# Barack Obama ... the beginning of the end



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

This article makes him look functionally incompetent IMHO.

Michelle Obama Solidifies Her Role in the Election
https://online.wsj.com/article/SB120269904120358135.html

here's just one example, there are others in there:



> With the Democratic presidential race wide open, Mrs. Obama, a 44-year-old Princeton- and Harvard Law-educated hospital executive, is assuming the same dominant role in Sen. Obama's public life that she has in his private life. At home, she expects a lot of every family member, from having her 6- and 9-year-old daughters set their own alarm clocks to insisting her husband pick up his dirty socks.


As I read that, she expects far more responsibility from her 6-year old than Barack. I am left wondering if he could set the alarm clock himself.

What is he, 5? Hillary will destroy him with this IMHO. Does Hillary have to make Bill pick up his dirty socks?

I think the bulk of the article makes Michelle look terrible as well. Their core constituency probably doesn't care or thinks it's endearing.

I'm sure someone will ask Cindy McCain if she has to make 'Juan' pick up his socks too!

This reminds me of the punch-line: "Hey don't worry! The smartest man in the world just jumped out of the plane with my backpack."


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

It is not real - just political positioning to use Ms. Obama as a strong female figure to siphon some voters from Ms. Clinton.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> What is he, 5? Hillary will destroy him with this IMHO. Does Hillary have to make Bill pick up his dirty socks?


Destroy him with it? It's not like there is any noteworthy new information here. Not to mention I wouldn't expect any glowing Democratic endorsements from the WSJ Online 

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

She sounds like an arrogant ass! I don't think its going to make much of a difference, at least on the surface. 

With respect to the candidate himself, there are so many other things about him to criticize I don't think we need to drag his wife into it. He has said he would unconditionally meet with sworn enemies of this country yet would unilaterally bomb a sovereign country thereby destabilizing one of the few allies we have in that region. He is a junior senator without any real legislative accomplishments. His biggest trump card is that he has "always been against the war" yet has voted each time to continue funding the war. He speaks of change yet, what has he really changed? His instinct is big government liberalism. From taxes to healthcare to the role of government, he is no different than any other left wing Dem out there; he just looks better! 

People, as well as the press, are smitten with him. Although hardly empirical, everytime a reporter sticks a microphone into an Obama supporters face and asks "why?" the answer is almost always some permutation of "he really inspires me." 

I used to think that if Obama got the nod for the Dems he would be hard to beat. He's got the mojo working right now, and with Hillary's baggage he would be a shoe in. However now I'm thinking that no one is asking him any tough questions. Him assertions aren't even being followed up on. I think if he became "the one" then he would have to answer questions, real questions, and I'm afraid that the slick packaging fade to reveal a tax hiking, big spending left wing liberal.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Does Hillary have to make Bill pick up his dirty socks?


I would suspect that she has given up trying.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

ksinc said:


> This article makes him look functionally incompetent IMHO.
> 
> Michelle Obama Solidifies Her Role in the Election
> https://online.wsj.com/article/SB120269904120358135.html
> ...


Boy, nothing makes you happy!

Well, cheer up: Maybe Hillary will get the nomination.

Too bad about Bush, or else maybe the Republicans would still have a viable party--something I would welcome, as it would strengthen the nation's overall political discourse. Not to mention strengthen the nation.

So it goes.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I was in the 7th grade when we were gathered in the central outdoor ampitheater of my junior high school. Suddenly all these old young people, I suppose ancient 18- 20 year olds came down the aisles waving and singing UP WITH PEOPLE! I was somehow unerved by this endorphin rush of happy faced communications majors destined as corporate human resource managers. I in fact remember turning to my friend and uttering " What the ***?"A few months later a major storm flooded that ampitheater with mud enough to shut down the school. It was a bunch of older men who dug out the 18' deep mudflow, not UP WITH PEOPLE! volunteers. A large cross section of the american people are voicing fatique and disillusion. They want a white knight, or a black white knight as far removed from the perceived dry rot of politics and power. What they don't see is this junior senator is an unseasoned, green 2x4.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

pt4u67 said:


> ...He has said he would unconditionally meet with sworn enemies of this country yet would unilaterally bomb a sovereign country thereby destabilizing one of the few allies we have in that region. He is a junior senator without any real legislative accomplishments. His biggest trump card is that he has "always been against the war" yet has voted each time to continue funding the war. He speaks of change yet, what has he really changed? ...I think if he became "the one" then he would have to answer questions, real questions, and I'm afraid that the slick packaging fade to reveal a tax hiking, big spending left wing liberal.


+1...well stated. That's exactly what I find so troublesome about Obama. I am not convinced the guy's got the chops for the job. Heaven help us if he's faced with a major decision in the time of crisis...at least we'd know his address to the nation would be poetic.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Many like to compare Obama to JFK. I agree. Both are relatively young, look good, are telegenic/photogenic, idealistic and inspiring and _both are light weights getting by on style over substance. 
_
From the time Kennedy came to office he faced one challenge after another from Khrushchev. Kennedy's mishandling of Khrushchev almost led this country to an all out nuclear war. In relative terms, the USSR was a rational power. It was interested in its own survival and was a nation-state that could be negotiated with and did not have a messianic vision of world domination.

Our enemies today are not the USSR. They are far more dangerous and unpredictable. How would Obama handle an attack by Hezbollah on Israel? How would he react to a Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq? How would he handle a resurgent Iran bent on testing the U.S by conducting a nuclear test or test firing medium range missiles over the Gulf? I could go on and on and I'm sure many could write their own dire scenarios. The bottom line is that at this time I'm not sure that many people know the answers to these questions. I would hope that serious journalists and serious people in general begin asking these questions before we elect and inexperienced, not ready for prime time rookie and entrust him with the security of the world.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Destroy him with it? It's not like there is any noteworthy new information here. Not to mention I wouldn't expect any glowing Democratic endorsements from the WSJ Online
> 
> -spence





pt4u67 said:


> She sounds like an arrogant ass! I don't think its going to make much of a difference, at least on the surface.
> 
> With respect to the candidate himself, there are so many other things about him to criticize I don't think we need to drag his wife into it. He has said he would unconditionally meet with sworn enemies of this country yet would unilaterally bomb a sovereign country thereby destabilizing one of the few allies we have in that region. He is a junior senator without any real legislative accomplishments. His biggest trump card is that he has "always been against the war" yet has voted each time to continue funding the war. He speaks of change yet, what has he really changed? His instinct is big government liberalism. From taxes to healthcare to the role of government, he is no different than any other left wing Dem out there; he just looks better!
> 
> ...





TMMKC said:


> +1...well stated. That's exactly what I find so troublesome about Obama. I am not convinced the guy's got the chops for the job. Heaven help us if he's faced with a major decision in the time of crisis...at least we'd know his address to the nation would be poetic.


I agree with these comments and I was thinking along the same lines. All the things we know about him already that make him "not ready on day 1" haven't hurt him among the Democrats so far, but something along these lines might be something she can beat him over the head with in that way that isn't based on race and exploits maturity and experience more than accomplishments or gender per se. Although I think the gender thing hurts him there. Such as, even if Michelle didn't look bad there, but just competent, professional woman; if the choice is that the woman are competent, but Hillary is the one woman on the ticket.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Boy, nothing makes you happy!


But; nothing makes me unhappy either.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> He has said he would unconditionally meet with sworn enemies of this country . . .


Good point. We're a lot better off just talking to people who already like us. There's no way it's in our interests to try to convince anyone that they should try to cooperate with us, or work toward what we might want.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> People, as well as the press, are smitten with him. Although hardly empirical, everytime a reporter sticks a microphone into an Obama supporters face and asks "why?" the answer is almost always some permutation of "he really inspires me."


That's the problem...most people are too ignorant to see him for the jackass that he really is...I dunno if it's a case of "white man's burden" or what, but you can't tell me that this guy has any redeeming qualities...and there's plenty of black dudes that I would like to see get elected as president, although if you say you dislike obama, people will almost automatically label you as a racist...but I think it goes beyond that, I think it's that in our media driven society, people eschew the right to think, and let the idiot box do it for them, and if he gets a vote of confidence from that irritating bovine oprah, well then he's as good as gold to the American public, never mind the fact that his presidency is gonna rival that of one Jimmy Carter's for worst 4 years in office ever (oh wait...maybe he'll get the thumbs up from the corpulent Ms. winfrey again in 2012), the fact that people choose him as the candidate they want because they think "he's likeable" (really??? an arrogant little rooster with taxicab ears is likeable???_ sheesh, some people have $h!t for brains_), yet couldnt name a singe accomplishment of his really makes me lose faith in society...I literally overheard two moronic females talking about how they were gonna vote for "the black guy...what's his name again???" before super tuesday (I wanted to inject myself into their conversation and say Alan Keyes, but I figured that'd fly over their heads by a couple of miles)...it was at that point that I realized how rapidly we're sprinting down the path to hell...

I never thought that I'd be hoping that Hillary got the nomination...but knowing that we're gonna be saddled with a Dem for at least 4 years, I have to choose the lesser of two evils...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Good point. We're a lot better off just talking to people who already like us. There's no way it's in our interests to try to convince anyone that they should try to cooperate with us, or work toward what we might want.


I have never been able to reconcile being the lone superpower with out-sourcing diplomacy to GB+Fr. Since we seem to be making all the requirements, we should have the premier diplomatic corp in every corner of the world IMHO.

We weren't afraid to have consuls and embassies in the USSR.

We should go back to Iran.

The mistakes Carter made shouldn't be solved by staying withdrawn. I thought GHWB would have fixed this. Isn't one of the reasons we have such bad Iraqi and Iranian intelligence because we don't have embassies there?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Good point. We're a lot better off just talking to people who already like us. There's no way it's in our interests to try to convince anyone that they should try to cooperate with us, or work toward what we might want.


Jack, negotiations can take many different forms and will vary depending on the state one is dealing with and their relative power. Everyone likes to point out that "we spoke with the Russians", well sure. We spoke with the Russians because we really didn't have other options. Not to mention that the USSR was a rational state and played somewhat by the rules of _Realpolitik_ which everyone understood.

Whenever possible in the process of negotiations, one side must try to isolate and take away all other options from one's opponent prior to sitting down and negotiating. Otherwise the opposing side can drag out the talks and heap condition upon condition, after all, what would they have to lose. Iran is not the USSR and therefore the same standards don't apply. That's the real world. One does not speak with children in the same manner as with adults.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

I'm not in their core constituency, but a lot of husbands who are perfectly competent at their work leave the butter out and don't pick up their socks. I'm married to one. Just sayin'.


----------



## super k (Feb 12, 2004)

quote: 

"People, as well as the press, are smitten with him. Although hardly empirical, everytime a reporter sticks a microphone into an Obama supporters face and asks "why?" the answer is almost always some permutation of "he really inspires me." 

A lap dance inspires me, but I'm not voting for the stripper.



wish I could take credit, but saw that somewhere else


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

super k said:


> ...everytime a reporter sticks a microphone into an Obama supporters face and asks "why?" the answer is almost always some permutation of "he really inspires me."


Ahhh...inspiration. It's a shame his high rhetoric overshadows the fact that he's probably not qualified to be POTUS. It just goes to show how easily manipulated people can be, especially when they're eager for change. To whit...Oprah has used the "inspiration" angle as a basis for her endorsement of Obama. Though I generally don't give much credence to endorsements, hers is problematic if only because of the considerable power she wields with her minions. She regularly tells scores of people what to read, wear and eat. Why not tell them who to vote for? She takes all the guesswork out of it. To bad Obama's words don't inspire more people to think a little more deeply about their support of him.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

TMMKC said:


> Ahhh...inspiration. It's a shame his high rhetoric overshadows the fact that he's probably not qualified to be POTUS. It just goes to show how easily manipulated people can be, especially when they're eager for change. To whit...Oprah has used the "inspiration" angle as a basis for her endorsement of Obama. Though I generally don't give much credence to endorsements, hers is problematic if only because of the considerable power she wields with her minions. She regularly tells scores of people what to read, wear and eat. Why not tell them who to vote for? She takes all the guesswork out of it. To bad Obama's words don't inspire more people to think a little more deeply about their support of him.


I said the same thing in 2000 and 2004. Didn't seem to make any difference.

So it goes.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

BertieW said:


> I said the same thing in 2000 and 2004. Didn't seem to make any difference.
> 
> So it goes.


Maybe we should start making bi-partisan bumper stickers: "Think Before You Vote." :icon_smile_big:


----------



## TheSaint (Jun 28, 2005)

People have been voting for political candidates for goofy/no reasons since the dawn of time. I am voting because he/she has nice hair, nice suit, eloquent orator, good looking, freckles, nice tan (er uh Romney), short, tall, white, black, yellow, catholic, protestant, whig, moon made of green cheese, magic underwear, magic socks, dem, repub. I mean the list is endless. This really shouldn't surprise anyone that many in this country cannot express one legitimate position their favorite candidate stands for.

I've voted both sides of the aisle. I'm really not crazy about anybody at this point.

Obama may have an issue with "you talk the talk, but, do you walk the walk". We shall see. 

Cheers


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Obama's speeches are all melody and no lyrics.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

This conservative former Republican may end up voting for Obama; that's what a stinker I think John McCain is.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

I didn't know he smokes! If she makes him stop, he might start looking like Al Sharpton or the Huckabee "before" pics. No wonder he's thin.

I bet that if a Republican was a smoker, we would never have heard the end of it!


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Beresford said:


> This conservative former Republican may end up voting for Obama; that's what a stinker I think John McCain is.


I too am a former Republican, albiet fairly moderate (a.k.a Rockefeller Republican). I am now an undecided Independent.

I am curious...other than conservatives' well-documented dislike of McCain over tax cuts, immigration and campaign finance reform, what is the appeal of Obama to this group? I find it interesting that he polls so well with with Independents and p*ssed-off Republicans...considering he is so liberal. Is it because he's NOT Clinton or is it some other reason?


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

https://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009617.html


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

What a venomous, unfounded diatribe.

Here are a couple of examples:

First, the main topic of his post is his claims that:

"In the first ten minutes of a talk she gave on Sunday to a group of New Hampshire voters, the text and subtext of every sentence was that we are all isolated from each other, we're all cynical and fearful of each other, because there has never been a black president, but if we elect her husband, that will show that we're ready to go beyond our limits, ready to reach beyond our fears, prepared to leave our skepticism behind, and realize that we're one people. In her mind everything bad and ill about America is connected with the "isolation" that we, meaning whites, are experiencing, meaning that we're isolated from blacks, but we if elect Obama, then we won't be isolated any more, and our psychic ills will be cured."

He never offers any evidence of this, as one might hope, by linking to the speech, providing a transcript, or even giving a single quote. I don't know much about Michelle Obama, but if he wants me to believe what he's saying it's incumbent on him to provide some evidence. Note the reference to the "subtext", so that it doesn't matter what she really said--he can decode her actual meaning.

Second is this gem:

"Black women in any position of authority, even the most trivial such as being a ticket counter or being assistant manager of a grocery store, are the worst, most unpleasant human beings I've encountered in my life. Their hostility takes your breath away."

If this describes his attitude toward black women, I wouldn't be surprised if he has more than an occasional unpleasant encounter with them. 

Or one last point is the author's grouping of Bill Clinton in the same category as Charles Manson, the Khmer Rouge, and Jimmy Carter.

I think I'll get my information from a less unhinged source, if that's okay.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

I think the appeal of Obama over McCain by some Republicans, is that they rather have a Democrat in the Oval Office and screw things up instead of a Republican, so they can rebound in 2012 - it could be they're hoping he'll be another Carter.

Personally, I support McCain - although I was originally (and still am) behind Fred Thompson. I hate this pandering and all these condescending and canned speeches. Fred Thompson talked to you like another human being, and yes he didn't campaign hard, but two generations ago, Presidential candidates didn't do that either, and it was a negative to go and hold big rallies and go shake hands at the local diner.

Why Republicans hate McCain so much over him being "not conservative enough" is beyond me. He's probably more conservative than Bush - McCain's lifetime ACU rating is 83%, which is higher than Ron Paul, and in fact most people in Congress.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> I think the appeal of Obama over McCain by some Republicans, is that they rather have a Democrat in the Oval Office and screw things up instead of a Republican, so they can rebound in 2012 - it could be they're hoping he'll be another Carter.
> 
> Personally, I support McCain - although I was originally (and still am) behind Fred Thompson. I hate this pandering and all these condescending and canned speeches. Fred Thompson talked to you like another human being, and yes he didn't campaign hard, but two generations ago, Presidential candidates didn't do that either, and it was a negative to go and hold big rallies and go shake hands at the local diner.
> 
> Why Republicans hate McCain so much over him being "not conservative enough" is beyond me. He's probably more conservative than Bush - McCain's lifetime ACU rating is 83%, which is higher than Ron Paul, and in fact most people in Congress.


Interesting viewpoint...basically vote for a candidate and hope he loses.

I never got the feeling Thompson's heart was in it...and he only entered the race out of a sense of duty, or because it was expected of him. If that's the case, I won't fault him for being a good soldier for his party. Right now I'm leaning toward McCain, but I lost a lot of confidence in him when he started sucking up to the Right Wing of the party. If he picks a running mate to placate them, he may lose me all together. Generally speaking, I like him BECAUSE he ruffles so many feathers in the GOP.


----------



## aboutsomeoneelse (Oct 1, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> I think the appeal of Obama over McCain by some Republicans, is that they rather have a Democrat in the Oval Office and screw things up instead of a Republican, so they can rebound in 2012 - it could be they're hoping he'll be another Carter.


As someone who actually works in government, I can see why you might think this way. Cynicism and politics seem to go hand-in-hand sometimes, especially from the outside looking in.

However, I'm going to disagree with you and say that _most_ Republicans who happen to like and/or are considering voting for Barack Obama _aren't_ looking to hurt the country by helping elect the guy (or gal) they think is least fit to run things. I don't think the American people are that conniving and thoughtless that they'd torpedo their own country for four years to prove a point or score a win further down the line. There are plenty of politicos who think in those terms every single day, however, and they never cease to bum me out.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

TMMKC said:


> I too am a former Republican, albiet fairly moderate (a.k.a Rockefeller Republican). I am now an undecided Independent.
> 
> I am curious...other than conservatives' well-documented dislike of McCain over tax cuts, immigration and campaign finance reform, what is the appeal of Obama to this group? I find it interesting that he polls so well with with Independents and p*ssed-off Republicans...considering he is so liberal. Is it because he's NOT Clinton or is it some other reason?


McCain is a dishonest phony. Bill and Hillary are beyond dishonest phonies, they will totally corrupt the country if they get back in power. If either McCain or Hillary get in, we will be playing the same sorts of political insider games for the next 8 years that have driven this country into the ground.

Barack is the only one of the front-runners who comes across to me with some measure of honesty and integrity and has some possibility to break the gridlock we've been in.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Beresford said:


> Barack is the only one of the front-runners who comes across to me with some measure of honesty and integrity and has some possibility to break the gridlock we've been in.


That's kind of the reason an old friend of mine (he's a Democrat and is fairly active in local politics) gave for his support of Obama. He realizes the guy is probably not experienced enough to be POTUS, but found justification in that being a State Senator from Illinois is probably a lot harder job, and takes more brain power, than being Governor of Texas.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> I too am a former Republican, albiet fairly moderate (a.k.a Rockefeller Republican). I am now an undecided Independent.
> 
> I am curious...other than conservatives' well-documented dislike of McCain over tax cuts, immigration and campaign finance reform, what is the appeal of Obama to this group? I find it interesting that he polls so well with with Independents and p*ssed-off Republicans...considering he is so liberal. Is it because he's NOT Clinton or is it some other reason?


I suppose if you are going to have a liberal as Pres. then vote liberal and not for somebody professing something else. Vote honestly and not be a liar by voting for a liar.

McCain should have run as an independent, because that is what he is.

Then there is the need for new blood instead of old stagnant blook that McCain and Clintions are.

Not sure how much Obama can change the Democrats to something new. I wish Bush hadn't ruined the Republican party.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

TMMKC said:


> That's kind of the reason an old friend of mine (he's a Democrat and is fairly active in local politics) gave for his support of Obama. He realizes the guy is probably not experienced enough to be POTUS, but found justification in that being a State Senator from Illinois is probably a lot harder job, and takes more brain power, than being Governor of Texas.


And it's not like he won't have, presumably, good talent around him to complement the Obama inspiration with hardcore policy wonks.

(Let's just hope he leaves Rumsfeld where he is.)


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Small factoid from a colleague, who has become a big Obama fan:

Two years ago, Samantha Power gets a call from him asking her to Washington. He says that he has read her recent book _Problem from Hell_, and wants to talk about its relevance to terrorism. She is non-plussed, but goes down to DC anyway. Turns out he has not only read the book thoroughly, but absorbed it, drawn out implications that she hadn't even thought of, and otherwise gave evidence of being not only smart and well-informed, but curious and eager to learn more. The one-hour meeting becomes four hours and she ends up being one of his foreign policy team.

Not a comprehensive endorsement, but a good indication that he has a lot of useful raw material for the job. I still think that for better or worse, JFK in 1960 isn't a bad analogy.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Now, this may come of as shrill and partisan, but so be it. It is based on a real concern.

I respect Power. I respect Concordia. I (sort of) respect Obama.

But.

_A Problem from Hell _is THE classic "Never again!" tract for our time. It is impassioned and informative at the same time. You cannot read it and not think, "She is right. Never again!"

And yet.

What does Obama say about Iraq? Essentially, bug out ASAP, damn the consequences. If the consequences are civil war and genocide? Non-responsive answer: We shouldn't have gone in in the first place.

Maybe not.

But how either he or she squares this circle, I have not seen and cannot fathom.

End of Rant.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

That's a legitimate concern when stated clearly and not over talk radio  : it's a big issue that may define U.S. strength or weakness for the next century. And there's more than one way to bungle it.

Uniquely among the American citizenry, I don't have any definitive answers. Not about what Obama has in his head about this, or even what he should have. At this stage, my points of comparison are (a) a primary opponent who is always right even if she isn't, dissenters getting cast down to spend some quality time with Judas and (b) a prospective general election opponent who is correct now even though he was wrong before and definitely won't screw up next time-- whatever that might look like.

For this and other reasons, 2008 looks like a case of having to draft the best available athlete and disregarding certain _lacunae _in the skills department. I await relevant news with an open (nay-- a vacant) mind.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

TMMKC said:


> Interesting viewpoint...basically vote for a candidate and hope he loses.
> 
> I never got the feeling Thompson's heart was in it...and he only entered the race out of a sense of duty, or because it was expected of him. If that's the case, I won't fault him for being a good soldier for his party. Right now I'm leaning toward McCain, but I lost a lot of confidence in him when he started sucking up to the Right Wing of the party. If he picks a running mate to placate them, he may lose me all together. Generally speaking, I like him BECAUSE he ruffles so many feathers in the GOP.


I do believe he needs to pick a more conservative (not Republican) VP running mate. I read that the rank and file conservatives are still voting for McCain despite what the Limbaugh's and the Hannity's say. I don't think now is the time for McCain to pick a Democrat (or Liberman) as his running mate, or the conservative core will stay home, and Obama or Hillary will run away with the show. Or it will be like the opposite of Reagan vs Carter.

In my limited time voting, I vote mostly Republican; however, I don't vote straight Republican. I am a strict Constitutionalist, originalist, and anti-federalist. I believe the Constitution to be as it is written. The states should have more power than the federal government and the people should have the most power. Republicans after Reagan left office forgot these principles. President Bush's tenure just hastened the schism of the Republican party between the "neo-conservative" or those who are mostly just pro-life, and that who want to dictate social policy and the fiscal/national security conservatives who want small government, small taxes, and a strong national defense (what I believe the federal government's primary responsibility to be).

I will never vote for socialized medicine or more entitlement programs. I like my money, and I can surely spend my money on my wants and needs more effectively than anyone else (especially a bureaucracy).

I too felt that Thompson wasn't into the race, although I think you have to be a masochist if you enjoy running for political office.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

Beresford said:


> Barack is the only one of the front-runners who comes across to me with some measure of honesty and integrity and has some possibility to break the gridlock we've been in.


Please cite one example of a bill or cause that Barack has driven to completion. I am in fact going to vote for him because he seems to be the least qualified and most inept candidate and very unlikely to accomplish anything other than placating those pushing racial issues.

For the most part, I love the gridlock, because whenever politicians pass laws, it ends up costing me more money. Hillary or McCain could do some real damage to my wallet. Obama seems to least likely to do so.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Like Reagan did for some people, Barack will make us feel good again, a goal not without merit and value. Policy is the gravy you get on the side. 

Americans are looking for their thousand points of light (v2.0). 

Who can blame them?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

https://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/mccain-adviser.html


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Like Reagan did for some people, Barack will make us feel good again, a goal not without merit and value. Policy is the gravy you get on the side.
> 
> Americans are looking for their thousand points of light (v2.0).
> 
> Who can blame them?


Reagan had a track record of well thought out positions and conservative prescriptions for both domestic and foreign policy. He made people feel good, but people who took the time could also see the substance. What is Obama's philosophy? From what I've seen its no different from the regular left wing line.

At an Obama rally a few days ago he was going on about how he was going to "roll back" the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy (i.e. raise taxes) and give tax breaks to the "hard working" people instead. Way to bring people together Barack.

Someone earlier in this thread or another alluded to the Oprah-fication of our politics. Obama is the culminating point of that process; feel good fluff.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Reagan had a track record of well thought out positions and conservative prescriptions for both domestic and foreign policy. He made people feel good, but people who took the time could also see the substance. What is Obama's philosophy? From what I've seen its no different from the regular left wing line.
> 
> At an Obama rally a few days ago he was going on about how he was going to "roll back" the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy (i.e. raise taxes) and give tax breaks to the "hard working" people instead. Way to bring people together Barack.
> 
> Someone earlier in this thread or another alluded to the Oprah-fication of our politics. Obama is the culminating point of that process; feel good fluff.


Whether you like it or not, after 8 years of Bush, feel-good fluff may be all the voters require. Not saying it's right, but there it is.

BTW, Didn't Reagan raise taxes too?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Reagan cut taxes with ERTA, and substantially (though not completely) unwound that with TEFRA and DEFRA. At least that was the net revenue effect -- the laws did different things. His real accomplishment, though, was the TRA of 86 which dramatically broadened the base by closing loopholes and dramatically reduced rates. The net affect of the 86 Act is in dispute, with some folks saying if was revenue neutral and others saying that it was a net tax cut. While revenue did increase considerably, it is hard to know how much of that was attributable to the supply side effect of the rate cuts. The question as to whether any president was or is a tax cutter versus a tax raiser must be disentangled from the questions as to whether more revenue was raised versus whether rates were reduced. Also, while income earners generally enjoyed Reagan's rate cuts, real estate investors were hurt badly by the base broadening. All in all, the 86 Act was an important and beneficial achievement. But sadly, while the base has stayed broad (i.e., the loopholes that were closed have stayed closed), rates have increased even taking into account the Bush rate cuts, and they are likely to increase again. 

Finally, I'm very confused by Android's post. If gridlock is a good thing, then how is adding a Dem president to a Dem congress likely to achieve that?


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

https://www.kansascity.com/273/story/488878.html


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Interesting story


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I agree that Obama, like Reagan, makes people feel good with his optimism.

However, Reagan was optimistic about the potential of individuals. Reagan believed in the power of individual self-interest pursing mutually shared goals under the umbrella of freedom and individual liberty. He removed the roadblocks of government to individual success (over taxation, over regulation) and the realization of dreams that while individual in nature were shared by all Americans (to own a house, to afford the best education for the children, etc.). Reagan believed there was no legitimate reason every American couldn't be successful if they worked hard and saved; and the only force that could stop or retard that eventuality and realization of the American Dream was the federal government itself.

Obama is optimistic about what we can do together. He tells us our strength is in our collective power. Together we should be investing in growing government solutions to our common problems (healthcare, education, etc.) and co-opting individual success in a classic redistriubtion scheme to pay for it.

Reagan: "YES YOU CAN!"
Obama "YES WE CAN!"

Other than that, I think they were very similar. 

Reagan was a stud. Everywhere he went he was a natural leader long before he turned to politics. Whether it was academically, on the football field, acting, or with the ladies Reagan proved he was the real deal. He could ride a horse, chop wood well past 70, and win a fight (without a knife). Reagan was an alpha male and a 'rugged Individual' that was uniquely American.

Obama well, his wife insists he picks up his socks. 

https://www.cineyestrellas.com/Elenco/Actrices/W/Wyman_Jane_1.jpg https://www.jane-wyman.com/photos/U1277081INP.jpg https://www.sheppardsoftware.com/History/images/reagan_w_nancy.jpg

https://www.collegenews.org/x3351.xml


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Asterix said:


> Interesting story


Wow...incredible. I would have never thought Obama represents the type of change the Klan has in mind.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Reagan was a stud. Everywhere he went he was a natural leader long before he turned to politics. Whether it was academically, on the football field, acting, or with the ladies Reagan proved he was the real deal. He could ride a horse, chop wood well past 70, and win a fight (without a knife). Reagan was an alpha male and a 'rugged Individual' that was uniquely American.
> 
> Obama well, his wife insists he picks up his socks.


Oh, I'm sure Nancy made Ronnie take off his riding boots many times before coming inside. We all have to answer to a "higher power" (and I don't mean The Almighty) from time to time, and Reagan was no exception. I miss him.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Obama is optimistic about what we can do together. He tells us our strength is in our collective power. Together we should be investing in growing government solutions to our common problems (healthcare, education, etc.) and co-opting individual success in a classic redistriubtion scheme to pay for it.
> 
> Reagan: "YES YOU CAN!"
> Obama "YES WE CAN!"


You nailed it. :aportnoy:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> Wow...incredible. I would have never thought Obama represents the type of change the Klan has in mind.


Yep. It's even worse for them than him being black. He's mixed. That's what the Klan really hates.

No one could have predicted them supporting Obama.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Yep. It's even worse for them than him being black. He's mixed. That's what the Klan really hates.
> 
> No one could have predicted them supporting Obama.


Then again, no one would have been able to predict how many times the ACLU has defended those nut-jobs. Ain't this country grand?:icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> Then again, no one would have been able to predict how many times the ACLU has defended those nut-jobs. Ain't this country grand?:icon_smile_big:


Justice Clarence Thomas defended their right to expression as well.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Regarding the Klan photo, I think not:



Those wanna-be Onion writers can do remarkable things with Photoshop today. Or with pranksters.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I agree that Obama, like Reagan, makes people feel good with his optimism.
> 
> However, Reagan was optimistic about the potential of individuals. Reagan believed in the power of individual self-interest pursing mutually shared goals under the umbrella of freedom and individual liberty.
> 
> ...


Hilary Clinton's supporters: "YES SHE CAN!"
I kid you not - they came back at claims of Clinton divisiveness by rehashing the Obama slogan in a divisive manner.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JibranK said:


> Hilary Clinton's supporters: "YES SHE CAN!"
> I kid you not - they came back at claims of Clinton divisiveness by rehashing the Obama slogan in a divisive manner.


I don't see what John Edwards has to do with this?


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Nor do I. Are you quoting the wrong post?


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

manton said:


> Now, this may come of as shrill and partisan, but so be it. It is based on a real concern.
> 
> I respect Power. I respect Concordia. I (sort of) respect Obama.
> 
> ...


Not the most detailed position paper, but:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Concordia said:


> Not the most detailed position paper, but:


Thanks for the link.

Her "fierce idealism" borders on delusion IMHO.

One of my issues with W and what Ms. Powers reminds me of a lot is: Condi. Smart, idealistic, informed, academic women with zero practical experience in foreign affairs IMHO. I don't know enough about Ms. Powers to say that, but her statements remind me of that broken record we've been hearing.

These types of experts should play a vital role, as Condi did with the NSA as an expert on Russia, informing leaders about historical and cultural perspectives on the ground, but they shouldn't be directly advising on policy IMHO.

I don't believe anyone would argue in hindsight that Condi was ready when she became Sec. of State. IMHO Colin Powell had 100x the practical experience of Condi as a decision-maker and look at how he screwed up. Academics aren't required to live in the world they create in their lectures and books; leaders are.

I really don't understand how GHWB lets loyalty substitute for competence and lets W put people in jobs they don't belong in because they did a job they did belong in well for him.

Well I do, but I just don't want to believe that about GHWB. Loyalty is such a 'false virtue.'


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I really don't understand how* GHWB lets loyalty substitute for competence and lets W put people in jobs they don't belong in because they did a job they did belong in well for him.
> *
> Well I do, but I just don't want to believe that about GHWB. Loyalty is such a 'false virtue.'


What are you referring to? That GWHB effects his sons choices for appointments? Generally, and surprisingly, the opposite has often been reported. That GWB does not consult with his father about policy or appointments.

Can you give an example of what you've stated?

If I understand your post, then I think just the opposite. GWHB chose competent people and while he valued loyalty, he avoided blatant cronyism.

GWB has been different. He put cronyism above all along with unquestioned loyalty. GWHB would not have nominated people of the calibre of Harriet Miers or Alberto Gonzalez.

Both Father and son had Colin Powell and Condi Rice in their administrations. But they certainly used them differently (for lack of a better term),


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

GHWB was a very competent and intelligent man - GWB is an idiot who does not have a grasp of pragmatism. I find it funny that people are now acknowledging this about Bush 43 when they defended him to the death in 2004 upon being faced with the facts.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Michelle's latest:

Derb summs up well:

https://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzZmOGE4ZWNlYzY4ZmRhNjM1YWEyNWNmNTQwMTU5YmQ=


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

To distill away all the dicta, the thought of having a first lady that was never proud of her country until her hubby became POTUS material is not a comforting thought. Excuse the saying, but that is rather black and white, no?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

rnoldh said:


> What are you referring to? That GWHB effects his sons choices for appointments? Generally, and surprisingly, the opposite has often been reported. That GWB does not consult with his father about policy or appointments.
> 
> Can you give an example of what you've stated?
> 
> ...


I'm referring to exactly what I said. And your last sentence shows you know what I am talking about "used them differently." The example given was Condi.

GHWB had Condi in a certain job. She was qualified for that job, good at that job, and very loyal to the Bush family. So, GHWB watches W put Condi in a different job she is unqualified for. Her primary qualification: loyalty.

Powell was qualifed, but look how he still screwed up.

Another example? Gee, I dunno. Harriet Miers. Michael Brown. Alberto Gonzalez. Tom Ridge.

Bush Cryonyism is based on loyalty to the Bush Family.

My point is that GHWB obviously knows better and lets W do it anyway.

Jeb is exactly the same way. I've watched it from close and afar.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JibranK said:


> GHWB was a very competent and intelligent man - GWB is an idiot who does not have a grasp of pragmatism. I find it funny that people are now acknowledging this about Bush 43 when they defended him to the death in 2004 upon being faced with the facts.


Can you give a specific example of someone like that we would all know?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I'm referring to exactly what I said. And your last sentence shows you know what I am talking about "used them differently." The example given was Condi.
> 
> GHWB had Condi in a certain job. She was qualified for that job, good at that job, and very loyal to the Bush family. So, GHWB watches W put Condi in a different job she is unqualified for. Her primary qualification: loyalty.
> 
> ...


My point of disagreement is with your conclusion that GHWB "lets W do it anyway". From what we've seen, the father has no control and little influence over what the son is doing. Before the invasion of Iraq it was well understood that people closely associated with the father were trying to use their influence on his behalf to convince 43 that 41 didn't think we should be invading, but that didn't accomplish anything.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> My point of disagreement is with your conclusion that GHWB "lets W do it anyway". From what we've seen, the father has no control and little influence over what the son is doing. Before the invasion of Iraq it was well understood that people closely associated with the father were trying to use their influence on his behalf to convince 43 that 41 didn't think we should be invading, but that didn't accomplish anything.


You really think GHWB has to go through those people to influence his son?

Sure Scowcroft and others disagreed, but I haven't read the transcripts of what GHWB said directly to GWB. 

You really think Powell and Cheney didn't care what GHWB thought?


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Can you give a specific example of someone like that we would all know?


No; I wasn't on this forum at the time.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JibranK said:


> No; I wasn't on this forum at the time.


I'm lost. How then do you know people defended him to the death in 2004 that are now acknowledging this? Maybe the people who acknowledge this now also acknowledged this in 2004 and even 2000. For myself acknowledging 'this' does not mean I would have voted differently in the general elections. I have stated many times I did not support W in the primary. I have a lot of issues with W, but none that would make me support Gore or Kerry. I could support a Biden, for instance.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

I'm not talking about you; I'm referring to people I know personally who have done so.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JibranK said:


> I'm not talking about you; I'm referring to people I know personally who have done so.


I knew that. I thought you meant like Hannity or Lowry or someone like that. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

JibranK said:


> GHWB was a very competent and intelligent man.


GHWB was a raging incompetent who became president for no other reason than who he happened to serve under as vice-president. And if you believe our government's official commission report on the 911 attack, we can place blame for it (and for the formation of al Qaeda, and for most of the other attacks on the U.S. in the past 15+ years) directly on his shoulders.

His son is, hopefully, the final end of Reagan's coattails. What a catastrophe it's been.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I'm watching the Obama rally. I'm sorry, but none of those people look like they can. Just my perception. He said they have 20,000 people there. It looks like 100 have jobs.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> GHWB was a raging incompetent who became president for no other reason than who he happened to serve under as vice-president. And if you believe our government's official commission report on the 911 attack, we can place blame for it (and for the formation of al Qaeda, and for most of the other attacks on the U.S. in the past 15+ years) directly on his shoulders.
> 
> His son is, hopefully, the final end of Reagan's coattails. What a catastrophe it's been.


That is a bunch of hog-wash. To blame anyone from the US for the greed of al Qaeda is somebody who hates the truth.

What al Qaeda has done is their choice and they are the only ones to be blamed.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

https://news.bostonherald.com/news/...iew.bg?articleid=1074519&srvc=home&position=0

Michelle Obama is finally proud to be an American.

BOO! HISS!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> That is a bunch of hog-wash. To blame anyone from the US for the greed of al Qaeda is somebody who hates the truth.


Have you read the 911 Commission Report? If you have a problem with it, take it up with the (Republican-led) authors, not with me.



WA said:


> What al Qaeda has done is their choice and they are the only ones to be blamed.


Talk about someone who hates the truth! Bin Laden was on our CIA's payroll for years. So was Saddam Hussein.

Read the 911 report and you'll learn why al Qaeda was founded and turned their attention toward the U.S. in the 1990's.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

The reaction to Mrs. Obama's comment is bordering on ridiculous. It is very difficult to grow up in poverty and second-class status due to race and be a citizen of the last "great power of the world" yet feel a deep, lifelong patriotism. This country is fundamentally flawed - however, the promises made in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution have slowly but surely been being fulfilled. It takes time, however. This nation is not perfect.

It is very difficult for me to grasp the concept of "I love America because it's the greatest place in the world because there's nothing else like it and I love America because America loves me" 

I kid you not; while at the bookstore, I saw a book by Dinesh something making that very point, justifying it by saying "I am not originally from the US, so anything I say about it must be true". For the record, I read a journal article by the same person espousing slavery as morally justified, so one can see that this is a blind patriot.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> https://news.bostonherald.com/news/...iew.bg?articleid=1074519&srvc=home&position=0
> 
> Michelle Obama is finally proud to be an American.
> 
> BOO! HISS!


Oh, please. Wives and mothers are supposed to embarrass the men in their life by going over the top once in a while. Anyone who doesn't get that is probably still pissed at Harry Truman for chewing out Paul Hume.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Have you read the 911 Commission Report? If you have a problem with it, take it up with the (Republican-led) authors, not with me.
> 
> Talk about someone who hates the truth! Bin Laden was on our CIA's payroll for years. So was Saddam Hussein.
> 
> Read the 911 report and you'll learn why al Qaeda was founded and turned their attention toward the U.S. in the 1990's.


I have read the report. What disgusted (and mildy, but frustratingly, humored) me was that Bush responded by proposing a plan, but one that had no connection to the Commission's proposed plan!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Concordia said:


> Oh, please. Wives and mothers are supposed to embarrass the men in their life by going over the top once in a while. Anyone who doesn't get that is probably still pissed at Harry Truman for chewing out Paul Hume.


I'm sorry, but I don't consider her statement on par with "Barack is the best husband in the world."

I don't think she went over-the-top either. I think she accidentally gave us a candid look into her real beliefs. It's not like she was emotional or speaking without notes and she said it twice.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

JibranK said:


> I have read the report. What disgusted (and mildy, but frustratingly, humored) me was that Bush responded by proposing a plan, but one that had no connection to the Commission's proposed plan!


The Commission's plan was expensive but made sense. Bush's plan did little more than shred the Consititution he was supposed to be defending, and funnel billions of tax dollars to his (and Cheney's) military-industrial friends.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JibranK said:


> The reaction to Mrs. Obama's comment is bordering on ridiculous. It is very difficult to grow up in poverty and second-class status due to race and be a citizen of the last "great power of the world" yet feel a deep, lifelong patriotism. This country is fundamentally flawed - however, the promises made in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution have slowly but surely been being fulfilled. It takes time, however. This nation is not perfect.
> 
> It is very difficult for me to grasp the concept of "I love America because it's the greatest place in the world because there's nothing else like it and I love America because America loves me"
> 
> I kid you not; while at the bookstore, I saw a book by Dinesh something making that very point, justifying it by saying "I am not originally from the US, so anything I say about it must be true". For the record, I read a journal article by the same person espousing slavery as morally justified, so one can see that this is a blind patriot.


Poverty? 2nd class status? She went to Princeton, then to Harvard law and graduated 20 years ago. This sounds far better than most people's biography.



> Michelle Robinson was born in Chicago, Illinois to Frasier Robinson (who died in 1990),[1] a city pump operator and Democratic precinct captain, and Marian Robinson, a secretary at Spiegel's catalog store;[2] she grew up in the South Shore community area of Chicago.[2][3] Unlike her husband, she was raised in a conventional two-parent home where the family convened around the dinner table nightly.[4] She and her brother, Craig (who is 16 months older), skipped the second grade.[2] Michelle, who is 5 feet 11 inches (1.80 m) tall,[5] graduated from Whitney Young High School in 1981[6] and went on to major in sociology and minor in African American studies at Princeton University, where she graduated cum laude with an Artium Baccalaureus in 1985.[2] She obtained her Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School in 1988.[7]


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Pretty dumb comment IMO, and I voted for Obama. I may disagree with some of the actions our government has taken over the years, but I have always been proud to be an American.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Pretty dumb comment IMO, and I voted for Obama. I may disagree with some of the actions our government has taken over the years, but I have always been proud to be an American.


Yep and even if she wasn't, she should have learned something from the Dixie Chics!


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

I see what you're saying but life on the Southside is not easy by any means. Additionally, race gives one second-class status in this country; that I have experienced myself.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

ksinc said:


> https://news.bostonherald.com/news/...iew.bg?articleid=1074519&srvc=home&position=0
> 
> Michelle Obama is finally proud to be an American.
> 
> BOO! HISS!


So she was never proud of America before that? That is unfortunate. I guess nothing good has ever come out of America. /end sarcasm


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

FrankDC said:


> Have you read the 911 Commission Report? If you have a problem with it, take it up with the (Republican-led) authors, not with me.
> 
> Talk about someone who hates the truth! Bin Laden was on our CIA's payroll for years. So was Saddam Hussein.
> 
> Read the 911 report and you'll learn why al Qaeda was founded and turned their attention toward the U.S. in the 1990's.


I think you've been spending too much time in California.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

*Why Obama is a blowhard*

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/the_obama_delusion.html

"Consider the retiring baby boomers. A truth-telling Obama might say: "Spending for retirees -- mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- is already nearly half the federal budget. Unless we curb these rising costs, we will crush our children with higher taxes. Reflecting longer life expectancies, we should gradually raise the eligibility ages for these programs and trim benefits for wealthier retirees. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for inaction. Waiting longer will only worsen the problem." "

"Political candidates routinely indulge in exaggeration, pandering, inconsistency and self-serving obscurity. Clinton and McCain do. The reason for holding Obama to a higher standard is that it's his standard and also his campaign's central theme. He has run on the vague promise of "change," but on issue after issue -- immigration, the economy, global warming -- he has offered boilerplate policies that evade the underlying causes of the stalemates. These issues remain contentious because they involve real conflicts or differences of opinion."

LOL...


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> I guess nothing good has ever come out of America. /end sarcasm


Not much in the last 7+ years.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> Not much in the last 7+ years.


You are correct. I mean, the Dems took over both Houses


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> You are correct. I mean, the Dems took over both Houses


The Dems comtrolled both houses for the last 7+ years? I thought that didn't happen until 06.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

mpcsb said:


> Not much in the last 7+ years.


You're right, a cervical cancer vaccine, the artificial heart, or the human genome project, to name a few, aren't good.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

*No you can't*

I'm sure most of you have seen this one, but maybe not:


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> You're right, a cervical cancer vaccine, the artificial heart, or the human genome project, to name a few, aren't good.


Were all of those government projects started by the current administration? As compared to Iraq, the deficit, collapse of the 'Coalition' in Afghanistan? Hmmmm


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> The Dems comtrolled both houses for the last 7+ years? I thought that didn't happen until 06.


Not to be pedantic ( :icon_smile_big: ) but the claim was nothing good for 7+ years. So I agreed, one of the things that had happened in the last 7+ years was the mid-term elections. Or another way of looking at it, would be again to agree, the Repubs lost both Houses in the last 7+ years :devil:


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Not to be pedantic ( :icon_smile_big: ) but the claim was nothing good for 7+ years. So I agreed, one of the things that had happened in the last 7+ years was the mid-term elections. Or another way of looking at it, would be again to agree, the Repubs lost both Houses in the last 7+ years :devil:


Ok, I feel silly now. Kudos to you Sir.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> Kudos to you Sir.


Just kudos? Nothing about how pretty I am?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

JibranK said:


> I see what you're saying but life on the Southside is not easy by any means. Additionally, race gives one second-class status in this country; that I have experienced myself.


Of course not. Life for most folks is not that easy. As a born and bred southsider I can attest that there is a bigger difference between poverty and working class than between working class and upper-middle class. The latter two feel stress, though in different degrees and different ways. The first knows true fear. And for the record, among the working class, the city employees felt the least stress -- their jobs were secure. Now don't get me wrong, I think Mrs. Obama has accomplished much and has much to be proud of. But these accomplishments are quintessentially American and a reason to be proud to be an American. The socialist system that she and her husband favor is in place in much of western Europe, and one of its casualties is the lack of economic and social mobility. The irony is amusing.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Just kudos? Nothing about how pretty I am?


Alright, I think you're pretty. Don't tell my husband ok?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> Don't tell my husband ok?


I will not if you will not. Do not ask, do not tell :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I will not if you will not. Do not ask, do not tell :icon_smile_wink:


We're safe unless(until) Clinton or Obama get elected, they want to do away with that not asking/telling thing.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

I know. I was agreeing with you. But, for the Bushies, their "eminent threat" BS was the priority.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> We're safe unless(until) Clinton or Obama get elected, they want to do away with that not asking/telling thing.


Hill wants to undo Bill? (Excuse the pun).


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

brokencycle said:


> I do believe he needs to pick a more conservative (not Republican) VP running mate. I read that the rank and file conservatives are still voting for McCain despite what the Limbaugh's and the Hannity's say. I don't think now is the time for McCain to pick a Democrat (or Liberman) as his running mate, or the conservative core will stay home, and Obama or Hillary will run away with the show. Or it will be like the opposite of Reagan vs Carter.
> 
> In my limited time voting, I vote mostly Republican; however, I don't vote straight Republican. I am a strict Constitutionalist, originalist, and anti-federalist. I believe the Constitution to be as it is written. The states should have more power than the federal government and the people should have the most power. Republicans after Reagan left office forgot these principles. President Bush's tenure just hastened the schism of the Republican party between the "neo-conservative" or those who are mostly just pro-life, and that who want to dictate social policy and the fiscal/national security conservatives who want small government, small taxes, and a strong national defense (what I believe the federal government's primary responsibility to be).
> 
> ...


Actually, you are a Federalist, not an Anti-Federalist


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Literide said:


> Actually, you are a Federalist, not an Anti-Federalist


Umm no.... I oppose the federal government's expanded powers.

"

The first Anti-Federalist movement of the 1780s opposed the creation of a stronger national government under the Constitution and at one time sought to leave the government under the Articles of Confederation intact.
The second Anti-Federalist movement formed in reaction to Alexander Hamilton's aggressive fiscal policies of George Washington's first administration. This movement is sometimes called the Anti-Administration "Party", and it would coalesce into one of the nation's first two true political parties, the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison."
That is from wiki. Anti-federalists are pro-states rights. I believe the federal government should be weak and they should follow the Constitution to the word and not interpret it. Originally the anti-federalists opposed the Constitution; however, after it was ratified the movement was about preventing the federal government from expanding their powers.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

mpcsb said:


> Were all of those government projects started by the current administration? As compared to Iraq, the deficit, collapse of the 'Coalition' in Afghanistan? Hmmmm


That wasn't the question. It was stated that nothing good came out of America. If you would like me to tell you some of the things that have come out of government projects in the past 7 years, I can. But what makes America great is the innovation of business: the current administration did this by reducing the corporate tax (still 2nd highest in the world) and promoting innovation through R&D tax credits.

An example of government funded discoveries under this administration: the ability to make stem cells without using embryos, or how about the bridge in California that can withstand earthquakes up to 8.2 in magnitude.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Michelle Obama thesis was on racial divide

By: Jeffrey Ressner 
Feb 22, 2008 04:20 PM EST

https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Concordia said:


> Not the most detailed position paper, but:


This obviously didn't work out well! LOL


----------

