A concern with Obama is who does he owe favors to. The area he represented in Chicago was very radical and it appears that Obama owes favors to both the Daley machine and The Nation of Islam. Another Obama issue is that it appears that he is sending memos to the Canadian Government telling them that his anti-NAFTA promises are only campaign rhetoric.
NAFTA is a plank for the NAU. Obama is a globalist. Arguing against NAFTA would be like arguing for American national sovereignty. I don't know who eats this stuff up, but the more I read, the more I can't believe that this guy plays to every populist group he can find. He makes Mike Huckabee look like Pat Buchanan.
McCain is waiting. I mean why exploit someone who has not yet clinched the nomination.. Hillary on the other hand has had this backfire and as found anything she exploits comes back to bite her. To her credit, she is correct, the media is completely on the side of our bi-racial Islamic Presidential Candidate Barrack Hussein Obama.
Hillary tried to drop hints and people from her staff sent emails. Television ads on the theme "Who is Obama?" will be another story. There's a lot of questions and Obama is short on answers. The only thing that we know about Obama is that he is for change.
Obama lacks credibility and his relationship with Chicago real estate developer Tony Rezko is a big issue.
I find it interesting that Obama is receiving the most scurrilous attacks here, referincing every possible dirty deed ever performed by any evil human anywhere in the history of mankind. Oh yeah....its politics as usual and the partisinship efforts start working like crazy spreading rumors....attacking every fiber of his being. When my turn to vote in a primary came....I actually was undecided as to whether to vote for McCain, who I view as the most rational of Republican candidates or Clinton or Obama. After directly listening to Obama and Clinton on a number of occaisions I ultimately voted for Clinton. But the choice for me was very close. The startling facts about Obama's popularity in the Democratic primary is that he came from nowhere as a relative unknown against far better known candidates and has struck a chord with many voters. One thing about his campaign is that he has brought in lots of new young voters and gathered a lot of independents. He has attacked the sense of partisanship that has come to dominate American politics. Partisanship has been prevalent since at least the 1800's. Sometimes it is louder and sometimes it is less prevalent. I think Obama has struck a chord that many citizens find appealing. This thread is a perfect example of the levels of partisanship that a large part of the population is recoiling against. I agree with that part of the citizenry that finds outrageous attacks on a candidate based on rumors and lies to be despiccable.
Earl Pearl, ask yourself this one question: Has Obama or Clinton ever defined exactly how they plan to implement these "plans" of theirs?
Obama is for change? As Gary Coleman would say: "What's you talkin about Willis?" Gary Coleman and California ex-candidate for Governor Mary Carey.
which plans, mia? ah never mind. I assume you are talking about health care and stuff like that which will cost tons of money. 1. They have not been specific. No politician ever is. Moreover it is impossible to be specific for lots of reasons.....health care proposals (to use that as an example) by both candidates are based on assumptions by academics who admittedly can't pin down costs at this time. 2. Regardless of what a candidate says...any plan is subject to adjustments by congress....if they approve it. Any adjustments could radically change the character and nature of plans. 3. They do attack the financial side. Basically they are talking about maintaining taxes for the majority of the population (or lowering them) and raising taxes on wealthy. They also talk about cutting some tax breaks to corporations or not. this is not unusual for politicians in any capacity or any party. Not too long ago when the drug benefit program was pushed through by the current administration and voted upon by a then majority of republicans in Congress the administration didn't give Congress the correct estimates for what it would cost and threatened to fire a financial expert within the administration if he exposed their then current best estimates. so if they aren't giving specific cost estimates to their plans .....that doesn't surprise me. Again, I don't know if you are referring to "universal health care" or not....but it clearly is a BIG item. I think it is a goal the US should strive for. All you have to do is expose yourself to poor and working poor on a somewhat regular basis and you can see that health care is a big problem in the US. If you never expose yourself to these folks then you can go around and forever say that we shouldn't do this or that...that they don't deserve it, etc. It can be addressed in lots of potential ways. The specifics of a Clinton or Obama proposal may not be the best way to do so. Also it may not be affordable, especially at this point when the economy is in the severe dumps. Regardless when 45 million Americans are without health care.....45 million (or more....that is a bigger population than most nations.) and the number keeps growing dramatically then there is something seriously wrong. I think it as a great and appropriate goal to shoot for. (btw, under their general proposals I would pay more) Basically I like what they are saying on that issue. I also like the fact that they want to move us out of Iraq but don't have the attitude of RP to immediately withdraw. We went in...we have created the problem and we are faced with circumstances that would be disasterous if we pulled out immediately. I'd rather we'd devote our defense energies to tackling al queda and similar threats directly rather than some misdirected boondoggle that has done nothing to defend America against terrorism, has done nothing to directly attack the people that attacked America on 9/11/2001. Of great importance, while I'm not a huge huge Obama fan....I like the approach of trying to reduce the level of partisanship; where one could address issues in a way that sees members of congress not have to rigidly forever stick to party dogma that is often stupid and a disservice to Americans.
Why is it that the statists use the most words to say the least of anything? Anyway... Nonsense. Clinton and Obama are legislators. If they have proposals, why have they not been introduced as Bills? If academics can't pin down costs now, when can they? Or do we just succumb to "no politician ever is (specific)"? But no encroachment on spending, which we all know is the problem. Not that our taxes are too low, but that our spending is too high. They probably do deserve it. But they are already priced out of the market by medicare and regulation. The problem is middle class family healthcare, the rich and people who qualify at the low end of the spectrum already get/afford care. As usual, it's tax the middle class, to provide for the poor to the point that the middle class can't afford healthcare that the poor get (sic) "for free". Same concerns about leaving Vietnam. I'll never understand people who argue it was wrong, that it should end, that we're not doing well, and then say "but don't leave too fast". It's so gutless, to feign concern for the people of Iraq and use that concern as a justification to continue an illegal, immoral and incorrect occupation. There is no sign that the "problem" will be fixed by staying there. On the contrary, it's created a domestic issue, because we can't afford to maintain the war further. Of course, this is all just liike the Democrats taking over the majority in the House in 2006. They promise to end the war, then they continue to support it. They refuse to impeach a highly impeachable administration. They don't want to "make waves", just like the people who don't want Americans and Iraqis to stop dying. I mean, as long as the war goes on, neoliberals will be able to continue to blame the Republicans and Bush for it, which is likely why Nancy Pelosi doesn't have the courage or self-respect to take a stand, instead playing for total DNC control of the government with a Clinton or Obama executive. Easy to talk about universal healthcare, when it's someone else's earnings and wealth that's being confiscated. Or to talk about taxation, when some people are already getting crushed under the system. Or to talk about staying in Iraq, when it's someone else who is bleeding, or whose children are subjected to night raids, bombings, disease, genocide. All talk. When has he ever broke rank with the DNC? You can cry in your beer all about people attacking Obama personally, frankly I could care less what he is. I do know this. The people who support him, or McCain, or Clinton or many others, can't explain their platforms, and can't talk about their voting records. It's feel good politics for the masses, the same idiot numbers that get thrown in my face over Ron Paul. Status quo for statist centrists, who have no problem attacking conservatives for being big spenders, when they themselves would like to spend the country into 3rd world status.
I was asked by Asian businessmen about my opinion about Obama. I had none, I know too little about him. But these people have (serious)concerns should he become president. Thumbs up for McCain!
It's strictly identity politics. The art of who talks and looks best, who is the media darling. I mean this is quite rare that we are basically down to 3 Senators and a Congressman, with no Governors in the race. All are legislators. Who has the legislative record to backup their platform? Who has been walking the walk that they talk? If Clinton or Obama have health care plans, why will America only hear about those plans if they get elected? Shouldn't these already been written, debated, introduced to the Congress? I've mentioned before, I didn't like Fred Thompson's position on the war, but he was the ONLY candidate to bring comprehensive and detailed policy plans to the election. I respected that a lot. It showed an intellectually honest side to his campaign. Ron Paul's got an economic plan, that consists of loads of inter-related bills he or others have proposed. Agree with his position or not, there is something to be said for a candidate who is (1) ideologically consistent, and (2), has been actively working to accomplish their initiatives, regardless of what office they hold. So anyway, I could probably waste the morning going through Clinton and Obama's records, exposing inconsistencies with their platforms or public rhetoric, but why bother? Most of you are sheep, and Obama might be the best candidate, but I can damn sure say, no one knows, because no one knows what he really stands for.
I have a good obama/muslim video clip that was already banned by youtube. I Plan to upload it and promote it like crazy if he actually wins the liberal primary. I did a short test and it caused a major uproar and was deleted. I did a similar video on Tom Cruise/Scientology that has over 380,000 views and all I did was download, edit, re-upload, ping, etc... Just doing my civic duty to keep an unqualified person from being prez...
You can email that directly to if you would be so kind.. I would greatly appreciate it, and would gladly give you a few listings in the KingBloom directory for the trouble. Thank you!
My major point on this thread is that I like a probable majority of the population is sick of the lies that permeate politics and the twisting of politics to become sick character attack ads on a candidate regardless of the truth. This thread is full of such attacks. As Northpoint described earlier these comments spread by Bogart are simply lies. It has become a essential character of Republican party politics. Its too bad. For a long time, I was independent, while leaning toward Democratic candidates but voting for candidates from either party. I like a growing number of voters have simply grown tired of a party that has distorted basic principles such as financial responsabillity and a healthy distrust of government. Current republicans have twisted financial responsability into no taxation ever and a distrust of government into an attack on any action by government ever. It has become a twisting of reasonable efforts to deal with the problems that confront the population. On top of that is an ever growing politics of lies. Take the most damming attack on a politician one can think of and start spreading the attack again and again. Some will buy into it. Now as to Guerilla....the guy who has an answer to everything and everyone.... Obviously Bush was going to veto any legislation coming from democrats. If you had any experience in anything practical besides opining endlessly on this forum you would know without a shadow of a doubt that any prediction of future costs for any enterprise; business, govt., even within homes is ALWAYS an estimate. I wouldn't expect you to know that though with limited real life experience. "all know is the problem" hm....that is a guerillaism. Where is the universal acceptance of this statement? Since it comes from someone who supports the "less than 2% candidate" and supports John Birch, one of the more rejected philosophies of the last 50 years...I immediately question this statement for its veracity. Actually, I acknowledge we spend enormously. I doubt over the last 40 years if there has been a serious federal govt effort to attack spending in a large scale way. Its not "politically sexy". Moreover attack spending on one issue and its political supporters raise "holy hell" on the issue while the general public and most politicians are not moved by the issue. I'd attack spending if I was the "decider" I'd look at best business practices and try and ram them through. My experiences in the private sector, including a short stint working for a govt contractor was particularly revealing. In one govt contract I saw a role that could easily be filled by a govt. employee. More dramatically the role allowed the contractor to provide a service that often allowed the contractor to make huge profits. A govt group working the function would have naturally eliminated that profit to the company---and the cost to taxpayers. My friend, the head of that group, used to laugh and tweak the chief of that office claiming he was solely responsable for profits of that office based on this "arbitraging" of services. I'm quite familiar with certain contracting actions and costs. It would be relatively easy to start overseeing this in a large way and dramatically cut this aspect of govt. spending. Choices on cutting large and major govt programs should be put forth to the public and balanced against potential cuts against other programs. Take it out of the partisan politics arena and let the voters weigh in on the decisions. Then the population would have a say as to what programs it wants and what it doesn't want. So many of the public love so many of the benefits that currently exist. Who knows how that would fall. Maybe the public would determine to cut back on certain big issues. Nobody at this point knows. (despite what Guerilla claims). I wouldn't have a problem with that effort at all. Since health care costs are so incredibly complicated where do you come off with the typical arrogance of a simplistic answer such as "priced out of the market by medicare and regulation". How do you know so much, Guerilla? Is this like your suggestion to a poster that stated that his father was an economics PHD at Johns Hopkins...and you told the poster his father knew less than you on economic issues? Just another example of a simplistic answer to a complex situation. BTW, the Obama and Clinton programs generally look to raise some of the funds for these proposals by increasing taxes to those (families) with incomes above either $200 or 250,000. How much do you make? Do you actually have an income? That figure is dramatically dramatically higher than mean or median income figures. They have similarly spoken of dropping tax rates for lower income folks than the $200,000 and up crowd. I'd currently take a hit. At times I've made more and at times I've made less. When I make more I can afford to spend more. While I added the health care issue into the thread to answer Mia's question, I was willing to acknowledge that it may be too expensive at this time.If so don't add it into the mix. I further stated that it is worth a look. Of course you didn't comment on those things I cited. At least you can acknowledge that the poor or working poor probably deserve some level of help. If you are going to take shots at my writings look at everything....not your typical sniping. I became a young adult during the period of the Vietnam war and the immediate period after we left Vietnam. After careful weighing of all issues I was for ending our involvement immediately. What happened? Many many Vietnamese were slaughtered and died. Many escaped and fled to other countries. Approximately 35 years later Vietnam is one of those nations, like China, with an overlay of a Communist regime on a society and economy that is rapidly growing. It certainly is dramatically different than it was in the 1960's and 1970's. But my concerns for not leaving too quickly from Iraq are different. The middle east is the both of cauldren of fundamentalist Islam that wants to destroy the West, is brutal to its own people in adhering to its fundamentalist nature, and is the world center for oil. It is of vital interest to the entire world economy to protect against the majority of oil interests falling into hands that will deeply use it for destructive interests to the West and the majority of the world population. As the most precious important commodity in the world it merits our being there, IMHO. It doesn't mean we should try and control oil and take it for ourselves. It means we should keep it out of the hands of others that will use it for deeply negative results (as the Russians have used fuel recently to gain the political upper hand with former colonies and Western Europe). boo hoo boo hoo. I was disappointed in the response of the Democratic congress of 2006. On war issues they got outsmarted by the administration and by fundamental structures of Congress that limit the ability to pass legislation in the Senate without a 60 vote majority which they didn't and don't have. Frankly, I suspect most in the nation aren't interested in impeachment. I think its a stupid effort. Most of the accusations against the Bush administration can't be pursued for lack of hard evidence and as long as the Bush administration locks up, refuses accesss to, or claims it is lost, the hard evidence as to what they did is unaccessable. Grow up!!!!! Most of the public simply doesn't have this narrow radical view of taxation that you do. Who likes paying taxes? Noone!!!!! Who thinks all taxes should be replaced by fees like you? Hardly anyone. Most people accept it. Our current basic tax rates, ignoring all the tax breaks that we have versus all the tax breaks that other nations may have.....are very much in line with most developed nations. There is a thread somewhere at dp P&R that compares the tax rates of developed nations. Tax rates within the US are comparable to other developed nations. I asked you before for some examples of nations that practice what you preach and did a search in dp as you suggested for "guerilla and hong kong" I found one reference you made about the following 3 entities that you suggest mirror the philosophy of RP: Hong Kong, Iceland and China. Hong Kong is not a nation!!!!!!! Iceland has a total population of less than 300,000 most of which live near its major city.....it is sort of an island city/state like Hong Kong if anything. China....China... You are talking about a Communist regime that still maintains ownership of many many of its industries and has a vast govt., the world's largest armed forces, etc. How different could China be? No doubt Hong Kong, which is not a nation, has a strong economy, and it has relatively low taxes. Simply a small island state that has a largely singly focused economy focused on trade and a largely homogenious population is not a great model for the US. But it does work very well as a govt. protecterate...not a country. It would be worthwhile to study what works and see if it as applicable in larger more diverse setting such as the US. But wait...when I suggested experimenting with different policies in US states you whacked the idea. I guess study and experimentation are out of the picture....The only thing that survives in Guerilla world are untested theories. To date, from what I have read he hasn't really broken with the DNC. He has stated repeatedly that he wants to cross the aisle and work in a more non-partisan way. That seems to be part of the appeal of his campaign. I'm for the idea. It clearly has struck a chord with many voters so far. Of course the tenor of this thread with its wild crazy lying attacks on any aspect of his life show how difficult that would be if got elected. For whatever reasons RP has of 2/20/2008 received less than 5% of the vote in Republican primaries/caucases and less than 2% of total votes in both Democratic and Republican primaries/caucases. I could have voted in either primary in my state. Moreover, even as RP has attracted many young folks through the internet, it would appear that Obama has attracted dramatically more. At the start of the primaries I don't think Obama was any more known than RP to a significant level. Clearly, going back to days well before the primaries started and there was conjecture about potential candidtates and the ultimate party choices few if any would have suggested Obama as a likely winner. But his campaign has attracted far more voters than RP. Consider the numbers through 2/20/08 Obama-about 10-11 million voters; RP less than 700,000. I can't speak for others. I will speak for myself. At the start of the campaigns, not knowing anything about RP, I was impressed by his debate presentations. He had an ability to speak in a definitive manner about issues far more clearly than his opponents in the Republican primaries. 2. I consider his arguments dramatically radical. Moreover his economic suggestions are totally untested. I have a deep suspiceon of anyone promising all answers totally based on theory. 3. When disclosures came out about the newsletters under his name that were dramatically racist on many fronts I was amazed. RP never took responsability on the issue. Moreover I never saw him state with certainty that he disagreed with the content of those articles. He skirted the issue. RP took money for the newsletters and they were printed under his name. If that isn't responsability than nothing is. He walked away from the issue. I personally think the guy would be a dangerous disasterous president. Now do I love any of the 3 remaining candidates. Not entirely. When I had a chance to vote I chose Clinton, precisely because she showed more specificity than Obama. I actually admire McCain. He is unusual among current Republican candidates in that he will cross ideological lines and push for issues that he thinks are in the public's interest. It is interesting how he has evolved. His promotion of what became known as the McCain-Feingold bill resulted of his being implicated in the Keating 5 campaign financing issue from the late 1980's. I believe he learned how ugly, dirty, and despicable current campaign financing laws are ...and he did so on a first hand basis. On a different basis I don't agree with him on Iraq. Regardless I'd have lots more faith in the capabilities of the remaining 3 candidates than RP.
No, they are true.. And they are not coming from the Republicans. And with a democratic majority, and much dissent in the Republican party, democrats could over-ride that veto.. Veto aside, Bush has not had to use his veto much. The democrats keep giving him everything he asks for. Ah, he was completely removed from and exonerated from any such implication. I'd have to agree there. At least these three have actually done something rather than sit around and vote no every time they had a chance to vote. I wonder if RP will keep at that mythical cash he allegedly raised, or give it back to the suckers that gave it to him. One has to wonder, if he had all that cash, why did he not spend it to advertise his message and let people know who he was?
hm....I totally disagree with Mia 100% on the top 3 items he cited and totally agree 100% on the last item. Good point. what is he going to do with that money? It doesn't look like he is using it to aggressively campaign.. Since McCain has the Republican nomination wrapped up...it would be interesting to see if RP continues to try and raise money hm...as of today RP's website is still looking for people to donate. per CNN as of January RP had raised under $33 million and spent under $27 million. looks to me like running for office turned out to be a good business deal for RP.