From the UK Telegraph: George W Bush condemns Russia's 'bullying' of Georgia [Emphasis mine]
Earlier, a senior Russian general warned that Poland has made itself a nuclear target for Russia's military by hosting elements of a US anti-missile system.
"By hosting these, Poland is making itself a target. This is 100 per cent" certain, Russia's Interfax news agency quoted General Anatoly Nogovitsyn as saying.
"It becomes a target for attack. Such targets are destroyed as a first priority," Gen Nogovitsy was quoted as saying.
He added that Russia's military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them," Interfax said.
Obama's timid denunciation of Russia last week was as pristine a glimpse into his thought process as his later tougher stance was a surer glimpse into his surprising ability to be shamed by candidate John McCain's unequivocal condemnation of Russia's invasion of Georgia. The first statement is always the most telling.
The last thing this nation needs is a president afraid to confront, in the strongest possible language, predatory nations and characters in this ever increasingly dangerous world. As flawed as McCain is, he will make a far superior Commander in Chief than the timorous and metro-effete Obama.
So where is Poland? It's sandwiched between Germany and Belarus and the Ukraine. Why would Russia consider U.S. anti-missile systems placed in Poland a big fat goose egg negative? Perhaps because Russia intends to invade the Ukraine and Belarus as well, and Russia can't have U.S. weapons on its future border. The fact that Russia invaded Georgia at all appears to indicate that Russia fully intends to reabsorb its satellites. Given that the American Left will never agree to defending our allies; Georgia, Ukraine, etc., Russia knows it can act with impunity. Europe won't act because Russia supplies their energy needs. Therefore, as Georgia president Mikheil Saakashvili said just days ago, paraphrasing, "Who in the world can defend against nations like Russia?" America can........ but won't.
When entering the voting booth this fall, with the state of the world in mind and considering what is already going on in the world, it might be best to ask, "What would Barack do?" If you desire a country that will not defend itself or its allies, Barack is your man. But if you want a country that will stand up to the challenges the world must either face or acquiesce to... it's John McCain.
Yes, what would Barack do, and can America survive it?
35 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'll trade Obama's supposed lack of experience for the TYPE of experience that McCain has any day. Me and about 55% of the population, I'd guess, come November.
Experience is no good indicator of presidential quality if your experience is of the wrong sort.
In the end, I reckon you're just a bit over-concerned about Obama. You're dwelling on him and it's not helping you out. Relax. Have a seat. Put your feet up. Take a sip of sweet tea.
President Obama will do what he can to straighten out the mess left to him by the former resident of the White House. Just don't you worry your pretty little head about it...
Or should we presume that Dan knows what the word means but that he chose to infer the meaning involving erectile dysfunction? Should we then speculate on the possible Freudian reasons for his jumping to that particular conclusion? Or should we simply conclude that Dan's presuming to read EL's mind and is thus betraying gross megalomania?
In short, how precisely should Dan be ridiculed for his ridiculous retorts? There are too many options -- maybe Dan's ignorant, maybe Dan's an egomaniac, or maybe Dan's just a little too eager to find allusions to male anatomy -- and they're all too perfect.
No, not particularly. Why?
I do enjoy commenting here, in part because ELAshley hasn't demonstrated a tendency to delete comments capriciously. His decision not to delete your initial comment here has proven to have been most prudent.
See, not deleting comments puts you at a distinct disadvantage, for two reasons: my comments remain undeleted for all to see, and so do yours.
The point is, Obama is an empty suit. He's got nothing to offer the office of the president of the United States of America except several dubious associations and no experience governing anything of note.
It turns out that John McCain's foreign policy adviser was a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government. When McCain cracked down on lobbyists in his staff the man left the two-man lobbying firm he had founded. Although John Sheunmnan[??] still has a financial interest in that firm, he supposedly isn't a lobbyist for Georgia anymore.
Remember how angry you got EL when Mrs. Pelosi went abroad and met with foreign representatives? Remember the outcry that Obama met with officials on his foreign trip? John McCain is sending envoys to Georgia! He's on the phone several times a day with Pres. Shakashvilli. Where's your outrage over this!?
And of course McCain shows his eagerness for military action with quotes like this, "My friends, we have reached a crisis, the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War. This is an act of aggression." Is this more serious than the Gulf War?
The simple fact is that Georgia isn't important enough to United States interests to go to war with Russia over. The disputed provinces in Georgia are minority Georgian. The people's of these regions don't really like being a part of Georgia. Let us not make more of this than it is.
Absolutely NOTHING that the man has proposed will work, and if Dan and Ben had the capacity for following things to their logical conclusion, they would know that.
And Dan, I never figured you for a racist, but your comment at the top of this page is one of the most racist things I have ever seen.
You should be ashamed.
AVERAGE INCOME GAINS 2002-2006
Bottom 90%...$1,446...+4.6%
Next 9%...$14,496...+10%
Top 1%...$321,132...+41.8%
Top 0.1%...$1,809824...+57.6%
Source: Center on Budget & Policy Priorities
In four years the top 1% of the country had their average incomes grow by more than 40%. And John McCain thinks that's the way the country should be. He wants to distort the economic balance even further. Barack Obama's major idea is creating wealth in the middle class.
The policies Barack Obama may not work. But I know for sure we can't continue with the policies of George Bush that John McCain supports.
The genuinely poor spend their incomes surviving until the next payday.
Shall we tax the rich far more than everyone else simply because they can afford to pay more? How is that fair? How is it just? How is it moral?
What would president Ben do?
Yes, we should tax the rich far more. NOT because they can afford to pay more but because it is just.
"To him who has much, much shall be expected."
They have benefited the most from the System, they should give the most back to the system. It's fairly logical and it's fairly biblical, to boot.
Here's the gist.
There are wild cards in such data that need to be kept in mind when you hear income statistics thrown around -- especially when they are thrown around by people who are trying to prove something for political purposes.
One of these wild cards is that most Americans do not stay in the same income brackets throughout their lives. Millions of people move from one bracket to another in just a few years.
What that means statistically is that comparing the top income bracket with the bottom income bracket over a period of years tells you nothing about what is happening to the actual flesh-and-blood human beings who are moving between brackets during those years.
That is why the IRS data, which are for people 25 years old and older, and which follow the same individuals over time, find those in the bottom 20 percent of income-tax filers almost doubling their income in a decade. That is why they are no longer in the same bracket.
That is also why the share of income going to the bottom 20 percent bracket can be going down, as the Census Bureau data show, while the income going to the people who began the decade in that bracket is going up by large amounts.
Unfortunately, most income statistics, including those from the Census Bureau, do not follow individuals over time. The Internal Revenue Service does that and so does a study at the University of Michigan, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule.
Following trends among income brackets over the years creates the illusion of following people over time. But the only way to follow people is to follow people.
And what did the IRS find by studying individual people over time rather than brackets, when data about brackets is distorted by individual movement from bracket to bracket?
"People in the bottom fifth of income-tax filers in 1996 had their incomes increase by 91 percent by 2005."
"You shall not render an unjust judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great: with justice you shall judge your neighbor."
Biblical justice entails impartiality with respect to wealth.
Your concept of justice -- that it is just to tax the rich more and, by doing so, show partiality to the poor -- is antithetical to what the Bible teaches. Since the Bible is authoritative, I can say with confidence that your concept of justice is unjust.
I'll go further and say that your invocation of Luke 12:48 in this discussion is repulsive.
"To him who has much, much shall be expected."
Expected by whom? Christ's clear teaching here concerns our obligation to God, not the government, and it's stunning how frequently you confuse those obligations. If someone else invoked the government on the subject of our Christian duty of prayer half as much as you invoke the government when we're discussing the Christian duty of charity, you would quite rightly denounce his theocratic tendencies.
Here, you once again rip Scripture out of context to justify your true faith, an all-encompassing religion of the state.
Tell us how you're not a socialist, tell us time and again that you prefer the oxymoron of a "regulated capitalism," or the euphemism of a "limited capitalism." Split hairs between your ideal of a statist demand economy and the real-world variations.
It's still the case that you betray a socialist philosophy regarding taxation.
From each according to their means, to each according to their needs: you seem eager in desiring a government that's premised on this Marxist philosophy, and when you do violence to Scripture to justify this philosophy, you show your true color.
And that color is red.
And quit calling Jesus a Marxist, it's not an appropriate thing to say since God is not a Republican... or a Democrat... or a Marxist.
I'd change social security taxes to be assessed on everyone's full income. Not stopping at the first 2-million. Is it right that a CEO takes home 44-million a year and only pays social security on the first 2?
I'd require companies to disclose the full costs of management benefits in their yearly financial summaries, including compensation packages.
I'd craft rules so that when companies file bankruptcy or close plants in the US they don't give golden parachutes to management, but instead that money is spread over the workforce.
I'd change tax rules to more fairly land upon those whose sole income is from financial instruments like stocks. Right now if you just have a stock portfolio you can get away with paying almost nothing in federal taxes.
Imagine if there were rules saying that management compensation had to be the same ratio as the workforce. If the CEO gets 2000% of annual salary as benefits then the cost of workforce benefits must be 2000% of salary.
These are some ideas of how to even the playing field between the rich and the working middle. They don't give handouts, they aren't welfare they are about equity.
The capitalist system generates wealth and that is good for the United States. But when a tiny portion of the population is siphoning off that wealth, then that is bad. Such economic inequalities are not normal or sustainable. They lead to revolutions and economic collapse. The French Revolution, the Great Depression, etc.
To get back on topic I can't see a republican president and congress proposing, passing or enacting these populist ideas. So that is why I have to support Barack Obama and democrats at this time.
This make complete sens and is completely unrelated to the point I was making. Of course as people work in a job, get older and gain expertise their income value goes up. Individual people's income wasn't the point I was making. Some people's income grew, other's shrank. The average of the bottom 90% of society grew only 4.6% from 2002-2006. That is not good compared to the wealth and economic growth that happened in those years. All that wealth instead of being spread across the whole of America, was concentrated in just the upper 10%
Conversely America's productivity and GDP has grown since 1950. That means the value and output of the country has grown in opposition to inflation. IF that value had been spread across all the percentiles of the nation, then every man woman and child in the nation would be about $30,000 dollars richer.
Where do you get off telling a company what to pay and to whom? It seems, like all other Dems, reluctant or otherwise, you are more concerned with the progress of the successful rather than seeking to be successful yourself. You don't seem to realize that our corporations are being taxed more than corps in other countries. If you truly want to help out the middle class, vote for those who will lower the tax rate corps have to suffer, so that they are more competitive with those other countries. Aside from being able to keep more of what they earn, corporations will have more with which to expand or "spread around".
The reason some "siphon off" wealth is because they know how to do it. They know how to position themselves in order to take advantage of the flow of money. The reason the middle class suffers is not because of the money made by the wealthy.
As for your SS idea, I have no problem paying a percentage off of all income, but if you are truly concerned about the state of SS, you'll want to vote for someone who won't support the unjustified killing of future SS contributors while they're still in the womb.