Hmmm.

No terrorist attacks since 9/11- understanding of the threat we face

Lower taxes - which stimulated long term economic growth

Great Supreme Court nominations

 

Yes, I voted for George Bush. You can thank me. Makes me proud to be an American.

 

Now lets talk about your Socialist candidate.

Wealth re-distribution. - Take from those who earn it and give to those who didn't

Appoint activist judges to Supreme Court - Legislate from the bench

Everything is America's fault

Surrender in Iraq

Ruin the worlds best health care

 

uhhh....  No thanks

Its boring, having a debate about ideas, with the unarmed.

Careful, you don't want to offend anyone.

Leach: You have a point, as usual. What Ayers did was more despicable than "dumb." And he never did show any remorse, and still doesn't. Some people seem to find it harder than others to admit that they've made mistakes. Whether this shows that a guy is "resolute" or just "pig-headed" depends on who the guy is and whether you approve of him or not. Whatever Ayers says or doesn't say, his behavior obviously has changed since he hasn't planted bombs for some years now and is a stable enough personality to have earned a place on the UI faculty. I can't think of a single argument that would justify what Ayers was doing in 1968. What I DO think is that Ayers is not a very important person on Obama's campaign. And I strongly doubt that Ayers' radical opinions of the 1960s have influenced Obama's positions. It doesn't bother me much that Obama has, as you claim, attracted hard-left anti-war radicals all of his political career. (I wonder what hard-left anti-war radicals you had in mind.) He doesn't seem to have filled his staff with them, the way Bush surrounded himself with charter members of the Project for a New American Century, whose stated goal was practically to conquer the world, impose democracy on everybody, and promote Israel's interests. Nobody can be held responsible for the approval of others. If it were that simple, the USA would be run by its own enemies. Because all our adversaries would have to do is make public their approval of the candidate they liked least, who would then be defeated by the candidate they liked most.

I don't know why Obama cannot just be honest about it and announce that he is a Socialist.  He will make that announcement if he is elected.

Maxim:

I don't know why Obama cannot just be honest about it and announce that he is a Socialist.  He will make that announcement if he is elected.

I believe you're wrong, Maxim. Not about him being a Socialist, but that he will announce it. The closest most American Socialist get to admitting it is calling themselves "Progressives". Socialism still has a bad name with the overwhelming majority of Americans, even among those who tend to vote for Socialists.

It would be more constructive if we could avoid name calling -- "socialist", "radical far-;eft , and the rest. The names are an imprecise substitute for thought. Pure "Socialism" is generally defined as an economy in which the state owns the producer's goods -- factories, transportation, and so forth. By that standard, the USA is, in fact, slightly socialist and always has been. It will in fact not become purely "capitalist" untile we privatize all the government services, like the army and the postal service and the schools. We've already begun privatization with of the army, with KBR doing its laundry and serving its meals, and with civilian defense contractors (half of whom are in combatant roles) doing jobs the Marines used to do. Nancy Pelosi was routinely referred to by conservative commentators as representing "the far-left wing of the Democratic party." A look at her voting record in California shows she supported such far-left wing policies as a tightening of gun control laws and a rise in the federal minimum wage. Evidently you don't have to do much to get assigned to the far-left radical wing of the Democratic party -- just stand a little to the left of Attila the Hun. Neither Obama nor Clinton are socialists by any sane definition, anymore than McCain is a fascist. If we could manage to use common sense instead of hatred as the basis for our reasoning, we'd be able to avoid the epithets we hear every day -- "hypocrite," "socialist," "flip flopper", "general betray-us" -- and start thinking like grown ups.

Good points RMAX.  I especially agree with your comment that "name calling" or shorthand labeling are substitutes for thought.

RMax304823:

It would be more constructive if we could avoid name calling -- "socialist", "radical far-;eft , and the rest. The names are an imprecise substitute for thought. Pure "Socialism" is generally defined as an economy in which the state owns the producer's goods -- factories, transportation, and so forth. By that standard, the USA is, in fact, slightly socialist and always has been. It will in fact not become purely "capitalist" untile we privatize all the government services, like the army and the postal service and the schools. We've already begun privatization with of the army, with KBR doing its laundry and serving its meals, and with civilian defense contractors (half of whom are in combatant roles) doing jobs the Marines used to do. Nancy Pelosi was routinely referred to by conservative commentators as representing "the far-left wing of the Democratic party." A look at her voting record in California shows she supported such far-left wing policies as a tightening of gun control laws and a rise in the federal minimum wage. Evidently you don't have to do much to get assigned to the far-left radical wing of the Democratic party -- just stand a little to the left of Attila the Hun. Neither Obama nor Clinton are socialists by any sane definition, anymore than McCain is a fascist. If we could manage to use common sense instead of hatred as the basis for our reasoning, we'd be able to avoid the epithets we hear every day -- "hypocrite," "socialist," "flip flopper", "general betray-us" -- and start thinking like grown ups.

 

I suppose Maxine Waters is another "imprecise substitute for thought". Sorry, but these people are socialists, but it's also clear they don't want you to know it.

http://goatsbarnyard.blogspot.com/2008/05/maxine-waters-nationalize-our-oil.html

Mark 

Name calling like; Republican, radical far right, neo-conservatives?

Those aren't names, like "Socialist", "radical left", etc, they are descriptions of an ideology.

When you try to cut off all criticism, it just makes you look desperate.

"Republican" doesn't carry the same quite anti-American sting as "socialist," does it?

A "neoconservative" is, as you say, a widely recognized ideology promoted by members of the Project for a New American Century, whose signers include Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and the like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

If you want some idea of who's doing the name calling, you might go through this thread (or any other) and count the number of times someone is called a Democrat (or Dem) and how many time someone is called a Republican (or Repub). 

I agree that criticism is necessary to a democracy.  But it should be allowed from both sides, without one side being dismissed as "whiners."  And the criticism should be directed at proposals or policies, and not at an individual politician because he has "large ears" (Obama) or because he "looks like a pig" (Rove). 

The country was built on a constructive dialog between liberals and conservatives.  I note a recent degrading of that dialog.

Of course it OK to condemn Sen. Obama for his connection with Ayers.  If it were Sen. McCain who had the connection to Ayers, Obama would be talking about it in every speech he makes and it would be on every network news program every day. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC would be having a field day. It is another item to put on the pile that will become a mountain by November.