First you defend the indefensible by resort to relativism. Although I did not explicitly state in my original post that one of the tools used by the left to undermine resistance to the leftist takeover is "relativism", I did mention the "critical theory," a component of which is relativism. You use relativism to justify what Obama has done, or at least minimize its significance, by alleging that George Bush and John McCain did or would have done the same. Do you understand the fatuity of that kind of argumentation? You are saying that one evil is okay because there is another evil! An argument grounded in relativism is hardly worth rebutting but let's put it to rest:
You relieve Obama of responsibility for Cap and Trade because you allege that John McCain would've done worse and he would have succeeded in doing worse where Obama has failed because "Cap and trade died in the Senate." In point of fact, Cap and Trade did not die in the Senate and is liable to be passed this fall, although the odds are diminishing. You further say the following:
And the republican candidate McCain called for Cap and Trade too. So the 'if Obama wins...doomsday' talk falls flat.
Cap and trade died in the Senate. It would have passed if McCain was president.
Apart from being an argument grounded in relativism, this assertion is preposterous. Although McCain at one point did favor a form of Cap and Trade, his position today is as follows:
McCain Slams Obama Cap-and-Trade Climate Change Proposal
Sen. McCain calls the proposed legislation aimed to stop global warming by giving industries a limit on greenhouse gas production is an "irresponsible, ill-conceived and distorted version of a cap-and-trade system."
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/21/mccain-slams-obama-cap-trade-climate-change-proposal/) So now we have relativism based on a false premise.
The assertion that you make:
That was Bush (a republican president) that took over automobile industry, banks, insurance and handed them to Obama.
Suffers from the same fatal deficiencies.
Finally, you assert as follows:
Your post didnt predict a train wreck after a few months.
I tried to warn republicans that Obama would win, try some big stuff, face a backlash, then get stuck. It wasnt rocket science but it contradicted the popular talking points.
Where are your warnings? I already asked you once, where are your pre-election posts?
You say that your reply is not personal but you come perilously close to making it personal when you say:
I mean nothing personal against you, that post was the typical hysteria here and on talk radio last year.
I think you missed the point of the entire article as well as fundamental truths which are embedded in it and in the articles which are referred to in the article and in my own replies. Evidently I am guilty of hysteria for accurately predicting an attempted takeover by Obama but for failing to precisely define the time limits and not predicting Cap and Trade would fail in the Senate. If that is proof of hysteria you need produce no more proof, I plead guilty but I count myself in good company among the good but no doubt hysterical burghers of the land who are out there in force at tea parties and town halls trying to save the Republic from those to whom the apathetic would so cavalierly yield up our liberties.
RE :” First you defend the indefensible by resort to relativism ’
It's not that these things Obama did are good, it's that we were screwed with both parties, not just Obama.
RE :” Although McCain at one point did favor a form of Cap and Trade, his position today is as follows. McCain Slams Obama Cap-and-Trade Climate Change Proposal ”
rabs, please explain why McCain's actions now have little meaning wrt what he would do as president. Remember the ‘reformer who works with democrats to get things done’? Unlike Obama McCain would get significant republican votes for cap and trade with democrats and republicans would get the heat for rising electric prices.
RE :” Where are your warnings? I already asked you once, where are your pre-election posts? ”
Posts saying things wont be as bad as the hysteric-acs claim probably would have got zotted before the election but I know you wont find posts from me predicting anything better if McCain wins. I had to be careful not to get hanged by the panicking lynch mob at the time
We may be screwed, but it's both parties.
RE :freekitty "Get real; you dont know anymore than we do. "
Hi fellow freepers, I get challenged and yelled at every day for thinking outside the box. I thought it would be fun to take up nathanbedford challenge and repost a few pre-election comments of mine. To put them in context, these posts were made when hysteria here was at a peak with “McCain wins or we all die” mantra. So at the time I posted these so they were not popular. Enjoy watching democrats self destruct now!SOME PRE-ELECTION POSTS :
"Republicans will be humiliated if Obama wins, rubbing our faith in Bush in our faces. But democrats party will end early next year, when for the first time in 14 years, they have no one to point at but themselves. (they will still blame Bush for all the painful things they do, but that will wear thin, maybe people will figure out they ran congress since 2007.)" 8 posted on Thursday, October 30, 2008 1:28:00 PM by sickoflibs
"On the bright (not very bright!) side, if a lib must win, let it be the worst. A Obama disaster might make people forget Bush, a huge task." (60 posted on Thursday, October 30, 2008 9:33:23 AM by sickoflibs)
"With Bush out of the picture and Obama in power, the game changes completely. People might actually expect something from rats for the first time in 14 years, for 2-3 years democrats only had to screw things up to win votes, Situation reverses. " (11 posted on Thursday, October 30, 2008 1:30:49 PM by sickoflibs)
"No, It will be the MOST fun to have a democrat in office that is so stupid (as Pelosi/Obama may be)as to think they can use the US government to silence us. I always have said, if a liberal must be in power, then better to have the dumbest one. Right now democrats and their media still have the public convinced that GWB is the evil king and there is NO congress. But when Obama is president with Pelosi and starts really stupid stuff, and we didnt even have FNC channel in 1993-94 when democrats still couldnt Hush Rush, all hell will break loose." (52 posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:43:28 AM by sickoflibs)
LOL. Obama only has one thing going for him, like MSNBC: Bush. With Bush gone the magic spell will disappear and the NEW Stalin (a bit of an exaggeration, Stalin was a mass murderer) will not have a public that wants to be ruled. 9 posted on Thursday, October 30, 2008 9:38:52 AM by sickoflibs
Dont misunderstand me. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, Shumer... will be terrible for this country. But if someone had to loose this year to pay for Bushs big government establishment sins, I just assume it be McCain, Mr Phony, BS, reformer, Maverick, no beliefs, any deal is possible, McCain. When McCain ran with us conservatives, he pulled ahead, when he dumped us, he dropped. We were lectured for 8 years he would get all independents and media. Guess what? I think McCain loss will be the seed of a rebirth of conservativism. Lets not blow it it this time. Resistance 2009! Wednesday, October 22, 2008 10:48:12 PM by sickoflibs