Warning: main(/home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/above.php) [function.main]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/single.php on line 5
Warning: main() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/above.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/single.php on line 5
Obama, if elected will be four years older than JFK was in 1960. He will be five years older than Teddy Rooseveland was when he was elected and a year older than both Clinton and Ullyses S. Grant were. He is about to turn 47 for crying out loud, that’s middle aged by most people’s definition. Since when do only old geezers get to be president of this vibrant nation?
The fact that he’s running against a guy who would be heading into his 80s if he was to serve two full terms should not make him look inexperienced in comparison. Obama has led a remarkably broad and full life thus far.
As a youth he was raised in Hawaii, Indonesia and LA. Between attending Columbia and Harvard he worked as a community organizer for a Catholic Church based organization, doing genuinely useful work in impoverished Chicago neighborhoods (the fact that republicans are cynical about this really, really shows how low and partisan some people have become).
He was president of the Harvard Law Review and graduated Magna Cum Laude. He then went on to teach constitutional law (something our current president seems to have conveniently forgotten about) for TWELVE YEARS at the University of Chicago. He then worked for ELEVEN YEARS at a progressive Chicago law firm specializing in civil rights legislation and neighborhood development. During this time he also served on the board of directors of multiple public organizations and committees. He next served SEVEN YEARS in the state legislature. He has been a US senator for three and a half years.
Nothing in life was handed to Obama on a plate. He wasn’t born to a family of billionaires as George W was. He wasn’t admitted to an ivy league university because of his parent’s connections or despite having a C average. He hasn’t been arrested THREE TIMES as George W has. (How many people do you know who have been arrested three times for goodness sake). He made his own way in the world and has run a near-perfect campaign in the primary, staging possibly the greatest upset in modern American political history by beating Hillary Clinton.
He is going to be one hell of a great president of the United States and John McCain doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of beating him.
2.
ho-hum | July 25th, 2008 at 6:08 am
And by the way - comparing Obama to Fidel Castro and the electorate of this country to the citizenry of Cuba at the time of the revolution is soooo sleazy it boggles the mind.
You really think there’s a comparison? That’s interesting. The writer in the blog you link to speaks about the fact that Cubans at that time thought they were in need of a change, thus they must be just like contemporary Americans, right? Really? Cubans at that time were suffering under a dictatorship which was propped up by the mafia, they were forced to work for a pittance in the most squalid conditions imaginable while political dissent was ruthlessly quashed. Is that how you visualize modern America? I know things have gotten pretty terrible under George W’s rule but I think you’re being a bit harsh there.
Also, you might want to note that Castro was a known revolutionary who had personally killed several people as a young man, taken part in coups d’etat in foreign countries, been imprisoned, been deported from Cuba, had previously tried to start a revolution in Cuba, etc, etc. And you compare him to Obama? You’re amazing. I eagerly await the pleasure of seeing how low you will stoop in your next post.
It’s sleazy partisan mudslinging like this that the electorate of this country are truly sick of. When you use tactics like this all you demonstrate is how desperate you truly are.
And by the way, Stalin, Mao and latterly Muggabe were old men when they committed the worst of their atrocities. See how this game of compare and contrast works?
3.
Rasmus | July 25th, 2008 at 7:09 am
I assume that most of you who are now supporting McCain also voted for Bush back in 2000 and 2004. How did that turn out for you? It’s also worth mentioning that Bush had virtually no foreign policy experience back in 2000 but that didn’t prevent you from voting for him.
I’ll let you in on a little secret. In Europe (I’m Danish) Bush is generally considered the worst president EVER. Your country has become the laughing stock of the entire world. People might fear you (although you have stretched yourselves too far this time) but no one respects you anymore. Doesn’t that tell you something? Is it so bad to elect someone who is smart, well-spoken, admired and liked by the rest of the world?
Another thing I have been wondering about is Ronald Reagan. What is this camp thing related to everything Reagan’ish? All you republicans get so excited when talking about Reagan. Your biggest wish is to clone the guy and make him run for president again. Shouldn’t you look forward instead of backwards? Why do you want to vote for an old geezer like McCain with no vision what so ever?. McCain doesn’t ever know how to use a computer for crying out loud.
I really hope Obama wins and so does the rest of the world (vast majority).
Electing McCain would be pressing the self-destruct button and I fear there would be no turning back.
4.
Henry Hinsthworth | July 25th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Deleted - off topic.
5.
Bigfoot | July 25th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Your country has become the laughing stock of the entire world.
The only thing laughable is your statement. The U.S. is the ENVY of the entire world. It was before George W Bush became president, is now, and will be long after he steps down, no matter who succeeds him. If we’re not, why do so many people leave everything behind, sometimes risking their lives (as in those leaving Castro’s Cuba), to come to America? How many have been flocking to Denmark from Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, or Iran these days? And when disaster strikes anywhere in the world, even in Bam, Iran, who goes in to clean up the mess? On the other hand, how many Danes went to New Orleans 3 years ago?
Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against Denmark. I have visited Europe many times and will happily continue to do so. But when it comes to respect, NO ONE has done more to deserve it than the U.S.
Sure, comparing Obama to Castro or even Bush isn’t going to mean much. Each has their own life story. But when someone has lived in both Cuba and the U.S., and sees echos of Castro in an American candidate, I would submit that his perspective carries some weight.
6.
Rasmus | July 25th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Bigfoot,
You are wrong my friend. The US used to be admired by most other countries (the word envy has a negative ring to it). Since the decider won back in 2000 it went downhill very quickly. You are free to believe that we all want to move to the US but you are fooling yourself. There are lots of people trying to get into Denmark but Cubans tend to not be amongst them (hmmm…could it be the distance?).
I’m not attacking your country, it’s your current government (and your political system) I’m questioning. I’ve been to the US several times and enjoyed it for the most parts but the US is not paradise and you are certainly not the envy of the entire world now. Just the fact that you can think that makes me a bit sad. You guys are not even number 1 in anything anymore (schools, health etc.) except maybe number of nukes and size of military. This mentality that you are the best and always right is something you really should change because it tends to get you into a lot of trouble. I’m not saying that you can’t love your country but please allow the rest of us to also love our countries.
How many Danes went to the New Orleans 3 years ago? What do you mean? You do know that Denmark is very far away from New Orleans right?
The US has done many good things and from time to time those things have even been done without any selfish motives. The problem is that very few of those things have occurred while the Decider has been deciding.
All I’m saying is that if you want to have a leader who is admired around the world, and who in my humble opinion will become a great president, Obama is your guy.
7.
neocon | July 25th, 2008 at 10:10 am
“You do know that Denmark is very far away from New Orleans right?” - Rasmus
Evidently the Danes don’t have air travel. But, you’re capable of getting here for vacation, but not to help out with disaster relief, have I got that right??? LMAO
Rasmus,
Post #6 is nothing more than your immature opinion and please, don’t come to the US anymore. We don’t want your money, your presence, or your Euro-trash opinions.
And we don’t elect Presidents so others will like us, mmmmmmm k?
have a nice day
peace, neocon
8.
Rasmus | July 25th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Neocon,
Euro trash! Where did that come from? Which part of Euro-Trash-land are your ancestors from Neocon?
Regarding New Orleans; sorry that I didn’t fly 6 thousand miles to help out. I watched in horror how that whole situation played out and I must say that your President and all his buddies turned out to be useless.
Don’t get so upset Neo. I’m not anti American. I have lots of American friends (mostly from Texas). Just trying to give you a little outside perspective my angry friend
Denmark welcomes you both with open arms so common over!
10.
Mark Noonan | July 25th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Rasmus,
If President Bush is really considered by you Europeans to be the worst of the worst, then why do so many of your European governments agree with him vis a vis Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and the larger War on Terrorism? This mythological opposition to Bush policies is based on the one-time bribed governments of France, Germany and Russia desperately trying to save Saddam’s bacon in 2002-2003.
As for the popular perceptions of President Bush - this can be discounted because it comes from an European population which is addicted to welfare, refuses to work and is dying off for lack of mere will to have children. The good opinion of some childless, unemployed permanent teenager European is not something we want. It is no surprise that Europeans are wowed by Obama - he’s also a nobody who does nothing but preens himself on his supposed intellectual superiority.
11.
neocon | July 25th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Rasmus,
I am hardly upset, rather amused by the opinion from someone who’s to far away to come help, but yet insists on voicing their meaningless opinion. The fact that you assume anger on my behalf, explains your deluded opinions.
And I am an American, period. Where my ancestors originated from is meaningless.
As far as visiting Denmark, you’re 23rd on my list of desired places to visit.
But hey, thanks again for a meaningless opinion from the cheap seats.
bye
neocon
12.
'08ama | July 25th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Deleted - off topic.
13.
Mark Noonan | July 25th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
ho-hum,
It is Obama supporters which keep showing up with pictures of the murdering thug Che on the wall…it is your side which sees the similarity between Obama and Castro’s anti-human revolution….we’re just pointing this out.
14.
Dennis | July 25th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Rasmus, thank you for your level-headed and politely expressed perspective in the face of the rabid chauvinism of two sad and bitter Americans.
I find it pathetic that anyone would characterize an erudite and courteous person as “Eurotrash” or “some childless, unemployed permanent teenager.” The mindset that would call Sen. Obama “a nobody who does nothing” in the face of the facts of record listed in Post 1 of this thread is utterly without rationality. Please take comfort in the knowledge that not all Americans are so rude or ignorant.
15.
neocon | July 25th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Dennis,
You’re quite the American apologist, which continues to embolden those that feel they have the right to denigrate America despite the overwhelming generosity this country has extended to those in need around the world, and the absence of that generosity from those countries that feel empowered to criticize, Denmark being a fine example.
It’s not being rude as you so immaturely assert, rather it is exposing hypocrisy and moral relativism.
Sadly, you can’t discern the difference.
have a nice day
neocon
16.
Dennis | July 25th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Moral relativism? Neocon, you do not know the meaning of the term - or if you do, you have yet to use it correctly.
You might learn a lot of value by stepping outside your bubble of American isolation and presumed superiority. What you present as patriotism is actually bigotry and chavinism. We are human beings created by the same God, all sinners. Being “American” comes somewhat down the list of definitive qualities and has nothing to do with anyone’s inherent worth.
Think about it.
17.
neocon | July 25th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Bigotry and Chauvinism?????
Speaking of not knowing the meaning of words.
I take exception to the audacity of foreigners who feel compelled to denigrate America despite the fact that this country has done more to further human rights and peace across this planet than any other country on this planet, period. That’s not bigotry or chauvinism, that’s just fact.
18.
neocon | July 25th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
“moral relativism - is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths”
I have used it properly in every instance.
19.
Dennis | July 25th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Neocon - for instance, the moral position that human life is sacred applies to abortion, but not to preventive war or capital punishment, can be described as moral relativism. Right?
Particularly when many innocent people are ACTUALLY killed by wars that THEORETICALLY prevent an unproven danger from occuring (such as mushroom clouds from WMDs). Or when a dictator is stopped from occasionally massacring people by massacring many more other people. And of course regarding capital punishment, numerous people on death row have been exonerated by DNA evidence.
To recap the universal truth - if human life is sacred in one situation, it is equally sacred in another - not simply relative to one’s prefered policies.
Just trying to get a real-world example laid out. You (or others here) often use the term as a general accusation, loosely and without specificity. As in post 15 - or perhaps you will draw for us the logical basis for using the term in regard to my post 14.
20.
Dennis | July 25th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Moral relativism from another perspective: that goodness is only good if done by someone with whom one agrees, but if done by a person one does not like or agree with, the same deeds become irelevant, vain or despicable. In other words, moral good is relative to your guy only. No kudos to the other guy for any good done.
Noonan practices this variety often - where his heroes’ deeds are lauded but his villains’ deeds, rising from equally decent motives (as far as anyone can humanly tell) are sneered at and their worth negated.
Logically one would have to call this moral relativism as well.
21.
neocon | July 25th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
“Or when a dictator is stopped from occasionally massacring people by massacring many more other people” - Dennis
That statement is moral relativism. Equating the deaths attributed to the actions and intent of the dictator to those actions and intent of the liberators. That mindset, Dennis, perpetuates chaos and violence around the globe.
Think about it.
neocon
22.
Dennis | July 25th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Sorry, but you are the one engaging in moral relativism. All lives are of equal value - you cannot value the lives saved from a dictator more highly than the lives lost by collateral damage of a liberator. In fact when you are dying it doesn’t matter who fired the gun.
Your moral calculus is flawed in more ways than one. In war what is absolutely certain is that people will be killed. There is no ambiguity. Containing a tryrant, even Saddam, was feasible and would have cost vastly fewer human lives and less chaos than war. People around the world knew this as well as Bush’s cabinet and generals did. The Iraq war was no life-saving exercise, and to harbor illusions that it was is the naivest of folly.
By taking your logic to its final extent one drops 500 lb bombs onto city blocks because some military target might or might not be there - often as not, they aren’t. Israelis fire missiles into crowded streets and often kill only the innocent. Wedding parties have been mistaken for terrorist gatherings and blown apart. The theory of saving lives becomes an excuse for taking them; in war military objectives sweep away every other tender mercy.
All that is why the only just war is a war of last resort.
23.
neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 8:42 am
You may believe that all lives are of equal value. I don’t.
The lives of oppressive, murderous dictators, and the lives of murderous felons are no longer of any value, and I would argue, they are of negative value.
Nice attempt though.
Next
24.
neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Denns,
You’re nothing more than an apologist who is filled with self doubt and uncertainty, with a tepid grasp on the concept of right vs wrong.
Good luck with that personal struggle.
25.
the_lefty_fool RETURNS | July 26th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Deleted - off topic.
26.
neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
fool,
By the way, perfect handle.
Rasmus is better informed because of where he lives??????
Typical brain dead argument.
Rasmus’s “opinion” is only that, and has little grounding in fact. His premise is that America has lost it’s international favorability, which is merely the myopic delusion of the left, and in reality matters not to the majority of Americans, and completely ignores the multitude of generosity extended worldwide by America and it’s private charitable organizations, of which Denmark could not even hold a candle to.
I assert that it is Denmark which has lost it’s favorable reputation, especially by me. Why does Denmark cite distance as the main barrier to helping those in need around the globe? Do they not have air travel? or are they more concerned about themselves? Either way, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
And incidentally, I voted for the guy, so it is all my fault.
have a nice day
peace, neocon
27.
neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
“…and, Rasmus, I’m very very very sorry” - Fool
This is the most ridiculous and pathetic statement any American could ever utter.
Congrats fool, you are the poster child for pond scum.
And Rasmus, I am not sorry at all. In fact, America has not done enough to confront evil. Stay tuned.
have a nice day
neocon
28.
cam | July 26th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Ours is a country of European origin and we have had a long mostly good relationship with our neighbors across the pond. Even when you like your neighbors, when you live in a neighborhood long enough you are likely to have some challenges getting along with your neighbors. When your neighbors leave town for a long vacation and leave the house to their 21 year old nephew to house sit but instead turns it into a party house where it is filled with drunk partiers who throw trash and urinate on your front lawn after loud parties late into the night your fondness for that neighbor is tested. However, when the neighbor returns and everything returns to normal the irritation caused by the drunken partiers begins to fade and you can once again rest peacefully at night. That is what the presidency of GWB has been like. Now that the Europeans can see that the unruly brawling teenagers are about to leave no wonder they are so giddy. Once again America and Europe can be good neighbors who work together to solve problems they have in common.
29.
Ricorun | July 26th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
neocon, I wouldn’t go too hard on the Danes for their foreign aid efforts. As the following chart shows, as a percentage of GDP they are at the top of the heap.
You might want to go hunting around on that page. For example, in addition to “overall aid”, you can see how much is “tied” to the requirement that the aid be spent on equipment/materials from the donor nation, and how much of it is “selective”, meaning the percentage that is provided to countries that are poor, thus deserving, but well governed, thus more likely to use aid well.
30.
Dennis | July 26th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Neocon, I am reminded of the story - when a woman is asked if she will sleep with an attractive business tycoon for a million dollars and a share of his estate she says “of course.” When asked if she will sleep with an ordinary joe for fifty dollars she says, “what do you think I am, a whore?” Well, yes - now it’s down to arguing about the price.
Your only defense is to pretend the only casualties of war are bad guys. You have shown yourself too smart to believe something that ignorant. Human flesh can’t tell the difference between a terrorist bomb or a JDAM , between an insurgent bullet or an American bullet.
We may not deliberately target civilians as others do, but any decision to go to war is a foregone conclusion of many civilian casualties. If sound plans are not in place to secure the peace the numbers will be vastly higher.
In the end, the fact that the Iraq war was not a war of last resort (i.e. a just war), and the irresponsible manner in which the security of the population was disregarded (inadequate troop numbers, leaving munitions unguarded, not securing hospitals, etc) makes those who started it morally culpable for large-scale loss of human life.
You can pretend all you want that we only kill bad guys, ergo we are good guys. Once you begin making such disctinctions you already have fallen under the spell of moral relativism. Taking lives by violence cannot be simply contained - war spreads like a contagion. Once you become a supporter of war, your stand on abortion becomes like the woman arguing that she isn’t a whore.
31.
neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Dennis,
I never claimed that we only kill the bad guys, but I also don’t wring my hands over collateral damage. Life is not fair, never has been and never will be. I look more on the scale of mankind than I do man, and taking out murderous, oppressive dictators is always the right thing to do for mankind, irregardless of the collateral damage.
That being said, our war planners should always try to mitigate loss of innocent life when ever possible, and people like you should never use that loss of life as an excuse not to go to war.
Got it?
32.
neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
“Once you become a supporter of war, your stand on abortion becomes like the woman arguing that she isn’t a whore.” - Dennis
Once again, abortion and war are mutually exclusive concepts. Your desperate attempt to link the two is just dishonest and embarrassing, but very typical of liberals.
Rico,
And yet when you dial in closer, considering all components, Denmark is #21.
But I am not denigrating Denmark per se, only when one of their Danes has the audacity to voice their negative opinion of the US do I excoriate them. How many Americans feel the need to chide Denmark for their past missteps?
I just don’t take kindly to foreigners who feel compelled to lecture us.
have a nice day
peace, neocon
33.
Dennis | July 26th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Neo, abortion and war both happen to be issues in which moral relativism is often employed. The sanctity of human life is the moral constant between them, but that moral constant is glibly treated as a relative matter to other considerations in both.
My example stands - you feel that taking x number of lives is okay to get rid of a dictator - even when it is possible to tie the hands of that dictator by other means. By so doing you set yourself up as a god over the lives of those who become “collateral damage.” Why don’t they have a say? What gives you that right? Perhaps someday you will become collateral damage in someone else’s war, and may come to ask the same thing.
I hear this same argument frequently used against abortion, and have always said I could take it seriously if it were consistently applied. But it is not - neither with capital punishment.
The only possible conclusion I can make is that the sanctity of human life is a morally relative value to many people on the right - subject to political considerations, expedience etc.
34.
neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
“The sanctity of human life is the moral constant between them,…” Dennis
No, it’s not.
“The only possible conclusion I can make is that the sanctity of human life is a morally relative value to many people on the right - subject to political considerations, expedience etc.” - Dennis
The only conclusion that I can make is the people, like you, who support abortion use casualties of war and executed convicted criminals as a morally relative values to support their anti war views.
It cuts both ways my friend, so quit being so sanctamonious. It’s nauseating.
35.
neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
In other words Dennis, I don’t believe you give one twit about life, as much as your agenda, otherwise you’d be on the forefront of the pro-life movement. So unless and until I see you take a pro-life stance, I will consider future similar posts form you on this subject to be nothing more than propaganda.
have a nice day
neocon
36.
neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
“I hear this same argument frequently used against abortion, and have always said I could take it seriously if it were consistently applied. But it is not - neither with capital punishment.” - Dennis
And neither is your position. If you support abortion, then you should support anyones right to choose, just about anything. And if juries choose to execute a criminal for their crimes, you should support that choice. If nations choose to go to war, you should support that choice.
You are being very inconsistent.
37.
Dennis | July 26th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Neo, the argument was about what constitutes moral relativism, and my point is made. But I have never supported abortion. In fact I have written and argued against the lightness with which people regard abortion for nearly thirty years.
But I object to the characterization of abortion of zygotes as murder by those who are willing to kill fully formed people under other circumstances. It is blatantly hypocritical.
Lastly, I have always opposed government intrusion into matters that I believe to be between a couple or a woman and God alone. Early-term abortion happens to be one of those matters, in my opinion. Not every moral issue should not be a legal one.
38 Comments Add your own
1. ho-hum | July 25th, 2008 at 5:28 am
Obama, if elected will be four years older than JFK was in 1960. He will be five years older than Teddy Rooseveland was when he was elected and a year older than both Clinton and Ullyses S. Grant were. He is about to turn 47 for crying out loud, that’s middle aged by most people’s definition. Since when do only old geezers get to be president of this vibrant nation?
The fact that he’s running against a guy who would be heading into his 80s if he was to serve two full terms should not make him look inexperienced in comparison. Obama has led a remarkably broad and full life thus far.
As a youth he was raised in Hawaii, Indonesia and LA. Between attending Columbia and Harvard he worked as a community organizer for a Catholic Church based organization, doing genuinely useful work in impoverished Chicago neighborhoods (the fact that republicans are cynical about this really, really shows how low and partisan some people have become).
He was president of the Harvard Law Review and graduated Magna Cum Laude. He then went on to teach constitutional law (something our current president seems to have conveniently forgotten about) for TWELVE YEARS at the University of Chicago. He then worked for ELEVEN YEARS at a progressive Chicago law firm specializing in civil rights legislation and neighborhood development. During this time he also served on the board of directors of multiple public organizations and committees. He next served SEVEN YEARS in the state legislature. He has been a US senator for three and a half years.
Nothing in life was handed to Obama on a plate. He wasn’t born to a family of billionaires as George W was. He wasn’t admitted to an ivy league university because of his parent’s connections or despite having a C average. He hasn’t been arrested THREE TIMES as George W has. (How many people do you know who have been arrested three times for goodness sake). He made his own way in the world and has run a near-perfect campaign in the primary, staging possibly the greatest upset in modern American political history by beating Hillary Clinton.
He is going to be one hell of a great president of the United States and John McCain doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of beating him.
2. ho-hum | July 25th, 2008 at 6:08 am
And by the way - comparing Obama to Fidel Castro and the electorate of this country to the citizenry of Cuba at the time of the revolution is soooo sleazy it boggles the mind.
You really think there’s a comparison? That’s interesting. The writer in the blog you link to speaks about the fact that Cubans at that time thought they were in need of a change, thus they must be just like contemporary Americans, right? Really? Cubans at that time were suffering under a dictatorship which was propped up by the mafia, they were forced to work for a pittance in the most squalid conditions imaginable while political dissent was ruthlessly quashed. Is that how you visualize modern America? I know things have gotten pretty terrible under George W’s rule but I think you’re being a bit harsh there.
Also, you might want to note that Castro was a known revolutionary who had personally killed several people as a young man, taken part in coups d’etat in foreign countries, been imprisoned, been deported from Cuba, had previously tried to start a revolution in Cuba, etc, etc. And you compare him to Obama? You’re amazing. I eagerly await the pleasure of seeing how low you will stoop in your next post.
It’s sleazy partisan mudslinging like this that the electorate of this country are truly sick of. When you use tactics like this all you demonstrate is how desperate you truly are.
And by the way, Stalin, Mao and latterly Muggabe were old men when they committed the worst of their atrocities. See how this game of compare and contrast works?
3. Rasmus | July 25th, 2008 at 7:09 am
I assume that most of you who are now supporting McCain also voted for Bush back in 2000 and 2004. How did that turn out for you? It’s also worth mentioning that Bush had virtually no foreign policy experience back in 2000 but that didn’t prevent you from voting for him.
I’ll let you in on a little secret. In Europe (I’m Danish) Bush is generally considered the worst president EVER. Your country has become the laughing stock of the entire world. People might fear you (although you have stretched yourselves too far this time) but no one respects you anymore. Doesn’t that tell you something? Is it so bad to elect someone who is smart, well-spoken, admired and liked by the rest of the world?
Another thing I have been wondering about is Ronald Reagan. What is this camp thing related to everything Reagan’ish? All you republicans get so excited when talking about Reagan. Your biggest wish is to clone the guy and make him run for president again. Shouldn’t you look forward instead of backwards? Why do you want to vote for an old geezer like McCain with no vision what so ever?. McCain doesn’t ever know how to use a computer for crying out loud.
I really hope Obama wins and so does the rest of the world (vast majority).
Electing McCain would be pressing the self-destruct button and I fear there would be no turning back.
4. Henry Hinsthworth | July 25th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Deleted - off topic.
5. Bigfoot | July 25th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Your country has become the laughing stock of the entire world.
The only thing laughable is your statement. The U.S. is the ENVY of the entire world. It was before George W Bush became president, is now, and will be long after he steps down, no matter who succeeds him. If we’re not, why do so many people leave everything behind, sometimes risking their lives (as in those leaving Castro’s Cuba), to come to America? How many have been flocking to Denmark from Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, or Iran these days? And when disaster strikes anywhere in the world, even in Bam, Iran, who goes in to clean up the mess? On the other hand, how many Danes went to New Orleans 3 years ago?
Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against Denmark. I have visited Europe many times and will happily continue to do so. But when it comes to respect, NO ONE has done more to deserve it than the U.S.
Sure, comparing Obama to Castro or even Bush isn’t going to mean much. Each has their own life story. But when someone has lived in both Cuba and the U.S., and sees echos of Castro in an American candidate, I would submit that his perspective carries some weight.
6. Rasmus | July 25th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Bigfoot,
You are wrong my friend. The US used to be admired by most other countries (the word envy has a negative ring to it). Since the decider won back in 2000 it went downhill very quickly. You are free to believe that we all want to move to the US but you are fooling yourself. There are lots of people trying to get into Denmark but Cubans tend to not be amongst them (hmmm…could it be the distance?).
I’m not attacking your country, it’s your current government (and your political system) I’m questioning. I’ve been to the US several times and enjoyed it for the most parts but the US is not paradise and you are certainly not the envy of the entire world now. Just the fact that you can think that makes me a bit sad. You guys are not even number 1 in anything anymore (schools, health etc.) except maybe number of nukes and size of military. This mentality that you are the best and always right is something you really should change because it tends to get you into a lot of trouble. I’m not saying that you can’t love your country but please allow the rest of us to also love our countries.
How many Danes went to the New Orleans 3 years ago? What do you mean? You do know that Denmark is very far away from New Orleans right?
The US has done many good things and from time to time those things have even been done without any selfish motives. The problem is that very few of those things have occurred while the Decider has been deciding.
All I’m saying is that if you want to have a leader who is admired around the world, and who in my humble opinion will become a great president, Obama is your guy.
7. neocon | July 25th, 2008 at 10:10 am
“You do know that Denmark is very far away from New Orleans right?” - Rasmus
Evidently the Danes don’t have air travel. But, you’re capable of getting here for vacation, but not to help out with disaster relief, have I got that right??? LMAO
Rasmus,
Post #6 is nothing more than your immature opinion and please, don’t come to the US anymore. We don’t want your money, your presence, or your Euro-trash opinions.
And we don’t elect Presidents so others will like us, mmmmmmm k?
have a nice day
peace, neocon
8. Rasmus | July 25th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Neocon,
Euro trash! Where did that come from? Which part of Euro-Trash-land are your ancestors from Neocon?
Regarding New Orleans; sorry that I didn’t fly 6 thousand miles to help out. I watched in horror how that whole situation played out and I must say that your President and all his buddies turned out to be useless.
Don’t get so upset Neo. I’m not anti American. I have lots of American friends (mostly from Texas). Just trying to give you a little outside perspective my angry friend
9. Rasmus | July 25th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Denmark: the happiest place on earth
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4086092&page=1
Neocon and Bigfoot,
Denmark welcomes you both with open arms so common over!
10. Mark Noonan | July 25th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Rasmus,
If President Bush is really considered by you Europeans to be the worst of the worst, then why do so many of your European governments agree with him vis a vis Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and the larger War on Terrorism? This mythological opposition to Bush policies is based on the one-time bribed governments of France, Germany and Russia desperately trying to save Saddam’s bacon in 2002-2003.
As for the popular perceptions of President Bush - this can be discounted because it comes from an European population which is addicted to welfare, refuses to work and is dying off for lack of mere will to have children. The good opinion of some childless, unemployed permanent teenager European is not something we want. It is no surprise that Europeans are wowed by Obama - he’s also a nobody who does nothing but preens himself on his supposed intellectual superiority.
11. neocon | July 25th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Rasmus,
I am hardly upset, rather amused by the opinion from someone who’s to far away to come help, but yet insists on voicing their meaningless opinion. The fact that you assume anger on my behalf, explains your deluded opinions.
And I am an American, period. Where my ancestors originated from is meaningless.
As far as visiting Denmark, you’re 23rd on my list of desired places to visit.
But hey, thanks again for a meaningless opinion from the cheap seats.
bye
neocon
12. '08ama | July 25th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Deleted - off topic.
13. Mark Noonan | July 25th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
ho-hum,
It is Obama supporters which keep showing up with pictures of the murdering thug Che on the wall…it is your side which sees the similarity between Obama and Castro’s anti-human revolution….we’re just pointing this out.
14. Dennis | July 25th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Rasmus, thank you for your level-headed and politely expressed perspective in the face of the rabid chauvinism of two sad and bitter Americans.
I find it pathetic that anyone would characterize an erudite and courteous person as “Eurotrash” or “some childless, unemployed permanent teenager.” The mindset that would call Sen. Obama “a nobody who does nothing” in the face of the facts of record listed in Post 1 of this thread is utterly without rationality. Please take comfort in the knowledge that not all Americans are so rude or ignorant.
15. neocon | July 25th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Dennis,
You’re quite the American apologist, which continues to embolden those that feel they have the right to denigrate America despite the overwhelming generosity this country has extended to those in need around the world, and the absence of that generosity from those countries that feel empowered to criticize, Denmark being a fine example.
It’s not being rude as you so immaturely assert, rather it is exposing hypocrisy and moral relativism.
Sadly, you can’t discern the difference.
have a nice day
neocon
16. Dennis | July 25th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Moral relativism? Neocon, you do not know the meaning of the term - or if you do, you have yet to use it correctly.
You might learn a lot of value by stepping outside your bubble of American isolation and presumed superiority. What you present as patriotism is actually bigotry and chavinism. We are human beings created by the same God, all sinners. Being “American” comes somewhat down the list of definitive qualities and has nothing to do with anyone’s inherent worth.
Think about it.
17. neocon | July 25th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Bigotry and Chauvinism?????
Speaking of not knowing the meaning of words.
I take exception to the audacity of foreigners who feel compelled to denigrate America despite the fact that this country has done more to further human rights and peace across this planet than any other country on this planet, period. That’s not bigotry or chauvinism, that’s just fact.
18. neocon | July 25th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
“moral relativism - is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths”
I have used it properly in every instance.
19. Dennis | July 25th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Neocon - for instance, the moral position that human life is sacred applies to abortion, but not to preventive war or capital punishment, can be described as moral relativism. Right?
Particularly when many innocent people are ACTUALLY killed by wars that THEORETICALLY prevent an unproven danger from occuring (such as mushroom clouds from WMDs). Or when a dictator is stopped from occasionally massacring people by massacring many more other people. And of course regarding capital punishment, numerous people on death row have been exonerated by DNA evidence.
To recap the universal truth - if human life is sacred in one situation, it is equally sacred in another - not simply relative to one’s prefered policies.
Just trying to get a real-world example laid out. You (or others here) often use the term as a general accusation, loosely and without specificity. As in post 15 - or perhaps you will draw for us the logical basis for using the term in regard to my post 14.
20. Dennis | July 25th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Moral relativism from another perspective: that goodness is only good if done by someone with whom one agrees, but if done by a person one does not like or agree with, the same deeds become irelevant, vain or despicable. In other words, moral good is relative to your guy only. No kudos to the other guy for any good done.
Noonan practices this variety often - where his heroes’ deeds are lauded but his villains’ deeds, rising from equally decent motives (as far as anyone can humanly tell) are sneered at and their worth negated.
Logically one would have to call this moral relativism as well.
21. neocon | July 25th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
“Or when a dictator is stopped from occasionally massacring people by massacring many more other people” - Dennis
That statement is moral relativism. Equating the deaths attributed to the actions and intent of the dictator to those actions and intent of the liberators. That mindset, Dennis, perpetuates chaos and violence around the globe.
Think about it.
neocon
22. Dennis | July 25th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Sorry, but you are the one engaging in moral relativism. All lives are of equal value - you cannot value the lives saved from a dictator more highly than the lives lost by collateral damage of a liberator. In fact when you are dying it doesn’t matter who fired the gun.
Your moral calculus is flawed in more ways than one. In war what is absolutely certain is that people will be killed. There is no ambiguity. Containing a tryrant, even Saddam, was feasible and would have cost vastly fewer human lives and less chaos than war. People around the world knew this as well as Bush’s cabinet and generals did. The Iraq war was no life-saving exercise, and to harbor illusions that it was is the naivest of folly.
By taking your logic to its final extent one drops 500 lb bombs onto city blocks because some military target might or might not be there - often as not, they aren’t. Israelis fire missiles into crowded streets and often kill only the innocent. Wedding parties have been mistaken for terrorist gatherings and blown apart. The theory of saving lives becomes an excuse for taking them; in war military objectives sweep away every other tender mercy.
All that is why the only just war is a war of last resort.
23. neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 8:42 am
You may believe that all lives are of equal value. I don’t.
The lives of oppressive, murderous dictators, and the lives of murderous felons are no longer of any value, and I would argue, they are of negative value.
Nice attempt though.
Next
24. neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Denns,
You’re nothing more than an apologist who is filled with self doubt and uncertainty, with a tepid grasp on the concept of right vs wrong.
Good luck with that personal struggle.
25. the_lefty_fool RETURNS | July 26th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Deleted - off topic.
26. neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
fool,
By the way, perfect handle.
Rasmus is better informed because of where he lives??????
Typical brain dead argument.
Rasmus’s “opinion” is only that, and has little grounding in fact. His premise is that America has lost it’s international favorability, which is merely the myopic delusion of the left, and in reality matters not to the majority of Americans, and completely ignores the multitude of generosity extended worldwide by America and it’s private charitable organizations, of which Denmark could not even hold a candle to.
I assert that it is Denmark which has lost it’s favorable reputation, especially by me. Why does Denmark cite distance as the main barrier to helping those in need around the globe? Do they not have air travel? or are they more concerned about themselves? Either way, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
And incidentally, I voted for the guy, so it is all my fault.
have a nice day
peace, neocon
27. neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
“…and, Rasmus, I’m very very very sorry” - Fool
This is the most ridiculous and pathetic statement any American could ever utter.
Congrats fool, you are the poster child for pond scum.
And Rasmus, I am not sorry at all. In fact, America has not done enough to confront evil. Stay tuned.
have a nice day
neocon
28. cam | July 26th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Ours is a country of European origin and we have had a long mostly good relationship with our neighbors across the pond. Even when you like your neighbors, when you live in a neighborhood long enough you are likely to have some challenges getting along with your neighbors. When your neighbors leave town for a long vacation and leave the house to their 21 year old nephew to house sit but instead turns it into a party house where it is filled with drunk partiers who throw trash and urinate on your front lawn after loud parties late into the night your fondness for that neighbor is tested. However, when the neighbor returns and everything returns to normal the irritation caused by the drunken partiers begins to fade and you can once again rest peacefully at night. That is what the presidency of GWB has been like. Now that the Europeans can see that the unruly brawling teenagers are about to leave no wonder they are so giddy. Once again America and Europe can be good neighbors who work together to solve problems they have in common.
29. Ricorun | July 26th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
neocon, I wouldn’t go too hard on the Danes for their foreign aid efforts. As the following chart shows, as a percentage of GDP they are at the top of the heap.
http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/_components/aid/indicators/
You might want to go hunting around on that page. For example, in addition to “overall aid”, you can see how much is “tied” to the requirement that the aid be spent on equipment/materials from the donor nation, and how much of it is “selective”, meaning the percentage that is provided to countries that are poor, thus deserving, but well governed, thus more likely to use aid well.
30. Dennis | July 26th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Neocon, I am reminded of the story - when a woman is asked if she will sleep with an attractive business tycoon for a million dollars and a share of his estate she says “of course.” When asked if she will sleep with an ordinary joe for fifty dollars she says, “what do you think I am, a whore?” Well, yes - now it’s down to arguing about the price.
Your only defense is to pretend the only casualties of war are bad guys. You have shown yourself too smart to believe something that ignorant. Human flesh can’t tell the difference between a terrorist bomb or a JDAM , between an insurgent bullet or an American bullet.
We may not deliberately target civilians as others do, but any decision to go to war is a foregone conclusion of many civilian casualties. If sound plans are not in place to secure the peace the numbers will be vastly higher.
In the end, the fact that the Iraq war was not a war of last resort (i.e. a just war), and the irresponsible manner in which the security of the population was disregarded (inadequate troop numbers, leaving munitions unguarded, not securing hospitals, etc) makes those who started it morally culpable for large-scale loss of human life.
You can pretend all you want that we only kill bad guys, ergo we are good guys. Once you begin making such disctinctions you already have fallen under the spell of moral relativism. Taking lives by violence cannot be simply contained - war spreads like a contagion. Once you become a supporter of war, your stand on abortion becomes like the woman arguing that she isn’t a whore.
31. neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Dennis,
I never claimed that we only kill the bad guys, but I also don’t wring my hands over collateral damage. Life is not fair, never has been and never will be. I look more on the scale of mankind than I do man, and taking out murderous, oppressive dictators is always the right thing to do for mankind, irregardless of the collateral damage.
That being said, our war planners should always try to mitigate loss of innocent life when ever possible, and people like you should never use that loss of life as an excuse not to go to war.
Got it?
32. neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
“Once you become a supporter of war, your stand on abortion becomes like the woman arguing that she isn’t a whore.” - Dennis
Once again, abortion and war are mutually exclusive concepts. Your desperate attempt to link the two is just dishonest and embarrassing, but very typical of liberals.
Rico,
And yet when you dial in closer, considering all components, Denmark is #21.
http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/_components/aid/indicators/?country=denmark
But I am not denigrating Denmark per se, only when one of their Danes has the audacity to voice their negative opinion of the US do I excoriate them. How many Americans feel the need to chide Denmark for their past missteps?
I just don’t take kindly to foreigners who feel compelled to lecture us.
have a nice day
peace, neocon
33. Dennis | July 26th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Neo, abortion and war both happen to be issues in which moral relativism is often employed. The sanctity of human life is the moral constant between them, but that moral constant is glibly treated as a relative matter to other considerations in both.
My example stands - you feel that taking x number of lives is okay to get rid of a dictator - even when it is possible to tie the hands of that dictator by other means. By so doing you set yourself up as a god over the lives of those who become “collateral damage.” Why don’t they have a say? What gives you that right? Perhaps someday you will become collateral damage in someone else’s war, and may come to ask the same thing.
I hear this same argument frequently used against abortion, and have always said I could take it seriously if it were consistently applied. But it is not - neither with capital punishment.
The only possible conclusion I can make is that the sanctity of human life is a morally relative value to many people on the right - subject to political considerations, expedience etc.
34. neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
“The sanctity of human life is the moral constant between them,…” Dennis
No, it’s not.
“The only possible conclusion I can make is that the sanctity of human life is a morally relative value to many people on the right - subject to political considerations, expedience etc.” - Dennis
The only conclusion that I can make is the people, like you, who support abortion use casualties of war and executed convicted criminals as a morally relative values to support their anti war views.
It cuts both ways my friend, so quit being so sanctamonious. It’s nauseating.
35. neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
In other words Dennis, I don’t believe you give one twit about life, as much as your agenda, otherwise you’d be on the forefront of the pro-life movement. So unless and until I see you take a pro-life stance, I will consider future similar posts form you on this subject to be nothing more than propaganda.
have a nice day
neocon
36. neocon | July 26th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
“I hear this same argument frequently used against abortion, and have always said I could take it seriously if it were consistently applied. But it is not - neither with capital punishment.” - Dennis
And neither is your position. If you support abortion, then you should support anyones right to choose, just about anything. And if juries choose to execute a criminal for their crimes, you should support that choice. If nations choose to go to war, you should support that choice.
You are being very inconsistent.
37. Dennis | July 26th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Neo, the argument was about what constitutes moral relativism, and my point is made. But I have never supported abortion. In fact I have written and argued against the lightness with which people regard abortion for nearly thirty years.
But I object to the characterization of abortion of zygotes as murder by those who are willing to kill fully formed people under other circumstances. It is blatantly hypocritical.
Lastly, I have always opposed government intrusion into matters that I believe to be between a couple or a woman and God alone. Early-term abortion happens to be one of those matters, in my opinion. Not every moral issue should not be a legal one.
38. Blogs For Victory »&hellip | August 6th, 2008 at 5:33 am
[…] If you point out that Obama supporters place his picture next to Che’s picture you…may be a […]
Leave a Comment
Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed