Surprise (not!). More than 84% of Montclair's voters chose Barack Obama for president. From the Star Ledger...
"We are unabashedly liberal," said Jerry Fried, the bike-riding Montclair mayor whose Unity Montclair slate dominated last May's municipal elections while waving a progressive banner. Nowadays, he is in the midst of reading "The Audacity of Hope," he said.By at least one measure, Montclair is New Jersey's most liberal town. So says e-Podunk, a New York-based demographic numbers-cruncher that analyzed political contributions and election results to come up with its rankings of the "Most Liberal Places in America."
Watch out conservatives -- Montclair's liberal nature can be contagious...
Even one of the Montclair GOP's own found himself in the Obama camp, nudged on by McCain's vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin."The Palin pick really troubled me," said Peter Zorich, a registered Republican who is a nephew of none other than the 1988 Democratic standard-bearer, Michael Dukakis. "I couldn't in good conscience vote for her. I will admit, 'Yes, I voted for Obama.'"
The news apparently has spread among the clan.
"Yes, I've gotten congratulatory phone calls from the family," he said. "Everyone's thinking I'm back in the fold. We'll see."
Comments (135)
IN YOUR FACE BLUE STATES!!!
We LOVE people more than you!!
Is a Patriotic tax increase far behind to show how much we care?
Or perhaps we can just send a check out to the needy (you know, those folks making less than 250k a year), from the Good People of Montclair, NJ....
We MUST do something.
New letterhead? New town mascot? New name for our school teams?
Something... Slogans:
"We liberal, you ain't?"
"Montclair: we care most!"
"Purple my ass, I live in Bluest Montclair"
Other ideas?
Hmmm. Why are there so many conservative posters here? Maybe they don't live in Montclair.
I grew up in Montclair and you never noticed how annoyingly liberal this town was until a few years ago when somebody labeled it Soho West as a marketing ploy. Now you have these NYC transplants all over the place and everything is so in your face liberal its really quite unbearable. Be liberal, but take the lawn signs down and easy does it with the anti-war picketing on church street. Your Messiah is now coming to office, relax and have a decaf people!!
Its not just the NYC transplants that are liberal. There are lots of us from other parts of NJ and other parts of the country and world that have relocated to Montclair. Don't just blame the New Yorkers. Sign me, liberal and proud.
My town went for McCain.
How about:
"Montclair: Colbert lives here."
"Welcome to Montclair. All Republicans must register with the police."
"Montclair: We're like Sweden, but not as blonde."
"Montclair: Our schools teach tolerance. If you don't like that, get the %&** out!"
Now, to start working on the mascot....
I nominate Dannyboo or Hansmeier for the mascot.
Absolutely, nellie.
And you've given me a couple more:
"Montclair: Our brown people are nice!"
"Montclair: Our white folks are slim and they can sing on tune!"
Nobama: You took the words right out of my mouth. I lived in Montclair from 1981 though 2004 and I never felt a sense of "us" versus "them" in terms of conservatives versus liberals. I think it all started after 9-11, honestly. And like montclairlibn1 states, I don't think it's just the NY transplants that are responsible. The events of 9-11 effectively splintered not just Montclair, but the country as a whole.
I'm going to make some bumper stickers:
"I compost my organic garden with dead conservatives"
"Montclair: Our kids look like they haven't showered or washed their clothes in months...but don't worry they are just expressing themselves."
My kind of town...Montclair is my kind of town!
"I DON'T brake for conservatives."
"I'd rather be redistributing."
"My child is an honors student at Renaissance School. Yours could be too if the system wasn't hopelessly skewed to favour the wealthy over the poor." (This one will only work on a minivan, preferably a hybrid Odyssey).
"Hmmm. Why are there so many conservative posters here? Maybe they don't live in Montclair."
Jerseygurl, where is the tolerance for people less fortunate than yourselves who live outside the confines of Montclair? I'm sure the second-class citizens of Bloomfield, Glen Ridge and such other God-forsaken commmunites like Clifton, Little Falls and Cedar Grove feel bad enough already, but why must you contstantly rub it in by reminding them that this website is intended specifically for liberal-minded Montclairians only?
This web site is intended for everyone, not just Montclair liberals. And I beg to differ: I think there are a lot more people of the liberal persuasion who post here.
I voted for Obama, and I've voted Dem in every prez election in my entire adult life, but I liked Montclair liberals better when they were oppressed.
The only thing worse than a sore loser is a sore winner.
The one thing that I have learned from living in Montclair is just because someone is liberal, it does not mean they are open minded.
complainerpuss ,
I think your getting me and jerseygurl confused. You've already been offended at one of my comments regarding outer baristnet posters.
Baristanet may have conservative members but they're in the minority of those who post regularly.
Still no cathar?
martta wrote "The events of 9-11 effectively splintered not just Montclair, but the country as a whole."
I would respectfully suggest that it was not the events of 9-11 but the executive branch's reaction to the events of 9-11 that splintered the country.
Well, not in my case.
Liberals are certainly more amusing when oppressed walleroo, but it goes both ways, because the GOP is a frigging laugh riot at the moment.
Now, to start working on the mascot....
How about an anatomically correct (yet simultaneously cartoonish) bleeding heart?
(though I guess that would make the basketball court pretty slick after half time)
Mrs M, I feel like the angry polarization stemmed from the Iraq invasion. After 9/11 there seemed to be a sort "world united against the bad guys" kind of thing going on and we had country wide and worldwide support for going after the Taliban. But then we went into Iraq under false pretenses and that angered much of the world and a good portion of the nation. It's too bad, because we had global momentum to go after terrorists pretty much wherever they were but we lost the trust of our allies and others when we hyped the evidence and invaded Iraq.
Montclair: Bleeding our hearts and wallets dry.
"After 9/11 there seemed to be a sort 'world united against the bad guys' kind of thing going on and we had country wide and worldwide support for going after the Taliban. But then we went into Iraq under false pretenses and that angered much of the world and a good portion of the nation."
Meanwhile, where are the Taliban? Osama bin Laden? (If he's even alive anymore). What happened to that unity against the bad guys?
What's all this talk about skewering liberals? Are you going to cook them ka-bob (vs. na-bob) fashion? Are they are particularly hard to clean before you cook them? What? Oh. You said "Skewing," not "Skewering." Never mind.
(With apologies to Emily Latella.)
That's the thing, if we hadn't overreached in Iraq then things would likely be different in Afghanistan.
1. who can argue that we are not better off without Saddam Hussein? Please remember he slaughtered 500,000 of his own people.
2. Montclair is also riddled with crime, so i don't know what you are all so giddy about.
I'll stick with my more conservative town with lower crime any day.
"What happened to that unity against the bad guys?"
It still exists, but now the world sees Bush/Cheney as the bad guys.
Thanks to 7 + years of being an invading force in Iraq the Taliban is now able to recruit new members from all over the world including our own allies like Germany and Canada.
"1. who can argue that we are not better off without Saddam Hussein? Please remember he slaughtered 500,000 of his own people."
I agree with you, JN, but when I point this out to liberals, they respond with, "But Saddam Hussein never attacked us!" MY response to that is that neither did Hitler. And the beat goes on....
Yeah! Montclair is the Berkeley of NJ. Adorable!
MY response to that is that neither did Hitler.
Well, my response to that would be to point out that while Hitler did not attack us directly, he did attack our allies and other sovereign nations that proved incapable of defending themselves.
This just wasn't the case with Iraq (this time).
"But Saddam Hussein never attacked us!"
I've never said that. My liberal point of view is you can always pardon a man, but once he?s gone he?s gone. Our participation in his execution is a recorded fact of history and we have no clue what that could mean in the future.
"Our participation in his execution is a recorded fact of history and we have no clue what that could mean in the future."
It means he won't be coming back.
1. who can argue that we are not better off without Saddam Hussein? Please remember he slaughtered 500,000 of his own people.
Which ignores all the other dictators who have done likewise that we have left alone. Is it our job to remove every strongman who kills his own people? It also ignores the fact that the policy of containment pursued by Bush I/Clinton was working. Saddam wasn't even a threat to his neighbors, much less to us.
2. Montclair is also riddled with crime, so i don't know what you are all so giddy about.
I'll stick with my more conservative town with lower crime any day.
So conservative=safe? What about NYC, the safest small town in the country?
"1. who can argue that we are not better off without Saddam Hussein? Please remember he slaughtered 500,000 of his own people."
Being better off without a leader we don't like is not a reason to start a war or invade a sovereign nation. I would say given our current standing in the world and the war crimes committed by Bush and Cheney that reasoning would serve to justify any attacks on us. There is also Korea, the Sudan, and on an on. We can't just go invading countries willy nilly because we have a personal beef with the leader.
The Bush presidency has badly damaged the republican party. It will take years to rebuild republican credibility on issues ranging from the economy to international diplomacy. If conservatives continue to beat the drum and support Bush and his terrible stewardship of our country, they will only ensure that the independents and centrists (myself included) will not return to support the republican party any time soon.
beat the drum for Bush? I think you are hearing things.
Spicoli's right. That said, are there any centrists in that party anymore? Or intellectuals? RIght wingers used to pride themselves on being the "elite", now they imply that being well educated is something at which we should collectively sneer. Keep Joe sixpack in the Barcalounger. We're better off with smart leaders.
There are no intellectual conservatives? Maybe we're not as smart as Joe Bidden, Ted Kennedy or maybe Al Sharpton, but I think as a group we can hold our own.
Really! What a stoopid statement. How would you like it if I said there are no sane, rational, open-minded, even-tempered liberals?
The smarter, younger ones are fleeing, ROC. Maybe the Free Republic doesn't think so, but losing guys like Chris Buckley, Colin Powell, David Brooks among others should be a wake up call.
Your, right gurl. My gosh, Chris Buckley, Colin Powell, and Brooks? The very backbone of the conservative movement! I've heard David Gergan is wavering too!
Heaven help us!
No, really, gurl. Pay no attention to me, I'll not get in the way of the copious group self pleasuring going on. Just try to clean up when done.
And if this all adds up (as it often does) to party overreach, I'm for it.
Conservatism is dead! Act accordingly!
"If conservatives continue to beat the drum and support Bush and his terrible stewardship of our country..."
Not to sound like a Bush apologist, but Bush does not need any conservatives beating the drum for him. That is something he has proven to do very well all by himself.
you're right...
More bumper stickers:
$116 million and our school system still sucks
07043-We don't cross Bloomfield Ave.
07043-What recession?
07043-Go MKA...uh, Seton Hall....what a minute, St Peters
07042-Yes...African Americans still live here
Montclair: Fun, Friendly, Clean and Safe
Montclair: On time and under budget....
Montclair....Sushi, Nail Salons and Antiques
"Really! What a stoopid statement. How would you like it if I said there are no sane, rational, open-minded, even-tempered liberals?
Posted by Mrs. Martta | November 10, 2008 3:35 PM "
You usually do.
Not really. I've actually met some in real life.
Loved this blog comment I saw today...
"I can't believe Obama is already sitting down with an unpopular, aggressive world leader without preconditions."
Really! What a stoopid statement. How would you like it if I said there are no sane, rational, open-minded, even-tempered liberals?
------------------------------
Liberals think they're open-minded and tolerant, but you're only worthy of that open-mindedness and tolerance if you agree with them. Conservatives are not a party of stoopid people who drool in nursing homes.
about the mascot..
the current one is terrible. Stephen Colbert says that the bulldog is the lowest rung on the mascot ladder. It is so ugly? why's its face like that? I think the Montclair Liberals would be a great team, and so many people in new jersey would cheer for them!
Does anyone think that by spelling the word stupid the way the conservatives now do you may be undermining your own argument?
Remember the middle east advisor Obama "fired" when it became known he'd held meetings with Hamas?
Well, heeeeeer we go!
The election lie counter stands at "1".
Does anyone think that by spelling the word stupid the way the conservatives now do you may be undermining your own argument?
----------------
Only if the liberals are too stoopid to understand what it means.
-------------------------
You usually do.
---------------------
Spot the Looney, I've always admired MM for being able to disagree without being disagreeable.
Nellie, MM has often posted on this blog using derogatory terms to describe liberals as crazy or mentally challenged. I'm merely reminding her of that.
suddenly jerseygurl and our other intellectual betters are quiet.
From Republican pundit David Brooks on 10/09 :
What had been a disdain for liberal intellectuals slipped into a disdain for the educated class as a whole. The liberals had coastal condescension, so the conservatives developed their own anti-elitism, with mirror-image categories and mirror-image resentments, but with the same corrosive effect.
The political effects of this trend have been obvious. Republicans have alienated the highly educated regions ? Silicon Valley, northern Virginia, the suburbs outside of New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Raleigh-Durham. The West Coast and the Northeast are mostly gone.
The Republicans have alienated whole professions. Lawyers now donate to the Democratic Party over the Republican Party at 4-to-1 rates. With doctors, it?s 2-to-1. With tech executives, it?s 5-to-1. With investment bankers, it?s 2-to-1. It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community.
Conservatives are as rare in elite universities and the mainstream media as they were 30 years ago. The smartest young Americans are now educated in an overwhelmingly liberal environment.
This year could have changed things. The G.O.P. had three urbane presidential candidates. But the class-warfare clich?s took control. Rudy Giuliani disdained cosmopolitans at the Republican convention. Mitt Romney gave a speech attacking ?eastern elites.? (Mitt Romney!) John McCain picked Sarah Palin.
I guess relations with Syria, Egypt and Israel are to "base" a topic only brought up by we mouth-breathers, eh gurl?
ROC (or anyone for that matter),
Why is it that Israel is always held blameless for the state of affairs in Gaza, peace talk failures, etc?
While I certainly don't agree when the leaders of these other factions / countries who say "Israel should be wiped off the map," I also don't understand why equal outrage isn't expressed over Israel bull-dozing the homes of innocent Palestinians whose only crime is not being Israeli or Israel's disproportionate level of response (killing 200 in direct response to 3 of their soldiers being kidnapped).
Along those same lines: Why is it bad for the US to be in constant contact with Israel, despite actions such as those I listed above, but bad for the US to try and get in with the guys on the other side of the conflict in an effort to finally get something accomplished?
I don't think Israel is blameless, but neither am I comfortable with presidential advisors holding meetings with Hamas. Obama sensed this too, which, I guess is why he lied about Malley being an advisor.
(I smell a hijacking of a thread.....)
So, I'll simply say, croiagusanam's slogan is a winner!! Although, I would combine it to:
"Montclair: Our brown people are nice! And our white folks are slim and they can sing on tune!"
Btw, if you feel Mrs. Martta is anything but kind, considerate with a point of view, you haven't been paying attention.
And she can run a marathon!!??!??!
What's not to love.
The Chosen One lied??? So he's only a regular old politician after all.
Nellie,
I just wanted to express my continued amusement (or is it bemusement) that it is mostly the people on the Right who refer to Obama as "The Chosen One" as if that were how he marketed himself.
The election's over and the Dems won. Let's say we get over it, give the guy a chance to at least be sworn in before tearing him apart, and hopefully not need to find out how the new President responds to a national crisis?
I guess dissent is no longer the "highest form of patriotism" eh?
hopefully not need to find out how the new President responds to a national crisis?
----------------------------
I'm with you there.
ROC , not any more silly. Now it's paying taxes.
He's still the Chosen One.
Only now, he's OUR chosen one.
ROC that ME newsline piece(from a week ago) is a load of unattributed crap and you know it. This is another BS right wing smear pushed by a couple of fringe bloggers. Give it up, will you?
Thanks Cookie. Good to know ROC lies.
Jersey - one thing I found out long ago - if you follow ROC's links, they always lead back to the "Pajamas Media", duly reporting from their basement.
Tell me, ROC, do you favor footies or slippers?
ROC is always a bit selective about the info that he shares. The Malley meetings referenced happened in mid-October, before the election. Malley met with the Syrian President as a representative the International Crisis Group (which is his current job), not as a representative of the Obama campaign or the not-yet-created Obama administration. The claims that Malley was there on behalf of Obama came from a Syrian website that was trying to play up Malley's support of Syria and his potential influence with the US government, all of which is unconfirmed.
View a more balanced article from Forbes here
Suddenly, ROC is soooo quiet...
Thanks, Prof...
It's dinner time so I just want to sign off with this. NY Mag did an interview last week with NYC Republicans (all 5 of 'em) and one guy, a former Marine, said this: "I take pleasure in the fact that people persecute me for being a Republican, because I know that ultimately, anyone who would persecute someone for their belief is just being un-American."
An yes, the poor persecuted Republicans. Eight years of screw-ups across the board and they can't perceive why no one takes them seriously anymore.
Stop whining and move to freakin' Arkansas, for chrissake.
The Republicans are being "persecuted?" Oh please. They earned the disdain most people feel. Incompetent would be too kind a word for Bush, Cheney et al and the campaign that McCain ran was completely centered upon why people should not vote for the muslim terrorist who was not only not a Christian, but sat in a pew for 20 years listening to the wrong Christian minister. Now that's a platform.
"...because I know that ultimately, anyone who would persecute someone for their belief is just being un-American"
That one will keep me giggling for most of the night.
"Stop whining and move to freakin' Arkansas, for chrissake.
Posted by Cookie G. | November 10, 2008 6:43 PM"
We are LIBERAL..... So open minded and accepting..... of folks just like US!!!
While I did not vote for Bush either time, I think time will be kinder on his Presidency than many think.
This is the most narrow-minded place I've ever lived. And to think the majority thinks of itself as liberal! You know George W. didn't start this war on terror. It was a gaggle of fanatical religionists who would just as soon decapitate a liberal American as a conservative one. They will not go away after the Chosen One takes the Oval Office. Indeed his 'nuance' may embolden them to try something exceedingly dramatic and lethal again.
Give me a freakin' break! obama is getting from the conservatives exactly what all the libs gave Bush...non-stop abuse! He is prime target from now on. No letting up. Now he's releasing all the Gitmo prisioners. Keep your obama signs up so we know who the enemy is, please! Hey, where is Cathar?
spot the douchebag
Montclair:Spot the douchebags
I've spotted the youknowwhat, it's the problem! What do I win? ;)
That 85% figure explains a lot about certain behaviors and some of the unrealistic attitudes and beliefs about how the rest of the country lives that people have around here.
clueless
Instead of Barsitaville....this should Bubbleville.
Ouch!
Caught!
It's a Israeli/Egyptian conspiracy!
http://dailystaregypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=17632
p.s.. pity we don't have a functioning press, because then a reporter could ask Obama about Malley's meetings.
I would really like to believe that Republicans will abandon the disgusting Nixonian reliance on resentment to mobilize their base.
They're supposed to resent the lazy brown-skinned people who are soaking up our tax dollars, filling up our prisons, sneaking into our country, and who are responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis.
They're supposed to resent the liberals, who have somehow been keeping them down over the past 8 years in spite of the Republicans' best efforts.
They're supposed to resent the gay people for wanting to take away marriage.
They're supposed to resent the educated people who think they're stupid and want to take their guns and religion away.
The "party of personal responsibility" has spent decades looking for places to point the finger and lay blame for all of society's ills.
As an independent who has views as extreme as the most liberal and conservative alike, and as someone who would like to once again hear the conservative party's true voice, I sincerely hope that the GOP and it's followers uses this opportunity to point that finger up their collective ass.
Identity politics got you into this mess and it won't get you out again.
The beat goes on indeed MM...
p.p.s In a totally unrelated and bizarre coincidence Hamas and Mullah controlled Iran (for the first time ever) congratulated an American President-Elect.
I wonder why?
The Israeli government congratulated Obama, with the Isreali foreign minister calling Obama's victory a "badge of honour for democracy". Hamas actually said that it hoped that Obama would learn from the mistakes of his predecesors.
So, unless you feel that the Israeli government and Hamas are in cahoots, I wonder what it is that you're wondering.
It's no wonder why Israel congratulates us, they're an ally. As is obvious to some, Hamas and Iran are enemies.
Israel is the closest thing we have to a democracry in the Mideast...this is really a no-brainer.
"I sincerely hope that the GOP and it's followers uses this opportunity to point that finger up their collective ass."
Nice job on promoting unity, Danny. How's that going anyway?
Sure, ROC, and the "functioning press" also could ask if Obama can hypnotize people with his eyes and whether his father is really Malcolm X or maybe Fidel Castro and if he was really born in Kenya or maybe Indonesia and his real name is Barry Sotero and his birth certificate is a forgery and there's naked pictures of his mom on the internet and he killed his grandmother for sympathy votes and his supporters carve backwards B's into people's faces....
But that's why we have the dysfunctional pajamas media.
You don't seem to have a very good grasp of how things work, ROC. But that's OK, I like you anyway.
Hamas did not "congratulate" Obama as much as they issued a statement indicating cautious optimism that a new administration might signal progress towards peace. The Israelis want the same. When two "enemies" can agree on something, that says to me that there is a glimmer of hope for progress, and it says that neither side feels that they are threatened initially by the change. I see that as a good thing.
Of course you're "I wonder why" comment is left to suggest that somehow Hamas and Iran like Obama's win because they think he's weak and can be taken advantage of. You'll likely say your comment didn't mean this, but then I'd ask what it DID mean?
Now, if you really wanted to play amateur spook, you could think that they gave encouragement to Obama because they really wanted McCain, and they hope that perceived support for Obama will drive a wedge among Americans on this issue.
Which it appears, by your comment, to have done. So maybe YOU'RE the tool of Hamas.
The way I see it, Obama's election takes some wind out of jihadist's sails, because it negates the argument they've been making to their base that America is an intolerant nation that would never accept a leader with third world connections. They would much prefer a Bush or a McCain, either of whom could be demonized as another American war-monger from the same old mold. That is how they would have played it-- how they've been playing it.
MM, Israel is not the "closest thing to a democracy" in the middle east -- it IS a democracy, period.
The GOP has been trying to convince American Jews into voting Republican for some time now. talking up the fact that Obama and his middle name are all the rage in Gaza, etc.
The strategy simply has not worked. Fully 78% of American Jews voted for Barack Hussein Obama.
"The way I see it, Obama's election takes some wind out of jihadist's sails, because it negates the argument they've been making to their base that America is an intolerant nation that would never accept a leader with third world connections. They would much prefer a Bush or a McCain, either of whom could be demonized as another American war-monger from the same old mold. That is how they would have played it-- how they've been playing it."
And I'm the one who "doesn't know how it works" ?
The most savage attacks against America were planned (911) or carried out (first world trade bombing) under Clinton.
And many other deadly attacks against US service personnel and American interests were carried out under Republican Presidents.
It doesn't matter one whit which party is in the White House to the Jihadist. They're equal opportunity slayers.
The true danger for America is that some of us don't really "get" that.
Yeah, you don't know how it works. But like most folks who don't, you love to opine nonetheless.
First, Hamas did not plan either of the WTC attacks. Nor can they be seen as jihadists in the sense that Al Queda is. They are a political organization working against Israel, and they use both the political process and violence to further their cause. This is a marked difference between Hamas and Al Queda.
Additionally, if it doesn't matter a whit to the jihadists who is in the White House (and you're right, it doesn't), then why are you "wondering" at "congratulations" offered to Obama.
You are, as you do so well, arguing against yourself once again.
p.s.
And the reason they
re rejoicing from Damascus to Teheran is because they "got hope". Hope that Obama will sell Israel down the river in exchange for some temporary safety for America. Their hopes are not unfounded.
Hey, where is Cathar?
---------------------
Yeah, where is he???
Um, ROC, why are you spreading lies about Obama's support for Israel? Even Fox Noise acknowledges that our President-elect is not going to do anything to jeopardize our relationship with Israel. Take a look at his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel as well.
"They are a political organization working against Israel, and they use both the political process and violence to further their cause."
Stalinists, Maoists, Nazis and Japanese Imperialists all built hospitals too. What of it?
When Hamas issues statements like this to the AP:
"...the people and the nation all over the globe are required to teach the American enemy tough lessons,"
It does indeed make me wonder why they suddenly hail Obama's election.
I pray to the powers that be that Obama does not tap you for a post as middle east advisor.
Interestingly, a prominent member of the Knesset from the Likud party ( a rightist and decidely hawkish group) named Yuval Steinitz stated that "Obama has already expressed his friendship towrads Israel and his support of its right to defend its borders, as well as his uncompromising commitment to blocking Iran's nuclear capabilities."
Doesn't sound like he's thinking he'll be sold "down the river" (we'll leave aside of course the ironic racial origin of that phrase).
But what does he know? He only lives there! Surely he doesn't "get it"!
ROC, what exactly are you "wondering" ?They are hailing Obama's election -"suddenly" - because he was just elected. Perhaps they see something you don't, a US president whose standing in the world is not so diminished that we may once again be able to help negotiate some kind of peace in Isreal.
So what's all the wondering about? Surely all the Jews didn't vote for Obama just because of Sarah Silverman's great schlep.
You are especially dim today, my friend.
The issue of building hospitals, etc. is so completely off-track as to make one wonder if you're, well, "OK".
You made the link between those who planned and executed the WTC attacks, and Hamas. I told you that jihadists like those who carried out those attacks are uninterested in the political process and are unwilling to even consider negotiating with an enemy. In that sense, they are unlike Hamas -- a group that does use the political process and does at least give lip service to negotiating. That in no way diminshes the fact that they also employ violence and therefore must be engaged in a similar fashion by their opponents. You however, like the most recent occupants of the White House and Blair House, seem unable to discern any differences among the many parties at play in the middle east, preferring to see all of them as aligned with one another. It is this type of myopia that further complicates an already complicated picture.
lipservice:
.You can go by what they say cro, or the hoped for contents of their pure hearts.
Do you honestly think "all the Muslims of the world" will unite for one cause? Sounds a bit far-fetched to me.
I don't think that their hearts are any purer than anyone else's. I DO think that countries and organizations that consider themselves to be at war generally kill their enemies, and they retaliate when their people are killed. That's pretty much the way its gone on for millenia. That you find this to be in any way remarkable is surprising to me.
There is a chance -- slim, no doubt given the history in the middle east -- that this cycle may be slowed somewhat with new players on the scene. It is worth trying, at any rate.
Unless of course you're vested in maintaining the present status quo, which doesn't seem to be working for anyone. Or if you'd prefer to "wonder" about the new administration's intentions.
One need only look at the results of the Arab League summits over the past 30 years or so to see the reality of Arab unity. The inability of Arabs to unite has been as key to Israel's survival as F-15s have been.
Throw in the Persians and the rest of the Muslim world and you will have an easier time herding cats than forging "Muslim unity".
"Do you honestly think "all the Muslims of the world" will unite for one cause? Sounds a bit far-fetched to me."
No MM, perhaps just a few at a certain Atlantic Avenue Mosque in Brooklyn. Or some "boosters" with special shoes who like to fly a lot.
There. Feel safer?
This Dem/Rep debate is getting tiresome. Can we just give the man a chance! As a Dem, I gave it up for for GWB after 9/11 and backed him wholeheartedly with Afganistan, then he lost focus with Iraq. Let's hope Obama can get us back on track.
OK, you're right. Hamas sent operatives to the US to plan mayhem. they are not focused on Israel but rather on the US. So is the IRA, Basque separatists, and Shining Path. They are all focused on the US and really don't care at all about their own homegrown grievances and issues. They are all united in a vast conspiracy against the US.
Again, we can count as a blessing that you are far from the center of influence.
PAZ,
While I agree with you, get used to it. This Dem/Rep debate has been here longer than us, and will remain well after we slip "the surly bonds of earth."
And supporting Bush when everyone agrees (after 9/11, Afghanistan) is not the question, my question is: do you try to understand where someone is coming from? Or do you just disagree?
Unfortunately, the latter seems to be the rule of the day.
I don't see a "mass conspiracy" of sorts; I see specific cells (i.e., Al Quaeda) hellbent on bringing about our annihilation and that of Israel. It's a pity that our superpower military has never been able to cauterize them (or that they were not properly enabled). Well, let's see what the new guy has up his sleeve.
Oh, and PAZ,
Just wait till Obama has to make a tough decision.
Let's see where all this togetherness goes.
(Witness CA and how some folks there feel about him and the black community.)
ROC is absolutely right, as usual. Muslim extremists will be hell bent on destruction, period. It doesn't matter what the West does. The only thing that matters is military action.
This reasoning reminds me of trying to imagine what it would be like to live in a 2-dimensional world, where all of life plays out on a flat surface.
That's precisely where ROC lives Walleroo. The flat surface of his laptop screen with links to the Drudge Report and the Free Republic.
not what Im saying at all walleroo.
Thanks for adding to the debate.
"The Reich chancellor requests Mr. Dodd to present his greetings to President roosevelt. He congratulates the president upon his herioc effort in the interest of the American people. The president's successful struggle against economic distress is being followed by the entire German people with interest and admiration. The Reich chancellor is in accord with the president that the virtues of sense of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline must be the supreme rule of the whole nation. This moral demand, which the president is addressing to every single citizen, is only the quintessence of German philosophy of the state, expressed in the motto 'The public weal before the private gain.'"
That letter was sent by Adolf Hitler to US ambassador Thomas Dodd for conveyance to FDR.
Now, all of this time I thought that FDR was a pretty staunch defender of American interests, and a true patriot.
But now that I know that Hitle congratulated him, I must rethink my view.
"Roosevelt himself called Mussolini ?admirable? and professed that he was ?deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.?
http://www.reason.com/news/show/122026.html
FDR, Mussolini, and Hitler were all socialists and therefore had much in common in their economic policies. In fact, it was generally believed that "capitalism had failed".
I wouldn't go so far as to say FDR wasn't a patriot. Neither do I think Obama is not a patriot.
But what Hitler saw "in common" with FDR at that time should give one pause in the same way that what Islamists see "in common" with Obama should now.
Your characterization of FDR as a "socialist" is absurd. More so, even, than the same charge heaved at Obama.
And it (yes, here it comes!) SPEAKS VOLUMES about how you see the world.
FDR's top tax rate on individuals as 91% and on corporations 95%.
"socialist" works for me.
If Obama is even "half" the socialist FDR was we're in deep trouble.
sorry, top tax rate for individuals was 94%
It was 91% under Eisenhower and 77% under Nixon.
Guess they were socialists too.
Once taxes are that high, and goverment that big, it's very hard to dismantle it. That is the issue. It took all the way up to Reagan to put the "means of production" back into the hands that produced the production in the first place.
Oh! THAT'S the issue! See, I thought when you trotted out tax rates under FDR as proof that he was a socialist, that that was the issue. But when confronted with other data, you shift the "issue".
You are nothing if not consistent, I'll grant you that.
Lest we forget that tax rates got "that high" under that rabid socialist Herbert Hoover, we must remember that with his Revenue Act of 1932 the top rate for individuals was raised from 25% to 63% (reversing an earlier decline due to a shortfall in revenues -- sound familiar?), while corporate rates went up 15% and real estate taxes doubled.
Yes, Herbie was Red too!
"But what Hitler saw "in common" with FDR at that time should give one pause in the same way that what Islamists see "in common" with Obama should now."
So by that reasoning, if Hitler based his solution to the "Jewish Problem" on slavery in America and used Henry Ford's developed assembly line model as a means to exterminate the Jews, does that incriminate Ford and all white Americans and businesses that participated in slavery? Should it give people pause to buy a Ford?
Facetious argument ROC.
Taxes need not be increased provided we cut spending, specifically defense spending.
Obama urged to scrap some Pentagon programs
A senior Pentagon advisory group, in a series of bluntly worded briefings, is warning President-elect Barack Obama that the Defense Department's current budget is "not sustainable" and that he must scale back or eliminate some of the military's most prized weapons programs.
Don't you people work? Or do you take time off from your paid-work to post about this? Thank a Veteran, who fought to allow you to cast your 80% vote for the Dem. Remember that the place works best, when there is constructive discourse and neither side has an overwhelming majority. For me, back to the salt mine.
Where's option 3: "I'm self-employed and can do whatever the hell I want."
Or option 4: "I'm second in command of a small company and can do whatever the hell I want."
Or even option 5: "I get paid to post here."
You're very limited in your choices WHK. Hopefully your children think Baskin Robbins truly has thirty-one flavors and not just two.
"Do you honestly think "all the Muslims of the world" will unite for one cause? Sounds a bit far-fetched to me."
It is far fetched to think "all the Anyones" in the world would unite for one cause.