Presidential Race (Respector Edition)

[Sparky speaks]

John Lennon: The Last Great Anti-War Activist

 

“All we are saying is give peace a chance.” ~ John Lennon

 

Despite the moving tributes that were paid to John Lennon’s lyrical vision of a world without war, racial or religious divisions or hunger at the conclusion of the 2012 Summer Olympics in London, there’s really very little real talk of peace anymore.

 

You don’t hear much talk of peace from presidential candidates Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, both of whom are indebted to the $600 billion military industrial complex for their campaign dollars. It’s the same military industrial complex that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against in his 1961 farewell address to the nation.

 

You don’t hear much about peace from the various talking heads whose mindless chatter keeps us distracted from the ongoing wars that are bleeding us dry (the Afghanistan war just marked its 11th anniversary on Oct. 7, 2012, making it the longest war in U.S. history).

 

It may be that John Lennon, born 72 years ago on October 9, 1940, was the last great iconic anti-war activist of our age. Thrust into the spotlight as a member of the Beatles – and what an incredible spotlight it was, with the world at their feet – it didn’t take long for Lennon to recognize that he could use his celebrity status to not only communicate his own ideas about the world but change the way people thought about issues of the day.

 

http://lewrockwell.com/whitehead/whitehead59.1.html

[lost highway]

So out of the debate, the best that Obama can do is "capitalize" on the Big Bird comment? It's kinda sad if you ask me. Is this what his campaign really wants to focus on with 4 weeks going into the election? I was telling somebody today, there is a stark difference from the Obama campaign 4years ago. I'm pretty sure he had it all but wrapped up against McCain by this time....

 

A weak, albeit hilarious attempt to struggle against a candidate who swears left and right he wants to close a deficit by lowering taxes, raising military spending and keeping medicaid and social security in tact. Which might be even more hilarious than big bird.

[KevinG]

So out of the debate, the best that Obama can do is "capitalize" on the Big Bird comment? It's kinda sad if you ask me. Is this what his campaign really wants to focus on with 4 weeks going into the election? I was telling somebody today, there is a stark difference from the Obama campaign 4years ago. I'm pretty sure he had it all but wrapped up against McCain by this time....

 

Thinking about it really it was Mitt's only bitt of substance in the debate. Mitt wants an across the board 20% tax cut, an increase in military spending, keep entitlement programs as they are (for existing seniors). But yet is a moral stance that we balance the budget. He is going to do this by eliminating tax loop holes (but not the popular mortgage credit and charity). Yep there are numbers out there to do this Paul Ryan has them but he feels the American people are too stupid to understand them or explain them properly (or at least he would put them out on a website for us to read). You can say they are deficit neutral until the cows come home but I would like to see the numbers.

 

So the only thing said he is going after is PBS (and planned parenthood I guess) and their 145 million dollars of funding. Cause when you are talking about trillions that works. The Sesame Street line of attack is point out the ridiculousness of Mitt's policies.

 

Should they have used Big Bird in a national ad? No. Should they continue to point out that Mitt the only thing in the debate Mitt said he would cut to balance the budget is PBS, yes. Remember Mitt brought up Big Bird, not PBO.

 

PBO is offering a measured approach to economic stability. Look at what has Mitt said about his economic policies how different are his policies and that of GWB?

[Tweedling]

Where is Obamas ad pointing out what you two have mentioned...? Where is Obamas ad pointing to all the good things he's done and why he deserves 4 more years? I'm sure there have been some but I would think we'd see more this close to the finish line.

[LouieB]

John Lennon: The Last Great Anti-War Activist

 

 

“All we are saying is give peace a chance.” ~ John Lennon

 

Despite the moving tributes that were paid to John Lennon’s lyrical vision of a world without war, racial or religious divisions or hunger at the conclusion of the 2012 Summer Olympics in London, there’s really very little real talk of peace anymore.

 

You don’t hear much talk of peace from presidential candidates Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, both of whom are indebted to the $600 billion military industrial complex for their campaign dollars. It’s the same military industrial complex that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against in his 1961 farewell address to the nation.

 

You don’t hear much about peace from the various talking heads whose mindless chatter keeps us distracted from the ongoing wars that are bleeding us dry (the Afghanistan war just marked its 11th anniversary on Oct. 7, 2012, making it the longest war in U.S. history).

 

It may be that John Lennon, born 72 years ago on October 9, 1940, was the last great iconic anti-war activist of our age. Thrust into the spotlight as a member of the Beatles – and what an incredible spotlight it was, with the world at their feet – it didn’t take long for Lennon to recognize that he could use his celebrity status to not only communicate his own ideas about the world but change the way people thought about issues of the day.

 

http://lewrockwell.c...tehead59.1.html

 

Okay well this is a softball if ever there were one. Of course everyone loves John Lennon. Everyone wants peace.

 

But the President of the United States isn't going to disband the US military, he (or eventually she) is also the commander in chief. So there will be a US military for many years to come. But once again equating both Barack and Mitt as having the same attitude towards the military is riduculous. Obama has somewhat reduced the military budget (okay not enough for most of us, admittedly) and finally end the Iraq war and the endless one in Afganistan, but Romney has promised to increase it and also start a new war or two just for good measure, all the while suggesting we got out of Iraq too soon and shouldn't be getting out of Afganistan now.

 

So okay, spending on the military when people are hungry is wrong (I think I said the same thing a few posts north of this one) and we can all agree on that. Let's disband the military. (of course that would put hundreds of millions of people out of work, but that's a minor detail.)

 

LouieB

[KevinG]

Where is Obamas ad pointing out what you two have mentioned...? Where is Obamas ad pointing to all the good things he's done and why he deserves 4 more years? I'm sure there have been some but I would think we'd see more this close to the finish line.

 

WTF has Obama done so far (NSFW version)

 

Or the PG Version

 

What makes you so sure that he doesn't deserve 4 more years? Or that Mitt does (other than the fact as you have said he isn't Barack Obama, which is stupid cop out reason IMHO).

 

It is a close race, Mitt is a better candidate then McCain. The mood of the electorate is quite a bit different, the economy although in a much better place then it was 4 years ago is still sluggish and that affects a lot of people.

 

You keep bringing up the race four years ago, like it means something. Just because PBO isn't beating Mitt like he did McCain does that point to the fact he is destined to lose? Personally with the state of the economy and the mood of the country, I am surprised Mitt isn't doing better and leading in more polls.

[KevinG]

... Of course everyone loves John Lennon.

 

John Lennon was a giant douche bag prick (solely on how he treated Julian). I personal can't stand him. But I digress.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

John Lennon was a giant douche bag prick (solely on how he treated Julian). I personal can't stand him. But I digress.

 

A little harsh, but certainly a defendable position.

 

I prefer to think of him as a bitter, angry and narcissistic man who was trying his best at the end of his life to do and be better.

[LouieB]

John Lennon was a giant douche bag prick (solely on how he treated Julian). I personal can't stand him. But I digress.

A little harsh, but certainly a defendable position.

 

I prefer to think of him as a bitter, angry and narcissistic man who was trying his best at the end of his life to do and be better.

That's the real John Lennon you guys are talking about, not the member of the Beatles who was a big star.

 

I am sure there are people here to also don't care that the guy was a peacenik and fairly far to the left, since all those people care about was his music, not his beliefs.

 

LouieB

[Tweedling]

Wher is his ad telling us why we should vote him in again? It all seems to be focused on how bad Romney is. (it's like Obama is telling me to vote for him because he's not Romney) oh the irony.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/09/04/world-economists-confirm-americas-decline-under-obama/

[Winston Legthigh]

Wher is his ad telling us why we should vote him in again? It all seems to be focused on how bad Romney is. (it's like Obama is telling me to vote for him because he's not Romney) oh the irony.

http://www.forbes.co...ne-under-obama/

 

I typed in "obama ad" in google, and this was the first one offered. Not that hard.

 

[Tweedling]

Thanks. I was really referring to currently. He's spending money on anti-Romney ads and pro big bird ads. Ha!

I mean either way, I think people will go into the voting booth wondering if we have been going in the right direction for the last 4 years or is it time for a different path. I think people will be voting with different objectives and ideas than 4 years ago. The last campaign does matter. There was a lot of love and feeling of change in the air and I think we should remember that and ask where that's all gone.

[Winston Legthigh]

Thanks. I was really referring to currently.

 

That ad is two weeks old today. What can I tell you? Is he supposed to make a new version of that same material every week?

[KevinG]

Wher is his ad telling us why we should vote him in again? It all seems to be focused on how bad Romney is. (it's like Obama is telling me to vote for him because he's not Romney) oh the irony.

http://www.forbes.co...ne-under-obama/

 

Here is another (albeit lengthly)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WbQe-wVK9E&feature=relmfu

 

There are others I am sure.

 

I have asked you time and time again why do you support Mitt Romney. The only answer was "he is not Barack Obama." Your reasoning seems to come form a place of ideology. To me it seems that you would vote for Inanimate carbon rod over PBO just because he is a Republican. I was honestly interested in why you think Mitt Romney would make a better president.

 

I have given my reasons why I am voting for PBO. I believe his economic policies are sound and turning this country around, his social policies are progressing this nation forward to fairness and equality. His foreign policy is one of respect and thoughtfulness for the rest of the world. Also I like winning. Is he perfect of course not. And yes I am voting for PBO because I don't like the policies of Mitt Romney.

 

If you are interested (and I think posted this before, and referenced in above link) check out http://90days90reasons.com. Which is a series of essays of why people are voting for PBO. To be honest some of them are the basic "not Mitt Romney," but some of them are interesting reads.

[KevinG]

I mean either way, I think people will go into the voting booth wondering if we have been going in the right direction for the last 4 years or is it time for a different path.

 

And by different path, you mean the same policies of tax cuts for the wealthy, increased military spending (that is not asked for), and putting American soldiers lives at risk by continuing or starting new wars in the middle east. Cause those are where basic policies of GWB. Which you may not remember (or have chosen to forget) left us with the worse economy since the great depression. So not so much as a different path, but as the same path that takes us to the wicked forest.

 

The GOP congress effectively killed the Hope and Change mantra from 2008. PBO came in with high hopes but the congress flatly refused to help him and the American people by saying no. When you hear no on everything you try to do and when you pass ACA and are then vilified for it in the media and by the right, it kinda brings you down. People have seen that hope and change within washington is not possible. So now it is realization of slogging through the endless BS of a party that is willing to let the American people suffer to score some political points. That is why the mood has changed.

[IRememberDBoon]

Tweedling is just parroting this weeks RW talking points. They are saying that in response to Romney barrage of policy in the debate last week that all Obama can muster in response is Big Bird and attack ads. Complete BS of course but whats not out of Fox and Friends.

[ih8music]

And by different path, you mean the same policies of tax cuts for the wealthy, increased military spending (that is not asked for), and putting American soldiers lives at risk by continuing or starting new wars in the middle east. Cause those are where basic policies of GWB. Which you may not remember (or have chosen to forget) left us with the worse economy since the great depression. So not so much as a different path, but as the same path that takes us to the wicked forest.

 

Yeah, people picking Romney because he will be "different" from Obama need to remember that those differences put us squarely back into GWB territory. With perhaps the exception that less brush will be cleared in central Texas.

 

But seriously, I really like to hear from Romney supporters how that statement is untrue. What has Romney said/pledged to do as president that's of any significant difference from what Bush did? (And a nebulous pledge to cut tax loopholes doesn't count until Romney explains exactly what he envisions should be cut and how the math is going to work.)

 

And if there are no significant differences, are you saying that you think returning to the policies of Bush is the correct way to lead this country?

[LouieB]

 

And if there are no significant difference, are you saying that you think returning to the policies of Bush is the correct way to lead this country?

Far be it from me to answer for someone else, but it isn't really that these folks (and maybe not the libertarians here who seem to be the bulk of the non-left of center folks) want, they want less government oversight. People need to be free from government regulation (whatever that means) which to those of us on the leftish of the continuum (which really includes those petty squarely in the center anymore) includes the right to get sick and die, be homeless, be destitute, be unemployed, allow all the exploitation of the environment and working people anyone wants.

 

To those on the right this seems an unfair characterization. All they say they want is less government regulation of all business sectors including less taxes, consumer protection, environmental protection, affirmative action, collective bargaining rights, rights for women, gays, and the undocumented, etc. If you don't believe that these things are important or something that the government should have any say over, then really it isn't just Bush you want to return to, but Ronald Reagan, who is the architect of this stuff in our lifetimes. You can claim to have some roots with Ron Paul, which puts a slight left of center sheen on some issues such as the drug war and foreign military intervention, but somehow doesn't address the rights of women, gays, and minorities you can at least get some mileage out of your less government cred (like dumping the Fed), under the guise of individual rights.

 

We can't win this argument I suppose, because much of the right, while not represented here, is really pissed off because Obama wants to deal with the welfare of all citizens and he is NOT WHITE. While most folks here may say this isn't THE issue, it is clearly AN issue for some of the right wing base. Otherwise non-white foks would flock to Romney and Ryan because they would meet their needs too, theoretically. But giving rights to women, minorities, the undocumented, gays, the disabled, etc., in fact anyone who is requiring some sort of government assistance generally isn't part of the rights agenda.

 

As I have said many times, Obama is actually a pretty conservative and certainly middle of the road candidate and President. For those who are more radical on whatever side they are on, right, far right, far left or totally far out, he doesn't meet their needs. For the rest of us, it seems pretty okay,even if he has done stuff we aren't so fond of (which for me includes deportations, drone attacks, no public option in ACA,) For the slightly more left leaning (or right), he could roll back the military further or dump the Fed (ain't gonna happen, but that is Sparky's axe to grind) or come out in favor of gay marriage, or do a whole raft of far fucking out stuff, but he has given it his best shot at governing all of the US of A and been repaid with scorn. If you are President of the US of A, there is no shelter from the storm.

 

LouieB

[bleedorange]

I'm voting for Romney because I really hate poor people. Always asking for help and stuff...shameful.

[Tweedling]

No, if I were sticking to the conservative talking points for today I would be mentioning how Obama and Hillary put the blame of what happened in Lybia on a video that came out months before the 9/11/12 attack. Now it seems they lied? They misled? What is the State Department saying now?

But I wasn't bringing that up.

[KevinG]

No, if I were sticking to the conservative talking points for today I would be mentioning how Obama and Hillary put the blame of what happened in Lybia on a video that came out months before the 9/11/12 attack. Now it seems they lied? They misled? What is the State Department saying now?

But I wasn't bringing that up.

 

Figured you would have brought that up tomorrow, since the Big Bird thing was yesterday's talking points.

 

But before we jump ship on this topic (which I am willing to discuss), how about actually answering ih8music's question. What differences are there in the policies of Mitt Romeny and GWB? And if there aren't any, do you really think that those policies are ones we want to go back to?

[ih8music]

It's ok guys, you don't need to explain yourself or justify how Romney is materially different from GWB. I found a great representative of the conservative cause who gave me a number of compelling reasons to vote for Romney

 

[Guest Jules]

All they say they want is less government regulation of all business sectors including less taxes, consumer protection, environmental protection, affirmative action, collective bargaining rights, rights for women, gays, and the undocumented, etc. If you don't believe that these things are important or something that the government should have any say over, then really it isn't just Bush you want to return to, but Ronald Reagan,

 

Sounds good to me.

[LouieB]

No, if I were sticking to the conservative talking points for today I would be mentioning how Obama and Hillary put the blame of what happened in Lybia on a video that came out months before the 9/11/12 attack. Now it seems they lied? They misled? What is the State Department saying now?

But I wasn't bringing that up.

They are saying it was a terrorist attack. They may have have been misinformed or they may have hedged on what happened but actually they came clean on the situation fairly quickly. Far be it from me to correct spelling either, but that would be Libya.

 

LouieB

[LouieB]

Sounds good to me.

See its so simple.....

 

Group Hug!!!

 

LouieB