The most sensible response to the current financial mess I've yet seen. "They" screw up, with minimal personal consequences (except for the few who will be scapegoated -- I wouldn't wanna be one of THOSE guys).
I "understand" the various points-of-view; we "can't" let them fail or there'd be dire consequences, past actions led inevitably to this, many have warned us and were ignored, Dems are partially responsible, Reps are partially responsible, people who SOLD the crap are partially responsible, people who BOUGHT the crap are partially responsible ...
Which gets us nowhere fast. Fix it as best as we can and let's move on already.
Oh, wait, has anybody said yet that this is all a scheme by Bush to slow Obama's campaign momentum?Comment Posted By DoorHold On 24.09.2008 @ 13:08
I agree that an Obama Presidency wouldn't be an unmitigated disaster, there's only so much a President can actually accomplish -- short-term.
There are plenty of problems in this country, regardless of who's in the Oval Office. The positive spin is that there are plenty of things RIGHT with this country and we will manage to improve in many areas, again, regardless of who's in the Oval Office.
However, things do add up over time. A foot in the door seldom withdraws without a concerted effort to remove it. The changes promised by Obama worry me more -- long-term -- than the changes promised by McCain.Comment Posted By DoorHold On 24.09.2008 @ 13:42
If it were ONLY about Ayers, some of the points made here that focus on trying to minimize that relationship could have had some validity. Since it's more about how Obama got from "there" to "here" and ALL the associations that lead here, picking apart one association appears to miss the point.
A more valid argument against bringing any of this up is ... Obama's past associations and political machinations won't matter in the end. Such issues didn't keep Bill Clinton from getting elected, twice. Obama's sparkling personality is all that matters, to enough people, to get him elected.Comment Posted By DoorHold On 27.08.2008 @ 12:21
"I must admit that listening to McCain answer Pastor Rick Warren’s questions so quickly and glibly Saturday night at the Saddleback Faith Forum made me wonder if he somehow knew them in advance. He was so confident, so concise. ..."
That's called "character" and having beliefs you can be proud of. Lack of character and saying whatever will get you elected results in ... Obama's performance. It's SO sad that someone sees a confident, concise candidate and rather than thinking, hey, maybe this guy's got something, they think there has to be a conspiracy behind it.
"Now the left is fond of saying the right is “smearing” Obama when we call into question his meager record, his lack of experience, his associations with radicals whose views are so antithetical to the mainstream that questioning him about his past becomes just another part of the vetting process for president."
... Yet they smear McCain. Pointing out hypocrisy on the left is ... useless. They will not see it, ever. EVER. Their dictionaries have "Republican" and "conservative" right there in the definition of the word hypocrisy, so they simply CAN'T be guilty of it.Comment Posted By DoorHold On 20.08.2008 @ 11:55
"... Obama [prefaces his lies] with “as I have said repeatedly,” a nice rhetorical flourish that distances his present stance from his previous lies."
Good catch. He's not DENYING his waffle, he's distancing himself from his previous policies.Comment Posted By DoorHold On 27.08.2008 @ 13:13
Let's say for the sake of argument McCain appropriated the story from reading Solzhenitsyn. At least Solzhenitsyn is an admirable source. Now let's say for the sake of argument that Obama, some day, appropriates a story from someone HE greatly admires. I don't know, say from his radical reverend, political cronies, terrorist buddies, abortion apologists, whatever.
McCain's story is about faith, what would Obama's story tell us?Comment Posted By DoorHold On 20.08.2008 @ 12:11
Ignoring the apparent fact that you've already made up your mind that McCain is, in fact, too old, too feeble, you have not made the case that he actually is. Both candidates make gaffe after gaffe, but McCain's "might" be due to a faultering mind? Why not make the case that Obama's gaffes are due to an "inherently" weaker mind? Prejudice is an ugly business, and saying McCain "might" be faultering due to dementia because "some" people his age or older have dementia is an ugly slander (especially so since he has had more medical work-ups than you can shake a stick at and has come up clean enough to disprove it).
As far as his age being used against him, all I've seen is a few jokes here and there (but I admit I don't read any radical leftist propaganda -- so if that type of source is filled with such pot-shots I wouldn't know about it).Comment Posted By DoorHold On 23.07.2008 @ 09:33
Democrats have been calling for a withdrawal, like, forever. EVENTUALLY they would HAVE to be right. The genius is in taking credit for a withdrawal YEARS before it actually occurs.Comment Posted By DoorHold On 23.07.2008 @ 09:45
"So the Chicago crowd has a hand in Obama’s rise? Much like the Texans who helped Bush Jr. get elected or Carter’s old boy network in Georgia? To a certain extent, all politicians have different local networks pushing them ahead ..."
Maybe it's proximity to Chicago that makes this so compelling a story. I grew up hearing about the day-to-day corruption of Chicago's Democrats and frankly, Obama stinks of it. That it's been swept under the rug may be typical for Chicago politics, but Obama's not running for a local office.
Man, Chicago's City Hall must be chomping at their bits over the possibility of yet another National office being under their influence.
On the other hand, yup, that's the reality of politics. But isn't Obama stumping on the mantra of "change?" Doesn't that make this at least something that should be examined more closely?Comment Posted By DoorHold On 9.07.2008 @ 11:03
"The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor."
'Tis a pity it isn't possible to go back in time and explain to the founding fathers how the defition of "militia" would be twisted in time and that it might be wise to leave that reasoning out. It wasn't necessary to explain WHY other rights were enumerated and it should have been obvious why the right to bear arms exists.
"The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias."
That unsupportable opinion has, at last, been eliminated as a possibility.
"... in its last major decision on gun rights, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that that was the correct interpretation."
Only if a) you agree that states have rights as opposed to powers given to them by the people, b) that the Bill of Rights enumerates the rights of the people with the inexplicable exception of the Second Amendment, and c) that you misinterpret the actual results of that decision.
"On Tuesday, five members of the court edited the 2nd Amendment. In essence, they said: Scratch the preamble, only 14 words count."
I see ... you didn't actually READ what the court decided or are incapable of understanding it. Your lack of an intelligent response is beginning to make sense.
"... they have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens."
They have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to disarm you. How disarming you is supposed to protect you is unfathomable.
"We can argue about the effectiveness of municipal handgun bans such as those in Washington and Chicago. They have, at best, had limited impact. People don’t have to go far beyond the city borders to buy a weapon that’s prohibited within the city."
Where's the "argument" about the effectivness of bans? They have limited impact and people can obtain firearms anyway, THAT'S your best argument?
"But neither are these laws overly restrictive. Citizens have had the right to protect themselves in their homes with other weapons, such as shotguns."
So another of your arguments FOR gun bans is that it's OK to have and use one?
"... the damage in this ruling is that it takes a significant public policy issue out of the hands of citizens."
Have to agree with another's response that the typical gun banner has no problem taking other public policy issues out of the hands of citizens, so where does this argument go?
"The people of Washington no longer have the authority to decide that, as a matter of public safety, they will prohibit handgun possession within their borders."
He got something right! That's EXACTLY what it means.Comment Posted By DoorHold On 2.07.2008 @ 11:29