Asked About the Most Talked-About Blog in the White House, Washington Rebel, the President Blathered, “This Shit’s gettin’ Way Too Complicated!” Agreed, Mr. President! What we need is change. Real change. Nigerian-born L.E. Ikenga lets us in on wha…

I suppose we would have to agree that there is a problem before we could discuss what is causing it. Probably the people on the left don’t even realize there is something wrong.

For anyone interested in what is going on in Canada, I invite you to view this website. This is a man who has been prosecuted by the Canadian kangaroo courts.

http://ezralevant.com/2008/10/alberta-hrc-christians-have-no.html

One: I decline to take responsibility for anything another person posted here.

Two: Linking “hate” and spiritual emptiness merely changes from one preconception to another. Most of the people you call “liberals” or “leftists” don’t hate conservatives. A lot of people believe the current “conservative” movement has run your country into the ground fiscally, and dragged your name through the mud morally. And that makes them angry. And they can point to a lot of evidence: abuses at abu Ghraib, the network of “black” prisons, the “extraordinary renditions”, eight years of significant budget deficits, 4000+ Americans and hundreds of thousands of others dead in Iraq and the “global struggle against violent extremism”. You may not view these facts the way I and others do, but you cannot possibly conclude that we hate, and more that I can conclude that those who see the abuses at abu Ghraib and the deaths of so many Iraqis as acceptable or necessary “hate” Iraqis, or Arabs, or Muslims. Simply replacing one categorical judgment for another has no real value. Words and expressions like “hating” or “spiritually empty” rest on assumptions about things you cannot possibly know, and therefore have no real value.

Waltj:

One: Godwin’s law.

Two: Yes, you can guess at what a public figure will do by looking at their record. By looking at his record, and his speeches, I can guess that Senator Obama will marginally increase tax rates on top earners, and reduce them on lower income families, propose a plan to cover Americans without insurance for health care, create or enlarge a civilian volunteer program linked to educational funding, and use the “bully pulpit” of the presidency to urge a change in the culture of acquisition, the winner take all society.

Three: The huge debts owed by American consumers and businesses to entities based outside the United States would complicate any attempt you made to ditch your debts. Aside from the US treasury, American families and businesses owe almost $10 trillion to foreign entities. Those entities have American subsidiaries with the ability to collect the money owing. The American government could only offer debt relief in these circumstances by selectively invalidating huge sums in personal and corporate debt. That would make the United States something very close to a socialist society: a government big enough to relieve Americans of the debts they owe internationally could also, to use President Ford’s memorable phrase, take from Americans anything (and everything) they have.

As Argentina discovered, a debt crisis in fiscal terms often produces a sharp left turn in social terms. If you want to see Wal-mart stores derelict and GM plants occupied and turned into workers’ cooperatives, you should push the idea of ditching your debts.

Second, I would argue that it IS possible to know the “real” nature of a political figure through his public positions on the issues. There is a voting record in the Congress, Parliament, Diet, Knesset, or whatever that reflects that politician’s priorities, transcripts of speeches and hearings that show his interests and how he treats others, and media interviews that show how he addresses specific issues. It does require that the voter pay some attention, but with a bit of effort, you can get a good idea of what’s near and dear to the heart of just about any candidate for high office. Does it mean you know his “soul”? No, of course not. But it does mean you’re likely to know how he’ll handle the public’s business when it comes before him. Obama has a hard-left voting record (when he managed to vote something other than “present”), hard-left friends, and a history of never bucking the political machine. He may not govern that way as president, but the smart money says he does.

Third, and this is addressed to Mr. Spragge, there’s something to remember about debts. The reason countries like China invest in US bonds and other debt instruments is that they have very good reason to believe that they’ll get repaid, with interest. So far, they have. What do we get? The cash. So we can buy things like cheap Chinese manufactured goods, wide-screen TVs, and MQ-9 Reapers. So the Chinese hold the paper. If push came to shove, what would that paper be worth? Who would be the international debt collector? The UN? WTO? Please. What would the Chinese repossess? The 82nd Airborne? I’d like to see them try. Would the US defaulting on its international debts screw up the global financing system? Absolutely. But in many bankruptcies, the creditor is often the one who gets screwed while the debtor rebuilds his credit history with relatively little pain and suffering. Look at Russia since the mid-1990s, then imagine the same thing on a much larger scale.

“For example, consider this: how many posts here contain the words “spiritually empty”? After years of close knowledge of an individual, you might reasonably come to the conclusion that a person suffered from a lack of direction, commitment, and belief that you could call “spiritual emptiness”. But to apply that label to any large group of people, most of whom you have never met and will never meet, goes beyond risible. And, yes, I despise the “leftists” who arrogate to themselves the right to describe people in these terms, every bit as much as I despise the “rightists” who do the same.”

I noticed you didn’t mention Mr. Toes use of the word “nigger.” Perhaps that is the way Canadians talk? Exactly what is Mr. Toes doing if not categorizing a large group of people? Also, in my opinion, Mr. Toes prejudice against “red necks” is dispicable. Working class people are the very ones Mr. Obama and the left is supposed to be representing.

Your argument that it is unfair to categorize the people who are deeply prejudiced in their liberal viewpoint as spiritually empty is a more reasoned point. To the extent that anyone is filled with hatred towards other people whose only crime it that they disagree with them, I’d say they are spiritually empty. You may offer any other explaination you wish, but hatred comes from somewhere. I’m no great fan of president Bush, and I believe he greatly underestimated the difficulty he would face in Iraq. That doesn’t excuse the hatred many people have expressed.

“In the 30 years from 1948 to 1978, the United States enjoyed a healthy manufacturing base, a more or less healthy balance of trade, and an enviable financial position in relation to the rest of the world. Today, after 30 years of the Washington consensus, you owe (yes, here come the debt again) almost a year’s GDP to people outside the United States, a fair fraction of it to the successors of Mao Zedong. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest that the Washington Consensus has not worked out all that well for you, and that some adjustment might make sense.”

Your point is well taken. The real issue here as I see it is whether free trade is a good thing or a bad thing. Losing our manufacturing base has hurt many working class people in our country, but it has helped lift millions of people out of extreme poverty in other countries. From the global perspective the last 30 years have been exceptional in the amount of wealth generated for humanity. Because the U.S. started so far above other countries, our relative wealth has declined, but our absolute wealth has not. 30 years ago, we couldn’t have had this converstion because there were no affordable computers or internet. Right now the U.S. is suffering a massive wealth drain because we won’t use our own plentiful energy resources. Countries like France are heavily reliant on nuclear power. With breeder reactors, nuclear power is clean, safe, and has very little residual waste. The money we are wasting on energy could do a great deal to help lift up the working class people who have to pay the same price for fuel that the rich people do.

First:
Ninety nine (in the American case 99.999) percent of the population will never know the “real” nature of any national leader. We will always see people such as Governor Palin, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, and Senator Biden through their public positions, and really nothing more. That makes talk of a public figure’s “moral centre” pretty much empty wind; it involves nothing but sheer speculation. Likewise, we can speculate about each other, or, in an extreme case of meaningless verbiage, assign psychological or even spiritual explanations to whole categories of political opinion.

For example, consider this: how many posts here contain the words “spiritually empty”? After years of close knowledge of an individual, you might reasonably come to the conclusion that a person suffered from a lack of direction, commitment, and belief that you could call “spiritual emptiness”. But to apply that label to any large group of people, most of whom you have never met and will never meet, goes beyond risible. And, yes, I despise the “leftists” who arrogate to themselves the right to describe people in these terms, every bit as much as I despise the “rightists” who do the same.

Second:
Plenty of Americans who love the United States more than I do doubted Senator Obama’s electability, on a variety of grounds. However, most if not all of all the grounds for considering Senator Obama unelectable had to do with the racial history of the United States. And yes, those of us outside the United States have to agree with what Senator Obama, among others, has said on this score: the successes of Senator Obama’s campaign have transcended the history of race in the United States, in a way that speaks very well for the future of your country, whichever candidate wins.

Third:
When assessing political viewpoints or political candidates, it makes sense to ask the simple, practical question: does this policy work? Has it worked? From 1948 to 1978, a national and international consensus known loosely as “Bretton Woods” dominated political and economic thinking. Then, in the 1970s, a new set of ideas, from deregulation to more open trade, gained ascendancy. This set of ideas, known as the “Washington consensus”, has dominated from about 1978 to the present. In the 30 years from 1948 to 1978, the United States enjoyed a healthy manufacturing base, a more or less healthy balance of trade, and an enviable financial position in relation to the rest of the world. Today, after 30 years of the Washington consensus, you owe (yes, here come the debt again) almost a year’s GDP to people outside the United States, a fair fraction of it to the successors of Mao Zedong. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest that the Washington Consensus has not worked out all that well for you, and that some adjustment might make sense.

I don’t see any mention of red necks here.

.

No, you wouldn’t because the argument spans paragraphs.

And that’s enough for me. Holding this mirror up to you guys is getting heavy.

Colin Powell, Meet the Press

I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, “Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.” Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp#s=TX

“I do agree with O’Reilly on one thing. No one really knows the guy, except perhaps his wife. ”

The fact she was a sociology major would be enough to send me off running… There is like ONE who is an academic who is not a socialist.. and he famous for it (I think his name is Hollander)… famous enough I can remember his name on the spot…

“I might have answered your question if you’d bothered to address the topic of my post.”

Mr. Toes I see you are still throwing slogans around which you clearly don’t know how to define. You are the one who is trying to change the subject.

Here is your quote
“To many (tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?) of thoughtless Americans, Obama’s genuinely anti American: he’s a muslim, a socialist, a terrorist, a smooth-talking, dangerous, lying nigger.”

I don’t see any mention of red necks here. Obviously you are now defining “red neck” because you know you have lost on the racism argument. Obviously Canadians speak differently than we do. That word “nigger” is not considered polite conversation here in America. In all probability you are simply projecting your own racism on other people.