Radley Balko: A Few Questions for Barack Obama
Tuesday , July 29, 2008
By Radley Balko
In my last column, I posed questions to GOP presidential hopeful John McCain. This week, it's Democrat Barack Obama's turn.
— In February, you said you might support vouchers and charter schools if empirical data showed that they improve education (some studies show that they do). Admirably, your position was, "I will not allow my predispositions to stand in the way of making sure that our kids can learn." After pressure from the teachers unions, you quickly backed off from that position, stating that your campaign doesn't support vouchers "in any shape or form." What prompted that change? And if it's important that we not "throw up our hands" and "walk away from the public schools," why do you send your own kids to private schools?
— Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton intends to terminate D.C.'s federal school voucher program, even though those vouchers are paid through a separate fund that takes no money at all from D.C.'s public schools (which already spend $10,000 more per pupil per year than the city's private schools). Del. Holmes Norton says the program undermines the public schools. You've signed on to the plan to eliminate the program. But given that the program takes no money from the city's already bloated public schools, isn't it only "undermining" the public school system by exposing how unhappy D.C. parents really are with the schools' performance? Isn't that a good thing?
— You've expressed support for the idea of a "no fly" zone over Darfur because of human rights abuses. What's happening in Sudan is certainly tragic and abhorrent. But what is our national security interest there? Should we send the U.S. military every time there are wide-scale human rights abuses happening anywhere on the globe? Should we send troops to Myanmar? Uzbekistan? Turkmenistan? Iran? Saudi Arabia?
— You not only supported the latest federal farm bill, you commended it, stating that it "will provide America's hard-working farmers and ranchers with more support and more predictability." Critics have called that $307 billion monstrosity an orgy of earmarks, corporate welfare, and protectionism. It actually increases subsidies to huge agribusinesses in an era of record grain prices — subsidies that are already crushing farmers in the developing world. The New York Times called it "disgraceful." The Wall Street Journal called it a "scam." How does the "change" candidate justify supporting a bill larded with sweetheart deals for big agribusiness when just about everyone not getting a check from the bill opposed it?
— You continue to support ethanol subsidies despite the fact that corn-based ethanol is inefficient, environmentally unfriendly, and part of the cause of rising food prices. Even liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman calls ethanol "ad for the economy, bad for consumers, bad for the planet." Perhaps your support stems from you representing a corn producing state. But is supporting a wasteful policy to win votes "change we can believe in," or is it a good sign that you're just another politician?
— In your autobiography, you admit to using marijuana and cocaine in high school and college. Yet you largely support the federal drug war — a change from several years ago when you said you'd be open to decriminalizing marijuana. Would Barack Obama be where he is today if he had been arrested in college for using drugs? Doesn't the fact that you and our current president (who has all but admitted to prior drug use) have risen to such high stature suggest that the worst thing about illicit drugs is not the drugs themselves, but what the government will do to you if you're caught?
— In a speech to Cuban-Americans in Miami, you called the Cuban trade embargo "an important inducement for change," a 180-degree shift from your prior position. The trade embargo has been in place for 46 years. Did denying an entire generation of Cubans access to American goods, culture, and ideas induce any actual change? Wasn't the real effect just to keep Cubans poor and isolated? In communist countries like Vietnam and China, trade with the U.S. has ushered in economic reform, and vastly improved the standard of living. Why wouldn't it be the same if we were to start trading with Cuba?
— In addition to the drugs, Cuba, and school voucher issues, you have also changed or revised your position in recent months on the war in Iraq, government eavesdropping and immunity for the telecom companies, and holding employers accountable for hiring illegal immigrants. Under some circumstances, changing or revising one's position can show admirable introspection — the ability to revise prior conceptions with new information. Some of your new positions are more conservative. Some are more liberal. But they do seem to have one thing in common: Should we be concerned that your shifts have been to those positions that give more power and influence to government? Are there any areas where you'd actually roll back the federal government?
— In October you asked a congregation in South Carolina to help you become "an instrument of God," and to join you in building a "Kingdom, right here on Earth." Is such lofty, sanctimonious rhetoric really appropriate from a would-be president? Why shouldn't we be suspicious of a man who believes politics — indeed, his politics — are God's politics? Isn't using the political process to build a "Kingdom on earth" the sort of thing we're used to hearing from the religious right? Should we be cautious of political leaders who believe they're agents of the Divinity?
— You have called for a "civilian national security force," essentially a non-military public service corps that in your words is "just as powerful, just as strong," and "just as well-funded" as the military. Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren has estimated that your proposal would cost somewhere between $100 and $500 billion—or between 10 and 50 percent of all federal income tax revenues. How do you plan to pay for this program?
— Your wife said that as president, "Barack Obama will . . . demand that you shed your cynicism . . . That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual . . ." How is any of this remotely the responsibility of the president? Where in the Constitution does it say that the president should be our personal motivator and spiritual leader? Will you help us lose weight and eat our vegetables, too?
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
RedGlitter;935222 wrote: Radley Balko: A Few Questions for Barack Obama
Tuesday , July 29, 2008
By Radley Balko
In my last column, I posed questions to GOP presidential hopeful John McCain. This week, it's Democrat Barack Obama's turn.
— In February, you said you might support vouchers and charter schools if empirical data showed that they improve education (some studies show that they do). Admirably, your position was, "I will not allow my predispositions to stand in the way of making sure that our kids can learn." After pressure from the teachers unions, you quickly backed off from that position, stating that your campaign doesn't support vouchers "in any shape or form." What prompted that change? And if it's important that we not "throw up our hands" and "walk away from the public schools," why do you send your own kids to private schools?
— Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton intends to terminate D.C.'s federal school voucher program, even though those vouchers are paid through a separate fund that takes no money at all from D.C.'s public schools (which already spend $10,000 more per pupil per year than the city's private schools). Del. Holmes Norton says the program undermines the public schools. You've signed on to the plan to eliminate the program. But given that the program takes no money from the city's already bloated public schools, isn't it only "undermining" the public school system by exposing how unhappy D.C. parents really are with the schools' performance? Isn't that a good thing?
— You've expressed support for the idea of a "no fly" zone over Darfur because of human rights abuses. What's happening in Sudan is certainly tragic and abhorrent. But what is our national security interest there? Should we send the U.S. military every time there are wide-scale human rights abuses happening anywhere on the globe? Should we send troops to Myanmar? Uzbekistan? Turkmenistan? Iran? Saudi Arabia?
— You not only supported the latest federal farm bill, you commended it, stating that it "will provide America's hard-working farmers and ranchers with more support and more predictability." Critics have called that $307 billion monstrosity an orgy of earmarks, corporate welfare, and protectionism. It actually increases subsidies to huge agribusinesses in an era of record grain prices — subsidies that are already crushing farmers in the developing world. The New York Times called it "disgraceful." The Wall Street Journal called it a "scam." How does the "change" candidate justify supporting a bill larded with sweetheart deals for big agribusiness when just about everyone not getting a check from the bill opposed it?
— You continue to support ethanol subsidies despite the fact that corn-based ethanol is inefficient, environmentally unfriendly, and part of the cause of rising food prices. Even liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman calls ethanol "ad for the economy, bad for consumers, bad for the planet." Perhaps your support stems from you representing a corn producing state. But is supporting a wasteful policy to win votes "change we can believe in," or is it a good sign that you're just another politician?
— In your autobiography, you admit to using marijuana and cocaine in high school and college. Yet you largely support the federal drug war — a change from several years ago when you said you'd be open to decriminalizing marijuana. Would Barack Obama be where he is today if he had been arrested in college for using drugs? Doesn't the fact that you and our current president (who has all but admitted to prior drug use) have risen to such high stature suggest that the worst thing about illicit drugs is not the drugs themselves, but what the government will do to you if you're caught?
— In a speech to Cuban-Americans in Miami, you called the Cuban trade embargo "an important inducement for change," a 180-degree shift from your prior position. The trade embargo has been in place for 46 years. Did denying an entire generation of Cubans access to American goods, culture, and ideas induce any actual change? Wasn't the real effect just to keep Cubans poor and isolated? In communist countries like Vietnam and China, trade with the U.S. has ushered in economic reform, and vastly improved the standard of living. Why wouldn't it be the same if we were to start trading with Cuba?
— In addition to the drugs, Cuba, and school voucher issues, you have also changed or revised your position in recent months on the war in Iraq, government eavesdropping and immunity for the telecom companies, and holding employers accountable for hiring illegal immigrants. Under some circumstances, changing or revising one's position can show admirable introspection — the ability to revise prior conceptions with new information. Some of your new positions are more conservative. Some are more liberal. But they do seem to have one thing in common: Should we be concerned that your shifts have been to those positions that give more power and influence to government? Are there any areas where you'd actually roll back the federal government?
— In October you asked a congregation in South Carolina to help you become "an instrument of God," and to join you in building a "Kingdom, right here on Earth." Is such lofty, sanctimonious rhetoric really appropriate from a would-be president? Why shouldn't we be suspicious of a man who believes politics — indeed, his politics — are God's politics? Isn't using the political process to build a "Kingdom on earth" the sort of thing we're used to hearing from the religious right? Should we be cautious of political leaders who believe they're agents of the Divinity?
— You have called for a "civilian national security force," essentially a non-military public service corps that in your words is "just as powerful, just as strong," and "just as well-funded" as the military. Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren has estimated that your proposal would cost somewhere between $100 and $500 billion—or between 10 and 50 percent of all federal income tax revenues. How do you plan to pay for this program?
— Your wife said that as president, "Barack Obama will . . . demand that you shed your cynicism . . . That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual . . ." How is any of this remotely the responsibility of the president? Where in the Constitution does it say that the president should be our personal motivator and spiritual leader? Will you help us lose weight and eat our vegetables, too?
I Have Ask This Question . What Do You Think This Either Of These Guy Can Do In Four Years ., Because it going to take 10 / 15 or more to clean up the mess that was made ... Because It Seem Like Most People Are Going By What These So-called Writer / Reporter's Are Saying And They Are Only Saying What They Get Pay To Say , Not Trying To Change The Subject Here .
Tuesday , July 29, 2008
By Radley Balko
In my last column, I posed questions to GOP presidential hopeful John McCain. This week, it's Democrat Barack Obama's turn.
— In February, you said you might support vouchers and charter schools if empirical data showed that they improve education (some studies show that they do). Admirably, your position was, "I will not allow my predispositions to stand in the way of making sure that our kids can learn." After pressure from the teachers unions, you quickly backed off from that position, stating that your campaign doesn't support vouchers "in any shape or form." What prompted that change? And if it's important that we not "throw up our hands" and "walk away from the public schools," why do you send your own kids to private schools?
— Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton intends to terminate D.C.'s federal school voucher program, even though those vouchers are paid through a separate fund that takes no money at all from D.C.'s public schools (which already spend $10,000 more per pupil per year than the city's private schools). Del. Holmes Norton says the program undermines the public schools. You've signed on to the plan to eliminate the program. But given that the program takes no money from the city's already bloated public schools, isn't it only "undermining" the public school system by exposing how unhappy D.C. parents really are with the schools' performance? Isn't that a good thing?
— You've expressed support for the idea of a "no fly" zone over Darfur because of human rights abuses. What's happening in Sudan is certainly tragic and abhorrent. But what is our national security interest there? Should we send the U.S. military every time there are wide-scale human rights abuses happening anywhere on the globe? Should we send troops to Myanmar? Uzbekistan? Turkmenistan? Iran? Saudi Arabia?
— You not only supported the latest federal farm bill, you commended it, stating that it "will provide America's hard-working farmers and ranchers with more support and more predictability." Critics have called that $307 billion monstrosity an orgy of earmarks, corporate welfare, and protectionism. It actually increases subsidies to huge agribusinesses in an era of record grain prices — subsidies that are already crushing farmers in the developing world. The New York Times called it "disgraceful." The Wall Street Journal called it a "scam." How does the "change" candidate justify supporting a bill larded with sweetheart deals for big agribusiness when just about everyone not getting a check from the bill opposed it?
— You continue to support ethanol subsidies despite the fact that corn-based ethanol is inefficient, environmentally unfriendly, and part of the cause of rising food prices. Even liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman calls ethanol "ad for the economy, bad for consumers, bad for the planet." Perhaps your support stems from you representing a corn producing state. But is supporting a wasteful policy to win votes "change we can believe in," or is it a good sign that you're just another politician?
— In your autobiography, you admit to using marijuana and cocaine in high school and college. Yet you largely support the federal drug war — a change from several years ago when you said you'd be open to decriminalizing marijuana. Would Barack Obama be where he is today if he had been arrested in college for using drugs? Doesn't the fact that you and our current president (who has all but admitted to prior drug use) have risen to such high stature suggest that the worst thing about illicit drugs is not the drugs themselves, but what the government will do to you if you're caught?
— In a speech to Cuban-Americans in Miami, you called the Cuban trade embargo "an important inducement for change," a 180-degree shift from your prior position. The trade embargo has been in place for 46 years. Did denying an entire generation of Cubans access to American goods, culture, and ideas induce any actual change? Wasn't the real effect just to keep Cubans poor and isolated? In communist countries like Vietnam and China, trade with the U.S. has ushered in economic reform, and vastly improved the standard of living. Why wouldn't it be the same if we were to start trading with Cuba?
— In addition to the drugs, Cuba, and school voucher issues, you have also changed or revised your position in recent months on the war in Iraq, government eavesdropping and immunity for the telecom companies, and holding employers accountable for hiring illegal immigrants. Under some circumstances, changing or revising one's position can show admirable introspection — the ability to revise prior conceptions with new information. Some of your new positions are more conservative. Some are more liberal. But they do seem to have one thing in common: Should we be concerned that your shifts have been to those positions that give more power and influence to government? Are there any areas where you'd actually roll back the federal government?
— In October you asked a congregation in South Carolina to help you become "an instrument of God," and to join you in building a "Kingdom, right here on Earth." Is such lofty, sanctimonious rhetoric really appropriate from a would-be president? Why shouldn't we be suspicious of a man who believes politics — indeed, his politics — are God's politics? Isn't using the political process to build a "Kingdom on earth" the sort of thing we're used to hearing from the religious right? Should we be cautious of political leaders who believe they're agents of the Divinity?
— You have called for a "civilian national security force," essentially a non-military public service corps that in your words is "just as powerful, just as strong," and "just as well-funded" as the military. Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren has estimated that your proposal would cost somewhere between $100 and $500 billion—or between 10 and 50 percent of all federal income tax revenues. How do you plan to pay for this program?
— Your wife said that as president, "Barack Obama will . . . demand that you shed your cynicism . . . That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual . . ." How is any of this remotely the responsibility of the president? Where in the Constitution does it say that the president should be our personal motivator and spiritual leader? Will you help us lose weight and eat our vegetables, too?
I Have Ask This Question . What Do You Think This Either Of These Guy Can Do In Four Years ., Because it going to take 10 / 15 or more to clean up the mess that was made ... Because It Seem Like Most People Are Going By What These So-called Writer / Reporter's Are Saying And They Are Only Saying What They Get Pay To Say , Not Trying To Change The Subject Here .
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
Daniyal;947706 wrote: I Have Ask This Question . What Do You Think This Either Of These Guy Can Do In Four Years ., Because it going to take 10 / 15 or more to clean up the mess that was made ... Because It Seem Like Most People Are Going By What These So-called Writer / Reporter's Are Saying And They Are Only Saying What They Get Pay To Say , Not Trying To Change The Subject Here .
They certainly will not be able to do much in four years I agree, but what is the alternative to voting for one of them?
They certainly will not be able to do much in four years I agree, but what is the alternative to voting for one of them?
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
I Have Ask This Question . What Do You Think This Either Of These Guy Can Do In Four Years ., Because it going to take 10 / 15 or more to clean up the mess that was made ... Because It Seem Like Most People Are Going By What These So-called Writer / Reporter's Are Saying And They Are Only Saying What They Being Pay To Say , Not Trying To Change The Subject Here .
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
Daniyal;947732 wrote: I Have Ask This Question . What Do You Think This Either Of These Guy Can Do In Four Years ., Because it going to take 10 / 15 or more to clean up the mess that was made ... Because It Seem Like Most People Are Going By What These So-called Writer / Reporter's Are Saying And They Are Only Saying What They Being Pay To Say , Not Trying To Change The Subject Here .
I give up trying to communicate with you. I think I answered your question.
I give up trying to communicate with you. I think I answered your question.
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
lon;947726 wrote: they Certainly Will Not Be Able To Do Much In Four Years I Agree, But What Is The Alternative To Voting For One Of Them? .
;)
;)
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
Red, it's fine to post negative articles about Obama, but if you start *comparing* him with other viable candidates, he's the least worst.
IIRC you say you are a Wiccan and libertarian. Unfortunately the libertarian candidate Bob Barr has tried to ban Wicca from the military. How any candidate could claim to be in favor of small government, and and push (likely illegal) bills like that is beyond ridiculous. He was a clone of Bush (obsessing about blow jobs, voting for the patriot act, Iraq resolution, etc) until his magical conversion around 2003 or so.
Of course there's also Ron Paul. I have more respect for him (I think he's honest) but he's completely impractical and extremely paranoid.
IIRC you say you are a Wiccan and libertarian. Unfortunately the libertarian candidate Bob Barr has tried to ban Wicca from the military. How any candidate could claim to be in favor of small government, and and push (likely illegal) bills like that is beyond ridiculous. He was a clone of Bush (obsessing about blow jobs, voting for the patriot act, Iraq resolution, etc) until his magical conversion around 2003 or so.
Of course there's also Ron Paul. I have more respect for him (I think he's honest) but he's completely impractical and extremely paranoid.
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
Lon;947735 wrote: I give up trying to communicate with you. I think I answered your question.
Are you giveing your word , Will you keep said word .
Are you giveing your word , Will you keep said word .
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
Daniyal;947743 wrote: .
Are you giveing your word , Will you keep said word .
See---this is the problem. What am I giving my word to? You don't make any sense with your posts. Keep my word to what?
Are you giveing your word , Will you keep said word .
See---this is the problem. What am I giving my word to? You don't make any sense with your posts. Keep my word to what?
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
Lon;947895 wrote: See---this is the problem. What am I giving my word to? You don't make any sense with your posts. Keep my word to what?
Originally Posted by Lon
I give up trying to communicate with you. Will You Keep You Word , Or Are You Just Lying .. Time Will Tell .
Originally Posted by Lon
I give up trying to communicate with you. Will You Keep You Word , Or Are You Just Lying .. Time Will Tell .
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
Will You Keep You Word , Or Are You Just Lying .. Time Will Tell .
Let's play nice in here...or don't play at all.
Thank you.
Let's play nice in here...or don't play at all.
Thank you.
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
RedGlitter;947902 wrote: Let's play nice in here...or don't play at all.
Thank you.
I'm done here
Thank you.
I'm done here
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
Daniyal;947907 wrote: I'm done here
I solemnly swear that I will have no more contact with said poster Daniyal until such time as lightning strikes the Cheops Pyramid.
I solemnly swear that I will have no more contact with said poster Daniyal until such time as lightning strikes the Cheops Pyramid.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
yaaarrrgg;947792 wrote: Red, it's fine to post negative articles about Obama, but if you start *comparing* him with other viable candidates, he's the least worst.
IIRC you say you are a Wiccan and libertarian. Unfortunately the libertarian candidate Bob Barr has tried to ban Wicca from the military. How any candidate could claim to be in favor of small government, and and push (likely illegal) bills like that is beyond ridiculous. He was a clone of Bush (obsessing about blow jobs, voting for the patriot act, Iraq resolution, etc) until his magical conversion around 2003 or so.
Of course there's also Ron Paul. I have more respect for him (I think he's honest) but he's completely impractical and extremely paranoid.
Pardon me Yarg, I didn't see your post the first time around.
I hope you didn't think I was ignoring you.
Well first of all, you should probably know I wasn't comparing Obama with McCain because I posted the article, rather I just thought people may find it interesting.
Yes, I am Pagan but I don't mix government and my faith. While I do find it offensive that anyone would try to banish a religion that harms no one, it's not my first priority. It doesn't affect me that much as I am not in the military and I keep my stuff private anyway. Now I'm not saying because it doesn't affect me personally that it isn't important! It is. But you have to pick your battles and priorities. As you probably know, for me that would mean if a candidate supported vivisection for example, s/he would lose my vote no matter how stellar s/he was in everything else. I have other issues I am passionate about, that is just one of them.
Now I need to study up on Barr. I'm not that familiar with him. I still favor Ron Paul even though I feel his presentation leaves a bit to be desired. He may be less charismatic than Obama or not as tough as McCain but he comes across to me as honest.
McCain is notorious for not being very supportive of women's issues which is a problem for me, yet he has helped to pass several bills providing betterment for animals, so I have to weigh those two.
I doubt anyone is going to get everything they want in a president. I am a Libertarian but that doesn't mean I'm definitely going to vote that way just because I am not voting for the Big 2. If I decide neither Lib candidate is satisfactory to me, then I will write someone in. Whatever it takes to get my message across with the others who will do the same.
I'm not saying Obama is terrible not am I saying McCain is terrible. But personally I don't see anything special between the two.
IIRC you say you are a Wiccan and libertarian. Unfortunately the libertarian candidate Bob Barr has tried to ban Wicca from the military. How any candidate could claim to be in favor of small government, and and push (likely illegal) bills like that is beyond ridiculous. He was a clone of Bush (obsessing about blow jobs, voting for the patriot act, Iraq resolution, etc) until his magical conversion around 2003 or so.
Of course there's also Ron Paul. I have more respect for him (I think he's honest) but he's completely impractical and extremely paranoid.
Pardon me Yarg, I didn't see your post the first time around.
I hope you didn't think I was ignoring you.Well first of all, you should probably know I wasn't comparing Obama with McCain because I posted the article, rather I just thought people may find it interesting.
Yes, I am Pagan but I don't mix government and my faith. While I do find it offensive that anyone would try to banish a religion that harms no one, it's not my first priority. It doesn't affect me that much as I am not in the military and I keep my stuff private anyway. Now I'm not saying because it doesn't affect me personally that it isn't important! It is. But you have to pick your battles and priorities. As you probably know, for me that would mean if a candidate supported vivisection for example, s/he would lose my vote no matter how stellar s/he was in everything else. I have other issues I am passionate about, that is just one of them.
Now I need to study up on Barr. I'm not that familiar with him. I still favor Ron Paul even though I feel his presentation leaves a bit to be desired. He may be less charismatic than Obama or not as tough as McCain but he comes across to me as honest.
McCain is notorious for not being very supportive of women's issues which is a problem for me, yet he has helped to pass several bills providing betterment for animals, so I have to weigh those two.
I doubt anyone is going to get everything they want in a president. I am a Libertarian but that doesn't mean I'm definitely going to vote that way just because I am not voting for the Big 2. If I decide neither Lib candidate is satisfactory to me, then I will write someone in. Whatever it takes to get my message across with the others who will do the same.
I'm not saying Obama is terrible not am I saying McCain is terrible. But personally I don't see anything special between the two.
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
Red, it's commendable that you put animal issues ahead of your own religious outlook.
I was looking over the Humane Society scorecard:
http://www.fund.org/pdfs/110th_midterm_ ... recard.pdf
The ratings for leading candidates:
Barack Obama: 75
John McCain: 25
Ron Paul: 0
I don't have stats on Barr, but can confidently predict that it will be 0 as well (or should be). Paul isn't a cruel guy of course ... he has philosophical objections to extending the law to include animals. I have to admit, he's consistently libertarian (and it makes perfect sense within his political viewpoint) but the practical reality just means deregulation on how animals are treated. The obvious problem is that when businesses can freely torture an animal for profit, they often do.
Contrast this with Obama, who has stated:
"I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other. And it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals."
You might say he's all talk, but Obama voted in favor of amending the Humane Care for Animals Act to make animal torture a serious felony, and the taunting and teasing of rescue dogs a misdemeanor.
Of course it could be spun that this is "big government control" .. but if animals are recognized at having rights under the law, this needs to be done at the federal level. Like when people figured out that women and "Negroes" had some rights as well.
I was looking over the Humane Society scorecard:
http://www.fund.org/pdfs/110th_midterm_ ... recard.pdf
The ratings for leading candidates:
Barack Obama: 75
John McCain: 25
Ron Paul: 0
I don't have stats on Barr, but can confidently predict that it will be 0 as well (or should be). Paul isn't a cruel guy of course ... he has philosophical objections to extending the law to include animals. I have to admit, he's consistently libertarian (and it makes perfect sense within his political viewpoint) but the practical reality just means deregulation on how animals are treated. The obvious problem is that when businesses can freely torture an animal for profit, they often do.
Contrast this with Obama, who has stated:
"I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other. And it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals."
You might say he's all talk, but Obama voted in favor of amending the Humane Care for Animals Act to make animal torture a serious felony, and the taunting and teasing of rescue dogs a misdemeanor.
Of course it could be spun that this is "big government control" .. but if animals are recognized at having rights under the law, this needs to be done at the federal level. Like when people figured out that women and "Negroes" had some rights as well.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
The obvious problem is that when businesses can freely torture an animal for profit, they often do.
You are absolutely right about this.
Contrast this with Obama, who has stated:
"I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other. And it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals."
You might say he's all talk, but Obama voted in favor of amending the Humane Care for Animals Act to make animal torture a serious felony, and the taunting and teasing of rescue dogs a misdemeanor.
Now I didn't know this. I'm not sure why either. This pleases me very much to know. Although I am sure the felony cruelty charge would not extend to Proctor and Gamble, Iams pet food or the Foundation for Spinal Cord Injuries. etc; and I feel that cruelty lives there as well.
Of course it could be spun that this is "big government control" .. but if animals are recognized at having rights under the law, this needs to be done at the federal level. Like when people figured out that women and "Negroes" had some rights as well.
You have a good argument here, Yarg. (I don't shorten your user name out of disrespect but only because I can never remember how many a's and r's you use. You have given me some important things to work with and look into and I appreciate that. )
....
You are absolutely right about this.
Contrast this with Obama, who has stated:
"I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other. And it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals."
You might say he's all talk, but Obama voted in favor of amending the Humane Care for Animals Act to make animal torture a serious felony, and the taunting and teasing of rescue dogs a misdemeanor.
Now I didn't know this. I'm not sure why either. This pleases me very much to know. Although I am sure the felony cruelty charge would not extend to Proctor and Gamble, Iams pet food or the Foundation for Spinal Cord Injuries. etc; and I feel that cruelty lives there as well.
Of course it could be spun that this is "big government control" .. but if animals are recognized at having rights under the law, this needs to be done at the federal level. Like when people figured out that women and "Negroes" had some rights as well.
You have a good argument here, Yarg. (I don't shorten your user name out of disrespect but only because I can never remember how many a's and r's you use.
You have given me some important things to work with and look into and I appreciate that. )....
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
Lon;947895 wrote: See---this is the problem. What am I giving my word to? You don't make any sense with your posts. Keep my word to what?
Maybe this will help Lon.
Lon;947735 wrote: I give up trying to communicate with you. I think I answered your question.
Daniyal;947894 wrote: Are you giveing your word , Will you keep said word .
Maybe this will help Lon.
Lon;947735 wrote: I give up trying to communicate with you. I think I answered your question.
Daniyal;947894 wrote: Are you giveing your word , Will you keep said word .
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
[QUOTE=abbey;948039]Maybe this will help Lon.[/QUOTE
......
......
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down
To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .
It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble
When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
Daniyal;947899 wrote: Originally Posted by Lon
I give up trying to communicate with you. Will You Keep You Word , Or Are You Just Lying .. Time Will Tell .
Why is it that you want people not to talk to you?
I give up trying to communicate with you. Will You Keep You Word , Or Are You Just Lying .. Time Will Tell .
Why is it that you want people not to talk to you?
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
Bryn Mawr;950557 wrote: Why is it that you want people not to talk to you?
Is this for me or Daniyal?
Is this for me or Daniyal?
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
Lon;950619 wrote: Is this for me or Daniyal?
Daniyal - I'm trying to understand
Daniyal - I'm trying to understand
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
A Few Questions for Barack Obama (Opinion)
From what I can tell, it asks rhetorical questions and views any response as an attack. I don't understand the value of trying to understand it anymore.