I dont' want barrack obama to win. In that video, he contradicted himself. This guy is full of lies too. When I look at his campaigns, it seems to me, that all he is saying, is what he thinks everyone wants to hear.
LOL @ this statement.
Dude I agree with that. What was that guy, that said he's a leader that comes every 1000 years. Hell no, I don't think he's a leader that comes every 1000 years. That leader was MLK. I wouldn't even compare him to the "change" that MLK wanted. Not saying anyone said that here, but I'm hearing a lot of people say he's the "change", the "one". Putting him on that type of platform already when he hasn't even done much...barely anything but words imo.
Posts: 1,681
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago IL
IGN: Shroomism
Server: Demian
Guild: Siege
05-10-2008, 04:03 PM
Quote:
I dont' want barrack obama to win. In that video, he contradicted himself. This guy is full of lies too. When I look at his campaigns, it seems to me, that all he is saying, is what he thinks everyone wants to hear.
Quote:
i agree with what Tor said.
No way! A politician that says what they think people want to hear!? Have you been living under a rock for 300 years? Politicians always say what they think everyone wants to hear. There are probably a few thousand examples of this per candidate, each and every election. Clinton began hammering the "gas tax holiday" before the last primaries, as did McCain. Even though it is simply a horrible policy, they know people like to hear about lowering gas prices. McCain has been saying a bunch of conservative things recently, because he knows thats what the conservatives want to hear. Bush based his campaign on the idea of "compassionate conservatism" because he believed thats what the voters wanted to hear. Bill Clinton ran his campaign on the phrase "It's the economy stupid" because guess what, thats what people wanted to hear.
I could literally go into every single candidate, in every party, at the local, state, federal, and judicial level, and explain how their campaign, discourse, and message were all crafted on what they think "people want to hear". Welcome to politics.
To go after this semantic bull shit is ridiculous. Who would you rather have? McCain? He is nice and corrupt, from the recent uncovering of land development deals directly made to benefit his contributors, the Keating Five scandal, the use of his wifes personal jet, and others. Or Clinton? Mrs. Bosnia, who goes above and beyond simply saying what people want to hear, to flat out lying and exaggeration. She's cooked anyway, Obama is the nominee. It's game over.
If the election was held today either Democratic nominees will beat McCain according to the L.A. Times.
Tor does have a a good point. Obama is a powerful orator and a great campaigner. This doesnt mean that he'll be a good leader though. I guess voters can be retrospective in 2012.
Posts: 1,681
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago IL
IGN: Shroomism
Server: Demian
Guild: Siege
05-10-2008, 04:41 PM
Quote:
If i was allowed to vote, i'd vote for that independant candidate, just cause he doesn't spends milions of dollars on a campaign.
What's wrong with spending millions on a campaign? Every independent candidate would spend that much, if people would donate it.
Where does the money spent on campaigns go? Hardworking Americans in industries like printing, mail, all forms of media, renters, decorators, transportation, and clothing.
No way! A politician that says what they think people want to hear!? Have you been living under a rock for 300 years? Politicians always say what they think everyone wants to hear. There are probably a few thousand examples of this per candidate, each and every election. Clinton began hammering the "gas tax holiday" before the last primaries, as did McCain. Even though it is simply a horrible policy, they know people like to hear about lowering gas prices. McCain has been saying a bunch of conservative things recently, because he knows thats what the conservatives want to hear. Bush based his campaign on the idea of "compassionate conservatism" because he believed thats what the voters wanted to hear. Bill Clinton ran his campaign on the phrase "It's the economy stupid" because guess what, thats what people wanted to hear.
I could literally go into every single candidate, in every party, at the local, state, federal, and judicial level, and explain how their campaign, discourse, and message were all crafted on what they think "people want to hear". Welcome to politics.
To go after this semantic bull shit is ridiculous. Who would you rather have? McCain? He is nice and corrupt, from the recent uncovering of land development deals directly made to benefit his contributors, the Keating Five scandal, the use of his wifes personal jet, and others. Or Clinton? Mrs. Bosnia, who goes above and beyond simply saying what people want to hear, to flat out lying and exaggeration. She's cooked anyway, Obama is the nominee. It's game over.
So Obama gets a pass on his involvement with Antonin Rezko? And his inability to think hard enough about what running for president means as far as your personal ties? He's done his fair share of snake-oil selling and magic tricks. I heard a quote the other day that pinned him down lying about the situation with his pastor, saying first that he didn't know about the comments of the past few months, and quickly amending himself, stating that he meant the comments made over the past few years.
He told Chicago steel-workers that he was contemplating a pull-out of NAFTA, when later, one of his top staff denied that there had been any discusson of NAFTA with Obama.
He's lied about his background, telling people that he grew up the son of a poor Kenyan goat-herder. His father was actually a fairly wealthy student, son of a farmer, and is believed to have had ties to Mau mau militant groups in Kenya.
He's lied about his stance on single-payer or national health insurance, his stance on the NAU, his bipartisan attitudes, even his smoking habits. Obama is not the (pardon the pun)lily-white bearer of the olive branch that he portrays himself as. We can't ignore any of his gaffes because of his inexperience or his racial background, to do so means that we'll have to forgive him when he makes the same foolish mistakes as president.
I know you'll come back with some black church, black culture argument, but personally, I feel that lying about sniper fire in Bosnia is about on par with claiming that your best-friend pastor didn't say anything negative about anyone when you were around, so you can't be held responsible for associating with him.
Fact is, actually, Obama and Hillary both have a vision that will turn the US into a more socialist state. If you like that, feel free to move to Canada, which, as far as I know, is about the only wealthy, stable socialist state out there. France has infamous problems with labor, China is about as socialist as the US at this point, Japan's social stands on health care mean that its doctors are so poor they need to charge parking fees, and Cuba has been a mess for longer than I care to remember.
Obama is the current favorite for Democratic candidate for one simple reason: the super-delegates can't do their jobs properly. I'm not citing their move away from Clinton as wrong, they're within their rights to do so. Where they've gone wrong is in blowing their wad far in advance of the DNC. Super-delegates are charged with choosing a candidate that will win a national election. In order to do so, it behooves them to wait until the last possible second to throw their support one way or the other. Currently, about all their doing is imitating pollsters and political analysts that are about as reliable as weather-sticks (if it's wet, it's raining. If Obama gets more votes, he's winning. Wow, thanks.), and harming their own credibility.
If it's revealed that Obama is secretly a Nazi, or some other fucked-up thing that will cause him to be a weak candidate, and all the super-delegates have backed him, what then? They have two choices: back out and prove themselves fools, or continue to back an un-electable candidate. Either way, they'll have wished they'd shut their mouths earlier.
Anyway, as of several days ago, Obama was only up by about 200 super-delegates, out of some 2500 or so, with about 400 still unclaimed by either side. Hardly a landslide victory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punishment
If the election was held today either Democratic nominees will beat McCain according to the L.A. Times.
Tor does have a a good point. Obama is a powerful orator and a great campaigner. This doesnt mean that he'll be a good leader though. I guess voters can be retrospective in 2012.
I've heard either way, several times so far. My estimation is that current Dem vs. Rep polling is useless as far as determining who the next president will be. I think we'll have a fairly tight race, despite everyone's expectations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by devlaamseleeuw
i'd vote for the republicans, cause that way i'm certain I voted on the wrong one.
If i was allowed to vote, i'd vote for that independant candidate, just cause he doesn't spends milions of dollars on a campaign.
Firstly, it's Republicans. We're all republicans with a small "r", we live in a republic. Secondly, Republicans have done immense good for the country on many occasions, including freeing the slaves (yup, Abraham was a Republican), helping to end the Cold War (Reagan), improving labor conditions (Teddy Roosevelt), and making great gains in World War II (Eisenhower).
So, before you go touting your veiwpoint, please do so after educating yourself. It's this lack of education about America's political system, in a great, nay, overwhelming majority of voters that's creating an environment where politics is a war between two sides rather than a functioning system of small, interdependent groups. People seem to think the President is the lord of the world, when in reality, it's the Congress you should be shouting and fighting about, and, year after year, the debate and coverage of the congressional races gets smaller and smaller, while the election of someone whose political power is essentially restricted to vetoing bills and appointing Supreme Court justices gets more and more press. Checks and balances, anyone?
Posts: 4,040
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
IGN: Squishface
Server: Mushpoie
Guild: Solstice
05-10-2008, 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moshineko
Fact is, actually, Obama and Hillary both have a vision that will turn the US into a more socialist state. If you like that, feel free to move to Canada, which, as far as I know, is about the only wealthy, stable socialist state out there. France has infamous problems with labor, China is about as socialist as the US at this point, Japan's social stands on health care mean that its doctors are so poor they need to charge parking fees, and Cuba has been a mess for longer than I care to remember.
This made me think of a couple of quotes that I read recently.
Quote:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy."
Quote:
"Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain."
A shiney nickle to whoever knows the man who spoke those phrases.
"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed."
"A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen."
But I'm old and crotchety too, so it doesn't count.
Posts: 1,681
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago IL
IGN: Shroomism
Server: Demian
Guild: Siege
05-10-2008, 10:40 PM
Quote:
So Obama gets a pass on his involvement with Antonin Rezko? And his inability to think hard enough about what running for president means as far as your personal ties? He's done his fair share of snake-oil selling and magic tricks. I heard a quote the other day that pinned him down lying about the situation with his pastor, saying first that he didn't know about the comments of the past few months, and quickly amending himself, stating that he meant the comments made over the past few years.
No, and that will most likely play out as the Rezko case progresses, and may lead to a certain amount of criticism. All three of the presidential candidates have bad connections and problems in their past. I'd say their just about equal when it comes to stupid shit they did. And I think the issues are much more important than questionable decisions made in the past, something we all make at some point.
Quote:
He told Chicago steel-workers that he was contemplating a pull-out of NAFTA, when later, one of his top staff denied that there had been any discusson of NAFTA with Obama.
Politicians do that quite often. And just because a staffer hadn't heard discussion doesn't mean that he hadn't thought about it before, a position most democrats have at least considered.
Quote:
He's lied about his background, telling people that he grew up the son of a poor Kenyan goat-herder. His father was actually a fairly wealthy student, son of a farmer, and is believed to have had ties to Mau mau militant groups in Kenya.
The only cites I see reporting this are whacko militant sites that literally equivocate "the left" with Bin Laden. And the person reporting this is simply a columnist, with no solid evidence stated, at least in the articles I saw reporting it. And this is not nearly as bad as the governmental abuses of McCain. And I agree, Hillary lies too. But I still like her, I just think it is totally game over.
Quote:
He's lied about his stance on single-payer or national health insurance
He seems to have a pretty set in stone plan. I don't see a lie there.
Quote:
Obama is not the (pardon the pun)lily-white bearer of the olive branch that he portrays himself as. We can't ignore any of his gaffes because of his inexperience or his racial background, to do so means that we'll have to forgive him when he makes the same foolish mistakes as president.
Still better than McCain. I'd rather have a president that is a little shaky on his health care stance than a president who is dead set on deregulation. Although all candidates can be a little shifty they still represent general ideas. Obama's whole image is based strongly on the issues. The idea that tax cuts for the rich are bad, or that this can be a campaign not funded by a few hundred people that will be rewarded, it can be funded by hundreds of thousands of people. These are the large general ways that the Obama campaign differs from nearly everyone else.
Quote:
I know you'll come back with some black church, black culture argument, but personally, I feel that lying about sniper fire in Bosnia is about on par with claiming that your best-friend pastor didn't say anything negative about anyone when you were around, so you can't be held responsible for associating with him.
Yep, they are on par. But it's better than McCain. And the sources of his funding and general policies still connect back to his image. Obama and Clinton represent a lot of the same ideals, Obama just pulls it off better.
Quote:
Fact is, actually, Obama and Hillary both have a vision that will turn the US into a more socialist state. If you like that, feel free to move to Canada, which, as far as I know, is about the only wealthy, stable socialist state out there. France has infamous problems with labor, China is about as socialist as the US at this point, Japan's social stands on health care mean that its doctors are so poor they need to charge parking fees, and Cuba has been a mess for longer than I care to remember.
Oh come on, BARELY a more socialist state. The reds aren't going to be marching into Washington, and the economy will function in the same capitalist fashion it always has. And surprisingly, the only aspect we would be borrowing from socialism, health care, is generally a great success. Even in countries like Cuba, it is great.
Quote:
Obama is the current favorite for Democratic candidate for one simple reason: the super-delegates can't do their jobs properly. I'm not citing their move away from Clinton as wrong, they're within their rights to do so. Where they've gone wrong is in blowing their wad far in advance of the DNC. Super-delegates are charged with choosing a candidate that will win a national election. In order to do so, it behooves them to wait until the last possible second to throw their support one way or the other. Currently, about all their doing is imitating pollsters and political analysts that are about as reliable as weather-sticks (if it's wet, it's raining. If Obama gets more votes, he's winning. Wow, thanks.), and harming their own credibility.
It is very debatable what the actual superdelegate function is. Many believe that their job is to vote along with the people unless some huge disaster or flaw makes the candidate undesirable or a sure failure in the general election.
And way back when many of the super delegates chose Hillary, they believed getting the nomination would be a walk in the park for her.
Quote:
If it's revealed that Obama is secretly a Nazi, or some other fucked-up thing that will cause him to be a weak candidate, and all the super-delegates have backed him, what then? They have two choices: back out and prove themselves fools, or continue to back an un-electable candidate. Either way, they'll have wished they'd shut their mouths earlier.
No, they would fulfill a function that most agree is the responsibility of the superdelegates; should a disaster happen that would kill the chances of winning the general election, they would switch their votes.
Quote:
Anyway, as of several days ago, Obama was only up by about 200 super-delegates, out of some 2500 or so, with about 400 still unclaimed by either side. Hardly a landslide victory.
Typo? There are only 795 super delegates, and a total of 3,253 pledged delegates. Obama leads Clinton in superdelegates by three and a half, and he leads in total delegates by 167.5.
And no one is saying its a landslide victory. It is just pretty much statistically impossible for Clinton to win. The numbers her camp put out as the supposed "end game" will most likely be met by Obama on May 20th. Even if he grants her Florida and Michigan wishes, he would still win.
Damn my wall of text ways. I need to go back to Longknife for more training. Yes, I was talking about the delegates, not the super-delegates, who don't actually do any voting until the DNC. Where'd you find the numbers, by the way? I had to jump through a few dozen links to find any sort of currentish information, and that apparently was wrong, as it totaled the delegates up to around 2500.
I could argue the socialist stuff, but I'm aware it's probably got a lot to do with background. As a New Hampshire native of 30 years, I've seen my own area become markedly more socialist, and watched the area falling apart as well. We're knee-deep in the legislature and judiciary fighting over education funding, which is assigned to town governements in the state constitution, and subsequently, our legislature is now writing up what an "adequate education" is.
Don't know about you, but the last person I want to be writing up education plans is a legislator. Either we end up with a horribly skewed, inadequate education system because they've tried to play to the tax base, or we end up with an over-priced, unworkable system because they're playing to education advocates. I see health care going the same way. When Shaheen, our former governor, helped to institute reforms for health care and insurance in the state, we went from having several dozen health insurance companies to having, if I recall correctly, five.
And now, there's talk of mandating that companies pay for gastric bypass surgery (a nototiously dangerous and ineffective solution to weight loss, most people lose a lot of weight strait off, but, much like stomach-stapling, end up gaining it back), and requiring them to have a "wellness" program, which, get this, the legislature is going to write.
See a pattern? We have regulation leading to a lack of representation of a major part of our population. Like it or not, health insurance companies and medical professionals are a part of our community.
And Cuba doesn't provide a model health care system. It's health statistics are about on par with the U.S., with the U.S. having, according to the WHO, two more infant deaths per thousand, and a similar life expectancy. (77 years, on average in both cases) In Cuba, however, doctors are paid roughly a tenth of what their cab drivers are, and there are numerous reports of top medical professionals defecting to other countries.
In China, only about 30% of rural persons and 69% of urban persons have adequate sanitary facilities (not sewerage, mind you), and 77% have potable drinking water. It's difficult to see what makes these socialist states so wonderful to live in. And even harder to see why health care in these countries is "great" compared to what it is in the U.S.
Simple fact is, socialism puts bureaucracy in charge of people's lives, and in general, the bereaucracy cares about as much about people as corporations do. There's one small but important difference, though. If I don't like the way a corporation does business, I don't buy from it. If I don't like the way my government does business, and I stop paying them, they throw me in jail.
05-10-2008, 03:37 PM
