And I just got this in an email about 10 minutes ago. I don't agree with all the bullet points on the first slide but the rest of it sums it up nicely how I view this. And most of the points are only highlights. They are backed up my more - and more damning - information for those that actually want to read the record. http://www.usawakeup.org/USSA.htm
It is why so many seriously fear for our nation. I have confidence for a simple reason: the opposite of faith is fear and the opposite of fear is faith. I KNOW it is going to get much worse than anyone can imagine before the Lord's return. And not being a pre-tribulationist, I know that if I am still alive when "this generation:" of Matthew 24 is alive, I'm gonna live through 3.5 years of hell on earth. I also know it is all part of God's plan.
I am concerned that my countrymen are as blind today as Germans were in the 1930's. I sincerely HOPE I do not have the opportunity to be proven right and I pray for the kind of actions that bring about CHANGE to renew freedom and responsibility to the individual citizen that have been slowly stripped away ever since the New Deal.
I don't exactly understand the dirty word police and how they react when words like Marxism or socialism come up. Let's talk about Russia during the Cold War: the Evil Empire <mwahahaha>.
What was evil about Russia, or China, or Cuba for that matter wasn't communism per say, but that they were totalitarian governments. It just so happens that communism puts incredible power in the hands of the government, which can easily be turned into a totalitarianism, but that's not the same as saying the two are equivalent.
Consider Europe for a minute. Most of Europe is socialist, yet they have low crime, are generally happier, and their economy has done well even though it is fighting the reality of an aging population.
I don't mind if someone disagrees on the technical feasibility of a different economic or government system - they all have positives and negatives - but we need to get past labeling ideas as evil just because we don't understand them.
There are countless sociological and psychological studies that say essentially this:
1) if you do not have food shelter and clothing, you more than likely won't be happy.
2) if you have adequate food, shelter and clothing, you'll more than likely be pretty happy.
3) if you have way more food, shelter and clothing than what you actually need, you won't be any happier than #2.
Communism didn't work. It looked good on paper to some people, but it simply doesn't work because people want to be able to work hard and do better than the next guy. Pretty much human nature.
But when you have a pure free market system, you end up with an Oligarchy or a fascist state, which is what we are dangerously close to right now. A few benefitting greatly from the work of many.
I think that there's room for a middle ground. I don't think there's a pure right way or wrong way to do anything. I think many things are better accomplished by private industry. The X-Prize going into space is the perfect example of this. NASA has spent billions and billions on going to space with a ridiculously high mortality rate. Space Ship One got into orbit on less than 25 million. And Branson is going to be even more disgustingly wealthy.
However, when private industry gets in to doing the government's work, It can often be far less efficient.
For instance, the Iraq war with Blackwater, KBR and Halliburton. They charge 3-6 times more per person for the same services that used to be done by Army personell, besides the total lack of audit or oversight by government agencies writing checks to these companies. That's terribly inefficient and a waste of taxpayer money. And even though you hate the idea of universal healthcare of course, it can be far more efficient than the system we currently have. We spend way more on healthcare per capita than almost any other industrialized nation, yet we're ranked 37th. That's pathetic.
I don't think there's one right or one wrong answer. I think sometimes one way is more right than another, depending on how the country is moving at that point in time. Sometimes regulation kills prosperity. Sometimes lack of regulation kills prosperity, like right now.
So i'm not a pure socialist by any means, but I think helping all of the citizens of your country and your neighbors is an honorable and admirable goal.
I don't exactly understand the dirty word police and how they react when words like Marxism or socialism come up. Let's talk about Russia during the Cold War: the Evil Empire <mwahahaha>.
What was evil about Russia, or China, or Cuba for that matter wasn't communism per say, but that they were totalitarian governments. It just so happens that communism puts incredible power in the hands of the government, which can easily be turned into a totalitarianism, but that's not the same as saying the two are equivalent.
Consider Europe for a minute. Most of Europe is socialist, yet they have low crime, are generally happier, and their economy has done well even though it is fighting the reality of an aging population.
I don't mind if someone disagrees on the technical feasibility of a different economic or government system - they all have positives and negatives - but we need to get past labeling ideas as evil just because we don't understand them.
The happiest people on earth are the Danish year in and year out. And they're purely socialistic.
I'm with you on "no purely right way" Chuck. I do think there are three general categories of where things should fall into either private or public domains.
First, it just doesn't work for public goods to be provided by the private sector. Let's look at a blaring example: campaign finance. Campaigns are a public good (let's learn enough to vote for the best candidate), but they are financed privately. This creates a system whereby public servants "owe" the private sector. It's the real source of pork barrel politics. We can apply the same principal to environmentalism, and transportation. Anything that everyone must share due to real world constraints should be publicly controlled.
Second, is the stuff that doesn't really effect the public at all. This is pretty much the consumer market, and it functions best by the free hand of capitalism. We're talking about consumption here, like automobiles and televisions.
Third, is the mixed group. This is anything that seems individual, but on closer inspection is more of a public good than we like to admit. Consider health care. It's clear that my good health benefits me, but without it I cannot be productive and may be a burden on society. To some degree, society benefits if I can stay healthy, but not as much as I do. Also in this category are things like education, the study of the sciences, and policy decisions regarding free trade.
It seems to me, like we are pretty good about the second category in this country (even if some think we over-regulate). We are usually good about the first category, but we tend to have a few blindspots (campaign finance being a significant one). But we are lousy with the third category - I'd claim many Americans deny that category even exists. We prefer things to be cut and dried. Education or health care should be fully public or fully private?!? This refusal to be pragmatic on the most complex and important issues facing our society is a great failure.
You make a great point. I've never quite thought of it in those terms.
I had a long debate with a friend of mine about education and government's involvement in education. She was arguing how homeschooled kids and private school kids do far better on testing. And there's a good reason for that. Because they are receiving attention that they wouldn't get in the public setting. And I think that parents should have the right to give their child a better education if they can afford to do so.
However, good education for everyone will help everyone, although indirectly. If we have good, affordable and accessible education for everyone, then everyone is better off. Better doctors, scientists, mechanics, welders, plumbers, electricians, architects, city planners, etc. If education is not good, affordable and accessible, then as a whole our country deteriorates because we aren't bouyed by those who complete their education.
So while better education does help the individual more, better education for everyone does bouy everyone.
Americans do really like to see things in black and white rather than in nuance. Abortion is a great example of this. I am personally pro-life. However I tend to lean left, because I think being pro-life should be more than just being anti-abortion.
Many pro-choice people refuse to believe that there is anything negative about having an abortion and I think many women who have one are not prepared for how difficult that choice is. They also hate groups like Crisis Pregnancy and what not. Why would you be against a group that supported young women in helping them keep their child?
But, if you are going to be pro-life and against abortion, shouldn't you then logically also be pro-welfare? I mean, is the child only worth protecting before they are born, then they're on their own. And when abortions are illegal or limited, this only effects the poor, as the rich can still get safe abortions if they want to, because they can afford them.
And thus why it is such a devisive issue on both sides, because both sides refuse to empathize with the other.
Maybe just as a culture we are unable to reach middle ground? While I never liked Clinton, and still really don't this is something that he did great. He worked hard to create compromise and middle ground.
Americans do really like to see things in black and white rather than in nuance. Abortion is a great example of this. I am personally pro-life. However I tend to lean left, because I think being pro-life should be more than just being anti-abortion.
You bring up a good point regarding abortion. The divisiveness of that issue is just absurd. As hard as I find it to believe that anybody likes abortion, I also dislike how eager the far right is to outlaw it as these people usually claim they want the government to stay out of their business.
All in all, I more or less agree with the Obama stance on abortion, which as he stated last night is the new democratic platform. Essentially, let's keep it legal but spend the time preventing pregnancies in the first place and giving those considering an abortion counseling and other support.
The hard-core pro-life crowd is by default fairly hypocritical (for the reasons mentioned). It's also a relatively small but very vocal group. The hardcore pro-choice crowd sometimes forgets they're talking about something that is or eventually will be a person; they're also a relatively small but vocal group.
Most people aren't vocal about it, and understand at least some of the nuance of it. Those people aren't heard because it's such an inflammatory issue that it's never discussed. Seriously, have you ever had a discussion on abortion rights with a group of friends? And for those in power who hold a nuanced view of it, it's hard to articulate without getting ripped to shreds by one side or the other (or both).
Second, is the stuff that doesn't really effect the public at all. This is pretty much the consumer market, and it functions best by the free hand of capitalism. We're talking about consumption here, like automobiles and televisions.
I'm not sure entirely what you meant by consumption of automobiles, but automobiles have a pretty significant effect on the public. In a pure capitalistic approach, cars would not have any emissions devices, for example.
Second, is the stuff that doesn't really effect the public at all. This is pretty much the consumer market, and it functions best by the free hand of capitalism. We're talking about consumption here, like automobiles and televisions.
I'm not sure entirely what you meant by consumption of automobiles, but automobiles have a pretty significant effect on the public. In a pure capitalistic approach, cars would not have any emissions devices, for example.
I was trying to separate our activities. You could also argue that making toasters has a significant effect on the environment if we do not regulate manufacturing or electricity consumption and some company is building toasters in a manner that leaks massive amounts of mercury into waterways or that use as much electricity as a whole house does.
In other words, I was speaking to the belief that the markets for sale of most consumables or durable goods should be essentially unregulated, even if particular aspects of the products (cars must have seat belts and a minimum MPG) are regulated as a public good. If cars fell into my category #1, that would mean the government purchases all cars and allocates them to citizens as it sees fit. If they fell into category #3, it would imply that the government buys some cars (or some class of cars, like say SUVs) that most people cannot buy, and it allocates those vehicles accordingly.
I wanted to add this on the issue of ACORN. I found it to be pretty informative...well the first half was. The second half was more substance than style, but the first half laid out a pretty good case why ACORN's voter registration fraud is not a very good reason to believe that there will be widespread (or really any) actual voter fraud.
I have to think that after this election is over, many Republicans will be looking back and asking themselves: "How the heck did we end up with McCain as our nominee?"
Watching everything he's done since securing the nomination, he seems like almost the worst possible choice they could have made.
I gave this a little thought, and it seems to me a little unfair to label McCain the worst possible choice based merely on how he's run his election. Consider what the conventional wisdom was in January-March.
The candidate must be able to distance himself from Bush and Bush's policies, as he had become toxic.
The candidate needed to be strong on Iraq. This needed to be someone who could drive home the point that we can't set timelines, and that the surge is working.
It was ideal that the candidate be more centrist. The republican brand has taken enough of a beating (look at the predicted congressional seats come November) that a centrist offered the best chances of bringing in undecideds. This tactic of course, relies on the assumption that hard-liners will vote so long as a red (R) follows the candidates name.
What we didn't know at the time, was that the financial crisis would erupt in such a way as it has just before the election. Even those of us who are bears probably assumed the government had enough power to keep things under wraps until just after the election. We also didn't know that the republican party is fighting a poorly documented fracture.
The GOP has relied on a kind of unholy alliance that, as I understand it, Regan forged nearly 30 years ago. Two of the most influential groups in the republican party are the pro-business contingent and the conservative Christians. Business wants lower business tax rates and less regulation (of course), and perhaps the most important issue for conservatives has been abortion. These groups do not inherently have anything in common (though many people do cross both lines). But what we've seen this year, is that the more realistic business group just wanted to make sure a republican won, so they looked to a "centrist". Meanwhile, we learned that the conservative faction was worried less about any republican winning and more about someone who shared their exact morals winning.
The result was, McCain needed to pick someone like Palin who might bring back the conservatives even if she is a total fool. But who could have solved this problem? Romney brought a different kind of religious baggage. Would we be hearing about how Obama is Muslim if an actual declared Mormon were running? Thompson or Huckabee would enthuse the conservative base but were perhaps too far right in a left leaning election. Guilianni would have brought almost the exact same set of questions that McCain has.
I think it just wasn't their year, but that the combination of a lot of conservatives voting for Bush just to see abortion overturned, and then having to deal with 8 years of the guy eviscerating our constitution was perhaps more than the party could bear.
It has been one of my assertions for a long time that fiscal conservatives and religious conservatives coming together under the Republican banner has forced both sides to take up causes that don't really make sense for both sides.
outlawing abortions from a fiscal and government conservative standpoint doesn't make sense, because you're wanting to federally mandate something that many consider to be a personal choice. Very much goes against the idea that the government should stay out of our business. Also goes against the idea of personal responsibility for your actions and not forcing a child onto our welfare system. And also abortion is a multi-million dollar industry.
I have thought this for a long time, which is one of the reasons that I lean left is that Christians are charged by Jesus to take care of the poor. This is according to Jesus one of the greatest things you can do. Nothing about them accepting personal responsibility for their actions, needing to work, or whatever else you want to say against entitlement programs. Just feed and take care of the poor, sick and the widowed. end of story.
The weak conservative christian argument is that private charity should take care of this and that we shouldn't be forced into doing this. Fact of the matter is, if churches were doing this on their own, there would be no need for social security, medicare, medicaid or welfare. No need.
Reagan was masterful in being able to bring these two groups together. Bush II tried to do the same thing, but was so completely ineffective that he's fractured the party greatly.
I also find it sad that Letterman is the first person in the media with the balls to ask McCain about his connection with Liddy and the hypocrisy of him calling out Obama on Ayers.
I hope I'm not the first to raise this, but what utter hypocrisy of the right when they use statements made by Jeremiah Wright to attack Obama. Amazingly, there are at least two problems with this line of attack.
1) The Obama is an Arab/Muslim hypocrisy : We are to believe that the following contradiction is true. Obama is Muslim, and his Christian pastor has so much influence over him that anything we can assume he believes every word the pastor utters.
2) The "our s*** smells better than yours hypocrisy : Why does Wright mean Obama is not fit for office, but Jerry Falwell doesn't mean every person who ever listened to him regularly or who has met him in person is unfit for office? Let's compare some quotes
After September 11, 2001, he said: "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen."
Which statement sounds less American to you? The one that incorrectly attempts to explain 9/11 as retribution, or the one that blames a huge number of Americans who had absolutely nothing to do with the event?
Look, Wright's bitter and he seems like a fool, but let's get some perspective!
I wanted to, but usually when I get to the part about CAFE being bad policy and gas taxes needing to be 5-10 times higher, everyone thinks I've gone off my rocker.
I just wanted to bring up Colin Powell. I think he's one of the genuinely good guys in Washington, even if he's pretty much retired now. So, today we have news that he's endorsing Obama, but it's the rest of his remarks I want to talk about.
In the past, I would have considered Powell a very mainstream republican. Neither far to the right or far to the left. Please weigh in if you disagree. So, this caught my eye.
Powell said he has some concerns about the direction of the Republican Party, adding that it has "moved more to the right than I would like to see it."
"Q: Sir, what role did McCain's negativity play in your decision?
POWELL: It troubled me. You know, we have two wars. We have economic problems. We have health problems. We have education problems. We have infrastructure problems. We have problems around the world with our allies. And so those are the problems the American people wanted to hear about, not about Mr. Ayers, not about who is a Muslim and who's not a Muslim. Those kinds of images going out on al Jazeera are killing us around the world. And we have got to say to the world it doesn't make any difference who you are or what you are. If you're an American you're an American. "
I've always had a great respect for Powell. And I have to say that it's about time that someone in the Republican party stood up and did the honorable thing and called them out on the BS about Obama being a closet muslim. And yes, I am looking at you when I say that Rob.
I have an immense amount of respect for Colin Powell and I think he's summed up the situation very well. All the other "cross party" endorsements, like William Buckley Jr, mean next to nothing especially at this late hour. But what Powell said should be a major wake up call to the GOP.
At this point, it's very difficult for me to understand why some people are more worried about Obama's pastor than they are about the litany of unethical behavior stemming from the McCain campaign.
Which brings me to my Robroy question for the day. Robroy, you've made it very clear that you are concerned about Obama's character, not least, because you believe he's Muslim. So, my question is which faith traditions could a president follow that you reject them for. I'll even make a relatively specific list.
1) Catholic
2) Protestant - Pentacostel (speaks in tongues, may handle snakes, etc)
3) Protestant - Other (Baptist, Methodist, etc)
4) Judaism
5) Muslim - Shia
6) Muslim - Sunni
7) Buddhist
8) Shintoist
9) Atheist
10) Hindu
11) Voodooist
12) Wiccan
13) Greek/Roman Paganism
14) Spinozza's God (belief there is a god, we don't know it, and perhaps it's beyond knowing. These people usually refer to themselves as "spiritual" but not "religious")
15) Taoism
I'm running out of steam here, but I'm very curious what is acceptable and what is not.
Comments
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-com ... _print.htm
And I just got this in an email about 10 minutes ago. I don't agree with all the bullet points on the first slide but the rest of it sums it up nicely how I view this. And most of the points are only highlights. They are backed up my more - and more damning - information for those that actually want to read the record.
http://www.usawakeup.org/USSA.htm
It is why so many seriously fear for our nation. I have confidence for a simple reason: the opposite of faith is fear and the opposite of fear is faith. I KNOW it is going to get much worse than anyone can imagine before the Lord's return. And not being a pre-tribulationist, I know that if I am still alive when "this generation:" of Matthew 24 is alive, I'm gonna live through 3.5 years of hell on earth. I also know it is all part of God's plan.
I am concerned that my countrymen are as blind today as Germans were in the 1930's. I sincerely HOPE I do not have the opportunity to be proven right and I pray for the kind of actions that bring about CHANGE to renew freedom and responsibility to the individual citizen that have been slowly stripped away ever since the New Deal.
I don't exactly understand the dirty word police and how they react when words like Marxism or socialism come up. Let's talk about Russia during the Cold War: the Evil Empire <mwahahaha>.
What was evil about Russia, or China, or Cuba for that matter wasn't communism per say, but that they were totalitarian governments. It just so happens that communism puts incredible power in the hands of the government, which can easily be turned into a totalitarianism, but that's not the same as saying the two are equivalent.
Consider Europe for a minute. Most of Europe is socialist, yet they have low crime, are generally happier, and their economy has done well even though it is fighting the reality of an aging population.
I don't mind if someone disagrees on the technical feasibility of a different economic or government system - they all have positives and negatives - but we need to get past labeling ideas as evil just because we don't understand them.
1) if you do not have food shelter and clothing, you more than likely won't be happy.
2) if you have adequate food, shelter and clothing, you'll more than likely be pretty happy.
3) if you have way more food, shelter and clothing than what you actually need, you won't be any happier than #2.
Communism didn't work. It looked good on paper to some people, but it simply doesn't work because people want to be able to work hard and do better than the next guy. Pretty much human nature.
But when you have a pure free market system, you end up with an Oligarchy or a fascist state, which is what we are dangerously close to right now. A few benefitting greatly from the work of many.
I think that there's room for a middle ground. I don't think there's a pure right way or wrong way to do anything. I think many things are better accomplished by private industry. The X-Prize going into space is the perfect example of this. NASA has spent billions and billions on going to space with a ridiculously high mortality rate. Space Ship One got into orbit on less than 25 million. And Branson is going to be even more disgustingly wealthy.
However, when private industry gets in to doing the government's work, It can often be far less efficient.
For instance, the Iraq war with Blackwater, KBR and Halliburton. They charge 3-6 times more per person for the same services that used to be done by Army personell, besides the total lack of audit or oversight by government agencies writing checks to these companies. That's terribly inefficient and a waste of taxpayer money. And even though you hate the idea of universal healthcare of course, it can be far more efficient than the system we currently have. We spend way more on healthcare per capita than almost any other industrialized nation, yet we're ranked 37th. That's pathetic.
I don't think there's one right or one wrong answer. I think sometimes one way is more right than another, depending on how the country is moving at that point in time. Sometimes regulation kills prosperity. Sometimes lack of regulation kills prosperity, like right now.
So i'm not a pure socialist by any means, but I think helping all of the citizens of your country and your neighbors is an honorable and admirable goal.
The happiest people on earth are the Danish year in and year out. And they're purely socialistic.
First, it just doesn't work for public goods to be provided by the private sector. Let's look at a blaring example: campaign finance. Campaigns are a public good (let's learn enough to vote for the best candidate), but they are financed privately. This creates a system whereby public servants "owe" the private sector. It's the real source of pork barrel politics. We can apply the same principal to environmentalism, and transportation. Anything that everyone must share due to real world constraints should be publicly controlled.
Second, is the stuff that doesn't really effect the public at all. This is pretty much the consumer market, and it functions best by the free hand of capitalism. We're talking about consumption here, like automobiles and televisions.
Third, is the mixed group. This is anything that seems individual, but on closer inspection is more of a public good than we like to admit. Consider health care. It's clear that my good health benefits me, but without it I cannot be productive and may be a burden on society. To some degree, society benefits if I can stay healthy, but not as much as I do. Also in this category are things like education, the study of the sciences, and policy decisions regarding free trade.
It seems to me, like we are pretty good about the second category in this country (even if some think we over-regulate). We are usually good about the first category, but we tend to have a few blindspots (campaign finance being a significant one). But we are lousy with the third category - I'd claim many Americans deny that category even exists. We prefer things to be cut and dried. Education or health care should be fully public or fully private?!? This refusal to be pragmatic on the most complex and important issues facing our society is a great failure.
I had a long debate with a friend of mine about education and government's involvement in education. She was arguing how homeschooled kids and private school kids do far better on testing. And there's a good reason for that. Because they are receiving attention that they wouldn't get in the public setting. And I think that parents should have the right to give their child a better education if they can afford to do so.
However, good education for everyone will help everyone, although indirectly. If we have good, affordable and accessible education for everyone, then everyone is better off. Better doctors, scientists, mechanics, welders, plumbers, electricians, architects, city planners, etc. If education is not good, affordable and accessible, then as a whole our country deteriorates because we aren't bouyed by those who complete their education.
So while better education does help the individual more, better education for everyone does bouy everyone.
Americans do really like to see things in black and white rather than in nuance. Abortion is a great example of this. I am personally pro-life. However I tend to lean left, because I think being pro-life should be more than just being anti-abortion.
Many pro-choice people refuse to believe that there is anything negative about having an abortion and I think many women who have one are not prepared for how difficult that choice is. They also hate groups like Crisis Pregnancy and what not. Why would you be against a group that supported young women in helping them keep their child?
But, if you are going to be pro-life and against abortion, shouldn't you then logically also be pro-welfare? I mean, is the child only worth protecting before they are born, then they're on their own. And when abortions are illegal or limited, this only effects the poor, as the rich can still get safe abortions if they want to, because they can afford them.
And thus why it is such a devisive issue on both sides, because both sides refuse to empathize with the other.
Maybe just as a culture we are unable to reach middle ground? While I never liked Clinton, and still really don't this is something that he did great. He worked hard to create compromise and middle ground.
You bring up a good point regarding abortion. The divisiveness of that issue is just absurd. As hard as I find it to believe that anybody likes abortion, I also dislike how eager the far right is to outlaw it as these people usually claim they want the government to stay out of their business.
All in all, I more or less agree with the Obama stance on abortion, which as he stated last night is the new democratic platform. Essentially, let's keep it legal but spend the time preventing pregnancies in the first place and giving those considering an abortion counseling and other support.
Most people aren't vocal about it, and understand at least some of the nuance of it. Those people aren't heard because it's such an inflammatory issue that it's never discussed. Seriously, have you ever had a discussion on abortion rights with a group of friends? And for those in power who hold a nuanced view of it, it's hard to articulate without getting ripped to shreds by one side or the other (or both).
I'm not sure entirely what you meant by consumption of automobiles, but automobiles have a pretty significant effect on the public. In a pure capitalistic approach, cars would not have any emissions devices, for example.
I was trying to separate our activities. You could also argue that making toasters has a significant effect on the environment if we do not regulate manufacturing or electricity consumption and some company is building toasters in a manner that leaks massive amounts of mercury into waterways or that use as much electricity as a whole house does.
In other words, I was speaking to the belief that the markets for sale of most consumables or durable goods should be essentially unregulated, even if particular aspects of the products (cars must have seat belts and a minimum MPG) are regulated as a public good. If cars fell into my category #1, that would mean the government purchases all cars and allocates them to citizens as it sees fit. If they fell into category #3, it would imply that the government buys some cars (or some class of cars, like say SUVs) that most people cannot buy, and it allocates those vehicles accordingly.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?a ... 4977480080
I'm glad I didn't go into my diatribe against CAFE and various other aspects of NHTSA, EPA, CARB, et al.
I gave this a little thought, and it seems to me a little unfair to label McCain the worst possible choice based merely on how he's run his election. Consider what the conventional wisdom was in January-March.
What we didn't know at the time, was that the financial crisis would erupt in such a way as it has just before the election. Even those of us who are bears probably assumed the government had enough power to keep things under wraps until just after the election. We also didn't know that the republican party is fighting a poorly documented fracture.
The GOP has relied on a kind of unholy alliance that, as I understand it, Regan forged nearly 30 years ago. Two of the most influential groups in the republican party are the pro-business contingent and the conservative Christians. Business wants lower business tax rates and less regulation (of course), and perhaps the most important issue for conservatives has been abortion. These groups do not inherently have anything in common (though many people do cross both lines). But what we've seen this year, is that the more realistic business group just wanted to make sure a republican won, so they looked to a "centrist". Meanwhile, we learned that the conservative faction was worried less about any republican winning and more about someone who shared their exact morals winning.
The result was, McCain needed to pick someone like Palin who might bring back the conservatives even if she is a total fool. But who could have solved this problem? Romney brought a different kind of religious baggage. Would we be hearing about how Obama is Muslim if an actual declared Mormon were running? Thompson or Huckabee would enthuse the conservative base but were perhaps too far right in a left leaning election. Guilianni would have brought almost the exact same set of questions that McCain has.
I think it just wasn't their year, but that the combination of a lot of conservatives voting for Bush just to see abortion overturned, and then having to deal with 8 years of the guy eviscerating our constitution was perhaps more than the party could bear.
outlawing abortions from a fiscal and government conservative standpoint doesn't make sense, because you're wanting to federally mandate something that many consider to be a personal choice. Very much goes against the idea that the government should stay out of our business. Also goes against the idea of personal responsibility for your actions and not forcing a child onto our welfare system. And also abortion is a multi-million dollar industry.
I have thought this for a long time, which is one of the reasons that I lean left is that Christians are charged by Jesus to take care of the poor. This is according to Jesus one of the greatest things you can do. Nothing about them accepting personal responsibility for their actions, needing to work, or whatever else you want to say against entitlement programs. Just feed and take care of the poor, sick and the widowed. end of story.
The weak conservative christian argument is that private charity should take care of this and that we shouldn't be forced into doing this. Fact of the matter is, if churches were doing this on their own, there would be no need for social security, medicare, medicaid or welfare. No need.
Reagan was masterful in being able to bring these two groups together. Bush II tried to do the same thing, but was so completely ineffective that he's fractured the party greatly.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/1 ... 35735.html?
Liberal=anti-American
I hope I'm not the first to raise this, but what utter hypocrisy of the right when they use statements made by Jeremiah Wright to attack Obama. Amazingly, there are at least two problems with this line of attack.
1) The Obama is an Arab/Muslim hypocrisy : We are to believe that the following contradiction is true. Obama is Muslim, and his Christian pastor has so much influence over him that anything we can assume he believes every word the pastor utters.
2) The "our s*** smells better than yours hypocrisy : Why does Wright mean Obama is not fit for office, but Jerry Falwell doesn't mean every person who ever listened to him regularly or who has met him in person is unfit for office? Let's compare some quotes
Which statement sounds less American to you? The one that incorrectly attempts to explain 9/11 as retribution, or the one that blames a huge number of Americans who had absolutely nothing to do with the event?
Look, Wright's bitter and he seems like a fool, but let's get some perspective!
I wanted to, but usually when I get to the part about CAFE being bad policy and gas taxes needing to be 5-10 times higher, everyone thinks I've gone off my rocker.
In the past, I would have considered Powell a very mainstream republican. Neither far to the right or far to the left. Please weigh in if you disagree. So, this caught my eye.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh_c5bbvmqc
"Q: Sir, what role did McCain's negativity play in your decision?
POWELL: It troubled me. You know, we have two wars. We have economic problems. We have health problems. We have education problems. We have infrastructure problems. We have problems around the world with our allies. And so those are the problems the American people wanted to hear about, not about Mr. Ayers, not about who is a Muslim and who's not a Muslim. Those kinds of images going out on al Jazeera are killing us around the world. And we have got to say to the world it doesn't make any difference who you are or what you are. If you're an American you're an American. "
I've always had a great respect for Powell. And I have to say that it's about time that someone in the Republican party stood up and did the honorable thing and called them out on the BS about Obama being a closet muslim. And yes, I am looking at you when I say that Rob.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-crONNOrjMs
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/1 ... 35895.html
In 7 minutes he pretty much wipes out the negative smears against Obama.
At this point, it's very difficult for me to understand why some people are more worried about Obama's pastor than they are about the litany of unethical behavior stemming from the McCain campaign.
Which brings me to my Robroy question for the day. Robroy, you've made it very clear that you are concerned about Obama's character, not least, because you believe he's Muslim. So, my question is which faith traditions could a president follow that you reject them for. I'll even make a relatively specific list.
1) Catholic
2) Protestant - Pentacostel (speaks in tongues, may handle snakes, etc)
3) Protestant - Other (Baptist, Methodist, etc)
4) Judaism
5) Muslim - Shia
6) Muslim - Sunni
7) Buddhist
8) Shintoist
9) Atheist
10) Hindu
11) Voodooist
12) Wiccan
13) Greek/Roman Paganism
14) Spinozza's God (belief there is a god, we don't know it, and perhaps it's beyond knowing. These people usually refer to themselves as "spiritual" but not "religious")
15) Taoism
I'm running out of steam here, but I'm very curious what is acceptable and what is not.