*scratches head in confusion*
I like you calpoon, despite our differences. Please don't Flame me...:wave2:
BTW, that was one helluva post, Professor.
Obama moves to the right - disappointed??
- Thread starter Facial_King
- Start date
-
- Tags
- obama
*scratches head in confusion*
I like you calpoon, despite our differences. Please don't Flame me...:wave2:
BTW, that was one helluva post, Professor.
that wasn't a flame. I wasn't even really being serious.
really my point is that I think it's important to take into account both the character and the issues of a politician. either one by themselves, without the other, isn't really getting the whole picture and not very trustworthy, IMO.
that's my beef with ron paul, he may say the things that I want to hear NOW, but looking at his character.. what is he going to do in the future? you don't know.
on the other end, Obama seems like a real nice guy, but what is his policy? you don't know.
yeah, I know, an honest politician that delivers on his promises.. welcome to the twilight zone.
really my point is that I think it's important to take into account both the character and the issues of a politician. either one by themselves, without the other, isn't really getting the whole picture and not very trustworthy, IMO.
that's my beef with ron paul, he may say the things that I want to hear NOW, but looking at his character.. what is he going to do in the future? you don't know.
on the other end, Obama seems like a real nice guy, but what is his policy? you don't know.
yeah, I know, an honest politician that delivers on his promises.. welcome to the twilight zone.
But it's also more than just the man ...
It was rather surprising what the Germans were up to by the late '20s, before Hitler came to power. I was always disturbed by virtually the entire populous of German "going along" with him, and his party, but what was already "going on" a good half decade before his final move was rather disturbing. Heck, many things that were tolerated and even encouraged before the Nazi's came to any power were troubling in the early '20s.
The one thing that keeps me feeling at least comfortable is that we still have the balances here in the US, let alone people openly disagree with the President. Despite all the comments that some people will be "locked up" for speaking out against the President, it hasn't happened. The Supreme Court keeps ruling against the President on many matters, and upholding the Constitution. The Congress and President disagree and fight over matters regularly. Etc...
Obama is just another man who may take the Executive Chair. Several founders of the US argued against a single Executive position. I'm not sure if they were correct or incorrect in that viewpoint. But in reality, the US President is not the "most powerful man" on the planet, or even in the US for that matter. I think the lack of understanding the US Constitution drives much of that.
Heck, there are many actions that go on that people blame the President for that W., like Clinton, his father, Reagan, etc... actually have no control over. I'm not too worried about Obama at all should he become President. I said the same about Clinton when he won in 1992, even though I didn't think much of his business history (let alone Hillary's).
But using your own example, Hitler, one must question if we've forgotten our own history by blaming it all on one man. I was doing a bit of reading this week (I've had some "down time" to do so).
It was rather surprising what the Germans were up to by the late '20s, before Hitler came to power. I was always disturbed by virtually the entire populous of German "going along" with him, and his party, but what was already "going on" a good half decade before his final move was rather disturbing. Heck, many things that were tolerated and even encouraged before the Nazi's came to any power were troubling in the early '20s.
The one thing that keeps me feeling at least comfortable is that we still have the balances here in the US, let alone people openly disagree with the President. Despite all the comments that some people will be "locked up" for speaking out against the President, it hasn't happened. The Supreme Court keeps ruling against the President on many matters, and upholding the Constitution. The Congress and President disagree and fight over matters regularly. Etc...
Obama is just another man who may take the Executive Chair. Several founders of the US argued against a single Executive position. I'm not sure if they were correct or incorrect in that viewpoint. But in reality, the US President is not the "most powerful man" on the planet, or even in the US for that matter. I think the lack of understanding the US Constitution drives much of that.
Heck, there are many actions that go on that people blame the President for that W., like Clinton, his father, Reagan, etc... actually have no control over. I'm not too worried about Obama at all should he become President. I said the same about Clinton when he won in 1992, even though I didn't think much of his business history (let alone Hillary's).
I accused you of being "silent" when possible "anti-semitic" statements are made ...
I merely pointed out that I saw it a different way.
I then questioned your silence on "some minorities."
If that is "character assassination," then I dare to ask what some of your posts are of me?
I wondered why you are not as flamboyant to point them out as well.
It seems you only seem to "pick'n choose" which "minorities" you defend.
Again, you like to take things we don't say and argue with them.
You've mentioned this more times than I've ever posted in even those 3 threads.
Really Fox, this is just pathetic.
I'm not going to even respond to that one ever again, because if that's all you can find, it's pathetic.
This started with 50% of the board believing the moon landings were faked after I first joined.
It's continued more recently with the Northrup-Grumman alliance with Airbus to provide support of classified systems.
At some point, it gets old, and it's not worth it.
This is just like you taking issue with not what someone else posted.
You will answer what you want to argue with, not what someone actually said.
Please re-read some of your own post, I know they came from you separate from what McRocket stated.
They were comments that had nothing to do with the discussions, and a continuing approach you have.
At least I engage people on what they say in the context of a thread based on what they say.
I don't go around saying how they must treat their spouses or girlfriends or women.
I don't accuse people of being racist, anti-semitic or otherwise, but I do accuse people of playing politically aligned games.
I think this just proves the point that you don't want to account for what I actually asked.
It started with how you read something that someone else didn't say, and continued with your reading mine as something I didn't say.
If you really care, you would actually respond to what was asked, not what you want to argue with.
Until then, there's no sense in even pointing out the obvious, you honestly don't care to consider what people actually say.
Oh, and thanx for the "objective" negative rep -- quite "objective" to give it there.
Honestly, you are beyond pathetic if you can't actually respond to what people say and ask and enjoy negatively rep'ing people and reporting them to mods.
You called someone a racist.
I merely pointed out that I saw it a different way.
I then questioned your silence on "some minorities."
If that is "character assassination," then I dare to ask what some of your posts are of me?
No, I questioned why you are "silent" when some statements that could be considered "anti-semitic" in nature are posted.
I wondered why you are not as flamboyant to point them out as well.
It seems you only seem to "pick'n choose" which "minorities" you defend.
Again, you like to take things we don't say and argue with them.
Pathetic. 1 time in 3 complementary threads out of 3 years.
You've mentioned this more times than I've ever posted in even those 3 threads.
Really Fox, this is just pathetic.
I'm not going to even respond to that one ever again, because if that's all you can find, it's pathetic.
I use the word "ignorance" at times in technical matters where I could be an experienced expert and the posts are laughable because they are from not.
This started with 50% of the board believing the moon landings were faked after I first joined.
It's continued more recently with the Northrup-Grumman alliance with Airbus to provide support of classified systems.
At some point, it gets old, and it's not worth it.
Fox, you took issue not with what I posted.
This is just like you taking issue with not what someone else posted.
You will answer what you want to argue with, not what someone actually said.
You, not McRocket, actually claimed that you feel sorry for my wife and the abuse I must put her through with my views.
Please re-read some of your own post, I know they came from you separate from what McRocket stated.
They were comments that had nothing to do with the discussions, and a continuing approach you have.
At least I engage people on what they say in the context of a thread based on what they say.
I don't go around saying how they must treat their spouses or girlfriends or women.
I don't accuse people of being racist, anti-semitic or otherwise, but I do accuse people of playing politically aligned games.
Give it up dude.
Pathetic.
I think this just proves the point that you don't want to account for what I actually asked.
It started with how you read something that someone else didn't say, and continued with your reading mine as something I didn't say.
If you really care, you would actually respond to what was asked, not what you want to argue with.
Until then, there's no sense in even pointing out the obvious, you honestly don't care to consider what people actually say.
Oh, and thanx for the "objective" negative rep -- quite "objective" to give it there.
Honestly, you are beyond pathetic if you can't actually respond to what people say and ask and enjoy negatively rep'ing people and reporting them to mods.
let's see, a few thousand words back...
I'd love to talk about WWII, in my opinion that has been the defining point of modern history and I think there are many lessons to be learned from it that are even more relevant today. But this really isn't the thread to get into that discussion, so I'll refrain from further talking about it. If the point is that the unquestioning and complacent populace can be easily swept over by those in power that want to use their perceived sense of authority to spread fascism, then I agree with that.
I'd love to talk about WWII, in my opinion that has been the defining point of modern history and I think there are many lessons to be learned from it that are even more relevant today. But this really isn't the thread to get into that discussion, so I'll refrain from further talking about it. If the point is that the unquestioning and complacent populace can be easily swept over by those in power that want to use their perceived sense of authority to spread fascism, then I agree with that.
ahem, some interesting diversions here, but may I ask folks to address the question of the thread - are you disappointed by Obama's shift to the right?
Let me put it this way FK.Sure I am disapointed by it but not so much in Obama.I am disappointed that in order to be elected he and dems in general see it as neccessary and I think they are correct in that view.So I guess it's really the voters who I find even more disapointing here than the people running for office.Just look at the recent flap over Obama and Jesse Jackson where Jesse was put off by Obama IMO pandering to whites by using the blacks must show more personal responsibility speech that whites just eat up as a way to shift the debate on racial inequality in america.It reminds me of Clinton and sister soulja(or whatever her name was lol).It's all just pandering to get votes IMO and does not probably really even reflect real views a lot of time.
Every person who runs for the Executive Office does this, and Michael Dukakis was a recent reminder why.
I think Michael Dukakis has the best character we've ever seen in a Presidential Candidate on all levels in recent decades, possibly in the second half of the 20th century.
Virtually every Democrat/Republican runs on one platform during the election, but enacts another after being elected.
Since the advent of motion picture media, the US Presidency has been more of a popularity contest than anything.
Presidents with popularism campaigns tend to win, with a few exceptions.
At the same time, virtually every politician will privately admit that popularism is not a good platform to execute.
Popularism breeds mudslinging campaigns and stating the horrors of what the other guy will do.
Ironically, the '50-'60s and the early proliferation of TV saw a lot of it, I would categorize some far worse than even today.
Regarding ...
In a nutshell: "I can't be trusted because I lie for attention."
I'm sure you'll hear a much longer version over and over and over again in every thread over and over again, but that's the short version claim.
But I promise not to address that any more than with that simple "admission of guilt."
His shift to the right? Who couldnt see that for what it is, huh? You gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet. Win the moderate/light repubs... win the presidency.. then go back to the original plans he's been spouting for years. (Not just to win the primaries or presidency, some of that can be forgotten or shuffled away a'course)
Gas prices? There *isnt* a solve to that at this time except STOP FRIGGIN DRIVING! Starting from the beginning of the clinton administration anyone could see the emerging pattern of oil price gouging upwards. The 'New Vietnam' war we're waging now just puts extra nails into that coffin.
Sending money overseas.. rallying for more jobs stateside.. why is anyone calling it a financial castration? In the last few decades foreign aid has been cut all across the board; Country to country the richest nations have cut spending. America has taken criticism especially as we're the wealthiest, most influential nation. While I dont agree with a gloabl big-brother status.. that's the role we've taken since world war 2 and it wont change. It's a global economy and you have to send money to recieve money. We have to help the other nations play catch-up. Simple as that. Sure we also get kudos for it. heh
0.7% of the GNP? Countries have pledged to that exact number for quite a while.. and not one of those same countries has consistently lived up to that pledge. So while Obama might pass a bill saying he'll send tons of cash elsewhere, that's lip service to win the far-leaning liberals and gain overseas support.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/oda/2005/08stingysamaritans.htm
Obama's main consideration has always been unity as a country. We're already tearing each other apart in every last way possible. The upper/middle/lower classes are waging wars against each other. Poverty, tax cuts, gas hikes, piracy, racism, gun control, waffles and toast or toast with jam..
Have to solve the problems at home before we police the world again. Hell, regardless of who gets elected.. big, major-ass changes have to happen and I know this: The old white guy is more of the same George-Dubya-Bush bullshit we've had for 2 terms. The old white guy has the support of the old white folks and HEY! There are a lot of OTHER PEOPLE out there that actually need help besides the old wealthy whiteys! Obama is change they're afraid of. Necessary change, painful perhaps. Time to face the future and get it over with.
Gas prices? There *isnt* a solve to that at this time except STOP FRIGGIN DRIVING! Starting from the beginning of the clinton administration anyone could see the emerging pattern of oil price gouging upwards. The 'New Vietnam' war we're waging now just puts extra nails into that coffin.
Sending money overseas.. rallying for more jobs stateside.. why is anyone calling it a financial castration? In the last few decades foreign aid has been cut all across the board; Country to country the richest nations have cut spending. America has taken criticism especially as we're the wealthiest, most influential nation. While I dont agree with a gloabl big-brother status.. that's the role we've taken since world war 2 and it wont change. It's a global economy and you have to send money to recieve money. We have to help the other nations play catch-up. Simple as that. Sure we also get kudos for it. heh
0.7% of the GNP? Countries have pledged to that exact number for quite a while.. and not one of those same countries has consistently lived up to that pledge. So while Obama might pass a bill saying he'll send tons of cash elsewhere, that's lip service to win the far-leaning liberals and gain overseas support.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/oda/2005/08stingysamaritans.htm
Obama's main consideration has always been unity as a country. We're already tearing each other apart in every last way possible. The upper/middle/lower classes are waging wars against each other. Poverty, tax cuts, gas hikes, piracy, racism, gun control, waffles and toast or toast with jam..
Have to solve the problems at home before we police the world again. Hell, regardless of who gets elected.. big, major-ass changes have to happen and I know this: The old white guy is more of the same George-Dubya-Bush bullshit we've had for 2 terms. The old white guy has the support of the old white folks and HEY! There are a lot of OTHER PEOPLE out there that actually need help besides the old wealthy whiteys! Obama is change they're afraid of. Necessary change, painful perhaps. Time to face the future and get it over with.
Regarding ...
In a nutshell: "I can't be trusted because I lie for attention."
I'm sure you'll hear a much longer version over and over and over again in every thread over and over again, but that's the short version claim.
But I promise not to address that any more than with that simple "admission of guilt."
Ok, I admit I'm just lost on what you're talking about there - really, I don't understand. Are you saying (albeit in a friendly way) that I'm lying about something? (What?)
Sorry if I missed something obvious.
I did find some of the side-talk interesting, but I was just trying to rein in the discussion a bit and get folks to answer my original query...
:dunno:
(Thanks for the other part of your answer - I gotta say that you're the only person I've ever heard speak so highly of Dukakis!)
First generation born American of Greek (IIRC) immigrants, served in the Army (only to be chastized by some in his own party, and the Republicans that jumped on that), etc...
Basically your first generation, all American candidate that got trashed by some of his own that was exploited by the other.
It was the last time the Democrats ever let a candidate just "be himself" and how the DNC "got control" as a result.
Regarding ...
I'll answer you in PMs if you'd like, otherwise, don't worry about it.
I was being sarcastic, but not at your expense and it had nothing to do with what you said.
I also was wondering about Obama during the last weeks,especially the speech at AIPAC (Youtube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cOJNC2EuJw)
I hope for your country and the rest of the world that his presidency really will change the world to a better one.The US have so damn much power and it was very dissapointing to see how G.W.Bush misused it...
I hope for your country and the rest of the world that his presidency really will change the world to a better one.The US have so damn much power and it was very dissapointing to see how G.W.Bush misused it...
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Much like all politicians, he's a lying sack of garbage. He's saying whatever he thinks he needs to say to win, and will change back again if he does win. He has an atrocious record for voting against the rights of gun owners, and I wouldn't believe for one second that he wouldn't stab gun owners in the back if elected. I can't honestly speak on his stance regarding any of the other issues, just knowing what I know about him and the 2nd Amendment, and his willingness to turn this country over to the U.N., as the author of bill s2243, is MORE then enough for me. He will never...EVER get even the slightest consideration from me, and I will do my best to inform ANYONE, and EVERYONE I can to make them understand how dangerous he really is to our freedom. I think he's a lier, and a raciest, and has no respect for the Constitution, or those that have fought for it, and the sovereignty of this great country. And just so there is no misunderstanding by anyone, McCain is an asshat too...I will most likely vote for Ron Paul, or Bob Barr. I might be voting for the losing candidate, but at least I can say I voted with my conscious.
:rofl::dunno:That is simply and demonstrably false (and this article, and the links it cites within, show precisely why):
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-is-most-liberal-senator-big.html
:hatsoff:
Facetious
Moderated
Yeeeah . . it's that moustache that has me uneasy . . I'll go Paul :thumbsup:revid said:
.Obama has sided with the overwhelmingly greedy corporatocracy as he competes with john mc"Cane" for votes.
Pandering to an illegal populace !!:nono: . . . Nationale Council of "The Race". How about that ?
What a collective of whores we have running this nation !
F O ! democrats and republikans :thefinger
Yerr dispicable !
For all those people out there that are planning on voting for nader or not voting at all what the fuck will that do? That will just help fucking grandpa mccain. All Mccain will do is run our country in the ground (which it is already close to that because of fucking dubya).. Mccain will just fuck us for good. I am not saying that obama will make a drastic turnaround but I do know he will atleast heal our problems. So just think about what your doing not voting for obama. Peace.
Voting your conscience ...
In reality, no one helps/hurts anyone except the candidate themselves.
If we only have "two choices," then we should only allow two (2) candidates to run.
Oh wait, we already kinda have that, as the Democrats and Republicans automatically have a candidate on many ballots per laws passed in the '50s due to the
Communist scare.
And I wanna support that non-sense? Lack of any change?
Do Obama and McCain really differ that much compared to other parties?
Maybe, just maybe if people said so with their vote, we'd actually stop the "move to the left/right" non-sense games they play.
We might actually get candidates that reflect the views of the people, instead of jockeying for the "popularism" and "lesser of two evils" non-sense.
It's not the system, it's the voter.
It's not the corporations, it's the consumer.
It's not the government, it's the tax payer.
If we stop saying, "oh government, save me," and start saying, "hey, this is my view" in greater numbers, it will change!
Until then, stop feeding the non-sense in this and other things you do every day! Seriously.
Same deal for any other candidate, including Bob Barr, not McCain.
Vote your conscience, vote for a leader you want, not some political science non-sense.
They call it "political science" for a reason, not leadership and not economics.
This US Presidential election, I am abstaining, as I cannot vote for Bob Barr, who is a Republican in Libertarian clothing.
No candidate reflects my positions enough to warrant my vote, and I will not pick the "lesser of two evils."
That's political science talking -- I didn't study that, but economics and applied sciences.
I guess I'm into doing what I believe is right in my view, not what other people say it should be.
In my first Presidential Election, 1992, I voted Perot and Democrats told me that was a vote for Bush and Republicans told me that was a vote for Clinton.
Fuck'em both and the narrow-minded non-sense they have been feeding everyone else.
It's called voting your conscience.
And the same will be said for those who vote for Bob Barr.
In reality, no one helps/hurts anyone except the candidate themselves.
If we only have "two choices," then we should only allow two (2) candidates to run.
Oh wait, we already kinda have that, as the Democrats and Republicans automatically have a candidate on many ballots per laws passed in the '50s due to the
Communist scare.
And I wanna support that non-sense? Lack of any change?
Do Obama and McCain really differ that much compared to other parties?
Maybe, just maybe if people said so with their vote, we'd actually stop the "move to the left/right" non-sense games they play.
We might actually get candidates that reflect the views of the people, instead of jockeying for the "popularism" and "lesser of two evils" non-sense.
It's not the system, it's the voter.
It's not the corporations, it's the consumer.
It's not the government, it's the tax payer.
If we stop saying, "oh government, save me," and start saying, "hey, this is my view" in greater numbers, it will change!
Until then, stop feeding the non-sense in this and other things you do every day! Seriously.
People who believe in Nader should vote for Nader, not Obama.
Same deal for any other candidate, including Bob Barr, not McCain.
Vote your conscience, vote for a leader you want, not some political science non-sense.
They call it "political science" for a reason, not leadership and not economics.
This US Presidential election, I am abstaining, as I cannot vote for Bob Barr, who is a Republican in Libertarian clothing.
No candidate reflects my positions enough to warrant my vote, and I will not pick the "lesser of two evils."
That's political science talking -- I didn't study that, but economics and applied sciences.
I guess I'm into doing what I believe is right in my view, not what other people say it should be.
In my first Presidential Election, 1992, I voted Perot and Democrats told me that was a vote for Bush and Republicans told me that was a vote for Clinton.
Fuck'em both and the narrow-minded non-sense they have been feeding everyone else.
