Is It Just Me?
by tgirschAugust 12th, 2008
Or does the main thrust of McCain’s recent spate of ads seem to be that the fact that lots of people liek like Barack Obama is some sort of character flaw? I mean, the message seems to be: “Don’t vote for him! People like him!” I suppose the idea is supposed to be to paint Obama as all style and no substance, but I just don’t see that as a winning argument in American electoral politics. Setting aside the falsity* of the repeated claims that Obama lacks substance, if substance were really important to the American electorate, W would have lost badly in both 2000 and 2004. The at-large electorate seems to believe personality is a lot more important (hence the silly “Do I want to have a beer with him” test).
*Counterexample: Have a look at Obama’s energy plan, compare it to McCain’s plan, and remind me again who exactly is supposed to lack substance. The former consists of specific actions to be taken, while the latter consists mainly of wishful thinking.
Cross-posted at TennesseeFree.com
Categories: Politics |
I expect that your counterexample might be something that depends rather heavily on your own viewpoint. Obama’s viewpoint has a lot of specific actions to be taken, for a certain standard of specific. How do you plan to move 0.32 terawatts of not just clean but renewable resources out in four years? We don’t even have the capacity for solar or wind power plant production for half of that (or the indium and gallium refineries, for that matter), and concentrated solar thermal plants would take longer than that to bring up. That’s not to say McCain’s is sane (etha *hic*! anol!), but I can’t quite consider someone saying they’ll put an end to oil speculation — for those watching at home, this would be a fluid market with a majority of production and sales occurring off American soil — as being far from wishful thinking. Kerry was not exactly a highlight of well-listed action, nor Bush an example of a great personality (he doesn’t, apparently, sound like an idiot when talking to small groups, but the rest of the time? Argh).
I’ll try to recognize my confirmation bias here, though.
I expect the purpose of McCain’s ads is less to suggest that Obama’s bad for being popular — after all, both socialized-health care Nixon and tax-cutter Reagan were, so it’s obviously not a good indicator — and more to suggest that there’s a cult of personality going around. People don’t like that, and they’ll modify how they think to avoid being close to that.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with the whole cult of personality thing, although the O hand signal creeps me out. Anything McCain can do to get the harder left to look far enough and see “Drill more oil in Alaska” or “Build New Nuclear Plants” can not hurt him.
The polls I have seen have Barry and McCain very close in their favorable ratings by likely voters. Barry does have an edge among young non-voters. Europeans and illegal aliens love him, which is a negative for Barry among many American voters.
Europeans and illegal aliens love him, which is a negative for Barry among many American voters.
Well, the xenophobic ones, anyway…
The last I understood, “Europeans” and “illegal aliens” are not able to vote in American elections, and therefore are not considered by the polls. As the polls say the race is very close, it doesn’t appear that any appeal he has or doesn’t have among those two groups has affected his ratings among “American” voters.
It was a truly bizarre statement to make.
Not necessarily, tgirsch. There are a number of people who enjoy British and German and Mexican food, culture, and so on yet still get worried by things that are popular over there. These are still countries where the populace has recently and repeatedly voted for policies with which most of the American populace would strongly disagree with, and thus getting rave reviews there might be a bit of a red flag.
I’ve got German family members, but the first thing that comes to mind when Obama’s getting fawned over by the country’s patriots is how significantly those same people have taken anti-American rhetoric to an art form over the last two decades. I love the Spanish culture (both Spain and some parts of Mexico), but after they put a self-described socialist party in charge, you start getting a bit worried when something polls just as well there.
It’s not because they’re different or not from here, it’s because a pretty large portion of them have a pretty bad record on picking leaders. It’s not proof — there is no level of stupidity at which a clear day’s sky stops being blue — but it is not an unusual reason to get nervous.
“The last I understood, “Europeans” and “illegal aliens” are not able to vote in American elections, and therefore are not considered by the polls.”
I didn’t say they were able to vote or were considered by the polls. You need to work on your reading comprehension.
it’s because a pretty large portion of them have a pretty bad record on picking leaders
…said the kettle to the pot.
Nuck, nyuck, nyuck.
Seriously, even Carter or Nixon don’t quite compare to the genius that is Socialism In Our Time.
gattsuru wrote: “These are still countries where the populace has recently and repeatedly voted for policies with which most of the American populace would strongly disagree with, and thus getting rave reviews there might be a bit of a red flag.”
Much of conflict between the USA and Europe in recent years can be traced to Iraq, or more accurately, our attempts to bully Europe into bringing her foreign policy more in line with ours. A less confrontational relationship would benefit, and I’m sure would be welcome by those on both sides of the Atlantic.
Fred wrote: “I didn’t say they were able to vote or were considered by the polls. You need to work on your reading comprehension. ”
You said the polls indicated the race was very close. If that’s the case, it would indicate there is little fallout from Obama’s popularity among the groups you mentioned. You need to read your own copy.
“Socialism In Our Time.”
Great campaign slogan for Barry.
“If that’s the case, it would indicate there is little fallout from Obama’s popularity among the groups you mentioned. You need to read your own copy.”
What kind of logic is that? With the “popularity” of Obama, he should be wiping the floor with McCain. One of the reasons it is close is because of the fallout. Do you think before you write?
Of course when the time comes for the US to try and build a coalition of nations to carry out a military mission, it might actually be a good thing if those nasty foreigners like the US and/or our leader a bit more. We might get more cooperation and be able to share the load more evenly.
What if we Americans decided to act like adults and accepted that other people will have different preferences which will result in some government policies different from our own. And we still respect them and seek to work with them to solve global issues.
Or we could have some more Cheetos, crack open a beer, and thank god the gov’ment renamed them potato thingies Freedom Fries. Cause we’s the best damn country in the whole wide world!
“Cause we’s the best damn country in the whole wide world!”
Yes, we are.
I hear that a lot. I also seem to hear it from people who apparently weren’t paying attention a decade ago. Canadian, French, and German popular anti-Americanism is not some new concept fresh from the presses after Iraq — America was hitting less than 50% in a likability survey in Spain eight years ago, and the surveys on those matters almost always downplay the actual undercurrents. German and Canadian political systems have refused political reform for the simple reason that Americans did it first (primary process and supreme court justices, respectively). The Ugly American stereotype, ‘philosophers’ like Gret Haller, the first-month sales record-breaking French 9/11 conspiracy book (released in early 2002), rants against Reagan and Johnson, vandalism against Americans and American companies for the last half century, dozens of things.
Anti-Americanism is not some fresh baked problem. Nor is it just about ‘aggression’ or ‘confrontation’. It’s about a natural cultural conflict, and it’s existed for longer and on more (even domestic, like gun control or freedom of speech) issues than any degree of rational ‘confrontation’ or lack thereof could change.
Seemingly always lost in these discussions is whether or not we’ve actually given them pretty good reasons not to like us. Even notwithstanding Iraq, there are good arguments to be made that we have. And that just refers to government action; never mind how notoriously boorish overseas American tourists can often be. In my very limited international travels, I’ve seen American tourists do things that made me downright ashamed. I try very hard not to be “that guy.”
There’s a difference between not liking America and not liking Americans. If tourists are boorish, and we are not liked as visitors, big deal. What matters is if, as a world military leader (economic leadership is a thing of the past sad to say), can we get other countries to back our foreign policies.
As for anti-Americanism being new or not; I suppose it is not new, but having two siblings living abroad for the last ten years, working for a foreign company for several years, and having daily business dealings for over a decade with folks in Japan, France, Germany, Spain, and Switzerland, my rather significant store of anecdotal evidence would suggest that the US is held in lower esteem now than at any time since WWII, at a minimum. But don’t take my word for it. google “world opinion of US” and read any 20 surveys that show how our position in the world is plummeting.
“What matters is if, as a world military leader (economic leadership is a thing of the past sad to say), can we get other countries to back our foreign policies.”
What matters is that we do what is in out national interest. If we can get other countries to back us without compromising our principles, great. If not, too bad. Being liked is not as important as protecting our interests.
Much of the dislike of the U.S. is just plain jealousy or hatred of our freedoms.
Much of the dislike of the U.S. is just plain jealousy or hatred of our freedoms.
Spoken like someone who’s spent no appreciable time outside of the United States. “They hate us for our freedoms” may just be the most naive talking point I’ve ever heard.
Ted
Wow, it’s lower than at the end of the Clinton era. That was really hard. Take a gander back twenty or forty years ago and call us back when you’re done. People were frothing at the mouth about Reagan, too; Bush is not especially unique.
Tgirsch
Depends on how you take it, tgirsch. Through the United Kingdom, American gun ownership is hated and feared. The idea of the first amendment as protection against copyright or libel actions has caused international furor in the past. Creeping Americanization often means creeping capitalism in these countries.
It’s obviously a simplification of things. You can argue that the free market isn’t free, although I personally disagree with that assertion. It’s obviously not the sole cause. It’s still a pretty significant issue, and if you talk to a lotta folk outside of the United States you’ll find a surprising amount of their dislike to be tied to things Americans think of as natural rights.
“Spoken like someone who’s spent no appreciable time outside of the United States.”
As usual, your ignorance is impressive. You have no idea where I have spent my time.
“may just be the most naive talking point I’ve ever heard.”
A Barry supporter calling me naive is laughable.
Gatt, sniffing doesn’t pass for making factual statements. I have choosen one of the largest, most prestigious polls (Pew) and inserted below for your reading pleasure. Read it and then try and sell your case that Bush hasn’t done much damage…
Global poll shows wide distrust of United States
By Meg Bortin Published: June 27, 2007
PARIS: Distrust of the United States has intensified across the world, but overall views of America remain very or somewhat favorable among majorities in 25 of 47 countries surveyed in a major international opinion poll, the Pew Research Center reported Wednesday.
“Anti-Americanism since 2002 has deepened, but it hasn’t really widened,” said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Global Attitudes Project. “It has worsened among America’s European allies and is very, very bad in the Muslim world. But there is still a favorable view of the United States in many African countries, as well as in ‘New Europe’ and the Far East.”
Nonetheless, majorities in many countries reject the main planks of current U.S. foreign policy and express distaste for American-style democracy, the survey found.
Respondents worldwide not only want Washington to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq “as soon as possible,” but also seek a rapid end to the American and NATO military intervention in Afghanistan, now in its sixth year.
The poll found growing wariness toward other major powers as well. Concerns over China’s economic and military might have tarnished its image in many nations, Pew found, and confidence in President Vladimir Putin of Russia has dropped sharply.
The survey, conducted in April and May, is by far the largest Pew has carried out since 2002, covering 47 countries in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa and the Americas, and assessing the opinions of more than 45,000 people. It found that concern about global warming has increased dramatically in the last five years.
“Most of the citizens in the global survey agree the environment is in trouble and most blame the United States and, to a much more limited degree, China,” Pew said.
Negative views of Iran have intensified, including in some Muslim countries, Pew found, and respondents in almost all countries surveyed expressed overwhelming opposition to Tehran’s acquiring nuclear weapons.
While the survey covered a broad range of issues, it focused intensively on the world’s image of the United States, which was largely positive in 2002 - reflecting global sympathy for Americans after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington - but has declined steeply since 2003, when the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq.
Over the last five years, favorable ratings of the United States have decreased “in 26 of the 33 countries for which trends are available,” Pew said.
Confidence in President George W. Bush, which was already sagging, has dropped further in most countries over the past year, as the Iraqi quagmire has deepened and the world’s reprobation has increased.
“Global distrust of American leadership is reflected in increasing disapproval of the cornerstones of U.S. foreign policy,” Pew said in its report on the findings.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, co-chair of the Pew Global Attitudes Project, linked this development directly to the Iraq war. “I think Iraq will go down in history as the greatest disaster in American foreign policy,” she said.
The poll found that:
Majorities in 43 of the 47 countries surveyed want a quick U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. In the United States, 56 percent express this opinion. The exceptions are Ghana, Israel, Kenya and Nigeria.
Majorities or pluralities in 40 countries also want U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. This view, strongest in the Muslim world, was also held in many NATO member countries, notably Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and Turkey.
Support for America’s so-called war on terrorism has plummeted since 2002, especially in Europe, where U.S. practices against inmates at the Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prisons have been harshly condemned.
There is a widespread perception that the United States acts unilaterally in making international policy decisions. This view is especially powerful in Europe, shared by 90 percent in Sweden, 89 percent in France, and 70 percent or more in Britain, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Russia, Slovakia and Spain. A full 83 percent of Canadians believe that their neighbor to the south ignores their interests. Middle Easterners overwhelmingly share this view, as do many Asians, including South Koreans and Japanese.
Majorities in most every country believe that the United States promotes democracy mostly where it serves American interests. Only in Nigeria did many say they believe that the United States “promotes democracy wherever it can.”
This, according to Pew, helps explain why American ideas about democracy are rejected by vast numbers around the globe. The exception is sub-Saharan Africa, where the majority approves of American-style democracy in all countries polled except Tanzania.
But elsewhere, majorities or pluralities in all but four survey countries excluding the United States itself - China, Israel, South Korea and Japan - say they dislike American ideas about democracy.
The country where America’s image is worst is Turkey, a NATO ally, where only 9 percent now have a favorable view, down from 52 percent before the United States went into Afghanistan in late 2001.
In Germany, traditionally one of the closest U.S. allies, only 30 percent now have a positive view, down from 78 percent before Bush took office in January 2001.
There has been serious slippage as well in Britain, America’s most reliable ally and its chief partner in the war in Iraq. A slim majority of Britons - 51 percent - now hold favorable views of the United States, down from 75 percent in 2002, before the Iraq invasion.
The picture is more complex with China, which is viewed favorably in more than half of the survey countries, particularly in Africa - where the Chinese have been investing heavily - and in Asia, excluding Japan.
At the same time, the Pew report said, “China’s expanding economic and military power is triggering considerable anxiety.”
Russia wins mixed reviews, with West Europeans largely unfavorable while opinions are split in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America, and generally positive in Africa, Canada and the United States.
With Putin’s grip tightening over pipelines to the West, dependence on Russia for energy supplies is worrying many Europeans, Pew found, with majorities expressing concern in Britain, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine.
Confidence in Putin’s leadership has plummeted in Europe since 2003, as has confidence in Bush. In contrast, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany enjoys high levels of confidence in Europe, although Middle Easterners - including Israelis and Palestinians - do not trust her on foreign affairs.
Asked about the crisis in the Middle East, Western publics were generally optimistic that a solution can be found that accommodates the needs of both Israelis and Palestinians, and Israelis also took that view. But Arabs in the region were pessimistic, with more than 70 percent in Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait and the Palestinian territories believing that “the rights and needs of the Palestinian people cannot be taken care of as long as the state of Israel exists.”
Gatt, I will grant you that in the kate 60s, early 70s (Vietnam) world opinion of the US probably ribvaled where we are now.
Again, Ted, look back more than two years before the start of the Pew Research project that you are citing. Saying that it’s down from 2001 is interesting and all, but when I’ve already (repeatedly) stated that anti-American prejudices existed for a good forty decades before that point, and were on a low value in 2001, those numbers don’t exactly provide strong evidence.
I’m not saying Bush’s policies (and, for that matter, appearance and media reaction) hasn’t resulted in lower opinion results. I’m saying that this is neither new, nor something tied that hard to actual individuals or policies. Again, look at the Reagan (especially in 1985), early Clinton, and Johnson years.
Not just Johnson and Nixon, Ted. Reagan had Thatcher, but she had a lot of close political calls and most of her opposition repeatedly called her, in effect, an American stooge. If you want to know how bad it is, Margaret “Right to be Gay, legalize homosexuality” Thatcher has been portrayed as rounding up the gays for holding camps since at least 1992 thanks to her association with the Evil Americans.
There was El Salvador and Grenada for the European crows to caw over, as well as nasty social and economic and environmental and nuclear concerns.
You have no idea where I have spent my time.
“Mom’s basement” and “comic book conventions” seem like pretty good guesses…
Gatt, do you have any links you can offer? I’m not finding any studies to back up your claim - or my counterclaim.
As for fred’s “they hate us for our freedoms” (which I second as one of the stupidest bumper sticker to come out of the Bush years) I’m thinking they hate us for making a mockery of the UN, for not participating in Kyoto, for not signing treaties banning land mines, for consuming and polluting at per capita rates far exceeding any other country, for suspending habeas corpus, for disregarding the Geneva Conventions, for electing a blithering idiot as president, for allowing our mortgage industry to run amok and jeopardize the world economy, for failing to lead in health care, renewable energy, education, and for having a culture that cares more about Britney, Paris, and American Idol than anything of consequence.
But I could be wrong. Let me ask you this - have you ever hated, or maybe even disliked someone for their freedom?
Not sure if there are any currently available opinion polls on the subject. I’m going from memory and the voting records. I can provide a lot of other writers with anecdotal evidence, but that alone isn’t useful data. Do you want them?
And, yes, I’ve personally hated people for their freedoms. People have and should have the freedom to think that the Confederate flag is a wonderful symbol, or to wave Che shirts, or to proudly advocate Socialism In Our Time. I hate people who are either so foolish to not notice or intentionally support slavers (or, if you want to be picky about the Confederacy, Democrats who started a war over a ’stolen’ election, which is only more pathetic), gleeful executioners, or an economic system so amazingly failed that it deserves a Razzie of its own category. I wouldn’t take it away from them, but my personal system of morality allows nothing other than a state unfortunately close to rage.
The issue at hand is more whether the anger or hatred is justified or not. A lot of anti-Americanism really, really isn’t.
As for your list, I don’t want to nitpick or start getting into debates about what made the UN a mockery, but you really should be careful about that “most pollution per capita”. In terms of greenhouse gases, Qatar, the UAE, and (oddly) Australia beat use to that particular honor. There’s an oft-cited number saying Americans produce twice as much trash as the next comparable country (although I’ve found issues with the various sources), but that’s different from actual pollution, as how much of it gets into the wild instead of the dumps (which are able to process garbage faster than we put it in, at this point). There’s certainly a category somewhere that America pulls ahead for and is still meaningful (a couple chemicals involved in LCD and solar panel production come to mind), but I don’t think the statement as a whole is that accurate.
I’m thinking you are twisting the bejeezus out of the phrase “hate us for our freedoms” to include your hatred of socialists (as an example). You don’t hate them because they are free to be socialists, you hate them because they are socialists. Honestly, it just seems like you hate a lot of people. Freedom seems to be orthogonal to your rage.
Ted, I must take exception to your mention of habeas corpus. While there are similar protections under other legal systems, habeas is a peculiarly English invention.
Also, I doubt anyone external hates us for suspention of habeas, so much as revile and pity us.
I wouldn’t care about or notice socialists if they weren’t irritatingly vocal about This Time Will Be Different and such. It’s not that they like socialism that I particularly care about — a lotta people believe a dozen stupid things before breakfast — it’s that there’s a chance of them doing something on the matter.
That is, in many ways, a freedom.
“Honestly, it just seems like you hate a lot of people.”
Your tirades are getting a little tiring. Your contention that anyone who disagrees with you hates everyone is nonsensical and reveals you as actually the one who is the hater. Just because I disagree with someone’s philosophies, politics, or lifestyle doesn’t mean that I hate him. Do you hate everyone who doesn’t bow down to your narrow-minded beliefs? Probably so. That’s why you can’t grasp the concept that one can disagree without hate. I feel sorry for you.
Your contention that anyone who disagrees with you hates everyone is nonsensical and reveals you as actually the one who is the hater.
Coming from you, that’s the funniest damn thing I’ve read in a LOOONG time. That’s like Bill Clinton lecturing some other guy about not being able to keep it in his pants…
I love the Spanish culture (both Spain and some parts of Mexico), but after they put a self-described socialist party in charge, you start getting a bit worried when something polls just as well there.
Given many of the comments that follow throughout the discussion, perhaps what you meant is that you love the neutered simulacrum of the bread and circus elements of foreign culture that the gatekeepers allow to pass through to the people in the form of consumable cultural commodities…
“That’s like Bill Clinton lecturing some other guy about not being able to keep it in his pants…”
And that is one of the silliest and most childish responses I’ve seen in a LOOONG time. Do you deny that a person can disagree with someone without being a hater? Or is it only liberals who can disagree without hate? You can show no place that I have expressed hate for anyone.
Well, you accuse just about everyone who disagrees with you of being “full of hate,” “hating,” etc. That may not be hate, though. Just stupidity.
“Well, you accuse just about everyone who disagrees with you of being “full of hate,” “hating,” etc.”
You express hate toward others and I point out your hate and I am the one who hates because I point out your hate. With that kind of reasoning skill, no wonder you are a liberal.
That’s the thing, though: Very rarely do I express hate toward anyone. Just because you see it everywhere, doesn’t mean it exists everywhere.
” Very rarely do I express hate toward anyone.”
LOL That’s a good one. Thanks for the laugh.
Fred, you might note that Gatt provided a list of groups that he hates, and I was merely responding to that. And you are the one who introduced “they” as hating “us”.
Dan, I’ll defer to you on habeas, although I think it is more wide-spread than you indicate. And of course I was not being literal when I wrote “they hate us for…”, I was merely responding within the established context. I think your terms (revile and pity) are probably more accurate across the board.
Ah, sorry, Ted, I actually meant that a bit tongue-in-cheek, but you couldn’t hear it over the intertubes. The American-hating European is a Frenchman, and they don’t have habeas corpus, because they have the Napoleonic codes, not the English common law. It was meant as an indication of irony. Mea culpa.
How popular would Barry be if people knew that 3 times as an Illinois senator Barry voted against bills that would spare the lives of living, breathing babies who had survived abortions? It’s an Obamanation that is almost unspeakable. What an awful, awful beast!
fred, I’m going to do you a favor. If you are not aware of it, check out the site no quarter us dot net. I’m not presenting as a linkable address because I don’t want to do that to my buddies at LL. Get a tetanus shot first, then dive in. You will have a ball over there. They are you kindred spirit.
Maybe you will like it so much over there you won’t feel compelled to hijack over here.
A quick search suggests that Ted means “no quarter usa” (no spaces) dot net.
Did Barry vote against bills that would outlaw the practice of not treating and allowing to die babies who survive an abortion? Your insults don’t answer the question.
Are you uncomfortable with supporting the killing of babies who survive an abortion?
I’m plenty comfortable with voting against unenforceable, do-nothing legislation that attempts to address a nonexistent problem, and was always just an anti-abortion ploy to begin with.
“nonexistent problem”
Leaving a baby who has survived the attempt on its life to die is a nonexistent problem? It has happened. How many times does it need to happen before it becomes an existent problem?
So, the answer is yes, you believe it is okay to let a baby die because it survived an abortion. You are a heartless monster.
It has happened.
Specific examples, please. Names and dates and places.
Even if it has happened, it’s exceedingly rare, and passing the law wouldn’t do anything at all to stop it from happening. But hey, I thought it was we liberals who were supposed to be fond of feel-good, knee-jerk legislation that accomplishes nothing at all.
Far more children die each year because of lack of adequate health coverage, yet I don’t see you clamoring for universal health care for children. Orders of magnitude more Iraqi children are killed as a direct result of a war you support, and I don’t see you shedding a tear for them, or calling war supporters names.
You care far more about a non-viable fetus with no ability to survive on its own than you do about actual, living, breathing children, and you call ME a “heartless monster?” That’s rich.
“On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only senator to speak in opposition to a bill that would have banned the practice of leaving premature abortion survivors to die. The bill, SB 1095, was carefully limited, its language unambiguous. It applied only to premature babies, already born alive. It stated simply that under Illinois law, “the words ‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child,’ and ‘individual’ include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.””
–copied
“You care far more about a non-viable fetus”
This is not about a non-viable fetus. It is about a living breathing human being who is outside his mother’s womb.
“with no ability to survive on its own”
No baby has the ability to survive on his own.
“than you do about actual, living, breathing children, and you call ME a “heartless monster?” That’s rich.”
There you go again with your unfounded charges. You are not only a monster, but also an ignorant heartless monster.
“Specific examples, please. Names and dates and places.”
Google “Obama survived abortions” an see what you get. I dare you. Note especially the testimony of a nurse Stanek.
There you go again with your unfounded charges.
So you support universal health care for children? You support a quick end to the Iraq war? If I’m wrong, by all means explain how my charges are “unfounded.”
Google “Obama survived abortions” an see what you get. I dare you.
Dare taken. And what did I find? Confirmation that it’s do-nothing legislation:
I also discovered that Obama wasn’t the “only” Senator not to support the bill. 18 Illinois State Senators either voted against the bill or abstained, and the bill failed to pass the Illinois house.
Of course, all of this is simply a disingenuous ploy on your part. Even if Obama had voted in support of that useless bill, it still wouldn’t change your opinion of him or your extreme dislike for his pro-choice position. You’re just taking cheap pot shots on an issue you know is of insignificant importance in the grand scheme of things.
Tell you what, though. I’ll trade you. I’ll pass the Illinois so-called “live birth” abortion ban if you agree to pass universal health care for all children.
P.S. We’ve been through this a zillion times, but “fetus” != “baby.”
Emphasis mine. That sounds an awful lot like it doesn’t distinguish between a 12-week fetus and a 24-wk fetus, nevermind a 36-wk fetus being aborted.
Since the bad applied only to events following an abortion, it’s actual effect would be to not change how viable abortion survivers are treated, but to make it a crime for any successful abortion to leave the fetus alive after expulsion.
It’s not a law without effect; it’s effect is to strongly discourage medically safe abortions, while not havng any benefit to children.
“I also discovered that Obama wasn’t the “only” Senator not to support the bill.”
Never said he was the only one not to support the bill. Quit making up things.
Never said he was the only one
What’s this then, at #48?
At this point, you’ll probably weasel out and say that this says Obama was the only one to speak in opposition to the bill on that specific date, and if you’re going to split that particular hair, then you’re an even bigger tool than I thought.
As dirty as it makes me feel, i have to admit that Fred’s right that he claimed Obama was the only one who spoke in opposition, date notwithstanding
“As dirty as it makes me feel”
Truth should never make you feel dirty.
Then please keep away from it; you leave a trail.
“Then please keep away from it; you leave a trail.”
You are very childish.
Well, I suppose you have managed to train yourself out of the “pants on fire” part of the usual playground epithet. How long did that take you?
You are pathetic. I feel sorry for you.
“At this point, you’ll probably weasel out and say that this says Obama was the only one to speak in opposition to the bill”
It says what it says. Which part do you not understand?
“I also discovered that Obama wasn’t the “only” Senator not to support the bill.”
Didn’t say he was. I see you are having that reading comprehension problem that afflicts you so often.
“Since the bad applied only to events following an abortion, it’s actual effect would be to not change how viable abortion survivers are treated, but to make it a crime for any successful abortion to leave the fetus alive after expulsion.”
Very clinical language to say that it is okay to kill the baby after he leaves his mother and is breathing independently of her. No matter how you state it, it stills means the death of a living, breathing living baby. Do you support the killing (by neglect or positive action) of a baby who has survived an abortion? Yes or no. Don’t try to weasel out of it.
“I’m plenty comfortable with voting against unenforceable, do-nothing legislation that attempts to address a nonexistent problem, and was always just an anti-abortion ploy to begin with.”
One of the bills Barry voted against specifically said that the bill was in no way to affect the abortion laws of Illinois. The spurious argument that the law was an anti-abortion law is unfounded.
How about that forum at Saddleback Church? We now know that the answer to a question Barry doesn’t want to answer is “That’s above my pay grade.” I’ve got a feeling that a lot of things are above Barry’s pay grade.
Fred, we’ve known for a long time that you don’t have anything positive to say. You don’t need to keep demonstrating it here.
“we’ve known for a long time that you don’t have anything positive to say.”
Yes, I understand. Since all your blogs are so positive, especially those of KTK, I know it must irritate you when someone says something negative. I’ll try to be as positive as you are, Sunshine.
Ooh, I struck a nerve!
How so? Don’t flatter yourself.
It is I who strikes the nerve any time I say something about Lord Barack Hussein Obama.
I dunno, you say a whole lot more about him than anyone else here. So it seems you’re the one who’s obsessed. Perhaps you have a man-crush?
“you say a whole lot more about him than anyone else here.”
I don’t blame you for not responding. There’s not much good to say about Barry. He is an empty suit.
“Perhaps you have a man-crush?”
Maybe in your world of perversion that would be true. In the world of normal people we say nice things if we have a crush on someone.
There’s not much good to say about Barry.
And yet, oddly, you have nothing at all to say about his opponent…
“And yet, oddly,”
Nothing odd about it. I am opposed to Barry Hussein Obama becoming president. You are a strange person.
And since there’s nothing worth defending about McCain, you’re left with obsessing about Obama. No, really, I get it. As I said before, nothing positive to say.
“And since there’s nothing worth defending about McCain,”
You really are persistent in your ignorance. I’m not a McCain supporter except in the sense that he is not Barry, a liberal socialist. He does have it over Barry in experience and substance.
Justify your negativity however you need to. We understand that you don’t like that black guy with the Muslim-sounding name.
“We understand that you don’t like that black guy with the Muslim-sounding name.”
His race has nothing to do with it. His liberalism and socialism do.
Does Obama’s race have anything to do with your support of him? When you have nothing to say, you always want to play the race card. We already know you are a racist because of your support of Affirmative Discrimination.
You keep calling him a socialist; I’m betting you don’t even know what that means.
“You keep calling him a socialist; I’m betting you don’t even know what that means.”
And you keep saying that everytime I use the word socialist.
Because you’ve never disabused me of the notion.
Dropping in,
You must not know what socialism is tgirsch or you wouldn’t be voting for someone like Obama. Or maybe you would because you are for socialized healthcare, and quit calling it “universal heathcare:, that is a liberal ploy to shadow what it really is, SOCIALISM.
I think the american people would have a better idea of where the two parties stand if you guys would just come out and say you believe in socialism, but no lib will because they know its to radical, and truth would lose a great number of voters.
So instead you hide behind words and ploys, AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHY BARACK COULDN’T PUT A SENTENCE TOGETHER AT SADDLEBACK.
Admit you are Socialists!!
American3000:
Go forth and educate yourself.
In what way does universal health care constitute “the government controlling the means of production?” In what way does it mean “no private property?”
Will you please stop with your smug one liners and condescension.
I’m not even sure what you mean by that “Go forth and educate yourself”. Do you believe that socialism only means “no private property”. Socialized healthcare is SOCIALISM, if you don’t understand that you you should do your homework. I’m not saying this trying to be smart you should really know what socialism is if you are voting for Obama. It knid of ironic you wrote “Go forth and educate yourself”
Apparently you’re not smart enough to click on a link, either.
But hey, if anything being paid for and regulated by the government constitutes “socialism,” then you’re a “socialist” if you support, say, the Interstate Highway System, or the military, or public education. If supporting those things makes someone a socialist, then I guess I’m a socialist, too, and it doesn’t bother me if Obama’s one by that standard.
Of course, now we’re left without a word to describe someone who really does want to outlaw private property and have the government take over the means of production…
Below is the definition of socialism from Wilkipedia. I learned a little myself. That socialism is a platform for Marxism, I didn’t know that.
“Socialism refers to any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services, some of which have been developed into more or less highly articulated theories and/or praxis. [1] In a Marxist or labor-movement definition of the term, socialism is a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done with the goal of creating a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.”
Can you stop the condescension. It is obvious now that you have no idea what socialism is. I don’t have time for this, I thought the Daily Kos would be a good place to have a decent debate with another liberal but I see I am wastin my time.
Or maybe I can go to another blog, I hope they are not all as smug as you, and have a clue about what they are talking about. One last thing, the only responsibility the government has is (building roads, national defense, and of course the bureaucracy) this is what taxes were originally for. Its beautiful you mention highways it dove tails beautifully with the fact you really don’t know what socialism is.
Or maybe I will go to another blog, I hope they are not as smug as you. It comes across that you think you are better than everyone else, it poor manners, disrepectful and it takes away from the issues at hand.
One last thing, I was floored when you mention highways. The only original reason for taxes was to build roads and pay for national defense, this is why taxes are certain for a thriving country, i.e. Ben Franklin. Its not socialism its common sense. Your not a socialist for believeing in building highways you would be considered a socialist for believeing in Socialized Healthcare.
What won’t you let me post anything
Maybe I will go to another blog, I hope they are not as smug as you. It comes across that you think you are better than everyone else, it poor manners, disrepectful and it takes away from the issues at hand.
One last thing, I was floored when you mention highways. The only original reason for taxes was to build roads and pay for national defense, this is why taxes are certain for a thriving country, i.e. Ben Franklin. Its not socialism its common sense. Your not a socialist for believeing in building highways you would be considered a socialist for believeing in Socialized Healthcare.
I want everyone to know that someone has stopped my ability to blog under American3000. This is what I wanted to write as my final thought. The only free speech libreral believ in is their own.
I will go to another blog, I hope they are not as smug as you. It comes across that you think you are better than everyone else, its poor manners, disrepectful and it takes away from the argument at hand.
One last thing, I was floored when you mention highways. The only original reason for taxes was to build roads and pay for national defense, this is why taxes are certain for a thriving country, i.e. Ben Franklin. Its not socialism its common sense. Your not a socialist for believeing in building highways you would be considered a socialist for believeing in Socialized Healthcare.
I want everyone to know that someone has stopped my ability to blog under American3000. Whay have you done this, why are you silencing me. This is what I wanted to write as my final thought. The only free speech libreral believ in is their own.
I will go to another blog, I hope they are not as smug as you. It comes across that you think you are better than everyone else, its poor manners, disrepectful and it takes away from the argument at hand.
One last thing, I was floored when you mention highways. The only original reason for taxes was to build roads and pay for national defense, this is why taxes are certain for a thriving country, i.e. Ben Franklin. Its not socialism its common sense. Your not a socialist for believeing in building highways you would be considered a socialist for believeing in Socialized Healthcare.
American3000:
Funny: the Wikipedia definition of socialism agrees very nicely with what my definition has been all along, and disagrees with how you’ve been using the term. Unless, of course, you can explain how Obama’s policies amount to “state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services.”
And it should have been obvious: I wasn’t suggesting that the things are mentioned are actually socialism. I was making the point that they AREN’T socialism AT ALL, but that the only way you can rightly call Obama a socialist is by defining all of THOSE things as socialism — which is what you appear to be doing.
I want everyone to know that someone has stopped my ability to blog under American3000.
Then what the hell is up there in comments #85-90?
By the way, here’s a hint: If you keep posting the same thing over and over again, the spam filter thinks you’re spam and puts you in the moderation queue. It’s simple software, and there’s no vast wing conspiracy to prevent you from putting your ignorance on display here.
Can you stop the condescension.
Not until you figure out what a question mark is.
I will go to another blog
I’ve heard such threats before, and they’ve almost always proven idle.
Your not a socialist for believeing in building highways you would be considered a socialist for believeing in Socialized Healthcare.
We liberal elitists believe that “your” is a possessive, and not a substitute for “you’re,” a contraction meaning “you are.” That aside, why the distinction? Why is it that public schools is not socialism, but public health care is? What’s the difference that I’m missing?
Your ignorance is blowing my mind. Public schooling is SOCIALISM. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Please stop with the smugness, it is unnecessary to point out a grammatical error, you come across so stuck up.
Why are you screening all of my posts.
You make fun of how I wrote your, and you write a sentence like this “I wasn’t suggesting that the things are mentioned are actually socialism.” This paragraph is so messed up.
I told you what policy of Obabmas was socialist, socialized healthcare, how are you missing this. That fact that you don’t understand this shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding what socialism is.
Quit putting words in my mouth, your inference of my belief of a left wing conspiracy is insane. It is mind bending that you are inferring I believe in conspiracies, you are a liberal, kings of conspiracy. I’m not saying you are I am just saying the left is full of them and it is ridiculous that you would infer the right is full of them.
I just want to focus on the facts stop the smugness and condesension.
What am I ignorant of, please show me one instance, I have been clear about the definition of socialism, you are showing either an inability to understand or you are to stubborn to admit you have learned something.
I have a serious question because I have never used this blog before. Whay were my blogs going right thru before but now before they show up I need to put in a password and it takes about 15 minutes before it posts. This is why I thought before you were blocking my blogs, I understand no one is blocking them now but what has changed.
Thank You
An honest question, I am not going to say anything, I just want to know how old you are tgirsch.
What part of “posting five comments in a row makes you look like spam” are you not getting?
To co-opt your logic, public schooling is socialism, therefore anyone who supports public schooling is a socialist. That would be the overwhelming majority of Americans, irrespective of party affiliation. Social security and Medicare are even better examples. If socialism is so inherently horrible, then why are such policies still overwhelmingly popular in our capitalist country?
I’ve said this before, but the bottom line is that pure socialism and pure capitalism are both very bad left unchecked, and they ironically lead to roughly the same end results — a society in which a corrupt, wealthy few rule over the many. The only way to have a decent, civil society is to have socialism and capitalism exist in tension, such that neither one gains too much power over the other. Some things make sense to socialize, like transportation, education, and health care. (And sorry, but government-run transportation and roads and highways ARE mild forms of socialism; that you support them doesn’t make them less so.) Other things, like food, clothing, and entertainment don’t make sense to socialize.
So rather than taking the childishly simplistic view that socialism is always unconditionally bad and capitalism is always unconditionally good, we should evaluate such things on a case-by-case basis. If the free market fails to meet the public good in a critical way, that’s time for us to revisit whether government should have involvement. I happen to think (and many Americans agree) that 45+ million without access to decent health care represents a failure of the market to “provide.”
But let’s look at it from the other side. You seem to be of the opinion that public health care and public education are bad ideas, decrying them as eeevil “SOCIALISM!” What’s the alternative? Are you arguing that education and good health ought to be privileges of wealth, rather than basic human needs?
Finally, I fail to see why my age is relevant.
Putting words in my mouth. Never said socialism was evil, it is just a really poor philosophy, that displays a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. These policies fail over and over again but libs never understand that for some reason.
I am not going to split hairs with you. Taxes are necessary for some government programs (defense, roads, etc). That doesn’t meen you are a socialist if you believe they are necessary, but it is a socialist point of view to want socialized healthcare.
This is ridiculous, I am sitting here having a conversation about socialism with someone who has no idea what it is.
And I just wanted to know your age, and I didn’t want to say why, but it is because of your extremely lack of maturity and your childness comments. I think you may be truly hopeless young man.
You don’t even have the ability to admit you really didn’t know what socialism was when we started this. It is obvious in your first reply, and every reply since has magnified your ignorance
The funniest thing is the left always talks about how much hate the right has, but the only hate I see comes from the left. This is my last post and it was one of the most meaningless debates I have ever had.
Another difference is the debates on right wing blogs encourage liberals to debate, I feel like in this one you have done nothing but shout me down, and attempt to confuse the subject
Peace
tgirsch, I admire your patience.
Wow, I only just noticed the huge pile of fail that was American3000. Impressive, gives Fred a run for his money.
American3000:
Hey, I’m not the one who’s been a moving target on what socialism is (and whether it’s good or bad). That’s been all you. As for calling socialism “eeevil,” I would have thought the extra E’s would underscore the hyperbole, but apparently not. In any case, you do use the term “socialism” in an almost exclusively derogatory fashion, and you’re extremely reluctant to call the socialist programs you support “socialism” unless called on them.
Finally, you have a twisted perspective on reality if you think public education, social security, and Medicare can rightly be described as “failures,” or if you think that the health care systems of Western Europe can be described as “failures.”