As you probably know, I'm a nut on politics. While on the Pat Buchanan site I found this article which I thought was quite interesting:
http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/06/pjb-how-obama-won-and-may-win/
June 10, 2008
PJB: How Obama Won — and May Win
posted by Linda
by Patrick J. Buchanan
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. ... I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Thus did Joe Biden famously describe his rival for the nomination, Barack Obama, to the The New York Observer, a year ago.
Biden, however, thought Obama might not be able to win the fall election, as he is "a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate. ... I don't recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic."
Biden was forced to apologize, but was dead on in discerning Barack's strengths as a candidate in the primaries, which might prove weaknesses in the fall.
A new face in the game, Barack opened with three aces. He opposed the Iraq war, the defining issue in a party that had come to detest the war. He was an African-American. Thus, as the hopes of millions rose that he could be the first black president, there were surges of black voters whom he begin to sweep 90-10.
Lastly, Barack is a natural, a Mickey Mantle, a superb political athlete like JFK, who has looks, charm, youth and a speaking style that can move crowds to cheers or laughter.
Barack was thus able to unite the McGovern wing — young, idealistic, liberal, anti-war — with the Jesse Jackson quadrant of the party, black folks, and defeat Hillary's coalition of working-class Catholics, women, seniors and Hispanics.
As of today, by the traditional metrics of national politics, Democrats should roll up a victory this fall like FDR's first in 1932.
Bush's disapproval is near 70 percent, and 80 percent of the country believes the nation is on the wrong course. Unemployment is rising. Surging gas and food prices compete for the top story not only on business pages but front pages, with home foreclosures and the housing slump. Family incomes of Middle Americans have ceased to rise, as millions of their best jobs have been outsourced overseas.
Yet, national polls show McCain-Obama a close race, and the electoral map points to critical problems for Barack.
He seeks, for example, to target Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. But in all three the Hispanic vote may be decisive. And Barack was beaten by Hillary two to one among Hispanics, and between these two largest of America's minorities, rivalry and tension are real and rising.
Barack must hold Michigan and Pennsylvania and pick up Ohio or Virginia. Yet, his weakness among Southern and working-class whites and women is remarkable. By two to one they rejected him.
After his string of primary and caucus victories in February, Barack proceeded to lose Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, then West Virginia by 41, Kentucky by 35, Puerto Rico two to one and South Dakota by 10. That last one Barack was supposed to win.
The longer the campaign went on, the more reluctant Democrats seemed to be to embrace his nomination.
What is Barack's problem?
Middle America knows little about him, and much of what they know they do not like. When West Virginians were asked what they knew about Barack, a plurality said the Rev. Wright was his pastor. In Pennsylvania, a goodly slice of Democrats knew Barack had said they were "bitter" about being left behind and were clinging to their bigotries, Bibles and guns.
By June, resistance to Barack's nomination in the party that he now leads was extraordinary, stemming from a belief that he is too naive to be commander in chief in wartime and too far left, and does not like or understand Middle America or its values.
"He is not one of us."
And if Barack cannot erase this hardening perception in the American mind, he will not be president.
Democrats may talk of making the economy the issue this fall, but Republicans are going to make Barack the issue. Story line: We cannot entrust our beloved America, in a time of war, to this radical and exotic figure who has so many crazy and extremist associates.
Barack's problem is thus Reagan's problem.
As the country wished to be rid of Jimmy Carter in 1980, so the nation today wishes to be rid of Bush and his Republicans. But America is apprehensive over a roll of the dice, in Bill Clinton's metaphor.
How did Reagan ease the anxiety? In the debate with Carter, he came off as conservative, yes, but also traditional, mainstream, witty and the more likable man. The real Reagan came through.
With his persona, Barack may be able to do the same — in the debates. The problem is that he had two dozen debates with Hillary and, by the end of the primary season, five months after it began, he was still losing ground.
I have always liked Pat Buchanan, back from the days of Cross-Fire. That was a great show IMO, and we need more like that to discuss the issues at hand. It is doing nothing to help the cause of the republicans by trashing the other candidate. Most people are more sophisticated than that. I do however think we need to start discussing issues between the candidates. What say you?
I say a big "Right On" ;) ;D :laugh: :)
SixDogs, I would like to ask you a question but I don't want to offend you.
Frank
I am not easily offended Frank, ask away!
SixDogs, here is my question, and as I said I don't want to make you mad, I just can't understand why and how this happening.
I can understand if you are a dedicated Democrat, but I can't understand how any American can defend or be in favor of Barack Obama for President when you consider that he shows so little respect for the American Flag and the National Anthem. So many people have given their life for the Flag and what it stands for and this man shows no respect for it. Doesn't that bother you and what the future under this man holds for your Country and for your family. In addition, it is very disturbing the comments his wife has made about America and her past feelings for it. Don't you wonder what past Democrat Presidents would think about this man and his attitude on America and the Flag. I think Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson would be appalled that this man is the Democratic party's nominee for President. HOW DO YOU GET PAST THIS AND SUPPORT AND HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR THIS MAN.
I just want to understand how this man can possibly be where he is, given his threat to the future of America and the Freedom and Principals that America has always stood for.
Frank Winn
Frank, I am not saying that I agree or disagree with you, but you at least sign your name and we all know who you are. Can't say that about everybody.
Thanks Wilma, I am just trying to understand how this is happening. I fully respect SiXdogs and her rights to her choice and everyone else's rights as well.
Frank
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find this article lengthy but frightfully enlighting - - I wish it's concepts could be embraced by the U.S. as a whole sooner rather than later. It is the only way to create hope for a future for ourselves, our children, & our grandchildren in America.
To my family and friends, I am sending this to you as I believe this article should be read by all. The author is apparently a scholar.
Those who experienced WW2 know what a perilous time it was and how close we were to losing. I believe God helped
us to win against the despots
TAKE YOUR TIME AND READ THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES TO LET THE FACTUAL TRUTH SINK IN, THIS ATTORNERY
WROTE THE MOST HONEST AND MEANINGFUL ARTICLE I'VE READ IN AWHILE.
SOME OF YOU ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THAT NEARLY EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA WAS GROSSLY AFFECTED BY WW II . MOST OF YOU DON'T REMEMBER THE RATIONING OF MEAT, SHOES, GASOLINE, AND SUGAR. NO TIRES FOR OUR AUTOMOBILES, AND A SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MILES AN HOUR ON THE ROAD, NOT TO MENTION, NO NEW AUTOMOBILES. READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT HOW WE WOULD REACT TO BEING TAKE! N OVER BY FOREIGNERS IN 2008.
This is an EXCELLENT essay. Well thought out and presented.
Please read it all and think seriously about our future here on earth. It is critical.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Historical Significance
Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat. The Nazis had sunk more than 400 British ships in their convoys between England and America taking food and war materials.
At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war.
Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, who had not yet attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.
France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers. Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia.
Together, Japan and Germany! had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico, as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe.
America's only allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia. That was about it. All of Europe, from Norway to Italy (except Russia in the East) was already under the Nazi heel.
The US was certainly not prepared for war. The US had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after WW I because of the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW II, Army units were training with broomsticks, because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors, because they didn't have real tanks. A huge chunk of our Navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.
Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England (that was actually the property of Belgium ) given by Belgium to England to carry on the war, when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact).
Actually, Belgium surrendered after one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could .
Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering losses and the near decimation of! its Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany, only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brit's were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later. Hitler, first turned his attention to Russia, in the late summer of 1940, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse.
Ironically, Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany .
Russia lost something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone . . . 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a 1,000,000 soldiers.
Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brit's, then America. If that had happened, the Nazis could possibly have won the war.
All of this has been brought out to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. Now, we find ourselves at another! one of those key moments in history.
There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants, and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world .
The Jihadist, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs -- they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. To them, all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated . They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews . This is their mantra. (goal)
There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not yet known which side will win -- the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists.
If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadist, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies.
The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadist. Do you want gas in your car? Do you want heating oil next winter? Do you want the dollar to be worth anything? You had better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.
If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims, who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.
We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We can't do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing . . in Iraq. Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we are doing two important things.
(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam was a terrorist! Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than a 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians.
(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there, we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.
WW II, the war with the Japanese and German Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before the US joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17-year war -- and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again . a 27-year war.
WW II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. WW II cost America more than 400,000 soldiers killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.
The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about $160,000,000,000, which is roughly what the 9/11 terrorist attack cost New York. It has also cost about 4,000 American lives, which is roughly equivalent to lives that the Jihad killed (within the United States) in the 9/11 terrorist attack .
The cost of not fighting and winning WW II would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by Japanese Imperialism and German Nazism .
This is not a 60-Minutes TV show, or a 2-hour movie in which everything comes out okay . The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. It always has been, and probably always will be.
The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it.
If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an ally, like England, in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates to conquer the world.
The Iraq War is merely another battle in this ancient and never ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless somebody prevents them from getting them! .
We have four options:
1 . We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
2 . We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).
3 . We can surrender to the Jihad an! d accept its dominance in the Middle East now; in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.
OR
4 . We can stand down now, and pick up the fight later, when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and possibly most of the rest of Europe. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.
If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.
The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them .
Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.
The Cold War lasted from about 1947, at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989; forty-two years!
Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany !
World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan .. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50,000,000 people, maybe more than 100,000,000 people, depending on which estimates you accept.
The US has taken more than 3,000 killed in action in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism.
In WW II, the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years. Most of the individual battles of WW II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.
The stakes are at least as high . ! A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).
It's difficult to understand why the average American does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis.
"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America, where it's safe.
Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places that really need peace activism the most? I'll tell you why! They would be killed!
The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc.
Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and an attorney living in Northern California that has studied the Middle Eastern culture and religion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOW, that is a powerful article and very much in keeping with what is happening in the World, mainly the Middle East today.
Frank
PS this was supposed be under Jo's posting " A Powerful Article", I am not sure what happened that it got here.
Jo, Thank you for posting this. So many people DON"T get what we are fighting, and they don't believe you when you try to tell them. That's why no matter what the candidates say we CAN"T just quit and come home like we did in Vietnam. The JIhadists won't just go away.
This is a war that cannot be won. It is a clash within a culture that is at least as old as our own. The best that we can do is to support the people we want in power. Russia has already gone broke trying to occupy Afghanistan; there is not a history ever of successful occupation by any army. Get ready for the draft, it's coming . Either that or get out of this unwinnable situation where we do not belong anyway.
Quote from: frawin on June 16, 2008, 06:26:19 AM
SixDogs, here is my question, and as I said I don't want to make you mad, I just can't understand why and how this happening.
I can understand if you are a dedicated Democrat, but I can't understand how any American can defend or be in favor of Barack Obama for President when you consider that he shows so little respect for the American Flag and the National Anthem. So many people have given their life for the Flag and what it stands for and this man shows no respect for it. Doesn't that bother you and what the future under this man holds for your Country and for your family. In addition, it is very disturbing the comments his wife has made about America and her past feelings for it. Don't you wonder what past Democrat Presidents would think about this man and his attitude on America and the Flag. I think Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson would be appalled that this man is the Democratic party's nominee for President. HOW DO YOU GET PAST THIS AND SUPPORT AND HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR THIS MAN.
Okay Frank, apparently you do not understand the word smear. That is what was done to Obama early on in the campaign, probably from the Clinton camp. It is also obvious that you have not investigated these charges or you would know how untrue they are. My former husband (deceased) was retired from the military, and I have the greatest respect for the flag and what it stands for. That includes equal treatment for all. Michelle Obama was being nothing but honest when she made the remarks about being proud of her country for the first time. Growing up black in Chicago is not an easy task, folks there do not let a black forget for an instant that they are black and somehow inferior. Of course she was proud of the America that could put color aside and nominate a man who is part black for president.
I think you are mistaken about the former presidents being disappointed with the Obama nomination. I urge you to educate yourself and really do some investigation before passing on any more smears. I have chosen not to smear the republican candidate and shall continue to do so although there is certainly plenty out there about both John McCain and Cindy McCain.
Quote from: sixdogsmom on June 16, 2008, 09:43:49 AM
Quote from: frawin on June 16, 2008, 06:26:19 AM
SixDogs, here is my question, and as I said I don't want to make you mad, I just can't understand why and how this happening.
I can understand if you are a dedicated Democrat, but I can't understand how any American can defend or be in favor of Barack Obama for President when you consider that he shows so little respect for the American Flag and the National Anthem. So many people have given their life for the Flag and what it stands for and this man shows no respect for it. Doesn't that bother you and what the future under this man holds for your Country and for your family. In addition, it is very disturbing the comments his wife has made about America and her past feelings for it. Don't you wonder what past Democrat Presidents would think about this man and his attitude on America and the Flag. I think Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson would be appalled that this man is the Democratic party's nominee for President. HOW DO YOU GET PAST THIS AND SUPPORT AND HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR THIS MAN.
Okay Frank, apparently you do not understand the word smear. That is what was done to Obama early on in the campaign, probably from the Clinton camp. It is also obvious that you have not investigated these charges or you would know how untrue they are. My former husband (deceased) was retired from the military, and I have the greatest respect for the flag and what it stands for. That includes equal treatment for all. Michelle Obama was being nothing but honest when she made the remarks about being proud of her country for the first time. Growing up black in Chicago is not an easy task, folks there do not let a black forget for an instant that they are black and somehow inferior. Of course she was proud of the America that could put color aside and nominate a man who is part black for president.
I think you are mistaken about the former presidents being disappointed with the Obama nomination. I urge you to educate yourself and really do some investigation before passing on any more smears. I have chosen not to smear the republican candidate and shall continue to do so although there is certainly plenty out there about both John McCain and Cindy McCain.
Sixdogs, are you saying it is not true that Obama did not give proper respect to the flag? Aparently you have not taken the time to read all of the information regarding that incident. I have not seen one article that repudiates the incident that he did not place his hand over his heart during the National Anthem and while facing the Flag. I did not pass on a single smear, I mearly asked you a question about actual incidents, as I was interested in your answer, I did not expect such a rude answer. In my opinion I have probably read as much or more on all of the subjects as you have on all. I have many African American friends and have had all of my life. I went to college with many, studied with them, discussed the problems they faced and had many tell me that the opportunity was there they just had to work for it. I worked with many and had some work for me. My kids were coached by several who were really good at what they did and they didn't complain about being unfairly treated, they got out and earned what they wanted. I took you at your word and thought maybe you would give me a an answer that would help me understand how so many people could vote for someone that was so disrespectful of the flag, instead you tell me I know nothing about what I am talking about, I am sorry I asked.
Very good thread. I hope I am not straying too far off topic.
For those of you interested in the Flag Code below is a link to the official government published pamphlet on the subject. I have to admit that I may be guilty of disrespect during a past Fourth of July celebration. See
(United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Section 176 (i). Even if we don't agree on everything we can always learn something that we didn't know before.
David
FLAG LAWS AND REGULATIONS
http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/misc/ourflag/flaglaws1.htm
Never said this war could be won....said it is NOT possible to just quit and go home. The radical muslims will see it as victory for them. Never said we should be there to start with because we shouldn't be there. And yeah it probly will come to the draft sooner or later which is major( excuse my french but it fits) BULLSHIT because the men who thought this was a good idea will never be the ones to go fight.
There are a lot of young people watching the forum now and I feel that bad language is unnecessary and out of order. It doesn't lend anything to the Forum or the subject and is in bad taste. Maybe I am missing something, does bad language add to what you are saying. Just an opinion.
Frank
Yes you are right Frank. I get mad when people don't understand what we are up against and you try to explain but you just can't get your point across. There is no quittin with the radical muslims we are fightin. We can't just say ok I quit, I'm goin home now and expect it to be over! Yeah Russia went broke tryin to whup the Taliban, guess who was helpin the Taliban fight Russia?! American advisers! which means America. If we quit and let the radicals think they've beat us which is what they WILLthink, that cussword will not be the worst thing our children and grandchildren hear or see either one! If I am in bad taste but somebody actually gets what I'm tryin to say so be it.
Pam, I agree with what you are trying to say and I think it is a losing battle, but it maybe a much more critical issue than just what happens in Iraq. However I still don't agree with the language and I don't think adding foul words or language makes a stronger point, in fact I think it discredits it. All a matter of opinion. No hard feelings,
Frank
Frank, the flag incident has been discussed before on this forum many months ago. However just for you I will again give my response. Barack Obama is showing respect for the flag just in the manner that we were taught in school, that is we were taught to stand at attention. We were taught that we crossed our heart during the recitation of the pledge. Several others on the forum agreed with me, that that was the way they were taught. I do not believe that it makes me unamerican or dishonoring the flag all the times that I behaved in this manner. One forum member imported a photo of school children in the 1920s saluting the flag in a Nazi fashion. Of course that went out with Hitler.
I have a question for you. How could you allow yourself to be affiliated with a political party whose leader has recently been quoted as saying the United States Constitution is just a GD piece of paper? I do not expect an answer, but I have no doubt that it happened. I think that George Bush just had a lapse, and this does not make him especially unamerican. Just as not having his hand over his heart does not make Barack Obama unamerican.
Why does sayin the constitution is just a piece of gd paper not make Bush wrong? What was the matter,was it gettin in the way of him gettin somthin he wanted? If he said that he should be impeached.
The Russians did not fight the Taliban, they fought the Mujahideen.
The Americans provided aid to the Mujahideen.
which the taliban was part of
That is true, but the Russians fought the Mujahideen.
Lol, splittin hairs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmUUYo9o9eg
Neither the Russians nor the Mujahideen nor the US thought it was funny.
i don't think the fight was funny, think it's funny splittin hairs about who was IN the fight lol
y'know tallerthanmost, obama talks a good game. Just don't know how good a game he plays.
At least he can speak!!! And your right we will have to see how he does, just like we will have to see about anybody else..I do not know how anybody will act like and if they will follow through with the promises that they have made to all the voters.. I just hope in my heart that whoever becomes president does the best they can and looks out for the people.. I will be happy with that..]
Another big Amen! Thanks for posting TTM, I watched the video even though I do not ordinarily watch videos as my high speed connection is so slow. I cannot in all honesty justify a more expensive connection just to watch videos. (sigh). Anyway, I appreciate your input, keep up the good work. Yes We Can!
Nice to see something positive! I'm with you tallerthanmost, I hope whomever is elected looks out for "we the people", not just we the republicans or we the democrats. We need to heal some ole wounds and unite as a nation.
Quote from: tallerthanmost on June 16, 2008, 02:18:24 PM
At least he can speak!!! And your right we will have to see how he does, just like we will have to see about anybody else..I do not know how anybody will act like and if they will follow through with the promises that they have made to all the voters.. I just hope in my heart that whoever becomes president does the best they can and looks out for the people.. I will be happy with that..]
Yes, the man can speak...He seems to have taken a few pages out of Martin Luther King's speech book...but he is woefully deficient in every other area. The truly sad thing is that he honestly believes, in his inexperience, that he actually
can make a difference...he hasn't been around the political venues long enough to realize that, being in the Senate, he actually has more power to do good for the comman man than he will if he actually steps up to the Presidency. It has been disturbing to note that our youth seems to have been swayed by his rhetoric, caught up in the "hope" hysteria. The worry here is that we will have to deal with the same garden variety mistakes, made by an inexperienced President, that we have had to deal with in the past (anyone remember the Bay of Pigs incident??).
Barack Obama says that We the people of the United States can make a difference, not that he can make a difference. I am grateful that the youth of our nation have become involved in this election. For so long they have been disenfranchised and have not been involved in our nations' politics. They feel for the first time in a long while that they can make a difference. Young, old, middle aged, it makes a difference if we work together. We now know who you are not 'for'; so tell us who you are 'for'.
I dont believe he gets his material from Martin Luther King although as a interacial male I'm sure he was influenced by the man... I just hope that wasnt a racial remark being made by you. Yes he is half black and half white but why should that matter, in the world we live in today that shouldn't matter at all.
If I read the post correctly, I think the focus was on the eloquent and powerful way that Mr. Obama speaks draws a page from MLK, not the color of his skin.
how well any politican speaks depends on how well they can read the speech written for them by their writers, be it Obama, McCain, Hillary or Bush. It has always been that ACTIONS speak louder than WORDS
We the people CAN make a difference but a WHOLE lot of things in the way the government operates are gonna have to be changed to let it happen.
Flo, are you saying that Bush has trouble reading?
Quote from: tallerthanmost on June 17, 2008, 06:35:56 AM
I dont believe he gets his material from Martin Luther King although as a interacial male I'm sure he was influenced by the man... I just hope that wasnt a racial remark being made by you. Yes he is half black and half white but why should that matter, in the world we live in today that shouldn't matter at all.
Dan has it right...I was referencing his eloquence, nothing more. From the tone of your warning remark about your hopes, you could be a person of color...so, I apologize heartily. Also, to the person who stated that it was obvious whom I was 'not for', I never stated unilaterally that I was 'against' Obama. In fact, if I remember correctly, I believe I stated that he seems to think that he can bring change. I simply said that I doubted that he had any chance of actually bringing that change. In answer to that person, let me state clearly that I am not impressed by any of the people who have presented themselves as being candidate material for the 2008 election. The qualifications that I would be looking for, in a candidate, would be: Experience, both domestically and abroad...Enough youth to be energetic in their leadership but enough age and sophistication to prevent garden variety mistakes...and a proven record of service over a long period of years. So far, I have not read of anyone who completely meets those criteria. Hillary Clinton comes the closest of anyone but I'm not in the mood to foot the bill for another retirement for her and Bill...they've already got three retirements (his Presidency, his Governorship, and her having been a Senator)...which I would think would be enough for one lifetime.
Quote from: Wilma on June 17, 2008, 09:39:20 AM
Flo, are you saying that Bush has trouble reading?
No, not at all. I'm saying that any politian can give a very eloquent, meaningful, thought provoking speech if that is what his "speech writer" wrote for him. I could be wrong, but I don't believe they write their own speeches.
Of course they don't write their own speeches, if they did, then they wouldn't have to read all of it -- just a few works to keep their thought process in the right channel. I agree wholeheartedly that we don't have a candidate that fits the bill for what this country
needs. We need someone that is not dedicated to Power for oneself, and the reasoning that is labeled common sense and to remember first and foremost that this country must uphold the Constitution of the United States, and be a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
And for the life of me --- I do not see that in any of the ones we have to have on the ballot.
Hi Jo, I agree with you. My candidate of choice would be Colin Powell, I wish we could get him to run as an Independent. He is a very good man, very wise, very Knowledgeable in Military and World affairs, I can't think of anything negative about this man.
Frank
Hi Frank, I also like Lou Dobbs, he is an independent and openly says the things that I like to hear --- It would be a tough choice if we had he and Colin Powell running --- Now ***** wouldn't that be a "look forward to going to the polls" thing?
That would be great Jo, but they are both Republicans. What a team that would make, Lou is my favorite Business News Reporter, and I do like his stance on illegal Immigrants. My kids still laugh about me coming home from work and changing the TV to "Moneyline" every night. maybe we can get them to run as an independent ticket.
Frank
Quote from: Jo McDonald on June 17, 2008, 01:05:59 PM
Of course they don't write their own speeches, if they did, then they wouldn't have to read all of it -- just a few works to keep their thought process in the right channel. I agree wholeheartedly that we don't have a candidate that fits the bill for what this country
needs. We need someone that is not dedicated to Power for oneself, and the reasoning that is labeled common sense and to remember first and foremost that this country must uphold the Constitution of the United States, and be a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
And for the life of me --- I do not see that in any of the ones we have to have on the ballot.
Thank you, Jo. Was beginning to wonder if I was a lone cat out there!
Quote from: frawin on June 17, 2008, 01:09:44 PM
Hi Jo, I agree with you. My candidate of choice would be Colin Powell, I wish we could get him to run as an Independent. He is a very good man, very wise, very Knowledgeable in Military and World affairs, I can't think of anything negative about this man.
Frank
AMEN!!! I would vote for Colin Powell...just wish he could be persuaded to change his mind.
The rest of you Cat's, can count me in as well.
Quote from: Catwoman on June 17, 2008, 01:57:24 PM
Quote from: Jo McDonald on June 17, 2008, 01:05:59 PM
Of course they don't write their own speeches, if they did, then they wouldn't have to read all of it -- just a few works to keep their thought process in the right channel. I agree wholeheartedly that we don't have a candidate that fits the bill for what this country
needs. We need someone that is not dedicated to Power for oneself, and the reasoning that is labeled common sense and to remember first and foremost that this country must uphold the Constitution of the United States, and be a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
And for the life of me --- I do not see that in any of the ones we have to have on the ballot.
Thank you, Jo. Was beginning to wonder if I was a lone cat out there!
They have someone right what they think the publice wants to hear, don't they??? I haven't been voting but about 10 years, but do like the idea of Powell, too!!!! :laugh:
Lou Dobbs stated on one of his news cast that if he were to run he would be on the Independente ticket. Many, many of his followers emailed him, and he read them and showed them on this broadcast, asking--begging, him to run. But he declined.
I kept holding out -- telling Fred, "maybe he will change his mind". But alas, he did not.
"The qualifications that I would be looking for, in a candidate, would be: Experience, both domestically and abroad...Enough youth to be energetic in their leadership but enough age and sophistication to prevent garden variety mistakes...and a proven record of service over a long period of years. So far, I have not read of anyone who completely meets those criteria."
Wow...I don't think I can name a single presidential candidate in the 30 years I've been voting that has met all these standards. Can you? I'm not sure such a creature exists.
Also, I believe Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was an inspiration to all people, not just African-Americans. His message transcended race, class and gender. We ALL have a dream, and by standing together we can achieve anything.
IndyGal, I think the best Presidents in my time or that I am more familiar with were Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan and neither met the age criteria. If Harry Truman were alive today he would be a Republican, a Democrat in Harry's day was mainly Southern Conservatives and Republicans were more Liberal. My how the tables have turned.
Frank
I am a bit older than you, Frank. I would add FDR to that list.
I agree Wilma, he certainly was the man of the time by pulling us out of the depression and taking charge during the start of WWII.
Quote from: indygal on June 17, 2008, 04:45:34 PM
"The qualifications that I would be looking for, in a candidate, would be: Experience, both domestically and abroad...Enough youth to be energetic in their leadership but enough age and sophistication to prevent garden variety mistakes...and a proven record of service over a long period of years. So far, I have not read of anyone who completely meets those criteria."
Wow...I don't think I can name a single presidential candidate in the 30 years I've been voting that has met all these standards. Can you? I'm not sure such a creature exists.
Also, I believe Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was an inspiration to all people, not just African-Americans. His message transcended race, class and gender. We ALL have a dream, and by standing together we can achieve anything.
IndyGal, I completely agree with you. It is only through teamwork that we are going to get anything accomplished in this nation.
Of course, I wasn't alive during the Great Depression but I've certainly read and heard a lot about it. I would agree with Wilma that FDR was the right man for the job at that time, even though his proposals were not initially very popular. He had a difficult task to accomplish ... but he did it. He put people back to work, improved our country's infrastructure and public buildings, and made it possible for the working class to climb out of a very deep hole. He established programs such as Social Security and Medicaid to provide a safety net for those who otherwise would fall between the cracks. He didn't pull people out by himself; instead, he provided the ladder for them to do it on their own.
I see many similarities between what happened during the 1920s (when banks began to fail), the 1930s (the Great Depression) and the 1940s (economic recovery) and what is happening now. Cliche or not, those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.
Indygal, Medicaid was not created until 1965, 20 years after FDR passed away.
Frank
Oops, my mistake! I apologize for not fact-checking before posting.
My error, sorry.
Obama calls for oil crackdown
By MIKE ALLEN | 6/22/08 11:47 AM EST Updated: 6/22/08 5:31 PM EST Text Size:
The Democrat gets a two-fer: sides with consumers while taking a whack at his opponent's advisers.
Photo: AP
With the cost of gas a top issue in the presidential campaign, Barack Obama on Sunday will announce a plan to crack down on oil speculation by tightening regulations on energy traders.
The announcement is further evidence that an Obama administration would take an activist, populist approach to regulating business.
Obama wants to close a loophole in federal law that exempts some energy traders from regulations that govern other exchange-traded commodities. Democrats call this "the Enron loophole" because it benefited the Houston energy-speculation firm that collapsed in an accounting scandal.
In response, John McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said: "The truth is Barack Obama is following John McCain's lead to close a Wall Street loophole that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. John McCain has supported bipartisan efforts to close this loophole and will work to address abuses in oil speculation.
"Barack Obama has voted the party line for Democrats who claim the loophole is fixed. The fact that Barack Obama is attacking John McCain, despite McCain's leadership on the issue, shows that Barack Obama is driven by the partisan attacks that Americans are tired of."
The Obama campaign accuses Phil Gramm — the former U.S. senator from Texas, who's now a McCain campaign co-chair and economic adviser — of helping insert the exemption. Gramm's wife, Wendy, was a member of the Enron board of directors.
So today's announcement — in an early-afternoon conference call featuring New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine — allows the Obama campaign to both side with consumers and take a whack at McCain's brain trust.
Obama said in a statement: "My plan fully closes the Enron Loophole and restores common-sense regulation as part of my broader plan to ease the burden for struggling families today while investing in a better future."
The campaign calls the loophole "one example of the special interest politics that put the interests of Big Oil and speculators ahead of the interests of working people."
Obama said: "For the past years, our energy policy in this country has been simply to let the special interests have their way — opening up loopholes for the oil companies and speculators so that they could reap record profits while the rest of us pay $4 a gallon."
Here are excerpts from the text of the four-part "Obama Plan to Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation," as provided by the campaign:
1) Fully Close the "Enron Loophole": One of the reasons our energy market is particularly vulnerable to excessive speculation is the so-called "Enron Loophole" ... [which means] Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is unable to fully oversee the oil futures market and investigate cases where excessive speculation may be driving up oil prices. This regulatory gap is dangerous because: 1) the absence of government oversight has the potential to facilitate abusive trading or price manipulation. And 2) the failure of a large derivatives dealer could trigger disruptions of supplies and prices in energy markets. As President, Barack Obama will go beyond the changes included in the recently-passed Farm Bill and fully close the Enron loophole by requiring that U.S. energy futures trade on regulated exchanges. He will call for new, disaggregated data on index fund and other passive investments to increase transparency and oversight of the growing number of institutional investors participating in commodities futures markets. And he will support legislation directing the CFTC to investigate whether additional regulation is necessary to eliminate excessive speculation in U.S. commodities markets, including higher margin requirements and position limits for institutional investors.
See Also
Five places Obama and Clinton should go
McCain closes cash gap against Obama
Obama's pre-emptive political war
2) Ensure That U.S. Energy Futures Cannot be Traded on Unregulated Offshore Exchanges: CFTC oversight of oil market speculation is also limited by rules that allow energy traders to engage in unregulated transactions through foreign subsidiaries of U.S. exchanges. Currently, about 30 percent of U.S. oil futures trades fly below the regulatory radar because they are transacted on a U.S. exchange that works through a subsidiary in London. Similar arrangements are being pursued by U.S. exchanges in partnership with Dubai as well. Barack Obama would limit the price impacts of excessive speculation by preventing traders of U.S. crude oil from routing their transactions through off-shore markets in order to evade speculation limits and also impose reporting requirements.
3) Work with Other Countries to Coordinate Regulation of Oil Futures Markets.
4) Call on the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice to Vigorously Investigate Market Manipulation in Oil Futures.
Like this story? Buzz it up on Yahoo! Buzz
From Politico.com