybe the liberals are right, the majority of voters are stupid. Or maybe they are what every socialist/commie wants, just fearful and need a bureaucrat as a personal guide.
September 30, 2008 @ 5:45 pmWell Vince you don’t know for certain it isn’t!
Let’s take Babylon: variously described as Rome of old, Europe of some new fangled semi-world government, or something not yet extant. It all depends on what you think the symbolism means.
Some theologians think these events were all in the past and that Revelation describes the hope given by God via John to comfort those in horrible persecution (the Old Rome interpretation).
Europe in her current shape would have to have a radical shift in politics and demographics and higher birthrates and a warding off of the Islamic elements to once again take the helm of world leadership.
—W
October 1, 2008 @ 12:01 amThe End Time Babylon is a middle east based Revival of the Islamic Caliphate.
The Old Testament is emphatic that the End Time enemy of Israel will be found in the group of countries that directly circle it. He is called The Assyrian, Gog, Pharaoh of Egypt, King of Tyre, King of Babylon.
These are all Middle East and Islamic references today.
Then there is the uncanny similarity between the Jewish/Christian story of what the Antichrist does.. and the Muslim story of what their Mahdi will do.
Then there is the uncanny similarity between the Jewish/Christian story of what the False Prophet does.. and the Muslim story of what their idea of Jesus will do.
October 1, 2008 @ 1:01 pmYes, but the “Beast” might hail from The United States for all we know. Europe is to moribund and no one else is up to the task.
It may be that a “strongman” type will ascend to handle things and “fix” some economic and social and international affairs issues.
A kind of Emperor Palpatine who feels he has the Messianic complex but for whom morals are relative, and uses the Dark Side to get “good” things done and bring peace.
This was always my impression of how/why the people would allow the ascent of such an evil
October 1, 2008 @ 1:35 pmBut we do know. He comes from the remnant of the Turkey-based portion of the Greek Empire, according to Daniel.
October 2, 2008 @ 2:24 amJohn – Katie Curic asked Palin for one Supreme Court decision, besides Roe, that she disagreed with. She could not name one and looked pitiful. McCain has done a disservice to Palin, a disservice to women, and a disservice to the country to nominate somebody so woefully inexperienced. I feel very badly for her, I believe her to be a decent and Godly woman.
In the end, McCain has proven to be every bit as politically motivated as those he criticizes. I hope Gov. Palin doesn’t embarrass herself tonight, but McCain deserves the blame for bring her into this meat grinder called a presidential election.
October 2, 2008 @ 3:21 amRick
This has been brewing too long.
Even if Palin were Jenny-On-The-Spot with her answers I’m not completely convinced it would do the McCain campaign much good. Palin was admittedly not the best move but now it is of little difference.
Of course McCain is, like Obama and all the Senate Crew, a pol. He’s played this in the middle ground, however, free of the cumbersome shackles of ideology. So he thought. And it nailed him to the wall. As many predicted. Mr. agreeable learned the hard way that the realm of ideas matters after all. Obama learned it early. It might be a simple idea–a notion–really, to capitalize on. Children singing some Maoist paean on YouTube about “Change We Need.”
All hail the Leader.
All the “strategery” in the world can’t save McCain now. It would take an incident.
McCain, like Obama, joined the Crew.
The same Crew that just idiotically voted to enrich the bailout with goody bag items including items that will increase insurance premiums and benefit cronies at the local levels.
This was the last nail in the coffin. McCain decided to move with the grove and ignore the advice of 160 plus leading economists who said none of this is necessary.
This election was already decided by the American Idol crowd and Maoist brevities with kiddies, and to note the lack out outrage over what happened last night and the bowing to fear-mongering, it would seem the old adage that the American people get the leaders they deserve. So be it.
This election is already over–and was over–no later than the first glimpse of Obama’s face outside of Chicago politics.
I said it before:
If Bill Ayers’ type baggage and Jeriamiah Wright didn’t blow Obama out of the water–nothing would.
The media decided that Bristol’s baby bump, myths about book banning, and Sarah’s lack of insight on what to do about the Ruskies was more important than Obama’s nutbag pals. And Obama’s foreign policy experience?
Did the Serbs or Croats invade Illinois in the last few years? See how this works?
October 2, 2008 @ 7:52 am