Patterico's Pontifications

7/8/2008

L.A. Times: Obama’s Agenda Too Expensive

Filed under: 2008 Election,Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 6:37 am

The L.A. Times has a front-page article reporting that Barack Obama likely will not be able to pay for everything he is promising:

In more than a year of campaigning, Barack Obama has made a long list of promises for new federal programs costing tens of billions of dollars, many of them aimed at protecting people from the pain of a souring economy.

But if he wins the presidency, Obama will be hard-pressed to keep his blueprint intact.

Nice job, and kudos to the paper for the article.

216 Responses to “L.A. Times: Obama’s Agenda Too Expensive”

  1. But harpy would have us believe that Baracky would be fiscally responsible.

    JD (75f5c3)

  2. I wonder why none of the Dem candidates ever campaign on cutting back spending.

    Michael Ejercito (a757fd)

  3. Michael – they do not know how to say those words, in that combination. Hell, cutting the rate of growth is considered a cut in spending to them.

    JD (75f5c3)

  4. And on a related note, Rasmussen reports that congressional approval rating has fallen to single digits. Don’t most of those critters have a “D” attached to their name?

    Old Coot (cb828a)

  5. As usual for the “Times”, it’s too little, too late. When the LA Times does accurately report the facts along with a fair analysis of a story, it must be considered to be only a forced correction. Forced upon them from the editorial process of the Internet.

    C. Norris (565888)

  6. Management by reinforcement or training a puppy–when the critter or newspaper does something right, you praise it or them. Here you have the Daily Dog Trainer totting up the bill on Obama’s proposals and concluding that the bill is greater than the wallet can handle. Kudos to them.

    Mike Myers (31af82)

  7. I denounce you all. All of our current woes are direct result of W. W has been a free spender of our childrens’ legacy. Liberals would at least have raised taxes on the greedy upper class who don’t need the dough. We need income redistribution and Obama is the best hope of carrying that out. One wag on this blog has called for bringing back top bracket rates of 91% income tax. People waste oodles of their own money and the government would do a better job spending it. One hopes the Obamas might find the price of fresh fruit stabilized.
    But seriously I did read that with economey headed south, Obama’s promises might well require $1 trillion annual deficits. And you greedy neocons hoping to hide your filthy lucre from the tax man might consider that Pelosi wants a piece of those lucrative retirement funds you have socked way because FAIRNESS dictates a leveling of incomes. The poor who pay no income taxes now and illegal aliens are not sufficiently partaking in the American dream. So there is hope! of Change ! in tax policies to give the gummint sufficient revenue for the various entitlement programs proposed. Give your fair shares!

    madmax333 (03f303)

  8. O made a lot of promises to his lefty base in order to get the nomination – promises which are now subject to post-hoc “refinement”.

    I’d say this is another bunch of campaign promises that will be refined out of existance as soon as possible. Pretty soon you won’t even remember that promises were made in the first place – all shall be lost in the rosy glow of the coming new dawn and glorious day of his Ascendance.

    I just gave myself a really bad headache…

    JSinAZ (c83b50)

  9. I’ve been running a series on his “The Blueprint For Change” and have come to that same conclusion, along with the conclusion that each and every program he proposes is unConstitutional. Come on by my Townhall blog to see it. I’m up to Part 13 of 17 so far.

    The Crawfish (1aaf2a)

  10. *strengthen the nation’s bridges and dams ($6 billion a year),

    *help make men better fathers ($50 million a year)

    *aid Iraqis displaced by the war ($2 billion in one-time spending).

    *give religious and community groups $500 million a year to provide summer education to low-income children.

    Other proposals are more costly.

    *extend health insurance to more people (part of a $65-billion-a-year health plan)

    *develop cleaner energy sources ($15 billion a year)

    *curb home foreclosures ($10 billion in one-time spending)

    *add $18 billion a year to education spending.

    When my children were small and we went to the store, some times they really wanted me to buy them a new toy. I would have to say no and explain we didn’t have the money for the item. They would inevitably tell me, c’mon mom, just write a check. As children their lack of understanding at the integral relationship between a checkbook and the bank account was expected.

    I don’t expect that level of ignorance in someone who wants be my president.

    p.s. someone want to explain this jewel:

    *help make men better fathers ($50 million a year)

    How does $50million make men better fathers????

    Dana (764cb2)

  11. It continues to be astonishing how much Mr. Bush has messed up the Republican party. As irresponsible as Mr. Obama’s plan is, it is just not credible that the Republicans are fiscally responsible.

    If McCain somehow manages to come out on top – in a sense that will be a mandate to continue Mr Bush’s reckless spending behavior and incompetent leading of the conservatives in Congress. That’s not very inspirational.

    Wesson (b23bc4)

  12. As irresponsible as Mr. Obama’s plan is, it is just not credible that the Republicans are fiscally responsible.

    Uh, huh.

    And…?

    Oh, wait, is this an ad hominem fallacy or a tu quoque fallacy? It’s hard to tell sometimes…

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  13. Apparently, Obama’s new programs will cost in the range of $130 billion a year. That’s more than we spend on the Iraq war currently per year.

    Heh, what is Obama doing spending all this money on programs that will do stuff like help the poor, provide more health insurance, improve education, and reduce energy dependance?

    Doesn’t he know that you’re only supposed to spend that kind of money on killing people, jailing them, or blowing stuff up?

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  14. Apparently, Obama’s new programs will cost in the range of $130 billion a year.

    Actually it’s more in the range of that $130 billion, PLUS $350 billion in new spending.

    Where is all that extra money going to come from? Tax the rich? Tax the oil companies?

    And I’d LURVE to see the Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to “make men become better fathers’. (“Better” according to the black liberation theology he has been indictrinated with for the past 20+ years?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  15. I forgot the link.

    Business Week:

    Yet limiting tax hikes to the $250,000-and-up set probably won’t pump enough money into the U.S. Treasury to pay for new spending programs and deal with the ballooning deficit, even when combined with proposed corporate tax increases. Analyst Daniel Clifton of Strategas Research Partners has tallied some $350 billion in promised new annual spending by Obama. He has outlined plans to pay for new programs without increasing the deficit, but budget analysts are skeptical. “Targeting just a fraction of the population [for an increase] is not going to generate the revenues they need,” says Roberton Williams, an ex-Congressional Budget Office staffer now with the independent Tax Policy Center. Adds Clifton: “They are going to have to find a way to get more from the middle class.”

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  16. Doesn’t he know that you’re only supposed to spend that kind of money on killing people, jailing them, or blowing stuff up?

    When in doubt, Phil goes for repitition of tired mendouceous memes. Does not make them any more accurate, but he feels better.

    JD (75f5c3)

  17. Phil is another one for whom “Damn the facts! Full Bluster ahead!” is their only M.O. He also qualifies for the Larry the Cable Guy test of Mental aptitude. IE. He drops a bowling ball on Phil’s foot and Phil gets a concussion.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  18. “How does $50million make men better fathers????”

    By teaching them that their own failings will always be sanctioned and rewarded by the government – i.e., if they abandoned their children, they’ll get money back if they just agree to visit on the Holidays.

    “Phil goes for repitition of tired mendouceous memes.”

    I think you meant to say “…tired, menDOUCHENESS memes.

    Dmac (ea35f7)

  19. I expect to see some negative articles on Obama now, when no one cares much. Comer September and October, it will be Sycophant City.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  20. Phil,

    Here’s a US News’ column from February 2008, before Obama added even more promises, that estimated his plans would cost $200B a year ($800B over 4 years) plus an extra $50B per year to fix the AMT. The article also quotes campaign statements that indicate Obama will solve Social Security shortfalls by increasing payroll taxes — and those will have to be huge increases.

    That’s a minimum of a trillion dollars in spending over 4 years that would not be anywhere close to being offset by savings in Iraq. Not only did the LA Times’ article (on p. 2) note that nonpartisan analysts say Obama’s savings just don’t add up, but we also know from Obama’s recent statements that there may still be a US troop presence in Iraq even if he is President.

    Further, the US will undoubtedly continue significant economic and humanitarian assistance to the region. According to statements by Samantha Power when she was Obama’s senior foreign policy adviser, proactive involvement in foreign nations will be a hallmark of Obama’s foreign policy.

    DRJ (d5bcc5)

  21. DRJ, I don’t disagree that Obama’s a big spender. However, I do factor in that $85 billion of that price tag is for middle class tax cuts, which I don’t consider to be nearly as revenue-draining as military spending.

    There’s a big difference between spending $85 billion to blow stuff up, and spending $85 billion to let middle class Americans keep more of the money they pay in taxes. So I don’t consider the $85 billion in tax cuts to be “spending” per se. Who’s to say how much revenue will really be lost as a result of these cuts?

    The point of my post was that although Obama is a big spender, at least he’s spending on stuff that I find a lot less offensive than the bloodthirsty middle-eastern tail-chaising that McCain and the neocons keep cheerleading for.

    I consider myself a fiscal conservative who would prefer a president who simply cuts government taxing and spending, across the board. But I don’t see that happening. When forced to choose between a president who likes to mix it up in wars all the time, costing us a hundred billion or so a year, and a president who likes to throw money at the poor and middle class, to the tune of a couple hundred billion a year, I gotta say I prefer the latter.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  22. However, I do factor in that $85 billion of that price tag is for middle class tax cuts,

    Considering the fact that the lowest 60% of wage earners pay less than 15% of all income tax revenue, and most families in that group have no income tax burden whatsoever (including the 7.8 million households who no longer pay taxes), how can you claim that repealing the Bush tax cuts would be seen as yet another tax cut?

    The Democratic candidate has already stated that he will be repealing the Bush tax cuts. That means that almost 8 million households will be paying taxes when they weren’t before. That is an Obama “tax cut”.

    He will also be increasing spending by more than 300 BILLION dollars – almost a billion dollars a day MORE than the Government is spending now.

    Raising taxes working class families and a billion dollars a day spending increase.

    These are what we have to look forward to if Obama is in the White House.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  23. Since the Chicago Tribune is a Zell property, why aren’t we simply given the coverage by BHO’s hometown paper?

    Why do we need the LAT to even decide what kind of coverage BHO should receive, excepting issues >i>directly impacting SoCal (I do not include the GWOT), such as transpo funding/regulation.

    I am not a huge Zell fan, but I darn well guarantee ya that I would be relying heavily on the expertise of those closest to a story and distributing such to all of my properties.

    Ed (d17ceb)

  24. “I consider myself a fiscal conservative…”

    Classic misdirection play here – no one would honestly say that and then vote for Obama. His budgetary wish list is astronomical, there is no way to claim you prefer fiscal responsibility in one breath and then ignore the elephant in the room. Cognitive dissonance must be a painful thing for you to experience, Peter, but there you are.

    Dmac (ea35f7)

  25. Doesn’t Moby have an album to finish?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  26. The $50m for better dads is strange.

    And this one smells like an earmark for Rev-wright and the other creepy crawlers who might be connected to the campaign. As in associates. Former associates. Former associates who are like doddering old uncles. Whatever. Obama, stick a fork in it.

    *give religious and community groups $500 million a year to provide summer education to low-income children.

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  27. Classic misdirection play here – no one would honestly say that and then vote for Obama.

    Um, sure there is, when you’re in a two-party system and fiscal conservatism is off the table on both sides.

    The only question is, which type of fiscal liberal do I want — one that likes to spend lotsa money killing people and blowing stuff up, or one who’s an irrational bleeding-heart?

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  28. Since I don’t have an econ degree, just respect for the discipline I wonder why these social programs can’t be farmed out to the big corps. Let them package trips-and-tutors for the needy, give a break of some sort and keep it out of the budget.

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  29. one that likes to spend lotsa money killing people and blowing stuff up,

    I wonder what al Qaeda’s budget is. You don’t seem to include those harsh realities in your world view. We haven’t had another 9/11.

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  30. one that likes to spend lotsa money killing people

    You forgot to finish that sentence. How about this: “one that likes to spend lotsa money killing people WHO ARE WORKING HARD TO KILL EVERYONE WHO DOESN’T BELIEVE EXACTLY AS THEY DO”.

    I would have a problem with randomly killing people and wasting money, too. But that isn’t what we are doing.

    Now, would you rather have those billions of dollars spent on a military that is doing its very best to keep us free and safe from random acts of terrorism here within the US or wasted on feel-good programs that aren’t a part of any government’s responsibility, more welfare for the laziest 10%, and entitlement programs that we will be paying for into the next three generations.

    A TRILLION DOLLARS in new spending, while asserting that he is cutting taxes, and you claim to be a fiscal conservative?

    That’s like saying “I love cats. They taste just like chicken.” The first sentence doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  31. If you feel that you aren’t paying enough in taxes, there is nothing stopping you from kicking a few extra thou to the IRS. I promise they won’t send it back.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  32. Uh-oh. Diversion up ahead.

    Barack and Family will chat with (pause ) Maria Menounos. On Access Hollywood. Is it worth a link? I didn’t think so.

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  33. Who did Bill Clinton get mad at a few months ago … someone accused the Clintons of pimping Chelsea for mom’s campaign. I bet no one in the media will rail against Michelle and Backtracky – - and their kids are only around 9 or 10.

    At least Chelsea was a logical bridge between college students and working Americans.

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  34. Vermont Neighbor,

    Access Hollywood?

    A little tacky, no? 60 Minutes I could see. It would lend a seriousness in showing him as father/hub, but… Access Hollywood? Can a mini-series be far behind?

    Dana (764cb2)

  35. Now, would you rather have those billions of dollars spent on a military that is doing its very best to keep us free and safe from random acts of terrorism here within the US or wasted on feel-good programs that aren’t a part of any government’s responsibility, more welfare for the laziest 10%, and entitlement programs that we will be paying for into the next three generations.

    Well, that is the other side of the coin. I don’t disagree that the U.S. military is trying hard to “to keep us free and safe from random acts of terrorism here within the US.” They have to try hard. Sorta like how my dentist would have to “try hard” if I hired him to build me a house.

    Me, I don’t see that we’re any better off than we were before the Iraq war. Granted, Iraq is somewhat better off (finally, after long a hellish war, and at a very high cost). But America isn’t.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  36. Yes, that Bush not only delights in wiping his derrierre with the US Constitution (source: Lord Levi), he wants to keep blowing things up, resulting in deaths of innocent terrorists. So, no new domestic attacks since 9/11. Let’s get away from an offensive against terrorism and save some big bucks. Wonder what a successful wmd attack against a big American coty would cost in live and treasure? Imagine a dirty bomb making now what is now ritzy real estate uninhabitable and how far the economy will sink? All hail the Obamessiah! Afterall islamomutants are people and have families also. I’m sure his 7/16 Arab blood means little even if the autobio says he will look out for Islam. Allahu Akhbar.

    madmax333 (78394e)

  37. A long hellish war, Phil? sheesh, the atrocious level of historical ignorance got old a freakin’ long time ago.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  38. Me, I don’t see that we’re any better off than we were before the Iraq war.

    There are none so blind…

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  39. Dana, it sure seems like Obama is trolling for support. 60 Minutes would lend an air of credibility, even if the reporting would be somewhat biased. Access Hollywood is, like, cringe factor.

    Again. Hillary might keep her pantsuits pressed and at the ready. : ]

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  40. Sorta like how my dentist would have to “try hard” if I hired him to build me a house.

    Yeah, because the military has no idea how to fight a war.

    You want a tooth pulled, hire a dentist, not a carpenter.

    You want a house built, you hire a contractor, not a lawyer.

    You want a war won, you hire a soldier, not a community organizer.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  41. They have to try hard. Sorta like how my dentist would have to “try hard” if I hired him to build me a house.

    Phil, is that a suggestion the US Military has no idea what it is doing?

    Paul (ae2fbe)

  42. Well, yes. Yes:

    Yeah, because the military has no idea how to fight a war.

    You want a tooth pulled, hire a dentist, not a carpenter.

    You want a house built, you hire a contractor, not a lawyer.

    You want a war won, you hire a soldier, not a community organizer.

    And the war on poverty in Barack’s old precinct didn’t even go all that well. Slumlord problems and all.

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  43. Phil – You are a Moby. Fiscal conservative? It is to laugh. Hint. A fiscal conservative would not refer to a tax cut in terms of spending. If you are going to lie, at least get the lingo down right.

    JD (5f0e11)

  44. Someone with an absolutely excellent name asked:

    How does $50million make men better fathers????

    Give me the $50 mil, and you’ll see just how much better a father I can become! :)

    Dana R Pico (556f76)

  45. Phil wrote:

    However, I do factor in that $85 billion of that price tag is for middle class tax cuts, which I don’t consider to be nearly as revenue-draining as military spending.

    No sense factoring that one in, because it won’t happen anyway. Back in March, Barack Hussein Obama voted for a Senate plan that would increase the 25, 28 and 31% brackets by 3% each, and the 35% bracket to 39.5%. The current 25% bracket starts at $31,850 taxable income for singles, and $62,700 for married couples.

    Mr Obama’s “middle class tax relief” pledge was meant exactly as honestly as Bill Clinton’s “middle class tax cut” promise in 1992. You know, the one on which he campaigned, but “adjusted” his ideas after the election, but even before he had been inaugerated.

    Mr Obama is simply lying about middle class tax relief, and we all know it. Why pretend otherwise?

    Dana R Pico (556f76)

  46. A long hellish war, Phil? sheesh, the atrocious level of historical ignorance got old a freakin’ long time ago.

    Oh, I’m sorry, SPQR, I forgot, it was a warm, fuzzy, friendly war. Tens of thousands of Iraqis died, but still, in historical terms, still, a warm, fuzzy and friendly war. My bad.

    Phil (276c70)

  47. I would like to be a volunteer for the pilot program for be a better Dad for $50 billion. As government programs go, when this fails, the Libs will say they just did not spend enough, then we will have the Be a Better Dad for $796 trillion. Good times.

    JD (5f0e11)

  48. Drumwaster wrote:

    You want a tooth pulled, hire a dentist, not a carpenter.

    Well, my older daughter has to have her braces off before she starts NROTC this fall, and I told her that we had all the tools in the shop to remove them: acetylene torch, needle-nose pliers, chisels and drills, but for some reason, she still insists on having the orthodontist do it. And I know that we can do it cheaper in the shop! :)

    Dana R Pico (556f76)

  49. Hmmm. I wonder if the acetylene torch suggestion means that I am the one who needs the $50 million better dad dollars?

    Dana R Pico (556f76)

  50. Phil, sarcasm does not become you.

    Paul (ae2fbe)

  51. To the commenters who infer I’m saying the U.S. military can’t fight a war — that’s not what I’m saying. Obviously, they are very good at fighting wars. I’m saying that the “war on terror” is a stupid idea because you don’t reduce terrorism by fighting a “war on terror.” Just like you don’t reduce drug use by fighting a “war on drugs” (as illustrated by the past 35 years of drug war).

    But if you want more terrorism, and also like the idea of fighting endless wars around the globe, then I suppose a “war on terror” is a great idea. Just like if you want endless law enforcement employment, and lots of business for jails, a “war on drugs” is an awesome idea.

    In both cases, there’s no question that you’re fighting bad guys, and you will stop some bad guys. But they will just be replaced by more bad guys, in a miserable cycle (miserable for everyone but those who like fighting bad guys, of course). And overall, you will increase the opportunities for bad guys to be, well, bad, and you’ll pretty much make life miserable for those caught in the middle of your “war.”

    Phil (276c70)

  52. And wasn’t 60 Minutes the venue in which another Democratic presidential candidate admitted to having “caused some pain” in his marriage? Just before he became a pain in all of our [redacted]?

    Dana R Pico (556f76)

  53. Here’s a hint, Phil: don’t look for humor where there isn’t any. All good humor has an element of truth, and your comment is completely devoid of it.

    Paul (ae2fbe)

  54. I would also like to pilot the Give Phil a Clue with the Cluebat program. Surely with a Baracky grant, we could figure out how to pull that one off.

    JD (5f0e11)

  55. Phil, your comments only show your ignorance of the great progress the US military has been making on terrorism globally. In the Phillipines, we’ve been aiding the Philippine army in knocking back Moro terrorism to great success. Recent events have shown the dramatic progress being made in Columbia against the Venezuelan-supported FARC narco-terrorists. The US military has also been seeing success in the Horn of Africa.

    Iraq is showing great progress against Al Queda. Afghanistan has been showing signs of regression in areas of the country placed in NATO control. This has done more to shown the inability of NATO to shoulder its responsibilities than to undermine credibility of the US military.

    The analogies to the drug war is just silliness on your part.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  56. As for your “long and hellish” comment, it was an excellent way for you to show just how ignorant of history you are. I guess for people whose knowledge of history begins in 1980 … and not to well even then … your comment looks positively brilliant.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  57. I’m saying that the “war on terror” is a stupid idea because you don’t reduce terrorism by fighting a “war on terror.”

    Holy snokes, we should surrender to them immediately and give them everything they want, huh?

    Hope you know which way Mecca is from your house…

    But if you want more terrorism, and also like the idea of fighting endless wars around the globe, then I suppose a “war on terror” is a great idea.

    We didn’t start this particular fracas. Or had you forgotten that?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  58. We should just legalize terrorism, then it wouldn’t be illegal anymore. Maybe NORML could help out.

    JD (5f0e11)

  59. Oh, I know. If we pretend like it does not exist, or have this silly idea that it did not exist prior to President Bush. then we could jsu wish it away. Call it the Finger-In-Ear Lalalala strategy.

    JD (5f0e11)

  60. Drumwaster, he’s already forgotten that the US military was already involved in fighting many of these little endless wars across the globe. Ignorant of US military operations in the Middle East, Africa, South America, and Asia for more than a half century.

    Ignorance like that should hurt more.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  61. Yes, we should go back to dealing with terror the Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton ways. Law enforcement would bring terrorism to an end. What’s a few crashed airlines and thousand citizens in the greater scheme of things?That’s only 1 out of thousand of our present population.

    While we’re at it why not import more energy instead of defiling our own landscape? Mybe we can even persuade the chinese to sell us some of that Caribbean oil and gas when they get things up to speed.

    And we could take a page from Jimmy Carter’s brilliant ideas and wear thermal underwear in winter and have hand held fans for summer.

    madmax333 (78394e)

  62. Phil – You are a Moby. Fiscal conservative? It is to laugh. Hint. A fiscal conservative would not refer to a tax cut in terms of spending. If you are going to lie, at least get the lingo down right.

    JD, I didn’t include the $85 billion in tax cuts as “spending,” which was why I originally quoted a lower number for Obama’s policy costs. And I was corrected by DRJ, linking to the US News article, which included the tax costs as “spending.” My post about the $85 billion in tax cuts being “spending” tried to explain why I DIDN’T think that it was the same as spending.

    Although to be fair, the $85 billion is cuts and credits; plus, Obama is raising taxes on higher tax brackets; so it’s kind of a redistribution of income tactic that is more spending-like than just across the board tax cuts.

    Phil (276c70)

  63. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made so and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. — John Stuart Mill

    War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want. — General William Tecumseh Sherman

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  64. Holy snokes, we should surrender to them immediately and give them everything they want, huh?

    Um, no, what they want is for us to mobilize our armies and fight them as though they were a worthy adversary. America so far has been a terrorist’s wet dream – an endless supply of opportunity to prove how big and strong they are. All you have to do is poke us, and we go crazy.

    In other words, we dutifully get terrified every time terrorists try to scare us. It’s so ironic — “Oh my GOD, it’s TERRORISM! Be AFRAID!”

    Phil (276c70)

  65. In both cases, there’s no question that you’re fighting bad guys, and you will stop some bad guys. But they will just be replaced by more bad guys, in a miserable cycle (miserable for everyone but those who like fighting bad guys, of course).

    All right, Phil, name one historical example where simply giving in to the bad guys (bribing, appeasement) resulted in fewer bad guys.

    The golden age of piracy in the 18th century (immortalized in many films) flourished because the European powers paid them off. Bullies–on the high seas, the high courts or the high school lunchroom–profit immensely when bluster, which costs the bully nothing, is effective. When met with resistance, such as Thomas Jefferson showed by sending our military to sink the pirate bastards, bullying suddenly becomes a very risky venture.

    You see, the destruction of piracy in the Mediterranean Sea didn’t result in a vicious cycle of creating more pirates. The destruction of piracy in the Mediterranean Sea resulted in the destruction of piracy in the Mediterranean Sea: piracy literally dissappeared.

    Predators have to survive every encounter with their prey. Which is the easier target for a wolf: sheep in a pen or a badger in the wild?

    Paul (ae2fbe)

  66. Phil, you are repeating Zarqawi’s tactics and you don’t seem to realize that that nonsense was obsolete long ago. Zarqawi’s tactics failed.

    You really should do something about your ignorance. You might start with Robert D. Kaplan’s books, Imperial Grunts, and Hog Pilots and Bluewater Grunts.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  67. Obama is raising taxes on higher tax brackets;

    The 20% who already pay 2/3 of the taxes. This includes anyone making over minimum wage, small business owners (who can’t afford to shift jobs and taxable assets overseas), and anyone who is trying to raise a family and buy a home.

    it’s kind of a redistribution of income tactic that is more spending-like than just across the board tax cuts.

    At least Robin Hood was honest about the phrasing.

    BVut who says that it is the job of the government to decide how much I deserve to make? What is my incentive to keep working as a small business owner, if I can just fire everybody and go on relief, knowing that is the only way I can guarantee that the government won’t be taking things from me “for the common good” (which was how Hillary phrased it)?

    You cannot find a single example of a government that taxed its way back to prosperity. Not one. So why do you think it will work this time? Because Obama is a “lightbringer”? I’d be more likely to believe you if you claimed Obama was a freaking leprechaun, because at least they know how to find gold.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  68. It is a mental midget.

    JD (5f0e11)

  69. America so far has been a terrorist’s wet dream – an endless supply of opportunity to prove how big and strong they are.

    Oh yeah, terrorists just love getting their asses kicked repeatedly.

    You just can’t help yourself, can you?

    Paul (ae2fbe)

  70. You cannot find a single example of a government that taxed its way back to prosperity. Not one. So why do you think it will work this time?

    MAGIC!

    Paul (ae2fbe)

  71. and if you find yourself living in some nightmarish scenario in the aftermath of a terrorist attack with biological or dirty nukes, will you blame Bush for not doing enough? Is it that we were not conciliatory enough with the religion of peace? Liberals are just clueless assholes from what I generally read of their opinions. If there were any poetic justice and this nation had to deal with martial law and mass casualties, how apropos if it were centered around the moonbat enclaves that pooh pooh the war on terror and actively undermine the armed forces. Assholes of the world unite.

    madmax333 (78394e)

  72. Yes, we should go back to dealing with terror the Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton ways.

    So did Reagan follow up on Carter’s failure by declaring war on a middle eastern country, occupying it, and micromanaging it for four years just to prove he “won”?

    I have no sympathy for terrorists — but I also despise reacting in exactly the way they want us to react.

    Look at how John McCain keeps talking about how terrorism is the “greatest threat to America.” He might as well be reading from a script handed him by bin Laden.

    Phil (276c70)

  73. Um, no, what they want is for us to mobilize our armies and fight them as though they were a worthy adversary.

    Really? Why?

    Seems a pretty stupid way to fight

    All we want here in the US is to be LEFT ALONE. To do our “own thing”. If the Arabs want to blow each other up over minor religious differences, that one thing. Regrettable, but not our business. Religious wars have been fought for millennia. We would offer our assistance as negotiators and middlemen to work out differences that seem almost inconsequential (about like the difference between Methodists and Episcopalians).

    But then they decided to start picking fights with us.

    Declaring war on our allies? Bad news. Declaring war against us? Worse news. Killing thousands of our citizens on our own soil? Hello, sleeping giant.

    I’m surprised only in that we have managed to fight this war with as great a care towards protecting the innocent as we have about punishing the guilty. We were using laser-guided chunks of concrete so that we could take out a tank hiding next to an elementary school. We were using coils of wire to short-circuit electrical substations rather than bombing them.

    This has been the most merciful war in history. In fact, there have been more Iraqi civilians killed in terrorist attacks than by Coalition activity.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  74. Look at how John McCain keeps talking about how terrorism is the “greatest threat to America.”

    Okay, what would you say is the “greatest threat to America” – demonstrably worse than terrorist attacks?

    Or are you trying to argue that terrorism isn’t a “real” threat?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  75. Phil, you nearly look as much an idiot on this thread as you did in the last Rep. Laura Richardson thread.

    Paul (ae2fbe)

  76. One nice thing is that today Obama pretty much threw in the towel on arguments about his spending plans by saying he doesn’t give a shit about the deficit and balancing the budget in his first term, a major flip flop a attacks the dems have used against Bush and his spending. Oh well!

    His position is in direct contrast to McCain’s promise to balance the budget. How is he going to convince the rest of the democrats to stop attacking the republicans on the deficit now that he’s said it isn’t important?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  77. Okay, what would you say is the “greatest threat to America” – demonstrably worse than terrorist attacks?

    What do you mean by “threat to America”?

    Phil (276c70)

  78. What do you mean by “threat to America”?

    You’re not helping yourself, Phil.

    Paul (ae2fbe)

  79. You’re not only “not helping”, you are actively sabotaging your own standing.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  80. By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
    Tue Jul 8, 5:43 PM ET

    WASHINGTON – Barack Obama says John McCain’s plan to balance the budget doesn’t add up. Easy for him to say: It’s not a goal he’s even trying to reach.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Not only does Obama say he won’t eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he’s not sure he’d bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans.

    “I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America’s families,” Obama told reporters this week when asked if he’d match McCain’s pledge.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  81. His position is in direct contrast to McCain’s promise to balance the budget. How is he going to convince the rest of the democrats to stop attacking the republicans on the deficit now that he’s said it isn’t important?

    McCain just said he was going to balance the budget a couple days ago — that’s the first time I heard him say it, anyway. He really needs to talk about that sorta thing a bit more if he wants any credibility on it.

    If this was really a choice between a fiscally responsible neocon and Obama, it’d be a lot harder than it is right now.

    Phil (276c70)

  82. Paul, seriously — if you don’t define “threat to America” then all you’ve got is “terrorism is the greatest _______________.” And that’s a pretty stupid thing to say.

    Phil (276c70)

  83. Phil, are you gonna answer my and Drumwaster’s questions?

    Paul (ae2fbe)

  84. neocon

    There’s a flag on the play… Judges?

    (Hint: Phil, if you want anyone to believe that you are any flavor of conservative, this word just proved you wrong. “Neocon” as a generalized term for “those with whom I disagree politically” is what poker players refer to as a “tell”.)

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  85. Paul, seriously — if you don’t define “threat to America” then all you’ve got is “terrorism is the greatest _______________.” And that’s a pretty stupid thing to say.

    Are you kidding me?

    What part of “greatest threat to America” do you not understand?

    Paul (ae2fbe)

  86. if you don’t define “threat to America”

    Which of those three words do you have trouble understanding? They are all unambiguous, with well-defined meanings, either taken individually or in any combination you care to try.

    Do you need help with what the meaning of “is” is, too?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  87. Now Phil is calling McCain a neocon?

    You can’t get any more clueless than that, Phil.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  88. Phil is getting dangerously close to surpassing his cluelessness in the in the last Rep. Laura Richardson thread.

    Paul (ae2fbe)

  89. One other thing, Phil. If you’re going to claim to be any stripe of conservative, you gotta quit using the word “neocon.

    That’s called a “tell” in certain card games. (That five-letter word – the generic term for card games with bets, calls, folds, etc. – seems to trigger a spam alert.)

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  90. Paul, do you understand how terrorists are made?

    When McCain says “terrorism is the greatest . . .” no matter what he says afterward, he’s basically creating a “be all that you can be” commercial for terrorist recruiters.

    Terrorists are people who are looking to be seen as “the greatest” — even if it’s just for one blissful moment when they touch off the explosives in their suicide-bomb vest.

    These aren’t guys who are trying to win a war. Not in their lifetime. So even if you think you’re “winning the war” you aren’t really winning the fight against terrorism. Not when you call them the “greatest threat to America.” When you do that, they’ve already won.

    Phil (276c70)

  91. Are you ever going to answer the question?

    What do YOU think is the greatest threat to America?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  92. Paul, do you understand how terrorists are made?

    When McCain says “terrorism is the greatest . . .” no matter what he says afterward, he’s basically creating a “be all that you can be” commercial for terrorist recruiters.

    Terrorists are people who are looking to be seen as “the greatest” — even if it’s just for one blissful moment when they touch off the explosives in their suicide-bomb vest.

    These aren’t guys who are trying to win a war. Not in their lifetime. So even if you think you’re “winning the war” you aren’t really winning the fight against terrorism. Not when you call them the “greatest threat to America.” When you do that, they’ve already won.

    With that comment, Phil has passed the cluelessness he demonstrated in the last Rep. Laura Richardson thread.

    In fact, he’s proven himself to be an idiot.

    Paul (ae2fbe)

  93. “Paul, do you understand how terrorists are made?”

    Oh me, me, me, me, please!

    Is it people who don’t like George Bush?

    Is it people who don’t like George Bush and neocons?

    Is it people who don’t like George Bush and neocons and republicans?

    Is it people who don’t like George Bush and deocons and republicans and global warming?

    I’m here all week, tip your waitresses…………

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  94. These aren’t guys who are trying to win a war. Not in their lifetime. So even if you think you’re “winning the war” you aren’t really winning the fight against terrorism. Not when you call them the “greatest threat to America.” When you do that, they’ve already won.

    So Phil, are you going to answer this question:

    All right, Phil, name one historical example where simply giving in to the bad guys (bribing, appeasement) resulted in fewer bad guys.

    Hmnn?

    Paul (ae2fbe)

  95. By the way, Phil, that’s the third time I’ve asked.

    Paul (ae2fbe)

  96. So if you just ignore them, they’ll go away. Or something like that.

    Pablo (99243e)

  97. What do YOU think is the greatest threat to America?

    My point in asking for a definition was to emphasize the fact that McCain was calling terrorism “the greatest” something — anything.

    I can’t say what the “greatest threat to America” is. Hell, it might be terrorism. Who knows.

    Even if terrorism is the greatest threat to America, I’m not going to dignify it by calling it such.

    But then again, I’m not searching for a glorious all-or-nothing conflict between black and white, good and evil. That’s the fantasy of the terrorists and the neocons.

    Phil (276c70)

  98. I can’t say what the “greatest threat to America” is. Hell, it might be terrorism. Who knows.

    And so if it is, are you going apologize to McCain for being so wrong?

    If you don’t know what the greatest threat is (and the phrase points out that there are other threats, but none that are more of a threat – no black/white decision, just the farthest along the spectrum towards “threat”), and only want to spit at Republicans, then you are just a troll, worthy only as a target of scorn and derision.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  99. All right, Phil, name one historical example where simply giving in to the bad guys (bribing, appeasement) resulted in fewer bad guys.

    I’m not suggesting bribery or appeasement of terrorists. That’s your characterization, and one I would disagree with.

    That said, sometimes bribery and appeasement work just fine.

    I’m actually using appeasement right now. I admit it. You’re absolutely right. I’m just a big appeaser.

    So now what? Am I wrong to appease you? Should I try to kill you instead?

    Phil (276c70)

  100. So if you just ignore them, they’ll go away. Or something like that.

    Pablo – They’re all a bunch of innocent shepherds, like those rubes we’re torturing at Gitmo. On certain days, however, they just have these inexplicable habits of blowing themselves up in crowds of innocent people, hacking of heads and body parts of people they don’t know, and generally making public nuisances of themselves. Some can go years and years without such instances and actually appear to be productive members of society. It’s a complete mystery what motivates them or ties their behavior together.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  101. That said, sometimes bribery and appeasement work just fine.

    Phil – You were asked for examples.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  102. Drumwaster, for the record, I don’t want to spit at Republicans. And if you consider me a target of scorn and derision, fine — I’m not exactly inexperienced at that.

    I don’t think McCain knows what the greatest threat to America is. And I think he knows he doesn’t know. I think he’s pandering to people who like that sort of talk, so he can get elected.

    But if I learn that he does know what the greatest threat to America is, and it is terrorism, I will apologize to him for not believing him. Good for him.

    That said, I still think it’s a bad idea to publicly say that terrorists the “greatest threat” since that’s all they are looking for anyway — recognition. But maybe McCain has got some master strategy there, too.

    Phil (276c70)

  103. So if you just ignore them, they’ll go away. Or something like that.

    Perhaps — and I’m just making a suggestion — perhaps there is a middle ground. Somewhere between “they are the GREATEST THREAT TO AMERICA” and “ignore them and they’ll go away.”

    Phil (276c70)

  104. I’m not exactly inexperienced at that.

    No doubt.

    I don’t think McCain knows what the greatest threat to America is.

    How do you know, when you have already admitted that you don’t have a clue what is?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  105. Somewhere between “they are the GREATEST THREAT TO AMERICA” and “ignore them and they’ll go away.”

    We TRIED ignoring them.

    Multiple attacks on US property – the first WTC attacks, Khobar Towers, African embassies, USS Cole – and all it gained us was 9/11.

    We started fighting back and they are suddenly dying by the thousands, and no attacks since.

    I think fighting back is working better than just letting them do what they want.

    Especially when that includes gaining access to nuclear devices.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  106. Phil – You were asked for examples.

    And I guess the point of my response was that “bribery and appeasement” are basically what human beings do most of the time with each other, to one degree or another. When they aren’t fighting, that is.

    Phil (276c70)

  107. I’m actually using appeasement right now. I admit it. You’re absolutely right. I’m just a big appeaser.

    So now what? Am I wrong to appease you? Should I try to kill you instead?

    Phil, your turnaround strategy attempt doesn’t work because I am not committed to killing you because you are an infidel and my holy readings tells me to kill infidels simply because they exist. Nor am I a bully looking to induce you to give up your property by intimidation.

    Paul (ae2fbe)

  108. “bribery and appeasement” are basically what human beings do most of the time with each other, to one degree or another.

    No, it isn’t and no, they aren’t. I don’t bribe my employees, and they don’t appease me. My customers don’t bribe me, nor do I appease my suppliers. You clearly have no idea what those words mean.

    How about this… You go watch this little movie, and tell us what you think.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  109. Now I’l post this yet again:

    All right, Phil, name one historical example where simply giving in to the bad guys (bribing, appeasement) resulted in fewer bad guys.

    Name one. One specific example–from history–is all I ask.

    Paul (ae2fbe)

  110. I also remember an interesting quote from the former head of Hezbollah. “We do not fight you so that you will give us things. We fight you so that you will die.”

    Appease away, Phil.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  111. How do you know, when you have already admitted that you don’t have a clue what is?

    Because (1) I know I don’t know what the greatest threat is and (2) he hasn’t told me anything that has made me think he knows what the greatest threat is.

    I suppose I could just take his word for it. But that’d be rather, well, un-American, in my opinion. Because if America has become a place where we trust our leaders to be right, without explaining themselves, then we’ve lost what made America great in the first place.

    Phil (276c70)

  112. So, we shouldn’t talk about terrorism, shouldn’t fight them, shouldn’t bribe them, shouldn’t appease them, shouldn’t, shouldn’t, shouldn’t … But Phil offers nothing that we should do. Presumably he would do something. Right?

    JD (5f0e11)

  113. SORRY FOR THE LONG POST, BUT IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS …

    Dana asked: How does $50million make men better fathers????

    … Here are the grisly details: DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005 (Public Law 109-171), SEC. 7103. GRANTS FOR HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROMOTION AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD. If you really want to know where your tax dollars go (or if you need a sleeping pill) read the section in italics; otherwise, please skip ahead to Obama’s involvement.

    Activities promoting responsible fatherhood. –In this paragraph, the term ‘activities promoting responsible fatherhood’ means the following:
    (I) Activities to promote marriage or sustain marriage through activities such as counseling, mentoring, disseminating information about the benefits of marriage and 2-parent involvement for children, enhancing relationship skills, education regarding how to control aggressive behavior, disseminating information on the causes of domestic violence and child abuse, marriage preparation programs, premarital counseling, marital inventories, skills-based marriage education, financial planning seminars, including improving a family’s ability to effectively manage family business affairs by means such as education, counseling, or mentoring on matters related to family finances, including household management, budgeting, banking, and handling of financial transactions and home maintenance, and divorce education and reduction programs, including mediation and counseling.
    (II) Activities to promote responsible parenting through activities such as counseling, mentoring, and mediation, disseminating information about good parenting practices, skills-based parenting education, encouraging child support payments, and other methods.
    (III) Activities to foster economic stability by helping fathers improve their economic status by providing activities such as work first services, job search, job training, subsidized employment, job retention, job enhancement, and encouraging education, including career-advancing education, dissemination of employment materials, coordination with existing employment services such as welfare-to-work programs, referrals to local employment training initiatives, and other methods.
    (IV) Activities to promote responsible fatherhood that are conducted through a contract with a nationally recognized, nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization, such as the development, promotion, and distribution of a media campaign to encourage the appropriate involvement of parents in the life of any child and specifically the issue of responsible fatherhood, and the development of a national clearinghouse to assist States and communities in efforts to promote and support marriage and responsible fatherhood.

    – On June 14, 2007, Sen. Evan Bayh [D-IN] introduced S. 1626: Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2007, co-sponsored by Barack Obama. This act would amend the previous legislation thus:

    In the paragraph immediately preceding the long section above, the heading Limitation on use of funds for activities promoting responsible fatherhood” is changed to Requirement to use funds for activities promoting responsible fatherhood”. Is that not a perfect example of the difference between conservatives and liberals, right there? Regarding that $50 million, the phrase “the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] may not award more than $50,000,000 on a competitive basis” is changed to “the Secretary shall award at least $100,000,000 on a competitive basis”. The amount is doubled and the awarding of grants goes from being discretionary to mandatory.

    But wait! It gets better. That 50 million is only part of the overall funding. The paragraph immediately following the long section above reads: Out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010, for expenditure in accordance with this paragraph. In the Bayh-Obama bill that gets changed to: “150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007 and $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010.”

    One more thing; the beginning of part (I) above, “Activities to promote marriage or sustain marriage” gets changed to “Activities to promote healthy relationships and marriages or to sustain healthy relationships or marriages”. So, instead of promoting marriage, now it’s promoting marriage or just living together.

    Lastly, Bayh and Obama both voted against the DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005. John McCain voted for it.

    Icy Truth (96f83c)

  114. he hasn’t told me anything that has made me think he knows what the greatest threat is.

    So you are 1) admitting total ignorance, and 2) refusing to admit that someone else might actually know.

    Let’s try it in a simpler fashion, since you are trying to parse words.

    Give at least three examples of what you see as a threat to America. (Not trying to rank them yet, just a list.)

    I’ll wait until after you come up with an actual example of when giving the bad guys whatever they wanted has resulted in fewer bad guys…

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  115. Phil, you really don’t understand the first thing about modern islamic extremist terrorism.

    On the “martyr” videos made by the 9/11 hijackers, they listed the “reasons” why they were attacking the United States. They included as among their grievances how the Chechnyans and the Bosnian muslims had been oppressed. The US had nothing to do with the Chechnyans, as they were inside the Soviet Union / Russian Republic and the US had actually intervened in favor of the Bosnian muslims.

    Go and start appeasing them for those issues, Phil, knock yourself out.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  116. Drumwaster, that a cool little presentation.

    Paul (ae2fbe)

  117. All right, Phil, name one historical example where simply giving in to the bad guys (bribing, appeasement) resulted in fewer bad guys. All right, Phil, name one historical example where simply giving in to the bad guys (bribing, appeasement) resulted in fewer bad guys.

    Name one. One specific example–from history–is all I ask.

    Paul, I admit that I don’t know how to make “fewer bad guys” other than by killing them.

    The problem is, I think we’re all “bad guys” — to somebody else, that is. Have you decided whether or not I’m a “bad guy” yet? How can you possibly deal with me, other than by declaring war on me?

    Phil (276c70)

  118. How can you possibly deal with me, other than by declaring war on me?

    If you were chanting “Death to Drumwaster” on international TV, I’d take that as a pretty big clue.

    Paul, I admit that I don’t know how to make “fewer bad guys” other than by killing them.

    But you are criticizing the US for doing exactly that.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  119. OK gang, I’ve gotta go to bed. Don’t kill me in my sleep just because I haven’t convinced you that I’m on your side, OK?

    Phil (276c70)

  120. Drumwaster, that a cool little presentation.

    I wish I could take credit for it. I found it bundled with a Thomas Sowell audiobook.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  121. Paul, I admit that I don’t know how to make “fewer bad guys” other than by killing them.

    Finally. Progress.

    The problem is, I think we’re all “bad guys” — to somebody else, that is.

    And just like that, the scant forward progress attained is lost.

    Have you decided whether or not I’m a “bad guy” yet? How can you possibly deal with me, other than by declaring war on me?

    Have you pledged to kill me simply because I exist?

    No?

    Your turnaround strategy fails again.

    Paul (ae2fbe)

  122. The problem is, I think we’re all “bad guys” — to somebody else, that is.

    Then you should feel free to rush right down to whichever “somebody else” thinks you are a bad guy, and then giving them everything they ask for. Once that’s done, turn to his friends (who will have gathered), and ask them what you need to give them so that you won’t be a bad guy any more.

    Continue appeasing until you finally get it. (Hint: there will eventually be someone who thinks you deserve to die for the “crime” of believing something different than they do.)

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  123. Good night, Phil.

    DRJ (d5bcc5)

  124. Let me help y’all. Terrorism is not the greatest threat to America; liberalism is the greatest threat to America. With liberalism, you get the terrorism anyway, because the liberals surrender to them. Phil seems to think that killing terrorists just breeds more of them; he doesn’t seem to realize that not killing them leads to having both old and new terrorists alive.

    But, with liberalism, not only do you get surrender to terrorism, you also get Supreme Court justices like Ruth Ginsburg and Steven Breyer, you get increased government subsidies for people who don’t want to work, you get increased political correctness, you get higher taxes, you get a whole bunch of bad things to go along with terrorism.

    Dana R Pico (556f76)

  125. Thanks for that, Icy Truth. Sounds like it should be called the Social Engineers Full Employment Act. I was disgusted when I saw that La Raza and ACORN were listed as recipients for “mortgage counseling” Federal funds. Now I am sure I can be equal opportunity appalled when TUCC becomes a DHS Mentor Center for “wayward” fathers… (Step One – The Bowtie).

    rhodeymark (4f2403)

  126. 124, Dana, the libs will never get it. They think that Conservatives, gun owners, and the Sheeple are the greatest threats to their World Nirvana.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  127. Even arrogance has its limits. Here’s Obama, Mr. UN Peacekeeper with a mission.

    from Breitbart:

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel slammed a request by Barack Obama to give a speech this month before the Brandenburg Gate as “inappropriate”, her deputy spokesman said Wednesday.

    The conservative leader said that while she would be pleased to meet the US Democratic presidential hopeful, it would be wrong for him to hold a “campaign rally” at the historic symbol of German unity.

    “It is unusual to do electioneering abroad,” spokesman Thomas Steg told reporters.

    “It is unusual to hold election rallies abroad. No German candidate for high office would even think of using the National Mall (in Washington) or Red Square in Moscow for a rally because it would not be seen as appropriate.”

    Authorities in the capital have confirmed that Obama plans to visit Berlin on July 24 and is interested in speaking at the foot of the Brandenburg Gate.

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  128. Omg. #113 is priceless. Thanks for the info.

    SORRY FOR THE LONG POST, BUT IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS …

    Dana asked: How does $50million make men better fathers????

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  129. Vermont Neighbor #127,

    So far Obama’s attempts to reason with foreign leaders isn’t going so well. Maybe he’ll have more luck with Ahmadinejad.

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  130. “…slammed a request by Barack Obama to give a speech this month before the Brandenburg Gate as “inappropriate…”

    But can the Obamabots still goosestep around the parking lot, instead?

    Dmac (416471)

  131. #129 – DRJ

    So far Obama’s attempts to reason with foreign leaders isn’t going so well.

    – If he can’t even make nice with our friends, how will he fare with our enemies?

    Icy Truth (7d3d6d)

  132. Obama’s plans in Germany – - it looks like another case of poor judgment.

    Just file it next to ‘ Tony Rezko dealings’. Or the classic plywood podium!

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  133. Yet more poor judgement!

    Barack Obama said it was a mistake to allow his daughters to be interviewed extensively by “Access Hollywood,” and he will not allow it to happen again.

    “I think that we got carried away in the moment,” the Illinois senator and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee told TODAY’s Matt Lauer Wednesday. “We were having a birthday party, and everybody was laughing. And suddenly this thing cropped up. I didn’t catch it quickly enough. I was surprised by the attention it received.”

    Dana (764cb2)

  134. #125 – rhodeymark & #128 – Vermont Neighbor

    – Thank YOU! What makes all of this even scarier is, now that Ted Strickland and Jim Webb have removed themselves from consideration, Evan Bayh is probably right at the top of Obama’s VP list next to Joe Biden. So, we can look forward to more lovely “progressive” legislation such as the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act. [Note how even in its title "healthy marriage" from the original legislation gets changed to "healthy families".]

    Icy Truth (7d3d6d)

  135. Icy, yes. And the alloted funds doubled and re-phrased as mandatory.

    As for Obama’s slated co-star I’m not following the veep process too carefully (yet). NR has a good cover on ‘Not The Tickets’ for McCain. I’ve still read rumblings though that BHO needs the Clintons. With him, things change by the minute so his final choice will be interesting. Bet Caroline Kennedy would do it. : >

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  136. Evan Bayh on the ticket is a scary proposition. I can see major carnage on the highways as Democrats find themselves unable to drive because of the “Matthews Tingle©”.

    rhodeymark (4f2403)

  137. Dana,

    Interesting… could we call that a backtrack? heh

    I’m so jaded about the messiah’s choices that even a reasonable answer could catch in the spam filter. No doubt he’s spinning to change the topic, recent days have not been kind to him.

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  138. It would figure that the Donks would try and run someone prettier than Sarah Palin…

    rhodeymark (6797b5)

  139. ^ That’s interesting. She sounds feisty and popular, along with the helpful baggage of being attractive!

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  140. I wonder how many people remember that John McCain was being tossed around as a possible running mate for Kerry, four years ago.

    I imagine even fewer remember the “behind closed doors” talks going on between McMaverick and the Democratic caucus in the spring of 2001. See, the Dems were trying to figure out how to overcome a 50-50 tie (voted in as Bush was elected), and the deal that had been worked out – sharing chairmanships, equal representation on the various committees, etc. – wasn’t resting well, because any ties in the Senate meant that the Dems would win any vote between January 3rd and the Inauguration, but would lose any vote taken after January 20th, not to mention all the bad blood after Bush won Florida.

    The Dems had been offering equal seniority, and a prized committee chair if McCain switched parties, but he dragged his feet just a little too long and Jeffords beat him to it.

    It’s a shame that the Republicans couldn’t have fielded a candidate this year. He would have smeared Obama all over the parking lot with this kinda stuff.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  141. SPQR said
    On the “martyr” videos made by the 9/11 hijackers, they listed the “reasons” why they were attacking the United States. They included as among their grievances how the Chechnyans and the Bosnian muslims had been oppressed

    It would be GREAT if the persons at NORAD made interviews listing reasons why they failed to scramble the fighter jets onto the “hijacked” planes following Logan’s repeated calls that they do so.

    It would also be great if a video was made by persons at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal explaining why they decided to eliminate the WenSense firewall on September 10, 2001, thereby exposing the entire federal court system to hackers.

    David F. Petrano Esq. (f87fd4)

  142. It would be GREAT if the persons at NORAD made interviews listing reasons why they failed to scramble the fighter jets onto the “hijacked” planes following Logan’s repeated calls that they do so.

    It would also be great if a video was made by persons at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal explaining why they decided to eliminate the WenSense firewall on September 10, 2001, thereby exposing the entire federal court system to hackers.

    Bringin’ teh krazy, 1 comment at a time.

    So, Petranos Esp thinks that the 9th Circuit let it happen, and not Bush? Good Allah.

    JD (75f5c3)

  143. I wonder how many people actually believe in bullshit rumors that have never ever been proven to be true.

    It’s probably close to the same number of people that believe Bogart said “Play it again, Sam”, or think that the basics of gravity demonstrated by astronaut Dave Scott on the moon somehow don’t apply to buildings in New York City.

    Icy Truth (7d3d6d)

  144. In a nutshell, you libertarian/republicans have been attempting to cram that 9/11=Muslim terrorist BS down everyone’s throat for far too long.

    You are transparent.

    Every day, fewer people are buying into the “official” conspiracy theory that 19 Muslims, each with seperate INS files pending, pulled off that stunt.

    To the contrary, more people are asking questions into matters I posted on 141.

    After all, with the WebSense firewall eliminated at the federal courts on September 10, 2001, courthouse computers were vulnerable to hackers bent on obstructing a meaningful 9/11 investigation.

    David F. Petrano Esq. (f87fd4)

  145. Query:
    with the WebSense firewall eliminated on September 10, 2001, thereby enabling federal court employees to play on porn will-nilly on federal court computers, is it possible federal court employees were EXTORTED by hackers who sought to expose certain forbidden types of pornography?

    David F. Petrano Esq. (f87fd4)

  146. With the WebSense firewall eliminated at the federal courts on September 10, 2001, courthouse computers were vulnerable to hackers bent on preventing the repairs of potholes in my street, causing scuff marks and undue wear on my shoes.

    nk (4212e6)

  147. is it possible federal court employees were EXTORTED by hackers who sought to expose certain forbidden types of pornography?

    You mean like that Cyrus Whatshisname?

    In a nutshell, you libertarian/republicans have been attempting to cram that 9/11=Muslim terrorist BS down everyone’s throat for far too long.

    Quick question, Davesque… Does fire melt steel, yes or no?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  148. YIPPEE ! I love the batshit krazy !!!!!!!!1 There must be a shortage in high grade pharmaceuticals in Florida.

    JD (75f5c3)

  149. As a victim of the 9/11 mass murders through loss of a dear friend, I will not enter a debate regarding forensic issues best answered by experts under-oath via open-door investigation into 9/11 on prime-time TV.

    I am well aware many of the six-figure income posters here are freaked-out at the notion they will be paying much higher taxes under President Obama. So far, you have enriched yourself through an administration that cut your taxes while staying in office by peddling the “official” 9/11 closed-door investigation findings.

    As I stated before YOU ARE TRANSPARENT.

    David F. Petrano Esq. (f87fd4)

  150. There must be a shortage in high grade pharmaceuticals in Florida.

    I blame Bush. And my newspaper was delivered late this morning. Must have been because hackers were so busy sneaking onto the Ninth Circuit’s website the MiB forgot to cue the sunrise.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  151. I will not enter a debate regarding forensic issues best answered by experts under-oath via open-door investigation into 9/11 on prime-time TV.

    You already have, by declaring those conclusions invalid. Without any evidence whatsoever, I might add. (The “sneer” quotes around “official” is yet another note in that particular Chorale of Crazy.)

    Yeah, yeah, I know, Ninth Circuit, WebSense, hackers, washing your mail in Lysol, frogmen inseminating your guide horse, got it all.

    But don’t start shit, then run away when you get called on it being the purest of bullshit.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  152. Icy Truth, thanks for the grisly details (#113) which painfully detail the $50 mil for better fathers.

    Since my husband managed to be a responsible and loyal husband and father without the help of the federal government, does he get a rebate?

    This grant is a joke – these proposals are already being covered by the private sector with grants and partnerships, and social services. Unfortunately in typically leftist fashion which assumes people are unable to learn for themselves (and don’t realize very many people are living quite comfortably on the dole without assuming any of these responsibilities) the government wants to teach us how to live. Whenever the words subsidize, foster, encouraging, initiatives, and the never-ending open door: other methods appear, its a no-win for taxpayers.

    “Activities to foster economic stability by helping fathers improve their economic status by providing activities such as work first services, job search, job training, subsidized employment, job retention, job enhancement, and encouraging education, including career-advancing education, dissemination of employment materials, coordination with existing employment services such as welfare-to-work programs, referrals to local employment training initiatives, and other methods.’

    In light of Jesse’s gaffe, I’m not sure Obama will be receiving his support of this endeavor to help men be men:

    “NEW YORK (CNN) — The Rev. Jesse Jackson apologized Wednesday for “crude and hurtful” remarks he made against Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama after finishing an interview with a Fox News correspondent.

    Jackson told CNN that the interview had wrapped up and he didn’t realize his remarks were captured by a “hot” microphone.

    Jackson didn’t elaborate on the context of his remarks, except to say he was trying to explain that Obama was hurting his relationship with black voters by recently conducting “moral” lectures at African-American churches.

    “My appeal was for the moral content of his message to not only deal with the personal and moral responsibility of black males, but to deal with the collective moral responsibility of government and the public policy which would be a corrective action for the lack of good choices that often led to their irresponsibility,” Jackson said in a statement issued Tuesday afternoon.

    http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/09/jackson-apologizes-for-obama-words/

    Dana (764cb2)

  153. “You are transparent.”

    Mulder, you better get your ass in gear and grab Scully; take the first left at the light and go due west about 3,000 miles, to Area 54. You’ll find all the answers to your questions after that road trip – and don’t stop at the Stuckey’s along the way, time is of the essence here.

    Good luck and Godspeed, and always remember – THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!

    Dmac (416471)

  154. As stated before, you are transparent in that you reject the notion of an OPEN DOOR INVESTIGATION INTO 9/11 IN THE HALLS OF CONGRESS.

    David F. Petrano Esq. (f87fd4)

  155. an OPEN DOOR INVESTIGATION INTO 9/11 IN THE HALLS OF CONGRESS.

    You’re an idiot, Davesque.

    Put down the Lysol. Put down the glass pipe. Rip the phone cords out of the walls and cover the windows with aluminum foil (at least 10-gauge). Trade any sharp objects in your kitchen with a plastic spork.

    Stupidity at that level is dangerous to those around you. And, believe me, you have enough to declare the entirety of Manhattan saner than an emu on acid.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  156. I’ll tell you what’s Area-51 nuts: the notion 19 Muslims with open INS files were able to conspire for over a year to pull off 9/11.

    I have personally dealt with INS attorneys and it is my experience they are highly professional and thorough to the point I refuse to buy into the theory the supposed 19 hijackers somehow managed to pull of that stunt undetected.

    What’s Area-51 looney is the fact the 9/11 investigation was closed-door. Had Watergare of been closed-door, not a single Watergare conspirator would have been found out and criminally charged.

    David F. Petrano Esq. (f87fd4)

  157. So, Davey, arguendo, who was behind 9-11? Does fire actually melt steel?

    Or is your deliberate blindness just another symptom of your terminal case of BDS?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  158. We will never know the real who/what/when/why/where/how of 911 until an opened-door Congressional investigation occurs on TV ala the Spring ’73 Watergate hearings.

    As you recall, the Watergate hearings dragged on for weeks with the same “I have no knowledge” obstruction answers until the very moment John Dean stated “there’s a cancer in the White House.”

    David F. Petrano Esq. (f87fd4)

  159. Non-responsive, “counselor”. You should know better. Why are you afraid of putting your foolishness out there? You’ve been not the least bit reticent about shoveling Teh Crazy…

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  160. Petrano, the 911 Truther crap shows that are not merely nuttier than a squirrel’s sphincter but you are an essentially evil person.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  161. How am I being non-responsive my merely arguing an open-door investigation into 9/11 should occur?

    Your questions to me suggest I am qualified to make expert opinions in such an open-door 9/11 investigation. I am not qualified to make expert opinions on anything regarding a 9/11 mass murder investigation and/or subsequent trial.

    I will say this though, I betcha dollars-to-donuts if an opened door investigation into 9/11 reveals an obstruction to investigate 9/11, Republicans will be out of office to the extent income taxes on the rich will return to Kennedy-era rates of 70%.

    David F. Petrano Esq. (f87fd4)

  162. “I have personally dealt with INS attorneys…”

    You mean that time when they tried to deport you, because you were attempting to find out THE TRUTH? Your genius is being wasted in this confined space, I beg of you to please go forward, and speak TRUTH TO POWER!

    *but don’t go forward in your Big Wheel, you’re much too big for that kind of tryke, and it tends to make you look a meal short of a combo platter.

    Dmac (416471)

  163. #152 – Dana

    – Thank YOU for (unwittingly) giving me a detective job! In the interest of full disclosure, the DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005 was a Republican bill; voting ran along partisan lines, with VP Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. The section with the $5o million was an amendment of existing law (Healthy Marriage and Family Funds), changing it to HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROMOTION AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD GRANTS. Apparently Senators Bayh and Obama like the program but voted against the bill because they don’t think it went far enough.

    Re: Jesse Jackson
    You had to know that Obama would be hit by a backlash for the remarks he made on Father’s Day; after all, some of his points that day actually made sense! Frankly, I’m surprised that it took so long.

    “to deal with the collective moral responsibility of government and the public policy which would be a corrective action for the lack of good choices that often led to their irresponsibility.”

    – Perpetual victim-hood 101: WE are ‘collectively’ responsible for the irresponsible choices that some of us make. [And don't you just love how freely the libs throw around the Communist buzzword "collective"?]

    Icy Truth (7d3d6d)

  164. Actually, Petrano, you are not even qualified to be betting donuts. There already was a 911 investigation. There is nothing to investigate regarding the actual attack itself, the timeline of events of September 11, nor the means by which it was carried out.

    It takes a special kind of evil to continue to flog the idea that there was any form of complicity in the attack by anyone other than the islamic terrorists who did it.

    And evidently you have that kind of malevolence.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  165. How am I being non-responsive my merely arguing an open-door investigation into 9/11 should occur?

    Because that isn’t the question being asked.

    I betcha dollars-to-donuts if an opened door investigation into 9/11 reveals an obstruction to investigate 9/11

    The only obstruction that I could see was putting a prime witness on the panel itself, rather than under oath. Of course, she was appoiunted by a Democrat and served under Clinton, so of course that will receive a pass from you.

    SPQRE is right. By attempting to claim that Republicans are somehow behind 9/11 (why else would they need the coverup you assert – libelously, I might add), you are not merely proving your stupidity. You are actively proving your hatred at political opponents, ascribing to them an act of murder and terror so horrendous, I would not have quailed at a nuclear response if a nation were found responsible.

    Not merely a gentlemanly disagreement, but downright Hatred over differences of opinion in how best to govern.

    A fine legacy the Dems are leaving the nation.

    You are an embarrassment to your species, and a shining example of the uttermost left-hand limit of the Bell curve of human intelligence.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  166. SPQR,
    the official “investigation” into 9/11 has held with many closed-door sessions whereby testimony was given but not publically revealed or otherwise televised to the general public.

    I am merely arguing the investigation into 9/11 be 100% open-door and broadcasted on prime-time TV as Watergate was.

    Why do you object to an opened-door, televised investigation into 9/11?

    David F. Petrano Esq. (f87fd4)

  167. the official “investigation” into 9/11 has held with many closed-door sessions whereby testimony was given but not publically revealed or otherwise televised to the general public.

    Because the general public – by its very definition – doesn’t have the security clearance necessary to hear the details being discussed.

    Just because they don’t tell YOU doesn’t mean they don’t tell the truth. Deal with it. You have already shown you cannot be trusted. Why should they release to you and people like you the details of (say) where and when the planes were first detected on radar, and where the interceptors would have been flying and why, or any of the rest that involve technical data you don’t have the need-to-know?

    But refusing to believe the report when you freely admit that you have no concept of what the facts are is to deny reality in a fashion that makes me wonder not whether, but how many, paint chips you ate as a kid.

    Answer the question.

    Why do you object to an opened-door, televised investigation into 9/11?

    Because there has already been one. (Try watching C-SPAN every once in a while, instead of the SciFi channel.) I gave you a link to the on-line version of the conclusions, but they werre also available in major book stores across the nation.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  168. Gee, I don’t know – perhaps revealing national security secrets to our enemies? Oh, I forgot – the GOP was behind it all, so they were the real enemies. The cool thing about believing in nutbag conspiracy theories is that you can twist them into explaining away every lunacy – minded idea and thought your fertile little mind can originate. How’s that working out for you so far?

    Do you understand the abject humiliation you’re being put through here? Do you have any level of self – awareness in this regard, or it some kind of extreme, narcissistic circle – jerk you engage in with yourself on a daily basis?

    Dmac (416471)

  169. Petrano, as mentioned, we already had open hearings on 911. Pretending otherwise only shows your distance from reality. The issues you claim have some doubt about them have been fully explained in public hearings.

    By the way, you appear ignorant of the fact that there were investigations taken off camera in the Watergate matter. That you are ignorant is not a surprise to me. It has been a constant theme that your supposed “reasons” for your opinions bear no resemblance to reality nor to any form of logic known to western civilization.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  170. Drumwaster, 9/11 occurred nearly seven years ago. Matters of national security regarding what you refer to as “the details of (say) where and when the planes were first detected on radar” is no longer a matter of national security.

    In sum, such matters of national security have been updated to the extent everything 9/11 is pure history absent a possible ongoing attempt to obstruct a meaningful investigation.

    David F. Petrano Esq. (f87fd4)

  171. Petrano, there is no mystery about the flight paths of the aircraft.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  172. Hey Icy Truth! Nice catch, glad to have helped.

    Its more of a shame that it came from the right side of the aisle but it again evidences unnecessary interference by the feds which would only beget more dependence on them (gov’t)….which might be the point, eh?

    “except to say he was trying to explain that Obama was hurting his relationship with black voters by recently conducting “moral” lectures at African-American churches.”

    Well, yes, the truth often hurts.

    Too bad Jackson didn’t have the steel to support Obama in this ‘moral’ lecture – what a way to unite for a common worthy goal. However I suspect to the younger crowd that Obama has attracted in droves, Jackson has become a moribund entity, irrelevant except to an aging few.

    Dana (764cb2)

  173. Matters of national security regarding what you refer to as “the details of (say) where and when the planes were first detected on radar” is no longer a matter of national security.

    Says who? You? When did you receive declassification authority? Not to mention that those examples were merely hypotheticals. i don’t know what was discussed behind closed doors (even though I probably had the necessary clearance, I didn’t have the necessary need-to-know), and neither do you, so any statements about what was or wasn’t discussed is the purest of speculation, and any of your libelous assertions that someone did something illegal (such as lying under oath or conspiracy to obstruct justice, etc., etc.) without evidence will be sufficient cause to lose your law license. Not to mention that fancy “Esq.” you are so very proud of…

    Keep shoveling. You’re only in up to your waist…

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  174. Drumwaster, who determines the details of (say) where and when the planes were first detected on radar is national security, you?

    Such details go to the very core of determining whether the 19 Muslims’ actions were aided and abetted by others.

    David F. Petrano Esq. (f87fd4)

  175. Drumwaster, who determines the details of (say) where and when the planes were first detected on radar is national security, you?

    That was a HYPOTHETICAL. A possible example. If those bits of data – whatever they might have been – were classified, they were classified when the sun went down on September 10th.

    Meaning that any attempt at an argument asserting that such things were classified after the fact is yet more accusations of criminal conduct without evidence.

    Careful, Mr. Esq. People will start calling you “Tranny” again.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  176. Says who? You? When did you receive declassification authority? Not to mention that those examples were merely hypotheticals. i don’t know what was discussed behind closed doors (even though I probably had the necessary clearance, I didn’t have the necessary need-to-know), and neither do you, so any statements about what was or wasn’t discussed is the purest of speculation, and any of your libelous assertions that someone did something illegal (such as lying under oath or conspiracy to obstruct justice, etc., etc.) without evidence will be sufficient cause to lose your law license. Not to mention that fancy “Esq.” you are so very proud of…

    Drummerboy, there you go again with your STALE versions of National Security. Just can’t *get it right,* can you?

    HERE, I’ll dumb it down a little for your A/B/C/D rat brain:

    Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) held to preempt the state secret privilege.
    http://www.eff.org/files/Al-HaraFISA-order.pdf

    What kind of Kool-Aide are they feeding those lab rates these days ANYWAY?

    MKDP (6031cb)

  177. MKDP, that statement by you is incoherent and irrelevant.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  178. Drumwaster,
    according your understanding of “national security,” if another 9/11- type stunt occurs, we have to to accept the “official” findings even though those “findings” may likely have ignored critical facts?

    HOW CONVENIENT!!!!!
    (and dead-wrong)

    See,
    Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) held to preempt the state secret privilege.
    http://www.eff.org/files/Al-HaraFISA-order.pdf

    David F. Petrano Esq. (f87fd4)

  179. Yippee !!!!!! FISA covers flight patterns. Mr. Ed cornholed Big Brown doggie-style. I heart AnnTM. Judge K is my hero. I know a frogman, actually he is a French dude, but close enough. Watch out !!!!!!!!!! Sniper at six o’clock!!!!! Judge K disabled Websense to allow 9/11 to happen. You two freaks are priceless.

    JD (5f0e11)

  180. SPQR, what’s so incoherent and irrelevant about: http://www.eff.org/files/Al-HaraFISA-order.pdf regarding your (and drumwaster’s) mistaken belief matters of national security can white-wash a meaningful, open-door 9/11 investigation.

    David F. Petrano Esq. (f87fd4)

  181. Indeed, JD, MKDP is once again taking statutes and court decisions completely out of context, indeed, out of their respective universes and misapplying them.

    Of course, it helps quite a bit that MKDP has no clue what the court decision she links to even says.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  182. SPQR,
    what’s so incoherent and irrelevant about: http://www.eff.org/files/Al-HaraFISA-order.pdf regarding your (and drumwaster’s) mistaken belief matters of national security can white-wash a meaningful, open-door 9/11 investigation.

    David F. Petrano Esq. (f87fd4)

  183. They are having a moment, it seems like. I used to feel a tinge of sadness and pity for them, and prolly still do. But good God, they crack me up. I can’t quit you MKDP and Petranos.

    JD (5f0e11)

  184. #172 – Dana

    Too bad Jackson didn’t have the steel to support Obama in this ‘moral’ lecture

    – Ironically, Jackson did support Bill Cosby (in an open letter) when Cosby was attacked for making comments remarkably similar to those of Obama:

    http://www.blacknews.com/pr/cosby-harsh101.html

    What was different? Cosby made his statements at an event for Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition & Citizenship Education Fund in July, 2004. If you follow the link you’ll see that Jackson’s stance on the cause of minority suffering is unchanged. It’s his defense of the person calling for black people to step up and take responsibility for improving their situation that is different.

    Why? Well, I’m sure that Cosby’s campaign contributions to Rev. Jackson’s 1988 Presidential bid, as well as several contributions to Jesse Jackson, Jr. for Congress (successful bids I should add) didn’t hurt.

    Icy Truth (7d3d6d)

  185. The more I think about the LA Times’ article in the original post, the more I cynically wonder if the LA Times wasn’t encouraging Obama to flip-flop (or as Obama would say, *refine* and *clarify*) his proposed budget to reduce expenditures.

    Tinseltown editors know a hyperinflated [trillion dollar] budget is a lot to swallow. They also know it’s better to get the storyline straight as early as possible.

    DRJ (cfa65f)

  186. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) held to preempt the state secret privilege.

    Funny, the ruling doesn’t say that at all.

    FISA preempts the state secrets privilege in connection with electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes and would appear to displace the state secrets privilege for purposes of plaintiffs’ claims; and (2) FISA nonetheless does not appear to provide plaintiffs a viable remedy unless they can show that they are “aggrieved persons” within the meaning of FISA.

    So not only are we talking about the NSA onitoring of electronic communications, it was further held that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to get any possible remedy, since they couldn’t prove they had had any rights violated.

    Do you ALWAYS pull out random court cases just because of a text string that might appear within it somewhere? And then not even bother to read them to see what they actually say?

    You got your law degree from a Cracker-Jack box, right?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  187. It appears to be common for them to purport to cite to opinions that have nothing to do with their argument.

    It reminds me of all the tax protesters “legal” arguments which would do similar things. I think my favorite was the citation of opinions on the Uniform Commercial Code to argue that they could opt out of income tax.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  188. Geez.

    We get Phil one day, and Mary-Kate and Ashley Petrano the next?

    Paul (ae2fbe)

  189. Oh, you must have missed the one that asserts that only people born on Federal property (DC an embassy or military base) were actually “citizens of the United States”, and therefore “The United States Government” didn’t have any claim on income earned by a “citizen of (say) California”, only the State government did.

    It was up to the States to pay off the Feds…

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  190. #172
    I think if there is anything Obama really needs now is an AA leader like Jesse Jackson hating on him. This gets better by the day. I want more AA voices to come out and condemn Obama for pandering to the “elitist” view point that black American fathers ought to take responsibility for their children and stop waiting on government to do everything for them. It’s time someone told those African American absentee fathers to get off their butt and support their families. Enough of the pity party.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  191. Drumwaster, didn’t miss it. That was a second favorite. In fact, I don’t think I missed any of them. Back in the early ’90′s when I was in law school, for stress relief I’d look up cites in the tax protester polemics and debunk them. Made for some fun flamewars on Usenet.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  192. It’s time someone told those African American absentee fathers to get off their butt and support their families. Enough of the pity party.

    Seems like somebody needs to listen to what William Cosby, PhD, was saying a few months back.

    But I agree. Fewer baby-daddies, more fathers.

    That will never happen so long as the dominant culture makes its money from calling women “hoes” and “beeches”, while those selfsame women fight like cats and … well, more cats, to be one of the “favored” hoe or beach.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  193. Well, as I am fond of saying: IANAL, but I could play one on TV… :-)

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  194. #187 Talk is cheap. What is the incentive for black men to support their kids? Some of those welfare moms have seven kids by seven different fathers. I worked with black dudes who got great pleasure by knocking up as many women as possible, especially the dipshit blonde white women…like it was a dig at white men.

    Lots of “men” just want to get high, get laid, hang with their pals in the ‘hood and join the culture of violence. Of course many are also fine, upstanding hardworking citizens too. But how many can be rap stars or play pro sports or even own a BMW legit?

    Obama had his chances to actually help people on the basic street level. It seems what he accomplished was best for lining developers’ pockets as the poor people ended up in housing that is uninhabitable while the great Urkel and Rev.Wrong live in ritzy mansions. Is there really any doubt that this plague will actually not do what mayor daley dictates since the chicago machine owns his scrawny ass?

    madmax333 (d674ff)

  195. #189
    That is a fundamentally flawed system, Drumwaster. Slavery does have lasting consequences in a people’s world view. But I drop my hat for does few AAs who inspite of this have reason to overcome it. Becoming accomplished successes in their own rights. They are the real heros. Bill Cosby did a good book on that.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  196. #192 Explain what the hell past slavery has to do with it? Seems to me that Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty and generational dependence on welfare instilled the belief that you are owed by the man. Prior to the sixties (look it up) black families were much more likely to be a cohesive unit and we didn’t have this massive number of unwed mothers popping out cherubs at very early ages. How many people don’t have ancestors who were slaves or indentured servants at some point in history? What excuse is it that JOOOs and many Asians manage to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and actually work for something? Why do Cuban ex-pats do so well in America? How come Haitians mostly work their asses off after coming to America while some native blacks prefer to bitch and moan and demand handouts from dem pols? I see it right around where I live every day. You’ll generally find that the black women are the ones who hold families together.

    madmax333 (d674ff)

  197. love2008, #192 -seriously?

    Dana (764cb2)

  198. Slavery does have lasting consequences in a people’s world view.

    And if there is a single person who can show that they were kept as a slave with the protection of US law, and I would be all for reparations.

    But no one is forcing them to ignore their chances at an education. No one is forcing them to listen to music that consists mainly of Carlin’s Seven Words. They are doing that to themselves, and they have no one to blame but themselves.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  199. #193
    Slavery does have its effects. Though I am not saying that is all their is to it. But I know that AAs feel their sense of self worth has been deeply marred by their history. They still have this feeling of being used. Like the system really owes them something. This coupled with past episodes of racism. It all works into their mind set. The women seem to have risen above it but the men seem not to have. Atleast most of them.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  200. love2008,

    Thomas Sowell addressed the impact of slavery on black Americans in his book Black Rednecks and White Liberals, summarized here. One of the points that stuck with me was the economic evidence that black Americans were making great economic strides prior to and after WWII. As I recall, there was also evidence blacks were being integrated into society as a result of the integration of the military. According to Sowell, the welfare movement undid the gains blacks had previously realized by disintegrating the previously strong black nuclear family.

    It’s an interesting and provocative book.

    DRJ (cfa65f)

  201. Y’all can take the Jesse Jackson discussion to this post if you like.

    Patterico (cb443b)

  202. But I know that AAs feel

    Alcoholics Anonymous?

    (You should really pay attention to my comment in re Charlize Theron above.)

    And how can you know how “they” “feel”?

    AAs feel their sense of self worth has been deeply marred by their history

    it isn’t “their” history, it was the history of their long-dead ancestors. Much closer than that, my ancestors were living on the reservations, but I’m not trying to claim that I should get 40 acres and a fucking mule. (TRUST ME, mules are more trouble than they are worth. I still remember the time that our mule kicked my mother in the chest… but best leave that anecdote for another time.)

    Those people who were born anytime after the ratification of the 13th Amendment have no claim to know what slavery is like through first-hand knowledge, and when you are talking about people who were born within the last three decades, they have even less.

    Obama, for instance, has not only never been a slave, his father’s family in Nigeria owned slaves! And his mother’s family was white. So he is generations closer to being among the slave owners than the owned slaves.

    Yet he gets to lie about his conception being about the march in Selma, and all the rest, because of that one-drop-of-blood standard being touted by those who wish to claim a societal benefit from their skin color, despite the facts. (id est, Halle Berry’s Oscar acceptance speech, praising her black heritage despite the fact that it was her black father who abandoned her white mother.)

    Treating people differently based on their skin color is racism. Period. That includes the Jim Crow laws, and the Crow Jim alternatives (aka Affirmative Action, yet another AA)

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  203. #197
    Thanks DRJ. I have read some of Sowell’s works. That throws a new light on this issue. Glad you brought it up. I believe affirmative action and some of this welfare, hand outs has served to destroy a generation of African Americans.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  204. a generation of African Americans.

    How many of them are from Africa, and how many were born here?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  205. How many of them are from Africa, and how many were born here?

    You dont like the term “African Americans” Drumwaster?

    love2008 (1b037c)

  206. You dont like the term “African Americans” Drumwaster?

    I have nothing against it. But almost none of the people currently using it are from Africa. Using the term as a synonym for “black” or “Negroid” is especially offensive.

    Have you heard about the ultra-PC news reporter who was talking about some blacks in England, and having to refer to them as “African-American”, despite the fact that they were neither African, nor American, but actually British.

    Not to mention that I despise anyone who prefers a hyphenated citizenship. I don’t call myself “Irish-American” or “Native American-American” or any of the others. I am a mutt, and damned proud to be an AMERICAN.

    No hyphens needed to describe my nationality. No split loyalties, either.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  207. You’re also avoiding the question.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  208. When I was in college, I had a classmate from South Africa who never did understand why “African” did not apply to him.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  209. Kim du Toit and Charlize Theron? African-Americans.

    Barack Obama and Jerry Wright? NOT. (Although Barack comes close, since his father – who abandoned him as a child – actually is from Africa, but still no cigar. Making a great play that ends at the one-yard line doesn’t equal “touchdown”.)

    ***

    I am reminded of one story that Kim du Toit told about how weird Africa is…

    A newspaper ran story headlines on three successive days.

    Day One: “Three headless bodies found”
    Day Two: “Three heads found”
    Day Three: “Heads don’t match bodies”

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  210. I’m interested in love 2008′s posts. She’s previously supported the Obama campaign and I’m guessing that she’s frustrated with his jumps on the war (i.e., what we can really expect). And maybe a couple of other issues as we watch him campaign center.

    In your circle of friends or co-workers, L’08, has anyone changed their mind? I would bet that Obama keeps his original supporters with a fight to the finish for those indies and undecideds. His balancing act so far is not bringing the results they need. (Positive buzz, limitless praise, etc.)

    Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6)

  211. So you would prefer “black Americans” then? Though I get your argument.

    love2008 (1b037c)

  212. So you would prefer “black Americans” then?

    So you would prefer to treat people differently based on the color of their skin? Should the rest of us be forced to refer to ourselves as “white Americans” (despite the fact that I am probably darker-skinned than the Democratic candidate)?

    Of course not.

    Because there should be NO reason to refer to skin color at all.

    I don’t judge people based on the color of their skin and I resent anyone trying to force me to do so.

    But to lie for political favoritism is reprehensible.

    And why do “whites” get blamed for slavery? What were the color of the men selling the poor victims into slavery in the first place? And what continent were they on?

    Why would people want to associate themselves with a place so filled with corruption and crime? Or with a place that sold their relatives into slavery in the first place?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  213. Is Charlize Theron really African American? I thought she was a blonde born in South Africa. I dated a South African who met Charlize and said she was a right asshole who thought her shit didn’t stink.

    I have a friend born in Tunisia. Is she considered African American if she’s white and naturalized?

    Where does Obama get off denigrating the white race when his white blood is 1/2 of his background vs. 1/16 black blood? It is almost as bad as the BS that Clinton was first AA Prez.

    madmax333 (0fb4e6)

  214. Is she considered African American if she’s white and naturalized?

    Yup. Charlize was born in South Africa and became an American citizen. Kim du Toit was also born in Africa and later came to America.

    Whoopi Goldberg (nee Caryn Johnson) was born in Chicago, IIRC. Barack was born in Hawaii (which is about as far as you can get from Africa and still be on the same planet).

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  215. #207
    In your circle of friends or co-workers, L’08, has anyone changed their mind? I would bet that Obama keeps his original supporters with a fight to the finish for those indies and undecideds. His balancing act so far is not bringing the results they need. (Positive buzz, limitless praise, etc.)
    VN, we all caught the flip flopping buzz too. NOBAMA today, GOBAMA the next. And the next day, something else. Its hopeless!

    love2008 (1b037c)

  216. Charlize Theron is a non-African-American South African.

    JD (5f0e11)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5562 secs.