America was quite literally founded on the idea of individual rights.

By a group of men nearly all of whom had served in their state legislatures. Individual rights, yes. But there was also a context of a larger society. I don't know that you're suggesting it, James, but there's absolutely no way that the country was founded either on anarchist or even minarchist principles.

there's absolutely no way that the country was founded either on anarchist or even minarchist principles.

Oh, certainly not. But it was unique then and remains pretty rare today to operate under the assumption that the government exists to serve the people rather than vice-versa.

The "country first" mantra was designed to tell all that one's country needs to be put before one's party. What else could a "maverick" who turned on the values of his party so often, say?

Sarah Palin, long a favorite of his discarded social conservative base, wasn't invented (or preferred?) by John. I'll give him credit for being pragmatic enough to go get her and save his party, his base and with OBama as the alternative, maybe his country.

"Country First is a fascist idea" Indeed.

Disagree? Well, heck, you might be a fascist!
Not voting for Obama? Clearly fascist.
Global warming denier? Pfft! C'mon, that's a no-brainer! Fascist!!!
You work for a corporation? Fascism!

You sir, are worse than Hitler.

I don't buy the fascist angle, but it does seem derivative of Kennedy's "Ask not ...." line. IIRC, Republicans have in the past derided that call to action on more than one occasion in phrasing similar to Hilzoy's.

Not all totalitarianism is fascist.

You work for a corporation? Fascism!

Stop confusing Fascism with Communism. Corporations are an integral part of Fascist economic policy.

America was quite literally founded on the idea of individual rights. But while we’ve declared those rights to be inalienable and God-given, they nonetheless have to be guarded and defended by men like John McCain

.
Got it James. A man who taught Constitutional Law and who is known for deliberate thinking is not capable of defending the principles of our Constitution. For that job we need an authentic American Hero, an ex-Navy Pilot, whose courage and steadfastness cannot be questioned.

Said it before, will say it again. The framework of the next two months has been set. Issues will not be discussed, the cultural wars are back. And if any questions are raised, why it is that mean Liberal Press once again pointing out that McCain’s judgment and combative nature is the issue.

Got it James. A man who taught Constitutional Law and who is known for deliberate thinking is not capable of defending the principles of our Constitution. For that job we need an authentic American Hero, an ex-Navy Pilot, whose courage and steadfastness cannot be questioned.

Paul, I don't see anything in James's post that implies he thinks Obama wouldn't guard and defend our rights. His post was about a certain take on McCain's speech, after all.

Putting your country before yourself doesn't automatically mean you worship the fatherland. I see the theme as a call to do something outside yourself.

It has been subtle. Palin's story and McCain's story both demonstrate people who got involved to help not themselves but to make a difference in the greater community. It was low-key but both ended their speeches with a call to do something outside yourself. (Palin more to join them, McCain to get active).

The difference between this and Obama's "voluntary" universal service is motivation. McCain calls for people to get motivated or inspired to do something whereas Obama will force the service for minors and bribe college students. It may become a big difference between campaigns, a call to return to the American tradition of working through church and civic groups to make the nation or community better or government run programs administered with the stick and carrot. Difference between the PTA and the WPA.

When running for the highest office in the land it is very appropriate to put country first. Henley either fails to grasp context or is just after partisan points.

McCain's point of country first is about country before party, country before personal enrichment, country before favors to family and friends. The entire message of his speech was one of a life of service and where that desire to serve came from.

How can McCain be labeled fascist if he extols the virtues of the individual and what a burden government is on the individual?

America was quite literally founded on the idea of individual rights.

Of course, McCain has shown in his support for Bush's torture policies that he is not interested in protecting individual rights.

To make that assertion is to insult (not a problem for many on the left) all those men and women who have selflessly served this nation in our armed forces. That suggestion is so off the wall, you doctorate should be revoked.

Country First means just that this election is about this country. Barack Obama is running to be the President of the World. John McCain is running for to be President of United State. It isn't really that difficult. Are you projecting?

McCain's point of country first is about country before party, country before personal enrichment, country before favors to family and friends.

Now if only there were actions after the 1970s to match the rhetoric.

Palin's story and McCain's story both demonstrate people who got involved to help not themselves but to make a difference in the greater community.

Of course, there is no way a community organizer ever did such a noble thing.

Lordy.

But while we’ve declared those rights to be inalienable and God-given, they nonetheless have to be guarded and defended by men like John McCain.

Oh my. Channeling Col. Nathan Jessup there?

Those rights also have to be guarded by a vigilant press and citizens, by courts who enforce the Constitution, by parents and teachers who transmit civil virtues, and by political leaders who don't make cheap, cynical picks for Veep when internal polls begin to look bad.

You know, our founders put country above all else, too. Were these fascists?

Palin's story and McCain's story both demonstrate people who got involved to help not themselves but to make a difference in the greater community.

Of course, there is no way a community organizer ever did such a noble thing.

Let me see if I can relate my perception of Obama's community organizer job. I think my perception may be shared by others in middle America. First, it was a job and probably taken only as a stepping stone.

But more to the point. Perhaps you've heard of a barn raising. The Amish still have them.

McCain and Palin strike me as one of the community who would show up to help you raise the barn. Offering their time and back to build something that isn't of direct benefit to themselves.

Obama's community organizer jobs seems to be more like a guy who comes by tells you, you need a barn, gives you plans you must follow, tells you which contractor to hire and maybe he provides some money. You end up with a barn just like above but instead of a symbol of community spirit, you end up with someone else's idea of a non-human dwelling with feed storage capability.

Perhaps my perception is wrong but if that is the case, then Obama needs to better describe his work helping the poor and unfortunate.

You know, our founders put country above all else, too.

No they didn't. They put liberty above all else, and established a country to protect it.

JKB,
A community organizer is the guy in the Amish community that says "Hey guys, the Smith's need a new barn, lets all meet at noon this Sunday and build them one".

Would have been nice if John McCain had put country first when he stood with Bush, time after time. It seemed more like "party first".

Perhaps my perception is wrong but if that is the case, then Obama needs to better describe his work helping the poor and unfortunate.

Dude, you must never have been on the South Side of Chicago--the place is teeming with barns. It's fricking crazy!!

JKB:

A community organizer is also a parent raising money for extra supplies or computers in a school. It is a neighbor scheduling clean-up days to fix up the local park. It is ministers organizing homeless shelters. It is young professional forming an organization to help tutor inner-city kids. And those are just the community organizers I have personally dealt with in the last 3 months in my little corner of Northern Virginia. Some of those people are paid (though not much), some aren't.

And let me say something else. Your perception of what Obama's job was is... to be blunt... purely a product of racism. He's black. You assume the people he was helping were black. And you think that all black people want is a welfare check.

That's the dirty little secret of this community organizer rap you guys are laying down. It isn't working in a community that is the problem, it is the perception that he's just one of those people who just wants to give handouts to those other lazy, good-for-nothings.

Bernard,

Well said. The expression I have heard used often on GOP blogs is "poverty pimp". Has come up more than a few times here.

cause everyone knows 'dem black fellows be pimping...

The fascist vibe came from the Obama camp - complete with salute, logo, mass spectacle and screams of O-ba-ma. Nobody screamed Ma-cain.

(Michael said) "Said it before, will say it again. The framework of the next two months has been set. Issues will not be discussed, the cultural wars are back."

That's whats so fascinating. Mccain has made the culture war is the issue because every decision flows from the ideology of the candidates. In McCain you have organic patriotism. In Palin you have organic conservatism. McCain is asking America to pick between them, concerned stewards or Obama and his laundry list of programs/bribes.

He's basically accusing Obama of 'not getting it'.

I smell a landslide

I don't know that you're suggesting it, James, but there's absolutely no way that the country was founded either on anarchist or even minarchist principles.

I'm going to disagree. The notion of a minarchist state is one where there IS a government just that the government is LIMITED. That was the initial idea. It is not the case today. In that regard we have "lost our way."

On the whole though I find McCain's "country first" view rather creepy. Is it fascism? No, but I think it would be fair to say it is a rather watered down version. We need look no further for evidence of this than McCain-Feingold and its chilling effect on free speech...for the good of the nation? Meh.

Bernard,

Then that explanation of a community organizer is what you need to sell to middle America. Most of America view "community organizer" as those people who, by their superior intellect and place in life, believe they must provide handouts to those beneath them. That they are progressives who will bring the shining light of the state run social programs to the unwashed masses. That is why Palin's comparison of a mayor to a community organizer resonated.

And your wrong, I don't view Obama as "one of those people who just want to give handouts to those other lazy, good-for-nothings" I view Obama as one of those people who view others as "lazy, good-for-nothings" that need a handout from their betters.

As a kid, we were poor. You learn to differentiate between those who are helping you because they look down on you and those who help because they see that "but by the grace of God, there go I."

The fascist vibe came from the Obama camp - complete with salute, logo, mass spectacle and screams of O-ba-ma. Nobody screamed Ma-cain.

Obama's camp isn't fascist, they're Ozombies. If you listened closely at the Democrat National Convention you could hear them chanting ....
Obamhotep... obamhotep.... obamhotep....

I think I will go with "Liberty First". If we loose that, is the country still worth having?

One thing I am sure of, the GOP habit of referring to "The Homeland" is creepy...

Most of America view "community organizer" as those people who, by their superior intellect and place in life, believe they must provide handouts to those beneath them. That they are progressives who will bring the shining light of the state run social programs to the unwashed masses.

So you are speaking for "most of America" now? Wow, impressive.

I love the GOP comic book world. I grew up in a small town, and the level of corruption at city hall was pretty impressive.

Well said. The expression I have heard used often on GOP blogs is "poverty pimp". Has come up more than a few times here.

It's as apt a description as any other for their role. Why on earth are we so afraid of calling things what they are?

Which brings to mind another question; Can anyone explain to me the difference between the role Obama claims he played in his 'community organizer' days, and the role of "community organizer" Al Sharpton, and "community organizer" Jesse Jackson?

Would have been nice if John McCain had put country first when he stood with Bush, time after time. It seemed more like "party first".

So, those two never run together... unless a Democrat is involved, huh?

You assume the people he was helping were black.

Well, one person in particular, Bernie, truth to tell. What 'services' he rendered to others seems a questionmark.

And by the way, allow me to be clear, here.
I understand fully that some find stereotypes offensive. Frankly, I do as well. But it seems to me that people calling you out on your actions isn't the problem, your actions are. A common sense approach would be to alter your actions to the point where you're no longer seen as acting within the confines of that stereotype.

Bithead... just for the record: you are a despicable and twisted person.

I hope the many decent, responsible, thoughtful conservatives we see on this board daily look at you and realize what your kind has done to what was once a great political party. And I wish those people would consider the costs of humoring your ignorant hate-mongering in order to win elections.

I think I will go with "Liberty First". If we loose that, is the country still worth having?

Let's quantify this sudden devotion to liberty, Anjin.

Do you support the idea of a 'fairness' doctrine?
Do you support Obama's plan to increase taxes and spending?
Do you support personal ownership of firearms?

If you answer yes to any of these, your connection to 'liberty' is tenuous at best.

The notion of a minarchist state is one where there IS a government just that the government is LIMITED.

Uh, no. Minarchists believe that the only role of government is to protect the citizenry from coercion or violence. All of the Founding Fathers participated in their state governments; all favored government action at some level that was substantially above minarchy. The Constitution defines a broad role for government.

It does define a role but just putting limits on government isn't minarchy.

Bithead,

"Do you support the idea of a 'fairness' doctrine?
Do you support Obama's plan to increase taxes and spending?
Do you support personal ownership of firearms?"

Since the only one of those three Obama is actually campaigning on the basis of is the second, do you think that liberty was in danger during the Eisenhower Administration, when we had a 90% marginal tax rate?

I'm surprised you even jumped on the 'GOP Blogs' comment, Bithead. I don't consider comments from unreferenced/unnamed blogs from sources that are not prominent in the Republican Party or in McCain's campaign as attacks on Obama from the right... anymore than I consider comments from DailyKos' unnamed posters or other Angry Left Blogs as attacks on Palin's family from the left.

Bithead... just for the record: you are a despicable and twisted person.

If there's a better indication I'm on the right track than you coughing this nonsense up, I certainly can't think of one.

Tell me, Bernie... is "Racist" a stereotype?
How about 'sexist'?

ignorant hate-mongering

Hmm. You mean like when a Republican comes up ith a strong female candidate and the best you can do is call it a "cheap, cynical pick"? Is that anything like going after a 17 year old girl who is pregnant and using her as a political tool? Is that anything like questoning if the woman in question has the time to be VP given her family roles?

Look in the mirror, Bernie... that's where the problem is.

do you think that liberty was in danger during the Eisenhower Administration, when we had a 90% marginal tax rate?

Matter of fact, yes, I do think so.

Since the only one of those three Obama is actually campaigning on the basis of is the second

Untrue.

First, do you really doubt we'll see a 'fairness doctrine' imposed if Obama gets elected?

I don't. check his website.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/

Do you doubt for a moment if he's elected we won't see more stringent firearms control? I don't. A look his his history, shows him backing an outright ban on the sale and posession of handguns in Illinois. the sepcific questions:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Do you really doubt the man will raise taxes? I don't.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm

You favor an increase in the capital gains tax, saying, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%." It's now 15%. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28%. Bill Clinton dropped the capital gains tax to 20%, then George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down.
A: What I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. The top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year--$29 billion for 50 individuals. Those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

Q: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

A: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going.

Apparently, you're not aware of the stated positions of the person you're supporting.

Perhaps the history I learned is a bit off. I thought that the founders created the country first and then those same founders wrote the rules on how to govern and protect the rights of those which are governed by the country which they founded. And isn't one of those rights the right to choose to decide for yourself what you wish to put first along with the freedom to freely choose who to associate with, and that the majority rules. And if the majority freely decides that it is in their best interest to put the interests of the country first so that rights and freedoms established by the founding fathers can continue to be guaranteed, are they not free to do so? If this is not true, do we really have the rights and freedoms so many think we do?

The right to not put country first is available to all. However, the choice to do so brings to question all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by our country including the right to choose not to put of country first.

I'm surprised you even jumped on the 'GOP Blogs' comment, Bithead. I don't consider comments from unreferenced/unnamed blogs from sources that are not prominent in the Republican Party or in McCain's campaign as attacks on Obama from the right... anymore than I consider comments from DailyKos' unnamed posters or other Angry Left Blogs as attacks on Palin's family from the left.

The way I read it, Rodney, the source wasn't the issue in a specific sense, but more in a general sense. It's an attempt to tar people with the phrase, and put them on the defensive. Else why bother bringing n it up in that context at all? I'm pointing that attempt out as the manipulative, and frankly disingenuous nonsense it is.

Not that I want to jump into this conversation, but I thought I'd share my answers to Bit's questions anyway:

Do you support the idea of a 'fairness' doctrine?
For Publically owned or practically limited resources, yes. That includes broadcast television and radio, as well as cable in areas where the cable company is granted a monopoly. I don't support it for satellite, print or internet.

Do you support Obama's plan to increase taxes and spending?
It seems that we don't have a choice of static taxes and decreased spending, so while I don't like the idea, I like what Obama plans to spend it on more.

Do you support personal ownership of firearms?
Yes. As they say: Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner, and Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Bithead,

"First, do you really doubt we'll see a 'fairness doctrine' imposed if Obama gets elected?

I don't. check his website.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/"

I did not see the words "Fairness Doctrine" or any language which supports a similar idea. Can you quote the language you think does?

"Do you doubt for a moment if he's elected we won't see more stringent firearms control? I don't. A look his his history, shows him backing an outright ban on the sale and posession of handguns in Illinois. the sepcific questions:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes."

If you are going to post something, and claim it is Obama's position, post the whole thing. The cite then reads "Obama's campaign said, "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views."" Or do you just think intentionally misrepresenting people's opinions is a grown-up way to discuss matters?

"Do you really doubt the man will raise taxes?"

Nope, that's why I actually responded to it. Of course paying for what you spend is a far better idea than sticking the bill on your kids and grandkids, but the latter seems to be what modern conservatism prefers.

"Apparently, you're not aware of the stated positions of the person you're supporting."

More apparently, you are not aware of the opinions of the person you constantly vilify.

If you are going to post something, and claim it is Obama's position, post the whole thing. The cite then reads "Obama's campaign said, "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--

Oh, I know that's what they said. But his HANDWRITING is on the thing.

And how is it that he so consistantly surrounds himself with staffers and freinds that are to the left of where he'd like us to think HE is?

I did not see the words "Fairness Doctrine" or any language which supports a similar idea

Really?

Nope, that's why I actually responded to it. Of course paying for what you spend is a far better idea than sticking the bill on your kids and grandkids, but the latter seems to be what modern conservatism prefers.

Of course the idea of cutting spending never enters the lexicon, does it?

do you think that liberty was in danger during the Eisenhower Administration, when we had a 90% marginal tax rate?

Matter of fact, yes, I do think so.

I should have added here, that Jack Kennedy thought so, too.

All of the Founding Fathers participated in their state governments; all favored government action at some level that was substantially above minarchy. The Constitution defines a broad role for government.

And, as I like to point out, the first piece of major legislation passed by the first Congress was the Tarriff Act of 1789. Passed on July 4, 1789. (It was actually the second piece of legislation passed by the first Congress; the first concerned the administration of oaths.)

Jeepers, they were meddling in the economy at the getgo.

Disagree again Dave. I think that most Minarchist would arguet that courts, police, defense, prisons, and even some taxes are unfortunately necessary. I don't see that as radically different from what the founders saw as the rightful role of government. They sure as heck didn't envision the bloated bureaucratic nightmare we have now (and which McCain supports). We could get into some of the grey areas such as public goods like roads, canals, etc., but frankly I don't see them as all that different than national defense.

I'd say that at worst (for me), the founders shared a great many views with Minarchy, but not all of them. I say there is indeed a case to be made that the early view of the U.S. was either that of Minarchy or at least pretty darned close.

That they all served in the government strikes me as totally irrelevant. After all, somebody is going to have to serve in the government. Being a minarchist, libertarian, etc. doesn't prevent one from doing voluntary service, or from helping those in need...contrary to the hyper-ventilating of Lefty mouth breathers.

Bithead,

"I did not see the words "Fairness Doctrine" or any language which supports a similar idea

Really?"

Another swing and a miss. Are you sure you know what the Fairness Doctrine is?

"Of course the idea of cutting spending never enters the lexicon, does it?"

Judging by past history, not for either party. Certainly no one has actually proposed cutting any specific program which is more than a rounding error on the federal budget.

"do you think that liberty was in danger during the Eisenhower Administration, when we had a 90% marginal tax rate?

Matter of fact, yes, I do think so.

I should have added here, that Jack Kennedy thought so, too."

No, JFK thought it would improve the economy's performance to cut the marginal tax rate. That's very different than a question of liberty.

Do you support Obama's plan to increase taxes and spending?

Well lets talk about increased spending, seeing as how the GOP has been presiding in one of the great increases in spending in history. Obama will spread it around a bit more than a Republican would. I am kind of tired of welfare for billionaires, GOP style.

As for taxes, there is no getting around a tax increase, its simply that the GOP wants to tax our kids and grandkids, and give the richest people in the country a break. Nice legacy.

As for guns, I own several, and am a pretty good shot. Thinking about getting a Browning Buckmark Contour 5.5 URX and putting rosewood grips on it. I regard the "Obama will take our guns" line as nonsense.

You keep talking about cutting spending Bit. The GOP controlled our government for 6 years. How did they do on cutting spending? Will McCain and the phalanx of lobbyists that surround him do better than Bush? I think not...

And Bit, you can protest all you want, but the "poverty pimp" line is racist. When McCain made his Airbus deal, did you call him a "Franco Pimp"?

I don't think you spend much time hanging with the brothers Bit. When you are tempted to use a line that, just ask yourself if you could use it in front of a black man without the risk of getting belted in the mouth. Its a good litmus test...

I like anjin-san.

Let me just second one sentiment. The federal budget is spend almost exclusively on 4 things -- social security, medicare, defense, and interest on the debt. Yeah, you can squeeze a few billion here and there from other programs, but real spending cuts means going after those.

Now, look, as a philosophical matter I really dislike Social Security. I think it is insane that a man with over 100 million dollar in family assets like John McCain is eligible to collect it. I don't want to see old people out on the street, so I'd like to see it be a safety net rather than an entitlement. If we adopted that approach, we could save a hundred billion dollars a year, easy. But, look, as a practical matter, that can't be done. The politics of it are so difficult that Bush, even right after his reelection could not get his own party to pass a significant revision to the system. So, you can talk about cutting spending all you want, but much of it is fantasyland.

There is a lot I would like to do if I were king for a day, but I am not, and there is no point pretending otherwise. The U.S. government is going to spend a lot of money into the foreseeable future, and since we are going to do it anyway we have a MORAL obligation not to pay for current spending by taxing future generations. It is that simple. The only real question is who pays -- how do you distribute the burden both in terms of income levels and in terms of generations.

No they didn't. They put liberty above all else, and established a country to protect it

.

lol why dude, the motto was "Life, liberty, and property"..... all out of the bible and from the God they put before anything else, but to the main point, here is something from our greatest founder,

"We are either a United people, or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation, which have national objects to promote, and a national character to support. If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending to it."

Sound like a facist to any of you?

Another swing and a miss. Are you sure you know what the Fairness Doctrine is?

Yep. I also know what it's intent is. And what the results of it would be.

No, JFK thought it would improve the economy's performance to cut the marginal tax rate. That's very different than a question of liberty.

So our liberty isn't more secure, when our economy is? And so, our liberty, particularly our property rights, are not affected by how much of our property the government confiscates for it's own ends?

You keep talking about cutting spending Bit. The GOP controlled our government for 6 years. How did they do on cutting spending?

Perhaps you hadn't heard there's a war on?

Well lets talk about increased spending, seeing as how the GOP has been presiding in one of the great increases in spending in history.

Most of it in social spending. Tell me, when was the last time you saw any serious support for cutting of social spending from the Democrats? WHat do you suppose happens to such a proposal when anyone of either party makes it?

I like anjin-san.

Somehow, I had an idea you would.

The problem with Social Security is this: we either bankrupt ourselves now or later. Even at this point the unfunded liabilities for Social Security run into the Trillions. Those alone dwarf the National Debt and the GDP of the US. We HAVE to cut spending in that sector or it alone will sink us. Taxes won't work, though it may stave it off. Either we'd have to get a huge population boom so we have enough future tax payers to pay off Social Security, face bankruptcy or reform it. I'm all for having 1 or 3, but because 1 doesn't look like it's happening, we need to go with 3.

Perhaps you hadn't heard there's a war on?

Yep. Heard about that. What does that have to do with Bush's multi-billion dollar giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry, to name one example?

So our liberty isn't more secure, when our economy is?

I think most folks remember when our economy was more secure. When a Democrat was in the White House (I do also credit the reform minded GOP congress of the 90s which did some good work before morphing into the pork fest GOP congress of the 00s).

Bit why is it when someone points out that the Bush has been spending like several million drunken sailors, all you can say is "but, but, but, the Democrats...."

Whatever happened to the vaunted creed of the right... you know, stand up, take responsibility?

Hell, as far as Republicans are concerned, the Buck does not even stop in this solar system...

Chaz:

Simply not true. In the very worst future years the gap between revenue and outlays in Social Security will be less than 2% of GDP. In other words, if the rest of the budget were balanced, in the worst years the deficit caused by Social Security would be less than that which we have run basically every year under Bush. And that is actually using overly conservative estimates of economic growth. Realistically, Social Security will never been a killer.

The killer is Medicare... made worse by the biggest new social program in decades... the Republican prescription drug program. Medicare will bankrupt us if not addressed, and Bush and GOP instead of even proposing to fix it, made the problem much, much worse.

Don't take this the wrong way... but I find it really, really annoying that conservatives claim to be so concerned about government spending and yet, on the whole, are shockingly ignorant of the actual facts of the case.

I think most folks remember when our economy was more secure. When a Democrat was in the White House (I do also credit the reform minded GOP congress of the 90s which did some good work before morphing into the pork fest GOP congress of the 00s).

Did you thinkl we'd forgotten that Clinton had us in a resession 6 months before he left the WH?

Bit why is it when someone points out that the Bush has been spending like several million drunken sailors, all you can say is "but, but, but, the Democrats...."

Mostly because I find you squirming over the double standard you set, amusing.

The killer is Medicare... made worse by the biggest new social program in decades... the Republican prescription drug program.

And how would that have compared to the drug program Kerry wanted to do?

Did you thinkl we'd forgotten that Clinton had us in a resession 6 months before he left the WH?

Well, the NBER does not think so:

http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html

But I am sure you know far more about the economy then they do :)

double standard you set

What double standard is that? You are the one going on and on about spending. But, in your myopia, you are not able to see that your party is the spending champ. If the Democrats are "tax and spend" the GOP is "spend, spend, spend some more, and go broke".

And how would that have compared to the drug program Kerry wanted to do?

You really will go to any lengths to get Bush of the hook for his failures. Maybe in an alternate universe, money would grow on trees and there would be no shrimp. Your statement is meaningless.

they nonetheless have to be guarded and defended by men like John McCain.

I am curious about what you mean by "men like John McCain". Guys who were POWs?

FDR never saw combat, (I am pretty sure he did not serve in uniform at all), and was in a wheelchair, and was a pretty damn good war President. Are you saying they can't be guarded and defended by men like Barack Obama?

But he’s willing to risk all those things, and his life itself, in support of a higher calling.

So was John Kerry. Did not stop the GOP from sliming him for political gain.

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

[The last words of the Declaration of Independence]

I'd say McCain's speech has pretty good antecedents.

It has been a very long time since anyone promoted individual rights. The current brood on the R & D sides are strikingly strong forces for collectivism; yet they are mere indicators of the crap-culture eating us. We'll get a candidate that stands up for the man, rather than the group, only after this collectivism rots out of existence.

I say to you, all of you, the members of the Class of 1995, there is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities.

No "there" there...

Only a complete buffoon would take either McCain or Palin for fascists... Only a complete tool... a "useful idiot" as Lenin called them...

Obama, on the other hand, does believe in State-sponsored (i.e., forced) redistribution of wealth, disregarding market forces...

Obama, on the other hand, does believe in State-sponsored (i.e., forced) redistribution of wealth, disregarding market forces...

Fascism didn't advocate redistribution of wealth.

I’m not arguing by extenstion [sic] that Obama wouldn’t protect the country were he elected

James, you are more optimistic than I am. My gut tells me that Obama will hand over America to the mullahs. All they have to do is ask.

Gee, I didn't know John Kennedy was a fascist!

There is a difference between using 'country' to represent a place and its people in a nationalistic way and using 'country' to represent an idea such as a belief in individual liberty. John McCain makes this distinction and expresses himself and what he stands for in terms of the latter.

McCain's notion of 'country first' expressed as working to preserve the ideals of individual liberty must be applied to internal threats as well as external threats. This campaign, in my humble opinion, is not about numerous individual issues on which the parties and the candidates differ - nor is it about the personalities of the candidates.

It is about the internal threat to banish the concept of individual liberty from our society and replace it a devotion to group (tribal) identities and group interests as represented primarily by far left leaning elements. This is not really that much different from the threat McCain fought against in SE Asia except this time it is internal and he is fighting in the arena of ideas instead of a military battlefield.

Centrist democrats, independents, and republicans will see this threat for what it is.

What double standard is that? You are the one going on and on about spending. But, in your myopia, you are not able to see that your party is the spending champ.

Hardly.
Was it the Republicans who set up all the non-discretionary social spending over the last 40 years to put us here?

No?

Ah, well, it seems your analysis has a small problem, then.

When Obama says help me to help you -- wasn't that first shouted by Adolf? Y'know, the newsreel shows him throwing his head back and crossing his arms imploringly.

What does that have to do with soaring discretionary spending by Bush? Really Bit, are the Democrats to blame for dinosaurs becoming extinct too?

This article has documentation which includes the White House's own budget charts.

http://www.slate.com/id/2095237/

What does that have to do with soaring discretionary spending by Bush?

Quite a bit... and clearly more than you're ready to admit. THe Democrats have been spending all the money on expensive candy... and Bush is left with the job of still buying the needful things. And so, he's the one that gets blamed for the total?

Yeah, that makes sense... if you're a Democrat.

So lets see. discretionary spending soars for 6 years while the GOP has complete control of the government, and it is all the democrats fault.

Well either Bush is an abject weakling who was controlled by people who had far less power than he, or your are totally full of it.

Needful things... like a vast giveaway to the pharm industry and tax breaks for oil companies who are making the biggest profits in the history of capitalism.

Well I guess those things are needful. If you are lucky enough to be a GOP crony who is cashing in at taxpayer expense...

Say thanks for the "country idea" to the famous Roman Fascist, Cicero, and his American counterpart, J.F. Kennedy. Are you nuts?

Well, I'm a "national security libertarian". That is, I believe in freedom and individualism, but I know that hasn't been the historic norm and there are things my country must do to protect all our freedoms, including killing people that want to kill us. And reading their email.

But I have never been comfortable with McCain's version of patriotism. I recall numerous times he has bristled at the notion that people should be able to influence the judgment of their elected representatives, using the language of "special interests". Well, shoot, I belong to at least a dozen "special interest groups" -- I'm a husband and parent, I'm an educator, I am a gunowner, I own property, I use the internet, and on and on. But John McCain wants us to elect someone and then stop bothering them with all that silly, corrupt, "lobbying" stuff. McCain-Feingold was the synthesis of this worldview into one of the most outrageous curtailments of civil liberties in my lifetime. Now he wants us all to "fight with him" against all those corrupt special interests. Frankly I found this as creepy as MO's declaration that "Barack will make you work".

So I don't entirely discount accusations of fascism. With McCain vs Obama, I honestly feel my choice is "fascism lite" or "Communism lite".

But I'm voting for Sarah Palin. If that wrinkly old guy is part of the deal, so be it.

None of us chose the color of our skin, or the country of our birth.

Maybe someone can explain why racism is bad, but the hyper-nationalism expressed at the RNC conference is good? They both seem to be products of the same mentality.

So lets see. discretionary spending soars for 6 years while the GOP has complete control of the government, and it is all the democrats fault

A two vote majority, when here are so many liberals infesting the Republican party too, isn't a majority.

anjin-san, you're wasting your time. Arguing with Bithead reminds me of the old George Bernard Shaw line

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

Anyway, he's a troll.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Damn fascists.

Anyway, he's a troll

Sometimes I suspect hes just a badly written bot of some kind. Hard to believe that any American could be so completely indoctrinated...

Anyway, he's a troll.

Berine, you disappoint me.
I thought liberals were all sweetness and light.. (TM)

By the way, I'm still waiting for answer, Bernie. Not that I expected one... you did what I figured you do, cut, run, and spread insults on your way out the door.