Not trying to start a Not trying to start a political war here. I’m just curious how this community’s poll would end up.
Please, no flame wars here about candidates. Afterall, this isn’t a political blog.
I’m just curious how folks who are represent a more financially/economic aware audience more so than the average J6P stacks up against J6P.
PCinSD
August 27, 2008 @
9:52 AM
fat_lazy_union_worker [quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
Please, no flame wars here about candidates. Afterall, this isn’t a political blog.
[/quote]
FLU, are you serious? In the past 6 months this site has become more of a political blog than anything else. You’ve posted frequently to the political topics – and just started another one. I noticed in the past you intentionally tried to get the political topics bumped down the list and off the active forum topics. I thought that was kinda cool.
Them’s the facts. I’m not saying the posters can’t turn this into a political blog, because they already have. Just be honest about what this site has become.
afx114
August 27, 2008 @
10:16 AM
You should probably put Ron You should probably put Ron Paul and Bob Barr up there as options.
Diego Mamani
August 27, 2008 @
10:18 AM
“Nadar” is Spanish for swim. “Nadar” is Spanish for swim. Can Mr. Nader swim?
cr
August 27, 2008 @
10:23 AM
Maybe he means Nadal?
The big Maybe he means Nadal?
The big mystery to me is who is better for the economy. What I read says McCain will lower taxes on the rich and raise them on the poor. Of course they don’t qualify those classes, but Obama will of course raise taxes on everyone with his “Social Justice” Manifesto ala Karl Marx, with a heavier burden on those making over $250k.
Even Ron Paul is too isolationist IMO, but that may still be better than the McBama ticket.
an
August 27, 2008 @
10:24 AM
afx114 wrote:You should [quote=afx114]You should probably put Ron Paul and Bob Barr up there as options.[/quote]
Agree.
greekfire
August 27, 2008 @
2:21 PM
afx114 wrote:You should [quote=afx114]You should probably put Ron Paul and Bob Barr up there as options.[/quote]
I also agree.
Cooprider: I like most of your posts, but I have to point out that there’s a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.
urbanrealtor
August 27, 2008 @
11:55 PM
Since winner-take-all Since winner-take-all elections cater to 2.5 political parties, referencing the representatives from the 3 highest performing parties (or factions) seems pretty reasonable. The humor entries were pretty funny (y’know for a union worker or code monkey).
Seriously, the only situations in which 3 or more parties are viable are those in which proportional representation is a feature. For example, in Germany, if 20 parties each win 5% of the votes they each get 5% of the seats (hence the rise of a certain fringe nationalist party in the early 30’s).
Our system only has 3rd parties to function as a splintering foil (eg: 92 and 2000). The exception to this is when a major party implodes and a 3rd party takes control of most of its factions. The best example of this is Lincoln’s rise as the champion of our nation’s youngest major party (the Grand Old Party–ironic).
But hey, keep voting for Ron and Bob. As a liberal democrat, I welcome you throwing away your right leaning votes. And the republicans thank Nader as well.
greekfire
August 28, 2008 @
12:34 AM
urbanrealtor wrote:Since [quote=urbanrealtor]Since winner-take-all elections cater to 2.5 political parties, referencing the representatives from the 3 highest performing parties (or factions) seems pretty reasonable. The humor entries were pretty funny (y’know for a union worker or code monkey).
Seriously, the only situations in which 3 or more parties are viable are those in which proportional representation is a feature. For example, in Germany, if 20 parties each win 5% of the votes they each get 5% of the seats (hence the rise of a certain fringe nationalist party in the early 30’s).
Our system only has 3rd parties to function as a splintering foil (eg: 92 and 2000). The exception to this is when a major party implodes and a 3rd party takes control of most of its factions. The best example of this is Lincoln’s rise as the champion of our nation’s youngest major party (the Grand Old Party–ironic).
But hey, keep voting for Ron and Bob. As a liberal democrat, I welcome you throwing away your right leaning votes. And the republicans thank Nader as well.[/quote]
UR: On one hand you are chuckling to yourself knowing that votes for Ron Paul or Bob Barr will cut into McCain’s total; or that votes for Ralph Nader will cut into Obama’s total. Then, on the other hand, you are questioning the very system that you have invested everything in as you cast your vote for whomever.
The American governmental system is based on checks and balances divided amongst 3 governmental branches (executive, legislative, and judicial). This contract between the government and its constituents has proven to be superior to any other offered up until this point.
urbanrealtor
August 28, 2008 @
1:11 AM
Dear Greekfire
(First, is Dear Greekfire
(First, is that a reference to a frat?)
You are correct on all counts.
I believe in working strategically to further my interests using the tools available to me as a member of the effective electorate.
Also I do not think that our current form of government is the only answer. It is my favorite for many reasons but blindly following government seems stupid.
I have not “invested” much. I moved to this country when I was young with my American-born parents. I am a citizen from birth but I don’t mythologize our government as you seem to. It has its strong points (eg:it weeds out true extremists) and its shortcomings (eg: it stifles diversity of political opinion).
Also, you don’t need to rehash an explanation of our basic government system. I mean, you can if you like, but I did go to elementary school in this country.
And yes I do chuckle to myself as I watch the right become split and therefore less effective at winning elections. I hope for more in fact.
jimmyle
August 28, 2008 @
10:14 AM
Ron Paul or Bob Barr, but Ron Ron Paul or Bob Barr, but Ron Paul is not on the ballot. Reagan and W. Bush increased our budget deficit more than any Democratic president ever did and I am afraid that McCain is going to do the same thing.
patientlywaiting
August 28, 2008 @
10:41 AM
I’m voting my ideals. Obama I’m voting my ideals. Obama it is.
renterclint
August 28, 2008 @
7:02 PM
What does that really mean? What does that really mean? “I’m voting my ideals.”
It sounds so dreamy…
Does it seem like Obama supporters incorporate notions like “ideals”, “hope”, and “vision” into their conversation a lot? Maybe it’s just me.
It almost sounds like you’re saying “If you do not vote for Obama, you’re not voting for your ideals.”
Pablo E wrote to FLU – “In the past 6 months this site has become more of a political blog than anything else. You’ve posted frequently to the political topics – and just started another one. ”
Don’t be too hard on FLU, it is an election year afterall. I love a good debate about the presidential election. Weird, but it’s kind of like a sporting event for me. My interest in politics subsides a large degree after the ‘superbowl’ is over. Then we can really get back into the housing thing 100%.
I do go to political sites occasionally, but in my opinion the intellectual quality of this group that posts here is hard to beat. I have learned a lot from the posters here over the last couple of years & I look forward to what you people have to say. So I say keep the civil, facts-based off-topic political posts coming at least for the next few months.
I’ll vote McCain or Obama-rama – not sure yet.
afx114
August 28, 2008 @
8:22 PM
If someone hasn’t realized by If someone hasn’t realized by now that politics, the economy, and by extension the housing market are intertwined, then they are hopeless.
urbanrealtor
August 28, 2008 @
8:48 PM
Wow afx,
Thats so deep, its Wow afx,
Thats so deep, its swimming.
PCinSD
August 28, 2008 @
9:14 PM
afx114 wrote:If someone [quote=afx114]If someone hasn’t realized by now that politics, the economy, and by extension the housing market are intertwined, then they are hopeless.[/quote]
Not sure what you mean afx114. If you are implying that all of the political posts are “intertwined” with discussions related to housing – well, you’re wrong. In theory, I agree with your statement. However, the reality of this blog begs to differ. Take this post, for example. Has a single poster addressed how their vote for a presidential candidate will effect the Ssan Diego housing market? No. In fact, almost all (if not all) political posts never mention real estate in San Diego. Intertwined in theory – yes. Within the reality of this blog – it doesn’t happen. Maybe I’m just hopeless.
patientlywaiting
August 28, 2008 @
9:13 PM
renterclint wrote:What does [quote=renterclint]What does that really mean? “I’m voting my ideals.”
[/quote]
It means that I’m not calculating on a spreadsheet how it’s going to affect my pocket book.
Obama makes me feel young and idealistic again. That’s a very powerful feeling.
There is such a thing as being on the right side of history vs. on the wrong side.
People who didn’t support universal suffrage and those who were against civil rights were on the wrong side of history.
History has pretty much declared the Vietnam War a terrible mistake. And history will speak on Iraq.
Americans and especially Californians have always been forward looking and ahead of their times.
I feel that voting for McCain is a vote for the status quo.
Voting for Obama is passing the torch on to the next generation (mixed marriage, a new perspective on Black Americans, meritocracy, multi-culturalism, race relations, etc…)
Be honest with yourself and you’ll vote for the right candidate.
Allan from Fallbrook
August 28, 2008 @
10:02 PM
patientlywaiting: History has patientlywaiting: History has declared the Vietnam War a terrible mistake? Really? I’d like to read that history book because that opinion is very much at odds with the facts.
Take a hard look at Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos post-April 1975 and tell me what happened when the US exited Southeast Asia. Discuss how the benevolent North Vietnamese dealt with South Vietnam, or how Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouges “re-educated” the people of Cambodia. Remember the “Killing Fields”? The terrible mistake is what happened after we left.
I agree that idealism is a powerful force, and there is no doubting the power of Obama’s rhetoric or oratorical skills. But don’t let blind idealism guide you at the expense of facts or an objective view of history. Demagogues are all too effective at exploiting that for their own ends.
greekfire
August 28, 2008 @
10:34 PM
Urbanrealtor,
I didn’t mean Urbanrealtor,
I didn’t mean to offend, so if I did I apologize. Greek fire was an incendiary weapon used by the Byzantine Empire, mostly in naval battles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire
Yes, this blog does ebb and flow in the political realm from time to time. This is an election year, so there are a lot of political posts. There has still been a lot of info listed here related to San Diego housing, Rich and others are still providing their expertise for FREE, so it is still serving its purpose well. I certainly am not complaining.
The Republican Party is fractured, as well it should be. I have had numerous discussions on this topic and have come to the conclusion that the GOP is either inept, or they don’t think they have a chance at winning in 2008, so they are focusing on 2012. I arrive at this conclusion because Ron Paul got 1.2 million votes in the primaries and the GOP has not only not reached out their hands to his wing of the party, they have marginalized and fought them at every opportunity!
I am predicting that Obama will win in convincing fashion in November. Do I think Obama is a good speaker and effectively markets the “change” message? Absolutely. Do I think he will truly effect change? Not really. My instincts tell me that he is not the agent of change that he is currently being marketed as.
Does Obama talk about true “change” in our monetary and tax policies? You know, getting rid of the IRS, the income tax, and the Federal Reserve and replacing them with nothing? No. Instead he talks about tweaking some tax credits here and closing some loop holes there…just enough surgical moves to make it look like he is pandering to the poor masses while not losing favor with the political/corporate elite and banking cartel that is really in control of the puppet strings. McCain doesn’t talk about true monetary change either.
Does Obama talk about true “change” in our foreign policy? You know, getting our troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Europe, Asia, and re-adopting Thomas Jefferson’s policy of “commerce with all nations, alliances with none”. No. Obama talks of sending more troops into Afghanistan, he said he would go at it with Iran if they didn’t comply, and has never talked about (to my knowledge) why we still have troops in over 700 bases in more than 130 countries…and how we are going broke and can’t really afford to pay for it. McCain actually wants to expand our overseas military escapades.
I could go on and on, but don’t want to filibuster this thread. The point I stress is not one against Obama or McCain, per se, but rather against our current two party political system. I argue that a strong third party will give American citizens another viable option, one that truly has a chance at winning. The political elite are very astute in realizing that many people vote for those who they “think have a chance to win”, rather than voting on principle alone. A strong third party will provide another opportunity for competition and choice in the electoral process, which will inherently help “check” the other two major parties from stepping too far out of line.
PS: AFFB: I was wondering when you were going to chime in.
urbanrealtor
August 29, 2008 @
12:26 AM
greekfire [quote=greekfire]Urbanrealtor,
I didn’t mean to offend, so if I did I apologize. Greek fire was an incendiary weapon used by the Byzantine Empire, mostly in naval battles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire
[/quote]
Sorry. It sounded like Rhinefire or some silly thing like that. Somehow I always think of Greek Fire as having a space. I dunno.
[quote=greekfire]
Yes, this blog does ebb and flow in the political realm from time to time. This is an election year, so there are a lot of political posts. There has still been a lot of info listed here related to San Diego housing, Rich and others are still providing their expertise for FREE, so it is still serving its purpose well. I certainly am not complaining.
[/quote]
Not sure about your point here.
Not really convinced about Rich’s expertise except that he is adept at pointing out the need to adhere to basic common sense. Not to disrespect him. I just think he raised the level of discourse from blind boosterism and contrarian stupidity. I am pleased certainly but not terribly impressed. I am more impressed with his skill with drupal (which seems to really hurt my brain when I try to fuck with it).
[quote=greekfire]
The Republican Party is fractured, as well it should be. I have had numerous discussions on this topic and have come to the conclusion that the GOP is either inept, or they don’t think they have a chance at winning in 2008, so they are focusing on 2012. I arrive at this conclusion because Ron Paul got 1.2 million votes in the primaries and the GOP has not only not reached out their hands to his wing of the party, they have marginalized and fought them at every opportunity!
[/quote]
They marginalized him because he was already marginal and they wanted to get the most votes.
[quote=greekfire]
I am predicting that Obama will win in convincing fashion in November. Do I think Obama is a good speaker and effectively markets the “change” message? Absolutely. Do I think he will truly effect change? Not really. My instincts tell me that he is not the agent of change that he is currently being marketed as.
[/quote]
I largely agree. I am voting for him because his position more closely match mine than do McCain’s.
Any actual change is just icing on the cake.
[quote=greekfire]
Does Obama talk about true “change” in our monetary and tax policies? You know, getting rid of the IRS, the income tax, and the Federal Reserve and replacing them with nothing? No. Instead he talks about tweaking some tax credits here and closing some loop holes there…just enough surgical moves to make it look like he is pandering to the poor masses while not losing favor with the political/corporate elite and banking cartel that is really in control of the puppet strings. McCain doesn’t talk about true monetary change either.
[/quote]
Okay can you explain the whole cartel thing for those not in the know of this particular conspiracy theory?
[quote=greekfire]
Does Obama talk about true “change” in our foreign policy? You know, getting our troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Europe, Asia, and re-adopting Thomas Jefferson’s policy of “commerce with all nations, alliances with none”. No. Obama talks of sending more troops into Afghanistan, he said he would go at it with Iran if they didn’t comply, and has never talked about (to my knowledge) why we still have troops in over 700 bases in more than 130 countries…and how we are going broke and can’t really afford to pay for it. McCain actually wants to expand our overseas military escapades.
[/quote]
I am not sure how following an 18th century enlightenment deist would be helpful. I don’t see how weakening our military strength globally would be helpful. However on the latter point, I am willing to listen to a good argument or two.
[quote=greekfire]
I could go on and on, but don’t want to filibuster this thread. The point I stress is not one against Obama or McCain, per se, but rather against our current two party political system. I argue that a strong third party will give American citizens another viable option, one that truly has a chance at winning. The political elite are very astute in realizing that many people vote for those who they “think have a chance to win”, rather than voting on principle alone. A strong third party will provide another opportunity for competition and choice in the electoral process, which will inherently help “check” the other two major parties from stepping too far out of line.
[/quote]My ass.
Like I said before, winner-take-all elections (like we have in the US) cater to a 2 party system with a third always on the periphery. I encourage the independent minded conservatives to vote their conscience. That way, they get their principle and I get my candidate. I welcome the independent conservative vote.
[quote=greekfire]
PS: AFFB: I was wondering when you were going to chime in.
[/quote]
And you did not expect that this would do it???
greekfire
August 29, 2008 @
10:54 AM
Urbanrealtor,
urbanrealtor Urbanrealtor,
[quote=urbanrealtor]Okay can you explain the whole cartel thing for those not in the know of this particular conspiracy theory?
[/quote]
No conspiracy theory here. The Fed, composed of private member banks, are essentially a cartel. OPEC has oil, the drug cartels have drugs, the Fed’s commodity is money.
patientlywaiting
August 28, 2008 @
10:59 PM
Allan, I had a feeling you’d Allan, I had a feeling you’d respond to me. 🙂
I respect your knowledge of history. And I know you’re a conservative. I am too in many ways.
However, I believe that this election is exceptional. We, Americans have the opportunity to make history in the eyes of the world by electing a Black candidate and putting the issue of race to rest.
I don’t know about you, but when I was young, I wanted to change the world, make it better. It felt great to be idealistic.
I feel some of our board members are too focused on their jobs, their W2s and 1040s, and acquiring their McMansions with matching luxury car.
I can sense a shift in our society the same way there was when JFK was elected.
Look at Obama. His family is the tableau of the future America. His mom was White and his dad Black. His uncle fought during WWII. His grand-parents grew up in Kansas. His sister is 1/2 White, 1/2 Indonesian, and married to a Chinese-Canadian professor.
Obama is obviously very talented. I’m going to give him a chance, if only to make myself better.
The fact that the political establishment has embraced Obama makes him a safe bet. He won’t screw-up our country. He has a good of chance of making America great again in the eyes of world.
Imagine how the Europeans, especially the French, will come to admire us again.
Like I said, I’m voting my ideals and my gut instincts. I feel that’s the right thing to do.
greekfire
August 28, 2008 @
11:44 PM
patientlywaiting wrote:The [quote=patientlywaiting]The fact that the political establishment has embraced Obama makes him a safe bet. He won’t screw-up our country.
[/quote]
What?! PW, I have admired a lot of your posts, but this one is truly wind shear (you heard it here first) to me. The political establishment has embraced him, therefore he is a safe bet? He won’t screw up our country? George W Bush was not only embraced by the political establishment, but many GOP’ers would argue that he had a mandate. Your logic tells us that we should embrace him for such? What will it take to get you and others to understand that the political establishment is the main culprit here and not the solution?
[quote=patientlywaiting]Imagine how the Europeans, especially the French, will come to admire us again.[/quote] Are they supposed to respect us more if we elect a person simply because they are black? That’s the main tone I get from many in the Obama camp. We are due to elect a black man just because he is black and we have never had a black president. This, to me, is the same collectivist attitude that perpetuated slavery and racial segregation, only in reverse.
Meritocracy? That’s a system whereby we promote people based on their achievements and merit, not on the color of their skin or the size of their wallet. Who cares how the Euros will perceive us? Yes, I want them to respect us for our ideals, but I don’t want to elect leaders or enact policy solely based on skin color or foreigners will perceive it.
Allan from Fallbrook
August 28, 2008 @
11:56 PM
PW: This actually has nothing PW: This actually has nothing to do with my being conservative, as I ain’t voting for McCain neither.
I sincerely hope that Obama proves to be everything he is touted to be. I see the parallels to JFK, but would remind you of JFK’s record as President and that he accelerated our mission in that very war (Vietnam) you call a terrible mistake.
I admire voting your ideals, I really do. Sadly, I am too pessimistic by far to think that either party represents “ideals” anymore, rather they are there to support the sprawling American hegemony that keeps us in McMansions and Hummers.
As to French admiration: I am reminded of Jacques Chirac chiding us for our interventionism at the same time as French paratroopers patrolled the streets of Cote D’Ivoire protecting French business interests.
The Europeans will do whatever they have to do to maintain the status quo ante and the events in Georgia show that in spades.
That is not to say that we have some fence mending to do in the world at large, and I think Joe Biden’s selection as VP was brilliant. And, I agree with gandalf: Biden’s a hoot. A verbose hoot, but a hoot.
urbanrealtor
August 28, 2008 @
11:21 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]patientlywaiting: History has declared the Vietnam War a terrible mistake? Really? I’d like to read that history book because that opinion is very much at odds with the facts.
[/quote]
Okay this should be good.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Take a hard look at Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos post-April 1975 and tell me what happened when the US exited Southeast Asia. Discuss how the benevolent North Vietnamese dealt with South Vietnam, [/quote]
Okay bullshit Allan.
I don’t generally start discussions that way but you are generally not so weak as to be damaged by it. Of course this discussion may prove me wrong.
The part of this you are missing is that we were invaders. The ARVN in the south who stood with us were collaborators.
They were slaughtered.
They deserved to be slaughtered.
If we were invaded and the invaders left and the collaborators were left defenseless I would slaughter them.
That’s what you do if you care about your country.
If you don’t slaughter collaborators you are not a patriot.
If you would not do that for the US, then Allan, you are not an American.
I have no illusions about what I just said.
And absolutely no apologies.
None.
The bottom line is that we failed to bring western-oriented capitalist democracy
We failed.
We failed because the civilian bosses of the US miltary did not support the war.
We could have bombed or taken over but generally our heart is not in wars of conquest
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]or how Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouges “re-educated” the people of Cambodia. Remember the “Killing Fields”? The terrible mistake is what happened after we left.
[/quote]
The funny thing there is that our campaigns in that country are what empowered the reds in Cambodia. We were okay with the Khmer hurting the Viets. Funny how nationalist oriented socialist movements end up looking a lot like national socialist movements. This is especially true of ones oriented around a cult of personality.
Since there were no killing fields in Vietnam like Kampuchea after our withdrawal from Vietnam, the argument that genocide is caused by our withdrawal does not hold.
I am disappointed by your assertion.
It was weak.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I agree that idealism is a powerful force, and there is no doubting the power of Obama’s rhetoric or oratorical skills. But don’t let blind idealism guide you at the expense of facts or an objective view of history. Demagogues are all too effective at exploiting that for their own ends.[/quote]
There is no objective view of history. Idealism is not blind. It may be short-sighted at times but it is generally pretty clear on what it wants.
It is not being exploited to vote for who seems to represent achievement of your goals.
Allan from Fallbrook
August 28, 2008 @
11:45 PM
Dan: My assertion was weak? Dan: My assertion was weak? Okay, let’s take just one part of yours then, shall we?
That would be that the ARVN were collaborators. That presumes that the North Vietnamese, including the Viet Cong were in the right, and the US supported South was in the wrong. Am I reading that correctly?
The North made no bones about their desire to conquer the South and hence the US intervention. As to our being invaders, my understanding of the Vietnam War (and this would predate our involvement and go back to the partition of North and South) is that we were asked for help by the South against the North, which was actively attempting to subvert the internationally recognized government through insurgency (National Liberation Front) and invasion of their own (North Vietnamese Army).
The North had absolutely no reason to be there and the South Vietnamese government made that abundantly clear. To their detriment, they chose to believe that the US would support them even after we pulled our last combat troops out in 1973 and Congress proved their faith horribly misguided, leading to the fall of the South in 1975.
This is where I want to focus. What happened to the remnants of the Viet Cong and the South Vietnamese Communists, Dan? Hmm? The very people that had supported the Communists of the North and toiled all those years, fighting the US and the ARVNs. I’m sure you know this one, right? They were butchered right along with the ARVN “collaborators”. Their families were either killed along with them, or sent into re-education camps or worse. How many millions were displaced following the fall of Saigon? Yet the North had promised “equality” for all Vietnamese and an “enlightened” approach to “unity”.
And, yeah, there is an objective view of history, so you can spare me the Graham Greene moral ambiguity, along with the canned Karnow and Halberstam view of Vietnam. Yes, I know about Operation Phoenix, and Air America and MACV/SOG.
The facts speak for themselves and continue to do so. Vietnam remains hopelessly corrupt and led by the same “enlightened” brigands we fought during the war.
greekfire
August 29, 2008 @
12:01 AM
Maybe it’s me, but I Maybe it’s me, but I personally would think twice before I pissed off AFFB. One of his posts leads to 3 days of research.
urbanrealtor
August 29, 2008 @
1:00 AM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: My assertion was weak? Okay, let’s take just one part of yours then, shall we?
That would be that the ARVN were collaborators. That presumes that the North Vietnamese, including the Viet Cong were in the right, and the US supported South was in the wrong. Am I reading that correctly?
[/quote]
Nope. I am not asserting a moral rightness.
I am asserting that we were invaders.
We came in as the French left and supported a faction that was born of, and rooted in, the old colonial government.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The North made no bones about their desire to conquer the South and hence the US intervention. As to our being invaders, my understanding of the Vietnam War (and this would predate our involvement and go back to the partition of North and South) is that we were asked for help by the South against the North, which was actively attempting to subvert the internationally recognized government through insurgency (National Liberation Front) and invasion of their own (North Vietnamese Army).
[/quote]The partition was an artificial construction of colonialism. I do not acknowledge that there were 2 distinct countries with legacies that were distinct. I do acknowledge that there were, briefly 2 distinct state units in a single national geographic region.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The North had absolutely no reason to be there and the South Vietnamese government made that abundantly clear. To their detriment, they chose to believe that the US would support them even after we pulled our last combat troops out in 1973 and Congress proved their faith horribly misguided, leading to the fall of the South in 1975.
[/quote]
See previous for the first sentence.
See Afghanistan in the 90’s for the second.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
This is where I want to focus. What happened to the remnants of the Viet Cong and the South Vietnamese Communists, Dan? Hmm? The very people that had supported the Communists of the North and toiled all those years, fighting the US and the ARVNs. I’m sure you know this one, right? They were butchered right along with the ARVN “collaborators”. Their families were either killed along with them, or sent into re-education camps or worse. How many millions were displaced following the fall of Saigon? Yet the North had promised “equality” for all Vietnamese and an “enlightened” approach to “unity”.
[/quote]
To them it was a civil war that had foreign powers as a major component.
In any civil war, final conquest has to be absolute. Hence the existence of people like General Sherman.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And, yeah, there is an objective view of history, so you can spare me the Graham Greene moral ambiguity, along with the canned Karnow and Halberstam view of Vietnam. Yes, I know about Operation Phoenix, and Air America and MACV/SOG.
The facts speak for themselves and continue to do so. Vietnam remains hopelessly corrupt and led by the same “enlightened” brigands we fought during the war.[/quote]
Have you been to Southeast Asia?
Vietnam is a well developed and beautiful country.
They are fiercely independent and consider the Americans to be the weakest of the invading entities they have endured (squarely behind the Chinese and the French).
They are doing well and don’t really take communism all that seriously.
Not entirely sure how you can consider our defeat there (sorry, tactical withdrawal) as a victory.
I am also not sure how our failure can be considered bad when you consider the current situation there. Their GDP is growing at between 6 and 8.5% annually. That would be nice to have here right now.
Allan from Fallbrook
August 29, 2008 @
7:54 AM
Dan: Vietnam is a beautiful Dan: Vietnam is a beautiful and well-developed country? Let’s look at some external sources to rebut that. Starting with Global Integrity’s ranking of Vietnam: http://www.globalintegrity.org/reports/2006/vietnam/index.cfm.
I went out and grabbed some articles at random about Vietnam’s corruption and ill run governance and the Communists are still large and in charge, thank you very much:
From The Economist: http://www.fva.org/200209/story03.htm (Note the mention of the government’s restriction on personal freedoms and juxtapose that with your assertion that they “don’t take communism all that seriously”).
As to America being the weakest of the invaders (and you forgot to mention the Japanese in there), I urge you to read General Giap’s memoirs closely, especially the part about the 1972 bombing campaigns over Hanoi and Haiphong (Operations Linebacker I and II). Or an even better book is “My Vietcong Memoir” by Truong Nhu Tang, a founding member of the Viet Cong: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0394743091/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top.
Tang’s book will debunk a lot of your misconceptions about the war and from both the American and Vietnamese Communist perspectives.
As to conflating the behavior of the Vietnamese Communists with General Sherman’s “March to the Sea” (I am presuming this is what you’re speaking of): Puh-leeze. Sherman’s directive was to deny aid and sustenance to the Confederate forces (part of the “total war” doctrine that was emerging with the Union forces) and that is what he did. He did not, however, round up all the members of the South and execute them out of hand or subject them to torture. Sherman’s campaigns in Georgia and the Carolinas were brutal to be sure, but don’t even hold a candle to what happened when the North Vietnamese assumed power over the South in 1975. Speaking of weak assertions.
In your previous post, you mentioned that an “American Patriot” would have slaughtered his opponents after victory. Yet, following the American Revolutionary War, we didn’t put all of the Loyalists or Tories to death, did we? Nope.
And following the cessation of hostilities in the American Civil War we didn’t execute all of the survivors of the Confederacy, either.
Vietnam is a beautiful country, to be sure. It is not, however, “well developed”. It is endemically corrupt, repressive and poorly run.
As to US support of the Khmer Rouges, I think you are confusing Lon Nol with Pol Pot or perhaps Prince Sihanouk. I can’t be sure because it was an offhand comment that was left undeveloped.
urbanrealtor
August 29, 2008 @
6:45 PM
Allan:
Regarding Vietnam’s Allan:
Regarding Vietnam’s development, the GDP speaks for itself. As to the corruption and poor governance (which was not intended to be the focus of my assertion), it seems to be taking a page out of China’s playbook. Here is what their GI score looks like http://report.globalintegrity.org/China/2007/scorecard. It is essentially the same as Vietnam’s.
Would you describe China as not being well developed?
I don’t ask this to just be rhetorical. I am actually curious because that is what it sounds like you are saying (essentially that high or improving gdp and low integrity index mean poor development).
My remark about the party is that, as with China, most people do not consider the government’s legitimacy in question and do not challenge its authoritarian rule. The concept of governmental navel-gazing is a more western trait. I don’t want to trivialize tyranny or bad leaders through cultural relativism but viewing the experiences of non-Americans through the lens of how an American would feel seems to me obtuse. My assertion is based on ethnographic and anecdotal evidence. I ask people and read nerdy books. While I really hate when a thread turns into a book club, here is one that you might find interesting (sorry for the length of the link). I opened it to an article I find interesting on this topic. http://books.google.com/books?id=rkO7somAQdEC&dq=Political+Legitimacy+in+Southeast+Asia:+The+Quest+for+Moral+Authority&pg=PP1&ots=qpF3rM1FZo&sig=HKZiOMmZwwi1QfNfwfu13uErHdI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA257,M1
Regarding the relative strength of us as conquering entities. I think our tactical victories were Pyrrhic (I think McNamara would agree). We left after failing in our goals. The Chinese controlled Vietnam for 1000 years. The French changed their freaking alphabet and improved their food. We were there for a few years as enemies and I am not clear what we accomplished. The only positive I can see is that we created an impression in the red states (by which I mean communist countries) that we would not roll over for the dominoes.
The comparison to Sherman has its limits but my point was that liquidating the means of production for a potential insurgent political machine is par for the course. Future civil wars must be quashed in utero.
This leads into the issue of collaborators. The problem with the comparison to the revolution is that the British were not an invading enemy and Tories were not collaborators with invaders. They were political dissidents. That is different.
A better example is Ireland.
Most of the people who died at the hands of the IRA were Catholics. They died for collaborating or for undermining the insurgency. That’s why the IRA (as evil and bloodthirsty as they are)were more successful than most terror-oriented resistance groups.
Patriots are believers and well disciplined insurgent patriots do what is needed or they do not succeed. Killing collaborators gets results.
Regarding Khmer Rouge, it is given knowledge (though, you are right, it is debatable)that American bombings created a demand for reaction that was best supplied by Saroth Sar and his people. Like I said before, nationalist socialist movements start to look like national socialist movements when they really get going. Nothing brings that out like exogenous suffering.
I am speculating, but I suspect that the reason that, unlike Cambodia, Vietnam never killed 25% of its population in death camps is because their heart was in the political struggle and not the civilian upheaval.
Regarding Budweiser, you are more wrong than I have seen in any of your posts. Irish Bud (which is not wildly higher in ethanol) is popular there because there are not many light lagers in Ireland. Most are heavy (eg: harp). And it tastes more like Stella than American Bud (made on license by Guiness as of my last visit).
I am concluding with a photo of a stupa in the killing fields between Siem Reap and Angkor Wat.
I took it with a disposable so it is not the highest resolution. The lumps in the glass case are human skulls. Each one has a bullet hole. This stupa is located at an elementary school on the playground. http://s458.photobucket.com/albums/qq304/urbanrealtor/?action=view¤t=IMG_0441.jpg
Allan from Fallbrook
August 29, 2008 @
11:11 PM
Dan: Too many points here to Dan: Too many points here to discuss in anything less than an overlong response, so I’ll confine my response to only one of them.
That would be that our “tactical victories were Pyrrhic”. To the contrary. If you isolate three distinct battles/campaigns, you’ll see that not only did the US never lose a battle in Vietnam, we were extremely effective against both insurgent forces (NLF/Viet Cong) and first line conventional enemy infantry (North Vietnamese Army regulars).
These three would be Ia Drang (November 1965), Operation Junction City (February 1967) and the Tet Offensive (spring – fall 1968). In each instance, the US forces decisively defeated the NLF/VC and/or NVA forces and, in the case of the Tet Offensive, effectively destroyed the Viet Cong as a fighting force for the balance of the war. These were not “tactical” victories, nor were they “Pyrrhic”.
Had the US forces been allowed the necessary freedom of movement, especially the USAF and Navy fighters and bombers, the outcome of the war would have been very different. This is well illustrated by the success of the two Operation Linebacker (I and II) bombing campaigns in 1972.
Due to Johnson’s (and later Nixon’s) fear of the conflict widening to include direct Soviet intervention, the theater commanders were handicapped by nonsensical rules of engagements or had parts of Vietnam “blacked out” (on maps) where they barred from operations.
As the war dragged on, and figures such as Walter Cronkite and David Halberstam weighed in against the conflict (especially when, in 1968, Cronkite declared a clear US victory during the Tet a defeat), we sought to extricate ourselves from the “quagmire”. Militarily, and even with the tremendous handicaps imposed, the US was extremely effective in Vietnam.
urbanrealtor
August 29, 2008 @
11:50 PM
Allan:
So before we go Allan:
So before we go farther:
It appears that you are arguing the following:
1
Engagement in Vietnam was a good idea and underpinned by humanitarian (or at least (militarily) charitable) concerns. We were invited there to help the sovereign and ideologically sympathetic South from being invaded by the aggressive (and ideologically antithetical) North.
2
That we won, or almost won, the actual engagement in Vietnam. That winning involved specific, observable criteria and that this would have served our ends. That our ends were well defined. That our defining limitations were artificial and imposed by unhelpful and out of touch civilian leadership. Without these largely irrational limitations we would have achieved our well-defined aims and goals. That the people who were being occupied were not a defining variable.
Would you agree that these are your assertions?
Which ones am I mistakenly attributing to you?
This is a question.
Allan from Fallbrook
August 30, 2008 @
12:07 AM
Dan: In broad terms, yes. In Dan: In broad terms, yes. In specific terms, no, and largely because you have tied several unrelated skeins together in an attempt to make rope.
In the overall scheme of “containment” (as articulated by Kennan and Dulles), our aims in Vietnam were clear. The South Vietnamese regime was problematic to say the least, but the overarching goal of keeping Vietnam from communist sway was certainly there.
I do find communism antithetical to my beliefs as an American, and I think the years following our final 1975 withdrawal underscore the predatory nature of the North Vietnamese, as well as how aggressive the Soviets and their proxies became after a humbled US withdrew from the world scene. The 1970s were a time of the Soviets ascendant and in large part due to the failure to secure a victory in Vietnam.
As to specific and observable criteria, yes, it is a provable fact that the US did not lose a battle in Vietnam, and it is a provable fact that the Johnson Administration (and to a lesser extent, the Nixon Administration) imposed significant limitations on the prosecution of the war and these limitations directly and negatively impacted our ability to achieve decisive victory.
Your referring to the Vietnamese people as “not a defining variable” indicates that the US and US supported South were somehow worse for the population of Vietnam than the communists of the North. This is an interesting point and I would think open to debate. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Saigon remained Saigon and not Ho Chi Minh City (the South prevailed rather than the North). WOuld Vietnam be any more “well run” than it is at present in your opinion? And that is a question for you.
urbanrealtor
August 30, 2008 @
10:07 AM
Again, not trying to assert Again, not trying to assert with my previous post. Trying to get a handle on your assertions.
If something was incorrect, then say so.
I am not trying to make a rope or hang anybody with it. I am trying to understand your understanding.
Regarding your question:
Do I think that had the South prevailed would Vietnam be more well run? I really haven’t a clue.
I am doubting it. Corrupt communist countries look pretty similar in a lot of ways to corrupt capitalist countries.
I think a better way of looking at that is how do long-standing red regimes continue to operate? The short version is that they do exactly what non-reds do. Capitalist regimes do some level of central planning and communists allow private wealth accumulation. They adapt to fit the times.
I think that communism seeks to address the same issues as democracy does. Its local evolution gives people a way to address what they perceive as unchecked capital and inequity.
Both are reactionary and fairly intuitive forms of social engineering (this term used in non-Mitnick way)and primitive forms of each go back essentially forever. However, in the long term, capitalist democracy is far better at preserving and reinforcing a durable incentive structure (and therefore production).
Typically, communism comes into being where there is great inequity and attempts at modern liberalization have failed. I think this is observable in Vietnam (Truman’s non-recognition of the Viet Minh), Cuba (Bautista’s puppet junta), and Russia (the failure to industrialize and the ubiquity of peasantry and serfdom). I think communist sentiment wanes when modernization takes hold (eg: Mexico following the implementation of democracy).
patientlywaiting
August 30, 2008 @
11:08 AM
urbanrealtor, wow, I now view urbanrealtor, wow, I now view Realtors in a new light. And here I was, thinking that Realtors were only interested in McMansions, penthouses, luxury cars and their next commission checks. 😉
I was in Cambodia and Vietnam earlier this year and I agree with your observations. Beautiful countries with great people.
Allan means well but arguing that America “won” the Vietnam War is like saying, yeah, real estate prices have dropped, but we didn’t lose anything.
I just wonder how we will argue that we “won” the Iraq War.
It would have been best if we had not gotten into those conflicts in the first place.
Allan from Fallbrook
August 30, 2008 @
11:24 AM
Dan: I think where we’re Dan: I think where we’re parting company is your view of communism as a benign alternative to capitalism (or, in the case of Cuba, let’s say, oligarchy) and my view of communism (the Cold War version, from 1945 through 1989) as an aggressive system bent on world domination.
Much like Hitler’s National Socialism, the Soviets attempted to put a friendly and all-inclusive face (“Workers of the World, Unite!”) on a system that sought nothing short of bringing the entire world to heel under authoritarian rule.
I don’t want to go all 1950s on you here, but I do (and did) believe that the Soviets were a force for evil in the world and, while they espoused Marxist-Leninism, they were simply seeking power.
I don’t know that South Vietnam would have done any better than the North in running the country. As I said earlier, the South Vietnamese regime represented a whole suite of problems on their own and they were just as corrupt in their own way as the communists. As I’ve also said before, sometimes it’s a choice between bad and worse and not good and bad. You mention Batista’s Cuba. Oligarchic, repressive and corrupt to say the least. Is Castro better or worse, on balance? I think worse, but it’s an arguable point.
Mexico is another case in point. Would they do better under a communist system of government? There are some strong arguments for and against. However, if we look to some of their strongly socialists neighbors to the south, the jury is either still out or leaning in favor of a more capitalist system.
I enjoyed your oblique reference to Kevin Mitnick, BTW. Interesting cat.
urbanrealtor
August 30, 2008 @
11:44 AM
PW: Thanks. That’s about the PW: Thanks. That’s about the nicest thing anyone has said to me in a while.
Allan:
I don’t see communism as necessarily benign. I make no judgments on its relative goodness.
I only think that wealth redistribution arises (as does consultative oligarchy which is a path to democracy) as a way to address wealth accumulation and poverty.
If one cannot achieve some level of self determination or minimum wealth, they feel deprived. If people perceive deprivation they want to fix it. Democracy achieves that one way and forced redistribution achieves that in another.
Its a supply and demand equation. If we had fostered consultation in the Batista oligarchy, we likely would have reduced the demand for change and redistribution. Castro would have been that weirdo with the boats that nobody really liked.
I think consultation is starting to take hold in China and Vietnam. There are more compromises and less Tienanmen Square incidents. But its way too early to draw any real conclusions.
One Caveat:
Please do not confuse reform and consultation with catastrophic democratization. Delivering democracy (ala domino’s or Jello Biafra) is why France was unstable for most of the 19th century. Gee I wonder how that will work in Rumsfeld’s Iraq.
Rich Toscano
August 28, 2008 @
11:24 PM
urbanrealtor [quote=urbanrealtor]
Seriously, the only situations in which 3 or more parties are viable are those in which proportional representation is a feature. For example, in Germany, if 20 parties each win 5% of the votes they each get 5% of the seats (hence the rise of a certain fringe nationalist party in the early 30’s).
[/quote]
I don’t agree with this… third parties could be viable in a winner-take-all system if we employed a more sensible voting system such as approval voting — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting .
The current system we are all used to (plurality voting) leads to very sub-optimal results for various reasons, in addition to ensuring the stranglehold applied by the two big parties.
(For the record I think the two big parties are pretty well equally ridiculous, and I’m not nuts about any of the third parties either. Which is one of the many reasons I have no interest in these political threads… but the topic of voting systems skirted by UR’s post was nerdy enough for me to chime in :-).
Rich
urbanrealtor
August 29, 2008 @
12:33 AM
Rich Toscano [quote=Rich Toscano][quote=urbanrealtor]
Seriously, the only situations in which 3 or more parties are viable are those in which proportional representation is a feature. For example, in Germany, if 20 parties each win 5% of the votes they each get 5% of the seats (hence the rise of a certain fringe nationalist party in the early 30’s).
[/quote]
I don’t agree with this… third parties could be viable in a winner-take-all system if we employed a more sensible voting system such as approval voting — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting .
The current system we are all used to (plurality voting) leads to very sub-optimal results for various reasons, in addition to ensuring the stranglehold applied by the two big parties.
(For the record I think the two big parties are pretty well equally ridiculous, and I’m not nuts about any of the third parties either. Which is one of the many reasons I have no interest in these political threads… but the topic of voting systems skirted by UR’s post was nerdy enough for me to chime in :-).
Rich[/quote]
True Rich.
If the political system were totally different it would not be the same.
You only assist my point that American winner-take-all (which is, by definition, plurality based) is geared towards 2 primary tier and a single secondary tier party.
I actually used to have a roommate who did his dissertation on this. His final number was 2.41 political parties for any single office.
Thank you for the assist.
Shadowfax
August 29, 2008 @
12:58 AM
urbanrealtor wrote:True Rich. [quote=urbanrealtor]True Rich. If the political system were totally different it would not be the same.
[/quote]
Wow, Dan, that’s deep….and obvious.
(haha)
urbanrealtor
August 29, 2008 @
1:17 AM
Shadowfax wrote:urbanrealtor [quote=Shadowfax][quote=urbanrealtor]True Rich. If the political system were totally different it would not be the same.
[/quote]
Wow, Dan, that’s deep….and obvious.
(haha)[/quote]
Yeah I go for the gold that way.
But seriously, to say that our political system would work if we changed the nature of voting is like saying Ayn Rand would make sense if the world she envisioned was true. Thats the kind of logic that inspires one after the 3rd bong hit. And yes, I just called Rich a stoner. Not that I actually believe that but its funny to imagine (I don’t get out much since the baby).
While were at it, Budweiser would be good if Guinness brewed it. This I can actually attest to because they do that in Ireland. Its killer.
Allan from Fallbrook
August 29, 2008 @
8:00 AM
Dan: Budweiser in Ireland Dan: Budweiser in Ireland isn’t better because it’s brewed by Guinness, it’s better because it has like 4x the alcohol.
And, why in the name of God would you drink Budweiser when in Ireland?!? You are surrounded by some of the best beers in the world, including Guinness, Harp, Murphy’s and Smithwick’s, and you drink Bud?
Geez, Dan, you are supposed to be an erudite member of San Francisco’s cultural elite and you are quaffing Buttwiper? No, no, NO! Say it ain’t so!
Are you secretly drinking Sutter Home Chard, too? What sort of plonk do you and the missus guzzle when the help isn’t looking?
Rich Toscano
August 29, 2008 @
8:51 AM
urbanrealtor wrote:Shadowfax [quote=urbanrealtor][quote=Shadowfax][quote=urbanrealtor]True Rich. If the political system were totally different it would not be the same.
[/quote]
Wow, Dan, that’s deep….and obvious.
(haha)[/quote]
Yeah I go for the gold that way.
But seriously, to say that our political system would work if we changed the nature of voting is like saying Ayn Rand would make sense if the world she envisioned was true. Thats the kind of logic that inspires one after the 3rd bong hit. And yes, I just called Rich a stoner. Not that I actually believe that but its funny to imagine (I don’t get out much since the baby).
While were at it, Budweiser would be good if Guinness brewed it. This I can actually attest to because they do that in Ireland. Its killer.[/quote]
Dan, you said “Seriously, the only situations in which 3 or more parties are viable are those in which proportional representation is a feature.” (as opposed to a winner take all system, which you mentioned as the alternative the prior paragraph).
I pointed out that 3rd parties could be viable in a winner take all system with a not-too-radically different system of collecting and tallying votes.
Somehow, you have turned this around to say that I helped prove your point (which I didn’t) and also that I am on hallucinogens. With a gratuitous shot at me in another post thrown in for good measure.
Seems like you are just being argumentative for the sake of it at this point.
Rich
sdnativeson
August 29, 2008 @
10:51 AM
I can’t believe UR comments I can’t believe UR comments would generate this much of a response.
I see some lucid replies to his posts but given the incongruity of a large part of his statements why would anyone bother?
urbanrealtor
August 29, 2008 @
12:14 PM
sdnativeson wrote:I can’t [quote=sdnativeson]I can’t believe UR comments would generate this much of a response.
I see some lucid replies to his posts but given the incongruity of a large part of his statements why would anyone bother?
[/quote]
Uh yeah.
This is what I get for being facetious.
I clearly need to delineate when I am joking better.
I guess I just have a less developed sense of humor than some here.
While I stand by what I said for some stuff (which is and will be the focus of other posts) I thought it obvious that the silly stuff was not serious.
Poor judgment on my part apparently.
urbanrealtor
August 29, 2008 @
12:44 PM
Rich Toscano wrote:
Dan, you [quote=Rich Toscano]
Dan, you said “Seriously, the only situations in which 3 or more parties are viable are those in which proportional representation is a feature.” (as opposed to a winner take all system, which you mentioned as the alternative the prior paragraph).
I pointed out that 3rd parties could be viable in a winner take all system with a not-too-radically different system of collecting and tallying votes.
Somehow, you have turned this around to say that I helped prove your point (which I didn’t) and also that I am on hallucinogens. With a gratuitous shot at me in another post thrown in for good measure.
Seems like you are just being argumentative for the sake of it at this point.
Rich[/quote]
It was meant to be playful but since it confuses the debate I will refrain.
The point I was making is that plural voting is, in my opinion, radically different.
I don’t know that debating this specific point will prove fruitful; it really is arguing opinion.
Our current brand of democracy is limited to one vote and winner-take-all. My only point was that your assertion that more than 2 parties would have success if we changed the basic structure of electoral representation doesn’t really take us anywhere. I would not discount a switch to such a system but it does nothing to address what I was saying: that our existing winner-take-all system favors 2.5 parties.
While my attempt at joking was poor (yeah I suck at that), the obvious corollary to this is that getting 3 or more parties to be viable means actual structural change of electoral representation. You suggested structural change.
So I think we are making the same point.
Would you disagree?
Rich Toscano
August 29, 2008 @
1:26 PM
I recognized the joke part as I recognized the joke part as such. But I was disagreeing with a very specific declarative statement you made (third parties are only viable in proportional representation systems) by citing another example in which they might be viable (approval voting in winner take all systems). You cited one alternate system in which they’d be viable (and said that was the only possible alternate system in which they’d be viable). I cited another in which I thought they’d be viable. That was the entirety of my point.
So I don’t see the big deal with the fact that the system I cited isn’t actually the system we have in place given that A) it’s irrelevant to the point I was making and B) the system you cited isn’t the system we have in place either.
That was my confusion. Yes, I agree with you of course that third parties would require structural change — but I never said otherwise. I was specifically replying to your statement that there was only one such alternate structure. No hallucinogens necessary.
Rich
urbanrealtor
August 29, 2008 @
7:05 PM
Rich Toscano wrote:I [quote=Rich Toscano]I recognized the joke part as such. But I was disagreeing with a very specific declarative statement you made (third parties are only viable in proportional representation systems) by citing another example in which they might be viable (approval voting in winner take all systems). You cited one alternate system in which they’d be viable (and said that was the only possible alternate system in which they’d be viable). I cited another in which I thought they’d be viable. That was the entirety of my point.
So I don’t see the big deal with the fact that the system I cited isn’t actually the system we have in place given that A) it’s irrelevant to the point I was making and B) the system you cited isn’t the system we have in place either.
That was my confusion. Yes, I agree with you of course that third parties would require structural change — but I never said otherwise. I was specifically replying to your statement that there was only one such alternate structure. No hallucinogens necessary.
Rich[/quote]
You are accurate on this. I made an erroneous and overly restrictive declarative. Lack of sleep and midnight baby feedings. I usually equate plural voting with pr as alternative forms of democracy. It would have been more accurate to mention “non-US democracy” as a requirement for repeated multiparty elections.
Better question:
Given the multiple loci for the “alternate left” and the “alternate right”, which major party is more likely to implode and have its assets seized by an alternative party?
patientlywaiting
August 29, 2008 @
2:05 PM
Quite a thread here.
I Quite a thread here.
I thought it was about the elections?
Allan, on Vietnam, America should not have intervened at all in the beginning to support the French efforts after WWII. The country would have become independent then, after the Japanese defeat. We should have supported an independent, unified, nationalist (not communist) Vietnam. That’s what I mean about being on the wrong side of history. Back then we took the safe bet by supporting our ally, France. But we got into a quagmire that killed thousands of Americans.
On the partition of Vietnam it was Diem (South Vietnam’s US supported president) who violated the Geneva Accords calling for national elections. Of course, we then assassinated Diem.
I won’t go further into this topic otherwise we should start a separate thread.
———
On Obama, the reality is that we can only vote for 1 of 2 viable choices.
I believe that a vote for Obama is being on the right side of history.
Allan from Fallbrook
August 29, 2008 @
2:56 PM
PW: I agree that we shouldn’t PW: I agree that we shouldn’t hijack the thread and especially with a topic as volatile as the Vietnam War. However, I do want to say one thing and then I will shut the hell up on the topic and that is this: North Vietnam would only settle for a unified Vietnam that was communist. Period. In their eyes, there was no other option and this is supported by the writings of Ho Chi Minh, Giap and the senior members of the Hanoi Politburo.
So, while I hear what you are saying and I don’t disagree, the reality and history tell a different tale.
I also agree that our involvement with the whole Diem affair is shameful. Of course, that puts us into a whole new category: “Crappy Things America Did During the Cold War to Contain the Soviets”.
renterclint
August 29, 2008 @
5:59 PM
H O L Y C R A P!
FLU H O L Y C R A P!
FLU started a simple little thread asking for your vote, and it explodes into an incredible debate about the Vietnam War. I love this site! How are these two topics connected again?
AFFB & UR, you guys need to co-instruct a Vietnam History course at the community college. That was educational & entertaining too! UR, I think I share your unusual sense of humor – good stuff.
Thanks.
Coronita
August 29, 2008 @
11:04 PM
renterclint wrote:H O L Y C [quote=renterclint]H O L Y C R A P!
FLU started a simple little thread asking for your vote, and it explodes into an incredible debate about the Vietnam War. I love this site! How are these two topics connected again?
AFFB & UR, you guys need to co-instruct a Vietnam History course at the community college. That was educational & entertaining too! UR, I think I share your unusual sense of humor – good stuff.
Thanks.
[/quote]
oh well, it is what it is. Play ball! 🙂
I wonder if any that voted here for mccain are now going to change their votes after Palin. Interesting times. I take what I said about hating politics because it’s “like a soap opera with ugly people comment back”. Lol.
gandalf
August 30, 2008 @
10:22 AM
FLU, man. That’s a riot. She FLU, man. That’s a riot. She IS hot…
I’d vote for her too if I lived in an igloo.
patientlywaiting
August 30, 2008 @
10:58 AM
I noticed that it’s possible I noticed that it’s possible to cancel your vote and re-vote in this poll.
I wonder how the Palin choice is swaying voters.
Coronita
August 31, 2008 @
10:08 AM
[I noticed that it’s possible [I noticed that it’s possible to cancel your vote and re-vote in this poll.
I wonder how the Palin choice is swaying voters.
]
meh….I think the entertainment value is much more seeing Allan from Fallbrook paint the town (or I should say, this thread) 🙂
patientlywaiting
August 31, 2008 @
12:59 PM
>>>>> Funny thing is my wifey >>>>> Funny thing is my wifey thinks her husband is pretty fine.
No offense to your wifey, but my own experience is that girls from Mainland China don’t marry husbands for their looks. 😉
Coronita
August 31, 2008 @
4:16 PM
patientlywaiting wrote:>>>>> [quote=patientlywaiting]>>>>> Funny thing is my wifey thinks her husband is pretty fine.
No offense to your wifey, but my own experience is that girls from Mainland China don’t marry husbands for their looks. 😉
[/quote]
Lol. I suppose, except I made sure this one already had a greencard and brain much smarter than me.
Though I do tease her occasionally about what you mention above, she reminds me constantly these days that given the current economic swoon and weak dollar, those girls are probably are more likely to say “please, no more greenbacks. Got Euros and a E.U. passport?”
Allan from Fallbrook
August 31, 2008 @
1:43 PM
FLU: C’mon up to Fallbrook! FLU: C’mon up to Fallbrook! Us hillbillies know to party! We ain’t tolerant (or tolerable, for that matter), tend to be a little too right wing and have questionable personal hygiene, but we can drink like fish.
gandalf
August 31, 2008 @
1:56 PM
Damn, PW! That’s harsh. Don’t Damn, PW! That’s harsh. Don’t let me get on your bad side.
(I probably am already.)
Hey Allan, anybody else, you know about local wines, right? Can you recommend a good local mid-range red? Gotta get a bottle of wine for this evening.
Allan from Fallbrook
August 31, 2008 @
2:11 PM
gandalf: Why does it have to gandalf: Why does it have to be local?
gandalf
August 31, 2008 @
3:14 PM
Doesn’t have to I guess… Doesn’t have to I guess… Then again, buying local does reduce my carbon footprint. You know how we are on the ‘secular left’…
BTW, what the hell happened to conservatism?
The label has been completely hijacked by christian fundamentalists. Pastor Bob and his fifteen wives. Gay Pastor Bob. Pastor Bob doesn’t pay Income Taxes. Seems like every month there’s a new Pastor Bob.
God help us.
I like Christians, BTW. Real ones. Not the fake ones. Same goes with boobs. Keep it real.
So what am I drinking this evening?
Allan from Fallbrook
August 31, 2008 @
3:41 PM
gandalf: Dooooood! You need gandalf: Dooooood! You need to stop taking this stuff so seriously or you’re gonna give yourself a coronary. For reals. This is just a good old-fashioned dustup between opposing viewpoints.
BTW, I think luchabee brought up some excellent points and that they’re worthy of discussion. I’m going to bounce back over to that thread and jump in.
How much do you want to spend, and are you looking for Merlot or Cab? Trader Joe’s has an excellent wine selection (generally), and I always recommend going there. You can get significant bang for your buck, including pretty good Chilean and Australian stuff.
gandalf
August 31, 2008 @
3:48 PM
You know, I think you’re You know, I think you’re right.
To quote the Dude:
W: “Calmer than you are.”
D: “Shut the fuck up, Walter!!”
W: “Calmer than you.”
Mellow now.
afx114
August 31, 2008 @
3:51 PM
Seriously, The Dude needs his Seriously, The Dude needs his own religion. He’s a modern day Jesus.
Allan from Fallbrook
August 31, 2008 @
4:02 PM
gandalf: Still one of my gandalf: Still one of my favorite movies of all time. afx is right, too, Dude needs a religion or at least a “movement”.
If you really want to drop some jingle on the plonk, I can steer you toward’s Stag’s Leap, Trefethen or Grgich Hills stuff. Muy bueno, but muy expensive as well.
Coronita
August 31, 2008 @
10:06 AM
gandalf wrote:FLU, man. [quote=gandalf]FLU, man. That’s a riot. She IS hot…
I’d vote for her too if I lived in an igloo.
[/quote]
Funny thing is my wifey thinks her husband is pretty fine.
I wonder if any that voted here for mccain are now going to change their votes after Palin. Interesting times. I take what I said about hating politics because it’s “like a soap opera with ugly people comment back”. Lol.
[/quote]
That is too funny! I have to say I have been on the fence leaning to the Obama side. But I like this new gal from what I have seen so her far. And it’s not (just) because she is easy on the peepers. Comparing the two tickets in my view has become more interesting.
luchabee
August 30, 2008 @
3:45 PM
It’s disapointing that on a It’s disapointing that on a purported financial and real estate website, most of the readers are going to vote for the most liberal senator in congress and the third most liberal senator in congress.
If there is any hope in saving the US from fiscal disaster, it is McCain. Everyone else, including the Republicans before they were kicked out and the current Democrats, are going to jack up the national debt. Eventually, the ponzi-scheme will end and no there will be nobody to borrow from when we pay them back with worthless dollars.
If any of you have any conservative fiscal beliefs, please vote for McCain.
urbanrealtor
August 30, 2008 @
4:18 PM
luchabee wrote:It’s [quote=luchabee]It’s disapointing that on a purported financial and real estate website, most of the readers are going to vote for the most liberal senator in congress and the third most liberal senator in congress.
If there is any hope in saving the US from fiscal disaster, it is McCain. Everyone else, including the Republicans before they were kicked out and the current Democrats, are going to jack up the national debt. Eventually, the ponzi-scheme will end and no there will be nobody to borrow from when we pay them back with worthless dollars.
If any of you have any conservative fiscal beliefs, please vote for McCain.[/quote]
Yes I believe I touched his crown of thorns. Or maybe that was his melanoma. Whichever.
Please recall that the biggest proponent of supply-side economics, had much of his greatest economic success by using Keynesian techniques. Reagan took much of his playbook from FDR. Similarly, Clinton, a liberal regardless of what he calls himself, brought in a surplus.
The idea that conservative equals good fiscal policy has kind of been damage by the last 20 years.
greekfire
August 30, 2008 @
6:35 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:Clinton, a [quote=urbanrealtor]Clinton, a liberal regardless of what he calls himself, brought in a surplus.
The idea that conservative equals good fiscal policy has kind of been damage by the last 20 years.[/quote]
The only surplus Clinton “brought” in was contained in Monica Lewisky’s backside. He benefited from being on the upswing of a boom cycle created by artificially low interest rates.
I agree with the second part. Conservatives have lost their way and we are seeing the results at the ballot box.
True conservatives like myself, who are voting for Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or Chuck Baldwin, are smitten deep down inside. Now the neo-con McCain supporters of the world, who pushed us aside and mocked and marginalized us over the past year and a half, are coming to us on their knees begging for us to vote for McCain.
We told the GOP that we believed in following the Constitution, sound money, lower taxes, smaller government, no nation-building or policing of the world, and more personal freedoms. The GOP, in turn, called us kooks, quacks, and conspiracy nuts. Now they want our vote! Fat chance.
urbanrealtor
August 30, 2008 @
7:42 PM
So which republican president So which republican president of the last 40 years was more fiscally conservative than Clinton?
It is possible that I am wrong, but I can’t think of one.
Can you think of a recent republican that spent less than Clinton?
Here is the actual data put out by the White House.
A confluence of interest rate A confluence of interest rate reductions between 1990 and 1992, a technology bubble, and no major wars all contributed to the surplus that Clinton enjoyed in his final 3 years in office. He certainly didn’t cut spending. In fact total outlays, according to your data, increased 27%. His receipts increased a whopping 75%, however, and that’s where you get the surplus from.
Republicans aren’t much better…which proves my argument against the current 2 party system. Bush1 actually had a lower increase in spending than Clinton, at 21%. The problem is his receipts rose only 10%. However, he had to contend with the first Gulf War. Reagan’s receipts rose 52%, but his outlays also increased 57%.
urbanrealtor
August 30, 2008 @
10:52 PM
I seem to recall that fiscal I seem to recall that fiscal policy takes receipts into consideration in drafting.
So yes, I think the government bears responsibility as to whether their shop runs red or black.
His ran black.
It is unfairly selective in saying his shop’s p&l had nothing to do with his management.
greekfire
August 30, 2008 @
11:19 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:It is [quote=urbanrealtor]It is unfairly selective in saying his shop’s p&l had nothing to do with his management.
[/quote]
It had everything to do with his management, but at the same time it had nothing do with his management. The same way that Carter’s management performance had everything, yet nothing, to do with what Nixon/Ford had left for him.
PS: Unless I’ve missed it, you still haven’t responded to my answer about the banking cartel under this thread. If you have, I offer my most sincere apologies.
greekfire
August 30, 2008 @
11:22 PM
Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Hillary Clinton, or even “None of the Above” have still not been added to the list of possible candidates in this poll…what gives?
urbanrealtor
August 30, 2008 @
11:32 PM
greekfire wrote:Ron Paul, Bob [quote=greekfire]Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Hillary Clinton, or even “None of the Above” have still not been added to the list of possible candidates in this poll…what gives?[/quote]
While those are real votes, they are inconsequential in the current contest.
The only ones I like are the right wing ones for their ability to split the right.
urbanrealtor
August 30, 2008 @
11:29 PM
greekfire wrote:urbanrealtor [quote=greekfire][quote=urbanrealtor]It is unfairly selective in saying his shop’s p&l had nothing to do with his management.
[/quote]
It had everything to do with his management, but at the same time it had nothing do with his management. The same way that Carter’s management performance had everything, yet nothing, to do with what Nixon/Ford had left for him.
PS: Unless I’ve missed it, you still haven’t responded to my answer about the banking cartel under this thread. If you have, I offer my most sincere apologies. [/quote]
Re Clinton:
Wow that’s deep.
Like its swimming (and vacuous).
Please say something substantive on this or do me the courtesy of not responding.
I know you are capable but doubt your will.
Re Cartel:
I believe it sounded to dumb to respond to but I will humor you on this.
Lay your question out clearly, in plain English and I will endeavor to respond.
greekfire
August 31, 2008 @
12:02 AM
urbanrealtor wrote:
Re [quote=urbanrealtor]
Re Cartel:
I believe it sounded to dumb to respond to but I will humor you on this.
Lay your question out clearly, in plain English and I will endeavor to respond.
[/quote]
Browbeat all you want, but you still haven’t responded to my earlier advance about the banking cartel. You can go back just as well as I can and do the research on my earlier post. You have taken the time to give a dissertation on Vietnam and have gone out of your way to intimate that this site’s host is on drugs; yet you still haven’t responded to my advance. Personally, my friend, I think you are fighting on too many fronts.
PS: I think you meant “too” dumb, but I’m not “to” sure. Memo: if you are going to browbeat, as you always try to do, at least have the intellect to get your adverbs straight…geez.
Allan from Fallbrook
August 31, 2008 @
12:21 AM
greekfire: Apropos of greekfire: Apropos of absolutely nothing, I was curious as to how you came by your handle “greekfire”. You know the “recipe” for same was lost to history, but during it’s time, it was one of the most feared weapons in warfare.
Being a history buff, and especially an antiquity history buff, I was just curious.
greekfire
August 31, 2008 @
9:07 AM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook]greekfire: Apropos of absolutely nothing, I was curious as to how you came by your handle “greekfire”. You know the “recipe” for same was lost to history, but during it’s time, it was one of the most feared weapons in warfare.
Being a history buff, and especially an antiquity history buff, I was just curious.[/quote]
I think I caught it on the History Channel a couple years ago. They were talking about ancient marvels or something like that. They mentioned Greek fire, how it couldn’t be put out, and how it’s recipe was lost to history as you’ve pointed out.
I am interested in ancient inventors like Heron of Alexandria and how a lot of their ideas were lost to history at some point.
urbanrealtor
August 31, 2008 @
12:24 AM
And you are perfectly capable And you are perfectly capable of reading that my joke about Rich was framed as such (and, according to him, taken as such). My sense of humor is apparently poor. Moving on.
I was not trying to browbeat.
I meant no offense.
I just did not care.
If you are dropping the cartel assertion then fine.
It wasn’t very interesting to me.
Frame it to me if you like or don’t.
I don’t really care that much.
Also, while your correction of my typos is observant, it does not serve much of a purpose to me.
My engagement with Rich and Allan was based on their compelling and interesting discourse. Thats why my engagement with you has been comparatively less.
patientlywaiting
October 15, 2008 @
11:25 PM
As the real election As the real election approaches, let’s see if anyone of us wants to change his/her vote.
svelte
October 16, 2008 @
7:48 AM
Nope, not me. I’m good with Nope, not me. I’m good with mine. Obama, baby!
Coronita
August 27, 2008 @
10:27 AM
pabloesqobar [quote=pabloesqobar][quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
Please, no flame wars here about candidates. Afterall, this isn’t a political blog.
[/quote]
FLU, are you serious? In the past 6 months this site has become more of a political blog than anything else. You’ve posted frequently to the political topics – and just started another one. I noticed in the past you intentionally tried to get the political topics bumped down the list and off the active forum topics. I thought that was kinda cool.
Them’s the facts. I’m not saying the posters can’t turn this into a political blog, because they already have. Just be honest about what this site has become.[/quote]
pabloesqobar, i know. But I really just want to see how people on this blog are planning to vote, and not really what people think who is a “better candidate”.
I think the audience on this blog are quite different from those of J6P, and was curious if we’d have rough 50/50 split.
Coronita
August 27, 2008 @
10:25 AM
Nader…
Sorry, typo on my Nader…
Sorry, typo on my part, and I can’t correct it now, otherwise it resets the poll….
gandalf
August 28, 2008 @
11:30 PM
Obama will win.
No more Obama will win.
No more boomers. It’s our turn.
(Except for Joe Biden. He can stay. That dude cracks me up.)
gandalf
August 28, 2008 @
11:52 PM
Rich, man…
Could you please Rich, man…
Could you please take your ‘economics of game theory 101’ to an Econ blog???
Talking politics here.
Prisoner X is renditioned to an undisclosed country in the Middle East and interrogated. He confesses a voting preference for candidate A. Should Prisoner Y agree to vote for candidate B in exchange for a pardon? Will Candidate C obtain enough of the remaining vote to require Candidate A to form a parliamentary coalition with C? If Candidate C promises a pardon to Prisoner Y, will Prisoner Y throw their support behind a coalition government of Candidate B and C? What is the most probable outcome? Explain your answer using traditional principles of game theory.
(Apparently, this was an actual problem appearing on Professor Piggington’s final exam…)
urbanrealtor
August 29, 2008 @
12:38 AM
gandalf wrote:Rich, [quote=gandalf]Rich, man…
Could you please take your ‘economics of game theory 101’ to an Econ blog???
Talking politics here.
Prisoner X is renditioned to an undisclosed country in the Middle East and interrogated. He confesses a voting preference for candidate A. Should Prisoner Y agree to vote for candidate B in exchange for a pardon? Will Candidate C obtain enough of the remaining vote to require Candidate A to form a parliamentary coalition with C? If Candidate C promises a pardon to Prisoner Y, will Prisoner Y throw their support behind a coalition government of Candidate B and C? What is the most probable outcome? Explain your answer using traditional principles of game theory.
(Apparently, this was an actual problem appearing on Professor Piggington’s final exam…)[/quote]
Don’t be obtuse wizard.
Game theory is the primary focus of the most renowned poli sci program in the country (UCSD).
UCSD’s profs (most notably Matt McCubbins) consider game theory to be essentially extended logic. While I think that goes a bit far, the reality is Nash, Von Neumann, and Morganstern were instrumental in creating a vocabulary for discussing motivation and incentive structures.
gandalf
August 29, 2008 @
12:56 AM
Game Theory??? HAH! I laugh Game Theory??? HAH! I laugh at your Game Theory.
I write code for Diebold. }-]
urbanrealtor
August 29, 2008 @
1:01 AM
gandalf wrote:Game Theory??? [quote=gandalf]Game Theory??? HAH! I laugh at your Game Theory.
I write code for Diebold. }-]
[/quote]
Really?
A code monkey on Pigg?
I never would have guessed.
So do we blame you for the voting machines?
Shadowfax
August 28, 2008 @
11:55 PM
Ralph Nader is a wacko, Ralph Nader is a wacko, egotistical, potential candidate.
Nadar is some arab guy who won’t get many votes….
Shadowfax
August 29, 2008 @
12:31 AM
Fresh from a re-run of Fresh from a re-run of Obama’s speech. I think he answered a lot of questions tonight. Provided some specifics that have been needed. He referred to people losing their homes or struggling to pay their mortgages. And the failed economic policies (among others) of the last 8 years. So politics does tie in to the housing market.
I have to say: for those of you who suspect that Obama will implement too many social programs, my response is there have been social programs galore for the last 8 years! Why is Exxon/Mobil making (still) record profits?!?! Newsflash: Because gas prices are through the roof, genius! Think they could cut into their PPS (profit per share) by bringing PAP (prices at pump) down? If that money were used in R&D for non-petroleum energy sources, I might forgive them, but it wasn’t. It went into the pocket of their already filthily rich CEO and a few monolithic shareholders. And companies like that are structured so that the only entity that makes any money (after they write off all their operational expenses carried as losses in wholly owned subsisiaries which nets them, for tax purposes, an operating loss but results in a shareholder gain–go figure) is the one that is organized under the laws of some scum-sucking Carribean island with no income tax and a treaty that keeps the US from getting any either.
So, bottom line, if I have to pay 1/3 of my income in taxes, I’d rather feed some kids, get them some adequate schooling, see the roads paved, pay policemen a decent wage and a pension, INSTEAD of watching that fat fuck Exxon CEO make ANOTHER billion dollars that he will use to stuff his fat face and buy another Mazerati! Guess that makes me a socialist. fine with me.
I didn’t feel any difference in my wallet when Bush’s tax cuts were implemented. Being solidly upper-middle class, I just didn’t feel it. Net gain/loss was the same. My parents, who are life-long working class (despite college educations) and near the poverty line sure as hell didn’t! But I bet Bill Gates did. And I really could have done without a rebate check in May of this year. The pittance really didn’t effect my life much, but in the aggregate, could have been a nice pay down of our national debt.
There’s the “welfare” that helps people survive and there’s the corporate welfare that I find reprehensible. Go Obama–I have to have some sort of faith that someone will break the cycle of corruption or I will really just go mad (or move to Canada–wasn’t that #97 on What White People Like?)
svelte
August 29, 2008 @
12:19 PM
It has been fun watching the It has been fun watching the see-saw vote count for Obama / McCain in this thread…and this is a strongly Republican county!
It is clear with McCain’s choice today he went “all in”. It was a bold, bold move. It’s gonna pay off big time, or tank big time. I’m going to be glued to the news for the next few weeks. :0D
svelte
September 4, 2008 @
7:49 AM
I kind of expected this to I kind of expected this to tilt a little back towards McCain after last night’s speech. We’ll see what happens after McCain’s speech tonight…
fredo4
October 29, 2008 @
8:35 PM
I’m voting for McCain and I’m voting for McCain and hoping he doesn’t die.
patientlywaiting
November 3, 2008 @
10:09 PM
Rich here never said who he’s Rich here never said who he’s supporting.
Here’s what Patrick K. said about his support for Obama.
I’ve been getting a lot of guff for putting up an Obama ad on my site, and for
saying outright that I support Obama.
Somehow people think that because I’m a Ron Paul supporter and opponent of
foolish housing subsidies, I could never support Obama. Unfortunately, Ron Paul
is not a choice on the ballot at this point. If he were, I’d vote for him. But
it comes down to Obmama and McCain at this point.
If either senator had opposed the criminal $700 billion bank bailout, I’d be
supporting the one that had enough guts to say no. But both of them have failed
the American people on that particular issue. There were more Republicans than
Democrats in Congress opposing the bank bailout, and I hope those decent
Republicans can keep their seats. Fannie and Freddie were largely Democratic
creations, but remember that it was a Republican administration that deregulated
Wall Street to the point where it became perfectly legal to create crappy
mortgage-backed bonds, rate them AAA, and sell them to the anyone, investors be
damned.
I’m for personal responsibility and lower taxation, but watching Bush turn
communist when his very rich friends were in danger, and watching him blow more
taxpayer money than any Democratic administration ever, I have to say that the
Democrats are now better Republicans than the Republicans themselves, at least
at the presidential level. Bush proved that he will do anything to protect the
very wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. The big clue was when he told us
all to go shopping after 9/11.
Obama is younger and smarter than any other recent candidate. I think he’s less
likely to start another war, and more likely to come up with some workable form
of universal health care in America. We really need some kind of universal
health coverage, just to keep the playing field level. And I like the fact that
he’s half black. I want to help prove that race alone doesn’t determine anything
in America — it’s attitude. Obama has a good attitude, not the resentment that
holds back many black people.
Anyway, I just like Obama (except for his voting for the bank bailout). It’s
hard to explain, but I have the feeling he’ll be a pretty good president.
Patrick
CA renter
November 4, 2008 @
12:23 AM
I think Patrick expressed I think Patrick expressed exactly what so many of us feel right now — regardless of our political parties. Agree 100% with what he wrote.
August 27, 2008 @ 8:49 AM
Not trying to start a
Not trying to start a political war here. I’m just curious how this community’s poll would end up.
Please, no flame wars here about candidates. Afterall, this isn’t a political blog.
I’m just curious how folks who are represent a more financially/economic aware audience more so than the average J6P stacks up against J6P.
August 27, 2008 @ 9:52 AM
fat_lazy_union_worker
[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
Please, no flame wars here about candidates. Afterall, this isn’t a political blog.
[/quote]
FLU, are you serious? In the past 6 months this site has become more of a political blog than anything else. You’ve posted frequently to the political topics – and just started another one. I noticed in the past you intentionally tried to get the political topics bumped down the list and off the active forum topics. I thought that was kinda cool.
Them’s the facts. I’m not saying the posters can’t turn this into a political blog, because they already have. Just be honest about what this site has become.
August 27, 2008 @ 10:16 AM
You should probably put Ron
You should probably put Ron Paul and Bob Barr up there as options.
August 27, 2008 @ 10:18 AM
“Nadar” is Spanish for swim.
“Nadar” is Spanish for swim. Can Mr. Nader swim?
August 27, 2008 @ 10:23 AM
Maybe he means Nadal?
The big
Maybe he means Nadal?
The big mystery to me is who is better for the economy. What I read says McCain will lower taxes on the rich and raise them on the poor. Of course they don’t qualify those classes, but Obama will of course raise taxes on everyone with his “Social Justice” Manifesto ala Karl Marx, with a heavier burden on those making over $250k.
Even Ron Paul is too isolationist IMO, but that may still be better than the McBama ticket.
August 27, 2008 @ 10:24 AM
afx114 wrote:You should
[quote=afx114]You should probably put Ron Paul and Bob Barr up there as options.[/quote]
Agree.
August 27, 2008 @ 2:21 PM
afx114 wrote:You should
[quote=afx114]You should probably put Ron Paul and Bob Barr up there as options.[/quote]
I also agree.
Cooprider: I like most of your posts, but I have to point out that there’s a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.
August 27, 2008 @ 11:55 PM
Since winner-take-all
Since winner-take-all elections cater to 2.5 political parties, referencing the representatives from the 3 highest performing parties (or factions) seems pretty reasonable. The humor entries were pretty funny (y’know for a union worker or code monkey).
Seriously, the only situations in which 3 or more parties are viable are those in which proportional representation is a feature. For example, in Germany, if 20 parties each win 5% of the votes they each get 5% of the seats (hence the rise of a certain fringe nationalist party in the early 30’s).
Our system only has 3rd parties to function as a splintering foil (eg: 92 and 2000). The exception to this is when a major party implodes and a 3rd party takes control of most of its factions. The best example of this is Lincoln’s rise as the champion of our nation’s youngest major party (the Grand Old Party–ironic).
But hey, keep voting for Ron and Bob. As a liberal democrat, I welcome you throwing away your right leaning votes. And the republicans thank Nader as well.
August 28, 2008 @ 12:34 AM
urbanrealtor wrote:Since
[quote=urbanrealtor]Since winner-take-all elections cater to 2.5 political parties, referencing the representatives from the 3 highest performing parties (or factions) seems pretty reasonable. The humor entries were pretty funny (y’know for a union worker or code monkey).
Seriously, the only situations in which 3 or more parties are viable are those in which proportional representation is a feature. For example, in Germany, if 20 parties each win 5% of the votes they each get 5% of the seats (hence the rise of a certain fringe nationalist party in the early 30’s).
Our system only has 3rd parties to function as a splintering foil (eg: 92 and 2000). The exception to this is when a major party implodes and a 3rd party takes control of most of its factions. The best example of this is Lincoln’s rise as the champion of our nation’s youngest major party (the Grand Old Party–ironic).
But hey, keep voting for Ron and Bob. As a liberal democrat, I welcome you throwing away your right leaning votes. And the republicans thank Nader as well.[/quote]
UR: On one hand you are chuckling to yourself knowing that votes for Ron Paul or Bob Barr will cut into McCain’s total; or that votes for Ralph Nader will cut into Obama’s total. Then, on the other hand, you are questioning the very system that you have invested everything in as you cast your vote for whomever.
The American governmental system is based on checks and balances divided amongst 3 governmental branches (executive, legislative, and judicial). This contract between the government and its constituents has proven to be superior to any other offered up until this point.
August 28, 2008 @ 1:11 AM
Dear Greekfire
(First, is
Dear Greekfire
(First, is that a reference to a frat?)
You are correct on all counts.
I believe in working strategically to further my interests using the tools available to me as a member of the effective electorate.
Also I do not think that our current form of government is the only answer. It is my favorite for many reasons but blindly following government seems stupid.
I have not “invested” much. I moved to this country when I was young with my American-born parents. I am a citizen from birth but I don’t mythologize our government as you seem to. It has its strong points (eg:it weeds out true extremists) and its shortcomings (eg: it stifles diversity of political opinion).
Also, you don’t need to rehash an explanation of our basic government system. I mean, you can if you like, but I did go to elementary school in this country.
And yes I do chuckle to myself as I watch the right become split and therefore less effective at winning elections. I hope for more in fact.
August 28, 2008 @ 10:14 AM
Ron Paul or Bob Barr, but Ron
Ron Paul or Bob Barr, but Ron Paul is not on the ballot. Reagan and W. Bush increased our budget deficit more than any Democratic president ever did and I am afraid that McCain is going to do the same thing.
August 28, 2008 @ 10:41 AM
I’m voting my ideals. Obama
I’m voting my ideals. Obama it is.
August 28, 2008 @ 7:02 PM
What does that really mean?
What does that really mean? “I’m voting my ideals.”
It sounds so dreamy…
Does it seem like Obama supporters incorporate notions like “ideals”, “hope”, and “vision” into their conversation a lot? Maybe it’s just me.
It almost sounds like you’re saying “If you do not vote for Obama, you’re not voting for your ideals.”
Pablo E wrote to FLU – “In the past 6 months this site has become more of a political blog than anything else. You’ve posted frequently to the political topics – and just started another one. ”
Don’t be too hard on FLU, it is an election year afterall. I love a good debate about the presidential election. Weird, but it’s kind of like a sporting event for me. My interest in politics subsides a large degree after the ‘superbowl’ is over. Then we can really get back into the housing thing 100%.
I do go to political sites occasionally, but in my opinion the intellectual quality of this group that posts here is hard to beat. I have learned a lot from the posters here over the last couple of years & I look forward to what you people have to say. So I say keep the civil, facts-based off-topic political posts coming at least for the next few months.
I’ll vote McCain or Obama-rama – not sure yet.
August 28, 2008 @ 8:22 PM
If someone hasn’t realized by
If someone hasn’t realized by now that politics, the economy, and by extension the housing market are intertwined, then they are hopeless.
August 28, 2008 @ 8:48 PM
Wow afx,
Thats so deep, its
Wow afx,
Thats so deep, its swimming.
August 28, 2008 @ 9:14 PM
afx114 wrote:If someone
[quote=afx114]If someone hasn’t realized by now that politics, the economy, and by extension the housing market are intertwined, then they are hopeless.[/quote]
Not sure what you mean afx114. If you are implying that all of the political posts are “intertwined” with discussions related to housing – well, you’re wrong. In theory, I agree with your statement. However, the reality of this blog begs to differ. Take this post, for example. Has a single poster addressed how their vote for a presidential candidate will effect the Ssan Diego housing market? No. In fact, almost all (if not all) political posts never mention real estate in San Diego. Intertwined in theory – yes. Within the reality of this blog – it doesn’t happen. Maybe I’m just hopeless.
August 28, 2008 @ 9:13 PM
renterclint wrote:What does
[quote=renterclint]What does that really mean? “I’m voting my ideals.”
[/quote]
It means that I’m not calculating on a spreadsheet how it’s going to affect my pocket book.
Obama makes me feel young and idealistic again. That’s a very powerful feeling.
There is such a thing as being on the right side of history vs. on the wrong side.
People who didn’t support universal suffrage and those who were against civil rights were on the wrong side of history.
History has pretty much declared the Vietnam War a terrible mistake. And history will speak on Iraq.
Americans and especially Californians have always been forward looking and ahead of their times.
I feel that voting for McCain is a vote for the status quo.
Voting for Obama is passing the torch on to the next generation (mixed marriage, a new perspective on Black Americans, meritocracy, multi-culturalism, race relations, etc…)
Be honest with yourself and you’ll vote for the right candidate.
August 28, 2008 @ 10:02 PM
patientlywaiting: History has
patientlywaiting: History has declared the Vietnam War a terrible mistake? Really? I’d like to read that history book because that opinion is very much at odds with the facts.
Take a hard look at Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos post-April 1975 and tell me what happened when the US exited Southeast Asia. Discuss how the benevolent North Vietnamese dealt with South Vietnam, or how Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouges “re-educated” the people of Cambodia. Remember the “Killing Fields”? The terrible mistake is what happened after we left.
I agree that idealism is a powerful force, and there is no doubting the power of Obama’s rhetoric or oratorical skills. But don’t let blind idealism guide you at the expense of facts or an objective view of history. Demagogues are all too effective at exploiting that for their own ends.
August 28, 2008 @ 10:34 PM
Urbanrealtor,
I didn’t mean
Urbanrealtor,
I didn’t mean to offend, so if I did I apologize. Greek fire was an incendiary weapon used by the Byzantine Empire, mostly in naval battles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire
Yes, this blog does ebb and flow in the political realm from time to time. This is an election year, so there are a lot of political posts. There has still been a lot of info listed here related to San Diego housing, Rich and others are still providing their expertise for FREE, so it is still serving its purpose well. I certainly am not complaining.
The Republican Party is fractured, as well it should be. I have had numerous discussions on this topic and have come to the conclusion that the GOP is either inept, or they don’t think they have a chance at winning in 2008, so they are focusing on 2012. I arrive at this conclusion because Ron Paul got 1.2 million votes in the primaries and the GOP has not only not reached out their hands to his wing of the party, they have marginalized and fought them at every opportunity!
I am predicting that Obama will win in convincing fashion in November. Do I think Obama is a good speaker and effectively markets the “change” message? Absolutely. Do I think he will truly effect change? Not really. My instincts tell me that he is not the agent of change that he is currently being marketed as.
Does Obama talk about true “change” in our monetary and tax policies? You know, getting rid of the IRS, the income tax, and the Federal Reserve and replacing them with nothing? No. Instead he talks about tweaking some tax credits here and closing some loop holes there…just enough surgical moves to make it look like he is pandering to the poor masses while not losing favor with the political/corporate elite and banking cartel that is really in control of the puppet strings. McCain doesn’t talk about true monetary change either.
Does Obama talk about true “change” in our foreign policy? You know, getting our troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Europe, Asia, and re-adopting Thomas Jefferson’s policy of “commerce with all nations, alliances with none”. No. Obama talks of sending more troops into Afghanistan, he said he would go at it with Iran if they didn’t comply, and has never talked about (to my knowledge) why we still have troops in over 700 bases in more than 130 countries…and how we are going broke and can’t really afford to pay for it. McCain actually wants to expand our overseas military escapades.
I could go on and on, but don’t want to filibuster this thread. The point I stress is not one against Obama or McCain, per se, but rather against our current two party political system. I argue that a strong third party will give American citizens another viable option, one that truly has a chance at winning. The political elite are very astute in realizing that many people vote for those who they “think have a chance to win”, rather than voting on principle alone. A strong third party will provide another opportunity for competition and choice in the electoral process, which will inherently help “check” the other two major parties from stepping too far out of line.
PS: AFFB: I was wondering when you were going to chime in.
August 29, 2008 @ 12:26 AM
greekfire
[quote=greekfire]Urbanrealtor,
I didn’t mean to offend, so if I did I apologize. Greek fire was an incendiary weapon used by the Byzantine Empire, mostly in naval battles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire
[/quote]
Sorry. It sounded like Rhinefire or some silly thing like that. Somehow I always think of Greek Fire as having a space. I dunno.
[quote=greekfire]
Yes, this blog does ebb and flow in the political realm from time to time. This is an election year, so there are a lot of political posts. There has still been a lot of info listed here related to San Diego housing, Rich and others are still providing their expertise for FREE, so it is still serving its purpose well. I certainly am not complaining.
[/quote]
Not sure about your point here.
Not really convinced about Rich’s expertise except that he is adept at pointing out the need to adhere to basic common sense. Not to disrespect him. I just think he raised the level of discourse from blind boosterism and contrarian stupidity. I am pleased certainly but not terribly impressed. I am more impressed with his skill with drupal (which seems to really hurt my brain when I try to fuck with it).
[quote=greekfire]
The Republican Party is fractured, as well it should be. I have had numerous discussions on this topic and have come to the conclusion that the GOP is either inept, or they don’t think they have a chance at winning in 2008, so they are focusing on 2012. I arrive at this conclusion because Ron Paul got 1.2 million votes in the primaries and the GOP has not only not reached out their hands to his wing of the party, they have marginalized and fought them at every opportunity!
[/quote]
They marginalized him because he was already marginal and they wanted to get the most votes.
[quote=greekfire]
I am predicting that Obama will win in convincing fashion in November. Do I think Obama is a good speaker and effectively markets the “change” message? Absolutely. Do I think he will truly effect change? Not really. My instincts tell me that he is not the agent of change that he is currently being marketed as.
[/quote]
I largely agree. I am voting for him because his position more closely match mine than do McCain’s.
Any actual change is just icing on the cake.
[quote=greekfire]
Does Obama talk about true “change” in our monetary and tax policies? You know, getting rid of the IRS, the income tax, and the Federal Reserve and replacing them with nothing? No. Instead he talks about tweaking some tax credits here and closing some loop holes there…just enough surgical moves to make it look like he is pandering to the poor masses while not losing favor with the political/corporate elite and banking cartel that is really in control of the puppet strings. McCain doesn’t talk about true monetary change either.
[/quote]
Okay can you explain the whole cartel thing for those not in the know of this particular conspiracy theory?
[quote=greekfire]
Does Obama talk about true “change” in our foreign policy? You know, getting our troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Europe, Asia, and re-adopting Thomas Jefferson’s policy of “commerce with all nations, alliances with none”. No. Obama talks of sending more troops into Afghanistan, he said he would go at it with Iran if they didn’t comply, and has never talked about (to my knowledge) why we still have troops in over 700 bases in more than 130 countries…and how we are going broke and can’t really afford to pay for it. McCain actually wants to expand our overseas military escapades.
[/quote]
I am not sure how following an 18th century enlightenment deist would be helpful. I don’t see how weakening our military strength globally would be helpful. However on the latter point, I am willing to listen to a good argument or two.
[quote=greekfire]
I could go on and on, but don’t want to filibuster this thread. The point I stress is not one against Obama or McCain, per se, but rather against our current two party political system. I argue that a strong third party will give American citizens another viable option, one that truly has a chance at winning. The political elite are very astute in realizing that many people vote for those who they “think have a chance to win”, rather than voting on principle alone. A strong third party will provide another opportunity for competition and choice in the electoral process, which will inherently help “check” the other two major parties from stepping too far out of line.
[/quote]My ass.
Like I said before, winner-take-all elections (like we have in the US) cater to a 2 party system with a third always on the periphery. I encourage the independent minded conservatives to vote their conscience. That way, they get their principle and I get my candidate. I welcome the independent conservative vote.
[quote=greekfire]
PS: AFFB: I was wondering when you were going to chime in.
[/quote]
And you did not expect that this would do it???
August 29, 2008 @ 10:54 AM
Urbanrealtor,
urbanrealtor
Urbanrealtor,
[quote=urbanrealtor]Okay can you explain the whole cartel thing for those not in the know of this particular conspiracy theory?
[/quote]
No conspiracy theory here. The Fed, composed of private member banks, are essentially a cartel. OPEC has oil, the drug cartels have drugs, the Fed’s commodity is money.
August 28, 2008 @ 10:59 PM
Allan, I had a feeling you’d
Allan, I had a feeling you’d respond to me. 🙂
I respect your knowledge of history. And I know you’re a conservative. I am too in many ways.
However, I believe that this election is exceptional. We, Americans have the opportunity to make history in the eyes of the world by electing a Black candidate and putting the issue of race to rest.
I don’t know about you, but when I was young, I wanted to change the world, make it better. It felt great to be idealistic.
I feel some of our board members are too focused on their jobs, their W2s and 1040s, and acquiring their McMansions with matching luxury car.
I can sense a shift in our society the same way there was when JFK was elected.
Look at Obama. His family is the tableau of the future America. His mom was White and his dad Black. His uncle fought during WWII. His grand-parents grew up in Kansas. His sister is 1/2 White, 1/2 Indonesian, and married to a Chinese-Canadian professor.
Obama is obviously very talented. I’m going to give him a chance, if only to make myself better.
The fact that the political establishment has embraced Obama makes him a safe bet. He won’t screw-up our country. He has a good of chance of making America great again in the eyes of world.
Imagine how the Europeans, especially the French, will come to admire us again.
Like I said, I’m voting my ideals and my gut instincts. I feel that’s the right thing to do.
August 28, 2008 @ 11:44 PM
patientlywaiting wrote:The
[quote=patientlywaiting]The fact that the political establishment has embraced Obama makes him a safe bet. He won’t screw-up our country.
[/quote]
What?! PW, I have admired a lot of your posts, but this one is truly wind shear (you heard it here first) to me. The political establishment has embraced him, therefore he is a safe bet? He won’t screw up our country? George W Bush was not only embraced by the political establishment, but many GOP’ers would argue that he had a mandate. Your logic tells us that we should embrace him for such? What will it take to get you and others to understand that the political establishment is the main culprit here and not the solution?
[quote=patientlywaiting]Imagine how the Europeans, especially the French, will come to admire us again.[/quote] Are they supposed to respect us more if we elect a person simply because they are black? That’s the main tone I get from many in the Obama camp. We are due to elect a black man just because he is black and we have never had a black president. This, to me, is the same collectivist attitude that perpetuated slavery and racial segregation, only in reverse.
Meritocracy? That’s a system whereby we promote people based on their achievements and merit, not on the color of their skin or the size of their wallet. Who cares how the Euros will perceive us? Yes, I want them to respect us for our ideals, but I don’t want to elect leaders or enact policy solely based on skin color or foreigners will perceive it.
August 28, 2008 @ 11:56 PM
PW: This actually has nothing
PW: This actually has nothing to do with my being conservative, as I ain’t voting for McCain neither.
I sincerely hope that Obama proves to be everything he is touted to be. I see the parallels to JFK, but would remind you of JFK’s record as President and that he accelerated our mission in that very war (Vietnam) you call a terrible mistake.
I admire voting your ideals, I really do. Sadly, I am too pessimistic by far to think that either party represents “ideals” anymore, rather they are there to support the sprawling American hegemony that keeps us in McMansions and Hummers.
As to French admiration: I am reminded of Jacques Chirac chiding us for our interventionism at the same time as French paratroopers patrolled the streets of Cote D’Ivoire protecting French business interests.
The Europeans will do whatever they have to do to maintain the status quo ante and the events in Georgia show that in spades.
That is not to say that we have some fence mending to do in the world at large, and I think Joe Biden’s selection as VP was brilliant. And, I agree with gandalf: Biden’s a hoot. A verbose hoot, but a hoot.
August 28, 2008 @ 11:21 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]patientlywaiting: History has declared the Vietnam War a terrible mistake? Really? I’d like to read that history book because that opinion is very much at odds with the facts.
[/quote]
Okay this should be good.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Take a hard look at Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos post-April 1975 and tell me what happened when the US exited Southeast Asia. Discuss how the benevolent North Vietnamese dealt with South Vietnam, [/quote]
Okay bullshit Allan.
I don’t generally start discussions that way but you are generally not so weak as to be damaged by it. Of course this discussion may prove me wrong.
The part of this you are missing is that we were invaders. The ARVN in the south who stood with us were collaborators.
They were slaughtered.
They deserved to be slaughtered.
If we were invaded and the invaders left and the collaborators were left defenseless I would slaughter them.
That’s what you do if you care about your country.
If you don’t slaughter collaborators you are not a patriot.
If you would not do that for the US, then Allan, you are not an American.
I have no illusions about what I just said.
And absolutely no apologies.
None.
The bottom line is that we failed to bring western-oriented capitalist democracy
We failed.
We failed because the civilian bosses of the US miltary did not support the war.
We could have bombed or taken over but generally our heart is not in wars of conquest
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]or how Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouges “re-educated” the people of Cambodia. Remember the “Killing Fields”? The terrible mistake is what happened after we left.
[/quote]
The funny thing there is that our campaigns in that country are what empowered the reds in Cambodia. We were okay with the Khmer hurting the Viets. Funny how nationalist oriented socialist movements end up looking a lot like national socialist movements. This is especially true of ones oriented around a cult of personality.
Since there were no killing fields in Vietnam like Kampuchea after our withdrawal from Vietnam, the argument that genocide is caused by our withdrawal does not hold.
I am disappointed by your assertion.
It was weak.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I agree that idealism is a powerful force, and there is no doubting the power of Obama’s rhetoric or oratorical skills. But don’t let blind idealism guide you at the expense of facts or an objective view of history. Demagogues are all too effective at exploiting that for their own ends.[/quote]
There is no objective view of history. Idealism is not blind. It may be short-sighted at times but it is generally pretty clear on what it wants.
It is not being exploited to vote for who seems to represent achievement of your goals.
August 28, 2008 @ 11:45 PM
Dan: My assertion was weak?
Dan: My assertion was weak? Okay, let’s take just one part of yours then, shall we?
That would be that the ARVN were collaborators. That presumes that the North Vietnamese, including the Viet Cong were in the right, and the US supported South was in the wrong. Am I reading that correctly?
The North made no bones about their desire to conquer the South and hence the US intervention. As to our being invaders, my understanding of the Vietnam War (and this would predate our involvement and go back to the partition of North and South) is that we were asked for help by the South against the North, which was actively attempting to subvert the internationally recognized government through insurgency (National Liberation Front) and invasion of their own (North Vietnamese Army).
The North had absolutely no reason to be there and the South Vietnamese government made that abundantly clear. To their detriment, they chose to believe that the US would support them even after we pulled our last combat troops out in 1973 and Congress proved their faith horribly misguided, leading to the fall of the South in 1975.
This is where I want to focus. What happened to the remnants of the Viet Cong and the South Vietnamese Communists, Dan? Hmm? The very people that had supported the Communists of the North and toiled all those years, fighting the US and the ARVNs. I’m sure you know this one, right? They were butchered right along with the ARVN “collaborators”. Their families were either killed along with them, or sent into re-education camps or worse. How many millions were displaced following the fall of Saigon? Yet the North had promised “equality” for all Vietnamese and an “enlightened” approach to “unity”.
And, yeah, there is an objective view of history, so you can spare me the Graham Greene moral ambiguity, along with the canned Karnow and Halberstam view of Vietnam. Yes, I know about Operation Phoenix, and Air America and MACV/SOG.
The facts speak for themselves and continue to do so. Vietnam remains hopelessly corrupt and led by the same “enlightened” brigands we fought during the war.
August 29, 2008 @ 12:01 AM
Maybe it’s me, but I
Maybe it’s me, but I personally would think twice before I pissed off AFFB. One of his posts leads to 3 days of research.
August 29, 2008 @ 1:00 AM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: My assertion was weak? Okay, let’s take just one part of yours then, shall we?
That would be that the ARVN were collaborators. That presumes that the North Vietnamese, including the Viet Cong were in the right, and the US supported South was in the wrong. Am I reading that correctly?
[/quote]
Nope. I am not asserting a moral rightness.
I am asserting that we were invaders.
We came in as the French left and supported a faction that was born of, and rooted in, the old colonial government.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The North made no bones about their desire to conquer the South and hence the US intervention. As to our being invaders, my understanding of the Vietnam War (and this would predate our involvement and go back to the partition of North and South) is that we were asked for help by the South against the North, which was actively attempting to subvert the internationally recognized government through insurgency (National Liberation Front) and invasion of their own (North Vietnamese Army).
[/quote]The partition was an artificial construction of colonialism. I do not acknowledge that there were 2 distinct countries with legacies that were distinct. I do acknowledge that there were, briefly 2 distinct state units in a single national geographic region.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
The North had absolutely no reason to be there and the South Vietnamese government made that abundantly clear. To their detriment, they chose to believe that the US would support them even after we pulled our last combat troops out in 1973 and Congress proved their faith horribly misguided, leading to the fall of the South in 1975.
[/quote]
See previous for the first sentence.
See Afghanistan in the 90’s for the second.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
This is where I want to focus. What happened to the remnants of the Viet Cong and the South Vietnamese Communists, Dan? Hmm? The very people that had supported the Communists of the North and toiled all those years, fighting the US and the ARVNs. I’m sure you know this one, right? They were butchered right along with the ARVN “collaborators”. Their families were either killed along with them, or sent into re-education camps or worse. How many millions were displaced following the fall of Saigon? Yet the North had promised “equality” for all Vietnamese and an “enlightened” approach to “unity”.
[/quote]
To them it was a civil war that had foreign powers as a major component.
In any civil war, final conquest has to be absolute. Hence the existence of people like General Sherman.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
And, yeah, there is an objective view of history, so you can spare me the Graham Greene moral ambiguity, along with the canned Karnow and Halberstam view of Vietnam. Yes, I know about Operation Phoenix, and Air America and MACV/SOG.
The facts speak for themselves and continue to do so. Vietnam remains hopelessly corrupt and led by the same “enlightened” brigands we fought during the war.[/quote]
Have you been to Southeast Asia?
Vietnam is a well developed and beautiful country.
They are fiercely independent and consider the Americans to be the weakest of the invading entities they have endured (squarely behind the Chinese and the French).
They are doing well and don’t really take communism all that seriously.
Not entirely sure how you can consider our defeat there (sorry, tactical withdrawal) as a victory.
I am also not sure how our failure can be considered bad when you consider the current situation there. Their GDP is growing at between 6 and 8.5% annually. That would be nice to have here right now.
August 29, 2008 @ 7:54 AM
Dan: Vietnam is a beautiful
Dan: Vietnam is a beautiful and well-developed country? Let’s look at some external sources to rebut that. Starting with Global Integrity’s ranking of Vietnam: http://www.globalintegrity.org/reports/2006/vietnam/index.cfm.
I went out and grabbed some articles at random about Vietnam’s corruption and ill run governance and the Communists are still large and in charge, thank you very much:
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/07/05/Worldandnation/75_year_old_scourge_o.shtml
From The Economist: http://www.fva.org/200209/story03.htm (Note the mention of the government’s restriction on personal freedoms and juxtapose that with your assertion that they “don’t take communism all that seriously”).
BBC report about the reaction of Vietnamese officials to a UN report on religious freedom(s) in Vietnam: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/299215.stm
As to America being the weakest of the invaders (and you forgot to mention the Japanese in there), I urge you to read General Giap’s memoirs closely, especially the part about the 1972 bombing campaigns over Hanoi and Haiphong (Operations Linebacker I and II). Or an even better book is “My Vietcong Memoir” by Truong Nhu Tang, a founding member of the Viet Cong: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0394743091/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top.
Tang’s book will debunk a lot of your misconceptions about the war and from both the American and Vietnamese Communist perspectives.
As to conflating the behavior of the Vietnamese Communists with General Sherman’s “March to the Sea” (I am presuming this is what you’re speaking of): Puh-leeze. Sherman’s directive was to deny aid and sustenance to the Confederate forces (part of the “total war” doctrine that was emerging with the Union forces) and that is what he did. He did not, however, round up all the members of the South and execute them out of hand or subject them to torture. Sherman’s campaigns in Georgia and the Carolinas were brutal to be sure, but don’t even hold a candle to what happened when the North Vietnamese assumed power over the South in 1975. Speaking of weak assertions.
In your previous post, you mentioned that an “American Patriot” would have slaughtered his opponents after victory. Yet, following the American Revolutionary War, we didn’t put all of the Loyalists or Tories to death, did we? Nope.
And following the cessation of hostilities in the American Civil War we didn’t execute all of the survivors of the Confederacy, either.
Vietnam is a beautiful country, to be sure. It is not, however, “well developed”. It is endemically corrupt, repressive and poorly run.
As to US support of the Khmer Rouges, I think you are confusing Lon Nol with Pol Pot or perhaps Prince Sihanouk. I can’t be sure because it was an offhand comment that was left undeveloped.
August 29, 2008 @ 6:45 PM
Allan:
Regarding Vietnam’s
Allan:
Regarding Vietnam’s development, the GDP speaks for itself. As to the corruption and poor governance (which was not intended to be the focus of my assertion), it seems to be taking a page out of China’s playbook. Here is what their GI score looks like http://report.globalintegrity.org/China/2007/scorecard. It is essentially the same as Vietnam’s.
Would you describe China as not being well developed?
I don’t ask this to just be rhetorical. I am actually curious because that is what it sounds like you are saying (essentially that high or improving gdp and low integrity index mean poor development).
My remark about the party is that, as with China, most people do not consider the government’s legitimacy in question and do not challenge its authoritarian rule. The concept of governmental navel-gazing is a more western trait. I don’t want to trivialize tyranny or bad leaders through cultural relativism but viewing the experiences of non-Americans through the lens of how an American would feel seems to me obtuse. My assertion is based on ethnographic and anecdotal evidence. I ask people and read nerdy books. While I really hate when a thread turns into a book club, here is one that you might find interesting (sorry for the length of the link). I opened it to an article I find interesting on this topic. http://books.google.com/books?id=rkO7somAQdEC&dq=Political+Legitimacy+in+Southeast+Asia:+The+Quest+for+Moral+Authority&pg=PP1&ots=qpF3rM1FZo&sig=HKZiOMmZwwi1QfNfwfu13uErHdI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA257,M1
Regarding the relative strength of us as conquering entities. I think our tactical victories were Pyrrhic (I think McNamara would agree). We left after failing in our goals. The Chinese controlled Vietnam for 1000 years. The French changed their freaking alphabet and improved their food. We were there for a few years as enemies and I am not clear what we accomplished. The only positive I can see is that we created an impression in the red states (by which I mean communist countries) that we would not roll over for the dominoes.
The comparison to Sherman has its limits but my point was that liquidating the means of production for a potential insurgent political machine is par for the course. Future civil wars must be quashed in utero.
This leads into the issue of collaborators. The problem with the comparison to the revolution is that the British were not an invading enemy and Tories were not collaborators with invaders. They were political dissidents. That is different.
A better example is Ireland.
Most of the people who died at the hands of the IRA were Catholics. They died for collaborating or for undermining the insurgency. That’s why the IRA (as evil and bloodthirsty as they are)were more successful than most terror-oriented resistance groups.
Patriots are believers and well disciplined insurgent patriots do what is needed or they do not succeed. Killing collaborators gets results.
Regarding Khmer Rouge, it is given knowledge (though, you are right, it is debatable)that American bombings created a demand for reaction that was best supplied by Saroth Sar and his people. Like I said before, nationalist socialist movements start to look like national socialist movements when they really get going. Nothing brings that out like exogenous suffering.
I am speculating, but I suspect that the reason that, unlike Cambodia, Vietnam never killed 25% of its population in death camps is because their heart was in the political struggle and not the civilian upheaval.
Regarding Budweiser, you are more wrong than I have seen in any of your posts. Irish Bud (which is not wildly higher in ethanol) is popular there because there are not many light lagers in Ireland. Most are heavy (eg: harp). And it tastes more like Stella than American Bud (made on license by Guiness as of my last visit).
I am concluding with a photo of a stupa in the killing fields between Siem Reap and Angkor Wat.
I took it with a disposable so it is not the highest resolution. The lumps in the glass case are human skulls. Each one has a bullet hole. This stupa is located at an elementary school on the playground.
http://s458.photobucket.com/albums/qq304/urbanrealtor/?action=view¤t=IMG_0441.jpg
August 29, 2008 @ 11:11 PM
Dan: Too many points here to
Dan: Too many points here to discuss in anything less than an overlong response, so I’ll confine my response to only one of them.
That would be that our “tactical victories were Pyrrhic”. To the contrary. If you isolate three distinct battles/campaigns, you’ll see that not only did the US never lose a battle in Vietnam, we were extremely effective against both insurgent forces (NLF/Viet Cong) and first line conventional enemy infantry (North Vietnamese Army regulars).
These three would be Ia Drang (November 1965), Operation Junction City (February 1967) and the Tet Offensive (spring – fall 1968). In each instance, the US forces decisively defeated the NLF/VC and/or NVA forces and, in the case of the Tet Offensive, effectively destroyed the Viet Cong as a fighting force for the balance of the war. These were not “tactical” victories, nor were they “Pyrrhic”.
Had the US forces been allowed the necessary freedom of movement, especially the USAF and Navy fighters and bombers, the outcome of the war would have been very different. This is well illustrated by the success of the two Operation Linebacker (I and II) bombing campaigns in 1972.
Due to Johnson’s (and later Nixon’s) fear of the conflict widening to include direct Soviet intervention, the theater commanders were handicapped by nonsensical rules of engagements or had parts of Vietnam “blacked out” (on maps) where they barred from operations.
As the war dragged on, and figures such as Walter Cronkite and David Halberstam weighed in against the conflict (especially when, in 1968, Cronkite declared a clear US victory during the Tet a defeat), we sought to extricate ourselves from the “quagmire”. Militarily, and even with the tremendous handicaps imposed, the US was extremely effective in Vietnam.
August 29, 2008 @ 11:50 PM
Allan:
So before we go
Allan:
So before we go farther:
It appears that you are arguing the following:
1
Engagement in Vietnam was a good idea and underpinned by humanitarian (or at least (militarily) charitable) concerns. We were invited there to help the sovereign and ideologically sympathetic South from being invaded by the aggressive (and ideologically antithetical) North.
2
That we won, or almost won, the actual engagement in Vietnam. That winning involved specific, observable criteria and that this would have served our ends. That our ends were well defined. That our defining limitations were artificial and imposed by unhelpful and out of touch civilian leadership. Without these largely irrational limitations we would have achieved our well-defined aims and goals. That the people who were being occupied were not a defining variable.
Would you agree that these are your assertions?
Which ones am I mistakenly attributing to you?
This is a question.
August 30, 2008 @ 12:07 AM
Dan: In broad terms, yes. In
Dan: In broad terms, yes. In specific terms, no, and largely because you have tied several unrelated skeins together in an attempt to make rope.
In the overall scheme of “containment” (as articulated by Kennan and Dulles), our aims in Vietnam were clear. The South Vietnamese regime was problematic to say the least, but the overarching goal of keeping Vietnam from communist sway was certainly there.
I do find communism antithetical to my beliefs as an American, and I think the years following our final 1975 withdrawal underscore the predatory nature of the North Vietnamese, as well as how aggressive the Soviets and their proxies became after a humbled US withdrew from the world scene. The 1970s were a time of the Soviets ascendant and in large part due to the failure to secure a victory in Vietnam.
As to specific and observable criteria, yes, it is a provable fact that the US did not lose a battle in Vietnam, and it is a provable fact that the Johnson Administration (and to a lesser extent, the Nixon Administration) imposed significant limitations on the prosecution of the war and these limitations directly and negatively impacted our ability to achieve decisive victory.
Your referring to the Vietnamese people as “not a defining variable” indicates that the US and US supported South were somehow worse for the population of Vietnam than the communists of the North. This is an interesting point and I would think open to debate. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Saigon remained Saigon and not Ho Chi Minh City (the South prevailed rather than the North). WOuld Vietnam be any more “well run” than it is at present in your opinion? And that is a question for you.
August 30, 2008 @ 10:07 AM
Again, not trying to assert
Again, not trying to assert with my previous post. Trying to get a handle on your assertions.
If something was incorrect, then say so.
I am not trying to make a rope or hang anybody with it. I am trying to understand your understanding.
Regarding your question:
Do I think that had the South prevailed would Vietnam be more well run? I really haven’t a clue.
I am doubting it. Corrupt communist countries look pretty similar in a lot of ways to corrupt capitalist countries.
I think a better way of looking at that is how do long-standing red regimes continue to operate? The short version is that they do exactly what non-reds do. Capitalist regimes do some level of central planning and communists allow private wealth accumulation. They adapt to fit the times.
I think that communism seeks to address the same issues as democracy does. Its local evolution gives people a way to address what they perceive as unchecked capital and inequity.
Both are reactionary and fairly intuitive forms of social engineering (this term used in non-Mitnick way)and primitive forms of each go back essentially forever. However, in the long term, capitalist democracy is far better at preserving and reinforcing a durable incentive structure (and therefore production).
Typically, communism comes into being where there is great inequity and attempts at modern liberalization have failed. I think this is observable in Vietnam (Truman’s non-recognition of the Viet Minh), Cuba (Bautista’s puppet junta), and Russia (the failure to industrialize and the ubiquity of peasantry and serfdom). I think communist sentiment wanes when modernization takes hold (eg: Mexico following the implementation of democracy).
August 30, 2008 @ 11:08 AM
urbanrealtor, wow, I now view
urbanrealtor, wow, I now view Realtors in a new light. And here I was, thinking that Realtors were only interested in McMansions, penthouses, luxury cars and their next commission checks. 😉
I was in Cambodia and Vietnam earlier this year and I agree with your observations. Beautiful countries with great people.
Allan means well but arguing that America “won” the Vietnam War is like saying, yeah, real estate prices have dropped, but we didn’t lose anything.
I just wonder how we will argue that we “won” the Iraq War.
It would have been best if we had not gotten into those conflicts in the first place.
August 30, 2008 @ 11:24 AM
Dan: I think where we’re
Dan: I think where we’re parting company is your view of communism as a benign alternative to capitalism (or, in the case of Cuba, let’s say, oligarchy) and my view of communism (the Cold War version, from 1945 through 1989) as an aggressive system bent on world domination.
Much like Hitler’s National Socialism, the Soviets attempted to put a friendly and all-inclusive face (“Workers of the World, Unite!”) on a system that sought nothing short of bringing the entire world to heel under authoritarian rule.
I don’t want to go all 1950s on you here, but I do (and did) believe that the Soviets were a force for evil in the world and, while they espoused Marxist-Leninism, they were simply seeking power.
I don’t know that South Vietnam would have done any better than the North in running the country. As I said earlier, the South Vietnamese regime represented a whole suite of problems on their own and they were just as corrupt in their own way as the communists. As I’ve also said before, sometimes it’s a choice between bad and worse and not good and bad. You mention Batista’s Cuba. Oligarchic, repressive and corrupt to say the least. Is Castro better or worse, on balance? I think worse, but it’s an arguable point.
Mexico is another case in point. Would they do better under a communist system of government? There are some strong arguments for and against. However, if we look to some of their strongly socialists neighbors to the south, the jury is either still out or leaning in favor of a more capitalist system.
I enjoyed your oblique reference to Kevin Mitnick, BTW. Interesting cat.
August 30, 2008 @ 11:44 AM
PW: Thanks. That’s about the
PW: Thanks. That’s about the nicest thing anyone has said to me in a while.
Allan:
I don’t see communism as necessarily benign. I make no judgments on its relative goodness.
I only think that wealth redistribution arises (as does consultative oligarchy which is a path to democracy) as a way to address wealth accumulation and poverty.
If one cannot achieve some level of self determination or minimum wealth, they feel deprived. If people perceive deprivation they want to fix it. Democracy achieves that one way and forced redistribution achieves that in another.
Its a supply and demand equation. If we had fostered consultation in the Batista oligarchy, we likely would have reduced the demand for change and redistribution. Castro would have been that weirdo with the boats that nobody really liked.
I think consultation is starting to take hold in China and Vietnam. There are more compromises and less Tienanmen Square incidents. But its way too early to draw any real conclusions.
One Caveat:
Please do not confuse reform and consultation with catastrophic democratization. Delivering democracy (ala domino’s or Jello Biafra) is why France was unstable for most of the 19th century. Gee I wonder how that will work in Rumsfeld’s Iraq.
August 28, 2008 @ 11:24 PM
urbanrealtor
[quote=urbanrealtor]
Seriously, the only situations in which 3 or more parties are viable are those in which proportional representation is a feature. For example, in Germany, if 20 parties each win 5% of the votes they each get 5% of the seats (hence the rise of a certain fringe nationalist party in the early 30’s).
[/quote]
I don’t agree with this… third parties could be viable in a winner-take-all system if we employed a more sensible voting system such as approval voting — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting .
The current system we are all used to (plurality voting) leads to very sub-optimal results for various reasons, in addition to ensuring the stranglehold applied by the two big parties.
(For the record I think the two big parties are pretty well equally ridiculous, and I’m not nuts about any of the third parties either. Which is one of the many reasons I have no interest in these political threads… but the topic of voting systems skirted by UR’s post was nerdy enough for me to chime in :-).
Rich
August 29, 2008 @ 12:33 AM
Rich Toscano
[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=urbanrealtor]
Seriously, the only situations in which 3 or more parties are viable are those in which proportional representation is a feature. For example, in Germany, if 20 parties each win 5% of the votes they each get 5% of the seats (hence the rise of a certain fringe nationalist party in the early 30’s).
[/quote]
I don’t agree with this… third parties could be viable in a winner-take-all system if we employed a more sensible voting system such as approval voting — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting .
The current system we are all used to (plurality voting) leads to very sub-optimal results for various reasons, in addition to ensuring the stranglehold applied by the two big parties.
(For the record I think the two big parties are pretty well equally ridiculous, and I’m not nuts about any of the third parties either. Which is one of the many reasons I have no interest in these political threads… but the topic of voting systems skirted by UR’s post was nerdy enough for me to chime in :-).
Rich[/quote]
True Rich.
If the political system were totally different it would not be the same.
You only assist my point that American winner-take-all (which is, by definition, plurality based) is geared towards 2 primary tier and a single secondary tier party.
I actually used to have a roommate who did his dissertation on this. His final number was 2.41 political parties for any single office.
Thank you for the assist.
August 29, 2008 @ 12:58 AM
urbanrealtor wrote:True Rich.
[quote=urbanrealtor]True Rich. If the political system were totally different it would not be the same.
[/quote]
Wow, Dan, that’s deep….and obvious.
(haha)
August 29, 2008 @ 1:17 AM
Shadowfax wrote:urbanrealtor
[quote=Shadowfax][quote=urbanrealtor]True Rich. If the political system were totally different it would not be the same.
[/quote]
Wow, Dan, that’s deep….and obvious.
(haha)[/quote]
Yeah I go for the gold that way.
But seriously, to say that our political system would work if we changed the nature of voting is like saying Ayn Rand would make sense if the world she envisioned was true. Thats the kind of logic that inspires one after the 3rd bong hit. And yes, I just called Rich a stoner. Not that I actually believe that but its funny to imagine (I don’t get out much since the baby).
While were at it, Budweiser would be good if Guinness brewed it. This I can actually attest to because they do that in Ireland. Its killer.
August 29, 2008 @ 8:00 AM
Dan: Budweiser in Ireland
Dan: Budweiser in Ireland isn’t better because it’s brewed by Guinness, it’s better because it has like 4x the alcohol.
And, why in the name of God would you drink Budweiser when in Ireland?!? You are surrounded by some of the best beers in the world, including Guinness, Harp, Murphy’s and Smithwick’s, and you drink Bud?
Geez, Dan, you are supposed to be an erudite member of San Francisco’s cultural elite and you are quaffing Buttwiper? No, no, NO! Say it ain’t so!
Are you secretly drinking Sutter Home Chard, too? What sort of plonk do you and the missus guzzle when the help isn’t looking?
August 29, 2008 @ 8:51 AM
urbanrealtor wrote:Shadowfax
[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=Shadowfax][quote=urbanrealtor]True Rich. If the political system were totally different it would not be the same.
[/quote]
Wow, Dan, that’s deep….and obvious.
(haha)[/quote]
Yeah I go for the gold that way.
But seriously, to say that our political system would work if we changed the nature of voting is like saying Ayn Rand would make sense if the world she envisioned was true. Thats the kind of logic that inspires one after the 3rd bong hit. And yes, I just called Rich a stoner. Not that I actually believe that but its funny to imagine (I don’t get out much since the baby).
While were at it, Budweiser would be good if Guinness brewed it. This I can actually attest to because they do that in Ireland. Its killer.[/quote]
Dan, you said “Seriously, the only situations in which 3 or more parties are viable are those in which proportional representation is a feature.” (as opposed to a winner take all system, which you mentioned as the alternative the prior paragraph).
I pointed out that 3rd parties could be viable in a winner take all system with a not-too-radically different system of collecting and tallying votes.
Somehow, you have turned this around to say that I helped prove your point (which I didn’t) and also that I am on hallucinogens. With a gratuitous shot at me in another post thrown in for good measure.
Seems like you are just being argumentative for the sake of it at this point.
Rich
August 29, 2008 @ 10:51 AM
I can’t believe UR comments
I can’t believe UR comments would generate this much of a response.
I see some lucid replies to his posts but given the incongruity of a large part of his statements why would anyone bother?
August 29, 2008 @ 12:14 PM
sdnativeson wrote:I can’t
[quote=sdnativeson]I can’t believe UR comments would generate this much of a response.
I see some lucid replies to his posts but given the incongruity of a large part of his statements why would anyone bother?
[/quote]
Uh yeah.
This is what I get for being facetious.
I clearly need to delineate when I am joking better.
I guess I just have a less developed sense of humor than some here.
While I stand by what I said for some stuff (which is and will be the focus of other posts) I thought it obvious that the silly stuff was not serious.
Poor judgment on my part apparently.
August 29, 2008 @ 12:44 PM
Rich Toscano wrote:
Dan, you
[quote=Rich Toscano]
Dan, you said “Seriously, the only situations in which 3 or more parties are viable are those in which proportional representation is a feature.” (as opposed to a winner take all system, which you mentioned as the alternative the prior paragraph).
I pointed out that 3rd parties could be viable in a winner take all system with a not-too-radically different system of collecting and tallying votes.
Somehow, you have turned this around to say that I helped prove your point (which I didn’t) and also that I am on hallucinogens. With a gratuitous shot at me in another post thrown in for good measure.
Seems like you are just being argumentative for the sake of it at this point.
Rich[/quote]
It was meant to be playful but since it confuses the debate I will refrain.
The point I was making is that plural voting is, in my opinion, radically different.
I don’t know that debating this specific point will prove fruitful; it really is arguing opinion.
Our current brand of democracy is limited to one vote and winner-take-all. My only point was that your assertion that more than 2 parties would have success if we changed the basic structure of electoral representation doesn’t really take us anywhere. I would not discount a switch to such a system but it does nothing to address what I was saying: that our existing winner-take-all system favors 2.5 parties.
While my attempt at joking was poor (yeah I suck at that), the obvious corollary to this is that getting 3 or more parties to be viable means actual structural change of electoral representation. You suggested structural change.
So I think we are making the same point.
Would you disagree?
August 29, 2008 @ 1:26 PM
I recognized the joke part as
I recognized the joke part as such. But I was disagreeing with a very specific declarative statement you made (third parties are only viable in proportional representation systems) by citing another example in which they might be viable (approval voting in winner take all systems). You cited one alternate system in which they’d be viable (and said that was the only possible alternate system in which they’d be viable). I cited another in which I thought they’d be viable. That was the entirety of my point.
So I don’t see the big deal with the fact that the system I cited isn’t actually the system we have in place given that A) it’s irrelevant to the point I was making and B) the system you cited isn’t the system we have in place either.
That was my confusion. Yes, I agree with you of course that third parties would require structural change — but I never said otherwise. I was specifically replying to your statement that there was only one such alternate structure. No hallucinogens necessary.
Rich
August 29, 2008 @ 7:05 PM
Rich Toscano wrote:I
[quote=Rich Toscano]I recognized the joke part as such. But I was disagreeing with a very specific declarative statement you made (third parties are only viable in proportional representation systems) by citing another example in which they might be viable (approval voting in winner take all systems). You cited one alternate system in which they’d be viable (and said that was the only possible alternate system in which they’d be viable). I cited another in which I thought they’d be viable. That was the entirety of my point.
So I don’t see the big deal with the fact that the system I cited isn’t actually the system we have in place given that A) it’s irrelevant to the point I was making and B) the system you cited isn’t the system we have in place either.
That was my confusion. Yes, I agree with you of course that third parties would require structural change — but I never said otherwise. I was specifically replying to your statement that there was only one such alternate structure. No hallucinogens necessary.
Rich[/quote]
You are accurate on this. I made an erroneous and overly restrictive declarative. Lack of sleep and midnight baby feedings. I usually equate plural voting with pr as alternative forms of democracy. It would have been more accurate to mention “non-US democracy” as a requirement for repeated multiparty elections.
Better question:
Given the multiple loci for the “alternate left” and the “alternate right”, which major party is more likely to implode and have its assets seized by an alternative party?
August 29, 2008 @ 2:05 PM
Quite a thread here.
I
Quite a thread here.
I thought it was about the elections?
Allan, on Vietnam, America should not have intervened at all in the beginning to support the French efforts after WWII. The country would have become independent then, after the Japanese defeat. We should have supported an independent, unified, nationalist (not communist) Vietnam. That’s what I mean about being on the wrong side of history. Back then we took the safe bet by supporting our ally, France. But we got into a quagmire that killed thousands of Americans.
On the partition of Vietnam it was Diem (South Vietnam’s US supported president) who violated the Geneva Accords calling for national elections. Of course, we then assassinated Diem.
I won’t go further into this topic otherwise we should start a separate thread.
———
On Obama, the reality is that we can only vote for 1 of 2 viable choices.
I believe that a vote for Obama is being on the right side of history.
August 29, 2008 @ 2:56 PM
PW: I agree that we shouldn’t
PW: I agree that we shouldn’t hijack the thread and especially with a topic as volatile as the Vietnam War. However, I do want to say one thing and then I will shut the hell up on the topic and that is this: North Vietnam would only settle for a unified Vietnam that was communist. Period. In their eyes, there was no other option and this is supported by the writings of Ho Chi Minh, Giap and the senior members of the Hanoi Politburo.
So, while I hear what you are saying and I don’t disagree, the reality and history tell a different tale.
I also agree that our involvement with the whole Diem affair is shameful. Of course, that puts us into a whole new category: “Crappy Things America Did During the Cold War to Contain the Soviets”.
August 29, 2008 @ 5:59 PM
H O L Y C R A P!
FLU
H O L Y C R A P!
FLU started a simple little thread asking for your vote, and it explodes into an incredible debate about the Vietnam War. I love this site! How are these two topics connected again?
AFFB & UR, you guys need to co-instruct a Vietnam History course at the community college. That was educational & entertaining too! UR, I think I share your unusual sense of humor – good stuff.
Thanks.
August 29, 2008 @ 11:04 PM
renterclint wrote:H O L Y C
[quote=renterclint]H O L Y C R A P!
FLU started a simple little thread asking for your vote, and it explodes into an incredible debate about the Vietnam War. I love this site! How are these two topics connected again?
AFFB & UR, you guys need to co-instruct a Vietnam History course at the community college. That was educational & entertaining too! UR, I think I share your unusual sense of humor – good stuff.
Thanks.
[/quote]
oh well, it is what it is. Play ball! 🙂
I wonder if any that voted here for mccain are now going to change their votes after Palin. Interesting times. I take what I said about hating politics because it’s “like a soap opera with ugly people comment back”. Lol.
August 30, 2008 @ 10:22 AM
FLU, man. That’s a riot. She
FLU, man. That’s a riot. She IS hot…
I’d vote for her too if I lived in an igloo.
August 30, 2008 @ 10:58 AM
I noticed that it’s possible
I noticed that it’s possible to cancel your vote and re-vote in this poll.
I wonder how the Palin choice is swaying voters.
August 31, 2008 @ 10:08 AM
[I noticed that it’s possible
[I noticed that it’s possible to cancel your vote and re-vote in this poll.
I wonder how the Palin choice is swaying voters.
]
meh….I think the entertainment value is much more seeing Allan from Fallbrook paint the town (or I should say, this thread) 🙂
August 31, 2008 @ 12:59 PM
>>>>> Funny thing is my wifey
>>>>> Funny thing is my wifey thinks her husband is pretty fine.
No offense to your wifey, but my own experience is that girls from Mainland China don’t marry husbands for their looks. 😉
August 31, 2008 @ 4:16 PM
patientlywaiting wrote:>>>>>
[quote=patientlywaiting]>>>>> Funny thing is my wifey thinks her husband is pretty fine.
No offense to your wifey, but my own experience is that girls from Mainland China don’t marry husbands for their looks. 😉
[/quote]
Lol. I suppose, except I made sure this one already had a greencard and brain much smarter than me.
Though I do tease her occasionally about what you mention above, she reminds me constantly these days that given the current economic swoon and weak dollar, those girls are probably are more likely to say “please, no more greenbacks. Got Euros and a E.U. passport?”
August 31, 2008 @ 1:43 PM
FLU: C’mon up to Fallbrook!
FLU: C’mon up to Fallbrook! Us hillbillies know to party! We ain’t tolerant (or tolerable, for that matter), tend to be a little too right wing and have questionable personal hygiene, but we can drink like fish.
August 31, 2008 @ 1:56 PM
Damn, PW! That’s harsh. Don’t
Damn, PW! That’s harsh. Don’t let me get on your bad side.
(I probably am already.)
Hey Allan, anybody else, you know about local wines, right? Can you recommend a good local mid-range red? Gotta get a bottle of wine for this evening.
August 31, 2008 @ 2:11 PM
gandalf: Why does it have to
gandalf: Why does it have to be local?
August 31, 2008 @ 3:14 PM
Doesn’t have to I guess…
Doesn’t have to I guess… Then again, buying local does reduce my carbon footprint. You know how we are on the ‘secular left’…
BTW, what the hell happened to conservatism?
The label has been completely hijacked by christian fundamentalists. Pastor Bob and his fifteen wives. Gay Pastor Bob. Pastor Bob doesn’t pay Income Taxes. Seems like every month there’s a new Pastor Bob.
God help us.
I like Christians, BTW. Real ones. Not the fake ones. Same goes with boobs. Keep it real.
So what am I drinking this evening?
August 31, 2008 @ 3:41 PM
gandalf: Dooooood! You need
gandalf: Dooooood! You need to stop taking this stuff so seriously or you’re gonna give yourself a coronary. For reals. This is just a good old-fashioned dustup between opposing viewpoints.
BTW, I think luchabee brought up some excellent points and that they’re worthy of discussion. I’m going to bounce back over to that thread and jump in.
How much do you want to spend, and are you looking for Merlot or Cab? Trader Joe’s has an excellent wine selection (generally), and I always recommend going there. You can get significant bang for your buck, including pretty good Chilean and Australian stuff.
August 31, 2008 @ 3:48 PM
You know, I think you’re
You know, I think you’re right.
To quote the Dude:
W: “Calmer than you are.”
D: “Shut the fuck up, Walter!!”
W: “Calmer than you.”
Mellow now.
August 31, 2008 @ 3:51 PM
Seriously, The Dude needs his
Seriously, The Dude needs his own religion. He’s a modern day Jesus.
August 31, 2008 @ 4:02 PM
gandalf: Still one of my
gandalf: Still one of my favorite movies of all time. afx is right, too, Dude needs a religion or at least a “movement”.
I came across this link for TJ’s wines and thought you might find it of interest: http://jasonswineblog.com/2008/06/11/best-of-trader-joes-wine-top-10-wines-of-may-2008/?gclid=CJ2bmYaXuZUCFRs-awod5nruRA
If you really want to drop some jingle on the plonk, I can steer you toward’s Stag’s Leap, Trefethen or Grgich Hills stuff. Muy bueno, but muy expensive as well.
August 31, 2008 @ 10:06 AM
gandalf wrote:FLU, man.
[quote=gandalf]FLU, man. That’s a riot. She IS hot…
I’d vote for her too if I lived in an igloo.
[/quote]
Funny thing is my wifey thinks her husband is pretty fine.
August 30, 2008 @ 12:39 PM
fat_lazy_union_worker
[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
oh well, it is what it is. Play ball! 🙂
I wonder if any that voted here for mccain are now going to change their votes after Palin. Interesting times. I take what I said about hating politics because it’s “like a soap opera with ugly people comment back”. Lol.
[/quote]
That is too funny! I have to say I have been on the fence leaning to the Obama side. But I like this new gal from what I have seen so her far. And it’s not (just) because she is easy on the peepers. Comparing the two tickets in my view has become more interesting.
August 30, 2008 @ 3:45 PM
It’s disapointing that on a
It’s disapointing that on a purported financial and real estate website, most of the readers are going to vote for the most liberal senator in congress and the third most liberal senator in congress.
If there is any hope in saving the US from fiscal disaster, it is McCain. Everyone else, including the Republicans before they were kicked out and the current Democrats, are going to jack up the national debt. Eventually, the ponzi-scheme will end and no there will be nobody to borrow from when we pay them back with worthless dollars.
If any of you have any conservative fiscal beliefs, please vote for McCain.
August 30, 2008 @ 4:18 PM
luchabee wrote:It’s
[quote=luchabee]It’s disapointing that on a purported financial and real estate website, most of the readers are going to vote for the most liberal senator in congress and the third most liberal senator in congress.
If there is any hope in saving the US from fiscal disaster, it is McCain. Everyone else, including the Republicans before they were kicked out and the current Democrats, are going to jack up the national debt. Eventually, the ponzi-scheme will end and no there will be nobody to borrow from when we pay them back with worthless dollars.
If any of you have any conservative fiscal beliefs, please vote for McCain.[/quote]
Yes I believe I touched his crown of thorns. Or maybe that was his melanoma. Whichever.
Please recall that the biggest proponent of supply-side economics, had much of his greatest economic success by using Keynesian techniques. Reagan took much of his playbook from FDR. Similarly, Clinton, a liberal regardless of what he calls himself, brought in a surplus.
The idea that conservative equals good fiscal policy has kind of been damage by the last 20 years.
August 30, 2008 @ 6:35 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:Clinton, a
[quote=urbanrealtor]Clinton, a liberal regardless of what he calls himself, brought in a surplus.
The idea that conservative equals good fiscal policy has kind of been damage by the last 20 years.[/quote]
The only surplus Clinton “brought” in was contained in Monica Lewisky’s backside. He benefited from being on the upswing of a boom cycle created by artificially low interest rates.
I agree with the second part. Conservatives have lost their way and we are seeing the results at the ballot box.
True conservatives like myself, who are voting for Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or Chuck Baldwin, are smitten deep down inside. Now the neo-con McCain supporters of the world, who pushed us aside and mocked and marginalized us over the past year and a half, are coming to us on their knees begging for us to vote for McCain.
We told the GOP that we believed in following the Constitution, sound money, lower taxes, smaller government, no nation-building or policing of the world, and more personal freedoms. The GOP, in turn, called us kooks, quacks, and conspiracy nuts. Now they want our vote! Fat chance.
August 30, 2008 @ 7:42 PM
So which republican president
So which republican president of the last 40 years was more fiscally conservative than Clinton?
It is possible that I am wrong, but I can’t think of one.
Can you think of a recent republican that spent less than Clinton?
Here is the actual data put out by the White House.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/sheets/hist01z1.xls
August 30, 2008 @ 10:28 PM
A confluence of interest rate
A confluence of interest rate reductions between 1990 and 1992, a technology bubble, and no major wars all contributed to the surplus that Clinton enjoyed in his final 3 years in office. He certainly didn’t cut spending. In fact total outlays, according to your data, increased 27%. His receipts increased a whopping 75%, however, and that’s where you get the surplus from.
Republicans aren’t much better…which proves my argument against the current 2 party system. Bush1 actually had a lower increase in spending than Clinton, at 21%. The problem is his receipts rose only 10%. However, he had to contend with the first Gulf War. Reagan’s receipts rose 52%, but his outlays also increased 57%.
August 30, 2008 @ 10:52 PM
I seem to recall that fiscal
I seem to recall that fiscal policy takes receipts into consideration in drafting.
So yes, I think the government bears responsibility as to whether their shop runs red or black.
His ran black.
It is unfairly selective in saying his shop’s p&l had nothing to do with his management.
August 30, 2008 @ 11:19 PM
urbanrealtor wrote:It is
[quote=urbanrealtor]It is unfairly selective in saying his shop’s p&l had nothing to do with his management.
[/quote]
It had everything to do with his management, but at the same time it had nothing do with his management. The same way that Carter’s management performance had everything, yet nothing, to do with what Nixon/Ford had left for him.
PS: Unless I’ve missed it, you still haven’t responded to my answer about the banking cartel under this thread. If you have, I offer my most sincere apologies.
August 30, 2008 @ 11:22 PM
Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck
Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Hillary Clinton, or even “None of the Above” have still not been added to the list of possible candidates in this poll…what gives?
August 30, 2008 @ 11:32 PM
greekfire wrote:Ron Paul, Bob
[quote=greekfire]Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Hillary Clinton, or even “None of the Above” have still not been added to the list of possible candidates in this poll…what gives?[/quote]
While those are real votes, they are inconsequential in the current contest.
The only ones I like are the right wing ones for their ability to split the right.
August 30, 2008 @ 11:29 PM
greekfire wrote:urbanrealtor
[quote=greekfire][quote=urbanrealtor]It is unfairly selective in saying his shop’s p&l had nothing to do with his management.
[/quote]
It had everything to do with his management, but at the same time it had nothing do with his management. The same way that Carter’s management performance had everything, yet nothing, to do with what Nixon/Ford had left for him.
PS: Unless I’ve missed it, you still haven’t responded to my answer about the banking cartel under this thread. If you have, I offer my most sincere apologies. [/quote]
Re Clinton:
Wow that’s deep.
Like its swimming (and vacuous).
Please say something substantive on this or do me the courtesy of not responding.
I know you are capable but doubt your will.
Re Cartel:
I believe it sounded to dumb to respond to but I will humor you on this.
Lay your question out clearly, in plain English and I will endeavor to respond.
August 31, 2008 @ 12:02 AM
urbanrealtor wrote:
Re
[quote=urbanrealtor]
Re Cartel:
I believe it sounded to dumb to respond to but I will humor you on this.
Lay your question out clearly, in plain English and I will endeavor to respond.
[/quote]
Browbeat all you want, but you still haven’t responded to my earlier advance about the banking cartel. You can go back just as well as I can and do the research on my earlier post. You have taken the time to give a dissertation on Vietnam and have gone out of your way to intimate that this site’s host is on drugs; yet you still haven’t responded to my advance. Personally, my friend, I think you are fighting on too many fronts.
PS: I think you meant “too” dumb, but I’m not “to” sure. Memo: if you are going to browbeat, as you always try to do, at least have the intellect to get your adverbs straight…geez.
August 31, 2008 @ 12:21 AM
greekfire: Apropos of
greekfire: Apropos of absolutely nothing, I was curious as to how you came by your handle “greekfire”. You know the “recipe” for same was lost to history, but during it’s time, it was one of the most feared weapons in warfare.
Being a history buff, and especially an antiquity history buff, I was just curious.
August 31, 2008 @ 9:07 AM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]greekfire: Apropos of absolutely nothing, I was curious as to how you came by your handle “greekfire”. You know the “recipe” for same was lost to history, but during it’s time, it was one of the most feared weapons in warfare.
Being a history buff, and especially an antiquity history buff, I was just curious.[/quote]
I think I caught it on the History Channel a couple years ago. They were talking about ancient marvels or something like that. They mentioned Greek fire, how it couldn’t be put out, and how it’s recipe was lost to history as you’ve pointed out.
I am interested in ancient inventors like Heron of Alexandria and how a lot of their ideas were lost to history at some point.
August 31, 2008 @ 12:24 AM
And you are perfectly capable
And you are perfectly capable of reading that my joke about Rich was framed as such (and, according to him, taken as such). My sense of humor is apparently poor. Moving on.
I was not trying to browbeat.
I meant no offense.
I just did not care.
If you are dropping the cartel assertion then fine.
It wasn’t very interesting to me.
Frame it to me if you like or don’t.
I don’t really care that much.
Also, while your correction of my typos is observant, it does not serve much of a purpose to me.
My engagement with Rich and Allan was based on their compelling and interesting discourse. Thats why my engagement with you has been comparatively less.
October 15, 2008 @ 11:25 PM
As the real election
As the real election approaches, let’s see if anyone of us wants to change his/her vote.
October 16, 2008 @ 7:48 AM
Nope, not me. I’m good with
Nope, not me. I’m good with mine. Obama, baby!
August 27, 2008 @ 10:27 AM
pabloesqobar
[quote=pabloesqobar][quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
Please, no flame wars here about candidates. Afterall, this isn’t a political blog.
[/quote]
FLU, are you serious? In the past 6 months this site has become more of a political blog than anything else. You’ve posted frequently to the political topics – and just started another one. I noticed in the past you intentionally tried to get the political topics bumped down the list and off the active forum topics. I thought that was kinda cool.
Them’s the facts. I’m not saying the posters can’t turn this into a political blog, because they already have. Just be honest about what this site has become.[/quote]
pabloesqobar, i know. But I really just want to see how people on this blog are planning to vote, and not really what people think who is a “better candidate”.
I think the audience on this blog are quite different from those of J6P, and was curious if we’d have rough 50/50 split.
August 27, 2008 @ 10:25 AM
Nader…
Sorry, typo on my
Nader…
Sorry, typo on my part, and I can’t correct it now, otherwise it resets the poll….
August 28, 2008 @ 11:30 PM
Obama will win.
No more
Obama will win.
No more boomers. It’s our turn.
(Except for Joe Biden. He can stay. That dude cracks me up.)
August 28, 2008 @ 11:52 PM
Rich, man…
Could you please
Rich, man…
Could you please take your ‘economics of game theory 101’ to an Econ blog???
Talking politics here.
Prisoner X is renditioned to an undisclosed country in the Middle East and interrogated. He confesses a voting preference for candidate A. Should Prisoner Y agree to vote for candidate B in exchange for a pardon? Will Candidate C obtain enough of the remaining vote to require Candidate A to form a parliamentary coalition with C? If Candidate C promises a pardon to Prisoner Y, will Prisoner Y throw their support behind a coalition government of Candidate B and C? What is the most probable outcome? Explain your answer using traditional principles of game theory.
(Apparently, this was an actual problem appearing on Professor Piggington’s final exam…)
August 29, 2008 @ 12:38 AM
gandalf wrote:Rich,
[quote=gandalf]Rich, man…
Could you please take your ‘economics of game theory 101’ to an Econ blog???
Talking politics here.
Prisoner X is renditioned to an undisclosed country in the Middle East and interrogated. He confesses a voting preference for candidate A. Should Prisoner Y agree to vote for candidate B in exchange for a pardon? Will Candidate C obtain enough of the remaining vote to require Candidate A to form a parliamentary coalition with C? If Candidate C promises a pardon to Prisoner Y, will Prisoner Y throw their support behind a coalition government of Candidate B and C? What is the most probable outcome? Explain your answer using traditional principles of game theory.
(Apparently, this was an actual problem appearing on Professor Piggington’s final exam…)[/quote]
Don’t be obtuse wizard.
Game theory is the primary focus of the most renowned poli sci program in the country (UCSD).
UCSD’s profs (most notably Matt McCubbins) consider game theory to be essentially extended logic. While I think that goes a bit far, the reality is Nash, Von Neumann, and Morganstern were instrumental in creating a vocabulary for discussing motivation and incentive structures.
August 29, 2008 @ 12:56 AM
Game Theory??? HAH! I laugh
Game Theory??? HAH! I laugh at your Game Theory.
I write code for Diebold. }-]
August 29, 2008 @ 1:01 AM
gandalf wrote:Game Theory???
[quote=gandalf]Game Theory??? HAH! I laugh at your Game Theory.
I write code for Diebold. }-]
[/quote]
Really?
A code monkey on Pigg?
I never would have guessed.
So do we blame you for the voting machines?
August 28, 2008 @ 11:55 PM
Ralph Nader is a wacko,
Ralph Nader is a wacko, egotistical, potential candidate.
Nadar is some arab guy who won’t get many votes….
August 29, 2008 @ 12:31 AM
Fresh from a re-run of
Fresh from a re-run of Obama’s speech. I think he answered a lot of questions tonight. Provided some specifics that have been needed. He referred to people losing their homes or struggling to pay their mortgages. And the failed economic policies (among others) of the last 8 years. So politics does tie in to the housing market.
I have to say: for those of you who suspect that Obama will implement too many social programs, my response is there have been social programs galore for the last 8 years! Why is Exxon/Mobil making (still) record profits?!?! Newsflash: Because gas prices are through the roof, genius! Think they could cut into their PPS (profit per share) by bringing PAP (prices at pump) down? If that money were used in R&D for non-petroleum energy sources, I might forgive them, but it wasn’t. It went into the pocket of their already filthily rich CEO and a few monolithic shareholders. And companies like that are structured so that the only entity that makes any money (after they write off all their operational expenses carried as losses in wholly owned subsisiaries which nets them, for tax purposes, an operating loss but results in a shareholder gain–go figure) is the one that is organized under the laws of some scum-sucking Carribean island with no income tax and a treaty that keeps the US from getting any either.
So, bottom line, if I have to pay 1/3 of my income in taxes, I’d rather feed some kids, get them some adequate schooling, see the roads paved, pay policemen a decent wage and a pension, INSTEAD of watching that fat fuck Exxon CEO make ANOTHER billion dollars that he will use to stuff his fat face and buy another Mazerati! Guess that makes me a socialist. fine with me.
I didn’t feel any difference in my wallet when Bush’s tax cuts were implemented. Being solidly upper-middle class, I just didn’t feel it. Net gain/loss was the same. My parents, who are life-long working class (despite college educations) and near the poverty line sure as hell didn’t! But I bet Bill Gates did. And I really could have done without a rebate check in May of this year. The pittance really didn’t effect my life much, but in the aggregate, could have been a nice pay down of our national debt.
There’s the “welfare” that helps people survive and there’s the corporate welfare that I find reprehensible. Go Obama–I have to have some sort of faith that someone will break the cycle of corruption or I will really just go mad (or move to Canada–wasn’t that #97 on What White People Like?)
August 29, 2008 @ 12:19 PM
It has been fun watching the
It has been fun watching the see-saw vote count for Obama / McCain in this thread…and this is a strongly Republican county!
It is clear with McCain’s choice today he went “all in”. It was a bold, bold move. It’s gonna pay off big time, or tank big time. I’m going to be glued to the news for the next few weeks. :0D
September 4, 2008 @ 7:49 AM
I kind of expected this to
I kind of expected this to tilt a little back towards McCain after last night’s speech. We’ll see what happens after McCain’s speech tonight…
October 29, 2008 @ 8:35 PM
I’m voting for McCain and
I’m voting for McCain and hoping he doesn’t die.
November 3, 2008 @ 10:09 PM
Rich here never said who he’s
Rich here never said who he’s supporting.
Here’s what Patrick K. said about his support for Obama.
http://patrick.net/housing/contrib/obama.html
Why would Patrick support Obama?
I’ve been getting a lot of guff for putting up an Obama ad on my site, and for
saying outright that I support Obama.
Somehow people think that because I’m a Ron Paul supporter and opponent of
foolish housing subsidies, I could never support Obama. Unfortunately, Ron Paul
is not a choice on the ballot at this point. If he were, I’d vote for him. But
it comes down to Obmama and McCain at this point.
If either senator had opposed the criminal $700 billion bank bailout, I’d be
supporting the one that had enough guts to say no. But both of them have failed
the American people on that particular issue. There were more Republicans than
Democrats in Congress opposing the bank bailout, and I hope those decent
Republicans can keep their seats. Fannie and Freddie were largely Democratic
creations, but remember that it was a Republican administration that deregulated
Wall Street to the point where it became perfectly legal to create crappy
mortgage-backed bonds, rate them AAA, and sell them to the anyone, investors be
damned.
I’m for personal responsibility and lower taxation, but watching Bush turn
communist when his very rich friends were in danger, and watching him blow more
taxpayer money than any Democratic administration ever, I have to say that the
Democrats are now better Republicans than the Republicans themselves, at least
at the presidential level. Bush proved that he will do anything to protect the
very wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. The big clue was when he told us
all to go shopping after 9/11.
Obama is younger and smarter than any other recent candidate. I think he’s less
likely to start another war, and more likely to come up with some workable form
of universal health care in America. We really need some kind of universal
health coverage, just to keep the playing field level. And I like the fact that
he’s half black. I want to help prove that race alone doesn’t determine anything
in America — it’s attitude. Obama has a good attitude, not the resentment that
holds back many black people.
Anyway, I just like Obama (except for his voting for the bank bailout). It’s
hard to explain, but I have the feeling he’ll be a pretty good president.
Patrick
November 4, 2008 @ 12:23 AM
I think Patrick expressed
I think Patrick expressed exactly what so many of us feel right now — regardless of our political parties. Agree 100% with what he wrote.