On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Colman Bryant wrote:
Congrats Will on making a blog and having a voice. This is an interesting list, but I want to respond to it.
1) The gap between rich and poor will shrink, thanks to a decrease in rich people's incomes.
2) There will be 12 million new Democratic party voters, thanks to an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants.
3) The Fairness Doctrine will be used to squelch conservative talk-radio, in the interest of reducing polarization and bringing people together.
4) Tax dollars will be used to subsidize struggling liberal newspapers, in the interest of promoting diversity in the marketplace.
5) The liberal media will encourage Palin to run in 2012, because they know her candidacy will be doomed.
6) Vague assassination threats on Obama will replace vague terror threats as a way to strike fear in the hearts of Americans.
7) Empathy will replace justice in the federal courts.
8) The federal government will fund abortions through the third trimester for any reason.
9) Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson will remind people that Obama is half-white after he fails to be as radical as they hoped.
-ColmanGood, if it actually works out that way.
10) High school dropout rates for African-Americans will go down, as Obama's success gives them hope of making it in America (every cloud has it's silver lining)
On Mon, 11/3/08, Ramon Garcia wrote:
Oh boy.
Colman as you know, I strongly disagree with just about every single one of your responses in an extremely passionate way. I just thought I'd reiterate. I don't have the time to reply to all of them but, of all of your "points", the worst is the one about abortion. Obama has voted at least 4 times AGAINST a ban on partial birth abortion. Barack Obama voted against a bill that would have protected infants born alive having survived an abortion attempt, Now that's one sick man!
You all watch this (interview on Hannity and Colmes) and tell me which position trumps a baby's right not to be tortured and murdered.
Obama himself has said that he doesn't know when life begins and that "kind" of question is "above his pay grade" - mind you this is a man that is running for, arguably" the most powerful position in the world. So he admits that he doesn't know when life begins but, says that it's a woman's "choice". So in his own words, it could be alive and yet left up to him, a woman can, in his eyes "lawfully" murder the baby. That is sickening and I can't see how anyone can stomach that hideous evil.
The "fairness" doctrine is anything but fair. It has been used by Obama's "truth" squad for harassment and intimidation - used recently against people like Joe the plumber who dared to ask a question that Barack felt was unfavorable! The nerve!!! It was used on a local TV station after an interview with Joe Biden! How dare that reporter try to make me answer a question that wasn't all that difficult because Obama himself essentially said himself - he is a socialist / Marxist. The result, Obama blacklisted the TV station. Fairness / truth - it's akin to bad meaning good. That's BRILLIANT Obama, what a witty guy! They also use it to force left wing talk show hosts on the air even though the FREE MARKET showed that it was unpopular with it's listeners. That's how it's done in a free society. Colman, a national left wing radio station it was tried already and the particularly hard left talk radio station failed! The number of listeners and the funding for it was dismal but, don't worry because here in GA we have a very left talk radio station in the AM channel. How about the TV channels? I never hear about the OVERWHELMING hard left wing news organizations in national and cable. ABC, NBC, CBS - way left with ABC taking the top prize. With the exception of Foxnews, it's the same with cable, MSNBC is outrageous followed up by CNN spewing forth their socialist agenda. By the way socialism = bad for America and any other country that loves freedom. What about PBS - left wingers and we as taxpayers are funding them!!! Now that's great! I have a big feeling that Obama's going to use some of all the new tax (or money that he is stealing from us rather) and help organizations that favor his views and quell opposition to him.
Oh yeah and the Hannity comment, accusing him of being as you call a neo Nazi!?! Give me a break man. That's out of line. Where's the support for such a claim? Site your reference. Also, he is not the only voice on his show, he has a left wing Democrat by the name of Allen Colmes and they both have about equal time.
Now worries though, I have been practicing the Soviet National anthem. :)
On Monday, November 3, 2008 12:28 PM, Will Burns wrote:
Thanks for responding, and I agree with many points you make. Do you mind if I post your response on the blog? The top 10 list is really a way to generate some controversy and discussion, and some of it is tongue-in-cheek. That said, I'll give you some of my perspective on what you mentioned. As far as tax policy goes, I think spending billions on a war that didn't help our national security, and billions more on the interest to pay off our adventures is insane. However, I don't support raising taxes on the rich or anyone else, especially in a weak economic climate. There is data showing that when tax rates have gone down, tax revenue has actually increased because the economy has grown. I'm going to be doing in-depth research on that, and if that's correct it would be a strong argument against raising taxes. I think the bigger problem in Washington is out-of-control spending. The war in Iraq is culprit number one. Although I was opposed to the war before it began, I don't support pulling out prematurely, no matter what it costs. The problem is that we've created a power vacuum in Iraq that will be a mess for decades if we don't stay there until the government can stand on its own. We can argue about who should decide when that time will be, but I'm more in line with McCain and Petraeus on that issue.
On the immigration issue, I don't know if you noticed, but McCain and Obama seem to have a pact not to mention it. The issue never came up in four and a half hours of debate, even though it's one of the most crucial problems of our time. In fact, both candidate's positions are similar, and neither has anything to gain by making their views known. If Obama wins, I think he will offer amnesty and a shortcut to citizenship to the large number of illegal immigrants, and they will reward the Democratic party with loyalty in the years ahead.
With regard to the Fairness Doctrine, talk-radio and newspapers, my position is simple. I am always in favor of protecting first amendment rights. In theory, newspapers and radio stations operate in the free market. In order to survive, they have to find an audience who will support their advertisers. Right now, AM radio is dominated by conservative hosts, but there should be nothing stopping someone with liberal views from starting a station, finding an audience and paying their bills with ad dollars. If there are monopolies in the market that prevent competition, then that is the problem that should be addressed. I don't think the answer is to try and institute heavy-handed control of the existing broadcasts. My point about using tax dollars to support only liberal newspapers was somewhat facetious.
As far as Palin, I think the public has already decided that she's not a serious candidate, and it would be poor strategy for the GOP to support her, no matter how good her reviews on SNL might be.
On the possibility of overblown assassination threats, I hope that it doesn't happen, because I hate having my emotions manipulated by the government.
On Obama and judges, here's a link from Obama's own website discussing what he would be looking for in the judicial temperament of his appointees. I think it strays from strict interpretation of the law and the constitution, but judge for yourself. http://www.barackobama.com/2007/07/17/obama_on_judges_supreme_court.php
Ah, the abortion issue. It's the biggest wedge out there, and I won't get into the core debate now. I was specifically referring to federal funding of abortions supported by everyone's tax dollars, not state laws. I actually support McCain's position on this issue, which is that legality of abortion should be left to the states and not mandated by the federal government at all. I completely agree with you on supporting preventative birth-control education and availability. There's not a lot more to add on the last two. Anyway, I do enjoy the discussion.
Will
On Mon, 11/3/08, Colman Bryant wrote:
Absolutely feel free to post my response on the blog, or I could ifOn Tuesday, November 4, 2008 7:23 AM, Will Burns wrote:
you'd rather. Definitely should be good for getting some discussion
started there.
I believe the reason Obama wants to raise taxes
on the rich is in response to a couple things. One is that the rich
have simply had it far too easy over the past 8 years, while the rest
of the country has suffered. The richest of them have enjoyed
multi-million dollar bonuses and massive golden parachutes while the
rest of the economy and even their own corporations crumbled. These
people can surely afford to dig a little deeper to aid the country
they've made their fortunes in. Bush gave them massive tax breaks at a
time when the economy was soaring and we had a massive budget surplus
(coming out of the Clinton era). This essentially cut a large amount of
funding for the federal government - very much in line with old-school
Republican conservatism. The problem is that Bush also has, since
cutting off this nation's main source of income, been the biggest
spender of any president in this nation's history - a sign to me that
the Republican party no longer understands what it means to "conserve,"
as it hasn't managed to conserve anything, from money to the
environment, over the past 8 years. Note also that McCain has supported
Bush 95% of the time on his policies. This, to me, doesn't exactly
indicate he's the voice of change he claims to be. Now, Bush has left
the country in massive debt, run up a deficit that will now be very
difficult to turn around (mostly paying costs of war and other such
"national security" measures which, I would argue, don't really make
anything more secure and in fact nullify many of our "inalienable
rights" as citizens of this country). I think these guys can afford to
have a few Bush tax cuts rolled back. In addition, even if the most
overbloated corporations do suffer a little, it's not entirely a bad
thing, as it makes way for new entrepreneurial ventures to form. It's
like cracking the pavement and watching seedlings grow through the
cracks.
As for our policy in Iraq, Obama has made it clear, to
me at least, that he plans on ending the major American presence in the
war as early as reasonably possible, and he gives at least a rough
deadline of what that seems to be. He also acknowledges that by having
no time frame whatsoever, which is McCain's policy, passed down from
King George, we give less incentive for the government we have helped
set up there to take responsibility for its own nation, which it surely
must be capable of affording, if they indeed have a 70 billion dollar
national surplus. In addition, Obama would responsibly seek more
international support, rather than alienating our allies and insulting
the UN, as the Republicans have shown themselves more than ready to do
in recent administrations. I think his plan seems quite responsible,
while still helping relieve us of this massive financial and moral
burden. On the other hand, the promise of staying until the job is done
no matter how long it takes and with no estimate whatsoever or even a
clear definition of what "job is done" means disgusts me, reminds me of
1984, and makes me shudder at how well Cheney and his company must be
doing at your and my expense. The idea that Obama would be pulling out
"prematurely" I think is merely a fictionalization and over
exaggeration perpetuated by the same people that have huge vested
business interests in maintaining the war (the current administration
and friends - including McCain). I sincerely doubt McCain's policy in
Iraq would be very different from Bush's, which has been criticized by
nearly every General that hasn't retired yet. If you think his military
experience might help him, remember, most of his experience is limited
to crashing and burning or being caught... not exactly a pro. He was
even 5th from bottom of his class in military school - not exactly the
signs of an expert. I absolutely cannot support or trust a leader from
essentially the same group of war hawks, criminals, and liars as Bush,
that has supported him on almost every term and issue, from the initial
and faulty declaration of war to maintaining it to this and a yet
further undefined length of time. Not to mention all the other horrid
and inhumane acts our current "leaders" have attempted to justify in
the name of "national defense."
I can definitely agree
immigration is an issue, and I plan on looking further into it. I'll be
looking into Obama's policy on this amnesty and what the qualifications
would be. I personally believe if a person is paying the same taxes an
American citizen pays, they should receive most of the benefits we do
from those tax dollars. How much input toward the direction of the
country policitally they should have is still up for debate, though,
and should be carefully addressed.
I agree in regards to protecting first amendment rights in media, and yes,
in theory, newspapers and radio stations do operate in the free market.
However, as we've seen, sometimes a free market can tend toward monopoly
under certain circumstances and over enough time. As an example, consider
Microsoft at the time of their monopoly lawsuit (and perhaps again, it
is beginning to seem). I think most of this country's radio has fallen
into a similar scenario. Most of the consumer-accessible radio
wavelengths in this country are owned by a handful of radio station
mega corps, the vast majority of which support right-wing doctrine.
This makes it very difficult for independent stations to spring up,
since there are a limited number of wavelengths available, and most are
already owned by these mega corps. This exclusive ownership may or may
not have anything to do with the programming they play, but the fact of
the matter is only one side is available to most people to hear. In a
democracy, it is dangerous to keep people ignorant of all but one
voice. If the fairness doctrine encourages multiple perspectives to be
heard, I think this is a good thing overall, as it lets people make
more educated decisions based on knowledge of multiple view points.
Maybe not the best for the personal interests of a handful of mega
radio corps, but good for the nation overall, and probably still good
for the radio business, as more varied consumers should be attracted.
Yeah, Palin does suck... ;-)
As for the abortions, I definitely think it's a serious concern and the
morality of third trimester abortions is up for debate, but it worries
me that the issue is as overblown as it currently is. There are around
100 third trimester abortions performed in the United States in any
given year. That's it. One hundred. That doesn't mean it's not an
important moral issue we should address, but I think, in comparison to
the thousands of US troops killed in Iraq over the past few years or
the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians we've killed over the same
amount of time, the tortures we've inflicted, or the diseases we might
have cured by now had people expressed the same amount of interest in
doing so, those 100 or so fetuses (and the relatively minor cost
involved in removing them) seem rather lower on the list of major
priorities and game breaking issues to me, unless of course a fetus'
life is valued that much more than an already-born person's, which I
suppose some could argue is the case. I also don't exactly think Obama
or his policies will be encouraging more pregnant girls to have late
term abortions, if that is also a concern.
Anyways, that's all I have for now. Very interesting discussion.
-Colman
The radio monopoly is a serious issue that I want to research in-depth. I do think there are a spectrum of voices if you look at all the different media outlets. Even radio has NPR, giving some balance on the FM side.
The number of one hundred for third trimester abortions sounds low to me. Maybe that's the number for late term or partial birth abortions. I'm in favor of anything that lowers the number of abortions in the world.
That's an interesting point you make about creating room for entrepreneurial ventures. I'm all for that if the policy goals are explicitly stated, but not if they're a hidden agenda behind a change in tax rates. As far as corporate greed and corruption, I think the answer is simplification of the tax code to remove obscure loopholes that benefit the few, campaign finance reform to stop pay to play politics and more accountability to shareholders through laws to make corporate boards more independent and power for shareholders to rein in excessive CEO pay. These are separate issues from what the tax rates should be. If we don't reform the system, the savvy corporations and individuals will find a way to shirk their fair share no matter how high the rates are. Unfortunately both candidates have little to say about corporate reform and even less to say about tax simplification. At least McCain sponsored the McCain Feingold campaign finance reform bill, which was a step in the right direction.
Will
On Tue, 11/4/08, Colman Bryant wrote:
I did a little more research on the number of late abortions and found
the following, according to the CDC. In 2002, there were a total of
854,122 known abortions reported (out of 47 states, excluding Alaska,
California, and New Hampshire). In the same year, 1.4% of these
abortions were after 20 weeks. That would make approximately 12,000
abortions after 20 weeks. I wasn't able to find trustworthy data
specifically on abortions after the third trimester (27th week), but I
assume that extra 7 weeks probably reduces this percentage a great deal
more, based on the steadily decreasing rate of abortions as they get
later in the pregnancy
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USAbortionbyGestationalAgeChart2002.png).
It's difficult to say for sure if there may be more than 100 per year,
but it would still be a relatively small number. Not to mention, the
number of overall abortions has been steadily declining since around
1990 - likely due to better sex education and availability of birth
preventatives (which neither McCain nor any Republican has mentioned
anything to my knowledge of supporting). I'm not trying to justify
abortions of fetuses that are considered "viable" (I personally think
if it gets that late, they should only be performed if there is serious
risk to the mother or the baby would be born with major life-altering
problems), but my point is that it's truly a small issue to be the
major deciding factor for so many people, especially when the party
that claims morality in that area has been so blatantly full of lies,
tyranny, corruption , and immorality in so many other areas. It just
seems like a political ploy to me. Rally the people behind supposed
(yet still debatable) morality regarding an issue that's blown way out
of proportion in order to push through all the corrupt, country-robbing
agendas we've suffered from over the past 8 years, and potentially 4
more, depending on the outcome of today. So many people say abortion is
the main issue for them when they supported Bush or support McCain, but
that really just seems out of touch with the real issues to me.
On the tax code, yes, I definitely agree that obscure loopholes and overly
greedy and powerful CEOs are by far the main problem. If these bloated
corporations would invest those 50 million dollar CEO holiday bonuses
back into the company (primarily the rest of the stock holders and
workers), we'd be in much better shape now as a nation. Instead, Bush
changed to tax code to allow for this widening of the income gap. He
rolled back the taxes that helped keep it in check, introduced new
loopholes that his buddies have profited from (especially including his
Vice President and friends in Haliburton, which has moved its base out
of this county in order to further evade taxes while still making
immense profits off of tax payer money spent on huge uncontested
military contracts, and oil/energy companies), and hasn't done a damn
thing to fix or even address any of it, as if it wasn't a pretty
serious problem. His tax policies have sucked the lower and middle
class base of this country dry while his friends enjoy those lofty
golden parachutes. Obama has been very clear on his stance on taxes. He
will raise them for the upper 5% (by simply removing the cuts Bush gave
them). He will close tax loopholes, many of which were introduced by
Bush, that allow big corporations to effectively steal money off the
books and from their common investors (you and me). He will curb big
CEO payoffs and the loopholes that allow insiders to have early trading
advantages over the rest of us. In general, he will be harsher on the
wealthiest percent that have been shedding responsibility and getting
rich out the ass during Bush's term through the tax breaks and
loopholes Bush introduced. On top of it, that extra revenue the country
will be generating from these closed loopholes will be /invested/ into
things like new energy sources (a HUGE and worthwhile investment that
will save us a great deal of money and soured foreign relations in the
future), better education for your kids starting at earlier ages
(again, good for this country if we want to maintain world leadership),
incentives and grants that allow more people to go to college to get
educated so they can get out of stinking fast food kitchens (which
would help a great deal of my friends get on their feet and be able to
afford college), a space program appropriate for a world leader, a cleaner
environment, and tons of other good things that have been all but abandoned
over the past 8 years. I think it's fair, just, good for the nation as a whole,
and these CEO's can certainly afford it without anything other than
superficial suffering. I don't see how reducing and discouraging those
big bonuses is going to hurt small startup businesses - again it seems
like a scam perpetuated by the people who stand the most to lose - the
ultra rich who are currently in power. McCain has supported Bush on
almost all of his bills. I'm quite sure that isn't going to just
magically change if he were to become president. He comes from the same
base, has shared most of the same arguments, and even has the same
campaign adviser. It will just be more of the same trend, or at the
very best, nothing new at all. Obama's policy just seems smart to me.
Invest in things that will be profitable and good for us down the road.
Find money to pay for these investments by rolling back the federal
income cuts Bush put in place. McCain just doesn't seem to be thinking
about the future, possibly because he'll be dead before it gets here.
He's out of touch, out of ideas, and out of his friggin' mind.
Colman
