Obama's Charm: "It's All Gone"

[Xavier_Onassis]

It's typical of liberals to feel superior to others and look down their noses at people. X has written his bigotry down for the internet to see.

==================================================================
I tend to look down my nose at people who believe in the Tooth Fairy or that if you make an ugly face, God will "freeze" it like that forever.

Many people have silly beliefs. It is not bigotry to observe that people have such silly beliefs. You can believe that an aspirin in a bottle of Coca-Cola will make you high, but after trying it and observing that it does no such thing, a smarter person passes off such folk beliefs as useless.

If there are no jobs in a mining town after the mine runs out of ore, you coule take up hunting and perhaps save a bit on the food bill, but praying for Jesus to bring back the mine is quite unlikely to make anything positive happen. I suppose if everyone gets together at church to pray for this, and they all bring a covered dish, the food that people can afford might be more equitably distributed, but the chances that hunting and prayer will restore a once-prosperous mining town to its past glory are pretty slim. To point this out is in no way bigoted, it is just a factual observation.

Flint Michigan was once a prosperous and thriving manufacturing town, but then GM closed one factory after another and those who have not left are not prospering at all any longer. No amount of hunting or Jesus will restore Flint. The choices are to stick around and be poor or sell out for whatever you can get to move away.

Every once in a very long while, some smaller town finds a new lease on life. But as a rule this is never the result of either prayer nor superior marksmanship.

I have observed the following: when something remarkably good happens, there are always those who attribute the good fortune to Jesus. Let a major disaster (a tornado, a hurricane, a volcanic explosion, a terrorist attack, whatever) and the same individuals will invariably be thanking Jesus for not being utterly wiped out.

"Jesus be praised, I lost my family, my home, my community, my dog, my cat and my clothes. Lord be praised! "
That sort of thing.

I do not find it bigoted in the least to say that this seems like rather illogical behavior to me. I tend not to atribute good fortune or bad luch to Jesus or God myself. Usually there is a discernable cause. When there isn't, it seems to me that there are many phenomena that are not yet explicable with the senses that we have.

I would not personally point out to such a person that they are being illogical, but it is not bigoted in the least to simply make the observation that this seems to be somewhat illogical behavior.

Pointing this out is simply an astute observation. It could be made by a Liberal, a Communist, or William F. Buckley himself.

When we left vile diseases like leprosy up to God and prophets to cure, at the end of the day, we still had lepers.
Smart people have determined how to cure and prevent leprosy, and we don't have any lepers in our midst. I am not opposed to those who say that God might have had a hand in causing smart people to research leprosy and find a cure, but when we left the whole problem up to Jesus and God... we still had lepers.

[Xavier_Onassis]

If you voted for Bill Clinton you aren't responsible for his adultery. Unless of course you knew he was an adulterer before you voted for him.

================================================
Suppose I did know Bill Clinton was an adulterer before I voted for him. How, pray tell, would his future adultery be my fault? One supposes that in lieu of being a presidential adulterer, he would be an ex-governor adulterer.

In fact, the reality is if you voted for him knowing he was an adulterer, then you not really responsible for his adultery anymore than he would be responsible for your goatbuggery or parking meter thievery.

I would like to point out that Bill Clinton playing with Monica and a cigar was not more than mildly embarrassing to some Americans, while Juniorbush's incompetent warmongering was far worse, as it has drivven millions of Iraqis from their homes, killed thousands more than Saddam ever killed, and 400 + American troops to boot.

I cannot see where Clinton's cigar abuse was in any way even in the same league.

[sirs]

I'm definately not thrilled with that prospect.  But given the egregiously worse alternatives, it's the best we can hope for at this juncture.

Aren't you responsible for the actions of the person you elect into office?

Ummm......no.  You weigh the pros and cons of each candidate, and make a decision based on that.  You don't?

[_JS]

I'm definately not thrilled with that prospect.  But given the egregiously worse alternatives, it's the best we can hope for at this juncture.

Aren't you responsible for the actions of the person you elect into office?

Ummm......no

So if you supported Herr Adolf back in 1933, you wouldn't feel any pangs of guilt on your conscience? Note, this is hypothetical no one is being accused of fascism or Nazism.

[sirs]

I'm definately not thrilled with that prospect.  But given the egregiously worse alternatives, it's the best we can hope for at this juncture.

Aren't you responsible for the actions of the person you elect into office?

Ummm......no

So if you supported Herr Adolf back in 1933, you wouldn't feel any pangs of guilt on your conscience? Note, this is hypothetical no one is being accused of fascism or Nazism.

LOL.....now McCain is Hitler?  It's no longer Bush?      But to touch on your query more sincerely, of course I'd feel very bad about what I may have voted into office.....that's given what I know now, and if I wasn't some fascist supporter back then.  Yet, if I were a Hitler supporter, I may have indeed supported his efforts.  IF I was some fascist nazi sympathizer

Good thing, I'm not. 

So, I'm not sure where you're going with this Js.  As bad as you may think McCain may become, the agenda of Hillary, and worse, Obama, far outweigh the potential disaster that McCain may bring to this country.

[_JS]

No ulterior motives. I am really just curious how people are making their decision.

I'm in a similar boat, except I'm leaning towards Obama. Still, from a socialist perspective Obama and McCain are virtually identical. So in my mind I've got three choices.

1. Vote the lesser of two evils: Obama (of course, this is if Hillary isn't the nominee).
2. Don't vote at all.
3. Vote for a third party candidate.

The consequences I'm considering are:

1. If McCain wins, what have I done to help his agenda?
2. If Obama wins, what have I done to help his agenda?
3. Does voting for neither free my conscience some?

This is the first time I've lived in a Democratic Congressional district and I've never voted for the incumbent Democrat. He (Bart Gordon) has sent a number of flyers to my home talking about how horrible the immigration system is and his language is couched in the usual crap that goes with that issue. Therefore he never gets my vote. I either don't vote, or vote for the independent. I'm not even sure the GOP ran a candidate last time.

Our last Senatorial election between Corker and Ford Jr. was a joke. It was the right versus the extreme right (and the latter was the Democrat!). So, I expect little from the elections.

But I find it interesting that so many believe that the actions of the office holder are in no way related to the responsibility of the voter. I certainly wouldn't expect that argument from anti-abortion voters.

[Xavier_Onassis]

As bad as you may think McCain may become, the agenda of Hillary, and worse, Obama, far outweigh the potential disaster that McCain may bring to this country.
============================================================
Hillary wants universal health care. Obama wants something close to it. With McCain, we probably would get higher copays, less services, and rocketing drug prices.

McCain wants the war in Iraq to continue until whenever we not only see the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel, but surpass it. The problem is that it's not a tunnel. It's a pit. How can the US win an Iraqi Civil War?

The GOP has been famous under Reagan and two Bushes for racking up the highest deficits in history. 70% of the current deficits are attributable to just these three doofuses. When the interest rate we have to pay on this debt hits even 5%, it will place a very, very heavy burden on each and every one of us. How can anyone piss away billions a month on a war and deny basic services to his fellow Americans. With McCain, we will get to see him try.

Hillary promises to be no worse than Bill. I am pretty sure we won;t have to worry about Monica, cigars or sex scandals with Hillary, and that is a plus. Obama will bring a feeling of newness to the US, as JFK did. What he does with it will depend on the quality of his advisors as well as how quick a study he is.

Elect oilmen: $3.50 gasoline.
Elect a military guy: More war.

[sirs]

No ulterior motives. I am really just curious how people are making their decision.  I'm in a similar boat, except I'm leaning towards Obama. Still, from a socialist perspective Obama and McCain are virtually identical.

While McCain is no conservative, compared to Obama........well, there's a mountain of difference, especially if we're going to pay attention to their campaign rhetoric.  But you go with what works best for you.  I'm sure you'll make a highly informed decision, just as I will be.  

And when Obama helps facilitate the next great 911+, are you going to feel any bit of guilt?  Completely speculative of course

[Christians4LessGvt]

Vote the lesser of two evils: Obama (of course, this is if Hillary isn't the nominee)

You would vote for a guy that even opposed ending partial birth abortion?

[sirs]

As bad as you may think McCain may become, the agenda of Hillary, and worse, Obama, far outweigh the potential disaster that McCain may bring to this country.
============================================================
Hillary wants universal health care. Obama wants something close to it.

Using Xo speak, Hillary and Obama want to bring financial ruin to our economy and complete crisis causing bureacracy to our Healthcare system

McCain wants the war in Iraq to continue until whenever we not only see the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel, but surpass it.

Using Xo speak, McCain wants to help bring stability to the Middle East region, and as a result, help bring greater security to not just this nation, but to the world itself

[_JS]

No ulterior motives. I am really just curious how people are making their decision.  I'm in a similar boat, except I'm leaning towards Obama. Still, from a socialist perspective Obama and McCain are virtually identical.

While McCain is no conservative, compared to Obama........well, there's a mountain of difference, especially if we're going to pay attention to their campaign rhetoric.  But you go with what works best for you.  I'm sure you'll make a highly informed decision, just as I will be.  

And when Obama helps facilitate the next great 911+, are you going to feel any bit of guilt?  Completely speculative of course

Terrorism is just part of life. It has been in Europe for decades, the fact that it took longer to hit our shores is thanks mostly to geography. As you know, I'm not a big believer in the "9/11 changed everything" mantra. We may well get hit again if McCain wins too. It is something we need to learn to live with. It won't happen often.

What really concerns me is that the interest rates keep getting slashed as some late (and I do mean late) line of defense against the credit crunch. Yet, lowering interest rates while the dollar is very weak is a formula for rapid inflation. We're already seeing it in petroleum, health care, and other sectors. Meanwhile the notion that lowering interest rates is helping is, to be honest, ridiculous. Look at the banks like Wachovia that are biting the bullet.

I don't really care that people in California overpayed on a $425,000 1100 square foot home. They had to know that the market for said home was never going to remain stable. What I do care is that men and women who are barely getting by are watching as their energy, medical, and food expenses continue to rise. In all honesty, I haven't heard much from the three candidates on working towards a real solution for that. I haven't heard much on how to address the problem that we're replacing manufacturing jobs with low paying retail and service industry jobs. I want to hear how, beyond plattitudes, we're going to help the poor in this country that doesn't involve bashing Mexican migrant workers as scapegoats.

All of that means much more to me than the myths that surround the real al-Qaeda and the SNAFU that is Iraq.

[_JS]

Vote the lesser of two evils: Obama (of course, this is if Hillary isn't the nominee)

You would vote for a guy that even opposed ending partial birth abortion?

As I said, it is a tough election for me.

[sirs]

While McCain is no conservative, compared to Obama........well, there's a mountain of difference, especially if we're going to pay attention to their campaign rhetoric.  But you go with what works best for you.  I'm sure you'll make a highly informed decision, just as I will be.  

And when Obama helps facilitate the next great 911+, are you going to feel any bit of guilt?  Completely speculative of course

Terrorism is just part of life. It has been in Europe for decades, the fact that it took longer to hit our shores is thanks mostly to geography.

So, because it exists, I should not bother to be concerned about it?  I'm sure many folks back in the 30's also had the mindset that Fascism & Nazism exist..."it's just a part of life"

As you know, I'm not a big believer in the "9/11 changed everything" mantra. We may well get hit again if McCain wins too. It is something we need to learn to live with. It won't happen often.

Where as I'm of the mindset that having hit us once, the reason it hasn't happened already is largely due to our efforts at taking this on, vs the Chamberlain approach of simply letting it fester "over there".  Sorry Js, this is where we really go in polar opposite directions.  I am indeed a believer of how it changed everything.  It was wake-up call.  We had all been in this stupor, knowing that militant Islam did exist, but that it was really no biggie, because it was largely happening somewhere else.  The effort and planning that went into 911 made it clear for me, that this threat is to indeed be taken seriously.  Not so serious we impose marshall law, but one that indeed has justified many of the Constitutionally bound actions currently taken, and one of the reasons we haven't been hit....yet.  I can guarandamntee you that AlQeada has been wanting to hit us multiple times since 911....to try and show us how vulnerable we are.  Speculation of course, but logical, and the fact that they haven't been able to, is remarkable, to say the least. 

Will we get hit again?  yes.  Will it be another 911?  possibly.  Will it more likely occur following an Obama or Hillary presidency, than a McCain Presidency, IMHO, absolutely

And National Security is WAY up there on my list of what's most important

[sirs]

What really concerns me is that the interest rates keep getting slashed as some late (and I do mean late) line of defense against the credit crunch. Yet, lowering interest rates while the dollar is very weak is a formula for rapid inflation. We're already seeing it in petroleum, health care, and other sectors. Meanwhile the notion that lowering interest rates is helping is, to be honest, ridiculous. Look at the banks like Wachovia that are biting the bullet.

Let me add a small point of agreement here.  While the Fed has an absolute footprint of mandate in dealing with national security issues, i'd argue how very little the Fed has in the way of dealing with economic issues.  Not only is there no real constitutional authority gien, the Fed can have some (+) influence on the economy, but it can have some severely negative effects on the economy.  Just look at how Carter tried to micromanage the economy back in his tenure.  Bush Sr. did a little of the same.  Clinton coudn't, becaue he had for the most part, a GOP majority that actually were fiscally responsible.

The point being, the Federal Government should have as little a footprint as possible on our economy.  Some regulation and oversight yes, but largely in order to provent illegal practices from occuring, NOT to try aim the ecomomy where they want it to go.  That ususally results in even more bloated buracracy, innefficiency, and lost revenues.....and an even more tumbling U.S. $

It's also why Obama & Hillary are far worse than McCain, since that's precisely what they all would want to do, have the Government (Katrina, anyone?) running even more of the economy, thus perpetuating the visiscious cycle

[BT]

So, in a democracy, you aren't responsible for making an informed decision? You could vote in a former Dixiecrat and then be astonished when he says something blatantly racist?

To be held responsible, i would have to have control over the persons actions.

Dixiecrats were as much about states rights and opposition to federal expansion as they were keeping the negro down.

The new dixiecrats are again the dems. This time states rights are about medical marijuana and assisted suicide.