The Upside of an Obama Whitehouse

[quote]orion wrote:

So, in a time were important limitations on the governments powers have already fallen, you want to attack the ones that are still in place?

Are you kidding me?

[/quote]

That’s actually a pretty clever way to twist that back around, seriously. The problem with what you’re saying, though, is just re-affirming the hypocrisy I was trying to point out in my original post.

It’s “patriotic” to the kind of people on this forum when our other amendments are conveniantly disassembled, but I’m just a gigantic moron for discussion change in the Second Amendment. It’s funny the kind of double-standard bullshit I see here.

When I first posted, though, I wasn’t yet aware of the “Follow the Sheep or Shut the Fuck Up” rule that’s been implemented here in the PWI.

It’s funny, though, I don’t even advocate a gun-free pacifistic nightmare as you all appear to think I do. But no, I will also not sit idly and watch an entire amendment in our Bill of Rights be essentially governed by a lobby that influences through handouts and propaganda.

It’s almost ludicrous to see how Black-and-White (figuratively) issues are viewed here. I don’t see what’ss so illogical about striking a comfortable balance between the “Let’s all grab some dat-gun guns!” mentality we’ve adopted recently and a gunless, tight-ass society.

To me, it seems simple enough to get back to basics, which includes proper background scans, better weapon provisioning, and a more strict limit on those able to carry handguns. The background system is a joke, and anyone who can’t see that is blinded by a warm, red goodness, and will likely not see things from any other perspective.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Go read up on this subject before pretending to know a fucking thing about it. It has been covered in quite some depth in this forum. The fact that you think Bush attempted to do nothing is laughable.[/quote]

Jesus Christ on a stick!

Look, have you heard of credit default swaps yet? Do you know that they are essentially insurance, but that they weren’t regulated like insurance, such that the companies that sold them did not have to keep reserves in case payment had to be made?

Did you know that mortgages were bundled up and sold as complex instruments, with AAA ratings from the various agencies? Did you know that credit default swaps were used to insure these instruments, and that companies going under were doing so because of having to pay off on credit default swaps?

The fact that lenders were compensated simply to write a mortgage, which was then offloaded to other buyers with a crappy AAA rating, and insured with useless credit default swaps, is the underlying reason for the financial fucking meltdown.

Greed and a blind eye turned when people wanted to skirt the regulations of the insurance business. I’m sure Bush had absolutely no fucking clue, or didn’t care.

good take away our guns so we can’t protect our homes from criminals…

you won’t own a gun/ammo because of the tax or the legislation that will prevent you from owning a gun. you’ll follow the law because your a good guy…

…but remmeber, bad guys DON’T follow the law. they WILL have guns…and then you’ll be screwed…

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
Instead of the politics and world issues section, could we just rename this to “Republicans Only, we won’t listen to anyone else’s thoughts”?

This entire section of the website is really sad due to the closed mindedness of 90% of you (I am not just referring to this thread; the comment about the constitution was indeed dumb).

I don’t even align with the Democrats (I’m a ticket splitter) but the over conservative attitude on here is nuts, especially when some of you liberally interrupt the laws when it comes to your bodybuilding “supplements”.

You’re waay off base…“my friend.” According to PWI’s young gunner,dhickey…the majority of posters here are open minded libertarians. I’d like to agree with him…but its really hard to…when he’s wrong.
[/quote]

Most times in life there is a right and a wrong answer, despite what your mommies might have told you. I am not sure what you consider an open mind. If someone is spouting complete bullshit that flies in the face of logic and reason, I will not be open minded.

If you want to call a feeble mind an open mind, go right ahead. Some will continue to put in the necessary thought and reason to come up with the right answer. The “let’s agree to disagree” crowd simply lacks the desire to formulate the correct answer.

There are basic laws of economics that most here choose not to understand. There are basic principals this country was founded on that many here choose not to understand. For most things in life there is right and there is wrong. Anythink in the “middle” is still wrong. You can continue to wrong if you wish.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Most times in life there is a right and a wrong answer, despite what your mommies might have told you. I am not sure what you consider an open mind.

If someone is spouting complete bullshit that flies in the face of logic and reason, I will not be open minded. If you want to call a feeble mind an open mind, go right ahead. Some will continue to put in the necessary thought and reason to come up with the right answer.

The “let’s agree to disagree” crowd simply lacks the desire to formulate the correct answer.

There are basic laws of economics that most here choose not to understand. There are basic principals this country was founded on that many here choose not to understand. For most things in life there is right and there is wrong. Anythink in the “middle” is still wrong. You can continue to wrong if you wish.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, many people seem to think they can discern right and wrong by applying snippets of a pet ideology without even bothering to discover and weigh all the issues that may be involved.

[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Go read up on this subject before pretending to know a fucking thing about it. It has been covered in quite some depth in this forum. The fact that you think Bush attempted to do nothing is laughable.

Jesus Christ on a stick!

Look, have you heard of credit default swaps yet? Do you know that they are essentially insurance, but that they weren’t regulated like insurance, such that the companies that sold them did not have to keep reserves in case payment had to be made?

Did you know that mortgages were bundled up and sold as complex instruments, with AAA ratings from the various agencies? Did you know that credit default swaps were used to insure these instruments, and that companies going under were doing so because of having to pay off on credit default swaps?

The fact that lenders were compensated simply to write a mortgage, which was then offloaded to other buyers with a crappy AAA rating, and insured with useless credit default swaps, is the underlying reason for the financial fucking meltdown.

Greed and a blind eye turned when people wanted to skirt the regulations of the insurance business. I’m sure Bush had absolutely no fucking clue, or didn’t care.
[/quote]

excellent job listing the symtoms. Now let’s see if you’re bright enough to figure out the cause.

[quote]vroom wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Most times in life there is a right and a wrong answer, despite what your mommies might have told you. I am not sure what you consider an open mind.

If someone is spouting complete bullshit that flies in the face of logic and reason, I will not be open minded. If you want to call a feeble mind an open mind, go right ahead.

Some will continue to put in the necessary thought and reason to come up with the right answer. The “let’s agree to disagree” crowd simply lacks the desire to formulate the correct answer.

There are basic laws of economics that most here choose not to understand. There are basic principals this country was founded on that many here choose not to understand. For most things in life there is right and there is wrong. Anythink in the “middle” is still wrong. You can continue to wrong if you wish.

Unfortunately, many people seem to think they can discern right and wrong by applying snippets of a pet ideology without even bothering to discover and weigh all the issues that may be involved.[/quote]

agreed. and some think the philosophy of our founding fathers and basic economic principals are pet ideology.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
Instead of the politics and world issues section, could we just rename this to “Republicans Only, we won’t listen to anyone else’s thoughts”?

This entire section of the website is really sad due to the closed mindedness of 90% of you (I am not just referring to this thread; the comment about the constitution was indeed dumb).

I don’t even align with the Democrats (I’m a ticket splitter) but the over conservative attitude on here is nuts, especially when some of you liberally interrupt the laws when it comes to your bodybuilding “supplements”.

You’re waay off base…“my friend.” According to PWI’s young gunner,dhickey…the majority of posters here are open minded libertarians. I’d like to agree with him…but its really hard to…when he’s wrong.

Most times in life there is a right and a wrong answer, despite what your mommies might have told you. I am not sure what you consider an open mind. If someone is spouting complete bullshit that flies in the face of logic and reason, I will not be open minded.

If you want to call a feeble mind an open mind, go right ahead. Some will continue to put in the necessary thought and reason to come up with the right answer. The “let’s agree to disagree” crowd simply lacks the desire to formulate the correct answer.

There are basic laws of economics that most here choose not to understand. There are basic principals this country was founded on that many here choose not to understand. For most things in life there is right and there is wrong. Anythink in the “middle” is still wrong. You can continue to wrong if you wish.
[/quote]

ok,so you’re closed minded…got it.

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
Instead of the politics and world issues section, could we just rename this to “Republicans Only, we won’t listen to anyone else’s thoughts”?

This entire section of the website is really sad due to the closed mindedness of 90% of you (I am not just referring to this thread; the comment about the constitution was indeed dumb).

I don’t even align with the Democrats (I’m a ticket splitter) but the over conservative attitude on here is nuts, especially when some of you liberally interrupt the laws when it comes to your bodybuilding “supplements”.

You’re waay off base…“my friend.” According to PWI’s young gunner,dhickey…the majority of posters here are open minded libertarians. I’d like to agree with him…but its really hard to…when he’s wrong.

Most times in life there is a right and a wrong answer, despite what your mommies might have told you. I am not sure what you consider an open mind. If someone is spouting complete bullshit that flies in the face of logic and reason, I will not be open minded.

If you want to call a feeble mind an open mind, go right ahead. Some will continue to put in the necessary thought and reason to come up with the right answer. The “let’s agree to disagree” crowd simply lacks the desire to formulate the correct answer.

There are basic laws of economics that most here choose not to understand. There are basic principals this country was founded on that many here choose not to understand. For most things in life there is right and there is wrong. Anythink in the “middle” is still wrong. You can continue to wrong if you wish.

ok,so you’re closed minded…got it.[/quote]

When it comes to listening to idoits, I am closed minded…correct.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Journeyman wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
SSC wrote:
Remember, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. With guns.

And knives. And rope. And cars (actually, a LOT more with cars). And their bare hands. And round house kicks. And shovels. And baseball bats. And poisons. And pillows.

Really, you can stop me at any time…

I just wanted to add rocks. These are common yet lethal according to stone age records. Carry on.

The US murder rate in 1993 was 9.93 per 100,000. Of these, 7.07 per 100,000 are due to guns. 39% of homes had guns. In France, the homicide rate was only 1.12 deaths per 100,000. Guns are more commonly lethal than rocks. Feel free to finder newer numbers, they will probably show a similar trend. It a lot harder for most people to kill with rocks, bare hands, round house kicks, etc.

I am not advocating revoking the 2nd Amendment, but I am pointing out that we are paying for this right with tens of thousands of homicides every year.

data from 3 Patterns of Firearm-Related Violence | Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review |The National Academies Press

Those statistics are over fifteen years old. The latest figure I have seen is 5.9 per 100,000. Murder rates in some of the those other countries have gone way up since they brought in gun control.

It is amazing just how ignorant of the realities of the American inner city many Americans are. Half of Americas total murders is black on black violence.

Blacks are 7 times more likely to be murdered than whites. White communities are not suffering those high murder rates. Even middle class black communities don’t have such high murder rates. The muder rate amongst whites is not much different from France.

It is poor people in the ghetto fighting over drug turf that is responsible for most of Americas murders. The war on drugs is what is causing this not gun ownership.

If gun ownership really was the problem then murder rates would be high all across the country and they are not. But if you go into the crack neighborhoods they are. Why? Because the war on drugs is being fought there and war means casualties of war.

The simple and easy way to justify the above post is to look at states and communities with the highest gun ownership rates. Guess what? Yep. They have the lowest murder rates.

Ding. Ding. Ding.

[/quote]
Show me the data. With respect to murder, you are much safer in London or Paris than in a US city.

[quote]SSC wrote:
orion wrote:

So, in a time were important limitations on the governments powers have already fallen, you want to attack the ones that are still in place?

Are you kidding me?

That’s actually a pretty clever way to twist that back around, seriously. The problem with what you’re saying, though, is just re-affirming the hypocrisy I was trying to point out in my original post.

It’s “patriotic” to the kind of people on this forum when our other amendments are conveniantly disassembled, but I’m just a gigantic moron for discussion change in the Second Amendment. It’s funny the kind of double-standard bullshit I see here.
[/quote]

Agreed, but they suffer from reverse Bush derangement syndrom.

It is kind of sad really.

[quote]
When I first posted, though, I wasn’t yet aware of the “Follow the Sheep or Shut the Fuck Up” rule that’s been implemented here in the PWI.

It’s funny, though, I don’t even advocate a gun-free pacifistic nightmare as you all appear to think I do. But no, I will also not sit idly and watch an entire amendment in our Bill of Rights be essentially governed by a lobby that influences through handouts and propaganda.

It’s almost ludicrous to see how Black-and-White (figuratively) issues are viewed here. I don’t see what’ss so illogical about striking a comfortable balance between the “Let’s all grab some dat-gun guns!” mentality we’ve adopted recently and a gunless, tight-ass society.

To me, it seems simple enough to get back to basics, which includes proper background scans, better weapon provisioning, and a more strict limit on those able to carry handguns. The background system is a joke, and anyone who can’t see that is blinded by a warm, red goodness, and will likely not see things from any other perspective.[/quote]

I can not speak for the US gun lobby, however I think it is wise not to give the government one inch regarding that issue.

If you look what the government made of the constitution in the last 200 years, they would inevitably fuck this up.

Why risk that?

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Journeyman wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
SSC wrote:
Remember, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. With guns.

And knives. And rope. And cars (actually, a LOT more with cars). And their bare hands. And round house kicks. And shovels. And baseball bats. And poisons. And pillows.

Really, you can stop me at any time…

I just wanted to add rocks. These are common yet lethal according to stone age records. Carry on.

The US murder rate in 1993 was 9.93 per 100,000. Of these, 7.07 per 100,000 are due to guns. 39% of homes had guns. In France, the homicide rate was only 1.12 deaths per 100,000. Guns are more commonly lethal than rocks. Feel free to finder newer numbers, they will probably show a similar trend. It a lot harder for most people to kill with rocks, bare hands, round house kicks, etc.

I am not advocating revoking the 2nd Amendment, but I am pointing out that we are paying for this right with tens of thousands of homicides every year.

data from 3 Patterns of Firearm-Related Violence | Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review |The National Academies Press

Those statistics are over fifteen years old. The latest figure I have seen is 5.9 per 100,000. Murder rates in some of the those other countries have gone way up since they brought in gun control.

It is amazing just how ignorant of the realities of the American inner city many Americans are. Half of Americas total murders is black on black violence.

Blacks are 7 times more likely to be murdered than whites. White communities are not suffering those high murder rates. Even middle class black communities don’t have such high murder rates. The muder rate amongst whites is not much different from France.

It is poor people in the ghetto fighting over drug turf that is responsible for most of Americas murders. The war on drugs is what is causing this not gun ownership.

If gun ownership really was the problem then murder rates would be high all across the country and they are not. But if you go into the crack neighborhoods they are. Why? Because the war on drugs is being fought there and war means casualties of war.

The simple and easy way to justify the above post is to look at states and communities with the highest gun ownership rates. Guess what? Yep. They have the lowest murder rates.

Ding. Ding. Ding.

Show me the data. With respect to murder, you are much safer in London or Paris than in a US city.
[/quote]

You are even safer in Zurich or Vienna, and we all have the right to own a gun.

That includes assault weapons in Zurich and sniper rifles in Vienna.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
vroom wrote:
[i]Look, have you heard of credit default swaps yet? Do you know that they are essentially insurance, but that they weren’t regulated like insurance, such that the companies that sold them did not have to keep reserves in case payment had to be made?

Did you know that mortgages were bundled up and sold as complex instruments, with AAA ratings from the various agencies? Did you know that credit default swaps were used to insure these instruments, and that companies going under were doing so because of having to pay off on credit default swaps?

The fact that lenders were compensated simply to write a mortgage, which was then offloaded to other buyers with a crappy AAA rating, and insured with useless credit default swaps, is the underlying reason for the financial fucking meltdown.

Greed and a blind eye turned when people wanted to skirt the regulations of the insurance business. I’m sure Bush had absolutely no fucking clue, or didn’t care.[/i]

excellent job listing the symtoms. Now let’s see if you’re bright enough to figure out the cause.[/quote]

Pay attention, this is a big word… GREED. One of the seven deadly sins that the modern day republicans are so fond of claiming is a virtue. It’s a wonder they have been embraced by the Christian groups at all.

It was greed when the rating agencies, having no clue how to rate the mortgage derivatives simply declared them as AAA and accepted their payment.

It was greed when the banks originating mortgages pushed incentives for closing deals and then turned a blind eye on how these mortgages were actually sold to end consumers.

It was greed when credit default swaps were sold with the assumption that housing prices would never go down, such that there was no need to maintain reserves for defaults.

It was greed when unsophisticated purchasers didn’t look closely enough at the terms of their deals and they thought they were getting a great deal on their mortgage from the banks.

It was greed when the fat cats at the top made huge profits on this process, especially when at some point they actually knew how and why housing defaults were increasing but they milked the process for all it was worth.

It was greed when banks, pension funds, and investors around the word saw great low-risk (sic) AAA rated mortgage derivatives and snapped them up.

It was greed when the fat cats mentioned above used their offshore accounts to sell their own companies short when they knew the bottom was going to fall out. Their greatest trick is to have you clamoring for very conditions that let them fleece you blind.

The result, greed has put the general consumer in a crappy situation. Billions have been sucked out of their pensions and investments and put into the accounts of the people at the top who eventually knew exactly what was going on and what would eventually happen when the house of cards fell.

So, where does this leave us. Am I against free markets? Not at all. Am I against capitalism? not at all. However, some intelligent application of regulations could have helped.

It might have been nice if the banks originating a mortgage had to keep some skin in the game. That would have prevented the total offloading of risk.

It might have been nice if banks were restricted from offering predatory lending packages to unsophisticated consumers – such that we never would have been lead to the situation of foreclosures and dropping housing prices.

It might have been nice if ratings agencies were forced to have some skin in the game when they gave AAA ratings. It would have made them at least try to figure out how to realistically rate these instruments instead of slapping on the AAA and accepting their fee.

If might have been nice if companies offering credit default swaps as insurance on these things had of been required to have some reserve in place to pay up in the eventuality that they might eventually be required to pay up. Does AIG ring a bell?

None of these types of regulations would have stopped people from originating mortgages, creating derivative instruments, offering insurance on investments or buying houses. The markets still would have been run by private enterprise seeking profit.

However, some or all of those regulations could have made a difference in the scope of the bubble that we faced and the severity of the collapse when it eventually burst.

Now, if you want to play politics, you can try to blame folks that encouraged loans for those that are less well off - in order to blame government for being involved in the market, due to a stupid ideological bent, but that wouldn’t really address the situation we are facing.

The lack of intelligent oversight with respect to financial activities, while still allowing free market capitalism, is squarely to blame. I can honestly say I truly hope that the Bush administration was merely asleep at the wheel… anything else would be much worse.

Fuck you very much.

On the topic of sins… I’d have to say Rush Limbaugh and a few of his followers around these parts are the embodiment of wrath as well.

Strangely, the mantra of self-responsibility, when given with the self-satisfaction it is usually associated with in these parts, would seem to be pride. There is a sense of “being better than” others attached to this concept much of the time.

Something to think about for you fundies lurking around these parts…

[quote]vroom wrote:

(GREED!)

Fuck you very much.[/quote]

What you fail to mention in your speech is that to whatever extent impulsive GREED drove the problem, it was encouraged and empowered by public policy.

We know consumers and entrepreneurs are greedy - that assumption is already baked into the system. What we had is a deliberate government policy to encourage moral hazard - the creation of a situation where a private citizen could reap private rewards while foisting the risks on the public.

You complain over and over that there should have been “regulation” that kept banks’ “skin in the game” - there was, and Fannie Mae, etc. took that away. The entire point of Fannie Mae was to securitize loans and get them off the books of banks. If there is no Fannie Mae, banks keep the risk of whatever loans they issue on their own books, and as such, would have never made the ridiculous loans they made. The same goes for “unregulated mortgage companies” - they never had to worry about the risks of default because Fannie Mae insured they would never have to live with the downside.

This is not to say securitization is bad, but Fannie Mae, as a GSE, was allowed to go beyond what a normal market would allow a private company to hold risk.

So, yes all actors should have had “skin in the game”, but the reason they didn’t was sloppy government policy, not the absence of regulation. That is the entire criticism - there is no way we would be in the situation we are in if lenders had to live with the risks they took on.

CDOs? They insured these products with the guarantee that government would insure they wouldn’t fail. Greed? Hardly - that is just easy business. Did they take on too much? Of course they did - government policy required that they have no skin in the game. Same phenomenon.

Everyone deserves some blame - from idiot borrowers who never had the ability to pay, including those who were speculating that home prices would go up, up, up (see the Bay Area, CA) to the “wizards” of Wall Street who should have been bright enough to understand that the model was unsustainable. But the motor of the problem was the government policy creating the moral hazard to do all these things.

I’m not a “deregulate all of it!” kind of guy, but the problem here was not “deregulation” of the kind you speak of - it was a specific kind of government policy that tried to erase the hard economic facts of life, and in fact “deregulated” how lenders take on risk and make decisions related to risk. Government wanted to lower the risk to lenders so that loans would be made to people who otherwise couldn’t buy a house - the American dream. It was a house of cards.

Securitization isn’t bad, some regulation isn’t bad - but get the story straight as to what caused the problem and encouraged the risk-taking. It wasn’t wholesale GREED by your predictable list of villains - it was the well-meaning policy gone terribly awry.

[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Go read up on this subject before pretending to know a fucking thing about it. It has been covered in quite some depth in this forum. The fact that you think Bush attempted to do nothing is laughable.

Jesus Christ on a stick!

Look, have you heard of credit default swaps yet? Do you know that they are essentially insurance, but that they weren’t regulated like insurance, such that the companies that sold them did not have to keep reserves in case payment had to be made?

Did you know that mortgages were bundled up and sold as complex instruments, with AAA ratings from the various agencies? Did you know that credit default swaps were used to insure these instruments, and that companies going under were doing so because of having to pay off on credit default swaps?

The fact that lenders were compensated simply to write a mortgage, which was then offloaded to other buyers with a crappy AAA rating, and insured with useless credit default swaps, is the underlying reason for the financial fucking meltdown.

Greed and a blind eye turned when people wanted to skirt the regulations of the insurance business. I’m sure Bush had absolutely no fucking clue, or didn’t care.
[/quote]

Like I said - go read up on this before issuing an edict from under your thinking tree. In fact, you could even read the huge threads about it in this very forum.

I guess you are back to thinking no subject can be discussed properly until the great thinking tree man has spoken on it.

You are a clueless moron.

And now for a less sanguine view…


November 05, 2008, 9:30 a.m.

Eight Wasted Years and the ratchet slips free.

By John Derbyshire

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy.

Thus Barack Obama, writing in his autobiography about his time at the expensive liberal-arts college Occidental in California. I?d like to tell you that he goes on to mock his young self for naïvety and infantile leftism, to deplore the way those ?Marxist professors? used their prestige and influence to fill young heads with poisonous rubbish long discredited by events in the real world. I?d like to, but I can?t, because he doesn?t. Obama doesn?t think Marxism is rubbish. He thinks it?s basically ? correct.

Not that our president-elect is going to roar through the U.S. economy nationalizing the means of production, distribution, and exchange. (The current administration has that well in hand, in any case.) Nor, I am pretty sure, will he incite a violent class war, with the losers hustled off to labor camps or driven into exile with the family jewelry sewn into their petticoats. We are long past the point where classical Marxism has any application. Obama can?t incite the workers to seize control of the factories: the factories are all in China. He can?t consolidate peasant small-holdings into communal farms, because there aren?t any peasant small-holdings; and if he tried anyway, no one would notice, farming being the occupation of less than half of one percent of us.

Barack Obama does, though, have the heart and soul of a cultural Marxist. He sees history in terms of class struggle, with pitiful, soulful Oppressed being brutalized and impoverished by arrogant, heartless Oppressors. Anyone who sees matters in these Who-Whom terms has absorbed the essence of Marxism, even if he has never held a hammer or a sickle ? even if, like Obama, he has never held anything heavier than a Community Organizer?s clipboard.

This was the import of the Joe the Plumber incident. In a long campaign your true self is bound to emerge once or twice. No matter how tightly your handlers apply the shrink-wrap, a sharp claw or beak will work its way through now and then. In Barack Obama?s worldview, the Who and the Whom are locked in a bitter struggle, from which the Whom is bound to emerge victorious at last. Then the victors, purified by suffering, will lead mankind on to the sunlit uplands where from each shall be taken according to his abilities, to each shall be given according to his needs.

That these doctrines are utterly false, completely mistaken, and catastrophically destructive in practice, is a thought Barack Obama cannot think. That ?ability? and ?needs? turn out to be shapeless and slippery concepts when politicians try to corral them, has not occurred to him. (I need a new car. Will whichever citizen has been delegated to pay for it, please mail the check to National Review? Thank you.) How could such thoughts have occurred to him? He was a red-diaper baby, offspring of a love-the-world, hate-America sixties gal and an African socialist in the Mugabe mould, raised by leftish grandparents addled with ?Uncle Tim? racial guilt, and mentored by a hard-Left labor radical.

Pat Buchanan (Whom God Preserve!) gave his own autobiography the title Right from the Beginning. If Barack Obama had been a tad more honest when writing his, he could just as well have titled it Left from the Beginning. He was honest enough though, lavishing praise on coarse, fascistic radicals like the odious Jeremiah Wright. (You can let Rev?m Wright out of the basement now, guys.)

Margaret Thatcher used to talk about the ?ratchet effect.? When the Left gets power, she said, they drive everything Left; when the Right gets power, they slow the Leftward drive, perhaps even halt it for a spell; but nothing ever gets moved to the Right. U.S. politics in the 21st century so far bears out this dismal analysis. What does the Right have to show for eight years of a Republican presidency? I supported George W. Bush in 2000 because I thought he had a conservative bone in his body somewhere. I supported him in 2004 because I thought him the lesser of two evils. At this point, I wouldn?t let the fool park his car in my driveway. Bruce Bartlett was right, every damn word.

I see that some of my NRO colleagues are scratching around for shards of optimism ? of Hope! ? in the general wreckage. Good luck to them. I see nothing for conservatives to hope for in an Obama administration. We just have to stick it out. This shallow, ignorant, self-obsessed man, who held an actual job for just one year of his charmed life (low-grade editing for an obscure newsletter ? he felt, he tells us in Dreams, ?like a spy behind enemy lines,? the enemy of course being capitalism), this red-diaper baby and his wife, will be our First Couple for the next four years and some weeks. It?ll be interesting. Interesting.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODYwOTEyZTQyMzc2ZGMwYmEwMTRmN2VjN2I1YTE0M2E=

The upside of an Obama Whitehouse = it’s not a Clinton Whitehouse?

[quote]oneforship wrote:
The upside of an Obama Whitehouse = it’s not a Clinton Whitehouse?[/quote]

We may be pining for the Clinton years before the new baby jesus gets done with us.