The 2008 Presidential Campaign (was Obama Phenomenon 2)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But the meeting between Obama and Ahmadinejad should not be the first thing that happens.

Faramond, I could be wrong, but I don't recall hearing Obama say that meeting with Ahmadinejad would be the first thing that happens.

[Cerin]

What will be the false notion, this year, that the majority of Americans will end up believing is true through the sheer force of inane repetition?

You mean like 'tax cuts for the rich'? Or perhaps 'NAFTA costs jobs'?

Demagoguery is not confined to one party.

Um, there were tax cuts for the rich -- massive tax cuts. Trade agreements do cost jobs.

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that.


edit to add quote for clarity

[vison]

The only thing I can get out of this thread, is that people have radically different views of how the world works... and they are not compatible.

Vison, I compaired Obama to Carter... and the more I learn of his foriegn policy plans, the more that comparison makes sense to me.

It is not a good thing to be compared to.

When was the election? When did President Obama take office?

As for it not being a "good thing" to be compared to Jimmy Carter, would you rather be favourably compared to George Bush? Those seem to be the 2 alternatives, in the current neocon playbook.

In reality, the world is a complicated place and puerile, simplistic notions lead only to trouble: look at Iraq.

[solicitr]

A few glimpses of the lovely harmless Iranian regime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuMiulc0VVQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlWhJMI_JEI

[solicitr]

Um, there were tax cuts for the rich -- massive tax cuts.

There were tax cuts for everyone- and of course 'rich' in the Demoganda context means everybody making above 100k- hardly rich in any objective sense.

Trade agreements do cost jobs.

Balderdash.

[solicitr]

As for it not being a "good thing" to be compared to Jimmy Carter, would you rather be favourably compared to George Bush? Those seem to be the 2 alternatives

What are the Democratic options? Bill Clinton? Nope, he believed in fiscal responsibility. JFK? A hawk. LBJ? Even worse.


This election has so many parallels to 1976 it's not even funny. Not remotely. Very, very unfunny in fact.

[solicitr]

Vision, please enlighten me on one point-

Why did you Canucks rush to jump into the European war in 1939? It isn't like Hitler was any threat to you.

[halplm]

When was the election? When did President Obama take office?

I don't know what you are trying to accomplish by saying stuff like this, but it is annoying (which I now think might be exactly what you're trying to accomplish...).

And the republicans really seem to want a candidate like Reagan... they just didn't elect one in the primary (not that they really had one to choose).

[vison]

Vision, please enlighten me on one point-

Why did you Canucks rush to jump into the European war in 1939? It isn't like Hitler was any threat to you.

It's not my job to educate you, it's your job to educate yourself, old boy.

(I'm not going to fall for this, any way. Are you perhaps, in your sly way, attempting to show me that we Canucks of This Day and Age ought to regard Iran as we Canucks, speaking for the whole nation, once regarded Nazi Germany? Do you think that because you, as an American, might believe that we HAD to enter the war because our Mother Country entered the war, that we should therefore have supported the Bushwar since Bush's pet Tony B. did? I leave it to you to figure out and I'm pretty sure, almost confident, that you can do that. Although, on reflection, your habit of jumping to weird conclusions might cause a failure of understanding here . . . .)

Besides, what us Canucks did or didn't do, and why we did or didn't do it, has little to do with me. I'm really old, but I wasn't around until 1944 and while I was a precocious and brilliant child, I had not yet begun my Rule.

[Cerin]

There were tax cuts for everyone

Yes, even for the wealthy people who didn't need tax relief. Those are the tax cuts being referred to as 'tax cuts for the rich.'

[Faramond]

Um. Faramond? The guy isn't president yet. When he is (and he will be) he will no doubt send the appropriate message to the Iranians, and that message may well contain precisely the caveats you think it ought. I think this hysteria is completely out of hand, and I might just toss my cookies if I see the name "Chamberlain" one more time today.

I am to understand from your response to me that my post contains the following:

an assumption that Obama is president right now
hysteria
a mention of Chamberlain

Or does your response to me stop at "Um. Faramond?" That's the only part that seems responsive to what I actually said.

Am I not allowed to question Obama's proposed policies because he isn't president right now? You even say that he will be President. I really don't understand the admonition that "he isn't president yet."

Faramond, I could be wrong, but I don't recall hearing Obama say that meeting with Ahmadinejad would be the first thing that happens.

He said in a debate that he would meet without precondition, which is close to what I meant by "first thing".

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/350/
I assume this link is realiable. The overall context is an assessment of one of Bush's statements.

During the CNN/YouTube debate on July 23, 2007, in South Carolina, the Democratic candidates were asked whether, if elected, they would meet "separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

Obama said he would. Clinton said she would not, because she didn't want such meetings to be used for propaganda purposes. She later attacked Obama's answer as "irresponsible and frankly naive." Obama, however, has stood by his position, saying it represents a dramatic turn away from the Bush administration's minimal diplomatic efforts.

"As president of the United States, my job is to look out for the national security interests of this country. Iran, in particular because of the bad decision this administration has made by invading Iraq, is a major player in the Middle East," Obama said to reporters in September 2007. "If it is in the United States' interest to make certain that we can stabilize the situation and avoid further military confrontation and curb state-sponsored terrorism they've been involved with, that's something we should be willing to do."

Obviously Obama's intent is good --- but I've never thought it wasn't. I'm afraid I agree with Hillary here.


PS -- Joba Chamberlain has a wicked fastball.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Can everyone please try to ramp down the sarcasm and personal references other posters? It really is getting tiresome. It really is possible to make your points without resorting to that type of thing.

[halplm]

There were tax cuts for everyone

Yes, even for the wealthy people who didn't need tax relief. Those are the tax cuts being referred to as 'tax cuts for the rich.'

It would be great if someone could explain to me why people that earn more, should pay a higher percentage than people that earn less.

"Because they can afford to.." is not a good enough answer.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks, Faramond!

[solicitr]

Cerin:

"Didn't need them".. Oh that's right. They're the Rich, and so therefore inferior and Undeserving.

Speaking as a very middle-class individual who, according to President-in-waiting Obama, doesn't pay enough in taxes because, you see, I'm 'rich,' I find this line hard to swallow.

The rich are always going to benefit disproportionately from broad-based tax relief, because they (actually, we) pay a disproportionate share of the taxes to begin with. I suppose you want a continuous ratchet, so that increases are placed on the 'rich' and relief only applies to the 'non-rich', so that eventually we evildoers pay all the taxes.


Herre's a crazy notion- stop spending so much damn money!


Edit: X-posted with Voronwë. </snarkiness>

[Túrin Turambar]

This my opinion, straight from the TORC thread:

What we need to keep in mind with Iran is that, for all its faults, it does have an elected Government (to an extent), operates under a Constitution ratified by vote, and is an entirely legitimate state of long-standing. This creates issues that we don’t have dealing with totalitarian states like North Korea, and I think a slightly different approach is needed.

Personally, I like Ronald Reagan’s – work to maintain military power and make it clear you’re not afraid to use it, while also be willing to negotiate and compromise where advantageous. Still, I don’t see Iran as a really pressing threat – it’s not promoting some sort of expansionist ideology or making territorial demands on its neighbours, nor is there any real evidence it is a supporter of international terrorists or Islamist movements (outside it’s meddling in Iraq), nor does it seem to want to try to use some sort of leverage over the Middle Eastern Oil supply to hold the west to ransom (as North Korea does with it’s Nuclear Weapons). I can be pretty hawkish on foreign policy, but I think there’s bigger fish to fry.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well said, Lord M.

[solicitr]

nor is there any real evidence it is a supporter of international terrorists or Islamist movements (outside it’s meddling in Iraq),

I would differ there, Lord M: through its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas Iran is doing precisely that. I'd say Hezbollah's bid to conquer Lebanon qualifies as expansionist- not to mention Hamas' quest to eradicate Israel. And don't forget who blew up the Israeli Embassy and Jewish Cultural Center in Buenos Aires- international terrorism by any definition.

[Primula Baggins]

Just posting to mention that personal incomes of $100,000 or more constitute 5.63% of all U.S. personal incomes. Perhaps it doesn't seem like a lot to you, soli, but $100K+ is not an ordinary middle-class income anywhere I've ever lived. The median household income in the United States is about $48K.

Link

[vison]

And how about a fairly recent (in the last, you know, decade) bombing of Baghdad? Where does that figure in the whole "expansionist, threatening to other nations" meme? The bombing nation also possesses the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons!!!! And has actually used them and so is likely to use them again!!!!

True facts, ya know.

There are obviously people who want a war with Iran. And yet - given the outcomes of the last 2 major wars the US has conducted, one wonders why? Are wars really that good for the bottom line?