As do we all... As do we all.
Has Obama hoisted himself by his own petard?
Serious questions here:
Is there any way Obama can dump Biden and still win in November? And how would he do it and come across to the voting public as a strong capable leader?
Pearl of Wisdom:
You can put a suit on a community organizer, but you can't make him act presidential."
--Rush
105 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Let him tie his own noose.
I would take a good community organizer over a mayor or governor any day. Even if that was a mayor/governor of a place with a large population and with many years experience.
I'd take the community organizer experience over Senatorial experience. Community organizing (think King, think Gandhi) teaches much that is vital for a healthy Republic.
Demonize away. Falsely call him a communist or a sexist or whatever name-calling the GOP and its adherents to engage in. It further marginalizes the GOP and reminds folk WHY it is we need someone who offers true change to the politics of destruction.
Yeah, think Obama, think Al Sharpton, think Lewis Farrakhan, think Bill Ayres, think Saul Alinsky, Obama's hero...
He wasn't a community organizer. He was a community agitator. Just like Sharpton, Ayres, Alinsky, etc.
Never mind Obama's history of, well, impolitic comments that displays, at the very least, either a lack of judgment when the campaign insists that his judgment qualifies him for the White House -- or a capacity for gross miscommunication when he has elevated the importance of rhetoric.
("Don't tell me words don't matter.")
It doesn't matter whether your criticism of Obama has merit, it must be dismissed as a distraction, and you must be discredited and even destroyed as an enemy of the real goal of politics, the election of Barack Obama.
See how his campaign has tried to pressure TV stations not to run ads it doesn't like, and has asked the Justice Department to prosecute an organization that's running ads that are critical of him, and has organized an attempt to shout down and smear Stanley Kurtz for investigating the public records regarding his ties to an unrepentant domestic terrorist.
That is the "real change" and "true change" that Obama offers.
And for that matter, I can't think of a single thing Barack Obama has accomplished as a "community organizer" to warrant a comparison to King or Gandhi, but if we want to make his work in Chicago -- work for fringe "direct action" groups like the thugs at Acorn, and work with unrepentant terrorists like Ayers -- let's do so, with the understand that the truth might be upsetting for Obama's acolytes, but that doesn't make it any less true.
"He's a Marxist!" has no merit. None. Zilch.
But it DOES have the benefit of making you come off like a wingnut, so, by all means, keep calling him a Marxist. Better yet, get McBush to start calling him a Marxist.
Most people are smart enough to recognize demonization when they hear it.
"To him who has much, much shall be expected."
Taken out of context as this teaching is, his invocation of it isn't a million miles from Communist dogma: From each according to their means, to each according to their needs.
I don't think Dan Trabue is the most reassuring voice of authority on the benign and totally non-controversial content of Barack Obama's economic philosophy.
It all helps marginalize the politics of destruction and them that practice it.
You're never very clear on the details of what you support, and you're absolutely silent about what philosophical differences separate you from Marxism. (My suspicion is that the separation is largely for pragmatic reasons.)
Supposing that it's horribly inaccurate to suspect that your economic philosophy isn't wholly uncomfortable with Marxism, just how should your philosophy be described?
More importantly, how should Obama's economic philosophy be described?
What term would you use that is accurate and descriptive without being pejorative or fawning?
If Obama ain't a Marxist, what is he? Would Socialist be inaccurate? Would Progressive be inaccurate? (Can you even distinguish between the two? Is there a substantial difference at all?)
If you know his economic philosophy so well as to dismiss as hateful and dishonest the belief that Obama's a Marxist, surely you can provide an alternative term.
Accurately, would be my suggestion.
He is a capitalist. He has never advocated anything BUT capitalism. His planks don't deal with Marxism at all, but various free market solutions and regulations.
Accurately, just describe him accurately.
That you disagree with aspects of his capitalist approach does not make him a Marxist.
It's not brain surgery.
And what of Liberals and Democrats, of ALL stripes [even the embarrassing ones], who are piling on to Governor Palin? What of all the lies and innuendos spread by Democrats AND Media? Do you not think that the Left is equally marginalized by the evil stance they have taken against Mrs. Palin?
And how do you feel about the blasphemy being spouted by the Left and Media: comparing Barack to Jesus, and Governor Palin to Pilate?
The Left has lost it. They are completely deranged in their hatred for a normal, down-to-earth American woman. Why, I wonder? Perhaps there's some honest rational for the hatred vomited out by Democrats, Liberals, and Media toward Sarah Palin. Perhaps. But for all my intellect, all I can come up with is "Fear" and "Hatred"
Those are two qualities the Left have used, sometimes to their advantage, for decades.
WHAT evil stance have they taken, Eric? Researching her unknown background? That's not evil.
You'll have to cite some specifics because I don't know to what you refer.
And how do you feel about the blasphemy being spouted by the Left and Media: comparing Barack to Jesus, and Governor Palin to Pilate?
WHO has done this? WHO has compared Obama to Jesus? Gov Palin to Pilate?
Again, you'd have to cite some specifics, as I've not seen this.
...okay, I did some research and see where a Rep. Steve Cohen (Dem) from Tennessee did this comparison (saying that Obama was a community organizer, like Jesus) and that Palin is a governor, like Pilate.
Poor taste, yes. Blasphemy? I don't think so.
Cohen has clarified his tune, saying, "I didn't and I wouldn't compare anyone to Jesus. Jesus cannot be compared to anyone... What I pointed out was that Jesus was a force of change, and those who work to accomplish change deserve respect."
source
He was wrong for the comparison as it was understood and apologized for it and clarified what he meant.
I am sure in your world, people are allowed to apologize and clarify misunderstandings, right?
Fair enough?
In that same article, I see where the GOP then took that and ran with it, saying, "Cohen's comment furthers the Democrats' "absurd belief that Obama is the Chosen One sent to save the world."
Of course, no Dems believe this. None. Comments like Cohen's play into this caricature, and they should be careful about how they use words, but so should Republicans, who here are demonizing a fellow over a misunderstanding, playing politics with religion, too.
And it's wrong on their part, too.
The difference is that Cohen clarified his mistake.
He is a capitalist. He has never advocated anything BUT capitalism. His planks don't deal with Marxism at all, but various free market solutions and regulations.
Barack Obama is not a capitalist, because capitalism doesn't involve supporting "various free market solutions and regulations," it involves support of a free market that is truly free -- that is to say, a market that is largely or even totally unregulated beyond laws that protect individual rights by criminalizing theft, assault, murder, fraud, extortion, and the like.
Barack Obama's economic philosophy entails price controls (e.g., minimum wages); micromanaging business by, for instance, mandating certain numbers of paid leave for all workers; and even nationalizing entire sectors of the economy.
This philosophy bears no relation to the philosophy of Adam Smith, Hayek, Friedman, or Thomas Sowell.
It is, instead, precisely the economic philosophy that Hayek OPPOSED in The Road to Serfdom.
If by "capitalism" you mean nothing more than any philosophy that sits somewhere on the spectrum between pure anarchy and pure totalitarianism, then the vast majority of people are capitalists, but the word ceases to mean anything, especially because the word would apply even to outright socialists if they cling to the tiniest exception to collectivism.
But most people don't define capitalism nearly so broadly, and your frankly laughable insistence that you describe Obama accurately when you call him a capitalist, betrays -- at best -- a terrible ignorance of economics. At worst, it's pure propaganda, the sort of stuff from which Obama is supposed to deliver us.
In that same article, I see where the GOP then took that and ran with it, saying, "Cohen's comment furthers the Democrats' "absurd belief that Obama is the Chosen One sent to save the world."
Of course, no Dems believe this. None. Comments like Cohen's play into this caricature, and they should be careful about how they use words, but so should Republicans, who here are demonizing a fellow over a misunderstanding, playing politics with religion, too.
Perhaps you should be more careful with your own words. In this thread alone, you're insisting that Obama will bring "real change" and "true change" to the fundamental nature of politics, even while you arguably engage in the same regrettable tactics from which you think Obama will deliver us.
You celebrated Obama's acceptance speech as "A New Beginning," when the belief that a person is ushering in a new era doesn't tend to be the mark of calm, even-handed skepticism.
Obama himself seems to fan the flames of messianic worship when his speech verges into the absolutely ridiculous, as when he won enough primaries to become the presumptive Dem nominee:
I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people… I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal… This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation…
His nomination -- his nomination -- is "the moment" when we started providing jobs and health care; apparently, never before could either be found in this great nation. His nomination is the moment when, in a truly radical phrase, we began to "remake" this great nation.
(Does a great nation really need to be remade?)
And his nomination is the moment when "the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
It's absurd, and if this sort of talk ever came from a Republican's mouth, you would rightly dismiss it as fascist and idolatrous.
And if you know that literally no one, "none," believes the content of his ridiculous rhetoric, I would love to know how it is that you know. The claim seems to require divine powers of mind-reading or near omniscience.
Barack Obama is not a capitalist
Dan referred Bubba to the dictionary...
Capitalist: n.
One who supports capitalism.
Capitalism: n.
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
======
I repeat: Obama is a capitalist, according to the commonly accepted definition of capitalism.
However, Obama MAY NOT BE a capitalist IF you create your own definition.
Just kidding! He'd STILL be a capitalist. Just because you create your own definition does not change the meaning of the word.
According to your pretend definition of the word, George W Bush and Ronald Reagan are not capitalists.
No one wants a wholly unregulated market. That Reagan and Obama would have different ways and levels in which they would regulate the market does not mean that they're both not capitalists.
Words mean things.
"an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"
The free market is an essential component of capitalism: the idea, not only that capital is privately owned, but that its use is privately determined.
A definition that focuses solely on public vs. private ownership can permit a philosophy to be called "capitalist" and still be practically equivalent to pure socialism: if the government dictates all prices, all levels of production and consumption, where you must work to earn your wage, what wage you will make, what you will buy with the wage, and where you will shop to purchase those goods, it hardly matters if the state insists that you still own your own property. Even if you own it in some vague legalistic sense, the state controls it.
It's a definition so broad that it's useless, and you appeal to the definition, not because it's precise, but precisely because it's vague enough so that Obama can still be called a capitalist in some bizarre sense.
According to your pretend definition of the word, George W Bush and Ronald Reagan are not capitalists.
I'll gladly concede that both Bush's and McCain aren't philosophically commited to the free market; I think they're less bad about this than those who ran against them and sometimes they pay lip service to economic freedom, but their big-government conservatism -- called "compassionate conservatism" under W. -- is anathema to fiscal libertarians.
I believe Reagan, on the other hand, sincerely believed in the power and morality of the free market. It's only that he could implement only so much while in office.
The same political limitations that moderated and watered down Reagan would also moderate Obama, but the difference is this: Reagan supported the free market whenever it was politically possible to do so, I believe a President Obama would dismantle the market whereever he could.
...and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined MAINLY by competition in a free market
Obama is STILL a capitalist. It is the case in the real world that Obama believes in the free market and that it is the MAIN determiner in the price, production and distribution of goods.
But Reagan, Bush and Obama (and indeed, all rational people) believe that there are times and places for gov't regulation.
That does not make one NOT a capitalist.
Words mean things.
I'm done playing that game with you, Brudda Bubba. Obama is not a socialist. He is a capitalist. Period.
You can continue to pretend or lie about it, but that does not change the reality of the situation. But, again, by all means, spread that lie. Get McCain to spread it.
That way he can look as wacked out as others who believe in such fairy tales.
Perhaps McCain is a little too smart to do something so detached from reality, to his credit. But if you can convince him to campaign on the "OBAMA'S A SOCIALIST" agenda, go for it.
It will carry about as much weight as the "OBAMA's A SEXIST" lies.
The People just t'ain't as stupid as you'd like to think.
In common usage, ownership implies control: I own this book, therefore I can read it, write on it, sell it, store it on my bookcase, use it to prop up a wobbly table, or use it as kindling.
If, in the definition you provide, Dan, ownership entails control, then I agree with the definition and I still dispute the claim that Obama's a capitalist.
If ownership doesn't entail control -- and you seem to think it doesn't, as you appeal to economic regulation as being compatible with capitalism -- then the term isn't very useful. It might be accurate to call Obama a capitalist in that sense, but it's not precise.
Using your definition, the vast majority of Americans are capitalists because they believe in private ownership of property. But the definition doesn't distinguish between those who support price controls and those who don't; those who support nationalizing a sector (or three) of the economy and those who don't.
In other words, the definition doesn't give any good indication of what the citizen or politician believes in terms of economic policy.
If you think most Americans are on one side of the divide between capitalists and socialists, simply because of agreement on property ownership, there are other terms to partition us into two broad groups, which is useful because politically Americans DO diverge into two broad groups: fiscal libertarians and progressives, individualists and collectivists, free-marketers and regulators.
What term would you use to describe Obama's position more precisely?
- I agree that words mean things, but your invocation of that phrase rings hollow, Dan, in light of your support of a radical redefinition of marriage.
- Benie Sanders, the independent Senator from Vermont, is a self-described Socialist, and I believe Obama's voting record has been to Sanders' left. Perhaps you think Sanders is really a capitalist, too.
- Finally, if you believe that Obama is a capitalist just like Reagan and Bush, I don't see why you support him: I thought he stood for change (and hope! and changing hope! and hope for change!), so either he really doesn't represent a significant change in our nation's economic policies or he does, and your definition is so broad as to be useless.
If capitalism is so broad an umbrella that it includes both Reagan and Obama, then it's hardly a useful and precise term.
Forget it.
[roll eyes yet again, fall out of head, roll across floor...]
Dan, you have a tendency to demand hard and specific proof for any claim that you don't like:
WHO has done this? WHO has compared Obama to Jesus? Gov Palin to Pilate?
Again, you'd have to cite some specifics, as I've not seen this.
But you seem quite willing to praise some very ridiculous stuff that couldn't possibly be substantiated, like Wendell Berry's comments follwoing 9/11, nonsense about how we should promote locally self-sufficient economies as a response to jihad, as if the medieval villages in Spain were protected from Moors by their locally produced vegetables.
As Berry usually does, he says some profoundly absurd things that his stoner fanbase mistakes as being absurdly profound.
"We had accepted uncritically the belief that technology is only good; that it cannot serve evil as well as good; that it cannot serve our enemies as well as ourselves; that it cannot be used to destroy what is good, including our homelands and our lives."
Who in the world ever claimed this? Who has ever written things that justifies Wendell Berry's absurd assaults on the free market?
Have you ever asked for evidence that would substantiate this extreme rhetoric? Have you ever even thought to ask?
I doubt you have, and it seems to me that you ask for thoroughly documented evidence to a claim, not when the claim's implausible -- because Berry routinely makes the most preposterous claims and you just relish his doing so -- but when the claim's inconvenient.
You embrace the most absurd rhetoric if it supports your political philosophy, but you, well, demonize the most reasonable idea -- like, ahem, the idea that public officials can and should limit the catalog of public libraries -- if it originates from your political opponents.
This is not the behavior of an individual interested in consistency and a good-faith discussion of the issues.
Is there any evidence that Obama was a good community organizer. Has the crime rate fallen? Has the high school drop out rate decreased? Anything at all?
EXACTLY! Results matter! What has he accomplished that demonstrates his professed future ability to get results as president?
I've seen nothing to compare to what John McCain has to offer. Even governor Palin has more "results" experience than Barack.
--Donna Brazile
Now if you want to know where it began, check out Steve Gilbert's post at Sweetness-Light.com
There's also a mass-emailing going around with a picture of Christ on the cross.
Mark Levin reports that Michelle Obama used a line directly from a Saul Alinsky book at least two times in her speech before the Democratic Convention, and Obama himself used the same line during his acceptance speech.
Saul Alinsky is a Marxist, who Obama has admitted to idolizing.
If it waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck...
This is who the Dumbocrats want running our country? A guy who can't even organize a community successfully?
You'll have to cite some specifics because I don't know to what you refer."
This is the kind of stupid statement I reject over at my place. Either Dan is stupid or he's blind to the despicable tactics of the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media.
Either way, it's a stupid statement. I refuse to attempt to reason with these kind of fools.
Just like the media picked up on the "Palin didn't give birth to Trig" rumor, running with it as a legitimate story. Just like the book burning, yada, yada, yada.
But back to the post's topic...
Obama has only one out, and that is for Biden to drop out on his own for a good-darn reason. Only then could Obama choose Hillary, and only then can Obama win this election.
1) It is blasphemous to compare Obama to Christ, and it does reinforce the idea that Obama fans are, well, a bit too enthusiastic for their candidate, what with the receding oceans, planet healings, and New Beginnings.
2) It is also vicious to compare Palin to Pilate. Bill Clinton was a governor, too. So was Carter and dear ol' FDR, and I sincerely doubt that leftists would appreciate comparisons of their governors to Pontius Pilate.
3) It is an incredible stretch to suggest that Jesus was a community organizer. Religious teacher and rabbi? Miracle worker? Messiah, Savior of the world, and God Incarnate? Jesus was all these things, but nothing that Christ did corresponds all that well to the job/psuedo-job of "community organizer."
4) If one wanted to make a really snarky retort, one is very readily available.
Ahem.
"When it really mattered, Pilate voted 'present.'"
Even ignoring the comparisons to Christ Himself, some seem eager to associate Obama's work as a rabble rous--I mean, community organizer with the tremendous accomplishments of truly great historical figures.
To wit, "Community organizing (think King, think Gandhi) teaches much that is vital for a healthy Republic."
But, in Chicago or Washington or anywhere else, Obama hasn't done one solitary thing that's really noteworthy, much less anything that sets him alongside Gandhi.
He has written no legislation of note or any real paper trail (much less a substantive paper trail) from his days editing a law review and teaching classes; the only thing he's written is his two(!) autobiographies. He's led no movements of any real note other than the movement to elect himself president. He's been the executive of no company or government, even at the local level; the only executive experience is his work with Bill Ayers.
The greatest accomplishment of the Democratic nominee for President is his becoming the nominee.
Barack Obama isn't another Jimmy Carter. He's far too inexperienced and unaccomplished an individual to merit even that comparison.
But, ignoring that, let's not forget Hillary's rousing endorsement of Obama -- roughly, he's a Democrat, and I support Democrats. There wasn't one word of what Obama needed most, a personal testimony about his character.
I'm not sure Obama would want to deal with the Clintons (plural) as co-vice presidents, but who in the world thinks that Hillary would want to run with him? Her own fortunes might benefit more from his losing without her even than from his winning with her.
Dan, that would be Susan Sarandon, comparing BHO to Jesus and Palin to Pilate. Of course she's not a BHO supporter.
Does anybody seriously think Jesus was a "community organizer"?
Interesting question. Think about it... what did Jesus say?
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." --Matthew 10:34-36
That doesn't sound like the mission a man trying to organize a community. Organization implies "order". Jesus is describing "division" ...chaos.
Consider also that Pilate tried everything he could to free Jesus. Pilate bowed to pressure from the religious Jews who wanted Jesus dead. Why did Pilate bow to pressure? Presumably to keep peace in a very troubled Roman province.
What was it Caiaphas said? John 11:47-50
"Then gathered the chief priest and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not."
The Jews killed Jesus, not Pilate. And what was it Jesus said to Pilate? John 19:11:
"Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."
If Democrats are going to cast biblical aspersions upon Republican candidates they should at least make sure they know what they're talking about.
Finally, for Democrats to suggest that Sarah Palin has anything in common with Pontius Pilate because they were both governors, is to make the stupefying mistake of suggesting that Sarah seeks to kill Barack.... a WHITE person seeking to kill a BLACK person. Is this yet another example of Democrats using the race card?
Community organizers come in all shapes and sizes. They help unite people for a common cause. They help people united come together to have clout in order to stand up to entrenched powers.
Community organizers know that one should "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." [Margaret Mead]
Community organizers know that "If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning." [Frederick Douglass]
Community organizers know that "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." [Frederick Douglass]
Community organizers forced the powers that be to relent to the demands of the Civil Rights movement.
Community organizers helped end slavery and gain blacks and women the right to vote.
The notion of pointing out that one might say that Jesus was/is a community organizer is not an attempt to cast Obama as a Messiah (despite Republican lies to that effect). It is a response to the demeaning of this important, Godly and noble tradition of community organizing.
The GOP are fools if they continue that pointless and self-defeating line of attack.
You don't know what was in their heart as they spoke the words Dan. Just as you don't know the hearts of those Republicans AND DEMOCRATS who have criticized the use of the aforementioned blasphemous analogy.
You can put lipstick on that pig if you want, Dan, but.... You can wrap a young Chicagoan fish in a piece of paper called "change," but...
"In her game-changing convention speech, Sarah Palin took a swipe at Obama for having been nothing more in his life than a ‘community organiser’.
This prompted the Obama campaign to issue a pained defence of community organisation as a way of promoting social change ‘from the bottom up’. The impression is that community organising is a worthy if woolly and ultimately ineffectual grassroots activity. This is to miss something of the greatest importance: that in the world of Barack Obama, community organisers are a key strategy in a different game altogether; and the name of that game is revolutionary Marxism.
The seditious role of the community organiser was developed by an extreme left intellectual called Saul Alinsky. He was a radical Chicago activist who, by the time he died in 1972, had had a profound influence on the highest levels of the Democratic party. Alinsky was a ‘transformational Marxist’ in the mould of Antonio Gramsci, who promoted the strategy of a ‘long march through the institutions’ by capturing the culture and turning it inside out as the most effective means of overturning western society. In similar vein, Alinsky condemned the New Left for alienating the general public by its demonstrations and outlandish appearance. The revolution had to be carried out through stealth and deception. Its proponents had to cultivate an image of centrism and pragmatism. A master of infiltration, Alinsky wooed Chicago mobsters and Wall Street financiers alike. And successive Democratic politicians fell under his spell.
His creed was set out in his book ‘Rules for Radicals’ – a book he dedicated to Lucifer, whom he called the ‘first radical’. It was Alinsky for whom ‘change’ was his mantra. And by ‘change’, he meant a Marxist revolution achieved by slow, incremental, Machiavellian means which turned society inside out."
It's interesting to me that Dan seems to imply that "community organizing" is always and everywhere a good thing, that it leads always to progress and freedom, never to decline and tyranny. If pressed, he might admit otherwise, but it seems like he would be pressed to admit that, for instance, the French Revolution and the state terrorism that followed were the result of people who can very accurately described as "community organizers."
The Jacobins did precisely what Dan advocates:
"They help unite people for a common cause. They help people united come together to have clout in order to stand up to entrenched powers."
Struggle, agitation, demands, and in the case of France all of it lead to tyranny.
Dan is loathe to admit that the thug tactics that Alinsky and his followers euphemistically describe as "direct action" can be a force for evil -- that it has been, more often than not, a precursor to tyranny, not only in Paris but also in Moscow, Berlin, Havanna, and a dozen other capitals around the world.
In addition to giving them far more credit then they deserve -- compared to Lincoln and the Union soldiers, community organizers did very, very little to end slavery in this country; and even globally, far more was done by a statesman named Willaim Wilberforce than by any Jacobin wannabe -- Dan gives agitators an excessive benefit of the doubt. If someone talked as glowingly of soldiers as he does of agitators, without any recognition of the cost of war just as he fails to acknowledge the cost of social and political upheval, Dan would criticize him for his militarism in a heartbeat.
Why is he so reluctant to acknowledge the risks of agitation? I believe it's that, while he may have earlier considered himself a conservative and while he'll still appeal to conservatism when it's convenient -- care for the environment and living within our means, conveniently defined in the most vague terms, are oh-so-conservative -- he knows nothing of the conservative skepticism in the face of revolution and violent, rapid change. He understands nothing of Burke's warning that we should "bear with infirmities until they fester into crimes."
Dan is, at heart, a political radical who believes that the status quo -- the state, the culture, or the "System" in general -- should be presumed to be guilty, and that therefore both the means and the ends of the often violent revolutionaries who oppose the status quo should be given every benefit of the doubt.
Don't think for a moment that Obama's radical past -- his philosophical roots in the works of Alinsky, his working alongside a terrorist from the Weather Underground, and his membership in a church whose pastor smears the government with the worst sorts of slander -- actually makes Dan think Obama is less qualified. More likely, it strengthens his support: finally, one of his own could be in the White House. The Jacobins have figured out that, while you can get a lot done storming the gates, you can do so much more occupying the office itself.
As Stanley Kurtz wrote, about the radical organization with which Obama has perhaps the most long-standing ties, summarizing an assertion by City Journal writer Sol Stern, "Acorn’s key post–New Left innovation is its determination to take over the system from within, rather than futilely try to overthrow it from without."
Obama's campaign is, by far, the most ambitious form of this innovation.
And I would add that Dan's commitment to radicalism trumps all, even the Christian duty to the truth.
Dan has written that Obama's nomination is a "new beginning" that will bring "true change," and Obama himself asserted that this is "the moment" when this country is remade, when even sea levels have begun to recede and the planet has begun to heal.
Dan chalks up all this to clumsy and inarticulate uses of language -- what? even Obama? -- and writes that his side "should be careful about how they use words", and he denies the fundamentally messianic message that Obama routinely conveys and that his supporters routinely amplifies.
Without a shred of evidence, he glibly asserts that no one -- "none" -- actually believes in Obama perhaps a little too fervently, and he dismisses assertions to the contrary, and the evidence produced to substantiate those assertions, as "Republican lies."
But they're not lies. It's true that there has grown a near-fascist cult of personality around Obama, it's just inconvenient.
But since the inconvenient truth cannot be tolerated as a roadblock to the glorious revolution and all the change (and hope!) that it will bring, it must be thoroughly discredited. Truth isn't determined by measuring it against anything as esoteric as a correspondence to reality; it's determined only by what advances the agenda.
Biden at least is a real American, born and bread in the USA. Obama is a conglomerate American/Indonesian/Kenyan. His loyalties are suspect.
You don't know what was in their heart as they spoke the words Dan.
Eric, believe me, I know: No one thinks Obama is THE or even A messiah.
That people are actually excited about taking part in the democratic process and about the very real possibility that Obama represents a different way of doing things does not mean that these same people think Obama is a messiah.
Are some people over-the-top in their hopes for what Obama represents? Sure. Just as some people get overly excited about what Bush or Reagan represents.
But that does not mean that Obama's supporters in general are thinking he will be a perfect candidate and lead us to a perfect world.
All anyone is seriously saying (excusing the sort of hyperbole that happens on all sides in these type of elections) is that Obama represents a change from the way we've been doing things. A LESS arrogant (not more arrogant, as this "messiah" goof suggests) way of doing things. A more democratic, grass-roots way of doing things, a more transparent way of running gov't.
Without a single doubt, Obama is a flawed candidate and will be a flawed president. We have no perfect candidates and no one serious would suggest otherwise. Certainly Obama has not.
No one seriously thinks Obama is a Messiah. No one.
It's interesting to me that Dan seems to imply that "community organizing" is always and everywhere a good thing, that it leads always to progress and freedom, never to decline and tyranny.
I have not implied that at all. Community organizing is an EFFECTIVE and democratic way of doing things. But, as with any idea (militaries, gov'ts, churches) it can absolutely be used for evil or for good.
Wouldn't dream of implying otherwise.
I suspect, though, rather than giving community organizers (Helen Keller, Dorothy Day, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, MLK, Gandhi, Jane Addams, Oscar Romero...) too much credit, I rather think that Bubba underestimates the powerful good that can be done - nonviolently! - by community organizing.
Unjust wars have been stopped, civil rights have been won and guarded, the environment cared for, oppression stopped ALL by communities that have organized, and often led by a group of (or individual) community organizers.
Surely we can agree that good has been done by King? By Day? By Truth? By Romero? By Addams? Gandhi? Douglass?
Are these all mere socialist patsies in your mind?
Shame on you, if so.
But, first, being a community organizer, per se, is hardly a qualification for the presidency. And, second, highlighting people who have been effective using truly democratic and non-violent means to accomplish noble ends, hardly commends those who have resorted to other means for less noble ends and those who can't even accomplish what they set out to do.
I would hardly say, for instance, that the thug tactics employed by groups like Acorn, with whom Obama has had a long-standing relationship, qualifies as truly democratic or wholly without violence.
Even what you quote in the defense of so-called "community organizing"...
"Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning."
...isn't a million miles away from Walter Duranty's formulation excusing Stalin, that you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.
In response to ELAshley, you write:
No one thinks Obama is THE or even A messiah....
No one seriously thinks Obama is a Messiah. No one.
I'd love to see you provide evidence that literally no one thinks that. You're quite emphatic about the claim, and you demand evidence from us when we make far less bold claims, so where's your proof?
Whether you have proof or not, you seem to focus on the idea that Obama is fallible.
But that does not mean that Obama's supporters in general are thinking he will be a perfect candidate and lead us to a perfect world...
Without a single doubt, Obama is a flawed candidate and will be a flawed president. We have no perfect candidates and no one serious would suggest otherwise. Certainly Obama has not. [emphasis in original]
But, Dan, perfection and sinlessness aren't inherent to the idea of a messiah.
Just because Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and that Jesus is sinless and perfect, it doesn't follow that sinless perfection is necessary for someone who people claim is a messiah.
The key feature of a messiah isn't moral perfection. Considering the lives of Abraham, Moses, and David, it's unlikely that most first-century Jews were expecting the Messiah to be sinless: instead, they were simply expecting a political or military liberator.
As you so often remind us -- at least, when the subject isn't marriage -- words mean things, and the Hebrew word messiah only means "anointed." While it's true that the one true Messiah is perfect and sinless, these attributes aren't inherent to the definition.
Do some Obama supporters think he's anointed? Absolutely. Oprah supported him as "the One," you think his nomination represents a new beginning, and he encourages such adoration when he refers to his nomination as the moment when the planet has begun to heal.
As for the supposed new politics Obama will bring, there's no evidence, only airy language that is undermined both by the content of what Obama says and by the actions of his campaign.
A LESS arrogant (not more arrogant, as this "messiah" goof suggests) way of doing things. A more democratic, grass-roots way of doing things, a more transparent way of running gov't.
Despite his claim to accept the nomination with "profound humility" -- it's absurd to think that the truly humble would talk about healing the planet -- Obama and his campaign have displayed a remarkable arrogance and lack of transparency in their attempts, for instance, to block the release of public records documenting his only executive experience (that is, with foundations alongside William Ayers) and to smear the journalists trying to get access to those records.
You like the candidate, we get that, but it's just more propaganda to apply positive appellations to him and his platform when they don't apply. And it's hardly commendable of you to justify that propaganda with the fig leaf of the admission that he's not literally perfect.
Obama's not perfect. Good for you for acknoledging that.
But Obama isn't exceptionally humble or transparent either, and it is still wrong for you to claim otherwise, absent any real evidence.
You want me to prove a negative?
As you know, that can't be done. The onus is on those who'd make this false claim. You'd have to find someone - ANYone - who believes that Obama is a Messiah and have some proof of that.
I'm saying it doesn't exist. You can show me where I'm wrong or agree with me.
Fer instance, I could claim that McCain supporters are vicious reptilian aliens awaiting a chance to take over the world once McCain gets in power.
"But," you may say, "There's no such thing."
"AHA!" I reply, "Proof positive that I'm right! Unless you can show me that no McCain supporters are vicious alien reptiles, then clearly I am right!"
Right? No, wrong. One can't make a ridiculous accusation and say that because there's no proof that nothing like that exists, that is support for their cause. You have to make your case first.
Your case thus far is that because you think some people seem to trust Obama too much, therefore they think he's a Messiah. Pah! There's no "there" there.
On one hand we have Barack Obama. Child of a single parent who worked hard to put himself through Harvard. Then volunteered in Illinois and eventually became a Senator. Now vying for the Presidency.
Every life story fact about Barack Obama is inspiring and encouraging to young blacks, single parent children, inner city-youths. Everyone. The only scandals so far are about what? Associates. Barack Obama knows the left political movers in his region. He's worked with them. He's gone to their churches and businesses. Ohhhh. Scary. He might think like them. Except he's never given a speech advocating these further left ideologies. He's in fact spoken out about their radical words. And that's it.
Across the divide we have John McCain. Son of a high-ranking general. Went to West Point and graduated in the bottom of his class. Joined the Navy. Went to war and was captured. Here John McCain exhibits the fortitude and courage we desire in our heroes. He endured captivity for five years. He returned to the states and married. Later he divorced and remarried. His second wife was wealthy enough to finance his political aspirations. He attained a Senate seat. Since then he has championed public service, campaign finance reform, immigration reform, and fiscal discipline against the desires of his party. After his failed presidential bid in 2000 he has disowned all his previous positions on these issues.
In addition he has, since hiring Steve Schmidt to run his campaign, taken to presenting brazen falsehoods in his campaign. He has embellished or created a story about his POW experience to enhance his spirituality. He has embellished or created a story about his adoption of his daughters. His campaign has also taken to repeatedly lieing about the experience and history of his running mate. And when these distortions have been questioned his campaign hasn't stopped lieing.
The question is if we want a man who would repeatedly lie to be president?
That's how I see the two candidates when I evaluate their personalities and history.
Eric, believe me, I know: No one thinks Obama is THE or even A messiah. [emphasis mine]
How do you know? You don't say, and now you admit that you couldn't possibly prove what you say you supposedly know, even while you continue to insist to know it's true, writing that we're making a "false" claim.
The irony is doubly potent, as the only way you could actually know that no one considers Obama to be messianic is to possess the godlike psychic powers that you so quickly invoke to skewer us.
You're not divine enough to merit such blind faith, for us to accept your assurances of "believe me, I know" not only about your own personal beliefs, but about the beliefs of literally everyone else.
And second, in asserting that our claim is ridiculous (and idiotically comparing it to claims about space aliens, as if -- in light of the twentieth century and all its horrors -- it's utterly absurd to think that people would nearly deify political leaders), you ignore what I've actually written to downplay what evidence I've already produced about messianic tendencies.
Your case thus far is that because you think some people seem to trust Obama too much, therefore they think he's a Messiah. Pah! There's no "there" there.
My case is built on much sterner stuff, including your own words about how Obama's nomination is a "new beginning" and Obama's own words about how it's "the moment" WHEN THE PLANET HAS BEGUN TO HEAL.
You insist that words mean things -- and Obama insists that words matter -- and yet you continue to ignore these absurd proclamations about healing the earth and turning back rising oceans.
The Obama is a Messiah charge is a ridiculous nothing, designed to distract people from actual issues. As Ben rightly points out, y'all got nothing on Obama but rumors and mist. The best argument against Obama, in my estimation, is the lack of experience charge (not wholly valid, but at least it's a bit based in reality) and with the choice of Palin, the strength of that angle has been lessened.
McCain is not an alien and Obama is not a Messiah. Talk about issues, not goofball nothings.
What do you know about his energy policy? What are your opinions on that?
What do you know about his foreign policy positions? What are your opinions on that?
"I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people… I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal… This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation…"
It is positively absurd to ridicule the notion that Obama has messianic tendencies by comparing it to conspiracies about space aliens.
And considering the horrors that have been wrought in the last century when others have become so entranced by a charismatic political leader selling collectivist snake oil, it is dangerous to dismiss as "goofball nothings" the concerns about the cult of personality that Obama's fans have been constructing, with the obvious encouragement of their fearless leader.
Go for it. The people ain't that dumb.
And if quoting the candidate verbatim constitutes a smear, then it's not clear to me what criticism of Obama you wouldn't dismiss as unfair.
Well, as a Christian and adult citizen of this great country, I'd suggest we'd be better off discussing the pros and cons of their policy positions.
On the other hand, as someone who would prefer to see Obama win and who believes the sort of non-issue attacks you're engaging in help that become a reality, I'm fine with your continued non-issue attacks.
So, it's really win-win for me, either way you go.
What do you know about his foreign policy positions? What are your opinions on that?
On the other hand, as someone who would prefer to see Obama win and who believes the sort of non-issue attacks you're engaging in help that become a reality, I'm fine with your continued non-issue attacks...
Well, then, lets attack Obama based on "the issues", shall we?
Obama's Energy Policy: "There are things you can do individually, though, to save energy," Obama said. "Making sure your tires are properly inflated – simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling – if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You'd actually save just as much!"
Idiocy.
He will first go after the people who produce Energy and take away their motivation to do so. (Finish choking off the supply of Energy to American Citizens, in other words.)
As he is doing this, he will tap into the strategic Oil Reserve, and deplete that.
At some point during this full-frontal assault against any and all Energy production in this Country, and any and all who may be successful in any way in connection with the industry, he will command the lazy scientists all across the Nation to get off their asses and invent alternatives to complex hydrocarbons already.(Apparently they haven't been trying all along.)
Then, he will bestow upon the oppressed masses a check for $1000 (so that they can afford about two tanks of gasoline at the levels to which his policies will drive the price), financed with funds confiscated from the Evil Oil Companies (who will by that point have gone out of business), and from additional taxes levied upon "the Rich" (everyone with a job), and "the middle class" (everyone else.)
Those are just SOME of the points of the Obama Energy Policy. (The rest are just as bad.)
Obama's Foriegn Policy is basically to surrender without condition in Iraq, make America the whipping boy for all the world at any and every opportunity, and to surrender our National Soveriegnty, National Treasure, and any sense of National pride to whoever demands it, for whatever reason.
And those are just the elements of his platform that he has openly discussed. (Who knows what he really wants to do...
NOTHING that Obama has proposed or promised would be good for America as a Nation, nor for anyone who lives here. (Which any thinking person should realize.)
Did I cover it, or would you like more information?
That's funny, considering your first comment here had absolutely nothing to do with policy positions...
It is that sort of politics of hatred, half truths and whole lies to which Obama offers a real change.
...and considering how your own blog has recently focused so frequently on what could accurately be described as "non-issue attacks."
Let's see.
You disingenuously accused the McCain campaign of conspiracy mongering.
You accused the GOP convention of putting forward "fear, bitterness, hatred, division, demonization, half-truths and outright lies," calling the convention a "hate-fest" of "bile-filled ugliness."
In a single entry, you pounced on Palin's religious beliefs (classy, Dan), made hay of her attending an AIP convention, and repeated a misreported story about what Peggy Noonan said off the record, a story which she had already corrected.
You commented on a story about the Secretary of State, and her apparently less-than-ringing endorsement of Palin -- you do know the interviewer interrupted her, don't you? -- to make the snarky comment that Republicans almost always lie, that you hope to "at least have one more clear, true and absolutely factual statement from the Republicans before the November election."
You wrote that, after less than thorough research, you hadn't been able to find any Republicans repudiating sexism before Palin's nomination, insinuating that Republicans are inherently sexist, accusing us outright of being "cynical and disingenuous" and writing -- in case you weren't clear -- that "it just seems that this is nothing more than a Rovian attempt at Machiavellian politics and it's thoroughly disgusting."
Even in an entry ostensibly aimed at encouraging civility in politics, you couldn't help but accuse Republicans of "cheap and divisive direct attacks" and "ugly campaigning."
Now, all of a sudden, you want to "Talk about issues, not goofball nothings"?
I find that hard to believe.
If you'd really rather I wipe the floor with you on matters such as energy and foreign policy, rather than the Obama campaign's fomenting a cult of personality with its supporters and its thuggish behavior toward its critics, I'm game.
But I won't pretend for a moment that you really mean that crap about being more concerned about policy positions because of your faith and desire to be a good citizen. That posturing is as phony and fraudulent as pretty much everything else about you, as it's quite clear that you're more than happy to bring up issues besides policy positions when it suits you.
Now, about energy, it seems to me that Obama supports invoking state fiat to drastically reduce oil consumption, even as (presumably), our population continues to grow. He not only opposes drilling for more oil, he opposes the obvious alternative to oil -- nuclear power -- and supports biofuels only insofar as they don't effect food prices, telling Tim Russert, "if it turns out that we've got to make changes in our ethanol policy to help people get something to eat, then that's got to be the step we take."
He's pinning all our hopes for meeting our energy needs in encouraging scientists to find alternative sources of energy without the time and resources that would come through additional drilling and nuclear power. I think your lottery analogy is flawed, but if it's foolish to hope that innovation can solve our energy problems, it's doubly foolish to induce an economic collapse in the meantime.
About foreign policy, philosophy matters far more than the details of how to address a particular problem, because world events are much more difficult to predict than things like likely energy needs for the next X years.
And what is Obama's philosophy? Well, it's worth noting that just about the only time he ever invokes the word "victory" is in reference to his political campaign, not to the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, much less the broader conflict between Western civilization and jihad. He hardly seems aware of that conflict, much less the gravity of that conflict, so it seems incredibly unlikely that he would be the stalwart warrior that the Western world requires in leading its sole superpower.
I believe that a world power can't choose to lose a war without there being any consequences. Apparently Obama disagrees, and I think he's foolish to do so.
I believe that we cannot afford to send the message that we are harmless to our enemies and undependable to our allies. Apparently Obama disagrees and wants to role the dice with the charisma of his own voice.
And I believe that our enemies know that a falling camel attracts many knives, and in almost every respect -- in further sapping our culture of its strength, in crippling our economy with more taxes and more regulations and absurd energy policies, and in retreating from every fight that proves to be hard (encouraging and enabling those who would make our fights hard) -- Barack Obama wants to usher in the decline that Jimmy Carter was sure was upon us.
It doesn't seem to me that either side of the aisle disagrees that Obama supports retreat (or withdrawal, or redployment; put lipstick on a white flag, and we still know what the flag means) from our present fight and endless talk to avoid any future fights. We just disagree on the consequences of such weakness in the face of dangerous enemies abroad, but that's only because one side of the aisle doesn't remember the last time the West tried to play nice with its enemies.
If there's nothing else, I'll see you all after the weekend.
On Energy: Ignorant
On Foreign Policy: Dangerous
but on second thought...
Energy: Dangerously Ignorant
Foreign Policy: Dangerously Ignorant
America cannot afford Barack Obama... literally AND figuratively.
Our economy would collapse, and we would suffer more terrorist attacks, and diminished respect across the globe.
Obama has accomplished NOTHING of note to even suggest he would be able to keep America strong. Strength deters enemies. Weakness emboldens them. And Barack is weak.
And any complaints about Republican attack machines should seriously consider the accusation considering the current insane attacks against Governor Palin by Democrats.
Obama's latest attack ad is equally stupid... questioning McCain's ability to govern based on his lack of knowledge of emailing? Does Barack know that emails are subject to subpoenas? NO President will every send an email if he (or she) has even a lick of commonsense. Presidents don't NEED to know how to send emails, they need to know how to stand up to dictators, thugs, and murderers. Presidents need to know how to be friends to our friends and how to be generous when generosity warrants. Barack hasn't demonstrated any ability to do any of these things.
You are welcome to your feelings, Eric, but you can't really expect the rest of us to merely accept your word on it. Do you have any specific logical reasons for your thinking other than your feelings about his positions?
Similarly, I think Bush/McCain foreign policy has proven itself a failure.
Osama is still on the loose, terrorists have been revitalized and they're recruiting new terrorists faster than we can kill them, world opinion is against the US (and contrary to what many people think, it DOES matter, but not for reasons of "wanting people to like us"), if we ever had a genuine threat to our national or world security, we'd have a hard time convincing people we're not crying wolf again, our military is stretched thin and overtaxed, our soldiers underpaid and undersupported, we have invaded a country that was no threat to us and been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of innocent people. If an honest investigation is ever undertaken, I shouldn't be surprised to see Bush tried for war crimes. McCain wants to continue more of the same.
For all these reasons and more, I think BushMcCain foreign policy is backwards from the way we need to go.
You can dress an idiot up to look like a thinking man, but he's still an idiot.
Depends on which people you are referring to.
Those who think Obama is going to bring "good" change? Are you referring to those people?
Those white people who think Black Liberation Theology can be beneficial for everyone in the United States? Are you referring to those people?
Those that think being good friends with terrorists has no bearing on an individual's qualifications to be President? Are you referring to those people?
Those that think socialism will solve our country's woes? Are you referring to those people?
Actually, I tend to think those people ARE pretty stupid.
Deranged, moronic, misguided, misled, misinformed, mistaken, but tenacious.
Oh, and I've never seen anyone who enjoys arguing so much, even to the point of absurdity.
So I have not really had to make any arguments in response to the rants here, I've just ranted along with you and strove to point out why your rants aren't especially rational. Now that has proven to be a bit of a fools errand, but I like you fellas (and gals) and I don't mind hanging out here shooting for a bit of reasoning with you.
You all saying, "OBAMA'S A COMMIE! HE'S A BABY KILLER!" And my responding, "um, actually no, he's not. He's a capitalist because... and he is not in favor of killing babies because ..."
That is not arguing. That is correcting.
However, IF you are aware of any of Obama's actual positions, Mark, and would like to express a reasoned opinion about it, I'd be glad to argue that with you, if you'd like.
You are welcome to your feelings, Eric, but you can't really expect the rest of us to merely accept your word on it. Do you have any specific logical reasons for your thinking other than your feelings about his positions? [emphasis in original]
...and he's done the same with Mark.
Actually, Mark, I'm not arguing. You all have not made any points against which to argue.
But -- isn't this odd? -- he hasn't done the same to the person he's been hectoring about these issues, namely myself. Hell, he hasn't even acknowledged that I answered his snippy little requests to address the issues.
It can't be that my answer had no substance; particular on energy I was quite detailed on Obama's positions as I understand it:
- That Obama supports using government power to drastically reduce oil consumption, even in the face of a likely growing population, meaning that the per capita consumption will be even more radically reduced.
- That Obama opposes drilling for more oil in the meantime.
- That Obama also opposes increased energy production through nuclear power.
- That, as he told Russert (and I provided a link to the transcript, above), Obama even opposes ethanol use insofar as it disrupts food prices. (Never mind how the rest of his policies will affect the cost of transporting food, and everything else.)
I concluded that Obama is pinning his hopes -- and, if he's elected, ours -- on technological innovation in an artificially shortened timespan during an easily predicted economic downturn to provide for the remainder of our energy needs.
If Dan disagrees with the premises, he made no attempt to correct the record. If he disagrees with the conclusion, he made no attempt to explain my faulty logic.
My suspicion is, Dan agrees with the conclusion that Obama's energy policy will lead to economic ruin, a desolation devoutly to be wished, if only by those self-hating Westerners who actually think that Wendell Berry has anything useful to say about anything: you know, the type of guy who still thinks that Jimmy Carter was right when he scolded us and told us that the West is in decline and that we should just get used to it.
But if Dan wants our energy production to continue to increase or at least stay even with population growth, and if he has a plan for doing so that meets his strict requirements of perfectly non-polluting, renewable, sustainable, local, and who-knows-what-else, he's welcome to present it. If he can't, he should follow his position to their logical conclusion -- economic depression -- and be honest about his beliefs, to us and to himself.
While he's explaining things, maybe Dan could explain precisely how Barack Obama plans to deal with bin Ladin. Does he plan to invade Pakistan, a country that poses no threat to us, at the risk of countless civilian casualties? Or will bin Ladin just turn himself in, and cooperate just as much as the Islamic fundamentalists did during that heyday of Trabue-esque foreign policy, the Carter Presidency?
In short, "Bush hasn't apprehended him, and we need to change that" is not the most detailed policy proposal I've ever seen.
And, perhaps Dan could fill in the blanks on this:
You all saying, "OBAMA'S A COMMIE! HE'S A BABY KILLER!" And my responding, "um, actually no, he's not. He's a capitalist because... and he is not in favor of killing babies because ..."
I actually haven't seen Dan explain away Barack Obama's opposition to a bill that would protect newborn babies from being killed by neglect simply because they had the terrible misfortune of surviving their abortion. Seems to me that's tacit approval of infanticide, and if Dan knows why it isn't, one of these days he should replace those ellipses above with his actual argument.
But enough: no need to put too much substance in one post, just to have Dan ignore it all.
If Dan disagrees with the premises, he made no attempt to correct the record. If he disagrees with the conclusion, he made no attempt to explain my faulty logic.
My fault Bubba. In all your long responses that have been nearly to a one filled with misrepresentations of what I believe and think, I missed that you actually addressed an issue.
I do apologize. Addressing actual issues is such a rare thing for folk here, I truly hate to miss it. Again, I am sorry that I didn't notice you addressed at least one issue: Obama's energy policy.
As it happens, I do disagree with your conclusion, at least to a degree.
Obama has said that our hopes are twofold: REDUCING consumption and developing alternative energies.
He is absolutely and 100% correct in that regard. Oil is going away. We have no choice but to find a replacement.
However, it is doubtful that any time soon (and questionable if EVER) we will have a replacement that can replace oil at the rate and price we have been consuming it.
We have built a world economy that is wholly dependent upon cheap oil - a resource that can not possibly remain available and cheap forever and which scientists of all stripes agree is peaking in availability anytime between now and the next 50 years.
This was insane on our part as a nation, as individuals and the world. We must reduce consumption. If we don't voluntarily do so, we will eventually be forced to (as we are now slightly) by circumstances.
My position is that we must live within our means. It is the only responsible decision out there. To continue to live with a finite resource and spend it as if it were infinite is just senseless and irresponsible.
Now, where I think Obama is missing it is in his suggestion that we will find a replacement for oil at the rate we use it in wind, hydropower and solar energies. I don't think that is likely to happen, given current science (at least as I understand it). But Obama's position is certainly a better starting point than McBush's position.
We must consume less. We must not consume more than we can create. That is only responsible and I can't believe that all the "conservatives" would ignore the notion of living within our means.
I could go on further about why living within our means is not a recipe for economic disaster (as if it weren't obvious enough that it's not), but I'm out of time for now.
Thanks Bubba, for addressing an issue and sorry I missed it.
Lastly. Your feelings have been noted; but if you continue to use the term McBush I will refuse to respond to you or your questions. I will not respond in kind by calling your man "Osama"-- I thought we were all grown-up's here. You routinely castigate us for telling lies and using slurs, yet you tell them and use them yourself.
McCain is not Bush, any more than Obama is Carter... or bin Laden for that matter. And for you to continue in this is to both lie and slur the name of John McCain. Again, I thought we were all grown ups here.
From where I sit, and knowing your feelings for Bush, referring to McCain in such a manner is akin to calling him a nigger. YOU are cheapened by the use of "McBush". McCain is his own man.
I thought you wanted a better brand of dialog?
I don't even care if Dan wants to call McCain, "McBush". I consider it a compliment to both men.
And for all your continued protests that I misunderstand your position, I seem to understand your position on energy quite well.
You write, "where I think Obama is missing it is in his suggestion that we will find a replacement for oil at the rate we use it in wind, hydropower and solar energies. I don't think that is likely to happen, given current science (at least as I understand it)."
As I wrote earlier, "I think your lottery analogy is flawed, but if it's foolish to hope that innovation can solve our energy problems, it's doubly foolish to induce an economic collapse in the meantime."
All that said, I continue to have serious questions and issues with your position.
We must consume less. We must not consume more than we can create. That is only responsible and I can't believe that all the "conservatives" would ignore the notion of living within our means.
Two important things must be said in response.
1) Your definition of "living within our means" remains remarkably vague. It seems to exclude a dependency on any finite source of energy, but the most fundamental source of energy for all life on this earth is finite: the sun will eventually run out of hydrogen and burn out. It may take billions of years, but even as the most primitive farmer depends on the sun to help his crops grow (and keep his home from becoming an uninhabitable ball of ice), he depends on a non-renewable source of energy and is, unavoidably and from the perspective of energy production and consumption, consuming more than he creates.
That's an extreme example, but if it's not clear what you mean by "living within your means," it's not remotely clear what that includes and what that excludes. And there's nothing conservative about affirming an ideal that is so vaguely undefined, as I suspect that you're not appealing to a lucid standard by which we should evaluate man's economic activities. Instead, I believe you're wrapping your opposition to oil consumption in nice-sounding platitudes about "living within our means" and invoking that rhetoric to induce conservatives to agree with you, but there's no guarantee that this rhetoric won't be continually used to limit our economic freedom more and more.
And I say this not without evidence. You call not only for using only renewable sources of energy, you now also apparently believe that economies should be local. If the global economy used nothing but renewable resources, it doesn't seem you would be happy: the goal has moved from using renewable energy sources to using those sources only/primarily within a local economy. Since there's no guarantee that the goal won't continue moving, there's nothing conservative about starting down that path when its eventual destination could be absurd.
The phenomenon I see you display is also easily found in the supermarket. Those who insisted on organic produce now insist on locally grown produce, preferably produced "sustainably," however that's actually defined; I guarantee that the next step is to demand something like "indigenous", where the plant was here before us. After that, we'll see demands for "foraged food" that didn't result from the interruption to the local ecology that occurs when people actually sow the plants they want to eat. The very same mindset that rejects industrialization for essentially medieval forms of farming leads very easily to rejecting agriculture in general for life as nomads.
As long as this is all done within the free market, I'm not too worried: the market supports all kinds of culinary fetishes without imposing those fetishes on the general populace.
But that leads me to my second point.
2) Even if it's conservative to have as a goal "living within your means" however it's defined, it does greatly matter what mechanism is used to reach that goal.
It's far more conservative to let the free market deal with the increasing scarcity of oil, which you think is both inevitable and soon to arrive, then to impose a transition by government fiat.
Since it would prevent future drilling and forbid the development of alternative energy sources that you dismiss as less than perfect (e.g., nuclear power), the state-imposed transition you support would be drastically more rapid and therefore more severe than the transition that would occur without government interference.
What you want to induce in a matter of decades could be stretched out over possibly centuries (especially if we transition to nuclear power). Conservatism generally prefers gradual change when it's at all possible, and the gradual change that the market would provide would not only be easier on those enduring it, it would give society more time to innovate. Even if the new technologies never allowed us a return to the level of consumption we have now, they would allow us to be more efficient in whatever energy we end up able to use.
In short, the ends of "living within our means" isn't necessarily conservative because it's not clearly defined, and the means you advocate for reaching those ends aren't conservative at all.
One other point, on another comment:
I could go on further about why living within our means is not a recipe for economic disaster (as if it weren't obvious enough that it's not), but I'm out of time for now.
The concern isn't whether the goal is an economic disaster, but whether the transition to that goal is disastrous.
You support severely curtailing our current sources of energy, in advance of how the free market would handle the (supposedly) eventual scarcity and to the exclusion of pretty good alternatives like nuclear energy.
We need energy for automation and industry, for transportation, and for communication. Disrupt our supply of energy, and markets are (at best) severely hindered in their ability to produce the goods consumers need, to deliver those goods, and perhaps even to communicate information about prices and supply and demand.
The policies you support couldn't help but cripple the economy, causing a literal depression at least nationally and perhaps even globally. Even if the eventual destination was okay, you don't seem to appreciate just how bumpy a ride you advocate.
(If you understand the costs of this transition but don't admit it because you suspect -- rightly -- that the People wouldn't knowingly sign on to a plan that would cause an economic collapse, you're not being entirely honest with the People and not being entirely faithful to the principles of self-government.)
I believe that Christ's teaching to count the cost for discipleship has much broader applications, that we should count the cost for any large endeavor. I don't think you ever do really count the cost for the economic policies you support.
You rail about the relatively minor negative effects of modern industrialization -- as you do here -- without acknowledging the positive effects that more than offset them.
Industrialization has had negative effects on our health, for instance, and you'll readily point to those effects without looking at the bigger picture.
Standard of living, infant mortality and life expectancy consistently increase as a society becomes more industrialized.
We haven't had a "dust bowl" or famine in this country in about 80 years; on the contrary, our nation's biggest health problem isn't starvation or malnutrition, it's obesity, a problem that's easier to manage by orders of magnitude.
And our old folks are living so much longer now than they did in the 1930's that we're about to bankrupt Social Security.
These are huge, huge benefits to modern industrialization, benefits that far outweigh, say, the supposed increase in asthma from air pollution: our ability to treat asthma, along with our ability to all but eradicate diseases like polio, is another benefit of the modern, global, oil-based economy you so disdain.
But you never seem to acknowledge these benefits in a thorough evaluation of where we were, where we are, and where you would like us to go. Instead, you downplay them only to harp on relatively trivial costs of modernity as a rhetorical trick to strengthen your position.
You really do display an ability to be pennywise but pound-foolish, and it's a result of the fact that your argument's most persuasive when you look at pennies and nickels and not at dollars and ten's.
Don't be ridiculous. One day, oil will go away. No scientist anywhere (well, there are always a few fringe folk, but in general) would say otherwise. It is a finite resource. What happens when you've gone halfway through a finite resource? You peak on its availability.
It is a reality. The only question is, is it happening now (as many scientists in various fields think) or is it going to happen 20-50 years from now? I know of no serious scientists who think it will be any further away than that.
But if you have some scientific reason for thinking that oil is not a finite resource and that we won't one day peak on its availability, feel free to provide it. Otherwise, it's just your hunch that Peak Oil is a myth, a hunch contradicted by science.
But, if you like, Eric, I will be more than glad to refer to McCain as only McCain.
Your complaint would hold more weight, though, if you asked everyone equally to abide by that rule. For what it's worth.
Nonetheless, I agree name-calling is silly and will be glad to abstain in the future.
Here is a fairly specific answer then: We live within our means in energy consumption when we consume what we can produce locally. THAT is healthy for the environment and, as a consequence, for the society and economy.
Living beyond our means means specifically consuming MORE energy than we can produce locally. Building an economy on that and upon the necessity of a finite resource remaining infinitely available at a cheap price is the worst sort of stupidity for the economy. That practice WILL bankrupt our economy if we don't change. It can't help but cause the economy to collapse, seems to me.
It seems to me that your real complaint isn't about what's local or not, rather it's the use of so-called non-renewable sources of energy.
(I say "so-called" because solar is called renewable, but the sun's supply of hydrogen, though much greater than our supply of cheap oil, is still neither infinite nor renewed.)
If the real complaint is about non-renewable, finite sources of energy, why invoke localism to define "living within your means"?
But going with that definition, it seems like a large-scale instance of the confusion that is often made about the term self-sufficiency.
Some people regard self-sufficiency along the idea of, for instance, eating only what you personally grow. The lifelong hermit is the only truly self-sufficient individual, in that sense: he not only grows what he himself farms or gathers, he makes the tools that he uses.
The carpenter grows no food whatsoever, so in this sense he isn't self-sufficent. But he builds silos for the farmer, in exchange for potatoes; and he fixes the fisherman's boat, in exchange for a portion of his catch. So even though the carpenter personally didn't produce what he consumes, his work produced enough of what other producers wanted so that he could trade his work for theirs and get a nice meal of fish and chips.
Because of the principles of specialization and division of labor, we know that the carpenter and the farmer and the fisherman will all enjoy more material blessings each by focusing on a few tasks and doing them well. None produces all that he personally needs, but he does produce other goods and services which he trades for what he wants. Because, for each one, his talents and aptitudes need not necessarily match up with his physical needs and desires, he can be much more productive and benefit the entire society. These specialists can, by the mere fact of specialization, produce enough of a surplus to provide for the sick and the handicapped to a degree that solitary hermits never could.
There's no reason to say that the carpenter in this example is necessarily "leaving beyond his means" by virtue of the fact that he trades with his neighbors, and I see no reason for this fact not to scale up.
If -- even accounting for transportation costs -- it's cheaper for Nebraska and Maine to trade corn and lobster instead of both trying to produce both commodities (or doing without), how is the trade an instance of living outside their means?
If it's less expensive or a better value for Colombia and Switzerland to trade coffee and watches, why shouldn't they? Why is the trade inherently imprudent?
Your definition raises far more questions than it answers, and it suggests a loose enough grasp on basic economics that perhaps you shouldn't insist that disagreeing with you is antithetical to political conservatism.
There are multiple layers of what living within our means and consuming what we can produce. Yes, living within our means with what resources we have on hand means that if you have coal as a resource, you can use it, within reason.
Within reason means, for instance,
you can't access the coal with slave labor, with no regards to human life of the miners, nor can you get access to the coal by dumping toxic waste into the valley below poisoning the groundwater of the people who live there.
What coal you can access without endangering or poisoning others and can use without unreasonable pollution, you can absolutely use.
As a starting point. There are layers within living within our means. First, we need to come to an understanding that we DO, in fact, need to live within our means, then we can work to agree to figure out what it means to use it reasonably.
So, no, I have no problems with specialization of skills. Never said that and didn't mean to imply that ever.
Sustainability is another term that sounds good but can mean anything or nothing, in part because it presumes that the future is predictable. You may consider a primitive farming village on the coast of the Indian Ocean to be very sustainable, and it is, unless it gets crushed by a tsunami.
You say that, by local production, you mean, only "within the US". What is inherently imprudent or unreasonable with our offering goods and services to our overseas neighbors in exchange for, say, Colombian coffee and Swiss watches?
The benefits of specialization and trade scale up, and you haven't explained why they hit a wall at the US border, especially when it's actually more local for Miami to trade with Jamaica than it is, say, Hawaii.
Dan
So when the issue of Obamas ties to ACORN come up you choose not to address it. Doesn't the fact that BHO's innefective "community organizing" has been done within the context of a demonstrably corrupt orginization, within one of the most corrupt democrat political machines give you the slightest bit of concern?
Dan
And the best part about this construct is the fact that Dan and others who share his views will get to decide what is reasonable.
But of course this would not be a slide toward Marxism.
BTW, I was taught that oil is prodeced as a result of the decomposition of organic matter. If this, addmittedly simplified, description is correct, then it stands to reason that as long as there is decomposing organic matter there will be additional oil being created.
You can read more here or here or here or here or any number of basic science magazines or books. Ask a high school teacher.
Doesn't the fact that BHO's innefective "community organizing" has been done within the context of a demonstrably corrupt orginization
You'd have to "demonstrate" some of your "facts" here. This is just an unsupported statement.
What is imprudent is to base an economy or make it wholly dependent upon a resource that you don't have access to in adequate supplies to support.
Seems to me.
Long distance trade is not innately wrong. Basing an economy on stuff you ain't got, is.
Dan will not and cannot be convinced with logical common sense arguments, or linking common sense articles by experts.
See, he only wants to argue.
I sincerely doubt he even really believes the horse manure he spouts. He doesn't really want answers to the questions he asks. He thinks, by asking them, he will show everyone how smart he is and how stupid you are but he only succeeds in making himself look stupid.
There is only one reason to keep arguing with Dan, and posting his comments:
To increase the number of comments on your blog.
If he really believed anything other than the sound of his lips aflapping, he could begin to make a case to support his wholly unfounded charges. As it is, he merely bears false witness and you all seem to celebrate the lies and slander.
Shame, shame, brothers.
Mark said:
Dan will not and cannot be convinced with logical common sense arguments, or linking common sense articles by experts.
Try me. Try to defend JUST ONE of your unsupported arguments with a logical defense.
No? All slander and no action?
Brothers, get thee to a church and spend some time in personal reflection upon those words you so easily despise and dismiss. Turn from your slanderous ways. Repent. It's a good thing.
Besides, I was addressing Bubba.
And, it's Sunday morning. Why aren't you in church?
I will not be drawn into one of your stupid arguments.
"Arguments stupid. Me no do! Logic bad. Bad Dan want em argue [defend] my thinking. Me no do. heh heh, Dan stoopid."
If you would have taken the time to google ACORN vote fraud you will find 155,000 supports to my statement.
As far as my grasp of science, I qualified my statement. Maybe I'll take some time to read up on it, but not likely. It seems as though your rebuttal hinges on the words "easily accessed" and how that is defined. Since we are now accessing (or could) what was thought inacessable 20-30 years ago. But that's OK as long as you get to define the terms.
Briefly, Dan, regarding your accusations that Mark is slandering you -- accusations, I will note, that you don't substantiate with evidence of your own -- you write the following:
Try me. Try to defend JUST ONE of your unsupported arguments with a logical defense.
No? All slander and no action?
You wrote all of this in one comment, giving literally no opportunity to Mark to answer your challenge.
If I wanted evidence that you don't want a real dialogue and instead want to have the conversation that you think ought to occur, this is probably the briefest exhibit one could find.
On a more substantive note:
What is imprudent is to base an economy or make it wholly dependent upon a resource that you don't have access to in adequate supplies to support... Long distance trade is not innately wrong. Basing an economy on stuff you ain't got, is.
First, we're not basing our economy on "stuff [we] ain't got." We do presently have sufficient oil supplies and reserves for our immediate needs. The question -- and this is a very open question -- is how long our supply of cheap oil will last, not whether we have that supply currently.
Secondly, I thought your apparent support for electricity production from local coal mining was a bit out of character, and my suspicion was right: it wasn't too long ago that you criticized Obama for supporting even limited offshore drilling.
("It is a shame that Obama feels a need to kowtow and compromise with the Republicans and Oiligarchy on this point, but at least he is saying some of the right things.")
So when you say that our economy is based on a resource "that you don't have access to in adequate supplies to support," you should be clear: to the degree that we don't have access to cheap oil, the lack of access is less due to technological limitations or true material scarcity, than it is to artificial limitations imposed by government interference that you advocate.
Third and finally, even if it's the case that it was imprudent to have built an economy around petroleum, your solution -- prevent further oil, prevent more energy production through nuclear power -- is far more intrusive than necessary and will result in a far more rapid "transformation" (read: economic collapse) than what would otherwise occur in a free market in which continued drilling and nuclear power weren't taken off the table by the state.
Your diagnosis of the problem seems needlessly dire, and your solution is incredibly problematic.
It's OK. I don't intend to answer his challenge. As I have said Repeatedly. I refuse to talk sense to the senseless, or attempt to reason with fools.
Let him rant on with his circular reasoning. I. Don't. Care.
It IS funny, though, how he insists we don't have the resources when it's the Nuts he supports that won't let us increase our resources, by not letting us drill for oil, which, incidentally is much more than just a source for fuel. Oil is used in so many different products (especially plastics) that, at this point, we cannot possibly do without it.
ACORN and the Obama Connection
More fraud from ACORN
--Betsy Newmark
Secondly, I have no intention of playing nice with names. "McBush" doesn't bother me in the least, since if a third term was legal, I'd vote for the guy again no matter which of the goofy Dem hopefuls that ran in the primaries were pitted against him. Despite George's miss-steps, he'd still be a better pick. So, screw Barry Obamanable and let the nick-names and various terms of endearment proceed.
Some of the economic policies attributed to Barry, but not yet confirmed though use of his constantly changing website, would include letting Bush's tax cuts expire rather than making them permanent.
The tax cuts helped to stimulate an economy that was impacted by a hurricane or two, an attack on major financial and business center, and a war on two main fronts. It is only recently that we've seen a slide, and I'd say there was more than Bush to blame for it.
BO also wants to mandate his version of a windfall profits tax, as if he has any right to determine what constitutes too much profits. Carter's use of this strategy did not fare well and that has to do with how greatly it negatively impacted business. Seeing how most people who work do so for some form of a business, it is a good idea to make sure that business isn't negatively impacted by stupid legislation. It does nothing to help the little guy he claims to champion since it not only hurts profitability of the business, but hurts the business's ability to hire and also hurts stock prices, which make up so many retirement funds.
BO is also said to want to tax ALL inheritance. This I've only heard recently, but to tax any is bad enough. People work for many reasons, one of which is to leave something behind for the benefit of their descendants. This money left behind has already been taxed at least once. It is abhorent and anti-American to tax it again and it is mainly supported by people who never busted their asses to build their own personal empires. So it's a greed thing and an envy thing, neither of which looks good on anyone.
These are just a few of the many stupid and illogical policies of the man of change. He'd do well to change his career plans and not burden the country with his idiocy. Is that too audacious a hope?
My point is not to live beyond our means, but to increase our means to our best ability. Drilling is one way until a viable alternative is found. And for each of us to seek ways to increase our personal incomes because one never knows what life will throw at us. With the first catostrophic event, we find just how little our means are and how lax we were to believe cutting coupons and eating mac and cheese was the way to go.
Live within our means? Hell no. Get more means!
Amen.
Amen.
xxx
?
Matthew 6: 19-21
Working to supply ones needs, however, is not necessarily 'storing up treasure on earth.' A man, if he is to provide for his family, must work, and if his job isn't providing enough "means" he must seek avenues that will provide sufficient means. Yes, God supplies our needs, but He expects us to work in the mean time.
1. Oil shale requires vast amounts of fresh water to process. These states face water resource issues even more dire than elsewhere in the US. and once water has been used to process oil shale it is toxic to plant life. Much of these oil shale states are America's prime beef growing regions.
2. Oil shale has to be processed from mined rock. The question becomes how much do we want the oil in the rockies? Are we willing to strip mine the mountains down into slag heaps to extract the oil? That's what it would take to get at it.
3. Oil and fossil fuels are not sold to countries, oil and fossil fuels are sold in an international market place. To produce enough oil to be independent we knot only have to produce enough to fill the US's barrels. We have to produce enough to sate the needs of India and China to keep them from buying oil exports from the US.
Better routes to national energy independence than oil exist. Nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, and hydrodynamic. In conclusion I want to say that Barack Obama says he supports limited offshore drilling in exchange for conservative concessions on alternative energy funding. That to me seems a moderate reasoned approach. I would rather a president that is responsible to environmentalists be tasked with finding an energy solution. Rather than one beholden to energy corporations. Once you strip-mine a mountain you can't put it back together again.
When Dan speaks on a subject and you question the entire validity of his thought, because his thought is not completely developed or qualified or considered to it's extreme conclusion, you show only the rigidity of your own demand of conversation. To hold Dan to the standards you would hold an economist, or sociology expert, or political science professor, is arguing in poor faith. Not because we shouldn't be rigorous in challenging each other's viewpoints or conclusions, but simply because this isn't an academic forum. We here are none of us experts in these areas. My own thoughts are often impressions and generalities of opinion, that I flesh out and solidify through debate on forums like this. But to argue that my words are advocacies of the extremes of my positions is to set up strawmen.
When I'm angry at my niece I'll take her words and apply them to their extreme. "Oh so you want french fries. Then that can be all you eat for the rest of the month!" It's silly and childish and reflects worse on me than it does on her. Remember that the next time you feel like dashing off a disparaging post at Dan like you did above.
Easy does it. Bubba only seeks to ascertain which of Dan's rules for debate are in play at a given time. They tend to change right when one believes one has it iall figured out.
If Obama wants concessions for alternative energy funding, he should stick it. Let the market develop alternatives which is already happening. The market will do it more efficiently than government, especially Obama's government, should we be so unfortunate.
This goes for environmentalism in general. There is a tangible desire amongst most Americans for a cleaner environment. I believe that even among the GW deniers, that most of them prefer that business not ignore the environment whilst furthering their agendas. Because of this overall desire, business has already begun to adopt "cleaner" methods of doing business. The evidence is easily seen in recyclable packaging and hybrid cars as two examples.
So it's not like the right has no care for the earth, but like most issues, the difference is in how to achieve the goals. Don't buy lefty spin.
I think it's fairly clear that nothing in the Bible condemns wealth, but rather greed and/or putting one's wealth above God. I think it's even more clear that there's nothing in the Bible that elevates poverty to worthy goal status. I believe we glorify God when we develop the abilities He gave us as best we can. We all can improve ourselves in every area, including finance. Therefor, we all should.
Bubba it is arguing in poor faith when you hold Dan to points of exactitude or reasoning, that one would only expect in an academic critique.
Let me repeat the comment Dan made, the reason I'm being so admittedly dogged in asking him to explain what he means by "living within our means."
We must consume less. We must not consume more than we can create. That is only responsible and I can't believe that all the "conservatives" would ignore the notion of living within our means.
Not for the first time, Dan has tried to accuse "conservatives" (note the scare-quotes) of being hypocritically or insincerely conservative for disagreeing with Dan's policies, and he's done this by implying that his policies are so tightly coupled to the ideal of "living within our means" that disagreement with Dan's policies is ipso facto a rejection of the ideal.
In asking Dan to clarify what he means by "living within our means," I'm trying to ascertain whether there's any argument behind the comment, whether there's any proverbial meat on the bones or whether he's just using this rhetorical trick because he thinks it's effective, to hell with having any argument to back it up.
I could have just stated the obvious: the claim that conservatives ignore the idea of living within one's means is not only ludicrous, it's positively slanderous.
But then, had I done that, Dan would have probably demanded proof, just as he demanded proof from Mark for his criticism of Dan:
If he really believed anything other than the sound of his lips aflapping, he could begin to make a case to support his wholly unfounded charges. As it is, he merely bears false witness and you all seem to celebrate the lies and slander.
Shame, shame, brothers.
And then you would have criticized Dan for being pedantic, and for having standards in this discussion that "one would only expect in an academic critique."
Right?
1. Some conservative or all conservatives share a desire to live with means.
2. The idea of being self-sustaining is not tied to an school of political thought.
3. There are segments of liberal space promoting conspicuous consumption.
All I suggest is that the conversation is less rancorous and more informative and fun to counter the spoken statements without attacking the underlying speaker.
If you feel his idea is positively slanderous, why don't you explain why?
Dan, I find, holds people to a lower rhetorical standard than you. But he has the fault of accusing others of intentionally and with malice misrepresenting his words. So here is my public rebuke. Dan, Don't be so sensitive!!!1
-------------------------
This is the political forum I come to after/during a hard day. I want a place that is congenial. Dan and Bubba's public verbal fisticuffs are both wearying and boring.
I firmly believe we could have constructive debates here if
1) Dan weren't so contrary in his standards.
2) If we could all recognize the lack of constructiveness in many of our responses to Dan.
As much as I appreciate Dan-- yes, I really do --he is nonetheless trying. We must all learn to be more patient, and Dan must learn to be more consistent in the standards he both holds for himself and the rest of us.
I think that's only fair. And if we could only achieve that grand ideal, discussions here would be a lot more congenial.
....None of which addresses the fact that Joe Biden is the gift that keeps on giving.