Noam Chomsky on Obama and his Cabinet Selections

[PubliusInfinitum]

You're not using these political terms correctly. The Democratic party is socially and economically "liberal" in the American understanding, though the international understanding of economic "liberalism" is that it is a capitalist ideology involving expansion of "free trade." Neoliberalism especially so.

False... the terms were used properly... There is NOTHING LIBERAL about the ideological LEFT. The ideological left is the very ANTITHESIS OF LIBERTY; Individual liberty is anathema to the ideologicla left; individual liberty can NOT EXIST within a leftist culture...

The majority of "fascists" are not socialists.

Patently FALSE...

Traditional fascists are extremely hostile to socialism, as evidenced by such events as the Spanish Civil War. (Please don't bring up National "Socialism." Any legitimate socialistic elements within the Nazis were destroyed on the Night of Long Knives.)

Oh now isn't that precious... Let's examine the logic here... The Socialists which had been RIGHT THERE with the Fascists, driving towards power, hand in hand, ALL THE WAY, were killed... Right? So the Fascists that killed them weren't socialist... LOL... Everyone got that?

It could NOT BE that the socialist that were killed merely represented a threat to the power which those the socialist that killed them had aquired... NOoooo they had to be killed because 'they were socialists... and 'everyone knows' that fascists HATE Socialists...'

ROFLMNAO... Sweet mother that's hysterical...

A purportedly socialist government can be authoritarian, as evidenced by the Soviet Union, (though they would be better described as state capitalist rather than socialist), but socialism can just as easily be libertarian, (Noam Chomsky is a libertarian socialist, specifically an anarchist), of the variety practiced during the Spanish Revolution.

There isn't a dimes distinction between an authoritarian communist and a anarcho-communist-libertarian (pardon the string of oxymorons folks, but these idiots demand it...) EXCEPT the anarcho-communist-libertarian DOESN'T HAVE ANY POWER... They're impotent idiots projecting flaccid little theories. Give them power and they're instantly transformed into good ole'fashion authoritarian commies who are determined to stop anyone from screwing up yet another perfectly good workers utopia...

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely... and one can't have a leftist culture without absolute power because there will always be those within any given culture, such as myself, who will be standing there prepared to separate the worker from his hardly earned paycheck, giving them what they want, because the leftists are only willing to give them what they are told they NEED.

 

[garyd]

Half the people Lenin offed after the takeover were erstwhile comrades in Arms...

You have to be raised on double speak to really come to grips with the totally delusional to say nothing of daft rhetoric and rationale of the modern extreme left.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You're rather ignorant of political economy, and I would ordinarily consider it a waste of time to deal with someone who simply spews talking points from the Heritage Foundation's website. I believe I have made it quite clear in the past that I am an anarchist and oppose "strong centralized government."

Sis.. what you have made clear is that you're an imbecile who desperately trots a rhetorical dance on the head of a poli-sci pin spouting incessant oxymorons as if they have some bearing upon REALITY.


FTR: There is NO SUCH THING as anarchism beyond the span of desolation absent any discernable volume of human beings. Anarchism is a JOKE; it is a farce, a myth which is snatched from the ether by the impotent who are desperate to rationalize a world wherein they can foresee themselves fashioning some sort of power. The INSTANT that two anarchist get together and decide that they have formed an anarchist culture and 'here are the rules'... ANARCHISM CEASES TO EXIST... A central government has formed and all we can be certain of is the inevitable failure that soons follows two fools setting the rules.

If you were aware of the Marxist/anarchist divide that has existed ever since the expulsion of Bakunin and his followers from the First International at the Hague Congress, you would know this. You clearly do not.

What I know is that everyone at that congress... IMBECILES whose policy desires have lead to more death and destruction, chaos, calamity and catastrophe than from any other intellectual flutter that has ever snapped through the human mind; what YOU do not 'know' is that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANY OF YOU IDIOTS... the anarchist separated from the socialist NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR DIFFERENCES< BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE UNABLE TO AQUIRE POWER. You see DUMBASS... Anarchists are simply WEAK SOCIALISTS... you will always be comsumed by your Bolshevik cousins... Those communists who are willing to submit to authority will respond to that authority and kick the anarcho-communist-libertarian-shit out of you.


What you are sis is the addle-minded sop that enables the revolutionary communist to power. Your recent vote for the Marxist Muslim... this was you enabling your own inevitable demise. DUMBASS! You're the peasent farmer starved to death b the power which you previously endorsed but eventually contested because that power it turned out didn't really understand farming and the need of the farmer TO EAT!

ROFL... Sweet mother you're an idiot.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

half The People Lenin Offed After The Takeover Were Erstwhile Comrades In Arms...

You Have To Be Raised On Double Speak To Really Come To Grips With The Totally Delusional To Say Nothing Of Daft Rhetoric And Rationale Of The Modern Extreme Left.

Bingo!

 

[Agnapostate]

Well done???

Anarchism always ends in some form of statist misrule. That is the problem with it. Politics and nature both abhor vacuums. And anarchism is ultimately a political vacuum that will be occupied by the first opportunist of some degree of competence to come along.

The anarchist collectives of the Spanish Revolution did not devolve into some form of "statist misrule"...unless you refer to the Francoist government that replaced them. That doesn't seem an especially relevant criticism of anarchist principles, however.

By the way did you know that the only difference between a Marxisat and a socialist is that a socialist isn't stupid enough to believe that any government big enough and intrusive enough to ascertain means of all and attempt from them to supply the needs of all isn't going anywhere any time soon.

The only difference between a Marxist and a socialist is that Marxism is one specific variety of communistic socialism, whereas numerous other varieties, such as libertarian and democratic socialism, mutualism, market socialism, and even social democracy exist.

False... the terms were used properly... There is NOTHING LIBERAL about the ideological LEFT. The ideological left is the very ANTITHESIS OF LIBERTY; Individual liberty is anathema to the ideologicla left; individual liberty can NOT EXIST within a leftist culture...

This indicates an ignorance of the usage of the term "liberal" as it is currently used, often in reference to social liberalism.

Patently FALSE...

I suppose a lesser critic would have provided evidence to support his claims...

Oh now isn't that precious... Let's examine the logic here... The Socialists which had been RIGHT THERE with the Fascists, driving towards power, hand in hand, ALL THE WAY, were killed... Right? So the Fascists that killed them weren't socialist... LOL... Everyone got that?

It could NOT BE that the socialist that were killed merely represented a threat to the power which those the socialist that killed them had aquired... NOoooo they had to be killed because 'they were socialists... and 'everyone knows' that fascists HATE Socialists...'

ROFLMNAO... Sweet mother that's hysterical...

The socialist element was expunged because the Nazi leadership never had any intention of implementing any legitimate form of socialism. It's interesting that you would claim that ideological differences between authoritarian and libertarian socialism are irrelevant because they do the same things while in power, while ignoring the fact that when a group like the Nazis actually assumed power, they destroyed those whom they originally claimed to have ideological sympathies with. It's also not surprising that you would use their self-description as an attempt to criticize them, though it is telling that you do not do the same for the Soviet-controlled German "Democratic" Republic.

The Nazis were largely supported by openly anti-socialist elements, such as the Falangists of Spain, led by General Franco. In economic terms, they would best be described as rightward leaning Keynesians, and were hostile towards legitimately socialistic elements. Under the Nazis, state and corporate power were strongly allied, and the Third Reich often rewarded corporations in the private sector that kept prices low. As a simple Wikipedia search notes, "Volkswagen was created by the German state and was heavily supported by the Nazis; Opel employed Jewish slave labour to run their industrial plants; Daimler-Benz used prisoners of war as slaves to run their industrial plants; Krupp made gas chambers; Bayer worked with the Nazis as a small part of the enormous IG Farben chemistry monopoly; and Hugo Boss designed the SS uniforms (and admitted to this in 1997)."

I would recommend that you engage in a more thorough study of political economy.

There isn't a dimes distinction between an authoritarian communist and a anarcho-communist-libertarian (pardon the string of oxymorons folks, but these idiots demand it...) EXCEPT the anarcho-communist-libertarian DOESN'T HAVE ANY POWER... They're impotent idiots projecting flaccid little theories. Give them power and they're instantly transformed into good ole'fashion authoritarian commies who are determined to stop anyone from screwing up yet another perfectly good workers utopia...

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely... and one can't have a leftist culture without absolute power because there will always be those within any given culture, such as myself, who will be standing there prepared to separate the worker from his hardly earned paycheck, giving them what they want, because the leftists are only willing to give them what they are told they NEED.

These idiotic comments reveal a profound ignorance of political history and philosophy. If you're unfamiliar with the distinction between libertarian and authoritarian socialism...Section H - Why do anarchists oppose state socialism?

Firstly, there is no such thing as an "authoritarian communist." The term is an oxymoron. The Soviets that you enjoy referring to repeatedly were not communists in that they did not establish a society based on the egalitarian distribution of labor, goods, and services based on abilities and needs. They were not even socialists in that the accurate definition of socialism involves the collective ownership of the means of production, and the Soviet system was not based on any legitimate system of collective ownership.

Your assertion that there is no distinction between authoritarian "socialists" and libertarian socialists is similarly inaccurate, both politically and historically. You are likely unfamiliar with the Marx/Bakunin conflict that resulted in the Marxist/anarchist divide at the Hague Congress of the International Workingmens' Association. (Note the fact that anarchists are not referred to as "Bakuninists" because it is not an anarchist tendency to venerate a particular figure in such a way, even one so learned as Bakunin or Chomsky.)

Moreover, when the Spanish anarcho-socialists gained a foothold in Catalonia, millions organized according to libertarian principles, not authoritarian ones. The authoritarian members of the Popular Front were the chief saboteurs of the anarchist militias, even deliberately losing battles to the Falangists to prevent weaponry from falling into anarchist hands.

The Soviet Union being a major example, the Kronstadt Rebellion and the conflict between the Red Army and Nester Makhno's Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine are examples of authoritarian socialists' clear disdain for libertarian socialists and anarchists, and anarchists' willingness to commit to libertarian principles even after the establishment of an authoritarian socialist regime. The anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin's letter to Vladimir Lenin speaks particularly strongly to this.

Vladimir Ilyich, your concrete actions are completely unworthy of the ideas you pretend to hold.
Is it possible that you do not know what a hostage really is — a man imprisoned not because of a crime he has committed, but only because it suits his enemies to exert blackmail on his companions? ... If you admit such methods, one can foresee that one day you will use torture, as was done in the Middle Ages. I hope you will not answer me that Power is for political men a professional duty, and that any attack against that power must be considered as a threat against which one must guard oneself at any price. This opinion is no longer held even by kings... Are you so blinded, so much a prisoner of your own authoritarian ideas, that you do not realise that being at the head of European Communism, you have no right to soil the ideas which you defend by shameful methods ... What future lies in store for Communism when one of its most important defenders tramples in this way every honest feeling?

The Soviet system is in fact the antithesis of socialism, and the fundamental embodiment of state capitalism. Anarchists and other libertarian socialists recognize this. Idiots who blurt out recycled right-wing talking points like you do not.

 

[Agnapostate]

Sis.. what you have made clear is that you're an imbecile who desperately trots a rhetorical dance on the head of a poli-sci pin spouting incessant oxymorons as if they have some bearing upon REALITY.

FTR: There is NO SUCH THING as anarchism beyond the span of desolation absent any discernable volume of human beings. Anarchism is a JOKE; it is a farce, a myth which is snatched from the ether by the impotent who are desperate to rationalize a world wherein they can foresee themselves fashioning some sort of power. The INSTANT that two anarchist get together and decide that they have formed an anarchist culture and 'here are the rules'... ANARCHISM CEASES TO EXIST... A central government has formed and all we can be certain of is the inevitable failure that soons follows two fools setting the rules.

What I know is that everyone at that congress... IMBECILES whose policy desires have lead to more death and destruction, chaos, calamity and catastrophe than from any other intellectual flutter that has ever snapped through the human mind; what YOU do not 'know' is that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANY OF YOU IDIOTS... the anarchist separated from the socialist NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR DIFFERENCES< BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE UNABLE TO AQUIRE POWER. You see DUMBASS... Anarchists are simply WEAK SOCIALISTS... you will always be comsumed by your Bolshevik cousins... Those communists who are willing to submit to authority will respond to that authority and kick the anarcho-communist-libertarian-shit out of you.

What you are sis is the addle-minded sop that enables the revolutionary communist to power. Your recent vote for the Marxist Muslim... this was you enabling your own inevitable demise. DUMBASS! You're the peasent farmer starved to death b the power which you previously endorsed but eventually contested because that power it turned out didn't really understand farming and the need of the farmer TO EAT!

ROFL... Sweet mother you're an idiot.

This idiocy has been utterly eviscerated.

Though I must say, when it comes to you, a picture speaks a thousand words.

Though you clearly do most of the time.

 

[Agnapostate]

Half the people Lenin offed after the takeover were erstwhile comrades in Arms...

You have to be raised on double speak to really come to grips with the totally delusional to say nothing of daft rhetoric and rationale of the modern extreme left.

That doesn't speak especially well to your specific argument about anarchism, considering the Leninist suppression of the Makhnovists or the Kronstadt Rebellion.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Sis.. what you have made clear is that you're an imbecile who desperately trots a rhetorical dance on the head of a poli-sci pin spouting incessant oxymorons as if they have some bearing upon REALITY.

FTR: There is NO SUCH THING as anarchism beyond the span of desolation absent any discernable volume of human beings. Anarchism is a JOKE; it is a farce, a myth which is snatched from the ether by the impotent who are desperate to rationalize a world wherein they can foresee themselves fashioning some sort of power. The INSTANT that two anarchist get together and decide that they have formed an anarchist culture and 'here are the rules'... ANARCHISM CEASES TO EXIST... A central government has formed and all we can be certain of is the inevitable failure that soons follows two fools setting the rules.

What I know is that everyone at that congress... IMBECILES whose policy desires have lead to more death and destruction, chaos, calamity and catastrophe than from any other intellectual flutter that has ever snapped through the human mind; what YOU do not 'know' is that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANY OF YOU IDIOTS... the anarchist separated from the socialist NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR DIFFERENCES< BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE UNABLE TO AQUIRE POWER. You see DUMBASS... Anarchists are simply WEAK SOCIALISTS... you will always be comsumed by your Bolshevik cousins... Those communists who are willing to submit to authority will respond to that authority and kick the anarcho-communist-libertarian-shit out of you.

What you are sis is the addle-minded sop that enables the revolutionary communist to power. Your recent vote for the Marxist Muslim... this was you enabling your own inevitable demise. DUMBASS! You're the peasent farmer starved to death b the power which you previously endorsed but eventually contested because that power it turned out didn't really understand farming and the need of the farmer TO EAT!

ROFL... Sweet mother you're an idiot.

This idiocy has been utterly eviscerated.

Well sure...
PRESTO WHAMMO "IT'S EVISCERATED!" Which is consistant with you're magical fairy tale world of anarchism...

Clearly the rhetorical tactic of bedrock delusion is FAR easier than having to offer a logically valid, intellectually sound argument... but I guess I'm just old fashion. But I imagine that were I able to operate in a fantasy world I'd have voted for a Marxist Muslim even while the US is at war with Marxist Muslims... no doubt that by february the US will just PRESTO WHAMMO our ass out of war with International Marxist Muslim Terrorists and move on to feedin' da poe... and stickin it to da ritch

 

[Agnapostate]

Well sure...
PRESTO WHAMMO "IT'S EVISCERATED!" Which is consistant with you're magical fairy tale world of anarchism...

Clearly the rhetorical tactic of bedrock delusion is FAR easier than having to offer a logically valid, intellectually sound argument... but I guess I'm just old fashion. But I imagine that were I able to operate in a fantasy world I'd have voted for a Marxist Muslim even while the US is at war with Marxist Muslims... no doubt that by february the US will just PRESTO WHAMMO our ass out of war with International Marxist Muslim Terrorists and move on to feedin' da poe... and stickin it to da ritch

To be clear, you see post #65, yet clearly ignore it...that makes sense.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

This indicates an ignorance of the usage of the term "liberal" as it is currently used, often in reference to social liberalism.

Well no... I was speaing to the facade which you want to project through the 'current usage' which seeks to hide the underlying concept which the current usage thus represents... Which is LEFTISM. The word Liberal is a concept which speaks to the personfication of the concept: Liberty; meaning a liberal is one that pursues LIBERTY. Leftists on the otherhand pursue TYRANNY... this as a result of the leftists usurping the God given rights of the individual for the implausible contradictive purposes of freeing the collective; thus Leftism can and will ALWAYS result in despotism and this WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

I suppose a lesser critic would have provided evidence to support his claims...

Well yes and if you were not an imbecile you would have realized that the basis for the poited fact was found in the next paragraph...

The socialist element was expunged because the Nazi leadership never had any intention of implementing any legitimate form of socialism.

Yet the Nazis implemented every form of socialism... from old age insurance AKA: Social Security, to regulated work week, nationalized healthcare and so on...

It's interesting that you would claim that ideological differences between authoritarian and libertarian socialism are irrelevant because they do the same things while in power, while ignoring the fact that when a group like the Nazis actually assumed power, they destroyed those whom they originally claimed to have ideological sympathies with.

As did Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, The Ill's of North Korea... and every other leftist fuck that has ever found power in the short but catastrophic history of the ideological left.

The Nazis were largely supported by openly anti-socialist elements, such as the Falangists of Spain, led by General Franco.

ROFLMNAO... Franco was a Fascist... Thus Franco was a socialist. Next you'll be trying to revise Mussolini's Socialist bonafides...

In economic terms, they would best be described as rightward leaning Keynesians, and were hostile towards legitimately socialistic elements.

Yes... Fascists are the "Progressives," the seekers of 'the third way'... The enablers of the Socialists, who lend credence to the idiocy and destroy a culture through incessant half measures.

But it IS telling that you, who vehmently DENY any kinship with the left are here to proclaim that the Fascists were NOT NEARLY LEFT ENOUGH!...

Under the Nazis, state and corporate power were strongly allied, and the Third Reich often rewarded corporations in the private sector that kept prices low.

Golly... under Lenin the State WAS the Corporate interests... Just like under Hitler and Mussolini... except Hitler and Mussolini allowed the pretense of ownership as they milked the profits from the wealth producers. The Communists just killed it flat out and stumbled around for decades trying to reverse-engineer it.

As a simple Wikipedia search notes... Well A simple wikipedia search is never far from a simpleton.

I would recommend that you engage in a more thorough study of political economy.

I bet you would... But I'll stack my personal library against anything sitting around your hovel.

These idiotic comments reveal a profound ignorance of political history and philosophy.

Yeah, I hear ya Algore... "'everyone knows' that the science is well established and a consensus has been reached..."

Firstly, there is no such thing as an "authoritarian communist." The term is an oxymoron. The Soviets that you enjoy referring to repeatedly were not communists ...

Congrats... you've just earned you're Idiot Certification and a spot on my Signature... FTR: The terms: Authoritarian and Communist are SYNONYMOUS!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What we're seeing from this imbecile is what is readily referred to as historical revision... it is the academic left revising history to obfuscate from the historical failure of their own ideology.

The Fascists... They weren't leftists... NO! And the Maoist CHINESE? Are ya KIDDIN'? NO SIREE! Like the SOVIETS, The North Koreans, the Cubans and the Khmer Rouge... They're CAPITALIST! And if you don't want to end up like them... Ya best become a Communist! 'Cause we're all about the love... man (Hey you gonna hit that or what?)

Peace, love and DOPE! ...man

 

[Agnapostate]

As any rational observer would note, you have repeated the exact same talking points without having addressed numerous points that directly rebutted your idiocy. Thus, I have no more time to waste on you, even though you're probably moronic enough to now claim that you've won our debate here since I am not going to waste time repeating myself.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

As any rational observer would note, you have repeated the exact same talking points without having addressed numerous points that directly rebutted your idiocy. Thus, I have no more time to waste on you, even though you're probably moronic enough to now claim that you've won our debate here since I am not going to waste time repeating myself.

Wrong... I've ignored irrelavance for the sake of brevity... as there is nothing in your erroneous screed which would warrant anything else.

 

[Agnapostate]

Wrong... I've ignored irrelavance for the sake of brevity... as there is nothing in your erroneous screed which would warrant anything else.

That is a lie. You have blatantly ignored examples I have cited of major anarchist and libertarian socialist movements continuing to oppose and fight against authoritarian "socialism" even after its establishment of power.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

That is a lie. You have blatantly ignored examples I have cited of major anarchist and libertarian socialist movements continuing to oppose and fight against authoritarian "socialism" even after its establishment of power.

I said I ignored irrelevance... you posting more irrelevance wherein power hungry leftists are oppossing other power hungry leftist... doesn't challenge my position... IT SUPPORTS IT... DUMBASS!

LOL... Leftists...

And BTW: I love your sig... it advocates everything your professed ideology stands AGAINST.

Oh GOD! Now THAT'S precious...

 

[Agnapostate]

I see you've removed the link to my post so that no one can see the context of what I'm referring to. Quite typical deception.

You're quite idiotic, and I have no more time to waste on you.

 

[del]

And Del returns to Ignore... after 48 minutes and three posts which finds she hasn't grown one intellectual iota from when she was originally sentenced...

Del... FTR: Off Topic is a phrase which speaks to your comment having no relevance to the issue at hand... When you're told this once its understandable... anyone can do it... when you're told this twice, it's a fair sign you're an idiot... when you're told this thrice... it's a certainty that you're a complete veg...

Now back to the abyss of ignorance ya vacuous little nuisance...

<yawn>

that's nice.

 

[editec]

Do you know what neoliberalism is? You're aware that its definition includes the globalization of capitalism and "free trade," correct?

Then let us call these people something germane to what makes them unique, shall we?

They are not NEO anything...they are anti-nationalists.

Another way of describing their political bent is that they are internationalists.

And FWIW, I believe that the BOTH parties are basically controlled by the internationalists.

In my opinion internationalists don't give a damn about the well being of the American people, or working people anywhere on earth, either.

They are basically a class of persons who goal is the breakdown of nation states through international trade, with the resulting power going to those corporations which benefit from the breakdown of borders, which will be respresented by interantional trade organizations. Those trade policies which we keep signing onto actually are taking away power for our nation, and from other national governments worldwide.

Perhaps their long term goal is survival of the species (I can see how they might believe that nation states are a threat to our survival, too).

But their methods are having an enormous disruptive economic consequences on working people and their national economies throughout the world, and as far as I can tell, they don't really care how much damage this does to the nations or the citizens in those nations.

Do I think Obama is in that camp?

Yes, I do. I doubt there's a single leader in any Western nation who has not been carefully vetted to insure that they are willing to continue this trend.

This does NOT require a conspiracy, incidently.

It merely requires that politicians become beholding to corporations (by supporting their campaigns) such that they are sympathetic to policies which benefit international trade.

Over the long run, capital will become internationalized, and those which have it will become world class citizens, while the majority of us, much like the serfs of Tzarist Russia will be captives to their national status.

Basically the nation states will exist merely as a way of controlling various populations.

Those states will be the puppet governments of those monied interests which control international trade.

Basically what that really will become is a kind of NEO FEUDALISM. Their real goal is a United STates of the World

Nations will inevitably become the weaker governments controlling local issues, much like states are the weaker governments beholding to our Federal government.

And like the states are today, they will depend on that international government for enough money to keep going fiscally.

Nations or their citizens which attempt to stand up to the internationalists will discover that money and investments are withheld from them until the tooe the internationalist's line.

 

[jillian]

They only become a surprise for those who did not know and who inaccurately believed him to be another label, a progressive. Ubama nutured the belief in that false label .. something else he has alawys done.

I'm betting that if many who voted for him were not confused by inaccurate labels, they would not have voted for him either.

Don't mind me my friend .. I'm just observing and calling it as I see it.

Obama is no surprise to me .. in fact, I've been saying this is what he'd do all along.

I never thought Obama was going to lean far to the left. I hoped he would be socially to the left, and fiscally and militarily moderate. You may not like that. But it's what I think he made it clear that is what he was all along. I think his choice of the good rev was surprising, but given that his entire campaign was based on getting rid of wedge issues and dealing with real issues, does it really surprise you? You're too smart to have been shocked, regardless of what you wanted him to do (not that he's actually DONE anything yet).

As for the main issue that I know sticks in your craw, that being Israel... well, all I have to say to that is that he stood in front of every jewish community group and promised he was a friend to Israel. Did you think he was lying when he said it? He wasn't lying about that any more than McCain was lying when he said he was opposed to reproductive choice. And, frankly, I know a lot of people who would be incredibly angry if they thought he lied about that.

Not hurting Israel is different from working toward peace... which I hope he does far more than Bush did (allowing condi free reign there only over the last 9 months). And I hope his ideas and those of his emissaries (e.g., Hillary) are better than Bill's ideas.

But it was only the rabid right who called him a far leftie... and that was nothing more than another one of their fantasies (like the whole "messiah" thing).

 

[Agnapostate]

I could only wish that Obama was lying about his essentially unconditional support for Israel, and that the Right was telling the truth about his liberation theologist and socialist views. Sadly, this is not the case.