Monday, March 31

a healthy dose

Over the weekend my favorite neighbor cc'd me on an email about Obama, to which there came several replies. One responder, Melissa, wrote the following...
"Just think, we will soon have Allah and God blessing this country with our new President Obama. Our great country will be well covered. IT'S TIME FOR CHANGE!"
I was surprised she acknowledged as fact that Barack is a closet Muslim. Not that I care that much... I have so many policy disagreements with Obama, his religion doesn't even register. And, I actually think it would be un-American to discriminate against him because of his religious preference. That's what I talked about when referring to Mitt Romney's Mormonism, right? We've got to be consistent.

But, I did respond this way:
"'Change' like doubling the capital gains tax? 'Change' like higher taxes for a boondoggle like universal health coverage that will kill the economy? Premature withdrawal from Iraq, ceding it to terrorists? No thanks. 'Change' isn't always good and 'change' the way Obama speaks of it is dangerous and irresponsible.

"McCain is the only qualified candidate."
She came back with:
"No, changes like a fair tax that doesn't allow loopholes for the greedy corporations like the oil companies who are bleeding our citizens(check out their profits). And... medical coverage for all Americans in the wealthiest country in the world where over 30% of the population is without health insurance. AND... ending an unjust war that has only served to promote the growth of terrorism in Iraq and world wide, resulting in over 4000 American deaths and a million Iraquis. And... why is it never mentioned that from an economic viewpoint this war has been catastrophic for this country?-costing us a meer three trillion dollars that could have been spent to upgrade our infra structure, improve homeland security, educate our children, etc etc. The terrorists will remain in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, long after our troops pull out- even if it is "100 years from now". International disapproval and hatred toward US has grown thanks to our ill advised, arrogant& ignorant President and his"gang."

"The last thing we need now is a military President who will continue on the same path that has ruined our country economically and diplomatically. Isn't it time to give the "other side" a chance? After all, weren't we all better off 8 years ago????

"It's a great country where we can agree to disagree. Hope you see this as a healthy "debate"!"
Of course, I couldn't resist saying:
"You are entirely correct about 'debate being healthy' and about the 4,000 dead American service people in Iraq.


"A 'fair tax'? Obama? For all his talk of 'change' and 'hope' he's really just another tax and spend liberal. His tax hikes would 'soak the rich' but that's a misnomer because 'soaking the rich' doesn't impact the rich. It does, however, greatly impact the middle class. And it results in wide and deep job losses, which hurts everybody -- except the rich -- in the pocketbook. It also adversely affects the economy. So, 'fair tax'? Bad idea. Nothing 'fair' about it.

'"Unjust war'? You gotta be kidding me? How could liberating Iraq from the brutal regime of a dictator EVER be thought of as 'unjust'? Short answer: It can't. Saddam Hussein put his political enemies feet first -- feet first! -- into industrial sized plastic shredding machines. His sons ran around the country, wrecking havoc wherever they went. Rape rooms, torture rooms, jails, etc. Not to mention Oil For Food. None of these things the UN or Amnesty Int'l found objectionable, by the way. They're all to busy (taking money from Hussein) talking about how bad Bush is. Go figure. The anti-American organizations around the world say the same stuff as the Democrats. What a shameful example. A hundred years ago the behavior of Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Kerry, McDermott, Bonior, Boxer, et al. would have been considered treason.

"Disagreeing with the war doesn't make it 'unjust.' Just like opposing the war doesn't make you Liberal or progressive. Liberals should have widely agreed with removing Hussein, based on humanitarian reasons alone.

"'One million dead' Iraqi's? Not even close. This is an outrageous exaggeration, and one that cannot go unanswered. The number is more in the range of 250,000. And who, exactly, is killing those Iraqi civilians? Not American troops. The terrorists are killing Iraqi civilians.

"This is a very important distinction. But what is your point for such wild exaggerations?

"'Weren't we all better off eight years ago?' No. We were asleep as a country. When our leaders should have been protecting us, they weren't. The negligence of the Clinton Administration gave us 9/11. Clinton had the chance to get bin Laden, but he and all of 'his gang' were more concerned about 'jurisdiction' than America's national security. Talk about a a blunder. Then, the U.S.S. Cole was attacked in Yemen -- a pre-cursor al Qaeda attack -- and Clinton did nothing, just like he did nothing about the first World Trade Center bombing in 93. He never met with his FBI Director. That's how disinterested Clinton was in national security. A one of 'his gang,' the incompetent Maddie Albright, badly fumbled negotiations with North Korea. Oh, and the economy was in a recession for all of 2000, Clinton's final year.

"Re: the economy: The Bush economy -- based on the numbers and consecutive quarters of growth -- far exceeds the Clinton economy of the 90's. Indisputable.

"'Giving the other side a chance,' as you suggest, no thanks. Why? We have the Democrats to thank for the rise of fundamentalist Islamic terror in the modern age -- Jimmy Carter failure to support the Shah of Iran in the 70's and Clinton. (See above)

"Certainly, it's true Republicans aided bin Laden and the muhjahadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union -- and -- Saddam Hussein and Iraq against a nuclear Iran, but at those times we were aiding freedom fighters against tyranny. As history shows, realities change. I don't trust any Democrat to make the hard decisions necessary as President of the United States.

"'Greedy' corporations and oil companies -- News flash. They are in business to make money. I think all of us receive paychecks from corporations. Your husband works for a corporation, if I'm not mistaken. We all drive cars, some of us have SUV's. When I first met your husband he drove a 4Runner. The oil companies are the ones finding, exploring for and providing the energy resources we need. Why should they do it for free? Short answer: They won't. And if a company has the knowledge and the expertise to drill 500 miles down into the ocean to find oil, God Bless 'em. They deserve all the money they can get to keep me on the road.

"Oh, and by the way, the price of gas is directly tied to our unwillingness to drill offshore and utilize our own natural resources. We have no one but environmental crazies and weak politicians to blame. Had we drilled in Alaska in 1999, gas would not cost $3.60 a gallon today.

"Socialized medicine? Do we really want America to resemble Canada? Do we want a hospital visit to be the same as going to the Post Office? No. American health care is still the best in the world, flaws and all. That's why people from Canada and Europe come to the United States for treatment all the time.

"'International disapproval and hatred toward the U.S.'? Widely exaggerated and not at all new. I was treated to anti-Americanism when I was in Britain and France during the Clinton years. The correct term is 'jealousy.' And this, while we protect the safety of western Europe with our missiles. How's that for gratitude? This 'international hatred' is one of the myriad of Bush myths perpetrated by Democrats.

"Meanwhile, I believe the man derided by the Left as 'arrogant and ignorant' will eventually be regarded as one of our finest leaders, like President Reagan. He will be remembered in history as another Churchill or Roosevelt. The struggle we face against radical Islam is identical to the threat posed by Nazi Germany. This is the guy who, in eight years, has repeatedly reached over backward to the Democrats, like Ted Kennedy. President Bush, by the decisions he's made in office, has kept all of us safe.

"But believe what you want. Vote for whomever you want. Nothing wrong with that. Just like there's nothing wrong with a cold dose of reality every now and then. I agree with you when you say that America is a great country.

"Why change it?"
I'm waiting for her response.


Blogger Chris said...

You know Obama is not a Muslim. You're too smart for that stuff Kent. But like you say, even if he was, which he isn't, it shouldn't matter.

What's bleeding this country dry is Bush's and McCain's war in Iraq. Getting out of Iraq would pay for both Obama's and Hillary's health care proposals combined ten times over.

There's nothing more socialist than Bush's big government bailing out private enterprises with tax payer money. And there's nothing more socialist than Bush's latest proposal to overhaul the financial system.

Republicans needn't look very far to find a truer definition of socialism.

8:34 AM  
Blogger Kent said...

I didn't say he was. Perhaps I didn't word it correctly.

I'm surprised that an Obama supporter, as this woman is, would acknowledge the idea that Obama--contrary to his public declarations--would choose not to believe what her own candidate is saying. He's saying he's a Christian and I take that as fact.

As for getting out of Iraq, the consequences of ceding a country to terrorists is just a bad idea. Period. Leaving Iraq at this point would result in painful consequences for America.

9:50 AM  
Blogger Chris said...

If we must stay in Iraq for an unlimited time costing unlimited dollars then Republicans shouldn't complain that Democrats also have spending plans, plans that cost 10 times less than an endless war. The priority then becomes should we spend our money here or spend it fighting a war with no end and a war that has been nothing close to what Bush and McCain have told us it would be.

Sorry, I read it as you saying that Barack is muslim. If she thinks he is that's up to her, but she's wrong.

11:46 AM  
Blogger Kent said...

I'm of the 'you get what you pay for' mentality. Spending less sounds terrific on the surface, but will spending less mean that it will take longer to get the job done correctly?

If so, then I'd submit to you that spending more and getting the job done quicker is more sensible.

12:07 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

It's been five years. That doesn't sound like spending more and getting the job done quicker to me, especially when we were told it would be over in a matter of weeks. Five years and almost a trillion dollars paid for in blood. That's the cost of the Iraq war. You are right, we do get what we paid for.

1:00 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

I'm not going to defend mistakes or bad planning. But in my mind that's all the more reason to stay the course. Especially since the surge has worked as stated it would.

Bush is absolutely correct when he says that to leave Iraq now would mean that our 4,000 dead died in vain.

Cheney's famous words about being greeted as liberators was true. US soldiers have received such greetings. It's just been woefully under-reported, as has most of the war. The press hasn't covered it fairly and they haven't reported on it objectively.

1:12 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2:35 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

Because Bush made huge mistakes costing the lives of thousands among thousands of people we should stay for an unlimited amount of time no matter the costs in dollars or lives? Doesn't make sense to me.

Since the Beautiful Surge, over 900 American soldiers have been killed. Over 900 Iraqi civilians were killed in March alone and violence is at a six month high. The Glorious Surge was primarily created to ensure stability in order to allow the Iraqi government breathing room for political reconciliations and progress. I can't even comprehend someone arguing that the Surge has created any political progress on any fronts.

4,000 have died because Bush ordered them into an ill-prepared invasion of a soveriegn country. Veiness is something Bush is searching for, not our troops.

Being greeted as liberators wasn't underreported. It did happen. But occupation then set in. I can't believe that we're even still talking about this war five years later. It's not that Cheney's words were wrong about being greeted as liberators, it's that he's been wrong about everything. Not one thing he or Bush has said has been right. Cheney has went from us being greeted as liberators; to Iraqi oil revenues paying for the war; to the war lasting a matter of weeks; to the insurgency being in its last throes; to al Qaeda being in Iraq; to non-existent WMD. Nothing he has said has been truthful. Not one thing.

You still owe me a beer :)

3:11 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

We'll drink many beers while you're in town, Dude. But remember how I drank you under the table last time? It wasn't pretty.

4:52 PM  
Blogger crallspace said...

Chris, you must remember, Moot Point Kent spouts all kinds of shit that has no basis but to tear down those who don't share his ideological delusions.

To say he is too smart for thinking Barack as a Muslim is silly. If it was uttered on Fox "News" or the Rushy Limbaugh Lunacy hour, he believes it hook, line and sinker. There is no logic, just hot air and partisanship.

11:04 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Copyright 2004-2013, All Rights Reserved. All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without prior written permission. 0