New Election 2008 thread

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

Can you please describe, in detail, how and why Obama is a socialist? Maybe give us some examples of his socialism in practice?

 

Though, since you

[dannygutters]

i love insults.

 

i'm starting to remember that anything anti-liberal isn't welcome here. if your not of the same mind you must be an idiot.

 

thanks dannygutters.

 

Sigh. I didn't say YOU were stupid, I said YOUR statement was stupid. Which it was. It was a poor generalization of several traits which you assume to be socialist leaning ones. You also condem a man in a country where we supposedly have freedom of association without criminalization.

[bjorn_skurj]

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

Free pass? Come on.

 

You can associate me with dozens of racist hillbillies but that doesn't make me one.

 

 

"You've got a purty mouth ..."

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Calling Ayers part of Obama's inner circle is ridiculous.

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1810338,00.html

 

Frank Marshall Davis was his mentor when he was a child/teenager--and has been dead since 1987. That's part of his inner circle?

 

Robert Malley is a mid-east expert and was on the Camp David negotiating team. He was also an advisor to President Clinton and has no formal role in the Obama campaign. He has the audacity to *meet* with Hamas? What's wrong with simply meeting with them?

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

Okay, but given the fact that Obama was not in the Senate at the time, how else could he have expressed his opposition? Did you want him to sneak in there and vote against it in place of someone else?

 

Then it is/should have been a non-issue. Yet that is the brunt of his public statements, the debates, his comments and platforms. He's different because he didn't support it.

 

If the little dog hadn't stop to take a crap he would of caught the rabbit.

[explodo]

i love insults.

 

i'm starting to remember that anything anti-liberal isn't welcome here. if your not of the same mind you must be an idiot.

 

thanks dannygutters.

You are cutting against the grain, to be sure, but it might help if you listed concrete examples rather than just calling him a socialist. And I don't mean throwing out numbers related to his budget because I can do that all day with regard to last three conservative Presidents as well, and I'm certain John McCain is going to find the money to pay for his fifty to one hundred year war somewhere. Here is how I see it: every politician takes a bunch of programs and runs on them, shit that there's no way we can afford without a tax increase that they all deny is coming. So I make my judgment on who is going to offer the country as a whole the most from their spending of the money we don't have. Right now, our choice is as follows: We can continue to pour trillions into defense spending that, as far as I can see, is only hurting out economy, our reputation, and killing people. Or we can try to make it so I can afford to go to the doctor and, god forbid, if one day one of my sperms finds a loophole in my contraceptive plan, the kid that comes out of that ordeal can go to a decent school, where teachers are paid enough to care about what they're doing. Or, you know, maybe go to college without selling his/her soul to do so.

[MrRain422]

there is not enough wealth amonst the "rich" to pay for these programs. therefore the middle class will be picking up the slack. i see higher taxes and lower paychecks in my future, how about you?

 

No, I don't expect the rich to pay 100% for those programs, but to cover their fair share, yes. And yes, I do expect some higher taxes for the rich. Not really sure about the middle class, but if they do rise, I expect it won't be by much, and personally I don't mind paying taxes if the money is being spent well, and considering the economy has been so mismanaged and I'm losing my job in a month, I'm actually expecting higher paychecks in the near future once the disastrous economic policies of the last 7 years start to get corrected.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

John McCain is a neoplatonist. I have read the literature, and I know it to be true. No, I will not offer facts to back up my wild claim -- it is incumbant upon you to prove me wrong.

 

No, it is incumbent upon me to do the best research and soul searching that I am able. To test my integrity, my morals, my belief structure and to get one vote in order to determine the next president.

[MrRain422]

Then it is/should have been a non-issue. Yet that is the brunt of his public statements, the debates, his comments and platforms. He's different because he didn't support it.

 

A non-issue? That he had the judgement that others didn't, and the nerve to speak out against it when it was unpopular? Sorry, but that's letting all of the warmongers responsible for this mess off the hook too easy. Yes, his situation was a little different because he was not in the U.S. Senate, but there were a whole lot of community leaders and elected officials throughout the country who did not speak out as the time. Clearly his courage and judgement on the matter was superior to them, and I think superior to those who were afraid to break from Bush on such a serious issue.

 

If the little dog hadn't stop to take a crap he would of caught the rabbit.

 

I may be a little bit dense, but what does this mean?

[Good Old Neon]

i suggest you do your own research starting with his own campaign website. i've already done mine. that's the problem with todays voters. they are largely too lazy to edumacate themselves as to what a candidate stands for. it's like picking a winning football team according to who has the better uniforms. i assume most of us are all college educated. if you can't figure out that his proposed $800+ billion in government programs and the redistribution of wealth that is required to pay for it all is socialism, i can't help you.

 

and for your information, i am not a republican. i am a registered independent and have been for 16 years. i can't stand mccain and would rather not have to vote for him, but rather a 3rd party candidate. however, if that would let Obama in the door, i'd have to reconsider where my vote is going to end up.

 

Go Green!

 

Actually, I do quite a bit of research, reading, etc. If you were to ask my wife, she

[Col. Hapablap]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1810338,00.html[/url]

 

Frank Marshall Davis was his mentor when he was a child/teenager--and has been dead since 1987. That's part of his inner circle?

 

Robert Malley is a mid-east expert and was on the Camp David negotiating team. He was also an advisor to President Clinton and has no formal role in the Obama campaign. He has the audacity to *meet* with Hamas? What's wrong with simply meeting with them?

 

Just to clear this up: Obama has said that he supports meeting with world leaders without preconditions, some of whom may be our enemies(ex. Iran), but he has also stated that he has no intention of meeting with Hamas, since it is considered an official terrorist organization.

[uncle wilco]

Sigh. I didn't say YOU were stupid, I said YOUR statement was stupid. Which it was. It was a poor generalization of several traits which you assume to be socialist leaning ones. You also condem a man in a country where we supposedly have freedom of association without criminalization.

 

all i get out of barack's mouth is generalizations. he is a blank canvas upon you can project your hopes and dreams. the people a man associates himself with says alot about that man. especially when they haven't been on the national scene long enough to have established a track record. you can't give someone the keys to your countrys future based upon speeches of change, hope and naive policy.

 

why should i bother with specifics when no one on here will give any regarding their reasons for support for this man other than he's not bush. the man is a liberal democrat and now the nominee for his party. therefore the via chicago community will vote for him and insult the few who won't. i've been on here for a long time and the same pattern always holds true.

[Party @ the Moontower]

Barack is largely a mystery, so all we have to go on is who he has associated himself with, and that list is a bit frightening. Not to say that Barack has all the same principles of a Rezko (convicted criminal), Ayers (terrorist), Wright (racist), Davis (communist), Malley (advisor and Hamas contact), Pfleger (a-hole), etc. But Barack's pattern of who is allowed in his inner circle is alarming. .

 

 

Maybe you should look into the Clinton's inner circle...The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.

 

This is some scary doo doo!In private they preach a gospel of

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

A non-issue? That he had the judgment that others didn't, and the nerve to speak out against it when it was unpopular?

 

His feet were not held to the fire. The vote that senators faced was not "do we start a war in Iraq right this minute, yes or no." It was a vote that there was sufficient evidence to consider warranted action. It was a rational decision under rational circumstances. The president took that vote and used it to push his inadvised agenda. He violated the checks and balances of the three branches of our government.

 

Was Hillary wrong for voting yes? No. Given the circumstances, Saddam was a danger to a society, he had a history of chemical weapons and attempts to acquire nuclear weapons.

 

Saying he's against the war and Clinton was not because she voted on the action and he didn't is complete and utter bullshit. He never faced that issue, that vote.

 

I am against the war. I was against it then. But under the circumstances, voting yes at that time was a logical decision. I won't sink one candidate and deify another based on what if.

 

Sorry, but that's letting all of the warmongers responsible for this mess off the hook too easy. Yes, his situation was a little different because he was not in the U.S. Senate, but there were a whole lot of community leaders and elected officials throughout the country who did not speak out as the time. Clearly his courage and judgement on the matter was superior to them, and I think superior to those who were afraid to break from Bush on such a serious issue.

 

The point is

 

I may be a little bit dense, but what does this mean?

 

It's shorthand for what I just said above.

[Analogman]

all i get out of barack's mouth is generalizations. he is a blank canvas upon you can project your hopes and dreams. the people a man associates himself with says alot about that man. especially when they haven't been on the national scene long enough to have established a track record. you can't give someone the keys to your countrys future based upon speeches of change, hope and naive policy.

 

why should i bother with specifics when no one on here will give any regarding their reasons for support for this man other than he's not bush. the man is a liberal democrat and now the nominee for his party. therefore the via chicago community will vote for him and insult the few who won't. i've been on here for a long time and the same pattern always holds true.

 

Good to see you - I figured you would end up here sooner ot later.

[MrRain422]

all i get out of barack's mouth is generalizations. he is a blank canvas upon you can project your hopes and dreams. the people a man associates himself with says alot about that man. especially when they haven't been on the national scene long enough to have established a track record. you can't give someone the keys to your countrys future based upon speeches of change, hope and naive policy.

 

why should i bother with specifics when no one on here will give any regarding their reasons for support for this man other than he's not bush. the man is a liberal democrat and now the nominee for his party. therefore the via chicago community will vote for him and insult the few who won't. i've been on here for a long time and the same pattern always holds true.

 

Dude, you just came back from a prolonged absence and you're going to claim that no one here has presented a case for Obama? You should probably go back and read some posts a little older than yesterday. Seriously, there's been a ton of detail all over the place.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

Dude, you just came back from a prolonged absence and you're going to claim that no one here has presented a case for Obama? You should probably go back and read some posts a little older than yesterday. Seriously, there's been a ton of detail all over the place.

 

I've been here, seen the posts, and I would agree with him. Someone posted a short list of bullet points which reads like a book report form. I am open to concrete support to back Obama. I crave it.

[MrRain422]

His feet were not held to the fire. The vote that senators faced was not "do we start a war in Iraq right this minute, yes or no." It was a vote that there was sufficient evidence to consider warranted action. It was a rational decision under rational circumstances. The president took that vote and used it to push his inadvised agenda. He violated the checks and balances of the three branches of our government.

 

He could have said nothing like almost everyone else. You don't think that, considering the political climate at the time, that he was taking a pretty big risk in making that speech? Okay.

 

Also, no, it was an irrational decision under insane circumstances, but I guess that's nitpicking.

 

Was Hillary wrong for voting yes? No. Given the circumstances, Saddam was a danger to a society, he had a history of chemical weapons and attempts to acquire nuclear weapons.

 

Here's the thing though. I don't buy the doctrine of pre-emptive war. It's dangerous and insane, on top of being illegal and immoral. Saddam had not attacked us and he posed no threat to us. I guess the vote was rational if you buy into the idea that we should just invade anyone we don't like, but personally I don't. No, I don't expect us to support regimes like that but there are ways of dealing with it that fall short of destroying an entire country.

 

Saying he's against the war and Clinton was not because she voted on the action and he didn't is complete and utter bullshit. He never faced that issue, that vote.

 

Sure, but pretty much every other elected official in the country was either supporting it or staying quiet. It still took great courage and judgment to speak out as he did. No, it doesn't count for as much as those who were in Congress at the time who voted against it, but I don't see how it can be brushed off as irrelevent to anyone who values sound judgement and understanding of foreign policy in the people that run for office.

[uncle wilco]

Dude, you just came back from a prolonged absence and you're going to claim that no one here has presented a case for Obama? You should probably go back and read some posts a little older than yesterday. Seriously, there's been a ton of detail all over the place.

 

ah, what's the point, i'll always be in the political minority here. we can disagree on politics and still be friends can't we? there's no point in pushing this any further. good luck to you all.

 

see you in november.

[Guest Cousin Tupelo]

Sure, but pretty much every other elected official in the country was either supporting it or staying quiet. It still took great courage and judgment to speak out as he did. No, it doesn't count for as much as those who were in Congress at the time who voted against it, but I don't see how it can be brushed off as irrelevent to anyone who values sound judgement and understanding of foreign policy in the people that run for office.

 

It took the calculated move of a politician. No risk because only his opinion was on the line. And it's real easy to bleat about it 4 years after the war.

 

Hey, I said it was the wrong move at the time too. Why ain't I the Democrats nominee?!?

[uncle wilco]

Good to see you - I figured you would end up here sooner ot later.

 

ha ha, like a moth to a flame.

 

good to "see" you a-man. take care.

[Analogman]

ha ha, like a moth to a flame.

 

good to "see" you a-man. take care.

 

Same to you.

[MrRain422]

ah, what's the point, i'll always be in the political minority here. we can disagree on politics and still be friends can't we? there's no point in pushing this any further. good luck to you all.

 

see you in november.

 

 

Certainly, I feel no ill will, and I hope I didn't come across as though I did. I just thought it a little bit novel to make such a sweeping claim in light of your absence. Just meant it to be healthy debate -- sorry if I took it somewhere I shouldn't have.

[MrRain422]

It took the calculated move of a politician. No risk because only his opinion was on the line. And it's real easy to bleat about it 4 years after the war.

 

Sure, there was a political angle to it, but he was still wise enough to know how the war was going to go. To me that shows a greater understanding of Iraq and foreign policy in general than those who were in favor of the invasion displayed, as well as a moral fortitude that was lacking. I really don't understand how you can think it wasn't a risky move considering the "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" political climate of the time.