If you actually want to discuss your points, I don't mind presenting an opposing viewpoint. Why do you think it would take craftiness or guile, if a president of the US is commander-in-chief, of the worlds last remaining superpower? Coming from that position of strength, wouldn't you consider it a more ethical and moral position, to adopt a more understanding position? In other words, what could we do better with our exorbitantly expensive superpower, that we cannot do with market-friendliness?

We already have a UN. Most of our diplomacy could be handled via that organization and it would allow us to focus on improving our own situation in the US. Why would a president of the US need to micro-manage any functioning anarchy or third world dictatorship, when we haven't solved the issue of poverty in our own first world economy?

Why would any other foreign state want to wage war or threaten another state that has exorbitantly expensive superpower to waste, instead of engaging in better forms of commerce that can improve the standard of living of all market participants?

At will unimployment? I am sorry, please explain.

Yeah I agree that our congress loves to add their little pet projects to our spending budgets. That's why we need a line item veto. And yes we should and do invest in green technology, but then there are alot of other technologies we need to be investing in as well. But until these technologies are fully developed, lets go after the proven resouces availible such as those in Anwar.

Drilling in Anwar is just another fool's errand project that would not bring us any new oil for years. In that time, we could move from generating less than 1% of our energy from wind to 5 or 10% and create jobs to boot.

Thoughts on Obama at the Moment: the longer Hillary stays in the race, the worse it gets. Obama would take Michigan; Hillary would take Florida. She gains nothing. She was ahead of him by 15 points in Pennsylvania last week; since her "huge" victory last Tuesday, she's now ahead of him by about 10 points. Meanwhile, he took Wyoming, will take Mississippi, will take North Carolina, Indiana and so on. There is no way for her to overtake him in the math column.

Obama leads by 135 pledged delegates; leads in the popular vote.

It's time for Hillary to go, but the Clintons are powermongering. She'll win Pennsylvania by the same margin as Texas, by 3 or 4 points, gaining no new ground on Obama, but will insist on staying in the race. Meanwhile, she's just said that even McCain is more qualified to be Prez than Obama. Nice one Democrats; you manage to fuck everything up in your own special way.

IMO Obama is our last hope to save our country from the same fate of all the other empires.

Should Hillary get the nod John McCain will be our next president and WE WILL be in Iraq for the next 1000 years with our dead buried in all parts of the Mid-East.

Obama is symbolic of what the American people want in a leader, neither Hillary or McCain fit that vision.

Agreed. I've heard a few neo-con weirdos talk about how muslims everywhere will be rejoicing should Obama win because his middle name and half of his ancestry lie in the muslim tradition. But I'm thinking: how is this a bad thing? Wouldn't it be a site to see muslims rejoicing something we did rather than hating us?

With Obama you get someone who wants to end the fighting and strive for reconciliation. This would hurt the cause of extremists and embolden the moderates.

And it's not like Obama isn't going to be surrounded by all the top Democrats anyway. And what I really like about him is that I don't doubt he'll actually want a few Republicans sprinkled throughout his cabinet either, which would come as a breath of fresh air in the silly partisan divide that's existed for decades now.

I guess torture is our only disagrement.

And it is not only the Muslim people all over the world that will be rejoiced when Barack is elected to the office.

Obama is the world's choice for the Presidency.

This proves a thought that I 've had, that the world is ripe for the anti-christ. Not that Obama is it, but that when he does come, he will come from no where, will be charismatic, charming, and will make promises of peace, prosperity and oh yes "change", but will only bring more misery than this world has ever seen.

The gullibility of the masses is astonishing.

The German, The British, The Italian, The japanese etc.. are ripe for the anti-Chirst?

Then, I believe only you love Christ. Nice privilage. Keep it.

Yes, that's what I said, but don't leave out many gullible Americans as well.
When he does come, you will be among those who rejoice, but not for long.

Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies.

It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

What is your point? Mogadishu is a functioning anarchy, and has no socialism, at all; and, has more "riots" than most socialist countries.

I don't subscribe to your opinion on poverty being a condition of the soul. Not all religions advocate poverty as a form of virtue. From a more secular perspective, second world economies have already disproved that theory sufficiently for me to not consider it a factor in first world economies.

Being poor, and eliminating official poverty are two different things. Someone can be poor, and still not be in official poverty.

Having a public policy that ensures zero percent official poverty is not a public policy that enables some people to win the lottery as form of public policy to eliminate poverty. A more effective public policy would not be similar to welfare, as we currently know it; but, could be a better use of current unemployment insurance schemes, which can have the effect of ensuring zero percent official poverty.

For the sake of simplicity of discussion, lets suppose that, in our form of statism, poverty is due to a simple lack of income. Official poverty is a rate set by the public sector, as a minimum income (in a manner similar to a minimum wage). If anyone has an income above the official poverty rate, then they can no longer be considered in official poverty.

If we have a "natural" unemployment rate, how can some people not be in poverty at any given time, in our mixed market economy, if they have no income?

A hypothetical at-will unemployment income, as a form of public policy can achieve zero percent official poverty. This type of public policy would also complement (US) at-will employment laws and doctrine. It could be as market friendly as current forms of unemployment insurance, provide useful labor market based metrics, and be easily understandable to anyone living in a mixed market economy since they would have a choice to either apply for unemployment (at rock bottom cost) or provide labor input to the market at market rates.

Market friendly public policy would also have the effect of lowering the cost of the public sector (government) due to reduction in administrative costs, and lower some costs to the private sector (e.g. civic service). This could have the effect of lowering our tax burden by lowering those costs.

If that is the definition of the Antichrist, then Obama is a little late for that. That applies to Congress too. A whole LOT of little Antichrists there!

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Good catch Scribbler1.

How would one be called if he caused 4000+ young men to be killed in a war based on lies, lies and lies? Heretic?

And how would one called if he wanted to end this war based on lies, lies and lies? Believer and true Christ-lover?

well, here we go....Obama may say race has nothing to do with it, his greatest weakness in the MSM’s eyes, may be his greatest strength, and Ferraro was right, he has a coat of armor he will use and we all know it….cool, that’s the way the game is played, but is stinks, he knows there’s a racial aspect to this all...

and as far as his rhetoric on this matter- the MSM, will, if he gets the nomination and in is NOT elected, splash the headlines, the cable shows will trot out those inane pseudo psychos they have on call, on telling us how we are all harboring deep seated bias’s, because the lad didn't win, and in that sense race has a great deal to do with it, and am glad I aint a lib, I won't feel one once of remorse of misplaced guilt if he doesn't win...


Obama: Voters to judge issues, not race By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
Wed Mar 12, 6:11 PM ET


CHICAGO - Democrat Barack Obama expressed frustration Wednesday that racial issues keep rising to the top of his presidential battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton, but he said the great majority of voters will base their decisions on substantive issues.

At a news conference, Obama said he feels his primary victories in an array of states have proven he can draw support from all races and regions, and that he is not overly reliant on black voters.

"We keep on thinking we've dispelled this," he said. "And it keeps on getting raised once again."

He said critics suggest "maybe he hasn't proven that he can win white, blue-collar workers."

"And we won that in Virginia, and we won it in Wisconsin," he said.

In each new primary, he said, "we seem to have to prove this stuff all over." Given his wins, he said, "at this point, we should have put to rest this notion that somehow I am a candidate that's just focused on one demographic."

In handily winning Tuesday's Mississippi primary, Obama took about 90 percent of the black vote and 30 percent of the white vote, according to exit polls. Similar results in other Deep South states have raised questions of whether Obama's strong black support is nudging some white Democrats into Clinton's column.

There was some evidence of that in exit polls in Ohio, which Clinton won. Analysts say a similar pattern could emerge in Pennsylvania, the next primary, on April 22.

Obama said he did not think Clinton's campaign was deliberately stirring racial divisions. But he said her campaign "has talked more during the course of the last few months about what groups are supporting her and what groups are supporting me, and trying to make the case that the reason she should be the nominee is there are a set of voters that Obama might not get. That seems to track certain racial demographics. And I disagree with that."

Obama said some voters might favor or disfavor him because he is black, just as some might favor or disfavor Clinton because she is female.

However, he said, "the overwhelming majority of Americans are going to make these decisions based on who they think will be the best president. I have absolute confidence that if I'm doing my job, if I'm delivering my message, then there are very few voters out there that I can't win."

"If I'm not winning them over," he said, "then it's my fault."

On another racially tinged issue, Obama said recent comments by Clinton fundraiser Geraldine Ferraro about his candidacy were ridiculous, but not racist.

Ferraro, the party's vice presidential nominee in 1984, on Wednesday stepped down from the honorary post she held in Clinton's campaign amid the backlash caused by her remarks.

Ferraro told the Daily Breeze newspaper in Torrance, Calif.: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is."

Asked if the remarks were racist, Obama said, "I don't think she intended them that way." But he called them "ridiculous" and "wrong-headed."

"The notion that it is...

rest at-http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080312/ap_on_el_pr/obama_race

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."