Clearly I was wrong about the number of states John McCain would take. I cannot but hope that I am also wrong about Barrack Obama’s intentions for this republic. Congratulations to Obama and to his supporters.
There’s always something to howl about.
Clearly I was wrong about the number of states John McCain would take. I cannot but hope that I am also wrong about Barrack Obama’s intentions for this republic. Congratulations to Obama and to his supporters.
Sean Purcell says:
“… the centre cannot hold;”
November 4, 2008 — 10:47 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
Fantastic article:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081105070505.sjsfsgyt&show_article=1
November 5, 2008 — 2:05 am
Cheryl Johnson says:
Ahh Sean, The centre will not fail. I think the strength of our system is that all things do gradually gravitate towards the centre.
Look at George W. Bush. He is now much closer to the centre than when he started in 2000. Although many would say way too little, too late. 🙂
The sense of hope and optimism generated by Obama’s victory is truly palpable around here. I pray the country can hold on to that feeling!
November 5, 2008 — 3:42 am
Bob says:
Democracy is an amazing thing to witness.
May God Bless America.
November 5, 2008 — 7:25 am
Sean Purcell says:
Cheryl,
I applaud your sense of hope and optimism. For me, this election is confirmation that a fundamental change in the source and expectations of power, a change begun some 40 years ago, has reached critical mass. Both parties recognized this change and both parties appealed to it’s basest nature.
President-elect Obama is the intelligent and charismatic epitome of that change. Eric’s linked article reflects the slippery slope of that change.
The pendulum swings wide and slow so I too hold on to hope and optimism, but I realize it may take some time.
BTW, I agree that in politics “all things do gradually gravitate towards the center.” But the center is relative, not static. This is not a case of a parallax view. Once the references themselves move far enough, “…the centre cannot hold…” It has to do with the best and the worst and conviction and passionate intensity.
November 5, 2008 — 7:43 am
Larry Brewer says:
I see a change in the way elections will look in the future. It’s more of a staged production than experience that matters to the voters. Most don’t even know the difference between the parties, they just like what they see. This is similar to what video did to the music industry. It matters more how you look, than how you sound, or what you say. Eventually the political parties will own the networks, and in some ways, they do already.
November 5, 2008 — 8:14 am
Eric Bramlett says:
The slippery slope of that change? Are you sure that’s the correct choice of words? I find it far from undesirable that nations are celebrating our new choice of commander in chief. That’s FAR from a negative. I will never understand the attitude that our world standing is something to disregard. Our almost instantaneous international redemption is one of the biggest positives of our president elect.
November 5, 2008 — 8:25 am
Bob says:
Eric, that depends on what they expect. When you have socialist governments applauding, you have to ask, “Why?”.
November 5, 2008 — 8:31 am
Eric Bramlett says:
And the democratic governments applauding us? What does that indicate?
Seriously, the implication that a socialist government supporting our new leader indicates some sort of “insider knowledge” that our new leader will move us towards socialism is just ludicrous.
Do you want to continue with leaders that drive chasms between us and countries with whom we don’t share political ideals?
The fact that this decision is internationally celebrated is something that we should celebrate. We were a big part of creating the world economy & culture, it’s time we participate in it as a constructive partner, rather than the schoolyard bully.
November 5, 2008 — 8:50 am
John Sabia says:
Are you sure those are the correct choice of words? I believe overall, the US does participate in a constructive partnership. There are policy differences, etc., and room for improvement, but as a whole, I am proud of the role we play in the world.
November 5, 2008 — 9:35 am
Thomas Johnson says:
Greg: I would be proud to have you as my Realtor Union shop steward. Please let me know where I sign up for my healthcare, vision care and dental. How do we put in for overtime pay? Oh, I would also like to book my 2 week paid vacation.
November 5, 2008 — 10:10 am
Eric Bramlett says:
100% sure.
Keyword being “overall.” While we do participate constructively much of the time, the Bush administration has clearly indicated that they do not need UN approval in order to move forward with their agenda. Bush foreign policy has been a wreck, and we’ve lost world support.
Obama has indicated that he wishes to work with foreign nations in a more constructive, respectful manner. Hence his worldwide approval rating, and international celebration at his election. Moving away from leaders who will joke about “bomb, bomb, bombing” a country, and towards progressive foreign policy is a huge positive step for us as a nation.
Again, I will never understand those who lament a better international standing for our country. Our international standing DOES matter.
November 5, 2008 — 10:23 am
J Boyer Chatham NJ says:
I think it is time to come together, hope and expect the best. We have the new president that we have, the world will go on, The United States will move forward, and in 4 years time, we can judge.
November 5, 2008 — 10:24 am
John Sabia says:
Hate to use semantics, but your original statement means that we do not participate as a constructive partner at all when if fact your next comment reads that we do most of the time with exception to Bush foreign policy. You cannot have it both ways. Perhaps we can agree that you should have written:
It’s time that we participate with regards to foreign policy “in a more” constructive ….which could be open to debate, but valid.
The US is without doubt the most generous nation on earth. That in itself is very constructive 100% of the time.
November 5, 2008 — 11:08 am
Eric Bramlett says:
John –
Please read this:
http://mises.org/story/2588
Our foreign policy has been broken for a long time. I don’t think that Obama will fix it, but it will be a step in the right direction.
I apologize if you misread my statement to mean that we never behave in a constructive manner. Colorful illustrations are sometimes easy to misinterpret.
November 5, 2008 — 11:11 am
Ryan Ward says:
If the world view is incorrect, but, they like us, is it better that they like us or should we lead the world in the right direction?
I think the relevance of foreign countries applauding what who they like as our president has little to no significance on what is and what is not right. Therefore, what other countries say should be taken in context of whether or not their frame of reference is correct or not. To not do so would be irresposible. Much of what has been said by foreign leaders would have been said regardless of who was elected. It’s what nations do. It’s called politics. With that in mind, I place even less significance on what other countries say. So, If we are to consider (good or bad) what foreign countries say, it would be wise to first determine whether or not we think their political views are correct or not. To simply say that the proof is in the foreign leaders acknowledgements is not on its face a valid confirmation.
From the very first quote in the BreitBart article from Sarkozy, we know that this is about politics, not beliefs. It’s widely accepted that Sarkozy would have preferred McCain.
I don’t believe there is anything that will come from overseas to validate Obama. His validation must come from turning “hope” into action.
November 5, 2008 — 11:15 am
John Sabia says:
Eric:
Interesting article.
November 5, 2008 — 11:47 am
Jessica Horton says:
I could care less what my neighboring agents have to say about me. Why? I’m the leader. I lead. They follow or get the heck out of my way. I don’t seek their approval and I don’t really care if I get it or not. My life doesn’t depend upon their approval or disapproval.
The day my competitors (and that’s exactly what they are)start buttering me up with approval, false words and flattery…
Hmmmmm.
Why that’s the day I’m probably no longer the leader. I’m sure that would be something to cheer about. Only problem is: I’m not concerned about the opinions of neighboring agents. I’m concerned about getting the job done. Getting it done the right way. Not very concerned with people that want what I have and can’t stand that I have it.
Time will tell. None of this is new. Just remember, you get what you get and don’t pitch a fit. The majority knows best…
BTW Sorry for rambling and being in a hurry. Got to go. I’m trying to get out the door and get more business. I’ve got to get more listings, so that others can want what I have and demand that I share it with them. Maybe, they can elect a president of the BOR to take it from me.
Stranger things have happened…
November 5, 2008 — 11:52 am
Eric Bramlett says:
Jessica –
I’m assuming that you don’t market to other agents listings, steal yard signs, and behave in a generally disrespectful manner to the other agents in your market. Therefore, the other agents in your market probably like you, and are wise to look to you as a leader. Now, if you started marketing to active listings, stealing yard signs, and behaving like a general ass, then your approval rating with the other agents would rightfully go down. It would be wise at that point in time for you to pay attention to your fellow agents, and ask why they don’t like you. Then, you could stop doing what was improper in your market.
We shouldn’t make policy decisions based solely on whether or not it will raise our approval rating with foreign nations. However, if we make a decision that has or will negatively affect the world’s view of our country, we should give pause and reanalyze our actions.
It is my belief, and the belief of people around the world, that Barack Obama will bring a more progressive, mature foreign policy to the United States. Hence the celebration.
November 5, 2008 — 12:13 pm
David Shafer says:
Great post on mises. Thanks for the link. I remember the exchange. As a reader of Noam Chomsky, I can assure you that our imperialist behavior is not isolated to the middle east. And if you don’t understand our government’s connections to the drug trade from both Asia and South America then you need to do some research.
Unfortunately, Obama will not do anything about this behavior. It seems to be taking for granted that this is how to act internationally. One can only hope that he at least makes the CIA/NSA slow down in their damage inducing behavior!
November 5, 2008 — 12:32 pm
Matthew Hardy says:
This must be a good day for America.
The discontented and malcontented are contented.
The angry are happy.
The racially sensitive are encouraged.
Victim politics is decimated.
It was good to see people dancing in the streets. It would be good to see elevated discourse. One can hope that a decrease in anger will yield increases in civility, graciousness and good will.
For some time, I’ve had my own little pejorative for describing much of what is written on the internet: “the fourteen year olds think they run things”. More pointedly: there is arrant immaturity displayed in such rancor. Let the game change from “nasty as you want to be” to something more erudite; nurtured by those who truly want a more perfect union.
November 5, 2008 — 2:33 pm
Sean Purcell says:
One big happy world Mathew.
more erudite; nurtured by those who truly want a more perfect union
Yes, yes – a more perfect union. May I quote the heroic Lord Neville Chamberlain:
…he said with perfect diction and civility.
November 5, 2008 — 2:50 pm
Matthew Hardy says:
> One big happy world Matthew
Facetiously so.
I assume that the world will go on forever (I don’t believe in apocalypses or doomsdays) and that we will keep getting better and better at it.
There exists now new thinking, on any number of topics, that is better than the old thinking. There will be newer thinking that is better than current thought. Some breakthroughs and epiphanys cannot be contextualized historically; they provide a new platform for new discoveries and implementations.
To turn a phrase…
Those who cannot let go of the past are condemned to repeat it.
November 5, 2008 — 3:53 pm
Jessica Horton says:
@ Eric
No, I don’t do things like that. However, I have been known to snatch a brochure from the little box on a few occassions. 🙂
”We shouldn’t make policy decisions based solely on whether or not it will raise our approval rating with foreign nations. However, if we make a decision that has or will negatively affect the world’s view of our country, we should give pause and reanalyze our actions.”
I can agree with that. For the most part.
I don’t wake up refreshed each morning after dreaming up new and exciting ways of ticking other agents off. I don’t go out of my way to cause them problems. I try to live and let live. However, we operate by systems, policies and procedures. We do things by the book. If that hurts the feelings of some agent or bruises their ego when they don’t get their way…
I hate it.
I’m not about to sit around second-guessing myself to death. I’m not about to overanalyze my every action and wonder who might possibly be offended. As hyper-sensitive as this nation is, somebody is going to be offended (and I’m offended that they’re offended).
So, if they like me, that’s great! If they don’t, that’s great too! I will do business with them either way.
All the world may not love us, but we shouldn’t go around changing just to make them happy. I’m certain we can find a few things that we don’t like about them for every issue they disagree with us about.
I’ve already said way too much. I apologize for being so long-winded on a topic that I didn’t even start. I’m just not in the habit of allowing the tail to wag the dog.
November 5, 2008 — 6:46 pm
Robert Kerr says:
Yes, yes – a more perfect union. May I quote the heroic Lord Neville Chamberlain: …
Godwin’s Law
I call Dodd’s Corollary.
November 5, 2008 — 9:36 pm
Bob says:
Leadership is not just promising an undefined hope wrapped up in the word “Change”.
There is a lot that people have chosen to ignore with Obama. The fact that he is an avowed statist is one of them.
As for leadership being equal to popularity on the world stage, that has never been the case. Leaders lead, with or without consensus.
November 5, 2008 — 9:42 pm
Brian Brady says:
“Democracy is an amazing thing to witness.”
Witness Aguirre’s resume being prepared. Your boy won big, Bob. The City of San Diego will actually be represented, now.
November 6, 2008 — 12:01 am
Joe Hayden says:
America’s generosity is the fuel that runs the World. We give out billions and billions in loans to ensure the liquidity of the World. We then give out billions and billions more to continue the interest payments on the previous loans that were defaulted on by the “grateful” nations (and their fat-cat leaders) we bolstered. We then forgive billions and billions in loans owed to us by said nations. And finally, we do the whole process again. We keep the World’s financial markets afloat, and therefore play an incalculable role in maintaining harmony amongst the many nations in the World.
And we are regularly crapped on for this… Sometimes by our own citizens…
Everything you ever wanted to know about foreign policy can be learned in preschool. God forbid you happen to be the only kid in class who shows up one day with a box of Crayons. You will learn exactly what it means to live in a democracy. And if you thought you learned all you needed that one day and decided to return the next with a new box of Crayons, you will begin to get a glimpse into the awesome power of the temper-tantrum. You will share, even if you only share to keep the peace.
The World if full of cry-baby leaders who know if they make enough noise the US will bail them out (“share” the Crayons). We created this mess by allowing the central bank to rise, and it’s easy to figure a guy like Obama is going to do nothing but work hard to appease the unappeasable.
And he’ll wake up the next morning and do it all over again…
I’m sorry Eric, but if you feel strongly that this approach is they way to interact with the rest of the World, I respectfully disagree. We can give it all away and they will return with palms outstretched and mouths open. We empower tyrants with this approach, with all of the grace a “learned man” can muster as he slowly is consumed by the failings of others.
And to spare myself the argument… Bush definitely screwed this up, as well. It is so short-sighted and trivial to try to pin this on such a flawed man.
November 6, 2008 — 1:06 am
Bob says:
Brian, Jan’s win definitely made me smile. His win is good for the entire County,
Joe, well said.
What makes me nervous with Obama, and where he differs greatly from Clinton, is his resolve. Clinton was frequently cited as a president with no moral compass. He was an opportunistic politician and simply did what was expedient. Obama, on the other hand, is an activist, driven by a purpose. I don’t believe most people understand what drives him.
What I like about Obama is that he is extremely intelligent. It will be interesting to see how he handles the left, who believe he owes them, even though the people who got him elected are the moderates. If he works across the aisle as he did in Illinois, there is hope for important change. If he lets Palosi and Reid run amok, were screwed.
November 6, 2008 — 7:51 am
Eric Bramlett says:
That’s not what I believe in the least.
From Ron Paul:
I think we should stop bombing people and interfering in developing nation’s growing pains. I don’t think that Obama’s foreign policy will accomplish this, but I think it will get us closer to where we need to be.
November 6, 2008 — 1:31 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
I hope this political trouncing will shake up the Republican party & allow members like Ron Paul to have a greater influence. I was a member of the Republican party until 2004, when I realized how badly they had left me.
November 6, 2008 — 1:34 pm
Ryan Ward says:
I’m not about to argue the merits of what Ron Paul says here, but suffice it to say that I disagree with just about everything in Ron Paul’s premise. Slice it how you like, but, it has nothing to do with an anti-war party or us being on “their” land. It is a gross oversimplification.
From the mises article – “They attacked us because we’ve been over there”
To agree, you have to neglect or forget 1000 years of history. That isn’t something I’m prepared to do.
I do believe that Ron Paul truly believes that. It’s just flat wrong in my opinion.
November 6, 2008 — 1:42 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
From the same article:
It sounds pretty reasonable.
November 6, 2008 — 2:13 pm
Ryan Ward says:
Just an oversimplification of a very complex situation that is not correctly summarized in that statement.
For the record, I wouldn’t hate anyone for coming into my country to destroy a tyrannical leader who kept his subjects under his thumb and I would be happy to have those that brought him to justice as a friend. Provided they help, the way we are helping, put things back together after they made a mess.
It’s just not as easy as “Hey, they put up a big building. Therefore the suck”
November 6, 2008 — 2:21 pm
James Wheelock says:
I will admit that I voted for George the first go around as from those that I anticipated to be around him would give us a Gerald Ford Administration. That is not what we recieved at all. This Administration protrayed some of the worst characteristics of both parties. You had the in exhaustible spending of the Dems and you had the wealth aggregation policies of some of the most hard lined Republicans. So, the way I see it both presidential candidates woould have been a better choice.
With that said I am left highly suspect of Obama as not once do I believe I heard what he stands for. Change is not always a good thing although it seems to make for a great slogan. We will have to see what changes he ends up implementing. One change that is most needed I am afraid we will not see with Obama and that is a roll back on spending. Some of the new spending that we saw with the Bush Administration was necessary but most was wasteful.
@Eric – I agree with you that alot of our countries foriegn policy was poorly played out and that we may have brought some of our most recent struggles upon ourselves. However, I think that people of our generation look back on the mistakes of our fathers thinking that we will never repeat them and in assuring this we may repeat those mistakes of our grandfathers. I believe that the tumbling of other governments was a mistake on our part but the choice of inactivity in many circumstances would just leave us erroring on the other side of the coin.
Can you imagine the reduction in the pain that our world saw during World War II that could have been if only we had become involved sooner. So, my question of the year is how should we balance our choices to eliminate the mistakes of both our fathers and our grandfathers?
November 6, 2008 — 2:42 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
You’re right, it’s not. Imperialism harbors hatred.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html
I’m sure the Iraqi’s harbor quite a bit of hatred for us because we supported their tyrannical dictator in the 80’s while he gassed his own people, and then bombed them into oblivion in the 90’s when we no longer had the same conflict with Iran.
My favorite quote from Ron Paul is:
November 6, 2008 — 4:38 pm
Bob says:
Israel and Russia dont agree with Ron Paul. Obama, like all Presidents, will be damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
November 6, 2008 — 9:57 pm
Joe Hayden says:
Eric…
It’s quotes like these that lead me to say what I said;
“…it’s time we participate in it as a constructive partner, rather than the schoolyard bully.”
The sum of the giving of all other nations combined pales in comparison to what the US does on a regular basis. Again, we, us, the citizens, the taxpayers, support and provide liquidity to the entire World’s economy. Take us out of the game and see what transpires. How long before local and regional conflicts blossom into wider wars?
Our actions go a long way towards suppressing and preventing tyrannical leadership the World over. We contain and control rogue nations and alliances. We sacrifice our citizens so others may be free. I ask you… What nation gives as much as America?
Ron Paul is an extremely intelligent man. What a blessing to know that such a man walks the halls of Congress. A few hundred more like him and America would be able to re-embrace the intent and direction of the Founding Fathers. The gradual loss of the brilliance of leadership that sat as the bedrock of this Nation could be turned back, and a new course set.
I do not believe Obama to share Ron Paul’s grasp of the original Spirit of America. I believe him to be a glorified university professor who will ignore substantial precedent and repeat age-old mistakes that have continuously and assuredly destroyed the fabric of powerful nations.
Know this… A nation derives its power from its ability to wage war. It maintains both an internal and external strength through this implied or executed threat. This is true because man is flawed. The good of millions can be negated by the evils of one. America must remain strong as a military power and must continue to apply a deterrent force to those who wish to do harm. Ironically, peace is not possible any other way until man can reach a higher plane of self-awareness, understanding, and conscientiousness.
Many nations will try to test America in a multitude of ways with the new administration. Each successful breach of the resolve of America will embolden and empower tyrants around the World to suppress and steal, devastating innocent humans. Talk just won’t cut it with these types. I hope Obama will react quickly and decisively and drop this whole “let’s talk” routine… The innocent citizens of the World are counting on us, and it appears many don’t even know why.
November 6, 2008 — 10:11 pm
Jessica Horton says:
“In a step that will further increase Israel’s anxiety about Obama, Tehran announced last night that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had broken a 29-year tradition and sent his congratulations to the President-elect – the first time an Iranian leader has offered such wishes since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.”
And, I’m sure some of you will think we’re all going to talk, kiss, make up, hold hands and sing koombyya my Lord/Allah/Yahweh together.
Centuries of conflict can now end, the Messiah is about to enter the building.
November 6, 2008 — 10:12 pm
Ryan Ward says:
“It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.”
This, is an incomplete sentence in that it does nothing to talk about what happens in the real world when others don’t play by those rules and does nothing to guide us when they don’t. I don’t think Ron Paul got that advice from personal conversations with the founding fathers and I didn’t read it in the constitution or bill of rights.
“A nation derives its power from its ability to wage war. It maintains both an internal and external strength through this implied or executed threat. This is true because man is flawed.”
Nothing has been said here that rings more true than this statement. Unfortunately, politicians can’t simply come out and say this because it certainly isn’t politically correct, although it is in fact entirely true and Obama did not seem to understand that at all as he took office and nothing is more critical in a leader of the most powerful nation on earth.
November 7, 2008 — 4:52 am
Eric Bramlett says:
“A nation derives its power from its ability to wage war. It maintains both an internal and external strength through this implied or executed threat. This is true because man is flawed.”
That’s where we fundamentally disagree. Power is and can be derived from a nation’s ability to wage war. However, what is power? It’s an entity’s ability to influence. I believe there are non-violent ways the US and other nations have and can continue to influence each other. I believe that we fundamentally disagree on what our primary means of influence should and can be.
Military power will never go away, however should only be exercised as a last resort, and only when a nation receives a direct threat from another. With the exception of nuclear ambitions, and obvious, viable military imperialism, we should largely ignore the conflicts of other nations, and avoid entangling alliances.
November 7, 2008 — 8:06 am
Colleen Lane says:
One has to wonder if special interest groups were eliminated from this election, who would have won. I suspect Obama had a much larger special interest contingency than McCain did. In other words, my bet is McCain was a better representation of the middle class. I say this without full support of the man. Anyway, congrats to Obama and his supporters for an excellent campaign.
November 7, 2008 — 10:06 am
Joe Hayden says:
Hi Eric…
I appreciate your willingness to engage on such meaningful topics. This type of discourse, though probably a little sophomoric at our level, is the life-blood of our Country.
You disagreed with something I wrote that is not my personal belief or hope. My statement is factual, not an opinion. I could fill volumes with examples, and there are libraries full of analysis on the premise.
In our case, the citizenry grants the government power with the sincere hope that the leaders and decision-makers will honor the Constitution and long-held legal and ethical principles to ensure our freedoms as a people. One caveat, of course, is that we also grant the government the ability to wield its power with the ultimate threat of deadly force against its own citizens. This underlying threat is used as both a method of deterrent and a method of control. You may or may not have thought of it in those terms, but it is true.
By the consent of the governed, we have also allowed our leaders (and in fact at times begged them) to use their police powers to maintain order, regulate the economy, and punish those who violate laws.
This entire process is, in addition, scaled to a world-wide level as our government exercises its influence to defend international interests, control international policy, trade, and the lives of innocent citizens. Countless wars, regional conflicts, and tyrannical governments have been thwarted by this power. The mere threat of, or the localized use of, deadly force isn’t just influence as you mention, it is outright control.
Now, personally, I just don’t like it. None of it. I, as you, am a good person and believe in the inherent good of man and this Country. But I recognize that we cannot always choose the playing field, and man is as of yet still quite unsophisticated in our dealings with each other and our differences. In time, I hope this is able to change, but for now, our ability to wage war is the bond that holds both this Nation and a majority of the World together…
November 7, 2008 — 11:09 am
Eric Bramlett says:
My argument isn’t against the threat or use of military force to achieve our goals, and to ensure our safety. My argument is against our continued occupation of 70% of the countries in the world. My argument is against unilateral decisions made by the United States, and against preemptive strikes against perceived threats. My argument is against the United States treating military power as its primary tool, and ignoring the net effects of our international military actions. My argument is to recognize the damage the Bush administration did to our international reputation, and to take steps to mend that damage. My argument is against ridiculing the international community for celebrating an elected leader that they have no control over, but who will affect their lives in a great way.
November 7, 2008 — 4:25 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
I read my last comment, and I feel I should clarify, because it reads a bit ambiguously. My argument is against the threat and use of military force to achieve our goals as our primary tool. While the threat of military action is very effective and does promote peace, I feel that we go to the actual use of military force far to quickly. To tie this back to our original discussion, I feel that an Obama administration will be a much more peaceful administration than one who will “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.” That is why the international community is celebrating our collective decision, and I find it pompous to ridicule that celebration.
November 8, 2008 — 9:52 am
Joe Hayden says:
Are you okay if we “bomb, bomb, bomb Pakistan”? Hilarious how comments made at a roast in jest become foreign policy…
Obama the campaigner and Obama the President are going to be two very different characters. With essential control of the Congress in the hands of the President’s party, I wonder how the blame will be placed when he orders his first military actions?
He will somberly declare that it is for the good of the country and the good of the world, and his supporters will toss their opposition and again blindly give their support. I equate this to his drug use. His supporters rally around him and protect him from exactly the same issue that they used to pillory GWB. There is no logic, there is no consistency as morals and character are flexible when applied to “the cause”. The irony is lost in an angry, childish, mis-guided frustration.
Just as GWB’s supporters continued to cling to their leader even after it became painfully clear he had abandoned the party base, Obama’s supporters will defend and justify his actions long after he has forsaken his campaign promises and started the long payback of the massive, huge, and obscene amount of money he received from unnamed donors.
And PS, the international community is applauding because they are mostly sheep under oppressive leadership, unable to relate to the freedoms we enjoy and take for granted (sadly) in America. The leadership is applauding because they know their plunder will be far easier under an Obama administration. Heck, he’ll probably even help pay for it!
PSS… When is Obama going to address the horribly oppressive monetary / financial system we have allowed to fester in the country? He’s already talking “stimulus package”. He won’t do a damn thing about it. More and more people will be taken out of the free market workforce and be moved onto the government dole. What Obama’s supporters refuse to see and especially refuse to believe is that he is beholden to the exact same financial powers that guided / influenced GWB. But… he speaks well in public and has a nice smile, so where do I send my paycheck?
Fools…
November 8, 2008 — 4:15 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
Ahhh….I wondered when it would devolve into ad hominem attacks. Thank you.
November 8, 2008 — 8:39 pm
Joe Hayden says:
??? – You take that comment as a personal attack? I guess you miss the irony of your own comment. At least have the courtesy to quote my entire comment in context.
I do all of this with a genuine smile and a sincere spirit, Eric… Please do not take my passion as an attack of you or of your character. I hope you extend me the same.
I’ll leave you with this nice quote from Samuel Clemens – “The mania for giving the Government power to meddle with the private affairs of cities or citizens is likely to cause endless trouble, through the rivalry of schools and creeds that are anxious to obtain official recognition, and there is great danger that our people will lose our independence of thought and action which is the cause of much of our greatness, and sink into the helplessness of the Frenchman or German who expects his government to feed him when hungry, clothe him when naked, to prescribe when his child may be born and when he may die, and, in time, to regulate every act of humanity from the cradle to the tomb, including the manner in which he may seek future admission to paradise.”
November 8, 2008 — 11:11 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
Not at all, and I expected that response. Ad hominem is literally “against the person,” which means an attack against any person who presents an argument, rather than that argument.
Your statement concisely dismisses the international community’s argument that our foreign policy is broken, without directly addressing that argument. Rather, it attacks those nations’ characters. Hence, it is an ad hominem attack.
On a personal level, Joe, I sincerely enjoy this discourse, and I have no problem respectfully disagreeing with you on these issues. I only wish more people would put as much thought into important issues as you do.
November 8, 2008 — 11:28 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
How sad that we so easily accept joking comments about the potential deaths of hundreds (actually thousands) of people simply because it’s “at a roast.” The person who tells that joke is not someone I want leading me. Luckily, I won’t have that leader for at least the next 4 years.
And no, I’m not okay with bombing Pakistan if we have other options. Our military has evolved into a scalpel, and we should use that scalpel, rather than the archaic broadsword we’re currently yielding.
November 8, 2008 — 11:38 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
And Samuel Clemens? Please. Will you quote Tom Clancy or John Grisham next?
November 9, 2008 — 1:09 am