Followers of this campaign season have no doubt encountered the phrase "Obamicans": those Republicans who have been supposedly drawn to Barack Obama's candidacy thanks to his inspirational qualities, the appeal of his new politics, and their disdain for President Bush. Members of the media are fascinated with these folks, for reasons that are particularly obvious to cynical conservatives.
Nonetheless, anyone who has followed the Crunchy Con path of Rod Dreher would recognize that Dreher's politics, and those of similar mind, should be fertile soil for Obama. Dreher has deep problems with Bush's time in office, is a sucker for feel-good politics, and loves to be inspired (for more, see Jonah Goldberg's detailed takedown of Crunchy Cons).
Well, Dreher isn't impressed with the Audacity of Hope. While discussing the above-mentioned traits that make a potential swoon for Obama possible, Dreher rejects such an outcome thanks to the alarming signs of Obama's chosen associations, which in Dreher's view do much to shatter Obama's post-partisan aura.
In a different vein, blue collar Democrats that are an essential part of winning Midwestern swing states are assessing Obama, the almost presumptive Democrative nominee. They're still not impressed.
Obama remains a candidate of impressive strengths and equally breathtaking weakness. Which comes to the fore in the coming five months will be a fascinating political exercise.
UPDATE: Comment JK has been banned. He's our old friend "Steve/Conservative not Republican," etc. The one soul I've ever banned from commenting on my posts, which should tell you something.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 11, 2008 08:28 PM | Email ThisFirst off, there is no guarantee that small government conservatives would be there. Where are they now ? Bush has already put the conservative movement on life support. Secondly, there are other factors - economic and security that will be sorely challenged in the next 4 years and you can't put the genie back into the bottle. McCain is probably more conservative in areas where it counts than Bush (fiscally and for small governments), so that portion of your argument doesn't hold much water.
The Republicans have put themselves in this predicament, but in the long run, it will likely serve to rebuild the conservative movement to elect John McCain. Get real, there is no Reagan to the rescue America this time, like there was after Carter - these are more complex and different times that we live in.
Posted by: KS on May 11, 2008 08:37 PMFrom all descriptions, though, it sure sounds a lot like Clintonia.
Perhaps some of the gentle readers know its location?
Posted by: Independent Voter on May 11, 2008 08:46 PMNews to me.
He voted against the Bush Tax cuts.
And as to security issues, McCain wants to give the terrorists at gitmo lawyers. And of course when you talk about security you also must think of border security and he has a guy advising him that told Americans of Hispanic descent that they should be Mexicans first.
Sorry, your argument doesn't hold much water. McCain will dominate Republican politics at least in 2012 if he wins in 2008 and other Republican candidates would try to emulate him by moving to the Left.
Look no Reagan might come but at least there is hope there. There is no hope with McCain. As, I have said McCain spells the end of the conservative movement.
Posted by: Ida on May 11, 2008 08:59 PMMy guess would be Jack Kemp because he has been talking the same line as McCain about not going after Rev Wright.
Oh, I did vote for Bush in 2004 but not in 2000. And yeah, I am tired of being part of the problem by voting for RINOS.
Posted by: Ida on May 11, 2008 09:16 PMSorry, I just can't do that. Not when there is even a glimmer of hope.
Posted by: Ida on May 11, 2008 09:30 PMHow will you undo Universal Health care and a nuclear Iran that would occur under an Obama Presidency ? Too little, too late - resuscitation of the conservative will not matter then.
Stop being fools with your twisted logic and look at the big picture - or you will definitely be part of the problem !
Whatever; ONE last attempt, as a slight expansion of my prior comments built around Ronald Reagan's proposition that if somebody is with you 80 percent of the time, they're not your enemy; They're your friend:
Senator McCain should meet the ''80 percent or better'' criteria for any reasonable person who claims they are conservative in anything close to the tradition of Ronald Reagan. But if you still insist on keeping yourself outside that comfort zone, then consider this:
EITHER Obama or Clinton will be ''with us'' close enough to ZERO percent of the time, that the difference doesn't matter.
Therefore I stand by my previous statements:
Positions that amount to accepting serious damage / destruction of this country in order to ''save it'' just don't cut it; no way, not on my watch.
And Ida's last about a ''glimmer of hope'' @ #11 reminds me of ancient Imperial Rome, when there were people who held on to the vain hope that if the Emperors (current read ''Clinton or Obama'') got bad enough the legions (current read hoi polloi) would revolt and restore the former glories of the Republic. Never happened; for 100s of years right up to when Visigoth general Aleric sacked Rome in 410 A.D. And I am VERY sure that our ''window of opportunity'' is a whole lot less than what Rome had.
Moral of the story: Refusing to face or accept reality almost always leads to unhappy outcomes. A president Clinton or Obama would be a very UNhappy day for everybody except those on the socialist far left.
Posted by: Methow Ken on May 11, 2008 09:59 PMSo, I don't think he McCain will win this year. But say he did. Well the Democrats aren't going to disappear in four years. They will put up a candidate against him. And if history is any guide that person will be even more extreme than Obama (look at the Democratic Nominee and even when the Democrats lose the Presidency they nominate next time someone even more extreme than the time before).
And McCain would have messed things up so bad that person will get elected.
But say, somehow, some how McCain wins there. How long would the Republican winning streak last. And when Republicans do lose, for whatever reason, I can't even imagine the extreme candidate the Democrats would have that year to take office.
So, if McCain does win how far are we putting off the kind of government we fear from Obama? Four years? Eight years? But at the same time in the process we are killing the conservative movement which is the only hope America has to change direction. No, the conservative movement is too important to kill it on the behalf of McCain.
Posted by: Ida on May 11, 2008 10:07 PMObvious hogwash (start with Iraq, and continue from there with a long list).
Posted by: Methow Ken on May 11, 2008 10:16 PMWith Obama there will be an immediate backlash to his policies (the frog will jump) but in that way McCain could be even more effective in moving our country towards socialism than Obama.
Posted by: Ida on May 11, 2008 10:20 PMAs for your case that if we stay home and let the Democrats win then we will have a stronger candidate in 2012, well is that not what allot of Conservatives did in 2006? They stayed home and handed the House and Senate (with some help from some sleazy incumbent Republican COngressmen)to the Liberals and yet here we have McCain as our nominee. Does not look to me like it worked in 2006, so why would it work in 2008?
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 11, 2008 11:28 PMObama would transition out of office,but leave long-lasting impact on the highest (and final say) court in the land. Can you imagine another possibly 2 Ruth Bader Ginsburgs in filthy robes sitting on the bench?
The constitution will be left in tatters with an Obama administration. This "well,my candidate didn't get in so i'm taking my ball home with me" mentallity is naive at best and infantile at worst (Yes Paulistinians I'm talking about you,too!). Take the Lessor of the three evils and hope in 2012 that the party is able to swerve back to the right.
Bush has destroyed the "R" brand so McCain is a the only viable buffer in this election cycle.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 12, 2008 07:00 AMHowever, 50% is better than 5%, so I'll be going with McCain and keeping my fingers crossed.
Until Obama recently got vetted, I was going to consider myself an Obamacan, but this guy shouldn't even be dogcatcher.
Posted by: swatter on May 12, 2008 07:26 AMToo me that is just as bad as saying "GD America".
Posted by: Ida on May 12, 2008 08:48 AMHe resigned when his connections were found out but the point is that this guy was hand picked by McCain.
Are these the types of people we are going to see in a McCain administration?
Posted by: Ida on May 12, 2008 08:55 AMEric you may wonder why some of us Obamicons support Obama. It is because of thinking like above (e.g., sitting quietly by while Dafar and Burma autrocities continue). We have had enough of this saber-rattling and instead need more to promote the goodness and kindness of America throughout the world. The US Navy's efforts after the Indonesian Tsunamia were a very good foriegn policy. Humanitarian acts like these does more to offset the terrorist groups than any sort of military campaigns, especially in areas where terrorists didn't exist before we invaded (i.e., Sadaam would not allow dissent). To win over Obamicons, what McCain has to do is speak forcefully about what he would do about the Burma's and Dafar's. What is his policy? The silence is basically consent of continuing the same laissez faire attitude to humanitarian causes.
Posted by: tc on May 12, 2008 09:08 AMWe only should send our military when our vital national interests are at stake.
That said, we don't need to go around backing the military junta of Burma. And we don't need people in a Republican Administration with such ties.
Posted by: Ida on May 12, 2008 09:11 AM"We have had enough of this saber-rattling"
"and our government sits idlely by"
What would you do? Do you want to send in some troops?
Is there some kind of economic thing the US could do there? What would that be?
Posted by: REBEL on May 12, 2008 09:39 AMUniversal Health care is a pipe dream at best, Clinton learned that one the hard way.
Pakistan is nuclear, they have a much higher Taliban presence than Iran does. Even if Iran develops a nuclear missile can't Israel shoot it down with their fancy Patriot Missile system that Bush sold them while deploying a Nuke themselves?
Hmmm, looks like another Paulbearer. They don't give up do they?
Frank Shaffer: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/arianna-huffington-is-cor_b_101223.html
Article in Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2004406277&zsection_id=2003956730&slug=evangvote11m&date=20080511
Posted by: tc on May 12, 2008 09:47 AM"can't Israel shoot it down with their fancy Patriot Missile system that Bush sold them"
Did Bush sell it to them? Did he make the sales pitch to them too? I wonder how many Democrat law makers we have that have an interest in selling munitions. Hmmm, I remember Lady Bird Johnson earned a ton of money from Viet Nam that way.
Posted by: REBEL on May 12, 2008 09:48 AMTrue, but the GOP is know for it's defense initiatives. Looks like we're holding joint military exercises with Israel (involving Patriot missiles) leading me to believe they posses some (besides being one of our best customers).
Iran was a great customer during the 80's. How else would we been able to fund the Contras and kick Saddam's ass without being officially involved in the Iran-Iraq war.
First off, prayer. For specific prayer needs and information on the struggles in Burma, go to www.prayforburma.org.
Second, yes econimic pressures. The current Junta should be cut off from US support. The fact that a major Republican organization's, DCI, role is to work for the junta should be of great concern to Republicans.
Third, I would go so far to state to the current regime that if humanitarian aid is not allowed to freely flow into the country, then it will be airdropped. Any attack on the humanitarian airdrop will be an attack on the countries providing the airdrop. The airdrop worked in the Berlin crisis and in other areas. The people of Burma need to know the world cares about them, even if their government doesn't.
Fourth, give to the humanitarian organizations that are in the region that can provide relief supplies, such as www.worldvision.org.
PBJ,
Sorry, I misspelled. I should be Darfar (www.savedarfar.org).
Second, like most Democrats, they seem oblivious to the large ironies of Obama.
He "preaches" unity, but has a racist pastor.
He calls for us to "come together", but he and his advisors see nothing wrong in making age related jokes and comments about McCain.
At the very least, McCain should be able to sue the Obama camp for using discriminatory language.
Posted by: John Bailo on May 12, 2008 10:33 AMDo you think it is wrong to give military aid when it is asked for? What if it is asked for by people that share the same belief system you do concerning freedom? Many people consider not having real democracy as not having freedom.
Posted by: REBEL on May 12, 2008 10:38 AMThird, I would go so far to state to the current regime that if humanitarian aid is not allowed to freely flow into the country, then it will be airdropped.
Fine idea, sadly the US tries not to violate the rights of sovereign nations even for humanitarian relief. Too bad, situation in Burma is truly one that warrants this sort of direct action.
That's a very broad question, it would depend a lot on the particular cause. Iranians have more freedom than Saddam, Israeli's have more freedom than Persian's. Even so the US is against the democratically elected President of Iran.
Helping others militarily also depends a lot on who your going to piss off. If you suddenly start arming the Tibetans (who clearly want independence and freedom) you're going to piss off China.
Military assistance can also have ill effects farther down the line which were not taken into account at the time. Afghanistan is a fine example of this.
This is an area where the US and other nations should tread very carefully. On the other hand China & Russia seem to be willing to sell military aid & weaponry to just about anyone for the right price.
You said:
"Iran was a great customer during the 80's. How else would we been able to fund the Contras and kick Saddam's ass without being officially involved in the Iran-Iraq war."
Let me guess, you are under 30, right?
See there was the fellow in Iran named Ayatollah Khomeini who took US hostages from the US Embassy from November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981. We most assuredly were NOT selling weapons to Iran during the 80's unless of course you wish to consider Carter capitulating to Khomeni by offering him weapons in 78 and 79.
"The Shah's regime fell in the Iranian revolution of 1978-79, and the Shah left the country in January 1979.[7][8][9]
The Carter administration attempted to mitigate the damage by finding a new relationship with the de facto Iranian government and by continuing military cooperation in hopes that the situation would stabilize.
I would define self professed "Obamicans" as Ideologically confused.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 12, 2008 11:22 AMNope, nice try.
Maybe you have forgotten the Iran-Contra scandal that occurred in the middle of the Reagan years.
WikiPedia is your source? I thought that site was controlled by leftist elements, or at least that's what I'm told when I use it for reference.
You disagree with what I said?
Of course we might disagree on when our national interests are at stake.
I actually thought our national interests were at stake in Iraq. That is why I supported the initial attack against Iraq and going after Saddam.
In Burma we don't have the same national security threat there that we did in Iraq. So we shouldn't go in there.
Oh, and while I did support our attack on Iraq I am bothered by just leaving our troops in there to become shooting ducks. I would rather just build some military bases in the desert in preparation for an attack against Iran if that becomes necessary.
And if stuff gets bad in Iraq again then just bomb it again. But don't have our troops just out there to be shot at or bombed.
Posted by: Ida on May 12, 2008 11:43 AMOne view of socialism (per Wikipedia) is:
As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by collective ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history, due to this, socialism has been identified with communism mainly because the distribution of wealth is controlled as a whole and not individually.
The key in the phrase is "collective ownership of the means of production." Contrast this with Obama's statements, such as:
�I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It's led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery�"� Barack Obama, New York, NY, September 17, 2007
From his Small Business Plan:
Create a National Network of Public-Private Business Incubators: Barack Obama will support entrepreneurship and spur job growth by creating a national network of public-private business incubators. Business incubators facilitate the critical work of entrepreneurs in creating start-up companies. They offer help designing business plans, provide physical space, identify and address problems affecting all small businesses within a given community, and give advice on a wide range of business practices, including reducing overhead costs. Business incubators will engage the expertise and resources of local institutions of higher education and successful private sector businesses to help ensure that small businesses have both a strong plan and the resources for long-term success. Obama will invest $250 million per year to increase the number and size of incubators in disadvantaged communities throughout the country.
From his speech in Oregon this weekend:
Everywhere I go, I've been impressed by the values and hopes that we share. In big cities and small towns; among men and women; young and old; black, white, and brown - Americans share a faith in simple dreams. A job with wages that can support a family. Health care that we can count on and afford. A retirement that is dignified and secure. Education and opportunity for our kids. Common hopes. American dreams. ... I think it's time to restore fairness and responsibility to our tax code. We need to reward work - not just wealth. We need to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, and put a tax cut in the pockets of middle class Americans. That's why I've proposed a "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 for workers, and $1,000 for working families. This will cut taxes for 150 million Americans. It will help you deal with rising costs, and give our economy a boost by easing the burden on Main Street.
There is no government takeover of production (e.g., socialism). You may raise his Healthcare Plan as socialism. I would counter with what he actually states, such as:
National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
With regards to education, Barack states:
Reward Teachers: Obama will promote new and innovative ways to increase teacher pay that are developed with teachers, not imposed on them. Districts will be able to design programs that reward accomplished educators who serve as a mentor to new teachers with a salary increase. Districts can reward teachers who work in underserved places like rural areas and inner cities. And if teachers consistently excel in the classroom, that work can be valued and rewarded as well.
and this from his K-12 plan:
Obama believes that we�re not going to solve our education problems just by throwing money at them; we have to make smart investments in innovating long-term solutions and developing a deep knowledge of what works. He will also ensure that the results of this research are disseminated and easily accessible to the public
Now Rick, what has Barack stated that fits the economic definition of socialism?
Posted by: tc on May 12, 2008 11:53 AMWell I would say that you can't have Republican ideals and at the same time endorse a socialist like McCain, as the two are 180 degrees diametrically opposed to one another.
So, who is the Ideologically confused here? I say vote for Obama in 2008 so we can vote for a true conservative in 2012!
Oh, and I also say you can't have Republican ideals and at the same time have worked in the socialist administration of Mike Lowry although that is exactly what a leading member of the so called "Mainstream Republicans of Washington State" did.
Posted by: Jk on May 12, 2008 11:54 AMNo, I'm sure the Shah was a big US arms customer. I have no doubt Carter offered weapons but I'm sure he stopped as soon as US Citizens were captured.
I actually thought our national interests were at stake in Iraq.
We had national interests in Iraq? What were those?
In Burma we don't have the same national security threat there that we did in Iraq
What national security threat? Saddam was a petty dictator but he was no more a threat than say some members of the Saudi royal family are. There's a reason very few countries joined us when we invaded Iraq the second time.
I would rather just build some military bases in the desert in preparation for an attack against Iran if that becomes necessary.
Iran may be crazy but I don't believe they're not stupid. Seems to be the US Govt. is itching to attack a larger more technologically advanced sovereign nation with a (quasi) democratically elected President. Give it time, Persian's will come around. You've already pissed of the Sunni's, do you want to piss of the Shiite's too?
And if stuff gets bad in Iraq again then just bomb it again
Doubt that will satify the "true" concervatives here who would prefer to involve ourselves in long drawn out wars around the world with no end goal except to destroy Islamic rebels...which seems unlikely to happen.
And have you guys missed the latest elections around the world- Germany, France, England, Italy and a lot of other countries? All conservative victories. Perhaps they want to be part of the US, instead of the US going socialist, like the pendulum swing today seems to be in the US.
Posted by: swatter on May 12, 2008 12:18 PMWow, this was easy.
A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.
Barack Obama's Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote
Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.
*full story here: http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=22&num=18845
Like I said, ideologically confused...
If it walks like a socialst, talks like a socialist...sometimes, it's actually a socialist.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 12, 2008 12:18 PMYou saying that as the richest and wealthiest nation in the world we should not be aiding foreign countries in their goals of achieving democracy and economic stability?
Rick D,
How is setting a minimum standard for foreign aid equal to government ownership of the means of production? It has nothing to do with socialism. The fact that this country, which is the richest in the world, can't even provide 1 percent (goal of One Campaign) for foriegn aid is shameful. Are you that greedy and insecure to think that we can't even part of 0.7 percent of our wealth we generate on an annual basis? You may want to read Matthew 6:19-24 (Sermon on the Mount - Section on storing up Treasures in Heaven)
I don't know, why don't you tell me instead of saying .7 is a global tax? A Global Tax would be a tax instituted by the UN or IMF that all countries would pay. This is not the situation here. This is a case of the most prosperous nations giving to those that are less fortunate than ourselves. Isn't that what Jesus would want?
In any case Ricky you are starting to sound like one of those Art Bell "New World Order" conspiracy theorists.
P.S. words like: "Social Justice" that the TUCC church espoused are simply code words for socialist/communist ideas.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 12, 2008 12:45 PMCan you back that up with examples and statistics? Doubt it.
If you'd like to piss away your paycheck on pie in the sky ideas, that's your perogative, but don't go spending mine along with it.
You are free to tell your elected representatives to vote against it. Nothings stopping you from making a website organizing people in mass to write letters/make phone calls to their representatives. If you don't like something tell your representative instead of whining about code words and secret hand signals that don't exist.
P.S. words like: "Social Justice" that the TUCC church espoused are simply code words for socialist/communist ideas.
Yup, Ricky's a conspiracy theorist.
Nope, nice try.
Maybe you have forgotten the Iran-Contra scandal that occurred in the middle of the Reagan years.
WikiPedia is your source? I thought that site was controlled by leftist elements, or at least that's what I'm told when I use it for reference.
Posted by Cato at May 12, 2008 11:41 AM
One shipment in 1985 hardly constitutes "during the 80's". And while that shipment was foolish, the fact the Reagan did it and diverted the money to the anti-communist Contras proves beyond a doubt how committed he was to defeating communism and thus winnning the cold war, which he did.
"You may want to read Matthew 6:19-24 (Sermon on the Mount - Section on storing up Treasures in Heaven)" Give me a break. I alone am responsible for how I share my wealth. I don't need some appointed government stooge to be telling me how to be generous, along with the government confiscating my hard earned wages to do it. The problem you lefties have is that you don't trust other people to be generous, even though time and again Americans show their generosity in spades. So you want big brother government to do it for us. Wake up.
I'm not going to do your homework for you. You seem to have a thought that foreign aid = socialism which is entirely untrue IMHO.
You clearly are seeing things in a light that puts them far beyond what they are in reality. You have no problems with foreign aid to Israel but not to other countries? We should not send any national aid to China to help with earthquake relief because that would be a socialism policy by the US aimed at aiding in the spread of Socialism?
Rebel @50:
The government already collects the money in questions. The bill only deals with how the money as a nation should be directed. What you could argue is that if we can direct money to foriegn aid, then it should instead be returned to the taxpayer (e.g., no foriegn aid). If this is your argument, then please provide your point for debate. If on the other hand, you are stating that of the money collected that a measly 0.7 percent, which is less than the One Campaign's goal, shouldn't be directed to help other countries, then I disagree. We are a very rich country. One Percent won't make a difference in our standard of living, but it can make a huge difference in other parts of the world. It can also start to restore goodwill among nations, instead of the extremism that is building around the world. What you are stating is that we as a country should not show kindness and generousity. I respectfully disagree.
Translation: I know you're correct that the U.S. supplies more foreign aid than that of any other country, but I'd look like an uninformed fool if I posted the figures that back up your side of the argument, Rick.
"You clearly are seeing things in a light that puts them far beyond what they are in reality."
Translation: I can't make you see things my way so I'll put out a really vague statement strangley mirroring Obamanese (see rhetoric) that sounds good, but in truth, doesn't actually say anything at all.
"You have no problems with foreign aid to Israel but not to other countries? "
Now, if you'll kindly repost where I stated that before, it would go a long way towards your having credibility, Cato. Sometimes you only hear what you want to hear and not what I actually have said.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 12, 2008 01:58 PM
Now tc......you should be able to see that the "World poverty act" certainly falls under this classification.
Your thinly veiled arguments are a difference without a distinction.
Game, Set, Match...
Cheers!
Posted by: Rick D. on May 12, 2008 02:08 PMHe can't because it's a BS argument made up by the Art Bell conspiracy theory types.
I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Translation: You made the point, it's your job to back up your arguments with facts and defend your position. Since you cannot do that I'm going to assume all things you say are false until you prove them otherwise using facts.
Your thinly veiled arguments are a difference without a distinction.
His arguments make sense...you just spot buzzword nonsense that you cannot even be bothered to defend without going conspiracy theory on us. the "World Poverty Act" in no way fits the definition of Socialism that TC provided.
Get a clue Ricky. =)
I go back to France as an example, where the French government owns several of the industries in the country. That is an example of socialism. Charity to foreign governments is not socialism.
Posted by: tc on May 12, 2008 02:55 PMSocialism is defined as:
a theory or system of social organization (The U.N.) that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution (commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid), of capital($845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.)
, land, etc., in the community (Global community) as a whole.
As I said.....Game, Set, Match
Thanks for playing :)
All the money is channeled via the State Dept., I don't see anything in the bill commanding the State Dept. to give the money to the UN for distribution. If the State Dept. choose to give the money to the UN willfully that's not Socialism.
Get a clue Ricky!!
H.R. 1302 would require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.
Develop a clue Cato.
Cheers!
Posted by: Rick D. on May 12, 2008 04:23 PMThe UN Millennium Development Goal is just that, a goal....an end point to which one can declare success has been met. Sort of like the GOAL in Iraq..."Today the goal is to remove the Iraqi regime and to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. And that is the task of the United States military and our coalition."
That's quite a stretch from:
"a theory or system of social organization (The U.N.) that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution"
The UN does not CONTROL anything, they merely have set a GOAL to be met. The US State Dept. CONTROLS all the money. It suggests the US meet the target goals but gives the State Dept. full discretion on how to best distribute the aid.
"This bill does not commit the United States to advance the other Millennium Development Goals."
This does not meet the definition of Socialism by any means.
Get a clue Ricky!!
You just said "it (the UN) gives the state department discretion on how to best distribute the aid".......Um hello McFly but giving someone the discretion implies they control the procedure. Nice try Scato, but your own words undermine your argument. Back under the bridge now with you.
To quote the immortal Willy Wonka: "You Get nothing, you lose, good day sir!"
Posted by: Rick D. on May 12, 2008 05:48 PMMark Levin is saying that McCain will turn America into the Soviet Union.
Posted by: Larry on May 12, 2008 06:31 PMImagine the squealing by the left if McCain had said this......but the MSM covers up for the their golden boy Obama.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 12, 2008 06:46 PMSo, I guess there's 60 states, at least in Obama's mind.
Or perhaps he is thinking of the 57 Islamic States.
Posted by: Larry on May 12, 2008 07:23 PMHis campaign would not let him go to Alaska and Hawaii (couldn't justify the cost).
So that would be 59 states.
And he has one state to go which equals 60 states.
But personally I believe he was thinking of the 57 Islamic States that exists.
Posted by: Larry on May 12, 2008 07:47 PMOkay, then McCain is a Socialist.
Go to Mark Levin's website to see why that's true.
Posted by: Larry on May 12, 2008 07:49 PMThat would make the Left all mad that we are trying to connect Obama with Islam. But for the Leftist media to express their outrage regarding us using this to connect Obama with Islam, the only way they can do that is to admit that Obama originally said that there were 57 states. By complaining about our actions it will give the original statement air play.
So, yeah, Obama must have been thinking of the 57 Islamic States.
Posted by: Larry on May 12, 2008 07:56 PMQuite a coincidence, isn't it.
Posted by: Larry on May 12, 2008 08:01 PMHe doesn't just make that statement. He goes into great great detail regarding McCain's socialist plan for America. I swear even you, after listening to the first hour of this program will not be able to bring yourself to vote for McCain.
And that is probably why you won't go listen to the program.
Posted by: Larry on May 12, 2008 09:34 PM