Barack Obama for President 2008

[Rick Waldroup]

I posted this on the Election thread too.

Hey, you guys, I'm leaving here for a while. This is way too much fun and it is way too easy to make fun of all of you right wingers.

My daddy always taught me to never kick anyone when they are down, even when they deserve it.

I tell you what, I will come back after the election. It looks as though it may be an Obama landslide and I can't wait to see the spin you wackos will put on it.

See you around.

Later, Rick.

[Mr. Pickles]

You're only leaving because you have no facts to back up your side of the argument that you created....

See ya

[AlbertP]

I see the big wigs are finally seeing what I saw about Obama years ago:

Washington Times - Colin Powell endorses Obama

[Beavo]

Everyone says Barack has no experience. I just want to point out what the 'experienced' ones have done. war, war and more war. I think you guys need a clean slate to rethink your entire leadership. Barack seems to have a solid foundation of the issues at stake. With this I believe he will be able to adapt a leadership style that best suits the situation.
I dunno, just my two cents. John McCain scares me like Chuck Norris. I'm also a Canadian who just came out of an election that decided NOTHING and let everything remain pretty much the same. The joys!

[Mr. Pickles]

War, war, and more war? You sure about that? Barack does have a solid foundation of the issues at stake. He should too. he has been ignoring them ever since he got his Senate seat.

Barack IS in-experienced. The same ones who say Sarah Palin has no experience can't see past their noses that their meal ticket is pretty much less experienced in running something. And the same ones who blame John McCain for all the current problems keep forgetting that their #2 man Joe Biden has been along side McCain for all of McCains years messing up the place. And if you have to pull out a card that says "I voted against everything that is wrong", then you are a waste of energy...

[Songman45]

I thought Obama's story about meeting the staunchly repubilcan restaurant owner. The owner said he was dyed-in-the-wool republican and Obama asked him how was business. The owner said it was down, that a lot of his customers could no longer affored to eat out. Obama then asked who'd been in power for the past eight years. Then he asked the owner, "If you are banging your head against a wall and it hurts, do you think its time to do someting different?"

Unless you are an executive in a major corporation, part of the 10% who control 90% of the country's wealth then you have suffered at the hand of trickle down economics. As that anaolgy, a clog of greed stops up the pipe and stops the flow of wealth transfer. If top-down isn't working how much damage could bottom-up be? Its not just about the grand total of money at work, but representing the population. Unfortunately, American politics represents money interests rather than population interests. Because of this your wealth determines how much representation you get in governement.

Wasn't there a tea party in Boston Harbor with far less provocation than our present situation provides?

Steve

[Mr. Pickles]

Was McCain the President the last 8 years? Was he Vice-President? Nope and nope. He was a Senator though...so is Biden and so is Barack. So is Hillary for that matter.

If Barack was or is the answer, he wouldn't have needed to raise $150 million in September. If he was a great thinker and leader, he'd have not needed that money to get to office, but he'd have taken that money to use towards programs while IN office.

As for the restaurant owner, his business is "down" because his customers can't afford to eat. I got a pocket full of cash says his business hasn't been down for 8 or even 4 years. Probably been down for less than 10 months, and more than likely other restaurants were getting some of his business and his food quality or service is partly to blame too.

[gjb]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

If Barack was or is the answer, he wouldn't have needed to raise $150 million in September.

You're assuming he *needed* to raise that much to defeat McCain.

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

If he was a great thinker and leader, he'd have not needed that money to get to office, but he'd have taken that money to use towards programs while IN office.

So you're saying that he should use donated campaign monies to pay for government programs?

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

As for the restaurant owner, his business is "down" because his customers can't afford to eat. I got a pocket full of cash says his business hasn't been down for 8 or even 4 years. Probably been down for less than 10 months, and more than likely other restaurants were getting some of his business and his food quality or service is partly to blame too.

"Probably" been down for less than 10 months. You know this how?

[Songman45]

I see this whole electoral process as an exercise in futility. It's damned if you do - damned if you don't. We scream for new blood in high political places to ouster the dirty dogs. Just as we turn a curve to that ends [see also Sarah Palin] the alternative is bashed and beaten for having no experience. Three of four voices in the presidential ticket choir want to talk about reparing the same machine they have been the oil for, for years. Presidential candidates hop on the stump and claim they are going accomplish things that are clearly out of the reach of that office. Once in office they deflect criticism for failure to the responsibility of another. Mc Cain claims he is going to introduce Sara Palin to the good ol boy network in D.C. and clean out the corruption. What's he been doing for all the years he was in there with them?

Ben Franklin summed it up pretty well, "We vote as many, pray as one".

[Ken Price]

I'm voting for Obama.

Experience? Hitler had experience. Cheney had experience. McCain has experience, and he's shown himself to be unfit to lead. The Palin pick alone proves this.

What we need is judgment and leadership. Experience can't buy you these qualities.

Americans don't really deserve Obama; most of them are too stupid to appreciate his gifts. That's really the subtext of what is said when folks refer to him as a once-in-a-generation leader. Most American leaders look more like Americans themselves: under-educated, ignorant of the world, full of themselves, running mostly on ego.

But I'll vote for Obama even though he's too good for the country he wants to lead.

[jhawk1000]

I am registered as a Republican but more liberal than most of the party faithful. I will be voting for Obama. Why? McCain may be a decent individual but he is being led by his hateful campaign and he has chosen an idiot for his vice president. When Palin starts talking about true Americans, I wonder if she includes the first dude who was in a separatist movement? I wonder if there is a litmus test for being a true American? Is it one who is right wing conservative? Are they the only Pro-Americans? Fear and hate have changed my vote to Obama.

Mel

[jhawk1000]

And what about them surrogates like Kathleen Bachmann from Minnesota. I think she should be in the same category of another great patriot, McCarthy?

Mel

[Rick Waldroup]

The last time I posted on this thread, it was deleted. I am not sure why, as I never received a PM or anything from anyone about it. Poof!!!!! It was just gone.

You know what one of the highlights is for me, so far? The newsclip they show over and over of McCain handing the microphone to the old lady and her calling Obama an Arab. McCain snatched that mic back so fast it was unbelievable. That one little moment shows exactly what Obama has been up against from day one. The ignorance, hate, and fear that the Republican Party preaches is scary, isn't it?

Already, the spin masters are in full gear. The consevative talk radio hosts and FOX news are preparing the reasons for a McCain loss. They will blame everyone and everything for a loss but yet, never touch on the real reason. When Obama wins this election in a landslide it will be because of one reason and one reason only- the American people have finally had enough of Republican policies of war, greed, and fear. That is the only reason why McCain will lose this election in a landslide. The American people have had enough.

[AlbertP]

Looks like there are some republicans that aren't so dumb after all:

Ken Duberstein is the latest prominent Republican to say he is going to vote for Democrat Barack Obama on Tuesday. Duberstein, who was President Reagan's White House chief of staff, told CNN he was influenced by former secretary of state Colin Powell's endorsement.
Powell was Reagan's national security adviser while Duberstein was chief of staff. Powell's decision to back Obama amounted to "the Good Housekeeping seal of approval," Duberstein said.
Duberstein supported Republican John McCain in 2000. He was neutral in the GOP primaries this year but by March was on board with Team McCain.
Another Reagan-era figure, former solicitor general Charles Fried, also endorsed Obama recently -- and stepped down as an adviser to McCain.
Two former senators, Larry Pressler of South Dakota and Charles McC. Mathias of Maryland, have endorsed Obama. So have two former GOP governors , William Weld of Massachusetts and Arne Carlson of Minnesota. A third, former Michigan governor William Millken, has withdrawn his support for McCain but stopped short of endorsing Obama.
Conservative academic Francis Fukuyama is another prominent defector. Citing the "unnecessary" Iraq war and the collapse of the U.S. financial system, he said "it would be a tragedy to reward the Republicans for failure on such a grand scale."
Other key Republicans for Obama include Scott McClellan (President Bush's former press secretary), Susan Eisenhower (the late president's granddaughter), Lilibet Hagel (wife of GOP senator Chuck Hagel), former congressman Jim Leach of Iowa, outgoing congressman Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, former senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and writer Christopher Buckley, whose endorsement led to a rift with National Review, the conservative magazine his father founded.

Former Reagan chief of staff is latest GOP defector to Obama - On Politics - USATODAY.com

[wedweb]

Speaking of people switching their view and who they support....
http://www.examiner.com/x-645-Miami-History-Examiner~y2008m10d29-Obama-Speechwriter-Switches-to-Supporting-McCain

Interesting how each candidate has positives and negatives regarding support.

[Rodeoshooter]

WOW Beavo you are right. The Republicans are the war mongrels. You are right! The Canadians have finally hit a homerun. They got one right! Finally!



WAIT STOP THE PRESS!



BAD NEWS! Another Canadian who doesn't know what the hell he is talking about! Does this surprise me? HELL NO!

NEWS FLASH! DEMOCRATS started World War I and WW 2 as well as Korea and Vietnam. The war mongrels are the DEMOCRATS not the Republicans. Yet the liberals want to claim the Republicans are the war mongrels

I wish the stupid Canadians would keep their mouths shut and speak only on what they know instead of sticking their noses where they don't belong. Your own elections are an example of what I am speaking about when I make the latter comment.

Originally Posted by Beavo

Everyone says Barack has no experience. I just want to point out what the 'experienced' ones have done. war, war and more war. I think you guys need a clean slate to rethink your entire leadership. Barack seems to have a solid foundation of the issues at stake. With this I believe he will be able to adapt a leadership style that best suits the situation.
I dunno, just my two cents. John McCain scares me like Chuck Norris. I'm also a Canadian who just came out of an election that decided NOTHING and let everything remain pretty much the same. The joys!

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by Rodeoshooter

NEWS FLASH! DEMOCRATS started World War I and WW 2 as well as Korea and Vietnam. The war mongrels are the DEMOCRATS not the Republicans. Yet the liberals want to claim the Republicans are the war mongrels

So I take it from those comments that you would have been opposed to those wars? Do you decide the legitimacy of a war based on if it were called by a Democrat or Republican administration? I would say that at least the first and second world wars were justified to some extent and would have been difficult to avoid. The invasion of Iraq was wholly avoidable, mostly because it was a bi-lateral (US & UK) aggressive act against a country which patently did not have any involvement in the apparent justification - i.e. WMD and/or 9/11. If any war over the last 50 years could be seen as the product of 'war mongrels' (though I guess you mean warmongers), it would have to be that one.

[jhawk1000]

Must of got that "war mongrel" off of THE POLITICAL COFFEEHOUSE. The only wars justified seem to be ones in which no one ever really wins. Like Iraq!

Mel

[jhawk1000]

And, I keep forgetting that we Americans are the only ones to have an opinion. Truly amazing---TRULY!

Mel

[Rogue]

Help me understand your viewpoint.
You support the US getting involved in a European war where 116,000 US soldiers died. (WWI)
You support the US declaring war on Germany because Japan attacked us, resulting in 416,000 US soldiers dieing. (WWII)
I see you making no comment on Korea (which never ended, they are still at war) where we lost 36,000 or the US defending French plantation owners in Vietnam at the cost of 58,000.
BUT, In a post 9/11 world when a republican president declares war on a nation that is openly sponsoring terrorism and is thought by the United Nations and every nation in the world to have WMD's......... Well that is the most evil thing that could ever be done.

Is that about right?

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

So I take it from those comments that you would have been opposed to those wars? Do you decide the legitimacy of a war based on if it were called by a Democrat or Republican administration? I would say that at least the first and second world wars were justified to some extent and would have been difficult to avoid. The invasion of Iraq was wholly avoidable, mostly because it was a bi-lateral (US & UK) aggressive act against a country which patently did not have any involvement in the apparent justification - i.e. WMD and/or 9/11. If any war over the last 50 years could be seen as the product of 'war mongrels' (though I guess you mean warmongers), it would have to be that one.