We put this little blurb at the top of our blog because, well, this is a blog and blogs list the most current entry at the top of the page. That makes it tough for readers who have just found the site to grasp where we are coming from, which is very important in this blog. So this is a reminder to any reader out there. It's probably best to start at the bottom and read up to fully understand us.
This blog has two contributors, Eric and Tony. Eric is a cafeteria Democrat and Tony is a cafeteria Republican. Although it may not come across this way sometimes, the goal is not to berate the other viewpoint, but rather to show why we disagree. Readers can then comment on either side. Our goal is not push anybody one direction, but rather to present the facts as we see them and let you make up your own mind on the issue. It's very eye opening to see how a democrat justifies their viewpoint, and equally as enlightening to see the rationale of a republican.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
It's been fun -- Tony
I've had some fun with this blog, but this will be my last post. It's getting out of hand and I guess that's normal for an election, but for me, it's not worth loosing any friends over. I read an article yesterday that stated that if Obama looses it's because he is black, basically stating that some people will NOT vote for him because he is black. Do I think that's true, yes, 100%, SOME people might not vote for him because of this. I also believe there are SOME people who ARE voting for him because he's black. I don't know percentages and don't believe in polls either. I don't know how accurate these numbers are, but I do know the media will hype this up for their own benefit, with no regard what it might do to our country. It has no benefit to the outcome of the election, it provides no useful information to the public.
Some last thoughts.
Hollywood:
I think these people are really hurting, seriously, they have deep down issues. Regardless of whether a person is running for office or not, imagine if you were a 17 year old girl and somebody joked with you and said you were pregnant from your own dad. Would that be funny? Put yourself in her shoes. That would seriously hurt you, but the Comedians on SNL think it's funny. I understand that the Hollywood crowd are a bunch of nerdy drama kids who still hold a grudge against the jocks in high school and are still trying to get back at them. It's blatantly obvious how insecure they are and out of touch they are with reality. They have to hate Republicans it's in their contract! The problem is that kids and teens watch TV, and unfortunately they form their opinions from this stuff.
In the end, I think these Hollywoodians are hurting Obama's chances. They think they are freely expressing themselves and they have every right to do that. However, most TV viewers are middle America, the folks who watch American Idol. Is it a coincidence that the most successful "Idols" after the show are country or rock singers? The only people who agree with the actors are other actors, not the voters who actually watch TV. So the more they degrade McCain because of his age or inability to lift his arm or the more they call Alaskans incestuous, so they can get a high five the next morning over a mocha latte' with their jaded friends, the more they push voters away from Obama.
The media is a double edged sword. It helps Obama because he gets all the good press, but it hurts Obama because all the idiot actors are negating all his gains with middle America. In the end, I think that Hollywood will do more harm than good.
As for me, John McCain is not the perfect candidate. But he'll get my vote based on these issues:
*I consider myself a social conservative
*I don't want a national health care system that will force employers to pay into the "national insurance pool". When employers have to start paying into the pool, they won't be able to contribute to employees insurance directly anymore, thus making it more expensive for employees, forcing them to use the National System, which will undoubtedly be horrendous. I've been treated under a socialized health care system while living in England. It's the absolute worst.
*I don't believe in the Robin Hood tax principal. It's unfair to tax the successful people of the world more than anyone else. Everyone should be taxed equally. Those big oil tycoons that the Dems would lead you to believe we are going after are not gonna be hurt by this. It's the small business owners and those who have worked twice as hard to get ahead who will be hurt. The extra taxes are not going towards the National debt, they are going towards more social programs and middle-lower income tax supplements. The "rich" already produce over 90% of the tax revenue our government takes in, now you want to tax them an additional 20% overall. This is a good way to motivate them to find other ways to invest their money for sure, thus ensuring the government brings in less revenue. I, myself, am in the lower-middle class category, so under Obama's plan I wouldn't be affected, but I still think this is terrible for the economy and it's unfair to punish success.
*I believe a lot of people want to eradicate us from the earth. Call me crazy, you won't be the first. Radical Muslims have been going at us for over 30 years and I don't think they will stop. I know Russia and China want to take us down too. I don't know if McCain is too "unstable" to handle this job or not, but I've seen that he has shown good experience thus far in how to fix what the world says "Bush screwed up". I think in general, having a hard line Republican in the Oval office will, at worst, keep the enemies at bay, just out of shear fear of what he might do. I think even if Obama has good intentions, when crazy people like Mahmoud Ajjlakdiwjoejdfajdljdghaijod in Iran see him elected it shows a weakness as a people and he will jump on that opportunity as will other "bad guys".
It's all image. Everyone hates Bush, I get that, but the "bad guys" know that if they do anything stupid, there WILL be repercussions from Bush, so they attack US territories abroad, not CONUS. I do think the next president does need to work more with the other leaders of the world, but do it as a show of comradery, not as a sign of dependence.
All in all, I'm not an economy major, so I have limited knowledge in that area. I know a good deal about World Militaries and how they feel about us, based on my background as an Intelligence Analyst. I'm a social conservative based on my beliefs. So these issues and how I feel about them is why I will vote for John McCain. It's not because Obama's black. I really hope that people will NOT vote for him because he's black or that people WILL vote for him because he's black.
One thing is for sure, the media will take whatever the outcome is and make it into a terrible mess and paint as bleak a picture as possible to sell newspapers. When McCain wins, he'll get the same disrespectful treatment that Bush gets from Hollywood, and Tina Fey will gripe and complain about America as she collects her million dollar pay checks that come from mocking leaders of the country that has given her opportunities beyond imagination.
Some last thoughts.
Hollywood:
I think these people are really hurting, seriously, they have deep down issues. Regardless of whether a person is running for office or not, imagine if you were a 17 year old girl and somebody joked with you and said you were pregnant from your own dad. Would that be funny? Put yourself in her shoes. That would seriously hurt you, but the Comedians on SNL think it's funny. I understand that the Hollywood crowd are a bunch of nerdy drama kids who still hold a grudge against the jocks in high school and are still trying to get back at them. It's blatantly obvious how insecure they are and out of touch they are with reality. They have to hate Republicans it's in their contract! The problem is that kids and teens watch TV, and unfortunately they form their opinions from this stuff.
In the end, I think these Hollywoodians are hurting Obama's chances. They think they are freely expressing themselves and they have every right to do that. However, most TV viewers are middle America, the folks who watch American Idol. Is it a coincidence that the most successful "Idols" after the show are country or rock singers? The only people who agree with the actors are other actors, not the voters who actually watch TV. So the more they degrade McCain because of his age or inability to lift his arm or the more they call Alaskans incestuous, so they can get a high five the next morning over a mocha latte' with their jaded friends, the more they push voters away from Obama.
The media is a double edged sword. It helps Obama because he gets all the good press, but it hurts Obama because all the idiot actors are negating all his gains with middle America. In the end, I think that Hollywood will do more harm than good.
As for me, John McCain is not the perfect candidate. But he'll get my vote based on these issues:
*I consider myself a social conservative
*I don't want a national health care system that will force employers to pay into the "national insurance pool". When employers have to start paying into the pool, they won't be able to contribute to employees insurance directly anymore, thus making it more expensive for employees, forcing them to use the National System, which will undoubtedly be horrendous. I've been treated under a socialized health care system while living in England. It's the absolute worst.
*I don't believe in the Robin Hood tax principal. It's unfair to tax the successful people of the world more than anyone else. Everyone should be taxed equally. Those big oil tycoons that the Dems would lead you to believe we are going after are not gonna be hurt by this. It's the small business owners and those who have worked twice as hard to get ahead who will be hurt. The extra taxes are not going towards the National debt, they are going towards more social programs and middle-lower income tax supplements. The "rich" already produce over 90% of the tax revenue our government takes in, now you want to tax them an additional 20% overall. This is a good way to motivate them to find other ways to invest their money for sure, thus ensuring the government brings in less revenue. I, myself, am in the lower-middle class category, so under Obama's plan I wouldn't be affected, but I still think this is terrible for the economy and it's unfair to punish success.
*I believe a lot of people want to eradicate us from the earth. Call me crazy, you won't be the first. Radical Muslims have been going at us for over 30 years and I don't think they will stop. I know Russia and China want to take us down too. I don't know if McCain is too "unstable" to handle this job or not, but I've seen that he has shown good experience thus far in how to fix what the world says "Bush screwed up". I think in general, having a hard line Republican in the Oval office will, at worst, keep the enemies at bay, just out of shear fear of what he might do. I think even if Obama has good intentions, when crazy people like Mahmoud Ajjlakdiwjoejdfajdljdghaijod in Iran see him elected it shows a weakness as a people and he will jump on that opportunity as will other "bad guys".
It's all image. Everyone hates Bush, I get that, but the "bad guys" know that if they do anything stupid, there WILL be repercussions from Bush, so they attack US territories abroad, not CONUS. I do think the next president does need to work more with the other leaders of the world, but do it as a show of comradery, not as a sign of dependence.
All in all, I'm not an economy major, so I have limited knowledge in that area. I know a good deal about World Militaries and how they feel about us, based on my background as an Intelligence Analyst. I'm a social conservative based on my beliefs. So these issues and how I feel about them is why I will vote for John McCain. It's not because Obama's black. I really hope that people will NOT vote for him because he's black or that people WILL vote for him because he's black.
One thing is for sure, the media will take whatever the outcome is and make it into a terrible mess and paint as bleak a picture as possible to sell newspapers. When McCain wins, he'll get the same disrespectful treatment that Bush gets from Hollywood, and Tina Fey will gripe and complain about America as she collects her million dollar pay checks that come from mocking leaders of the country that has given her opportunities beyond imagination.
Friday, September 19, 2008
How Did I Not See This -- Tony
I was two weeks ahead of the main stream media with the Biden "be a patriot" comment and my "Did McCain Jump The Shark" post came days before I saw several analyst make the same exact remarks on major network political shows. Now, based on an email I just read, I think I'm ahead of the game on this little diddy too.
It makes perfect sense, I just can't believe I didn't figure this out myself. I told several people prior to Obama selecting a VP that he had no choice but to select Hillary. It was his only chance to win. I just assumed he realized that and that he had enough smart people around him to realize that as well. But then he selected Biden, and I was like "What, no way". I thought to myself, that's it, he's done. No way can he win with the likes of Mr. Biden. I should have known, however, that Obama isn't that stupid, in fact, quite the opposite, his Ivy league schooling has benefited him well. He has a plan, a plan that, in fact does include Hillary Clinton as VP.
It's one of those things that once you know the answer, the question seems remarkably simple. Biden isn't stupid, narcissistic maybe, but not stupid. He had to realize that his "be a patriot" comment would draw fire. But now, it opens the door for a dramatic move by Obama and the democratic party. Push Biden out and bring in Hillary. Think about it, imagine the electricity that would run through the Donkey party? It would double the impact that Palin had on the GOP. That would be a huge blow to McCain. If they time it right, and in sync with the GOP coming off the Palin high, it may be catastrophic to the Republicans. Obama can't win with Biden, but he has a really good chance of winning with Hillary. I don't know how they will do it, surely Obama won't admit he made a bad choice, and according to the email I read, Biden will excuse himself due to medical reasons.
I don't know, but as far as conspiracy theories go, this seems very plausible and falls in line with my thoughts all along. Only time will tell, but if it does happen and Obama is elected, the economy is doomed. Higher capital gains on the folks who invest for profit, forcing them to find other ways to invest their money, taking that huge sum away from the government. Brilliant!
It makes perfect sense, I just can't believe I didn't figure this out myself. I told several people prior to Obama selecting a VP that he had no choice but to select Hillary. It was his only chance to win. I just assumed he realized that and that he had enough smart people around him to realize that as well. But then he selected Biden, and I was like "What, no way". I thought to myself, that's it, he's done. No way can he win with the likes of Mr. Biden. I should have known, however, that Obama isn't that stupid, in fact, quite the opposite, his Ivy league schooling has benefited him well. He has a plan, a plan that, in fact does include Hillary Clinton as VP.
It's one of those things that once you know the answer, the question seems remarkably simple. Biden isn't stupid, narcissistic maybe, but not stupid. He had to realize that his "be a patriot" comment would draw fire. But now, it opens the door for a dramatic move by Obama and the democratic party. Push Biden out and bring in Hillary. Think about it, imagine the electricity that would run through the Donkey party? It would double the impact that Palin had on the GOP. That would be a huge blow to McCain. If they time it right, and in sync with the GOP coming off the Palin high, it may be catastrophic to the Republicans. Obama can't win with Biden, but he has a really good chance of winning with Hillary. I don't know how they will do it, surely Obama won't admit he made a bad choice, and according to the email I read, Biden will excuse himself due to medical reasons.
I don't know, but as far as conspiracy theories go, this seems very plausible and falls in line with my thoughts all along. Only time will tell, but if it does happen and Obama is elected, the economy is doomed. Higher capital gains on the folks who invest for profit, forcing them to find other ways to invest their money, taking that huge sum away from the government. Brilliant!
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Forget About Parties -- Tony
I got this email from Gregg. It's very good. It's party neutral. Both candidates are ignoring the issue.
------------------------Start of Article-------------------------
------------------------Start of Article-------------------------
Just saw the headline of McCain and Biden pointing their fingers over the economy, etc, and both of them pretending the elephants in the room don’t even exist. (Hint: AIG is a mouse, not an elephant)
Here’s a couple of the elephants I’ve heard of
So who in government or the financial industrht NINJA loans (No INcome, no Job, no Assets) of 27% of all US residential loans in 2001 was a good idea? Let alone running them up to 44% in 2006!
Both these charts were taken from CNBC’s Fast Money on 03/20/2008. The OFHEO website has had their data for decades. The issue started in the late 90’s.
The bull elephant: Have you seen this I.O.U.S.A. movie put out by the Pete Peterson Foundation? It’s only in 10 cities? Not sure why they’re not pushing it harder ahead of the election. $9 Trillion federal debt, and >$54 Trillion unfunded liabilities, in today’s dollars. That means our government is more than $200,000 in debt for every man, woman and child in the country. Not close enough to home yet? Your current contribution to federal taxes defrays a $3 trillion annual budget. So, to estimate how much you personally need to pay TODAY so we can get back to EVEN, multiply your company & personal annual tax bill by 21x (($9T+$54T) / $3T).
Why is it acceptable for none of the media or candidates to be talking straight about this?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
McCain In Tampa -- Tony
McCain was in Tampa today holding a rally. Jaime and I decided to go check it out. Here are a couple photos from the event....Click on photo to enlarge!
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Zero to Oil In 3 years -- Tony
Contrary to what I've been hearing the last few months, this Representative says it won't take 10 years to produce oil, it only takes 3 years.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
I'm back on board -- Tony
From McCain's Interview tonight, a quick and good response to the question "why aren't there more elite class people in the military" he answered. "When the elite schools let ROTC on their campuses"
After writing my last entry when I was a little disenchanted with the McCain campaign over the negative ads, I'm back on board after watching McCain answer these questions tonight.....
After writing my last entry when I was a little disenchanted with the McCain campaign over the negative ads, I'm back on board after watching McCain answer these questions tonight.....
Did McCain Jump The Shark? -- Tony
For those of you who don't know what jumping the shark means, click here.
It's been a while since I've posted, I'd tell you why but that would sound like an excuse and I hate excuses.
Anyway, I didn't say anything out loud, but in my smug little brain I really thought that when Obama selected Biden as his VP, he jumped the shark. Seriously, I think that was such a huge mistake and I still believe that now. What I am doing now is banging my head against the wall of my hotel room, because I think in the last week or so, McCain has also jumped the shark. Now I don't know proper "Jump The Shark" protocol, so I don't know if it goes in order of who did it first or who did it worse?
I think you are probably very confused right now, and I think I just confused myself, but let me explain.
What I liked about McCain was his integrity. I think he got to where he is because of this. The GOP hated him, yet he still voted against them when he believed in something different. Americans were calling the war in Iraq the second Vietnam and wanted our troops home, yet he said "send more" which was not popular. If Bush (or Rumsfeld) had listened to him in the beginning, Iraq would have been stable much earlier. What I'm trying to get at here is that McCain did not play the typical politician role to get where he is. Unlike Obama, who told the Jews he loves Bar-Mitzvahs (sp?)one day, then turns around and tells the Palestinians that Jerusalem should be divided. This is a main reason why I initially backed McCain. Up until about a month ago, I thought he was running his campaign beautifully, keeping quiet, resting on his experience. Now it seems in the last few weeks he has done a complete 180.
Selecting Sarah Palin, was a brilliant move (so far :-). But everything he's done since that point with his negative ads deserves a huge "FAIL" tag. Don't get me wrong, I know negative ads are part of the game, but unlike Bush, I don't think McCain needed to dirty up Obama the way Bush needed to dirty up Kerry. I think as time has gone by and will go on, people will see Obama for what he is, what he stands for, and what he would do as President (like it or not). Between him and Joe Biden, I think they are doing a great job of digging their own holes.
I'm not going to get into the facts about the ads themselves, but both candidates are throwing out these ads based on half truths. The ad that McCain put out when Biden was selected as VP that showed Biden saying McCain would make a better President...BRILLIANT, pure genius in my opinion. The ad about Obama wanting Sex Ed for Kindergartners is juvinile politics. I went to factcheck.org (thanks Mom!) and read the bill, and I don't know if "sex ed" is the best way to describe it, but teaching little kids how to recognize sexual abuse and ways to protect themselves from pedophiles is not really a bad thing to me. Does it need to fall under a sex education bill, I don't think so, but the McCain ad is very misleading.
I'm not switching sides here, I'm just saying McCain didn't need to throw this "insult to our intelligence" out there. It's like he's trying to trick us into hating Obama. It's not about hating Obama, it's about knowing John McCain is the best choice for President.
Obama has the same misleading ads; one stating that "McCain voted to cut education funding". It's almost completely untrue. He voted FOR the bill just not for the amount the democrats wanted.
The list goes on and on....I understand both candidates are doing this, but the difference is, McCain doesn't have to, he has experience and a long resume to run on. Obama doesn't have anything to run on, other than his pledge to help the poor and middle class with tax money from the "rich". So he has to go after Palin and McCain.
I thought for sure McCain had this thing locked up, but now I think if he keeps going negative, it will hurt his cause. If you are running on a platform of integrity and values, you better be putting ads out that show YOUR integrity and values and not half truth smear ads against your opponent.
Everyone I talk to tells me Obama has this thing already won and it won't even be close. I guess I'm the only one that thinks the opposite, but only if McCain and Rick Davis, his campaign manager, read this blog and stop with the misleading ads :-)
It's been a while since I've posted, I'd tell you why but that would sound like an excuse and I hate excuses.
Anyway, I didn't say anything out loud, but in my smug little brain I really thought that when Obama selected Biden as his VP, he jumped the shark. Seriously, I think that was such a huge mistake and I still believe that now. What I am doing now is banging my head against the wall of my hotel room, because I think in the last week or so, McCain has also jumped the shark. Now I don't know proper "Jump The Shark" protocol, so I don't know if it goes in order of who did it first or who did it worse?
I think you are probably very confused right now, and I think I just confused myself, but let me explain.
What I liked about McCain was his integrity. I think he got to where he is because of this. The GOP hated him, yet he still voted against them when he believed in something different. Americans were calling the war in Iraq the second Vietnam and wanted our troops home, yet he said "send more" which was not popular. If Bush (or Rumsfeld) had listened to him in the beginning, Iraq would have been stable much earlier. What I'm trying to get at here is that McCain did not play the typical politician role to get where he is. Unlike Obama, who told the Jews he loves Bar-Mitzvahs (sp?)one day, then turns around and tells the Palestinians that Jerusalem should be divided. This is a main reason why I initially backed McCain. Up until about a month ago, I thought he was running his campaign beautifully, keeping quiet, resting on his experience. Now it seems in the last few weeks he has done a complete 180.
Selecting Sarah Palin, was a brilliant move (so far :-). But everything he's done since that point with his negative ads deserves a huge "FAIL" tag. Don't get me wrong, I know negative ads are part of the game, but unlike Bush, I don't think McCain needed to dirty up Obama the way Bush needed to dirty up Kerry. I think as time has gone by and will go on, people will see Obama for what he is, what he stands for, and what he would do as President (like it or not). Between him and Joe Biden, I think they are doing a great job of digging their own holes.
I'm not going to get into the facts about the ads themselves, but both candidates are throwing out these ads based on half truths. The ad that McCain put out when Biden was selected as VP that showed Biden saying McCain would make a better President...BRILLIANT, pure genius in my opinion. The ad about Obama wanting Sex Ed for Kindergartners is juvinile politics. I went to factcheck.org (thanks Mom!) and read the bill, and I don't know if "sex ed" is the best way to describe it, but teaching little kids how to recognize sexual abuse and ways to protect themselves from pedophiles is not really a bad thing to me. Does it need to fall under a sex education bill, I don't think so, but the McCain ad is very misleading.
I'm not switching sides here, I'm just saying McCain didn't need to throw this "insult to our intelligence" out there. It's like he's trying to trick us into hating Obama. It's not about hating Obama, it's about knowing John McCain is the best choice for President.
Obama has the same misleading ads; one stating that "McCain voted to cut education funding". It's almost completely untrue. He voted FOR the bill just not for the amount the democrats wanted.
The list goes on and on....I understand both candidates are doing this, but the difference is, McCain doesn't have to, he has experience and a long resume to run on. Obama doesn't have anything to run on, other than his pledge to help the poor and middle class with tax money from the "rich". So he has to go after Palin and McCain.
I thought for sure McCain had this thing locked up, but now I think if he keeps going negative, it will hurt his cause. If you are running on a platform of integrity and values, you better be putting ads out that show YOUR integrity and values and not half truth smear ads against your opponent.
Everyone I talk to tells me Obama has this thing already won and it won't even be close. I guess I'm the only one that thinks the opposite, but only if McCain and Rick Davis, his campaign manager, read this blog and stop with the misleading ads :-)
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Sarah Palin - Good Job! -- Eric
Man, she knocked it out of the park last night. I was thinking that she wasn't prepared for the big stage, but how wrong was I? The republicans have a very good ticket, and they're prepared to fight for the highest office in the land. Given all of the accomplishments over Gov. Palin's career, and her relative proximity to Russia, I still don't know if I buy into the fact that she would be prepared to lead if necessary. I don't know how long she's had her mind on international affairs, and say what you want about Barack and him running for the presidency so soon after going to the Senate, worldly affairs have been front and center in his message. So, I take nothing away from McCain-Palin. They are both great in their own right.
Onto Barack, and why I'm supporting him. Barack opposed the war, and they called him naive, citing Iraq should not have been our primary concern at that point in time. Many months later, there were no ties to Al Qaeda, and no WMD found.
Barack called, from the very start of his presidential bid, for a troop withdrawal from Iraq. I think it was termed, "cut and run". McCain, and the current administration now also support the withdrawal, but with a difference in the semantics. The republican withdrawal is responsible, and Barack called for one based on him wanting to leave defeated. I know there will be arguments that the only reason we are able to leave now is because of the surge, and the payments to the "Sons of Iraq". However, in my mind, the surge was necessary to get us out of a war that should never have been voted on. So, if the surge worked, and the money flows, if that gets us out of there, so be it.
Barack says he would meet with the with Iranian leaders, without preconditions. The conservative media all but burned his books for saying that, and pointed out how clueless he is on National Security and foreign policy. Bush called him on "appeasing" them. Not wanting to eat so much crow, Bush sends his No. 3 man from the State Dept., in to talk to the Iranians, and without the same preconditions Barack spoke of. That crazy Barack, MIGHT just be onto something here.
Now here we are, going after the leaders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan. I read that this morning, and I thought I had something wrong. Again, Barack was taken to task for saying that he would support going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan, and there was a whole revolt, by conservatives, about invading our allies.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but what am I missing here? To me, this shows judgment. To me, it appears he was right on issues when they were unpopular, and these things have now come to pass. To a regular guy like me, it shows that he's able to navigate conflict, and know when to observe, and when to talk, and when to attack. Then again, these are only my opinions, and I'm sure everyone has their take.
Onto Barack, and why I'm supporting him. Barack opposed the war, and they called him naive, citing Iraq should not have been our primary concern at that point in time. Many months later, there were no ties to Al Qaeda, and no WMD found.
Barack called, from the very start of his presidential bid, for a troop withdrawal from Iraq. I think it was termed, "cut and run". McCain, and the current administration now also support the withdrawal, but with a difference in the semantics. The republican withdrawal is responsible, and Barack called for one based on him wanting to leave defeated. I know there will be arguments that the only reason we are able to leave now is because of the surge, and the payments to the "Sons of Iraq". However, in my mind, the surge was necessary to get us out of a war that should never have been voted on. So, if the surge worked, and the money flows, if that gets us out of there, so be it.
Barack says he would meet with the with Iranian leaders, without preconditions. The conservative media all but burned his books for saying that, and pointed out how clueless he is on National Security and foreign policy. Bush called him on "appeasing" them. Not wanting to eat so much crow, Bush sends his No. 3 man from the State Dept., in to talk to the Iranians, and without the same preconditions Barack spoke of. That crazy Barack, MIGHT just be onto something here.
Now here we are, going after the leaders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan. I read that this morning, and I thought I had something wrong. Again, Barack was taken to task for saying that he would support going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan, and there was a whole revolt, by conservatives, about invading our allies.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but what am I missing here? To me, this shows judgment. To me, it appears he was right on issues when they were unpopular, and these things have now come to pass. To a regular guy like me, it shows that he's able to navigate conflict, and know when to observe, and when to talk, and when to attack. Then again, these are only my opinions, and I'm sure everyone has their take.
Joe Biden, The Patriot -- Tony
Yesterday, Joe Biden was in my neck of the woods, sitting in a Town Hall with about 2,000 members of the Obama Nation. One lady in the audience asked him this question: "What do I tell my friends who make over 250k" to which, the eloquent Joe Biden replied "It's time to be patriotic, that's what you say to them."
When I first heard this, I had to walk out of the room and calm down. I didn't want to put my foot through the TV. Biden has come completely unhinged here. First of all, let me explain again that the revenue from these additional taxes on the "rich" is not going towards paying off our national debt. It's not going back into balancing our current budget. This extra revenue will be used to:
*Cover the tax breaks he is promising to the lower-middle class.
*Cover the taxes the Seniors making under 50K won't be paying.
*Cover the cost of his National Health Insurance Plan.
*Cover the cost of his increased unemployment insurance plan.
These are only a few of his new Social Programs. Under his Blueprint, he says he will pay for the other programs by decreasing discretionary spending (bringing us out of Iraq) and cutting wasteful spending. So I won't address those programs.
I want to re-iterate the fact that I fall into the Lower-middle class category, I would personally benefit from the Obama tax plan. I'm just saying this to make it clear, I'm speaking from an unbiased position.
If, in fact, Obama's concern was to pay off the National Debt, then I could at least see how he could call it "Patriotic". Even then, I feel that we are all Americans and we are all responsible for the National debt, so I think taxes should be raised across the board, not just those making over 250k. I mean with the Bush tax cuts running out (equallying a 4.5% increase), the additional 2-4% tax increase, and the 3-6% increase in Social Security contribution, people making over 250k are looking at an additional 10-15% tax increase. That's just on personal taxes for their families. That's not including the 5% increase in corporate taxes and the 10% increase in capital gains taxes (which is applied to all income groups).
So, essentially what Biden is saying is that if you don't feel this is fair, you are unpatriotic? If you disagree with a National Health Insurance plan, you are unpatriotic. If you don't agree with increased unemployment insurance you are unpatriotic.
Look, I'm not saying I don't care about people. I think it's a stereotype that republicans are spoiled rich people with no concern for anybody but themselves. But that is so far from the truth. I personally will have around $5,000 in charitable contributions this year, between my church, St. Jude's Hospital, and the Christian Children's fund. 95% of the people in my church will have at least that much in charitable contributions. My church as a whole spends hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in the community and various programs. Republicans are not saying not to help the needy, what we are saying is that it is not the role of the government to dictate who we help. I think Republicans are probably the most giving group around.
So to bring this back around, for Biden to say it's patriotic to tax those successful people who make 250K is crazy to me. Putting them on a guilt trip to appeal to lower income people is as wrong as telling somebody on welfare it's their fault deal with it....equally as ignorant.
When I first heard this, I had to walk out of the room and calm down. I didn't want to put my foot through the TV. Biden has come completely unhinged here. First of all, let me explain again that the revenue from these additional taxes on the "rich" is not going towards paying off our national debt. It's not going back into balancing our current budget. This extra revenue will be used to:
*Cover the tax breaks he is promising to the lower-middle class.
*Cover the taxes the Seniors making under 50K won't be paying.
*Cover the cost of his National Health Insurance Plan.
*Cover the cost of his increased unemployment insurance plan.
These are only a few of his new Social Programs. Under his Blueprint, he says he will pay for the other programs by decreasing discretionary spending (bringing us out of Iraq) and cutting wasteful spending. So I won't address those programs.
I want to re-iterate the fact that I fall into the Lower-middle class category, I would personally benefit from the Obama tax plan. I'm just saying this to make it clear, I'm speaking from an unbiased position.
If, in fact, Obama's concern was to pay off the National Debt, then I could at least see how he could call it "Patriotic". Even then, I feel that we are all Americans and we are all responsible for the National debt, so I think taxes should be raised across the board, not just those making over 250k. I mean with the Bush tax cuts running out (equallying a 4.5% increase), the additional 2-4% tax increase, and the 3-6% increase in Social Security contribution, people making over 250k are looking at an additional 10-15% tax increase. That's just on personal taxes for their families. That's not including the 5% increase in corporate taxes and the 10% increase in capital gains taxes (which is applied to all income groups).
So, essentially what Biden is saying is that if you don't feel this is fair, you are unpatriotic? If you disagree with a National Health Insurance plan, you are unpatriotic. If you don't agree with increased unemployment insurance you are unpatriotic.
Look, I'm not saying I don't care about people. I think it's a stereotype that republicans are spoiled rich people with no concern for anybody but themselves. But that is so far from the truth. I personally will have around $5,000 in charitable contributions this year, between my church, St. Jude's Hospital, and the Christian Children's fund. 95% of the people in my church will have at least that much in charitable contributions. My church as a whole spends hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in the community and various programs. Republicans are not saying not to help the needy, what we are saying is that it is not the role of the government to dictate who we help. I think Republicans are probably the most giving group around.
So to bring this back around, for Biden to say it's patriotic to tax those successful people who make 250K is crazy to me. Putting them on a guilt trip to appeal to lower income people is as wrong as telling somebody on welfare it's their fault deal with it....equally as ignorant.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Crazy Nut Jobs -- Tony
I'm just sitting here watching the RNC and I see that crazy nut jobs with big hats and painted faces are not limited to the DNC. I'm going to be watching them to see how they react to the speeches. But I don't see any signs with a picture of Bill Clinton with a big red "X" through them. Don't they know they are supposed to hate...They need to stop smiling and start chanting.
The Tax Plans -- Tony
All of this information is from the "Presidential Candidates Tax Plans" pdf found HERE:
I suggest you read through it on your own. It gives you as much detail as you want to form your own opinion.
What I've done below is summarize based on the document, but first some housekeeping (background info).
What exactly will happen when the "Bush tax cuts" run out in 2010? This is a good summary of what will happen:
"...this means that in 2011 the 10 percent tax bracket will disappear; the current 28, 33, and 35 percent tax rates will increase to 31, 36, and 39.6 percent, respectively; the capital gains rates will increase from 0 and 15 percent to 8 or 10 and 18 or 20 percent (with the lower rate applying to long-held assets); the child credit will shrink to $500 per child and be nonrefundable for most taxpayers; the top of the 15 percent bracket and the standard deduction for married couples will no longer be set to double the amounts for single filers; the top estate tax rate will increase to 55 percent and the exemption will decline to $1 million; and numerous other provisions will revert to their previous form or expire. ..."
What is the Alternative Minimum Tax?
"...Individuals must compute their taxes under both the regular tax and the alternative minimum tax. If the alternative minimum tax exceeds the regular tax, taxpayers must pay the higher amount. The AMT requires taxpayers to add a number of otherwise untaxed items (including personal exemptions, state and local tax deductions and certain other deductions) to their taxable income and disallows some tax credits, but taxpayers may also claim a special AMT exemption. Since 2001, the AMT exemption has been temporarily increased for a year or two at a time to prevent large numbers of taxpayers from becoming subject to the tax. In 2007, the exemption was $66,250 for joint returns and $44,350 for singles and heads of household. But, in 2008, the AMT exemption is set to return to its 2000 level—$45,000 for couples and $33,750 for singles and heads of household—and the number of taxpayers subject to the AMT is projected to increase from 3.5 million in 2007 to 26.5 million in 2008. ..."
Now for the plans:
McCain's Tax Plan:
*Make Bush's tax cuts permanent - Essentially leaving the high marginal income tax rate of 35% in place for personal income taxes.
*Lower the corporate income tax rate - Essentially reducing the current 35% rate to 25% for corporate taxes.
*Leave capital gains tax as is
*Increase deductions for taxpayers with dependents (2/3rd increase)
*Extend the Alternative Minimum Tax "Patch" to keep the higher deductions
*Elimination of prefferential tax treatment for oil companies
*Review and eliminate many loopholes in the tax code
Obama's Tax Plan:
*For people with income under 250K, he would extend "certain provisions" of the Bush tax cuts. Essentially leaving them in place
*For people over 250K, he will immediately end the tax cuts and raise the marginal tax rate between 2 and 4 percent and add a 2 percent Social Security tax increase and restore the phaseouts of personal exemptions and itemized deductions.
*Raise capital gains tax to 20%
*Extend the Alternative Minimum Tax "Patch" to keep the higher deductions (just like McCain)
*Expand the amount of Earned Income Credit
*For incomes under 75K he will put in place a "Make Work Pay" tax credit to give families up to $500 additional dollars ( http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm )
*Tax cuts for seniors making under 50K
*Review and eliminate many loopholes in the tax code
These are just the main points. These are just tax issues. This is not about addressing the social programs these taxes will pay for, just the tax issue itself.
My purpose here is to explain how I see the situation, not to sway anybody. Hopefully Eric will do the same.
I am not totally on board with McCains tax plan. I don't think the Corporate tax rate needs to be reduced from 35% to 25%. Under Clinton it was 40%, so I personally feel that 35% is a fair enough number to keep companies from running off to India (those that haven't already). On top of that, I don't agree with the repeal of the estate tax. I mean gifted amounts up to 695K are already tax free and I PERSONALLY feel that a gift of 7 million should be taxable. It wasn't earned, it was a gift, although if tax was already paid on that amount by the giver why should the money be re-taxed? I don't know, maybe I do agree with this repeal, I don't know.... I also don't think we need to increase the dependent deduction. The normal increase for inflation is sufficient for me. Other than that, I think the Bush tax cuts should remain in place. I think the economy was fine prior to the housing bubble going POP. Yes, because of the war, we are digging ourselves a hole, with the deficit that is. McCain plans to have a balanced budget (and thus a chance to start working towards paying back the deficit) by 2013. He plans on doing this by cutting back on discretionary spending (read defense spending) and stopping earmarks and other frivolous programs. In fact he has a reputation for butting heads with the GOP on these issues already.
On the surface, Obama's plan seems like a home run. I fall into that lower-middle class category, so for me, according to his website my taxes won't go up. I am still a little vague on this because he says he will extend "certain provisions" of the Bush tax cuts. But for the sake of this post, I'll assume my tax status won't change. So some would say, where's the problem then. Obama says it best himself, he "wants tax fairness" and believes that "everyone should pay their fair share of taxes". I agree with that statement, but my definition of fair is different from Obama's definition. I'm well aware that both sides use mis-worded phrases to get their point across, remember Hannity and the "Obama tire pressure energy plan". The left uses the same technique. They say Obama will go after the "rich" and make them pay their fair share of taxes. An image of a spoiled country club boy name Chip comes to mind, you know like the horrible lacrosse boys from Duke. It makes you think that yes, those spoiled brats deserve to pay more taxes, they don't deserve it.....but in reality, Obama's definition of "rich" is $250k. Seems like alot. To me it is a lot. My wife doesn't work, I live in a low income area. But in areas like DC, New York, LA, San Fran, insert any other major metro area, 250K for a family of 4 is probably above average, but not so much that I feel they should be shouldering the burden of everyone else. Under the current tax code, low income families already don't pay any income tax or at worst a minute amount.
I guess it all comes down to what you believe is right. If you believe people making over 250k should be held to pay more than their fair share of taxes, then you can legitimatley support Obama's tax plan. I don't make 250K, I'll probably never make 250K, but I can strive to get there, I can continue to take training courses, get certifications, learn new technologies in an effort to make myself more marketable, so that one day maybe I can get there. I just feel that you are punishing success and making people who succeed feel guilty for it. According to the 2007 Tax Schedule from the IRS website, those in the upper echelon (above 349k) pay 35% plus 36% on any amount over that 349k with no limit. That 35% is higher than the 28% people in the lower echelon pay. Maybe I'm missing something here, but it looks to me like those with a personal income over 349k pay a higher percentage than those with an income under 31k. That is at face value, not taking into account any deductions. A common argument is that those "rich" people have more money to hire better accountants to find more loopholes and tax shelters. That is true, I won't argue that. But that is not a problem with the tax code, that is a problem with loopholes in the tax code, which both candidates say they will address. I'm no fool, I know people are taking advantage of the system, but studies show that when the tax rate goes up (as under Clinton) the amount of personal deductions rise to compensate, across the board. So when you raise the taxes on those "rich" they will just get their fancy accountants to work harder.
If the tax increase was going towards the national debt, I may be able to buy into it, but I think it should be across the board, not weighted towards successful business people or consultants footing more of the bill. But Obama's taxes are not going towards paying off the national debt, they are simply paying for the new tax breaks for the lower income and new social programs. Very simply put, it is the Robin Hood principal.
Look, I'm trying my very best to believe these tax cuts are fair and will benefit us. I just don't think it's fair to demonize people who make over 250k and ask them to foot more than their fair share of the bill. It's like the harder you work, the less breaks you get. Let them do it voluntarily if they want to.....Put a line on the tax form that allows the "rich" to apply an extra amount towards lower income people.
To me, IN MY OPINION, I think the tax code as is is fine. Once we get out of Iraq, weed out the wasteful spending, eliminate earmarks, etc... we will be able to get back to a balanced budget under McCain's plan. Like I said, I disagree with lowering corporate tax rates, they are fine like they are. I think Obama will have to find more tax money to cover the National Health Care plan and other programs he has in his Blueprint. There are alot of documents I've found that show how Obama's "tax the rich" strategy will actually hurt the lower and middle class, but I couldn't fully grasp them, so I didn't address them. Here is a chart from this article, but I must restate, I don't fully get it:
I suggest you read through it on your own. It gives you as much detail as you want to form your own opinion.
What I've done below is summarize based on the document, but first some housekeeping (background info).
What exactly will happen when the "Bush tax cuts" run out in 2010? This is a good summary of what will happen:
"...this means that in 2011 the 10 percent tax bracket will disappear; the current 28, 33, and 35 percent tax rates will increase to 31, 36, and 39.6 percent, respectively; the capital gains rates will increase from 0 and 15 percent to 8 or 10 and 18 or 20 percent (with the lower rate applying to long-held assets); the child credit will shrink to $500 per child and be nonrefundable for most taxpayers; the top of the 15 percent bracket and the standard deduction for married couples will no longer be set to double the amounts for single filers; the top estate tax rate will increase to 55 percent and the exemption will decline to $1 million; and numerous other provisions will revert to their previous form or expire. ..."
What is the Alternative Minimum Tax?
"...Individuals must compute their taxes under both the regular tax and the alternative minimum tax. If the alternative minimum tax exceeds the regular tax, taxpayers must pay the higher amount. The AMT requires taxpayers to add a number of otherwise untaxed items (including personal exemptions, state and local tax deductions and certain other deductions) to their taxable income and disallows some tax credits, but taxpayers may also claim a special AMT exemption. Since 2001, the AMT exemption has been temporarily increased for a year or two at a time to prevent large numbers of taxpayers from becoming subject to the tax. In 2007, the exemption was $66,250 for joint returns and $44,350 for singles and heads of household. But, in 2008, the AMT exemption is set to return to its 2000 level—$45,000 for couples and $33,750 for singles and heads of household—and the number of taxpayers subject to the AMT is projected to increase from 3.5 million in 2007 to 26.5 million in 2008. ..."
Now for the plans:
McCain's Tax Plan:
*Make Bush's tax cuts permanent - Essentially leaving the high marginal income tax rate of 35% in place for personal income taxes.
*Lower the corporate income tax rate - Essentially reducing the current 35% rate to 25% for corporate taxes.
*Leave capital gains tax as is
*Increase deductions for taxpayers with dependents (2/3rd increase)
*Extend the Alternative Minimum Tax "Patch" to keep the higher deductions
*Elimination of prefferential tax treatment for oil companies
*Review and eliminate many loopholes in the tax code
Obama's Tax Plan:
*For people with income under 250K, he would extend "certain provisions" of the Bush tax cuts. Essentially leaving them in place
*For people over 250K, he will immediately end the tax cuts and raise the marginal tax rate between 2 and 4 percent and add a 2 percent Social Security tax increase and restore the phaseouts of personal exemptions and itemized deductions.
*Raise capital gains tax to 20%
*Extend the Alternative Minimum Tax "Patch" to keep the higher deductions (just like McCain)
*Expand the amount of Earned Income Credit
*For incomes under 75K he will put in place a "Make Work Pay" tax credit to give families up to $500 additional dollars ( http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm )
*Tax cuts for seniors making under 50K
*Review and eliminate many loopholes in the tax code
These are just the main points. These are just tax issues. This is not about addressing the social programs these taxes will pay for, just the tax issue itself.
My purpose here is to explain how I see the situation, not to sway anybody. Hopefully Eric will do the same.
I am not totally on board with McCains tax plan. I don't think the Corporate tax rate needs to be reduced from 35% to 25%. Under Clinton it was 40%, so I personally feel that 35% is a fair enough number to keep companies from running off to India (those that haven't already). On top of that, I don't agree with the repeal of the estate tax. I mean gifted amounts up to 695K are already tax free and I PERSONALLY feel that a gift of 7 million should be taxable. It wasn't earned, it was a gift, although if tax was already paid on that amount by the giver why should the money be re-taxed? I don't know, maybe I do agree with this repeal, I don't know.... I also don't think we need to increase the dependent deduction. The normal increase for inflation is sufficient for me. Other than that, I think the Bush tax cuts should remain in place. I think the economy was fine prior to the housing bubble going POP. Yes, because of the war, we are digging ourselves a hole, with the deficit that is. McCain plans to have a balanced budget (and thus a chance to start working towards paying back the deficit) by 2013. He plans on doing this by cutting back on discretionary spending (read defense spending) and stopping earmarks and other frivolous programs. In fact he has a reputation for butting heads with the GOP on these issues already.
On the surface, Obama's plan seems like a home run. I fall into that lower-middle class category, so for me, according to his website my taxes won't go up. I am still a little vague on this because he says he will extend "certain provisions" of the Bush tax cuts. But for the sake of this post, I'll assume my tax status won't change. So some would say, where's the problem then. Obama says it best himself, he "wants tax fairness" and believes that "everyone should pay their fair share of taxes". I agree with that statement, but my definition of fair is different from Obama's definition. I'm well aware that both sides use mis-worded phrases to get their point across, remember Hannity and the "Obama tire pressure energy plan". The left uses the same technique. They say Obama will go after the "rich" and make them pay their fair share of taxes. An image of a spoiled country club boy name Chip comes to mind, you know like the horrible lacrosse boys from Duke. It makes you think that yes, those spoiled brats deserve to pay more taxes, they don't deserve it.....but in reality, Obama's definition of "rich" is $250k. Seems like alot. To me it is a lot. My wife doesn't work, I live in a low income area. But in areas like DC, New York, LA, San Fran, insert any other major metro area, 250K for a family of 4 is probably above average, but not so much that I feel they should be shouldering the burden of everyone else. Under the current tax code, low income families already don't pay any income tax or at worst a minute amount.
I guess it all comes down to what you believe is right. If you believe people making over 250k should be held to pay more than their fair share of taxes, then you can legitimatley support Obama's tax plan. I don't make 250K, I'll probably never make 250K, but I can strive to get there, I can continue to take training courses, get certifications, learn new technologies in an effort to make myself more marketable, so that one day maybe I can get there. I just feel that you are punishing success and making people who succeed feel guilty for it. According to the 2007 Tax Schedule from the IRS website, those in the upper echelon (above 349k) pay 35% plus 36% on any amount over that 349k with no limit. That 35% is higher than the 28% people in the lower echelon pay. Maybe I'm missing something here, but it looks to me like those with a personal income over 349k pay a higher percentage than those with an income under 31k. That is at face value, not taking into account any deductions. A common argument is that those "rich" people have more money to hire better accountants to find more loopholes and tax shelters. That is true, I won't argue that. But that is not a problem with the tax code, that is a problem with loopholes in the tax code, which both candidates say they will address. I'm no fool, I know people are taking advantage of the system, but studies show that when the tax rate goes up (as under Clinton) the amount of personal deductions rise to compensate, across the board. So when you raise the taxes on those "rich" they will just get their fancy accountants to work harder.
If the tax increase was going towards the national debt, I may be able to buy into it, but I think it should be across the board, not weighted towards successful business people or consultants footing more of the bill. But Obama's taxes are not going towards paying off the national debt, they are simply paying for the new tax breaks for the lower income and new social programs. Very simply put, it is the Robin Hood principal.
Look, I'm trying my very best to believe these tax cuts are fair and will benefit us. I just don't think it's fair to demonize people who make over 250k and ask them to foot more than their fair share of the bill. It's like the harder you work, the less breaks you get. Let them do it voluntarily if they want to.....Put a line on the tax form that allows the "rich" to apply an extra amount towards lower income people.
To me, IN MY OPINION, I think the tax code as is is fine. Once we get out of Iraq, weed out the wasteful spending, eliminate earmarks, etc... we will be able to get back to a balanced budget under McCain's plan. Like I said, I disagree with lowering corporate tax rates, they are fine like they are. I think Obama will have to find more tax money to cover the National Health Care plan and other programs he has in his Blueprint. There are alot of documents I've found that show how Obama's "tax the rich" strategy will actually hurt the lower and middle class, but I couldn't fully grasp them, so I didn't address them. Here is a chart from this article, but I must restate, I don't fully get it:
Monday, September 1, 2008
Extremist Hurt Their Cause-- Tony
In reference to the left wing derogatory statements against Sarah Palin's daughter, I really thought Obama's response was a good one. I give him a lot of credit for this "no nonsense answer".
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_on_Palin.html?showall
These people do the Democrats a disservice.
So do these idiots....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_convention_protests
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_on_Palin.html?showall
These people do the Democrats a disservice.
So do these idiots....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_convention_protests
Saturday, August 30, 2008
What The....Who? -- Tony
Sarah Palin was a surprise to me. Completely out of left field. I thought for sure McCain was going with Romney, a strong economic choice. I thought anyone else would be a sure loss in November. I was wrong.
Like everyone else in America, once I got my "telegraph" from McCain about his VP pick, I went straight to Google. After about an hour of reading various old reports and other media, I began to get a feeling of "wow, this chik is too good to be true". So I did what any pessimistic, jaded person would do...I googled more, I clicked on page 6,7,8, not just the first page. :) I didn't really find anything "bad" about her.
With his pick, Obama chose a candidate that filled in the areas he lacked, "experience", "foreign policy", and "blue collar America". McCain seemed to do the same thing with his pick. It's like he took a list of all the things Keith Olberman has said about him and created this perfect robot VP to counter them. Here are some highlights and excerpts from the web on Sarah Palin:
*She's been a Mayor and a Governor. Both executive experience. She held the highest approval rating in the country as Governor of Alaska.
*She is not standard GOP material. She took down Ted Stevens and the "Bridge to nowhere". A young first term Governor took down a senior GOP senator.
*She has taken on big oil. She forced the oil and gas companies in her state to pay a windfall tax, essentially giving every resident of Alaska a 1200 dollar a year check.
*She began the workings on a gas pipeline to bring natural gas to main America.
*As Mayor, Palin followed through on campaign promises to reduce the salary of the mayor, and to reduce property taxes by 40 percent.
*Palin served as the Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. She resigned in protest over what she called the "lack of ethics" of fellow Alaskan Republican leaders, who ignored her whistle blowing complaints of legal violations and conflicts of interest.
*She's pro-life and can back it up. She knew ahead of time her youngest had down syndrome and decide not to abort.
*She connects with middle America. She has 5 kids, one in every age group, from awkward teenager to infant. She has no choice but to understand middle America.
*She comes from humble upbringings in small town America (Mom was a secretary and dad a teacher).
*She's not surrounded by "yes" men. Neither her husband nor her oldest son are registered as Republicans.
*Her son is in the military, not an Ivy league school.
*Her husband is a union fisherman. She knows the life of a union family first hand.
The list goes on and on..... You have to read her Wikipedia page to see the highlights.
It's like Obama is campaigning for Palin. Obama's main campaign promise is to take down the unethical people in DC, change the way DC works.. Not only can Palin promise the same thing, she has done it, on more than one occasion. It's like she has the ethical concerns of Obama without the liberal social views. I mean she is as fair as they come the way I see it. Conservative on moral issues, but not typical GOP when it comes to the Good Ole Boy system.
Some will say her age is her biggest obstacle...I disagree, look at what she has done in her career. There are 30 year Senators and congressman who have done less. I mean clearly, she needs to come up to speed very quickly on matters of the world and of course foreign policy. But so does Obama. It's funny to me when I watch MSNBC and CNN and the analyst say McCain is just throwing out a Hail Mary in a last ditch effort to catch Obama. They laugh at her foreign policy experience saying "she's just one heartbeat away from the Presidency", but I don't see how they can say that with a straight face, knowing that Obama who has less executive experience IS the heartbeat of the Presidency. Obama said he wanted a VP that had the experience and foreign policy knowledge. McCain has this in spaids over Biden and he is the PRESIDENTIAL candidate, not VP. I mean if Obama is depending on Biden so much why don't they swap spots, let Obama run as VP. I can't wrap my brain around their argument.
ONE BIG item I disagree with was them even mentioning Hillary Clinton and women voters in her speech. That was a huge faux pas as far as I'm concerned. It made it look very much like a token move to get just women voters. I would have completely avoided saying anything about women and the glass ceiling. People will notice regardless, mentioning that came across terribly.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Back To Basics -- Tony
What's funny is that when you clear away all the hype about Obama being the first Black nominee. When you remove the enthralling backstory, it's really no different than any other election.
*The Grand Ole Party vs. The Party of the People.
*The party of personal responsibility vs. the party of governmental guardianship.
*Economic growth through successful business growth vs. economic growth by higher taxes and special programs.
*Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice
The media and the Democrats are doing a great job of joining Bush and McCain at the hip. Trying to convince voters that if you vote for McCain, you are voting for Bush again. This is so crazy because Bush and McCain have butted heads probably more times than any other Republican. It's no secret that McCain is probably the most moderate Republican in the party.
People have to look at the two candidates for what they are and what they plan to do as president and get passed this Bush thing.
If you are truly going to vote for the candidate that best supports your viewpoint you need to step back and look at the facts. You can go to Obama's website and read up on his stance on issues and you can do the same for McCain. Essentially, this is what you are dealing with:
The War:
Obama's Stance: Withdrawal the troops responsibly as soon as possible (Never wanted to go to war, but he wasn't a Senator when war was declared and when the intelligence was presented, so he had no idea what information was in the intelligence report that everyone else saw and thought was viable enough to invade Iraq)
McCain's Stance: Withdrawal the troops responsibly as soon as the Iraqi government gives the Green Light that they are capable of maintaining security.
Bottom Line: Bush and the Iraqi President agreed to a 16 month withdrawal. This is probably a stunt by Bush to take that Ace Card away from Obama, but regardless, now the issue of troop withdrawal is a moot point. Whoever is elected is going to adhere to that time line.
Abortion:
Obama's Stance: Doesn't believe life begins at conception. Woman's right to choose.
McCain's Stance: Life begins at conception. Therefore it is taking another human life.
Bottom Line: Faith based voters usually won't swing on this issue because of their moral values, but a pro-choice person may swing to republican because of other issues like economics.
Economic Growth & Taxes:
Obama's Stance: Higher taxes for the "rich". Let Bush's Tax Cuts expire for everyone. But give some tax breaks to lower/middle class people. LOTS of government programs to cover everything from housing issues to expanded unemployment insurance. (Please check Obama's site for yourself)
McCains Stance: Growth through successful business. Maintain Bush's tax cuts. Get rid of the "Alternative Minimum Tax". Lower the corporate tax rate 10% to keep businesses here in the US, rather than going overseas. According to the Tax Foundation, America's corporate taxes are amoung the highest in the world.
Bottom Line: Obama feels that economic growth is derived from government oversight of business and more taxes. McCain believes that economic growth is driven by successful business and more hiring which leads to more spending, which leads to more taxes (more gov't income). They both want large corporations to stay in America, Obama by laws and government mandate, McCain by creating an American business environment that is conducive to profit and growth.
The Environment: (This is tough for me because I think Global Warming is the biggest joke ever. I'd love to elaborate, just ask :^) ).
Obama's Stance: We need to limit greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050.
McCain's Stance: We need to curb greenhouse gases by 66% by 2050.
Bottom Line: This is a huge area where McCain has butted heads with the GOP and an area I disagree with him on. He has a very liberal stance on the environment. This can't be a deciding factor, they agree.
Education:
Obama's Stance: Reform the No Child Left Behind Act, learn from it's mistakes. He wants to prepare teachers, reward teachers, and retain teachers.
McCain's Stance: Reform the No Child Left Behind Act, learn from it's mistakes. He wants to prepare teachers, reward teachers, and retain teachers.
Bottom Line: Their platforms are almost identical, don't believe me, see for yourself here:
Obama's Plan | McCain's Plan
One big exception is that McCain believes in School Choice and Obama puts a good deal of emphasis on the "zero to five" years (not a bad thing).
HealthCare:
Obama's Stance: Create a National Health Care Insurance Fund. "Low cost deductibles". A watchdog group over private health care insurers.
McCain's Stance: Sees quality improvement through competition. The better the doctor, the more patients he'll get. Giving incentive to out perform fellow doctors. A $2500 refundable tax credit per person to offset insurance premiums.
Bottom Line: They both have plans to bring down prescription costs, lower deductibles, etc... Obama is not getting rid of private health care in lieu of a universal plan from what I can tell. But forcing doctors to treat patients for the same amount of money may drive them to stop performing and the quality would most likely decline. I have to read more on these issues.....but they both have a plan to bring costs down.
Energy:
Obama's Stance: Crack down on energy speculation. Work on renewable energies. And NOW promotes the use of domestic oil to get us off our dependency on foreign oil. Nothing on nuclear energy.
McCain's Stance: NUCLEAR ENERGY - More nuclear plants. Work on renewable energies. Promotes the use of domestic oil to get us off our dependency on foreign oil.
Bottom Line: They share the same stance on renewable energies, and now drilling domestically for oil and developing clean coal energy. The big difference is McCain believes strongly that we can go to nuclear power, looking at the benchmark set by France.
So when it comes down to it. They agree on a lot of the new issues like renewable energies and education. They also agree there are problems to fix in other areas like health care and the economy. They just have different methods of solving them. But on the core democratic vs. republican issues like abortion, taxes, national security they both stand firm on the standard platform positions.
So you, as a voter have to figure out what are KEY issues for you. If you believe in self responsibility and less governmental control, vote republican. If you believe in more programs to help fight our problems, vote democrat. If you believe there is evil in the world and national security is of utmost concern, vote republican. If you believe big corporations should pay higher taxes, vote democratic. It's funny that after all the talk of change and promises of both candidates, it really boils down to the same ole' issues.
*The Grand Ole Party vs. The Party of the People.
*The party of personal responsibility vs. the party of governmental guardianship.
*Economic growth through successful business growth vs. economic growth by higher taxes and special programs.
*Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice
The media and the Democrats are doing a great job of joining Bush and McCain at the hip. Trying to convince voters that if you vote for McCain, you are voting for Bush again. This is so crazy because Bush and McCain have butted heads probably more times than any other Republican. It's no secret that McCain is probably the most moderate Republican in the party.
People have to look at the two candidates for what they are and what they plan to do as president and get passed this Bush thing.
If you are truly going to vote for the candidate that best supports your viewpoint you need to step back and look at the facts. You can go to Obama's website and read up on his stance on issues and you can do the same for McCain. Essentially, this is what you are dealing with:
The War:
Obama's Stance: Withdrawal the troops responsibly as soon as possible (Never wanted to go to war, but he wasn't a Senator when war was declared and when the intelligence was presented, so he had no idea what information was in the intelligence report that everyone else saw and thought was viable enough to invade Iraq)
McCain's Stance: Withdrawal the troops responsibly as soon as the Iraqi government gives the Green Light that they are capable of maintaining security.
Bottom Line: Bush and the Iraqi President agreed to a 16 month withdrawal. This is probably a stunt by Bush to take that Ace Card away from Obama, but regardless, now the issue of troop withdrawal is a moot point. Whoever is elected is going to adhere to that time line.
Abortion:
Obama's Stance: Doesn't believe life begins at conception. Woman's right to choose.
McCain's Stance: Life begins at conception. Therefore it is taking another human life.
Bottom Line: Faith based voters usually won't swing on this issue because of their moral values, but a pro-choice person may swing to republican because of other issues like economics.
Economic Growth & Taxes:
Obama's Stance: Higher taxes for the "rich". Let Bush's Tax Cuts expire for everyone. But give some tax breaks to lower/middle class people. LOTS of government programs to cover everything from housing issues to expanded unemployment insurance. (Please check Obama's site for yourself)
McCains Stance: Growth through successful business. Maintain Bush's tax cuts. Get rid of the "Alternative Minimum Tax". Lower the corporate tax rate 10% to keep businesses here in the US, rather than going overseas. According to the Tax Foundation, America's corporate taxes are amoung the highest in the world.
Bottom Line: Obama feels that economic growth is derived from government oversight of business and more taxes. McCain believes that economic growth is driven by successful business and more hiring which leads to more spending, which leads to more taxes (more gov't income). They both want large corporations to stay in America, Obama by laws and government mandate, McCain by creating an American business environment that is conducive to profit and growth.
The Environment: (This is tough for me because I think Global Warming is the biggest joke ever. I'd love to elaborate, just ask :^) ).
Obama's Stance: We need to limit greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050.
McCain's Stance: We need to curb greenhouse gases by 66% by 2050.
Bottom Line: This is a huge area where McCain has butted heads with the GOP and an area I disagree with him on. He has a very liberal stance on the environment. This can't be a deciding factor, they agree.
Education:
Obama's Stance: Reform the No Child Left Behind Act, learn from it's mistakes. He wants to prepare teachers, reward teachers, and retain teachers.
McCain's Stance: Reform the No Child Left Behind Act, learn from it's mistakes. He wants to prepare teachers, reward teachers, and retain teachers.
Bottom Line: Their platforms are almost identical, don't believe me, see for yourself here:
Obama's Plan | McCain's Plan
One big exception is that McCain believes in School Choice and Obama puts a good deal of emphasis on the "zero to five" years (not a bad thing).
HealthCare:
Obama's Stance: Create a National Health Care Insurance Fund. "Low cost deductibles". A watchdog group over private health care insurers.
McCain's Stance: Sees quality improvement through competition. The better the doctor, the more patients he'll get. Giving incentive to out perform fellow doctors. A $2500 refundable tax credit per person to offset insurance premiums.
Bottom Line: They both have plans to bring down prescription costs, lower deductibles, etc... Obama is not getting rid of private health care in lieu of a universal plan from what I can tell. But forcing doctors to treat patients for the same amount of money may drive them to stop performing and the quality would most likely decline. I have to read more on these issues.....but they both have a plan to bring costs down.
Energy:
Obama's Stance: Crack down on energy speculation. Work on renewable energies. And NOW promotes the use of domestic oil to get us off our dependency on foreign oil. Nothing on nuclear energy.
McCain's Stance: NUCLEAR ENERGY - More nuclear plants. Work on renewable energies. Promotes the use of domestic oil to get us off our dependency on foreign oil.
Bottom Line: They share the same stance on renewable energies, and now drilling domestically for oil and developing clean coal energy. The big difference is McCain believes strongly that we can go to nuclear power, looking at the benchmark set by France.
So when it comes down to it. They agree on a lot of the new issues like renewable energies and education. They also agree there are problems to fix in other areas like health care and the economy. They just have different methods of solving them. But on the core democratic vs. republican issues like abortion, taxes, national security they both stand firm on the standard platform positions.
So you, as a voter have to figure out what are KEY issues for you. If you believe in self responsibility and less governmental control, vote republican. If you believe in more programs to help fight our problems, vote democrat. If you believe there is evil in the world and national security is of utmost concern, vote republican. If you believe big corporations should pay higher taxes, vote democratic. It's funny that after all the talk of change and promises of both candidates, it really boils down to the same ole' issues.
Baised Observation -- Tony
I disagree with Eric, there's no such thing as an unbaised observation when you are supporting one group. Talking to some Obama supporters at work, we figured this out. We would watch the same video clip at the same time and discuss it, and come away with different takes on the clip. But after some discussion, I was able to see where they were coming from. I didn't necessarily agree with them, but could see how they came to their viewpoint.
I don't think anybody can argue with the gravity of the Obama nomination. It is no doubt a tic mark on the time line of US history. As I watched Thursday night's events unfold I couldn't ignore the faces of the Obama supporters in the crowd as the cameras panned. It's true, it really was like a scene out of a blockbuster movie, tight shots of tears streaming, the prideful smiles of most in attendance. What I did see were a couple different groups of people and the more I watched, the more I realized that most people there fell into three basic categories:
Group "A", people who seemed genuinely proud of the moment. People who just couldn't hold back their tears. People who, I feel, believe. These were mostly the black Americans, old and young. They didn't really yell and scream at every Bush bashing comment, they seemed to be beyond that. When I watched their faces, I really saw hope. It sounds corny, but I really saw people with a look I can't describe.
Group "B", people who were caught up in the moment, who were drawn to Obama because of the excitement of the whole thing. These are your young college kids for the most part, these are the ones that cheered anytime any speaker raised their voice. "We need to end this pointless war" YEAHHHH WOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOO, hands waiving, screaming. Like a College Pep Rally type reaction. What's funny is that the people in group "A" didn't react the same, they didn't seem to be there to have fun and party.
Group "C", people who are just nut jobs. These people had the painted faces, these people were wearing idiotic looking hats and holding signs with a big Peace symbol and Bush's face with a red line through it. These were mostly middle aged white Americans, mostly older women, but some older men. People who looked to me like they had been in college for the past 20 years. These were the people who scared me. They looked mad, really mad, whenever anyone would mention Bush or "the republicans". Serious hatred here folks.
In general, to me, most people fell into these categories. Eric may disagree, but this is my observation.
All of the speeches I watched were moving. From Michelle to Biden to Al Gore to Barack himself. But what I couldn't get away from is how they all seemed to be turning their platform of disagreement with Bush policies into factual faults that McCain is somehow responsible for. Take for example this excerpt from Al Gore last night, talking about 8 years ago, if we had not elected Bush: (click here for whole transcript )
"...Take it from me, if it had ended differently, we would not be bogged down in Iraq; we would have pursued bin Laden until we captured him. We would not be facing a self-inflicted economic crisis; we would be fighting for middle income families..."
Ok, I need to take a deep breath here, because I honestly can feel my heart beating faster just reading this stuff again......Take it from him, Al Gore, we would have pursued Bin Laden until we captured him. Maybe Al feels he could use the Jedi force to assist our special forces in Afghanistan. You see in the hunt for Bin Laden in the mountains of Afghanistan, only special forces are of any use. They are the only military unit that can operate covertly, get into the nooks and crannies of the mountains. Those forces have never stopped looking for Bin Laden, those forces are still looking for Bin Laden, those forces will continue looking for Bin Laden until they get him. I'm not sure what Al Gore or anybody else could do to make them more successful than they already are. Maybe he would concentrate really hard and rub his Nobel Peace Prize to summon the powers of the mighty Hybrid Force??
He says we would not be facing this "self inflicted" economic crisis. Again, I guess Al has some super power that would have magically removed the ink from the pens of the idiots who were about to sign a mortgage loan that was above their means. The ink removal super power that's it. Prior to the housing bubble burst, nobody was complaining about the economy. Gas and the housing collapse in the last year have caused some problems. Not Bush's fault, and definitely not McCain's fault. What's that you say, the war in Iraq is what caused the gas prices to rise...Brilliant, but why didn't prices start to go up in 2004, 2005, 2006??? I don't think we are in an economic crisis. Obama and the democratic party are doing a fantastic job of making it seem like America is spiralling out of control. Bush and the GOP destroyed our country. What's bad is that people are buying it. "We want change, not the same" was the chant going around the audience on Tuesday night.....Not the same huh. From 2002 until 2007 the economy was at it's peak. People were buying everything. Huge SUVs, big houses, lavish vacations, all because they were feeling great about their financial situation. The problem is that some of those people didn't act responsibly and got themselves in trouble. That's the cause of the economic problems of today. I just don't see the rationelle behind saying it's Bush's fault. And even if you did think the housing bust was Bush's fault, his first 6 years were great years, but the theme of most Obama supporters is "do you really want 4 more years of THIS". What is THIS? Just complete lunacy by Al Gore and it brings down the integrity of his party when he says this stupid stuff.
Anyway, I got way off track on this. I think Obama coming from a sinlge parent home to become the Democratic nominee is a fantastic story. Michelle tells it well, it's a regular made for the big screen movie. But what I'm afraid of is that people are going to vote for him, just because of the story, and just because of how significant the event is.
Not everyone. The Obama supporters I talk to, including Eric, have valid reasons to vote for Obama. They think he has the economic answers for the country. They think he will somehow get the "rich" to pay more taxes. So for them, they would probably support him anyway. But for those who are just supporting him because they hate Bush or because of the "moment", I think that's a mistake....
I don't think anybody can argue with the gravity of the Obama nomination. It is no doubt a tic mark on the time line of US history. As I watched Thursday night's events unfold I couldn't ignore the faces of the Obama supporters in the crowd as the cameras panned. It's true, it really was like a scene out of a blockbuster movie, tight shots of tears streaming, the prideful smiles of most in attendance. What I did see were a couple different groups of people and the more I watched, the more I realized that most people there fell into three basic categories:
Group "A", people who seemed genuinely proud of the moment. People who just couldn't hold back their tears. People who, I feel, believe. These were mostly the black Americans, old and young. They didn't really yell and scream at every Bush bashing comment, they seemed to be beyond that. When I watched their faces, I really saw hope. It sounds corny, but I really saw people with a look I can't describe.
Group "B", people who were caught up in the moment, who were drawn to Obama because of the excitement of the whole thing. These are your young college kids for the most part, these are the ones that cheered anytime any speaker raised their voice. "We need to end this pointless war" YEAHHHH WOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOO, hands waiving, screaming. Like a College Pep Rally type reaction. What's funny is that the people in group "A" didn't react the same, they didn't seem to be there to have fun and party.
Group "C", people who are just nut jobs. These people had the painted faces, these people were wearing idiotic looking hats and holding signs with a big Peace symbol and Bush's face with a red line through it. These were mostly middle aged white Americans, mostly older women, but some older men. People who looked to me like they had been in college for the past 20 years. These were the people who scared me. They looked mad, really mad, whenever anyone would mention Bush or "the republicans". Serious hatred here folks.
In general, to me, most people fell into these categories. Eric may disagree, but this is my observation.
All of the speeches I watched were moving. From Michelle to Biden to Al Gore to Barack himself. But what I couldn't get away from is how they all seemed to be turning their platform of disagreement with Bush policies into factual faults that McCain is somehow responsible for. Take for example this excerpt from Al Gore last night, talking about 8 years ago, if we had not elected Bush: (click here for whole transcript )
"...Take it from me, if it had ended differently, we would not be bogged down in Iraq; we would have pursued bin Laden until we captured him. We would not be facing a self-inflicted economic crisis; we would be fighting for middle income families..."
Ok, I need to take a deep breath here, because I honestly can feel my heart beating faster just reading this stuff again......Take it from him, Al Gore, we would have pursued Bin Laden until we captured him. Maybe Al feels he could use the Jedi force to assist our special forces in Afghanistan. You see in the hunt for Bin Laden in the mountains of Afghanistan, only special forces are of any use. They are the only military unit that can operate covertly, get into the nooks and crannies of the mountains. Those forces have never stopped looking for Bin Laden, those forces are still looking for Bin Laden, those forces will continue looking for Bin Laden until they get him. I'm not sure what Al Gore or anybody else could do to make them more successful than they already are. Maybe he would concentrate really hard and rub his Nobel Peace Prize to summon the powers of the mighty Hybrid Force??
He says we would not be facing this "self inflicted" economic crisis. Again, I guess Al has some super power that would have magically removed the ink from the pens of the idiots who were about to sign a mortgage loan that was above their means. The ink removal super power that's it. Prior to the housing bubble burst, nobody was complaining about the economy. Gas and the housing collapse in the last year have caused some problems. Not Bush's fault, and definitely not McCain's fault. What's that you say, the war in Iraq is what caused the gas prices to rise...Brilliant, but why didn't prices start to go up in 2004, 2005, 2006??? I don't think we are in an economic crisis. Obama and the democratic party are doing a fantastic job of making it seem like America is spiralling out of control. Bush and the GOP destroyed our country. What's bad is that people are buying it. "We want change, not the same" was the chant going around the audience on Tuesday night.....Not the same huh. From 2002 until 2007 the economy was at it's peak. People were buying everything. Huge SUVs, big houses, lavish vacations, all because they were feeling great about their financial situation. The problem is that some of those people didn't act responsibly and got themselves in trouble. That's the cause of the economic problems of today. I just don't see the rationelle behind saying it's Bush's fault. And even if you did think the housing bust was Bush's fault, his first 6 years were great years, but the theme of most Obama supporters is "do you really want 4 more years of THIS". What is THIS? Just complete lunacy by Al Gore and it brings down the integrity of his party when he says this stupid stuff.
Anyway, I got way off track on this. I think Obama coming from a sinlge parent home to become the Democratic nominee is a fantastic story. Michelle tells it well, it's a regular made for the big screen movie. But what I'm afraid of is that people are going to vote for him, just because of the story, and just because of how significant the event is.
Not everyone. The Obama supporters I talk to, including Eric, have valid reasons to vote for Obama. They think he has the economic answers for the country. They think he will somehow get the "rich" to pay more taxes. So for them, they would probably support him anyway. But for those who are just supporting him because they hate Bush or because of the "moment", I think that's a mistake....
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Honest Unbiased Observation -- Eric
I haven't gone anywhere ladies and gentlemen. I've been brushing up on my history a bit. I'm now deeply absorbing everything I can in an effort to figure out what particular, credible threat, to our National Security, did Iraq pose. Tony and I had a little off topic discussion about this already.
I'm also in awe of the historical moment that Barack Obama, the first black American nominated for president of the United States, by one of the nation's major parties.
I am TOTALLY in awe of this great moment in time, and this great accomplishment, by a great man. This proud moment is one like my grandparents and parents passed down to us, regarding Dr. Martin Luther King and the impact of the civil rights movement. I thought I would never live to see the day.
I won't even let the fact the the LA Times states that he's the first "biracial" American, in an attempt to diminish the pride that black people may feel as a result. Of course, some will see that as me being "hypersensitive", but I will argue that I'm not. See, as a result of the "one-drop" rule, if you had any trace of african blood, you were considered black. I guess some people just can't let those things go. I hope I don't come off as being sensitive for pointing out the LA Times proclamation. I do it in total disappointment... It just means a lot to me.
I'm also in awe of the historical moment that Barack Obama, the first black American nominated for president of the United States, by one of the nation's major parties.
I am TOTALLY in awe of this great moment in time, and this great accomplishment, by a great man. This proud moment is one like my grandparents and parents passed down to us, regarding Dr. Martin Luther King and the impact of the civil rights movement. I thought I would never live to see the day.
I won't even let the fact the the LA Times states that he's the first "biracial" American, in an attempt to diminish the pride that black people may feel as a result. Of course, some will see that as me being "hypersensitive", but I will argue that I'm not. See, as a result of the "one-drop" rule, if you had any trace of african blood, you were considered black. I guess some people just can't let those things go. I hope I don't come off as being sensitive for pointing out the LA Times proclamation. I do it in total disappointment... It just means a lot to me.
The Economy -- Tony
Here is where I find myself back in 3rd America. The economy. One thing I think I've really come a long way on is how the economy plays into our future. We definitely need to fix it. The question is, do we raise taxes and cut military programs like Obama promotes? Or do we keep taxes low and depend on business to bring the economy back up to speed as McCain backs? I think neither of these is the complete solution. If McCain brings in Romney that will go a long way towards solidifying him as the total package. McCain clearly has the national security thing down. He is strong on values. The only area he lacks is on the economy. If he can bring in a good VP with proven experience in this area, he will have a great chance in November.
Here is an excellent presentation (thanks Rodney) on the economy and national budget and how it works. It's pretty hard to follow at first, but it gets really easy to follow and really good about midway...
Economy Presentation
Here is an excellent presentation (thanks Rodney) on the economy and national budget and how it works. It's pretty hard to follow at first, but it gets really easy to follow and really good about midway...
Economy Presentation
"Uncontrolled Verbosity" -- Tony
Seems Mr. Obama is selling his soul in an effort to win the Presidency. I'm sure everyone can remember when the now VP candidate said these words about Obama:
"... he's the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Real nice right.
He quickly back peddled and said he meant "fresh" and not "clean". I would be willing to buy that, if it wasn't for his other racially insensitive remarks he's made, like the comment towards Indian Americans in Delaware:
“...You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.” What's bad is that he said this to an Indian supporter and apparently didn't think he said anything wrong. See for yourself here
Now, I'm sure I'm being "hyper-sensitive" here (as Eric puts it), but my point is to remind everyone who Biden really is. He's a guy who said "I'm not tip toeing, I'm walking right into it, I'm against government controlled health care". He's a guy that calls himself blue collar and says he can win votes in the South because "his state was a slave state...his state is the 8th largest black population in the country..."?? What's that got to do with winning southern states? See for yourself here .
What's worse is when he says this stuff, half the time he doesn't even realize he's saying anything derogatory, I don't know which is worse; Saying it to be mean, or having it so ingrained in your core that you don't even realize you said something wrong.
Do you think a guy with Biden's bigoted views would be the kind of guy someone like Obama would normally support? No, Obama sees the fact that Biden fills in the gaps (experience, foreign policy, etc) in his campaign and he is willing to sell his soul to get this presidency. Obama promises to unite all people, Biden has shown his inept ability to not know when to shut up.
So you may say Obama is looking past Biden's flaws to see the good traits. OK, I'll buy that. Now, consider that fact that Biden is on the ticket to fill in those gaps like experience, foreign policy, etc... so if Obama can't handle these issue himself and has to consult Biden on everything, why didn't Biden win the democratic primary?
As much as I think Bill Clinton was phony, and takes credit for an economy he had nothing to do with (unless you believe he created the internet), and that he spent 8 years serving his own agenda rather than that of the country, I do agree with one statement he made Tuesday night about Obama:
"Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y, you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?"
You can promise the world, but if you can't deliver, what good are those promises?
"... he's the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Real nice right.
He quickly back peddled and said he meant "fresh" and not "clean". I would be willing to buy that, if it wasn't for his other racially insensitive remarks he's made, like the comment towards Indian Americans in Delaware:
“...You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.” What's bad is that he said this to an Indian supporter and apparently didn't think he said anything wrong. See for yourself here
Now, I'm sure I'm being "hyper-sensitive" here (as Eric puts it), but my point is to remind everyone who Biden really is. He's a guy who said "I'm not tip toeing, I'm walking right into it, I'm against government controlled health care". He's a guy that calls himself blue collar and says he can win votes in the South because "his state was a slave state...his state is the 8th largest black population in the country..."?? What's that got to do with winning southern states? See for yourself here .
What's worse is when he says this stuff, half the time he doesn't even realize he's saying anything derogatory, I don't know which is worse; Saying it to be mean, or having it so ingrained in your core that you don't even realize you said something wrong.
Do you think a guy with Biden's bigoted views would be the kind of guy someone like Obama would normally support? No, Obama sees the fact that Biden fills in the gaps (experience, foreign policy, etc) in his campaign and he is willing to sell his soul to get this presidency. Obama promises to unite all people, Biden has shown his inept ability to not know when to shut up.
So you may say Obama is looking past Biden's flaws to see the good traits. OK, I'll buy that. Now, consider that fact that Biden is on the ticket to fill in those gaps like experience, foreign policy, etc... so if Obama can't handle these issue himself and has to consult Biden on everything, why didn't Biden win the democratic primary?
As much as I think Bill Clinton was phony, and takes credit for an economy he had nothing to do with (unless you believe he created the internet), and that he spent 8 years serving his own agenda rather than that of the country, I do agree with one statement he made Tuesday night about Obama:
"Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y, you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?"
You can promise the world, but if you can't deliver, what good are those promises?
Monday, August 25, 2008
What's Good For The Goose.... -- Gregg
| This weekend, I posted a comment from a reader (Cliffton) on the main page and followed on with a response. Another reader (Gregg) followed on with a good response as well, so I figured to complete the chain, I'd post his comment on the front page as well. I agree 100% with Gregg that the world has evil, and that will always be the case. I don't, however, agree that *wanting a world w/o nuclear weapons is absurd. Having a desire for a peaceful world isn't absurd, it's wonderful. Do I think it's achievable? No. But I do "applaud" his vision? yes. I don't think Obama is capable of defending our country. I think he is too worried about apeasing EVERYONE to make a decisive offensive decision. Anyway, here is Gregg's comment: -----------------Begin Comment----------------- (First, thanks to Cliff, Tony, Eric, and anyone else trying to discuss these topics in a rational and level-headed way, with a willingness to amend their conclusions based on better information/wisdom from others. Though I count myself in the prior group, my apologies in advance, if the strength of what follows seems over the top. Much of what confronts us seems much more black and white than the media and national discourse imply, and we so need to raise the bar.) Both of you "applaud" Senator Obama's having "a goal of a world without nuclear weapons"? What am I missing? He wants to lead? Words matter. Reduction in the amount of weaponized material is a great goal, but that's not this goal. How is his literal goal anything other than absurd? (If his defense is kowtowing to a few loonies, then I concede, but please keep reading anyway.) We need to pursue wisdom and truth. All of history and common sense indicates there is an evil side to man that must be restrained. The fathers of our country seem to me wiser than we've grown to deserve. Just one of their nuggets of wisdom recognized man's propensity to evil, so they established a basic system of checks and balances: our three branches of government, free speech/press, and yes, personal ownership of firearms. Much of our society's ills are due to having had it so good for so long, that we choose to be ignorant of the lessons others learned while earning us to where we are. We forget at our own peril that our life in this land is a too taken for granted example of an extreme exception, and not the world's norm. Again, re: his goal, what am I missing? Let's assume we could today entrust ourselves to all the other nations. (And shouldn't the discussion end right there?) Even if we could with a snap of our fingers eliminate all current nukes, the knowledge of how to create them would become much more valuable than what the guy in Pakistan was paid to sell the info to North Korea, and who knows who else. And even if we could today then wipe all current knowledge of nukes from all memory (a la "Men In Black") and erase all the documents, what would stop the knowledge from being re-pursued tomorrow? His goal is absurd. Additionally, isn't the whole international community showing itself much too unwilling/incapable to adequately police itself? Not too long ago much of the world was set free from colonialism allowing them to seek their own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thanks in part to the world's too little too late efforts, the results thus far are tainted with the likes of madrassahs, the Taliban, Hezbollah/Hamas, and Saddam Hussein, just to name a few. And, wasn't Hussein's Kuwaiti belligerence met with far too little resistance from anyone other than us? Then for more than 10yrs, instead of allowing international inspectors to ascertain his WMD status, he danced to the point where all the international community could be brought to was a finger-wagging resolution saying "stop, now, or we'll use force". So, no, the rest of the world isn't ready, and limited to man's strength, NEVER will be ready, to become a nuke-free planet. His goal is absurd. This is another part of Senator Obama's confusion. Inanimate objects are not of themselves evil. It's what we choose to do/or not do with them that can be evil. Nukes have not been used because the possessors want to keep living. The real problem is when they fall into the hands of those ready to die. A valid approach then has NOTHING to do with pretending you can eliminate nukes. His goal is absurd. While wanting to strive toward a planet of nations that don't require periodic restraint is admirable, his stated goal is currently ridiculously unattainable. Dreaming that we can attain a world where evil does not need to be restrained is contrary to the way the universe was designed. Anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ and disagrees hasn't spent enough time reading their Bible. When was the video filmed? Presidential candidate Obama's desire to "set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons" leaves me wanting to ask how this guy and half the country think he's ready to lead the world? Shouldn't it instead make one discover how many other of his goals are similarly ludicrous? His goal has me also wanting to ask him "'Change I can believe in?' What the hell's the matter with you?" |
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Hello Pot, I'm Kettle... -- Tony
It's a little like the pot calling the kettle black here. I agree with you Cliff, I was hearing what I wanted to hear. I heard statements that reinforced my opinion of Obama as Commander-In-Chief. Like you, I went back and re-watched the video. In fact I took it statement by statement as I wrote my response.
Before I go into defending myself, I wanted to look at the video in general. It was given to the Caucas4priorities activist group. A not for profit group that thinks there is no threat from Russia or China. A group who was awarded the "Most Valuable Progressive Activist Group for 2007" award. Yippee.
I look at this two ways:
1. Either Obama knew who his audience was, and threw out these incredible irresponsible statements to get them pumped up, with no real intention of delivering
or
2. He really believes this ideology, which is nuts, and what I'll address with responses to Cliff's comments.
===Deep breath....here we go:
Your point
* I will end the war in Iraq
My take
I don’t understand how this is a negative. This is the goal of both candidates and both candidates have stated this in various ways. This clip has Senator Obama saying he will end the war. I’ve heard Senator McCain say numerous times that he will achieve victory in Iraq. To me they both have made it a point to let the public know that they will end the war. I think we can all agree that no matter who wins this is a goal we are all on board with. There are definitely different views on what winning means and how this will be achieved but we all want the war ended. And to be clear Senator Obama did not expound on this in the clip. He simply said he would end the war.
I concede. Obama did not say in this video that he was going to pull troops out of Iraq immediately. I must have just had it burned into my brain from hearing it at every other speech Obama has given. I was applying previous knowledge to this statement (a mistake apparently). I think you are correct in saying they both do want to end the war. And again you are correct, they do have different ways to accomplish this. We all know where the candidates stand here:
Obama- Cut and run,
McCain - leave Iraq better than it was before we came in, then come home. I don't need to address this anymore.
Your point
*I will cut defense spending
My take
I believe there is a clear and definite distinction between a general statement like “I will cut defense spending” and a goal oriented statement such as “I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful defense spending”. How is cutting wasteful spending a negative? To be clear what I keyed in on was the fact that he said wasteful. I think we all know that all levels of gov’t local, state, and federal waste a lot of money. There have been countless exposés on this from various media outlets. So when Senator Obama says he wants to cut wasteful spending I’m all for it. If elected I would hope that John McCain would do the same. Again taking the statement as is I think we all would agree that this would be a positive step for the gov’t to take.
Ok, I get to disagree here.
I said (that Obama said):"I will cut defense spending"
Obama said "I will stop spending 9 billion dollars a month in Iraq. I will end the war". To me defense spending IS the war in Iraq right now, so when he says he will "stop spending" to me that means he will cut spending. Additionally, when he says he "will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems" to me that is also a cut in defense spending. Furthermore, he states "I will slow our development of future combat systems". Again, I take this to mean a cut in defense spending, but you're probably right, I'm just hearing what I want to hear.
I don't disagree that there is wasteful spending in the government. When I said he was "cutting defense spending" I wasn't referring to that, I was referring to the items above. I'm all for getting rid of wasteful spending. I don't think missile defense systems are wasteful spending. And i don't know how he can say they are unproven.
Oh yeah, and stop the space missile defense program, I'm pretty sure that falls into defense spending as well, but we probably don't need it anyway, what do Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Bush know anyway.
Your point
*I will put an end to our nuclear program and negotiate with Russia
My take
Currently there are enough nuclear weapons in the US alone to DESTROY the planet. Now let’s add in Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel. What does this mean? To me this means that in a nuclear war there is no winner. There is no one cleaning up after the destruction and rebuilding when we cease to exist. If we launch our nuclear missiles as a first strike maneuver or in retaliation the world is over. Nuclear war is the ultimate end game. How much more incentive do we need to end the production of nuclear weaponry? So, in the clip, when Senator Obama says that he will set a goal of a world with no nuclear weapons I can only applaud this stance. He then follows that statement by saying he would not develop any new nuclear weapons, well when you already have enough to destroy your own planet do you really need more? He says he would also seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, which is basically saying he wants to ban the processing of materials that can sustain a chain reaction, and that he would negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert. When you as the largest stockpiler of nuclear weapons in the world speak of negotiating with the country that is the second or third largest stockpiler of nuclear weapons in the world about adding more safety measures to your stockpiles this can only be a positive step if achieved. So to me these are not only negotiations that should be encouraged but that are necessary. I trained as part of a (NBC) Nuclear Biological Chemical response team in the military and believe me if we launch our missiles against another nuclear capable country and they launch against us there are no precision strikes and areas of containment. The detonation of nuclear warheads against multiple targets abroad and here in the US would end life as we know it. If Senator Obama is weak because he wants a world with no nukes then I’ll be first in line to vote a punk into the White House. Be clear nuclear war is not about protecting America. Anyone who believes that doesn’t understand the destructive power we wield and sees nuclear war in the same vein as conventional war and I’s not even close. In a conventional war there are winners and losers. Survivors on either side, winners or losers, continue to live and make the best of what life they have left. In a nuclear war, with the amount of nuclear weapons in the world today, there are no winners or losers because there is no more life.
Again, I find myself agreeing with you. If Obama is saying he wants a world without nuclear weapons, I too "applaud his stance". Here is where the problem is; it's not about a nuclear war. If we launch or respond to a full scale nuclear threat, it's over, done, I'm off to meet Jesus and walk the streets of gold. But it's not about the war, it's about showing the world that we have the best capability to prevail in a nuclear war. America is a democracy, Russia and China are not. Our goal in America is providing the best way of life for our citizens. Russia and China want to conquer the world. The only reason, and I mean only reason China or Russia haven't attacked us is because they know we wield the bigger stick. Trust me, as an Intel Analyst, I worked both a Russian mission and a Chinese mission in my 6 years at NSA. They are actively training, actively researching new weapons. Why? So they can top what we have. What happens when they come up with a better system than what we have? BOOM. Disagree if you want to, but the only reason we've had relative peace this long is because of the Apollo missions, the Hiroshima bombing, and our "hair trigger". The problem with Obama making these statements is that it emboldens our enemies. When Kennedy gave his speech about reaching the moon, it was about beating Russia, inspiring Americans. When Obama says we don't need our finger on the trigger and that he wants to negotiate with Russia, it shows a lack of understanding of who he is dealing with. I don't think Obama is "weak" because he wants to end nuclear wars, I agree, but I do think it is irresponsible to make comments like this, especially to activist groups like caucas4priorities.
Your point
*I will not put defense missiles in space
My take
Senator Obama didn’t say he was against missile defense he said he was against weaponizing space and that he would cut investments on unproven missile defense systems. We currently have a ballistic missile defense system (BMD) it just doesn’t sit in space. And we are developing new ways to deploy this system. As recently as August 20th, 2008 we entered into an agreement with Poland to place a strategic missile defense system within their borders to protect against the threat of ballistic missile attacks against Poland and our NATO allies. Not wanting to weaponize space is consistent with his stance on nuclear weapons. If he has a goal of getting rid of nuclear weapons why would you invest in ways to make nuclear weaponry more effective? That doesn’t make sense.
Now if you want to split hairs on this one I guess you can make an argument but that’s only if you believe that surface based missile defense isn’t good enough and that we absolutely have to have missile defense based in space. If that is the case I hope someone can offer proof that surface based defense isn’t good enough and could show the need for space based missile defense. Especially since the space based aspect of the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was the program that the current BMD program was born from, was scrapped and all of its applicable technology was applied to our current surfaced based technology.
Weaponizing space. The Strategic Defense Initiative started by Reagan, then under the Clinton administration nicknamed the Star Wars program. Restating what I said in my last response, we have to stay ahead of the world when it comes to offensive and defensive technologies. Not because we want to use them, but because it keeps our enemies from feeling froggy, if you know what I mean. To say that you are going to put an end to a method of defense (out developing your enemies) that goes back to the Kennedy administration and has worked so far, is incredibly irresponsible.
And lastly…
Your point
*I would stop defense R&D
My take
Not once in the clip does he state that he would stop defense R&D. I’m sorry, but this is a perfect example of hearing what you want to hear. What he does say is that he would slow the development of future combat systems, which is definitely not the same as stopping R&D. He goes on to say that he would setup an independent defense priorities board to ensure there is no unnecessary spending. To me this is Senator Obama again showing consistency. If his goal is to cut wasteful spending then you have to be more judicious in what gets funded and what doesn’t. So he proposes to slow down development and implement a review process that can help prioritize funding. He’s talking about making the whole R&D process more efficient and more focused the exact opposite stopping it.
So from this clip I think we can all agree on the following, we all want to end the war in Iraq, cutting the amount of wasteful spending of tax payers’ dollars in the defense sector would be a positive step by the gov’t, our world would be better without nuclear weapons and any responsible negotiations towards that end are needed, we do not need to develop weapons systems that are maintained in space, Senator Obama does not propose stopping defense R&D.
Ok, again you've got me. He didn't say he would cut R & D. What he said was that he would "slow the development of future combat systems" and "stop weaponizing space" and "put an end to unproven missile systems". I just took these statements to mean stopping R & D. I mean what is R & D in the DoD if it's not working on new missile defense systems? Or moving forward in space weapons? If those don't fall under the guise of R & D, I guess I was mistaken.
I see how someone who supports Obama could take from the video what you did. It goes back to your original comment, hearing what you want to hear. Although, he didn't say word for word what I bulletized in my posting, he did say them as I addressed above. What's ironic to me is that he spent 90% of the video talking about how he was going to end all these defense programs but at the end of the video he says "as President, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people". How is he going to do that with this weak face to the world?
Before I go into defending myself, I wanted to look at the video in general. It was given to the Caucas4priorities activist group. A not for profit group that thinks there is no threat from Russia or China. A group who was awarded the "Most Valuable Progressive Activist Group for 2007" award. Yippee.
I look at this two ways:
1. Either Obama knew who his audience was, and threw out these incredible irresponsible statements to get them pumped up, with no real intention of delivering
or
2. He really believes this ideology, which is nuts, and what I'll address with responses to Cliff's comments.
===Deep breath....here we go:
Your point
* I will end the war in Iraq
My take
I don’t understand how this is a negative. This is the goal of both candidates and both candidates have stated this in various ways. This clip has Senator Obama saying he will end the war. I’ve heard Senator McCain say numerous times that he will achieve victory in Iraq. To me they both have made it a point to let the public know that they will end the war. I think we can all agree that no matter who wins this is a goal we are all on board with. There are definitely different views on what winning means and how this will be achieved but we all want the war ended. And to be clear Senator Obama did not expound on this in the clip. He simply said he would end the war.
I concede. Obama did not say in this video that he was going to pull troops out of Iraq immediately. I must have just had it burned into my brain from hearing it at every other speech Obama has given. I was applying previous knowledge to this statement (a mistake apparently). I think you are correct in saying they both do want to end the war. And again you are correct, they do have different ways to accomplish this. We all know where the candidates stand here:
Obama- Cut and run,
McCain - leave Iraq better than it was before we came in, then come home. I don't need to address this anymore.
Your point
*I will cut defense spending
My take
I believe there is a clear and definite distinction between a general statement like “I will cut defense spending” and a goal oriented statement such as “I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful defense spending”. How is cutting wasteful spending a negative? To be clear what I keyed in on was the fact that he said wasteful. I think we all know that all levels of gov’t local, state, and federal waste a lot of money. There have been countless exposés on this from various media outlets. So when Senator Obama says he wants to cut wasteful spending I’m all for it. If elected I would hope that John McCain would do the same. Again taking the statement as is I think we all would agree that this would be a positive step for the gov’t to take.
Ok, I get to disagree here.
I said (that Obama said):"I will cut defense spending"
Obama said "I will stop spending 9 billion dollars a month in Iraq. I will end the war". To me defense spending IS the war in Iraq right now, so when he says he will "stop spending" to me that means he will cut spending. Additionally, when he says he "will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems" to me that is also a cut in defense spending. Furthermore, he states "I will slow our development of future combat systems". Again, I take this to mean a cut in defense spending, but you're probably right, I'm just hearing what I want to hear.
I don't disagree that there is wasteful spending in the government. When I said he was "cutting defense spending" I wasn't referring to that, I was referring to the items above. I'm all for getting rid of wasteful spending. I don't think missile defense systems are wasteful spending. And i don't know how he can say they are unproven.
Oh yeah, and stop the space missile defense program, I'm pretty sure that falls into defense spending as well, but we probably don't need it anyway, what do Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Bush know anyway.
Your point
*I will put an end to our nuclear program and negotiate with Russia
My take
Currently there are enough nuclear weapons in the US alone to DESTROY the planet. Now let’s add in Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel. What does this mean? To me this means that in a nuclear war there is no winner. There is no one cleaning up after the destruction and rebuilding when we cease to exist. If we launch our nuclear missiles as a first strike maneuver or in retaliation the world is over. Nuclear war is the ultimate end game. How much more incentive do we need to end the production of nuclear weaponry? So, in the clip, when Senator Obama says that he will set a goal of a world with no nuclear weapons I can only applaud this stance. He then follows that statement by saying he would not develop any new nuclear weapons, well when you already have enough to destroy your own planet do you really need more? He says he would also seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, which is basically saying he wants to ban the processing of materials that can sustain a chain reaction, and that he would negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert. When you as the largest stockpiler of nuclear weapons in the world speak of negotiating with the country that is the second or third largest stockpiler of nuclear weapons in the world about adding more safety measures to your stockpiles this can only be a positive step if achieved. So to me these are not only negotiations that should be encouraged but that are necessary. I trained as part of a (NBC) Nuclear Biological Chemical response team in the military and believe me if we launch our missiles against another nuclear capable country and they launch against us there are no precision strikes and areas of containment. The detonation of nuclear warheads against multiple targets abroad and here in the US would end life as we know it. If Senator Obama is weak because he wants a world with no nukes then I’ll be first in line to vote a punk into the White House. Be clear nuclear war is not about protecting America. Anyone who believes that doesn’t understand the destructive power we wield and sees nuclear war in the same vein as conventional war and I’s not even close. In a conventional war there are winners and losers. Survivors on either side, winners or losers, continue to live and make the best of what life they have left. In a nuclear war, with the amount of nuclear weapons in the world today, there are no winners or losers because there is no more life.
Again, I find myself agreeing with you. If Obama is saying he wants a world without nuclear weapons, I too "applaud his stance". Here is where the problem is; it's not about a nuclear war. If we launch or respond to a full scale nuclear threat, it's over, done, I'm off to meet Jesus and walk the streets of gold. But it's not about the war, it's about showing the world that we have the best capability to prevail in a nuclear war. America is a democracy, Russia and China are not. Our goal in America is providing the best way of life for our citizens. Russia and China want to conquer the world. The only reason, and I mean only reason China or Russia haven't attacked us is because they know we wield the bigger stick. Trust me, as an Intel Analyst, I worked both a Russian mission and a Chinese mission in my 6 years at NSA. They are actively training, actively researching new weapons. Why? So they can top what we have. What happens when they come up with a better system than what we have? BOOM. Disagree if you want to, but the only reason we've had relative peace this long is because of the Apollo missions, the Hiroshima bombing, and our "hair trigger". The problem with Obama making these statements is that it emboldens our enemies. When Kennedy gave his speech about reaching the moon, it was about beating Russia, inspiring Americans. When Obama says we don't need our finger on the trigger and that he wants to negotiate with Russia, it shows a lack of understanding of who he is dealing with. I don't think Obama is "weak" because he wants to end nuclear wars, I agree, but I do think it is irresponsible to make comments like this, especially to activist groups like caucas4priorities.
Your point
*I will not put defense missiles in space
My take
Senator Obama didn’t say he was against missile defense he said he was against weaponizing space and that he would cut investments on unproven missile defense systems. We currently have a ballistic missile defense system (BMD) it just doesn’t sit in space. And we are developing new ways to deploy this system. As recently as August 20th, 2008 we entered into an agreement with Poland to place a strategic missile defense system within their borders to protect against the threat of ballistic missile attacks against Poland and our NATO allies. Not wanting to weaponize space is consistent with his stance on nuclear weapons. If he has a goal of getting rid of nuclear weapons why would you invest in ways to make nuclear weaponry more effective? That doesn’t make sense.
Now if you want to split hairs on this one I guess you can make an argument but that’s only if you believe that surface based missile defense isn’t good enough and that we absolutely have to have missile defense based in space. If that is the case I hope someone can offer proof that surface based defense isn’t good enough and could show the need for space based missile defense. Especially since the space based aspect of the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was the program that the current BMD program was born from, was scrapped and all of its applicable technology was applied to our current surfaced based technology.
Weaponizing space. The Strategic Defense Initiative started by Reagan, then under the Clinton administration nicknamed the Star Wars program. Restating what I said in my last response, we have to stay ahead of the world when it comes to offensive and defensive technologies. Not because we want to use them, but because it keeps our enemies from feeling froggy, if you know what I mean. To say that you are going to put an end to a method of defense (out developing your enemies) that goes back to the Kennedy administration and has worked so far, is incredibly irresponsible.
And lastly…
Your point
*I would stop defense R&D
My take
Not once in the clip does he state that he would stop defense R&D. I’m sorry, but this is a perfect example of hearing what you want to hear. What he does say is that he would slow the development of future combat systems, which is definitely not the same as stopping R&D. He goes on to say that he would setup an independent defense priorities board to ensure there is no unnecessary spending. To me this is Senator Obama again showing consistency. If his goal is to cut wasteful spending then you have to be more judicious in what gets funded and what doesn’t. So he proposes to slow down development and implement a review process that can help prioritize funding. He’s talking about making the whole R&D process more efficient and more focused the exact opposite stopping it.
So from this clip I think we can all agree on the following, we all want to end the war in Iraq, cutting the amount of wasteful spending of tax payers’ dollars in the defense sector would be a positive step by the gov’t, our world would be better without nuclear weapons and any responsible negotiations towards that end are needed, we do not need to develop weapons systems that are maintained in space, Senator Obama does not propose stopping defense R&D.
Ok, again you've got me. He didn't say he would cut R & D. What he said was that he would "slow the development of future combat systems" and "stop weaponizing space" and "put an end to unproven missile systems". I just took these statements to mean stopping R & D. I mean what is R & D in the DoD if it's not working on new missile defense systems? Or moving forward in space weapons? If those don't fall under the guise of R & D, I guess I was mistaken.
I see how someone who supports Obama could take from the video what you did. It goes back to your original comment, hearing what you want to hear. Although, he didn't say word for word what I bulletized in my posting, he did say them as I addressed above. What's ironic to me is that he spent 90% of the video talking about how he was going to end all these defense programs but at the end of the video he says "as President, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people". How is he going to do that with this weak face to the world?
Hear What You Want To Hear -- Cliff
First of all Cliff, can I get a head shot of you to replace the picture of Eric on the blog banner, because apparently Eric has either thrown in the towel or he's secretly on Obama's campaign and doing security for Biden.
This is a comment from Cliffton (not Clifford, unfortunately) and I thought it deserved a place on the front page. This is in response to my post HERE.
-----------------------------Cliff's Comment---------------------------------
Tony, I definitely have to disagree with you on this. I’ve watched the video five times just to make sure I’m clear on what I’m hearing and to really see if Senator Obama states your emphasized points. If he did then I would be in agreement with you. But my conclusion is that you are hearing what you want to hear and then drawing your conclusions. I’ll take you point by point and just give my take.
Your point
* I will end the war in Iraq
My take
I don’t understand how this is a negative. This is the goal of both candidates and both candidates have stated this in various ways. This clip has Senator Obama saying he will end the war. I’ve heard Senator McCain say numerous times that he will achieve victory in Iraq. To me they both have made it a point to let the public know that they will end the war. I think we can all agree that no matter who wins this is a goal we are all on board with. There are definitely different views on what winning means and how this will be achieved but we all want the war ended. And to be clear Senator Obama did not expound on this in the clip. He simply said he would end the war.
Your point
*I will cut defense spending
My take
I believe there is a clear and definite distinction between a general statement like “I will cut defense spending” and a goal oriented statement such as “I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful defense spending”. How is cutting wasteful spending a negative? To be clear what I keyed in on was the fact that he said wasteful. I think we all know that all levels of gov’t local, state, and federal waste a lot of money. There have been countless exposés on this from various media outlets. So when Senator Obama says he wants to cut wasteful spending I’m all for it. If elected I would hope that John McCain would do the same. Again taking the statement as is I think we all would agree that this would be a positive step for the gov’t to take.
Your point
*I will put an end to our nuclear program and negotiate with Russia
My take
Currently there are enough nuclear weapons in the US alone to DESTROY the planet. Now let’s add in Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel. What does this mean? To me this means that in a nuclear war there is no winner. There is no one cleaning up after the destruction and rebuilding when we cease to exist. If we launch our nuclear missiles as a first strike maneuver or in retaliation the world is over. Nuclear war is the ultimate end game. How much more incentive do we need to end the production of nuclear weaponry? So, in the clip, when Senator Obama says that he will set a goal of a world with no nuclear weapons I can only applaud this stance. He then follows that statement by saying he would not develop any new nuclear weapons, well when you already have enough to destroy your own planet do you really need more? He says he would also seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, which is basically saying he wants to ban the processing of materials that can sustain a chain reaction, and that he would negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert. When you as the largest stockpiler of nuclear weapons in the world speak of negotiating with the country that is the second or third largest stockpiler of nuclear weapons in the world about adding more safety measures to your stockpiles this can only be a positive step if achieved. So to me these are not only negotiations that should be encouraged but that are necessary. I trained as part of a (NBC) Nuclear Biological Chemical response team in the military and believe me if we launch our missiles against another nuclear capable country and they launch against us there are no precision strikes and areas of containment. The detonation of nuclear warheads against multiple targets abroad and here in the US would end life as we know it. If Senator Obama is weak because he wants a world with no nukes then I’ll be first in line to vote a punk into the White House. Be clear nuclear war is not about protecting America. Anyone who believes that doesn’t understand the destructive power we wield and sees nuclear war in the same vein as conventional war and I’s not even close. In a conventional war there are winners and losers. Survivors on either side, winners or losers, continue to live and make the best of what life they have left. In a nuclear war, with the amount of nuclear weapons in the world today, there are no winners or losers because there is no more life.
Your point
*I will not put defense missiles in space
My take
Senator Obama didn’t say he was against missile defense he said he was against weaponizing space and that he would cut investments on unproven missile defense systems. We currently have a ballistic missile defense system (BMD) it just doesn’t sit in space. And we are developing new ways to deploy this system. As recently as August 20th, 2008 we entered into an agreement with Poland to place a strategic missile defense system within their borders to protect against the threat of ballistic missile attacks against Poland and our NATO allies. Not wanting to weaponize space is consistent with his stance on nuclear weapons. If he has a goal of getting rid of nuclear weapons why would you invest in ways to make nuclear weaponry more effective? That doesn’t make sense.
Now if you want to split hairs on this one I guess you can make an argument but that’s only if you believe that surface based missile defense isn’t good enough and that we absolutely have to have missile defense based in space. If that is the case I hope someone can offer proof that surface based defense isn’t good enough and could show the need for space based missile defense. Especially since the space based aspect of the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was the program that the current BMD program was born from, was scrapped and all of its applicable technology was applied to our current surfaced based technology.
And lastly…
Your point
*I would stop defense R&D
My take
Not once in the clip does he state that he would stop defense R&D. I’m sorry, but this is a perfect example of hearing what you want to hear. What he does say is that he would slow the development of future combat systems, which is definitely not the same as stopping R&D. He goes on to say that he would setup an independent defense priorities board to ensure there is no unnecessary spending. To me this is Senator Obama again showing consistency. If his goal is to cut wasteful spending then you have to be more judicious in what gets funded and what doesn’t. So he proposes to slow down development and implement a review process that can help prioritize funding. He’s talking about making the whole R&D process more efficient and more focused the exact opposite stopping it.
So from this clip I think we can all agree on the following, we all want to end the war in Iraq, cutting the amount of wasteful spending of tax payers’ dollars in the defense sector would be a positive step by the gov’t, our world would be better without nuclear weapons and any responsible negotiations towards that end are needed, we do not need to develop weapons systems that are maintained in space, Senator Obama does not propose stopping defense R&D.
This is a comment from Cliffton (not Clifford, unfortunately) and I thought it deserved a place on the front page. This is in response to my post HERE.
-----------------------------Cliff's Comment---------------------------------
Tony, I definitely have to disagree with you on this. I’ve watched the video five times just to make sure I’m clear on what I’m hearing and to really see if Senator Obama states your emphasized points. If he did then I would be in agreement with you. But my conclusion is that you are hearing what you want to hear and then drawing your conclusions. I’ll take you point by point and just give my take.
Your point
* I will end the war in Iraq
My take
I don’t understand how this is a negative. This is the goal of both candidates and both candidates have stated this in various ways. This clip has Senator Obama saying he will end the war. I’ve heard Senator McCain say numerous times that he will achieve victory in Iraq. To me they both have made it a point to let the public know that they will end the war. I think we can all agree that no matter who wins this is a goal we are all on board with. There are definitely different views on what winning means and how this will be achieved but we all want the war ended. And to be clear Senator Obama did not expound on this in the clip. He simply said he would end the war.
Your point
*I will cut defense spending
My take
I believe there is a clear and definite distinction between a general statement like “I will cut defense spending” and a goal oriented statement such as “I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful defense spending”. How is cutting wasteful spending a negative? To be clear what I keyed in on was the fact that he said wasteful. I think we all know that all levels of gov’t local, state, and federal waste a lot of money. There have been countless exposés on this from various media outlets. So when Senator Obama says he wants to cut wasteful spending I’m all for it. If elected I would hope that John McCain would do the same. Again taking the statement as is I think we all would agree that this would be a positive step for the gov’t to take.
Your point
*I will put an end to our nuclear program and negotiate with Russia
My take
Currently there are enough nuclear weapons in the US alone to DESTROY the planet. Now let’s add in Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel. What does this mean? To me this means that in a nuclear war there is no winner. There is no one cleaning up after the destruction and rebuilding when we cease to exist. If we launch our nuclear missiles as a first strike maneuver or in retaliation the world is over. Nuclear war is the ultimate end game. How much more incentive do we need to end the production of nuclear weaponry? So, in the clip, when Senator Obama says that he will set a goal of a world with no nuclear weapons I can only applaud this stance. He then follows that statement by saying he would not develop any new nuclear weapons, well when you already have enough to destroy your own planet do you really need more? He says he would also seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, which is basically saying he wants to ban the processing of materials that can sustain a chain reaction, and that he would negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert. When you as the largest stockpiler of nuclear weapons in the world speak of negotiating with the country that is the second or third largest stockpiler of nuclear weapons in the world about adding more safety measures to your stockpiles this can only be a positive step if achieved. So to me these are not only negotiations that should be encouraged but that are necessary. I trained as part of a (NBC) Nuclear Biological Chemical response team in the military and believe me if we launch our missiles against another nuclear capable country and they launch against us there are no precision strikes and areas of containment. The detonation of nuclear warheads against multiple targets abroad and here in the US would end life as we know it. If Senator Obama is weak because he wants a world with no nukes then I’ll be first in line to vote a punk into the White House. Be clear nuclear war is not about protecting America. Anyone who believes that doesn’t understand the destructive power we wield and sees nuclear war in the same vein as conventional war and I’s not even close. In a conventional war there are winners and losers. Survivors on either side, winners or losers, continue to live and make the best of what life they have left. In a nuclear war, with the amount of nuclear weapons in the world today, there are no winners or losers because there is no more life.
Your point
*I will not put defense missiles in space
My take
Senator Obama didn’t say he was against missile defense he said he was against weaponizing space and that he would cut investments on unproven missile defense systems. We currently have a ballistic missile defense system (BMD) it just doesn’t sit in space. And we are developing new ways to deploy this system. As recently as August 20th, 2008 we entered into an agreement with Poland to place a strategic missile defense system within their borders to protect against the threat of ballistic missile attacks against Poland and our NATO allies. Not wanting to weaponize space is consistent with his stance on nuclear weapons. If he has a goal of getting rid of nuclear weapons why would you invest in ways to make nuclear weaponry more effective? That doesn’t make sense.
Now if you want to split hairs on this one I guess you can make an argument but that’s only if you believe that surface based missile defense isn’t good enough and that we absolutely have to have missile defense based in space. If that is the case I hope someone can offer proof that surface based defense isn’t good enough and could show the need for space based missile defense. Especially since the space based aspect of the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was the program that the current BMD program was born from, was scrapped and all of its applicable technology was applied to our current surfaced based technology.
And lastly…
Your point
*I would stop defense R&D
My take
Not once in the clip does he state that he would stop defense R&D. I’m sorry, but this is a perfect example of hearing what you want to hear. What he does say is that he would slow the development of future combat systems, which is definitely not the same as stopping R&D. He goes on to say that he would setup an independent defense priorities board to ensure there is no unnecessary spending. To me this is Senator Obama again showing consistency. If his goal is to cut wasteful spending then you have to be more judicious in what gets funded and what doesn’t. So he proposes to slow down development and implement a review process that can help prioritize funding. He’s talking about making the whole R&D process more efficient and more focused the exact opposite stopping it.
So from this clip I think we can all agree on the following, we all want to end the war in Iraq, cutting the amount of wasteful spending of tax payers’ dollars in the defense sector would be a positive step by the gov’t, our world would be better without nuclear weapons and any responsible negotiations towards that end are needed, we do not need to develop weapons systems that are maintained in space, Senator Obama does not propose stopping defense R&D.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Freedom Of Speech? -- Tony
Here is a great example of how the "extreme" left believes in freedom of speech, but only if it is something they agree with. A page right out of the ACLU's playbook; freedom of religion unless it's Christianity. I realize these are the far left nut jobs, but it's pretty eye opening.
In this video, a group of conservatives decide to protest the protesters. They get an official permit to protest just like the lefties, however, the lefties feel they don't have the right to be there...
In this video, a group of conservatives decide to protest the protesters. They get an official permit to protest just like the lefties, however, the lefties feel they don't have the right to be there...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
