tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post569033873665418638..comments2024-03-29T06:22:47.638-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: The Under-Appreciated Issues that Nobody Talks AboutDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger147125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-80570120141717784212012-05-22T13:35:30.485-07:002012-05-22T13:35:30.485-07:00"I invite these fellows to offer one unambigu..."I invite these fellows to offer one unambiguous and clearcut-provable way that things are better. Instead, we have seen a tsunami of outright corruption and theft."<br /><br />Brin is about as self cleaning as he is with all these spam comments on his own blog.<br /><br />Since Mr. Writer here wanted an unambiguous and clear-cut provable evidence, how about a message about the future?<br /><br /><a href="http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/what-some-people-said-in-2008-that-others-thought-were-ridiculous/" rel="nofollow">Link</a>Ymar Sakarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-22136935323695921432010-07-17T18:23:35.318-07:002010-07-17T18:23:35.318-07:00So why bother?
It's because I knew what a di...<b>So why bother? </b><br /><br />It's because I knew what a disaster Brin's vote would be 1 year down the road, or even two years, and I wanted to come back here and have some crow bait waiting for all of you.<br /><br />Why else?<br /><br />Environmental catastrophe in the Gulf. Thanks Brin. Nice way to say hello to Mother Earth for us.Ymarsakarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19301003274162185962008-09-18T17:21:00.000-07:002008-09-18T17:21:00.000-07:00Ymarsakar:Just in case you're still reading this t...Ymarsakar:<BR/><BR/>Just in case you're still reading this thread...<BR/><BR/>...why are you even posting here?<BR/><BR/>You don't seem to think that there's any point to talking to anyone that posts here.<BR/><BR/>You don't seem to value anything that is said here. (If you do, you haven't mentioned it.)<BR/><BR/>So why bother?Joshua O'Madadhainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02305095335471811013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-79488807526850436852008-09-18T13:43:00.000-07:002008-09-18T13:43:00.000-07:00My question remains -- though I've given up that i...<I>My question remains -- though I've given up that it will be answered directly -- is this how people in this blog attempt to persuade conservatives, by assuming that they are either ignorant ("ostriches") or monsters?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't try or assume. They either pay attention to the news and draw conclusions from that, or they don't.<BR/><BR/>One of my Republican friends started doing so (probably thanks to his liberal girlfriend). He watched "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Sicko" and the news, and now he supports Obama.<BR/>He's still a Republican, he just realizes that shit needs to be fixed.<BR/><BR/>So that's how it is.<BR/>You either realize we're in dire straits, or you don't. Every day there are fewer excuses not to comprehend this basic fact.Cliffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04198405937534052637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40051043270439845282008-09-18T07:31:00.000-07:002008-09-18T07:31:00.000-07:00There's a fascinating article on Politico on how S...There's a fascinating article <A HREF="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13541.html" REL="nofollow">on Politico on how Senator McCain lost one of his supporters</A>. The article makes some fascinating comments, including the possibility that McCain's "maverick" persona was in fact fake... and that he started positioning himself in 2000 after the Shrub defeated him so to be a "reformer" and the like for political gain, only to shift back to the Right once it was expedient. <BR/><BR/>Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-79669412097166463862008-09-17T21:57:00.000-07:002008-09-17T21:57:00.000-07:00Ymarsakar isn't a troll, but he typifies the self-...Ymarsakar isn't a troll, but he typifies the self-pitying "golem". Yatter and yowl a whole lot of words, while never once, ever offering a single fact or piece of evidence. And those who point this out are persecuting lib’ruls. Despite the fact that a majority here are actually libertarians of one stripe or another! (Heretical ones, sure, but certainly leaners that way.) Oh, btw I am a registered Republican.<BR/><BR/>Ymarsakar has not been banished. He is welcome to come here and rail about, since his self-pitying has never spilled over into outright , noxious character assasination, (like someone we know used to do.) So come back and post your screeds and I hope somebody reads them, word for word. <BR/><BR/>And when something cogent and backed-up appears, I hope that person will come up and announce, “Hey! Ymarsakar actually made a cogent argument for his version of conservatism... with some facts and evidence to back him up!”<BR/><BR/>I’m sure some of us will be interested and come. Till then, I’m afraid we’re doing the worst thing you can imagine. We are yawning.<BR/><BR/>In contrast.... H attempts to actually offer evidence! Attaboy! Plaudits!!!!! And this proves that was all you had to do, instead of thrashing and moaning. Keep down this road and you'll be a member of this community.<BR/><BR/>Alas, it's still a rough neighborhood, and I gotta tell you, it's <I>pretty lame evidence. </I> Clinton had just as long a span of no attacks on the US as Bush had. There are scores of possible explanations, including the possibility that Al Qaeda had shot its bolt. <BR/><BR/>Certainly we never caught the ringleaders, found their money sources, rooted out their backers or dried up the source of recruits. The decline in support for Bin Laden is from PEAKS that were reached in 2006. Sure. stoke a fire in order to get credit for it burning out. <B>Above all, this is totally ambiguous.</B> There is no way this is “evidence” of the sort I asked for, clear and indisputable...<BR/><BR/>...like the fact that 95% of our national debt was accrued by republican administrations, while the economy, stocks, small businesses, capitalism, the middle class and a hundred other metrics <B>always, always always do better under democrats. And that is ALWAYS!</B> Though monopolists thrive under the GOP.<BR/><BR/>GDP per capita has grown.... at historically appallingly abbysmal rates! <BR/><BR/><B>Okay, time for a lame joke....<BR/><BR/>How many members of the Republican party does it take to change a light bulb?</B><BR/><BR/>Answer: 10<BR/><BR/>1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed, <BR/>2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed, <BR/>3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb, <BR/>4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the light bulb or for eternal darkness, <BR/>5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb,<BR/> 6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner "Bulb Accomplished", <BR/>7. One administration insider to resign and in detail reveal how Bush was literally "in the dark" the whole time, <BR/>8. One to viciously smear #7, <BR/>9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how John McCain has had a strong light bulb-changing policy all along, <BR/>10. And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.And after all is said and done, no one will notice that they never actually managed to change the light bulb.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42245800345017319592008-09-17T21:32:00.000-07:002008-09-17T21:32:00.000-07:00As for convincing ostriches... I don't. I tease my...As for convincing ostriches... I don't. I tease my family and friends about McCain but I am quite content in the knowledge that my family and friends are voting in a very heavily Democratic state and their votes won't matter. The only friend that is in my state will likely vote against Obama... but she has requested that we don't talk politics and while I forget from time to time, I honor her request. <BR/><BR/>It's her right and her choice. If we negate each other? Oh well.<BR/><BR/>Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57243298889249509752008-09-17T21:29:00.000-07:002008-09-17T21:29:00.000-07:00Actually, that's not true. We have been attacked m...Actually, that's not true. We have been attacked multiple times. We just have not had a situation where multiple deaths have occurred to the degree that 9/11 had. <BR/><BR/>Just a day ago we had terrorists in Yeman (I believe) drive a car into our embassy and blow up. We have had thousands of soldiers die on foreign soil from suicide bombers. We had one person with a bomb in his shoe who only failed because of the people around him.<BR/><BR/>The truth is, not only has terrorism continued in the U.S., 9/11 wasn't the first time we've suffered terrorism. The WTC was attacked in the past. We have had buildings blown up. We have had presidents assassinated. Indeed, you could even state that gang warfare and drug turf wars are a form of domestic terrorism.<BR/><BR/>The U.S. is not a safer place because of the Shrub administration. Indeed, there is a saying that sums things up succinctly: a people that give up their freedom for security will have neither freedom nor security.<BR/><BR/>Next, while Al Qaida has lost support, that is because their business model sucks. If they went the route of Hezbollah, building hospitals and schools while killing Americans/Jews, then they'd be a potent and powerful force. Instead, they went with hate and anger and suckered hundreds of people to die for their cause.<BR/><BR/>The truth is, violence begets violence. Hate begets hate. If we had not gone into Iraq to begin with, if we'd secured Afghanistan after kicking out the Taliban, then we'd be in a far more secure position today. Military adventurism proved deadly for not only diplomacy and our footing with the world, but for national security itself.<BR/><BR/>And you mention Saddam Hussein. The ironic thing is... Hussein was not the Satan people made him out to be. His WMD program? Was a paper tiger meant to convince the U.S. that Iraq had weapons so that Iran would not attack. Hussein unfortunately underestimated the bloodthirst of the Shrub, and ended up invaded.<BR/><BR/>And that was a massive screwup. Again. If the Shrub had waited another year and secured Afghanistan, then he would have had the troops needed to properly secure Iraq and prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths. Or he could have used diplomacy with Hussein, convinced him to step down and flee the country, put him somewhere safe, and set up a new government in a bloodless coup. Hussein knew he was on very shaky ground. He very well may have taken such a deal, especially if he knew what the alternative would be. But we'll never know.<BR/><BR/>As for the GDP... yes, it has grown. But with what has just happened on Wall Street... does it matter? And where is Bush now? Why doesn't he speak out about the crisis on Wall Street? Why doesn't he do something in the final months of his presidency? Why not act... I don't know, presidential? Try to allay fears? Have the SEC look at what regulations would alleviate problems in the short term and examine possible long-term fixes?<BR/><BR/>Why is he waiting?<BR/><BR/>Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-17401416996522631712008-09-17T21:19:00.000-07:002008-09-17T21:19:00.000-07:00My question remains -- though I've given up that i...My question remains -- though I've given up that it will be answered directly -- is this how people in this blog attempt to persuade conservatives, by assuming that they are either ignorant ("ostriches") or monsters?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-68937388365727949432008-09-17T21:12:00.000-07:002008-09-17T21:12:00.000-07:00STill, H has stopped short of the creepy "I am suc...<I>STill, H has stopped short of the creepy "I am such a victim!" tone that he started with, this time. If he can keep his ad hominem whining down to just this level, and no higher (preferably far lower), he is welcome here.<BR/><BR/>By all means, H, ask your questions.... and then see how well these guys respond.<BR/><BR/>But, dig it, McCain's most recent ads brag repeatedly about how he"fought Republicans!" Your brand is in serious trouble. And, since there is not a single metric to which the brand can be attached, that does not connect to destroying the United States of America, one can't blame McC for disassociating himself.<BR/><BR/>Tho he offers zero specifics re "reform" and surrounds himself with Bush officials and lobbyists.<BR/><BR/>Seriously. We await a single unambiguous and demonstrable and provable metric by which America -- or Pax Americana -- (two different things) -- are better off than 8 years ago. One.</I><BR/><BR/>Dr. Brin -- I'd have to say that you whine quite a lot yourself. I was responding to people who responded personally to me. Of course, I spoke in first person to them, which includes some element of self-reference. How could I not?<BR/><BR/>It would seem that your answer to my question of how you persuade conservatives is that you first demand that they persuade you. Doesn't quite make sense to me, since you say in this topic you are trying to bring conservatives to your side, but fine, I'll play along. <BR/><BR/>I'll give you four answers. We are better off because <BR/><BR/>(1) We have not been attacked again since 9-11.<BR/><BR/>(4) There has been a <A HREF="http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=257" REL="nofollow">significant decrease in Muslim support for suicide bombings and in support for Bin Laden</A>.<BR/><BR/>(3) Saddam Hussein has been deposed and is no longer threatening his neighbors, plotting for WMD, trying to assassinate our ex-presidents, firing at our aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones, and generally destabilizing the Middle East in his pan-Arabist efforts to unify the Middle East as the modern Saladin.<BR/><BR/>(4) Our <A HREF="http://indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=67" REL="nofollow">GDP per capita</A> has grown--aside from an understandable post 9-11 dip--since Bush became president.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75608919053837876112008-09-17T20:48:00.000-07:002008-09-17T20:48:00.000-07:00I do hope, Ymarsakar, that you are not equating 4c...I do hope, Ymarsakar, that you are not equating 4chan with the Democratic party. 4chan are anarchists who tear everything and everyone down. They are a part of a group of online assholes that network through forum sites such as Portal of Evil, 4chan, and something awful. Though 4chan isn't so much assholes as letting anonymity go to their heads.<BR/><BR/>I mean, honestly, online anarchists would be the best description for them, and they'd gleefully get a hold of Obama's e-mails if they could.<BR/><BR/>As for your claims of what "true conservatism" is... you've yet to present yourself as one. You offer no verifiable evidence to your claims, your comments are spacious at best, and you seem to delight in angering people with ambiguities rather than solid specifics.<BR/><BR/>In short, you're acting pretty much like those forumites at the forums I mentioned.<BR/><BR/>Rob H.<BR/><BR/>(Aside: For all of the mischief that could happen with editing posts, it would be nice if we could edit our posts within say ten minutes of our comments. Writing "home" instead of "hope" at the start did throw off what I was trying to say originally. Ah well...)Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-9848011914283275762008-09-17T20:45:00.000-07:002008-09-17T20:45:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-41987273967353979422008-09-17T20:44:00.000-07:002008-09-17T20:44:00.000-07:00Ok... one more try ;)Ymarsakar said...I'm not sure...Ok... one more try ;)<BR/><BR/>Ymarsakar said...<BR/><EM>I'm not sure how any humane person could ignore this things and fight for the party and the people doing such things, and still call themselves members of the Enlightenment.</EM><BR/><BR/>Um... did the 'party' do this? <BR/><BR/>McCain and Palin (and the GOP as a party) are anti-abortion, so I suppose they responsible for <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence" REL="nofollow">this</A>. The GOP talks up the 'existential threat from Islamists', so they must be responsible for <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks" REL="nofollow">these</A>.<BR/><BR/>While it would be very easy, I assume I don't need to go on.<BR/><BR/>I also think you don't quite understand the "enlightenment" the same way I do. Government officials subverting legal oversight is much more fundamentally anti-enlightenment than an individual violating another individual's personal privacy.<BR/>--<BR/><BR/>On this specific case, I admit I'm somewhat conflicted. The invasion of privacy if of course wrong. However, Palin's use of private email for official government business (specifically to make it easier to keep secret and avoid oversight) is very wrong too. It should be illegal, and I think it actually is for the federal government.Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-21904868559044084582008-09-17T20:26:00.000-07:002008-09-17T20:26:00.000-07:00Wow, Ymarsakar basically makes no sense as far as ...Wow, Ymarsakar basically makes no sense as far as I can tell. Oh well, I give up.<BR/>--<BR/><BR/>Steve b... I think you should look at Obama's policy white papers. The idea that he only makes vague proposals (especially in comparison with McCain) is really not well founded IMO.<BR/><BR/>More generally, a point that I keep making is that the campaign organization is the best indication of what a sort of administration a candidate would have. In this presidential race the contrast could not be more clear.<BR/><BR/>Blind ideology has gotten us into one hell of a mess. For example, even if you accept deregulation is most often a good thing, it clearly can (and has) been taken way too far. As I see it, the Democrats are currently a much broader coalition which simply cannot maintain ideologically extreme positions without splintering... so they end up governing in a much more centrist and pragmatic fashion.<BR/><BR/>It isn't all about Obama vs McCain (though I personally think Obama wins such a comparison), but about the party which gives them a political power base and staffs the bureaucracies which really run the government.<BR/><BR/>The extremist factions which form the 'base' of the GOP should be enough to keep most people from even considering voting for them IMO.Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-9932143581530776342008-09-17T19:29:00.000-07:002008-09-17T19:29:00.000-07:00I'm not sure how any humane person could ignore th...I'm not sure how any humane person could ignore this things and fight for the party and the people doing such things, and still call themselves members of the Enlightenment.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/2008/09/17/privacy-hawk-leftists-raid-palin-emails/" REL="nofollow">Link</A><BR/><BR/>But when there's a will, there must be a way.Ymarsakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246906722493964175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-37048446268901597332008-09-17T19:17:00.000-07:002008-09-17T19:17:00.000-07:00Telling the truth in inconvenient places is obviou...Telling the truth in inconvenient places is obviously trolling in here abouts.<BR/><BR/>I suppose that is your ostrich syndrome. But it's not your opponents. It is yours. And that cannot be denied. At least, not without doublethink.<BR/><BR/>Real conservatives treat people who they disagree with with both respect and a modicum of empathy. Leftists, extremists, ideologies, people who value passion over reason, they treat people who disagree as people to be purged.<BR/><BR/>There is nothing enlightened or classical liberal about such actions, people, or commenters here.Ymarsakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246906722493964175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78391366824586586412008-09-17T18:09:00.000-07:002008-09-17T18:09:00.000-07:00At the bottom of a Daily Kos diary is a quick inte...At the bottom of <A HREF="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/17/183513/509/7/602059" REL="nofollow">a Daily Kos diary</A> is a quick interview CBS News did with Senator Obama. I think you will probably be tickled by it, Dr. Brin; Obama is hammering home one of your key points. He wants complete transparency in the financial markets and believes only with this transparency that we can avoid future meltdowns.<BR/><BR/>Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-79606799063066781732008-09-17T15:33:00.000-07:002008-09-17T15:33:00.000-07:00"Johnson promised he'd never send young boys to di..."Johnson promised he'd never send young boys to die in Viet Nam, Nixon promised he'd make America safe for law and order, Ford promised he'd never pardon Nixon, Jimmy Carter promised he'd Whip Inflation Now, Reagan promised Morning In America, Bush 41 promised a `kinder, gentler America,' Bill Clinton promised he'd restore dignity to the Oval Office, and the drunk-driving C student current in the White House promised `a humbler America...that will not engage in nation-building.'" <BR/><BR/>By the way:<BR/><BR/>You can start this one off a few Presidents back:<BR/><BR/>FDR promised to curtail Hoover's vast increases in government spending. <BR/><BR/>(Really! His first campaign was based on the premise that <B>Herbert Hoover</B> was doing <B>too much</B> to fight the Depression!)Doug S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11918949543315280580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-74761665792901967312008-09-17T14:38:00.000-07:002008-09-17T14:38:00.000-07:00How are you measuring 'government secrecy', and do...How are you measuring 'government secrecy', and do you have a reference for its decrease under Clinton and increase under Bush? Thanks.David McCabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16603857353437134459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-66154974936098077602008-09-17T13:52:00.000-07:002008-09-17T13:52:00.000-07:00"...Bush's forces are doing..."Does anyone elses u..."...Bush's forces are doing..."<BR/><BR/>Does anyone elses understand why these words cause me to wonder if I ought to own more than one rifle?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81726592467051091152008-09-17T13:47:00.001-07:002008-09-17T13:47:00.001-07:00All right, so my question is, what does ymarsakar ...All right, so my question is, what does ymarsakar bring to the conversation, besides a bunch of semantics and weak bullshit arguments?<BR/><BR/>At least huxley keeps his arguments concise and somewhat coherent. <BR/>ymarsakar is wasting my time with his nonsense, and I suspect that it's on purpose.<BR/>In other words, he's trolling us.Cliffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04198405937534052637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-74274411547102665722008-09-17T13:47:00.000-07:002008-09-17T13:47:00.000-07:00I gave Y his chance. The resulting extravaganza o...I gave Y his chance. The resulting extravaganza of words (many of them spuming insults) was truly staggering to behold. Dizzying... especially since I actually gave them a close look.<BR/><BR/>But he really made things clear when he Joined the postmodernists of the far left in expressing utter disdain for "facts". "metrics" are just a trap. They are inherently subjective and irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>Okay, fundamentals here. Fellows, we have a postmodernist here. Irrespective of matters of left or right, he denies the fundamental assumptions of the Enlightenment... that hypotheses can and should be tested. And that -- however flawed and misleading statistics can be -- there comes a point and time when they are overwhelming.<BR/><BR/>I think we can safely -- and after giving the guy several chances -- dismiss or skim past this guy. Unless you are a fan of rhetorical dionysianism. If so, I encourage a couple of you to keep sifting his screed. Report to us when he says something that actually refers to both reason and evidence.<BR/><BR/>Steve, your rationalization is clever. But it won't wash. The number one issue is not Obama vs McCain, since you can paint whatever image (viscerally driven) that you want, upon these men.<BR/><BR/>The issue is which party's general establishments and methodologies of government will fill the top 10,000 appointed staff positions in the US Federal government.<BR/><BR/>Nothing -- and I mean nothing at all -- is more important than this matter. In this fundamental, the parties could NOT be more deeply different.<BR/><BR/>While he has brought in plenty of young blood (like my cousin Adam). Obama will appoint from the same general pool that Clinton did. He has said so, he has brought them into his campaign. And may I remind you that 1 billion dollars and 14 years of witch hunts never nailed even ONE of these people for malfeasance of office. A truly staggering record, tested by fire.<BR/><BR/>Not only are these people apparently competent and honest, but Delay's K Street Project made sure they could not have been corrupt, across the last 14 years <I>even if they wanted to be!</I><BR/><BR/>We are talking day and night, here, Steve. The republican appointee establishment is utterly corrupt. Despite savagely cutting all the inspectors and white collar crime task forces and diverting the FBI, SEC etc, they are still dropping like flies, right and left. Bush will pardon thousands.<BR/><BR/>McCain has shown no sign of detaching himself from this fetid morass of crooks and loons. While touting "reform" he surrounds himself with ALL THE USUAL SUSPECTS. <BR/><BR/> He has not even mentioned the Inspectors General, who need to be released. Nobody can be serious about reform without mentioning them. He is NOT serious. He doesn't mean a word of it.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-7466282166448479562008-09-17T12:52:00.000-07:002008-09-17T12:52:00.000-07:00As Golem pointed out above (and nobody saw fit to ...As Golem pointed out above (and nobody saw fit to reply to), much of the list of changes in the Republican party that David posted in the original post can just as equally be applied to the Democrats. I find them equally culpable in the last 8 years, and especially so in the last 2.<BR/><BR/>But what really bothers me about the Ostrich argument isn't the list of facts. I don't dispute the facts - eight years of Dubya have indeed been a disaster for this country, and one I'd been predicting since before the 2000 Primaries. (In fact, I made a bunch of predictions about Bush, mostly in 2000 -- the only economic one which hasn't come true yet was that I predicted inflation at 8-10% by the end of his second term -- there's still time for that, though...)<BR/><BR/>The problem I have can be summed up in one very simple factual sentence: John McCain is NOT George W. Bush.<BR/><BR/>Now, ignore that if you like. Point out his similarities, sure. I'm not even sure *I* like the guy anymore and I was one of his biggest supporters in 2000. So, is that a reason to vote Obama? Let me add another factual sentence: Barack Obama is NOT Bill Clinton.<BR/><BR/>Expecting Obama to have similar or even remotely close results to Clinton is ridiculous -- Obama is about as far away from Clinton as you can get within the Democratic party. They're as different as Bush or even Huckabee is from McCain. They will govern VERY differently. Past performance from the party is no guarantee of future results from an individual president, and we've NEVER had anyone like Obama in the Oval Office.<BR/><BR/>Which brings me down to what each candidate says they will do. McCain kind of makes sense about 60% of the time in what he says. (The other 40% worries me immensely, as does his judgement when he picks someone like Palin as a running mate.) Obama makes sense to me maybe 20% of the time, when he actually says anything at all.<BR/><BR/>And *this* is perhaps the thing I get the least about the Obama following. How can so many people listen to the nonsense this man spouts most of the time he opens his mouth and still believe he's got a clue? I can only assume it's *how* he says it that makes the difference -- it's clear he's a highly effective and charismatic speaker, especially if he's giving a prepared speech.<BR/><BR/>Which brings me to a challenge. Regardless of whose side you're on - try this: Don't *watch* either Obama or McCain for a week. Don't *listen* to either of them for a week. *Read* the transcript of what they say instead. Filter out the rhetoric, negative attacks, and media spin and focus only on the specifics they claim they will do when in office. (Yes, I know this doesn't leave much substance on either side, but try anyway...) Think about them and try to make an objective opinion of who is actually making sense.<BR/><BR/>You may be surprised.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-82607043252564754372008-09-17T12:49:00.000-07:002008-09-17T12:49:00.000-07:00And you just proved my point. Thank you.Rob H.And you just proved my point. Thank you.<BR/><BR/>Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5334417763207967982008-09-17T12:31:00.000-07:002008-09-17T12:31:00.000-07:00Incredible in the sense that Obama a victim=good a...Incredible in the sense that Obama a victim=good and just. Your opponents when they decry your unjust and double standards, suddenly are trolls.<BR/><BR/>And that's not caricature or strawmen of people's arguments here.Ymarsakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246906722493964175noreply@blogger.com