Comments Posted By Freedoms Truth
Displaying 61 To 70 Of 112 Comments
"President Obama has had a horrid foreign policy so far in my opinion"
I'm with you there ... but on this point, laying low is just a rationalization of a lack of courage of convictions.
As for analogies: what about the SERBIA analogy? Or China 1989 analogy? Or Ukraine? We were harldy on friendly terms with the repressers, but we helped. We don't have much leverage beyond moral support and we fool ourselves with the prattle that meddling my boomerang. ( had to roll my eyes with Obama's 'meddling' comments, coming just a few short weeks after his attempt to meddle vociferously in mid-east affairs by giving a Cairo speech and less than a WEEK after he made hopeful comments about the elections in Iran.) In none of those cases did/would laying low help.
The point is not to meddle or demand or threaten, just tell the truth, stand on the right side of this issue - for human rights, human freedom, and democratic principles and processes. We frankly lose nothing in standing on the right side of the issue, with pro-democracy and pro-freedom protesters. France's Sarkozy has led.
Krauthammer says:
But people aren't dying in the street because they want a recount of hanging chads in suburban Isfahan. They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy that has imposed itself with the very baton-wielding goons that today attack the demonstrators. ... All hangs in the balance. The Khamenei regime is deciding whether to do a Tiananmen.
There is a revolution possible here, and the helpful action here is NOT silence, but a global, united front to oppose a crack-down or repression of the Tehran "people power". In this episode, Obama has channelled his inner Jimmy Carter - his instincts are all wrong on this. Obama should be calibrating his response at the level of France and others, not pro-repression Russia and China.
Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 19.06.2009 @ 13:35
IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE RIGHT ATTITUDE
"Cynthia, you seem to have conveniently forgotten that Palin continues to use her children as political tools."
So what? so does Obama. I recall those kids showing up on his big speech occassions.
That would never excuse someone making vile jokes about his kids.And as #48 said, Palin was doing what most Moms and Dads do with their kids.
Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 19.06.2009 @ 12:57
"This tells me everything I need to know about the conservative movement and the GOP."
Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 17.06.2009 @ 13:52
Mr Reynolds: Then you know nothing and your ignorance is uncurable. Your ideological prism is preventing any real understanding and you are wasting your time here with your out-of-touch piffle that mis-states just about everything.
Thanks Rick, for answering a question/dilemma I was faced with when looking at this data:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/06/conservatives-up-republicans-down.html
Conservatives up, Republicans down 40% of Americans are conservative (good) yet 4 of 10 Republicans are unfavorable on their own party ... wassup with that?
You've added the puzzle piece. As per #7, WE LACK LEADERSHIP. And what the leadership lacks is that "Braveheart" spirit - they are like those Scottish nobles trying to cut deals with the English King for their own hides, while the TEA-Partying rabble want someone who will FIGHT!It's not unhelpful to know where you stand, but it is pointless to bemoan it rather than change it. It's not the snarling that we need, but the "Dont give up" DETERMINATION TO MAKE OUR VOICES MATTER. Because utlimately I give a damn about this country because I've got some kids who may just grow up into a pathetic backwater country because our first black President put us in hock to the Chinese in his quest to destroy coal power plants and private health insurance. We need a Churchillian response to Obama's threats to our liberty and prosperity, not a Nevill Chamberlain at Munich response. Fight on the cap-and-trade, fight on the budget, fight on ObamaCare, fight on Gitmo, fight on Sotomayor, fight them whereever they try to regulate, tax, spend,
It's not so much 300 Yockey's, but instead of waiting for the 'next Reagan' while clutching the martinis and muttering how all is lost, realize that we have among us 10,000 Reagans ready to take on the Obama-borg. We are the solution, the 40% of American that self-admits to being 'conservative'. We have to fight to make our solutions a win or we'll up as precipitate, to coin a chemical analogy.
We need a virtue that conservatives of all people should not neglect. ... as Dan Rather put it .... COURAGE!
Cue the Braveheart theme, Bill Murray's "Stripes" speech, or whatever it takes. Time to "Man Up" and head for the sound of political gunfire. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!
Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 17.06.2009 @ 13:23
OBAMA'S CAIRO ADDRESS: DID IT LIVE UP TO THE HYPE?
"I was insufficiently harsh and brutal on the president, on Muslims, and on the media." No - Just the President. He is way-UNDER-criticized by the fawning lamestreamers in the media, that it doesnt hurt to ask - "To what end? What is his goal here? What did it/ will it accomplish?" He needs a kick in the pants and needs to stop being graded on his intentions (as if ANY President doesnt have good intentions) and START grading him on RESULTS.
For example this comment: "President Obama decided to tempt the fates, grab history by the tail, and take on a task from which Hercules himself would have shied away: changing the perception of how the United States is viewed in the Muslim world."
Um, sorry, but ... rubbish. GHWBush tried to change perceptions - Oslo accords. Clinton tried as well - He had Arafat over for a visit. GWBush after 9/11 directly addressed Arab people, gave a famous speech on democracy ...
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/reform/bush2003.htm
Yes, Obama has uniquely decided to talk directly to foreign audiences, in a way not much seen since Reagan in 'tear down that wall' mode. That innovation is different and would be useful, if it was put to good use with a message that gave an American message in a palatable way to Muslim audiences. But it wasnt (see below). In other words, lets stop giving this nonsensical "oh, he's trying so that means it must be some good." So was Bush and I never heard his great efforts to move the ball on democracy in Arab countries win plaudits 'for effort'. Results count. WE didnt grade previous presidents on effort, lets not do it here.There was too much in Obama's speech that was flat-out false and fatuous that it rendered it useless to the job of winning Muslims audiences to OUR side. Rather, it simple ingratiated Obama with them by pandering to their preconceived notions, except in a few places, where the push was soft the point of not-being-there.
Obama comes off as sounding more like a candidate for UN secretary-general than a US President, not *challenging* these foreign audiences to respect serious truths about terrorism and freedom and democracy, but pandering to them by flattering them with white lies (eg his hyperbole about Islamic science is nonsense that comes straight out from pro-muslim propaganda PR) that elided the essential problems and challenges they face. In short, pandering aint leadership nor statesmanship. Its just pandering, and unless he's running for mayor of Cairo one has to ask "To what end?"
The hammer-hits-nail part of Moran's analysis was this: "while forcing them to listen to a few (too few, as it turned out) truths about Islam and the threat of extremists"
TOO FEW. Indeed. Not a 'great speech' or even good speech. But a missed opportunity
To put an analogy on it: Obama could flatter a black American audience with a message akin to Al Sharpton's, or he could challenge them with the tough love of a Bill Cosby message. One might get more applause, but which one would do most good?
I saw the comment 'stupid and dangerous' as one reaction. It fits. The stupid part is how Obama in effect distanced himself from America - "Hey those bad Americans did that, its not me" - in an attempt to curry favor. So the muslim world will like HIM, but it will not necessarily cause the NEEDED self-examination nor look differently or more positively at what USA is doing. The dangerous part was the false moral equivalences that will - if taken seriously - put America in a rhetorical and policy box when facing real threats. Is he serious that Iran has the same rights to nuclear technology as the USA? Will his false moral equivalences move us closer? Not really because it panders to the most resistant and stubborn in the Arab world.
"All in all, it really was a quite forgettable speech domestically except for the objectionable parts. " - I agree. In catering to the muslim audiences, Obama has said many things (again!) that raise hairs on spine back home.
Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 5.06.2009 @ 13:17
CAN GINGRICH RIDE AN ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT WAVE TO THE OVAL OFFICE?
mike farmer - #3: "Gingrich needs to run, not to win, because he would lose, but to throw a bomb in the political debate and clarify issues. "
I agree. I dont think Gingrich could win, but even if not he could very much help make the GOP race a better one.
Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 22.05.2009 @ 16:33
"CAN GINGRICH RIDE AN ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT WAVE TO THE OVAL OFFICE?"
Um ... no.
It was noted ... "R.S. McCain has it right! It is the elites vs. grassroots."
Correct. The fact is that the brilliant Gingrich has issues that will make the grassroots be distrustful, perhaps moreso than they should be. Its not just what some call 'personal baggage', but his sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi, and standing next to Hillary Clinton. Such bipartisan actions are anathema to the right-roots of the GOP, for they have seen 100% of bipartisan bills end up being bad for our freedom. (Just think of every bill that goes McCain-some-liberal-Senator). For a man who want to channel populist energy (which he has done well via American solutions), Gingrich has his own elitist tics and professorial manner.
He cant help it, he ends up being 'too smart by half' as the saying goes. A fox not a hedgehog. That plus the baggage equals a guy who doesnt rate high on likeability/electability. He comes across as the smart policy wonk but is discounted as not empathetic/'real'/personable enough.
But that's not to say he's not a great asset, since the GOP definitely needs a man like him, as we needed Jack Kemp back in the day, or Taft way back when, to leaven our party with some good ideas and put some intellectual rigor in a party adrift.
As with the 2008 field, we may end up with a 2012 of candidates with a variety of attributes which if you put them together might make a great candidate. Gingrich adds a key element of forward-thinking and openness to ideas, but his perceived flaws and likeability weaknesses are such that it won't carry him into the White House.
Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 22.05.2009 @ 16:31
GOP UNVEILS HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN
#1: "Expecting a corporation to provide a service in your best interests at the lowest price AND expecting them to have a steadily rising stock price is not really realistic as they will have to choose one or the other."
WTF?!? Walmart, McDonalds, IBM, Merck, Intel ... 40 years of doing all of the above that you say is impossible. Walmart served customers better and was rewarded with becoming the largest retailer in the world. It's very unrealistic to imagine that the laws of economics get repealed when talking about a different industry.
"Currently they as all other companies are forced to worry more about quarterly earnings which is healthy in many industries but what about those that are supposed to care if we live or die?"
You pay them to care, or rather pay them to provide a service. Substandard service providers in a competitive market lose customers and go out of business. Apparently, Liberals dont understand or appreciate how consumer choice and market competition really works.
it's a complete illusion that you can squeeze more 'caring' out of govt-provided plans ... without competition, you get cost escalations and less innovations, which means in an environment of limited resources, you'll get to ... rationing. As noted of the GOP plan: "This private option would enable seniors to avoid the increasing threat of rationing under Medicare. "
Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 20.05.2009 @ 12:55
"The bill would assure essential health coverage and health care to every U.S. citizen, without increased federal spending and taxes, and without the federal government taking over your health care.”
Reaction: Thank you Doctor Coburn. Viz the Kling quote - so good, it will HAVE to be D.O.A. in the Pelosi Congress. They are allergic to good ideas.
But if they are, it's a huge gaping political opening for the GOP - "Aptly called the Patients’ Choice Act, it provides a path to universal coverage by redirecting current subsidies for health insurance to individuals." - that opening is a 'CHOICE' agenda. we see the same dichotomy across a wide variety of political issues - healthcare, retirement, education, energy, business and property ownership, guns, etc. Republicans are for more choice and individual decision-making, Democrats for less choice.
oh, and great factoid on New Jersey liability insurance - 12% of NJ drivers are uninsured, even though that's against the law!?! Mandates? fuggedaboutit!
Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 20.05.2009 @ 12:41
GOP MORE POPULAR THAN AT ANY TIME SINCE YESTERDAY
Joe @44: You have 3 mis-statements of facts in 2 sentences.
Comment Posted By Freedoms Truth On 22.05.2009 @ 16:25
e.g. "they declare there is nothing wrong with the gop" is contradicted by my previous statements.
