Why We Must Beat Obama

[jordan179]

Introduction

There's been a lot of talk about the list of likely Republican Presidential candidates for 2012 being disappointing. I know I'm disappointed: I see no one who I would describe as even remotely "libertarian" who is not simultaneously isolationist to the point of trying to deny the existence of the rest of the world beyond American

Comments

[melvin_udall]

Well written, of course. And of course I agree with the overall point.

I can't let this go unaddressed, however.

I have problems with any leader who even entertains the notion that the world is only 6000 years old or that its fate is in the hands of an imaginary grandfather who lives somewhere in the stratosphere.

I wouldn't have voted for George Washington or John Adams either.

[prester_scott]

Moreover...

an imaginary grandfather who lives somewhere in the stratosphere

...there is no theist over the age of 8 who has such a childish and superstitious view of God.

Jordan, don't oversimplify and misrepresent your opposition. It only makes you look like an idiot and a bigot.

[mosinging1986]

...there is no theist over the age of 8 who has such a childish and superstitious view of God.

Yes, well said!

[jordan179]

I have problems with any leader who even entertains the notion that the world is only 6000 years old or that its fate is in the hands of an imaginary grandfather who lives somewhere in the stratosphere.

I wouldn't have voted for George Washington or John Adams either.

I think the state of our scientific knowledge has advanced a little since c. 1800.

[shockwave77598]

I would like to see a competitor to Obama

[ford_prefect42]

"between Obama and a raft of people who think their religion is the only one and the country has to be run by their religious views"

That is a false dichotomy. Obama "thinks religion is the only one and the country has to be run by religious views". It just happens that his religion is liberalism as opposed to theism. Liberalism is an inherently destructive religion in a way that Baptist is not. While Huckabee wouldn't be my first choice of candidate, his religious fundamentalism will serve us far far better than Obamas.

The difference is that while I can honestly look at Huckabee and say "we disagree on a lot of things, but we're both Amerians here, we want the same things, I *cannot* look at Obama and say that. I will be voting against Obama and in favor of *any* of the current field of Republicans.

[polaris93]

Well said. That really is the difference between Obama and just about any other potential candidate (with some exceptions, of course). Obama hates this country, period. So next election I go with his opposite number in the Republican party -- and not any other, third-party candidates, either, because that just splits the ticket. And we can't afford that now.

[mosinging1986]

Very well said.

[prester_scott]

I understand the fear you atheist libertarians have of Christian fundamentalist social conservatives, really I do. But I'm telling you, y'all better get over that knee-jerk disdain, because for the most part, those guys are your allies against the FAR greater dangers of Socialism (represented by the Big O, almost all Democrats, and roughly half of Republicans and independents) and Islam.

Personally, I think it's too late to save America, because America by and large does not want to be saved. However, if you do think you can help by voting, you'd have to be a fool to re-elect the greater threat.

[ford_prefect42]

This.

[jordan179]

I understand the fear you atheist libertarians have of Christian fundamentalist social conservatives, really I do. But I'm telling you, y'all better get over that knee-jerk disdain, because for the most part, those guys are your allies against the FAR greater dangers of Socialism (represented by the Big O, almost all Democrats, and roughly half of Republicans and independents) and Islam.

Indeed, this was the whole point of my post. And I'd be willing to take someone who wasn't an "atheist" -- I strongly supported Ronald Reagan, and he was most definitely Christian. In fact, I find that the form of Christianity most common in America is quite compatible with sane political leadership.

Personally, I think it's too late to save America, because America by and large does not want to be saved.Depends what you mean by "saved." It may be too late, in the long run, to save the American Republic. But by "the long run" I mean "the next several decades," and by "save," I mean "retain our full Constitutional liberties." If we re-elect

[prester_scott]

In fact, I find that the form of Christianity most common in America is quite compatible with sane political leadership.

As someone else said in another thread, you are in no danger of Christian theocracy from any Christian politician on the national scene. None whatsoever. And if a Christian theocracy did arise, you would have the help of lots of Christians (orthodox ones, not just liberals) to oppose it. So I am glad you agree that voting with that fear in the front of one's mind is extremely short-sighted.

But by "the long run" I mean "the next several decades," and by "save," I mean "retain our full Constitutional liberties."

I agree with your definitions and I maintain that we cannot be saved whether Obama is re-elected or not, precisely because the majority of the American people either agree with Obama and his ilk in their basic outlook, and don't give a hoot about liberty as long as they are "cared for" and don't have to take personal responsibility; or they are too compromised to understand and to do what's really

[ford_prefect42]

I... I doubt that most of the situations you have laid out are recoverable

[ford_prefect42]

II. This one... is complicated. Much like the damage done to business will have lasting effects, one wonders if the damage to our relations with many of our old allies is reparable. We have now had a president of the US not invited to a royal wedding. A wedding to which third world dictators currently engaged in genocidal actions *were* invited. Things are *not* good in first-world-ville. It may be recoverable, it may not.

III. I believe that China is, at this moment, making deliberate preparations to fight a war against the US. Cutting their reserves of US currency and stockpiling strategic resources is *exactly* what I would do in their position if I were planning to fight that fight. Do you *really* think that it's probable that you can give your enemy a 2 year headstart on war preparations and still have a chance of winning? Because I am sceptical.

In short... Unless the populace grows up very very well and very very quickly, we are pretty screwed.

[jordan179]

We have now had a president of the US not invited to a royal wedding. A wedding to which third world dictators currently engaged in genocidal actions *were* invited. Things are *not* good in first-world-ville. It may be recoverable, it may not.

If we repudiate Obama in 2012, our allies may -- and probably will -- forgive us for electing him in the first place. Not if we re-elect him.

Do you *really* think that it's probable that you can give your enemy a 2 year headstart on war preparations and still have a chance of winning?

We did in World War II. Now, do I think that we can give the enemy a six year headstart and win? No, and my existence proof is that that's what Britain and France did in World War II, and they didn't so much "win" as have the good fortune to be our friends and thus be carried to victory by us.

We have no "America" on which to fall back. So we must not re-elect Obama.

[jordan179]

At current, approximately *half* the oil drill rigs in the world are engaged in drilling in the US. That's primarily because the US is one of the few oil rich nations that has historically been a relatively business friendly location, the regulation has been strict, but consistent, the fields have had prety strong guarantees against nationalization. None of that is true anymore. Given that, I suspect that the vast majority of new oilfield service contracts will be done in other parts of the world. In short, the mechanisms for recovery in this sector have been destroyed. Probably permanently, or at least for decades.

Perhaps. Whatever damage is done will be greater if Obama has two terms in which to do it. We still have unused oil in the ground, lots of natural gas, and great expanses of coal and oil shale. We also have a heck of a lot of uranium. I think that if we get a reasonably competent President in 2013, one who quickly sets aside the drilling moratoria and (even better) much of the regulatory obstacles to new nuclear

[pathia]

If any republican can come up with a decent economic plan that isn't a constant cry of tax cuts and a more reasonable solution to the healthcare crisis, then they might get my vote.

[gothelittle]

The Republican solution to the health care problem is and has been http://www.gop.gov/pledge/healthcare ever since before Obamacare was 'deemed to be passed

[pathia]

I do not find the plan to be reasonable. Mostly through a lack of information due to my personal situation being so complex.

People like to hammer with me that I am so selfish and self interested, things are always 'about me', but when you cannot secure your own immediate safety and health. How do you proceed with planning farther ahead? It's fairly hard to override this low level urge.

[gothelittle]

As I understand it, under that plan you would be covered under the state high-risk pool and, if you obtained insurance outside of it (or inside of it), the insurance company could not disqualify you by means of a pre-existing condition.

The lawsuit reform and opening competition across state lines should lower premiums as well.