[Rhodes22-list] POLITICAL Ben C comment on reply...

[Ben Cittadino]

Ed;

First, I will not "nit pick" your post.

Second, I respect your opinion. I my opinion you raise valid concerns that
should be taken seriously.

Third, I do disagree with some, not all, of what you said, but today is
going to be busier than yesterday so I may not be able to take the time for
a thoughtful response today.  Don't take my delay as a dismissal of your
ideas. It is not.

Ben C.

Third, 

Tootle wrote:
> 
> Ben:
> 
> Thank you for your reply
>   
> Ben said, "The problem I have is that I don't carry the same suspicion of
> the MSM as you and some others do.  I think back to Woodard and Bernstein
> and Watergate and I conclude that any reporter who could "nail" Obama with
> a credible story of the kind of involvement with Ayres which would be
> significant would win a Pulitzer, be the toast of the town, get all the
> great women, and be a multi-millionaire forever. Who could resist that? 
> 
> The aspects that I look here are recent track record for finding all the
> truth.  Where are those investigative reporters like Woodward and
> Bernstein looking?  I do not see most of the MSM looking and analyzing
> Obama's philosophy in terms of what it means in 'economics'.  In fact I do
> not believe 90 % of the reporters understand economics, economic history,
> American history, etc.  
> 
> Why do I make that statement?  I make it because I am a product of the
> same education system that they are.  Most teachers in public schools,
> private schools and on to the college level do not study no less
> understand economics and economic history.  
> 
> If the reporters do not understand what they are looking at, why expect
> them to ask questions that distinguish the nuts and bolts of what makes
> the traditional American system work?  How can a search for truth be
> expected even if they want a Pulitzer Prize if they do not understand the
> traditional economic
> system.[see:http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams100208.php3]
> 
> Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams are two who currently write well
> about economics.  George Soros also writes about a narrow field of
> economics.  Soros is a lucid writer but has developed his opinions,
> theories, views from his experience in a narrow sophisticated area and
> tries to apply them to the whole world and America.  [see: 
> http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell102108.php3 ]
> 
> I like Soros's concepts of openness and democracy.  I have a problem of
> his acceptance of socialist means or government compulsion as the best
> solutions.
> 
> What I am saying is that Obama says he wants change.  The problem I have
> is that most of the change he espouses is based on Socialist concepts that
> have been failed concepts during the 20th century.  
> 
> You have suggested in the past that you would like to get rid of the whole
> bunch in Washington.  Fine, I have no problem with that.  But, I ask what
> change are we going to put in place?  Who are the people that are going to
> make that change?  Obama has not demonstated more integrity, rather he has
> walked with devils.
> 
> I cannot agree that changing to a socialist system or socialist programs
> are a real solution based on those concepts and programs track record. 
> Those systems have not been the economic systems that have made America
> the place it is today, nor are they the economic systems that have made
> the world a better place.
> 
> I recognize two social and economic systems that have made a difference. 
> First, Democracy that keeps dictatorships in check and, second, individual
> initiative exercised thru free enterprise.
> 
> I see Obama’s ideas as ultimately placing excessive tax burdens on free
> enterprise.  I see the upcoming supermajority as the road to serfdom.  I
> see Obama as an evangelist type person, that is giving a persuasive sermon
> and when he leaves the tent living a different life style. 
> 
> Ed K
> Greenville, SC, USA
> Addendum:  “Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority
> and character increase as the importance of the position increases.”  
> John Adams 
> {I am sure you can and will nit pik this post}
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>> 
>> Ed;
>> 
>> You have raised two legitimate questions for me to wrestle with so let me
>> give it a shot.  As I understand it you want to know what I think on the
>> issue of whether Sen Obama is using "deception or evasion about his prior
>> economic and politcal concepts".  As a corollary to that, you posit that
>> if he is being deceptive or evasive does that disqualify him on honesty
>> and integrity grounds from being entitled to our vote.
>> 
>> I don't think I have ever suggested that inquiry into the Senator's past
>> associations is improper.  The problem I have is that I don't carry the
>> same suspicion of the MSM as you and some others do.  I think back to
>> Woodard and Bernstein and Watergate and I conclude that any reporter who
>> could "nail" Obama with a credible story of the kind of involvement with
>> Ayres which would be significant would win a Pulitzer,
>> be the toast of the town, get all the great women, and be a
>> multi-millionaire forever. Who could resist that? 
>> 
>> There is plenty of rumor, innuendo, and conspiratorial stuff out there,
>> but I don't see persuasive proof.  I think Colin Powell, as a former
>> National Security Advisor probably has sources better than ours which
>> would steer him away from this endorsement if there were anything to
>> worry about.  Powell is old, rich, respected.  He has lived his life. 
>> All he has is his legacy.  I can't believe a man like him or the other
>> prominent Americans who have vouched for Obama's patriotism would or
>> could be mislead.
>> 
>> Look, there are lots of reasons to vote for John McCain.  If his policies
>> are closer to yours that's just fine.  I just think it would be a shame
>> to reject Obama solely because, what?, he hasn't made a full enough
>> disclosure of , what?, some plot to turn us into welfare state zombies?  
>> 
>> I don't see the persuasive, proof, the weight of the evidence that we
>> have anything to worry about.  
>> 
>> On your second point, if he lied about something important, then I won't
>> vote for him.
>> 
>> Ben C. 
>> 
>> Tootle wrote:
>>> 
>>> Ben,
>>> 
>>> Start from the top.  I did not call you a Marxist.  The ‘he’ was
>>> referring to Obama, if you go back and read the whole paragraph. 
>>> Furthermore, I do not know if Obama is a Marxist.  But he fails to
>>> distinguish himself from them so that a dummy can tell whether he is or
>>> is not.
>>> 
>>> I agree that that association alone does not make him a Marxist. 
>>> However, his stated political philosophy one ago year ago was parallel
>>> to Marxist style thinking, also know as Socialist thinking.  That is,
>>> his taxing proposals intimate a Marxist style or Socialist style
>>> thinking.  Specifically, tax the hell out of those earning a high income
>>> and spread the wealth.  Or were his words, share the wealth?
>>> 
>>> I have a problem with this concept for several reasons.  First, it takes
>>> property in the form of money from one group and gives it to another
>>> group.  What ever the reason, it is using the huge coercive power of the
>>> government to take property from one group and give it to another.  Now
>>> all kinds of social reasons can be given for doing this.  Bob Skinner is
>>> good at explaining some of them.
>>> 
>>> However, another reason I recognize it as a problem is that that kind of
>>> transfer of wealth kills or severely harms individual initiative.   I
>>> recognize that it is people, both ordinary and extra ordinary that thru
>>> personal effort, also called initiative, has made great strides in
>>> raising the standard of living or wellbeing of all people.  
>>> 
>>> My question to you is still to discuss if Obama is using deception or
>>> evasion about his prior economic and political concepts?    
>>> 
>>> You are one guy who should be able to discuss that issue from all sides. 
>>> Understand to some it is an honesty or integrity question.
>>> 
>>> Please take your time to do so, and Thank You.
>>> 
>>> Ed K
>>> Greenville, SC, USA
>>> (Sorry Andrew no attachment)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Ben-C.%2C-thank-you-for-your-reply...-tp20095304p20110783.html
Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.