Starrfall on 18/9/2008 at 04:35
Aside from Truman, Johnson, Ford, Bush, and Gore, for starters.
Darkwarrior_II on 18/9/2008 at 04:50
Quote Posted by heywood
Jay,
I'm curious what impresses you. I listened to that Obama speech, as I have with many of his other speeches, and he's just promising the world yet again. The first half was mostly platitudes and distortions of his opponent's positions. The second half was mostly a long laundry list of good ideas and empty promises that he won't be in a position to enact as President. There's a big difference between promising and delivering, especially in a political system designed to pit branches of government against each other. And there's a big difference between being a great orator and a great leader. You should know. Remember Tony Blair?
It's easy to say all the things that people want to hear and promise the world. I want to hear realistic policy objectives and plans, not fantasies.
Describe how Obama's policies are "fantasies." In what ways are they less realistic than his opponent's?
Ko0K on 18/9/2008 at 05:16
Not to say that partisan bias isn't blinding both sides, but even some conservatives will tell you that the Republican party you see today is a world apart from the Grand Ol' Party of Abraham Lincoln's. Its only goal nowadays is to establish and sustain a stable Republican majority. As for what it does for the people who aren't on the oil companies' payroll is a complete mystery.
When teachers and union workers (That's right; working people) urged law-makers to pass a budget even if it would take raising taxes to fix the budget for the long haul, our state Republicans couldn't care for anything other than being able to say, "I stood firm to say no to new taxes" when they'll be up for re-election. Stubbornness is a virtue they will cling on to, whether that helps their own constituents or not.
...and that's pretty much echoed by the Republican politicians throughout the entire nation. Politicians on both sides are guilty of primarily caring for being reelected above all, but at least Democrats work harder at it knowing that their base is not a bunch of loyal fools. Republicans on the other hand seem to feel pretty cozy in their seats, seeing how their constituents will forgive and forget even if they fuck up once in a while. Is it any wonder that the RNC caters to any poor sucker who identifies himself as a 'conservative'? All they have to do is get in, and they have it made, regardless as to what the hell they do with their time. All they have to do is put on a show once in a while to make it seem as though they stand firm and act noble, and people who don't even know what it means to be a true conservative will keep reelecting them based on nothing but their apparent character.
Speaking of putting on a show, what do you make of the fact that so many prominent Republican politicians were once actors?
pavlovscat on 18/9/2008 at 14:17
Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition
I say we shouldn't reward bad governance and lies and illegal wars and cronyism. (heckava job Brownie) anybody remember that? I bet the people of New Orleans will never forget that. Where are we all these years later? Is N.O rebuilt?
Those on the outside rarely see the entire story. I was born in New Orleans & moved to Houston as a result of Katrina. I have friends who were stuck at the Superdome. Even worse, I have friends who were air-lifted from their homes and "hidden" at the Convention Center where the officials "didn't know" about the thousands of desparate people there stuck in deplorable conditions.
Beyond the governmental stupidity that had St Bernard parish, which was completely devasted with only a handfull of buildings NOT storm damaged, frantically filling out forms to recieve money they were promised months earlier. Forms that were never mentioned prior to the announcement that they only had days left to "apply"...
Beyond the incompetent Corps of Engineers, the agency who built substandard levees lulling the city of New Orleans into a false sense of complacency where "Shelters of Last Resort" sounded like a good idea...
Beyond the poverty and lack of resources of many of the people living in New Orleans which prevented them from evacuating before Katrina hit leaving them abandoned in a flooded city wondering if anybody cared...
I could go on, but beyond the many circumstances that contributed to make a terrible situation much worse, the most disgusting thing about the New Orleans fiasco is something that is routinely forgotten...the political posturing of people more concerned about their power and authority than helping the people whom they pledged to serve. These people could have been helped much sooner had the Louisiana Governor, Blanco, given up having a pissing contest with the New Orleans mayor. This dumb bitch was safe & sound enjoying all the comforts the people of New Orleans were lacking...like water, food & sanitation...while she was too concerned about keeping her power base intact and not giving up any power to the Repubs. N.O. Mayor Nagin, also a Dem, dared to support the Repub Jindal for the Governor's race. Blanco was too busy playing tit for tat with Nagin to help the people she swore to serve. She also turned down numerous offers of help from the Repub President. My feeling is that she should be spending the remainder of her sorry life in jail for what she failed to do to help N.O.
There were many resources and people in place to send aid into the city, but due to bureaucracy & general stupidity many people sat around waiting when they could have been in the city delivering aid. Both parties failed New Orleans. The Bush admin screwed us later during "recovery", but dumb bitch Blanco did her part as well from the very beginning.
The politicians in this country need to realize that they are elected to represent the people. Frankly, I have a problem seeing Obama as someone who understands this. He is a party man and seems to be enamored of the Green God more than he desires to serve the people. McCain has put his life on the line serving his country. I just don't see that level of commitment coming from Obama where he would willingly give up his own comforts and privleges for the country he claims to want to serve.
SlyFoxx on 18/9/2008 at 14:49
Quote:
Ko0k.......Speaking of putting on a show, what do you make of the fact that so many prominent Republican politicians were once actors?
Perhaps they made enough money to live a comfortable life while acting but then decided to go into public service and do something that's really worthwhile?
On to the US economy, is Washington to blame? Yes, in part because they encouraged the big lenders to get into this whole sub-prime mortgage deal. The Dems wanted more loans for minorities and lower income people. The Repubs wanted more oversight of Freddie and Fanny so they got together and compromised. But I'd have to lay more blame on what seems to be the vast majority of the population living way beyond their means. I hear them complain they were duped by unscrupulous lenders with their sub-prime mortgages. Well if they had bothered to think things through and educate themselves about what the average person can really afford they would have come to the conclusion..
hey...this is a bad deal!. Now I'm sure some did just that...but then they couldn't say no to themselves. They just had to have it. Now they are losing it. Nobody held a gun to their head and said "sign here." Too many 20 somethings have these 3000 foot houses with 60-80 thousand dollars worth of cars in the driveway and none of it has been paid for. That's what? In my area about 350,000 of initial debt. That is insane! Insane from a lenders point of view....even more insane from a borrowers point of view.
I see new housing developments springing up all around and none of those houses look "affordable" to me. When I was growing up (born 1967) the average size of a house in a neighborhood was a 2 bath 1200-1800 square foot house for a family of four. I don't see a lot of that being built anymore.
I'm an adult and part of being an adult is saying no. Saying no to yourself and having the ability to say no to others. That's hard and can make you unpopular. Saying yes is easy. Try and get elected now saying no. Probably not gonna happen.
I feel for those people who are losing their shirts but I can also look them in the eye and tell them they made a mistake. I'm 41, own my own modest home after paying off a 15 year mortgage along with both cars parked in the driveway. I have no credit card debt that won't be paid off by the end of the month. I did it by saying no.
irving_forbush on 18/9/2008 at 14:49
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Dear Nub,
I think the plan is to pull out at a rate of approximately 1 to 2 brigades per month under direction of military commanders completing during 2010 but retaining a residual force.
All the best,
A bloke in England who looked it up on the (
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/) internets.
xxx
I call bullshit - show me proof that Obama cares about the opinions of the military commanders. Did he even meet w/ GEN Petraeus when he
finally went to Iraq? Of does the ObaMessiah know so much about military affairs that he doesn't need to consult the commanders in the field? He believes he does - see the below text from the link you thoughtfully gave me (thx). Doesn't sound like he plans to consult anyone, just pretend he's Capt. Picard and tell his underlings to "make it so"...
A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal
Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in.
Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.
Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.
Starrfall on 18/9/2008 at 14:56
Quote Posted by pavlovscat
The politicians in this country need to realize that they are elected to represent the people. Frankly, I have a problem seeing Obama as someone who understands this. He is a party man and seems to be enamored of the Green God more than he desires to serve the people. McCain has put his life on the line serving his country. I just don't see that level of commitment coming from Obama where he would willingly give up his own comforts and privleges for the country he claims to want to serve.
Yeah Obama was really living the high life while he was out trudging through the streets of Chicago trying to help people living in poverty do things like registering to vote and employment retraining after steel plants closed and left hundreds without jobs and cleaning up local neighborhoods so children could play in areas not covered in trash and broken glass. If you call making $13,000 a year the high life.
He might have lived the high life while fighting for useless things like civil rights in a fancy law firm, but by that time I think McCain had already abandoned his injured first wife in order to marry a multi-millionaire.
The idea that the only way to serve your country is to let yourself get shot at (or shot down) in stupid wars is pretty ridiculous.
heywood on 18/9/2008 at 14:57
How about this one: (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTw_oEjU9TQ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTw_oEjU9TQ
:)
Quote:
Obama offers more policy objectives and plans than McCain does, and Obama's are preferable. I think several examples have been offered in this thread. Even if not, it's not hard for the issue-oriented voter to find examples online, although of course they just may not agree with them.
Quote Posted by Darkwarrior_II
Describe how Obama's policies are "fantasies." In what ways are they less realistic than his opponent's?
For one thing, there are limited resources. You can't cut tax rates, add a bunch of new tax credits for everything under the sun, increase health care spending, increase education spending, spend $150B on an "Apollo program" for energy, pull out of Iraq responsibly while increasing forces in Afghanistan, all in the same administration. With the huge deficit and a slowing economy, we'll be lucky to afford maybe one of the above.
Second, there's Congress. You can maybe get one major policy initiative through Congress per year, if it's not too controversial. On controversial issues like health care, Congress doesn't like to do anything major unless there is a consensus among voters, which we're not likely to see in Obama's administration. Even working with a Republican Congress, Bush was only able to get two of his major domestic policy initiatives addressed: education reform and Medicare reform, and on the latter he didn't accomplish much of what he promised to do. Still, that was better than the first Clinton administration. It took Clinton an entire term to enact welfare reform and he never got anywhere with health care reform, even with a Democratic Congress. And doing anything on energy is going to involve a huge amount of lobbying, which will slow things down. For example, telecommunications policy is also heavily lobbied and Congress has been working on and off for 12 years on overhauling the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Regarding his reform agenda, i.e. reducing the power of lobbyists and special interests, just how does he think he's going to accomplish that as President? He can only make rules for the executive branch, and Congress is where all the lobbying happens.
I guess my complaint with Obama is that he has a feel good promise or policy initiative for every person. Knowing that 99% of the promises and plans put out in general election campaigns are fantasies that never come true, I want to know what his priorities are. It's easy to promise to solve everybody's problem. I want to know what hard choices he's going to make, what issues he's going to start working in the first 100 days of his administration, and what the strategy is for getting them through Congress. Basically, I want him to stop blowing smoke up our ass and get realistic.
Having been around Congress for a while, I think McCain is more realistic about what can really be accomplished. And he has real experience pushing through controversial legislation (e.g. campaign finance reform) so it's reasonable to think he could accomplish more. But the problem with McCain is that he has no big ideas or major objectives. So I basically see one candidate with little experience saying he's going to do everything and the other with lots of experience saying he's going to do very little. Obama is in fantasy land, McCain is more realistic but disappointing.
Quote Posted by Ko0K
Not to say that partisan bias isn't blinding both sides, but even some conservatives will tell you that the Republican party you see today is a world apart from the Grand Ol' Party of Abraham Lincoln's. Its only goal nowadays is to establish and sustain a stable Republican majority.
I agree. But I think that's the nature of the two-party system. The Republicans have built a majority by piecing together constituencies with conflicting goals. It's unstable and cracks are forming with the more libertarian leaning members breaking away. The Democratic party has dealt with the same problem in the past.
Quote:
When teachers and union workers (That's right; working people) urged law-makers to pass a budget even if it would take raising taxes to fix the budget for the long haul, our state Republicans couldn't care for anything other than being able to say, "I stood firm to say no to new taxes" when they'll be up for re-election. Stubbornness is a virtue they will cling on to, whether that helps their own constituents or not.
Or, it could be that the Republicans are just reflecting the views of voters. I used to live in MA which is quite liberal and the Republican party is practically a non-entity. But the Democratic voters of MA elected Republican governors for 16 years straight because they didn't trust the Democratic politicians to stand up to the teacher's union and the state employee unions.
Quote:
Politicians on both sides are guilty of primarily caring for being reelected above all, but at least Democrats work harder at it knowing that their base is not a bunch of loyal fools.
Another fantasy.
BEAR on 18/9/2008 at 14:58
Quote Posted by irving_forbush
bullshit
Christ you are a fucking tool.
Show me proof he
doesn't care about the opinions of military commanders! Why would he not?
He was criticized for not going to Iraq, then he was criticized when he went, I really don't think it matters what he does.
What do you want? Do you actually think that a non-president can know exactly how things are going to go before taking office? Do you think Obama can actually put less thought into getting out than Bush did getting us in? I've seen nothing to say that they are not thoughtful intelligent people who know that we can't pull out immediately.
Quote Posted by heywood
For one thing, there are limited resources. You can't cut tax rates, add a bunch of new tax credits for everything under the sun, increase health care spending, increase education spending, spend $150B on an "Apollo program" for energy, pull out of Iraq responsibly while increasing forces in Afghanistan, all in the same administration. With the huge deficit and a slowing economy, we'll be lucky to afford maybe one of the above.
Another example of someone who hasn't even attempted to find out how Obama plans to do this. He's already come right out and said it.
No.1: repeal bush tax cuts. As Greenspan recently came out saying, the country can't take the taxcuts financially (which are by the way 3.5
trillion dollars)
No.2: end the war in Iraq. How is it that people question where Obama is going to get the money, when we're blowing trillions in Iraq? People would have balked at childrens healthcare before the war if it was going to cost 1/1000th of what we've paid in Iraq. What the fuck is with peoples priorities?
Quote Posted by heywood
Another fantasy.
Probably. I don't think Democrats are somehow superior beings totally immune to human nature. I do, however, think that they are not as bad as the republicans because of the fact that democrats aren't linked together like republicans. We don't have all the Faith-Based things that supersede policy and ideology. It doesn't change things much, but I think we feel in general a lot less connected, even if we tend to vote in the same way.
