I replied to try and substantiate my earlier comments in a little more detail and that took some time from my work day but this aspect doesn't, to me, warrant such urgency.

Put briefly, I believe Obama will always be too tolerant and less strident - he's Jimmy Carter with rhythm at best.

The iPhone slows my typing too.

Still waiting ... (while watching McCain embracing financial market regulation) ...

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

Get a load of this:

Q: On ABC's "This Week" on Feb. 17, in response to a question, "Are you a 'read my lips' candidate, no new taxes?" you replied, "No new taxes." Did you mean that literally?

A: I'm not making a "read my lips" statement in that I will not raise taxes ...

So he says one thing during a mainstream media interview - and then carefully softens his position when speaking to the WSJ.

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

The Republicans would be more likely to allow attrition by market forces but I agree, not these days, and not until the underlying causes were fixed. (Government meddling.) So that is unlikely to happen.

That's putting it mildly considering they just nationalised FM & FM, exposing taxpayers to trillions of dollars of debt.  Do you really think McCains small-Government rhetoric is going to make any difference to that pack of corrupt trough-feeders?

Look at the amount of red tape of that lot. It's fucking disgraceful. Having said that you're right that McCain has been conned into the same talk.

My point exactly; I'm not arguing that either candidate is good or worth voting for, I'm arguing that they are equally rotten, and despite their widely different rhetoric will wind up having roughly the same effect on American and world politics.

That doesn't sound promising and the Democrats are more prone to be swayed into crackpot environmentalist panaceas. Osama's appeasement is not going to place the US in a safer position. ”These are important times and when you're walking through a tough part of town it's better to have a rottweiler with you than a poodle.” (Gene Simmons)

Okay -so can you give me concrete examples of where McCains policies on jihad (including stealth jihad) will be better than Obama's?  I'm not talking about rhetoric - anyone can talk up a storm when it suits him - I'm talking about real policies.

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

This will put the cat amongst the pigeons!!! What's next? Obama will offer Palin a post?
...................................

John McCain offers Barack Obama a cabinet post
Friday, September 12, 2008

This is one promise that Senator John McCain might struggle to keep if he does win in November. When asked by Time's Rick Stengel, moderating the 9/11 anniversary forum on national service here at Columbia University in uptown New York city, whether he would give Barack Obama a cabinet job, he responded that he would.

"Governor Schwarzenegger has made the service czar a cabinet-level appointment," Stengel said. "Would you, as president, do the same and would you name Senator Obama to your cabinet for National Service?" McCain paused for a beat before replying with a smile: "Yes!" Cue laughter and applause.

He also praised Senator Obama for his "outstanding" work as a community organiser - a profession derided by Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin at the Republican convention in St Paul last week. "Of course I respect community organisers," he said. "Of course I respect people who serve their communities. Sentaor Obama's service in that area is outstanding."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2008/09/12/john_mccain_of...

From Times Online
September 11, 2008

George Bush isn't in charge, says Vladimir Putin

In a thinly veiled dig at George Bush, Vladimir Putin today suggested that the US President was not in charge of American affairs, saying that it was “the court that makes the king”.

Amid heightened tensions with the US in the wake of the war in Georgia, the Russian Prime Minister insisted that the US leader was a man of honour and integrity, but blamed members of the administration for the sharp deterioration of relations with Russia.

”I still hope we will maintain good relations, but it is the court that makes the king,” he told a group of foreign journalists in an interview at his residence in the Black Sea resort of Sochi.

He nonetheless spoke fondly of his relationship with Mr Bush, saying, only half-jokingly: ”I treat President Bush better than some Americans would”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4734894.ece

” [Greg] thinks that the difference between a McCain and an Osama presidency would be more than the difference between their rhetoric”

Duncan you give the finance houses failures; it’s obvious both parties are responsible for financial boom and bust. For decades; regulated, irrational monetary policy, latterly exacerbated by fuel costs held high by environmentalist nonsense (mostly from Democrats).

The Republicans would be more likely to allow attrition by market forces but I agree, not these days, and not until the underlying causes were fixed. (Government meddling.) So that is unlikely to happen.

I get what you're saying, I hate most of each of their policies. But the Democrats are the greater menace on all fronts. In comparison, I couldn't care less how many Republicans are religious bigots, christianity was neutered long ago.

”They'll both dance around the centrist line” in election year. McCain has to appear moderate, likewise Osama only talks tough and is not a convincing actor. He’s perpetrating the fraud of being a christian black American when he’s not.

”Osama’s agenda starts not with raising taxes to reduce the deficit, as Clinton’s ended up doing, but with changing the tax code so that families making more than $250,000 a year pay more taxes and nearly everyone else pays less. That would begin to address inequality. Then there would be Reich-like investments in alternative energy, physical infrastructure and such, meant both to create middle-class jobs and to address long-term problems like global warming.”

Osama's taxation policies are retrograde, as are his environmental policies, and it appears, he's stupid enough to mean it;

”Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
• Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
• Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change.
• Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families.
• Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation.
• Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices. Et.c., et.c..

Look at the amount of red tape of that lot. It's fucking disgraceful. Having said that you're right that McCain has been conned into the same talk.

So the difference is in security and economics.

From NY Times; “My core economic theory is pragmatism,” [Barack Osama] said, “figuring out what works.”

This, of course, is not the whole story. Invoking pragmatism doesn’t help the average voter much; ideology, though it often gets a bad name, matters, because it offers insight into how a candidate might actually behave as president. I have spent much of this year trying to get a handle on what is sometimes called Obamanomics and have come away thinking that Obama does have an economic ideology. It’s just not a completely familiar one. Depending on how you look at it, he is both more left-wing and more right-wing than many people realize.”

That doesn't sound promising and the Democrats are more prone to be swayed into crackpot environmentalist panaceas. Osama's appeasement is not going to place the US in a safer position. ”These are important times and when you're walking through a tough part of town it's better to have a rottweiler with you than a poodle.” (Gene Simmons)

From the article:

WHEN all is said and done, this election may well have only one big issue: the existential threat that Islamist terrorism poses to America's safety.

But, as I've said, Islamic terrorism is not an existential threat; it is a small (albeit vital) part of a much wider, much subtler jihad that neither McCain or Obama is prepared to admit exists, much less do anything about.  Preventing terrorists from killing people is a noble endeavour - especially if it results in dead terrorists - but it's not going to make the blindest bit of difference if the West winds up with de-facto sharia in the meantime. 

Killing terrorists in Iraq (ostensibly to protect Iraqi citizens - a lie given they've handed Iraq to the Islamists, and if true then contemptibly altruistic) won't stop the steath jihad on US shores.

The fact that McCain wants to further bankrupt America by wasting billions fighting mujahedeen in the Middle East is every bit as destructive to America's interests as Obama's altruistic desire to blame terrorism on poverty and set up gigantic targets for terrorism in the very same countries that McCain would be bombing.

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

I don't think a woman like Sarah Palin would be happily waving her precious son off to war hoping he'll be sacrificed. She'll be hoping and praying that he kicks some butt and comes home the victor!

I'd suggest the latter-day "useful idiots" bone up on the very real differences between Obama and McCain on how to deal with Islamofascism. The article I've linked to might be a useful place to start.

Hi Olivia! And thanks for the kind words.

I think they use that language because they know it resonates with so many Americans, but make no mistake, they don't want sacrifice, they want victory!

If I were convinced of this I'd be working tirelessly for their campaign. I'd have Linz over here in States talking it up on the radio and TV.

But it's not true.

Wow. 

Thanks for the Great words! It is shocking how 9/11 has touched you in New Zealand, yet poeple in CA make comments like: "it didn't really affect me". I am so grateful that you have remembered and care, unlike so many of my country men. Thank you!

Urban S. Parks

Mainspring Comics

Gregster, if you're going to insult me, do a proper direct job of it, otherwise you just come over as a pussy.

Back on topic: you think that the difference between a McCain and an Osama (deliberate, that time) presidency would be more than the difference between their rhetoric (which I'd take more seriously if they wrote it themselves).

I'm curious - what do you think that difference would be in concrete terms? Nothing airy-fairy, I'm interested in specifics - like for example would either candidate cut Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loose to die of market causes? Would either launch a criminal investigation into the actions and goals of the Muslim Brotherhood? Would either eliminate funding for all 'faith-based' Government programmes? How about declaring Wahhabi Islam a criminal organisation? What of the idea of - at the very least - cutting all support for the corrupt, Wahhabiist Saudi Government?

Neither will. They'll both dance around the centrist line, talking up their differences, and just playing with the numbers. Fiddling while Rome burns.

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

Actually it wasn't intentional, but it might as well have been.

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

If you were viewing the posts as threads - with replies indented under their parents - you'd see that I was referring to Mark's post about five votes.

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

I also saw Ted Kennedy say Osama Bin Laden in introducing the Arab Barack (well before his tumour). On YouTube.

There's the 10 and you're on the top of the front page Linz

Was that intentional, the 'Osama' instead of 'Obama', Bane? If so, it's happened more times than I can count from commentators and such, who always catch themselves before saying the entire name. That is, unlike Dan Rather, who said the entire OBL in place of Obama without missing a beat, and his colleagues didn't correct him. Funny stuff. We can judge a man by his friends, of course, and then we can also get a good idea of what a man represents by the kind of people who support him. Muslim terrorists have literally, openly endorsed Obama, no doubt because they understand he'd be play dough. Osama for Obama it is.

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

 Superb Op-Ed Lindsay!

And so far nine  people have bothered voting for it on Real Clear. Nine!

You apathetic mongrels.

Register and click. Not fucking difficult.

"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

I will care to bet that electing Osama would disable the US to a greater degree than the Republican. I will not stoop to an ad hominem comment as it seems you're somewhat at a loss and missing your friend Saddam.

Great article Linz!

Obamania makes way for Palinmania - US Election 2008
We've been through Obamamania. Now a new phenomenon is sweeping America – Palinmania.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/sarahpalin/277...

who are you wuh'ing?

Use the wonderful thing called quoting so your post has context.

?

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

This is, afterall, the result of cultural relativitism. Too bad the politically correct have society by its balls and use emotive language to silence anyone who dares question their agenda.

Five votes, come on folks, we need another five.

McCain has completely missed the point:

In a speech last month to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, Mr.
McCain said the formation of an international coalition "will
strengthen us to confront the transcendent challenge of our time: the
threat of radical Islamic terrorism."

Radical Islamic terrorism is not an existential threat to the West.  It is only a threat in a much wider, subtler context - stealth jihad - and only then because it is used to stifle legitimate criticism of Islam and Islamic law.  Neither McCain or Obama are prepared to acknowledge the existence of a primarily non-violent jihad in the West, let alone address it with policy.

Had the Bush administration really wanted to target Islamic extremism, they would have declared war on Saudi Arabia after 9/11. Instead they went after mujaheddin in Afghanistan and Iraq for reasons that could be explained by:

• incompetence (failure to identify the enemy)
• cowardice (they identified the enemy, and then attacked a target that was easier from a political and military standpoint)
• corruption (there is much financial gain from the war on terror, if you happen to be one of a privileged few)

My guess is an unpleasant combination of the three. Would you care to bet that electing McCain would empower the US to do any better?

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

Be sure to vote at RealClear. Keeps it on their front page.

Great editorial Lindsay

If I don't vote for these fucking idiots--McPalin--I am an appeaser of murderers?
Is that what yer sayin', m8?

Yes.

We can't even defend ourselves. We don't believe that we have the moral right to do so. We are scared to death - not of any particular enemy - but of having to judge him as an enemy.

This is very true and insightful on your part. Yet, I find myself asking you, you have two people running for election who are prepared to plainly judge the enemy as the enemy. Do they not deserve your support for going against the tide and being so bold? Even if their motive is stated under the shroud of "self-sacrifice?" I think they use that language because they know it resonates with so many Americans, but make no mistake, they don't want sacrifice, they want victory! War and victory does require sacrifice, in the old christian usage of the term. It is only we Objectivists who would differentiate by using the term "choice for a higher value." And we are right of course. But most of America does not understand it in such terms.

"In the equation, 'You're either with us or with the
terrorists,' it's clear enough where the Obama bin Biden duo sit.
To vote for them — or, I submit, to refrain from voting against them — is to sit in the same place."

If I don't vote for these fucking idiots--McPalin--I am an appeaser of murderers?

Is that what yer sayin', m8?

Linz, I am seeing more clearly now than ever that it is Altruism that is killing Western Civilization.

No question. All the more reason not to offer succour to its worst exemplars and advocates.

You heard McCain's speech. He and Obama are in a horse race to see who can get the most Americans to sacrifice themselves.

There is nothing to do but to advocate Reason and individual rights. Until those ideas regain favor we are toast.

Ahhhh...right, that makes more sense...you reading a book from a card carrying communist did seem a little odd

http://www.nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

No, I'm not reading the Woodward book. Here's the link to the quote.

Bravo, Lindsday, Bravo.

http://fawstin.blogspot.com/

Great post Linz.

Until I read this, the significance of today's date had escaped me.

A splendid Opinion Editorial, Lindsay!

I am pleased someone has brought up Winston Churchill's comments on Islam as often they are forgotten in view of his later career and fight against fascism.

I have been reading Michael Dobbs' non-fiction novels about Churchill lately and find them well worth reading, (although I disagree with Dobbs' contentions that blackmail was involved on 10 May 1940...feel that is a bit of 'licence') and highly recommend them to all SOLO-ists.

The unsung hero of this war against Islam is General Petraeus...he has held the line against Demo-scum interference, congressional hearings and treason; always falling back on the fact he is only answerable to the President and no matter the reception from Congress there is nothing they can actually 'do' so he effectively ignores them (and rightly so!)...and Joe Biden's "I am Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee so I must responsible for the success of the surge" routine..well..yes...how pathetic..gosh...(and I say that as someone who finds Joe Biden rather amusing)

On the Bob Woodward front...ummmmmm......you are not actually reading his book are you? 

This is a man who once wrote two great works of fiction "All The Presidents Men" and "The Final Days" where everyone lost count after the first 10,000 factual errors, and his remarkable ability to recreate conversations which had taken place a couple of years earlier with verbatim recall...(yeah, right!)...and who can forget his famous deathbed interview with then CIA Director William Casey which appeared in his book 'Veil'....(notwithstanding the Secret Service agents guarding the hospital room who assured everyone that nobody except medical staff was admitted at the time Woodward was supposedly in there interviewing Casey)

Splendid work...everyone should go to real clear politics and vote

http://www.nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

Linz, I am seeing more clearly now than ever that it is Altruism that is killing Western Civilization.

No question. All the more reason not to offer succour to its worst exemplars and advocates.

Civilization will again rise to great heights - greater than ever. I just hope I'm around to see some of it.

Then at minimum don't help Obama bin Biden into the White House.

Linz, I am seeing more clearly now than ever that it is Altruism that is killing Western Civilization.

Bush, bless his heart, he had it exactly right in the days following 9/11. He said something like "if you are a government that harbors terrorists America is coming to bring you down." That's just a paraphrase but that was the basic idea of what he said and he meant it at the time.

But like everything else, after a few days had gone by his subconscious acceptance of Altruism had taken over and he was saying how great a religion Islam is.

Altruism is a wildfire zigzagging up and down the culture. We can't even defend ourselves. We don't believe that we have the moral right to do so. We are scared to death - not of any particular enemy - but of having to judge him as an enemy.

Bush, McCain and Obama are not the worst of 21st century men by any means. I'd have a drink with any of them. But their ideas are pure poison.

The situation is dire. I'm no doomsdayer. I'm optimistic about the long-term. Our problems, in theory, have been solved. We just have to actually apply the theory. Civilization will again rise to great heights - greater than ever. I just hope I'm around to see some of it.

The Dems are indeed Obama Biden Laden with bloody appeasers!

Submitted to Real Clear Politics go there now to vote for the article. Unfortunately you can't link directly to the SOLO submission, only the "reader's articles" page, so you may need to search for it.