Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
/rant
John, how you can compare Obama to Palin is beyond reason. Obama is intelligent, reasonably articulate and has a good grasp of the issues. Palin has none of those qualities. Shes a strategic choice to pacify the god bothering right and a gender trap for the Democrats.
The Demos have done the smart thing and not fallen into the gender trap by basically ignoring Palin and giving her enough rope to hang herself.
How can you even consider electing this dimwit into high office, even as VP? I would have thought that 8 years of a dimwit in the White House would have been enough.
And all this Republican warrior-cult bullshit about ‘leadership’. Your a bunch of war mongering inadequates who have seen too many hollywood action movies for your own good. What you really want to see as President is a stooge for the oil and arms industries that talks tough and doesn’t take shit from ‘loser’ countries. y’all make me sick.
/end_rant
To #30 — well said.
To the rest who think Palin isn’t able to do the job — reality check, Obama hasn’t ever run anything. Period. She’s run a state.
Granted, her experience isn’t long and studied, but it sure compares favorably with Obama.
Trust me — being a professor at a University makes one less likely to be a good leader, not more likely. Academia doesn’t translate well to real life or real leadership. Obama is a liberal college professor. That’s all he is in mindset.
All that being said, the fact is that a leader isn’t anything more than the advisors they have. Hence the current Paulson/Bush thing. Palin, Obama, etc — they will all be “able to do the job” perfectly fine. The question is more to how they would do it, and there I’d pick Palin/McCain’s views over extreme left-wing ideology.
#32 Pfft ‘extreme left wing’ ideology. You’ll be seeing reds under the bed next. Are you related to McCarthy perchance?
tchamp2 — You are a retard.
Anybody who’s got eyes and ears can clearly discern that Palin is not credible as a dog catcher let alone a mayor.
In most situations politics are local and perhaps in Alaska, with a population of 600,000 you can basically go door to door and charm enough people to vote for you, but in a larger context the woman lacks a brain or any sense of knowledge of just about anything.
If you really think she’s your man then move to Alaska where your dreams of her will keep you warm and cozy, as in the real world she’s fighting with inanimate objects for intellectual superiority.
#32–tchamp==I thought #34 Flip was being a bit harsh in calling you a retard, and then I read your post.
Puleeze!
The President doesn’t show up a magically get advisors. No, the President will pick his advisors.
Lets see. McCain picks Palin as his chief check and balance/resource.
Obama picks Biden as his.
Who is surrounded by inadequate advisors?
Partisanship spin is a tricky business. You have sold your soul to push a particular outcome regardless of the facts, but push it too far as you have done, and you simply reveal the odious nature of your intent.
Well according to the thinking here George HW Bush was the most qualified president in living memory.
#30 #24 “Obama taught constitutional law at Harvard. He wouldn’t be able to do that if he didn’t damm well know his stuff.”
Except he doesn’t think the 2nd amend allows you to own firearms.”
Another classic Logical Fallacy by Paddy-O (fallacy of composition if you must know).
Here’s the thing: Not only could Obama explain his view of the second amendment in detail (it deals with the phrase “well regulated militia”) he could probably explain your view of the second amendment (it deals with the phrase “right of the people”) more accurately than you yourself could.
Just today we see new video of Katie Couric asking Sarah Palin what magazines and newspapers does she read, and she says “all of them” and when pressed for more details she changes the subject. That goes in the same category of “How many houses do you own?” stupidity.
If Sarah Palin really was the conservative thinker she claims to be, she would be reading the National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Washington Times, and The Wall Street Journal on a regular basis. She should know this stuff.
Heck intellectuals, read writings of the other side as well. Do you conservatives know who the philosophical thinkers behind your own beliefs are? Do you know who John Burke is? Emile Durkheim? Allan Bloom? Russel Kirk? Leo Strauss? Francis Fukuyama? William F. Buckley? I have read them all.
James Hill wrote: Does this mean the state can succeed and take it’s oil with it?[sic]
Palin is equally qualified to be VPOTUS as you are qualified to teach English Comp.
#37, Ariane,
Good, well made argument.
#37 “Another classic Logical Fallacy by Paddy-O.”
Sorry, fact. See his comments regarding agreeing that the DC gun ban is legal.
Like I said, he should get a refund.
40,
paddy-o,
It gets frustrating to even try and reason with you if you can’t follow a simple logic chain.
ArianeB said,
“Not only could Obama explain his view of the second amendment in detail (it deals with the phrase “well regulated militia”) he could probably explain your view of the second amendment (it deals with the phrase “right of the people”) more accurately than you yourself could.”
I will not speak for her, but it is obvious to me that she is pointing out that Obama may be for the DC gun law, but his position is based on an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that you are free to argue against. Instead you addressed her comment, “Another classic Logical Fallacy by Paddy-O.” and said,
“Sorry, fact. See his comments regarding agreeing that the DC gun ban is legal.”
This is a stupid thing to say, for the following reason: it does not address the comment. She agrees with you that Obama supports the DC gun law, but that his position is an intelliogent one based on an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that you are free to debate. You simply repeat your accusation without even recognizing that she has answered it.
Your response should have been something along the lines of “I disagree with Obama’s position because…” and say something reasonably thoughtful where the ellipsis is. Instead, you acted like a broken record.
Are you really that dense, or is spouting b ullshit all you are capable of?
#41 “It gets frustrating to even try…”
So, Obama was against the DC gun ban before it was found to be unconstitutional? Interesting…
Got a link for that?
is that guy even an american?
42,
No, he always supported the ban. It is a fact that the ban is unconstitutional by decision of the Supreme Court.
However, one can still argue that gun control (it is not a gun ban you can buy a rifle with a permit) is constitutional and that the judges did not give due weight to the word “militia” in the first amendment.
One aspect of an organized militia is registered membership. We register cars, why not guns? We require competency tests for cars, why not guns? Freedom to travel is a right, just as weapon (what argument are you going to use when tech moves to ray guns?) ownership is a right. However, regulation is directly mentioned in the second amendment, so the argument, although regected by the court, is a logical one and worthy of at least an explanation for dismissal.
Moreover, the Supremes have reversed themselves in the past, and may again in this case. Therefore, support of the D.C. ban is not unconstitutional as a defense of and argument of policy. Obama would be committing traitorous actions only if he actively plotted or carried out plans for depriving citizens with arms.
So in the future, please stop being such a dick.
…at the very least on this thread.
#44 “However, one can still argue that gun control (it is not a gun ban you can buy a rifle with a permit) is constitutional”
One could but they’d be wrong.
One could argue that the “press” can only use old fashioned printing machines and not electronic media, and you’d be wrong too…
46,
A modern rifle is far from an antiquated weapon. In fact, it can be argued that handguns weren’t even considered by the writers since the technology was still such that only officers and nobility had pistols anyway. Look at the Swiss, with 100% gun ownership. They all have modern asssault rifles. So your argument has no weight and is a non-sequitur.