I really don't understand what the big deal about Barack Obama is. Besides the obvious identity politics of voting for a Baptist Minister, a woman, a black man, a Mormon, a (sic) war hero etc., what is it that he has done or stood for that makes him the "change agent" he claims to be? Obama has voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act. Obama has voted to re-fund the war. Obama can't guarantee he will have the troops out of Iraq by 2013. Obama won't take nuclear weapons off the table. Obama's corporate sponsors are very similar to the special interests who fuel all of the establishment candidates. Goldman Sachs - Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Romney and Giuliani Citigroup - Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Romney and Giuliani Morgan Stanley - Obama, Clinton, Romney and Giuliani JP Morgan Chase & Co - Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Romney and Giuliani Obama has also supported HR 1955, the bill which criminalizes political free speech So someone, anyone, please tell me what it is about Barack Obama that leads you to believe that he's a real agent of change.
They give the people the old two HFCS soda choice. There are flavors within the flavors, but they're artifical. The PTB are just covering their bases. Ron Paul is the only one left who is not a statist.
I just don't see the deal with this guy. Is it that he is "Not Bush, and not Clinton"? Like how many Republicans are obsessed with voting against Hillary? Nothing about this guy stands out to me, and screams "CHANGE".
Not sure he was fully in support of re-authorization: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statement_2/ Also: Isn't HR house of reps? He's a Senator..is there some speech he made that he shows support for it? Pretty broad statement. Off the table for what? Pre-emptive attack of Iran? What are they for?
Agent of Compromise. Just we need. More legislators who protest, then vote yes. He's on the Homeland Security Council in the Senate. His Senate office has been advising that he is supporting the Bill. Ask Obama. He's another one of these morons who talked tough on Iran, when one guy out of all of the candidates knew it was a bunch of malarkey. Again, Obama talks about change, and then he quietly follows the herd by pandering to positions if he's worried about seeming "too soft" Seriously, what does it say about Obama, that Ron Paul a 20 year Republican is a more genuine anti-war candidate?
Well it's better than re-authorizing the bill in its original form right? It's not entirely up to him. He at least tried. Still, I'd like sources.
As much as i hate to put down the majority of America, we have way too many stupid people in this country who are salivating over someone who can say a whole lot of nothing. And when i say a whole lot of nothing i mean a WHOLE lot. and they say it well. the only thing people hear when they're enslaved to the tv is "change", "ready for change", "we need change!", "reform", "healthcare". they don't actually do the math of HOW you fukkin reform it they have the mentality that you can fit 500 lumberjacks into a room to fix a broken toilet. intentions don't equal results, that's something people just don't understand. in a way i'm kind of glad there is a group of elites that enslave the "mindless consumers" at the bottom because a lot of people in this country deserve to have nothing left after they've acted upon their ignorance for too long.
I do agree with a lot of parts of this statement. The large majority of what he and other candidates says is pure bullshit. They're professionals at pandering to whatever stupid ass audience is thrown at them. They will say whatever it takes to get them elected. Sad really.
If you want the honest opinion on what the big deal is about this guy, the fact of the matter, the only reason he won SC tonight was the Black vote. That is what carried him. They did not vote on the merits or the issues at hand. If they had, whether or not people like her, Hillary has better plans then Obama. Now I know some of you Republicans will disagree, but amongst democrats, Hillary is the one that has the plan. Obama has the skin color. You know how that is. Blacks will vote for blacks because they are, well, black. They want someone of their own kind to finally make it, and they see Barack as the second coming of MLK. Barack is short lived. Hillary will win the nomination and then the White House.
1. You criticize the FBI and CIA for failing to detect 9/11 and your also against the tools would help the FBI and CIA detect similar attacks. So which one is it. Do you want the FBI and CIA to protect the United States or not. 2. He didn’t vote to send the troops there but he or no other senator should leave them high and dry without funding to continue to finish the job that they sent them to. 3. No responsible person could make that guarantee. 4. Nuclear Weapons should never be taken off the table. 5. It cost money to run office.
Would you please explain your comment "a (sic) war hero". Who are you talking about and what are you trying to say?
Obama would be a disaster, not as much of a disaster as Hillary will be but he's bad news all the same. That pretty much sums up exactly how bad he would be as a President.
He tried what? All he had to do was vote no. Email or call his Senatorial office to confirm. I'll agree Hillary has the plan, it's just that (1) there is no way to pay for her plan, and (2) she's basically the same as the guys on the right. She wants a welfare state, they want a corporate state. Either way, regular working folks lose. The FBI and CIA not only had actionable intelligence prior to 9/11, they had opportunities to arrest Bin Laden after the bombing of the USS Cole. They don't need self-written search warrants to get more intel, and the proof already has been that the law has been badly abused, with warrants being used strictly for domestic matters, bypassing the 4th Amendment. He was elected on a mandate by the people, to end the war. The House and Senate have already failed by transferring their authority over war to the President, the only tool they had left was the power of the purse. 3. No agent of change should be afraid to promise change. 4. It shouldn't be a part of campaign rhetoric. The way to peace if not by threatening annihilation. 5. Sure it does, but his corporate sponsor list leads me to believe that he will be indebted to the same masters as our previous Presidents. No change, just more of the same ol', same ol'. *** I'm not out to slander Obama, I am still waiting for someone to define how he is an "agent of change". What is it that sets him apart? The stuff I posted wasn't to draw arguments for defense, but to show MY position and reasoning behind why I think he is not an "agent of change".
I'm not going to get further into it in this thread, but I think John McCain's record as a "war hero" has been overplayed, and deliberately crafted. I find him the most unintelligent of the remaining candidates, and his attitude towards others reprehensible.
He inspires people, that's what sets him apart. Caroline Kennedy has endorsed him.New York Times opinion piece by C Kennedy
"He inspires people" "He's for change" "He's different" Anyone got some better reasons than this to vote for him, or is this basically it?