Why should Barack Obama drop out? Just because you say so?
Obama is ahead of Edwards in both Iowa and New Hampshire and, having listened to Obama, I believe that he has offered real clear alternatives especially when he talks about dealing with Iran.
This reminds me so much of four years ago when Ted Rall wanted all candidates to drop out so Dean could win.
Well, this is a Democracy and we have these things called elections and I have a different view on this matter than you do.
That said, if the Democrat party was so much more in line with the views of Edwards, then Edwards would be ahead of Hillary and Obama's presence wouldn't affect that.
In any case, who the hell are you (or mer or anyone, for that matter) to tell anyone to drop out of the race?
"That said, if the Democrat party was so much more in line with the views of Edwards, then Edwards would be ahead of Hillary and Obama's presence wouldn't affect that.
In any case, who the hell are you (or mer or anyone, for that matter) to tell anyone to drop out of the race?"
Ok,
There is no "democrat" party. There is a "democratic party". Only right-wingers use that term, so apparently you are one. Congratulations 
Unfortunately Barack will not listen to me and he will stay in the race and will be defeated big time in Iowa (remember me of that).
Who the hell am I to tell him to drop out? No one in particular. Just someone who does not like it when the mass media decide who should be running for president. I dont trust them.
Oh, please.
Because I used "Democrat" instead of "Democratic".. I'm a Republican?
Geez. I like Edwards and may end up voting for him in the primaries, but I also believe in letting people run because this, after all, a democracy where people get to vote.
Obama is far from being a Republican. He stood publicly against the Iraq War before it started and his views regarding how to handle Iran is so much different than any of the Republicans running (or that of Lieberman's, for that matter.)
To call him a creation of the Mass Media is insulting as, if anything, he has MORE experience in public life than does Edwards.
I don't mean to trash either Edwards or Obama. Both are good candidates who would make good Presidents. However, I find it rather silly to ask the candidate who is rising to bow out in favor of the candidate who is losing support.
I mean.. why don't you just ask Hillary to drop out?
"Because I used "Democrat" instead of "Democratic".. I'm a Republican??
So are you a democrat?
I mean.. why don't you just ask Hillary to drop out?
Because she will not listen.
Yes, I'm a Democrat. I've gone door to door in local, state, and national elections. I've never supported this stupid war in Iraq and I've never trusted this President.
My first choice isn't Hillary either because I don't trust her on Iran/Iraq, but people have a right to run and it's not for me to tell people to drop out. There hasn't even been a vote so I find it silly to tell anyone to give up, even Mike Gravel, let alone someone like Obama who currently is second in the polls and rising a bit.
Well, I am just frustrated with Obama. He had a big opportunity and he blew it in my opinion. He is trying to appear "centrist" and he is afraid to take clear positions. This is more complaining than really asking him to get out.
As for Gravel, I dont like him. Although he frequently says the truth and makes good points, he could have been a little more serious. Kucinich is much more credible for that role than Gravel.
Anyway, I will vote Edwards although he is not the ideal candidate either. But he is the best of the bunch in my opinion, and I particularly like his wife. She will be a big advocate for science and health care.
Now THIS, "As for Gravel, I dont like him. Although he frequently says the truth and makes good points, he could have been a little more serious. Kucinich is much more credible for that role than Gravel," is one of the funniest things I've ever seen posted anywhere on the internet...and it captures you so perfectly!
Can I clue you in a second?
Dennis Kucinich is regarded by most people (maybe 80 -85% of America?) as the Mr. Bean of American politics!
For the record, I like John Edwards too....NO, not his idiotic sugar-coated views, but his deeds! Like his investing 60% of Fortress Investment Group (whom he worked for as a Sr. Advisor) in a major portion of Green Tree Servicing LLC, which rose to prominence in the 1990s selling subprime loans to mobile-home owners and now services subprime loans originated by others. It was found that a portion of the Edwards' family's assets were invested in those subprime mortgage lenders, some of which had foreclosed on the homes of Hurricane Katrina victims. THAT and his using "junk science" (Hey...whatever works, right) to sue many OB/GYNs out of the field....THAT'S what I LIKE about Edwards! He's a real "Get it DONE" kind of uber-Capitalist, who covers his own incredible personal avarice with kind words.
He's just so deliciously amoral!
See? To paraphrase Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now - I'm a GOOD man (I'm up front about my personal avarice and my "me first sttitude"), but HE's (Edwards) is a GREAT man (he covers up his personal avarice and "me first attitude" with soft, sugary words)...and it WORKS!
JMK,
Your are a supporter of fascism and you have made that clear repeatedly by your support of Pinochet in Chile and his criminal enteprise. Your opinions can not be taken seriously. Fascism sucks.
Actually BW, you couldn't be more wrong, but I understand why you're wrong, as well.
Indeed, and I've said this many, many times, economic fascism or "Corporatism," defined as "A government managed economy that maintains private ownership, but is regulated so that prices are held relatively low for consumers, workers paid a standard wage and new start-ups don't regularly put older, more established firms out of business, DOES, as you say suck." Unfortunately almost every other economic system sucks even worse.
I'll explain;
According to the bulk of today's economists a completely unregulated or "free market" would work "best." And by "BEST," they mean it would deliver MORE GOODS and SERVICES at LOWER PRICES and bring MORE innovation to the market faster, although there are abundant downsides to a completely open or free market as well.
As a result, there are really only two economic models in existence today - BOTH are derivatives of the government regulated market, which is also called "Corporatism," and which is indeed a hallmark of fascism. Ironic, in a way, isn't it?
They are; (1) The Keynesian view, which sees a larger, more expansive welfare state as GOOD for the economy and delivering the most prosperity to the most people (this is often called "the European model") and (2) the Supply Side view, which believes that less government social spending, privatized infrastructure contracts for roads and bridges, etc, and opening markets and endorsing Free Trade delivers the most prosperity to the most people (this is often called "the American model").
Most tyrannical dictators have traditionally been either Keynesians (endorsing heavy-handed regulation, as did Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, etc) OR even WORSE, endorsing the outright eradication of private ownership of property, which has required mass murder wherever it's been tried, (ie. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc).
I think you're confused in that I laud Milton Friedman (a supporter of Supply Side policies and more open markets), precisely because he was able to convince a dictator, actually TWO - Pinochet and Sukarno - to abandon heavy government controls (ie. wage & price controls) and regulations and adopt more market-based policies.
Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman is probably, without question, THE greatest economist of the 20th Century.
Moreover, it would seem that the verdict is in on the debate over "the European model" (the one supported by J M Keynes and Jimmy Carter) versus "the American model" (the one supported by the likes of Milton Friedman and Jude Wanninski) and that verdict is very much in favor of "The American model."
How so?
Because "THE PEOPLE" in BOTH Germany and France (two soundly "European model" countries) recently decided to move toward more American styled economic reforms as posed by both Angela Merckel and Nikolas Sarkozy.
So, since history has assigned true socialism (the eradication of pri
So, since history has assigned true socialism (the eradication of private property) to the ash heap of history, that leaves us with either ONE of the two kinds of Regulated Markets OR a completely free or unregulated market.
Given the free market's uncertainties and its lack of worker, environmental, etc protections, we've chosen to go with a regulated economy.
Thankfully, we don't have to argue over Keynesian versus Supply Side, as recent history has settled that argument for us - America had a more Keynesian economy from 1964 - 1981. It ended in the disastrous rein of Jimmy Carter with Stagflation - "the worst economy since The Great Depression."
Much of Western Europe maintained a Keynesian economy until very recently, also with largely disastrous results.
Supply Side policies have delivered over a quarter century of unprecedented prosperity in America and now Western Europe (even France and Germany) are turning AWAY from "the European model," in favor of a more "Americanist economic model."
Milton Friedman would be proud.
When you think about it, there's only ONE real alternative to the Supply Side policies we have today and that's going all the way to a completely unregulated market!
But that seems unpleasant BW, as it would leave workers, the poor, the environment without any protections at all.
That's why I support what Friedman did - Supply Side policies, and I revile what Carter and Nixon supported - Keynesian policies....and I support the former because they WORK, and I revile the latter because they've resulted in widespread economic morass whenever and wherever they've been tried.
JMK,
Let me repeat slowly:
F a s c i s m s u c k s.
Got it?
I'm assuming you did due dilligence BW and read my full response (it's actually a very good economic summary of modern times, if I do say so...) , but perhaps you skimmed by this gem "I've said this many, many times, economic fascism or "Corporatism," defined as "A government managed economy that maintains private ownership, but is regulated so that prices are held relatively low for consumers, workers paid a standard wage and new start-ups don't regularly put older, more established firms out of business, DOES, as you say suck."
Since the eradication of private property ("REAL socialism") has proven completely unworkable (all the concommitant mass murder it requires and all) and the completely free market's uncertainities and insecurities, we're all left with but TWO competing economic models, Keynesianism (also known in some circles as "European socialism" or simply "the European model") and Supply Side economics (also erroneously known in some circles as "Capitalism," or simply "the American model").
With even stalwart Euro-model type nations like France and Germany adandoning Keynesian policies for a more American model and in light of America's failed Keynesian experiment (see Jimmy Carter's Stagflation"), it seems very clear that the Supply Side policies endorsed by the likes of the GREAT Milton Friedman have won the day hands down.
We're left with the fact that "Fascism/Corporatism sucks, socialism = mass murder and the completely free market is too uncertain and insecure for most people," ERGO< Supply Side policies have, in effect, won by default!
OK...You dont get it...do you? Just repeat with me slowly.....
F A S C I S M. S U C KS
and its supporters suck too...
Capeesh?
No question, all those who support a GOVERNMENT-MANAGED economy (fascism/Corporatism) from Hitler, to Stalin to Nixon and Carter) all indeed "suck."
While ALL those who favor economic LIBERTY, "the right of free individuals to do as they will" - in other words, for the "strong to be free to take advantage of the weak, the smart to be free to take advantage of the dumb and the clever to be free to take advantage of the strong" are GREAT!
I too revile all those who want the government to manage or control the economy, whether it's the ham-handed national socialism of Hitler, the mass murdering land-grabbers like Mao & Stalin, or the Keynesians or mis-named "European socialists" and "American Keynesians," who are actually "fascists" who support a strongly regulated economy and a large welfare state.
Milton Friedman supported maximum economic Liberty, low taxes, less federal regulation/control over business and industry, as I and apparently you do as well (?).....Perhaps we've reached a point of universal agreement?
It would certainly seem so.
Milton Friedman supported Pinochet in Chile. He supported one of the worst fascist dictators in history.
JMK,
You are totally out of your mind. You do not understand basic things and you appear to be a supporter of fascism. Thats not a good thing.
"Milton Friedman supported Pinochet in Chile. He supported one of the worst fascist dictators in history." (BW)
<
<
Actually Milton Friedman did the miraculous by getting TWO tyrannical dictators (Pinochet and Sukarno) to adopt relatively free market economies.
I want to be fair, so I must point out that there's just no way to smear the free market by linking it to the likes of Pinochet, without simultaneously smearing socialism and even the "regulated economy" even worse, by linking those to the likes of Stalin (50 Million murdered), Mao (80 Million murdered) and Pol Pot (4 Million murdered).
WoW! Come to think of it, THAT'S a perfect argument in favor of the completely unregulated Free Market, BW.
Ah, now I see your strategy BW, smear BOTH Friedman's regulated Supply-Side economy by linking it to Sukarno & Pinochet, AND true socialism by linking IT to the murderous likes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Brilliant!
That ONLY leaves the unregulated Free market standing BW! Check and mate! Well played BW, well played!
But since I'm looking for some common ground here and since I'll readilly agree that real FREEDOM cannot exist absent economic liberty or the market-based economy, there are really ONLY two posible economic systems for free people; (1) the completely unregulated of "Free Market," without any protections for workers, no OSHA regs, no EPA laws, in its purests form a government "hands off" or laissez faire approach to the economy, (which YOU seem to now support) OR (2) the regulated Supply-Side economy often called "the American model," favored by the likes of Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, etc.
The so-called "Third Choice" Keynesian or the mis-named "European socialism," really isn't really a viable option to any rational person, since America's brief affair with Keynesianism ended disastrously with Carter's first and last term and stalwart "Euro-socialist" nations like France and Germany have overwhelmingly turned away from that failed economy, with it's extensive and overly expensive welfare state, its 30 hour work-week and 8 weeks o paid vacation per year and voted to move toward more Supply-Side or "American-styled" economies.
So, since the eradication of private property is both unthinkable and unworkable as proven by the likes of Stalin, Mao, etc. and you don't like the regulated market-based economy favored by the likes of Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, etc. I can only surmise that you've come to support the completely Free Market or unregulated market economy.
I can't believe that I'm about to sound more Liberal than you BW (GULP!), but I must confess that I support at least some of those OSHA regs, EPA regs and even things like Sarb-Ox, so I DO support the regulated market, though with a decidedly Supply-Side vantage.
Can we split the difference, here?
Although I don't support the completely unregulated market that
I hereby ask ALL Democrats to do the right thing and drop out of the election.
Ok Barry,
I will rely your request to the DNC.
Do you find it at all ironic that shortly after you penned this, Obama's become the Democrat's hottest candidate and has even challenged HRC for the lead in most polls (he now leads in Iowa, and NH and is neck and neck in SC), while Edwards' hasn't gained much, if any ground at all?
You always tout your prognosticating prowess, but this and the assurance back in '04 that "Dean was going to win it all," make me wonder whether you're one of those "reverse prognosticators"....you know, "A nod from X is the kiss of death," kind of thing.
I don't know, maybe I'm just easily amused, but I get a kick out of this sort of thing.
Commenting by HaloScan
