Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (431999)	11/2/2008 12:38:32 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1572877

The Old Ideological Wars Renewed 27 Oct 2008 02:40 pm Whether or not the Frums of the punditosphere are correct, it might be dangerous for the Republican Party to elevate the stakes for this election to a death match between competing ideologies. If Barack Obama's victory is as decisive as it is shaping up to be, the Democrats can justifiably claim that conservatism itself has been rejected as a political and governing philosophy. In the closing weeks of the campaign, as the Republican ticket continues to run against the very idea of progressive politics, they are sowing the seeds of the post-election realignment narrative. "Socialist" ... "redistributive" ... These are 20th century words with 20th century connotations; indeed, the point of Obama's reflection was that the most progressive -- most liberal -- court of the era could not bring itself to violate a core American principle and could not extend the sphere of justice to the economy. Obama wasn't simply making a technical point about jurisprudence and history; he was expressing a liberal positivist's lament about the court's reluctance in one specific case -- San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez -- which dealt with education funding. And here's the redistributionist part: "One of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still stuffer from that." "..so court focused..." is the tragedy, not the court's refusal to redistribute wealth. Conservatives find it absurd that Americans are about to elect the most liberal president of the modern era and aren't terribly upset by it; but in capitalizing on this particular argument of Obama's, the Republicans are rearguing whether some form of economic redistributions from white people to black people was necessary -- even though Obama never really made the point. Obama has been talking about the larger GOP governing philosophy for a while now, but until recently, the race hasn't seemed like as much of a referendum on Republicanism; it's been more of a referendum on the Bush years. What changed? The GOP went all in on an ideological war. marcambinder.theatlantic.com

To: i-node who wrote (431999)	11/2/2008 1:11:57 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572877

"Which of my statements do you believe was a "lie" and on what do you base that claim?" Virtually all of them. "- He reneged on the promise to take public financing" He did pledge that. But he also put in a caveat about forgoing money from the respective national committees and reeling in the 527s. Both of which McCain refused to do. "- If he wins, he will have done so on the claim that McCain is the third Bush term which is an absolute lie -- and you know it." Oh, nonsense. Certainly Bush isn't helping McCain. But the fact that Obama is leading McCain on the top issues with most Americans is the main factor. "- He has moved from the most extreme Left -- more extreme than the one avowed socialist in the Congress -- to claim centrist positions that obviously don't exist." Yawn. He hasn't been on the extreme left. "- He has hidden his affiliations with terrorists, claiming the relationships are casual when they are in fact much deeper and obviously influential." There is no evidence he has affiliations with terrorists. "- He has used racism time and again, while trying to lay it off on the opposing campaign." Sigh. Only you can ignore the implied racism of the McCain campaign. "Yet, while I provided indisputable specifics in my post, you can't support your claim with a single legitimate claim." How many times do I have to do this? McCain and Palin distort virtually everything they say about Obama. Some of it is even just flat made up. For example, this ad which states that Obama is going to raise taxes to hand over to welfare. youtube.com Or linking Khalidi to terrorism. blogs.jta.org Or that Obama regretted that the Supreme Court hasn't been more active in redistributing wealth. blogs.abcnews.com Or the claim that "Obama says Iran is a 'tiny' country. 'Doesn't pose a serious threat.'" That is only a partial quote. Obama was comparing Iran to the USSR during the Cold War. And yes, compared to the USSR, Iran is indeed a tiny country and doesn't pose as serious of a threat. And these are just the most recent. It is pretty much the same across his campaign since June.