OT: Obama is Conservative

[gandalf]

Allan, you’re raising the level of dialogue here, a class act. Have to break right now, family time for rest of day. I’ll try to follow-up later, hopefully this evening. Good questions, BTW. What I was hoping for when I started the thread…

BTW, I believe Obama’s position on Pakistan is that he would send troops in-country if there was actionable intelligence on Al Qaeda, which is a bit different from out-and-out attacking Pakistan. I could be wrong. I’ll double-check later.

Best,
G

[jficquette]

[quote=gandalf]BTW, is anybody going to take a stab at rebutting the main point of the Newsweek article?

Obama’s foreign policy positions are more realist, pragmatic and conservative than the Bush/McCain positions, which are idealogical and interventionist.

Some of the responses actually discussed foreign policy…[/quote]

Which polices?? His six months ago? His now? Next weeks’s policies??

What his is lastest policy on Iraq anyway. Do you know??

[jficquette]

[quote=gandalf]BTW, is anybody going to take a stab at rebutting the main point of the Newsweek article?

Obama’s foreign policy positions are more realist, pragmatic and conservative than the Bush/McCain positions, which are idealogical and interventionist.

Some of the responses actually discussed foreign policy…[/quote]

Which polices?? His six months ago? His now? Next weeks’s policies??

What his is lastest policy on Iraq anyway. Do you know??

[jficquette]

[quote=gandalf]BTW, is anybody going to take a stab at rebutting the main point of the Newsweek article?

Obama’s foreign policy positions are more realist, pragmatic and conservative than the Bush/McCain positions, which are idealogical and interventionist.

Some of the responses actually discussed foreign policy…[/quote]

Which polices?? His six months ago? His now? Next weeks’s policies??

What his is lastest policy on Iraq anyway. Do you know??

[jficquette]

[quote=gandalf]BTW, is anybody going to take a stab at rebutting the main point of the Newsweek article?

Obama’s foreign policy positions are more realist, pragmatic and conservative than the Bush/McCain positions, which are idealogical and interventionist.

Some of the responses actually discussed foreign policy…[/quote]

Which polices?? His six months ago? His now? Next weeks’s policies??

What his is lastest policy on Iraq anyway. Do you know??

[jficquette]

[quote=gandalf]BTW, is anybody going to take a stab at rebutting the main point of the Newsweek article?

Obama’s foreign policy positions are more realist, pragmatic and conservative than the Bush/McCain positions, which are idealogical and interventionist.

Some of the responses actually discussed foreign policy…[/quote]

Which polices?? His six months ago? His now? Next weeks’s policies??

What his is lastest policy on Iraq anyway. Do you know??

[jficquette]

[quote=Aecetia][quote=gandalf]Aecetia, what’s your take on reducing our dependence on foreign oil? Is it achievable? Combination of conservation, domestic drilling, clean coal and development of renewables such as wind, solar, biofuels, micro-generation, etc.? The electrical grid underpinning it all? Ten years out? 20 years out?

Where does the money come from? Given the state of things?

Do you view this energy issue as connected to foreign policy? Does it give us a better strategic position vis-a-vis the middle east (and others)?[/quote]

I think we need to use every means available to wean us from foreign oil dependency to quit feeding hostile regimes. I would like to see more drilling, more refineries built and more alternative energy use encouraged by grants to innovators, tax breaks for taxpayers who use solar panels, etc. (here in San Diego) we need them to pay for all the energy the home or business system generates.

Where will the money come from? Get rid of some of those bloated bureaucracies like education. Use vouchers. In one generation you would have smarter citizens and better teachers. Ending the war (which
I am sure is one the horizon) will save money. Cutting taxes will encourage spending and innovation. Let people invest their own social security money. Prosecute government fraud in all areas- Medicare both fraudulent recipients and abusers in the medical delivery system. Maybe Congress should be part time. The less they do, the better off we are. I would like to decentralize and debureaucratize all aspects of government. FEMA comes to mind, as does CalFire. Ask yourself if we were better of before such and such and be honest. I can appreciate the war on terror, but who wants to travel by air now a days, thanks to those bufoons at TSA? I think people who submit money saving ideas to State and Federal government should be rewarded for those ideas by a cut of the savings with some kind of cap on the highest “reward” you would get for saving the money.

Those are just a few ideas off the top of my head and I did not have time to go to any sites to get that input. These are just my crazy ramblings.[/quote]

Nice ideas. If it were left up to me we would have government involved only law and order and defense and maybe a few other things which escape me now.

Everything needs to be privatized. If it can’t be privatized then it needs to be abolished.

The first thing to go would be public education. California spends $13k a year per pupil. Why not give every family $13k per child and let them go to private school and completely disband the education buearcracy?

Anything government touches it corrupts because the goal of government is to get bigger not better.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Aecetia][quote=gandalf]Aecetia, what’s your take on reducing our dependence on foreign oil? Is it achievable? Combination of conservation, domestic drilling, clean coal and development of renewables such as wind, solar, biofuels, micro-generation, etc.? The electrical grid underpinning it all? Ten years out? 20 years out?

Where does the money come from? Given the state of things?

Do you view this energy issue as connected to foreign policy? Does it give us a better strategic position vis-a-vis the middle east (and others)?[/quote]

I think we need to use every means available to wean us from foreign oil dependency to quit feeding hostile regimes. I would like to see more drilling, more refineries built and more alternative energy use encouraged by grants to innovators, tax breaks for taxpayers who use solar panels, etc. (here in San Diego) we need them to pay for all the energy the home or business system generates.

Where will the money come from? Get rid of some of those bloated bureaucracies like education. Use vouchers. In one generation you would have smarter citizens and better teachers. Ending the war (which
I am sure is one the horizon) will save money. Cutting taxes will encourage spending and innovation. Let people invest their own social security money. Prosecute government fraud in all areas- Medicare both fraudulent recipients and abusers in the medical delivery system. Maybe Congress should be part time. The less they do, the better off we are. I would like to decentralize and debureaucratize all aspects of government. FEMA comes to mind, as does CalFire. Ask yourself if we were better of before such and such and be honest. I can appreciate the war on terror, but who wants to travel by air now a days, thanks to those bufoons at TSA? I think people who submit money saving ideas to State and Federal government should be rewarded for those ideas by a cut of the savings with some kind of cap on the highest “reward” you would get for saving the money.

Those are just a few ideas off the top of my head and I did not have time to go to any sites to get that input. These are just my crazy ramblings.[/quote]

Nice ideas. If it were left up to me we would have government involved only law and order and defense and maybe a few other things which escape me now.

Everything needs to be privatized. If it can’t be privatized then it needs to be abolished.

The first thing to go would be public education. California spends $13k a year per pupil. Why not give every family $13k per child and let them go to private school and completely disband the education buearcracy?

Anything government touches it corrupts because the goal of government is to get bigger not better.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Aecetia][quote=gandalf]Aecetia, what’s your take on reducing our dependence on foreign oil? Is it achievable? Combination of conservation, domestic drilling, clean coal and development of renewables such as wind, solar, biofuels, micro-generation, etc.? The electrical grid underpinning it all? Ten years out? 20 years out?

Where does the money come from? Given the state of things?

Do you view this energy issue as connected to foreign policy? Does it give us a better strategic position vis-a-vis the middle east (and others)?[/quote]

I think we need to use every means available to wean us from foreign oil dependency to quit feeding hostile regimes. I would like to see more drilling, more refineries built and more alternative energy use encouraged by grants to innovators, tax breaks for taxpayers who use solar panels, etc. (here in San Diego) we need them to pay for all the energy the home or business system generates.

Where will the money come from? Get rid of some of those bloated bureaucracies like education. Use vouchers. In one generation you would have smarter citizens and better teachers. Ending the war (which
I am sure is one the horizon) will save money. Cutting taxes will encourage spending and innovation. Let people invest their own social security money. Prosecute government fraud in all areas- Medicare both fraudulent recipients and abusers in the medical delivery system. Maybe Congress should be part time. The less they do, the better off we are. I would like to decentralize and debureaucratize all aspects of government. FEMA comes to mind, as does CalFire. Ask yourself if we were better of before such and such and be honest. I can appreciate the war on terror, but who wants to travel by air now a days, thanks to those bufoons at TSA? I think people who submit money saving ideas to State and Federal government should be rewarded for those ideas by a cut of the savings with some kind of cap on the highest “reward” you would get for saving the money.

Those are just a few ideas off the top of my head and I did not have time to go to any sites to get that input. These are just my crazy ramblings.[/quote]

Nice ideas. If it were left up to me we would have government involved only law and order and defense and maybe a few other things which escape me now.

Everything needs to be privatized. If it can’t be privatized then it needs to be abolished.

The first thing to go would be public education. California spends $13k a year per pupil. Why not give every family $13k per child and let them go to private school and completely disband the education buearcracy?

Anything government touches it corrupts because the goal of government is to get bigger not better.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Aecetia][quote=gandalf]Aecetia, what’s your take on reducing our dependence on foreign oil? Is it achievable? Combination of conservation, domestic drilling, clean coal and development of renewables such as wind, solar, biofuels, micro-generation, etc.? The electrical grid underpinning it all? Ten years out? 20 years out?

Where does the money come from? Given the state of things?

Do you view this energy issue as connected to foreign policy? Does it give us a better strategic position vis-a-vis the middle east (and others)?[/quote]

I think we need to use every means available to wean us from foreign oil dependency to quit feeding hostile regimes. I would like to see more drilling, more refineries built and more alternative energy use encouraged by grants to innovators, tax breaks for taxpayers who use solar panels, etc. (here in San Diego) we need them to pay for all the energy the home or business system generates.

Where will the money come from? Get rid of some of those bloated bureaucracies like education. Use vouchers. In one generation you would have smarter citizens and better teachers. Ending the war (which
I am sure is one the horizon) will save money. Cutting taxes will encourage spending and innovation. Let people invest their own social security money. Prosecute government fraud in all areas- Medicare both fraudulent recipients and abusers in the medical delivery system. Maybe Congress should be part time. The less they do, the better off we are. I would like to decentralize and debureaucratize all aspects of government. FEMA comes to mind, as does CalFire. Ask yourself if we were better of before such and such and be honest. I can appreciate the war on terror, but who wants to travel by air now a days, thanks to those bufoons at TSA? I think people who submit money saving ideas to State and Federal government should be rewarded for those ideas by a cut of the savings with some kind of cap on the highest “reward” you would get for saving the money.

Those are just a few ideas off the top of my head and I did not have time to go to any sites to get that input. These are just my crazy ramblings.[/quote]

Nice ideas. If it were left up to me we would have government involved only law and order and defense and maybe a few other things which escape me now.

Everything needs to be privatized. If it can’t be privatized then it needs to be abolished.

The first thing to go would be public education. California spends $13k a year per pupil. Why not give every family $13k per child and let them go to private school and completely disband the education buearcracy?

Anything government touches it corrupts because the goal of government is to get bigger not better.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Aecetia][quote=gandalf]Aecetia, what’s your take on reducing our dependence on foreign oil? Is it achievable? Combination of conservation, domestic drilling, clean coal and development of renewables such as wind, solar, biofuels, micro-generation, etc.? The electrical grid underpinning it all? Ten years out? 20 years out?

Where does the money come from? Given the state of things?

Do you view this energy issue as connected to foreign policy? Does it give us a better strategic position vis-a-vis the middle east (and others)?[/quote]

I think we need to use every means available to wean us from foreign oil dependency to quit feeding hostile regimes. I would like to see more drilling, more refineries built and more alternative energy use encouraged by grants to innovators, tax breaks for taxpayers who use solar panels, etc. (here in San Diego) we need them to pay for all the energy the home or business system generates.

Where will the money come from? Get rid of some of those bloated bureaucracies like education. Use vouchers. In one generation you would have smarter citizens and better teachers. Ending the war (which
I am sure is one the horizon) will save money. Cutting taxes will encourage spending and innovation. Let people invest their own social security money. Prosecute government fraud in all areas- Medicare both fraudulent recipients and abusers in the medical delivery system. Maybe Congress should be part time. The less they do, the better off we are. I would like to decentralize and debureaucratize all aspects of government. FEMA comes to mind, as does CalFire. Ask yourself if we were better of before such and such and be honest. I can appreciate the war on terror, but who wants to travel by air now a days, thanks to those bufoons at TSA? I think people who submit money saving ideas to State and Federal government should be rewarded for those ideas by a cut of the savings with some kind of cap on the highest “reward” you would get for saving the money.

Those are just a few ideas off the top of my head and I did not have time to go to any sites to get that input. These are just my crazy ramblings.[/quote]

Nice ideas. If it were left up to me we would have government involved only law and order and defense and maybe a few other things which escape me now.

Everything needs to be privatized. If it can’t be privatized then it needs to be abolished.

The first thing to go would be public education. California spends $13k a year per pupil. Why not give every family $13k per child and let them go to private school and completely disband the education buearcracy?

Anything government touches it corrupts because the goal of government is to get bigger not better.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]John,

I have tremendous respect for McCain and what he went through during his captivity. However, he has been pandering, and there is no way to avoid calling it like it is.

By the same token, Obama has been bouncing all over the place doing the same “Swing Vote Shuffle” and for the same reason: VOTES.

gandalf: I would also caution you on the hopes that Obama will win and surround himself with a gifted team. Did Dubya? Did Clinton? You have a high regard for him, but sometimes it seems to veer into wishful thinking. I don’t think he is dumb when it comes to foreign policy, I think he is a dilettante, and that is a very dangerous thing to be in the world right now. I have a hard time imagining him holding his own against Putin, much along the lines of JFK being bullied by Nikita early in his presidency. This idea that he is a centrist, then a realist, now a conservative, fully illustrates that even a sycophant like Zakaria is having a hard following the bouncing ball.[/quote]

Allan, the definition of pandering according to the dictionary is to “cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses”

McCain told voters in Iowa that he opposed ethanol subsides. A panderer would have told them how important their corn was for ethanol production and how desperatly we need it.

I wouldn’t call McCain a panderer.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]John,

I have tremendous respect for McCain and what he went through during his captivity. However, he has been pandering, and there is no way to avoid calling it like it is.

By the same token, Obama has been bouncing all over the place doing the same “Swing Vote Shuffle” and for the same reason: VOTES.

gandalf: I would also caution you on the hopes that Obama will win and surround himself with a gifted team. Did Dubya? Did Clinton? You have a high regard for him, but sometimes it seems to veer into wishful thinking. I don’t think he is dumb when it comes to foreign policy, I think he is a dilettante, and that is a very dangerous thing to be in the world right now. I have a hard time imagining him holding his own against Putin, much along the lines of JFK being bullied by Nikita early in his presidency. This idea that he is a centrist, then a realist, now a conservative, fully illustrates that even a sycophant like Zakaria is having a hard following the bouncing ball.[/quote]

Allan, the definition of pandering according to the dictionary is to “cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses”

McCain told voters in Iowa that he opposed ethanol subsides. A panderer would have told them how important their corn was for ethanol production and how desperatly we need it.

I wouldn’t call McCain a panderer.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]John,

I have tremendous respect for McCain and what he went through during his captivity. However, he has been pandering, and there is no way to avoid calling it like it is.

By the same token, Obama has been bouncing all over the place doing the same “Swing Vote Shuffle” and for the same reason: VOTES.

gandalf: I would also caution you on the hopes that Obama will win and surround himself with a gifted team. Did Dubya? Did Clinton? You have a high regard for him, but sometimes it seems to veer into wishful thinking. I don’t think he is dumb when it comes to foreign policy, I think he is a dilettante, and that is a very dangerous thing to be in the world right now. I have a hard time imagining him holding his own against Putin, much along the lines of JFK being bullied by Nikita early in his presidency. This idea that he is a centrist, then a realist, now a conservative, fully illustrates that even a sycophant like Zakaria is having a hard following the bouncing ball.[/quote]

Allan, the definition of pandering according to the dictionary is to “cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses”

McCain told voters in Iowa that he opposed ethanol subsides. A panderer would have told them how important their corn was for ethanol production and how desperatly we need it.

I wouldn’t call McCain a panderer.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]John,

I have tremendous respect for McCain and what he went through during his captivity. However, he has been pandering, and there is no way to avoid calling it like it is.

By the same token, Obama has been bouncing all over the place doing the same “Swing Vote Shuffle” and for the same reason: VOTES.

gandalf: I would also caution you on the hopes that Obama will win and surround himself with a gifted team. Did Dubya? Did Clinton? You have a high regard for him, but sometimes it seems to veer into wishful thinking. I don’t think he is dumb when it comes to foreign policy, I think he is a dilettante, and that is a very dangerous thing to be in the world right now. I have a hard time imagining him holding his own against Putin, much along the lines of JFK being bullied by Nikita early in his presidency. This idea that he is a centrist, then a realist, now a conservative, fully illustrates that even a sycophant like Zakaria is having a hard following the bouncing ball.[/quote]

Allan, the definition of pandering according to the dictionary is to “cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses”

McCain told voters in Iowa that he opposed ethanol subsides. A panderer would have told them how important their corn was for ethanol production and how desperatly we need it.

I wouldn’t call McCain a panderer.

John

[Author]

Posts