US News
PREVIEW: Obama takes hits from all sides as Clinton seeks resurgence
Mar 1, 2008, 7:20 GMT
Washington - Barack Obama could well seal the Democratic presidential nomination on Tuesday if rival Hillary Clinton fails to win crucial primary contests in Ohio and Texas - two of the biggest remaining states up for grabs in what has been a hotly contested race.
Clinton faces an uphill battle as Republicans this week began sharpening their attacks on Obama in the expectation that he could soon be the undisputed Democratic nominee.
Obama has won the last 10 state contests, giving him a significant lead in the battle for delegates to the Democratic Party's nominating convention in August. Even former president Bill Clinton has said that his wife must win both Ohio and Texas in order for her campaign to remain viable.
Hillary Clinton, 60, ratcheted up her own rhetoric against Obama in the run-up to Tuesday's contest, suggesting that his relative lack of experience made him unprepared to be commander in chief.
A Clinton campaign commercial released Friday asked: 'It's 3 am and your children are safe and asleep ... who do you want answering the phone' in the White House?
Obama, 46, countered immediately with his own nearly identical commercial that said a president of 'judgement' should be answering that 3 am telephone call, reverting to his long-standing criticism that Clinton supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Clinton has not been the only one attacking Obama this week for lacking the experience needed to lead the country.
Senator John McCain - who is virtually guaranteed of winning the Republican presidential nomination - and even President George W Bush turned their attention to Obama and suggested he lacked understanding of the situation in Iraq and foreign policy.
McCain, who is a vocal supporter of the war in Iraq, and Obama, who opposed the war and has promised to pull troops out, traded barbs in what many viewed as a prelude of the key issue in the general election.
McCain attacked the Illinois senator for suggesting that, after pulling out of Iraq, he would reserve the right to return if the terrorist group al-Qaeda established bases in the country.
'I have some news. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq,' McCain quipped at a rally on Wednesday. 'Al-Qaeda is called 'al-Qaeda in Iraq'.'
'I have some news for John McCain,' Obama fired back at his own rally the same day. 'There was no such thing as al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade.'
Bush jumped on the same remarks at a press conference Thursday, and also criticized Obama's offer to meet with foreign adversaries such as new Cuban leader Raul Castro as 'extremely counterproductive.'
'It's an interesting comment - 'If al-Qaeda is securing an al- Qaeda base',' Bush said. 'Yes, well, that's exactly what they've been trying to do for the past four years.'
McCain, a 71-year-old Arizona senator and one-time prisoner of war in Vietnam, still faces a challenge from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who has remained in the race for the Republican nomination despite nearly insurmountable odds.
McCain has barely mentioned Huckabee on the campaign trail in recent weeks, instead shoring up support among Republicans and honing his message that Obama would be a risky choice for president in a time of war.
Obama, who was only elected to the US Senate in 2004, bolstered his foreign policy credentials with the endorsement Friday of veteran Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Obama and Clinton have crisscrossed both Texas and Ohio over the past two weeks as they traded accusations over trade, health care and who can bring change to Washington, and recent polls have shown that Tuesday's result is anyone's guess. Obama holds a slight edge over Clinton in Texas while Clinton has a small lead in Ohio.
The smaller north-eastern states of Vermont and Rhode Island are also set to vote on Tuesday.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
Just keep the faith, baby! There is nothing wrong with having a solid belief system, especially if it is the Evangelical faith, and only true one. It it way past time to be Rapture ready. Heretics and infidels will be vanquished to burn in hell during the coming armageddon. Only Evangelicals will survive, and be lifted to eternal life in heaven by Jesus, with one of the best and brightest evangelicals, George W. Bush right by his side. All the terrorists will be smitten, along with the rest of the cursed ones- the muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists, confuscians, nativists, heathens, atheists, barbarians, misfits, and misc. riff raff. Everyone left will have the same faith based belief. That's when the war on terrorism will finally be won.
Sure....in a party where they will vote for withdrawl before they vote against it, why do you think they only define failure, and have no definition of success?
Since when has one democrat defined what success ever was supposed to be?
Never. Even in the face of running Al Queda out of Iraq, getting the parties dealing, violence about equal to Pakistan, they can hold up defeat because they can never define success.
The reason: They wanted Saddam gone and got either dumb ol GW or smart ol GW to do it for them.
Take your pick! You see, the dems are faced with this:
Either Bush hornswaggled half of them with the WMD thing, and they are actually dumber than him...
or
They decided to fund this war to get ol GW to clean up Saddam for them, after they languished for 8 years and failed to do so, and they got dumb ol GW to do it for them.
Take your pick. One thing is for sure, no dem ever defines success, because once they do, THEY will be stuck with it when they get into office. Then again, their sheeplike constituants seem to forget who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan, don't they?
..just watch the Clintons take this from Barak...Can you imagine what the convention wil be like?
youtube.com/watch?v=8xtNr5-up0U
'A Clinton campaign commercial released Friday asked: 'It's 3 am and your children are safe and asleep ... who do you want answering the phone' in the White House?'
Do you want this guy:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs
A dangerously naive, inexperienced fool who has already shown lousy judgment and corruption answering ANY phone other then the one that promises your Pizza in 20 minutes or less?
'The disarmament agenda he spews in this video is classic George Soros theory aimed at knocking America into a second-world country, putting us at grave risk to tyrannical regimes around the world.'
Hillary Clinton... has managed to force Obama to talk a little more specifically about policy. That apparently has cost Obama some ground, according to Rasmussen, although not so much against Hillary. His negatives have risen seven points in the last month, and now are ten points higher than those of John McCain:
Thirty-four percent (34%) of all voters say they will definitely vote for John McCain if he is on the ballot this November. Thirty-three percent (33%) will definitely vote against him while 29% say their support hinges on who his opponent is.
Barack Obama has the same number who will definitely vote for him--34%. But, more people are committed to voting against him than McCain. Forty-three percent (43%) say they will definitely reject him at the ballot box. For 18%, their support depends on his opponent.
For Hillary Clinton, 32% will definitely vote for her if she is on the ballot and 46% will definitely vote against. Core opposition to Clinton, the best-known of the candidates as the long campaign season began, hovered in the high 40s through most of the past year.
The excitement of Obama has not resonated across the political spectrum as once thought. While he has undoubtedly gained momentum among Democrats, it has slowed in the general electorate. He has only picked up five points in committed voters while gaining seven points among opposed voters and now has a negative balance.
John McCain, on the other hand, appears to have much more momentum than Obama. He has gained 12 points in the same period, while not adding any opposed voters at all. His balance is a +1, while Obama's is a -7.
The crosstabs show a few surprises. McCain actually does slightly better among younger voters (54%) than Obama (51%), and much better among seniors (44%, 24% for Obama). He does better in the 'Other' and 'White' ethnic categories, but Obama hasn't locked up as much of the black vote as he'll need. Only 60% say they will definitely vote for him, while 19% say they will definitely vote against him. McCain gets 9% of the black vote -- about what Republicans normally get -- but 37% will wait to see who runs against him, and another 8% aren't sure.
This data looks somewhat different than the media portrayals of a huge national movement coalescing behind Obama. It may be more likely that the activists have turned out in force for Obama, and that the enthusiasm we see now will remain limited to that subset on the Left.
www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/017119.php
Greg Sheridan: “I think an Obama ascendancy could cause war in the Middle East.”
Add Greg Sheridan, foreign editor of the Australian, to the list of members of the foreign press who worry about a President Obama.
In a column in the Australian, “This is no time for a celebrity in the Oval Office,” Sheridan reasoned that far from calming the Middle East, a President Obama might trigger a a new Middle East war.
Sheridan joins Gerard Baker of the Times of London and Gabor Steingart of Der Spiegel in warning Americans that this is not Amateur Hour when it comes to foreign policy.
The civilized world looks to America for leadership and intestinal fortitude when it comes to standing up to evil — not fealty and Kumbaya when dealing with tyranny in the world.
Australia:
www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23286699-7583,00.html
'' is something a little weird about the Obama phenomenon. It's a bit like the Princess Di obsession. His is a candidacy of celebrity and identity. But we live in a world of celebrity and identity, and for a time the world probably would fall in love with president Obama.
At a deeper level, Obama's soaring rhetoric seems to serve no purpose beyond itself. Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt used magnificent speeches to argue specific causes: ending slavery, defeating Nazism. Obama's cadences are superbly non-specific: 'Yes, we can!'
Nonetheless, Obama does have a record and it places him generally on the Left of the Democratic Party, although he has often used centrist and sometimes even hawkish rhetoric. But his closest advisers all come from the Left of the party.
[snip]
Iraq has faded as an issue because the US strategy there is now working. There is a real chance the US could prevail in Iraq. This is what Clinton was worried about when she earlier hedged her bets on Iraq. But Obama, playing not least for the Hollywood Bush haters, has left little room to manoeuvre as president on Iraq. A sudden US withdrawal from Iraq could be catastrophic for the Middle East, and for US standing generally. Obama is all over the place on foreign policy. He has threatened to bomb Pakistan to kill terrorists (imagine if Bush or McCain had said such a thing) but also to journey to Tehran to fix a grand bargain with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His rhetoric on foreign policy, apart from Iraq, is scattered, which is a sure sign that he's never given the matter any serious thought.
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article341254 0.ece
The UK
Obama: is America ready for this dangerous left winger?
...And surely even critics of the US could scarcely deny that there have been real causes for American pride in the past 25 years: the fall of the Berlin Wall; the victory in the first Gulf War in 1991; the nation's unity in grief and resolve after September 11. Heck, I suspect most Americans got a small buzz of patriotic pride this week when they heard that one of their multimillion-dollar missiles had shot a dead but dangerous satellite travelling at 17,000 miles per hour out of the sky so that it fell harmlessly to Earth.
But not, apparently, Michelle Obama, wife of the man who is now the putative Democratic candidate for US president, and at this point favourite to succeed to that job. In what might be the most revealing statement made by any political figure so far in this campaign season, Mrs Obama caused a stir this week. She said that the success of her husband Barack's campaign had marked the first time in her adult life that she had felt pride in her country.
This, even by the astonishingly self-absorbed standards of politicians and their families, is a remarkably narrow view of what makes a country great. And though she later half-heartedly tried to retract the remark it was a statement pregnant with meaning for the presidential election campaign.
Now, to be fair to Mrs Obama, she would surely have a point if she had said that it was a source of incomparable pride to her and all African-Americans that in a country with a long and baleful history of racial discrimination, one of their own was within serious range of becoming president. All but the most irredeemably racist Americans would surely agree with that.
But that was not what she said. She said this was the only time in her adult life that she had felt pride in America.
It was instructive for two reasons. First, it reinforced the growing sense of unease that even some Obama supporters have felt about the increasingly messianic nature of the candidate's campaign. There's always been a Second Coming quality about Mr Obama's rhetoric. The claim that his electoral successes in places like Nebraska and Wisconsin might transcend all that America has achieved in its history can only add to that worry.
Secondly, and more importantly, I suspect it reveals much about what the Obama family really thinks about the kind of nation that America is. Mrs Obama is surely not alone in thinking not very much about what America has been or done in the past quarter century or more. In fact, it is a trope of the left wing of the Democratic party that America has been a pretty wretched sort of place.
There is a caste of left-wing Americans who wish essentially and in all honesty that their country was much more like France. They wish it had much higher levels of taxation and government intervention, that it had much higher levels of welfare, that it did not have such a “militaristic” approach to foreign policy. Above all, that its national goals were dictated, not by the dreadful halfwits who inhabit godforsaken places like Kansas and Mississippi, but by the counsels of the United Nations.
But if you listen to Mr Obama's speeches, it is not the lack of substance but the quality of it that ought to worry Americans. His victory speech after his latest primary win in Wisconsin this week was a case in point.
There was no shortage of proposals. He plans large increases in government spending on health and education. He wants to tax the rich more to pay for it. He is against companies using the opportunities of free markets to restructure their operations in the US. He is vehemently protectionist. He continues to insist, despite the growing evidence that this left-wing nostrum would be lunacy, that the US must pull its troops out of Iraq with the utmost dispatch.
While he speaks of the need for Americans to move beyond partisanship (“We are not blue states or red states, but the United States” is a campaign meme), when you cut through the verbiage there is nothing to suggest he believes anything that is seriously at odds with the far Left of his party. If you think about it for a second, it's not really an accident that he has been endorsed by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson.
Though he talks with great eloquence about the future, he sounds for all the world like one of the long line of Democrats from George McGovern to Walter Mondale to Michael Dukakis, who became history by espousing policies and striking a rhetorical pose that was well out of the mainstream of American politics.
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article341254 0.ece
Dems like Obama because he's the same as Hillary...but He's NOT Hillary!
Think about it: Outside of the war, they are identical, politically. That being the case, why bother with the shrew?
So, who CARES who wins?
'So, who CARES who wins?'
I do. I believe Hillary would do less damage then Obama on the off chance either of them were elected. I honestly do not see how we can salvage things with either of them in power as we are heading for a series of daunting challenges that the country is just living in denial about.
Our national debt is huge yet we are talking about piling on more entitlement programs that will absolutely tank us.
Our economy is losing jobs yet we are talking about taxing cooperations out of the country.
Oil is at over $100 a barrel yet we are talking about abandoning the middle east to al Qaeda and Iran. Want to see what price oil goes for when the Strait of Hormuz is shut down? Additionally, we have idiots picking a fight with Canada over NAFTA which they would just LOVE to 'renegotiate' because we get most of our oil from them and they could get more for it elsewhere.
We are facing a resurgent Russia and China yet we have people talking about systematically disassembling our military.
I honestly can not begin to understand how anyone with enough intelligence to be able to put food in their own mouths could seriously consider either of them. However, I believe Obama would be the worse of the 2.
The only upside is that the damage caused by 1 term of Obama will kill off the far leftist, socialist mindset in this country forever. The down side is that it will be a much harsher country, with much diminished prospects, and much less standing because of it.
...their voting records are almost identical. That being the case, what are we to conclude other than Hillary is about the same as Obama. Both of them are running the playbook: Grievance.
Dems need this culture of grievance to succeed. They PASSED nafta in the 1990's and now pose as opponents of free trade. The sick part is that these constituents of their believe it.
So now they parade themselves in front of the unions as the enemy of Nafta, in an increasingly globalized world. Obama and Hillary are two peas in a pod: They pimp a 45 year old view of the world while the Bush's of this world get out the mop and bucket to clean up the slime these posers enabled for decades.
So who cares which one gets the nod?
My Solution to Iraq Is to Never Have Gone There
An Editorial by Senator Barack Obama
Posted by Frank J. at 11:02 AM
Iraq continues to be a serious problem, and the Bush administration has done nothing but increase the problem and cause unnecessary deaths. It is a mess, but I have a solution: I would never have gone there.
The Iraq War will be a big problem to inherit, but it would not be if we hadn't have gone there. That's why that is my solution. People ask me, 'Won't leaving Iraq now be abandoning the Iraqi people?' Well, it wouldn't be abandoning them if we hadn't had gone there. 'What about a civil war?' others ask, to which I say there would be no civil war if Saddam were still in charge because we didn't go to Iraq. As you can see, not having gone to Iraq easily solves all these problems.
'I do have experience: Experience at not going to war.'
As for Al Qaeda in Iraq, I don't think they would be a problem if we hadn't had gone. Maybe they already were there and working with some support from Saddam, but I still think not having gone there is a risk worth taking. You may worry about all the terrorists there and whether they have intentions for attacking America, but you wouldn't if we hadn't had gone.
Senator John McCain questions whether I have experience enough to deal with Iraq, but the fact is that he's old. No one faints at his rallies... unless they forgot their heart medication because they're as old as he is. And I do have experience: Experience at not going to war. That's why not having gone to Iraq is the perfect solution for me. It's one I'm uniquely able to espouse and have been consistent on. Years ago I said we shouldn't invade Iraq, and that is still my solution.
A few have said that not going to Iraq isn't a solution anymore since we already have gone there. I hear your concern and I have three words for you: Hope. Change. The future.
That's right: The future. And not just any future; a future where we look forward and say, 'We shouldn't have gone to Iraq.'
Barack Obama is a U.S. Senator from Illinois who enjoys nap time and finger painting. He is running for president.
www.imao.us
'So, who CARES who wins? I do.'
So do I, but I have arrived at the opposite of your conclusion.
RE:'I believe Hillary would do less damage then Obama on the off chance either of them were elected. I honestly do not see how we can salvage things with either of them in power as we are heading for a series of daunting challenges that the country is just living in denial about.'
I agree, the challenges are here and they do threaten to overwhelm us. There is nothing new about that. Take a hard look at what happened during FDR's time. I believe that the Clintons would do far more damage than Barak Obama because they would likely stay in the White House for eight years. If someone slips too much cyanide into your food, you will throw it up before it can do too much damage. If, on the other hand, the use the right amount it will get into your bloodstream and kill you before anything can be done for you. I see no chance of Senator Obama being in office for more than four years. More importantly, I think he is far less likely to win the general election than current appearances would suggest.
RE:'Our national debt is huge yet we are talking about piling on more entitlement programs that will absolutely tank us.'
If we do not make changes to the 'entitlement' programs now in existence we are already tanked.
RE:'Our economy is losing jobs yet we are talking about taxing cooperations out of the country.'
What do mean 'we', Kimosabe? Both the Clntions and Senator Obama are talking about this, but not all of us and certainly not John McCain. Americans like to gripe about the big corporations, but most of the DO understand who gives them jobs and where their money comes from. There are two major causes for corporate migration. One is corporate taxes. The other, far more important cause is that our government has driven the true cost of labor out of sight in the United States. Both of these problems need to be addressed. Simply reducing corporate tax rates will not stop the hemorrhaging.
RE:'Oil is at over $100 a barrel yet we are talking about abandoning the middle east to al Qaeda and Iran. Want to see what price oil goes for when the Strait of Hormuz is shut down? Additionally, we have idiots picking a fight with Canada over NAFTA which they would just LOVE to 'renegotiate' because we get most of our oil from them and they could get more for it elsewhere.'
While I that simply abandoning Iraq is a horrific idea, we must face up to the fact that we are at war with Islam. The war with Islam is not, strictly speaking, a military fight, but a philosophical battle that we are ill-equipped to tackle. If we continue with our current strategy there will be serious bloodshed in the Middle East. So far, the bloodshed there has been relatively minor. The only military solution we have to this situation is too horrible to contemplate. The far better strategy is to start a crash program aimed at reducing the value of the region.
Many will complain loud and long about such a program, but what is the alternative? Do we keep fighting on the ground there until we rung out of nineteen year old recruits? Or do we resort to a truly murderous air campaign? The latter option would work, but no one will like the pictures that will come from it. Countries like Iran get away with their behavior because they are confident that we will never pull out all the stops.
RE:'We are facing a resurgent Russia and China yet we have people talking about systematically disassembling our military.'
I would not mind a 'resurgent' Russia or China, provided they had also made significant changes in their polities. Unfortunately, the changes in their polities are not for the better and both countries are economically resurgent owing in large part to our foolish belief in 'trade' as a panacea. I agree with you that we need a large and positively vicious military.
RE;'I honestly can not begin to understand how anyone with enough intelligence to be able to put food in their own mouths could seriously consider either of them. However, I believe Obama would be the worse of the 2.'
Why would Senator Obama necessarily be the worst of the two? I cannot follow you thinking on this point.
RE:'The only upside is that the damage caused by 1 term of Obama will kill off the far leftist, socialist mindset in this country forever. The down side is that it will be a much harsher country, with much diminished prospects, and much less standing because of it.'
I think the upside as you describe it would be well worth the price you suggest we would pay. Think about it. How hard could it possibly get compared to what will happen if we maintain our current course? We are headed down the same road all socialist countries have followed, with the only difference being is that we are doing it in half-steps.
Let's take our medicine and be done with it.
Stuff waiting in the wings:
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/incomingFeeds/article3466827.ece
snippet:'As a former friend and neighbour of Rezko, Obama was also a political beneficiary of the Syrian-born millionaire’s extensive fundraising operations. Central to the prosecution’s case against Rezko is a $375,000 (£187,500) payoff - called a “finder’s fee” - that is alleged to have been skimmed illegally from investment fees paid by the Illinois state teachers’ pension fund.'
There ain't no need for panic just yet.
'..the solution was to never have gone there in the first place...' Barak Obama (maybe?)
Too late for that old chestnut Senator.
Interesting, this man who says he's about the future and THAT was his response....
This is not everything I was hoping for, but politics is a game in which you take what you can get when you can get it. There will always be another chance for another grab:
www.exploremccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/13bc1d97-4ca5-49dd-9805-1 297872571ed.htm
I said that with Bush 2....
How's that working, so far....?
RE:'How's that working, so far....?'
Not nearly so well as any one of us would like. What else is new?
..not these candidates, that's for sure.
' I believe that the Clintons would do far more damage than Barak Obama because they would likely stay in the White House for eight years.'
I do not think they could get in in the first place.
'If someone slips too much cyanide into your food, you will throw it up before it can do too much damage.'
I get the analogy but the whole idea is to avoid getting poisoned.
'I see no chance of Senator Obama being in office for more than four years.
Never underestimate the potential of the average person to be had and had again.
' More importantly, I think he is far less likely to win the general election than current appearances would suggest.'
Less likely perhaps, but again he has a core of support that is very motivated. Hillary does not.
'If we do not make changes to the 'entitlement' programs now in existence we are already tanked. '
At this point, yes. A pity because it didn't need to come to that. Can you imagine adding more?
'Americans like to gripe about the big corporations, but most of the DO understand who gives them jobs and where their money comes from. '
Do they?
'The other, far more important cause is that our government has driven the true cost of labor out of sight in the United States. '
This is where I diverge from the 'free trade is always good' line of thinking. I don't think we should be giving completely equal access to companies that ship their industries overseas and assemble their products under inhumane conditions and taking advantage of currencies that are deliberately kept undervalued. To me those are unfair subsidies that should be addressed.
At the very least, the country of origin of every product that we buy should be printed on the price tag.
'we must face up to the fact that we are at war with Islam.'
I disagree. That is not a war that we want nor one hat we could win without engaging the enemy in a way that makes Genghis Kahn look like Mr.Rogers.
'ut a philosophical battle that we are ill-equipped to tackle.'
The 'philosophical battle' is one that we can win hands down. Time and time again people have chosen western, secularist, modernism over backward, abusive, dogmatic, totalitarian, soul crushing theocracy. That is basically why the islamists have pushed back so hard. They see their control, their absolute control being washed away on a wave of western pop culture and consumerism that their message of blind 'submission' to them couldn't begin to compete with.
'If we continue with our current strategy there will be serious bloodshed in the Middle East.'
I do not agree. (unless Iran nukes Israel or the Israelis launch a preemptive strike) Indeed, the situation in Sunni Iraq has provided insight in to how to deal with these thugs. After getting to know al Qaeda close up and personal the Sunnis were more then happy to switch over to the American alternative. What will be the lesson to the rest of the region if we just pack up and leave the Sunnis who have sided with us against aL Qaeda to be slaughtered by them? Anyone with a brain in their heads will see that Americans are fickle and can't be trusted. Al Qaeda will have demonstrated that they can out last us and that the only other alternative to them is a bullet in the head.
'The far better strategy is to start a crash program aimed at reducing the value of the region.'
It wouldn't be necessary (or even proper) if there were a viable alternative provided. Iran and Iraq were once relatively cosmopolitan countries, even when they were populated by 'Muslims'. When political islam came in and took over (via the Muslim brotherhood and the Iranian revolution and the Saudi Salafis/Wahabists.) the very first thing they do is to consolidate their control by perusing the old totalitarian methods of punishing individualism and independence of thought. Do that for a few generations and it becomes ingrained in their psyche.
'I would not mind a 'resurgent' Russia or China, provided they had also made significant changes in their polities.'
Their politics are predicated on taking on us.
'Why would Senator Obama necessarily be the worst of the two? '
It is a matter of degrees. As you have pointed out he is further to the end of the spectrum in most of his ideas. His policies are going to cost more. He wants to get them done faster. It is the difference between shooting yourself in one foot and figuring out that it hurts and shooting yourself in both feet at once before the reaction can set in.
'I think the upside as you describe it would be well worth the price you suggest we would pay.'
I actually see democracy as a battle of ideas. I would not like to see an overreaction towards the right any more then I want to see an over reaction to the left. In my perfect little world people would examine a problem and the consequences of their decisions and reason it out to the best of their ability then take action. I do not want people doing something because the 'right' tribe wants to beat the 'left' tribe or vice versa. I do not want to see the pendulum swinging toward the extreme on either side.
So no; capitulation to islamists and a collapsed economy for stifled creativity and a bunch of morality pests wagging their fingers, not to mention having to dig our way out of a much deeper mess is not the way I would like to put an end to the infantile streak in our society that seeks to replace individual responsibility with a nanny state. Ideally I could just mock them all to death on the internet. ;-)
'Let's take our medicine and be done with it.'
Remember your cyanide analogy?
More obamaesqe straight talk about 'the future':
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xes0F36eTJA
RE:'I do not think they could get in in the first place.'
This explains a lot of difference on this issue. I don't think John McCain can win against the Clintons. He is too much like them and will find himself in the same situation that the Clintons are in against Senator Obama. We can help McCain against Senator Obama. I am not at all sure that persuasion will get anywhere against the Clintons.
RE:'I get the analogy but the whole idea is to avoid getting poisoned.'
Herein lies the rub. We are already being poisoned by just the right amount.
RE:'Never underestimate the potential of the average person to be had and had again.'
I have read Senator Obama's positions. My estimation of him is that the learning curve will kill him.
RE:'Less likely perhaps, but again he has a core of support that is very motivated. Hillary does not.'
Only because she is up against the super-salesmanship of Senator Obama and there is insufficient contrast between hers and Senator Obama's positions. With Senator Oabama up against Senator McCain the contrast is clear enough to be seen.
Re:'At this point, yes. A pity because it didn't need to come to that. Can you imagine adding more?'
The truth is, we should never have installed these programs in the first place. Yes, I CAN imagine more of them. That is entirely too easily envisioned for comfort.
RE:'Do they?'
Right now, if polls are to be believed, they have more faith in the corporations than they have in our Peerless Leaders.
RE:'This is where I diverge from the 'free trade is always good' line of thinking. I don't think we should be giving completely equal access to companies that ship their industries overseas and assemble their products under inhumane conditions and taking advantage of currencies that are deliberately kept undervalued. To me those are unfair subsidies that should be addressed.'
Here we are in full agreement.
RE:'I disagree. That is not a war that we want nor one hat we could win without engaging the enemy in a way that makes Genghis Kahn look like Mr.Rogers.'
We can, but only by refusing them any more largess. If we keep engaging them on the ground the way we are now, we are going to bleed ourselves to death.
RE:'The 'philosophical battle' is one that we can win hands down.'
You don't know how hard I wish this were true, but there is too much evidence to the contrary to be ignored.
Re:'Time and time again people have chosen western, secularist, modernism over backward, abusive, dogmatic, totalitarian, soul crushing theocracy. That is basically why the islamists have pushed back so hard. They see their control, their absolute control being washed away on a wave of western pop culture and consumerism that their message of blind 'submission' to them couldn't begin to compete with.'
True, but the fanaticism is spreading rapidly. We are funding that spread and inciting it at one and the same time.
Re:'I do not agree. (unless Iran nukes Israel or the Israelis launch a preemptive strike) Indeed, the situation in Sunni Iraq has provided insight in to how to deal with these thugs. After getting to know al Qaeda close up and personal the Sunnis were more then happy to switch over to the American alternative.'
I suppose someone finally read up on Lawrence and decided to adopt the tactics he used during WWI. We are paying them AND giving them military support. How do we do this and continuing to blow money on crude oil?
Re:'What will be the lesson to the rest of the region if we just pack up and leave the Sunnis who have sided with us against aL Qaeda to be slaughtered by them? Anyone with a brain in their heads will see that Americans are fickle and can't be trusted. Al Qaeda will have demonstrated that they can out last us and that the only other alternative to them is a bullet in the head.'
I quite agree, but now freedom in our own country is at severe risk. Which problem to we give priority?
RE:'It wouldn't be necessary (or even proper) if there were a viable alternative provided. Iran and Iraq were once relatively cosmopolitan countries, even when they were populated by 'Muslims'. When political islam came in and took over (via the Muslim brotherhood and the Iranian revolution and the Saudi Salafis/Wahabists.) the very first thing they do is to consolidate their control by perusing the old totalitarian methods of punishing individualism and independence of thought. Do that for a few generations and it becomes ingrained in their psyche.'
Indeed, and by keeping the price of oil high, we make it easy for them to keep right on doing what they are doing right now. Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and numerous other countries are not and never have been 'cosmopolitan'. Turkey, now still fairly cosmopolitan is slipping backwards as you and I have this discussion.
RE:'Their politics are predicated on taking on us.'
Yet we foolishly keep on trading with them while maintaining the charade that China and Russia are our 'friends' and unlikely to cause us any trouble.
RE:'It is a matter of degrees. As you have pointed out he is further to the end of the spectrum in most of his ideas. His policies are going to cost more. He wants to get them done faster. It is the difference between shooting yourself in one foot and figuring out that it hurts and shooting yourself in both feet at once before the reaction can set in.'
And the contrast between his ideas and those of Senator McCain is much greater than the contrast between Senator McCain and the Clintons.
RE:'I actually see democracy as a battle of ideas.'
As do I. Unfortunately, the Republicans are about to field a candidate who has some very bad ideas.
RE:I would not like to see an overreaction towards the right any more then I want to see an over reaction to the left.'
I might well agree with you, it would likely depend on the particular issues in question. How do you define 'right' versus 'left?'
RE:'In my perfect little world people would examine a problem and the consequences of their decisions and reason it out to the best of their ability then take action. I do not want people doing something because the 'right' tribe wants to beat the 'left' tribe or vice versa. I do not want to see the pendulum swinging toward the extreme on either side.'
True of most Americans, I think, but then most Americans do not have a coherent philosophy by which they can make such decisions. They go more on their feelings, their 'sense of life' if you would, then they do on rational thought.
RE:'So no; capitulation to islamists and a collapsed economy for stifled creativity and a bunch of morality pests wagging their fingers, not to mention having to dig our way out of a much deeper mess is not the way I would like to put an end to the infantile streak in our society that seeks to replace individual responsibility with a nanny state. Ideally I could just mock them all to death on the internet. ;-)'
Would that we could.
RE:'Remember your cyanide analogy?'
And that is my point. The dose we are getting right now is to weak to make us throw up.
In my ideal world, none of this would be necessary. It ain't ideal, though. The world is what it is and we must find a way to cope with it. The only thing we can try to build now with available materials is Senator McCain as President, Mitt Romney in charge of the DoE and Mike Huckabee at treasury.
' I don't think John McCain can win against the Clintons. '
If Hillary can turn things around in Texas and Ohio the nomination process will drag on to the convention which will positively turn off the suporters of whomever is declared the loser on the next election. To have it declared by a bunch of undemocratic, back room political bosses send them over to McCain or demoralize them in to staying home. I think the impact would be greater on the Obama campaign because his base historically is the lowest turn out. That scenario would be lovely.
Either way, Clinton has waaay too much core opposition and not a whole lot of money left. She is the weakest link.
' He is too much like them and will find himself in the same situation that the Clintons are in against Senator Obama.'
I do not think that is fair to senator McCain. John McCain has an authentic love for this country and a genuine sense of obligation and duty to it. The Clinton's have a genuine love for themselves and power and have a genuine sense of cannibalizing anyone who gets in their way.
'We can help McCain against Senator Obama.'
We shall see.
'We are already being poisoned by just the right amount.'
It isn't as bad as all that and there really is no other choice but to stay in the fight. There is no lifeboat, even if there were I am an American. Making it worse in order to make it better might just make it irrecoverable.
'My estimation of him is that the learning curve will kill him. '
Neither he or senator Clinton will have anything to slow them down. Both the House and the Senate are going to be under democratic control.
' With Senator Oabama up against Senator McCain the contrast is clear enough to be seen.'
Yes, but there is that 'Super salesmanship' thing going, not to mention rafts of money.
'The truth is, we should never have installed these programs in the first place.'
There are things a society should do in order to protect people who can not protect themselves. The issue is, as usual, where to draw the line and how to implement them.
' If we keep engaging them on the ground the way we are now, we are going to bleed ourselves to death. '
We have lost less people in Iraq and Afghanistan then we lost during the campaign to take Iwo Jima. Less then a third of the number killed taking Okinawa. That is not to say that this is acceptable in the long term but the thing is we have had war declared on us. If we were willing to go that distance to capture 2 little islands after Pearl Harbor we should be willing to stick with what we have started in the aftermath of 9/11. Most people in this country could not be more oblivious to what is being given up in order to answer the monsters that attacked us.'Bleeding ourselves to death' isn't happening. It has fallen on the shoulders of a disproportionately tiny segment of our population who have amazed and humbled me to my core. The rest just go about getting glazed over at what Paris wore or how snotty that bitchy fellow on American Idol is.
'but there is too much evidence to the contrary to be ignored.'
Well you best get fitted for a prayer rug then.
'True, but the fanaticism is spreading rapidly.'
Well, no. It has suffered setbacks. The main one is the one that we are talking about abandoning.
'We are funding that spread'
Well we can't drill in Anwar because of the Porcupine caribou, we can't drill of shore because of NIMBY, we can't get it out of the shale in Wyoming and Colorado because we can't et up a project as environmentally destructive as the Alberta tar sands, we can't build nuclear power plants because they are scary....
'and inciting it at one and the same time.'
The fact that we are infidels and can build skyscrapers is all the incitement they need to knock them down.
'I suppose someone finally read up on Lawrence and decided to adopt the tactics he used during WWI.'
Eeer, I don't think that is giving him nearly enough credit.
'I quite agree, but now freedom in our own country is at severe risk. Which problem to we give priority?'
Giving up one in order to get the other is not a realistic scenario. Indeed, BOTH battles have to be one in order to secure a victory in what will always be a struggle.
'and by keeping the price of oil high, we make it easy for them to keep right on doing what they are doing right now. '
See the 'Porcupine Caribou' portion of the diatribe. I wish I knew something about chemistry because whomever can make a workable gasoline alternative is going to be richer then Oprah.
'Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and numerous other countries are not and never have been 'cosmopolitan'.'
Saudi Arabia is a god forsaken sh*thole. The UAE IS actually pretty cosmopolitan by Persian Gulf standards. Indeed, Dubai is a fairly tolerant city, again by middle eastern standards.
'As do I. Unfortunately, the Republicans are about to field a candidate who has some very bad ideas.'
I honestly have faith in his character and judgment. I do not agree with everything he advocates but I believe he will not dogmatically peruse something if it is proving to be impractical. Compare that to Bush.
'How do you define 'right' versus 'left?''
2 directions on a horizontal axis away from a central point. :-) It originally had to do with the left bank and the right bank of the seine river in Paris where the 'intellectuals' and the 'reactionaries' lived.
'Would that we could.'
Working on it.
'The dose we are getting right now is to weak to make us throw up.'
A high enough dose will kill you outright.
Just lost another reader.
This site has become the Noharness/SP4 show.
These two suck worse than american politics.
Goodby, M&C.
seeeeee ya!
Because we don't want ass prints on our door.
RE:'If Hillary can turn things around in Texas and Ohio the nomination process will drag on to the convention which will positively turn off the supporters of whomever is declared the loser on the next election. To have it declared by a bunch of undemocratic, back room political bosses send them over to McCain or demoralize them in to staying home. I think the impact would be greater on the Obama campaign because his base historically is the lowest turn out. That scenario would be lovely.'
That may or may not happen. It may or may not disappoint and demoralize he difference that will put Senator McCain in office. As good as Senator Obama is, I don't think he can keep up the act throughout the general election. The Clintons, on the other hand, have a proven track record. They have been elected twice to the Presidency. They are running for an unconstitutional third term. Remember, Senator Clinton is a big drinking buddy of Senator McCain's. I think it far wiser to have someone running against him whomo he will learn to despise, even he heeds the need to maintain his decorum.
RE:'We shall see.'
I truly believe that we can.
RE:'It isn't as bad as all that and there really is no other choice but to stay in the fight. There is no lifeboat, even if there were I am an American. Making it worse in order to make it better might just make it irrecoverable.'
I have watched for years. The rise of statism in this country has bee slow but steady. It has risen because it has never been obnoxious enough to a large enough segment of our population for a majority to reject it for the poison that it is. If we do not bring it to a cold dead stop, the change is CERTAIN to become irrevocable.
RE:'Neither he or senator Clinton will have anything to slow them down. Both the House and the Senate are going to be under democratic control.'
For two years at the most. It may well turn out that we will have a parity or even a small majority of Republicans after the general election.
RE:'Yes, but there is that 'Super salesmanship' thing going, not to mention rafts of money.'
The money will not help him once people start seeing him for what he is.
RE:'There are things a society should do in order to protect people who can not protect themselves. The issue is, as usual, where to draw the line and how to implement them.'
Charity enforced by the muzzle of a gun cannot be said to be charity at all. The means by which such problems are handled are every bit as important as dealing with the problem.
RE:'We have lost less people in Iraq and Afghanistan then we lost during the campaign to take Iwo Jima. Less then a third of the number killed taking Okinawa. That is not to say that this is acceptable in the long term but the thing is we have had war declared on us. If we were willing to go that distance to capture 2 little islands after Pearl Harbor we should be willing to stick with what we have started in the aftermath of 9/11. Most people in this country could not be more oblivious to what is being given up in order to answer the monsters that attacked us.'Bleeding ourselves to death' isn't happening. It has fallen on the shoulders of a disproportionately tiny segment of our population who have amazed and humbled me to my core. The rest just go about getting glazed over at what Paris wore or how snotty that bitchy fellow on American Idol is.'
Actually, we have taken fewer physical casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan than we have taken in automobile accidents for the same time period. However, this is only if you count physical casualties and ignore what duty in Iraq and Afghanistan is doing to the mental well-being of our troops. I would say that Iwo Jima might have actually been easier to cope with psychologically. The rules of engagement on Iwo were quite simple. If you see someone carrying a gun who is not wearing an American uniform, shoot his ass. Coping with what we are asking of our people in Iraq and Afghanistan right now is a truly sore trial.
RE: 'Well you best get fitted for a prayer rug then.'
You assume that I think we will surrender, but I have not. Why do you suppose you and I are having this correspondence? Habituating forums like this are not much fun for me. I am driven to participate by what I see as the necessity of it. I make no bones about it. We are at war with Islam. Not 'radical' Islam or 'Islamic Fanatics' or 'Islamo-fascists', WE ARE AT WAR WITH ISLAM. All religions are bad, but this one is positively atrocious.
RE:'Well, no. It has suffered setbacks. The main one is the one that we are talking about abandoning.'
About what Senators Obama and Clinton pretend to be willing to abandon. The Democrats play by incredibly cynical rules. Try as either of them may, both of them know that we will not be leaving Iraq any time soon. I am guessing that they are both thinking about instituting a draft because we are stretched way too thin. We are just now consolidating our hold on Iraq, but the TAliban are threatening to cause us serious trouble. Pakistan is about to crumble like a stale cookie and now we have trouble in both Palestine and in South America. I don't believe in consequences. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is coordinating this shit-storm and behind him are Russia and China.
RE:'Well we can't drill in Anwar because of the Porcupine caribou, we can't drill off shore because of NIMBY, we can't get it out of the shale in Wyoming and Colorado because we can't set up a project as environmentally destructive as the Alberta tar sands, we can't build nuclear power plants because they are scary....'
Oh, yes we can, but we will have to defeat the Democrats so soundly that they are unable to do anything more than stamp their feet and pout. We will also find ourselves struggling with John McCain over some of these things. He is very reluctant to upset the likes of Senator Clinton or Babs Boxer.
RE:'The fact that we are infidels and can build skyscrapers is all the incitement they need to knock them down.'
Exactly.
RE:'Eeer, I don't think that is giving him nearly enough credit.'
I readily concede your point. Touche.
RE:'Giving up one in order to get the other is not a realistic scenario. Indeed, BOTH battles have to be one in order to secure a victory in what will always be a struggle.'
Okay, where do we start our rear-guard action? At home, or elsewhere?
RE:'See the 'Porcupine Caribou' portion of the diatribe. I wish I knew something about chemistry because whomever can make a workable gasoline alternative is going to be richer then Oprah.'
Sadly, that will not happen no matter how great a chemist there is in this world. The problem lies in the field of physics. Gasoline as a gift given to us by the sun and the ancient life it sustained. The ONLY thing we can reliably replace it with is nuclear power.
RE:'Saudi Arabia is a god forsaken sh*thole. The UAE IS actually pretty cosmopolitan by Persian Gulf standards. Indeed, Dubai is a fairly tolerant city, again by middle eastern standards.'
Take a hard look at them, as I have, and you will discover that there are no 'moderates' among them. Islam makes no allowances for the beliefs of others. Anyone who does not accept the tenets of Islam are second class citizens at best. Most 'infidels' are nothing more than targets or objects of sadistic pleasure. Oh, and if you happen to be a woman who believes in Islam, you are a second class citizen or less anyway. There is no such thing as a 'moderate' Muslim. They cannot be both 'moderate' and Islamic. It is a logical impossibility. This is why I say that we are at war with Islam. The religion itself is an unpardonable sin and a crime against humanity.
RE:'I honestly have faith in his character and judgment. I do not agree with everything he advocates but I believe he will not dogmatically peruse something if it is proving to be impractical. Compare that to Bush.'
My opinion of him has improved, but only marginally. I do believe his heart is in the right place, but I remain dubious about his judgment. In fairness, that would probably be my opinion of any Republican candidate.
RE:'2 directions on a horizontal axis away from a central point. :-) It originally had to do with the left bank and the right bank of the seine river in Paris where the 'intellectuals' and the 'reactionaries' lived.'
I can buy that. We would need to become involved in prolonged discussion to figure out the limits of our differences.
Re'Working on it.'
Agreed. I'm with you on this.
RE:'A high enough dose will kill you outright.'
If you are bad enough shape, yes. I think we are in good enough shape that we would drop to our knees, throw up everything, right down to our socks and shoes, then come up fighting mad.
We do not agree because our assessments differ on key issues, not because either of us has failed to think things through. I love this kind of discussion and it has been a real pleasure.
Noharness.
Obama wants to raise social security taxes and income taxes on us and we can't afford that. I'd much rather raise the revenue by taking away the oil company subsidies. Hillary is the best chance we have of having an economy that works again. The Clintons gave us 10% annual returns in the stock market. Shrub gave us 1% annual returns on average. Hillary for sure is the one to turn it around.
What, Praytell, were the Clintons credited for in the stock market of the 1990's?
I was around in the tech bubble of the 1990's but show me one iota of proof that President Clinton, let alone Hillary, had one scintila of influence over what was really just a protean technical leap forward.
I would agree that he ramrodded NAFTA through, although I don't think you'll see him/her taking credit for THAT anytime soon, right? Nonetheless, give credit where it's due...
Now, if you want to discuss all the greasy LBO's and influence the Clintons peddled to the oil companies, Boeing, etc., perahps you could credit them for that, but I hardly doubt THAT drove the economy of the 1990's. Don't worry though, if Hillary gets in, they'll stand at the door to see her and their cashier, Sandy Berglar.
Wake up Joe. Bill Clinton was the monkeyboy of his generation. The guy could have been bigger than Kennedy, and squandered it for a blow job. Stocks??? Not a chance!
'As good as Senator Obama is, I don't think he can keep up the act throughout the general election.'
Lets hope not.
'The Clintons, on the other hand, have a proven track record. '
Much higher core negatives, much less buzz, much less money, people just do not like her. Likability/popularity is a big part of the decision making of a lot of their constituents.
'Remember, Senator Clinton is a big drinking buddy of Senator McCain's'
One 'vodka-drinking contest' doesn't make them drinking buddies. He called her daughter the ugly product of an affair between her and Janet Reno, not quite the 'ol drinking buddy banter. (I guess that depends on the drinking buddy.)
'If we do not bring it to a cold dead stop, the change is CERTAIN to become irrevocable.'
Again, I do not think electing an incompetent to provide a disastrous example of how to screw up a country is a good way of tackling the issue.
There is one more thing that you and I have not touched on in the personal responsibility/government responsibility issue and that is the role of the individual to effect change without relying on the government to do it. Electing McCain who is soft on border control for instance doesn't mean that there is no other way of pushing for border control through political action comities or even direct action. If you wish to fight creeping governmental control you are probably going to have to do it in a way that isn't relying on the government to do it. In other words, te rise of 'statism' is precisely because people defer responsibility to the government to solve problems like...statism.
'For two years at the most.'
1) Not necessarily, indeed, probably not. 2) Even if it were just the first 100 days think of the mess.
'The money will not help him once people start seeing him for what he is.'
The money will help him not to show people what he is. Seriously.
'Charity enforced by the muzzle of a gun cannot be said to be charity at all.'
Charity got killed off ages ago. I believe that government can have a role in preventing unnecessary suffering among people who can not fend for themselves. That isn't even 'charity' per se it's enlightened self internist.
'this is only if you count physical casualties and ignore what duty in Iraq and Afghanistan is doing to the mental well-being of our troops.'
The ones I know are more well adjusted then your average New Yorker.
'Habituating forums like this are not much fun for me.'
It is getting old here as well.
'WE ARE AT WAR WITH ISLAM.'
No, and if you frame it as such it is one that we are not willing to do what it takes to win. I can certainly see how you could have come to that conclusion having seen what they are capable of and having read the hate literature that is the Koran but: To be at war with islam is to be at war with Muslims... all of them. There is a war going on within islam between the 'sane's' and the 'crazy's'. Our best bet is to fight one and encourage the other. At the end of the day, most people just want to get by.
'All religions are bad,'
When is the last time you saw a Presbyterian fly an aircraft full of people in to a building full of people?
'Try as either of them may, both of them know that we will not be leaving Iraq any time soon.'
I can only take them at what they are saying that they are going to do.
'I am guessing that they are both thinking about instituting a draft because we are stretched way too thin.'
No, that would be counterproductive. We have 2 and a half million people in uniform, the fact that this is being loaded on to the back of about 300,000 of them has a whole lot less to do with numbers as it does with mismanagement. True, you can't take someone out of a sub and give them a rifle but you can rotate people in and out of areas that were set up to fight the Warsaw Pact or Red Chinese, at least until it is manageable. You could also enlarge the size of the Army and Marines which McCain intends to do.
'Okay, where do we start our rear-guard action? At home, or elsewhere? '
I suppose individually you need to identify something that you wish to change or re-affirm. I volunteer for the Navy/Marine relief as a way of reaffirming something and I am going to become more involved in the political campaign after the middle of April as a way of preventing 'hope and change'. That is as much of a 2 front war as my knee can take. ;-)
'Sadly, that will not happen no matter how great a chemist there is in this world.'
Well, there ought to be ways of maximizing the efficiency of what we are using now (Diesel, oil-less 2 stroke, carbon fiber and composites to reduce weight, ceramics to reduce rotating mass, etc.) There really isn't any reason why we couldn't have a clean diesel commuter car that gets 125 mpg tomorrow. The Germans have a little VW diesel that gets almost 200mpg.
I suspect people are not willing to accept the trade offs.
'The ONLY thing we can reliably replace it with is nuclear power.'
I am for nuclear power but we do not have the infrastructure for it and won't for 15/20 years even if we start tomorrow. Something has to give before that and the smart money is on an economic contraction lessoning demand.
'Take a hard look at them, as I have, and you will discover that there are no 'moderates' among them.'
Again, I can see how you would have come to that conclusion. I have been though the region though and I have met 'moderates'. Really, there are a lot of people who are sick of having it crammed down their throats.
' I think we are in good enough shape that we would drop to our knees, throw up everything, right down to our socks and shoes, then come up fighting mad.'
I don't want it to come to that and I don't know whether or not we would 'get up'. Look at the UK, they are just getting out.
'I love this kind of discussion and it has been a real pleasure.'
Me too, cheers Noharness.
..there's no going back kids. There's no economic contraction, that'll solve the energy issue, walking away from the terror problem, even if you walk away from Iraq, or Afghanistan.
This is a bottom-up enemy. This is mothers who have decided death is better for their child than life. Indeed, several Al Qaeda notables have said exactly that. They can't be placated, they cannot be bargained with. They're coming and we need a plan. Think 25 to 50 years.
Imagine WWII with these guys instead of Germans and Japanese. Imagine that the lowest guy on the totem pole was so motivated, you had to chain his ass up at night. Imagine every one of them as a self motivated killing machine. How do you think it'd have turned out? Our problem is not enough people are dying at once to focus us on the threat. This is it's real danger: were asleep.
There's no going backwards. Everyone gets nostalgic for the old days, but they are O-V-E-R. If we do not grab life by the horns, we'll get the horns in our asses.
We are dependent on coal. This won't change for 15 or 20 years, even if we stat tomorrow, but we can use it wisely while we start a solution. Curiously, I find the real solution is a mix, for now. Fusion is the end game. We need to put a foot up it's ass and get there.
Same with oil. We need electricity for cars, and it's coming. the average trip in America is about 40 miles. A hybrid that can do this on batteries would only gas up about 8 to 12 times a year. The best part is all this touted 'green' power i.e. wind, solar, etc. It's drawback is it's intermittent supply. With a ready market and storage i.e. car batts, the Eco-nuts will pay more for it. With this, we can use hydrogen as the portable fuel. It's lack of energy vs. hydrocarbons is mitigated by a hybrid design. Most of all, we need to do this now and I'm encouraged by the rapid growth of the power sources. All we need now is the vehicles.
Solutions exist right now. What we lack is will. This president doesn't lack will, he lacks follow-through. A guy with this will be the one to help us move forward. While I like Bush, he just wanted to pass some laws and leave. He never bargained for the heavy lifting. Think about THAT when you go to vote.
But, we're never going to do it, if we cannot see clearly, invent false enemies like global warming, or NAFTA, or the endless investigations of folks who clearly break no laws. A senator or congressman can, year after year, get elected and screw off, while presidents have about 28 to 40 real months to get stuff done. These jerks just stonewall and wait it out, year after year, servicing everyone but their constituents.
It's the high road or no road at all. We are living in an new era. Ahe old hatreds are now exported via air travel and the Internet to all points on the globe. We need to be first in everything, faster, smarter and more motivated than they are and they are really f--king motivated. If this sounds threatening, that is because it is. We need to play to win.
Most of all, we're up to it. We have a military that is totally volunteer, and it wins all the battles. We have Universities that foreigners are dying to get into. We have the most productive, creative workforce in the world, I don't give a crap who thinks otheriwise. If we lose, it's because we did not want to win, and losing is unthinkable.
Rock on.
obama in is lack of respect and arrogance has now made sexist claws comments..He is showing his true colors..lack of experience on the day his buddy and campaign manager gets hauled into court for money laundering..his pal Resko..chicago..
Please send money to the Hillary Clinton campaign and help her gain votes .help bring back the american spirit and put our nation back on track..Dont allow your children and friend to be drafted by obama and sent to southern sudan to fight and die for OIL...check it..
Send the cash now..go to Hillaryclinton.com
I love it how some of you discuss the dangers of islam radicalism completely forgetting to address your domestic fanatics.I saw a documentary from the the BBC on american fundamentalist,you probably know some evangelists in your own surrounding on a religious pree in Israel,comforting the Israeli's in their fight against the palestinians .These tourists are more fanatic than any Al Quaida terorists in their thinking.pering over the fence and barbed wire that is supposed to keep the palestinions out of the land that was stolen from them in 1967 and given to colonists from Europe,Russia and the USA they had the nerve to declare that 'those living on the other side of the fence were god's ennemies 'As if the palestinians were 'untermenschen' of some sort,a sub species of humanity ,to be eradicated .Even the Israeli soldiers looked embarassed by these supporters of 'God's cause .Small wonder as they consider themselves sometimes to be God's choosen people too .How nice and cosy to discuss the dangers of islam fundamentalists and at the same time defend your own fanatics in the name of your constitution .
Dare I say it would be a lot easier to combat your own fantics,conveniently available in your own country ,first of all?At least you don't have to go far....
RE:'I love it how some of you discuss the dangers of islam radicalism completely forgetting to address your domestic fanatics.'
Oh, I haven't forgotten them, they are simply the least of my worries at the moment.
RE:'I saw a documentary from the the BBC on american fundamentalist,you probably know some evangelists in your own surrounding on a religious pree in Israel,comforting the Israeli's in their fight against the palestinians .'
And why shouldn't they? If you are expecting sympathy from me for the 'Palestinians', forget it. They deserve no such sympathy.
RE:'These tourists are more fanatic than any Al Quaida terorists in their thinking.'
Says you and that proves to all and sundry about the clarity of your thinking.
RE:'pering over the fence and barbed wire that is supposed to keep the palestinions out of the land that was stolen from them in 1967 and given to colonists from Europe,Russia and the USA they had the nerve to declare that 'those living on the other side of the fence were god's ennemies 'As if the palestinians were 'untermenschen' of some sort,a sub species of humanity ,to be eradicated .'
And you very conveniently overlook the cause behind the 1967 war. I remain unimpressed with your assertion here, Tonny. You'll have to do better if you want to have a reasonable discourses over this.
Re:'Even the Israeli soldiers looked embarassed by these supporters of 'God's cause .Small wonder as they consider themselves sometimes to be God's choosen people too .How nice and cosy to discuss the dangers of islam fundamentalists and at the same time defend your own fanatics in the name of your constitution .'
Up yours. Show me where any such defense has been made on this forum.
Re:'Dare I say it would be a lot easier to combat your own fantics,conveniently available in your own country ,first of all?At least you don't have to go far....'
Oddly enough, Tonny, defeating religious ideas here is likely key to defeating Islam. That's why I know we are in for a long and terrible war. Most of it, however, will not be fought on battlefields. It is a battle in which you are not much of an asset.
Re:'We are dependent on coal. This won't change for 15 or 20 years, even if we stat tomorrow, but we can use it wisely while we start a solution.'
That ten to twenty years could be greatly reduced. I think we could do it in less than ten if we decided that this is what we wanted to do. It would not be cheap, but it could be done.
RE:'Fusion is the end game. We need to put a foot up it's ass and get there.'
Fusion ain't happenin' in our lifetimes, at least not with the the current approaches. We have been struggling with them now since 1953. So far, not one of those designs have produced so much as a milliwatt of power more than they consume. Worse, I don't think that they ever will. There is only one approach that I have looked at that seems to offer any real promise and research on it remains unfunded by any government entity.
www.fusor.net/
The guy that invented television cameras and receivers, Philo T. Farnsworth, had a better approach to nuclear fusion than any of his better educated peers. This approach might, mind you I say MIGHT work. There are no guarantees.
The problem with fusion is that unlike all the other reactions we use to produce usable energy, it is NOT a chain reaction. All the other reactions we use, chemical and nuclear, ARE chain reactions. Fusion reactions are in no way self-sustaining. While this means that it is nearly impossible to have a runaway fusion accident, it also means that it is nearly impossible to extract useful energy from the reactions involved.
The money we are now spending on ITER is a complete waste of time, money and talented manpower.
RE:'Same with oil. We need electricity for cars, and it's coming. the average trip in America is about 40 miles. A hybrid that can do this on batteries would only gas up about 8 to 12 times a year. The best part is all this touted 'green' power i.e. wind, solar, etc. It's drawback is it's intermittent supply. With a ready market and storage i.e. car batts, the Eco-nuts will pay more for it. With this, we can use hydrogen as the portable fuel. It's lack of energy vs. hydrocarbons is mitigated by a hybrid design. Most of all, we need to do this now and I'm encouraged by the rapid growth of the power sources. All we need now is the vehicles.'
All of the so-called 'renewable' forms of energy are actually different forms of solar energy. They depend on sunlight and the rate at which we can receive and use them is wholly dependent on how much energy the sun delivers and how much of that energy we can efficiently extract. Understand this, because it means that none of the so-called 'renewables' will meet current demand no matter how hard we try. The only thing that can fill this gap is coal and nuclear power. We should NOT be burning any more coal than we absolutely must. Not because of CO2 as the majority of green weenies claim, but because of the mercury in the coal.
RE:'Solutions exist right now. What we lack is will.'
Actually, there are a number of interests pulling our Peerless Leaders in different directions, most of which make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Insofar as I can tell, none of our Peerless Leaders have sat down and done their homework on the energy issue. Nancy Pelosi is a shining example of this foolishness.
Re:'We need to be first in everything, faster, smarter and more motivated than they are and they are really f--king motivated. If this sounds threatening, that is because it is. We need to play to win.'
I wholeheartedly agree.
'These tourists are more fanatic than any Al Quaida terorists in their thinking.'
A perfect example of how truly stupid this person is.
This isn't just a case of ignorance. Tonny must apply serious mental energy to concoct in his mind a reality in which evangelical christians (as a monolithic entity notwithstanding the dopey (albeit non-dangerous)extremes), are somehow more radical and dangerous and depraved than al qaeda.
Tonny, could you please provide one example of an evangelical christians committing an act of religiously motivated violence that compares to al qaeda's?
We will be here waiting.
'These tourists are more fanatic than any Al Quaida terorists in their thinking.'
A perfect example of how truly stupid this person is.'
Oh don't worry, it will provide more examples.
'Tonny, could you please provide one example of an evangelical christians committing an act of religiously motivated violence that compares to al qaeda's?'
I used to ask it that a lot. 'Please cite where Baptists have flown aircraft full of people in to buildings full of people.'
No response yet from the euro-parasite.
page: 1
tonny from belgiumMar 1st, 2008 - 13:45:11
That is the pinnacle of ridicule;Bush saying that Obama lacks understanding of the Iraqi situation.Is it lack of shame that makes for such a reproach from the man that mishandled the foreign politics of the USA ?The whole Iraqi quagmire is riddled with failure to understand the complex reality of Iraqi politics.But who was in charge of the White House ,protecting Rumsfeld when it was already crystal clear to the entire world,minus the usual neocons of course,that continuing to apply a policy that yields no results will never produce ....results?So much for the pot and the kettle.
Report this comment