Meh. The voters have such low expectations at this point that all she has to do is speak semi-coherently at the debate and it'll be considered a victory. Joe Biden will say at least one incredibly stupid thing as well, witch will later be used for a boost as well. I'm assuming the debate will pretty much be a wash.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 29.09.2008 @ 10:36
I assure you that being concerned with our reputation and/or standing in the world has very little to do with pleasing European leftists. This seems like an excuse for horrible foreign policy.
It has absolutely noting to do with "seeking freedom and liberty." The simple truth is that a better reputation and standing in the world directly translates to more people buying our products.
Well, unless you include military hardware in that, then it really doesn't matter.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 28.09.2008 @ 22:02
Meh. It was a valid observation.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 28.09.2008 @ 17:44
Look, I've read about the The Community Reinvestment Act. I can find NO correlation between that and a no income/employment verification loans outside of poor urban areas, which is exactly what was happening everywhere else. I just can't find it.
Blame the CRA all you want because it has its issues, but it was a tiny fraction of the overall problem. Especially in the middle class suburban McMansion areas. I'd love to understand how you can logically draw one from the other. Most banks were under NO obligation whatsoever with the CRA. They made the decision for no income/employment AR mortgages on their own because the COULD. The money was to huge to ignore.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 27.09.2008 @ 15:41
"Accroding to you his proposal is for a 20% rate – i will take you at your word. That would be increase of 6%. Who wants to INCREASE the capital gains tax in an economy that Obama has been claiming is fundamentally weak? And this debate was in April."
You can take my word for it, but all I can do is take his word for it. That is the number that is literally written in his tax policy. Again, whether or not he holds to that promise is another thing entirely. Incidentally, with the current state of affairs, it might be a long while before the capital gains tax really means a whole lot to anyone.
"I dont care what your political affiliation is but please explain to me how exactly a capital gains tax rate increase make sense?"
Wars don't pay for themselves man. The money's got to come from somewhere. Well... unless you control the printing press. Then deficits don't matter, right? That's working out really well for us.
“As far as the Sunni/Shia go, they have ethnically cleansed themselves into coexistence. One of the primary reasons that the ‘surge’ has been successful.”
"Your ignorance on Iraq is ASTOUNDING."
Meh. I read a lot.
"The surge originated in the Anbar province – which is a Sunni dominated province. The Sunni tribes were fed up with the barbaric nature of AQI and decided to fight back. American troops backed up the Sunni’s in their fight. AQI was routed. This has NOTHING to do with ethnic cleansing."
Of course it had nothing to do with ethnic cleansing. As you said, it was a Sunni dominated province. There weren’t a whole lot of Shia to cleanse.
" I am not saying that this cleansing did not happen – it did happen after the Samarrah mosque bombing in early 2006."
Perhaps you're forgetting about other parts of the country. Namely Baghdad. Baghdad was dissected, piece by entrails covered piece until what was left were ethnically cleansed neighborhoods. The U.S. basically looked the other way until the neighborhoods were 'purified'. When that was over, patrols were a lot smoother.
"You cannot “pay off” to get peace."
Agreed. But you can pay off to get people to stop shooting at you and blowing you up temporarily.
"Sunni’s volunteered to stand guard for their communities against AQI. Yes the US is compensating them for their service – but you make it sound as though they are mercenaries who will readily jump ship if AQI pays them more."
Right. The US is paying them to both kill AQI and to stop blowing up our soldiers. Obviously money well spent. The Surge wasn't just a surge in troop levels. It was a surge in cash as well.
"Sunni tribes rejected Sunni AQI - and fought them tooth and nail by siding with what was earlier perceived as a Christian Crusading Army. And that too after the horros of Abu Ghraib . You dont seem to have ANY appreciation for the significance of what has happened here."
Oh no, I do appreciate that the Sunni's hate AQI. I think that's awesome. I don't really think the Sunnis hate them because they fight the US, which the Sunnis were doing until we started giving them money. No, they hate AQI because AQI was blowing up Sunnis while trying to blow up Americans, and not caring. So, with AQI blowing up Sunnis AND Americans, Sunnis were understandably pissed off. Mostly about the Sunni part though.
"In the month of May – Chicago had more homicide victims than terror related Victims in Iraq. That is a stunning piece of statistic in a country that supposedly already “lost”."
I completely, 100% agree with you. Chicago's homicide rate is horrible and embarrassing.
"I dont know of any one who will defend the post war planning of this Administration. I share your anguish on the innocent lives that were lost here and that which could have been avoided."
I love it when we agree.
"But if you are going to dwell on the past, what do you do about the present and the future ? Thankfully, the administration changed its strategy with the surge and backed the military at a time when every one was declaring the war lost."
Here's my problem. I don't know what it would mean to "Win" in Iraq. How do you define victory? We'll spend 3 TRILLION dollars for this thing in the end. Thousands and thousands of Americans are dead, maimed, or mentally damaged forever. We know we were lied into this war. When will it be possible to say we've won? Saddam is gone. Have we won? There is a fledgling pseudo-democracy. Have we won? Oil is being pumped a little faster into the commodity market. Have we won? Seriously... what does it mean to win in Iraq? I have no idea.
"Btw, just because i am critical of Obama does not make a supporter of the initial war strategy – i hope you dont make that assumption."
I did, and I apologize.
"My major GRIPE with Obama is how he tries to pass of his shallow knowledge of the Shia/Sunni history AS some deep thought in a country which knows VERY LITTLE about the Islamic faith and Islamic history. And how he uses it to show his “judgement”. That is a patently laughable claim and insults the intelligence of people who actually KNOW Islamic history and its religion – people like me who come from a country that has 150 million Muslims."
"I can also see that you have a condescending attitude to the fact that Shias and Sunnis have co-existed in Iraq for a long,long time. You have a simplistic notion that ethnic cleansing contributed to it."
From what I have gathered in my reading, Shias and Sunnis co-exist in the presence of overwhelming force. Without that force, be it Saddam, or otherwise, chaos and bloodletting ensue until divisions of bodies separate the two and some brutal force restores order. Now, I do agree that the chaos eventually leads to co-existence, but I don't agree that the ethnic cleansing is the best path to it. Baghdad is a perfect example.
"If that is indeed the case, what sense does it make for the minority Sunnis to join the Shias in Government ? Isnt it strange that the two tribes who according to you have “cleansed” and killed each other are partners in a Government ?"
It makes perfect sense because while the Sunnis are the minority, it's not like they are powerless. They want a piece of the pie too, so are willing to cooperate.
"Please DONT paint a broad brush on a people whom you know very little about. You wouldnt like if some foreigners made some racist remarks about African Americans being lazy because they figured that a few of them lived on welfare, would you ?"
Come on. Foreigners make remarks constantly about Americans of all walks. That's a distraction. I've said nothing like that about Sunnis and Shia. I'm not using a broad brush here. I'm relating what I've observed via research regarding the situation past and present in Iraq.
I hope that one day a wonderful democracy emerges in that country and they stop killing and blowing stuff up. However, even if that does happen, I don't think it will ever be worth the price in money and lives we Americans have paid to make it happen. That is, of course, my opinion though.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 30.09.2008 @ 01:16
Guh. Ok, just a couple of things.
First, I do not support Obama. You putting words in my mouth is annoying as fuck. I am currently undecided. I am not registered with any political party, nor will I ever be. Which is one of the reasons I read this site. I like to read what both sides are talking about. I wanted McCain in 2000, this year, I'm having doubts.
My claims about Obama's 20% capital gains tax come directly from his written tax proposal. That is one of his campaign promises. Whether or not I believe it, is another matter. Your 38% claim though, is so unbelievably ridiculously absurd that I can't even formulate a response to it. 38%? Nonsense.
As far as the Sunni/Shia go, they have ethnically cleansed themselves into coexistence. One of the primary reasons that the 'surge' has been successful.
They have drawn their turf lines and slaughtered their way to neutrality. Combine that with the US literally paying cash to former Sunni insurgents to help them kill other insurgents, and you get Surge success. Just don't go into the wrong neighborhood or you might get a power drill shoved into your heart and have your head hacked off with a small dull knife. Yay, victory! Yay coexistence!
I'm not saying that the Administration wasn't smart enough to understand what would happen. I'm just saying that it makes me upset that they didn't care. Their post war planning was literally non existent. Had it been otherwise thousands of people wouldn't have murdered each other.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 28.09.2008 @ 21:30
Travis Monitor said:
"His core is about advancing the left agenda. "
Um.. yeah. And John McCain's core is about advancing the right agenda. The left fights for left stuff, the right fights for right stuff. The Democrats think they're awesome. The Republicans think they're awesome.
I'm just trying to figure out who I think is awesome.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 28.09.2008 @ 14:57
"Hmm.. lets make a deal – i wont assume that you are a Democrat, and you dont assume that i am doing cut/paste jobs. Deal ?"
Deal. You can formulate your own questions and I am not a Democrat. Got it.
"I live in Chicago – i ve been here for the last three years. I have had a chance to look at local politics here and who its players are. And how it basically works."
That great. I've lived in Chicago my entire life. I too follow local politics.
"You say that you didnt see much in the realm of policy – here’s my opinion on policy – any wonk can come up with any number of policies. What matters is how the candidate approaches an issue – what are his/her thoughts and ideas – and more importantly, what would he/she do as an executive?"
That's awesome. Policy, and all that other stuff you just said matters to me too.
“Lots of did you beat your wife today logical fallacy questions in there though. Well played.”
"Actually, i am not “playing” – these are questions that I would like a response from Barack Obama.
Also if you cannot point out, what the “fallacies” are and demonstrate how exactly they are fallacious, you show yourself to be uninterested in debate. I can call you remarks stupid – there, i just said it. If i dont say why they sound stupid, I am not adding any thing to the debate."
Really? Does it really matter how he knows about Muslim denominations? Does it matter if he took a religious studies class in college, or if he did research on the web? Why is this relevant to anything? OR, are you possibly in some remote way trying to subtly suggest that he's had some sort of Muslim schooling that we don’t already know about? Framing. It's called a Loaded Question logical fallacy. Again, well done.
"That’s exactly what you are doing – passing over the questions, without trying to deal with them."
Meh. Some of them I care about, Some I don't.
"Dont worry, you have nt done anything the MSM has already done – give Barack Obama a pass."
Of course. It's the MSM's fault. Both sides cry and whine about the MSM. Everyone gets a pass.
“I watched him on O’Reilly. Several of these questions were presented and answered there. I’m not saying I was satisfied with the answers, but your smug innuendo actually makes me not care.”
"Really? So O’Reilly is the show that i have to watch to get these “answers” is it ?"
Wow, it actually sounds like you're attacking me because I pointed out that Obama was presented with questions on national television that you said you'd like to see him get asked. I suppose you could just read the transcript.
"I dont care whether you care or not or if you think I am smug or not. Bill O Reilly does not know a damned thing about Obama – and yeah, when did he become the authority on Presidential candidates any ways?
I said none of that. I just said he was on O'Reilly, who is part of the MSM. O'Reilly asked him similar questions to several of those on your list. Obama answered them. Your views on his answers are your views, but saying the questions have never been asked in a national spotlight is invalid.
– Here’s what I dont care about- whether he is Christian, Muslim or anything else – there is no religious test.
No, not according to the constitution. But you know what I meant. Wait, no, maybe you don't. What I meant was that there are great deals of people who say that he's Muslim as a scare tactic. He is not Muslim.
"What exactly makes you think he is intelligent ? Because he sounds that way ?"
No, because he graduated from Harvard Law School, was president of the Harvard Law Review, Served as a Civil Rights Attorney, Spent 12 years as a Constitutional Law Professor, Spent years as a state senator, then went on to become a United States Senator serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees.
Usually people who aren't at least somewhat intelligent don't make it that far.
"How many intelligent people have the following “policy positions” on an issue like Iran..."
I will not accept out of context one liner "policy positions" as proof that he is not intelligent. Sorry.
"That’s five incoherent babbles that even a stupid person would not be able to come up with !"
Again, that's five out of context pseudo quotes used prove that he's stupid. Again, I don't think he's stupid. Furthermore, I'd be amazed if you can find any politician ever who's said anything different to AIPAC.
"This is what your intelligent candidate had to say about Russia’s invasion of Georgia"
“Obama calls for UN Security Council Resolution on Georgia”. Heh ! Russia has a veto which your candidate does not either seem to know or or understand. The only resolution in which UNSC members are required to abstain are in Chapter 6 of the UN mandate – these resolutions end up with nothing more than “strong condemnations” of aggressive action by a nation state. Toothless to do a damned thing.
You are vastly over generalizing the situation, both regarding Georgia and what it means to call for a Security Council resolution.
"This is what your intelligent candidate sees as a way to “fix” Social Security. Raise taxes on individuals who earn more than 200K a year and families that earn more than 250K per year."
I don't believe the tax plan is designed specifically to "fix" social security. Which, arguably is only broken in the regard that it's not a protected fund. Protected from governmental borrowing, that is.
"He has not mentioned what this exact tax rate would be – and more importantly he thinks that high income earners would take this tax increase lying down ! No chance of passing this cost on to people who depend on their services ? What exactly do you think employers do right now? Do you think they pay their 6.2% share ? They reduce this amount from the employee’s annual salary and then show as though they “pay their share”."
Thanks for the business lesson.
"Your intelligent candidate thinks that raising the capital gains tax is needed because… because.. its FAIR ! We call this re-distributionist Marxism – not intelligence. People suffer losses in the trading markets too – do they get compensated for that ? Nope – but your intelligent candidate thinks that its all right to jack up capital gains rate. Gee, would nt this spur investments in this country?"
Bah. Obama will create a new top capital gains rate of 20 percent. Obama’s 20% rate is equal is the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate that President Bush proposed in 2001. It is almost a third lower than the rate that President Reagan signed into law in 1986. Far from the supposed Marxism you're claiming.
"I can take each and every position of this “intelligent candidate” and tear it down. I dont have the energy or the time for it."
"Making assumptions about what I am implying makes you an ass. Where was it that I implied that he is a terrorist?"
Another logical fallacy. I didnt say that you implied that he was a terrorist. What I said was:
“Implying that Senator Obama is a terrorist sympathizing closet Muslim with radical Christian friends, all of whom hate America, is fucking stupid...”
"His association with Jeremiah Wright speaks for itself"
Really? Does it? Dare I apply that flawed logic to all politicians? I wouldn’t even be able to go to the polling place on Election Day. What would be the point?
"– this is a race hustler to the core."
Agreed. Wright has some serious issues.
"Obama who was not a Christian until he came to Chicago, used Wright to get into the good graces of the black community. Once Wright called him out as nothing more than a politician he threw him under the bus."
Are you saying that he worked in the community for almost 15 years in order to get into their good graces so he could get elected? That demonstrates a great deal of forethought and planning on his part, you know, if he actually did that.
"A mere two months after giving his “race speech” ( how is that national conversation on race going by the way?) where he defended Wright, he resigns from his church !!"
I don't see how your race speech sarcasm relates to a dispute between him and Wright.
How much more transparent does it need to be? If your heart bleeds at the thought that Obama is nothing more than a cynical politician who has used his whole “Christian faith” as nothing more than political tool, and I point this out, why blame me ?
I'm not blaming you. He's a politician. That's what they do. 80 million evangelicals have been used as political tools for the past eight years. I don't deride the politicians for doing this; I deride the people for being stupid enough to believe it.
“What ever makes people like you think that an Obama critic who does not fawn over him has an “agenda” ? Yes, its possible to criticize him without having any “agenda”.
Agreed. It's your method of criticizing that seems to be not exactly agenda neutral.
"I have been observing Obama for a long time and have much deeper knowledge about him and his background and what character he is made of than you do. I dont need to agree with you – i have more command of the fundamental facts about him – you DONT."
That’s great man, that's really awesome of you.
"Why dont you try a new approach ? Either provide an effective rebuttal of the issues i raised – or agree that you dont have a clue."
I concede. Congratulations, you win. I don't have a clue.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 28.09.2008 @ 14:04
Is that a cut/paste job or did you think of those yourself? Interesting questions, to be sure. I didn't see much in the way of policy. Lots of "did you beat your wife today" logical fallacy questions in there though. Well played.
Do you have a similar list for McCain, or has he answered all of these types of questions adequately enough for you?
Nice that you assume that my research of the candidates implies that I'm in the bag for the Democrats, and that I "have NO idea."
I watched him on O'Reilly. Several of these questions were presented and answered there. I'm not saying I was satisfied with the answers, but your smug innuendo actually makes me not care.
Here's want I'm certain of: Senator Obama is a Christian. He loves his country. He is extremely intelligent. He's done some questionable stuff to get where he is today. Beyond that, I want to know where he stands on issues that I care about. That's what I'm looking for.
I've done homework on Senator McCain as well. Mostly back in 2000 before he lost the nomination. He seems to have changed a bit since then, so I'm trying to get a better feel for his policies now.
Implying that Senator Obama is a terrorist sympathizing closet Muslim with radical Christian friends, all of whom hate America, is fucking stupid and does nothing but distract from whatever agenda it is you're trying to push. Try a new approach.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 27.09.2008 @ 14:20
Ok, back in 2000, I was very much in support of Senator McCain. Mainly because he crossed party lines where I cross party lines. There were various issues I had with him, but that's not important now.
In the primaries this time, most Republican party members were very much against McCain. Mostly for the reasons I liked him. His battles with his own party, various stances, etc. Through some sort of magic, he managed to get the nomination.
Now, it seems that his party conflicts are being presented as a reason TO vote for him, when they were the exact reason that so many loathed him before the primary. The very same argument is being used now as a reason to support Governor Palin. Though, in my reading, I haven't really seen where she battled her party over much of anything.
I guess I'm not sure what to believe now.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 26.09.2008 @ 20:43