I’m not sure I’m posting this reply in the right place. And yeah, I signed up in 2005 I guess? I had no recollection of that, but when I tried to sign up to post my thing today - it said that username was in use. Surprised me too. But I’m not drive by trolling - by daughter insisted on going to the park, and I do have a job.
I had NO idea that there would be so many replies, and I wasn’t able to read all of them before posting my own response. And please, someone let me know if I’m not replying in the right place. And now I gather that I should have included “(vanity)” next to my title, right?
To everyone being kind and open to my post, thanks. To those not being so kind - I would have done the same thing after 2004.
As for the New Party, I’ve read a little bit about their being some website archive that claims Obama as a candidate. That seems scant evidence and nothing I’m worried about. If it’s real - dig, dig, dig. Make him answer for it. But I don’t believe the man is a socialist. His comment about “spreading the wealth” I felt was an unfortunate way to say “spreading the prosperity.” What he was saying to Joe the plumber was that if the middle class can’t afford to pay the bills, his plumbing business won’t do so well. It’s a bit like “trickle up” economics, so we’ll see how that goes. But all Obama was talking about was a graduated income tax - which we’ve had under several presidents. Supporting what we’ve had for decades doesn’t make him socialist.
As for requiring service, I don’t think it’s a terrible thing. All Israelis have to serve in the military, because it’s necessary for their defense. We have plenty of problems here - and this might be a way towards fixing some of them. We’ll see what the details are, but I don’t think requiring people to help their country is wrong on principle - especially when we’re facing a number of major problems, the main one being the economy. But this does surprise me. It’s a bold initiative that will (as is obvious on FP) rub some people the wrong way.
Someone asked what I felt government can do for me that I can’t do myself. Beyond the obvious infrastructure and national defense aspects, I think there are levers the government can apply at times like these to encourage growth. I don’t like wildly unrestricted big government, but I do believe some government can be applied well. And the thing is - I’ve never bought the idea that the government can’t do anything right. They run the military, and they do a pretty good job. I think people just EXPECT the government to do a bad job, and then don’t demand that it does better.
As for being using my brain - I’ve only got what I’ve got. I read all of Obama’s position papers, lots of articles on him. I read his second book, but not his first. I watched all of the debates he had with Hillary and Edwards, and then with McCain. I feel I know what Obama wants to do.
As for his record - I agree there are some far left elements here and there, and that was a good point for McCain to make. However - and this is another fair criticism - I don’t think anyone can call him “the most liberal senator” because he simply doesn’t have the record. Ted Kennedy makes Obama look like Ted Stevens.
And yes, that is a troubling thing about Obama - his shallow record. That’s why the Economist essentially endorsed him by saying “Take a chance on him.” Because that’s exactly what it is. We know what he’s said he wants to do, his positions are quite thorough. His speeches have, at times, been thorough and identified major policy shifts and directions he would like to take the country. Almost all of these appealed to me.
Is it risky? Yeah, a bit. Is it as big a risk as a lot of you guys think? My God, I hope not. Just as I was glad to be wrong about many things the left thought Bush would bring about.
As for falling in love with a politician. I don’t have to be in love with him to love what he’s trying to do. I disagreed with a lot of what Reagan stood for - but he was a positive President who tried (and mostly succeeded) at bringing the country back from some bad times. And I guess you guys think this a sign of a weak intelligence, but I believe a good speech is important. I believe some of Reagan’s finest speeches, when he would talk in broad terms of the general goodness of America - are landmarks in the American identity. It’s not ALL I look for, but I believe the ability to stir the heart AND the mind with a speech is the sign of a leader. It’s one of the essential skills of leadership at that level.
Now, I’m really not going to do justice to this next bit - but I’ve seen a few people criticize me about Iraq. I never thought Saddam Hussein was a good man, or a good regime. But launching a nearly unilateral war and occupation of Iraq has proven to be disastrous for us. It does seem to be starting to turn around - but in my mind, this was NEVER the front of the war. Al Qaeda might be there now - but any Muslim can grab an AK and say “I’m Al Qaeda!” It’s not like there’s an entrance exam.
To me, there is circular logic employed here. It’s like if we invaded France and the French started fighting back and we said “See! They’re trying to kill us! They’re obviously terrorists, so this war was justified.” Doesn’t that seem insane?
And it’s a simple fact that we’re facing force readiness problems. There has been a lot of public testimony about this. Occupying and stabilizing Iraq should not be our job. We got rid of Saddam - a mission I did not agree with - but we did it. And just to reiterate, I didn’t agree with the mission because it seemed the wrong front at the wrong time. I understand what the neocons were trying to do - essentially throw a democracy grenade into that f-ed up swamp and hope to establish an island of stability. I think it was massively wrong-headed and done on a wing and a prayer.
Here’s the thing about Afghanistan. I feel we have to get Bin Laden. There’s no capital city we can invade, no commanders we can put on trail in Nuremberg. I feel we need to get the symbolic head of this movement to prove we can - to make a point. To say - we’ll get you to. And then I think we should put him on trial and throw him in jail. Not just because I believe in the rule of law, but Bin Laden will be so much more powerful as a martyr, so I say we lock him up. Run video of his parole hearing every so often. At the same time, if we can get him, then just get him. Pull the trigger and be done with it. We’ll worry about the martyrdom thing later.
Now I have a few questions. A lot of you are saying “You’ll reap what you sow” and “Just wait and see how bad this will get.” What, specifically, are you afraid of?
For instance - when you say he’s socialist - beyond the graduated income tax going back to the Clinton-era numbers - what do you think he would do? Bush has already nationalized parts of the economy - do you think Obama would do anything of that magnitude?
Oh, and one final note - I don’t think “guilt by association with advisors” is a fair game to play. I say this after stomping up and down whenever Bush would pick someone I hated. But honestly, I think the reason Obama picked Rahm Emmanuel is to deal with the DEMOCRATS - not Republicans. He knows he’s going to have trouble with the left wing wanting all their goodies delivered and I don’t believe that’s what he intends to do.
I might be wrong, but remember - we’re DEMOCRATS. It’s like herding cats. Who are blind, and deaf and possibly oding on vicodin. I think Rahm is there to keep the dems in line with what Obama wants. After all - what hardline tactic can a guy like Emmanuel take on the minority party?
And that’s my final point. It’s not like there aren’t ANY republicans left in office. We won’t get 60 votes in the senate. The republicans still have a 170+ seats in the house. If Obama really was a Marxist who wanted to get Jay-Z to write a new national anthem - you think they’d let him get away with it? That’s the beauty of our system.
Not to mention John Roberts is the Chief Justice and the court is 5-4 (for the most part) conservative. And Roberts is like, what, 50? He’s going to be there FOREVER.
Finally - if they’re really going to try to make pump action shotguns illegal - that sucks. It will also NEVER pass. Not ever in a million years. A lot of the democrats who won in 2006, and maybe some of them in 2008 - are from more conservative parts of the country. If they vote to ban firearms, they might as well buy their ticket home that day. You think Jim Webb would allow such a thing? He just staked his political future by telling Virginia that Obama would protect gun rights.
But the shotgun thing...I mean - it’s just wrong. They’re just so...satisfying. Imagine that scene at the end of Terminator 2 where Sarah Connor is pumping the shotgun with one hand because her other arm is wounded. Now...imagine that scene with a bolt action carbine.
I don’t think that’s an America any of us want to live in.
I’m sorry if it seems like I’m dodging some of the questions here - there were 300+ posts when I started writing this reply...
And thanks for not deleting me!
This isn't just a casual label. It is based on objective analysis by the National Journal: http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
No, these arroganty know-it-alls think they have learned from the mistakes of their predecessors in the Soviet Union and China, and they can now deploy "REAL" Utopia on earth. They are post-modern, post-marxists, or neo-marxist, if you prefer, and they cleverly call themselves 'progressive', because, after all, who in his right mind is against 'progress'. But to those of us with our eyes open, these 'progressives' are in fact reactionaries wanting to take us back to the failed and murderous experiments of the last century. And they are all, you can't deny, red diaper babies, like Country Joe McDonald, like the sons of the Rosenbergs, every one of them a communist extremist to this day.
Obama is a stealth candidate. Have you read Saul Alinksy's "Rules For Radicals", the interview with the FBI informant who exposed Bill Ayer's Weather Underground plans, or this article: Yes, Barack Obama really is a Manchurian Candidate ? Those are the kind of things you should be reading if you really want to know the truth. I'm glad you came back to respond. You are a rare Obama supporter who is actually willing to discuss issues.
“As for falling in love with a politician. I don’t have to be in love with him to love what he’s trying to do.”
What specifically do you love that he’s (supposedly) trying to do?
Incoherent, but a response nonetheless.
From your question - it seems like you've been gone & only skimmed through the reply posts.
I suggest you go back through the posts & check the links & videos of Obama's own words to see if you come to the same conclusions.
Don't miscontrue our intent. We are not afraid! Good people that say nothing - stand for nothing & we are not willing to do that.
We have made a commitment & we are not backing down.
Posting to yourself is a sign of impending mental collapse.
Also a sign of possibly being one certain repeat troll who gets off on posting to himself.
Gee, Trav... help me out. In the headline vanity, you said "I think he's talking about the police." Now, you admit that he's talking about national service, and go on to say you've read all his positions.
Evidently, then, you did know he wasn't talking about the police. Or else you didn't know, because you hadn't actually read what Yerboys plans are. Either way we have to surmise that you are in fact a troll, and worse are in fact, a liar.
Now get this through your tiny little brain: The Constitution of the United States empowers the Congress (not the President) to raise armies and navies. There is no Constitutional authority anywhere for the President to draft citizens for peacetime purposes. Whether we have problems or not, we don't have any that are large enough that allow a man sworn to support, protect, and defend the Constitution to piss all over it, and that is what this proposal is, plain and simple.
Since the 0bama volunteers won't actually be regular Army, presumably you "progressives" will have no problems with them being quartered -- on a "volunteer" basis of course -- in peoples' homes? What other depredations of our basic rights are you willing to waive in exchange for "fixing our problems?"
Hopefully the young John Roberts and his merry men will have the stones to strike this anti-Constituional claptrap down -- hard.
It's a non-military draft. It's evil. All forms of involuntary servitude are.
Doesn't matter if the person proposing it has a R, D, S, or an I next to their name.
It is evil.
It's good to know y'all are A-O-K with a draft... so long as the person in charge is a Democrat.