Decision 2008!

[erik]

What are the things that make you think "I have no confidence that he will be able to perform the job of President adequately"?

I typed a really long reply, but then I realized that this guy says it better than I can.

Oh wow. I was looking for more of a list of things that Obama had done/supported that were bad ideas, or specific ways that he screwed up politically.

[jimtyrrell]

This settles it. I can't vote for any of these assholes.

[Caravan Ray]

This settles it. I can't vote for any of these assholes.

That is so beautiful, it is scary - and so scary, it is...I don't know what. You are welcome to move to New Zealand with me.

...and on a completely different tack - I saw this on the news tonight and found it quite hilarious - it is something the US President should consider

This :
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/

is the website of the ABC's 7:30 Report. There is a link to a story there, about 4 down, titled "Ramos Horta demand rebel bank account details" - where the President of East Timor, Jose Ramos Horta talks about how the dude who tried to assassinate him a few weeks ago had a lot of money deposited into a Darwin bank account....but none of that is important....the great bit comes about 7 minutes into the video, where we see Jose RH being interviewed, wearing a nice pale-blue T-Shirt, that has the word "PRESIDENTE" emblazoned on it in big gold letters!!

How cool is that! It should be made LAW immediately that all world leader be banned from wearing suits - and instead wear "PRESIDENT" or "PRIME MINISTER" T-Shirts.

Actually - Ramos Horta is doubley cool, not only does he have his PRESIDENTE T-Shirt, but he is wearing it on TV, 2 weeks after being shot at for being the President. Maybe that was his point - a bit of a "I'm still here arseholes" message. Good on him.

[jimtyrrell]

It should be made LAW immediately that all world leader be banned from wearing suits - and instead wear "PRESIDENT" or "PRIME MINISTER" T-Shirts.

Is this close enough?

[Paco Del Stinko]

No, I can't list reasons why anyone shouldn't vote for Obama. I think that he's a wonderful speaker, and that both the controversy over his pastor and the blue collar remarks are overblown. And I'm not so concerned about his lack of experience; it's not like the other people have actually ever run anything either. But I think that when you look past the eloquent speaking, he offers little else that Hillary doesn't say she'll give. And she stinks. Enough to say don't vote for him? Of course not.

But to back-pedal a bit, maybe all that we need is the promise of hope. People revere Reagan, and all that he offered was an illusion of all is well, while driving the country down the drain. I dunno. The stranglehold of the two party system is no good, though. Where's the compromise and working together that we all need? Meet in the middle, as this one side or the other only business does not appear to be working out too well.

[anti-m]

What are the things that make you think "I have no confidence that he will be able to perform the job of President adequately"?

I typed a really long reply, but then I realized that this guy says it better than I can.

Good lord, I hope you're joking!

[melvin]

What are the things that make you think "I have no confidence that he will be able to perform the job of President adequately"?

I typed a really long reply, but then I realized that this guy says it better than I can.

Good lord, I hope you're joking!

Not at all. Obama looks at America and sees a racist, imperialist, greedy, corrupt demon that needs "change". And by "change", he means further distancing America from the philosophies, economic principles, and moral standards that helped make it what it REALLY is--the freest, least racist, least imperialist, most prosperous, most just, and most generous world power in the history of humankind.

[The Weakest Suit]

Obama looks at America and sees a racist, imperialist, greedy, corrupt demon that needs "change". And by "change", he means further distancing America from the philosophies, economic principles, and moral standards that helped make it what it REALLY is--the freest, least racist, least imperialist, most prosperous, most just, and most generous world power in the history of humankind.

well said. well said.

[anti-m]

Obama looks at America and sees a racist, imperialist, greedy, corrupt demon that needs "change". And by "change", he means further distancing America from the philosophies, economic principles, and moral standards that helped make it what it REALLY is--the freest, least racist, least imperialist, most prosperous, most just, and most generous world power in the history of humankind.

well said. well said.

Far out. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

[roymond]

Obama looks at America and sees a racist, imperialist, greedy, corrupt demon that needs "change". And by "change", he means further distancing America from the philosophies, economic principles, and moral standards that helped make it what it REALLY is--the freest, least racist, least imperialist, most prosperous, most just, and most generous world power in the history of humankind.

Our nation is great. I totally agree with you. However, the current administration has done more harm than any other to rob it of these qualities you admire. The "change" that's needed is to return to what makes us great, and to retreat from the assault we're under from the most abusive executive branch ever (self-)empowered.

[erik]

Not at all. Obama looks at America and sees a racist, imperialist, greedy, corrupt demon that needs "change". And by "change", he means further distancing America from the philosophies, economic principles, and moral standards that helped make it what it REALLY is--the freest, least racist, least imperialist, most prosperous, most just, and most generous world power in the history of humankind.

1. Why is Obama so confused?
2. What things is he proposing (or has he already opposed) whose effects would be to make the US less free, more racist, more imperialist, less prosperous, less just or less generous?
3. Are you Canadian? If not, why did I think that?

[Paco Del Stinko]

Obama looks at America and sees a racist, imperialist, greedy, corrupt demon that needs "change".

By this definition, maybe I am an Obama supporter after all. Least imperialistc, least racist, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist on a sizable scale. The most giving may be true, but when you compare, say, the 200 million dollars recently pledged for global hunger against the billions spent monthly in Iraq, much of it unaccounted for or given to no-bid contracts, it's peanuts. Giving what? Tax breaks to poor, poor, Exxon who only made $40 billion in profit last year.

I love my country, it's my birthplace and my home. But that doesn't mean that I can't be pissed at it for being naughty or lying to me.

Melvin - aren't you originally from New Jersey?

[obscurity]

Obama looks at America and sees a racist, imperialist, greedy, corrupt demon that needs "change".

So, what, you're criticising him for being a realist?

[anti-m]

I typed a really long reply, but then I realized that this guy says it better than I can.

Ok, seriously, Melvin, I've tried to listen to that YouTube clip twice, and I've had to stop both times because my blood pressure was spiking.

(Has anyone else watched this thing??)

You honestly AGREE with this character? As far as I can tell, he has it in not just for Obama, but for democrats in general. His stream of vitriol against "the evil liberal agenda" is awfully extreme.

C'mon, not all "(L)iberals" are baby-eating pornographers and bomb-juggling crazed anarchists!

[melvin]

I definitely regret opening this can of politically-charged worms, but I'll answer Eric's questions and hopefully some of the others in the process:

1. Why is Obama so confused?

Because he's immersed in a cynical and failed ideology that pervades the media, the education system, most of the democratic party, and large tracts of Latin America. As to a potential reason WHY this is so, I again recommend the video I linked to earlier.

2. What things is he proposing (or has he already opposed) whose effects would be to make the US less free, more racist, more imperialist, less prosperous, less just or less generous?

I believe the very foundation of liberal thinking is flawed. Therefore, confronted with virtually any economic, social or foreign policy issue, Obama is unlikely to choose a course of action based on sound principles. This makes him unfit to rule.

3. Are you Canadian? If not, why did I think that?

Yes, I am a Canadian who was raised with Canada's national tradition of resenting America. It took a long period of secretive, independent study to discover the truth about America's founding principles and why the entire planet should be grateful for them.

[melvin]

I typed a really long reply, but then I realized that this guy says it better than I can.

Ok, seriously, Melvin, I've tried to listen to that YouTube clip twice, and I've had to stop both times because my blood pressure was spiking.

(Has anyone else watched this thing??)

You honestly AGREE with this character? As far as I can tell, he has it in not just for Obama, but for democrats in general. His stream of vitriol against "the evil liberal agenda" is awfully extreme.

C'mon, not all "(L)iberals" are baby-eating pornographers and bomb-juggling crazed anarchists!

I agree this guy's a bit over the top. But the core of his argument (the liberal rejection of value judgments of all sorts, and the refusal to discriminate against anything) rings true to me. By the way, Sayet is very careful to point out that liberals are not evil or stupid. Rather, they have adopted an idealistic world view that, while very appealing and comforting in ways, is simply at odds with reality and with our own best interests.

[erik]

I definitely regret opening this can of politically-charged worms, but I'll answer Eric's questions and hopefully some of the others in the process:

1. Why is Obama so confused?

Because he's immersed in a cynical and failed ideology that pervades the media, the education system, most of the democratic party, and large tracts of Latin America. As to a potential reason WHY this is so, I again recommend the video I linked to earlier.

2. What things is he proposing (or has he already opposed) whose effects would be to make the US less free, more racist, more imperialist, less prosperous, less just or less generous?

I believe the very foundation of liberal thinking is flawed. Therefore, confronted with virtually any economic, social or foreign policy issue, Obama is unlikely to choose a course of action based on sound principles. This makes him unfit to rule.

Re 1: I tried watching the video. I got about 15 minutes through. From what I could understand, he was speaking to a bunch of Republicans, so it wasn't like he was trying to make points that would change someone's mind. The speaker kept bringing up things that have nothing to do with the Democratic party, or Liberalism. Things like promoting abstinence, whether films about gays or terrorists should be considered for Best Picture, whether Piss Christ is a good piece of art. I found it to be more about what the speaker feels is the culture of people who vote Democratic, and not so much about the Democratic party itself.

Re 2: I'm speaking more about results, and less about principles. Also, I was hoping for specifics. Non-rhetorically speaking, can you point to legislation on an economic issue, or a social issue, or a foreign policy issue that Obama has endorsed, which produced negative results?

[Hoblit]

1. I definitely regret opening this can of politically-charged worms, but I'll answer Eric's questions and hopefully some of the others in the process:

2. I believe the very foundation of liberal thinking is flawed. Therefore, confronted with virtually any economic, social or foreign policy issue, Obama is unlikely to choose a course of action based on sound principles. This makes him unfit to rule.

Yes, I am a Canadian who was raised with Canada's national tradition of resenting America. It took a long period of secretive, independent study to discover the truth about America's founding principles and why the entire planet should be grateful for them.

1. Yeah, thats why I didn't bother to answer Erik's question about Obama's 'evils'. It would only get countered and I didn't feel like arguing about it really.

2. While I disagree with you about the foundation of liberal thinking, I can see how liberalism begets extreme liberal thinking which leads to the dark side... er... I mean socialism.

Otherwise, its interesting to see a Canadian who isn't leaning socialist. My family in Canada are always bashing two governments at the same time whenever politics come up.

[Spud]

Anti, I listened to the whole thing. Had to. Cuz, you know, he was accusing me of not listening.

I must say that I agree with some of his observations on what Liberals believe, but I take them as a good thing. I don't have time to go into it further right now, but in a nutshell, it seems to me that he wants us to decide what is good and what is not, and having made those decisions for better or for worse, go kill the guys that came to a different conclusion than we did.

[Paco Del Stinko]

I watched 20 minutes of the video and it's nothing that I haven't heard before. I'm not rushing out to find some Al Franken though, either. Aren't there some good concepts behind socialism, though? I mean, I don't know what any one system is the right one, or free from being corrupted, but I like the idea that everybody has a little something. Yet, I have seen abuses of the state sponsored systems at the pyschiatric/detox hospital where I used to work, where people made a 'living' off of the system.

Melvin - I really did think you were from Jersey, and that you moved up there. This goes back to when I first began reading the boards, but I must have mistaken Niv's address for yours. Although I'm a dope, I'm still mature enough to not let this stop me from enjoying your excellent music. How's that for liberal thinking?

[melvin]

I swear that this isn't a cop out, but I'm starting to feel uncomfortable about turning my beloved music site into a forum for political debate, so I think this will be my last post on the matter. At Erik's request, here's a look at a key issue of the campaign--socialized health care--based on the Canadian experience.

The service sucks. All the resources of the health care system are rationed by the government. Hospital A gets an annual ration of 42 pace makers. If you are the 43rd patient, too bad. Hospital B gets enough budget for two neurosurgeons. If they are both booked until next October, better hope your brain tumour is of the slow-growing variety.

The doctors suck. The government caps the doctors' salaries. If they're really great at what they do, they move to America where they can exercise their God-given freedom to set their own price for their own labour.

Prices are out of control. Because no member of the system--doctors, hospital administrations, equipment and drug manufacturers--are subject to the laws of profit or loss, they have a greatly reduced incentive to keep costs down. In fact, there is no longer a "price system" as you would see in classical economics. While the generally economy sees a modest inflation of prices, the medical system sees a radical inflation of prices. This, of course, results in further closing of beds, longer wait times, and additional rationing of services.

It's free! Since there is no direct cost to seeing a doctor, people aren't selective about how they use the limited resources of the system. They show up at emergency rooms with the smallest of problems, further squeezing the budget that could otherwise be used for more valuable purposes such as buying an extra pacemaker or hiring another neurosurgeon.

Essentially, socialized medicine starts off promising free health care to everyone, but ends up delivering slow, sloppy, overpriced, and ultimately unsustainable health care services. The Lada of health care, if you will. At some point, we're either going to have to cull Canada's baby boomers, or raise the income tax rate to 85% just to maintain our current sub-par level of care.

Contrary to Spud's comment, Evan Sayet's position applies to a lot more than killing terrorists. In my example here, the debate is between a crumbling liberal/Utopian fantasy about free health care for all versus the much more discriminating and intellectually honest realization that it takes a dynamic free market to deliver something of quality at the lowest possible price.

I hope I haven't enraged too many of you with these posts - I'd really like to get back to the music now.

[obscurity]

Well, all I can say in response to that is that the National Health Service is one of the things that makes me proud of my country. Sure, people bitch about waiting lists and stuff, but there's always the option of going private if you prefer that route. The greatest thing about the NHS is knowing that it's there when you need it, no matter how life may fuck your finances up. And generally, I don't think people do abuse it. I mean, sure, there's always going to be the odd dickhead, but on the whole it seems to get the job done.