" Hmmm!!!We realize that someone cannot mention everything in one column so that these are selected things that Professor Clayson has learned. I am sorry that he has chosen to publish such negative stuff since there is a lot more to learn.

I would like to remind Professor that Mc Cain is one of those politians that had an affair so he also is under the cloud that Professor Clayson laments. Somehow Clayson chose to say he learned something about Edwards but not McCain. And McCain is still considered the Republican candidate for President while Edwards is not.

Very little has been said about McCain's affair by the media. That makes me feel as though McCain has an affair going with the media. The constant comments of the media about Obama is that the American people are just getting to know about him as if they really got to know him things would be different.

Anyway I have learned that there are a lot of things that Professor Clayson chose not to tell us or maybe doesn't know. And this talk about media bias for the Professor is like the potty saying that the bathroom stinks. By the way, I will soon be checking out the facts about Edwards to see if this is another column by the professor that is disputed by Urban Legends and Truth or Fiction. Professor's bias has been very transparent once more. "

" I would just like to mention that calling those holding an opposing view 'stupid' is nothing new. Columnists, commentators, apostles and pundits of a conservative ilk such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity et.al. have been calling liberals 'ignorant', 'misinformed', 'uneducated', and yes, 'STUPID' for YEARS.

I also think that making an off handed generalization such as...

'Having an affair is almost a requirement for modern politicians who are not conservative...',

and insinuating that this type of behavior occurs for the most part in the Democrat's camp, is not only poor editorial writing...it's stupid. "

" Jeroze says, "Very little has been said about McCain's affair by the media." Maybe that's because, despite speculation, there is little to support the allegation that McCain engaged in affair? If something didn't happen, it didn't happen. A simple concept, that, but hard for some ideologues to grasp. Go ahead and check out the "facts" about Edwards. You'll find that even he admits an affair took place.

jeroze goes on to say, "...McCain is still considered the Republican candidate for President while Edwards is not." Yes, but I would say this pretty much rules out the likelihood of Edwards surfacing as Obama's running mate.

Aside from all that, come November, either McCain or Obama is probably going to be elected president. My concern is that, in the long run, will it matter which? "

" I have heard over and over again about McCain's affair. What channel are you watching? I think it is one of the only things the democrats have, that and showing pics over and over of McCain with Bush. As if because he took a pic with him, he is just like him.
It is hard to disagree that the media is in love with BHO. Check this out: I know it's an ad, but seriously people, objectivity SHOULD be a priority. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UeZgFqQYVE "

" jeroze- doyou read anything other than left wing talking points?
Please show me proof that Sen. McCain had an affair , I would be interested in seeing it.
Make your comments my friend , but do not insult our intelligence by making statements that are not true. "

" The polls are tied, yet I can't find anything reporting that bit of info, here or on the national sites. Why?
http://www.gallup.com/HomePage.aspx "

" Greetings to THE BAT and Mister T:

Did I not hear Senator McCain tell Rick Warren last night one of the most regretable mistakes he made in his life was his divorce? Now how can I prove that I heard that?

And has the Waterloo Courier and the Des Moines Register been wrong in reporting that this affair was happening in the 1970's? And it lead to a divorce.

And was the Yahoo News falsifying yesterday in bringing us the account of McCain's mother suing McCain's first wife to get some of her property back that she considered her valuable personal property?

I will repeat a statement that I made in a blog on the Eby Column this morning. Maybe the greatest consequences of the Edwards tragedy made to this campaign is that attention drawn to John McCain's affair and divorce from his first wife and the reference to Edwards Mansion has sort of brought attention to the great wealth that McCain and his second wife have.

This has all come to our attention seemingly because of the Edwards affair. "

" what does it matter if McCain had an affair? It's common knowledge that Obama had an affair as well..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xb3bDwE9jQ "

" "'Having an affair is almost a requirement for modern politicians who are not conservative...'"

*Head in hands*

How is this person given a usually unopposed weekly column? Is he speaking from a parallel universe? One where in the past year 84 members of Congress were arrested for drunk driving and conservative politicians are faithful to their spouses..

Actually, if he's going to say stuff like that, let him. Even the most ill informed Courier reader has to know how ridiculous that above statement is. "

" Today, Prof. Clayson denounces the press for its “religious reverence” to Obama. He then tries to prove it by providing three examples.

The first is a column by David Brooks who says that Obama has never “been fully engaged with anything he has done.”

To start, in case you’d like to read what David Brooks said, it’s on the web at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The first thing you may notice is that nowhere does Brooks say that “Obama has been fully engaged with anything he has done.” Here is what he does say: “There is a sense that because of his unique background and temperament, Obama lives apart. He put one foot in the institutions he rose through on his journey but never fully engaged. As a result, voters have trouble placing him in his context, understanding the roots and values in which he is ineluctably embedded.”

A careful reader will note that what Prof. Clayson has done is to completely change what Brooks says before condemning it. What Brooks is saying it that the people can’t type-cast Obama because of a singular involvement in something he has done in life. For example, the people can not type-cast Obama as a “civil-rights advocate” because of a life-long activism in, say, CORE.

What Prof. Clayson’s paraphrase of Brooks statement would have you believe is that Obama is too lazy to believe in anything.

Brooks is saying that people must work to understand Obama and can’t just take an easy shortcut. In that, he’s with a lot of knowledgeable people who are concerned that the American voters are not very thoughtful voters. They depend on ephemera to make voting decisions.

Next, Prof. Clayson goes into the recent fall from grace of John Edwards. (In case there is any doubt, my admiration for Edwards ended with the revelations. I find Elizabeth to be a really classy person and I can’t understand how he could do that to her.)

A careful reader may wonder what on earth John Edwards fall has on Barack Obama – since that was supposed to be the theme of the column. However, the text of what Prof. Clayson has to say will not help is solving that problem. Nowhere does he say what that connection is. His complaint seems limited to the fact that articles on Edwards in the New York Times and the Washington Post wait until the third paragraph to point out that Edwards is a Democrat. Prof. Clayson is quite sure that had Edwards been a Republican that it would have been mentioned in the first paragraph.

I think that Prof. Clayson is asking his readers to believe that because Edwards is a Democrat and Obama is a Democrat that both must be adulterers. And that is the logical fallacy of “guilt by association.” (And Clayson conveniently leaves out that the chemistry between Barack and Michelle is palpable all the time. Reasonable people might be led to believe that neither is likely to be fooling around.)

Prof. Clayson’s last point is that the press has led a lot of people to believe that the GOP is “stupid” for proposing more drilling to solve the problem of the high price of oil.

The careful reader may wonder at this point, “Wait a minute. Wasn’t this column supposed to be about the ‘religious reverence’ the press has for Obama? Obama isn’t even mentioned in this final part of the column.”

Indeed, Prof. Clayson seems to be objection so something said by Paul Krugman. And Prof. Clayson does not even respond to Krugman. He merely restates his own reasons for why drilling for more oil is a great idea. (And, one of his reasons is that Krugman’s economics could be straightened out if “excellent economic profs would let Paul sit in on a few classes.” And that is another logical fallacy called “begging the question.”)

And the argument is somewhat pointless in regard to Obama anyway. Obama has publicly stated that he’d let the oil companies go after some (meaning it wouldn’t be open season) off-shore oil but only AS PART OF a general program of adopting a general energy plan.

Prof. Clayson’s columns seem to frequently be something of chain-of-consciousness thoughts rather than real arguments to an established point. "

" the_bat, thinkaboutit, and mister t have apparently been living on the moon for a while and have been out of touch with events here on earth. The fact that John McCain was fooling around with Cindy while he was still married to Carol is something that he ADMITS.

Here are a couple of sources about that feature of his life:

http://phoenix.about.com/od/politiciansfromarizona/a/johnmccain_2.htm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2911434

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-doesnt-john-mccains-a_b_117811.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR2008061200998.html

So, let's not get holier-than-thou on excusing McCain while condemning Edwards. "

" thinkaboutit @ Aug 17, 2008 12:38 PM said, "The polls are tied, yet I can't find anything reporting that bit of info, here or on the national sites. Why?
http://www.gallup.com/HomePage.aspx "

I think info on polls is available in a lot of places. Also, the Gallup Poll has shown things close for a while. Not so with other polls.

For an up-to-date collection of what all the polls are saying, go to:

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/

It collects all the national and state polls. So far, the consensus is that Obama wins. And the state polls are more telling because of the way the Electoral College works. The current tally on that is that Obama wins 300 votes to 238 votes. (Note, at that site you can sign up for daily updates on all new polls.)

So, thinkaboutit, despair your charm. Polls are still polls and you ought to read more than one. "

" jeroze- you are right on McCain's affair. I did not see the entire Saddle Back event , i was watching the Swimming.
Since posting , i have went back & watched the interviews of both. So i apologize for my comments , I thought you were talking about the accusations with the staffer.
That said , I do think McCain handled the divorce & adultry in a direct way by bringing it up himself & he will be forgiven by most.

I do think that Sen.Obama made a huge mistake with his "Pay grade" comment.

Surely there is no job that should be above the pay grade of the President of the USA. Hey , if you can't solve a problem that's ok ,admit it and people will understand , but you can't use that as an excuse to be unsure about the most defining moral issue in our country today.

I think prior to that comment Obama might have gathered some evangelical votes , but they went bye-bye last night.

Again , sorry for accussing you of not having the facts. "

" cire @ Aug 17, 2008 1:43 PM said, "what does it matter if McCain had an affair? It's common knowledge that Obama had an affair as well.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xb3bDwE9jQ"

cire, that's NOT true. And, unless you come up with some proof, I'm going to fling the "L" word your way.

What you cite as proof is nothing. It's just someone's tasteless video.

Again, before you, I have not heard anyone ever mention your allegation. And, without substantive proof, prepare yourself for the "L" word. "

" mister t @ Aug 17, 2008 5:14 PM said, "I do think that Sen.Obama made a huge mistake with his "Pay grade" comment."

mister t, he was referring to God. I guess his oblique reference was just over your head. "

" "the_bat, thinkaboutit, and mister t have apparently been living on the moon for a while and have been out of touch with events here on earth. The fact that John McCain was fooling around with Cindy while he was still married to Carol is something that he ADMITS"
What? What have I said that would make you feel I live on the moon. You didn't even read my post. I never said he was or was not having an affair. Plz get your facts straight before you throw out blanket statements that are supposed to cover all that ails you. "

" the Obama video was a joke..you know, MadTV, sketch comedy... eh, nevermind. "

" cross...you kill me every week. i can't help but think you read a different article than me each week, because your generalizations of clayson's intent and meaning behind is writing seams to be much different than what i read.

in my mind, the point is that by obama being disengaged, he holds the power of hindsight...he as the ability by not really committing to anything fully, that if proves to be "wrong", he can distance himself from that.

obama is being portrayed as the savior...the savior can't be wrong. to be wrong proves him to be the same as any other politician. "

" I dont get it? The title says it all. Now liberals everywhere are trying to say Clayson did not learn these things.

The arrogance of hope is spreading I see.

The theme of the column, Cross, are things he learned. One can hardly learn much from barack hussein obama to fill an entire article. So Clayson had to learn some things about Edwards as well. A month ago, edwards was another close friend of the obama. And now he is another skeleton hanging from the gallows of the One. "

" I think Mr. Clayson column needs to be retitled, because it is obvious after reading it he hasn't "learned" anything. I'm not so sure he even pays attention.

I almost feel sorry for him after reading this effort. This column would get an "F" in almost any college level comp class, and not because of its conservative bent. It is just bad writing. "

" Cire asks, What does it matter if McCain had an affair?

I don't know. I ask, what did it matter that Bill Clinton had his affair with Monica, Edwards with Fulton, Newt Gingrich? or the preachers, Jimmy Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggert??

Today's column by Charlotte Eby had headlines that said 'Edwards probably out of politics after Scandal'. I guess it depends on one's values.

I don't know if the sign in the clothing store is helpful or not. One table had a sign which said, "Slightly soiled, greatly reduced in value." Not as applicable as it used to be?? But again it seems that the media is also having an affair with McCain so that his affair has been "whispered" while Edwards made the headlines. And the media always favors the liberal? I don't think so. "

" Cross is your goal to be insulting to people , because if it is , you are surely reaching your goals.
The Edwards affair is receiving more press because it is recent & he denied it up until recently.
I'm sure that if Edwards is truly sorry as he says & gos forward living by example he will be forgiven by we the people...I hope he does for the sake of his wife & family. "

" cross1242 states, "cire, that's NOT true. And, unless you come up with some proof, I'm going to fling the "L" word your way."

then jeroze jumps in.."I don't know. I ask, what did it matter that Bill Clinton had his affair with Monica, Edwards with Fulton, Newt Gingrich? or the preachers, Jimmy Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggert??"

with a link to a MadTV sketch, I was assuming you wouldn't take my post seriously..but apparently the Democratic party is suffering from a sense-of-humor shortage these days. "

" ".....The Energy Information Administration, which is part of our government, a government headed up by two former oilmen, says that if the ban on offshore drilling in areas currently restricted were lifted in 2012, it would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030...." Truly ridiculous. Utter nonsense. Increasing the supply of crude oil will lower prices. Who at the Energy Information Administration was interviewed? The guy that waters the flowers or or the one that cleans the windows? You wouldn't happen to have a link would you? Or is this all Daily Kos stuff? "

" Sorry cire, I won't take you seriously anymore, and please don't take what I just wrote seriously. "

" cire @ Aug 18, 2008 8:20 AM said, "apparently the Democratic party is suffering from a sense-of-humor shortage these days."

Or, perhaps, it was just a very bad "joke." "

" if you watched that YouTube video and thought they were being serious, I'm beyond concerned... "

" cire, I understood that the folks on YouTube were NOT serious. What was impenetrable was YOUR claim that Obama had a girlfriend and citing YouTube. I think that it's a given that any joke that requires an explanation is a poor joke. "

" xdfred @ Aug 18, 2008 10:46 AM said, "Truly ridiculous. Utter nonsense. Increasing the supply of crude oil will lower prices."

Out of curiosity, why is it so unbelievable that it would take 18 years to find, develop pumping, and bring a significant supply of new oil to the market from the continental shelf? "

" Apparently you didn't learn in the news that Paul Krugman is an economics professor at Princeton, and is regarded as one of the best economists in the world by both conservative and liberal economists alike.

If they're very lucky, Krugman might let the UNI economics profs sit in on some of HIS classes.

Also, you conveniently failed to mention the biggest reason allowing more offshore drilling is stupid: it won't reap NEARLY enough oil to have ANY real effect on gas prices, according to the Bush administration's own Energy Information Administration. Opening up more offshore drilling would increase the stock of available crude by less than 1%, and that's more than 20 years down the road. Such a tiny increase in world oil supply wouldn't measurably affect gas prices 20 years down the road, and to suggest that it would lower gas prices now is truly laughable. Futures traders just don't care about offshore drilling in Alaska.

You BADLY need an economics class. In fact, here's your first assignment: learn the difference between futures prices and spot prices. But for now, please swim back to the shallow end. "

" I will tell you a couple things I learned. Barack Hussein Obama believes it is OK to kill unborn babies. He also believes that it is OK to deny that he feels this way. This way the Messiah, will capture some voters who have no idea what BHO believes one way or the other. If anything he is one of the most ambiguous politicians to date.

One day this, the other day that. Not saying for sure either way. It makes normal peoples' heads spin. Of course this is the lefty liberal stance on all socialist politicians, and those who feel the arrogance of hope is upon us.


Phil, even suggesting that we are going to open up drilling has already lowered the cost of oil. What part of lower oil prices bothers the left? When will lefty socialists in the NYC and Cali-land start decreasing their carbon footprints?? Shouldnt they be leading by example on this? Well, of course not. Even algore has raised his footprint by trying to become green, something he invented BTW. When algore invented the internet he created the mass usage of cathoid ray tubes, thus causing the most pollution in the history of the globe. For this he gets a medal?

Sounds right to everyone who doesnt have a brain. those on this board excluded of course. "

" It doesn't matter if off shore drilling would only increase oil supply by 1%. It makes people FEEL like we have more oil supply. We have a surplus of oil now. The main reason gas prices spiked is because of specualtion and people are getting filthy rich over it. Analysts speculate that there is a chance there won't be enough, the stock markets catches wind and boom gas prices go through the roof. If we had a true shortage, it would be a lot worse. And the gov't would be stockpiling in very large quantities. So, we do need to look for alternative fuel, but it is ridiculous to think that we are truly in a shortage. If we don't change our ways, a shortage will be coming. But, I believe it will actullay force MOST americans off the road, not just add $1 to your gasoline. "

" hetfield @ Aug 18, 2008 7:26 PM said, "even suggesting that we are going to open up drilling has already lowered the cost of oil."

And that claim is the logical fallacy of "after it therefore because of it." "

" Go here to read the EIA report:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

Prices are down because demand has dropped significantly.

Meanwhile, this has to be the most ignorant statement I have read in quite some time:

"When algore invented the internet he created the mass usage of cathoid ray tubes, thus causing the most pollution in the history of the globe. For this he gets a medal?"

The institution where this person resides needs to monitor their computer usage more closely. "

" cross1242
wrote on Aug 18, 2008 6:46 PM:

" xdfred @ Aug 18, 2008 10:46 AM said, "Truly ridiculous. Utter nonsense. Increasing the supply of crude oil will lower prices."

Out of curiosity, why is it so unbelievable that it would take 18 years to find, develop pumping, and bring a significant supply of new oil to the market from the continental shelf? "
Because it has never taken that long before, and also, government isn't doing it, private business is. The market for crude oil drive companies to get more of it to sell. You and this TLV character are about as clueless about the free market as one can be. Oh, wait, both of you hate it. Never mind.
How about opening the drilling, and no frivolous tree hugger lawsuits. If there's no oil there, no one will spend the money to get it, right? Free market. "

" Cross the economist:"...And that claim is the logical fallacy of "after it therefore because of it." " No, Einstein, it's because the market is predicting an increase in supply. A prediction of an increase in supply of anything drops the price. How long were you living in that cave? "

" thinkaboutit @ Aug 19, 2008 7:28 AM said a lot that doesn't conform to reality.

He: "if off shore drilling would only increase oil supply by 1%. It makes people FEEL like we have more oil supply."

Me: I doubt that the possibility that offshore oil in 20 years made anyone FEEL like anything now.

He: "We have a surplus of oil now."

Me: Baloney! China and other developing nations demanding more oil bid up the price for existing supplies.

He: "The main reason gas prices spiked is because of speculation.

Me: Yes, there was some speculation but that hardly made the price spike by $3.

He: "If we had a true shortage ... the gov't would be stockpiling in very large quantities."

Me: The government already buys oil for the strategic reserve but the amount available there if put on the open market would supply our needs for maybe a day. The government has no place to store gigantic supplies of oil.

He: "it is ridiculous to think that we are truly in a shortage."

Me: Why do you think that what has been predicted for a long time isn't happening now?

He: "I believe it will actually force MOST Americans off the road, not just add $1 to your gasoline."

Me: Actually, it's the high price that forces people off the road. And, if we start now, by the time the shortage is so severe as to ration oil products, we will have other fuels to keep people on the road. "

" Cross has pointed out the logical fallacy of saying that even hinting that we will do more drilling offshore off the USA coast has brought the cost of oil down. It would also point out that my toungue in cheek claim that it was the fact that we sent an observer to Iran without any preconditions to observe the talks with the European diplomats who went to Iran without any known preconditions, happened just one week or so before the prices of oil and gas at the station came down. Could it also be that the American peoples sizeable cut in their consumption of gasoline could which preceeded the downfall of oil and gasoline cost is an argument subject to this logical fallacy.

My point is that we have been fed so much spin that we have no idea of what truth is anymore.

My point is that the polarization of our beloved country is the result of political spin and hardening of the categories. My point is that it is hard to find anyone that cares to tell the truth unless it is to their benefit. My point is that all we are hearing too much smear and not enough clear truth from some of our candidates for office. And that has especially been truth the last eight years.

Professor Clayson has been a good example of one who claims the spin to be the truth. "

" One more candidate for the fallacy cross mentions is that fall in oil and gasoline prices came shortly after the Pickens advertisements about windmills and natural gas. "

" xdfred @ Aug 19, 2008 9:36 AM said, "Cross the economist:"...And that claim is the logical fallacy of "after it therefore because of it." " No, Einstein, it's because the market is predicting an increase in supply. A prediction of an increase in supply of anything drops the price. How long were you living in that cave?"

Let's see. The market saw that the supply of oil might increase IN 20 YEARS IF, somehow, more offshore drilling is approved now?

Boy, is the market dumb.

Or, maybe, xdfred doesn't understand the "market" as much as he thinks he does. "

" Cross the sage:
Let's see. The market saw that the supply of oil might increase IN 20 YEARS IF, somehow, more offshore drilling is approved now?

Boy, is the market dumb.

Or, maybe, xdfred doesn't understand the "market" as much as he thinks he does. "

1. The 20 year number is ridiculous. 5 years is more likely. Would a greedy evil vile oil company invest in drilling with a 20 year ROI?

2. The market gives you goods and services at competitive prices as quick as possible. If it wasn't for the market, you'd be an utter failure as a human being......oh, I guess the market isn't perfect, but it's better than any alternative.

3. The market doesn't waste resources. Individuals and governments do. "

" Go read to link I posted earlier here and read the facts. A couple of weeks ago I posted about this as well. But to recap that info:

First, most of the major off shore areas were oil deposits are projected are already leased.

Second, the best ones left, off California and Florida will probably NEVER be developed because those states, even with Republican governors, won't approve it.

Third, the areas left to be leased don't have pipelines in place to pump the oil back to the refineries, or they don't have refineries there, or both.

Finally, five years would be a miracle to get any noticable quantity of oil to the market from these areas.

How many times must the same facts be posted before the ignorant out there realize that by the time that oil is even located via test wells and a rig built to pump it we could have conserved and developed enough alternative energy to make the well obsolete.

If the market is looking at ANY supply increase it would only be due to one of the current oil producing nations stating they were increasing production - like a Saudi Arabia or Russia. A country with enough production to actually impact the market.

Just cause Rush and the other blow hard retards want to feed this mindless pap to the masses does not make it true.

Oh and yes the greedy vile oil companies already have leases that will be developed over the next 20 years, so yes they would make that investment. "

" xdfred @ Aug 19, 2008 1:10 PM had three point on the marvelous nature of the free market. Let's see:

"1. The 20 year number is ridiculous. 5 years is more likely. Would a greedy evil vile oil company invest in drilling with a 20 year ROI?"

First of all, you are the ONLY person I heard claim five years. Fifteen to 20 is the usual estimates. (Remember that they have to FIND oil first and it takes lots of dry holes until they find a good one. Then they have to figure our how much is there. Then the have to build sea-going rigs, plant them, drill and only then start pumping. That all takes time.)

"2. The market gives you goods and services at competitive prices as quick as possible. If it wasn't for the market, you'd be an utter failure as a human being......oh, I guess the market isn't perfect, but it's better than any alternative."

I have no idea what, "you'd be an utter failure as a human being means." In any case, you have no idea on the down side of markets. (See the answer to the next question.)

"3. The market doesn't waste resources. Individuals and governments do."

Baloney! How about the crash of 1929 and all the other recessions, stagnations, stag-flations, retrenchments. etc. that have happened in the last 80 years. Then how about all the industries that the government has bailed out because they got roughed up by the market. The latest of which fannie mae and freddie mac. But the list of bailed out companies is about endless.

In reality, all the yahoos who yap about the "free market" actually want to privative profits but socialize the risks.

The marvelous free market is the single greatest myth perpetrated on the public by the hard right. The "free market" does NOT produce what they claim for it. And, except for places like Saipan where workers live in slavery, it doesn't exist in this country now. About the only time it did exist was in the era of the Robber Barons and they didn't call them Robber Barons for nothing. "

" jeroze I read with interest your comment about spinning the truth. My question is do you think Obama is any different? As I have stated before, I am an independent. That means I vote for the person I feel will do the best job in protecting my interests and the interest of the U.S. I have a real hard time believing Obama is that man.
What do you think? "

" Phil, Please refrain from the use of the word "retard" to describe people, it is beneath you.

My mind inquires as to where these magical 'alternative energy resources' are? Seems to me there are none, other than nuclear that can produce any significant amount of energy self suffiencently.
You know as you have thoroughly researched the issue, that wind and solar are two of the greatest energy fallacies being promoted right now. Neither of these alternative sources are capable of providing effective reliable power, to keep this countries economic motor running.
Carbon credits are a pyramid scheme of immense stupidity,, so we have oil and coal ( and baby we all love the coalplant) we need to get and use.

So yeah lets conserve, lets use our resources smarter but don't be so negligient as to pretend you have an alternative solution that doesn't involve us all lighting lamps with whale oil.

obama in 08
Is he for or against whale oil???? "

" xdfred,

I always get a good laugh when people like you manage to condemn others for being "clueless about the free market," while demonstrating an astonishing ignorance of simple economics in the very same post. Thanks. I used to work on a trading desk in London (swaps), and our salesmen would go out of their way to find market-worshiping know-nothings ... because, they said, "it's like shooting fish in a barrel." You market-worshipers are so cute, I just want to pinch your little cheeks. xdfred: "It has never taken [18 years to find, develop pumping, and bring a significant supply of new oil to the market] before, and also, government isn't doing it, private business is."

Me: Yes it has. It took MORE than 18 years for every offshore oil field in the North Sea and Alaska. And "private business" was doing those too. Nice try though.

xdfred: "A prediction of an increase in supply of anything drops the price."

Me: The oil we'd get from offshore drilling in Alaska wouldn't come on the market until 2030. But there aren't any oil futures contracts ending in 2030 trading on any exchange in the world. Futures markets only speculate about oil prices up until 2015 (the longest-dated oil futures contract available), and virtually NO ONE trades oil futures later than 2012. (See http://www.nymex.com/CL_term.aspx#2015). Please try to explain how a miniscule increase in the stock of crude oil in 2030 would affect the price of a futures contract that expires in 2012. If you can do that successfully, then you'd be the first person in the world.

xdfred: "The market doesn't waste resources. Individuals and governments do."

Me: It's literally impossible for a market to exist without individuals, so if individuals wasted resources, then "the market" wasted resources. Also, I can refute your argument that "the market doesn't waste resources" with two words: housing bubble. Wow, this really IS like shooting fish in a barrel!

xdfred: "You and this TLV character are about as clueless about the free market as one can be. Oh, wait, both of you hate it."

Me: I don't hate markets. I just understand them.

I'd like to see you try to explain how futures prices for oil affect the spot prices. But you have to explain why arbitrage won't force futures prices down to spot prices when the futures price gets too high. That would be high comedy, I'm sure. Please, indulge me. "

" cubbies08--the question about Obama is challenging.

My answer: If Obama has been spinning, I have not heard the spin.

If what he says is proven to be false, I will become a cynic again as I did in the days of Reagan. I really feel Obama and his wife Michelle are as close to being honest as I have found since Jim Leach, a Republican, was in Congress, for whom I voted for President by write in more than once, when I did not feel comfortable with the other candidates.

Now I will climb my watchtower to see what kind of flack this blog brings. By the way as I am writing I am listening for the second time the words of Barack Obama as reported on CNN as he talks to the Veterans.

If you see it notice how he has learned from the Saturday night conversation with Rick Warren to be straightforward with no uh's or ah's or tu's.

Also note how he handles criticism by things that McCain has said. First Class I'd say.

I admire the independent stance you adpot, cubbie 08, and I wish you good fortune in making up your mind on who is the best person for whom to vote. "

" cubbies08 @ Aug 19, 2008 3:47 PM asked jeroze why he should support Obama. jeroze said his peace in response. Now I'll add my top five reasons why I’m for Barack Obama:

(1) We are coming out of eight years of an administration that didn’t like government and arranged the self-fulfilling prophesy that government didn’t work. Now, we need to have a president someone who would restore the government to functioning for the people.

(2) We need to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. McCain won’t do that until he achieves “victory.” Since nobody knows what he means by “victory," who knows when he’ll get out of the war that was begun as a lie? Obama will get us out. Furthermore, he won’t re-involve us in misguided foreign adventures for mysterious reasons. McCain’s continued truculent view of foreign policy is likely to keep us sacrificing lives and treasure.

(3) The Republican’s have cynically run government and charged the cost to our children and grandchildren. The Democrats under Obama will get us to a balanced budget, as they did under Clinton, while still delivering on people’s needs. That does involve restoring the tax rates on the very rich to what they used to be.

(4) The Republicans have made us the pariah of the world and squandered our reputation for always supporting freedom and justice. Obama would instantly restore that just by being elected.

(5) Getting the country to move from an oil-based economy to one based on diverse energy sources and conservation is the crisis of our time. The Republicans are hoping to either drill us out of that crisis or for a miracle. Obama has a broad plan to solve the crisis that acknowledges that sacrifices will be necessary. "

" Phil obviously cant tell a joke when he/she/it reads one. Get over yourself lefty! It good humor.

Meanwhile the other socialists think that the drop in oil price is just a fallacy. They of course would be the first to point out any positive one of their parties ideas would create. of course, it has been so long since a socialist idea has reaped positive benefits.

meanwhile the entire pop universe cant wait for the messiah barack hussein obama's party next week!! I wonder who will open for him; the jonas brothers? "

" Is Sen. Obama answering questions at VFW or giving a prepared speech? It does seem to make a huge difference. "

" cross, do you really not know how markets work? I don't understand how socialists can hate the free market yet have no understanding of how it works. The company I work for recently announced a new technology that is a big breakthrough for the business. As an employee, I get a daily update on company stock prices. Immediately after our CEO's spot on FoxNews where he discussed this new technology, stock prices soared. Our company didn't make any money on this, in fact, it has not even been implemented yet. It is set to roll out in the first quarter of next year. Our company is actually in the red on this project because the cost of development is obviously larger than the $0 we have made on it. Why did stock prices rise, because people see a potential to make money and prices go up. When President Bush lifted the drilling ban, the potential for more oil caused the price to go down by roughly 1/3. I'm no economist, but you don't have to be an idiot to see the direct cause and effect. "

" coalplant - you are correct - that was a very poor word to use - my apologies to all. "

" Cross the oil baron:
"First of all, you are the ONLY person I heard claim five years." You need to get out more.
" Fifteen to 20 is the usual estimates." From whom? What do the people that actually do the work and deal with the problems say? Not Daily Kos, but real oilmen (oilwomen?).
"I have no idea what, "you'd be an utter failure as a human being means." ...My point exactly.

"Baloney! How about the crash of 1929 and all the other recessions, stagnations, stag-flations....blah blah blah blah.....blah...." The free market, even with the shortcomings you celebrate, is still better than anything that has ever been tried. Better standard of living, longer life spans, greater resources to use in times of crises. Socialism/Communism are proven failures. Get over it.

TLV, according to your way of thinking, we'd all still be driving model T's. Another bogus "expert" that has popped out of the woodwork. Increase supply=lower price. End of story. "

" Cross, the DEmocrat party hack:
"(1) We are coming out of eight years of an administration that didn’t like government and arranged the self-fulfilling prophesy that government didn’t work. Now, we need to have a president someone who would restore the government to functioning for the people." What????????

"(2) We need to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. ...keep us sacrificing lives and treasure. " Surrendering has always solved all problems. I don't think I'd look good in a Burqua.

"(3) The Republican’s have cynically run government ....That does involve restoring the tax rates on the very rich to what they used to be." Unless government spending is cut, it won't happen. And killing the golden goose will do more harm than good.

"(4) The Republicans have made us the pariah .....Obama would instantly restore that just by being elected." Hee hee. Hah ha ha. You actually believe this tripe?

(5) Getting the country to move from an oil-based economy ...crisis that acknowledges that sacrifices will be necessary. " Yes. Torquing off tree huggers will be a huge sacrifice. "

" For TLV and Cross+, and any other economically and historically challanged individuals:
One of the most widespread and dramatic examples of amateurs outperforming professionals has been in economies that have had central planning directed by highly educated people, advised by experts and having at their disposal vast amounts of statistical data, not available and probably not understandable, by ordinary citizens.
Great things were expected from centrally planned economies. Their early failings were brushed aside as "the growing pains" of "a new society."
But, when centrally planned economies lagged behind free market economies for decade after decade, eventually even socialist and communist governments began to free their economies from many, if not most, of the government controls under central planning.
Almost invariably, these economies then took off with much higher economic growth rates-- China and India being the most prominent examples.
But look at the implications of the failure of central planning and the success of letting "the market"-- that is, millions of people who are nowhere close to being experts-- make the decisions as to what is to be produced and by whom.
How can it be that people with postgraduate degrees, people backed by the power of government and drawing on experts of all sorts, failed to do as well as masses of people of the sort routinely disdained by intellectuals?
What could be the reason? And does that reason apply in other contexts besides the economy?
One easy to understand reason is that central planners in the days of the Soviet Union had to set over 24 million prices. Nobody is capable of setting and changing 24 million prices in a way that will direct resources and output in an efficient manner.
For that, each of the 24 million prices would have to be weighed and set against each of the other 24 million prices. in order to provide incentives for resources to go where they were most in demand by producers and output to go where it was most in demand by consumers.
In a market economy, however, nobody has to take on such an impossible task. Each producer and each consumer need only be concerned with the relatively few prices relevant to their own decisions, with coordination of the economy being left to supply and demand.
In short, amateurs were able to outperform professionals in the economy because the amateurs did not take on tasks beyond the capability of any human being or any manageable group of human beings.
Put differently, "expertise" includes only a small band of knowledge out of the vast spectrum of knowledge required for dealing with many real world complications.
Nothing is easier than for experts with that small band of knowledge to imagine that they are so much wiser than others. Central planning is only the most demonstrable failure of such thinking. The disasters from other kinds of social engineering involve much the same problem.
From Thomas Sowell, a better economist than all of us. "

" xdfred on Aug 20, 2008 9:37 AM wrote about why my reasons for supporting Obama were wrong. And, in case I didn’t get it, at 9:46 AM he provided more reasons why I am supposedly wrong.

A careful reader will note from xdfred’s tone that he proves Prof. Cawelti correct in his column a week ago wondering why conservatives are so angry. That xdfred is angry is SOP. But, I think that it is still worthwhile to point out some objections to some of what xdfred had to say.

Xdfred: “Fifteen to 20 is the usual estimates." From whom?”

Me: From every source in the popular press that I’ve ever read, that’s who. Why don’t you explain how oil can be found, quantified, equipped with infrastructure, piped, refined, and delivered in significant quantities in only five years? You’re the one who is asserting it’s only a five year project: PROVE IT!

Xdfred: “I have no idea what, "you'd be an utter failure as a human being means." ...My point exactly.”

Me: Okay, humor me. What are you talking about? (If anyone else knows, please explain it to me.)

Xdfred: “The free market, even with the shortcomings you celebrate, is still better than anything that has ever been tried. Better standard of living, longer life spans, greater resources to use in times of crises. Socialism/Communism are proven failures. Get over it.”

Me: How about this for something else: an economy based on free markets that is subject to reasonable but firm regulation to ensure that the playing field is fair and that nobody has done something stupid that will cause the business, sector, or entire economy to fail. We had that before Reagan started a fit of de-regulation that has subsequently returned to the specter of periodic failure of businesses, sectors, or the economy. I know it’s your SOP to claim that it’s either total free markets or “Socialism/Communism” but your claim doesn’t make it so. You need to get over it, not me.

Xdfred: “Increase supply=lower price.”

Me: Easier said than done. Just because you think there’s an infinite supply of oil doesn’t make it so.

Xdfred: “Cross, the Democrat party hack.”

Me: What would one of xdfred’s post be without one of his angry personal attacks?

Xdfred: “What????????” (To my point that W’s government is incompetent.)

Me: In the first place, what xdfred is doing is the logical fallacy of “begging the question.” In this particular case, begging the question is the only thing that “What????????” even does. But, I’m glad to explain further. Every department in the federal government is now being managed by someone who opposes the operational objectives of that department as established by law. The best-known example is the non-response by FEMA to hurricane Katrina. But, here are some examples. The Labor Department now tries to control labor for big business. The ICC tries to grease the skids for big business. The FDA regards its client as the big med firms and not the public. Etc., etc., etc..

Xdfred: “Surrendering has always solved all problems.”

Me: There you go again! Always characterizing everything in black and white terms. McCain wants “victory.” And what is “victory” in Iraq and Afghanistan? From the beginning, the Administration refused to send the necessary troops to even pacify either country. Both countries are going to continue with violence forever. (Yes, the violence in Baghdad is down. We concentrated troops there. How long are we going to keep the troop concentration there?

The probably is that we haven’t stopped violence but just deferred it. There’s going to be more violence whenever we leave in one, ten, 20, or 100 years. And it’s still going to be our fault. Remember, former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s reference to the “Pottery Barn Rule: You break it you’ve bought it.”

Xdfred: “That does involve restoring the tax rates on the very rich to what they used to be." Unless government spending is cut, it won't happen. And killing the golden goose will do more harm than good.”

Me: Nobody’s asking for the “golden goose” to be killed. (I love that name for the rich.) It’s only asking the rich to carry the tax load that they can afford and not pass off the debt to our children and grandchildren.

And, why are hard righties so heavy on deficit spending when balanced budget’s used to be their siren call?

One reason is so that the debt increases to such a level that the banks will refuse to buy the government bonds and notes unless all social programs are eliminated and the “savings” be allocated just to paying off the debt. At that point, those on the hard right will have achieved their goal: a government that “carries the mail, defends our shores and gets the hell out of our lives.” Then, it will be a Dickensian world where people are dying in the streets while others live in mansions on their gated estates. Nice job, righties!

Xdfred: “Obama would instantly restore that just by being elected." Hee hee. Hah ha ha. You actually believe this tripe?”

Me: First of all, that’s more “begging the question.” Second, you bet I believe it. 200,000+ people didn’t turn out in Berlin just to see your average joe American. They came to see a smart guy, who is Black, who is going to be elected President by Whites. Doing that is their belief of what things are like in America. And, if Obama is defeated, the people of the world are going to charge it to American racism. They’ll see America as a fraud.

Xdfred: “Yes. Torquing off tree huggers will be a huge sacrifice.”

Me: Well, some more begging the question. But, Obama has made it clear that we’re all going to have to sacrifice. And that means that we’ll all have to bear high gas prices until significant new energy supplies and conservation come on line. That’s better than McCain’s “no pain” policy of drilling everywhere and building a huge number of nuke power plants. (With Three Mile Island still in people’s memory, what do you think is going to happen when everyone’s back yard is going to get a nuke plant next door?)

Lastly, I need to thank xdfred for the opportunity to explain further why we all need Obama running the government. "

" xdfred @ Aug 20, 2008 12:33 PM apparently rips off another entire column by Thomas Sowell. (I'd also point out that your brief mention that you are directly quoting Sowell is essentially concealed by your failure to use quotation marks and text before to explain what you're doing.)

You know, when you want us to read a column that someone else has written, you could just cite us to that column rather than essentially ripping off the whole thing. (Brief passages are okay under copyright laws. Copying the whole thing is a no-no.)

In any case, giving us all a lecture of the faults of central planning is irrelevant to anything under discussion here. Despite what you want to believe, progressivism and liberalism does NOT = socialism/communism. I, at least, am talking about an intelligently regulated free market. I've not seen anyone else supporting Socialism and Communism here either.

Give it up, xdfred. Every time you go into your progressivism/liberalism = socialism/communism everyone here yawns and goes on to the next post. "

" Thank you cross1242 for your support of Barack Obama.

I would support your first statement. Our present administration was the neoconic experiment of interpreting the consitution as making the president more like a dictator than a servant of the people. He declared himself to be the "decider". Congress was ignored unless he got his way. Fortunately the neoconic army went away without a discernable whimper in 2006. It was a real failure named Project for New American Century.

The second statement draws attention to a war that was declared which has no possibility of ultimate victory. The war was declared to be a war against terrorism..but no one limited that terrorism to be Al Quaede. There are at least 30 known terrorist groups in the world. The war against terrorism will not be won unless all nations join together. Each nation will have to be responsible for the terrorism in its own countryside.

Statement three causes some apprehension. I am not sure what will happen in a global economy when our nation does not have people with a global outlook. Let's affirm that Barack knows the importance of thinking that life is not all about his own narccissitic fancies, and that life takes on meaning when we live for making life better for others. Can America ever develop this attitude in individuals? Will American patriots ever admit that other nations also have blue skies and green grass and hearts of love and devotion? And will the other nations be able to instill an altruistic attitude toward the world? I am reminded of a book title by Smiley Blanton, "Love or Perish". Will the people of the world ever adopt this stance in time to save themselves?

Statement four gets a hearty amen.

Statement five points out that Barack has more than a plan just to inflate tires. Amen.

Thanks again for the Obama Support. "

" cross1242
wrote on Aug 20, 2008 1:15 PM:

" xdfred @ Aug 20, 2008 12:33 PM apparently rips off another entire column by Thomas Sowell" Wrong again. Just a chunk of it.

"You know, when you want us to read a column that someone else has written, you could just cite us to that column rather than essentially ripping off the whole thing." As I mentioned, it's not the whole thing. About half. I know how lazy liberals are, so I want to help as much as possible.

"Despite what you want to believe, progressivism and liberalism does NOT = socialism/communism. I, at least, am talking about an intelligently regulated free market." Talk about fooling yourself. Government control of the economy is socialism. No matter how much intelligently regulated mayonaisse you smear on it, that's what it is.

Jeroze: Zogby puts McCain ahead by 5. Polls are meaningless at this stage, but given Barack Hussein Obama's supernatural abilities, one would think all polls would show him winning by a landslide. What say you Barry Soetero fans? "

" jeroze the sage
wrote on Aug 20, 2008 1:18 PM:

" Thank you cross1242 for your support of Barack Obama." Well, there's one. The others are dropping like flies, according to Zogby.

"...as making the president more like a dictator...." What decrees has the President issued that you have to follow?

"...which has no possibility of ultimate victory...." Victory would be very easy, if we were to get serious about winning, and not fighting a politically correct war. That's what cost us Vietnam. And that's what you leftwingers are rooting for now. Our loss. Nice.

"The war against terrorism will not be won unless all nations join together. Each nation will have to be responsible for the terrorism in its own countryside." Wow, what a concept. Too bad there is at least one nation supporting the bulk of the terrorism. What's your touchy feely approach there? My favorite is the each nation comment. You do have your head in the sand about other nations and militant Islam, don't you?

"Let's affirm that Barack knows the importance ...Will American patriots ever admit that other nations also have blue skies and green grass and hearts of love and devotion?...." What in the world does the President of the United States have to do with this? Unless, of course, the President is a benevolent dictator. None has ever existed, and none will ever exist. Utter foolishness. "

" xdfred on Aug 20, 2008 9:37 AM wrote about why my reasons for supporting Obama were wrong. And, in case I didn’t get it, at 9:46 AM he provided more reasons why I am supposedly wrong.

A careful reader will note from xdfred’s tone that he proves Prof. Cawelti correct in his column a week ago wondering why conservatives are so angry. That xdfred is angry is SOP. But, I think that it is still worthwhile to point out some objections to some of what xdfred had to say.

Xdfred: “Fifteen to 20 is the usual estimates." From whom?”

Me: From every source in the popular press that I’ve ever read, that’s who. Why don’t you explain how oil can be found, quantified, equipped with infrastructure, piped, refined, and delivered in significant quantities in only five years? You’re the one who is asserting it’s only a five year project: PROVE IT!

Xdfred: “I have no idea what, "you'd be an utter failure as a human being means." ...My point exactly.”

Me: Okay, humor me. What are you talking about? (If anyone else knows, please explain it to me.)

Xdfred: “The free market, even with the shortcomings you celebrate, is still better than anything that has ever been tried. Better standard of living, longer life spans, greater resources to use in times of crises. Socialism/Communism are proven failures. Get over it.”

Me: How about this for something else: an economy based on free markets that is subject to reasonable but firm regulation to ensure that the playing field is fair and that nobody has done something stupid that will cause the business, sector, or entire economy to fail. We had that before Reagan started a fit of de-regulation that has subsequently returned to the specter of periodic failure of businesses, sectors, or the economy. I know it’s your SOP to claim that it’s either total free markets or “Socialism/Communism” but your claim doesn’t make it so. You need to get over it, not me.

Xdfred: “Increase supply=lower price.”

Me: Easier said than done. Just because you think there’s an infinite supply of oil doesn’t make it so.

Xdfred: “Cross, the Democrat party hack.”

Me: What would one of xdfred’s post be without one of his angry personal attacks?

Xdfred: “What????????” (To my point that W’s government is incompetent.)

Me: In the first place, what xdfred is doing is the logical fallacy of “begging the question.” In this particular case, begging the question is the only thing that “What????????” even does. But, I’m glad to explain further. Every department in the federal government is now being managed by someone who opposes the operational objectives of that department as established by law. The best-known example is the non-response by FEMA to hurricane Katrina. But, here are some examples. The Labor Department now tries to control labor for big business. The ICC tries to grease the skids for big business. The FDA regards its client as the big med firms and not the public. Etc., etc., etc..

Xdfred: “Surrendering has always solved all problems.”

Me: There you go again! Always characterizing everything in black and white terms. McCain wants “victory.” And what is “victory” in Iraq and Afghanistan? From the beginning, the Administration refused to send the necessary troops to even pacify either country. Both countries are going to continue with violence forever. (Yes, the violence in Baghdad is down. We concentrated troops there. How long are we going to keep the troop concentration there?

The probably is that we haven’t stopped violence but just deferred it. There’s going to be more violence whenever we leave in one, ten, 20, or 100 years. And it’s still going to be our fault. Remember, former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s reference to the “Pottery Barn Rule: You break it you’ve bought it.”

Xdfred: “That does involve restoring the tax rates on the very rich to what they used to be." Unless government spending is cut, it won't happen. And killing the golden goose will do more harm than good.”

Me: Nobody’s asking for the “golden goose” to be killed. (I love that name for the rich.) It’s only asking the rich to carry the tax load that they can afford and not pass off the debt to our children and grandchildren.

And, why are hard righties so heavy on deficit spending when balanced budget’s used to be their siren call?

One reason is so that the debt increases to such a level that the banks will refuse to buy the government bonds and notes unless all social programs are eliminated and the “savings” be allocated just to paying off the debt. At that point, those on the hard right will have achieved their goal: a government that “carries the mail, defends our shores and gets the hell out of our lives.” Then, it will be a Dickensian world where people are dying in the streets while others live in mansions on their gated estates. Nice job, righties!

Xdfred: “Obama would instantly restore that just by being elected." Hee hee. Hah ha ha. You actually believe this tripe?”

Me: First of all, that’s more “begging the question.” Second, you bet I believe it. 200,000+ people didn’t turn out in Berlin just to see your average joe American. They came to see a smart guy, who is Black, who is going to be elected President by Whites. Doing that is their belief of what things are like in America. And, if Obama is defeated, the people of the world are going to charge it to American racism. They’ll see America as a fraud.

Xdfred: “Yes. Torquing off tree huggers will be a huge sacrifice.”

Me: Well, some more begging the question. But, Obama has made it clear that we’re all going to have to sacrifice. And that means that we’ll all have to bear high gas prices until significant new energy supplies and conservation come on line. That’s better than McCain’s “no pain” policy of drilling everywhere and building a huge number of nuke power plants. (With Three Mile Island still in people’s memory, what do you think is going to happen when everyone’s back yard is going to get a nuke plant next door?)

Lastly, I need to thank xdfred for the opportunity to explain further why we all need Obama running the government. "

" xdfred's blog has been critical of the ideas expressed by Cross 1242 and myself and it raised some questions in my mind about which I am now ask will ask.

xdfred asks, "What decrees has the president issued that you have to follow?"(in reference to the president assuming more a roll of dictator rather than defending the constitutional balancer of power)-----

My question, "Does a dictator have to issue decrees in order to act like a dictator?"

About victory in Vietnam what is xdfred's opinion? Did we have a victory? Did we stop the spread of Communism? What kind of victory did we acheive?

And if we want a victory over terrorism, how long will it take and just how will it be accomplished?

What nation does Xdfred mean when he talks about one nation supporting the bulk of terrorism?

And when Xdfred insists I have my head in the sand, I wish to tell you that what I see in the sand is no end of the war on terrorism in my life time.... not only because of militant Islam but also because of greedy capitalism which stimulates the terrorism.

I don't know if Xdfred is right when he says that never has been a benevolent dictator, but he is certainly right about our present president being far from being a benevolent dictator.

What role does the president play in getting the USA to realize that other nations have blue skies and green grass and love in their hearts, xdfred asks? My answer, 1. Quit calling other countries names. 2. Don't be a bully, calling others an "axis of evil" or as more recently tell Russia it is being a bully. (Once again that is the stool complaining about the bathroom stinking). 3. Give other people the kind of respect we would like to receive from them.

Though Xdfred calls my opinions " utter foolishness", it will take that kind foolishness to transform the world.

The other extreme alternative is to decree that the USA be a bully who denies habeas corpus rights and practices torture. Thus we will continue under the rule of the "decider" close to that extreme. "

" " xdfred @ Aug 20, 2008 12:33 PM

As I mentioned, it's not the whole thing. About half. I know how lazy liberals are, so I want to help as much as possible.

Really, Xdfred?
TLV clowned you. By his own hand and mind, no less. And you run out and find an author you're certain has an opposing viewpoint, quick post it, clap your hands together, and call it a day.

What an accomplishment! "

" Responses to Cross's 5 reasons to vote for barack hussein obama.

1. BHO has no ability to correct or fix ANY part of government or restore anything that has previously happened. he is a puppet WAY over his head and is now spinning like a top 'i dont intend to lose, i dont intend to lose' Whatever.

2. BHO has zero international experience or any military experience. how in the world is he going to be our messiah and lead us to victory or carry our flag of freedom? He wants nothing more than to bring down the US and our way of life. Ask Ayers.

3. Barack Hussein Obama has no experience at balancing a budget at ANY level. In fact, his dogma tells him that he needs to overtax, overspend, then tax some more.

4. Obama is not our saviour and cant restore our reputation. He would get pushed around, ridiculed and manipulated by all nations. he would also be a puppet to the UN. Russia would certainly prepare to become a global power again simply by electing this nobody.

5. Obamas plan for energy dependence is simply, fill up yer tires. Fact is, NO economy has the ability to convert to 'green' energy(whatever that is). We need to get in the oil, coal, and nuclear game in a HUGE way and now.


Barack Hussein Obama is the biggest security risk our nation is dealing with at this time. Luckily, people are starting to figure out he is full of beautiful, but empty, words. "

" Xdfred - why don't you copy and paste Clayson's article down here in the comments section as your next point? "

" What role does the president play in getting the USA to realize that other nations have blue skies and green grass and love in their hearts, xdfred asks? Jeroze the statesman:

"My answer, 1. Quit calling other countries names. 2. Don't be a bully, calling others an "axis of evil" or as more recently tell Russia it is being a bully. (Once again that is the stool complaining about the bathroom stinking). 3. Give other people the kind of respect we would like to receive from them." I'm glad we have the middle school playground perspective on this one.

"What nation does Xdfred mean when he talks about one nation supporting the bulk of terrorism?" Well, that would be Iran.

"About victory in Vietnam what is xdfred's opinion? Did we have a victory?" Well, no, but interviews with general Giap and other senior North Vietnamese officials describe how they were going to throw in the towel after the huge defeat in the Tet offensive and linebacker 2. But the left wing pointed Tet as a victory for the NVA and told us the war was lost. Cronkite said so himself.

Court Chester:
"Really, Xdfred? TLV clowned you...." With a bunch of bogus B.S. It's amazing how many self described experts are floating around out here, isn't it? And feel free to clap at what TLV writes. Cheer, even. But you're both wrong, in my opinion. "

" you'll notice the libs on the board have no leg to stand on here, so they revert to bashing xdfred for his use of an article that pertains to the topic at hand, and (most importantly) makes their points look ridiculous. "

" Al Gore, with agreement from Barack Obama, has declared that the sky is blue and the grass is green.

Mr. Clayson and xdfred will then go on to state how this is a liberal conspiracy against the natural order of things and how they are destroying our country, our way of life and enabling the terrorists.

For those of you who want read thoughtful conservatives, another one I suggest is Andrew Bacevich, professor at Boston University. A veteran of 23 years in the military as well as a professor, he will give you a pretty good perspective of history and our current situation in the USA. While not taken to Democrats he is honest in his appraisal of the conservative movement as well. Good reading and watching as well as he has an invertiew online at Frontline. "

" "The other extreme alternative is to decree that the USA be a bully who denies habeas corpus rights and practices torture. Thus we will continue under the rule of the "decider" close to that extreme. "....sigh...decree?....bully?....fine. Why don't you find a better country and move there? We are the most benevolent nation on the planet. We conquered Europe and only kept enough ground to bury the people that died doing it. We give more money away to help nations you consider better than ours out and expect nothing in return. But you don't like the fact that when soemone tries to slap us around, to use your school yard terms, we fight back. Did we start our conflict with Al-Quada? Did we start our conflict with Iraq? No. People mess with us because spineless people here let them get away with it and castigate our efforts while ignoring the much more heinous crimes they commit. People like you. Start whining when we start cutting peoples heads off while they are still alive, or throw political prisoners off buildings. When we have government sanctioned rape rooms, and "honor" killings. Or whine when you are forced at gun point to kneel 5 times a day. Habeus Corpus? "

" Jeroze continued:
"My question, "Does a dictator have to issue decrees in order to act like a dictator?" How can you be a dictator if you can't tell your country what to do?

"And if we want a victory over terrorism, how long will it take and just how will it be accomplished?" You wacth way too much T.V. Everything has to be solved in half an hour, like Law and Order. These people want to kill us. Should we just let them if it takes too long? And they're rooting for Barack Hussein Obama. Shouldn't that mean something? "

" I wish to thank xdfred for answering two of the questions.

A map of Terrorism which used to be available in book stores shows there are about 30 identified Terrorist groups in the world. Northern Ireland has a bunch, South America has a bunch, Russia has some, and the USA has groups though not called Terrorist have practiced terrorism. These groups have a common thread. Hate. Apparently Iran as the center of world terrorism is a recent phenomena. There are a lot of people who would like to convince us that if we attack Iran it will make us safer. I am not convinced. Violence begets violence begets violence begets violence.... "

" Phil
wrote on Aug 21, 2008 9:44 AM:

" Al Gore, with agreement from Barack Obama, has declared that the sky is blue and the grass is green.

Mr. Clayson and xdfred will then go on to state how ...enabling the terrorists."
No, I'll just state that Barack Hussein Obama is an even bigger fool than I thought, if he were to actually made such a declaration. Al Gore has shown how ridiculous he is without having to make such declarations. "

" Phil wrote on Aug 21, 2008 9:44 AM:
" Al Gore, with agreement from Barack Obama, has declared that the sky is blue and the grass is green.

Mr. Clayson and xdfred will then go on to state how this is a liberal conspiracy against the natural order of things and how they are destroying our country, our way of life and enabling the terrorists."

See Phil, this is exactly why your straw-man arguments fail. I have no problem agreeing with Obama or even Gore on some issues. But you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with a Democrat on anything (since Democrats are always right) is just being stubborn because "Rush" or "Hannity" has brainwashed them.
Some of things Obama stands for are asinine (in my opinion, of course). I don't know too many conservatives that are head-over-heels in love with McCain..but on the flipside you see a large number of Democrats kissing the feet of Senator Obama and worshiping the very ground he walks on.

I would propose that YOU would defend Obama's statements if he said the Sun revolved around the Earth.

For example, Bush won in 2000 yet many Dems still deny this fact, stating the election was "stolen". I'd even venture to guess that you are one of these people...am I wrong? "

" xdfred - "Did we start our conflict with Iraq? No."

You are kidding, right? Is this another of your jokes? I don't know what alternative universe you are living in. No one with any credibility or sanity would make that statement, no one. That is a lie - blatant and unmistakable.

You have no concept of what ideals this country was founded on or what it stands for, do you? None.

Meanwhile, for those not afflicted with insanity, here is another blog, by someone who describes themselves as follows: "I'm a New York City resident in my early forties, an investment professional, and a lifelong conservative. I have an M.B.A. in International Business from Columbia University."

All his posts are good, today's is a must read, especially for anyone who thinks McBush is the "experienced" candidate on national security.

Do a Google search on The Cunning Realist or go here: http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/ "

" Let me add a gratuitous poke at something W is doing right now. The Administration is putting in an anti-missile battery in the far northeastern part of Poland right up against the border with Russia. W's Administration is that this is a shield against inter-continental missiles fired from Iran.

The Russians, not being the sons and daughters of stupid people, look at the map and can see who it's aimed at. (Including the radar for the missiles that's located in the Czech Republic.) Earlier, the Russians offered to let us put the battery on Russian soil if it was aimed at Iran. For some reason, W declined the invitation.

This is more of the ham-fisted diplomacy that is the hallmark of W's incompetent Administration. It's the kind that we don't want continued in Bush's 3rd Administration under the direction of McCain.

BTW, please look for my post, "cross1242 wrote on Aug 20, 2008 4:35 PM." It just appeared but is way up the chain. It takes on some of xdfred's arguments against Obama. "

" The 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court before Florida was allowed to recount the ballots by manual count because the Supreme Court overuled the Florida Courts allowing certain counties to do the manual count. Florida declared that Bush won Florida before the deadline for Florida's overseas ballots to be returned was reached.

The election was not stolen. It was declared by the Supreme Court to be won by George Bush and later verified by the Miami Herald to be correct if three methods of determining the manual count were followed and incorrect if four other methods counting were followed.

That's the way this Lib sees it. "

" Phil and his long term memory
wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:56 AM:

" xdfred - "Did we start our conflict with Iraq? No."

You are kidding, right? Is this another of your jokes? I don't know what alternative universe you are living in. No one with any credibility or sanity would make that statement, no one. That is a lie - blatant and unmistakable.

Our conflict with Iraq started when Iraq invaded Kuwait. They made the first move. We and others, under the auspices of the U.N. drove them out and imposed a cease fire, which Iraq continued to violate.

Liar, huh? "

" Cross, the defensive missile position in Poland is to defend NATO against the Russians. It is NOT offensive in any manner. For you to agree with the Russians that this is a 'ham-fisted' action only makes you appear even more socialist then we all thought.

Russia wants Barack hussein obama elected because they know he will back down and blame our government for being aggressive. barack is a menace and wont be elected.

On Iraq, liberals in turbins everywhere love blaming W for iraq. However the facts hit the fan on this one. Iraq continued to deny inspection of facilities and other requirements. The UN continued to let Iraq stall for months on end. Only after the US and other allies pushed our national security issues did Congress vote to invade Iraq.

Libs hate the truth. barack hussein obama ignores the truth as well. "

" xdfred,

You seem to believe that the Democrats are socialist central planners who don't understand basic market economics. If this is true, then how do you explain the fact that over 70% of professional economists are Democrats? (See here: http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/w4q363786573275h/). Do over 70% of professional economists not understand basic economics (unlike you, who has clearly had no training in economics whatsoever)? And it's ironic that you cite a totally irrelevant Thomas Sowell column because he's "a better economist than all of us." The column arguing against more offshore drilling that Prof. Clayton foolishly attacked was by Princeton economist Paul Krugman (a MUCH better economist than Thomas Sowell). Do you think you know more about economics than a Princeton economics professor?

Whenever market-worshiping know-nothings like you can't respond to more sophisticated economic arguments, you just revert to yelling, "SOCIALISM FAILED! FREE MARKET! FREE MARKET!" No one is arguing for socialism you moron. In a free market, the government still provides what in economics we call "public goods." And the environment is the prototypical public good. No economic model in the world denies that the government must provide public goods. It's entirely consistent with free market principles for the government to prohibit private actions that cause too much damage to the environment.

Why is it that the people who scream the most about the "free market" always seem to know the least about economics? "

" The concept of 'free market' economics is what those in the social sciences call an 'ideal type', meaning that in reality, it does not and cannot exist. They fact that governments the world over of ALL ilks regulate regulate goods and services through taxation and licensing prevents this ideal type from existing. In a genuine 'free market', there would be no taxes and no government regulation of production of goods and services at all.

In other words, a 'free market' system in the purest sense does not and cannot exist.

And by the way...the Coulteristic manner of calling political opponents names and spuing half truths about their political views has gone out of style. The people of this country have been awakened to the transparency of these tactics. People who spout this drivel do nothing but make themselves look foolish. And if this is supposed to change MY mind regarding political candidates....news flash...it has the exact opposite effect. It makes me realize who the 'good guys' REALLY are. "

" The stated purpose from the Bush administration for the missle defense systems to be located in Poland and elsewhere is to defend against missle attacks from IRAN....not Russia.

I always thought that your man Reagan ended the cold war. At least thats what you people claimed at the time. "

" For those of you interested in what a conservative - who has been overseas and knows foreign issues very, very well thinks of the recent Russia, Georgia, and Poland situation, go to: http://www.ericmargolis.com/

Again this person is a self proclaimed conservative who has no special love or association with Democrats which you will learn if you go through his archives and read his posts. Very good and educational reading - if you want to LEARN and not just follow mindlessly along.

Bush/Cheney are in so far over their heads when it comes to foreign policy it is pathetic. McCain, for all his so called experience, would be as bad or worse. He is completely unprepared to be president and would likely have us in more conflicts across the world.

By the way, Poland does NOT want our missles installed there. Would we want Russia to install missles in Panama and Costa Rica? "

" cire - "See Phil, this is exactly why your straw-man arguments fail. I have no problem agreeing with Obama or even Gore on some issues. But you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with a Democrat on anything (since Democrats are always right) is just being stubborn because "Rush" or "Hannity" has brainwashed them."

Not at all, there are a number of things I disagree with Obama on. I don't think he will be the great savior everyone seems to hope he will be. I hope he is at least as good as Clinton (minus Monica) and would be amazed if he could raise himself to the level of FDR.

But several of the posters here show no diversity in their views. I read liberal and conservative writers all the time. There are a number of very good conservatives who have good points and arguements that deserve debate. Rush, Sean, and Bill-O however are not in that group and add nothing but trash to the debate. People that listen to or watch them are missing their chance to learn and become truly involved in democracy. The fact their shows survive show how many people are truly out of touch with our nation and the ideas it was founded on. "

" cire - regarding the 2000 election - here are my thoughts:

- The conservatives on the Supreme Court were judicial activists and created new law with their decision. There was no prior standing (existing law or court decision) that they had to base their ruling on, and in fact they were opposing the concept of states rights with their decision. So they essentially "made up" law so the votes would not be counted. So much for being conservatives.

- I also believe Gore won Florida - in fact, pretty much everyone in the know believes more people in Florida voted for Gore than Bush. Now that's not saying Gore's team was asking for the correct type of recount that would have given him the win, but we will never know that due to the actions of the Supreme Court.

- I also believe that the Bush team, including his brother as governor, did everything possible to prevent potential Gore voters from being able to exercise their constitutional right to vote - by stripping them from the voting lists - and then during the recount, to suppress their right to have their votes counted. That is tragic, pathetic, and an indicative of the type of corrupt and morally bankrupt government and leadership we have had the past eight years. It goes against the very principals this nation was founded on.

That's my view of the 2000 situation. "

" Phil the nuanced

"The fact their shows survive show how many people are truly out of touch with our nation and the ideas it was founded on. " Obviously you are not open minded non brainwashed enough to consider that maybe these shows not only survive, but do quite well because the people that watch them agree with what they present. It's easy to assume that anyone who watches or listens to these programs is brainwashed, if you are brainwashed yourself into believing so. Look in the mirror. "

" MAC the all knowing
"....The people of this country have been awakened to the transparency of these tactics"...and you know this because she is going broke, like Air America and it's last 6 listeners? "

" TLV
" .....No one is arguing for socialism..." Wow. Name calling. What would Cross say. Typical liberal. Can't stand an opposing view. Then this ridiculous tripe about Krugman being a better economist than Sowell. Sowell works at it for a living. Krugman, who is a liberal first and an economist second, hides in a university. He has been wrong so many times, but unlike in the private sector, he doesn't have to answer for his mistakes. Worship Krugman all you care to, but it doesn't make hime worth a hoot. And save the name calling. Typical liberal. "

" Phil writes, "I also believe Gore won Florida - in fact, pretty much everyone in the know believes more people in Florida voted for Gore than Bush."

wow, thanks for enlightening me. But I have to ask, where's your evidence? Any proof? Or is this just another typical conspiracy theory from the left?...I think we know the answer to that.

your boy Al wanted a recount only in mainly Democratic counties. After Bush was declared the winner, every major newspaper in Florida did their own recount and Bush still won...
Again, where is your evidence?


"I also believe that the Bush team, including his brother as governor, did everything possible to prevent potential Gore voters from being able to exercise their constitutional right to vote..."

ok, this is just getting ridiculous. You are a conspiracy theorist. My advice, start looking at facts & stop tossing around these bogus, unproven beliefs. They are not going to come true, regardless of how many times you repeat them.

Let me guess, you think Bush is running the Illuminati too? "

" here you go Phil..

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html "

" I have some questions for those who have said that the missile battery in Poland is aimed at Russia and not Iran.

So, that means that when W and Rice say that the missile battery is aimed at Iran they are lying through their teeth?

Next question, let's say that you're right that Reagan ended the "Cold War." Does the fact that W is taking such an anti-Russian stance mean that W is bringing back the "Cold War"?

The chief of the Russian armed forces says that the missile battery in Poland will be met with a nuclear response. Does that mean that W is bequeathing us not just a war with Iran but the "big one" with Russia?

Private message to xdfred: Why don't you contact the Courier and see if they will automatically eliminate the first paragraph of any of your posts? That way, the name calling you inevitably start off your posts with would be eliminated. "

" The fact that some of these conservative talk shows survive is that, as H.L. Mencken once said...'No one goes broke underestimating the bad taste of the American public.'

To assume that because they are on the air the majority of Americans support their views is faulty logic. WWF getting air time does not necessarily mean the majority of Americans are pro wrestling fans.

But then again, who could believe some of these flaming CON-artists are logical? "

" xdfred - Over the months I have listed in my posts a number of conservatives who I have read and some who I continue to read on a regular basis.

I await, and believe I will be waiting a very long time, for you to list any liberals who you not only read, watch or listen to, but who you feel bring good ideas and positions to the debate.

Until you are willing to do so, I believe you are proving that you are one of the, as you put it, brainwashed.

As to why these shows survive, you did hit the nail on the head - "(they) do quite well because the people that watch them agree with what they present.". However you left out this part - that the people that watch them DON'T want to have what they believe challenged - they want to believe what they want to believe - the heck with the facts and the reality. God forbid they would have to think outside their own version of reality.

That's you xdfred. You know what you know and no amount of facts, information or anything else is going to change it. Brainwashed - probably not the right term. Intellectually stubborn and rigid - probably more on the mark. "

" A question for hetfield, "Do you think the turbins should be turbinated?"

A questions for TVL "Do you think the know-nothings will every get to know something?"

A question for MAC "Do you suppose we will all enjoy a 'free market' when we get to the great Holiday Inn in the sky?"

And a reply to xdfred "Save the namecalling, typical conservative."

and a benediction!!! Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with us. "

" why is socialism such a bad word? jesus was a socialist. WWJD? "

" timbrackett
wrote on Aug 22, 2008 1:11 PM:

" why is socialism such a bad word? jesus was a socialist. WWJD? "


ReallY? Jesus told the Romans to take wealth by force and re-distribute it? Did Jesus say don't take care of your neighbor, government will? Did Jesus preach wealth envy? No, he just admonished those that worshipped money. Did Jesus tell his followers to place government above all else? Why have socialist governments done away with religion when they take power? The Soviet Union was a very religious nation, wasn't it? China? Cuba?
Socialism is complete government control of the economy and everything tied to it. No private property. Everyone supposedly owns everything, yet no one owns anything. Works like a charm. Capitalism does not guarantee everyone will be successful, but socialism guarantees everyone will be miserable.
Socialist countries also disarm their subjects.

No thanks. "

" What am I missing here? The DNC has banned John Edwards from speaking at the convention because of infidelity coverup, so they invited Bill Clintonto speak instead! Tune in next week for "Donkey Ball" in Denver. "

" skelloch, Edwards has announced that he won't be even going to Denver for the convention. He hasn't been "banned" -- he's not coming. (Not that the Democrats wouldn't have had a problem if he was still coming and wanted to speak.)

Bill Clinton, as a former president, was invited to speak some time ago.

Other than that, you're right. "

" No takers for my questions at "cross1242 wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:59 AM?" "

" it seems some still confuse socialism and communism. COMMUNIST Soviet Union, China & Cuba should not be listed as examples of why socialism is bad.
As for Jesus, he said render unto Caesar. so he had no problem with taxation.
one time, Jesus was teaching about 5,000 people and after a while everyone got hungry. Well, only one kid brought a lunch. Instead of congratulating the kid on working hard to earn his own lunch and leaving him be, Jesus took the kids lunch and re-distributed it so that all were fed. Sounds like socialism to me.
Jesus said when i was hungry you fed me, when i had no clothes you clothed me, etc. and his disciples argued that they had never seen Jesus hungry, naked or in prison. Jesus said when you did it to the lowest people of the world, it was the same as if you did it for me.
Re-read the Gospels, because Jesus was a socialist. "

" No way, Tim!

The big JC grew into a supply side economist, having been the beneficiary of a trust fund which at once enabled him to sleep through an Ivy League education while smirking at the worthless laboring poor. Joe threw money at him every time the kid got in a jam.
Jesus was best friend to fatcat, warmongers from Caesar all the way up through the super Christian Dick Cheneys and Tom Delays of the world. He endorsed slashing benefits of retiring Roman soldiers.

Also, Jesus rode a dinosaur. A higher end one.

Not defending socialism or anything, which our neoconservative friends here are so childishly certain Obama/Biden are going to overhaul our entire country with, but Jesus wasn't a capitalist.

One of the biggest jokes in the past 2,000 years is how people who would be best served by it, have harnessed this idiotic myth that Jesus wasn't a servant of the poor and champion of non-violent change. And millions and millions of dummies have fallen for it. "

" how did this topic turn religious in the first place?

chester, i'm pretty sure Jesus would not have FORCED the public to hand money over to the poor. I think you're confusing Jesus with Robin Hood..

Jesus wanted people to be charitable and help their fellow man.. Obama and his ilk want to raise taxes and establish a bureaucracy that allows a handful of people to decide where MY money goes. Try and twist that plan into something Jesus would have supported... "

" i bet Jesus wears a rubber bracelet on His wrist that says WWSD? (What Would Socialists Do?)
*turning sarcasm off*

the article itself has religious overtones and i am replying to the author as well as my fellow commenters. "

" There already IS a handful of people in Washington deciding where MY tax money goes...and I do not really approve where MY money has gone over the last seven and a half years. "

" That's precisely how I feel, MAC. "

" Socialism isn't our problem, but militarism is.

Guess its not OK if we tax the rich to help the needy, but it is OK if we take from everyone else so that Blackwater can get rich building showers that electrocute our troops, that is when they aren't shooting innocent Iraqi citizens. "

" MAC, I gotta say I agree with you there. The Republicans have looked like they are on Supermarket Sweep and can't spend money fast enough. I thought they were supposed to be fiscally conservative??

My point is that we need LESS government spending, not MORE like Obama continues to propose. My hard-earned money should not be spent on healthcare for kids in Malaysia if we have our own self-proclaimed "Healthcare Crisis" here in the States.

Our government was set-up to protect the citizens of the United States, not be the mommy & daddy for the rest of the world. "

" some really tasty morsels to comment on.

Phil was asked for proof that algore won Florida. He has NO proof of this as he has no proof of the claim that bush lied about iraq. the left points fingers, but offer no proof of anything or no ideas to improve anything.

tim states that JC was a socialist. in his example he states JC redistributed the little boys lunch to everyone to share. what he doesnt state is that if JC created all these extra lunchs, as any good productive entrepreneur would,(more proof JC was a capitalist) he would be taxed and taxed again until he couldnt spare a square.

as stated many times, just like our guy JC, conservatives dig deep to help those truly in need by creating employment opportunities, by paying more than their share due to the hard earned money they make, and by contibuting greatly to charitable organizations, churches and the like.

JC also wants his followers to work hard, stop being lazy, and contribute to his fellow man, instead of just waiting for more handouts. The left does not beleive in these things.

Hey, how wacko can this barack hussein obama guy really be? Biden?! Biden even agrees bho shouldnt be president, now he wants to work for him, and be his gopher? Jiminy crickets. "

" "hetfield wrote on Aug 23, 2008 11:37 PM:

tim states that JC was a socialist. in his example he states JC redistributed the little boys lunch to everyone to share. what he doesnt state is that if JC created all these extra lunchs, as any good productive entrepreneur would,(more proof JC was a capitalist) he would be taxed and taxed again until he couldnt spare a square."

HAHAA!!
Well, wouldn't the parabel say that then, at the time?
But I guess you can just get to spin it to suit your worldview too and then ask others to agree with your made up addendum?
Kind of like you neocons do with Jesus Christ's entire existence.

"conservatives dig deep to help those truly in need by creating employment opportunities"
Dig deep, huh? Because the executives at Tyson Foods are such incredible humanitarians. And indeed GMAC, United Healthcare, and IBM create many job opportunities. For Indians.
Why are you such an unAmerican Benedict Arnold for cheerleading that stuff on, Hetfield? Why don't you root for American workers once, dude?

" , by paying more than their share due to the hard earned money they make"

The Walton kids work WAY hard, don't they? So do the five Romney boys. Such toilers. Shoot, they even sat out any military tours because of what super hardworking patriots they are.
And it's not class envy like you'll invariably say, simpleton. I'm simply pointing out that you shouldn't use phrases like "hard earned money" when it wasn't. "

" Somehow I have the feeling that if the wealthy who, through 'contributing greatly to charitable organizations, did not receive tax deductions for their 'benevolence', would not be NEAR as generous.

In other words...if it didn't benefit themselves, the money would remain in their pockets. "

" MAC wrote on Aug 24, 2008 8:06 AM:
" Somehow I have the feeling that if the wealthy who, through 'contributing greatly to charitable organizations, did not receive tax deductions for their 'benevolence', would not be NEAR as generous.

In other words...if it didn't benefit themselves, the money would remain in their pockets. "

I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate over this, but there are very few acts that humans do that are NOT done in their own self-interest. When someone gives money to charity, it makes them feel good to have the means to help other people. In the case of a company, it also makes them look good to the public. Of course, this money helps whoever they are giving it to, but don't fool yourself, it also benefits the company.

Humans are selfish by nature, and frankly, it would be stupid to consider the well-being of others over your own in most circumstances.

Regardless, I certainly don't think the government should be taking our money and doing whatever they feel with it. If I want to donate MY money to a cause, then let me pick the cause and let me determine how much. "

" chester is up to his old tricks of slamming those with opposing views. just like barack hussein obama who has zero experience or any plan to continue our place as the greatest democracy in the world.

why do leftys hate and spew venom on hard working, productive, successful Americans? Apparantly because of their sad sack position in life they have to blame others.

keep trying chester, the american dream is alive and kicking. with some hard work I'm sure there is a place for you. once you get here, you will be peaved that more and more of your income will be taken from you to hand out to others, like yoursself.

barack hussein obama will try to give is up for those whow dont want to earn it. "

" "cire wrote on Aug 24, 2008 11:42 AM:

I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate over this, but there are very few acts that humans do that are NOT done in their own self-interest."

I've heard all that before and although it's certainly true in some cases, I think it's bs in general.
There are things called compassion and empathy that take Peace Corps volunteers thousands of miles from their more fortunate situations to dingy, dangerous third world countries sometimes for years at a time. There are anonymous charity donors, and certainly it's a good feeling helping someone else but to think that's the only reason people do it repeatedly...come on.

You sound as cynical as all those lib scumbags you can't stand, brutha.

I know from my experience I still once in a great while do Habitat for Humanity work, and actually used to volunteer quite a bit 7 years ago. Believe it or not, 9/11 kind of kicked me in the butt to go out there and do something, anything to help out. Back then though, there were times it became a chore and I really didn't want to give up my weekends (after the first few) but I wanted to go through on my commitment and genuinely hoped it would help someone that needed it. I gave up about three weekends a month for five months and a night or two every couple weeks. That good feeling ebbed and flowed depending on how good the workday went and how many hours. Now that's just me, but I think a true commitment to charitable causes (and I'm not saying by my little jaunt with Habitat that I'm Mother Theresa by any means) is more than just self gratification. "

" chester11
wrote on Aug 24, 2008 12:25 AM:

There's a blatant case of wealth envy. How about we just drive all these really crummy corporations, since, according to you, there are no good ones, out of business and chase the evil wealthy away. Would that make you feel better? What would our country be like then? It's amazing how anyone can despise people they don't know because they have more wealth. Truly amazing. "

" chester, my point still stands. Free will allows people to do what they wish, and providing for a charitable cause makes people feel good, makes them feel needed, makes them feel worthwhile..

I guess it depends on your definition, but people do what they want to do for selfish reasons. Holding the door for someone is a nice gesture, but you are not doing it solely for the benefit of the other person. The fact that you're posting your charitable work on a message board kind of shows that you're proud of your actions, and therefore use it for your own benefit. "

" "xdfred wrote on Aug 25, 2008 9:41 AM:
" chester11
wrote on Aug 24, 2008 12:25 AM:

There's a blatant case of wealth envy."

And that's your prerecorded answer anytime the subject of corporate greed and corporate influence comes up. I believe insurance companies shouldn't be able to be vague about coverage, giving them the ability to deny claims they don't want to pay. Call me Stalin but I also think corporations making x amount of dollars over x amount of years in America, should be taxed heavily if they move x number of jobs offshore.
And I must be an unhinged nutjob for believing that credit card companies shouldn't be allowed to tack on late and over the limit fees when someone falls behind one month and those fees accumulate until payments are caught up. In addition to interest rates. Now that said, I applaud you if you don't rely on credit cards and have earned and saved responsibly and that's built up a resentment for those who haven't. Honestly. Even though some people are using those cards just to pay the gas and grocery bill now.
But just go ahead and dismiss those sentiments as wealth envy, case closed.

"It's amazing how anyone can despise people they don't know because they have more wealth. Truly amazing. "

It's also amazing that anyone can despise people they don't know because they needed government assistance at any point in their lives. Or despise someone they don't know who works on her feet nine hours a day for $7.50 an hour, works harder in those nine hours than Sean Hannity works in 16 weeks, and starts getting signatures for a union. Or despises someone they don't know who committed a non-violent crime in their early 20's, and figure should be sitting in a cell with rapists and murderers. Or despise someone they don't know who was born into a miserable situation south of the border, came to America illegally, and has worked and supported a family for several years but faces bare-fanged zealots who demand his immediate deportation. Or despise a long haired combat veteran in a wheelchair they don't know chanting at a rally in opposition to a continuing war given that he knows how little those flag waving neocons will support the soldiers fighting five years from now because that's obviously socialism. Truly amazing. "

" cire wrote on Aug 25, 2008 9:57 AM:

I guess it depends on your definition, but people do what they want to do for selfish reasons. Holding the door for someone is a nice gesture, but you are not doing it solely for the benefit of the other person. The fact that you're posting your charitable work on a message board kind of shows that you're proud of your actions, and therefore use it for your own benefit. "

I don't know, man..
It would seem like a pretty dark world if the smallest of charitable actions were done mostly for self interest. Maybe that's something the creator planted in us as kind of a small reward for helping our fellow man. Again though, that seems pretty cynical.
And..I don't think it covers empathy, compassion, or even guilt.
Either way, I'll admit that I don't really know and I'd hope that people help other people simply because we (should) care about their well being.
Which also might give you a glimpse into why myself, and others like me, don't trust and in a lot of ways don't like, social conservatives. Somebody keeps saying that as a liberal, I brag about my tolerance of everyone. First off, I'm not so much liberal as I am just anti-neocon and second, when did I say that? I'm intolerant of neoconservatism. I don't like those people and I think they only act in their own self interest. And in that sense, it's immaterial this argument about the government making decisions about where someone's money goes, because whether they do or not I still think most neocons are scum, who hate first and ask questions later. And see people they don't know as abstractions whose lives are cheap.
And someone will of course point out how hypocritical it is that I admit to hating social conservatives. Well, my answer to that would be that it's possibly the one group of people I can specifically say that about and it's a contempt developed from years of watching those people with a certain societal trait find something wrong with everyone who isn't exactly like them. And then try to punish many of those groups of people for their differences. So, I'm fine with being a hypocrite in that respect. You know where I stand and I know where the Xdfred's of the world stand. And the sun will still come up tomorrow.

And back on what we were talking about, indeed, I think social conservatives share absolutely none of the traits of the teachings of Jesus Christ, that they hijacked his name in the same way Muslim radicals have hijacked and mangled Islam. And if neocons didn't have a loud opposition party in this country we'd really start to go in that direction. Which is ironic considering how many of their brethren express fear of having to wear a burqa. (My fear, by the way, would be of having to wear an orange jumpsuit if the Dick Cheneys had their way to throw detractors in jail for their definition of treasonous behavior and/or on flimsy charges.)
Now sure, neocons might be charitable to the intolerant, hateful causes they believe in but they'd sooner tell a homeless person, and a U.S. veteran one at that, to fill out an application than give him a quarter. While seething with contempt.
If I'm wrong, or I've gotten an incorrect picture of what a neoconservative is (and I'm thinking Michelle Malkin, Karl Rove, James Sensenbrenner, Joe McCarthy, Michael Savage) then please correct me, because those people are the face of it and to a man, they would seem to be steering the ship.
And hey, maybe I'm being a bit facetious and maybe I'm not but when someone hears a dignitary of the far right speak openly and honestly, you should probably know that those are the sentiments they pick up.

Obviously none of this applies to you cire, because you're an independent. And I don't mean to be insulting there, I mean, I'd just like to think that you don't fall in line with the above mentioned hate mongerers. But..I don't know either. You sure agree with Hatefield a lot and as an independent thinker one would assume you'd challenge his vicious (but embarrassing and simpleminded) garbage once in a great while. "

" chester call me Stalin
wrote on Aug 25, 2008 12:28 PM:

"..It's also amazing that anyone can despise people they don't know because they needed government assistance at any point in their lives...." When have I ever said or imlied that? How do you know I didn't need government assistance at one time or another? I will say I despise those that take advantage of the programs and I really despise those that control the programs to keep people dependent on them. Don't get a job, don't get married, don't start a savings account...or you'll lose your benefits.

Feel free to start your own insurance company and run it anyway you wish. The basic problems you described stem from lack of education and understanding of contractual matters. making English our official language would help, and requiring contracts to be written in plain simple English would really help.

Credit card companies are heavy handed, but they also have to deal with people who default on loans.

Thanks for the applause.

"...corporations making x amount of dollars over x amount of years in America, should be taxed heavily if they move x number of jobs offshore..." and what if they do it to avoid taxes to begin with? Who about ralaxing taxes on companies to make them want to stay here? Your approach is Stalinesque. Anyone who tries to leave will be shot. And have losing those jobs hurt our economy? "

" chester
wrote on Aug 25, 2008 1:17 PM:
"...wear an orange jumpsuit if the Dick Cheneys had their way to throw detractors in jail..." Try insulting a gay person, say, at Wartburg, and see what happens to you. Or use a gun in self defence in San Francisco.

"...I think social conservatives share absolutely none of the traits of the teachings of Jesus Christ, that they hijacked his name in the same way Muslim radicals have hijacked and mangled Islam...." What a crock. On a personal level, who is more charitable. You confuse charity with government interference. And nobody mangled Islam. Read the Koran sometime. It's all in there.
"....and I know where the Xdfred's of the world stand...." You haven't a clue.

And your feel good philosophy based on taking from others by force to keep the poor that poor and buy votes is OK, right? "

" X = "..It's also amazing that anyone can despise people they don't know because they needed government assistance at any point in their lives...." When have I ever said or imlied that? How do you know I didn't need government assistance at one time or another? I will say I despise those that take advantage of the programs and I really despise those that control the programs to keep people dependent on them. Don't get a job, don't get married, don't start a savings account...or you'll lose your benefits.

*Fair enough. I believe the same thing. Again though, you consider any and all government intervention (save law enforcement) to be socialism.

X = Feel free to start your own insurance company and run it anyway you wish. The basic problems you described stem from lack of education and understanding of contractual matters. making English our official language would help, and requiring contracts to be written in plain simple English would really help.

*There's that blind free market allegiance on display. I speculate you don't know near as much about health insurance as I do and you oughta know that it's a very, very collusive industry. Yea, requiring contracts to be written in plain English would help. I agree. Who is going to make that requirement. When virtually every single supplier has the same policy loopholes, where does a consumer go?

X = Credit card companies are heavy handed, but they also have to deal with people who default on loans.
*No disagreement necessarily and you may have made smart decisions relative to your credit history. Good for you, seriously. However, even people who aren't filthy, scumbag liberal welfare recipients use credit cards and are subjected to the same dirty tricks. Also, a cynic might believe that when the corporation has the latitude to amp up rates after a one day late payment, said corporation might just find a way to ensure that that happens frequently.
But just a cynic.

X = "...corporations making x amount of dollars over x amount of years in America, should be taxed heavily if they move x number of jobs offshore..." and what if they do it to avoid taxes to begin with?
*Corporate welfare is at record highs. Your boy McCain is counted on to vote regularly against windfall profits taxation and the GOP has had Congressional control from '94-'06. These corporations have been making money hand over fist and you're ignorant or lying to suggest otherwise. The following brands have moved hundreds of thousands of jobs overseas while enjoying massive revenue in less than a decade: Microsoft, Bank of America, Target, IBM, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle, GM, Time Warner, Verizon and Mastercard. There are so many more. India now picks up a significant portion of call center and IT jobs. Even Big Oil is cutting transportation jobs and truckers while rolling in the dough.
Why do you hate the working class, Xdfred? Why do you despise them so much, patriot? Why do you defend wealth upon wealth of men that wouldn't spit on you if your head was on fire?
Why do you support GOP legislators who send soldiers to war lacking life saving equipment? I just thought I'd throw that one in there too since you know, you do.

X = Anyone who tries to leave will be shot.
*Right, cause that's what I'm suggesting.

X = And have losing those jobs hurt our economy?
*People's wages are lower than ever before because their job travels around the globe to the lowest bidder. One provider in a home used to be enough to handle everything. Now two struggle in middle class homes. So yea, I think you and your Nafta fetish has had some effect.

xdfred wrote on Aug 26, 2008 3:35 PM:
" chester
wrote on Aug 25, 2008 1:17 PM:
"...wear an orange jumpsuit if the Dick Cheneys had their way to throw detractors in jail..." Try insulting a gay person, say, at Wartburg, and see what happens to you.
*Do you feel the need to insult gay people a lot?
X = Or use a gun in self defence in San Francisco.
*I'd agree with you that San Francisco's gun ban is wrong. However, aren't you guys who push for state's rights? I guess I'm thinking that by that logic, they oughta be able to make all the stupid laws they want. (Even though I don't agree with that state's rights philosophy down the line).

X = "...I think social conservatives share absolutely none of the traits of the teachings of Jesus Christ, that they hijacked his name in the same way Muslim radicals have hijacked and mangled Islam...." What a crock. On a personal level, who is more charitable. You confuse charity with government interference.
*Charitable, ok. By and large I'd estimate that a lot of church patrons consider themselves conservative and are known to send monies to charities, and many of them are kind, decent people, fooled by so-called Christians, and so-called Conservatives like say, Ted Stevens and Rush Limbaugh and people who oughta know better, like you. I can't deny that Christian churches can be a very generous people. If you think I'm confusing charity with government interference (which I'm not, having said numerous times I don't care for welfare queens, I care for higher wages and benefits for the working class because we can't trust your GOP buddies to take that initiative on their own) than you're confusing the generosity of a church congregation with the "christianism" of Karl Rove. It ain't the same thing.
I'd also like to know how you think Jesus Christ would view us deporting the wife of an American soldier fighting in Iraq. Got an answer for that? How about a popular right wing pundit sexually harassing a co-worker and then paying her hush money to keep his reputation touting his high moral standards, all in Jesus' name. How do you negotiate that with your worldview?

X = And nobody mangled Islam. Read the Koran sometime. It's all in there.
*Yea, there aren't any peaceful Muslims on Earth. Bigot.

X = "....and I know where the Xdfred's of the world stand...." You haven't a clue.
*So all that stuff you post out here several times a day has been ghostwritten and shouldn't be taken at face value? Cool. "

" "...These corporations have been making money hand over fist..." That's what they're supposed to do. If they didn't, who would invest in them? 401k's? Pension fund managers? Investors?

"..*Corporate welfare is at record highs..." Corporate welfare and tax break are two totally different things.

"..Why do you hate the working class, Xdfred? Why do you despise them so much, patriot? ..." Where do I show a hatred for the working class? It gauls me when liberals say they protect the working class, when every regulation and hidden tax hurts them the most. Who's getting hurt by high energy prices? What's the Democrat congress doing about it?

"..Why do you defend wealth upon wealth of men that wouldn't spit on you if your head was on fire? .." You really really despise wealthy people, don't you? Again, how can you despise people you don't know or assume what they would or would not do. There's plenty of working class people you pretend to defend who would, as you say, spit on you if your head was on fire.

"...Do you feel the need to insult gay people a lot?..." Nice way to twist the point. A young man yelled a politically incorrect slur and was arrested at Wartburg college. That's why I brought that up. But twist my words all you want.

"..People's wages are lower than ever before because their job travels around the globe to the lowest bidder..." Of course, you can back this myth up, right?

"...I care for higher wages and benefits for the working class ..." Does pretending to be a champion of the working class make you feel good? Are you under the delusion that it's governments responsibility to dictate who gets paid what? It's simple. You want more money, do what it takes to earn it.

"...Yea, there aren't any peaceful Muslims on Earth. Bigot..." Call your names. But read the Koran. Read the history of why the crusades took place. Read the relevence of the date of September 11. But call me a bigot. It makes you feel good. But what does calling me a bigot have to do with what's written in the Koran Mr. dhimmi?

"...So all that stuff you post out here several times a day has been ghostwritten and shouldn't be taken at face value? Cool...." Reading and comprehension help.

What's your position on school vouchers? "

" I'll get back to ya buddy. Very, very busy week.
And now for some camping. "

" Hey Xdfred!
My promised responses to our "discussion" last week:

xdfred wrote on Aug 27, 2008 1:20 PM:

X = " "...These corporations have been making money hand over fist..." That's what they're supposed to do. If they didn't, who would invest in them? 401k's? Pension fund managers? Investors?

Me: Naturally you take my words out of context, like you often do. Let's see. You ignored the four paragraphs preceding this one in my initial post because they didn't mesh with your worldview and if you had addressed them honestly, you wouldn't be able to make the statement you make here. See, if you recall I said corporations are "making money hand over fist" and then in the next sentence I list 11 companies who have made windfall profits yet ship American jobs overseas. And that's only 11 I listed, as there are many, many more. And at this point, I'm not even proposing the government step in and do something necessarily. I'm just saying you're an unAmerican stooge for supporting the practice. I think you're not a patriot, xdfred, because you defend CEO's making record profits for doing pretty much nothing but finding ways to cut costs by outsourcing jobs so they can add a couple points to the stock options of men who find ways to keep your paycheck stagnant, even as they ask you to work harder. Also, because you're a big fan of Paris Hilton because you obviously worship at the church of the dollar and she is your messiah.

X = "..*Corporate welfare is at record highs..." Corporate welfare and tax break are two totally different things.

Me: Tax breaks are a part of corporate welfare. What exactly is your point?

X = "..Why do you hate the working class, Xdfred? Why do you despise them so much, patriot? ..." Where do I show a hatred for the working class? It gauls me when liberals say they protect the working class, when every regulation and hidden tax hurts them the most. Who's getting hurt by high energy prices? What's the Democrat congress doing about it?

Me: Do you have any other medium for your daily news outside Rush Limbaugh? Seriously...you get everything you know from right wing sites. You really think the collusion of energy giants is not a GOP sponsored event? What went on in California at the turn of the 21st century - A massive transfer of wealth and destabilizing the economy which has put us in the situation we're in today, with the requisite tax cuts for those corporations. Regulation is in effect to keep your heroes from driving up costs and selling junk, or harmful, product.
Do you really think it's a conservative mindset that keeps monopolies down and more importantly, mandates that someone inspect your eighteen pork sausages a day, xdfred? As well as keeping people from having to work on their feet 15 hours a day for $4 an hour. Is that the regulation you're talking about that so hurts the working class?

X = "..Why do you defend wealth upon wealth of men that wouldn't spit on you if your head was on fire? .." You really really despise wealthy people, don't you? Again, how can you despise people you don't know or assume what they would or would not do.

Me: Oh, I don't know. Why don't you answer your own question? Why do you constantly, dutifully bash people you've never met out here as lazy swindlers and socialists. Because yea Xdfred, Obama is going to transform American into a socialist state! That's what's going to happen! I can't believe MHI gives you such leeway on their computer each day.

X = "...Do you feel the need to insult gay people a lot?..." Nice way to twist the point. A young man yelled a politically incorrect slur and was arrested at Wartburg college. That's why I brought that up. But twist my words all you want.

Me: Sorry I didn't know that. This is what you said: "Try insulting a gay person, say, at Wartburg, and see what happens to you." I had said that Cheney wants to try detractors and subversive voices as treasonous. You said that. No, I don't think the guy should have been arrested, at all. It annoys me actually and I hearby defend his right to say whatever he wants.

X = "..People's wages are lower than ever before because their job travels around the globe to the lowest bidder..." Of course, you can back this myth up, right?

Me: The wages for manufacturing jobs have not gone down? Is that what you're arguing? I'll give you that median wages have gone up, not figuring for inflation, but that's not figuring for inflation which you kind of have to do to not be a disingenuous hack like yourself. Why can't Pops cover the bills anymore himself? Why does it sometimes take AT LEAST 2 jobs per household to cover the bills that 30 years ago would have been handled by 1? Explain me that. Couldn't be that corporations are pricing jobs around the globe and employing the lowest bidders, could it?
Why did people have better economic security under Clinton? Have an answer for that, or will you just cut this sentence out and pick some unconnected words I posted above and paste them into something you want to believe I said?

X = "...I care for higher wages and benefits for the working class ..." Does pretending to be a champion of the working class make you feel good? Are you under the delusion that it's governments responsibility to dictate who gets paid what? It's simple. You want more money, do what it takes to earn it.

Me: No one's arguing your personal responsibility mantra, tough guy. But the bottom line is that an honest day's pay does not stretch nearly where it did in this country a few decades ago and executive pay has separated more and more with each passing year from that of the workforce. But I forgot. You're buddies with the Al Dunlap and Ken Lay. Actually, you're not, as they wouldn't let you mow their lawns, but inexplicably you keep cheerleading for them.

X = "...Yea, there aren't any peaceful Muslims on Earth. Bigot..." Call your names. But read the Koran. Read the history of why the crusades took place. Read the relevence of the date of September 11. But call me a bigot. It makes you feel good. But what does calling me a bigot have to do with what's written in the Koran Mr. dhimmi?

Me: So there are no peaceful, decent Muslims on Earth. I see.

X = "...So all that stuff you post out here several times a day has been ghostwritten and shouldn't be taken at face value? Cool...." Reading and comprehension help.

Me: Oh, I know. Time and again you've shown how gloriously poetic and articulate your posts are.

X = What's your position on school vouchers? "

Me: I am 100% fine with school vouchers. I don't think they work the way their proponents had hoped, but I am totally cool with em.

This week's content that you conveniently ignored from my last post:

Me (last week): "I'd also like to know how you think Jesus Christ would view us deporting the wife of an American soldier fighting in Iraq. Got an answer for that? How about a popular right wing pundit sexually harassing a co-worker and then paying her hush money to keep his reputation touting his high moral standards, all in Jesus' name. How do you negotiate that with your worldview?" "