I have been working on a piece about the double standards in the media, but I decided to take a break and float around the blogosphere and read what other’s are writing about. I have spent a while researching and writing this piece, especially when I see news agencies like CNN going out of their way to attack the McCain campaign. It is frustrating to see, but I am glad to see some people in news, not just Michelle Malkin and the right, report on this. I have done my best to steer clear from radical blogs like breaktheterror, a group of twits who demand people like me to be “open-minded” by calling us “fags”, but once in a while I end up on a page which also decides that facts shouldn’t get in the way of their fiction, especially when it comes from those who support Barack Obama.
Welcome to Raging Red, a blog run by a 31-year-old lawyer from West Virginia who majored in Geology and Environmental Sciences, two of the “McDonald’s degrees” offered by Oberlin College. As we say at Ottawa U, these are “Gee Gee” courses, taken by those who need to attain high marker with as little effort as possible, especially those on sports teams. Aside from her questionable credentials, we have a a slew of questionable assertions. Her post, Why Does John McCain Want to Be President, she states that the “Maverick” wants to be President, “just because”. Ignoring his lifetime of service to this country in and out of uniform, and arguably his unquestionable love for his country, Red decides that this isn’t enough, say that Obama’s reasons are just better. And what reasons are those? Well it is the “direction he would like to take this country” of course. I believe Michael C. Moynihan of Reason Online said it best, “Trust no one who declares an end to a system as complex and successful as capitalism, or who sees the current crisis as the long-awaited fulfillment of Marx’s voodoo economics.” I made the mistake of reading one of her latest posts, All They See is a Black Man, which is what started this ball rolling.
In the article, this twit decided to state that Powell’s endorsement of Obama had nothing to do with race, but then makes the bone-headed assertion that Joe Lieberman’s endorsement of John McCain might have been because they are both white. Ignoring the Time article on Powell’s endorsement, Howard Stern’s “less-than-scientific” experiment and even my own post on this, let alone numerous of expert opinions on this move, she continues to “drink the Kool-Aid” especially when the MSM is reporting on it. I left a comment expression my concerns about this.
Shock Jock Howard Stern performed a little experiment on his show where he sent people out into the streets and asked why they supported Obama. He then switched Obama’s platform with McCain’s and no one seemed to notice. Now why is that? It is because they are voting for him BECAUSE HE IS BLACK!
Now when you have Sherri Shepard, Tom Hanks, etc saying they are supporting him for that very same reason, don’t expect me to believe they give a damn about his stance on the issues. If people knew what he felt about abortion, they would be disgusted… Since when are babies “mistakes” and why shouldn’t the state provide care for those who survive late-term abortions? Disturbing…
P.S. Actually listen to Colin Powell’s reasons and tell me what does “style” and “charisma” have to do with being an exceptional President? Hitler was charismatic, so was Charles Manson, and we all know how that turned out…
Usually a smart person would challenge contradicting assertions, provide evidence to support their claims, or even admit that they have made a mistake. Well Red isn’t that smart as it appears, deciding to counter with this.
Wow, so Howard Stern found a bunch of people on the streets of New York who aren’t very informed. How shocking. Interesting that they only asked black people these questions, when there are plenty of white people out there who are equally uninformed. Why doesn’t he go out to a McCain/Palin rally and talk to some McCain supporters who don’t know anything about his policies. Give me a break.
Oh, and I know Obama’s stance on abortion (which you’re misrepresenting), and I’m not disgusted.
Oh, and you need to brush up on your logical skills. Tell me, what does military experience have to do with being a good president? After all, Mussolini had military experience.
This is more or less a “straw-man” approach, attacking a misrepresentation of my remarks. Who is the one with the logical errors again Red? In any event, as anyone can see, this twit misses the mark entirely. She first dismisses Stern’s experiment because it doesn’t include whites, ignoring that this was done to gauge responses from black voters. Next she ignores my remarks as to what Powell meant by “style and substance” and take a shot at McCain supporters. To finish up this “Trifecta” of stupidity, she then goes on to say that military experience has nothing to do with being President. HAHAHAHA Oh God, I can’t stop laughing. Commander-in-Chief anyone? That’s right, the President IS the supreme commander of America’s military forces, thus you would hope a Presidential candidate would have military experience.
In part due to her ignorance of Barack Obama’s position on abortion, I posted a reply. I also outlined the importance of Stern’s experiment, Time’s article on Powell’s endorsement, as well as racism within the Democratic Party and Obama’s campaign.
You sure about that? Really?
“And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as… as is necessary to keep that child alive, then we are probably crossing the line of unconstitutionality.”
Page 87 of the State of Illinois 92nd General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript, March 30th, 2001
How is killing a baby who survives an abortion a constitutional right provided by court rulings like Roe v Wade? Why should a baby born early, no matter the reason, whether it is the cause of premature labour or a botched abortion, have less rights than a full term baby? If you are okay with that, then you are definitely twisted…
“When black people vote for black people, everyone knows it’s just because of race. You can’t believe them when they claim otherwise—they’re just covering up their real motivation.”
A statement about racism in your own words. This is a bold claim you are making saying that race isn’t the issue when blacks vote for blacks, just like when whites vote for whites. You ignore the draw of “political equality” and ignoring the fact that people will vote for someone who is “of them” instead of voting for someone who isn’t. That is what the Howard Stern “experiment” proved, that there are those who will vote for Obama because he is black (half Kenyan actually), something you choose to ignore outright. Because whites have dominated politics for centuries, we have been forced to examine the issues instead of their skin colour or any other irrelevant factor. Will I ignore the fact that some people will not vote for Obama because he is black? No, but I can see the reason for this prejudice, especially when you have so many black politicians linked to corruption lately. Maxine Waters, Gregory Meeks, Kwane Kilpatrick, even Barack Obama himself… Do you even bother to mention this? No you don’t.
You didn’t bother challenging my assertion that Tom Hanks is voting for Obama because he is black, or that many others are doing the same for the same reasons, why? You know that this is true, but in your blind bias, you decide to ignore it and paint anyone who questions Colin Powell’s endorsement as racist. Why do you claim this is more than what it is, as Time Online even reported, a well planned attack ob John McCain done so close to the election date to do the most damage…
I listened to that interview too, and no where did I find any of his reasons even close to valid. What does “style” and “charisma” have to do with being an “exceptional President”? He hasn’t even won the election and yet you and other Obama supporters are willing to start writing the history on his “exceptional” Presidency before it has even happened. Excuse me? You then go off and take a “Straw Man” approach to my argument, attacking my assertion with a baseless one of your own. John McCain wasn’t simply in the service, he was a commander in the Navy, someone with actual executive experience. He has had to send men into combat, that is far more experience than both Obama and Joe Biden have. And what do you say? That Obama’s charisma and style is somehow equal to this? A purely qualitative measure vs a solid quantitative one, but once again, how does that go to show that Powell’s comments are not because of race, or his own liberal views?
You guys are so obsessed with race that you will attack those who question your “truths” as racist, but refuse to identify racists within your own ranks. Pathetic…
Also, here is something for you to mull over…
How can you provide a tax break for 95% of the population when only 2/3 of it pays taxes? How can you afford to hire more works when Obama’s tax plan targets businesses who have REVENUES (not just profits) above $250,000 a year? With that said, how can businesses operate when 50% of them will have to deal with these new costs of operating?
Do you really know Obama’s positions or are you, like Howard Stern’s experiment pointed out, simply voting for him because he is black?
By this point, “weaker” individuals would have deleted my posts, insulted me and misrepresented what I was saying, but Red decided to take another approach. Spurred on by Daily Koser like Heather and Hippie Killer (who also quotes Rolling Stone on his page to prove how “smart” he is), she replied with this.
Clancop, you have come to my blog, which you had never read until yesterday, and accused me of not knowing Obama’s positions and demanded that I respond to your questions. First of all, you’re being rude. You don’t know me, you obviously haven’t read my blog, so please spare me the accusations. I have written many posts about Obama’s and McCain’s positions. I have criticized Obama for taking positions that I disagree with, like voting for the FISA bill. I’m a huge political junkie who has been following this election very closely and I’ve read all kinds of stuff about both candidates’ positions.
Your comments are filled with tons of factual errors:
1. The law in Illinois already requires doctors to provide medical care to a fetus that is born alive during an abortion. Obama voted against the bill you’re talking about because it would have extended protections to fetuses that show any signs of life, whether or not they are viable (i.e. can live outside the womb). This was an attempt to curtail women’s right to abortion. Perhaps you’re not aware of how the pro-life movement works in this country. They can’t get abortion banned outright, so they try to pass legislation that chips away, little by little, at women’s rights.
2. How can Obama cut taxes on 95% of people when about 38% of Americans don’t pay income tax? Because income tax isn’t the only tax people pay. Everyone who works pays payroll (FICA) taxes. Obama’s tax plan contains various tax credits for people who pay no income tax.
3. You’re flat-out wrong that Obama would tax businesses with revenues of $250,000 a year. It’s profits of $250,000 a year.
4. Obama didn’t vow to attack Pakistan if they get in our sights. He vowed that if there’s actionable intelligence that al Qaeda operatives are in Pakistan and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to go after them, the U.S. will.
5. At first, McCain did speak out against torture, but then he supported Bush’s veto of a bill that would have prohibited waterboarding and other torture techniques. He supports existing law that allows CIA interrogators free reign (they’re not held to the Army Field Manual) and that allows military or private contractors to temporarily be designated CIA agents so they can have free reign to torture.
Regarding the actual topic of this post, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama, just because you don’t agree with Powell’s reasons for supporting him doesn’t mean they aren’t valid, as you claim. He cited Obama’s intellectual vigor, depth of knowledge, his response to the economic crisis, the inclusivity of his campaign, and his insight on military challenges, among other things. Yet you’ve singled out Powell’s comments about Obama’s rhetorical skills and charisma. Those aren’t the only things he cites. Obviously a candidate must have more than just good rhetorical skills and charisma, he or she must have substance too, which is why Powell specifically said “style and substance.” But the president has to be able to communicate well with the American people and with people all over the world, so yes, charisma and the ability to inspire people are legitimate things to value in a candidate.
You criticize me for not mentioning that some black politicians are corrupt. You’re aware that there are plenty of white politicians who are also corrupt, aren’t you? So no, it’s not valid for someone not to want to vote for a black candidate just because some black politicians are corrupt. It would be racist to conclude that because some black politicians are corrupt, all must be.
And on that note, Howard Stern’s little experiment didn’t prove anything. Sure, there are black supporters of Obama who don’t know what his positions are. But there are also white supporters of Obama who don’t know what his positions are, just as there are white supporters of McCain who don’t know what his positions are. To go out and only talk to black supporters of Obama who don’t know his positions is totally skewed. Democratic candidates for president always get the vast majority of the African-American vote. Did it ever occur to you that these black Obama supporters who aren’t informed about his positions might be supporting him just because he’s a Democrat, not just because he’s black? That’s an equally plausible explanation, yet you go for the racial explanation.
Finally, the reason it’s amusing that you’re Canadian is because you swooped in here to lecture me about Obama when it turns out you’re not even American and won’t even be voting in this election. I would never go to some French person’s blog or British person’s blog or Canadian person’s blog and lecture them about the candidates in their elections and accuse them of being ill-informed. It’s presumptuous and rude.
Take a quick read through her reply and you see the same thing again; A misrepresentation of my points, irrelevant assertions to prove hers, and a variety of falsities including the assumption that my opinion doesn’t seem to matter since I am Canadian and can’t vote. Now to the untrained eye, this seems well put together. I admit, the length itself was rather intimidating, but much like Obama’s speeches, it is all “just words”. In fact JUST LIKE Obama’s speeches, these are borrowed words, talking points from “The One’s” campaign that she has parroted and tried to pass off as an intelligent reply. This isn’t new, we have even seen reporters using this method instead of doing actual research.
Much of what Red wrote was easy to dismantle, especially since she numbered her points. It allows for a focused assault on her claims, challenging each one individually in order, pointing out each one of their flaws. As you can see in my reply, that is exactly what I did.
Hmmm, where to start…
1. Walter Anneberg is the same man who sponsored Obama and Ayer’s Chicago Anneberg Challenge, the same man behind Factcheck, an organization I have challenged on my blog on numerous accounts. My favourite of these is that they ignored Obama’s support for Illinois Senate Bill 99 when fact checking McCain’s sexual health ad. Yes it is false that the bill passed, but it isn’t false that Obama supported a bill which would have taught masturbation, STDs, rape, etc to kindergartners, something they purposely left out of their fact checking process.
Next, you ignore Obama’s own words in the transcript I quoted during one of my previous posts…
“And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as… as is necessary to keep that child alive, then we are probably crossing the line of unconstitutionality.”
This isn’t about a fetus, as the law points out, this is referring to “previable” babies, full formed infants who survived abortion. As the Illinois law points out,
“Viability” means that stage of fetal development when, in the medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support.”
In his own words, this isn’t a fetus, but a “previable” baby. He voted against a bill which would guarantee care for these children after a failed abortion, something Obama said was “unconstitutional” in his own words. This isn’t about overturning abortion by providing rights for the fetus at any stage during the pregnancy, as Factcheck claims, this is about providing care for a child who is already born, the product of a botched abortion. This argument they make follows the same “slippery slope” style argument that those who are against the legalization of cannabis use, both being a matter of opinion more than fact. Read the legal code before you quote it.
By the way, Obama’s election to the Senate in 2004 is not because 70% of voters agreed with him, as Factcheck claims, it is because the Republican who defeated him in 2000 was involved in a sex scandal. You see, you just can’t trust them can you?
2. and 3. Now what we have here is a misrepresentation of the facts. As Doc stated in the comments below the utterly confusing and downright useless piece you linked to,
“The no tax line is based upon the fact that after they file taxes, the deductions these persons are allowed to claim amount to a figure that is greater than their tax liablility. Thus, their refund creates a net balance in the taxpayer’s favor. Thus, over 50% of the people don’t actually pay any income taxes.”
I think that was well enough explained, so let’s go on to the other point. A tax on individuals with GROSS income of $250,000 a year. The article you quote is from the New York Times, a biased source, which vaguely uses the words “makes”, ignoring the actually wording of Barack proposal which states “gross income”. What is the difference between income and gross income? Gross income is what an individual or business brings in before costs, thus REVENUE. My argument stands, taxing revenue will affect more than half of America’s businesses, not just the extremely wealthy. Take a course in economics before challenging someone with an economics background like myself with this kind of garbage.
4. In his own words “No one is talking about attacking Pakistan… but if they get in our sights, we take them out.” This comes right from the second debate, look it up if you don’t believe me. He also said during the primaries that he would invade Pakistan and take out Osama bin Laden because “that is where he is” and being the genius that Obama claims to be, that is what must be done. He ignores that fact that Pakistan IS an ally in the War on Terror, he ignores that al-Qaeda in Pakistan is working with tribal leaders and NOT the government proper, he ignores that announcing attacks across the border and doing so without Pakistan’s approval is a violation of the country’s sovereignty, and he all this undermines the authority of country’s leaders. Where is my mistake there? You can’t go quoting Obama one day since he has changed his stance so much on a variety of issues this year alone. Forget about public financing?
5. McCain is against torture, and he is also against giving power to Congress to cap intelligence spending. He asked Bush to veto that bill everyone is talking about, not because it including a ban on waterboarding, but because Democrats sneaked in legislation which would have given them control of funding for agencies like the CIA, an agency which many analysts say is under funded already. You have to understand that bills including all kind of “goodies” people sneak into it for one reason or another. The most popular one of these was the Democrats put forward to allow for troop funding, something they blocked numerous times in 2006, contained their “timetable to withdrawl”. Republicans didn’t vote against this bill because it was funding troops, but because it would set a date which would force the end of military action in Iraq, ignoring General Petraeus’ demands for setting conditions for withdrawl.
As for all this talk about Powell’s endorsement, Time Online put out an article on this discussing the real reasons for his support for Obama. You would have to be an idiot to believe his Meet the Press rhetoric, especially when this man has an axe to grind with the RNC as well as President George W. Bush. Larry Elder, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, etc have given these reasons which you won’t listen to. I have stated clearly that their was no real substance to Powell’s claims last week.
The economic crisis? Excuse me, but when the first bailout bill failed, Obama was on the campaign trail. All it would have taken was 12 votes, and him, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats leaders didn’t do a thing to get them. His “call me if you need help” approach cost the markets 1.2 TRILLION DOLLARS. How is that a good response to the economic crisis? Matter of fact, his work with ACORN previously and his lack of support for regulations on Freddie-Mac and Fannie-Mae, the latter of which is funding his campaign, actually helped this crisis occur. Even Bill Clinton is pointing the blame squarely at Democrats, what don’t you understand?
Depth of knowledge? On what? This man didn’t even know Canada had a Prime-Minister. Just because he has an ivy-league education, doesn’t mean he is knowledgeable. He didn’t know Rev Wright was preaching antisemitic and racial hatred at Trinity United? Knowledge and judgment are definitely not his strong suits.
The inclusivity of his campaign? I have spoken a few times on his change in treatment to the press once he got the Democratic nomination, and now he is charging $2000 a head for the press to get into his “celebration party” on November 4th. He has done his best to keep the press out these last months, that isn’t inclusive. He has called a variety of people racist, including the ENTIRE Republican party, on numerous occasions. You don’t include people by insulting and alienating them. He has also gone against crossing the floor to bring in Republicans, quoted as saying “I don’t work with those guys” when asked about why he didn’t reach out to Republicans when the first bailout bill failed. He also refused to vet Hillary Clinton during his search for a running-mate and chose Biden after John Edwards’ sex scandal broke. Too bad it didn’t break later… This action alienated a significant portion of Clinton supporters, which have turned to John McCain, including PUMA.
Forget the rest of the garbage and let’s call a spade a spade. There was nothing in his ‘Meet the Press’ interview that changed critics minds about the motives for his endorsement of Barack Obama. As Levin himself pointed out, if this was months in the making, as Time Online has stated, and that rhetoric is all Powell could come up with in all the time of planning his back-stabbing, then he is dumber than we thought he was.
You then go on to twist my words about corrupt black politicians, attack me for not mentioning that white people also support Obama (NEWSFLASH Tom Hanks ISN’T BLACK), then go off and take one more jab by saying my opinion doesn’t really matter since I am Canadian and I don’t get to vote anyways. If an outsider like me can see what you can’t, it doesn’t mean I am ill-informed, it means you have “drank too much Kool-Aid.” Once again, I will stick to Spike Lee’s, Sherri Shepard’s, P. Diddy’s, etc assertions that supporting him is because you need to “help a brotha out” and “make the White House the Black House.” No I didn’t forget that some blacks are voting simply because he is Democrat, but you are forgetting that some people are voting for him who don’t even know he is a Democrat. We could also discuss the fact that some people will vote Democrat because they believe Republicans are racist (forgetting that the Democrats were pro-slavery, created the KKK which terrorized blacks and Republicans, and enacted the Jim Crow laws), or that they aren’t voting for McCain because he is seen as racist for being white, but let’s not get overly confused about everyone else’s motives when Powell, the man who is a big backer of “affirmative action”, is the one we should be discussing.
It maybe be rude, but it isn’t presumptuous, nor ignorant of me to say. This maybe the first time I have commented on this blog, but you are assuming it is the first time I visited here. I find most of your stuff to be ill-informed and just more of the same “party line” garbage floating around. If I commented on every blog I read that I disagreed with, I wouldn’t even have time to write my own blog posts. I commented on this one simply because I am a little offended you would give weight to Powell’s words when he has back-stabbed the very party which gave him his big break into politics when Reagan “plucked him from obscurity” and promoted him. Once again, read the Time article on this, he real motives as any idiot can see where race, a common liberal view point with the guy, his disdain for the Republicans now and his own delusioned self-importance.
Do research before criticizing me, it might spare you another humiliating correction like this one.
P.S. Canadian care because what happens to you happens to us, especially economically, or don’t you know of our strong economic ties?
As with the Canadian comment in the post script of my reply, Canada’s history has long been tided to America, well before FDR and Mackenzie King sat down to discuss the defense of North America and the production of weapons for Britain, well before the war of 1812, all the way back to George Washington’s service with the British military and his actions forcing the French to surrender North America during the Seven Years War. If any outsider’s opinion mattered, it would be that of educated Canadians, not the Germans who Barack gave a speech to.
Do the research yourself if you don’t believe my assertions. I recommend you start with Born Alive Truth for research on Obama’s “pro-abortion” position. The problem I see with continuing this is that even after outlining the facts, Red and those like her will continue to believe what they want to believe. It is frustrating, leaving the fate of America in the hands of “Kool-Aid drinkers”, people who prefer the fiction Barack Obama and his campaign provide. We see this in the double standards of the MSM who forgiving Democratic “sins” while punishing Republican “missteps”, who ignoring actual events and reporting on rumours. Why aren’t bloggers telling both sides of the story? If I myself see something wrong, I report it, even if it is the Republicans or those on the right doing it. For example, I have criticized those who ignore the importance of the bailout since it is a “necessary evil”. I also correct those who think McCain’s support of it was ill-advised. When have you ever seen those on the fringe left do that?
Call this post presumptuous if you want, even arrogant, but my point is clear. As we see in this situation, many Americans have decided that the facts don’t matter. They, like CNN’s Roland Martin, claim to be concerned about the issues, but when confronted by them, go off irrelevant rants and start name calling. As many have said, these people “don’t like it when the facts get in the way of the story”, and it is important to know just what those facts are before you vote. This is probably the most important election in recent history, especially since one of the candidates is a personification of THE enemy those like John McCain fought just a few decades ago. Why anyone would support a man as radical as Barack Obama is beyond me.
Do some research before casting your ballot, and for God’s sake put the “Kool-Aid” down, many of you have had more than enough.
UPDATE: I guess I am lucky being on this side of the border. Seems one person, a girl named Ashely Todd, got beat up and robbed for supporting John McCain. After seeing the bumper sticker on her car, this individual assaulted her and carved a “B” into her cheek. Of course you won’t find the MSM reporting this, they still believe it is the McCain supporters who are the crazy ones, contrary to the facts.
UPDATE: Seems this one slipped past a few of us. Seems this might have been a hoax brought on by her own “mental problems.” Can’t fault a girl who was these kind of issues, but watch as the MSM who didn’t bother reporting it, now try to tie it to McCain.