Look at his “Blueprint for Change.” It is a blueprint: It’s Socialism 301.

Aside from his demagogic “I will” promises, it is clear that he sees government not as a “last responder,” but as a “first provider.” Do you want to have a child and raise him or her as a member of your family? Forget it: Obama says “I will” provide “education and health care for infants.” You can read his agenda for yourself, but you might want to take a seat before you do.

If, as seems likely, Obama is the Democratic nominee, he is not going to be able to sugar-coat his agenda. He will either have to explain it himself or it will be explained for him. In the light of day, his agenda is about as close to a socialist one as a generic drug is to a branded one.

Some of Obama’s supporters seem to like his ideology even though they realize his promises are largely a result of some hallucinations he has experienced from time to time. Those “supporters” probably think they can capture the essence of his philosophy without having to worry about the backlash that would result if he even had a chance to implement his programs.

Obama is a dreamer. And a very dishonest one at that.

If someone believes in and promotes socialist ideals and ideas but won’t stand up and admit that he is at least a far-left liberal, he’s obviously afraid of the reaction he would get. But he will get that reaction when his true colors are shown.

Obama is the ultra-liberal who has been able to attract support by being both charismatic and engaging in calculated manipulation.

Lol and perhaps this might even be a textbook example on the impact of youtube and viral marketing in gathering grassroots support.

so if we vote him in based on the premise that this-is-a-nice-guy-outside-of-washington, he-can-do-it, and he pulls a GWB on us (compassionate conservative ahahahaahhaah), then how? another 4-8 more years of incompetence.

Why should we send combat brigades into a nation when our contribution would be not of any CBA to anyone including ourselves?

Must be a Singaporean who listens often, to hip-hop - always trying too hard.

Regarding Bill Clinton, I think it’s rather unfair to overlook all his contributions for his sexual misconduct. Likewise, I think it’s too sweeping to state that Hillary is solely dependent on him to garner support; she has her own abilities and appeals too.

Asian values and confucian ethics are nothing more than social constructs and stereotypes to me. Not all Singaporeans subscribe to them. Even if some do, it will definitely be to varying degrees.

Doubts on Hillary’s sincerity are definitely founded. It’s good that people scrutinize their potential president to vote wisely.

As for the responsibility issue, I agree that the president should first and foremost be responsible to his/her citizens; they are the ones who voted for him/her.

Having said that, it will be irresponsible of the citizens to demand that the government pull out the troops immediately without any concern for consequences. After all, they (not all but at least 1/2 of them) voted for the president to represent them, not only once but twice i.e. to say, 1/2 the voters supported the Iraq war; they should be responsible enough to see though it, and not just abruptly change their mind just because they now feel that it’s detrimental to them. (Again, this points to my point that voters should demand information to decide appropriately; it’s their rights and responsibility.)

While I agree that everyone (every country) should be committed to world peace, the initiator of the war should hold greater responsibility, especially since they waged it without approval from the United Nations.

I only sympathize with all the innocent soldiers and families who have to fight a causeless war, and all the war victims.

God bless the world.

“Implicit in your reply that a Shiite bloc will destablize the Middle East is the assumption that the status quo where Sunnis are dominant is something that is justified and worth keeping. Now, we can say that easily because we are not Shiites.”

Yes. You noted correctly. I do think the mideast will be thrown into instability and that cannot be good politically or economically. There is no question that there is real religious, cultural and political enmity between Iran/Shiites and the Sunni nations. Throw in a hit-first-justify-later Israel as a potential whipping boy in the region, and the party really becomes wild.

If you think oil at US$100 is high? Well, be prepared for a lot higher levels if the mideast suddenly gets into equilibrium. If you think the global economy is already teetering, you may very well be prepared to see mass unemployment and economic stagnation from the US, to China and Singapore for awhile. If you think too many innocent lives have already been lost in Iraq… you probably haven’t seen the worst of sectarian, tribal, religious toll on civilians that a sudden US troop withdrawal would create in vacuum.

At the end of the day, the US can probably weather such a scenario somewhat ok. It is an economic, political and military superpower. I suspect Singapore will actually feel the negative repercussions a lot greater even if in an indirect manner.

The lack of logic comment was directed at the questions posed by Americanos who posited that Singapore’s commitment to global peace is predicated strictly upon either sending a brigade to Iraq or contributing 1% of the cost of a war started by the U.S. How this has suddenly directly become Singapore’s duty and problem is illogical… in fact, it’s downright idiotic. And how these are the only two options to commit to ‘global peace’ is also narrow minded and frankly, stupid.

And back to Barack… I actually like him. I hope he does become the next President. I think the realities of American politics and Presidency will ultimately temper a lot of the broad promises which do concern me… like a quick withdrawal from Iraq. He seems like someone who can draw a good set of people around him, thus he seems like the kind who will likely take the advice of generals and strategists who actually deal with the logistics and details on-the-ground in Iraq, and willl have to disengage in a more moderate way.

Remember, there’s a frequently a large difference between what candidates say in the election trail and what they’ll do when they are in office. Bill Clinton called for sanctions and trade restrictions against China when he was campaigning, but when he came to office he changed his tune to become one of the friendliest trade partners across the Pacific. Remember Bush Snr’s “read my lips… no new taxes!” comment?

And finally, the comment on ‘talk is cheap’ is ironically not to be tossed around lightly by Barack supporters. Since that’s a lot of what he can do right now, talk and promise.

Just for this once, I would like to humor you:

Yes, the lack of logic is costly. It shows so clearly in your reply to my questions: It was simply a non-reply.

My exchange with you need not go any further. PERIOD!

Americanos.