|
Obama the perfect candidate?
Is it just me, or is Obama the perfect candidate?
I can't find anything wrong with him. I'm an atheist, and I still strongly support his positions on religion. I agree with his foreign policy, his idea for social reform, his stance on "the green movement," and even his feelings about 'the religious right.' The only thing I've seen people bash him on is his "lack of experience", but years in Illinois, books written and 11 years teaching Constitutional law is enough for me, even as Commander in Chief. Call me naive. Can anyone find anything that makes him look bad? I've been google videoing all day and I can't find anything. He doesn't even seem wish-washy. There's no "arguing with himself" videos like there are with Hillary, et. al. I suppose if you were super religious or super Republican you might not like him, but damn if I'm not close to agreeing with Obama girl. He seems like a very solid candidate. Some videos to support my hypothesis: "His Plans for 2008": Him on Tyra Show - makes him seem very human and humble His "Relgious" opinion; skip to 2:05 to get past all the Jesus stuff right to his speech His Foreign Policy: "Our military power is just one component of our power… [..] and I will do whatever it takes as Commander in Chief to keep the American people safe. But I know that part of keeping us safe is restoring our respect in our world. And I think those who are advising me agree with that, and part of our agenda that we are putting forward …initiating contacts with Muslim leaders in the world, doubling our efforts in terms of in terms of foreign aid. All those are designed to create long-term security, by creating long-term prosperity around the world.” For giggles; Obama Girl (not really SFW) His official policy page (biased, but still good): http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ He's also one of very few candidates to address net neutrality, but that's not surprising considering he has a million mySpace and Facebook pages and seems generally tech-savvy (another important thing, for me). |
I am an Obama donor, and host, I fully expect the post that you're formenting to "shed light" on why he's the devil incarnate or whatever it is this week. I'm looking forward to it. :)
Disclosure aside, I really like the guy. I met him when he was running for the Senate at a "Barack-B-Q" and again a few weeks ago. He is very impressive. And his wife is even more so, believe it or not. Clearly, I don't buy the "lack of experience" thing. I don't see where experience has made any difference. Bush and Clinton both had the experience of being govenors of their respective states, and I don't see where that really helped either. Being Vice President didn't really seem to help Ford or Bush Sr. Is he the right man for the job? That's the important question, I think. You're welcome to your answer on that. I have mine. |
His reaction to the US spending ten times as much on the military as our next closesr rival is unacceptable to me:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...95&postcount=1 ...and this smells: Quote:
|
I think he'd make a good president.
Voting record: http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm He has a frighteningly good record, which is why he's my second choice behind Kucinich. |
host, from the article you quoted:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
...and, from the same article:
Page 1: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Typical tax and spend democrat..
Quote:
|
Why? Because Obama mows Rezko's empty lot at MAYBE $1,000 a year, and Obama's the one that doesn't have to look at the overgrown lot?
host, I think that it speak volumes that someone with your excellent research skills can't find anything worse on Obama than this. Let's recap: Obama didn't know that Rezko was buying the lot. Obama paid Rezko higher than market value for the land he bought but that the formula he used is perfectly acceptable (1/6th of the purchase price of the lot for 1/6th of its area). Obama made Rezko pay for the fence because that's what the law says. Explain to me how this makes Rezko and Obama bedmates, please. It sounds like Obama being a good neighbor and following the law. |
Ustwo... we spend, but it's usually to pay for the previous GOP presidency and social programs, not wars.
|
Host, I somehow have a hard time believing that our next president is going to be in the pocket of... Tony Rezko. The article is careful to say that Obama has taken pains to demonstrate that nothing is amiss. Don't people have the right to have any friends they want and perform any legal financial or real estate transaction with anyone they want? That smear story is unworthy of you.
The military spending thing is, in my mind, tempered by everything else he's said about his foreign policy plans. From everything I've heard him say, plus his Senate voting record, I trust him to represent me on the international stage. Imagine an Obama/Kucinich ticket! Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I've had my eye on Barack since the 2004 Democratic convention.
He has had my vote from the start. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
The day a democrat votes for real reductions in government spending and does not cry a reduction in the rate of growth is a cut, let me know. |
Quote:
|
The problem with defining what is a problem with Obama is that the problems change depending on what side of the fence you happen to fall upon. If you want to argue ideology, then, one could find several things wrong with him.
However, I sense that you are looking to find "what is wrong with him" in comparison to Clinton. I cannot help you with that because I think they are both wrong (i.e. the Theory of Global Warming and spending money on something that isn't even proven.) I would say that the thing that could be wrong with him, "universally", is that he is a politician. However, they all are and it would be naive to think that he will do anything other than bend to whatever master he serves, whether it be Corporations (on the Conservative side) or Special Interest/Unions (on the Liberal side). They're all dirty and all it takes is a few lobbyists with a whole lot of money to change their minds. Remember... In California, the Governator stated "I have plenty of money and I will not need to take money from Special Interests". He held out for a little while, but he eventually turned too. I guess my point is that no one can be trusted because the untrustworthy people have made it impossible for anyone at that level to be trusted. /rant |
Quote:
It's not our fault that you guys got nothing but crapola on a ritz cracker this go-around. :) |
Any ticket involving Kucinich has no chance of winning unless the east and west coasts declare war on and carpet-nuke every inch of ground between Chicago and San Francisco.
And that won't happen, simply from an environmental standpoint ;) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Isn't his middle name "Hussein"?
Obvious Islamic conspiracy. Nuff, said. |
Quote:
|
I like him, his relative lack of experience doesn't bother me in the least, and I don't think he'd kill the country or anything, but I wouldn't ever vote for him.
I just don't like Democratic policy much at all. I'll echo Ustwo's post #7, and while I don't know if it's really sour grapes for him, it IS sour grapes for me. I wish we had an Obama. Why the hell not? Some of my best friends come across as honest and idealistic. I'll either hold my nose as in 2004 and vote for the republican nominee - if he isn't GWB II or Giuliani - or throw my vote away on some libertarianish third party candidate. |
No, he's not perfect. Takes a lot of big donations from Goldman Sachs and the like. Too much Wall Street investment in his campaign for my taste. But I like him more than any other candidate, because he's willing to listen to both sides of the aisle and has proven that he can bring people together towards a common cause, like his campaign for videotaped interrogations in Illinois. He isn't about "us versus those nasty Republicans" like Hillary is. People are tired of the partisan bullshit.
Don't like her much. She's frosty, and her composure is easily punctured. Bad combination, and the sheiks and imams in the Middle East quagmire just aren't really going to warm up to her. Not when her husband was the guy responsible for placing all those military bases in their holy land, and refusing to close them down even when threatened by terrorists about dire consequences. Meanwhile, a dark-skinned man named Barack Hussein Obama? I'm thinking he'll get a wee bit more traction over there. Edwards is all right, but he doesn't have Obama's charisma. He'll probably get a cabinet position if Obama wins. Right now, he's good enough as Barack's foil. You can tell neither of them like her, on a personal level. Edwards really seemed to sour on her when she fell behind and started sniping at Obama. Barack, meanwhile, is just sitting back and giving her as much rope as she wants. Political jujitsu. |
Quote:
Besides, Bi-Partisanship is overrated. Its just each side saying... "If you vote to pass my bill, I will vote to pass your bill regardless of whether I believe it will actually benefit the Country or not." There is no belief in that. Take a stand, stand up for what you believe, carry out what you say, and realize you can't please everyone. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I am a fan of Kucinich the man and very much so, but as a national politician (not just a state representative, I mean) I just can't get behind someone who is so uncompromising. That's the problem we have now in Bush and I don't want to trade an idiot-tyrant for an enlightened-tyrant. As for Kucinich as a VP I think that would be alright assuming he doesn't ascend to the presidency and that picking him up as a VP united either the party or country by filling a void in the ticket. Unfortunately, neither assumption is valid. The man does great work in the House and brings an important voice to the national political discussion. I think he might have a place in a democratic presidents cabinet. Anyway, to somewhat relate back to the original topic I do want to say that I really am going to have to grit my teeth at the ballot box if Obama wins the nomination. I live in a solidly blue state so I might be able to get away with not doing so, but in a close race I will show up to vote Democrat. Obama is far from perfect for many reasons. I think experience matters. I'm not from Missouri but when you talk change or consistency I say 'show me'. I refuse to take someone at there word, no matter how trustworthy or unimpeachable that person is, when nothing less than the presidency of the United States is on the line. Additionally, I see Obama as the media's darling. He is the Howard Dean of this race. I feel that the media is giving Obama a free ride because he is hard to report on due to his relative lack of experience and, chiefly, because by crafting another mover-and-shaker, semi-populist, semi-liberal, Dean-esque candidate they can sell a candidate that will sell more viewers/readers on their outlet. He's fresh and new and people will tune in to hear about it him while the Clinton and Edwards stories have already sold their papers. Finally, I am a moderate democratic and I largely find Obama as more left than Hillary and more divisive in a hypothetical 4 year term. He is just too vague and programatic in his 'plans' and 'issues', he is a one-trick pony and that trick is repeating the word 'change' as much as possible while accusing everyone else as being an 'insider' and thus part of the status quo problem. It really is a masterful strategy, but I just don't buy into it. I feel that his seeming 'perfection' is a veil created through the methods I've mentioned earlier. It's all smoke and mirrors and I can only hope that voters realize that before Super Tuesday or else the nation will by November and us Democrats will be in real trouble. |
I'm utterly stunned: My dad is for Obama.
My dad has only in his life voted something other than Republican when he voted for Ross Perot. He hates every GOP option--McCain is too entrenched, Giuliani is a scaremongering clown, and he lives as a non-Mormon in Utah so Romney's out. He thinks the post-tears Hillary is phony (the whole "I've found my voice" thing leaves him cold). But he can see a future of change promised by Obama, and he's for that. Stunning. I'm here to tell you, if Obama wins the nomination, we're going to get a BUNCH of aisle-crossing votes. |
Quote:
I rather doubt your dad knows his voting record. |
There's an old saying.... "when someone appears too perfect.... they usually have the worst skeletons in their closet."
I don't see him electable in November and personally, there's something about him I just can not trust or like. He scares me almost, if not as much as Hilary. We are very limited this presidential race. I don't see one true great leader on either side. |
Quote:
|
He can't be perfect because his stance on the space program is severely flawed.
|
Quote:
Next Gen shuttles, complete the ISS, keep weapons out of space, and improve math and science education... where is the flaw? |
Quote:
Which is pulled from Section X in the PDF Since the information I have that Obama wants to delay the Orion by at least 5 years is from his own website in a document he endorsed I think my information is more accurate than your web link. I think its foolish of him to cut NASA's budget to fund education in science and math. Its counter-productive you give kids a better opportunity with science and math but you hurt the industry that relies heavily on people who are good at science and math. Its not just NASA that would be affected by this. NASA employs just a small fraction of the space program's work force. There are thousands of contractor employees for Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Honeywell, Hamilton-Sunstrand, and United Space Alliance. Those are just the big ones. There are dozens of smaller contractors who all have jobs that rely on the space program. What we need is a leader who isn't afraid to set ambitious goals for NASA and increase its funding to actually accomplish those goals safely, effectively, and in a reasonable amount of time. |
Of the companies you mentioned, VASTLY more of their budget comes from weapons systems than space technologies. Like, orders of magnitude more. I know not all of them are in that field--even so, total their space-related revenues and total their military-related revenues and you'll see what a drop in the bucket NASA is in the "areospace" industry.
As far as I'm concerned, compared to what we're facing domestically and abroad, NASA can go hang. And I'm a major space geek. Having an Orion orbiter happen would be great--and getting us the hell out of Iraq, pulling our economy back from the brink, and solving the health care crisis are WAY bigger issues for this voter. |
Quote:
You can train all of the engineers you want, but if you do not give them even the hope of ever seeing their dreams take flight, why would they seek to join such an industry? |
i don't know if Obama is perfect. for a while i thought clintion was. granted, i'm not on the 'top' of the game.
but a friend sent me a link that was pretty cool. you answer 11 questions and they "select a candidate" for you. telling you how your opinions and thoughts rank among them and gives you a pretty good idea of who wants what. check it out. http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?...v=menu132_3_10 i was shocked by what i saw, but there's a good chance i'm not changing my vote. . . . |
Quote:
As an employee in the aerospace industry who works at Johnson Space Center I find it difficult to really make other people understand what the main problem is with the aerospace industry. The single biggest problem why our space industry is plateaued and has the appearance of an industry "afraid to take risks" is because we lack one major all important ingredient. NATIONAL LEADERSHIP. Why was NASA so effective in the 60's up to Apollo 11? Because we had large national leadership and a goal. Countless dollars were wasted throughout the 90's because NASA had no defined goal. Programs were started, funded, then canceled a year or so later because no one would see them out to the end. The other main issue is that NASA budget has literally remained constant since the mid 80's at some 14 billion per year. It hasn't even been adjusted for inflation which means since the 80's NASA purchasing power has decreased every year. There was a time when in order to fly the shuttle in the 90's NASA had to sacrifice money from the budget to build a space station or in order to actually develop a space station it had to sacrifice money that should have been spent on shuttle improvements and upgrades. This continued for over 15 years. Now at least we have a goal to finish the station by 2010, fly Orion by 2015, and go back to the moon by 2020. This of course could all go out the window if a new president steps up and kills our budget. And then of course all the money and effort that went into the program up to that point would have been wasted. What we need is someone with the guts to make a plan and see it out to the end. Not more budget cuts and setbacks which ultimately causes more apathy and mistrust in the space program. Furthermore, proponents of slashing NASA's budget to fund other government programs need to really take a look at how well NASA manages its money for all that it has to do every year. NASA is charged with launching the space shuttle to construct the space station, run space station operations, run un-manned exploration operations, research space, research and develop new space technology (probes, launch systems, manned vehicles), research and develop new aircraft and aircraft technology, and do ALL of this in full view of public scrutiny with stricter safety standards than ANY other industry out there. I challenge anyone to find any government program that can do that with a measly 14 billion per year or less than 1% of the total national budget. |
Quote:
I do not think it is a bad idea to invest in K-12 education. Not at all! But just cavalierly tapping NASA for the dollars is incredibly short sighted. A vibrant space and aviation research agency that continues to lead the way in such exciting fields can inspire kids across this country for K to PhD to study and be genuinely interested in science and engineering. $18 million can do a lot of good, but so can inspiring kids (and adults) with programs that we do not sell short, but instead allow to truly give us goals to achieve as a nation, that all Americans (and all the world as we internationalize the space effort) can feel proud of reaching. |
I'll say it again--NASA is a red herring. And I'm a BIG space nerd. In sixth grade I could just about tell you the name of every major system on the Shuttle, okay? I'm into this stuff and I WANT US aerospace to lead the world. But unless we fix our education system and our economy, before long we'll be unable to afford solid rocket fuel to launch our fancy shiny new orbiters. NASA just CAN'T be a priority right now, not with the other things we're facing as a nation.
josh, your point is well taken about our space program as a point of pride and inspiration. God knows it was for me, as a kid. But it's just Maslow's Heirarchy (that's right, I went there). Basic needs need to be dealt with before things like self-actualization and pride. And our basic needs--economy, infrastructure, education--have been left to fall completely apart by our current war-obsessed administration, and something needs to be done about them before we're a third world country. |
Quote:
Ending our excessive spending on war is the key, not stripping things like NASA. We are reaching towards $700 billion in war spending while NASA is at $16 billion. Quote:
|
Quote:
This is not the average voter, average democrat voter, or even average socialist voter. This is a pile of buzzwords and 'issues' put into a warm mass in order to make a point that doesn't really exist. Oddly I didn't see the bread lines as I drove past the shanty town in my H2, but I had to avoid those sick children dying in the street so I might not have been paying much attention, its hard enough with the pot holes :rolleyes: |
Just because the road between your nice middle-class house and your nice dental office is lined with flowers, Ustwo, don't make the mistake of thinking the American Dream is working out for everybody.
|
Quote:
I probably earn less than you. I make more than most people my age. |
Wow, this is ridiculous, I can't believe how many people go for this leftist rhetoric about starving sick kids who can't get a good education. Is there poor people in this country? Yes. Is it the governments responsibility to give handouts to every single one of them in the hopes that they will change their lives drastically and actually improve? No.
The problem with all these little social programs is that they don't actually do anything to boost people's place in society. Why is this? Because most of the people who rely on these programs are beyond help. They need to help themselves before any government entity can help them. I'm frankly sick of wasting money are resources on them. I'm also sick of wasting money, resources and lives on a pointless and futile war. Finally, I'm sick of wasting time, money, and resources on short sighted "band-aid" fixes to our major problems. The kind of leadership we need is one who will actually set long term goals to fix our problems. You want to improve education in this country? Hire good competent teachers and pay them accordingly, offer actual incentives when they perform like any other job in this country. You want to cut down on carbon emissions and have affordable energy for the masses? Actually fund alternative energy research seriously even if it means cutting out other crap. Our goal should be clean and cheap energy nationwide. You want to help the poor? Crack down on company's who hire illegal immigrants that could be possibly taking the jobs from Americans. Stop outsourcing jobs to other countries. Giving people government checks does not get them out of poverty level jobs and opportunity does. You can't expect the government to do anything for you, directly. The most direct assistance I've ever gotten from the government is some federal student loans and hell I even have to pay that back with interest. I rely on the government for the passive benefits roads, police, fire fighters, and national security among many others. I don't understand why so many people were either brought up or came to believe the government should do anything more for you. You want healthcare? Get a job that offers it like most people in this country do. You want a retirement fund? Start saving your own damn money. You want money for food, clothes, and entertainment? Get a job. Quit bleeding this country of money. It's selfish to think the government owes you anything directly. |
Quote:
|
There is no "leftist rhetoric", only the denial of orthodontists wearing rose colored glasses and those blindly loyal to failed Reaganomics:
I am sooooo tired of reading clueless posts on this forum, posted with such confidence, I really, really am tired of it. The Reagan era propaganda about welfare queens in cadillacs and people who don't want to work and only want a government handout and you resent it, and you're not going to permit the government to tax your hard earned money, and blah, blah, blah. Ten thousand people, so far, and it ain't over till the 18th, and a much higher number in the same region than last year for another nearby, new Walmart job Opportunity, waiting in line, in person, hoping to get a below poverty level wage job with an employer with one of the shitiest reputations in the country. Will you do your homework, before you post, so you don't embarass yourselves, or will you make an effort to study before you post? The top ten percent control 70 percent of total US wealth, the next 40 percent control 27-1/2 percent, and half this pathetic, fucked country, the "land of opportuntiy in your sparkling deluded, sunshine filled eyes, controls just 2-1/2 percent of total US wealth, and many of those 150 million have a negative net worth, and the equity stake in the homes of the bottom 90 percent is their largest asset, and it is bleeding out. That is it, that is the story of the US, you can post like it's something else, that it isn't true, keep your car windows rolled up, stay in your bubble, and vote republican.... Consider that the Atlanta region is one of the fastest growing in the US...4 million in 2000, over 5 million residents now. Imagine the conditions of "have nots" in rust belt metropolitan areas, plagued with high heating fuel bills and declining job opportunities: $10.65 X 40 hrs. X 50 weeks= $21,300.00 Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
<img src="http://www.n-georgia.com/atlantamapG.gif"> |
Ill be honest, and this is very short sighted, the fact he is a democrat immediately turned me off to anything he said, I need to relook my position especially as weird as this election is turning out to be.
Surely this would not turn out to be a bad season of 24... ? |
Well it seems that with the coming Florida primaries, Obama has changed his tune on the space program. Seems a little early in the election to start flip flopping on issues...
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Its like killing all the cattle, you get to feast for a short time and then you starve because there are no new ones. I have plenty of empathy for my fellow man, what I don't have on is blinders that the wealthy are evil or even uncaring. What I see is a bunch of 'get even with'em' thought where if I can't be rich neither should anyone else. Jealousy and malice of those who would rather bitch then produce. Quote:
There is no revolution coming host, sorry to burst your bubble. Rather than post anecdotal stuff as if it means anything as 'homework' lets get to it... Quote:
|
Its funny, I am nor have I never been in the top 1%. My parents combined never pulled in more than 100k / year until I was going away to college. They saved up a reasonable amount of money to send me but I still had to take out over 80k in student loans.
Now I have a job making 50k a year as an engineer. I pay over $900 / month in student loans, $650 / month for housing plus utilities, and I have to pay the same high gas prices as everyone. Between income tax and social security I get over $200 of my paycheck taken out weekly, thats 10,400 per year. Between all my bills and straight up living expenses I do manage to save some money at the end of the month for my bank account. By no means am I living extravagantly. Sure I'm not quite at the poverty limit but if I ever had a large expense come up suddenly I would be fairly cleaned out. Yet because of my salary I am entitled to no special government benefits and I get taxed so heavily it impacts how much I'm personally able to save for my future. Hell if I had the extra $70 a week that gets taken out from social security I'd be able to save an extra 3000 a year that I could invest and actually do something with. Instead I'm paying for a government program that won't even be around when I would finally get to use its benefits. By the time I retire I will have lost over 120,000 to paying for social security. Doesn't make much sense to me. Usto its funny you mention that, because I see "Help Wanted" signs on plenty of stores yet there are still poor, homeless people walking around. |
FICA is one of our most regressive taxes. Barack had some interesting things to say on taxes tonight in the debate. Simplification of the tax system and elimination of the imbalances figured in prominently into his talk. This bit is from his official literature:
Quote:
|
Quote:
The problem with taxes is not enough people pay them. If everyone who voted had to pay at least 10% in taxes you would see a far better more responsible government. I'd also move tax day to voting day, there is a reason its on the other side of the calender. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
It seems to me that the best way to make tax filing simpler is to eliminate deductions and loopholes not add more. Maybe something that could be printed on a postcard like (income = X then taxes = Y) with no deductions. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
According to the most recent figures I could google (2003), this was the percentage-of-income that the various quintiles are taxed: Top fifth of earners: 19 percent Next fifth of earners: 17 percent Middle fifth of earners: 16 percent Next fifth of earners: 14 percent Bottom fifth of earners: 18 percent Honestly? That's about progressive enough for me. I guess I'd like to see some more relief for the bottom fifth, but they're the majority recipients of government benefits, so maybe it all evens out. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Edit: Just looking at pure federal tax rates the numbers don't add up so I'd REALLY like to see that source. |
I found that here: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh012703.shtml
It was the result of very quick googling, I don't necessarily vouch for that data or claim to have done exhaustive research, and I admit that when I saw those figures, I didn't spend much time with the rest of the article. The article at that URL is citing another article in the New York Times (do try to contain your eye-rolling) by economist Daniel Altman, and the cited author seems surprised about those figures. So, grain of salt, I guess, but that's the first time I'd seen it broken down like that, and I'd be very interested in a comparison of like figures (though probably in another thread). |
Quote:
I think the percentage for the middle, second and bottom income groups would be more than 50% when you consider all the embedded taxes they pay since the majority of their income is spent on goods and services with little left over. |
Quote:
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...xRates2004.jpg So the question is how these disparate charts came to be, and which is closer to truth? You're right though, it should probably be started in another thread, sorry for the minor threadjack. |
Quote:
If this were adopted, any American could with a simple hand-held calculator (some of you smarter folks in your head), based on their income, figure out the exact cost to them (not a guestimate based on averages) of any bit of government spending. Of course it means nowhere to hide for those who want to enact spending while hiding the burden from voters. |
In addition to my objections to Obama on the grounds that he openly commits to plans to increase the size of and spending on the US military, if he is elected, and his lack of experience and the smell of his Resco real estate deal, his recent statement here,
Quote:
Please read it, it's not that lengthy. Our problems are much greater now than when president Carter gave that speech, in 1979. Did Reagan improve or further aggravate any of the challenges and problems that Carter described, or did he lead the country away from confronting and solving them. Optimism is inspirational, compelling....nobody is attracted to an alarmist. Optimism is also infectious, escapist. Vote for somebody, who at long last, wants to confront and mitigate, as best as can be done, after so many years of denial and neglect, and with so few financial resources and future viability, compared to just seven years ago. Vote for someone with faith in good, accountable government, in government's ability to improve equitable distribution of wealth, political power, and justice. That candidate won't be the most compelling or agreeable speaker, The one who makes you feel like a moth being drawn to a flame will sound and look most compelling. He'll make you feel good. Quote:
...but we felt great again, militarism was, and is good again, and Gulf war I, and later, Iraq and Afghanistan, were "noble wars", too....and the liberals and the mainstream news media were still forcing the military to fight with one hand tied behind it's back. Oil is $100/bbl. we have no national alternative energy plan, we're vulnerable to the whims of hostile governments of oil exporters in the M.E. , and in our own hemisphere, and the US treasury seems on a deficit spending path to bankruptcy, and the oil price aggravated trade deficit drives the purchasing power of our currency ever downward. Patriotic Americans are incredulous, that, in such a great country (did I mention that we're at a crisis condition, as far as foreign oil dependence, and it looks like the trade and treasury deficits may drive the dollar to zero value?) some universities resist rebuilding the ROTC buildings their alumni,nearly 40 years ago, as students, burned to the ground? If you read <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9504E0DD1730F93AA25752C0A962958260">the determination of Iran Contra prosecutor</a>, Lawrence Walsh, it is clear that Reagan's greatest "gift" was to make the wrongdoing, incompetence, and coverup of the last seven years at the white house, even a possibility. Reagan's Iran/Contra lawbreaking and contempt of congress and towards special prosecutor Walsh and his investigation, was Nixonesque, without the acountability and shame. He ushered in a new era of the unaccountable and shameless executive. After the special prosecutor statute was unleashed to harass Clinton for eight full years, the challenges to it, begun in the Reagan administation as an attack against Lawrence Walsh, was not renewed. Trickle down, Reagonomics still influences the growing wealth inequity, and the "concession", made by the wealthies....a 30 percent capital gains tax ratein exchange for 1986 "tax reform" which heavily reduced their earned income taxation, and with the wealthiest enjoying an even larger percentage of total capital gains, is just 15 percent today, even less on real estate profits realized on sales of high dollar priced residences.....and Obama admires those "changes", and "change agent", Reagan. Welcome to 1962, Barak....that is where Mr. Reagan led us back to, not forward. |
For better or worse, Obama is the highest rated Democrat on the God-o-Meter
http://blog.beliefnet.com/godometer/ |
Quote:
I also agree with his comment about Reagan being a transformational president. He did not express support for Reagan policy's, simply a recognition that Reagan was able to inspire many Democrats in the electorate to cross party lines (Reagan Democrats). Obama was suggesting that his candidacy can do the same with moderate Republicans (the few remaining) and Independents and I agree, but perhaps it would have come across as less arrogant (or self-confident) if a surrogate had made that comparison. The real estate deal does not bother me at all. There is nothing there. |
Barack Obama spoke at Ebenezer Baptist Church today. edit: Full recording at the bottom of the page under heading "Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Campaign Event in Atlanta, GA"
Full text: Quote:
|
New video about Obama, "Yes we Can" by will.i.am
I realize that it's definitely propaganda, but I like it a lot considering the OP ("Obama the perfect candidate")? It seems like the support for him is going up exponentially every day. |
It comes down to this...
As long as you listen only to his rhetoric and ignore his voting record and lack of leadership experience, Obama is indeed the perfect candidate. |
As long as you ignore his extensive legislative record and pretend being the spouse of a governor and president counts as leadership experience, I can see your point of view.
|
Another video I came across called "Barack Obama and Tolerance Fatigue" which I think was particularly telling:
The speaker is from illdoctrine.com, and he's got some very cool videos on his site too, if you're tempted to check it out. |
Quote:
o You're *never* going to fix all of the problems 'back here on Earth'. There will always be things we could spend money on. o The 'spend money here at home first' argument seems to always be brought up whenever you talk about NASA's budget, but almost never when talking about other expenditures. NASA's annual budget is about 17 billion dollars. that's a lot. The budget for the US military is about 430 billion dollars. That's not counting most of the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our military budget is bigger than the rest of the world's. The rest of the world *combined*. Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't have a military. I'm not saying we shouldn't have the best military in the world. Not to mention the fact that NASA does *real science* that not only has long-term benefits (we're eventually going to have to move off this ball of dirt), but short-term practical benefits. Ask Google if you don't believe me. It's like investing - you take care of your immediate needs, but you also invest for the medium and long term. Yes we have to take care of our immediate needs, but we also have to take care of the long term, and NASA is a part of that. Now, OTOH, dollar for dollar, robotic missions are a much bigger payoff than manned missions. They aren't as sexy, but it costs a hell of a lot to support a man in space. We should definitely have a manned space program (we're going to have to learn to live up there sooner or later), but the robotic programs should get their due. |
An interesting set of facts that I just found in Barack's wikpiedia entry-- I had no idea he had so many awards and recognitions:
An October 2005 article in the British journal New Statesman listed Obama as one of "10 people who could change the world," the only politician included on the list. In 2005 and again in 2007, Time magazine named him one of "the world's most influential people." During his first three years in the U.S. Senate, Obama received Honorary Doctorates of Law from Knox College (2005),University of Massachusetts Boston (2006), Northwestern University (2006), Xavier University of Louisiana (2006), Southern New Hampshire University (2007), and Howard University (2007). The audiobook edition of Dreams from My Father earned Obama the Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album in 2006. He won the award a second time in 2008 for the spoken word edition of The Audacity of Hope. A school in Obama's father's hometown, which the senator visited on his 2006 Kenya trip, was renamed the "Senator Barack Obama Primary School." |
This is starting to seem too much like the Ron Paul thread, more like an admiration society than a political discussion thread.
This is a big, very wealthy country with many, many talented well educated people. The republican and two democratice presidential frontrunners all strike me as very flawed, controversial individuals. Obama's Rezko relationship and financial "arrangements" with Rezko, along with his advocacy of preemptive military strikes and increasing the US military ground forces by 90,000 personnel, do not impress me. I see a growing sentiment on this forum that is much more emotionally than detail driven, in favor of Obama, coming from people who I usually am in agreement with. My advice is to slow down. Take Obama and Clinton with a grain of salt, and much reluctance. Be resigned to one of them winning the november election, not creaming your jeans over the sheer possibility. Just my two cents. |
Quote:
But the "advocacy of preemptive military strikes and increasing the US military ground forces by 90,000 personnel" I'd like to see. Got a link? |
Quote:
In certain conservative quarters, it was claimed that Obama wants to invade Pakistan, which he didn't say. |
Quote:
Barak is quoted from an article attributed to him, published 9 months ago in the CFR magazine. It's in the second to last quote box in this OP: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ip+barak+obama Quote:
Wouldn't the costs of increasing the size of the ground force by 92,000, nearly 20 percent more, along with the costs of rebuilding the worn out physical plant and for caring for the returning troops, trigger even higher, fixed costs of the military, i.e., a permanently escalating budget? And the idea of Quote:
|
I saw Obama in person today. It was quite an experience. He's pretty good on the screen, but he's DAMN good in person.
We got there right at the time they said they were opening the doors, 11:00 am, and there was already a line LITERALLY half a mile long. It went across the atrium of the auditorium, across the front of the major sports arena next door, and down the next street. We walked back up the line to get to the end of it.. and it just kept GOING. It was amazing. I was pretty damn proud of my home town to see that kind of turnout. There was some consternation, half a mile back the line, about everyone with a ticket getting in, but by the time we got seated there were probably 200 or 300 seats left. The auditorium, which seats about 2500, was packed, and there were several hundred people in an overflow area watching on closed-circuit TV. It was a "town hall meeting"-style event. He started with some remarks ("I'm not going to make a long speech... and you KNOW I can make a long speech...") and then took questions. His speech was largely about health care and the economy. He touched on Iraq and, since this is a college town, his education policy. It wasn't anything that people who've been following his campaign don't already know, but it was interesting to hear it all in one piece rather than as a series of sound bytes. What was remarkable about this speech was the way he handled his opponents. He attacked McCain directly for his economy speech yesterday--the one where he basically said that the government shouldn't be in the business of bailing out companies or homeowners. But when it came to Clinton, he was VERY respectful. He complimented her on her intelligence and competency, and pointed to differences in their policy. A MARKEDLY different tone than the one Hillary strikes when talking about him, and a big part of why I'm interested in him as our president. Then he took questions, which I felt were largely fairly uninteresting, or which asked things he'd already answered in his speech. A couple of exceptions: a student at a small private baptist college, who says he gets a lot of grief for his vocal support of Obama, asked him to expand on the impact of his faith on his leadership and positions. Obama replied that he is a christian--by which he means that he believes that Christ died for his sins, and that through His grace, he can reach everlasting life. He went on to say that his belief in Christianity means that he is to respect people of every faith, including people of no faith. He said his late mother was not a religious person, but was one of the best, kindest people he's ever known, and he's sure she's in heaven. He said that all people, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, nonbeliever, whatever, are God's children. Standing ovation. Another man asked about Obama's energy policy--particularly where he stands on alternatives to gas-burning automobiles as our nation's primary mode of transport. Obama replied that a big part of his energy policy includes working with US automakers to build environmentally friendly and sustainable vehicles. He likened it to the Apollo Program or the Manhattan Project. He said it's crucial for our economy AND our foreign policy that we break our dependence on oil, and Detroit is the place to do that. He concluded by thanking us for our support, and urging us to get everybody we know registered to vote ("your mom, your dad.... your cousin Pookie... get Ray-Ray registered, you know..."). He said, and I paraphrase, "I'm not a perfect man, and I won't be a perfect president. But with the American people at my back, there's nothing we can't accomplish together. I promise to always tell you the truth. I promise to always tell you what I think. I promise to listen to you when we disagree--and we will disagree. I promise to take your voice and your story and your fight to Washington, and I promise that together we'll bring the change we want to see." Standing ovation. From my balcony seat, I then watched him step down off the stage and shake hands with the LARGE crush of people on the main floor. I watch the man LITERALLY kiss a baby, for pete's sake! ;) Pretty incredible afternoon. |
Quote:
Thats what I want. |
Thanks for that Ratbastid.
I think this is the first time we've ever had reportage of an election speech on TFP. |
You know what was even crazier? Coming home and finding articles on the wire quoting the speech I just heard. Pretty neat.
|
In today's NY Sun:
Quote:
|
Obama can only bowl a 37, clearly not the best choice to represent redneck america.
|
Quote:
"I am troubled by this messianic aura many people seem to perceive around Obama."Guess what....The Obama supporters I know personally or have met through common interest in the campaign are rational, thinking, concerned voters who agree with most (not all) of Obama's policy positions and also have reasonable expectations and perhaps optimistic hopes that Obama just might be the type of leader than can bring people together....something this country desperately needs. One thing I particular like about Obama is that he has not surrounded himself with policy advisers with a rigid ideological agenda. If you want to discuss Obama's policy positions...that makes sense. People can have honest disagreements. When you repeatedly cast disparaging remarks about people you dont know....IMO, it says more about your obsession with Obama supporters than it does about them. |
Quote:
As far as I can see, mostly everyone else are already united, so what am I missing, dc_dux? |
Quote:
|
to answer the original question:
Is Obama the perfect candidate? no Is Obama by far the best candidate i've had the opportunity to vote for? yes |
Quote:
Gotta disagree, dux. I'm saying that the people who DON'T look at Obama as a politician who is "pro abortion", "even in the third trimester", a democrat -[ic] candidate of the "extreme left", are ALREADY pretty much together. They don't NEED a "uniter". The rest are unreachable... Obama actually drives them further away from the rest of us. They are the ones who have held power since 2001, dux. You see how the senate and house republicans operate. They vote as a block. They are a reflection of the people who vote for them. I think you know what I think of McCain. With that, I believe McCain is much more potentially a candidate to bring people together, than Obama is. No one who is opposed to Obama for the reasons I stated, is coming "over to him". Go spend an hour over at www.townhall.com . Read about these guys, listen to their shows on the radio or read their show transcripts: http://www.srnonline.com/talk/index.shtml Obama is not going to be bringing them, or their listeners, together with the rest of us. If you watched any of the republican debates, I know you know this. It's half the actual voters in the country, dux. |
townhall.com? seriously?
|
host...I agree the townhall.com, malkin, powerline, limbaugh/hannity crowd are unreachable. I would guess thats maybe 20-30% of the electorate
What I think Obama can do is bring the rest - Independents and even some Main Street Republicans (who have been marginalized in their party)- closer together with moderate and left-leaning Democrats, at least on some issues......because I think he will take a more pragmatic and less ideological approach to governing. The key will be if the far left Dems are willing to give-and-take a little themselves. side note: Its interesting that of the 29 Repubs in the House not running for reelection this year, nearly half are Main Street Repubs in what are basically "independent-leaning" districts. The RNC is searching for real "conservative" candidates to replace them, bringing those districts in to play even more than they have been in recent years.....a very good chance of Dems winning some of those races. |
Quote:
edit: I visited mainstreetrepublicans, and I looked at their issues. There is no mention of "pro choice", thus, maybe three or four of them have the potential to come together with Obama. |
I think you are discounting the millions of potential new voters that have registered as a result of Obama's campaign, particularly two groups - young and college educated (and multi-racial) and blacks.
And discounting the upscale (upper middle/upper income) suburban Independents (soccer moms et al) a large majority of which voted Repub the last few times are leaning to Obama this go-round (evident in part by their participation in open Dem primaries). All potentially part of a new (or renewed) coalition. The electoral map is changing as well....particularly the southwest. Formerly red states like Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada are more purple now. |
i also think you underestimate just how tired a large chunk of the electorate are of Southern White Males running Washington
|
Quote:
I don't think Obama is a perfect candidate, I don't think such a person exists. What I do think, and some of you may remember me stating months ago that I didn't see myself casting a vote for president in 2008, is that Obama is a sensible, level-headed man who understands that new ways of thinking are not inherently harmful, will surround himself with people who both he and the country can trust to teach him what he doesn't have experience with, is a diplomat rather than a divider, and will restore our country to its proper place as one of the foremost members of a cooperative global community. If I were a religious person, I would be praying for the Obama/Richardson ticket that I said would be ideal way back when Richardson was a Clinton supporter and everyone told me it wouldn't happen. I'm too cynical to have high hopes, but I have hope that an Obama White House can fix some of the bad things that have happened to our country. |
Quote:
Details on how large a chunk of the electorate is racist and/or sexist in the way you mention? |
Quote:
|
Derwood, I understand what you're saying, but I gotta tell you, the idea that it makes a difference is silly to me. We are electing a person, not a region. I do understand that where a person is from is relevant to who s/he is, but it's hardly determinative, and different people are different even if they come from the same place. (In general, in this country I find "group thinking" of any kind troublesome. Not always, but in general.)
|
Quote:
Johnson - Texas '63 - '69 Nixon - So Cal '69 - '74 Ford - Michigan '74 - '77 (Never Elected !!!) Carter - Georgia '77 - '81 Reagan - So CAl '81 - '89 GHW Bush - Texas '89 - '93 Clinton - Arkansas '93 - '01 GW Bush - Texas '01 - '08 Only christian white men from the south (Both Bushes promoted themselves as Texans...) or from So Cal (Nixon was a native, Reagan a transplant....), after JFK in 1960....(and even 1960 election is debatable...it was so close...<a href="http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/PopularMythsPopularVote-Gaines.pdf"> [link]</a>) ...have clearly won the popular vote for presidency in the last 75 years. Hoover was born in Iowa.... Harding in Ohio. Coolidge, from Vermont, succeeded Harding when he suddenly died in office, and he was elected to his own term in 1924. The last man elected without first assuming office, and finishing the term of another president, who was from a northern state, with no ties to a southern state, was Warren Harding, in 1920! If Nixon did actually win the popular vote in 1960, then we can add two more presidents to the list: Truman - Missouri - '45 - '53 Eisenhower - Texas - '53 - '61 Not since FDR, if we don't count JFK's "squeaker", electoral college victory in 1960, has a president from a northern state won the presidency, and even FDR had strong ties to the state of Georgia, where he lived for several years preceding his 1932 presidential victory, and where he died in 1945. The odds seem to be against a nominee, if the history of the last 75 years of presidential politics are any guide, who is clearly identified as a "northerner". |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project