Who is Obama

[tieguy]

Originally Posted by wkmac

I been saying that all along but in the end, no matter which side wins, it'll be the same old thing contary to the myth that both sides try to paint of the other.

The proof of stupity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome!

The process we have denys the nadars and pauls from becoming president.

Whats funny to me is seeing all the big money rolling in behind Obama while he tries to convince us that his intentions are pure.

Big money does not support Obama because they think he will be a moses leading us out of the wilderness. Big money supports him because they know he will cater to their every whim and need.

[UPS Lifer]

I was thinking about the Washington insiders and it got me to thinking about the independents that have no real loyalty to either party.... which led me to think about the following questions...

Before Billary threw her support to BO, I wonder how much thought she gave to running as an independent???


Would she have split the Demo vote or could she have mustered enough Demos to win outright? Interesting to think about.

Real change means changing all of Washington. The Washington machinery is so powerful it will protect itself from "self" destruction. So how do we change it???

I keep racking my head on this question.
Maybe the House is to big?

Do we really need to have 400 plus representatives? Wouldn't we get more done with fewer folks?

Detractors might say that we need to reflect where our population lives ...Do we?

Could there be a regional block of delegates that make laws based on the region of the country we live in?

I am tired of pork barrel .... how can we eliminate the need for pork barrel legislation?

[tieguy]

Originally Posted by UPS Lifer

I keep racking my head on this question.
Maybe the House is to big?

Do we really need to have 400 plus representatives? Wouldn't we get more done with fewer folks?

I love it. lets lay off 30 percent of congress and improve accountability.

How about a congress that loses jobs when the economy goes into recession.

how about a fuel cap at 2 dollars a gallon. Anything over that price is paid by the individual representative.

[big_arrow_up]

Originally Posted by tieguy

I love it. lets lay off 30 percent of congress and improve accountability.

How about a congress that loses jobs when the economy goes into recession.

how about a fuel cap at 2 dollars a gallon. Anything over that price is paid by the individual representative.

Their 12% approval rating says it all. And liberals want to Blame Bush for everything? LOL! What a travesty. Some people are so clueless.

[wkmac]

Originally Posted by tieguy

The process we have denys the nadars and pauls from becoming president.

Whats funny to me is seeing all the big money rolling in behind Obama while he tries to convince us that his intentions are pure.

Big money does not support Obama because they think he will be a moses leading us out of the wilderness. Big money supports him because they know he will cater to their every whim and need.

There's 2 myth's about Obama that is one really took the time to look would explode on their face. The first myth is that Obama would take our military and run home and hide.

Between his voting record, his speeches and those "advisors" of which he surrounds himself, it's obvious on it's face this is a republican and to some extent a democrat created myth. The republicans is an obvious reason but on the democrat side, it's one they kinda let go and don't defend hoping to keep the antiwar wing of the democrat party at home and away from say a Ralph Nader.

Obama's true actions of voting for military interventions and speeches like his recent AIPAC speech that openly advocates for all practical purposes the current Bush military policy is hoped by the DNC to be enough to keep the party Hawks in line. Holding the lines of both Hawks and Doves within the DNC is becoming more and more a fragile balance that is showing cracks.

The other myth that Obama is not bound to Corp. interests. To be blunt, that's at best naive liberals overtly decieving themselves because they either believe or lack the courage and conviction to do what many principled conservatives should do to the RNC and that is walk away and take the vote elsewhere. They've bought the spin and myth that they democrats) should fear McCain to the same level and the repubs are conditioned to fear Obama. Nobody's figured out yet that which ever one is elected, the Washington machine will still roll on and feed itself.

Numerous sources have documented how corp. money has shifted from the repubs. to the democrats and as of yet, I've not heard a peep of principled refusal either. Ask a principled liberal, progressive or whatever they/you like to call each other about the Democrat Leadership Council. Oh my, deep in the heart of the principled democrat committed to true liberal/progressive causes, their is no love lost for that clan or for that fact the Clintons. To hear some of them, Clinton was Reagan lite at best and the truth is in many respects of policy, he was. Even Hillary had Reaganlike qualities as a Senator in her voting record but that doesn''t fit the myth so when the facts are thrown out, in come the knee jerks from both sides to force the masses to tow the line.

Obama was able to go back on his promise of federal matching funds in many ways because of Corp. dollars. McCain only made the promise in the hopes of looking Obama down from this money and he now knows he's in trouble because he can't get any of it. I'm not mad at Obama because if the rolls were reversed you can bet ya hinnee that McCain and the repubs. would have done it too. It's called strategic thinking there boys and girls and Washington's backroom does that crap all the time. America is just to busy watching Fox News and American Idol and your country not important enough to dig (and you don't have to dig far at all) for the real story. And yes, sometimes it sounds like a Tom Clancy novel because real life at time is a Tom Clancy novel. It's another reason they don't want us to read history as you'll realize this truth when you do.

If one dare have the courage to venture away from the so-called mainstream and enter that dark realm of the alternative world, (you may even have to swallow that red pill LOL!) where principles and ideas are freely explored, you'll find even on the paleo-liberal/progressive side that they understand the myth of Obama like the paleo-conservative/libertarian understand the myth of John McCain. The even scary part is that these 2 sides have discovered common roots and are now talking to one another about those common connections and even working together and that scares the hell out of the RNC and DNC. The Paulian Revolution is just one manifestation of this and there are many out there.

In May, there was an article in The American Conservative magazine entitled "When the Left Was Right" and I found it a very thought provoking article. http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_05_19/article.html

I doubt and this is very judgemental of me but I doubt any of you self professed individualist, limited gov't conservatives would understand the root message of this article and to my surprise it's so easy when you compare the underlying goals of an Eldridge Cleaver and the Blank Panthers and a George Wallace of the same era. Here's just a tease.

One of the few journalists who heard Wallace in ’68 was Pete Hamill, who wrote in the New Left monthly Ramparts that “Wallace and the black and radical militants ... share some common ground: local control of schools and institutions, a desire to radically change America, a violent distrust of the power structure and the establishment. In this year’s election, the only one of the three major candidates who is a true radical is Wallace.”
George Wallace and the New Left despised each other: “fascist” and “dirty beatniks” were about as sophisticated as the badinage got. Only a hopeless romantic—and what other kind is there?—would ponder the cross-pollinating possibilities: Creedence Clearwater Revival playing “Fortunate Son” at Wallace rallies or the Guvnah’s supporters—Chill Wills, Walter Brennan, George “Goober” Lindsay—joining Phil Ochs in the chorus of “I Ain’t Marching Anymore” at a rally outside the Opelika draft board.

However, I think a few of my so-called liberal/commie type friends here just might understand and appreciate the deeper thoughts and idea of this piece so with that, Tieguy, again you've proven yourself the great sounding board. IMO God should grant you a special place in heaven for your toils!


You da MAN!

[wkmac]

BTW: I noticed a certain "Shark" went fishing and caught his/"HER" limit of mullet. The other amazing part IMO was that this "Shark" never had to use any real bait and these DUMB fish just couldn't resist jumping in the boat. Here fishy, fishy, fishy!

Bon Appetite there Jaws! Right or wrong regardless, you are good!

[UPS Lifer]

wkmac,
There is one area that BO supports that is enough to make me hope and pray he doesn't make it. Forget about everything else. This one area tells me he does not understand how our economic gears are lubricated.

He stated emphatically that he will role back the Capital Gains tax. History has shown that a lower CG stimulates the economy. He want to raise it to 30% or higher! Add to that a California tax of 9.3% and you are pushing 40% tax on your money!

You can spin it anyway you want .... there is no reason to invest or take a risk in anything that is going to take 40% of your money. What do you think is going to happen to the economy when people stop investing and just keep their money in the bank? The short term (next 5 years) will also take a major hit because of all the investments that are out there now.

Baby boomers will suffer the most because of the proximity to retirement.
BO has no concept of any of this and it scares the hell right out of me!

[wkmac]

Originally Posted by UPS Lifer

wkmac,
There is one area that BO supports that is enough to make me hope and pray he doesn't make it. Forget about everything else. This one area tells me he does not understand how our economic gears are lubricated.

He stated emphatically that he will role back the Capital Gains tax. History has shown that a lower CG stimulates the economy. He want to raise it to 30% or higher! Add to that a California tax of 9.3% and you are pushing 40% tax on your money!

You can spin it anyway you want .... there is no reason to invest or take a risk in anything that is going to take 40% of your money. What do you think is going to happen to the economy when people stop investing and just keep their money in the bank? The short term (next 5 years) will also take a major hit because of all the investments that are out there now.

Baby boomers will suffer the most because of the proximity to retirement.
BO has no concept of any of this and it scares the hell right out of me!

Yeah, I understand that but McCain created a monster with McCain/ Feingold and McCain's record on immigration (a conservative hot button) is to be honest horrible. I believe in no federal gov't taxation of the people so that's where I come from so in the case of Obama or McCain, they both fail to measure up.

Whoever becomes President IMHO will have to raise taxes no matter what. The debt of this nation is a massive mess but at the same time no body on either side wants to cut gov't so if you are unwilling to lower spending, you have to raise tax revenue and this will require some tax increase somewhere so hold on to ya hat.

[UPS Lifer]

I listened to McCain at a town hall meeting on Monday. He vowed to veto every pork barrel spending law that passed over his desk.

Issues change depending on the current events of the time. My hot buttons include, Taxes, fuel/energy, immigration and housing reform/crisis along with National Security.

McCain will reach across party lines to get things done. So - I think we have some similar areas of concern. So what we have to look at is - who will have the greatest impact in these areas?

Another big area of concern is improvement of education of our children, but I think that this should be really controlled by the states with guidelines established nationally.

[diesel96]

Originally Posted by tieguy

Bill deserves his credit for the things he did well. I'm not sure the economy was headed in the right direction when he left , I believe it was tanking towards a recession when he left but overall it had been good during his term. However an objective poster might also recognize that the economy had started to turn around the last two quarters before Bill took office.

If experts are not considering we are in a recession NOW, how can you make a statement suggesting Clinton had left office in the same sorry state of a "tanking" economic condition as Bush will leave it before he high-tails it back to Texas to his lil' red pick-up truck. B4 you use the Dem congress excuse, keep in mind Clinton had a cut throat, back stabbing Rep Congress also hellbent on putting a Republican back in the Whitehouse as well.

Bill also needs to take his share of the blame for 9/11 which precipitated the current foriegn affairs mess we have. Hindsight is 20/20 on this issue but a more aggressive effort to deal with the terrorist before 9/11 might have prevented it from happening. No 9/11 and you might not have any wars right now.

Bill and his Executive Branch adhere's to the Constitution, but was laugh at by the Rep' Congress prior to 9/11 to go after Bin Laden.
The GOP was sour at Clinton's intervention of other countries and the GOP was trying to take advantage of this by being the "mind our own business" party, while not actually being so.
BTW the first WTC bombing, the culprits were caught, tried an convicted, without having to invade any countries at all...
So, um, where's Bin Laden again?

Bill's economy benifited from reductions in military spending. Bill presidency started with somalia (Bush seniors action) where the need for vehicles with armor plating was highlighted. We should have had that issue fixed well in advance of the afghan/ iraq conflicts.

Bill may have cut wasteful, excessive military spending, but he left office with approving some of the most high tech sophisticated weapontry on the planet. In fact, this is Bush's war, but Clintons arsenal. Many of these weapons are designed to put very limited troops on the ground. Fine tuning military equipment with ground troops for invading and occupying other countries could of been achieved by the current war mongering administration.

Bills pants around his ankles was more then just monica. His rutting dog attitude was a major distraction.

Wasn't it the Rep Congress and Ken Starr that made Monica-gate a major distraction....you know back in the day, old school politicians and surragates would never rat-out their president for banging willing interns.

Originally Posted by tieguy

Two issues here in rebuttal.

one obama has not demonstrated the leadership to change washington. His term in office demonstrates no change. twenty years in that church pew demonstrates no change.

When you discuss change you also have to ask what kind of change. A person proposing to change DC should have a detailed plan showing that planned change. Obama speaks generalities not specfics. There can also be bad change if there is any change at all. The peanut farmer should be a constant reminder of our last experiment with electing a washington outsider.

Technically...Any canidate who's not a Bush or a Clinton will represent change in itself. Many of our young people here, abroad and in the military don't know anybody else. Anyone we throw into the Whitehouse is an experimint, no matter how long you were a Governer or a Legislature. After 8 yrs of failure it's no longer an experiment but an abomination. When it becomes stale, incoherent, untrustworthy, criminal, and arrogant (see Cheney) it's time for any kind change, even an outsider like Paul or Nader, not a Bush backing Manchorian candidate such as McCain of the 2008 variety. The McCain of 2000' would be a better fit for the GOP these days.

When money throws itself behind a candidate they expect something in return. they do not expect that candidate to go against them. I think the money shows they do not expect any change from Obama. I think the money shows they expect status quo. Change of the type Obama promises would guarantee him a one term president. Do you really think he would do anything other then a few superficial things to jeopardize his presidency? Will he be the guy that continously talks tough in public while privately sending correspondance that he is not serious?

If you really want change then a guy like Nadar or Paul would be your candidate.

Most of the money Obama's recieving is off the internet from all walks of life. Millions of people who have their own idealogy are not just necessarily contributing to have their voices heard, but to relinquish power away from the oil driving war "at all cost" mongers, and bring the Executive Branch back to Earth to we the people and our own economy, and fall back in line to the checks and balancing system our Gov't was built on.

[tieguy]

Originally Posted by tieguy

If experts are not considering we are in a recession NOW, how can you make a statement suggesting Clinton had left office in the same sorry state of a "tanking" economic condition as Bush will leave it before he high-tails it back to Texas to his lil' red pick-up truck.

Not sure your point. Everyone knows the economy is presently tanking not sure how that point disagrees with what I said about clintons economy?

B4 you use the Dem congress excuse, keep in mind Clinton had a cut throat, back stabbing Rep Congress also hellbent on putting a Republican back in the Whitehouse as well.

that congress deserves some of the credit or blame for conditions then, this congress deserves the same for conditions now. I think you're smart enough , where I should not have to explain that point to you?


Bill and his Executive Branch adhere's to the Constitution, but was laugh at by the Rep' Congress prior to 9/11 to go after Bin Laden.

huh? The truth is stretching here. Bill had plenty of reasons to declare a war on terrorism and congress would not have been able to stop him since he has broad powers to take military action.

Bill may have cut wasteful, excessive military spending, but he left office with approving some of the most high tech sophisticated weapontry on the planet. In fact, this is Bush's war, but Clintons arsenal.

If thats your point then you're blaming clinton for not having armor plating on our vehicles , this after we had opportunitys to see the need during somalia and clintons own skirmishes?

Many of these weapons are designed to put very limited troops on the ground. Fine tuning military equipment with ground troops for invading and occupying other countries could of been achieved by the current war mongering administration.

Honestly many of these weapons were being designed and approved prior to Clinton.

Wasn't it the Rep Congress and Ken Starr that made Monica-gate a major distraction....you know back in the day, old school politicians and surragates would never rat-out their president for banging willing interns

You keep talking about Clinton and monica. I'm talking about a consistent pattern of what was more then monica. Don't forget all the sexual harrassment cases he dodged. Flashing his johnson at ms jones should have cost him his job.

[tieguy]

Technically...Any canidate who's not a Bush or a Clinton will represent change in itself. Many of our young people here, abroad and in the military don't know anybody else.

I don't see it. I see status quo with either one.

Anyone we throw into the Whitehouse is an experimint, no matter how long you were a Governer or a Legislature. After 8 yrs of failure it's no longer an experiment but an abomination. When it becomes stale, incoherent, untrustworthy, criminal, and arrogant (see Cheney) it's time for any kind change, even an outsider like Paul or Nader, not a Bush backing Manchorian candidate such as McCain of the 2008 variety. The McCain of 2000' would be a better fit for the GOP these days.

Yea , uh huh thats what we said when we put Jimmy peanut into office. Boy did we find out that change can be for the worse.

Most of the money Obama's recieving is off the internet from all walks of life.

Might be time to revisit that argument. News story I recently saw said the lawyers are his biggest supporters.

Millions of people who have their own idealogy are not just necessarily contributing to have their voices heard, but to relinquish power away from the oil driving war "at all cost" mongers, and bring the Executive Branch back to Earth to we the people and our own economy, and fall back in line to the checks and balancing system our Gov't was built on.

what a wonderfull speech you have provided me from Obama press release. And Here I thought you were a free thinker

[UPS Lifer]

Here is another point... It is always good to look at how the campaign is being run.
Who is running the lean & mean campaign?
Who spends more money than they are taking in?
Who has a $10 million debt to get rid of?
Who doesn't want campaign spending limits?

The answers to these questions are an indicator of how each candidate and party will spend money once in office.

[wkmac]

Originally Posted by UPS Lifer

Here is another point... It is always good to look at how the campaign is being run.
Who is running the lean & mean campaign?
Who spends more money than they are taking in?
Who has a $10 million debt to get rid of?
Who doesn't want campaign spending limits?

The answers to these questions are an indicator of how each candidate and party will spend money once in office.

In theory or maybe I should say, in our dreams that might be true but in reality that IMO just doesn't pan out. If you go back to 2000' and look at what Georgre Bush was not only doing but consider the above criteria you listed, Bush literally did the exact opposite once in office. Now on the one hand you could try and justify everything with 9/11 but I'd point out that when a family faces a huge crisis in their lives, vacations, movies, eating out, etc. etc. are eliminated as a cost cutting measure to help pay for the cost of the crisis. Bush and the republican Congress as well as the democrats (let's be fair here) never once suggested that we not go to the beach, not go to the movies or not eat out. In fact, they encouraged more vacations, more movies and more eating out with the idea of moving the debt forward to future generations to deal with the payback.

IMHO, it's just not as simplistic as you mentioned above although I love the idea if it were! I'm with ya there all the way.

As for Obama himself. Much has been the news the last few days about Obama moving to the "right" if you will on Iraq. The republicans, not having much in a candidate themselves must less a message (original and exciting ideas that move) to run on, have resorted to formenting myths and creating something from nothing about Obama. Wright worked somewhat in moving the base but that steam didn't last and the flag pin was good for a week or so. The bigger myth was that Obama was solid anti-war (helped also by a little myth making on Obama's part too in order to fool his own base) but looking at facts of action in voting, the record tells a different picture.

But it seems the "antiwar" myth is breaking down and Obama himself is helping the cause to which of course the repubs. are in turn using to paint the old flip/flop message and it will work for a time too. What I find interesting is watching Obama not from the so-called right or republican side where he'll never get a vote anyway, but rather from the left itself and in this case I mean the hardcore left (another myth that Obama is a secret "one of them!") as in the socialist faction.

Recently there was a piece in the Socialist Worker publication about Obama but it was more about his senior policy circle that will formulate his public policy if elected. I know most here are chicken littles and fear the dark so they would never be able to click the link but for those few principled souls here who are completely comfortable in your own skin, I find this piece pretty interesting from the POV written and hope you do as well.

http://socialistworker.org/2008/07/02/obama-war-room

Obama isn't flip/flopping or changing his position. He's doing exactly what his genetic makeup was all along. He's just being a politician!


TAX! TAX! TAX!
SPEND! SPEND! SPEND!
ELECT! ELECT! ELECT!

the mantra of the American politician.

[wkmac]

Is Obama's moving (flip/flopping if you wish) to the right or center (depending on POV) with the majority of the American electorate also a bit of a myth?

What do I mean by that? Seems Glenn Greenwald makes IMO a very good case that Obama isn't following heartland America but rather the inside the beltway crowd who's job it is to condition us on which way we should think and vote!

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/07/leftist_fringe/index.html

As usual Glenn, nice job!

I guess now after this post and the one above that the howling dogs here will begin the "Commie" Chorus at me for my obviously "unpatriotic" ways. Well, as my grand daddy use to say, "call me what ya want but don't call me late for supper!"

And I give you the howling dogs because they are cute.

YouTube - Howling Dogs