Some context, he's argued against the media for berating McCain over owning too many homes, and he's argued in the past that the media has been to quick to jump on Palin. In this article, he also points out that he thought Clinton should not have been elected due to character flaws. Also, he considers himself a single issue voter, where his issue is the war on terror (for it, not against it like so many peace-niks).
Oh, and it actual written text, rather than a YouTube video!
So Hitchins disagrees with me. I also have a LOT of what I used to call "yellow dog" democrat friends who cannot bring themselves to vote for Obama. And it is not his race. It is Character. It is Acorn, Odingo, refusal to produce birth certificate, voter fraud, drug use, mistress, winning races by eliminating other democrats from the ballot on technicalities thanks to an army of lawyers, suing banks to make more subprime loans to those who cannot reasonably repay them (hurting both sides), being the second on the list of politicians being paid off by Freddie and Fannie, "Chicago machine connections", Ayers, Rezko etc.
The list goes on. It is a real laundry list. One of the reasons people at republican rally's are so angry is that they cannot believe a man with his past of actual non-accomplishment and obvious ethical problems is even still in the running.
The reason is that McCain is, frankly, a dolt. It was obvious to me years ago and why I was not going to vote at all until I educated myself on Obama. McCain is the republican party's Kerry (dumb but married money) except he really is not even a republican any more than Lieberman is a democrat. Palin is excellent but she is only running for VP. If they reversed this ticket, which is impossible unfortunately, Obama would no longer be in it at all. Her support is that strong, especially among the PUMAS.
But whadaya gonna do... :?
I still think it will be a McCain rout but I will say this: If Obama wins, I will consider the probability at about 75% that Revelation 18 is talking about the US and the time is quickly approaching.
But we'll see.
"It is easier to get elected than to get hired" - robroy
Good article. I think a little socialization is inevitable as the majority of Americans see the volatility of their income increase. Even if I'm doing well now, it's clear to me how precarious that can be. That said, I'm not entirely thrilled with Obama's tax plan either. Not because it's wrong-headed, but because I think the tax code just needs to be simpler. Something along the lines of $0-$40k pay no tax, $40k-$75k pay rate X, $75k-$120k pay rate Y, etc. Then, get rid of special designators like Capital Gains, etc.
Good article. I think a little socialization is inevitable as the majority of Americans see the volatility of their income increase. Even if I'm doing well now, it's clear to me how precarious that can be. That said, I'm not entirely thrilled with Obama's tax plan either. Not because it's wrong-headed, but because I think the tax code just needs to be simpler. Something along the lines of $0-$40k pay no tax, $40k-$75k pay rate X, $75k-$120k pay rate Y, etc. Then, get rid of special designators like Capital Gains, etc.
I like this rate: $1 to infinity, pay rate x. It is completely fair. The more you earn, the more you pay, as a direct percentage of your income.
As stupid as this sounds, a lot of people don't aspire to really do what it takes to earn more because they actually focus more on the increased tax than the increased income. It is sort of a "why earn 100% more if I'm only gonna see 10% more? What's the point?" I don't believe it is overtly conscious, but it is there. And it matters.
I think productivity would explode if people believed they could aspire to significantly larger incomes (and the productivity it takes to get it) if they believed they would still be able to keep the same percentage of their income.
In the mid-1980's, I allowed a green card Mexican woman with her six kids to live in my home with my three daughters for almost two months while she looked for a job. She got the card from the amnesty program.
She was collecting $1,200 a month from welfare even though she was NOT a citizen. We found her a job that earned her approximately $1,600 a month and she quit after the first day because she "needed to be with her children." This was even while they were still living with us!
She was a slave to welfare. There was no incentive to EVER get out from under it.
We finally got her into public housing and took two things away from this experience: 1. We will NEVER do that again. The person has to be willing to work. 2. My children all got head lice.
I think a little socialization is inevitable as the majority of Americans see the volatility of their income increase. Even if I'm doing well now, it's clear to me how precarious that can be. That said, I'm not entirely thrilled with Obama's tax plan either. Not because it's wrong-headed, but because I think the tax code just needs to be simpler.
It is a slap in the face to guys like me (and the author himself, frankly), but maybe it is why it is good that people don't live that long, because it is also pretty darned accurate. Our founding fathers would certainly be out of touch today. Heck, they'd have to put their slaves in the "free" section of Craigslist. But their concept of "freedom" even for those they considered 5/5 of a man are being so seriously eroded that they would probably stage a "Seattle coffee party".
REMEMBER:
"Wright" This guy was his pastor and a mentor. He did some very good things, but also said some very bad things. I'll give you this one. However McCain and Palin have their own pastor problems, which aren't getting even close to the attention that Wright has already received.
"Ayers" This link is so tenuous and small. They served on a board that worked on education in poor places in Chicago. The review of records from Annenberg turned up nothing, which you predicted would hold some huge revelation about their relationship. In fact, the current president of Annenberg is endorsing John McCain (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/0 ... 32954.html) shouldn't he then denounce her endorsement, rather than having it right at the top of the list? It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that he had led a fugitive life years earlier ... It's ridiculous," Republican Rep. Diana Nelson said. "There is no reason at all to smear Barack Obama with this association. It's nonsensical, and it just makes me crazy. It's so silly."
"Alinsky" Linking him to someone who died long before he had a chance to meet him. Very clever. I can see why a conservative wouldn't like Alinsky's ideas, because he worked for common people and the poor. One of the first community organizers. And we all know that community organizers are very evil people.
"Pfleger" Another link that is tiny. In that Obama worked in Chicago as a community organizer, he helped out Pfleger's work with the poor. What a bastard.
"Marshall" Are you referring to Frank Marshall Davis? Someone who was a friend of his grandfather's who took on a fathering role for Obama when he was young. I'm sure he was influenced by him, but you're talking about someone who was a good friend of his grandfather and someone who helped raise him.
"Farrakhan" Give me a break.
"ACORN" Another popular target for conservatives. We wouldn't want those uppity poor and minorities to start getting any ideas they deserve fairness, would we?
"Wade Rathke" Not only the founder of ACORN, but A UNION MEMBER!!!! WHAT A SON OF A BITCH!!!!!
"Judge a man by the company he keeps!"
So, if we're going to play the association game, let's play then.
Hagee
Keating
G Gordon Liddy
Richard Quinn
US Council for World Freedom
Mustafa Abu Naba'a
Ali Jawad
Kemper Marley
Marylin Shannon
Ifshin, who was just about as radical as Ayers and had more direct contact with McCain than Obama did with Ayers
Alaska Independence Party (Joe Vogler, Chryson and Stoll) which is very disturbing. A cessationist party, whom Palin fully endorses, her husband was a member of for many years and who actually had past ties with Iran. Think about it. If Michelle Obama had been a member of the Socialist party, could you imagine the outrage? Doesn't really go with the country first theme.
Thomas Muthee, witch hunter extrodinaire!
Not to mention all of the lobbyists he's employing on his campaign. These are all people you also don't need to play 6 degrees of separation to connect him to.
Playing a guilt by association argument will put you in a bad place, because we all have strange associations with people. There are people in your life I'm sure that are/have been criminals just like there are in mine. There are people I have worked with whom I know have done very bad things in the past.
Like Biden said, "if you have something to say to a man, say it to his face." McCain will not do this in the debate, because he knows that he'll be opening up Pandora's Box.
It is hard to take that post seriously. I agree that, as with all candidates, there are skeletons where there really isn't much there, but you attempt to brush away serious issues whith a far to broad brush.
The difference between Ifshin and Ayers is a simple one. Ifshin came to understand that he was wrong - that his actions hurt his country. And John McCain forgave him.
Ayers, to this day, regrets that he was not able to bomb more government buildings. He has apologized to no one. And, in fact, Ayers remains proud of his treasonous behavior. And his friendship with Obama is not one of reconciliation, but of conspiracy and sedition.
I think our entire world's economy is in meltdown, just as in the 1930's and late 1800's. The 1930's one ended with WWII.
I am reminded of Ronald Reagan's words: No country was attacked because it was too powerful.(I paraphrase)
I believe the US is a form of empire like the Roman and British empires. The difference is that we don't overtly control our colonies. Rather, we compel them with trade, defense and other candy to work with us. But as we (and our civilization as a whole) sort of collapses, we become, at the very least, perceived as week. This will become perilous to our "pseudo colonies/allies". Just as Hitler invaded countries because he felt the western world did not have the will to stop him (and it didn't until the big players discovered, too late, that they themselves were at risk), and Japan felt that if they could attack Pearl Harbor that the lack of will (isolationism in the US) coupled with the loss of our major fleet would preclude the US from pursuing them. They could then overtake China, etc. unhindered.
To digress a bit, it is like the "ex-presidents" in Point Break. By demonstrating a "willingness to commit violence" they effectively preventing it. And of course there is MAD.
But back to the topic. As we are perceived as week and our enemies, affected by all this mess, become more desperate, the equation shifts. We could literally find North Korea invading SK, China invading Taiwan, Iran taking on Iraq, et-all, and even Venezuela and Russia taking advantage. Some would argue the waters are already being tested (Georgia?). This begs a few questions: Would we stop them and, if not, would it not adversely affect us internally and even leave us vulnerable to actual war being fought on US real estate?
And then the economic downturn will increase crime, divorce, domestic violence, etc. In fact, statistically, car prowls have doubled since last year in the Seattle area (heard on radio Saturday). This further increases our perceived weakness.
Bottom line is that the world is not and never was a stable place. There is a constant equilibrium being sustained through daily juggling of negotiation, troop deployment, concession and treaty. It is a fine wire upon which the nations dance. The wire was just vigorously shook and we will get to see who falls off. We'll know how it will play out soon enough, but for me I want a leader that takes on the attitude of the ex-presidents in Point Break as opposed to another "let's talk" Jimmy Carter.
The premise is mistaken because it overly simplifies interactions and codependencies. Two hundred years ago, it was possible to argue that the runoff from my blacksmith, even if it went into waterways was not harming your livelihood as a fisherman. Maybe I killed 1% of the fish, but there were so many more than we could eat anyways, that it hardly mattered.
What's changed is the world population is now beyond what is independently sustainable. It depends on a lot of people working together, or else most of us would die. This is unprecedented in the earth's history.
As we are perceived as week and our enemies, affected by all this mess, become more desperate, the equation shifts. We could literally find North Korea invading SK, China invading Taiwan, Iran taking on Iraq, et-all, and even Venezuela and Russia taking advantage. Some would argue the waters are already being tested (Georgia?). This begs a few questions: Would we stop them and, if not, would it not adversely affect us internally and even leave us vulnerable to actual war being fought on US real estate?
...
Bottom line is that the world is not and never was a stable place.
You're correct that some foreign leaders might attempt to "test the waters", but wrong about how the world works now. Per my previous post, the fact that our mutual existence depends on trade has changed the equation greatly. If we don't work with nations in the Middle East, we run out of oil. Meanwhile, the US is a major bread basket for the globe, ensuring these rising populations keep eating. That is far more powerful than nuclear warheads.
I am reminded of Ronald Reagan's words: No country was attacked because it was too powerful.(I paraphrase)
Good paraphrase, but Reagan was wrong. E.g. the American war for independence. But if you look through history, plenty of wars have been fought because one side viewed the other as holding too much power. Arguably, the WOT (war on terror) is an example. They thought we were exerting too much influence in Saudi Arabia, terrorist attacks were committed, and then we find ourselves in ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The difference between Ifshin and Ayers is a simple one. Ifshin came to understand that he was wrong - that his actions hurt his country. And John McCain forgave him.
Ayers, to this day, regrets that he was not able to bomb more government buildings. He has apologized to no one. And, in fact, Ayers remains proud of his treasonous behavior. And his friendship with Obama is not one of reconciliation, but of conspiracy and sedition.
That sounds like slander. Read this for a more nuanced understanding of the Ayers that Obama probably knew. He may not have explicitly stated regret for his actions, but that's a far different thing than claiming he wishes he could have done more harm.
FWIW, I never mentioned nuclear weapons. It was intentional. I don't think they will be necessary. I think other countries are convinced that we will not use them unless someone else does first.
It's like coming to a knife fight with a huge gun but telling the others involved that you will not use it unless they shoot their little popguns first. So you pull out your knife to take on 20 other guys with knives.
Results may vary.
It would be funny if Nukes became our Maginot line.
You're correct that some foreign leaders might attempt to "test the waters", but wrong about how the world works now. Per my previous post, the fact that our mutual existence depends on trade has changed the equation greatly. If we don't work with nations in the Middle East, we run out of oil. Meanwhile, the US is a major bread basket for the globe, ensuring these rising populations keep eating. That is far more powerful than nuclear warheads.
Desperate countries don't always act in their own long term best interests. That is one of the reasons we get war.
Good paraphrase, but Reagan was wrong. E.g. the American war for independence. But if you look through history, plenty of wars have been fought because one side viewed the other as holding too much power. Arguably, the WOT (war on terror) is an example. They thought we were exerting too much influence in Saudi Arabia, terrorist attacks were committed, and then we find ourselves in ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Not really. Just like in Point Break, someone thought they could take them on. It ended up badly for everyone. Sometimes you can never have too much power.
Of course this doesn't apply when someone small and irresponsible has too much power - like a child with a gun or Iran with nukes.
"If they reversed this ticket, which is impossible unfortunately, Obama would no longer be in it at all. Her support is that strong, especially among the PUMAS."
It's amazing to me that you still think that she's so great. The only reason she was deemed a success in the VP debate is because she didn't puke on herself. The only people who still like her are conservative christians and right wingers who think that she's hot.
The pumas aren't as big of a group as you would like to think that they are.
It's amazing to me that you still think that she's so great. The only reason she was deemed a success in the VP debate is because she didn't puke on herself.
It's amazing to me that you still think that she's so great. The only reason she was deemed a success in the VP debate is because she didn't puke on herself.
What a perfect opportunity for me to post this.
hahaha. I am looking at a hard copy of that right outside my cube! That thing is hilarious!
"If they reversed this ticket, which is impossible unfortunately, Obama would no longer be in it at all. Her support is that strong, especially among the PUMAS."
It's amazing to me that you still think that she's so great. The only reason she was deemed a success in the VP debate is because she didn't puke on herself. The only people who still like her are conservative christians and right wingers who think that she's hot.
The pumas aren't as big of a group as you would like to think that they are.
Well, we disagree. She is the only one of the four here that I would vote FOR as president. I hold my nose when I vote for McCain.
She is not perfect, no doubt about it, but the more I read, the more I like her.
Not really. Just like in Point Break, someone thought they could take them on. It ended up badly for everyone. Sometimes you can never have too much power.
Of course this doesn't apply when someone small and irresponsible has too much power - like a child with a gun or Iran with nukes.
No, there is ample evidence of wars fought because one nation was too powerful. Rome fought many wars for just that reason, as people groups wanted autonomy. The only thing might determines is who wins.
I know Reagan is like some sort of conservative god for you, but he's not always right. Just like someone you completely disagree with, like Obama, is not always wrong.
But then, you're wrong that you can never have too much power as well. The classic economics decision is butter - vs - guns. To much power is if you have no butter to feed your people. IE you can have too much power, and excessive power can only keep you so safe.
We won't know whether the bradley effect will happen until November 4th.
I'm not that deluded though, unless I have seriously underestimated the american people. http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/pu ... detail.asp
Corsi,
Berg,
etc.
Pending RICO charges against ACORN in Ohio, ongoing ACORN stuff. Obvious and unavoidable Obama connections to ACORN.
Etc.
Whenever I talk to so-called "undecideds" about this election I just ask them to make two T-charts. On both put obama on one side and McCain on the other. One is the "positives" list and the other is the "negatives". Then you put every claim against each on the negatives list (even unproven), and the positives (even unproven) on the positives list. Sort them by importance and significance, eliminate the ones that are proven false (palin's baby is really her daughters - stuff like that) and compare. It streamlines it to, once the lists are edited and vetted, only focus on the top five issues.
I've learned quite a bit about polling from 538. Great site, bit intensive on data at first, but quite interesting.
One of the few good things to come from this election is that there are now objective sources of polling data. The guy who writes 538 has posted about polling operations that are skewed whether due to intention or incompetence, but that the MSM still likes to cite. Electoralvote.com is another good compiler.
He also busted Drudge's balls this morning for posting a statistical outlier and ignoring all the other sources that showed a different (less desirable) story.
Not really. Just like in Point Break, someone thought they could take them on. It ended up badly for everyone. Sometimes you can never have too much power.
Of course this doesn't apply when someone small and irresponsible has too much power - like a child with a gun or Iran with nukes.
No, there is ample evidence of wars fought because one nation was too powerful. Rome fought many wars for just that reason, as people groups wanted autonomy. The only thing might determines is who wins.
I know Reagan is like some sort of conservative god for you, but he's not always right. Just like someone you completely disagree with, like Obama, is not always wrong.
But then, you're wrong that you can never have too much power as well. The classic economics decision is butter - vs - guns. To much power is if you have no butter to feed your people. IE you can have too much power, and excessive power can only keep you so safe.
Reagan is no conservative god for me. I voted for him in 1980. I voted against Mondale in 1984.
But the statement does stand. The "too powerful" statement was about the concept that if it is clear to your enemy that they are gonna get their clock cleaned if they attack you, they won't attack you. The examples you give are where the other side did not believe that.
The statement was to make the same point made by the leader of the ex-presidents in Point Break. But of course it is not infallible. None of the plans of men are. But it works really, REALLY well. MAD worked.
I've learned quite a bit about polling from 538. Great site, bit intensive on data at first, but quite interesting.
One of the few good things to come from this election is that there are now objective sources of polling data. The guy who writes 538 has posted about polling operations that are skewed whether due to intention or incompetence, but that the MSM still likes to cite. Electoralvote.com is another good compiler.
He also busted Drudge's balls this morning for posting a statistical outlier and ignoring all the other sources that showed a different (less desirable) story.
Electoralvote is my favorite. I like to compare this years figures with those of four years ago.
Comments
The list goes on. It is a real laundry list. One of the reasons people at republican rally's are so angry is that they cannot believe a man with his past of actual non-accomplishment and obvious ethical problems is even still in the running.
The reason is that McCain is, frankly, a dolt. It was obvious to me years ago and why I was not going to vote at all until I educated myself on Obama. McCain is the republican party's Kerry (dumb but married money) except he really is not even a republican any more than Lieberman is a democrat. Palin is excellent but she is only running for VP. If they reversed this ticket, which is impossible unfortunately, Obama would no longer be in it at all. Her support is that strong, especially among the PUMAS.
But whadaya gonna do... :?
I still think it will be a McCain rout but I will say this: If Obama wins, I will consider the probability at about 75% that Revelation 18 is talking about the US and the time is quickly approaching.
But we'll see.
"It is easier to get elected than to get hired" - robroy
Good article. I think a little socialization is inevitable as the majority of Americans see the volatility of their income increase. Even if I'm doing well now, it's clear to me how precarious that can be. That said, I'm not entirely thrilled with Obama's tax plan either. Not because it's wrong-headed, but because I think the tax code just needs to be simpler. Something along the lines of $0-$40k pay no tax, $40k-$75k pay rate X, $75k-$120k pay rate Y, etc. Then, get rid of special designators like Capital Gains, etc.
As stupid as this sounds, a lot of people don't aspire to really do what it takes to earn more because they actually focus more on the increased tax than the increased income. It is sort of a "why earn 100% more if I'm only gonna see 10% more? What's the point?" I don't believe it is overtly conscious, but it is there. And it matters.
I think productivity would explode if people believed they could aspire to significantly larger incomes (and the productivity it takes to get it) if they believed they would still be able to keep the same percentage of their income.
In the mid-1980's, I allowed a green card Mexican woman with her six kids to live in my home with my three daughters for almost two months while she looked for a job. She got the card from the amnesty program.
She was collecting $1,200 a month from welfare even though she was NOT a citizen. We found her a job that earned her approximately $1,600 a month and she quit after the first day because she "needed to be with her children." This was even while they were still living with us!
She was a slave to welfare. There was no incentive to EVER get out from under it.
We finally got her into public housing and took two things away from this experience: 1. We will NEVER do that again. The person has to be willing to work. 2. My children all got head lice.
I really liked this article.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Liddy.shtml
It is a slap in the face to guys like me (and the author himself, frankly), but maybe it is why it is good that people don't live that long, because it is also pretty darned accurate. Our founding fathers would certainly be out of touch today. Heck, they'd have to put their slaves in the "free" section of Craigslist. But their concept of "freedom" even for those they considered 5/5 of a man are being so seriously eroded that they would probably stage a "Seattle coffee party".
"Wright" This guy was his pastor and a mentor. He did some very good things, but also said some very bad things. I'll give you this one. However McCain and Palin have their own pastor problems, which aren't getting even close to the attention that Wright has already received.
"Odinga" http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kenya.asp hardly a connection here at all.
"Ayers" This link is so tenuous and small. They served on a board that worked on education in poor places in Chicago. The review of records from Annenberg turned up nothing, which you predicted would hold some huge revelation about their relationship. In fact, the current president of Annenberg is endorsing John McCain (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/0 ... 32954.html) shouldn't he then denounce her endorsement, rather than having it right at the top of the list? It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that he had led a fugitive life years earlier ... It's ridiculous," Republican Rep. Diana Nelson said. "There is no reason at all to smear Barack Obama with this association. It's nonsensical, and it just makes me crazy. It's so silly."
"Alinsky" Linking him to someone who died long before he had a chance to meet him. Very clever. I can see why a conservative wouldn't like Alinsky's ideas, because he worked for common people and the poor. One of the first community organizers. And we all know that community organizers are very evil people.
"Pfleger" Another link that is tiny. In that Obama worked in Chicago as a community organizer, he helped out Pfleger's work with the poor. What a bastard.
"Marshall" Are you referring to Frank Marshall Davis? Someone who was a friend of his grandfather's who took on a fathering role for Obama when he was young. I'm sure he was influenced by him, but you're talking about someone who was a good friend of his grandfather and someone who helped raise him.
"Farrakhan" Give me a break.
"ACORN" Another popular target for conservatives. We wouldn't want those uppity poor and minorities to start getting any ideas they deserve fairness, would we?
"Wade Rathke" Not only the founder of ACORN, but A UNION MEMBER!!!! WHAT A SON OF A BITCH!!!!!
"Judge a man by the company he keeps!"
So, if we're going to play the association game, let's play then.
Hagee
Keating
G Gordon Liddy
Richard Quinn
US Council for World Freedom
Mustafa Abu Naba'a
Ali Jawad
Kemper Marley
Marylin Shannon
Ifshin, who was just about as radical as Ayers and had more direct contact with McCain than Obama did with Ayers
Alaska Independence Party (Joe Vogler, Chryson and Stoll) which is very disturbing. A cessationist party, whom Palin fully endorses, her husband was a member of for many years and who actually had past ties with Iran. Think about it. If Michelle Obama had been a member of the Socialist party, could you imagine the outrage? Doesn't really go with the country first theme.
Thomas Muthee, witch hunter extrodinaire!
Not to mention all of the lobbyists he's employing on his campaign. These are all people you also don't need to play 6 degrees of separation to connect him to.
Playing a guilt by association argument will put you in a bad place, because we all have strange associations with people. There are people in your life I'm sure that are/have been criminals just like there are in mine. There are people I have worked with whom I know have done very bad things in the past.
Like Biden said, "if you have something to say to a man, say it to his face." McCain will not do this in the debate, because he knows that he'll be opening up Pandora's Box.
But I am not surprised.
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/mccain- ... hin/32880/
And another guy says it best from another site:
The difference between Ifshin and Ayers is a simple one. Ifshin came to understand that he was wrong - that his actions hurt his country. And John McCain forgave him.
Ayers, to this day, regrets that he was not able to bomb more government buildings. He has apologized to no one. And, in fact, Ayers remains proud of his treasonous behavior. And his friendship with Obama is not one of reconciliation, but of conspiracy and sedition.
Swell.
But it is not what I was talking about.
I was talking about this.
http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2008/ ... rue-story/
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/200 ... mic-jihad/
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71383
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/us-am ... dinga.html
For those who like to watch:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=S8QcpdUtx ... re=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1P_P8lBCsE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpvLV3d1Eq4&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdtirp4X ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpvLV3d1Eq4
I think our entire world's economy is in meltdown, just as in the 1930's and late 1800's. The 1930's one ended with WWII.
I am reminded of Ronald Reagan's words: No country was attacked because it was too powerful.(I paraphrase)
I believe the US is a form of empire like the Roman and British empires. The difference is that we don't overtly control our colonies. Rather, we compel them with trade, defense and other candy to work with us. But as we (and our civilization as a whole) sort of collapses, we become, at the very least, perceived as week. This will become perilous to our "pseudo colonies/allies". Just as Hitler invaded countries because he felt the western world did not have the will to stop him (and it didn't until the big players discovered, too late, that they themselves were at risk), and Japan felt that if they could attack Pearl Harbor that the lack of will (isolationism in the US) coupled with the loss of our major fleet would preclude the US from pursuing them. They could then overtake China, etc. unhindered.
To digress a bit, it is like the "ex-presidents" in Point Break. By demonstrating a "willingness to commit violence" they effectively preventing it. And of course there is MAD.
But back to the topic. As we are perceived as week and our enemies, affected by all this mess, become more desperate, the equation shifts. We could literally find North Korea invading SK, China invading Taiwan, Iran taking on Iraq, et-all, and even Venezuela and Russia taking advantage. Some would argue the waters are already being tested (Georgia?). This begs a few questions: Would we stop them and, if not, would it not adversely affect us internally and even leave us vulnerable to actual war being fought on US real estate?
And then the economic downturn will increase crime, divorce, domestic violence, etc. In fact, statistically, car prowls have doubled since last year in the Seattle area (heard on radio Saturday). This further increases our perceived weakness.
Bottom line is that the world is not and never was a stable place. There is a constant equilibrium being sustained through daily juggling of negotiation, troop deployment, concession and treaty. It is a fine wire upon which the nations dance. The wire was just vigorously shook and we will get to see who falls off. We'll know how it will play out soon enough, but for me I want a leader that takes on the attitude of the ex-presidents in Point Break as opposed to another "let's talk" Jimmy Carter.
Especially now.
http://justsaynodeal.com/acorn.html
The premise is mistaken because it overly simplifies interactions and codependencies. Two hundred years ago, it was possible to argue that the runoff from my blacksmith, even if it went into waterways was not harming your livelihood as a fisherman. Maybe I killed 1% of the fish, but there were so many more than we could eat anyways, that it hardly mattered.
What's changed is the world population is now beyond what is independently sustainable. It depends on a lot of people working together, or else most of us would die. This is unprecedented in the earth's history.
You're correct that some foreign leaders might attempt to "test the waters", but wrong about how the world works now. Per my previous post, the fact that our mutual existence depends on trade has changed the equation greatly. If we don't work with nations in the Middle East, we run out of oil. Meanwhile, the US is a major bread basket for the globe, ensuring these rising populations keep eating. That is far more powerful than nuclear warheads.
Good paraphrase, but Reagan was wrong. E.g. the American war for independence. But if you look through history, plenty of wars have been fought because one side viewed the other as holding too much power. Arguably, the WOT (war on terror) is an example. They thought we were exerting too much influence in Saudi Arabia, terrorist attacks were committed, and then we find ourselves in ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That sounds like slander. Read this for a more nuanced understanding of the Ayers that Obama probably knew. He may not have explicitly stated regret for his actions, but that's a far different thing than claiming he wishes he could have done more harm.
It's like coming to a knife fight with a huge gun but telling the others involved that you will not use it unless they shoot their little popguns first. So you pull out your knife to take on 20 other guys with knives.
Results may vary.
It would be funny if Nukes became our Maginot line.
Of course this doesn't apply when someone small and irresponsible has too much power - like a child with a gun or Iran with nukes.
"If they reversed this ticket, which is impossible unfortunately, Obama would no longer be in it at all. Her support is that strong, especially among the PUMAS."
It's amazing to me that you still think that she's so great. The only reason she was deemed a success in the VP debate is because she didn't puke on herself. The only people who still like her are conservative christians and right wingers who think that she's hot.
The pumas aren't as big of a group as you would like to think that they are.
And he doesn't disappoint; just as deluded as ever.
This election is so much fun!http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
What a perfect opportunity for me to post this.
She is not perfect, no doubt about it, but the more I read, the more I like her.
No, there is ample evidence of wars fought because one nation was too powerful. Rome fought many wars for just that reason, as people groups wanted autonomy. The only thing might determines is who wins.
I know Reagan is like some sort of conservative god for you, but he's not always right. Just like someone you completely disagree with, like Obama, is not always wrong.
But then, you're wrong that you can never have too much power as well. The classic economics decision is butter - vs - guns. To much power is if you have no butter to feed your people. IE you can have too much power, and excessive power can only keep you so safe.
I'm not that deluded though, unless I have seriously underestimated the american people.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/pu ... detail.asp
Corsi,
Berg,
etc.
Pending RICO charges against ACORN in Ohio, ongoing ACORN stuff. Obvious and unavoidable Obama connections to ACORN.
Etc.
Whenever I talk to so-called "undecideds" about this election I just ask them to make two T-charts. On both put obama on one side and McCain on the other. One is the "positives" list and the other is the "negatives". Then you put every claim against each on the negatives list (even unproven), and the positives (even unproven) on the positives list. Sort them by importance and significance, eliminate the ones that are proven false (palin's baby is really her daughters - stuff like that) and compare. It streamlines it to, once the lists are edited and vetted, only focus on the top five issues.
The results are hilarious.
Who is delusional?
I've learned quite a bit about polling from 538. Great site, bit intensive on data at first, but quite interesting.
One of the few good things to come from this election is that there are now objective sources of polling data. The guy who writes 538 has posted about polling operations that are skewed whether due to intention or incompetence, but that the MSM still likes to cite. Electoralvote.com is another good compiler.
He also busted Drudge's balls this morning for posting a statistical outlier and ignoring all the other sources that showed a different (less desirable) story.
But the statement does stand. The "too powerful" statement was about the concept that if it is clear to your enemy that they are gonna get their clock cleaned if they attack you, they won't attack you. The examples you give are where the other side did not believe that.
The statement was to make the same point made by the leader of the ex-presidents in Point Break. But of course it is not infallible. None of the plans of men are. But it works really, REALLY well. MAD worked.
http://www.house.gov/list/press/fl24_feeney/acorn.shtml
Sheesh.
I'm beginning to think all bets will be off regarding this election. Maybe the side with the most guns will win.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... ml?showall