Skip to main content

Everybody's got that conservative uncle in Florida, and I've got one too ... he's a good sport about it though, so when he sent me an inaccurate chain email, I got possessed with the spirit and fired back.

Hi Uncle Bill,

Dear sir, you have ruined my plans for the evening. I feel this requires a thorough response, so I am cancelling my weekly Wiccan Vegetarian Potluck and Gay Flag-Burning Orgy to clear some space in my calendar. Hope you don't mind a bit of good-natured rebuttal from us here in the Godless Blue States.

[Spoiler Alert: The numbers in the you email sent us are, uh, fake. See bottom of this very long email for the details.]




You misspelled "Barack". Oh boy, this is going to take a while...

Favors new drilling offshore US

For me, a BIG point in Obama's favor, actually. Offshore drilling is little more than a handout to the oil companies. Let's phrase this one another way, shall we? Like, "John McCain favors giving away natural resource rights (currently held in the public trust) to the richest companies in the history of the world so that they can build polluting, obsolete extractive technology in hurricane-prone, environmentally sensitive areas like the reefs off of Florida--where Bill and Elaine live--so that in 10 years when the oil rigs finally go on line we can have 2% more domestic oil and save 10 cents a gallon at the pump . If the oil companies feel like it, that is."

Sorry, gas prices are high because we're not the only game in town anymore. Get used to it. India and China are coming on line. An Indian company just announced a $2000 car  (they will sell millions of them). The emerging Chinese middle class is larger than the ENTIRE US population. You saw the Olympics. THAT'S where the demand is coming from. In 10 years, they'll be exporting all that offshore-drilled oil to China. And anyway, oil companies are already sitting on a ton of unused land claims, so it's not even clear that "letting them drill" necessarily means that they will.

But drilling isn't really the big issue. It's that these are generational trends we could see coming from a mile away, and it is nothing short of criminal that the Feds haven't done anything about it. It's one of the great missed opportunities in history that after 9/11, in those days when the country would have been willing to be led anywhere, Bush didn't say, "My fellow Americans, it's our dependence on foreign oil that has us tied up in the politics of the Middle East. We need to get off foreign oil, so I'm adding a 50 cent gas tax and using the proceeds to fund an Apollo project for new sources of energy."

But of course, Bush is an oil guy, so what we got instead was, "Go shopping. And here's a tax break to buy a Hummer!" I mean, I watched Romney leading the "Drill, baby, drill!" chant at the RNC this week and felt like I was looking at someone who wasn't even from the same PLANET as me. Is that seriously a cornerstone of their platform? In 2008?

See, my generation was born after Vietnam, the Space Race, and the first Gas Crunch. We grew up with personal computers and video games. The industry I work in (The Web) wasn't even INVENTED until 1990! We invented Google and the iPhone. We take impossible leaps forward in technology as a given. We don't want cheaper gas... we want an American-made electric car that charges itself off American-made solar panels. Screw offshore drilling, with incremental results in 10 years; by then, we want whole new INDUSTRIES of energy, so we can tell the Middle East to get bent. And if you look at the Presidential candidates, Obama's got a whole detailed platform and strategy on the topic, while McCain... had some windmills in one of his TV ads.

Yes, we need oil. But it's not sustainable. Within my lifetime, we will have moved to Something Else.

Will appoint judges who interpret the law not make it

This one is just adorable. Both will appoint judges who interpret the law because that's all judges are allowed to do under the Consitution. Conservatives have picked up on this language of "legislating from the bench", which they always seem to use whenever a judge overturns a plainly unconstitutional law they want. Like, say, suspending habeas corpus rights for American citizens .

Served in the US Armed Forces

There is no military requirement for the Presidency, so this is at best tangential. Some would argue that McCain's military experience at the height of the Cold War has left him with a Cold War mentality that's fighting yesterday's battles. I wholeheartedly support a strong (even unbelievably strong) military, because I am not naive about how the world works. It can be a freaking powerful tool, and the genius of our country is that it's under civilian control.

But there are no major armies left in the world who are going to be up against us in the future. China? Please. They're our biggest trading partner and they have a rapidly aging population not spoiling for war. Russia? Only if we have a few more years of Republican rule to get 'em good and pissed off, and even then it would take a decade or so just to scrape the rust off their armed forces. Iran? Good god, the population there is young, hip and LOVES Americans and all things American. They're just governed by a small, oppressive minority of fundamentalist religious freaks whom they despise. The answer there seems pretty simple: hold our fire and go the Soviet Union route, walling them off while feeding them the Internet and samizdat copies of old Baywatch episodes and let their own revolution bloom from within in 10 years. It's demographically inevitable. The only thing we could do to f*ck that up would be to invade them, which so far only seems to seem like a good idea to the current Republican Executive branch... and John McCain.

No, sorry, it's all 4th generation warfare from here on out. Small wars, small arms, police actions and nation-rebuilding projects. It has to be. That's what's LEFT. We WON the Cold War. Read Thomas P.M. Barnett for insight into how our military SHOULD be structured for the 21st century. Watch this video and tell me you don't think he makes sense. Bottom line: We can win ANY war we want to wage, period. But we need to transform the military to win the subsequent peace.

McCain seems to me like he'd be a hotheaded Dr. Strangelove-era C-in-C who still wants to Win The Big One. I find that anachronistic and, frankly, terrifying.

Amount of time served in the US Senate

Many would argue that this is not a point in McCain's favor, and the amount of Washington-insider power brokers running his campaign would seem to bear this out.

And, oh, 173 days is less than 6 months. Obama was elected in 2006. It's almost 2009.

Voted against making English the official language

"Can anyone tell me, why anyone would vote against making English our official language?"

I can, easy. Because it's a BULLSHIT ISSUE. In this age of American dominance in the financial, cultural and Internet worlds, there is absolutely no danger of anything happening to English. It has become the de facto official language of the WORLD, and we did that (USA! USA! USA!). Codifying that into law would do nothing but require a government department of Language Police like the Quebecois have (talk about a useless government program...).

The current system works fine, with English in use everywhere and other languages in use when local situations require. Like when one of my (legal!) Korean students has to go the hospital in NYC and needs a translator for "I am allergic to penicillin". I wouldn't want that to not happen because the Feds said it wasn't allowed. And if you're pissed about having to "Press 1 for English" when buying airline tickets over the phone, sorry, but that's the vaunted Free Market responding to consumer demand. Or are you in favor of the government telling private companies what they can and cannot do with their voicemail?

Voted to give Social Security benefits to illegals

"And how about giving our Social Security to illegals?  I know that if you never paid into S.S. you may not care that it will run out of money and not be able to pay all of the people who have paid into it. To shamelessly give it away to law breaking border sneaking people just because they are here is sinful and almost unforgivable."

From : "Republicans are tagging Democratic opponents across the country for wanting to 'give Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants.' But nobody's proposing paying benefits to illegals, not until and unless they become US citizens or are granted legal status."

I'm not hostile to immigrants. I think the borders should be secure and people should be documented (with real security measures: read Beyond Fear by Bruce Schneier if you want to learn about how we get this wrong, repeatedly). But the vast majority of illegal immigrants are NOT illiterate Mexican border jumpers; they're people who got here legally and simply overstayed their visas. I know a few of them. Hell, I dated one. They love this country, work really freakin' hard, and want to stay as long as possible, mainly because their situations at home suck. They're THRILLED to pay taxes if it means they can be legit. If there's no path to citizenship, then they go underground. Or we deport them. It's pretty binary.

It comes down to whether or not you think immigrants bring something to the table or not. I live in New York City, and my experience is that immigrants (from literally every country) make my city a much better place to live. Some are illegal. Most are not. If they play by the rules I'd like to let them stay. New people arrive here all the time, we assimilate them, they come out Americans. It's no big deal. If they wanna pay taxes and contribute to my Social Security fund on the off chance that they might be made legal by the time they're due to collect, more power to 'em.

Immigrants might be real hassles in some cities, but in my PERSONAL experience, they're not.

Oh, and Social Security is not in danger . That's a creative accounting fallacy drummed up by people who are salivating about privatizing that money. When they say "give you control over your retirement money", they really meant "take safely stored Soc Sec money and let us gamble it in the stock market". Really? REALLY? You wanna look at another 500 point drop in the Dow today and tell me you're bummed that those wise guys didn't get to "invest" your Social Security check for you?

Will institute a socialized national health care plan

Let's leave aside the almost meaningless scare word "socialized", for starters, since none of the major candidates are going anywhere near "socializing" anything in their plans.

Read Obama's plan:

I've paid for my own health insurance for most of the last few years (I just took a new job with better coverage, but I gave up my own business to do that). I would have LOVED to have been in a plan that let me pay wholesale prices (with 300 million fellow Americans) instead of retail (to my local group plan health insurance company). What the hell good does it do to have lower taxes if I can't get decent health insurance as an independent entrepreneur for less than half my monthly rent? Still comin' outta my hide. Through arcane rules and bureaucracy, we've been dropped from coverage, reinstated, had things not paid for, and generally been hassled by insurance companies in a way that would have been utterly defeating if either of us had been real sick.

Wake-up call: giant bureaucracies ALREADY control our healthcare. It's simple economics. Given supply and demand, individuals can't control when they get sick ("demand"), so the only way for-profit health insurance companies can make money is to WITHHOLD CARE ("supply"). Crappy care isn't a customer service issue, it's their BUSINESS MODEL. It's insanity. It no more makes sense to have for-profit health insurance in a modern industrialized nation than it does to return to the days of for-profit fire insurance. "My neighbor's house is on fire? Let 'em burn... he should have bought fire department insurance instead of fixing his car last year." I happen to think our society gets stronger when my fellow citizens don't have to worry about where their health care is going to come from (or who's going to put out their fires). And yes, I am willing to pay higher taxes for that (provided I have correspondingly lower healthcare costs).

And on your earlier comment about "giving it away" being "sinful and almost unforgivable", the Republican battle cries of "Free Markets!" and "Less Regulation!" have DIRECTLY led to today's headlines of the Government stepping in to bail out the credit markets, the tab for which, as of the AIG bail-out, is up to $900 FREAKING BILLION of hard-earned taxpayer money. If you're going to refer to a Democratic health care plan as "socialized", please at least do me the intellectually honest favor of referring to the Republican economic plan from now on as "the socialized stock market". Free market, my ass.

Good lord, you could take a TINY FRACTION of that money and give the best health care in the world to every child in America (even the children of illegal immigrants, just because it's the Christian thing to do). Instead, we (that's YOU and ME, pal) are bailing out the wealthiest men in the world because their greed (aided and abetted by a pliant Congress -- Dems and Republicans, let's be honest -- and a distracted public) ran unchecked until their firms were "too big to fail". There should be CRIMINAL CHARGES filed in this debacle.

"Sinful and almost unforgivable", indeed.

Is Obama's health care plan perfect? No. I liked Hillary's plan better, actually, and hope they'll combine the two after the election. But McCain's is pretty much the status quo, except he won't charge sales tax or something. Gee, thanks. If you've got good coverage, God bless you, but healthcare is a catastrophe for a lot of people in this country.

I do agree, though, that we don't want our country to wind up being a socialized third world nightmare like Denmark.

Supports abortion throughout the pregnancy

Touchy subject. But polls show, have shown, and continue to show that a vast majority of the country agree with Obama's policy on this one. And McCain's been all over the map on this anyway, for it before he was against it.

Would pull troops out of Iraq immediately

No, neither would pull out "immediately". Obama would pull out "as soon as safely possible", and there are a LOT of people in the Pentagon who agree with him. McCain? His stated policy seems to be to stay there forever.

And nothing pisses me off more than anyone who says that anyone who wants to pull out of Iraq wants to lose the war. Quoting Thomas Barnett here: "Stop calling it a war. The war is over. We won the war. We did it in six weeks with 121 combat casualties. We did it so fast that we were not prepared for their collapse." We won the war, and we've been occupying the country ever since with just enough troops to keep the lid on sectarian violence but not enough to build lasting stability. It's an occupation and so far the only people who seem unambiguously happy about it are the Iranian government.

Poll after poll shows that about two thirds of Americans want us out of Iraq. Even the Bush administration is now talking about timetables for withdrawal, and McCain seems like the only one who isn't. More importantly, I believe that Obama would not have invaded Iraq in the first place.

(Oh, and I'd just like to remind you that 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. How come we never invaded THOSE guys? I mean, you never even hear us get mad at them! Oh that's right, they have all the oil, so we can't piss them off...)

Supports gun ownership rights

I think this is a bit of an oversimplification. To quote Obama directly: "The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."

I'm not opposed to guns. I LIKE guns. I have fond memories of firing your "varmint rifle" on your farm, and I've handled guns on and off throughout my life. But I don't think there should be less paperwork to buy an assault rifle than there is to renew my driver's license. And to those libertarians who think a gun will keep the Government out of your face, bear in mind that the Bush Republicans obsoleted the Fourth Amendment right against warrantless searches (several times), and there wasn't a shot fired.

Supports homosexual marriage

Great! I support homosexual marriage too. Mainly because I have gay friends in committed relationships and I'd like them to be able to get health insurance together. That's about it. No one has ever been able to coherently explain to me how any of this has any effect on traditional marriage whatsoever.

Proposed programs will mean a huge tax increase

Come on, have you LOOKED at the Federal Budget lately? Under Bush, government spending has INCREASED WILDLY, way more than the Clinton years. And with his "radical tax cut" policy, we paid for that by BORROWING the money. Mostly from the Chinese. Who are laughing their asses off, because they now own a hell of a lot of leverage on us, and if they decide we need to pay it back we are well and truly f*cked, my friends.

Look at this chart. The red bars are taxes (yes, Clinton raised taxes... mostly on the rich, and the economy boomed). But the blue line is federal spending: steadily LOWER through the Clinton years and shooting UP during the Bush years. And that figure doesn't even include the Iraq War! Think of the children, indeed... they'll be paying off this turd for decades.


As for the tax breakdowns below, sorry pal, you've been hoodwinked again. Go to a reputable site and check out all of the facts. This election is too damn important to trust a randomly forwarded chain email. details a point by point rebuttal of THIS EXACT EMAIL. Those last few taxes at the end are COMPLETELY made up. If you want to see the REAL tax plan, here's a detailed breakdown from CNN Money:

Bottom line: If you make less that $600,000 a year, you'll fare better under Obama's plan. I don't know about you, but I'm just a liiiiiitle bit under the $600K mark...

So how can Obama lower taxes on so many people and pay for the stuff he's planning? Well, it turns out that the Bush tax cuts he wants to roll back were so completely off-the-charts insane for the top bracket that simply reverting them to their 1999 levels balances the books. We tend not to hear much about this because the tiny percentage of Americans in that top bracket tend to include the people who own all the television networks and newpapers. The "liberal media" is a myth; we have a Corporate Media.

As for capital gains, it seems like no one will be making any taxable profit on the sale of their homes thanks to the huge real estate bust brought on in large part due to Republican deregulation. (Seriously though, see the links above for the real cap gains info.)

Finally, re: "If you have any love for your country and your children's future, please think long and hard before you vote in November."

I have done so. Nay, I have OBSESSED.

I have ingested unhealthy amounts of facts, figures, ads, political analyses, chain emails (hello!), talk radio and a Metric Crapload of blog posts ranging from "Basket Weaving for Peace" to "Kill 'em All And Let God Sort 'em Out".  I have had strong feelings and been open to opposing viewpoints. I have passionately argued with neighbors, friends and co-workers.

And I will vote enthusiastically and without hesitation for Barack Obama and Joe Biden on Nov 4, because I UNAMBIGUOUSLY feel that it will mean a better future for me, and mine, and my country.

I'll leave you with the wisdom of one of my favorite bloggers :

"I'm not voting for Obama because I actually believe that he's going to wave his magical 'change' wand and suddenly make all the ugliness of the past seven years go away. I'm voting for him because, after some careful consideration, I concluded that he is the least likely of all the major presidential candidates to do something horrifically shitty while in office. Yes, friends, I am that cynical."

Good to hear from you! It always makes me smile to get cranky email from you. Deb and I miss you both.

Your dirty hippie commie pinko anarchist East Coast big-city elitist tree-hugger librarian nephew,


PS: I am not really a commie.

Originally posted to mlas on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:47 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  You can spell (16+ / 0-)

    You must be an elitist!

    I do think the patriotic thing to do is to critique my country. How else do you make a country better but by pointing out its flaws? Bill Maher

    by gtghawaii on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:52:36 AM PDT

    •  And he can write! (6+ / 0-)

      And think!  Which makes him an especially dangerous elitist.

      •  GREAT diary, your first or 365th, excellent! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        leftcoast, sfgb

        With respect to our collective crazy conservative uncles (parents, siblings) dispersed throughout the USofA, I rather doubt that even your eloquent, funny & non-judgmental letter will persuade said uncle to cast a vote for anyone other than a conservative. This is the way of life with crusty reptillian brains :)

        But having said that, you expressed your bullet points about as common-sensically as is humanly possible. I had several "favorites" but this one for me ranks highest:

        And on your earlier comment about "giving it away" being "sinful and almost unforgivable", the Republican battle cries of "Free Markets!" and "Less Regulation!" have DIRECTLY led to today's headlines of the Government stepping in to bail out the credit markets, the tab for which, as of the AIG bail-out, is up to $900 FREAKING BILLION of hard-earned taxpayer money.

        If you're going to refer to a Democratic health care plan as "socialized", please at least do me the intellectually honest favor of referring to the Republican economic plan from now on as "the socialized stock market". Free market, my ass.

        Of course it's easy to say:

        Anyone who doesn't see that gaping discrepancy in their basic understanding of capitalism -- the American way -- is either really stubbornly dumb beyond all hope of redemption -- or a liar to themselves.

        I have long felt this is exactly a thematic line of attack that Democrats should frikking HAMMER HAMMER HAMMER home, ad after ad.

        I doubt it will happen though -- fraidy cat Dems etc... worried GOP would do a swiftboat of Obama along the ignorant but emotionally effective lines of "he won't place his hand over his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance"

        Anyway, great letter, expressed with the best possible tone one can take with a stubbornly hardline conservative... I hope you'll write an update letting us know how he responded, if at all :)

  •  fyI (9+ / 0-)

    Thomas and Scalia overturn congress more than any other justice, ie legislate from the bench. The activist judges thing is like all Republican mantras-cartoon history. And as for socialism, they socialize losses and capitalize profits. see bailouts. Still, keep up the good work, though I doubt your uncle is capable of comprehending reality beyond the level of Hannity or O'Reilly, you never know.

  •  Well, I'm pretty sure the thing Americans are (9+ / 0-)

    worried about most tonight, is their capital gains taxes.

    Also, I'm glad McCain opposes socialized health care. With our socialized lending institutions, we just couldn't afford to have both.

    "I cannot even imagine the mushroom cloud of horror and disbelief that will spread over the nation on November 5th should Palin and McCain win." - tjlabs

    by voracious on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:56:34 AM PDT

  •  Me too! (6+ / 0-)

    Got the same email and sat down and spent way too much time writing a response. But unlike you, I'm not sure I'm going to send it - my sister sent it and she's simply no longer reachable by reason.

    My favorite bit of research was into the "social security for illegals" nonsense. Seems that this is based on a vote on a "motion to table" an amendment by Ensign to CIRA. CIRA would give undocumented immigrants a way to gain legal residency status and Ensign was all hysterical that maybe they (once they were legal residents) would be able to use the money they'd paid in to SS while working without legal residency when calculating the benefits and offered an amendment to make sure they couldn't do that. But no one voted on the amendment - Obama voted "yea" on a motion to table it. And this is, of course, voting to "give social security to illegals."

    The beauty is - McCain voted "yea" on the same motion. It's even better. CIRA sends wingnuts to frothing status. They call it "amnesty." Guess who was a co-sponsor . . . McCain of course!

    I love it.

    Got all this from Snopes. It's 3am and I must go to bed instead of looking for the link - but it's easy to find there.

    I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution. - Barbara Jordan

    by Janet Strange on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:58:20 AM PDT

  •  An excellent takedown (8+ / 0-)

    The only sad part is that if your Florida Uncle is anything like my Florida Uncle, he'll never read any of it.  Oh well, at least we can entertain each other  . . . :)

    •  Maybe it's better if he doesn't (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sfgb, Fawkes

      Due to the Backfire Effect.

      I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution. - Barbara Jordan

      by Janet Strange on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:00:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  he's actually a pretty cool guy... (13+ / 0-)

      Navy vet, and was pissed about the Iraq war. Likes having these back and forths with me. I might actually be able to talk some sense into him. He sent an email about some Jane Fonda sensationalism once, and I found a page on Snopes debunking it. He sent my response to everyone he had sent the original email to and apologized...

      OTOH, my gun shop-owning cousins, probably not so much.

      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- Mencken

      by mlas on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:09:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well done in confronting BS (5+ / 0-)

        If we had done more of this eight years ago, and four years ago, the world would be a very different place today.

        "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" - Abraham Lincoln

        by LondonYank on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:17:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Since he is a veteran... (8+ / 0-)

        Send him the compilation of McCain's voting record on veteran issues since 1990; he has voted against veterans at least 47 times.  The list is referenced by the bill number and the date of the vote.  If you can't find it, send me an email (addy in profile) and I will forward a copy that I saved.

        My brother (who lives in an exclusive gated community in FL - read solid Republican neighborhood) was very similar, and I got tired of sending detailed responses to similar missives he forwarded.  I finally found and sent the list above, and he was shocked.

        He now wears an Obama/Biden button.

        I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

        by Wayward Wind on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:43:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How come.... (0+ / 0-)

          the world's most powerful military force, with the ability to totally destroy anything moving on a conventional battlefield, is losing to third-world opponents armed with war-surplus ammunition and garage door openers?

          Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.

          by dweb8231 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:30:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  In part, same old story... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            The insurgents believe that they are fighting for something - to repel a foreign occupation (whether we acknowledge it or not), for internal power, other reasons which make sense only when viewed through their lenses,  while our guys are fighting for...wait, I lost track, what are we fighting for in Iraq this week?

            In the early days of Vietnam (65-early 68) it was laughable that the US military would be defeated by a third rate power...after Tet of 68, no one was laughing any more, and we frantically searched for a way out while the NVA and the VC continued to fight for the same reason as they had always fought rid their homeland of what they viewed as a foreign occupation.

            I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

            by Wayward Wind on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 04:41:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  barack doesn't support gay marriage, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AntKat, Fawkes, googleimage

    i wish he did.

    "Are we to gulp down this tissue of horse shit? Are we to take these glib lies like a greased & nameless asshole?" - Wm Burroughs, Naked Lunch

    by rasbobbo on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:00:25 AM PDT

    •  I actually (6+ / 0-)

      think he does but it would kill his candidacy to admit that out right.

      He has shown remarkable zeal standing up for gay rights in unfriendly places though.

      Anyway, that point is mute because as California goes this November - so goes the nation (eventually).

      •  yes he's also showing the smarter way (8+ / 0-)

        around the issue.  respect state decisions - like CA - on gay marriage and let them start the trend.  

        it's a savvy way of taking a republican ideology - states' rights - and using it to serve a democratic principle.  

        it would be near impossible for gay marriage to be made into law federally as congress and the supreme court stand right now.  way too much political gridlock - to do it this way may do more harm than good because it could create even more national resistance to gay marriage.  certainly it would take a lot longer.

        it's also why in one of the dem debates, obama carefully answered that he felt civil unions were what are possible/realistic right now.  a way of showing that it's not a value he's personally against but that it's not currently practical on the federal level right now.  which - of course - is certainly true without a working democratic majority that can override presidential veto.

    •  Barack's View (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rasbobbo, sfgb, Heiuan, Otteray Scribe

      He supports civil unions as a way provide legal rights to same sex couples.  He feels that the religious definition of marriage should be left to the individual religions - separation of church and state.  Unitarian and UCC churches do acknowledge and perform same sex marriages.  Other churches don't.  As someone who has tremendous respect for the Constitution, he doesn't believe marriage should be defined in the Constitution so he opposes a Constitutional ammendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  I think his view is spot on.  The only part of this issue that should include government intervention are the civil and legal rights of same sex couples.  

  •  Lovely (4+ / 0-)

    You might have inundated him with too many facts though. lol.

    I wonder if he'll ever actually read it in its entirety.

  •  good response although (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sfgb, Purple Priestess

    not necessarily accurate re: gay marriage (for civil unions and respecting state decisions on the matter), offshore drilling (he's compromising on it, but is like you are saying - for drilling on land that has already been leased to oil companies while fast-tracking alternative energies), abortion (more can be said on the distinctions between 3rd-trimester/partial birth abortions and 1st/2nd trimester abortions, and stress laid on reducing abortions in general through education and access to birth control, etc.).  

    i do want to give kudos to you for the lovely screed you wrote about our generation and energy - totally ass-kicking and so true.  oil is so anachronistic.  

    i hope your uncle gets what you wrote and that people appreciated your effort!

  •  Obama was elected in '04 n/t (6+ / 0-)

    Don't call him "McLame": call McCain John Sidney McCain, III to help sink in the fact that he's out of touch.

    by barath on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:23:33 AM PDT

  •  nice! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rhfactor, sfgb, Purple Priestess, Fawkes

    I don't have the patience to respond to the Republican freaks in my family.

    I just got an email about how Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. Your uncle sounds absolutely rational in comparison to my Jesus-freak cousin...

    •  point your cousin (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sfgb, Purple Priestess, Fawkes

      at Matthew 25... at least it'll give him/her something to consider

      Matthew 25

      Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld, a miracle made possible by John McCain.

      by Airmid on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:38:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll send him (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rhfactor, Purple Priestess, Fawkes

        the link, but frankly, I don't even talk to him anymore because he's so insane. He's not one of the do-gooder christians. He's a major hater...

        His big issue is abortion and the "culture of life" nonsense. When I pointed out to him that it was slightly hypocritical to claim to be for life while supporting the pro-war candidate, he said, "Well, the Iraq war has killed one million people, and abortions kill 5 million every year, so it makes more sense to focus on that."

        There's no getting through to people like him...

  •  GET OUT OF MY HEAD (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rhfactor, Purple Priestess, Fawkes

    I really enjoyed reading this.

    great job.

    Why wait for 1984 when you can panic now and avoid the rush? - Gil Scott Heron "B-Movie"

    by SycophantsAndXenophobes on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:47:03 AM PDT

  •  Thank you! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sfgb, Purple Priestess

    I got this, too - but I didn't have time to go point by point like you did.

    Mind if I borrow it? I'll make sure to credit you...

  •  Great Response (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Purple Priestess

    I can think of a few people I would love to send this information to.

    A couple things I noticed though - Obama was elected to the senate in 2004, not 2006.  Also, he is against partial birth abortions.  He did vote against the bill to ban them, but only because there was no exception in the bill for the mother's life.  Also, he supports civil unions as a way to provide legal right to same sex couples, and feels the decision on whether or not to accept homosexual marriage in the religious sense should be left to churches.

    I think you will blow your Uncle away with this letter.  Let us know what kind of response you get.

  •  Excellent! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    What a great job you've done on your first diary. Welcome to DKos!


    The "liberal media" is a myth; we have a Corporate Media.

    This is one of my mantras when trying to communicate with GOPers. I hope you don't mind if I pass a few of your arguments along.... ;)

    The place where you made your stand never mattered. Only that you were there... and still on your feet.~~ Stephen King

    by Purple Priestess on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 03:55:09 AM PDT

  •  This is really fantastic! I love this diary! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    All of our diaries should be of this caliber.  You intelligently and lovingly and with good humor set your uncle straight. And you had fun doing it.  What was his response?

  • favorite line... (0+ / 0-)

    Screw offshore drilling, with incremental results in 10 years; by then, we want whole new INDUSTRIES of energy, so we can tell the Middle East to get bent.

    Clear, concise, and to the point.  Beautiful.

    The apocalypse will require substantial revision of all zoning ordinances. - Zashvill Political compass -7.88 -7.03.

    by Heiuan on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 05:55:34 AM PDT

  •  My reply to that email. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Janet Strange

    Below, you'll see a viral e-mail which purports to be a comparison of the positions of McCain and Obama.

    Not surprisingly, it is nearly all lies, as it applies to the campaign of Barack Obama. It was a nice touch, including the links which "verify" this information, because, as the liar who composed and sent this out knows, those links do not connect you to verification of these "facts"! The sleazebag who wrote this knows that most people will not follow those links, but will rather just think "Oh, and here's proof!" Some of the links actually take you to news websites that discuss these "facts" as being intentionally spread lies!

    If you want to understand a candidate's proposals, I mean if you are really serious about being an informed citizen, why aren't you going to their websites, where you can get the information, correctly, from the source?

    Which would you prefer to be? A fool, or a liar? Because a liar is writing this stuff to intentionally deceive you. And the best light to put on it is, your acquaintance who sent this to you originally is a fool, for swallowing propaganda whole and then passing it on. Of course, your sender may know that this "comparison" is largely untrue. Then you have to ask yourself: Why is someone, to whom you gave your e-mail address, lying to you to affect your vote?

    If you have already forwarded this "comparison", some of your recipients are already wondering why you sent it to them; they are wondering about you - are you a fool or a liar?

    Finally, going beyond the gullible part of your circle that sent this to you, you must as an American citizen wonder:
    Why does John McCain need lies to win an election? He and his running mate are repeating lies daily in their stump speeches, lies which, in the age of video, internet, and Lexis-Nexus, can and have been proven conclusively to be untrue. Not "subject to interpretation": categorically untrue!

    Now, I was originally going to go point by point through this intentionally lying e-mail, to offer a point-by-point refutation of these lies. But then I thought about it.

    If you are a genuinely concerned, good citizen, upon hearing such an excoriation of this stuff, you will take, if not all, at least some of these "facts" about the Obama proposals for our country, and you will fact check them for yourself, with or or Many of these lies can also be checked by going to any major news website and doing a search, or going to Google and doing a search.

    If, however, you have made up your mind for McCain, and you don't care if he, his campaign, and his supporters will intentionally lie, because all that matters is winning the election?
    Then you are not a responsible citizen, you are willing to act - either without thought, or without honor - and you can simply go to hell. You are the reason our nation is in such a mess, at home and in the eyes of the world. We need informed voters, not oblivious fans.

    If John McCain cannot win without LYING to you, then he CAN'T WIN BY TELLING YOU THE TRUTH, either.

    P.S. You can ignore me.
    You can send me an insulting e-mail reply.
    Or, you can send me proof - from the candidate, or a factual news account of the candidate - that one of these Obama "facts" seems to be true. Sending me a McCain campaign characterization of a point is not proof - get it from the candidate or from a factual news account.
    I will gladly engage you on that point, and supply you with my reference link, and I'll even paste the information into an e-mail, so you can read it before you have to chase the link. I'll promise you that I will not send you any deceptive links such as the e-mail below included.


    I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

    by labradog on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 06:30:40 AM PDT

  •  CORRECTION (0+ / 0-)

    Obama got to the Senate in 2004 and not 2006 as you state up there.

    Also, in terms of health care. McCains health care plan essentially taxes you for health care. I can explain if you would like too.

    McCains tax break is skewed to the upper 2-3%. McCains tax cut would cost 120 billion (individuals and families, 200 billion corporations), with no way to pay for it. FEDERAL EARMARKS TOTAL 18BILLION LAST YEAR, less than 5% of the Bush Budget Deficit. McCain has no WAY FOR PAYING FOR THOSE TAXES.

    Bush --- cocaine-sniffing draft dodger

    by max1505 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 06:46:29 AM PDT

  •  It's possible we have the same uncle Bill (0+ / 0-)

    Well, mine actually belongs to my wife, so for some reason I'm the one who gets forwarded all the Obama email. I also tell him that he's disrupting my basement abortion and pot festival.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site