McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight.

[NotCranky]

Thanks Allan,
I hope you had a good holiday too.
I wikied “liberal” and followed the “classic Liberalism” link. I think I get an idea. Still woudln’t mind hearing your views.

The page I read associated the original liberal characteristics with modern libertarians. One of the originals was Thomas Paine, who really struck a chord with me when I read the “Age of Reason” and “Common Sense”….many moons ago.I think common sense was also Paine? That was a long time ago. Back to wiki…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

surveyor: I was not trying to credit or blame you for the use of the word “neocon”. Rather, I was making the point that when that word appears in any of the posts on this thread, it is code for “brutal, fascist, imperialist exploitation”. As such, it becomes an automatic dialogue killer. If you are a labeled a neocon, then, as such, any of your opinions are without basis and should be dismissed.

As to the idea that the term “Leftist” or “Left” is benign: I disagree. We may be splitting hairs here, but I find the Left to be an entirely discredited, intellectually and morally bankrupt, infantile holdover from the counterculture movement of the 1960s. From Hillary’s invocations of the Summer of ’68, to those selfsame Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro apologists, I find the Left revisionist and repressive.

The entire Politically Correct movement (which is a product of the Left) is built on the Orwellian notion of controlling language to control culture (as if referring to someone as “physically challenged” somehow alleviates or ameloriates their condition). That is why I become suspicious when someone starts using labels like “neocon” without clearly stating the argument supporting the use of the term. The ad hominem attacks generally follow shortly thereafter. Both methods are straight out of the Red Diaper Baby Handbook.

As to Obama and how he fits into this: I made mention before that I think he is a foreign policy dilettante. He is a newbie on the scene, and cannot and should not be expected to have much experience. However, he is advancing strategies and discussing engagement as though he was a policy wonk along the lines of someone like Joe Biden. While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, I do respect his acumen and experience when it comes to foreign policy. The problem I have with Obama is the same problem that existed with JFK at the outset of his Presidency: He was no match for someone like Nikita Kruschchev, who used Kennedy’s naivete and inexperience against him ruthlessly.

Forget partisanship and focus on Obama’s voting record and tremendous lack of experience, both domestically and internationally. Being completely objective, and armed with those facts, do we believe that he is the best person for the job, especially in light of those enemies we now face?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

surveyor: I was not trying to credit or blame you for the use of the word “neocon”. Rather, I was making the point that when that word appears in any of the posts on this thread, it is code for “brutal, fascist, imperialist exploitation”. As such, it becomes an automatic dialogue killer. If you are a labeled a neocon, then, as such, any of your opinions are without basis and should be dismissed.

As to the idea that the term “Leftist” or “Left” is benign: I disagree. We may be splitting hairs here, but I find the Left to be an entirely discredited, intellectually and morally bankrupt, infantile holdover from the counterculture movement of the 1960s. From Hillary’s invocations of the Summer of ’68, to those selfsame Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro apologists, I find the Left revisionist and repressive.

The entire Politically Correct movement (which is a product of the Left) is built on the Orwellian notion of controlling language to control culture (as if referring to someone as “physically challenged” somehow alleviates or ameloriates their condition). That is why I become suspicious when someone starts using labels like “neocon” without clearly stating the argument supporting the use of the term. The ad hominem attacks generally follow shortly thereafter. Both methods are straight out of the Red Diaper Baby Handbook.

As to Obama and how he fits into this: I made mention before that I think he is a foreign policy dilettante. He is a newbie on the scene, and cannot and should not be expected to have much experience. However, he is advancing strategies and discussing engagement as though he was a policy wonk along the lines of someone like Joe Biden. While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, I do respect his acumen and experience when it comes to foreign policy. The problem I have with Obama is the same problem that existed with JFK at the outset of his Presidency: He was no match for someone like Nikita Kruschchev, who used Kennedy’s naivete and inexperience against him ruthlessly.

Forget partisanship and focus on Obama’s voting record and tremendous lack of experience, both domestically and internationally. Being completely objective, and armed with those facts, do we believe that he is the best person for the job, especially in light of those enemies we now face?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

surveyor: I was not trying to credit or blame you for the use of the word “neocon”. Rather, I was making the point that when that word appears in any of the posts on this thread, it is code for “brutal, fascist, imperialist exploitation”. As such, it becomes an automatic dialogue killer. If you are a labeled a neocon, then, as such, any of your opinions are without basis and should be dismissed.

As to the idea that the term “Leftist” or “Left” is benign: I disagree. We may be splitting hairs here, but I find the Left to be an entirely discredited, intellectually and morally bankrupt, infantile holdover from the counterculture movement of the 1960s. From Hillary’s invocations of the Summer of ’68, to those selfsame Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro apologists, I find the Left revisionist and repressive.

The entire Politically Correct movement (which is a product of the Left) is built on the Orwellian notion of controlling language to control culture (as if referring to someone as “physically challenged” somehow alleviates or ameloriates their condition). That is why I become suspicious when someone starts using labels like “neocon” without clearly stating the argument supporting the use of the term. The ad hominem attacks generally follow shortly thereafter. Both methods are straight out of the Red Diaper Baby Handbook.

As to Obama and how he fits into this: I made mention before that I think he is a foreign policy dilettante. He is a newbie on the scene, and cannot and should not be expected to have much experience. However, he is advancing strategies and discussing engagement as though he was a policy wonk along the lines of someone like Joe Biden. While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, I do respect his acumen and experience when it comes to foreign policy. The problem I have with Obama is the same problem that existed with JFK at the outset of his Presidency: He was no match for someone like Nikita Kruschchev, who used Kennedy’s naivete and inexperience against him ruthlessly.

Forget partisanship and focus on Obama’s voting record and tremendous lack of experience, both domestically and internationally. Being completely objective, and armed with those facts, do we believe that he is the best person for the job, especially in light of those enemies we now face?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

surveyor: I was not trying to credit or blame you for the use of the word “neocon”. Rather, I was making the point that when that word appears in any of the posts on this thread, it is code for “brutal, fascist, imperialist exploitation”. As such, it becomes an automatic dialogue killer. If you are a labeled a neocon, then, as such, any of your opinions are without basis and should be dismissed.

As to the idea that the term “Leftist” or “Left” is benign: I disagree. We may be splitting hairs here, but I find the Left to be an entirely discredited, intellectually and morally bankrupt, infantile holdover from the counterculture movement of the 1960s. From Hillary’s invocations of the Summer of ’68, to those selfsame Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro apologists, I find the Left revisionist and repressive.

The entire Politically Correct movement (which is a product of the Left) is built on the Orwellian notion of controlling language to control culture (as if referring to someone as “physically challenged” somehow alleviates or ameloriates their condition). That is why I become suspicious when someone starts using labels like “neocon” without clearly stating the argument supporting the use of the term. The ad hominem attacks generally follow shortly thereafter. Both methods are straight out of the Red Diaper Baby Handbook.

As to Obama and how he fits into this: I made mention before that I think he is a foreign policy dilettante. He is a newbie on the scene, and cannot and should not be expected to have much experience. However, he is advancing strategies and discussing engagement as though he was a policy wonk along the lines of someone like Joe Biden. While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, I do respect his acumen and experience when it comes to foreign policy. The problem I have with Obama is the same problem that existed with JFK at the outset of his Presidency: He was no match for someone like Nikita Kruschchev, who used Kennedy’s naivete and inexperience against him ruthlessly.

Forget partisanship and focus on Obama’s voting record and tremendous lack of experience, both domestically and internationally. Being completely objective, and armed with those facts, do we believe that he is the best person for the job, especially in light of those enemies we now face?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

surveyor: I was not trying to credit or blame you for the use of the word “neocon”. Rather, I was making the point that when that word appears in any of the posts on this thread, it is code for “brutal, fascist, imperialist exploitation”. As such, it becomes an automatic dialogue killer. If you are a labeled a neocon, then, as such, any of your opinions are without basis and should be dismissed.

As to the idea that the term “Leftist” or “Left” is benign: I disagree. We may be splitting hairs here, but I find the Left to be an entirely discredited, intellectually and morally bankrupt, infantile holdover from the counterculture movement of the 1960s. From Hillary’s invocations of the Summer of ’68, to those selfsame Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro apologists, I find the Left revisionist and repressive.

The entire Politically Correct movement (which is a product of the Left) is built on the Orwellian notion of controlling language to control culture (as if referring to someone as “physically challenged” somehow alleviates or ameloriates their condition). That is why I become suspicious when someone starts using labels like “neocon” without clearly stating the argument supporting the use of the term. The ad hominem attacks generally follow shortly thereafter. Both methods are straight out of the Red Diaper Baby Handbook.

As to Obama and how he fits into this: I made mention before that I think he is a foreign policy dilettante. He is a newbie on the scene, and cannot and should not be expected to have much experience. However, he is advancing strategies and discussing engagement as though he was a policy wonk along the lines of someone like Joe Biden. While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, I do respect his acumen and experience when it comes to foreign policy. The problem I have with Obama is the same problem that existed with JFK at the outset of his Presidency: He was no match for someone like Nikita Kruschchev, who used Kennedy’s naivete and inexperience against him ruthlessly.

Forget partisanship and focus on Obama’s voting record and tremendous lack of experience, both domestically and internationally. Being completely objective, and armed with those facts, do we believe that he is the best person for the job, especially in light of those enemies we now face?

[NotCranky]

Surveyor, I don’t think your facts and my facts are at odds.I think our interpretation and perception of things are. It seems you are more Pro- U.S. biased than I am Anti-US biased by far. Also more pro -conservative biased than I am in favor of any political tendancies.I will say that your knowlege of history, recent and current events is impressive

“It is an article of faith for Obama, and many others on the left in the U.S. and abroad, that it is the United States that is mostly responsible for the world’s ills.”

I don’t think this applies to me. I think it must be human nature that is mostly responsible for the world’s ills. The U.S. just is at the forefront of expression in these times. I don’t like the way it is being done….I say this in the most non-partisan of ways. As long as the world is divdided into nations with borders I want to be proud to be an American. There isn’t much allowing for that at this time according to my sensibilities. I think we are more a part of the world’s problems than we are part of the solution. Sorry that doesn’t sit well with you.

[NotCranky]

Surveyor, I don’t think your facts and my facts are at odds.I think our interpretation and perception of things are. It seems you are more Pro- U.S. biased than I am Anti-US biased by far. Also more pro -conservative biased than I am in favor of any political tendancies.I will say that your knowlege of history, recent and current events is impressive

“It is an article of faith for Obama, and many others on the left in the U.S. and abroad, that it is the United States that is mostly responsible for the world’s ills.”

I don’t think this applies to me. I think it must be human nature that is mostly responsible for the world’s ills. The U.S. just is at the forefront of expression in these times. I don’t like the way it is being done….I say this in the most non-partisan of ways. As long as the world is divdided into nations with borders I want to be proud to be an American. There isn’t much allowing for that at this time according to my sensibilities. I think we are more a part of the world’s problems than we are part of the solution. Sorry that doesn’t sit well with you.

[NotCranky]

Surveyor, I don’t think your facts and my facts are at odds.I think our interpretation and perception of things are. It seems you are more Pro- U.S. biased than I am Anti-US biased by far. Also more pro -conservative biased than I am in favor of any political tendancies.I will say that your knowlege of history, recent and current events is impressive

“It is an article of faith for Obama, and many others on the left in the U.S. and abroad, that it is the United States that is mostly responsible for the world’s ills.”

I don’t think this applies to me. I think it must be human nature that is mostly responsible for the world’s ills. The U.S. just is at the forefront of expression in these times. I don’t like the way it is being done….I say this in the most non-partisan of ways. As long as the world is divdided into nations with borders I want to be proud to be an American. There isn’t much allowing for that at this time according to my sensibilities. I think we are more a part of the world’s problems than we are part of the solution. Sorry that doesn’t sit well with you.

[NotCranky]

Surveyor, I don’t think your facts and my facts are at odds.I think our interpretation and perception of things are. It seems you are more Pro- U.S. biased than I am Anti-US biased by far. Also more pro -conservative biased than I am in favor of any political tendancies.I will say that your knowlege of history, recent and current events is impressive

“It is an article of faith for Obama, and many others on the left in the U.S. and abroad, that it is the United States that is mostly responsible for the world’s ills.”

I don’t think this applies to me. I think it must be human nature that is mostly responsible for the world’s ills. The U.S. just is at the forefront of expression in these times. I don’t like the way it is being done….I say this in the most non-partisan of ways. As long as the world is divdided into nations with borders I want to be proud to be an American. There isn’t much allowing for that at this time according to my sensibilities. I think we are more a part of the world’s problems than we are part of the solution. Sorry that doesn’t sit well with you.

[NotCranky]

Surveyor, I don’t think your facts and my facts are at odds.I think our interpretation and perception of things are. It seems you are more Pro- U.S. biased than I am Anti-US biased by far. Also more pro -conservative biased than I am in favor of any political tendancies.I will say that your knowlege of history, recent and current events is impressive

“It is an article of faith for Obama, and many others on the left in the U.S. and abroad, that it is the United States that is mostly responsible for the world’s ills.”

I don’t think this applies to me. I think it must be human nature that is mostly responsible for the world’s ills. The U.S. just is at the forefront of expression in these times. I don’t like the way it is being done….I say this in the most non-partisan of ways. As long as the world is divdided into nations with borders I want to be proud to be an American. There isn’t much allowing for that at this time according to my sensibilities. I think we are more a part of the world’s problems than we are part of the solution. Sorry that doesn’t sit well with you.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I use the term “liberal” more in the modern sense of “liberal democracy” (i.e. as found in Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History”). I want to be very careful there, because mention of Fukuyama is likely to prompt a response regarding his previous alignment with Bill Kristol and the Neoconservative movement. What I am trying to say is that “liberal” to me means someone who believes in the rule of law, the right of franchise and free speech and the right to choose their own form of government. Yes, “Common Sense” was Paine. Paine’s contemporaries included Edmund Burke (who coined the wonderful expression: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”), as well as Robespierre, both of whom had very different ideas about freedom, liberty and governing.

That being said, I would also quickly like to point out that some of our policies as of late would certainly not support the idea that the US advocates a liberal approach, but rather is more hegemonic in our approach, especially with something like the nation building strategy employed in Iraq.

I wanted to say that I found much of what you said regarding the US disheartening. The idea that we are nothing better than a rampaging monster bent on world domination at any cost stands in stark contrast to history. It was a tirade in the sense that it left out a lot of facts, as well as making assertions that are undeniably false. One of these is the notion that Israel is a vassal state to the US. Israel, at present, is the only country in that part of the world where the rule of law does prevail. It is surrounded by countries where having opinions like the ones we freely express here would get you imprisoned, tortured or worse.

You also omit the part about how many Moslems are killed throughout the world by their co-religionists, or the true nature of Islam when it comes to subjugation. I would think Osama’s vision of a worldwide Caliphate completely subject to Shari’a (Islamic law) hews more closely to world domination than any plans the US might have in this regard.

I think for the dialogue to work, we need to stick with facts and dump the rhetoric and the polemic. Just my $.02.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I use the term “liberal” more in the modern sense of “liberal democracy” (i.e. as found in Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History”). I want to be very careful there, because mention of Fukuyama is likely to prompt a response regarding his previous alignment with Bill Kristol and the Neoconservative movement. What I am trying to say is that “liberal” to me means someone who believes in the rule of law, the right of franchise and free speech and the right to choose their own form of government. Yes, “Common Sense” was Paine. Paine’s contemporaries included Edmund Burke (who coined the wonderful expression: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”), as well as Robespierre, both of whom had very different ideas about freedom, liberty and governing.

That being said, I would also quickly like to point out that some of our policies as of late would certainly not support the idea that the US advocates a liberal approach, but rather is more hegemonic in our approach, especially with something like the nation building strategy employed in Iraq.

I wanted to say that I found much of what you said regarding the US disheartening. The idea that we are nothing better than a rampaging monster bent on world domination at any cost stands in stark contrast to history. It was a tirade in the sense that it left out a lot of facts, as well as making assertions that are undeniably false. One of these is the notion that Israel is a vassal state to the US. Israel, at present, is the only country in that part of the world where the rule of law does prevail. It is surrounded by countries where having opinions like the ones we freely express here would get you imprisoned, tortured or worse.

You also omit the part about how many Moslems are killed throughout the world by their co-religionists, or the true nature of Islam when it comes to subjugation. I would think Osama’s vision of a worldwide Caliphate completely subject to Shari’a (Islamic law) hews more closely to world domination than any plans the US might have in this regard.

I think for the dialogue to work, we need to stick with facts and dump the rhetoric and the polemic. Just my $.02.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I use the term “liberal” more in the modern sense of “liberal democracy” (i.e. as found in Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History”). I want to be very careful there, because mention of Fukuyama is likely to prompt a response regarding his previous alignment with Bill Kristol and the Neoconservative movement. What I am trying to say is that “liberal” to me means someone who believes in the rule of law, the right of franchise and free speech and the right to choose their own form of government. Yes, “Common Sense” was Paine. Paine’s contemporaries included Edmund Burke (who coined the wonderful expression: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”), as well as Robespierre, both of whom had very different ideas about freedom, liberty and governing.

That being said, I would also quickly like to point out that some of our policies as of late would certainly not support the idea that the US advocates a liberal approach, but rather is more hegemonic in our approach, especially with something like the nation building strategy employed in Iraq.

I wanted to say that I found much of what you said regarding the US disheartening. The idea that we are nothing better than a rampaging monster bent on world domination at any cost stands in stark contrast to history. It was a tirade in the sense that it left out a lot of facts, as well as making assertions that are undeniably false. One of these is the notion that Israel is a vassal state to the US. Israel, at present, is the only country in that part of the world where the rule of law does prevail. It is surrounded by countries where having opinions like the ones we freely express here would get you imprisoned, tortured or worse.

You also omit the part about how many Moslems are killed throughout the world by their co-religionists, or the true nature of Islam when it comes to subjugation. I would think Osama’s vision of a worldwide Caliphate completely subject to Shari’a (Islamic law) hews more closely to world domination than any plans the US might have in this regard.

I think for the dialogue to work, we need to stick with facts and dump the rhetoric and the polemic. Just my $.02.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I use the term “liberal” more in the modern sense of “liberal democracy” (i.e. as found in Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History”). I want to be very careful there, because mention of Fukuyama is likely to prompt a response regarding his previous alignment with Bill Kristol and the Neoconservative movement. What I am trying to say is that “liberal” to me means someone who believes in the rule of law, the right of franchise and free speech and the right to choose their own form of government. Yes, “Common Sense” was Paine. Paine’s contemporaries included Edmund Burke (who coined the wonderful expression: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”), as well as Robespierre, both of whom had very different ideas about freedom, liberty and governing.

That being said, I would also quickly like to point out that some of our policies as of late would certainly not support the idea that the US advocates a liberal approach, but rather is more hegemonic in our approach, especially with something like the nation building strategy employed in Iraq.

I wanted to say that I found much of what you said regarding the US disheartening. The idea that we are nothing better than a rampaging monster bent on world domination at any cost stands in stark contrast to history. It was a tirade in the sense that it left out a lot of facts, as well as making assertions that are undeniably false. One of these is the notion that Israel is a vassal state to the US. Israel, at present, is the only country in that part of the world where the rule of law does prevail. It is surrounded by countries where having opinions like the ones we freely express here would get you imprisoned, tortured or worse.

You also omit the part about how many Moslems are killed throughout the world by their co-religionists, or the true nature of Islam when it comes to subjugation. I would think Osama’s vision of a worldwide Caliphate completely subject to Shari’a (Islamic law) hews more closely to world domination than any plans the US might have in this regard.

I think for the dialogue to work, we need to stick with facts and dump the rhetoric and the polemic. Just my $.02.

[Author]

Posts