Fairweather

Fairweather will now be making a statement: Best wishes to Obama. His past socialist leanings notwithstanding, he seems like a good man. I hope he can keep his democratic congress on the task of financial and security issues and away from the social issues that cost Clinton his congress in 1994. We'll see. While it's a relief that TTK and Prole didn't take my wagers, I will offer this as a consolation prize: Obama is now the president of The United States, and he is my president too. Hasta pronto.

So did Pal Pot, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Consuelo Princep, King Henry VIII, The Catholic Church, etc, etc, etc. This belief in ideals and self doesn't make the pursuit of power or the always-horrific outcomes admirable. I truly do appreciate the conversation you've offered, but being the object of a dogpile and dealing with threats from GGK is getting old. Maybe I'll see you down at Hood soon. November is calling and after 44 times up that cone it's the only month of the year I haven't visited the top. I'm outta here for now.

Facko? WTF is that? Since the mods here seem to give you free reign to physically threaten people, here's back at you: I hope you're talking about kicking my ass metaphorically, because, like GW, I believe in preemption and will hunt your scrawny ass down. Comprendes? One good thing about an Obama presidency? He'll scrap the idiotic idea that we should offer military support/missiles to Poland and other ass-backward Soviet republics. Fuck em. And fuck you.

Careful there buddy. Why? You've said way worse to me. Unlike you, I haven't posted my family business here for comment.

I think they are both overrated--and I wish more Americans knew about their constitutional problems. But I don't consider either of them "bad presidents". Ditto, Thomas Jefferson. IMO, Washington and Teddy are the only two presidents who belong up there. Along with Alexander Hamilton.

Careful there buddy.

The 'vast majority' of Americans who consider FDR a great president probably could not tell you much about him aside from his stand against Hitler and Tojo--and social security. They could probably tell you about his fireside chats, but none of the content. I don't consider FDR a bad president, but his court-stacking scheme was as close to a dictatorial grab as any president has ever come. Were it not for this, he would likely be up on Mount Rushmore--along with my beloved TR. Do you disagree? I don't consider my opinion any more valid than anyone elses, but I'm willing to bet that, like yours, it is more informed than most. As far as checks and balances; I think the supreme court was 7/9 conservative--or anti FDR at least. The court we have now can be considered 5/4 in either direction, IMO.

[video:youtube]

Probably not. This country was settled on capitalist principles (Jamestown, Mass Bay Co) and I don't consider wild deviations from these ideals to be congruent with good leadership at all, but, rather, caving to the demands of the vocal. Teddy Roosevelt was a major exception in that he understood the difference between equal opportunity and equal outcome. Some consider his trust-busting socialism--I don't. FDR was the antithesis of Teddy. This pendulum we are talking about has been swinging back and forth since Hamilton versus Jefferson, and its generally been a healthy thing, but I worry that Obama's past associations indicate he will swing it too wildly left.

FDR absolutely was socialist, and his alphabet soup programs only deepened and prolonged The Great Depression. Fortunately, we had a supreme court that still believed in the constitution. Do you recall how FDR tried to circumvent that little obstacle? Will Obama try the same? okay - we're strait on the "what is a socialist" bit then, but you haven't really answered the important question: was he a good president or not? the question gets at the fact that there's much more to a leader than his economic policies (though i think you're pretty fringe in your judgment of those (wikipedia's entry agrees certainly that you're fringe amongst historians, and only a bit less so amongst economists) - are you actually hating on the CCC? FDIC? WPA? TVA? the repeal of prohibition? sure, the court-packing scheme was retarded, but that's exactly why we like our checks'n'balaces system, right?) was he a bad president in his approach to foreign policy? his conduct of ww2? immigration? law and order? i'll grant you he was far from enlightened on racial issues Obviously, I don't think he was a bad leader re the war. (But his order to load incendiaries onto B29s and go after civilian population centers in Japan was pretty barbarian even by my standards.) But if you take a look at how short-lived the previous economic depressions under Van Buren (late 1830's) and Cleveland/McKinley (panic of 1893) were, it's easy to see how resisting populist demands for federal relief exemplified true leadership--even if it did cost them politically. Now Bush and the Dems in congress have started us down the same path with this "bailout" and, like FDR, Obama will only deepen what has already begun. (Although I would equate Obama more with a Eugene Debs than an FDR.)

Really? Who's gonna do the shit kickin'? You?

Good post, Justin. Unfortunately, some here believe tighter government control of the media is in order regarding AM radio and other formats. Any thoughts, Matt?

FDR absolutely was socialist, and his alphabet soup programs only deepened and prolonged The Great Depression. Fortunately, we had a supreme court that still believed in the constitution. Do you recall how FDR tried to circumvent that little obstacle? Will Obama try the same?

Democrats have made sheltering and hiring of illegals a big issue in the past regarding cabinet appointees. Remember the "housekeeper" issue a few years back? Obama has visited this aunt numerous times and obviously did not care much about her immigration status or her financial status.

Go home, commie boy.

Since most Americans consider socialism pretty far left, you're probably correct. It's going to be an interesting 4 years if the socialist wins--and an interesting 2 or three months if he doesn't.

I'm not running for president. Obama is. Asshat.

A brother living in a hut in abject poverty in Kenya, and now an aunt living illegally here in the USA for years in a government subsidized housing project. Just great. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/01/barack-obamas-kenyan-aunt-living-illegally-boston/ Even the hard-left MSNBC is reporting this time: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27481680/

Your chart doesn't take resource extraction into account. The port cities that export (and import) products produced in rural states (the raw materials at the very least) typically pay the higher white-collar salaries and are bases of operation for large companies. No surprises here. Your "chart" means nothing.

First intelligent thing you've said in a long time.

Is that last part a dodge? I don't believe she has ever suggested 1st amendment violations exist in the slanted media portrayals of she and her family. On topic, let's suppose you lived in a hard-majority Republican city or town. How would you feel if FoxNews ran a story about all of the pro-Democrat signs in your yard and posted your home address for all to see? Would that constitute intimidation? I believe it would.

Fox is biased? I'm appalled.

The topic is biased journalism, yes? The Stranger is clearly trying to intimidate private Seattle citizens who don't toe the line.

AKA, "mob rule".

The resident's address is blurred here, but was not in the recent publication. Is this what you have in mind when you discuss a free press, Matt? The incitement of violence toward "non-believers"? What are you saying here: That pictures of yard signs endorsing republicans are inciting balance? Say what? Read the article, Matt. (Scroll down) Why would they post a private citizen's address?