Radley Balko, who had a few questions for Sen. McCain, has a few questions for Sen. Obama. Some of his great questions:
In February, you said you might support vouchers and charter schools if empirical data showed that they improve education (some studies show that they do). Admirably, your position was, "I will not allow my predispositions to stand in the way of making sure that our kids can learn." After pressure from the teachers unions, you quickly backed off from that position, stating that your campaign doesn't support vouchers "in any shape or form." What prompted that change? And if it's important that we not "throw up our hands" and "walk away from the public schools," why do you send your own kids to private schools?Link to A Few Questions for Sen. Obama (via FoxNews.com)
You not only supported the latest federal farm bill, you commended it, stating that it "will provide America's hard-working farmers and ranchers with more support and more predictability." Critics have called that $307 billion monstrosity an orgy of earmarks, corporate welfare, and protectionism. It actually increases subsidies to huge agribusinesses in an era of record grain prices — subsidies that are already crushing farmers in the developing world. The New York Times called it "disgraceful." The Wall Street Journal called it a "scam." How does the "change" candidate justify supporting a bill larded with sweetheart deals for big agribusiness when just about everyone not getting a check from the bill opposed it?
You continue to support ethanol subsidies despite the fact that corn-based ethanol is inefficient, environmentally unfriendly, and part of the cause of rising food prices. Even liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman calls ethanol "[b]ad for the economy, bad for consumers, bad for the planet." Perhaps your support stems from you representing a corn producing state. But is supporting a wasteful policy to win votes "change we can believe in," or is it a good sign that you're just another politician?
10 comments:
Good lord!
Balko must be pulling our legs with these questions. They are totally inappropriate and without any merit.
How does Balko expect a total cipher like Obama to remember any of these due to their length.
Before the first one is half done, Obama's mind will wander and he'll start thinking about his 3 pointer and a certain blonde reporter he met in a gym after he blew off our troops.
Obama's best chance comes if Balko accepts stammering, stuttering and general incoherence as an inspired answer - like most members of the press.
trenton,
You're back! I know it's a new thread and all, but the invitation to share your thoughts on Christ and Christianity is an open one.
Do tell. Pretty please...with sugar on top?
Really_B,
I go out of town for a couple of days and come back to folks pleading for my thoughts. Oh well, someone must carry that burden, I guess.
Seriously, I looked back at that thread and don't see any open questions. I started it by making some sarcastic yet funny comments implying that libs would not recognize the style of English used in the original satirical piece because that style came from the Bible.
Pointing out to libs and dems that they are, on average, much less religious than Americans in general and conservatives in particular always sends them into a screaming, spittle spraying fit. There are two reasons for this:
1. It's true
2. They would rather eat a bug than have it said out loud as most Americans are still religious and it makes them feel strange and abnormal.
Libs know, deep inside, that they are strange and abnormal, but can't admit it to themselves, so stating it openly to them is a prick to a scab that never quite heals. It causes a jolt of pain - and the reaction you saw.
Now, how about that hot babe Obama worked out with instead of visiting our troops?
trenton,
Have you ever answered a direct question with a direct answer? I asked for your thoughts about Christ and Christianity.
:::
Secondly, while I doubt you even care about the truth of the Obama visit, he simply followed McCain's lead in respecting military rules about campaign appearances with the troops:
" With Department of Defense rules prohibiting political campaigning on military bases, it was determined that in some cases McCain could visit the installations as a senator but could not engage in any political activity or have news media present.
McCain campaign officials said Thursday they intentionally did not campaign on military property."
:::
Had he gone you would be spouting some nonsense about using the troops for political advantage.
Ray_Ban,
Sure, I can answer questions. Your invitation to discuss religion and the reference to the earlier topic led to taking at stab at what you requested. Religion is a pretty big topic so perhaps you should start.
But please, don't try that "Christ was a liberal" song and dance. Libs are so predictable I just want to head that one off at the pass so we don't waste time on it.
Is that all you wanted?
Now as to Obama giving our troops the cold shoulder - he could have gone to visit them. He was invited and planned to go until he found his could not take along his retinue, personal trainer, slavish press devotees, private mariachi band, troop of dancing mimes and his hairdresser.
Since a quiet, reverential, heartfelt visit is apparently not in his character, he decided to say "the heck with it" and went to work out at the Ritz where we was totally fooled by a pretty blonde German girl.
And the key word there is fooled. Seems it's easy to do.
By the way, he's now claiming that he has visited troops in the past without telling anyone.
Except he just told us because this controversy has him in deep yogurt.
"WASHINGTON — Barack Obama stopped by Walter Reed Army Medical Center Saturday to visit wounded war veterans, a group that he has said endures substandard care under the Bush administration.
The presumed Democratic nominee, who was in Washington to speak to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, slipped into the facility shortly after 9 a.m. without stopping to speak to the small group of reporters who follow him. The visit wasn’t on his public schedule."
A June 28, 2008 story from that flaming liberal Fox News Channel
:::::
I know that reading is a challenge for you at times, so I should probably make it clear that I said no such thing as "Christ was a liberal". I invited you to share you thoughts on the matter is all.
xDon't try to talk to Trenton.
He is happy just talking to himself.
Don't you get it.
Jay did.
There you go RB. You orders from the collective are in. Are you going to sheepishly obey?
Annoying-mouse,
Sir, RB and I were having a conversation. It is rude to break in and issue orders to him. Don't you believe RB is able to think for himself and make his own decision? I notice you didn't issue any orders to me because you know that they would not be obeyed. I suspect RB, being a free American, will have the same reaction to such effrontery. We'll see.
I would recommend you either learn to mind your own business and freely join the discussion or find a group more friendly toward unthinking cowards.
Sorry, RB for the delay. I had to swat a buzzing and obviously brainless drone bee suffering from delusions of adequacy.
As to your article - I read it but already knew that Obama made a quiet and reverential visit to troops. Except for the fact that it was so widely reported because he made sure his slavish press panting lapdogs were with him.
At least he didn't demand they be allowed to go in with him for a game of Bball.
Couldn't he have slipped out without his press posse the way he often does to go to secret meetings about his VP pick?
He could have, but choose not to because he got caught blowing off our troops in order to get "hustled" (his word) by a blonde German girl. Oh boy.
I'm sorry I guessed wrong about the topic you wanted to discuss on Christianity. For most libs, guessing that they will say that Jesus was a liberal is a pretty safe bet because they know nothing else about Him and it's wrong.
So, if there's something you want to discuss, let'r rip.
B-ball -- I assume you are talking about the game in Kuwait that the military filmed and released (b/c the press wasn't allowed in for that appearance). Since he didn't invite them for the first b-ball appearance, why would he for another?
::::
I guess you really aren't interested in talking about Jesus. Perhaps you shouldn't respond if you aren't interested in addressing it.
ReeBee,
I was using Bball as a joke as you know. Obama does have his funny side, doesn't he? Too bad he's not a Hollywood actor where we could both laugh at his antics.
As to the religion discussion, I'm not ducking you. I just honestly don't know what you want to discuss. We could discuss literally thousands of things that are related to religion, could we not? Pick a subject and if I know anything about it, I'll be glad to give you my thoughts.
Post a Comment