chuks,
You are getting to old, and full of cynicism, or at least that is what I get told, I prefer to think of it as experience turning to realism.
I was at a training camp, now turned into a public park , just this morning where many thousands of American GI's ended up training for the Pacific Islands invasion. Some lost their lives just in the training, in a place that the vast majority of would not have even heard of, or know for what they were training.
It is not all whine and bitch, many of us with a goodly proportion of grey hair can still remember and appreciate.
I guess part of this is that every election brings out the wossers, people who have never had a real job but live off the public tit in one way or another and run around mouthing off about their version of reality, one they were carefully trained in.
Meanwhile Joe Average is just out there thinking, "Huh?" The times are out of joint but is it seriously so that one candidate over the other can change fundamentally what is wrong? Of course that is how it's to be sold.
Part of my problem is that I refuse to use a GPS on my travels. That means I often end up in some dinky village trying to get oriented when I am distracted by this or that memorial to some scrap or other that helped, if only a little bit, to decide our history but mainly killed off lots of common soldiers.
As to the U.S.A. I remember where I lived for a while, the smallest town in Connecticut. The village green had a very handsome stone-built monument to the Civil War, a rusty .75 field piece in front of the V.F.W. Hall for the First World War, a falling-down wooden case with the names of those who served in the Second World War, a small bronze plaque for Korea... Viet Nam probably got an 8 1/2 X 11-inch piece of paper on the Town Hall notice board and Iraq? Your guess is as good as mine but the trend was not looking good.
"'...Those happy, happy dead who rushed like lions to the slaughter...'
and quickly drank a glass of water," Political oratory... you cannot beat it!
I suppose, if you think about it, Barack Obama is a better man than John McCain, I have to give him that. Barack thought about joining the military when John didn't!
"The state -- or, to make matters more concrete, the government -- consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get, and to promise to give it to them.
"Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting 'A' to satisfy 'B'. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advanced auction on stolen goods."
-- H.L. Mencken
Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
-George Orwell
Up against the wall with the lot of them. McCain is probably the lesser of two evils in this one as he didn't spend his life focused on becoming one of the parasites and actually had a real job before he got into politics.
Torygraph: Joe Biden Loses Barack Obama the catholic Vote
...Remember, you read it here first: on September 11 this blog reported a mounting backlash from Catholic bishops against Biden, Barack Obama's "Catholic" pro-abortion running mate. At that time I estimated eight bishops had come out to denounce Biden; the total is now 55. Beyond that, Biden is being trashed across every state of the Union by Catholic newspapers, TV and radio stations, and blogs. It is a tsunami of rejection.
The story has now hit the secular media. Last Saturday Time magazine asked: "Does Biden Have a Catholic Problem?" By Wednesday the issue had moved onto the front page of the New York Times. Joe the Jinx has blown it, big time. Biden has only himself to blame: he started this war, with his notoriously undisciplined mouth. He knew the dangers. Last August, Archbishop Raymond Burke, former Archbishop of St Louis and now Prefect of the Apostolic Segnatura in Rome, said communion should be denied to pro-abortion politicians "until they have reformed their lives".
Archbishop Chaput of Denver had already announced Biden should not receive communion because of his pro-abortion views. Defiantly, Biden took communion in his home parish in Delaware in late August. On September 2 the Bishop of Scranton, Pennsylvania (a crucial swing state) banned him from communion in his diocese. That is effective excommunication. Then came the crucial provocation. On NBC's Meet the Press programme on September 7 Biden grossly misrepresented the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion and audaciously cited St Thomas Aquinas in his own cause.
That did it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had already done the same thing on the same programme, in her instance citing St Augustine. Even the torpid US bishops could not have false doctrine glibly broadcast by public figures, misleading their flock. So the counterattack described here last week began, culminating in a statement from the US Bishops' Conference. The bishops of Kansas City have also issued a pastoral letter on the subject. It is open season on Biden.
There are 47 million Catholic voters in the United States. One quarter of all registered voters are Catholics. At every presidential election in the past 30 years the Catholic vote has gone to the winning candidate, except for Al Gore in 2000. This year 41 per cent of Catholics are independents - up from 30 per cent in 2004. Psephologists claim practising Catholics were the decisive factor in the crucial swing states in 2004: in Ohio 65 per cent of Catholics voted for Bush, in Florida 66 per cent. They were drifting away in disillusionment from the Republicans and split 50-50, until Joe Biden worked his magic. This is electoral suicide by the Democrats.
One of the fundamental discussions that has never taken place in the American public is, "Do we want to be an Empire ?"
There are some who have no doubt that America is already an Empire. See "Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the Ground" (ISBN: 1400061326)
Robert D. Kaplan
"The Four Freedoms are goals famously articulated by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the State of the Union Address he delivered to the United States Congress. In an address also known as the Four Freedoms speech, FDR proposed four points as fundamental freedoms humans "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy:
Freedom of speech and expression
Freedom of religion
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear "
Noble goals, to be sure; but only the first two are sanctioned by our Constitution. The third and fourth are not legitimate functions of the federal government; See the Tenth Amendment!
[quote]Reality check for you Sunray. Most of the countries you mentioned (Oz, NZ, India, Nepal, SA) got into it in 1939 for the same reason some of the same did in 1914...because they were part of the British Empire or interests and "duty" meant obedience to Mother England[/quote
Not true. If you were referring to their committments in WWI you would indeed be right. By world war II, the experience of having their troops used as faceless cannon fodder by British commanders had caused such revulsion that it was never to occur again under direct British command and Britain itself was related to in quite a difference manner than 25 years before. There was certainly a strong connection with Britain for historical reasons but the willingness (rather than obligation) to fight to protect populations half a world away is undeniable. That is all academic anyway. The point stands that this sacrifice is seldom if ever used as a reason to belittle Europeans, or to justify later day actions.
GTF
I know all too well that foreign policy is low on many nations agendas (the big powers especially ironically enough). But while it might not win an election it will certainly strengthen or weaken the leader who enacts sensible FP. To that end, it could have a multiplier effect on Obama's policies and may serve well to win him a second term if elected. I just can't see Palin or McCain winning hearts and minds outside of their borders.
Part of the dynamic though, Sunray, is that Europeans don't take pot shots at Canadians, Kiwis, Australians, et al. as they do toward Americans.
We get sore when we feel the criticism is unjustified, or imposes double standards, such as equating events at Abu Ghraib to the systemic state policies of the Gulag.
We wonder why you are so eager to demonstrate your disdain for us given our recent history of protecting your nations and enabling you to enjoy democratic rule while under our defense umbrella.
So when you say we're the worst in the world on any subject, we naturally recall that you weren't saying that sixty years ago, and you don't say that today about such as Chavez, or about Russians rolling through the Caucasus without so much as a hat tip to the UN or EU.
The "scares me" is the essence of Sunray's position. Scared.
Canada and all the rest may be Aunt Sal or Cousin Sue but we never rely for much on Aunt Sal or Cousin Sue. The USA is quite different. Since 1917 the USA is Mommeee (or at least Genial Big Strong Uncle Sam), to be criticised whenever we want to stay out after ten o'clock on Saturday or when she says we are too young to wear lipstick, but we always know she'll be there when Something Nasty Comes Along.....so we're not scared, are we?
What's this?!!! America first?
When we look at European history today, few I suspect ever wonder why so many countries there have or had a double-headed eagle for a symbol, peering to left and right. Very simple: they were scared too.
They really were, and for good reason. Mittel-Europa might at any time have the French or the Brits or the Swedes trampling in from one side and Holy Mother Russia from the other, and no Uncle Sam then with jeeps and tanks and B-17s and P-41s.
They still are pretty scared in Georgia and Poland and the Ukraine, and they should be.
The Brits are different, of course. They just know that Mommeee must come and hold their hands, but why did Mommeee wait until 1917? Why did Mommeee wait until 1941? Mommeee! Mommeee! Naughty Mommeee. Well, why not?
It was the double-headed eagle syndrome that led to all the coalitions in history. You be my pal and I'll be yours. Pretty much, anyway, unless of course you are Poland and we are Britain. Oh Gosh! Hitler did call our bluff! No prob, we expect America to come in.
Why should they get into a European civil war?
In fact they did not come in right away so Capt KAOS gets in a huff. Naughty Mommeee came "late" to the party to take me home. I'm scared.
Yes, you should be scared. So should America be scared, though not so scared as you, not right now, but who knows what lies down the road for them, for us all. That is what Lord Palmerston, whom Sunray ignores since I raised his spectre, had in mind. The world always was a hostile place; still is.
Two quotes that could not better distill politicians-thugs all. Bent on stealing.
Barit1.
Nice thought, but trifles like the Constitution are lost on GTF. He rejects any attempts at a discussion on law prefering big government run by Big Men who know best for us. In this view, we should no longer be freemen, but subjects fit only for what Uncle Sam serves.
Perhaps, after two weeks of paying outrageous sums, much of it for taxes that benefit only bureaucrats, have sharpened my thoughts.
70 Euros for pasta lunch for 2 with nary a drink! On duty, you know. 200 Euros for dinner. 10 dollars for a gallon of petrol-80% for taxes. It was proud American Patriots that throw the King's tea in Boston Harbor to protest taxation. Might retch at current taxes, me thinks.
70 Euros for pasta lunch for 2 with nary a drink! On duty, you know. 200 Euros for dinner. 10 dollars for a gallon of petrol-80% for taxes.
GF,
Come home. We need the taxes here to pay for your buddy George's bailout of his buddies on Wall Street. While you're at it, you can explain to me how all this fits in with your idea of how government works and the Constitution. Now we've got little men in charge of Big Government. Bring your feathers and Indian costume -- we may need to have another "tea party".
So far, the federal government's tab for propping up Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and American International Group is $400 billion. Add the new loan relief entity, plus a smattering of other recent initiatives, and the jumping-off point could be near $1 trillion.
What ? You thought deregulation and the "business is better" ideology was free ? It's never been free. You just weren't paying the price. You will now. All of us will.
Is it just me or does anyone else think the election is all but over ?
Is it just me or does anyone else think the election is all but over ?
Yes, you are correct, it is over, has been for a while.
McCain 60% +/- 4%
Obama 40% +/- 4%
Quote:
What ? You thought deregulation and the "business is better" ideology was free ? It's never been free. You just weren't paying the price. You will now. All of us will.
Then you add the cost of all of Obama's universal health care plans, increased welfare programs and his other entitlment plans, we end up paying 80% tax on the price of a gallon of gasoline. Only God and Obama knows what taxes we will be paying on natural gas to heat our homes.
Obama, bringing Eurpoean's VAT to a United States near you soon.
But that's okay, union leaders will be safe, as always, and the union members will be screwed, as always.
I never said that GWB was my "buddy", even figuratively. I should think that my posts indicate a strong dislike for his, and every government since Hoover. My perference should be obvious-free markets, free individuals and personal, not socialized, responsibility.
GWB has expanded government irresponsibly, but so has every President, so will either of the two present candidates. My bet is that McCain might, just might, do so marginally less than King Hussein Obama. And be a bit humbler about it. The inevitable nature of things is government expands and liberty contracts. I don't see ANYTHING in BHO's plans that will reverse that, in fact. He seeks to reduce my liberty by increasing my taxes, punishing me for not conforming with his idea of how I should act, reducing my health care choices, and generally directing my life.
His middle-class tax reduction are merely tax credits, refundable no less, for certain behaviors-having children, going to college, or having a mortgage. None of which apply, so I get no rewards.
Yes, it is time to don the Indian costume, but the US Government it already way too large to throw in Boston Harbor. And there is no similar target of opportunity-toss the Social Security office?
About the only thing GWB has done right is tax reduction, at that, only until 2009. Congress, with the approval of every President including Reagan, has gone along with ever larger budgets, that put ever larger burdens, debt and taxes, on the people that work and produce.
Politicians are thugs with legal power to steal and coerce.
Then you add the cost of all of Obama's universal health care plans, increased welfare programs and his other entitlment plans,
Welfare ? Entitlement plans ? What do you call a trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street ?
I hate to quote myself but what the heck...
After being put on the defensive, Mr. Wooldridge allowed that it seemed like, “America has socialism for the rich and free markets for the poor.” If by that he meant that the CEOs walk away with their golden parachutes and the employees are left with empty bank accounts...yeah, it does seem that way.
Socialism for the rich. I like that. And he writes for The Economist.
Politicians are thugs with legal power to steal and coerce.
Businessmen are thugs with legal power to steal and coerce.
Does that sound any better ? Is there a difference ?
You say with fear, hate and certainty that Obama will raise your taxes. And he hasn't even been elected yet. Where's your outrage with the current Administration ? They just put us on the hook for a trillion dollars or more. And it was the malfeasance of their business partners in crime that did it. Where's your outrage for them ?
And here's the scoop on your buddy McCain for tomorrow's news.
Here’s what McCain has to say about the wonders of market-based health reform:
Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
So McCain, who now poses as the scourge of Wall Street, was praising financial deregulation like 10 seconds ago — and promising that if we marketize health care, it will perform as well as the financial industry!
The difference between Businessmen and Politicians is simple:
The politician has Govenment's legal monopoly on coersive power. The government can jail or even execute. This power is exclusively governments in every society.
The businessman can only offer a product and as a consumer, one may buy or pass it by. Only when the businessman enlists the government, with the consent of the governed in our society, can he threaten.
That is why I want government limited to such a narrow role. Right now, the public has been so accustomed to government inteference in commerce that they accept these outrageous bailouts. We have become sheep, you accuse people of being controlled by "corporatism", but your solution could be called "governmentism" just as fairly. I would rather have my choices in a free market than having my choices limited and directed by a govenment that could jail me for not following their directions.
BTW, I use Apple computers, just to stick to MS. Gates can do nothing about that-not even a fine or jail despite having 90% of the market.
On BHO, I just read his proposals, I don't wait to give him a chance to play with the tax code. No that I think McCain won't, either. Republicans can be stupid with credits, too.
In my view of the Constitution, the two are prevented from "hooking up" by limited powers
of the Federal government. In your world, what prevents business from teaming up with business against the public?
GF
Where's your outrage with the current Administration ? They just put us on the hook for a trillion dollars or more. And it was the malfeasance of their business partners in crime that did it.
Oh, and the Democrats eschew any contact with big business then? They're, perhaps, against the bailout?
Barack Obama
The latest news on Barack Obama and the 2008 presidential election.
WASHINGTON: For the first time in a generation, most major US business sectors are donating more campaign money to Democrats than to Republicans, according to a political fund-raising watchdog group.
Six of 10 business sectors tracked by the Centre for Responsive Politics had given more money to Democrats as of late April in all federal races, marking a shift over the past year with profound implications for Republicans.
For as long as the non-partisan centre has tracked donations by sector, beginning in the late 1980s, Republicans have enjoyed an edge in giving among a majority of sectors. Today, only four of 10 sectors still lean Republican, a party that has long traded off a reputation as being “pro-business”.........
Energy, construction, transportation and agribusiness continue to send more money to Republican candidates, based on the centre’s most recent analysis of Federal Election Commission records for the 2008 election cycle.
Democratic-leaning sectors include lawyers, health care, defence, communications and electronics, and the massive finance, insurance and real estate sectors......
No company has been the source of more political donations in this election cycle than Goldman Sachs Group Inc, the powerhouse Wall Street investment bank, with donations of more than $3.6 million 73 per cent of it going to Democrats.........
Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac bail-out? Gee, look at those three names in the top 5 who got campaign donations......
Linear Mode
