Obama/McCain, July 2008' Work Secret Deal

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Nov 25, 2008.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  2. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    hey chef obama whats on the menu today? We'll today and everyday for the next four years we will serve you up some nicehelpings of left overs, retreads and has beens. All in the hope of changing politics as usual.:happy-very:
  3. Baba gounj

    Baba gounj pensioner

    So if McCain won , he too would have a Clinton heavy staff ?
  4. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member


    Let me ask you an honest question and it's not a trap or anything like that, it's an honest question looking for an honest answer.

    But before I ask it, I'd like to paint some of the foreground first and look at Obama. All we heard going in about Obama from his side was all about change. I mean to hear him you had to be thinking literally all new kinds of faces coming to Washington. Now some of that change many felt would be overt socialism, etc. etc. but the expectation was change from the status quo. The only change Obama is bringing IMO is he's African American because his adminstration is again the same old tired retreads Washington recycles when elections bring about party change. There's really nothing new here at all. Obama's adminstration is made up of Democrat Leadership Council type characters so how is this change on Obama's part. Treasury is going to be run by a Federal Reserve Bank of NY guy and Wall Street loves him. Gee I wonder why!

    Now that said, is it really hard then to believe looking at the people Obama is picking that McCain, we're talking John McCain here who almost became a democrat a few years back and has a history of working with democrats on issues, that McCain could not as easily worked with them as well? Would McCain in the case of Rahm Emmanual really be opposed to Rahm's idea of incorporating the Israeli Public Civil Service model into the United States or would McCain really object to Rahm's strong arm tactics? Do McCain and Hillary really share a wide difference in foreign policy having both at every turn supported our Mideast policy for example under Bush? Even when Obama voted, he himself voted to fund every request made in order to support that cause. Did McCain rush back to Washington to defend true free market principles or did he join the democrats in supporting the nationalization of Wall Street along now it seems with every other industry that comes to Washington with a hardluck story. Has McCain ever voted against expanding nationalized healthcare? You think we don't have nationalized healthcare? What do you call it then when by law every American at age 65 must go on a federal healthcare plan called Medicare and do you think with the huge retirement population in Arizona that he votes to un-nationalize healthcare in this country? So much for the myth of oppsoing universal healthcare because in America we don't have such socialism. :wink2: McCain was so weak on conservative principles his campaign choose to resort to gimmicks in order to attract the votes of the so-called conservative masses out there and it worked no doubt!

    Did it not seem odd the other week when Obama and McCain sat down and discussed working together going forward. Idealogical opposites (remember McCain called Obama a socialist) typically don't have common ground to begin with in which to work from but those who share common ground can easily find compatible issues and work together going forward. In order to work with someone you have to have a common connection from which to begin.

    Now the true question is, deep down inside, when you really look at this whole thing and you look at gov't over the years, are you deep inside really thinking that this might somehow really be true? If you are thinking the answer is or might be yes, the next question is what or where do you go going forward?

    To me, "if" this turns out to be true afterall, the funny part is for so many years I've heard democrat/republican party loyalist tell me at election time I was throwing my vote away voting for 3rd party or independent candidates and from their POV there was some truth to that but this time the irony at the end of the day is that both democrat and republican voters may have in the end thrown their vote away because no matter who won, you'll still get the same thing in the end!

    I could easily revel in that but it pisses me off to think it's possible that the American voter may have been conned like this!

  5. Baba gounj

    Baba gounj pensioner

    I always vote, against Kerry & Kennedy and anyone else currently holding office down to the local level.
    I do vote for anyone who lists that they are retired or running as independent.

    I wish there was a new party started to fight against the Dem/Rep mess that we currently have. ( I consider the Dem/Rep as one party ).
    A party based on strong border enforcement ( no more catch & release ), language ( one national ) & culture .
  6. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    the good news is your intellect being superior you threw your vote away voting for someone who had no chance to win thus you can safely proclaim you were not duped.

    I like your idea that you are :censored2: off for the american voter. But one with your superior intellect can not always control what the dumasses do. All you can do is pity them. Or hmmmm maybe actually vote for someone that is in the game and ...hmmmm stand behind them with integrity and conviction.

    the points made here were made before the election. you chose to chase some other goblins.

    we all knew Mccain would reach across the aisles and that there really was not much seperation from him and Obama. For me the main difference would be that McCain was sincere. Mccain would not raise taxes unless absolutely necessary. Obama will jack them up every chance he gets.

    So now we find out that Obama was actually lying about making real change and we are all somehow mystified?

    Keep taking the high and mighty positions and voting for the guy sitting in the left field bleachers. Just don't complain about the results.
  7. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member


    Just realizing the democrats and the republicans is one party is a major step.

    You mentioned the border which I agree as well but also the issue of the language. Since our earliest of days, for the most part we've been mainly an english speaking people. Sure there have been areas of german speaking for example and in the upper midwest lots of folks from the Norwegian areas of Europe but in the public sphere, english has been the dominate language. I'm not to comfortable with making english the absolute national language although I appreciate the cause why but instead of this approach I'd rather eliminate all the extra efforts being made in the public sphere to accommodate for other languages. No need for new law, just stop all the extra BS we are doing now. Stop the language gov't intervention if you will! :happy-very:

    In the public sphere it's english and just deall with it. Private companies who for example choose to include bi-lingual instructions for their products are free to do so for the benefit of themselves in relation to customers but there is no public law requiring such. In other words, no private person or private entity is ever forced to accommadate other language concerns by public organizations, gov't, etc. If you are only concerned with dealing in english then you should be completely free to do such. If you come from elsewhere and want to deal in the public sphere, then learn the language on which the public sphere operates. Otherwise suffer the ramifications or go back from which you came. It's not the place of gov't IMO to mandate language but at the same time it's not the place of gov't to mandate I pay taxes to accommadate people who refuse to assimulate themselves into the local language of the public sphere.

    I read a piece earlier today about the abuse of language but it's not in the framework you spoke of but I found it interesting none the less.

  8. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Funny how things change in 16 years.

    Old foes tout Hillary Clinton as Barack Obama's Secretary of State

    Saturday, November 22nd 2008, 8:00 PM

    Hillary Clinton, GOP darling?
    The former First Lady - once the polarizing, Tammy Wynette bashing Democrat whom Republicans loved to hate - is suddenly riding a wave of bipartisan affection.

    Republican lion Henry Kissinger gushed that Clinton is "a lady of great intelligence."

    GOP warrior and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich proclaimed her a "very formidable" choice, and Senate Republicans predicted nothing but love for Clinton when her name is submitted for approval.

  9. Baba gounj

    Baba gounj pensioner

    Two points;
    (1) this past election I voted for Palin.
    (2) English must be our national tongue.
    I for one refuse to learn someone's else words just so I can be understood in my own country.
  10. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    you don't like the russkie educating us on american politics..hmmm. Surely he knows what he is talking about since he is ze perfessor and speaks wit ze accent yes?

    I could learn to be more receptive if our russian friend was sharing some homemade vodka with me while explaining how the us will soon disintegrate into little pieces.:happy-very:
  11. chev

    chev Nightcrawler

  12. Baba gounj

    Baba gounj pensioner

    so you haven't heard ? Vodka consumption in Russia is down.