« Yes, Nazism and Communism Can and Should Be Compared | Main | Where Does the Money Go? »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

cat magellan

Thanks for your views.

Krissy Muggleston

I get so frustrated when my church says 'vote for McCain, he's anti-abortion', and then everyone joins that bandwagon without any real investigation of their own. The irony is that McCain is ignoring most of them because they are middle-class.

Ann Otoole

Even if 100% of the voters voted for Ron Paul the winner would be selected from either the DNC or GOP because of some one time specialized ruling from the Supreme Court that is not allowed to serve as a legal precedent. Sadly Americans just don't understand this. Vote all you want and vote often. Looks good in the press to see people lined up at the polls.

Dirk Talamasca

+50 points to Prok for voting for intelligence over fear.

Vissy Adamczyk

Vote for a man that hasn't done a darned thing to MY town? Do you know how many times he promised to vote for a bill, but didnt get enough money from one side or the other and voted "PRESENT" instead? Thats a NON VOTE. And EVERYONE here in Chicago does that.

He's lied before, he will lie again. He hasn't run ANYTHING in his life, except what is "Good for obama". He's lied about his housing deal, he's lied about his close friendship with William Ayers - a TERRORIST who even on 9/11 said they "didnt do enough".

It looks like obama will be elected. Enter states like Wisconis who have more voter fraud today than Illinios EVER had (They refuse to pass bills requiring people to show ID to get an absentee ballot) and Democratic Gov Doyle refuses to allow any law to pass on it. Why? Because he knows 100% of illegally-cast votes are for democrats. ACORN is having their offices raided - why? Voter fraud. MASSIVE fraud. And the democrats dont care because all the votes are going for them.

The only GOOD thing about obama being elected is that he will GTFO of Chicago once and for all. He's done NOTHING for us, all his community "programs" are nothing more than money laundering and havent helped anyone. I KNOW, I LIVE HERE. 3 years in government, not even a GOVERNOR of anything but his own wallet, and POW thats good enough for president...while at the same time you people criticize Governor Palin, as VICE President. Swallow that Kool-Aid, Jonesian!

all you middle-class and poor people that see him as the messiah instead of a cursed self-serving liar are simply imbeciles. All these facts and accusations and even if he admitted them all, you'd STILL vote for him. Every one of you.

I guess most Americans ARE stupid after all. Canada looking pretty good right about now. At least they have had experience in never having a free country to begin with, and they have experience in socialism.

ichabod Antfarm

"Canada looking pretty good right about now. At least they have had experience in never having a free country"

It may be true that we live in a police state with no democratic features AT ALL but, it is Thanksgiving up here this weekend and we outer party members are allowed to leave our igloos and stand on line for turkey scraps. God help the proles!

Melissa Yeuxdoux

"Canada looking pretty good right about now."

1. This sentence no verb.
2. No, it's not; it's further along the road to socialism than we are, and haven't you been following the Mark Steyn case? They have "hate speech" laws there, and utterly corrupt "Human Rights tribunals". Of course, given the Obama campaign's work in orchestrating hordes of people to clog talk shows featuring guests less than worshipful of the Obamessiah, the threats of opposition to license renewal of stations that run an NRA ad less than flattering of The One, and the Obama "Truth Squad" of Missouri sheriffs and prosecutors targeting anyone who runs "misleading ads" during the campaign, we may not be that far behind if he wins.

Carl Metropolitan

I normally vote Libertarian, but this year's Libertarian candidate (Bob Barr) is too repulsive for me to seriously consider. So I'm going to vote for divided government and cast my ballot for McCain.

Or stay home. I'm _this_ close to the "don't vote; it only encourages them" level of disaffection with the entire system. On the issues I care most about (free speech, national debt, gay marriage, right to keep and bear arms, illegal immigration, war on drugs) both candidates are pretty bad.

The Democrats have demonstrated they can't be trusted with the Iraq war. ("We voted for it, but we changed our minds!") But that war is pretty much over; all that's left is to reduce our troop levels and take credit.

The Republicans have demonstrated they can't be trusted not to bankrupt the country. Bush and six years of Republican congress (and two of a Democratic congress) have run up nearly four trillion in national debt.

McCain supports amnesty for illegal aliens (because that worked so well the last time we tried it in the 1980s)--but because its no longer politically popular with is base, he's lying about it now.

Obama stood on principle against increased presidential surveillance powers--until it started to look like he might... you know--actually _be_ the president with those powers.

Crap. No wonder I spend so much time in Second Life.

Josef Anvil

I just don't understand all of the anger and hatred in the responses. The original article is stated quite eloquently and logically.

If one doesn't like Obama, that is one thing, but to say you don't trust him because he's a liar is nearly insane. If you have learned nothing from your experiences in SL alone, you should have learned that most people have something to cover up. Now if we look at our Republican choice who is a political veteran, we should be able to conclude that he is far more skilled at deception than his counterpart due to decades of practice. So on to the current situtation...

Healthcare, gas prices, job market, bank failures, police action in Iraq (did Congress ever officially declare war?), public relations (our global image is not sparkling), did I mention the housing market? Who got us in this mess while telling us repeatedly that everything is fine?

In the past 40 years the Democrats have controlled the congress and the White House once, I believe, and in that time we experienced 8 years of economic growth unlike anything we had previously seen. In contrast to that the current administration has ruined that progress entirely. Look at the DJIA on the day Bush took office and now.

I guess the real issue is that Republicans are not bad people. The Bush administration is a corrupt administration that seeks to only benefit itself and its allies at the expense of the welfare of the nation. They claim to be protecting us from the terrorists, when in fact they ARE the terrorists. They use FEAR to control and wear away at our freedoms. TERRORISTS are coming is the battlecry to cower the masses, to instill FEAR. That is terrorism. Look it up.

So do we vote in the same or something different? You make your decision. Intelligently.

Simondo Nebestanka

Following this race with great interest from afar (Australia), Obama seems much more statesman-like, much more Presidential, than McCain.

Unfortunately McCain seems to have sacrificed some dignity through recent events (however he is showing signs in the last couple of days of having some notion of morality & good judgment still, by challenging a few anti-Obama statements).

The billboard for Oliver Stones' "W." portrays Bush43 sitting back with his boots up on the desk. Amongst many other things, Bush has taken the ideal of "President" down many notches simply by sitting by, unable or unwilling to act - for 7 minutes while his country was under attack, when Katrina hit, while the economy was/is going down the gurgler; while environmental issues, and the and the enormous drain on the military, will be conveniently left for the next guy to deal with. Obama appears willing and able to step up and take sensible action.

Prokofy, I wish every rabid Palinite would read your post and truly grok it. The fear being fed to them is pretty hard to dissolve. The fact that many voters seem sure that Obama is somehow an enemy to their country is a major concern. Will this diminish soon, if Obama is elected? The fear seems fairly entrenched.

I remain a fan of America and wish her the best. I feel there's only one person in this race who is worthy of the Presidency, and I truly hope he's given the chance to return some dignity to the Office, and take it back to it's rightfully respected place.

Maggie Darwin

It's really amusing to watch the contortions "everybody I don't like is a hippie commie" Prok goes through to rationalize endorsing an obvious socialist somewhere 'way to the left of Hillary.

I really do think it's the Twitter factor. Time to unplug, Prok.

Prokofy Neva

No, it's nothing to do with Twitter, I was watching Obama before there was a Twitter. Yes, he tends towards socialism as all those Chicago professors on the left. But he's an opportunistic socialist, and drops it when inconvenient -- in fact, that's one of the things I dislike about socialism, how it is used by cynical people to be fashionable or come to power in manipulative ways.

But as I pointed out in my essay, he is constrained in just how much socialism he can peddle in this country -- or how much of anything that is extremist (fundamentalist Islam, etc.)

As far as this invocation of "fear," I realize that's a fashionable leftist concept, too. I don't at all see people who like Palin or dislike Obama as being consumed by "fear". Socialism grabs more at people's fears than anything else. People who like Palin and dislike Obama *are normal*. They are mainstream. They don't like extremes, that's all, and the sorts of people Obama is associated with represent extremes -- the Weathermen, the black radicals in Chicago, etc.

So what about these people catcalling "traitor" and "terrorist" in stadiums? Well, they are just people in stadiums. People in stadiums are always that way -- it's a good idea not to stage stadium rallies for just that reason. Obama could do more to explain that he wasn't "just 8 years old" -- that's not the argument. He could say he resolutely repudiates violence, and "that's not America" and whatever else he could be adding, a la his denunciation of Wright. But it's indicative that he feels no need to disassociate himself from Ayers or his commie buddies because he doesn't feel that his alliances are as strong or show as much, whereas with the pastor, he had to do something to wish away the 20 years he sat in the pew.

It's fashionable to say that people who disagree with you are in "fear". YOU are the one in fear if you can't grasp what is normal about someone liking Palin, who isn't the monster everyone portrays her as on the fashionable, cynical, and nasty left. There is nothing wrong with moose-hunting, being concerned that your sister-in-law's abusive and hard-drinking husband not be kept on employment as a state trooper. Indeed, in that state, you'd be found out of the norm if you did nothing about the state trooper even though related to you, and if you did not defend the moose-hunting, etc.

Again, turn your attention to G7 member Russia, if you have the desire to go shopping around for backwards and violent cultures that are oppressing minorities, rather than picking on members of the West to whom you hold higher standards than you even apply to yourself.

Carl, on the "surveillance powers," I imagine you are referring to the telecom deal. But that was the right thing to do, and Obama is right to support not punishing telecoms who follow presidential orders. It's silly to obsess with telecoms. We would want a country that in a real emergency would have telecoms that wouldn't get all PC and bureaucratic and not obey a legitimate presidential order. The problem is that it wasn't legitimate or justified. The focus should be on presidential orders, not telecoms. Silicon Valley hates the telecom industry, I guess they see it as a threat.

Ann Otoole

This is just a simple observation. Not a prediction or any of that.

I have watched Obama. My impression is that he has a JFK/King fetish.

He wants to be remembered in a positive way under negative circumstances.

And for that reason he is not a viable candidate because his number 2 is a dictator in waiting. It is his choice of Vice president that defines his eventual outcome. Anyone that relies on the internet best be looking at what Biden stands for and his history.

There are no viable candidates in this election. None. The government needs to be disbanded in January and a new one be formed that includes no existing lawyers or politicians.

And there needs to be an immediate death penalty for corruption or influence peddling.

Maggie Darwin

So it's OK to be socialist, as long as it's not a matter of principle.

"I don't think he'll be able to get away with what he really wants to do" does not strike me as a very strong argument, even when Obama uses it on himself, as he did when explaining to Pennsylvanian peasants why their reasoning in not supporting him was invalid.

His thinly-veiled contempt for those not part of ---dare I say it? the feted inner-core--- the liberal Shadow Party (whose strings are held by George Soros) shows when he thinks nobody "like that" is looking.

Prokofy Neva

Oh, people who are sincere about their socialism and are modest in their lifestyles and selfless about doing good for others can earn respect, as they are true believers, even if their ideology has a lot wrong with it.

Obama's supporters are even more radical than he, but no, he won't be able to get away with doing what *they* want. Example: the telecom forgiveness issue on surveillance.

While Soros may fund some of these liberal organizations, and does have influence, I think there are far larger lobbies, like Silicon Valley.

rebecca proudhon

OMG Prok....you really are out of touch with real world politics.

You are still at the stage of obamacommiedenial

Simondo Nebestanka

I take your points Prokofy but I'm not sure I agree with your summation of the "fear" issue. For sure there are plenty of people who would vote McCain for reasons not based on "fear of Obama", but there's a deliberate attempt to feed voters this line that Obama is connected to terrorism, and should be duly despised. It's clearly an attempt to connect "Obama", "unknown", "terrorism".. the same way that "9/11" and "Iraq" were conveniently shackled together in preparation for the invasion.

In my mind, the legacy of Bush/Cheney is an (almost lol) brilliantly executed series of exploits, carefully and conveniently softened by the public's "fear" of another terrorist attack. Bush has spent 7 years freaking people out about the threat. The false "Obama"-"terrorist" connection is not good if he's elected, and even McCain realises this. The thing I wonder is, would that connection persist and how might that affect his term?

I fully understand why people like Palin; she's extremely likeable. Trouble is, this charm and appeal is being taken advantage of by the Republican "machine" if you will, to push some fairly extreme illogic onto those who take some of their politicians at face value.

Prokofy Neva

Simondo, you really don't get it.

Connecting Obama with "terrorism" isn't about "fear" -- it's about hatred and contempt.

There's a curious idea that somehow 9/11 invokes "fear" and that there is something "wrong" with this. What a terrorist attack invokes is hatred and contempt more than anything. It's not that people raising concerns about Obama's alleged softness on terrorism are "fearful" (though that may describe some of them); it's more about rabid contempt for anyone who would be so stupid and weak.

I think the campaign and supporters like Frank Herbert at the New York Times are in fact stupid by constantly talking about how "Obama-was-eight". It doesn't matter if he was eight if he met and associated or allied with Ayers later in life. Ayers role as a lefty "progressive" teacher doesn't cancel out his violent past. What is needed is a very robust and clear-cut denunciation of that violence, the way the hatred of Wright was denounced -- but we've never gotten that, as far as I can tell. The concern is waved away, and the left accuses people of "fear" when what they need to do is *have some accountability here* for what it means. They are soft on terror, and the method of violence. They think there's something justified in the cause that would allow such violent. But there is nothing that does justify it. That's all that Obama needs to say -- he is curiously reluctant to say it, from what I can tell.

Prokofy Neva

And to continue on this concept of "orchestrating the public's fear". This just doesn't track. Perhaps you can describe it as orchestrating, but it isn't fear -- it's hatred, and a desire to fight back.

People like you are so blindly caught up in the idea that "no weapons of mass destruction were found" and "Bush lied" that you fail to see the larger narrative. The larger narrative is: what do you do about tyrants like Saddam? You don't have an answer for that; Bush does. That's why he wins and you don't.

The narrative about weapons of mass destruction matters not in the slightest; every day people are killed by terrorist attacks in Iraq, and that's how the narrative flows: we are in Iraq to fight terrorism.

If Obama takes actions that appear to aid and abet terrorists, of course there will be a furious backlash, and not based on fear, but on hatred and contempt.

Er, what is the proper thing to think about Al-Qaeda, Simondo? That they had an unhappy childhood and they need a technical assistance program?

Simondo Nebestanka

I'm not an apologist for Al-Qaeda or any variation of terrorism.

What I see is the misinformation fed to you by the Bush administration, and where that's gotten you, and at this point I wonder how much Bush has "won" in Iraq since the Mission was Accomplished. Hopefully, ultimately, this will turn around, and the effort and sacrifice will have been worth it. I do have some appreciation for the idea that there's a legitimate goal which I've not fully comprehended.

The question I ask myself is, will the "War on Terror" - a war on an ideology, with so much collateral damage - remove terrorism from the world, and prevent future attacks on the U.S. and its allies?

Or is it inciting future attacks? How do you protect your citizens when your enemy is possibly anywhere and everywhere? Certainly, though, to do *nothing* in response to 9/11 would not have been acceptable.

I don't have the answers, or see anything wrong with the desire to fight back for the events of 2001, and I don't mean to diminish the efforts of those putting their lives on the line for ultimately my own safety.

I do think that the fight to remove the threat of terrorism could have been directed quite differently. For instance I think it's valid to recognize the existence and the source of the misinformation clouding the view of possible outcomes the Iraqi invasion. I remember Rumsfeld saying prior to the invasion, "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." I remember Cheney saying "We will be greeted as liberators" and echoing similar time frames to Rumsfeld's. Then I'm reminded of Cheney saying in 1994 that invading Baghdad to remove Saddam would create a quagmire.

I'm not sure why it's acceptable to brush all that aside.

Prokofy Neva

The main reason why I rarely post on RL subjects is that I can't tell who I'm debating -- the Internet is filled with young people with insufficient education, filled with Internet memes, and conditioned and brainwashed with anti-Americanism *who themselves have no answers*.

You tell us that you aren't an apologist for Al-Qaeda. That's easy to say. But...you also have no answers. You can't think. You can't *provide answers, and be persuasive*. And in that vacuum, others step in.

Perhaps all kinds of things could have been done differently. It's always exasperating to work within the UN system, it is slow, cumbersome, even corrupt. But let's say everybody had continued to play along with the weapons inspections charade, until they could work up enough evidence on Saddam, or until they could, oh, catch the Russians smuggling the weapons out via Syria, one theory one might have as to "where they went". Or whatever. You might have bought time even until you could successfully out "oil-for-food" culprits, including Russian and French firms, and made political capital with that. But that route was slow and torturous and not promising. And so you get what you get.

Or you might have gone in larger numbers with more determination to Afghanistan -- and then what? Like anybody who has gone into Afghanistan ever gets out in one piece? Or let's say you used targeted assassinations, CIA-style and just taken out Hussein instead of having an entire war. But don't we outlaw such despicable acts as taking out other people's leaders? Etc. It's easy to come up with an array of bad solutions that go nowhere, either, and don't accomplish anything except give you the moral smugness and superiority to say you didn't unleash an ill-advised war.

And that's just it: you're not persuasive, you do not have answers, and so you fail, and others step in, whether you like it or not.

Wow, what a "brilliant analysis"! Gosh, the war on terror...producing unintended consequences! Gosh! D'ya think?

Again -- stupid. And your plan..is...what? Hello? All the leftists and the anti-American intellectuals in Australia, Canada, the UK (where they are concentrated) say it should be a "police operation" and "not a war". And...that works? Could you show us how that works? In Spain? in the UK? where there are plenty of Europeans, so to speak, and plenty of political possibilities to make this "not a war" but "a police operation"? I'm all for making it a police operation and not a war, but let's see how that works. You put up a wanted poster and cry, "stop, thief!"?

Fighting terrorism is supposed to cause unintended consequences and make people so hate the fighter of terrorism that they'll do anything -- anything -- to get it to stop. That's how terrorism works, duh.

Did somebody have a way out of that vicious circle that they haven't told us about yet?

As for "six days" this and that -- you have a keen memory for Rumsfeld saying this. You have a far weaker memory for Yeltsin or Putin and their generals saying it about Chechnya -- or any number of characters around the world. That's what they all say.

So you sit on the sidelines and feel moral superiority, call Americans stupid, point the finger, and pontificate. And you have no answers.

Americans aren't stupid, and don't stand idly by. Nobody "brushed Cheney aside". The debate rages. Various scandals and horrors are uncovered, and judicial action is used against them. A new presidential campaign is under way, and likely Americans will vote for a "better president" that will "pull out of Iraq" -- sort of. Will you be happy? Of course not. You'll still find something else to complain about, and "blame America first". The world won't be that different. The same bad actors will remain, without good solutions.

Because YOU don't have them.

Simondo Nebestanka

You've made a number of assumptions about my ideology and beliefs which can't be construed from my words, and aren't accurate. Most importantly I feel no superiority, moral or otherwise, over America or Americans. I don't have to answer for anti-Americanism, that has nothing to do with anything that I've said.

Maggie Darwin

"Oh, people who are sincere about their socialism and are modest in their lifestyles and selfless about doing good for others can earn respect..."

Oh, dear. How do you feel about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus?

Who are you really, and what have you done with Prok?

rebecca proudhon

Prok, do some more politically blog study. I suggest the former Hillary blog "TD blog" You'll have to do lot of reading to catch up, because it is obvious you have been absorbed elsewhere.

Maggie Darwin

The problem with voting for change is that not all change is good.

"I don't care what happens, as long as it's different it must be better" is myopic and naive. That was the problem with "anybody but Bush", and "vote for change" is the same vague, feel-good idea in different words.

Never say "things couldn't possibly get worse", because reality will demonstrate how wrong you are.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)