Sorry, I missed that because you put it on the bottom of a rather long post about reparations for slavery.
My responses to yours follow: I don't consider any of it meaningless nonsense, and I've tried to avoid answering by simply describing anything I disagree with as "idiocy" or similarly dismissing it with an epithet and no argument. I am confident you can follow.
So much for #10, an end to racial identity politics.
The point here is that the symbolic claim of victimhood and suppression on the being black is hard to claim convincingly when there's a president who's, er, black.
It pretty much proves colour is no bar to the highest office in the land, and hence by implication any other.
#9 - His spending programs are so massive cutting govt debt would not happen either.
From the original, "the CBO estimates that McCain's plans will add more to the debt over four years than Obama's. Fiscal conservatives have a clear choice."
i.e. Less debt than under McCain. Not necessarily lower debt overall. I'd say the recession and economic crisis mean no one can honestly promise that, not right now.
#8 - His foreign policy ideas would represent a appeasement and fantasy. The idea he could simply sit down one and one with rogue leaders and they'd make nice with him is incredibliy naive. Much more likely they'd see him as weak-kneed as Kruschev did Kennedy - that led us to the brink of nuclear war.
He'd be the president of the US and CinC of the strongest military on the planet, bar none. I think anyone rational would be willing to sit down and talk rather than face annihilation. And he's smart and skilled at negotiation, and objective enough to do it well as he can see the issue from both sides (did you see the profile I posted from his HLR days?). Talking's historically reliable as a way to settle and avoid wars.
#7 - yes, we know he view our military leaders as the people to be gotten tough with as opposed to our enemies. More idiocy.
There I think you're just incorrect. e.g. He had an excellent meeting with Petraeus recently, details here if you want,
Message 25115872
According to both Obama and Petraeus, the meeting — which lasted twice as long as the usual congressional briefing — ended agreeably. Petraeus said he understood that Obama's perspective was, necessarily, going to be more strategic. Obama said that the timetable obviously would have to be flexible. But the Senator from Illinois had laid down his marker: if elected President, he would be in charge. Unlike George W. Bush, who had given Petraeus complete authority over the war — an unprecedented abdication of presidential responsibility... — Obama would insist on a rigorous chain of command.
I think it's absolutely right that the CinC command the military, rather than follow their lead. That's what makes a democracy rather than a military dictatorship.
#6 - Yes, he has a cool demeanor. He has cultivated that. The whole point of it is to convince people he's not really Marxist, which of course he is.
You assert he's Marxist. OK, I don't see that, I don't think many people in the Democratic party, the US or indeed the world see that. I would describe that as an unwarrantable slur.
If you believe it to be the case do point to something credible (i.e. not just RW blogs) where he espouses or supports uniquely Marxist ideas?
He's calm. He's reflective. He thinks before he acts.
#5 "bridge between new atheism and new Christianism" What the heck is that? Why not just say his religion is wishy washy liberalism and that wishy-washy liberals like that?
Actually I wasn't sure about this point, especially in a top ten. I suspect what is meant is that his religion affects his life without defining or programming it, and he is informed without it being his over-riding criterion.
Atheists - like me - will accept religious people as leaders, we'll abide by their decisions, so long as we feel that those decisions are not made solely on the grounds of faith or believe which we do not share. And someone who's both rational and a believer is IMO someone to admire in that respect because they've reconciled what we can't...
As for his pastor, I switch off in sermons and I really couldn't say what motivates anyone to do otherwise. I don't see many politicians disowning their pastors when they say something repugnant, though, whether it be liberation theology or homophobic hatred.
#4 - culture war - he's an extremist - not just for abortion, he wants any baby that survives an abortion to be denied care so that it dies. He's more extreme than NARAL. Has promised to pass the Freedom of Choice Act - which prevent any regulations of abortion at all.
Official rebuttal.
fightthesmears.com
The rest of the culture war issues are just so irrelevant to me. I couldn't care less whether gays do or don't marry - so as it's important to them and doesn't touch anyone else WTF is the problem, is my attitude. More stable couples is a good thing and I don't see that their genitalia are my concern.
And so on.
The point is, he's younger than that. He accepts what most people under ~45 accept. These pointless divisions are no more his concern than mine.
#3 - President Palin - would bring a record of successful governance that neither Obama nor Biden have. Great!
More indeed than McCain. Indeed, the mayor of Pissant, Cal (population 17) has more executive experience than all three put together... that's because the Senate isn't an executive branch.
As for whether her career can truly be defined as successful, or what you'd want in a potential president... You plainly think she's a good leader and a success. Well, I disagree so strongly.
Since the campaign thus far, and all the eminent GOP people coming out even before the election to say the opposite have not convinced you, I'll bookmark this and come back in a few years, shall I?
#2 - "conservative reform" via a socialist Pelosi-Reid-Obama led America. More idiocy and like several of the others this claim can't h/b made in good faith.
The quote was "Until conservatism can get a distance from the big-spending, privacy-busting, debt-ridden, crony-laden, fundamentalist, intolerant, incompetent and arrogant faux conservatism of the Bush-Cheney years, it will never regain a coherent message to actually govern this country again. " IOW he says a period out of office is needed. After all, if the Democrat government you so fear turns out to be so bad, wouldn't this work hugely to GOP benefit in 2-4 years?
I certainly don't see how you can dispute any of the adjectives he ascribes to the current government.
big-spending
privacy-busting
debt-ridden
crony-laden
fundamentalist
intolerant
incompetent
arrogant
faux conservatism
... 8 from 8 to me.
#1 - there h/b no new terror attacks on America, something no one would have anticipated shortly after 911.
Well, that's due to enhanced security but no need for war on terror there.
AQ has become unpopular in most of the Muslim world. Precisely because we've forced them to fight on their home ground where they kill Muslims.
Source? It's lost ground in Iraq compared with ~2004/5 - but it wasn't even there before the war. Meanwhile radical jihadists are way more common in (e.g.) Algeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan... probably others, I'm no expert, those are just the nations now suffering major Islamic fundamentalist upheaval.
Anyone successfully found guilty of anything worthwhile in Guantanamo yet, BTW? Locking people up without trial is, you know, so according to the Constitution?
|
