Colin Powell Endorses Obama

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell leaves federal court in Washington, 

I am excited to hear that the one man most if not all Americans love and support has officially decided to support Obama; I have not been too critical of Powell for leaving Bush’s administration and not speaking out against W’s unwillingness to listen to his staff; better yet, I respect Powell for his loyalty to the president. Read the story here on why Powell will support Obama, who is looking like the eventual winner. I heard the former Secretary of State speak at Harding University years back; I was impressed at how this very conservative college embraced him.

According to Powell:

And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities — and you have to take that into account — as well as his substance — he has both style and substance, he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.

Advertisements

91 thoughts on “Colin Powell Endorses Obama

  1. It took him long enough! I missed the interview this morning, but I was ecstatic when I heard the news. I have never really understood why Powell claims to be a Republican; he has very Leftist views. Nonetheless, he is a very intelligent and respected man, and I think his endorsement will be very helpful in bringing out the Independent base for Obama.

  2. This really made me glad. Did you see Fox New’s coverage after his endorsement? They were calling him a traitor, a Benedict Arnold of the GOP.
    Fox is always a good station for some comedy relief:)

  3. I have a deep and abiding respect for Colin Powell, and when I heard on NPR this morning that he’d officially endorsed Obama, I actually cheered in my car. I’m hoping that he gets a position in an Obama administration; we could certainly use his insight, his experience, and his level-headed truthfulness.

  4. It sounds to me that Colin Powell is supporting Obama because he is a good speaker. Which TOTALLY means he can be a good president. You know what Marc Antony from Julius Caesar was a good speaker, but guess what all he did was manipulate the masses to support him. I am not comparing Sen. Obama to Marc Antony, but simply stating that a good speaker does not necessarily a good president make. (for all of you who would critisize me for my post)

  5. Oops, cancel any celebrations. Apparently Rush Limbaugh has declared that Powell is disqualified; he is not allowed to endorse Obama because he is African-American. (Any other Republican African-Americans are likewise disqualified, by Rush’s argument.)

  6. Josh, about half of the paragraph that Carson quotes has Powell singing his praises for Obama’s substance. I realize what you’re saying, but the facts don’t quite add up.

  7. Jon – I actually did see Fox’s coverage. I wish it were possible to remove Fox from my Dish programming package, but since it is not, I just turn it on whenever I am in need of a good laugh.

    Josh – did you fail to read the “he has both style and substance” part? I get what you are saying though, if you watch the entire interview, or at least the first few minutes, you will gain a better understanding of Powell’s reasons for endorsing Obama.

    You can watch it here, if you are interested: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27265369/

  8. The Powell endorsement is a feather in Obama’s hat, to be sure. A few thoughts from a conservative:

    On “Meet the Press,” Tom Brokaw did Tim Russert proud by showing a video of Powell enthusiastically endorsing the Bush and Cheney ticket at a GOP convention back in the day. Are we to assume Powell’s judgement was sound then and bad now… or the other way around? In other words: “Man, he was right about Bush and Cheney, so Obama MUST be the way to go!” You cheer now, my liberal friends, you cheer now… 😉

    I was also fascinated when Brokaw asked Powell to square his criticism of Obama’s policy of pulling troops out of Iraq on a public schedule. Powell’s answer: Iraq has recently decided to set some preliminary timetables for U.S. withdrawl, so Obama doesn’t have to worry about that now. Translation: Yeah he was wrong about that, but he can’t be wrong about that anymore…so feel comfortable voting for the guy. Obama is like Neo in “The Matrix” when it comes to shooting his record (or lack thereof) back at him. It’s impressive and creepy at the same time.

    In my opinion, Powell is trying to square the circle so he feels comfortable voting for Obama. I read an article the other day where a Catholic was trying to do the same thing regarding the abortion issue. Attracted to Obama’s intelligence and ability to speak, they WANT a reason to vote for the guy. Hey, they may turn out to be right and he’ll be a great President if elected. Howver, Obama has not even completed his first term in the Senate nor fought battles against his own party. To tout him as “what this country needs” is more style than substance… a belief that he’ll do the correct thing in office because he’s just too good to pass up. We shall see.

    Is Powell voting for Obama due to race? I actually find that to be more logical than any of the answers Powell gave this morning. He didn’t tout one policy of Obama’s that was better than McCain’s, but rather that both candidates were worthy… yet Obama was the best guy at this point in time (like Bush and Cheney were before).

  9. Ah, yes. Powell. It’s so nice that he has demonstrated that he is ALL about race. He claims he is endorsing Obama not just because he is black yet, when has Powell ever endorsed a white liberal? He claims he doesn’t want more conservatives on the court yet where has he ever complained about the other nominees? He says Obama is a transformational figure….great but what in the world does that have to do with being President? I would rather vote for ideas and policy. As Matt pointed out, he was all behind the “evil” George Bush. If, as the Chosen One points out, McCain is just like Bush, why is Powell not voting for McCain? It’s because of the color of his skin, period.

    If Powell had come forward and talked about policy and such, great but the fact he comes out and pretty much just says “I like this guy” really shows his true colors. I have lost some respect I had for him.

  10. I would have to give Powell more credit than to say the only reason he is voting for Obama is along racial lines. On “Meet the Press,” Powell chose not to reveal how far his liberal leanings go (aside from the Supreme Court comments), and ended up with a weak “I just like the guy” defense. I think he leans more left than he’d like to say, so perhaps this endorsement should not be touted as a bedrock conservative/Republican throwing McCain under the bus. I respect Powell’s opinion, but he didn’t win me over on the merits of how he came to that decision.

    On a side note… did anyone that is thrilled with the endorsement ignore his defense of the Iraq war? Powell said he was disappointed the intelligence was wrong, but at the time just about everybody thought Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction. Rather than “rush” to war, the administration tried to go through the United Nations. When that body became unwilling to enforce its own rulings and a decision to use force was made, the majority of Congress (seeing the same intelligence) approved the war. Powell said had the truth been known about WMDs in Iraq, the war was probably not necessary. Powell also disagreed with the way the war was carried out. (Who agrees with him? John McCain…) Based on the knowledge AT THE TIME, however, Powell does not feel events were carried out without cause.

  11. That is true Matt. All those “Bush lied kids died” people are now getting off on Powell. Pretty sad.

    I do believe though that if Obama was white, Powell would have stayed quiet.

  12. Yeah…no. Give Powell some credit, he is too smart to endore someone based on their race. I can not seem to figure out why conservatives claim that people are voting for Obama just because he is black. Have we all forgotten that affluent white people won him the nomination?

    Matt – the public perception of Bush has changed a lot over the past eight years. A lot of Republicans and Independents that voted for him in 2000 can not stand him now; they failed to realize that Bush would appoint incompetent idiots to his cabinet and allow them to run the country for him.

    And Roland – did you watch the same interview that I did? I remember Powell stating at the beginning that he did not like the direction the Republican party was moving.

  13. My thoughts (not that anybody asked, but that has never stopped me):

    I find it repulsive to suggest that such an honorable man would support someone solely based on the color of his or her skin. I also find it illogical, since if that were Powell’s defining criteria, he’d have been supporting Jesse Jackson all this time.

    As far as him once supporting Bush and now not, most people that used to support Bush don’t anymore. People are allowed to change their minds; it’s why I personally never criticize Governor Palin for that Bridge to Nowhere business. (Except once. And only because it was really funny.)

    I also don’t think his criticism of Obama’s pullout schedules are really all that inconsistent with what he’s saying now. Is it possible that he didn’t like Obama’s schedule but feels that. since the Iraqi government is designing their own, his disagreement is irrelevant? And why does a disagreement on one issue mean that he shouldn’t support someone, anyway? If you agree with someone about every single thing, you don’t have a mind of your own.

    One question: I actually found this out for sure when my sister read me your blog entry over the phone. Do you find that flattering or creepy?

  14. Suddenly because Powell is endorsing obama he is not as evil as he used to be? Yet, Powell was the one encouraging the Iraq war claiming they had WMD. Anyone with intelligence knows that Powell is endorsing based on race.

    98% of black people are voting for obama just because he is black. White people are split between obama, nadar, and McCain. Think about it.

    The truth is this is a race campaign. The Democrats control the senate and congress and have the lowest approval rating in US history. The Democrats couldn’t even beat Bush in the elections thus why they are going after the black vote in the US, about 45 million blacks. Thus, why obama voted present over 130 times, avoided the tough issues, and never challenged his party leaders on senate to preserve his political career. Only 143 days on state senate when he decided to run for office.

    The Democrats lost because the US is not a socialist/communist system. Americans fought against Nazi Germany, their socialist party, and communist USSR for decades, just to name a few.

    Again, Clinton supported deregulation and introduced FTAs like NAFTA. That is why the US economy was strong during his administration. McCain also supports deregulation and fights for FTAs like NAFTA. These initiatives will help our economy. Our economy is very important, McCain is better for our economy. I hope people get educated before they vote.

    US businesses create US jobs. obama wants to limit the growth of US businesses, which is limiting the growth of US jobs. If you increase tax on US businesses they will either just relocate to a lower tax country taking American jobs with them, pass the added tax cost to consumers or go bankrupt. GM and Ford can barely compete globally and obama wants to tax them more. The smaller businesses that are reliant on GM and Ford will also be greatly affected, destroying more US jobs.

    The US is the land of opportunity not the land of equal outcome. Why should government take your money and give it to people who are already on welfare to spread the wealth?

    What Caused Our Economic Crisis? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4

  15. Dillon, just like the left is saying if it was just about race, why didn’t he support him long ago, I have to ask you, if it was about the direction the republican party is moving, why didn’t he come out long ago in support of Obama? It’s not like the party has shifted in the last few weeks. The bigger question is, why now with only two weeks left? I do agree with you though that many (including myself) have changed their attitude towards Bush since he changed quite a bit from what he ran on in 2000.

    I don’t quite agree 100% that affluent whites gave him the nod. It was more of “Hillary? Yeah, right. Who else is there?”

    Plus, I totally understand not supporting McCain if you are a republican. Fine. But why not be more clear and tell us exactly why you are supporting Obama. Tell us about his policies and such that you want to see implemented. Had he done that, we would not even be talking much about this.

  16. Powell has brought up the race issue several times on his own, and I don’t begrudge any African American the excitement of Obama in the White House. I think Roland put it nicely: had Powell been more specific as to why he favors Obama more than McCain on policy we would not be wondering if Powell let style trump substance to a certain extent.

    Obama was wrong on pulling troops out on a deadline (particularly when the war was at a critical tipping point). Obama was wrong about the surge. How exactly does a military man like Powell overlook that?

    My personal opinion is that race is playing less of a role here than Obama’s communication skills. In that regard, Obama would be a huge improvement over Bush. Even “conservative elites” tend to swoon over Obama’s political skills and hope/assume he’ll be a pragmatist.

  17. Justthisgirl – how creepy is it that both of us posted comments with almost identical points at the same time?

    Sarah – You are wrong. Try again.

    In 2007, Powell stated that he attempted to persuade W not to invade Iraq. If you would like to read the transcript from Powell’s discussion with Jim Lehrer at the 2007 Aspen Ideas Festival, you can do so here: http://www.aifestival.org/library/transcript/Powell-Lehrer_transcript.pdf

    Also, the most recent Gallup pool shows that 90% of African-Americans plan to vote for Obama, not 98%. If African-Americans were the only supporters of Obama, he would not have an 11 point lead over McCain; 60% of Hispanics and 44% of whites also support him.

    You are right; Congress has the lowest approval rating in history. But guess who has a lower approval rating? None other than our friend W and his cronies in the Executive branch. His 42% approval rating makes Congress’s 47% look exceptional. When the GOP had control of Congress a short time ago, their approval rating was only 3 points better.

    The experience card is so primary season, come up with something new to criticize Obama for. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, was president of the Harvard Law Review, directed Project Vote, taught at the University of Chicago Law School, worked for a nationally recognized law firm specializing in civil rights litigation, served two terms in the Illinois Senate where he chaired the Health and Human Services Committee and passed the broadest ethics-reform legislation in 25 years, and served in the U.S. Senate where he has introduced 300+ bills and cosponsored 1000+ more. To top it all off, he has run one the must successful Presidential campaigns in U.S. History, raising nearly $235 million for his campaign. Next time, try focusing on the issues. Yes, that means that Bill Ayers is off limits.

    When did the Democratic Party become socialist/communist? Read a history book before you compare it with the USSR and Nazi Germany. Last time I checked, we are still planning to hold elections in another four years, even if Obama is President.

    McCain is good for our economy, huh? He recently stated the economy was “fundamentally strong,” and supported the deregulation of Wall Street that caused the financial crisis we are in.

    Obama wants to limit the growth of U.S. jobs? Ah right, you can clearly see this in his proposal to offer tax cuts to business that keep their jobs in the U.S.

    The U.S. is the land of opportunity for everyone, not the land of opportunity for affluent White people. Unfortunately, a poor African-American teenager in inner city Houston does not have the same opportunities that I do. He should be able to eat, receive a great education, and choose to go to any college he chooses. Relax; Barack Obama will not come repossess your luxury SUV and plasma television. Instead, he will raise your taxes a little bit. I know, you might not be able to buy a new plasma television next year, it sucks. Instead, your plasma fund will be used to rebuild our infrastructure, fix education, and provide everyone with healthcare; we might finally be provided basic necessities that the citizens of every other developed nation in the World have.

    Oh, and a YouTube video, really? It took about 20 seconds for me to realize that the video you posted is not even remotely credible.

  18. Quite honestly, I don’t particularly like Powell; the only reason his endorsement excites me is because it will be very positive among undecided voters and independents.

    @ Sarah:

    You’re equating the Democratic Party to socialism? Oh dear. Please, please, PLEASE leave and receive an education before you spew ridiculous points.
    You’re saying Clinton’s economic policies are strong, and yet you criticize Obama’s tax plan? Clinton was a typical “tax and spend” liberal; Obama will not be raising taxes anymore than they were during Clinton’s presidency.
    Blacks have voted Democrat for a while now. Where have you been? The GOP abandoned the black base a long time ago.
    Oh and guess what… deregulation was the beginning of this whole mess. Almost total deregulation of the economy was one of the basic tents of Reaganomics. Every other developed nation’s government has a decently sized stake in the economy. Deregulation is, unfortunately, an American thing. Oh, and Somalian. But you don’t see people piling up to go there.

  19. Ms. Sweeney thank you for your comment. However it only seems that only a small portion is attributed to his substance. “…inclusive nature of his campaign,” “as well as his substance — he has both style and substance” (that was for you Dillon) are the only places in this excerpt that seem to deal with his “substance”. I usually support quality over quantity, but when someone specifically stresses one idea it tends to effect my opinion. Do with it what you will.

    I realize of course that this is only an excerpt and there is no doubt that he discussed more. I am simply bringing up small arguments, or more like criticisms if you will. I am not by any means intending to question Mr. Powell’s intentions.

    Oh, and while i don’t support Fox’s comment concerning Mr. Powell, I do prefer Fox over the Liberal Media. Oops I’m sorry I meant CNN

  20. Mr. Magiera, forgive the cliche, If every other “developed” country jumped off a cliff would you have our USA do the same. Tell me, Please, please, PLEASE tell me, if someone was doing something good with good intentions, but the wrong way, would you do it too?

    Would you say that, with Obama’s work, we would, within his term as president, (God forbid it come true) see the total fruits of his labor? That being said who was it who was responsible for the economic boom during the Clinton era? If you figure out the REALITY based answer, and I know you’ll guess what I’m hinting at even if you don’t accept it as the truth it is, please respond with the correct answer. If you don’t you’ll be met with the obligatory game show buzzer sound which I will send you via email.

    Also I have another question. Do you support socialism Jonathan?

  21. Josh –

    First of all, the rest of the media, with the exception of Fox, is very liberal; CNN is not the only one. In my opinion, all 24 hour cable news is garbage. I prefer to get my news from people who are given jobs based on their intelligence rather than their appearance on camera. If you would like to get your Conservative news fix from a source much more reliable and credible than Fox News, I suggest you subscribe to The National Review. Of course, the writing is not on par with say, the New Yorker, but Conservatives do have lower reading and vocabulary levels than Liberals.

    I will Jon debate this one for himself, but I want to briefly touch on your little cliff analogy. I think you missed Jon’s point; he is trying to say that universal health care, government regulation of the economy, and other Liberal beliefs have been successful in every other developed nation in the World. I have spent roughly one and a half months in Europe over last the two summers, and everyone there seems pretty happy. Not to mention that it cost me $1.50 to buy a euro – ouch! Which economy do you think is doing better?

    Clinton himself was responsible for the Economic boom during his presidency, George H.W. Bush was not. It does not work like that, everything does not just “carry over.” Clinton passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which cut taxes for fifteen million poor families and 90% of small business, raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans, and implemented spending restraints. Do your research; non-partisan organizations attribute the economic stability of the 90s to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.

  22. Dillon:

    I disagree. FOX does have a mission to be more conservative than the rest. They have made that clear. CNN and the rest are more interested in attracting viewers without hurting its credability.

    Josh: What are you saying?

  23. Thanks for getting my back, Dillon:D

    Your little analogy, in short, fails. You know why they are called “developed” nations? Because they’re the most successful; in other words, they’re doing something right.
    You know what? It really doesn’t matter if you think the rest of the First World is going the “wrong way,” because that’s what discerns the big boys, the national leaders, from the high school students. I mean, last time I checked, Germany’s government is part of the Socialist International, and coincidentally, Germany also has the lowest poverty rate in the world. Hmmm.
    The US is moving in a more liberal direction, and you should get used to it. If you can fathom basic historical trends, you will see that as nations progress, they tend to become more left-wing.

    Oh, and please tell me the “REALITY” based answer. I’m not here to “figure” things out from your posts. That’s not how a debate works.

    And do I support socialism? Absolutely, but only on paper. That being said, I will tell you that I am an adamant Democratic Socialist, or, to put it in more “American” terms, Social Democrat (sorry, didn’t really want to scare you by using the S-word).

  24. I would like to put my two cents in but..
    I’m utterly astounded by the naiveté and utter ridiculousness of Sarah’s post.
    Point #1
    “98% of black people are voting for obama just because he is black. White people are split between obama, nadar, and McCain.”
    Haven’t your parents told you not to get your news from Rush. I do like the insertion of NADER in that, though.
    Point #2
    “Our economy is very important, McCain is better for our economy. I hope people get educated before they vote.”
    Please educate yourself first before lecturing others.
    Point #3
    “The Democrats lost because the US is not a socialist/communist system. Americans fought against Nazi Germany, their socialist party, and communist USSR for decades, just to name a few.”
    Really…. that doesn’t even deserve a response
    Point #4
    “Suddenly because Powell is endorsing obama he is not as evil as he used to be? ”
    Since when is Obama evil? Here comes the Antichrist argument again..
    Point #5
    “US businesses create US jobs. obama wants to limit the growth of US businesses, which is limiting the growth of US jobs. If you increase tax on US businesses they will either just relocate to a lower tax country taking American jobs with them, pass the added tax cost to consumers or go bankrupt. GM and Ford can barely compete globally and obama wants to tax them more. The smaller businesses that are reliant on GM and Ford will also be greatly affected, destroying more US jobs.”
    I’m really glad you have the ability to watch and repeat almost word for word McCain’s television attack ads

    Sorry if I’ve repeated anyone else’s post, I just didn’t really feel like reading everything.

  25. Carson,

    I think you misunderstood my point. Josh stated that he preferred “Fox over the Liberal Media. Oops I’m sorry I meant CNN.” I was just reminding him that CNN is not the only member of the “Liberal Media.” While more to the left than Fox, I would say that CNN is more to the right that MSNBC.

  26. You cannot cut taxes on poor people because they do not pay income taxes. The definitions of poor and rich seem to be subjective.

    Obama’s claim to cut taxes for 95% of Americans is a joke, because close to 40% don’t even pay income taxes. Americans don’t like the term “welfare”, so they call government redistribution of wealth “tax credits”. A tax credit is not a tax cut.

    If you tax the wealthy or the large businesses too much, who feels it the most? The poor and middle class. When gas prices went up, we all paid more. Food and products became more expensive.

  27. Before I get into what I first intended to say, I would like to take a moment to discuss something that has bothered me for quite some time while reading the “intellectual” banter that happens on this blog. Please understand this one simple point, debate is not intended to be at all demeaning to any party involved; but rather is intended only to provoke intellectual growth as differing philosophies are put forth and supported by the representatives of differing schools of thought. It sickens me to see the harsh insults that are thrown around as commonplace on this blog by some of Carson’s students and even some of his respected colleagues. I say none of this as a self-righteous stickler who has never thrown an insult or two while I have been a part of this blog, but rather as someone who has finally had enough of the rude comments that people make towards one another in an attempt to justify their own points. You tell me, is it in any way an effective device of persuasion to try and make others feel inferior? From my experience, it only leads that person to become more set in their own beliefs.

    Jonathan: I have seen you plenty of times at school and from all appearances, you are a very likable person. You have tons of friends, treat authority figures with courtesy, and most of all keep a cheerful disposition which is always helpful for getting through the day. Why spoil that good reputation by putting people like Sarah and Josh down in a rude fashion? Notice that Sarah did not use her last name; you may never know who she is or how good of a friend she could have been to you. You however used your full name quite blatantly and I hope for your sake that she is not a member of our school (though I do have a pretty good idea of who it is). Were she to walk down the halls of school tomorrow and she saw you speaking to Walker or Channing, I highly doubt that she would give you the benefit of the doubt for being the well tempered or courteous person that you are, but would rather see you as the jerk who told her that her input was not welcome and that she was not intelligent. Why take that kind of risk?

    Dillon: Sadly, I haven’t seen much of you around campus but from what I have gauged from your numerous posts on this blog, you are a very intelligent and articulate young individual. However, I must urge that you show some restraint when dealing with people on this blog. You never know when you may come face to face with a person that you have put down or insulted. It is at that moment that you will have to explain to that person why you had acted so rudely over the computer when you have never even met them face-to-face before.

    I point out Jonathan and Dillon not as personal attacks against the character of either of them (for I am sure that they are both very good natured individuals) but rather to use them as an example. Others on this blog have said more hurtful things that what has appeared in this thread. Please remember, It is not our duty in debate to put others down, but rather it is to challenge them intellectually.

    I am sorry, but I lost all of my previous compulsion to post on the topic that Carson has provided. Perhaps I will tomorrow. But in the meantime, I would like for you to please consider what I have said and try to use a less aggressive tone when debating with others on this website.

    Thank you for reading and God Bless,
    Patrick Ryan

  28. Patrick,

    You make a great point.

    However, I will let Jon speak for himself, but I do not believe that I have been particularly harsh or demeaning towards anyone. In my opinion, I have simply passionately supported my beliefs, just like everyone else has. But, I will admit that my sarcastic tone can easily be perceived as condescending. Trust me, it is something I have been working on; I would not be afraid to meet anyone who I have disagreed with on this blog, though.

  29. Patrick,

    I appreciate your kind words and thank you for them.
    I will not, however, apologize for the remarks I made. I agree that they are somewhat harsh, but I did not attack anyone without providing evidence to my claims. When someone says something I strongly disagree with, and I think it is completely ludacris- for example equating the Dem party to communism- I will lash out, no matter who this person is. Heck, it could even by my girlfriend, whom I hold in the highest respect, and I would still question quite harshly.
    I promise you that I am not as pompous and arrogant as I may seem, I just have a slightly short temper.
    If you would like to converse further on this, or any topic, please feel free to email me at school. I feel like this is not the place to have such a discussion.

  30. Patrick, although I agree with you as does Jon and Dillon, I must address my early post.
    I’m not looking for redemption from my early comments because I stand by them 100%. I just feel as though i should expand on why I brought up those points.
    I am rather aggravated by, on both sides, mind you, the typical party responses. Most of which, as seen in Sarah’s post, are debatable or, for the most part, easily refutable.
    I apologize to Sarah if i came off as harsh, but being lectured on party propaganda is not what I look for when get into an intellectual discussion, especially when there is no factual evidence besides a McCain campaign ad and a youtube video.
    Plus, I believe we are all mature enough to take criticism to our arguments as an attack on the argument, not the person.

    Just a though.

  31. 100% of whites have supported the past 43 WHITE presidents!!!!! Whites are all racist!!!!!!
    …. there’s a reason we don’t say that Roland and Sarah, because besides being ill informed, it is also bigoted.

    I’m not gonna sit here and say that race has no role in this election, but the say that 98% of blacks (it’s closer to 90-95) supports Obama BECAUSE he is black is just wrong. The black vote is just another demographic just like the religious right vote of the far left vote. In fact, the black vote has almost always been Democratic.
    Stats time…
    1964-82% Dem
    1968-92% Dem (close to the current %…)
    And with the exception of ’72, ’84, and ’92, the Black vote has always been at least 80% Democratic, usually higher.

    There were no black democratic candidates during those years… but it’s still all about race isn’t it….

  32. “Fox does have a mission to be more conservative than the rest. They have made that clear.”

    Carson, really? Can you cite some examples or some specific proof?

    I have no problem with Fox wanting to be conservative. The fact that 95% of the rest of the media leans left, what’s the big deal?

  33. Who needs the Powell endorsement when you have a guy like Biden stumping for you?

    August 19, 2007 at a Democratic debate:

    STEPHANOPOULOS: But Senator Biden, you did go beyond talking about Pakistan. You were asked: Is he ready? You said, “I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.”

    BIDEN: I think I stand by the statement.
    _______

    October 19, 2008, from ABC News:

    “Mark my words,” the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

    “I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate,” Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. “And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you – not financially to help him – we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”
    _______

    So Biden has said Obama might not be ready, and because of that the world is preparing to rough him up? I can’t wait to vote for THAT! Cuban Missile Crisis II! Despite pounding every move Bush made in Iraq as it happened, Biden says to trust HIS President even if it looks like he’s doing the wrong thing. Just listen to the soft, dulcet tones of Obama’s oratory, and everything will be fine. He’s got style, you know. 😉

  34. Dillon, can you please refute that youtube video that Sarah referenced? How in the world can you refute direct quotes? The video does not lie. You just don’t like it because it shows everyone exactly who to blame.

  35. Josh – prove your point. While I can assume that you are attempting to apply that Bush Sr. was responsible for the Economic successes of the 90s, you need to back up your claims. You prove your point, I prove mine; that is how arguments work. When you claim that I am wrong without providing an opposing opinion, you make it too easy for me,

    Matt – I can not really argue with, as I am not a big Biden fan. Personally, I think Obama would have been much better off picking Hillary. That aside, I think you misinterpreted what Biden was trying to say. I do not recall reading anything that hints at Obama “not being ready.” And Cuban Missile Crisis II? If I recall correctly, Kennedy handled the situation quite well.

    And yeah, he is a phenomenal orator. Is that a crime? McCain’s campaign speeches are filled with the same fluff that Obama’s are, Obama is just more talented at giving them. Politicians do not discuss issues at length in their stump speeches, that is how it has always been. I can understand McCain’s problem though, whenever audience members yell out “terrorist” and “off with his head” it interrupts my rhythm too.

    Roland – let me show you how I can refute that YouTube video. First of all, at the beginning, it claims that YouTube attempted to ban the video because AOL Time Warner contributed $300,00 to Obama’s campaign. YouTube is owned by Google, not AOL Time Warner. And AOL Time Warner does not own Google. Do you see what I am getting at? AOL Time Warner does not have not any control over the content on YouTube.

    Second of all, the video makes me dizzy. It is low-end and unprofessional. Anyone with a computer, including any of us, could make such a video. And really, techno music?

    Third of all, the creator of the video, a user by the name of TheMouthPeace, claims to be the YouTube channel for the MidpointPolitics.blogspot.com, a blog that only contains eight posts. While their logo reads: The Midpoint: Politics From The Rational Center, they are obviously not “from the rational center,” as they endorse John McCain.

    If Sarah cited an article from a newspaper or even an entry from a credible blog that contained the same content as this video, I would not have a problem. However, this video is just not a credible source.

  36. Josh, I would wager that you’re talking about Ronald Reagan and his trickle down economic theory, however, more than that, I would wager that regardless of whom you’re speaking, you are being ridiculously annoying and petulant.

  37. I have been enjoying this conversation and reading the different viewpoints.

    A little levity: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/cartoons/toon102208.gif

    The whole reason we were in the Cuban Missile Crisis was Kennedy gave off the appearance of weakness to the Soviets, and they tried to take advantage of it. Kennedy admitted as much. Yes, to his credit, Kennedy was able to pull the nose of the plane up just in time. The “we may go to the brink of nuclear war, but we’ll hit a 3 at the buzzer” is not a good argument for electing a President.

    Particularly fascinating is Biden’s comments about how the pubic would perceive Obama’s foreign policy moves. They will look wrong, but actually be right? People assume Obama will be the superior diplomat because of his linguistic skills. Perhaps that is true. However, if foreign nations believe that Obama will ONLY talk and not be willing to flex American military muscle then we have a problem. This is where Powell’s endorsement has me scratching my head, and Biden has only reinforced the issue.

    I think Obama is a very intelligent guy, and might make a really good President. There is a difference between book-smarts and street-smarts…common sense. Obama’s pronouncements on foreign policy seem based on politics, not sensible strategy. Powell seems to think Obama can “transcend” all that and get the job done. Should Obama become President, I will support him and hope that Powell is correct. Until that time, I prefer to support a more experienced man in McCain—a guy who was on-call to fly a plane off an aircraft carrier had the Cuban Missile Crisis turned into a war.

  38. Well thought out Matt S. While I don’t agree with your choice, I appreciate the levity and the rational argument. I see that so rarely from people, myself included often, these days.

  39. Kristi THANK YOU SO MUCH! Congratulations! Instead of a buzzer noise you get the obligatory *ding ding ding* noise.
    As for my response Instead of going on and on I will give you a link and name a few acts REAGAN signed which paved the way for future economic success. Dillon I’m not saying that Clinton did nothing I’m saying he didn’t have as big a role as people say he did, and I’m sorry if I made it out to sound like that. Please forgive me.

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/2004-06-10-reagan-impact_x.htm

    Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
    Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
    Recovery Tax Act of 1981
    Social Security Amendments of 1983
    1984 Expansion of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
    Tax Reform Act of 1986

    Oh, and Kristi, If I’ve been annoying or petulant please forgive me. However, I would like to point out what Patrick Ryan said regarding the “intellectual banter” on this blog. Instead of criticizing my argumentative style (or lack thereof) and my argument itself you chose to criticize me. When have I criticized you?

  40. Matt – that cartoon is pretty funny. I agree with Kristi, you make a great argument; thanks for that. You make a valid point about Kennedy, however, I do not think he could have handled the situation any better. Last minute decisions are sometimes necessary. Then again, I was not around at the time, so, I am not necessarily the best person to argue this.

    And I completely agree with you about Biden, he screwed up big time. When Obama chose him, the first thing I said was “he is going to say something stupid.” Low and behold, he did. As I said earlier, I do not believe he was the best choice for Obama. However, I do think Obama demonstrated much better judgment in his VP pick than McCain did. I am not trying to make this Palin, I am just saying…

    Josh – thanks for finally making your point. While Reaganomics had its positives and negatives, we are still dealing with the negatives today. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 is a joke; it targets middle-class families in high-tax states. It reduces their deductions, raises their taxes, and then shifts the taxes away from the richest 0.5%. In 2007, The IRS’s Taxpayer Advocate service reported that the Alternative Minimum Tax impacted largely by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 is the most significant problem with our tax code. It is typical Republican ideology: make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The poor economic policies of the Reagan administration created the massive federal budget deficit that Clinton had to deal with.

  41. Ah, you make an interesting point Dillon. However I must remind you that you neglected to mention the fact that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was not truly a Reaganomics bill. In fact, the bill was sponsored by Democratic Representative Richard Gephardt of Missouri and Democratic Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (applauded for it’s effect of drastically reducing taxes for both the upper and lower classes) was a Republican Bill sponsored by Representative Jack Kemp and Senator William Roth. It later went on to be a bipartisan success because it helped both the upper and lower classes to gain a universal increase in income of over $4000.00 per year. Please delve deeper into the fine print in the future 🙂 .

  42. Patrick,

    You make a perfectly valid point. However, the bill came very close to not passing in the primarily Democratic House of the 99th Congress. In fact, many Representatives revolted and successfully defeated the initial ruing that was allowing the House consideration of the bill. However, the Reagan administration did enough lobbying to reverse that defeat, and the bill was passed and sent to the Senate, where it passed. Oh well, such is life. Just because the bill was sponsored by two Democrats does not mean that it was/is supported by all Democrats.

    And I do not know of too many people who have applauded the ERTA OF 1981, a bill that is known for decreasing federal tax revenues and increasing the national debt. Do you not recall the recession of 1982? How can you applaud that?

  43. Sam, I’m afraid your protests fall on deaf ears. The people on this blog will overlook anything in regards to Obama. Such as his cocain use, (although I really don’t care to argue subjects on past drug use) his undeniable links with communist activist groups, and the fact that he supports, not only abortion, but infanticide and partial birth abortion. I’m behind you Sam, but I’m afraid it doesn’t matter what you say at this point.

  44. Oh, and don’t even try criticize me for that post because you know it’s true, and I you won’t get anything else out of me about the subject.

  45. Samuel,

    I am surprised it took so long for someone to bring this up on The Proletarian. Several friends of mine have informed that a certain extremely unintelligent substitute for Carson has been lying to his students and informing them that Barack Obama is not a U.S. Citizen. The truth is that Obama is a naturalized United States citizen, he was born in Hawaii in 1961.

    Obama is not refusing to produce documents verifying his citizenship. He has released his birth certificate long ago, you can view it here: http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

    And, I quote from an article form the Washington Post, which by the way, is a bit more credible than YouTube: “the truth: Sen. Barack Obama, born in Hawaii, is a Christian family man with a track record of public service.” (you can read the entire article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901871_pf.html)

    While I have no problem debating with Republicans and others that I may disagree with, it really pisses me off when ignorant and uninformed people argue that Obama is a muslim/Arab/terrorist/homosexual/communist/socialist/anti-christ/whatever instead of discussing issues. It truly concerns me that Americans can be persuaded so easily by YouTube videos and chain e-mails.

  46. Samuel,

    I am surprised it took so long for someone to bring this up on The Proletarian. Several friends of mine have informed that a certain extremely unintelligent substitute for Carson has been lying to his students and informing them that Barack Obama is not a U.S. Citizen. The truth is that Obama is a naturalized United States citizen, he was born in Hawaii in 1961.

    Obama is not refusing to produce documents verifying his citizenship. He has released his birth certificate long ago, you can view it here: http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

    And, I quote from an article form the Washington Post, which by the way, is a bit more credible than YouTube: “the truth: Sen. Barack Obama, born in Hawaii, is a Christian family man with a track record of public service.” (you can read the entire article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901871_pf.html)

    While I have no problem debating with Republicans and others that I may disagree with, it really irritates me when ignorant and uninformed people argue that Obama is a muslim/Arab/terrorist/homosexual/communist/socialist/anti-christ/whatever instead of discussing issues. It truly concerns me that Americans can be persuaded so easily by YouTube videos and chain e-mails.

  47. And, if you don’t belive me about the infanticide thing you can look at this little clip. Before I just thought he was a foolish marxist, but after this video I think he’s a monster.

    By the way infanticide involves leaving LIVING, BREATHING, FULLY DEVELOPED HUMAN children to suffer until they die by themselves without at giving them anything to kill them humanely (which is atrocious anyway). Don’t fight with me on that either!

  48. Dillon: Who hasn’t heard about the 1982 Recession? At least every geezer I’ve ever known has complained about it at least once. And you’re right, no one can applaud it. However, instead of speaking my own views at this time, I would like to understand why you would link the ETRA of 1981 with that recession.

  49. Dillon: In response to your allegations that there is undeniable evidence to support the fact that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen, I would like you to take a quick moment to read an article from a source that has endorsed neither party but has rather pointed out inconsistencies in Barack Obama’s run for office. I believe that that would give it a bit more credibility than a candidate endorsed website. It is a bit lengthy of an article but I don’t believe that you should have any problem knocking it out in about 10 minutes.

    http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12956.htm

  50. Dillon, Even if he is a naturalized citizen that still makes him inelligable. The constitution states that the president must be a natural born citizen. He lost his citizenship when he moved to Indonesia with his step dad, he talked about moving there in his own book. HE ADMITED IT. Dillon you are so completely obsessed with Obama you are willing to accuse God himself of being an unreliable source if he were to speak against Obama.

  51. Also Dillon in the many court cases that are trying Obama he has refused to release to them his documents. Hmmmmm that’s not supspicous at all.

  52. One more thing Dillon. Since the MSM seems to completely ignore and dismiss ANY and ALL arguments against Barack out of pure bias, I would say that youtube has been an okay source depending on the videos you watch. And don’t argue on the my bias point because in watching CNN I have never once seen any commercial endorsing any candidate besides Hilary or Obama. Only caddy criticisms against mainly Palin (since they seem to see her as the greatest threat against their lord and savior Obama instead of going after the person acctually running for PRESIDENT) based on no factual evidence only pure biased opinions. The only “arguments” I’ve seen them use are misinterpreted, out of context remarks which have been thrown WAY out of proportion. Oh and if you seek to prove my wrong Dillon don’t use any clips from Youtube, yahoo, or any other user run websites since they seem to be unreliable in all cases.

  53. Oh, I’m sorry Jonathan do you regulate what is said and not said on this blog? I didn’t think so. If I want to bring up a subject I believe I have that freedom. I don’t think you even understand why I posted that last comment. It was in response to Dillon’s post on October 24. So before you go on one of your little tirades on someone else’s post maybe you should find out what their talking about. And maybe, just maybe you can stop criticizing people and just talk about your views. I believe you owe me an apology. If I wronged you would expect anything less?

  54. I can not believe you guys are serious about this. It would be a waste of time for me to further debate the citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama, so I will not. However, I will remind you to make sure that your underground bunker is complete by election day to ensure that you are safe from the UFO’s that will be attacking earth when Obama wins.

    And by the way Josh, I never said that I have a problem with all clips from YouTube. I just have a problem with videos made by an organization that goes by Illuminati Pictures. You do realize what Illuminati means, right? And please, consolidate your posts, there is no need to make three posts within one hour.

  55. I am just presenting an opposing view point from a source a bit more credible than youtube. You can either take it for what it is worth or pass it over, I really don’t care. Just please give more credible information than biased editorials that are sponsored by radical progressives or by the candidate that they are defending 🙂 .

  56. National Review describes themselves as “America’s most widely read and influential magazine and web site for Republican/conservative news, commentary, and opinion.” I wouldn’t exactly call them unbiased–although at least they don’t associate themselves with the Illuminati.

    I also can’t believe I’m even still here. I personally know a great many people who don’t support Obama. I don’t personally know anyone who buys into the “he’s not a citizen” or “he wants to kill all the babies” stuff. Maybe you’re all in Texas.

    Just curious, Dillon: do you think Obama will win? Because I obviously hope he does and plan to vote for him–but I don’t think he’ll win. I’m interested in your opinion.

  57. It was me who stated the post about credibility of sources. I guess my screen name got changed. Sorry but I was referring to the Israel Insider article.

  58. Dillon,

    there is much proof outside the illuminati pictures about Obama’s citizenship. He is a citizen. A NATURALIZED citizen. I believe you said that yourself in an earlier post. Which still makes him unable to be president according to the constitution. Do some research and you will find that illuminati is not by any means the only source about this. Do you seriously believe that your going to get negative information on a person from someone who supports them? The answer is no. If you want to get info on something (although you must be careful of your sources in many cases especially on the internet, something, admittedly, I have not been very good at in the past) alot of times you have to go to the enemy. Believe it or not you will never get anything but good information from people who are supporters, if you want to know the negative information then by all means go to the enemy or a neutral. Since you seem to question the intelligence of anyone with an opposite opinion I don’t think you can ever realize that you can be wrong about anything.

    And saying that a certain teacher is unintelligent is NOT in any way respectful and only shows your indifference. I was in that class and Tiger was being rash, but that doesn’t make your accusations right. I think you owe him an apology, and if you don’t apologize I will apologize for you. I won’t say any names you have my word on that, but I will say what was said and apologize on your behalf. If we can’t see our mistakes we can never be right.

    Also I do know about the Illuminati, and I understand the namesake, but a name does not neccesarilly disprove a source. And they did interview the person who originally brought the case before the court. Explain how that is unreliable.

    I realize you probably will not respond to this at all, but it will be here if you should decide to do so.

  59. Here’s the Snopes article about Obama being a naturalized citizen:
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

    As the article states, “Lawsuits over candidates’ eligibility are not uncommon: similar lawsuits (none of them successful) for example, have been filed challenging the citizenship status of John McCain (who was born in the Panama Canal Zone), challenging the Wyoming residency status of Dick Cheney (who was born in Wyoming but moved to Texas), and challenging the citizenship status of 1964 Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater (who was born in Arizona before that territory was admitted as a state).”

    If a lawsuit is all you need to be suspicious, I guess McCain should be pretty thoroughly investigated, too. Or, you could just assume that the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, the Supreme Court, and Congress would have noticed these things by now if they were true, and assume they’re both citizens. That’s what I’m doing.

  60. You raise a good point. However, judging one lawsuit by the success of others may be a good argument but, I don’t think it can always be applicable. Then again nothing can. However, most people argue his citizenship not because of his mother’s age but his movement to Indonesia. It is interesting to see another argument though. Good job.

  61. Once, again I left something out so sorry Dillon for this post.

    When John McCain was questioned he gave up all his records. His birth certificate, his medical records, and everything. However when Obama was questioned by Mr. Berg he has so far refused to give any. That’s the only thing I find all that suspicious.

  62. To be honest, I wondered why he didn’t give the stuff up immediately as well. But I still think that the government would have already discovered it if it were an issue. They aren’t perfect, but I think we’d have heard something before now.

    Besides, US Federal Judge Richard Barclay Surrick rejected the lawsuit on Friday, citing lack of standing. Berg intends to file with the Supreme Court, but I doubt he’ll make it before the election. (Of course, you probably already know that. You people are about a billion times smarter than I was at your age.)

  63. Justthisgirl – check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiXCX0

    While we have our fair share of them, all the crazies are not in Texas. There is good news in our historically red state though, it looks like Harris County (where Houston is located) will go Democrat for the first time since the 70s. Yee-haw!

    As far as Obama’s chances of victory, the polls do currently have him ahead. However, I am still somewhat doubtful. In my opinion, his main problem is the amount of people who are voting based on false allegations. The other day, a colleague of my father’s told him that she was not voting for Obama because she is afraid that he might be a Muslim. Bear in mind that this woman is a lesbian who has never voted for Republican before.

    Patrick – are you implying that the Washington Post is a progressive editorial? Please explain. Also, the Israeli Insider is not neutral: they have repeatedly made a case against Obama. The bottom is line that while some media outlets are more neutral than others, they are all run by people, and everyone has an agenda and an opinion.

    Josh – bottom line, Obama was born in Hawaii. I am done arguing with you on this.

    “Believe it or not you will never get anything but good information from people who are supporters.” Right. Sort of like how you will net nothing but poor information from people who are not supporters, such as Illuminati Pictures?

    And I do not owe this teacher an apology, he owes you an apology. He should not be making false allegations about a political candidate to a group of easily persuaded High School students.

    And I agree with Justthisgirl, he should release the information. But, he probably is not because he realizes that no other Presidential candidate has been questioned so extensively about this in past. I am pretty sure that these allegations have something to do with the fact that he is Black, but that is just me…

    Thank God this lawsuit was dismissed…I figured he would get laughed out of court.

  64. The point is Dillon you were disrespectful. If he was wrong its his responsibility to make it right. It is also your responsibility to make right your mistakes. That’s Biblical Dillon. If you believe he was wrong then rise above him and do the right thing.

  65. Josh,

    Obviously, you and I have different definitions of disrespect. I believe that lying to a group of easily persuaded High School students and thus discouraging free thought and open-mindedness is disrespectful to students and the parents who pay their tuition. However, I do not believe that calling someone out on their wrongdoings is disrespectful.

    I may seem like some sort of egotistical jerk, but I am not. Believe me, I have no problem admitting to my mistakes when I am called out on them. And believe me, I have, and still do, make a lot of mistakes. But, I just do not think that what I stated was completely out of line. Am I mistaken? (Josh, I already know that you think I am.)

  66. Actually Dillon, I was referring to the numerous Youtube posts that have been made on this thread. But if you want to get technical about it, yes the Washington Post is pretty “progressive” in my book. I’m sure that you recall that it recently switched allegiances to support Barack Obama on October 17. News stations that take a pretty liberal stance in a political candidacy are pretty progressive don’t you think (although I cant really understand what the socialistic redistribution of wealth or the communistic philosophy of regulated healthcare can possibly do for them). Just an opinion of course. And, I do believe that Israel Insider could be considered pretty neutral. Think about it, how many American citizens actually would go to an Israeli website for their political news? They are taking the stance of many countries in the world right now and fearing (or in middle-eastern cases hoping for) what might happen if Barack Obama is made President. Israel Insider is simply voicing their negligible opinions on the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s candidacy. What do you think?

  67. Patrick,

    I do not find that Washington Post to be more progressive than any other major newspaper. (By the way, the Houston Chronicle does not count as “major” in my book)

    And where did this whole rumor that Democrats support redistribution of wealth come from? Democrats believe in taxing the wealthy, which is fair since they make more money than everyone else, and putting that money towards things that are good for EVERYONE. You too will benefit from a stronger Education system, universal health care, and a rebuilt infrastructure. Obama will not take your money and hand checks out to the poor.

    Please explain why are Middle Eastern countries are hoping for an Obama presidency.

    How can Israeli insider voice “their negligible opinions on the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s candidacy” and be neutral? In my book, those two things seem to cancel each other out.

  68. Dillon, I would first like to warn you that I make some pretty brash statements in this article but I would appreciate it if you would read through the entire piece before posting your rebuttal. I believe that I back up my points rather well after each statement.

    First of all, when did I even mention the Houston Chronicle. To tell the truth, I really only read the Chron for the sports because every other issue mentioned inside is just a wordy story that I can save time by reading elsewhere.

    Second off, Joe Biden was the one who proposed the redistribution of wealth idea a couple of days ago despite the fact that the idea has been circulating for quite some time (and yes, taxing the rich (the job creators mind you) to give to the poor is the true goal of socialism whether you accept that or not). Here is how increasing taxes on the wealthy and socialism are linked. Since when have you heard of a company owner willingly paying more taxes for each laborer that he employs with the assumption that he will make all of his money back. Of course the answer is never (keep in mind that Warren Buffet does not count in my objection because he does not own a company that trades in legitimate items of worth but rather in stocks and happens to have more money than god 🙂 ). So, what are the only two ways to keep jobs from being destroyed by business owners who can no longer afford to keep those workers? Well, first, the government can create it’s own companies that hire the excess workers who are laid off which creates the dilemma of government entities interjecting themselves into the private business sector which has proven to work out so splendidly in the past (think of Freddie and Fannie). The second option is that the government can nationalize these companies and force them to increase hiring which is also detrimental to the well being of personal and economic freedom in the United States because it forces private companies to become national entities that have to run every business deal through big brother before becoming active. You have to think to the future when dealing with economics and when you do, you will see that what I am saying is true. If you don’t believe me, give it a year, it’ll come to pass. Additionally, I have yet to find a country where socialism has led to the economic growth of that country rather than it’s economic detriment (ex: Britain failed miserably during the mid-19th century, the U.S.S.R. ‘nuf said, and East Germany).

    Third off, please explain how I will benefit from all of Obama’s tax cuts. You mentioned the benefits of a “stronger educational system,” universal health care, and a rebuilt infrastructure. Here are my arguments against each:

    1.) A Stronger Education System: in 1950, Government spending was 4.0% of all revenue generated. In 2000, Government spending on education had risen to 6.8% of all revenue generated. However, you would think that the this increase ins spending would result in better academic scores as time progressed. However, the opposite happened and the United States moved from the top ranked in education to 18th place where it stands behind CANADA, South Korea, and Japan. I say this to prove that monetary spending on education does not ensure the improvement of the system altogether. The American people have become apathetic whiners who have completely forgotten the great quote by your poster-boy John F. Kennedy, “Ask not what your country can do for you; but what you can do for your country.” When will the people of today realize that they have given all that they can to today’s youth and that today’s youth will constantly tend to waste those gifts as long as “social activists” like Barack Obama cease to instill a work ethic in our country?

    2.) Universal Health Care: First of all, Health care is not a right. As such, it is not the responsibility of government to provide health care. Plus, unequal access and health disparities still exist in universal health care systems. Additionally, many problems that universal health insurance is meant to solve are presumed caused by limitations on the free market. As such, free market solutions have greater potential to improve care and coverage. And think about it, government programs would require higher taxes, increase utilization, and reduce health care quality. Additionally, the absence of a market mechanism may slow innovation in treatment and research, and lead to rationing of care through waiting lists. When will you begin to see that universal health care is just plainly a bad idea? I would also like to hear a country where this policy has been successful for more than 100 years at a time (Germany doesn’t count because Otto Von Bismark’s decree of universal health care in 1883 only accounted for certain levels of people in society)?

    3.) I am not quite sure where you are going with the rebuilt infrastructure argument so if you would explain it a bit more, I would be happy to respond to it.

    Why are Middle Eastern countries hoping for an Obama presidency? are you serious? The death tole in Iraq is not climbing from soldiers falling off of cliffs, they are being killed by Radical Islams who have no regard for the value of a human life. What is to stop those Radicals from regaining power in Iraq the moment that we leave and they realize that we have an apathetic president who wont do anything about it? Better yet, what is to stop Iran from going to war with Iraq again to try and gain revenge for the hostilities that Iraq portrayed during the Iran-Iraq war. Good oratory skills can not solve all problems and this is clearly no different. I know, Islam is a peaceful religion and most will not agree with another radical regime and of course I agree in principle. However, most Germans were not truly Nazi’s either. Rather, those that opposed the Nazi regime remained silent and refused to speak up against those who were perpetrating the unthinkable violence. They instead joined the party to receive the great benefits that would come from supporting rather than opposing their mother country. Silence and inactivity are the weapons of this war as it was during World War II and inactivity is exactly what Obama will act on if he is elected President of the United States.

  69. Patrick,

    I was just making a joke about the poor quality of our newspaper.

    And I never said I supported socialism. I support a Democratic administration, not socialism. They are not the same thing.

    Money CAN fix our education system. If teacher salaries are raised, then more people will have a desire to be teachers, and teachers motivate students. Students in poor communities are not motivated, and that is why test scores are so low. I will admit, parents have a part in this too, but we need better teachers.

    We also need to fix the corrupt system that favors students in affluent communities. Have you ever driven by River Oaks Elementary? It looks nicer than some college campuses. Yet, students in the fourth ward go to schools that are literally falling apart, and it does not take them too long to realize that the government does not care about them. When their parents do not care about them and the government does not care about them, what are they supposed to do? It is a constant cycle amongst the poor, and since 1 in 2 Black children lives in poverty, Black kids get the raw end of the deal.

    I wish the Right would just admit to it’s racist tendencies…

    Health care is a right. It is a government’s responsibility to take care of it’s people. Every other country in the world seems to have realized this, I can not figure out why it is taking us so long. Health care powered by capitalism is not going to work for the next 100 years. I agree that universal health care might not either, but we will deal with it in 100 years.

    Oops, I misunderstood you. I thought you were implying that Obama is a Muslim by claiming that Middle Eastern countries are hoping for an Obama presidency. Anyway, maybe if we pull out of Iraq, the “Radicals,” will stop killing innocent Americans? Just a thought…

  70. “I wish the Right would just admit to it’s racist tendencies…”

    Easy there, cowboy! After eight years of Clinton, eight years of Bush, and both parties having control of Congress we haven’t gotten much further toward improving education. There is more than enough blame to spread around without the hyperbole of racism. Why are vouchers anti-minority? Why is more money in a leaky tire pro-minority?

    Dillon, I respectfully disagree with your take on the role of government. It is NOT the responsibility of government to take care of people, to suckle them from birth to grave. The main reason the United States of America is the greatest, wealthiest, strongest, and most giving nation that has ever existed is because our government was built to protect the right of self-determination.

    I categorically reject the notion that the European way of doing things is more advanced or more successful than America.

    When the majority realizes they can vote themselves more goodies from the minority, bad things start to happen. It does not create a utopia of “social justice”. The populace just demands more and more benefits until that society bleeds to death. The survival instinct is dulled, and the sprit of that nation is dimmed. Consider the frightening drop in the birthrate of native Europeans. There is no excitement about their families, their nation, their way of life. It is becoming “what can my nation do for me today?”
    __________

    I pulled the following from the California Department of Fish and Game website. For fun, I have replaced any instance of the word “human” or “people” with “government.” For any instance of the word “animal” or “wildlife”, I put “citizens” or “free citizens.”

    The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) cautions everyone that feeding CITIZENS, whether directly or indirectly, is never a good idea. Problems from CITIZENS often increase with the availability of food, and feeding could result in an attack, damaged property, and often the death of the CITIZEN.

    “When there are conflicts between GOVERNMENT and wild [free] CITIZENS, the CITIZENS lose,” said Allan Buckmann, DFG associate free PEOPLE biologist. “Don’t feed free CITIZENS. They don’t need our handouts, they need our respect. We all need to take responsibility for the free CITIZENS whose habitat we share. When GOVERNMENTS are careless, free CITIZENS may pay the price.”

    CITIZENS that become accustomed to feed will expand their activities to find more feed and can damage fences and structures, and threaten GOVERNMENT safety in the process. Such behavior by well‑meaning GOVERNMENT puts the CITIZENS at unnecessary risk and often disrupts the natural survival instincts of the CITIZEN.

    “It’s never a good idea to feed CITIZENS; it’s as simple as that,” DFG Lt. Don Richardson said. “When GOVERNMENTS feed free CITIZENS, the CITIZEN becomes habituated to that source of food, and that can lead to CITIZENS that are unnaturally bold or develop aggressive behavior. That type of aggressive behavior results in conflicts between CITIZENS and GOVERNMENTS, and that, most often, leads to the death of the CITIZEN.”

    Food for thought. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s