View Full Version : Obama, Mama!
dlabtot
01-07-2008, 05:21 PM
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." (http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html)
Of course, I'm not saying that Martin Luther King's dream is yet a complete reality, but Obama winning so convincingly in lily-white Iowa does make me proud of how far we've come as a nation.
Pamela
01-07-2008, 05:30 PM
This reminds me of a horse race. They come out strong and slowly fall behind. There is alot of time, and who knows. I watched Hilary and was rather impressed with her. She is indeed getting upfront and more personal with people. THey are liking this. She has alot of experience.
Obama or Hilliary. I still like them both at this point. I'm afraid Obama is going to burn out with the people perhaps. He's very confident (this is good) but people may see him as being over confident, that could break him.
TheSexKitten
01-07-2008, 06:28 PM
I think people are gonna call Obama on his lack of substance after a while. Rhetoric is great to create strong emotions, but many a politician has been slashed down for not focusing on facts enough, especially as the race progresses.
Casual Observer
01-07-2008, 08:32 PM
Of course, I'm not saying that Martin Luther King's dream is yet a complete reality, but Obama winning so convincingly in lily-white Iowa does make me proud of how far we've come as a nation.
Then watch NH; it's the second whitest state in the nation, but Obama support here is pretty huge.
Eric Stoner
01-08-2008, 07:40 AM
Then watch NH; it's the second whitest state in the nation, but Obama support here is pretty huge.
A typical Hillary event in N.H. 200 people filling a room. Obama- drawing 3500 SRO !
Eric Stoner
01-08-2008, 07:45 AM
lmfao!!! well you sure got the tin foil hat thing correct. Nuff' said
Nothing was ever PROVEN but there was more than one suspicious death that came at a VERY convenient time for the Clintons.
Ask Kathleen Willey how much fun it was to accuse Bill of sexually attacking her.
The harassment and threats to her life.
Ask Juanita Broderick about what she had to go through.
Ask Webb Hubbell and the McDougalls WHY they went to prison rather than roll over on Bill.
Tara_SW
01-08-2008, 11:19 AM
Nothing was ever PROVEN but there was more than one suspicious death that came at a VERY convenient time for the Clintons.
</p>
get back to me when there is actual proof. Then we can chat about it. until then you're wearing that nifty little tin foil hat on this one ;)
Eric Stoner
01-08-2008, 12:36 PM
</p>
get back to me when there is actual proof. Then we can chat about it. until then you're wearing that nifty little tin foil hat on this one ;)
Are you serious ? Do you have the vaguest idea how the real world works ?
I never accused the Clintons of anything. I merely pointed out that there were a lot of things going on in Arkansas and among "FOB's" that ended SUSPICIOUSLY.
That the Clintons have NEVER been asked about.
That have NEVER been properly investigated.
WHO was in charge of Arkansas during the time in question ? Bill.
Who was in charge of investigating or NOT investigating certain deaths ? Arkansas law enforcement.
Ask NBC WHY they sat on the Juanita Broderick story FOR YEARS ?
Ask 60 Minutes why they waited MONTHS to air Kathleen Willey's allegations of getting groped and propositioned by Bill ? Have you read her book ? Maybe you should.
Chicagoeditor
01-08-2008, 12:38 PM
Ask NBC WHY they sat on the Juanita Broderick story FOR YEARS ?
Ask 60 Minutes why they waited MONTHS to air kathleen Willey's allegations of getting groped and propositioned by Bill ? Have you read her book ? Maybe you should.
Maybe you should stop mud slinging about a guy who hasn't been in office for TWO TERMS and start asking some tough questions about the current administration's policies and activities, which have global significance and will have a lasting, negative impact on the U.S. for decades to come. Just an idea.
Eric Stoner
01-08-2008, 01:07 PM
Maybe you should stop mud slinging about a guy who hasn't been in office for TWO TERMS and start asking some tough questions about the current administration's policies and activities, which have global significance and will have a lasting, negative impact on the U.S. for decades to come. Just an idea.
Last time I checked his WIFE is running for President so it seems kinda, sorta, you
know, like maybe RELEVANT.
You're right about the current Administration. If you've read my posts you'd
know I've contributed to and am supporting Obama.
dlabtot
01-08-2008, 02:21 PM
I think people are gonna call Obama on his lack of substance after a while. Rhetoric is great to create strong emotions, but many a politician has been slashed down for not focusing on facts enough, especially as the race progresses.
Plenty of substantive policy positions here: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
Melonie
01-08-2008, 04:02 PM
Plenty of substantive policy positions here:
These are definitely substantive - 100% liberal substance. However, the only thing more dangerous than not having a stated policy is establishing stated policies that are open to effective criticism. Of course this phase won't occur until after the conventions are over, since no other democratic hopeful (with the limited exception of Hilary) diverges much from any of Obama's stated policies .
Casual Observer
01-08-2008, 09:08 PM
Plenty of substantive policy positions here
Not really...listen to him out on the road and you hear a lot of vague generalities but no policy planks. He's got loads of charisma, though...maybe he thinks that will carry the day.
Yellowjacket
01-08-2008, 11:12 PM
When you speak of one candidate or another not having substantive policy positions, or speaking in vague generalities, doesn't that describe all of them, Democratic and Republican, other than perhaps Dennis Kucinick and Ron Paul? None of the rest of them seem to be willing to commit themselves to any specific ideology, they just trot out all the buzz words their handlers tell them will work best for their targeted demographics, on any given day, and fight it out between each other on the basis of image, rather than substance. Granted, I'm probably overstating the case a bit, I'm sure some of the candidates have convictions, and stand by them strongly. But Kucinick and Paul are the only two I really feel, I'd know exactly what I was voting for. Am I missing something here?
That said, any of the Democrats would be better, than another Bush kind of presidency, and that seems to be about all Republicans have to offer right now. Time to run all the old scoundrels out, and start over from scratch, with a fresh batch of new scoundrels.
Maybe we can get something good out of the deal, like national health care? Like those radical commies up north, the Canadians? Or that rich global super-power down south, Costa Rica? I know, sounds like a pipe dream, that us humble Americans could ever have the same kinds of social benefits as the citizens of every other industrialized nation on earth, and many third world nations to boot, but hey, a guy's gotta be able to have a dream, right?
Pamela
01-09-2008, 09:31 AM
Not really...listen to him out on the road and you hear a lot of vague generalities but no policy planks. He's got loads of charisma, though...maybe he thinks that will carry the day.
So true! And that is where he very well may fail.
Melonie
01-09-2008, 10:12 AM
agreed on vagueness of stated policies ... with a few exceptions. In general the Democrats all want to increase taxes and all want to increase social welfare spending. In general, all Republicans want to avoid tax increases but all want to continue gov't spending despite the fact this will increase federal budget deficits. Granted that Paul and Kucinich have different ideas.
As to national health care proposals for the US, whether that's 'good' or not depends on your current level of medical coverage and current out-of pocket health insurance premiums, versus the level of medical coverage you will actually get under an NHS program and the amount of additional taxes you'll be forced to pay in order to fund an NHS program.
Back to the subject of Obama's stated policies (or lack thereof) there IS a voting record to look back on - although none of the mainstream news media or other candidates are choosing to do so at the moment. But a few things are trickling out. One Obama vote which trickled out in today's news was that, as an Illinois senator, Obama voted to defend the right of 'victims' to sue for damages. Specifically Obama voted for a bill that, if a robber broke into a private home, and if the homeowner shot the robber, the homeowner's 'victim' the robber would have the right to sue the homeowner in civil court for damages including 'pain and suffering'. With a law like this in effect, it would be far less expensive for a homeowner to allow the robber to clean out his house, rather than risk being saddled with having to pay the robber a $1 million court judgement for any 'damage' the homeowner inflicted on the robber while attempting to stop him.
~
Eric Stoner
01-09-2008, 01:33 PM
For right now Obama is running for the Dem. nomination so I'm just comparing him and his positions to Hillary's and Edwards'. They are certainly no worse and in many cases BETTER than what those two propose.
Edwards has done nothing more than pander and call for class warfare with his "Two Americas" bilge. The same man who built the largest house in his county.The same guy who benefitted greatly from the very system he now decries- I'm thinking more of his hedge-funding than his trial lawyering. If he's being sincere in spouting some of the nonsense he does; then he is breathtakingly ignorant of how the world really works. For instance, we have $100 a barrel oil because of A. High demand, particularly from India and China B. Producer nation instability all the way from the Middle East to Indonesia, Burma, Nigeria, Algeria and Venezuela and C. Speculation on WORLD commodity markets driving up price. Edwards speaks as though any President is either to blame for or could doANYTHING about any of these things.
I've discussed Hillary; her sordid history; her lack of any REAL achievements and her Socialist policies and positions and won't repeat them here.
I don't like everything about Obama's positions but I like him. He's the most honest, most decent and smartest of the bunch. Most of his positions reflect a maturity that the others decidedly lack. Even George Will is being supportive for these and other reasons.
I can't and won't vote for Hillary under any circumstances. Even if her opponent is a nut like Duncan Hunter or a sheep in sheep's clothing like Huckabee. I can and will vote for Obama against any Republican I've seen so far. Even Rudy.