Hello Deepak and Everyone,

Deepak you write,"How do we regain control over our destiny? By standing up to our mistakes and reviving our lost idealism. The success of Sen. Obama shows that the latter is possible, but the former is harder.

I love how you throw in your Barak Obama plugs but I am afraid that the success of Barak Obama, imo, is, just, simply, more of the same "run with the fantasy" that we experienced with President Bush and his "we need to INVADE, NOW," to save our land, while the cry from the Barak Obama supporters is "we need to SAVE or Nation, NOW, with the gift of Eloquence." It was painfully clear way back when the idea of Iraq was brought forth that it was a "hearty" undertaking, to say the least, to invade another Nation and then be responsible for it's being put back together, but the American people put aside all their doubts and decided that "Washington" knows best. Now, with Barak Obama we are putting aside the very grounded concerns of those who are pointing out, just, that, tad, bit of, important information, about Barak Obama's qualifications and experience, in anything, other than "talking" much less running a Country whose problems are as serious as terminal cancer is serious. Yes, IDEALISM will SAVE the NATION. From one extreme to another we go. From the greed of the Bush Administration's militarism to the greed of the Democrat's idealism..

It looks like the greed of the idealists will have their day with the possible nomination of Barak Obama while our Nation, will, once again, pay, but our pockets are about as deep as the muck we have been standing in these last eight years so why change now?

I guess it is understandable that when "idealists" are so close to perfection they have trouble seeing their greed.:)

have a great day ruth

I agree with Ruth's post. The only thing that I can really add is that there is a fine (very fine) line between Obama's idealism and arrogance--the speech on race that he gave was a prime example of this--many thinking people felt the speech was hypocritical (in light of his choice of church's and the timing with which he chose to deliver the speech after he himself had "created" a race problem) and felt very condescended too for a variety of reasons (I wrote about this on another thread). Others ate it up. I am concerned however that Obama is somewhat arrogant and I wonder how that would affect his ability to run the country.

Dear ruth, there is an excellent opening by Russell Baker in his review of some books on Condi Rice in the current NY Review of Books -- it is here -- http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21192 (or click on my name) -- I've never read so succinct and knowledgeable a characterization of what allowed the war to start.

Dear Olivia, BO's birthday is a day from mine, and I read that arrogance in him, too, and I know it's real. From my own struggles with my tendency to not delve deep enough and to approach difficult problems too glibly -- both of which come from arrogance -- and arrogance is nothing more than denied fear in a prideful dress -- I know it can easily cloud his vision and ability to act if he becomes president. It's one reason I'm supporting HC.

love, h

See Adam Curtis' The Century of the Self and
Daniel Estulin's The Bilderberg Group.
(He advises 9/11 is not the end of it and something similar or - hopefully not - worse is about to occur in Israel in the near future.)

Idealism, doesn't mean that you can't be pragmatic or realist in politics.

The political dimwits ruth and Olivia (Both are one and the same, btw) are at it again!

"Obama is arrogant."

hgquinn is back with her projections...

She had enough of "sleeping" with the character of the young acting aspirant from a who knows what fictitious story in the Weekly Intent post by Hazarika, and is now living inside the skin of Obama!

Now Read this by Douglas Kmiec, a prominent Conservative from today's Slate:

Today I endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States. I believe him to be a person of integrity, intelligence and genuine good will. I take him at his word that he wants to move the nation beyond its religious and racial divides and to return United States to that company of nations committed to human rights. I do not know if his earlier life experience is sufficient for the challenges of the presidency that lie ahead. I doubt we know this about any of the men or women we might select. It likely depends upon the serendipity of the events that cannot be foreseen. I do have confidence that the Senator will cast his net widely in search of men and women of diverse, open-minded views and of superior intellectual qualities to assist him in the wide range of responsibilities that he must superintend.

This endorsement may be of little note or consequence, except perhaps that it comes from an unlikely source: namely, a former constitutional legal counsel to two Republican presidents. The endorsement will likely supply no strategic advantage equivalent to that represented by the very helpful accolades the Senator has received from many of high stature and accomplishment, including most recently, from Governor Bill Richardson. Nevertheless, it is important to be said publicly in a public forum in order that it be understood. It is not arrived at without careful thought and some difficulty.

As a Republican, I strongly wish to preserve traditional marriage not as a suspicion or denigration of my homosexual friends, but as recognition of the significance of the procreative family as a building block of society. As a Republican, and as a Catholic, I believe life begins at conception, and it is important for every life to be given sustenance and encouragement. As a Republican, I strongly believe that the Supreme Court of the United States must be fully dedicated to the rule of law, and to the employ of a consistent method of interpretation that keeps the Court within its limited judicial role. As a Republican, I believe problems are best resolved closest to their source and that we should never arrogate to a higher level of government that which can be more effectively and efficiently resolved below. As a Republican, and the constitutional lawyer, I believe religious freedom does not mean religious separation or mindless exclusion from the public square.

In various ways, Senator Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals, but I am convinced based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view, and as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.

No doubt some of my friends will see this as a matter of party or intellectual treachery. I regret that and I respect their disagreement. But they will readily agree that as Republicans, we are first Americans. As Americans, we must voice our concerns for the well-being of our nation without partisanship when decisions that have been made endanger the body politic. Our president has involved our nation in a military engagement without sufficient justification or clear objective. In so doing, he has incurred both tragic loss of life and extraordinary debt jeopardizing the economy and the well-being of the average American citizen. In pursuit of these fatally flawed purposes, the office of the presidency, which it was once my privilege to defend in public office formally, has been distorted beyond its constitutional assignment. Today, I do no more than raise the defense of that important office anew, but as private citizen.

9/11 and the radical Islamic ideology that it represents is a continuing threat to our safety and the next president must have the honesty to recognize that it, as author Paul Berman has written, "draws on totalitarian inspirations from 20th-century Europe and with its double roots, religious and modern, perversely intertwined. . . .wields a lot more power, intellectually speaking, then naïve observers might suppose." Senator Obama needs to address this extremist movement with the same clarity and honesty with which he has addressed the topic of race in America. Effective criticism of the incumbent for diverting us from this task is a good start, but it is incomplete without a forthright outline of a commitment to undertake, with international partners, the formation of a world-wide entity that will track, detain, prosecute, convict, punish, and thereby, stem radical Islam's threat to civil order. I await Senator Obama's more extended thinking upon this vital subject, as he accepts the nomination of his party and engages Senator McCain in the general campaign discussion to come.
Published Sunday, March 23, 2008 9:18 AM by Doug Kmiec
Filed under: Iraq, John McCain, Douglas W. Kmiec, Barack Obama, OLC, 9/11 plotters, speech, Roe, abortion, terrorism, rule of law

About Doug Kmiec

* Douglas W. Kmiec is Caruso Family Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law, Pepperdine University. He served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel (U.S. Assistant Attorney General) for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Former Dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America, Professor Kmiec was a member of the law faculty for nearly two decades at the University of Notre Dame.

"many thinking people felt the speech was hypocritical "

Really? "Thinking people" like you?

You are living in utter denial. The evidence shows that not just the vast majority of thinking people who have followed the Wright controversy see Obama's speech as remarkable, but also the average public (polls show 76%) approved Obama's speech and his conduct and character in the context of the controversy.

If you think Obama is "arrogant" and if that's a personality trait which makes you less likely to vote for Obama, I tell you what, there are many , equally passionate democrats, independents or republicans like you, who think Hillary is a lying, arrogant, power-abusing, and untrustworthy person with real good reasons.

Hi Heather,

I just read the article, it is, in fact, excellent! Thanks.

I see the Obama campaigners are fast on my trail, again, at IB. They must be working their little fingers to the bone attacking all these internet sites to campaign for Obama...god, IDEALISTS! who'd a thought they could sink so low:))))))

gotta run, ruth

Irvine--
Ruth and I are not the same people!!! She has a great mind, greater than my own. If you don't believe we are not the same people check out the thread about whether the ressurection is literal or metaphorical--there I don't believe we agreed and hopefully that thread will convince you we are not the same people.

Irvine,

#6 Why did Obama's ratings drop then I believe 9% after the pastor controversy (and after his speech)?

"I don't believe we 'agreed' ....we are 'not' the same people."

Tell that to Diablo, he might be convinced.

There is an old adage..you can fool some(and even fool yourself), but not everyone.

Irvine,

#6: It does not concern me what the majority of your so-called thinking people thought--these are the same commentators who are commenting on Britney Spears and saying equally uninsightful things. America did not get "dumbed down" overnight.

"Why did Obama's ratings drop then I believe 9% after the pastor controversy (and after his speech)?"

Obviously you are ignorant. His rating dropped due to the effect of Wright's statements endlessly repeated on tv, as is expected of any controversy. After the speech his rating went dramatically up to the pre-controversy levels.

Irvine #11,

You are just saying we are the same people to discredit my viewpoints. We don't even have the same writing style.

Hi Olivia,

re#9 thanks for the compliment, although, "great" is quite a stretch...more correctly worded is the "she has a mind.":))))))

a word to the wise...do not get caught in IW's web...it is an energy loss better to breeze right on by his bylines...:)))))

have a great afternoon, ruth

Ruth,

Thanks for the advice--he certainly is relentless. I hope you have a good afternoon also,
Olivia

"It does not concern me what the majority of your so-called thinking people thought--these are the same commentators who are commenting on Britney Spears and saying equally uninsightful things. America did not get "dumbed down" overnight."

Thje level of your arguments. Stupid. It burns.

What wishful thinking? I haven't seen uninspiring things being said about Britney on HuffPo, dKos, Open Left, Slate, WaPo etc..

You are talking about those MSM commentators and the media outlets which repeated ad nauseam the pastors offending sound bites...

Anyway, you show your self-righteous arrogance in your judgments and attacking of character. Show 10% of the same towards Hillary Clinton or McCain, but well, you are incapable of it out of your bias and your low intellect. You made your point. Now, stop hijacking this thread with your repetitive ad insightless posts.

"You are just saying we are the same people to discredit my viewpoints."

Your both view points stand or stand discredited on their own. But you both are one the same. That shows your sick mentality, which has nothing to do with the arguments you make, but with the kind of bad envoroment you are creating at ib discouraging others from participating in a dialogue.

IW, there is a strange panicky nervousness in you when you write your political "rebuttals" (actually they are almost always ad hominum attacks). Do you have a quota of BO-supportive comment to make, or a count of BO-negative comments keep low?

And how is it you're so willing to attack individuals in a personal way, when you're always the very first to raise a warning flag when others do the same to you?

IW, how can you make this following accusation about anyone other than yourself??

"the kind of bad envoroment you are creating at ib discouraging others from participating in a dialogue."

O.M.G. !

19. Posted by hgquinn

You misread again. I have a problem when someone makes an ad hominem attacks on Deepak, Obama or Clinton etc unfairly. They get what they give.

Olivia IS Ruth. Sick to the core. Praising each other? validating each others stupid views? lying? Give me a break!

I misread your a-h attacks on ruth and Olivia? not, baby.

(shall I go back and enumerate all the other months' worth of a-h attacks that have slipped from your fingertips?)

another a-h attack.

"Why did Obama's ratings drop then I believe 9% after the pastor controversy (and after his speech)?"

Moronolivia, get your facts right.

It swung back 10% after his speech.

Why the nasty words, IW? How is that justified? How is it right? How it it honorable?

"I misread your a-h attacks on ruth and Olivia?"

No you didn't.

"when you're always the very first to raise a warning flag when others do the same to you?"

This part you did.

I do attack(with good reasons) and show unfairness in a dialogue when someone unfairly attacks the subject(person or view) of the topic.

Would anyone want to listen to or read your words, when you so consistently act like a jerk???

Methinks my own words aren't needed...

You hoist yourself on your own petard in every comment, and then you shoot yourself in the foot. In both feet. Pray, continue, sirrah.

Irvine,

All I can do is reiterate for the final time that we are not the same people.

Also, I agree with hgquinn, who put it best saying "there is a strange nervousness in you when you write your political rebuttals...Do you have a quota of BO-supportive comments to make or a count of BO-negative comments to keep low".

Why do you respond so manically when someone questions Obama? Oh...forget it...

"Why the nasty words" The nasty word "moron" as applied to the person who's making that ignorant statement is justified by the evidence. It is not permanent label though. I am sure she can show better intelligence at other times and in other discussions.

Do you use an O-gauge? What's your shot of choice? Shall I hie to the ammo store for you? You may be running low...

Before you write your next "rebuttal", try two ounces of Talisker or a similar pure-water single malt, straight up. Then your cojones might be freed up and we might see some real writing and good original opinion from that lucid mind of yours, not this refried hash of copy-and-paste that our dearest V said was banned by IP (hehehehe, yeah, right).

a tout l'heure, sweetheart. uffff, you have so triggered my cynicism!!!

Irvine,

My final comment to you: #30: So you feel you are some kind of dictator who can assign labels and then "remove" them as you see fit? Your narcissism shines through your every word, as if you are a king on a thrown in command of a whole kingdom (whose rules, incidentally, are inexplicable and basically just revolve around whatever mood you are in rather than any trace of intelligent thought). Same goes for your entire position on Obama--dictated by mood not thought.

"Why do you respond so manically when someone questions Obama? Oh...forget it..."

Questions Obama?

Stupid moron, criticize Obama with all you wish. Do the same with Clinton and McCain. It is clear where your bias lies and nothing will change it. But your intellect is so low, as seen by your stupid observations and flat out stupid arguments that my head hurts to even think of rebutting with any amount of fairness.

To come and speak at your level, why are you an Obama hater? Why you dislike him? Why you project? Why you cherry pick? Why you show you acting like a Hillary troll, or Republican troll?

#34

"Why you dislike him?" --SEE all of my other posts for an explanation...and you do not act like an Obama troll?
Your intellect is nonexistent judging from your posts--my guess is vodka is your drink of choice? No other explanation for such disorganized thinking...

Olivia, your comments clearly show your self-righteous anti-obama bias. You are a pest on this blog, who will bring down the dialogue on this blog to the level of your egoistic opinionated views.

I am sorry I erred King Irvine.

The only highly opinionated posters with anti-Obama bias and pro-Hillary bias on this blog are Bonnie, hgquinn, Ruth and Olivia. Sadly all of them have huge egos and are big on their own cognitive biases. They lieve i denial and self-righeousness and judge chareters. Olivia's dislike of Obama is based psychological transference. She will remain a pest on tyhsi blog.

Don't you have any shame, Olivia? You made your comment about Deepak's blogpost. Can't you just move on? How big is your Ego? What are you trying to achieve here on intentblog if you are so concerned about the future of this country? Is your ego attached with the fate of Obama's or Hillary's race? What do you gain by ranting daily on ib? or by disagreeing vehemently with Deepak, or any one who agrees with Obama, or have a different perspective than your?

This is exactly the reason why people leave ib.

This is why intelligent people like for ex. Yogi-one (and intuitive souls like doodleman) who are open minded and approved of Obama after his initial "dislike" or strong criticism of his candidacy and his character, and now we don't see them participating due to low level political lives like Olivia, Bonnie, Ruth et al taking up the mantle of bashing Obama on this blog with their rigid biased numskulls.

I guess, Irvine, you will continue to act in such a way that it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I expressed my view one time on this thread--the rest of it was me getting sucked into bantering with you. But you will continue to distort and dominate the conversation.

"IW", your comments on this thread have a count 50% above that of the nearest high-volume commenter. And that's just on this thread.

Who has the ego? Who is the pest? Who is biased? Why it's you, sahib.

And you're trying to intimidate or defame those who really have something important to say, who oppose your copy-and-paste positions, at least in part. And you're trying to do that because you have no other way of removing value from their words.

You see, pretty much everyone here is quite nice. And none of us are stupid. We see through you, we are not afraid of you, and on days like this, some of us (well, me, today) despise your tactics enough to speak up against them.

Your blog comment techniques do not enhance anyone's view of BO. Your association with his campaign might even drive some supporters away.

And one final note, m'dear: the US is a free-speech country. Ruth, Olivia, and whomever else, have the right to write as much as they want to, just as you do. Go have that drink, and then take a nap. Maybe a tequila would suit your personality better than a whisky. But the single malt would be better for your health.

(Oooo, trying to k/u to the boys, isn't it.)

"I expressed my view one time on this thread--the rest of it was me getting sucked into bantering with you. "

Yes, that's exactly your "ego" attachment that I am talking about which will not let any disagreeing remark by others pass by.

aur tum, IW. your ego attachment doesn't... etc.

#41 constructive criticism, but also some major projections. Ignorance is bliss they say. Sure it is at ib. And I do have to wonder about the lives they live in real life, and how that influences their beliefs and their biases. Anyway, I certainly need a break from bs arguments with Olivia, Ruth, Bonnie and Quinn.

Here's the deal (for the good of ib:)

1) I will not post any (unfair or fair)rebuttals to Olivia, Ruth, Bonnie, Kate, hgquinn and Ambasteve regarding any political comments in any further blog at ib.

2) I might make only "One" comment, if I do comment, in a contributor's thread about politics.
(I won't use aliases to side step this. You have to take my word for it)

3) I will not post more than 7(average of one for each day) politics related comments(including any discussion with other members) in any given Open Thread. Not more than 21 comments in whole on OT.

For this I expect assurances from Ruth, Bonnie, Olivia Kate, Hgquinn, Ambasetve, to not post more than 2 comments in a political related blog. For ex. you should stop your desire to counter any pro-obama comment. This might encourage new people to post.

In non-political blogs, it is up to you. In Open thread, you can post 10 political related comments about the dem race and candidates, and no limit for other comments, political or spiritual.

DEAL?

IW

Make it a double shot of single malt and while you are at it remember this:

"I promise no long cut & pastes from me. I shall also downsize the frequency of my posts when I am back... and there shall be little politics if any ...So that IntentBlog doesn't take up the flavor of a single poster and there be diversity in a spiritual blog like in life, as was meant to be....
---Irvine Welsh
Post#60 O.T. (05/03/08)

Key words here "everyone is quite nice" in hqquinn's post and "single poster" and
"diversity" in yours.

What goes on here . . .

I agree to your proposal, and even if it becomes only you and me sticking to it, I will still stick to it. If you break your word on this, then you break the agreement.

My agreeing is not meant to validate the rightness of your proposal for anyone else, nor to urge them, directly or indirectly, to agree to it themselves.

"For this I expect assurances from Ruth, Bonnie, Olivia Kate, Hgquinn, Ambasetve, to not post more than 2 comments in a political related blog. For ex. you should stop your desire to counter any pro-obama comment."

It also means that you will weigh in all your thoughts before you post, thus increasing the quality of your post, either as an initial repsonse to the original blogpost, or as a response inspired by a comment in the thread.

All these are not hard and fast rules but as regulars we should agree in spirit. This might encourage more timid regulars, occasional posters and lurkers to participate in a healthy and conducive environment... and perhpas we can learn something new from others and widen our perspectives.

Thanks.

Thanks for the repsonse hgquinn. Bonnie seems to consent. I especially need an assurance from Ruth.

Ruth, if you read my proposal, please respond with your thoughts even if you disagree. You can seek any further clarification or assurances or anything you wish to ask, please do so.

Dear Deepak,
you say:
"This is probably the most distressing post I've written in several years, but Iraq turned out to be a subprime war with a massive balloon payment."

I agree with this - and I am sad too that the BushCo administration got away with this invasion, and its continuation.

I see no end in sight, no exit plan, no workable solution as of yet, for Iraq's recovery, or America's growing economic woes.
(this is one of the most 'downer' comments I have made at IB).

~ Kate

I agree with your ideas in comment #48, which seem quite constructive to me.

Dear Kate,
I think Deepak has outlined the only solution- take responsibility and keep moving toward the ideals you believe in. Americans can do this, they have the capacity just because all people have it. It's tough to say "hey, I've messed up and I'm really sorry", but it isn't impossible. It's so freeing and constructive to let go of the ego. Of course Americans can do that, I'm not saying they will, I'm saying they can.

And about idealism... having an ideal is crucial, especially in troubled times. How else would any of us grow? America is a great country at heart, with high and beautiful ideals. And you are still on the road to making them reality. Don't be discouraged. Be sincere and keep up the faith in yourselves. No mistake is final and there's always a way forward.

IW

My #45 was posted before reading your#44.
so don't assume I have consented to anything just yet. I have found in business that trust is an invaluable, intangible asset. This is equally true in life. Once trust is broken, it's difficult to reclaim.

So before I play Deal or No Deal, I must read your #44 again for my own assurance that you can trust me if I give you my word.

So let's be clear here, NO you do NOT yet have my consent. Trust must be established here before I say DEAL.

bonnie

Politics is dum

IW

I should say perhaps, trust has been broken here, and needs (re)assurance that it can be (re)established before any "deals" can be made or accepted.

Irvine,

I do not consent to what you have proposed, but I will make a heartfelt effort not to respond to any of your posts directed towards me which are not respectfully worded. Olivia

My reason for this refusal to consent is that thath this offer, coming from Irvine, is all too reminiscent of the alligator who offers a ride across the river--you know the story "oh I know I am an alligator, but I promise not to bite you"....
But I certainly respect others choices on this matter.

Why is it that the most "distressing and fear generating" blog that I read comes from IB?

Now it's set up so if Obama wins, he gets a free pass on the economy because of Bush. I love it and I knew this would happen, always hedging bets.

I'm glad I don't buy it, and the more distressed Deepak gets, the more I know this country is on the right track. Sorry that's how I feel.

To equate econmonics to morality comes right out of the Marxist playbook, again it simply doesn't ring true for this country.

We have problems, we will deal with it. We always have.

Btw, Deepak, have you personally gained anything economically these past 7 years? I think yes,
and good for you.

Cheers everyone,

Steve

And how many of those 613 laws pertain to economics?!?

Damn this interest is killing "a brother" (but not brother enough apparently!!!).

Equating economics with morality is nothing new (but it is less than 6,000 years old right: har har har . . .), look at America and the "progress" those heretical puritan protestant "Pilgrims" have made, always at the expense of 'the other' of course, with "their" division of labor and reputed work ethic, and a grab bag of whichever old laws suit their temporal economic purposes and fiat of the times religious revulsion.

No jubilee, no sound economic policies, extravagant interest charged by all of their "lenders," and most importantly the widowed, orphaned, and poor strangers have not only been vilified and imprisoned, we have been consciously forsaken!

Capitalism, the mark of Cain, and the mark of the beast, and thy dead and useless idols shall not forever hold back our Lord’s mighty wrath!

Yeah baby!

peace

Thank you for the book Mieke and Donna! It is beautiful!

peace

I thought Thou shall not stand idly by the shedding of they neighbor's blood carries a little more weight since we now in Leviticus my brother.

Shall we (that's you and me, govt not withstanding) stand with Tibet?

That's what distresses me these days my friend.

"Let Freedom Ring Throughout the Lands", speaking of quotes from Leviticus.

Cheers,

Steve

dear Steve,
do you believe the U.S. was justified in declaring war on Iraq?

When Deepak speaks of a 'free war' - of course, it is anything but.

love,
~ Kate

(p.s.
the solution in Tibet ...
freedom and peace,
but
how?)

Empyrius #60 :)

So happy you enjoy it!

Love, Mieke

I am all for war with China brother Steve! The sooner the better!

Maybe this will be Bush and Cheney's going out of office gift to us . . .

They have to make sure John War Dog McCain wins somehow . . .

This is funny. I read the title of this post to be "Bill Arrives for a Free War".

i thought it was about Bill Clinton.

but I'd rather talk about Obama than our new Joe Lieberman wannabe.

I'll quote from the WSJ: 'Hossein Karmun runs a small grocery store in an Arab-Turkish neighborhood in Brussels and supports Sen. Obama, but he doubts Americans will embrace him in the end. "His middle name is like my name; how is he going to win in America?"'

In my opinion, the average moslem would be SHOCKED if Barack Hussein Obama won the presidency. It would shatter every pre-conceived (and ill-conceived) notion the average moslem has about our country.

It would relegate al Quaeda to a dark corner, once and for all.

...and blah, blah, blah.