Third Party & Independents Archives

Shame! Shame! Come back shame.

Shame on them (the politicians) and shame on us (the public). We live in the United States of Shame. Why? Because everywhere we see nothing but disgrace, dishonor and infamy, yet a complete absence of shame. In a nation where religion supposedly plays such a big role, people seem to have used it to suppress shame and avoid blame.

Republicans should feel nothing but shame over the worst presidency in American history. Democrats should feel utter shame for a Congress that has sold out ordinary citizens. Lesser evil voters should feel heart-attack pain for their shameful behavior in maintaining the status quo two-party plutocracy. All those millionaires and billionaires that made it big in corporate America should have SHAME tattooed on their foreheads.

I have been thinking about shame as I reflect on how our nation has sunk so low and how little confidence I have that any Democrat or Republican – not Barack Obama or John McCain – will truly reform a totally corrupt and dysfunctional political system. I keep waiting to hear either of these two or any of the so-called leaders in Congress say something as simple as “As an American and an elected public official I feel nothing but shame for being part of this awful political system that has let you down.”

When those with power feel no shame over their incompetence and ineptitude they clearly have no ability to own up to it. Without the expression of shame there is no genuine apology.

I do not want to keep seeing a grinning John McCain and a smiling Barack Obama. I want to see them and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and all the other losers in Congress plea publicly for forgiveness from the nation they have shamed. This is what we all should demand of them. Say this clearly; say it every freaking day every time you get in front of a microphone and camera: “I am ashamed to be part of this system. Forgive me. I will set aside all my ambitions and excuses and try to earn your forgiveness.” Write it 1,000 times every damn day. Make it your mantra. Say it every time you shake the hand of an American.

When you automatically say yet another lie to the public stop yourself, pause and say “Forgive me, bad habits are so hard to break. What I just said is really a lie. I am ashamed. Here is the truth…”

Until all those with power in the public and private sectors totally recognize, accept and proclaim their shame there is no hope for returning our nation to greatness.

Until ordinary people also accept their shame for their cowardly behavior in supporting our shameful two-party plutocracy that has given us nothing but a fake democracy, there is no way that we will vote our way out of this awful mess.

Where there is no shame there is no acceptance of blame. And we know who to blame.

Shame! Shame! Come back shame.

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]

Posted by Joel S. Hirschhorn at October 5, 2008 3:39 PM
Comments
Comment #265943

If there had been a unifying voice to rally Americans in peaceful protest in front of the White House, Congress, State Capitols, residences of every legislator, political parties’ headquarters, major news media headquarters and networks, and everywhere else across America, the result would have been different.
The flood of e-mails was ignored by most legislators, and also by the Bush Administration.
By a unifying force, I mean someone with no special interest other than to prevent the financial destruction of America.
Protests in colleges and universities would have been a perfect place to start.
The voice of every student in America should have been heard, for it is their future that was compromised.
Plans for peaceful protests must be planned, for this is not the end of the raping of taxpayers.

Posted by: Steve Johnson at October 5, 2008 6:01 PM
Comment #265949

The only way that you will get the Politicos in D.C. to pay attention is through the November vote.
Do not vote for anyone who is now in office.
A new house and a new one third of the Senate.
Vote them all out of office. You want change?
That is real change.
When you have a mess, you clean it up.
The Washington group has acted time and again in thier interest and not in the interest of the country.
One could go on forever with this but you get the point.

Posted by: Richard Hollander at October 5, 2008 8:11 PM
Comment #265956

Joel, I agree.

However, the majority of voters have only themselves to thank for all of it.

The majority of voters apparently care more about THEIR party, than their country, as evidenced by 9% approval ratings for Congress, but perpetual 85%-to-90% re-election rates for Congress.

But that can’t last forever.
Eventually, corruption will become so painful, that people will either finally choose responsibility, or perish (as many nations have, which have come and gone over the millennia).

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful (see example here)).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 5, 2008 10:36 PM
Comment #265963

Isn’t anyone going to mention the movie? The one Joel refers to in his title? If I remember correctly the movie had a lot to do with honor too…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 5, 2008 11:28 PM
Comment #265973

Where is the shame for the level of ignorance of the public on economic issues? Where are the recall petitions for legislators that held out for pork? There is no shame in avoiding the inaction of the twenties because of moralistic ranting about bootstraps and excesses. There was tons of moralizing in the wake of 1929. It did little to help the situation.

I saw an interesting point made by a talking head Sunday. He said America was moralistic rather than moral. Meaning we pretend to be moral, by proclaiming our own moral superiority while placing blame on others. Yet, we have no sense of our own failings.

I have always found shame based behavior to be out of control, addiction oriented, and more about avoidance rather than functionality. It’s an interesting psychological phenomenon.

Rather than shame filled preaching, I always find dealing with a situation as it is more helpful than blaming everyone else.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 6, 2008 4:23 AM
Comment #265978

Actions speak louder than words.

What Congress says and does are two different things.

What the voters say and do are two different things, as evidenced by the 9% approval ratings most voters’ polled give Congress, and the 85%-to-90% re-election rates (One-Simple-Idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm)

Marysdude wrote: Isn’t anyone going to mention the movie? The one Joel refers to in his title? If I remember correctly the movie had a lot to do with honor too…
Shane. Yes, a classic movie.

What we need to come back is not shame, but Virtue, Education, Transparency, and Accountability.

On another note, while I’m not a fan of either Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin, and both lie, twist, distort, and spin the truth, the McCain/Palin camp continues to sink lower than anything I’ve seen in a long time, with a steady stream of blatant, and easily disproven lies.

And why, when the facts alone are sufficient.
Obama’s initial statements alone, refusing to disown Reverend Wright were damaging enough.

Obama’s statement that people “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations” is sufficient.

If John McCain/Palin want to discuss associations with certain people, perhaps McCain would like to explain his close replationship with Charles H. Keating, Jr.?

While McCain was not convicted of a crime, Senator John McCain was found by the Senate Ethics Committee to have shown “poor judgment”.

And it appears McCain has shown awful judgement in picking Sarah Palin as V.P. Anyone who watched the Katie Couric/Sarah Palin interviews, and still isn’t alarmed by Palin’s ignorance, is delusional. And now Palin is runnin’ around telling some of the most easily disproven and blatant lies in this election.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 6, 2008 7:55 AM
Comment #265982

d.a.n.

While I’m no Obamaniac, his vague answers on budget issues and healthcare is worrisome enough, but as to dissociating himself too quickly from someone who belonged to his church and was his long time pastor was understandable enough to me, but the lie that he’d never heard this from Wright before seemed more than unlikely.

As to him speaking about some people clinging to old beliefs including racism, while perhaps not the smartest statement to make… was true enough.
So you want more lying?

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 6, 2008 9:11 AM
Comment #265986
As to him speaking about some people clinging to old beliefs including racism, while perhaps not the smartest statement to make… was true enough.

Wrong, the statement was predicated on a false belief that is rejected by the people it was supposed to describe.

These people don’t ‘cling to guns and religion’ because government doesn’t do enough FOR them, they do it because they don’t WANT the government doing for them.

This are the facts that the progressives in this country can’t comprehend so they try to explain away. And in doing so alienate a large portion of the country while trampling on the concept of liberty.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 6, 2008 9:42 AM
Comment #265988

So Rhinehold: you admit that they do “cling to guns and religion”? Interesting.

Posted by: womanmarine at October 6, 2008 10:00 AM
Comment #265997

googlumpugus,

While you’re talking about shame yourself I have answered what really is a shameful question from you. Not blaming you, mind you, the question itself was a part of how we have been conditioned to conduct politics today. It is terribly difficult not to slip into battles of the bigotries (worst presidency in HISTORY Joel? Got your history in Cliff Notes, did you?).

The ring in the nose by which we are all being led like sheep is prejudice. The discussions in all three columns of this site over the last month have been filled with blanket statements of what is “typical” of the opposition even as they have been vacant of substantive support for the same odious statements. That even the relatively intelligent people posting here could be misled by the vacuousness of the premises so stated is a blunt witness to how intoxicating they are.

We are prejudiced people. Our shameful political situation is the direct result of that prejudice overwhelming our good sense.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 6, 2008 10:51 AM
Comment #266005
googlumpugus wrote: d.a.n. While I’m no Obamaniac, his vague answers on budget issues and healthcare is worrisome enough,
Agreed. However, McCain is equally bad, if not worse, despite having Greenspan’s book. The fact is, they are both pretty sad. Both also despicably choose to pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes, profits, and (supposedly) compassion.
googlumpugus wrote: … but as to dissociating himself too quickly from someone who belonged to his church and was his long time pastor was understandable enough to me,
It’s not understandable to me because of the fact revealed in the rest of your comment …
googlumpugus wrote: … but the lie that he’d never heard this from Wright before seemed more than unlikely.
Exactly.
googlumpugus wrote: As to him speaking about some people clinging to old beliefs including racism, while perhaps not the smartest statement to make… was true enough.
No, it isn’t true:
  • (1) Other peoples’ religion is none of his business. If they want to cling to their religion, that’s none of Obama’s business whatsoever. I’m not even religious, and I find Obama’s statement condescending and offensive. And how about Obama clinging to his Reverend Wright, until he flip-flopped when his long-time association with Reverend Wright started to hurt his campaign? So, where does Obama get off talking about other peoples’ religion and clinging?
  • (2) People should not only defend their 2nd Amendment rights, but all parts of the Constitution, which is already being violated in several ways. The Supreme Court only recently upheld those rights in D.C., and it was only by a 5 to 4 vote. Obama’s voting record has made it very clear that he has no respect for the 2nd Amendment. Obama also, along with the all Congress persons are violating Article V of the U.S. Constitution. And Obama taught Constitutional law ! ? !
  • (3) Most Americans don’t have any disdain for legal immigrants, as evidenced by America which is one of the biggest melting pots in the world. However, most Americans do have a disdain for ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. There’s a big difference which Obama tried to obscure. Obama did not say “illegal” immigrants. Obama has made it very clear that he will continue to despicably pit Americans citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits, votes, and/or (supposedly) misplaced compassion. Obama also voted for the shamnesty of BILL of June-2007. Obama gets a “D-” grade (only slightly worse than McCain’s) for his voting record on immigration issues: grades.betterimmigration.com/compare.php3?District=IL&Category=0&Status=Career&VIPID=1162
  • (4) Most Americans are OK with fair and free trade. Not with unfair trade. There’s a big difference which Obama tried to obscure. Obama’s voting record on fair and free trade is typical of most in Congress who are selling out American workers.
Obama was warned by Charlie Rose years ago about that condescending statement, and Obama did it again anyway.

But rather than provide analysis, people can interpret Obama’s statements any way they like. Many people will believe what they want to believe instead of the facts and repeated statements.
Barack Obama said (and this is not the first time he said it):

  • (06-APR-2008): “But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”.

  • (12-APR-2008): “I said something that everybody knows is true.”

  • (12-APR-2008): “Obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that.”

  • (23-NOV-2004): Barack Obama and Charlie Rose both spoke of the danger of “sounding condescending”, yet it still happened on 06-APR-2008.

That statement by Obama is very revealing. And Obama defended it later as being true: One-Simple-Idea.com/VotingRecords2.htm#BarackObama

googlumpugus wrote: So you want more lying?
No, but some people obviously do, and and defend elitism remarks and condescending lies and the truth. How ironic that some people accuse others of the very things they are doing themselves.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 6, 2008 11:33 AM
Comment #266014

CORRECITON: No, but some people obviously do, and and defend elitism elitist remarks and condescending lies and the truth.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 6, 2008 2:23 PM
Comment #266015

Joel -

I see in your statement the same flaw that is so easily seen in so many who rail against the status quo - it SHOULD be different, it OUGHTA be better, it’s JUST NOT FAIR!

But here’s the thing, Joel - short of a revolution or some other world-shaking event, it’s not gonna change.

In other words, you work with the tools you have at hand, and NOT with the ones you wish you had. Obama and McCain are the choices we have, they’re the tools (no pun intended) we have to work with. If you want to make a real, concrete change, then work with the Republicans to get them to clean up their act…and do the same thing with the Dems. Remember, even billionaire Perot (back when a billion was a lot of money) couldn’t make the change to a true three-party system…and while it might sound defeatist to say you can’t do it, well, you can’t do it. Can’t, can’t, can’t.

We all are passengers on the ship of state that is America. You can try to jump ship to another country, but just as normal passengers on a ship cannot change that ship’s direction (short of drastic (and dangerous) action), you’re not going to force the American government to change. If you stay on board, though, you might, just might be able convince the captain that a change in the ship’s heading would be a good idea.

You work with the tools you’ve got, not with the ones you wish you had.

You say you want a revolution, well, you know…you better change your mind instead.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 6, 2008 2:35 PM
Comment #266016

We need to return to a world based on principal.

Nov4Surprise.com

Posted by: Rob at October 6, 2008 2:42 PM
Comment #266017

Joel writes: “Where there is no shame there is no acceptance of blame. And we know who to blame.”

Anyone reading this column, or the other two on WatchBlog on a regular basis know that their side, their party and party politicians are not to blame for anything and therefor have no reason for shame. And those in the middle, having no party affiliation won’t accept any blame either.

Rarely do we find dems, reps, libs, or cons accepting any responsibility for anything that goes wrong. We conveniently blame the opposition by saying it all began when “they” were in power or “they” blocked the legislation that would have fixed the problem.

We battle back and forth feverishly in these forums defending our champions and political philosophies and bashing those on the other side. No winners, no loosers, just a lot of credit taking and blaming that satisfies our own egos.

Many advocate replacing all our legislators as though the replacements would be non-political, pure, and wholly idealistic. Just more nonsense, from where would these leaders come? Why of course, from the same electorate that threw out the rascals. Different faces and names true…same old political differences…of course. Those who naively believe we can elect better politicians using the same political system are just mistaken.

At work now in our country are two competing philosophies, self reliance and government reliance. We have arrived at this dismal time primarily through the attempt (by the electorate) to blend the two competing philosophies over many decades which satisfies neither side and merely intensified the political divisions.

The lessons of the Roman Empire have been discarded. The thousand years of Rome can be described as 500 years of building, 200 years of dominance and 300 years of decline. If we applied the same ratio to our republic (assuming it survives to the year 2030, it would represent 127 years of building (1776-1903), 51 years of dominance (1903-1958), and 75 years of decline (1958-2030). If we adjust these time frames a little, it would indicate the end of dominance and beginning of decline occurred around 1960.

Does anyone remember when the era of liberalism and start of really big government began? In 1965 both Medicare and Medicaid were authorized by congress and signed into law by Lyndon Johnson.

Social Security enacted in 1935 is expected to reach exhaustion in 2028…about the same time as the end of the decline predicted above.

It would appear that the era of government reliance is winning and will continue to prevail regardless of the party in power either in the executive or congress with our supreme court a willing accomplice to either side.

More government reliance can only speed up our decline as government finds ways to entitle the vast working and currently taxed middle-class with a huge new national health care program and artificial tax cuts. The already vast non-taxpaying class is promised larger Earned Income Tax Credits (tax refunds for those who pay no taxes). And we will see the bail-out of even more of our states and private corporations using tax money.

Government will keep the masses from revolting by every increasing entitlement spending and the economy running with ever increasing government ownership of private enterprise. And, while were being mollified, as the Romans were, with circus food and wine, the vandals will storm our gates and conquer. A nation, weakened militarily, morally, and financially, will offer little resistance.

Posted by: Jim M at October 6, 2008 2:55 PM
Comment #266018

Joel,

We get our politicians from our culture. That is to say, over time, the character and quality of our politicians will reflect the character and quality of our people.

There are people like this person claiming to be Russian by thename of Akif G. Agayev now linking Obama to Communist spies in Hawaii. There are no doubt Americans who will believe these absurdities.

There is the GOPUSA now proffering emails from idiots like this one who offers:

Frank Marshall Davis, known in the media as a mentor for Barack Obama. A new book, The Dream Begins, claims that Davis was “demonized” as a Communist but that he helped “shape” Obama’s views. I will leave it to you to decide what influence he had over Obama. But I do have the shocking truth about Davis. He was not only a documented member of the Communist Party USA, but a sex pervert, homosexual and pornographer.

Then we have Palin and McCain insisting Obama has announced intentions to raise American’s taxes. And at least 33% of Americans believe these lies, because the truth is just so much more difficult for their conscious minds to handle in making a choice in the ballot box.

Fortunately for our nation, the vast majority of Americans are not quite so easily duped and deceived. But, this is a two way street. Moveon.org, and others engage in these deceptions and lies as well.

And they all, contribute to destroying democracy of, by, and for an informed electorate. They all
seek to build a power base constructed of lies and deceipt. They all seek to make you and I pawns of their intentions on election day. They all have vested interests in destroying democracy for their personal benefit and agendas.

Therein lies the true shame of what America is becoming. A people ignorant of the truth and sound information because information is free to distort and malign and twist, and our educational system increasingly fails to turn out citizens capable of telling the difference between what is plausible and what is implausible. Thus we are growing an ever larger electorate incapable of casting the kind of intelligent, self-interested, and informed vote the founding fathers intended of those who would elect Representatives to Congress.

America is suffering increasingly for its crisis in confidence. The people do not know who to trust anymore, on Wall Street, on K Street, On Capitol Hill, in the Media, and on the mainstreet of the Internet.

For decades this meant increasing voter apathy. It means now spending money instead of turning it over to someone else to invest it. It translates into herd mentality and identification by symbols of who can be trusted and who cannot like wearing a flag on their clothing or vehicle or not, and speaking code words of anti-government or pro-government to decipher if one is a true Republican or Democrat or a mole trying to infiltrate our minds with disinformation.

Folks, none of this is new. All of this happened in Germany prior to WWII, and George Orwell covered these topics brilliantly in his books Animal Farm and 1984. We are simply repeating history because we refuse to study it.

Most people now discard reading any comments which make mention of Adolph Hitler or the Nazis and try to draw parallels. That is history we should NEVER ignore, but, here we are living out the Orwellian tale in which truth becomes fiction and fiction becomes truth, and history is derided as the ramblings of feeble minds, while the political spin masters reap ever grander incomes as the propaganda ministers of the modern era.

Same propaganda, same objectives: we give them new names like ‘pundits’ and ‘spin masters’ so as to hide from our consciousness their true role no different than Hitler’s or Stalin’s propaganda ministers and minions. For to acknowledge their true role, would require and demand that we fight these ministers of lies and deceptions with all the resources we have. No, far easier to acknowledge their new respectable titles and go on about our business as if we were not repeating the darkest periods of our history.

Why are Americans not aware that the fastest and easiest road to authoritarian power is economic failure and instability? Why are Americans not asking if the demise of our economy, created and caused by the the wealthiest and those with the greatest power in our society, is not a political strategy to increase and insure ever more authoritarian power over us?

The answer is simple. We are no longer educated to ask such questions. Such questions are inherently dangerous, and subversive. Such questions could lead to the uncovering of truth and holding those with great wealth and power accountable to the people in the streets.

It is no accident that books like Animal Farm, 1984, and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, won’t be found on required reading lists in high school civics classes. Hell, it is no accident that so many high school curricula no longer have civics classes.

Instead we make movies like V for Vendetta far enough removed from our current time to become entertainment and yet close enough to truth to be heralded as great movies by the diminishing minority who can still recognize the relevance of the movie and its nightmarish warnings and reflections of our current state of affairs. For the rest, it is a love story, a story of the family of man, and feel good movie, with lots good and evil and explosions and dramatic sound track.

And all the while, the very survival of our species as noble, and responsible for its actions, is ignored and lost on the vast majority of those whose votes control the future with increasing impotence.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 6, 2008 3:00 PM
Comment #266020

“Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

It was Hermann Goering that said it…not Karl Rove (though it sure looks like it was taken from the Republican playbook).

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 6, 2008 4:08 PM
Comment #266031

Truths are truths, lies are lies. Not all of us agree on these, obviously.

People do cling to religion and guns. People do also cling to racism.

Obama was simply pointing out behavior in people. One does not imply the other. Nor does that statement link them. It is purely political spin to cojoin them into a statement that sounds
“elitist”, which I presume is a negative connotation, by the way it is used. Somehow I’ve always wanted the best people as president, not Joe Schmoe. Will having someone of average IQ as a leader get us the leadership we need? There’s something very wrong with that logic.

I once had an employer who put it bluntly. Most things in life are habits, there are good habits and bad habits.

We no longer hunt to survive. We have moved beyond the tribal society of Jesus, that religion once served, in most of the 1st world, and racism is still quite strong and in full evidence in this election. Those are truths. Many may not like that look in the mirror, but it is a truth. Many still don’t accept evolution as truth. I don’t think of myself as elitist for accepting that truth. I suppose Galileo was elitist, too. I’m glad the Catholic Church finally relented that he was right, a few hundred years later.

If that’s elitist, then I’m with them. I have a friend who is an ex convict, who uses the N word regularly, and swears he is not a racist. No one thinks of themselves as racist because of the negative connotations associated with the term. (Of course, there are the neo nazi’s who are proud of being racist).

Middle class America does not accept the rage that still exists in Black America and is voiced by the likes of Rev. Wright. I am well aquainted with those kinds of speechs, as Obama is, likely.
I don’t find them offensive. I understand, and on some issues, agree with them. I don’t agree with much of the hatred spewed, but then I haven’t had to endure racism either.

Obama clearly moved to the middle on this issue, which isn’t different from where he has been his entire political career. I fully agree with and understand that he cannot afford or expect to teach middle America during this election to have more tolerance toward the hatred it engenders itself with it’s entrenched racism.

Elitist? Not to a lot of Americans. To Joe six pack? Perhaps. Joe’s a great guy, but he’s not a leader. Neither is McCain or Palin. They are using words like elitist to gently invoke the memory of words like uppity. It’s a kinder and gentler uppity, but it’s still uppity.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 6, 2008 5:31 PM
Comment #266034

Rhineold:

You said:

These people don’t ‘cling to guns and religion’ because government doesn’t do enough FOR them, they do it because they don’t WANT the government doing for them.

Well, I suppose if Obama had said it was about what government did for them or not, that answer might make sense. He was refering to them being lied to by politicians, not what government does or doesn’t do.

They “cling” because it is habit. They cling because it is what they know and trust, even if it doesn’t solve their problems.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 6, 2008 5:51 PM
Comment #266035

d.a.n.

Please point out where Obama said clinging to religion is a bad thing. I couldn’t find that in your post. You seem to agree they do cling to their religion. Do you think that is bad?

Adults smoke cigarettes, get married and vote. Am I equating marriage and smoking?

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 6, 2008 5:56 PM
Comment #266040

Lee,

I’m not ashamed of that question, it was quite appropriate. I’m sorry you don’t like being challenged on absurd statements. Too bad your answer was just a rant about how “them horrible Democrats” ruined it, while ignoring the White Republican dominance in Harris County for the last 40 years.

I have no idea what your vague next paragraph even says. I guess I’m just too elite to understand. Dumb it down for me, if you can.

I agree we all are prejudiced. I’m glad we agreeon that.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 6, 2008 8:16 PM
Comment #266073


Joel: The sad truth is that the American people don’t want to live up to the high ideals of the Constitution. The people do not want to take responsibility for governing themselves. They abdicate their responsibility by voting for charismatic leaders and then, for the most part, ignore what their leaders are doing.

When the politicians run the country close to the edge of disaster, the people can then blame the leaders rather than themselves.

We have now reached the point where the politicians blatantly ignore the wishes of the people. We have now reached the point where the voters are the true culprits.

McCain, Obama and the vast majority of the politicians are standing in a circle, urinating on the Constitution while they tell the voters that it is not what it looks like. The voters are saying, we think what we see is what it is but, we are going to vote for you anyway.

The choice is now clear. We can get fitted for a ball and chain or we can break these corporations up and make their individual companies stand or fall on their own merits. It seems to me that the voters are saying that it is easier to wear a ball and chain than it is to resist.

Posted by: jlw at October 7, 2008 12:00 PM
Comment #266085

jlw, you hit the nail on the head. The Rescue plan is actually completely ignoring a fundamental cause of this crisis, the monolithic size of these financial institutions, and part of the solution proffered by the White House, Fed, and Congress is to ALLOW ever larger financial institutions to be formed through mergers and acquisitions of these same financial institutions.

They must be broken up, and downsized to the point that the failure of one or several concurrently poses no threat to the economic system. And we need regulation of American investments in behemoth financial institutions overseas as well, which can pose the same threat.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 7, 2008 3:33 PM
Comment #266089
googlumpugus wrote: d.a.n. Please point out where Obama said clinging to religion is a bad thing. I couldn’t find that in your post.
googlumpugus, when Obama said the following things, he was not praising or flattering those people:
  • (06-APR-2008): Obama said: “But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”.
  • (12-APR-2008): Obama said: “I said something that everybody knows is true.”
  • (12-APR-2008): Obama said: “Obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that.”
  • (23-NOV-2004): Obama said: Barack Obama and Charlie Rose both spoke of the danger of “sounding condescending”, yet Obama did it again on 06-APR-2008.
googlumpugus wrote: You seem to agree they do cling to their religion.
Some do and some don’t. Who cares. Other peoples’ religions, including his own, is a personal choice and saying people “cling to religion” was not said to flatter those people. It’s none of Obama’s business either way.
googlumpugus wrote: Do you think that is bad?
No. Other peoples’ religions is none of my business, so it is neither good or bad. The point is, Obama did not make that statement to flatter or praise people in the mid-west.
googlumpugus wrote: Do you think that is bad?
Adults smoke cigarettes, get married and vote. Am I equating marriage and smoking? No, but what you are doing is extrapolating to the most illogical conclusion, as if letting your barber cut your hair is like risking that he might cut your head and limbs off too. Posted by: d.a.n at October 7, 2008 4:09 PM
Comment #266092

“More than any other single factor, predatory politicians used the weight and power of the federal government to create the market for the subprime loans that are at the heart of our financial melt-down.

And now these same predatory politicians are looking into the cameras and saying:

“The private sector got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it.”

The truth is, predatory politicians got us into this mess. Now the taxpayers are footing the bill to get us out of it.

It’s not the free market that’s sick, it’s government that’s sick. As P.J. O’Rourke once wrote, “Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.” It’s time to take away the whiskey and the car keys from the predatory politicians.”

Full story; “http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3776/Default.aspx

Posted by: Jim M at October 7, 2008 4:31 PM
Comment #266095

D.a.n,

You did not make any new points and you still fail to grasp that you are simply putting political spin on words that are an observation. You say it is none of Obama’s business. Where is he asking to interfere? Is he supposed to turn a blind eye to human behavior? You say he isn’t being flattering. Correct. Nor is he being derisive. He’s being observant. It is only negative because it was spun by political opponents, and you fell for it.

Again in my statement about smoking and marriage, it is YOU extrapolating. I made no such extrapolation. Nor any conclusion. It simply is true.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 7, 2008 5:18 PM
Comment #266097


Jim M: The voters supply the keys, the taxpayers supply the whiskey and the marketeers supply the party. The party got busted drunk and the politicians had to dip into the supply of whiskey.

Now the voters are saying, my politicians are corrupt but, they are not as bad as the other guy’s corrupt politicians so, where going to let them keep the keys.

The marketeers are saying hey, after the election or after the recession, let’s get another party started.

Posted by: jlw at October 7, 2008 5:23 PM
Comment #266098

The only good news recently was that Citi is not going to be allowed to take over Wachovia, it will most likely be Wells Fargo instead. Whoever was responsible for stopped Citi is someone who actually knows what they are doing, and should be put in charge of the bailout.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 7, 2008 5:25 PM
Comment #266105

Jim M, there’s that old black and white perspective we have come to expect in your comments. You said:
“The truth is, predatory politicians got us into this mess.”

That is a partial truth. And an entire deception. Greed and profit are the primary and overarching motives of corporations. They exist for no other reason. To try to blame what has happened on politicians solely is 2 dimensional perspective which displays a true lack of comprehension of what Adam Smith and all economists have learned since Smith.

Business is driven by profit. The further the management is removed from the customers and closer it is to Shareholder demands for survival, the greater the tendency to allow greed to mandate decisions and actions. Organizational psychology 102. I got an A in the course at UTSA. Not that it will impress you at all. But, there is a vast body of empirical research on the topic beyond the philosophical of Smith, Keynes, and Friedman.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 7, 2008 5:57 PM
Comment #266116
googlumpugus wrote: d.a.n, You did not make any new points and you still fail to grasp that you are simply putting political spin on words that are an observation.
Nonsense.

Drawing asinine conclusions and extrapolation to ridiculous conclusions is easy.
Substantiating such nonsense with facts and credible logic isn’t.

It’s not necessary for me to spin anything.
I’ll get right to the point, and make it so plain and simple that even the dimmest dimwit can understand it.
Obama’s own words, deeds, and pathetic voting record are the issue, as evidenced below.

Obama said on 06-APR-2008:

  • “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”.

That is not a mere observation.

It is not a compliment.
It is not praise.
It is criticizing and intolerant and disrespectful of others’ religious beliefs, constitutional rights to bear arms, desire for the enforcement of existing immigration laws, and fair trade.
If anyone that doesn’t get that, then they probably never will.

It’s a free country and Obama can say anything he wants, but if he thinks such critical, intolerant, and condescending remarks are going to get him votes, then why doesn’t he do more of it?

After all, Obama followed it up with:

  • (12-APR-2008): Obama said: “I said something that everybody knows is true.” {Really? Maybe in Obama’s own little universe?}

  • (12-APR-2008): Obama said: “Obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that.” {Why back-peddle now?}

  • (23-NOV-2004): Obama said: Barack Obama and Charlie Rose both spoke of the danger of “sounding condescending”, yet Obama did it again on 06-APR-2008. Obama should have listened to Charlie Rose’s warning

googlumpugus, So:

  • Perhaps you could explain why Obama is criticizing people who cling to their religion? Especially when initially defended his Rev. Wright?

  • Perhaps you could explain why Obama is criticizing people who cling to their guns (i.e. 2nd Amendment of the Constitution). Especially since Obama’s voting record, statements, and position shows no respect for the 2nd Amendment.?

  • Perhaps you could explain why Obama is criticizing people who are upset about illegal immigration (not legal immigration as Obama tries dishonestly and condescendingly to mischaracterize it)?

  • Perhaps you could explain why Obama is criticizing people who are upset about unfair trade (not anti-trade as Obama tries dishonestly and condescendingly to mischaracterize it)?

googlumpugus wrote: You say it is none of Obama’s business.
It’s a free country and Obama can say anything he wants, but how would you like it if Obama said? “And it’s not surprising then that people in googlumpugus’ (a.k.a. gergle’s) neighborhood get bitter, they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”.
googlumpugus wrote: Where is he asking to interfere?
Where?

Here is where and when (votes and activities that affect many voters and citizens)

GUNS:

  • (01) When Obama said: Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008) {that’s a contradiction in terms.}

  • (02) When Obama said: Keep guns out of inner cities—but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006) {Where does the 2nd amendment say people in inner cities can’t own a gun?}

  • (03) When Obama said: Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998) {I have a semi-automatic, and I plan to keep it, per my 2nd Amendment rights}

  • (04) When Obama said: Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008) {False. Not without repealing the 2nd Amendment first}

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION:

  • (01) When Obama Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007) {The SHAMNESTY BILL which was (fortunately) defeated.}

  • (02) When Obama promoted giving drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens (Nov 2007) {Nothing like despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits, eh?}

  • (03) When Obama says undocumented workers come here to work, not to drive. (Nov 2007) {Really? Then why are they driving? Has Obama looked at the statistics of illegal aliens arrested for drunk driving and homicide via drunk driving? Visit VictimsOfIllegalAliens.com to see a small sample of the thousands of Americans killed annually by criminal and drunk driving illegal aliens.}

  • (04) Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006) {Wonderful. Especially with the 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching and $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from the Social Security system, leaving it pay-as-you-go.}

  • (05) Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006) {Yep! Nothing like pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other.}

  • (06) Barack Obama’s career immigration grade: “D-“, recent grade: (“D-“ 20%)

FREE-TRADE:


  • (01) Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman (BILL S. 3569 ; vote number 2006-190 on Jun 29, 2006) {even though Oman has bad labor laws, and the trade-deal contained some investment provisions even more damaging to the ability of government to act in the public interest than NAFTA or CAFTA.}

RELIGION:

  • (01) Interesting that Obama has the gall to talk about other people and their religion. Perhaps Obama would like to explain his 20 years listening to Rev. Wright, and only disowning Rev. Wright when trying to explain it became too difficult and inconvenient for his campaign.

googlumpugus wrote: Is he supposed to turn a blind eye to human behavior?
It’s a free country and Obama can say almost anything he wants, but that doesn’t make it OK.

If it is so wonderful, why doesn’t he say it some more?
If he really believes it, why stop now?
And why stop at people in the Pennsylvania and the Midwest.
Why not go after Americans in the South, Northwest, and Southwest?

googlumpugus wrote: You say he isn’t being flattering. Correct.
It wasn’t only the opposite of flattering, it was intolerant, condescending, insulting, and derisive.

Not only that, Obama tried to:

  • [a] characterize people sick of illegal immigration as anti-immigrant;

  • [b] tried to characterize people sick of unfair-trade as anti-trade; Obama ater said he mistakenly forgot to say “illegal-immigrant” (instead of anti-immigrant) and “unfair-trade” (instead of unfair trade).

  • [c] tried to characterize people as clinging to religion, as if they were supposed to do anything else? What business is it of Obama’s?
  • [d] tried to characterize people who value their 2nd amendment right to bear arms as deficient in some way;

googlumpugus wrote: Nor is he being derisive.
Nonsense. It was most certainly derisive, and a condescending, insulting, and dishonest mischaracterization of people being anti-immigrant instead of anti-illegal-immigration, and anti-trade instead of anti-unfair-trade.
googlumpugus wrote: He’s being observant.
More nonsense. He was being condescending, insulting, and dishonest by trying to mischaracterize people as being anti-immigrant instead of anti-illegal-immigration (in a nation that is one of the biggest melting pots on Earth), anti-trade instead of anti-unfair-trade, somehow deficient for wanting their 2nd amendment rights protected, and somehow deficient due to their religion or the way they practice their religion. Not only that, he said it of a lot of people in Pennsylvania and the midwest. Why only Pennsylvaniia and the midwest?
googlumpugus wrote: It is only negative because it was spun by political opponents, and you fell for it.
Nonsense. Funny how some spin B.S., lies, and dishonest obfuscations and then accuse others of it.
googlumpugus wrote: Again in my statement about smoking and marriage, it is YOU extrapolating.
Again, your statement was a non-sequitur. It’s a nonsensical extrapolation of logic to the ridiculous, which proves nothing.

Funny how some people start attacking the messenger, when there lame arguments are failing and they can no longer stand the pain of turning themselves into a pretzel trying to salvage their own pathetic position.

googlumpugus wrote: I made no such extrapolation. Nor any conclusion. It simply is true.
True?

Nonsense. Only in the tiny minds of some delusional people who will turn themselves into a pretzel trying to salvage an asinine position that has no credibility whatsoever.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 7, 2008 9:14 PM
Comment #266123

Thanks d.a.n. for reading my mind. I’m so glad you are much better able to interpret what I said, than I am myself. It surely must be wonderful to have such great powers of perception. Just what is the link I have in my mind about smoking, marriage and voting? I mean I’m having some trouble with my vast extrapolation here. I’m sure, however, you can tell me what I’m thinking.

Unfortunatly people do behave in certain ways. Perhaps you are offended by that. Perhaps you like to believe every one is a Maverick. Some people think they are true mavericks. Some people think it is insulting to be called on their hatred of other races. Perhaps it is just calling a spade, a spade.

Sometimes people become so entrenched in their rightness, they read things into words that aren’t there. Perhaps some people become so entrenched in their views on immigration, guns or protectionism, they fail to consider others may not find their analysis truthful, fair or particularly perceptive. Perhaps arrogance might be a word best seen in a mirror.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 7, 2008 11:30 PM
Comment #266139

d.a.n.,

For what it’s worth, my positions don’t coincide with yours on guns or illegal aliens, or even perhaps free trade. Perhaps that is why I don’t agree with your spin on this statement.

Not offending racist, evangelical pro-lifers, with NRA poisoned thinking and xenophobic tendencies may not be a high priority for Obama, despite a discussion with Charlie Rose. In fact it may be exceedingly easy for those people to find offense. It could be he may not find many votes there, irregardless of what he says.

If you don’t believe these people exist, sorry. If that’s the extrapolation you are referring to, I have no idea what to say. I know a few of them, and didn’t have to extrapolate them.

If my previous response offends you, you might take a look at your responses to me. BTW, I
WAS being condescending towards them. I was also being truthful. Note the differences between my statement and Obama’s.


Posted by: googlumpugus at October 8, 2008 1:46 AM
Comment #266140
googlumpugus wrote: Thanks d.a.n. for reading my mind.
You’re welcome. Soem minds are more transparent than others.
googlumpugus wrote: I’m so glad you are much better able to interpret what I said, than I am myself.
Me too.
googlumpugus wrote: It surely must be wonderful to have such great powers of perception. It surely must be wonderful to have such great powers of perception.
It’s not that hard. What one thinks is often revealed by what they write, say, and do.
googlumpugus wrote:
Just what is the link I have in my mind about smoking, marriage and voting? I mean I’m having some trouble with my vast extrapolation here. I’m sure, however, you can tell me what I’m thinking. Well, let’s see if I can think that primatively …
googlumpugus wrote: Adults smoke cigarettes, get married and vote. Am I equating marriage and smoking?
Hmmmmmmm … Sorry.

Guess not. That merely appears to be a lame attempt to obfuscate, change the subject, and draw conclusions to help support a lame position.
It is a common tactic to distract from a losing argument.
It is meant to appear as a clever riddle, or astounding revelation, but is actually only a nonsensical and circular tactic to distract from a losing argument.
After all, we were discussing Obama’s statement, and your comment goes off into the weeds talking about smoking, getting married and voting, as if that had any relevance on the issue.

googlumpugus wrote:
Unfortunatly people do behave in certain ways. Perhaps you are offended by that. Not at all. In fact, pretzel imitations are quite entertaining.

Perhaps you could extrapolate elaborate on your comment and how not “equating marriage and smoking” proves that Obama was not:

  • [a] mischaracterizing people who are sick of illegal immigration as being anti-immigrant;

  • [b] mischaracterizing people who are sick of unfair-trade as being anti-trade; Obama later said he mistakenly forgot to say “illegal-immigrant” (instead of anti-immigrant) and “unfair-trade” (instead of unfair trade).

  • [c] mischaracterizing people as clinging to religion, as if they were supposed to do anything else? What business is it of Obama’s? Especially when Obama has some explaining of his own to do about 20 years at Rev. Wright’s church and then disowning Rev. Wright when it is politically inconvenient.

  • [d] mischaracterizing people who value their 2nd amendment right to bear arms as deficient in some way;

googlumpugus wrote:
Perhaps you like to believe every one is a Maverick. Some people think they are true mavericks. Some people think it is insulting to be called on their hatred of other races. Perhaps it is just calling a spade, a spade. More nonsense and obfuscation.

The issue again is quite simply that Obama’s statement:

  • [a] mischaracterized people sick of illegal immigration as anti-immigrant;

  • [b] mischaracterized people sick of unfair-trade as anti-trade; Obama later said he mistakenly forgot to say “illegal-immigrant” (instead of anti-immigrant) and “unfair-trade” (instead of unfair trade).

  • [c] mischaracterized people as clinging to religion, as if they were supposed to do anything else? What business is it of Obama’s? Especially when Obama has some explaining of his own to do about 20 years at Rev. Wright’s church and then disowning Rev. Wright when it is politically inconvenient.

  • [d] mischaracterized people who value their 2nd amendment right to bear arms as deficient in some way;

googlumpugus wrote: Sometimes people become so entrenched in their rightness, they read things into words that aren’t there.
Nonsense. There is no misinterpretation.

But that sort of lame tactic is not surprising. It is yet another lame attempt to obfuscate, cloud the issues, skirt the facts, and do anything but address the plain and obvious meaning and original intentions of Obama’s statements. And if that isn’t enough, Obama followed it up with:

  • (12-APR-2008): Obama said: “I said something that everybody knows is true.” {Really? Maybe in Obama’s own little universe?}

  • (12-APR-2008): Obama said: “Obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that.” {Why back-peddle now?}

  • (23-NOV-2004): Obama said: Barack Obama and Charlie Rose both spoke of the danger of “sounding condescending”, yet Obama did it again on 06-APR-2008. Obama should have listened to Charlie Rose’s warning

googlumpugus wrote: Perhaps some people become so entrenched in their views on immigration, guns or protectionism, they fail to consider others may not find their analysis truthful, fair or particularly perceptive.
True, and that perhaps explains why:
  • some people refuse to enforce exiting laws, unhold Article 4, Section 4, choose to despicably pit Americans against each other for votes , profits , and (supposedly) compassion?
  • some people choose to give pork-barrel, subsidies, and tax breaks to corporations that sell out Americans?
  • some people choose to violate the 2nd Amendment?
  • some people choose to violate Article V, and other parts of the Constitution, despite having taught Constitutional law?
  • some people are FOR-SALE?

I’ve given ample reasons, and nothing in rebuttal but some nebulous nonsense about smoking, getting married and voting.
Feel free anytime to offer up some substantive arguments instead of riddles and pretzel imitations.

googlumpugus wrote: Perhaps arrogance might be a word best seen in a mirror.
Good advice.

Don’t look now. There might be a pretzel staring back at you.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 8, 2008 2:21 AM
Comment #266141

CORRECTION: I’ve given ample reasons, and nothing [substantive was submitted] in rebuttal but some nebulous nonsense about smoking, getting married and voting.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 8, 2008 2:24 AM
Comment #266152

Dr. Freud strikes again.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 8, 2008 8:25 AM
Comment #266164

googlumpugus,

Feel free anytime to offer up some substantive arguments instead of riddles; pretzel imitations; lame cliches about Dr. Freud; nonsense about smoking, getting married, and voting; and any number of other tactics to obfuscate, change the subject, cloud and avoid the issue.

Don’t you have anything more substantive to address [a], [b], [c], and [d] below in which Obama was:

  • [a] mischaracterizing people who are sick of illegal immigration as being “anti-immigrant”;

  • [b] mischaracterizing people who are sick of unfair-trade as being “anti-trade”; Obama later said he mistakenly forgot to say “illegal-immigrant” (instead of anti-immigrant) and “unfair-trade” (instead of unfair trade). Obama did not say “anti-illegal-immigrant”; he said “anti-immigrant” which is nonsense in a country that is one of the world’s biggest melting pots. Obama did not say “anti-unfair-trade”; he said “anti-trade”, which is more nonsense in a country that wants free-trade instead of what we have today where other countries block our exports.

  • [c] mischaracterizing people as clinging to religion, as if they were supposed to do anything else? How does a person of genuine religious faith cling to religion? What business is it of Obama’s? Especially when Obama has some explaining of his own to do about 20 years at Rev. Wright’s church and then disowning Rev. Wright when it become politically inconvenient. At first Obama said he couldn’t disown his Reverend anymore than he could disown his white mother. Yet, later, Obama did disown and denounce Rev. Wright. Besides, are we really supposed to believe that Obama never heard any of Rev. Wright’s ravings over 20 years?

  • [d] mischaracterizing people who value their 2nd amendment right to bear arms as deficient in some way;

as evidenced by Obama’s own statments which he stands by via subsequent statements:
  • (06-APR-2008): “But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”.

  • (12-APR-2008): “I said something that everybody knows is true.”

  • (12-APR-2008): “Obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that.”

  • (23-NOV-2004): Barack Obama and Charlie Rose both spoke of the danger of “sounding condescending”, yet it still happened on 06-APR-2008.

googlumpugus wrote: d.a.n. Please point out where Obama said clinging to religion is a bad thing. I couldn’t find that in your post.
I did.

See [c] above. Besides, you already admitted it was not said in praise, in approval, or complimentary:

googlumpugus wrote: “You say he isn’t being flattering. Correct.”

So, it is not surprising when some people, while trying to defend the indefensible such as Obama’s statements above which mischaracterize and criticize people “in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest”, find themselves doing a pretzel imitation, and get all twisted and tripped up on their own inconsistencies which lead to obfuscations to distract from that fact.

To make matters worse, Obama then defended them as “something everybody knows is true”.
Then Obama semi-back-peddled and said he regretted wording “things in a way that made people offended”.
Then Obama later admitted that he meant “anti-illegal-immigrant” instead of “anti-immigrant”, and he meant “anti-unfair trade” instead of “anti-trade”.
Yeah right.
That still does not explain away Obama’s mischaracterizations and criticism of peoples’ religions and support of the 2nd amendment.

Please feel free anytime to offer a credible argument to refute those 4 things (i.e. [a], [b], [c], [d] above), rather than nonsense about looking in a mirror, Dr. Freud, and some nebulous nonsense about smoking, getting married, and voting.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 8, 2008 10:53 AM
Comment #266178

Done and done. You may continue to argue with yourself, I’ve made my point.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 8, 2008 12:38 PM
Comment #266188

Givin’ up, eh? Figures.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 8, 2008 1:35 PM
Comment #266195

David Remer writes; “Jim M, there’s that old black and white perspective we have come to expect in your comments. You said:
“The truth is, predatory politicians got us into this mess.”

That is a partial truth. And an entire deception. Greed and profit are the primary and overarching motives of corporations. They exist for no other reason.”

Two questions for our self-proclaimed learned philosopher; How does “partial truth and entire decpetion” coexist? What in your opinion is the difference between “greed and profit”?

David would have us believe that the shareholders of our corporations are not also their customers. Otherwise, how would his nonsense be believable? Does greed exist in business…of course; in government…of course. Are businesses formed for profit motives…of course; in government…of course not. Government never calls excessive taxes and fees profit; it’s called revenue. Liberals led by Obama, Pelosi, Reid and other lowlifes have found a new name for higher taxes which they often refer to as revenue enhancement. How silly. David appears to believe that the sins of government never become the sins of business.

For David, the egg came first…not the chicken.

David responds to the headline I linked apparently without bothering to read the entire paper.

Posted by: Jim M at October 8, 2008 2:21 PM
Comment #266227

Jim M,

When you pay taxes you are buying something, the services of the government, and in order for them to perform those services they, in turn, buy goods and labor from the same market as do you. So taxes are, ideally, immediately recycled into the economy, no different than if you bought the same services from a private company. The only difference then is that buying from the government is compulsory. That fact is what the argument is really all about. The idea that taxation harms the economy has always been baseless and simply a cover for disputing the existence of specific government programs.
So if taxes are economically neutral and deficit spending is just another way of raising taxes then why worry? One problem is that we are increasingly borrowing from foreign sources and when we are paying interest on our debt that money is removed from our economy.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 8, 2008 8:35 PM
Comment #266237

The current tax system is regressive.

While the tax system could be much more fair, taxation isn’t going to solve the massive debt problem.

Where will the money come from to merely pay the interest on the nation-wide debt of $54 Trillion -to- $67 Trillion, much less the money to reduce the principal, when that money does not yet exist, and the U.S. is already borrowing and printing the $429 Billion in interest alone?

Where?

Here’s where:

  • Someone has to be foreclosed on, in which banks convert money created out of thin air into real assets and property. Cha Ching!

A reset, of sorts, is required.
Then the dishonest, usurious, inflationary pyramid monetary system can be restarted.
Then the next bubble can begin.

The Debt=Money Pyramid (123 minutes) …

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 8, 2008 11:14 PM
Comment #266250

”# (06-APR-2008): “But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”.”

d.a.n I disagree with your interpretation of this comment.
This is what was said just prior to the comment you have quoted.

“Obama-The period that has just come to an end, in which the wages and incomes of average workers actually went down during economic expansion. The average family had a $1000 less disposable income than when George Bush took office. Part of this was globalization and trends that we can’t lay at the feet of George Bush. But we can blame this administration for having made those trends worse, by giving those of us who were winners in the global economy a tax break, those of us who didn’t need them and weren’t even asking for them. By failing to provide the training that workers needed as they watched their jobs get shipped overseas. So people are having a tough time. They’re working harder and harder just to get by. They are paying..they’ve never paid more for healthcare or gas at the pump . It’s harder to save and harder to retire.

They were using home equity as a way of balancing their budgets, and when the housing market crashed because this administration provided no oversight and no regulation, because we haven’t given enough concern given to whether or not the economy was working for those at the bottom and the middle…

Man in the Crowd: “I’m going to Pennsylvania this week to knock on doors for you. What should I expect? What should I know before I go there?”

OBAMA: It depends on the communities you’re in. There are communities in Pennsylvania that actually probably have more in common with San Francisco than they do with the rest of Pennsylvania. and Then, there are other communities that you know are you know culturally very different. They have more in common with downstate Illinois than they do with Philadelphia, for example. It depends on where you are.

But I think it’s fair to say that the places where we will have to do the most work are the places where people are the most cynical about government.

The people are misapprenhend…I think they’re misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to ‘white working-class don’t wanna work — don’t wanna vote for the black guy.’ That’s…there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it’s sort of a race thing.

But — so the questions you’re most likely to get about me, ‘Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What’s the concrete thing?’ What they wanna hear is — so, we’ll give you talking points about what we’re proposing — close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama’s gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we’re gonna provide health care for every American. So we’ll go down a series of talking points.”


This comment was made to a group of people trying to get Obama nominated for the democratic presidential candidate. They were dems and they were deciding where there money and effort was going to be best spent. They could have opted for others in the dems primary that had as good or better chances to get elected. They were strategizing on how to convince more conservative rural blue collar voters to vote for Obama over Clinton.
In previous elections the issues that helped to put Bush amongst others into the white house were “Gods Guns and Gays”.I am sure you have heard this term before. It is used to describe wedge issues that have been used to convince voters to vote for republican/conservative candidates based upon certain implied promises and/or threats such as “overturning roe V wade” “the dems will take your guns away” and “the marriage amendment”. People have voted against their economic interests based upon these wedge issues in the past.
Obama spoke a wise truth by saying some of these people had given up on seeing an economic revitalization as they had been hearing that for years. He also spoke a truth when he said it is more than just not wanting to vote for a black guy it is because the cling to their guns (or if you prefer “they vote against dems because they think we will take their guns away). They vote the gun issue. Thats all, no insult just fact. They vote the gun issue because they have heard the good times would be back before, many times before, yet the good times haven’t come back.
When he said they cling to religion that wasn’t an insult it was a fact. They vote for issues of religion (roe v wade as an example) instead of in what Obama perceives to be their best financial interest because they have heard it all before yet their was no economic revitalization in their town.
In summary d.a.n some voters are one issue voters and the issue could be very well god guns or gays. Obama was trying to explain to people that were helping in his campaign how to address these people in an attempt to show them what he would do for them. He was talking to dems in a rather closed door situation, without media coverage. He may not have felt the need to go into a higher level of detail while conversing with friends and like minded people, but his comments IMHO are completely accurate when describing certain voters who have faced the great many changes in their local economy as manufacturing jobs have been outsourced and wages have failed to keep up with real inflation. After you hear this year after year some people do get bitter that is not an insult that is a fact. Obama was insulting or degrading them he was explaining what he perceived to be their reasoning for voting the way they did in past elections.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 9, 2008 12:22 AM
Comment #266258

Obama was insulting … should be wasn’t .

Posted by: j2t2 at October 9, 2008 8:55 AM
Comment #266289

Marysdude writes; “The only difference then is that buying from the government is compulsory. That fact is what the argument is really all about.”

Simple question for Marysdude…where in our founding documents does it authorize our government to compete with private business? The obligations defined as proper government activity is clearly defined in those documents.

How long before we have government owned grocery and clothing stores, auto dealerships, telephone companies, etc. Are you suggesting Marysdude that I must now compete with my own government for my clients and customers?

That it is compulsory that we pay social security and medicare taxes is one thing…what you are suggesting is the philosophy of some “ism” which I am not allowed to name.

Posted by: Jim M at October 9, 2008 12:53 PM
Comment #266296

Taxes are repugnant

Taxes are mis-spent and abused

But, taxes are economically neutral because they all go back into the economy…some of them after doing good things like building bridges (except those to nowhere)

We can hate them, but can’t do without them…hmmm…kinda like…oh, never mind…

Taxes are a necessary evil

Spending taxes on corporate welfare is sinful

But, borrowing from foreign nations is unconscionable, because that is taxation on future generations…and, we can’t have corporate welfare without borrowing from socialist governments

Posted by: Marysdude at October 9, 2008 1:42 PM
Comment #266329

Jim M

Capitalcommun-ism? You know private profits, socialized debt?

Sorta like Brangelina, only not as pretty.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 9, 2008 4:36 PM
Comment #266332

Too bad that neither Marysdude or goog would address my questions.

Marysdude wrote: “But, taxes are economically neutral because they all go back into the economy…some of them after doing good things like building bridges (except those to nowhere)”

I can’t really fathom what he/she is saying here. One could interpret her statement to mean that all income should be taxed at 100% as it’s economically neutral. Since she said some taxes do good things, I would like to know from him/her what are the bad things taxes do as his/her words imply only some are good.

Posted by: Jim M at October 9, 2008 4:52 PM
Comment #266343

Jim M poses questions she should already know the answers to, i.e., I presented a couple of bad ways taxes are spent…bridges to nowhere and waste/abuse. She should understand that while taxes are economically neutral, it does not mean anything like 100% taxation would be acceptable, it means that the money is not lost to the economy when taxes are paid, the economy does not suffer, but taxpayers would if 100% were paid in. But, it is difficult for some girls to understand that, while others probably figure it right out…what about it, janedoe, VV, Carolina? Do ya’ll find it difficult to understand?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 9, 2008 5:32 PM
Comment #266361

Marysdude wrote; “should understand that while taxes are economically neutral, it does not mean anything like 100% taxation would be acceptable, it means that the money is not lost to the economy when taxes are paid”

Whew…sure glad you don’t advocate 100% taxation of income. I do find your position regarding taxes being economically neutral interesting. If $1 of tax is collected on a U.S. taxpayer and spent on foreign aid, propping up foreign governments, and other such expenditures, what is being used if not part of that $1 tax?

Posted by: Jim M at October 9, 2008 6:50 PM
Comment #266364

I’ve got to say that taxes and most monetary things give me a major headache and I would really like to just pretend they aren’t there….. that being said….It’s not the concept of taxation that’s difficult, but the justification of its’ destination. Which is all part of that taxation/representation thing ………and why we’re all here now. There are disparities which are toxic.
Highways, parks, medical research, men on the moon……if not for taxes, would we still have these things? At least as we know them….
Maybe we could convince someone, that every time taxes are witheld or collected, we get an invoice, that shows exactly where our 2cents have gone.
If this sounds too stupid, I’ll just deny responsiblity…..my cat did it while I was away.

Posted by: janedoe at October 9, 2008 7:27 PM
Comment #266376

janedoe,

Except for some intelligence dollars that remain hidden, most of that is available at the GAO (Government Accounting Office). Sometimes it takes several years for it all to show up, but it does eventually. That is one of the reasons that waste is so rampant, it takes too long for some reporting to take place and even longer to track it down when it is not reported…it is a pretty big government and it does spend a lot of money.

Jim M,

I’m not sure how it flows nowadays, but several years ago foreign aid was about one percent of the budget…I doubt it to be much more than that today. That money costs taxpayers very little because it keeps other countries from creating direct non-recoverable costs. But if you want to hear me back off on a subject…okay, a little of our tax money is NOT economically neutral…

You’d have made a better point if you’d asked how much is neutral of the dollars spent on materials no longer manufactured in America…those dollars are never recovered…but, that’s a subject for another day…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 9, 2008 9:01 PM
Comment #266378

There is possibly a way to have ZERO taxes.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 9, 2008 9:08 PM
Comment #266380

d.a.n.

Your 17% flat tax on income (above the poverty level) might work, but only if no exceptions were allowed…zero deductions…zero exemptions…zero loopholes…all accounts paid-in-full every year.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 9, 2008 9:24 PM
Comment #266411

Marysdude, Yes, I agree 100%.

No loop-holes.

Let in one loop-hole, and it will be followed by many more, and before too long, the system is a overly complex, unfair, regressive, perverted mess like we have today (by design).

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at October 10, 2008 12:32 AM
Comment #266428

Jim M,

With a hundred posts here, I don’t see any questions directed at me from you. Care to repeat them?

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 10, 2008 8:09 AM
Comment #266445
googlumpugus wrote: Jim M, With a hundred posts here, I don’t see any questions directed at me from you. Care to repeat them?
googlumpugus wrote: Jim M,

Capitalcommun-ism? You know private profits, socialized debt?

Sorta like Brangelina, only not as pretty.


Posted by: d.a.n at October 10, 2008 12:38 PM
Comment #266454

d.a.n.

Yes, that’s what I said. Where is Jim’s question?

If you mean should he have to compete against the government? It depends what business he is refering to. I don’t know of any state owned grocers, except the Px. Is he wanting a contract with the military? Again I don’t really see a question. He was obviously refering to communism, which I did comment on by making a joke about us already being there in some mutated form of capitalism.

Government is doing what capitalism failed at.

The truth is there are always mixed forms of these ideas in all governments, including Jefferson’s.

Posted by: googlumpugus at October 10, 2008 2:40 PM
Comment #266570

No system (capitalism, democracy, corporations, governments, organizations, clubs, etc.) can work correctly without sufficient Transparency and Accountability.

People, too often, underestimate greed and selfishness, which breeds corruption.

  • Virtue = the source of moral and ethical judgment; a sense of right and wrong; a sense of caring. A good Conscience is not merely knowing what is right or wrong, but caring enough to do what is right, and provides the motivation to seek the balance of Education, Transparency, Accountability, and Power required for any successful society, government, or organization;
  • Education = an understanding of the importance of: Education, Transparency, Accountability, Power, Responsibility, Corruption, and the fundamental human desire to seek security and prosperity with the least effort and pain, and that some will resort to dishonest, unethical, or illegal methods to obtain it;
  • Transparency = visibility and simplification of cleverly over-complicated processes to reveal and identify abusers, create outrage, reduce opportunities for abuse, and discourage abuse and dishonesty;
  • Accountability = consequences needed to encourage law enforcement, encourage ethical behavior, and discourage abuse and dishonesty;
  • Power = force required to enforce the laws, discontinue abuse, ensure consequences, punish abusers, and discourage abuse and dishonesty; but unchecked Power without sufficient Education, Transparency, and Accountability breeds Corruption.
  • Responsibility = Power + Virtue + Education + Transparency + Accountability
  • Corruption = Power - Virtue - Education - Transparency - Accountability
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
  • Posted by: d.a.n at October 11, 2008 2:30 PM
    Comment #267434
    j2t2 wrote: d.a.n I disagree with your interpretation of this comment:
    • (06-APR-2008): “But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”.
    The full context of the statement doesn’t change anything.

    Besides, the statement by itself, whether in the full context, or not, doesn’t change anything.

    If Obama had said “anti-unfair trade”, and “anti-illegal-immigrant”, then that may have made sense.
    It is wrong for some people to harbor unjustified “anti-trade” and “anti-immigrant” sentiments.
    However, the part about guns and religion make no sense, no matter which way you cut it.
    And Obama hasn’t any room to be criticizing the way other people practice their religions, when he went to Rev. Wright’s church for 20 years.
    Why bring religion into it at all?
    And the part about “cling[ing] to guns” might make sense if he was talking about radical anarchists.

    So I still don’t see how Obama’s statement can be interpreted in any way but a criticism on some people in small towns in the midwest, because:

    • [a] Obama mischaracterized people who are sick of illegal immigration as merely being “anti-immigrant”; besides, we all know Obama’s position on illegal immigration; Obama (like McCain, who voted for the first shamnesty of 1986) chooses to despicably pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other for votes , profits , and/or (supposedly, but severely misplaced) compassion;

    • [b] Obama mischaracterized people who are sick of unfair-trade as merely being “anti-trade”; Obama later said he mistakenly forgot to say “illegal-immigrant” (instead of anti-immigrant) and “unfair-trade” (instead of unfair trade). Obama did not say “anti-illegal-immigrant”; he said “anti-immigrant” which is nonsense in a country that is one of the world’s biggest melting pots. Obama did not say “anti-unfair-trade”; he said “anti-trade”, which is more nonsense in a country that wants free-trade instead of what we have today where other countries block our exports.

    • [c] Obama characterized people as clinging to religion, as if they were supposed to do anything else? How does a person of genuine religious faith cling to their religion? Did Obama cling to his church? What business is it of Obama’s how people practice their religion as long as they don’t interfere with others’ rights? Especially when Obama has some explaining of his own to do about 20 years at Rev. Wright’s church and then disowning Rev. Wright when it become politically inconvenient. At first Obama said he couldn’t disown his Reverend anymore than he could disown his white grandmother. And why did he feel the need to tell us his grandmother is white? Yet, later, Obama did disown and denounce Rev. Wright. Besides, are we really supposed to believe that Obama never heard any of Rev. Wright’s ravings over 20 years?

    • [d] Obama mischaracterized people who value their 2nd amendment right to bear arms as deficient in some way; it was not intended as a compliment; besides, Obama already has a history of positions and voting for gun control; i.e. Obama supported the handgun-ban in Washington, D.C., which the Supreme Court finally (after 30 years) found as unconstitutional. It’s a bit disturbing that the 2nd amemdment was upheld by only a margin of 1 vote (5-to-4 ; one-simple-idea.com/SupremeCourtJustices2008.htm) Supreme Court Justices);
      Judges supporting the 2nd Amendment:
      • (1) Antonin Scalia

      • (2) John G. Roberts Jr.

      • (3) Samuel A. Alito Jr.

      • (4) Anthony M. Kennedy

      • (5) Clarence Thomas

      Judges dissenting the right of citizens to bear arms:
      • (6) John Paul Stevens

      • (7) Stephen G. Breyer

      • (8) Ruth Bader Ginsburg

      • (9) David H. Souter

    j2t2 wrote: In summary d.a.n some voters are one issue voters …
    True. But that’s not what Obama said, and still doesn’t explain away the comment about people who “cling to religion”, since that’s none of his business. Had Obama said some people want to push their religion onto other people, that would make sense. If Obama had said some people only care about gun rights alone, and nothing else matters, that might have made sense, but he didn’t. And Obama’s positions and voting records on gun ownership reveals a lot about why Obama said what he said (e.g. “cling … to guns”). And Obama’s positions on illegal immigration reveals a lot about why Obama said what he said about (e.g. “anti-immigrant”).
    j2t2 wrote: Obama spoke a wise truth by saying some of these people had given up on seeing an economic revitalization as they had been hearing that for years.
    I don’t argue that point, nor many other points.

    That’s not the part that is the problem.

    j2t2 wrote:This comment was made to a group of people trying to get Obama nominated for the democratic presidential candidate… He [Obama] was talking to dems in a rather closed door situation, without media coverage.
    HHMMMmmmmmm … I don’t see how that matters, nor justifies it. In fact, if it is supposed to be secret, not fit or intended for public review, then that is disturbing too.
    j2t2 wrote: When he said they cling to religion that wasn’t an insult it was a fact.
    Why say it? Was it said to praise people that “cling to religion”, or criticizing them? It was an obvious criticism, which is none of his business (and I’m an agnostic). Had Obama said some people were one-issue voters and voted only based only on “Roe vs. Wade”, that would make sense. That would be true. However, that’s not what he said. Besides, not all people opposed to abortion are religious.
    j2t2 wrote: In summary d.a.n some voters are one issue voters and the issue could be very well god guns or gays.
    True, but that’s not the issue.

    That’s not what Obama was really saying.
    Obama was:

    • [a] mischaracterizing people who are sick of illegal immigration as merely being “anti-immigrant”;

    • [b] mischaracterizing people who are sick of unfair-trade as merely being “anti-trade”;

    • [c] characterized people as clinging to religion, as if that was any of Obama’s business;

    • [d] Obama mischaracterized people who value their 2nd amendment right to bear arms as deficient in some way;

    j2t2 wrote: Obama was [not] insulting or degrading them he was explaining what he perceived to be their reasoning for voting the way they did in past elections.
    I disagree.

    Sorry, j2t2, no offense intended, but we’ll have to agree to disagree, because I still don’t think Obama’s statements have been misinterpreted, due to the 4 reasons stated above.
    And saying “He [Obama] was talking to dems in a rather closed door situation, without media coverage”, certainly isn’t only not helping justify it, but make it worse.
    If anything, some people seem to be trying to overlook Obama’s statements.
    Some say Obama’s statements are true.

    The fact is, few people are not “anti-trade”.
    That makes no sense.
    Most people are anti-UNFAIR-trade.
    There’s a HUGE difference.
    Especially in view of Obama’s voting record and positions on trade (Obama voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman (BILL S. 3569 ; vote number 2006-190 on Jun 29, 2006), even though Oman has bad labor laws, and the trade-deal contained some investment provisions even more damaging to the ability of government to act in the public interest than NAFTA or CAFTA.)

    The fact is, few people are “anti-immigrant” in one of the world’s biggest melting pots in the world.
    That makes no sense.
    Most people are anti-ILLEGAL-immigrant.
    There’s a HUGE difference.
    Especially in view of Obama’s positions on illegal immigration, another shamnesty, and wanting to give illegal aliens drivers’ licenses. Obama’s career immigration grade is a “D-” (grades.betterimmigration.com/compare.php3?District=IL&Category=0&Status=Career&VIPID=1162).

    The fact is, few people cling to “guns”.
    That makes no sense.
    Most people simply want their 2nd amendment rights protected.
    There’s a HUGE difference.
    Especially in view of Obama’s positions on gun-ownership.

    The fact is, people who cling to religion (or not) is none of Obama’s business.
    That makes no sense, when that’s the intention of all people of all faiths.
    If Obama wants to criticize people for proselytizing or 1st amendment violations, that would make sense.
    But criticizing people that “cling to religion”, instead of proselytizing and 1st amendment violations, makes no sense at all.
    There’s a HUGE difference.
    Especially in view of Obama’s initial defense of Rev. Wright, and then the subsequent disowning of Rev. Wright.

    So, in my opinion, Obama’s statement is not true.

    Again, Obama’s known positions on guns, immigration, and truly what is at the heart of Obama’s statement above.
    And recently, Obama also said “spread the wealth around” with regard to taxes.
    That’s a bit disturbing too.
    I’m surprised that Obama would even say such a thing, even if he really believes it.
    I’m glad to see Obama saying what he really believes, but it is still disturbing.

    Even though I think Obama’s tax plan is fairer than McCain’s, in which McCain wants to make the tax system more regressive, that sort of philosophy to “spread the wealth around” is a bit disturbing.
    Obama does not appear to merely be making misstatements.
    Instead, it appears that sometimes, what Obama honestly believes slips out.
    The truth slips out.
    But what people say is not the entire measure of a person.
    Their deeds and voting records reveal more about a person than what that person says, and Obama’s voting record reveals the truth about his statement with regard to immigration, guns, trade, and religion.

    And the back-peddling and excuses afterward, with weak explanations that try to say Obama was merely misinterpreted, or meant to say it differently, or said it badly, are not very convincing, because of those voting records and previously stated positions.
    However, even if all of these statements were merely misstatements, then that is disturbing too, and reveals a potential communication problem.
    If Obama was really trying to make a point about single-issue voters, then he failed miserably.

    However, I think Obama said exactly what he meant to say, and that sort of thing probably went unnoticed often, or is said in some setting where “He [Obama] was talking to dems in a rather closed door situation, without media coverage”, and thinks it won’t be repeated elsewhere.

    Fortunately, someone was there that was willing to reveal Obama’s statements to the rest of us.

    Lastly, I don’t much care whether Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin wins the election.
    I think Obama will win, and that’s probably better than McCain winning.
    But I don’t think either can and/or will keep their promises, nor will either stop the 10 abuses hammering most Americans.
    And neither will stop illegal immigration, which will help destroy any new Universal HealthCare system (due to 20+ million illegal aliens).
    Obama wants to give illegal aliens drivers’ licenses.
    Obama wants to give them all amnesty, and McCain voted for the first shamnesty of 1986.
    And Obama taught Constitutional Law, but along with all of Congress, is violating Article V (among other Constitutional violations: One-Simple-Idea.com/ConstitutionalViolations1.htm).

    In my opinion, our choices for President/VP stink, and that’s probably why the race is so close.

    That’s why it’s more important than ever for voters to not forget about Congress, which enjoys 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
    However, it looks as though only Republicans will be getting ousted this year, and that’s going to reward a lot of equally bad Democrat politicians with re-election.

    Oh well, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

    Posted by: d.a.n at October 19, 2008 9:52 AM
    Post a comment