Barack Obama

[randolph]

Yes, Greenspan could have raised interest rates. He liked to make his presidents look good and did so for both Clinton and Bush. Even with higher interest rates, the CRA required Freddie and Fannie to make loans available to minorities who couldn't afford them. But yes, it might have at least caused these people requesting loans to rethink if that was wise.

This was not only unwise but just plain stupid, it put the whole system at risk. We should have learned from Johnsons subsidized housing fiasco. Democrats, especially Dodd will have to take a lot of blame for ignoring that. Dodd got a lot of money from fanny/freddy because he was in charge of the committee overseeing them.
It is very apparent that until we prevent Congressmen from being bribed by special interests the public will continue to get screwed and the economy will be at risk. The airwaves belong to the public why cant we require the TV stations to provide free air time for politicians? this would dramatically reduce the need for vast amounts of campaign money to get elected. The billion dollars spent by Obama is obscene something must be done to restore credibility to government.

[TracyCoxx]

I take back some of what I said about BO learning from his mistakes. He claimed his stimulus package would limit the loss of jobs and that unemployment would peak at 8% by this fall. It's already at 9.4% and still rising.

His solution? Keep spending money... and faster!!!

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I take back some of what I said about BO learning from his mistakes. He claimed his stimulus package would limit the loss of jobs and that unemployment would peak at 8% by this fall. It's already at 9.4% and still rising.

His solution? Keep spending money... and faster!!!

Where I live, the streets are full of cars, the restaurants are full of people and the discount stores are busy. Gottschocks department store is out of business, however. Houses are cheeep, prices are back where they were fifteen years ago. No homeless on the streets. lots of sales and food discounts, gas going up, however. It is a strange recession.

[megawatty101]

Originally Posted by transjen

Of course we all know W never lied In fact when did that lieing little weasle W ever tell the truth? Q: how did you know W was lieing? A: his lipps were moving Jennifer

What's that supposed to tell me? Because Bush was a liar and a screwup, I'm supposed to give Obama a pass? Presidents change, Issues remain.

[megawatty101]

Originally Posted by Bionca

Well, given US policy in Africa we don't actually need to bomb them. Years of supporting destabilizing rebels, removing funding for HIV/AIDS education if it mentions condoms, and on and on...

The "reverse racism" crap is so played. First, a group that was systematically kept from any sort of self-determination, power, or equal access to redress their concerns cannot magically become equal with the stroke of a pen.

As much as you may like to think we live in a post-racist or post-sexist society, we absolutely do not. White guys have had generations of looking out for the other. For example:

Great great grandpa arrived a poor immigrant from Germany. He knew some Germans who gave him a job and his family did ok. Great Grandpa did better because he got a decent inheritance and was able to get through school. Grandpa got to go to college because his dad donated money to Ohio State - he even had a wing of the hospital named after him. Grandpa started a business and did very well. Dad has a degree and continues the family business and will retire early.

American Blacks my grandfather's age started where great great grandfather did as far as social and economic power. That's 80+ years to play catch-up. More so since, you know, none of my family had to fear lynching.

Why don't we just break up the country then? Would that be fun? Seeing that white guys are so damn awful. Fuck you Bionca, those evil white guys you like to trash built the civilization that allows you to draw another breath. Where else would you be safe in a country untouched by Western civilization?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by megawatty101

Why don't we just break up the country then? Would that be fun? Seeing that white guys are so damn awful. Fuck you Bionca, those evil white guys you like to trash built the civilization that allows you to draw another breath. Where else would you be safe in a country untouched by Western civilization?

Way out of line Megawatt! Bionca is highly regarded around here, she is articulate and intelligent so back off!

[ila]

Originally Posted by megawatty101

Why don't we just break up the country then? Would that be fun? Seeing that white guys are so damn awful. Fuck you Bionca, those evil white guys you like to trash built the civilization that allows you to draw another breath. Where else would you be safe in a country untouched by Western civilization?

You can express your disagreement in less vehement and less offensive language.

obama was in germany(dresden) and he is 1000 times better as g.w. bush(i hope so) and ..yes i hate G. W. -.-

..but obama must even SHOW that he's better!..

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by megawatty101

Why don't we just break up the country then? Would that be fun? Seeing that white guys are so damn awful. Fuck you Bionca, those evil white guys you like to trash built the civilization that allows you to draw another breath. Where else would you be safe in a country untouched by Western civilization?

What does this have to do with "Affirmative Action"? Your racial projection is also quite misplaced. Stating that blacks in America did not start on an even footing and struggled to even be recognized as full citizens generations after the Civil War is a simple statement of fact - not a moral judgment on while people.

Please show me where I "trashed" white guys -

Considering that it's only Conservatives that like to threaten the break up of the nation, I'm also a little amused that you would lay that at my feet.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by Bionca

Considering that it's only Conservatives that like to threaten the break up of the nation, I'm also a little amused that you would lay that at my feet.

While Rick Perry as Governor of Texas, taking part in the Tea Bag tax protests and in expressing an ultra conservative viewpoint, might have alluded to Texas one day becoming so pissed off that the state might want to secede from the Union in general protest...

...Let the record show that it was LIBERAL Vermont that went so far as to draft up an official manifesto to actually DO IT and who actually TRIED to put secession up to state vote during the Bush years. Not to mention, back before the current economic recession hit and back when times were better, it was LIBERAL California that once had a strong grassroots movement that likewise advocated doing the same.

So, no offense, but it's hardly "only Conservatives" that have become so disgruntled with the opposing side that they would threaten to break up the nation. Just saying' that political door actually swings both ways...

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

While Rick Perry as Governor of Texas, taking part in the Tea Bag tax protests and in expressing an ultra conservative viewpoint, might have alluded to Texas one day becoming so pissed off that the state might want to secede from the Union in general protest...

...Let the record show that it was LIBERAL Vermont that went so far as to draft up an official manifesto to actually DO IT and who actually TRIED to put secession up to state vote during the Bush years. Not to mention, back before the current economic recession hit and back when times were better, it was LIBERAL California that once had a strong grassroots movement that likewise advocated doing the same.

So, no offense, but it's hardly "only Conservatives" that have become so disgruntled with the opposing side that they would threaten to break up the nation. Just saying' that political door actually swings both ways...

You're right. It's not just conservatives. I saw many liberals after the 2004 election hoping to lop off those burdensome red states they labeled as "Jesus Land" so they could have their John Kerry. I'm not really sure who Bionca was referring to, but I don't think she was referring to Rick Perry. He was at a Tea Party where a bunch of people were all riled up and they started shouting Succeed Succeed!. A reporter asked Rick Perry if he thought Texas should succeed. He said no, and that it didn't make any sense to do so. That would not be Rick Perry bringing up succession.

[randolph]

When the Bush boys took over, a lot of us "liberals" thought about leaving home and going to Canada. However, on second thought, most of us decided to stick it out even though the family was dysfunctional. Now were not only dysfunctional but broke. "Hey buddy can you paradigm"

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

While Rick Perry as Governor of Texas, taking part in the Tea Bag tax protests and in expressing an ultra conservative viewpoint, might have alluded to Texas one day becoming so pissed off that the state might want to secede from the Union in general protest...

...Let the record show that it was LIBERAL Vermont that went so far as to draft up an official manifesto to actually DO IT and who actually TRIED to put secession up to state vote during the Bush years. Not to mention, back before the current economic recession hit and back when times were better, it was LIBERAL California that once had a strong grassroots movement that likewise advocated doing the same.

So, no offense, but it's hardly "only Conservatives" that have become so disgruntled with the opposing side that they would threaten to break up the nation. Just saying' that political door actually swings both ways...

Perry made some very thinly veiled support for Texas leaving the US. Some disgruntled conservatives in Oklahoma followed suit - although this was briefly reported as a more wide-spread initiative.

I wasn't aware of Vermont. California can hardly be called a Liberal state. You have the coast which is very Libreral, but San Diego, Sacramento, The OC, the mountains can hardly be called anything close to Liberal. Cali is about as Liberal as Ohio - you have Pelosi, we have Kucinich.

[transjen]

A serious question here, Was Perry just saying this for disgruntled REPS or does he really think Texas would be better off on their own or would they become part of Mexico? Personily i think he was only throwing some red meat to the core GOP ers in his state for his reelection bid Jennifer

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

No, a purely capitalist system would allow a failing company or financial institution to fail. That's what bankruptcy is for. A socialist system would make them part of the government.

As my friend Jodi wrote:

It is not the state taking control of banks, markets, finance. That's why there were no provisions in the initial 2 page plan for oversight or accountability. That's also why it was written by a former head of Goldman Sachs. That's what Wall Street is demanding.

This isn't socialism. It's the triumph of neoliberal dominance of the state.

Rather than the government gaining control of the financial sector, it is the government being held hostage by the financial speculators. The taxpayer being accountable for the excesses of a bullish market with no oversight, no restraint, and absolutely no "self correction".

The government was told a story of doom and failures of epic proportions that would have a global reach unseen before. The ones who spear-headed this, who ignored the signs, who tried to bank as much as they could as long as they could did not get "rescued" by the government. They asked and received the assistance from the government.

With no stipulations. With no plan to pay it back. With no direction

Now that the administration is (slowly) trying to install the means to collect and oversee the dispensaion of the funds... they cry "foul". The blow up over GM's CEO being fired by the people who denamd "responsibility and accountability" is shameful.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

A serious question here, Was Perry just saying this for disgruntled REPS or does he really think Texas would be better off on their own or would they become part of Mexico? Personily i think he was only throwing some red meat to the core GOP ers in his state for his reelection bid Jennifer

It's been sensationalized through reporting. They don't show that it was people in the crowd at the Tea Party who started talking about it not him. They don't show him saying no, there's no reason to secede, they just show him citing his belief that Texas could secede if there was a hypothetical reason to do so. I saw the live video of the reporter who talked to him. He said no, Texas should not secede, and that it wouldn't make sense to do so.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It's been sensationalized through reporting. They don't show that it was people in the crowd at the Tea Party who started talking about it not him. They don't show him saying no, there's no reason to secede, they just show him citing his belief that Texas could secede if there was a hypothetical reason to do so. I saw the live video of the reporter who talked to him. He said no, Texas should not secede, and that it wouldn't make sense to do so.

Thanks, that is why i was asking as i do not live in Texas and when i first heard about it i didn't pay much attention to it Jennifer

[randolph]

From Washington Monthly:
LEADERSHIP VOID.... The latest poll from USA Today/Gallup points to some interesting results about the state of the Republican Party. It notes, for example, that "one-third of Republicans now say they have an unfavorable opinion of their party."

That's not a good sign. (By contrast, only 4% of Democrats have an unfavorable view of their party.) It's hard to say whether these are Republican moderates who believe the GOP has shifted too far to the right, Republican conservatives who believe the GOP isn't far-right enough, or some combination of the two. Either way, it's a discouraging figure for the party.

But just as important were questions about the Republican Party's leadership, which is obviously in an awkward state in the wake of the Bush/Cheney era.

A 52% majority of those surveyed couldn't come up with a name when asked to specify "the main person" who speaks for Republicans today. Of those who could, the top response was radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh (13%), followed in order by former vice president Dick Cheney, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former House speaker Newt Gingrich. Former president George W. Bush ranked fifth, at 3%.

So the dominant faces of the Republican Party are all men, all white, all conservative and all old enough to join AARP, ranging in age from 58 (Limbaugh) to 72 (McCain). They include some of the country's most strident voices on issues from Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court to President Obama's policies at home and abroad. Two are retired from politics, and one has never been a candidate.

The vacuum is only part of the problem. When a party loses power, a leadership void is inevitable and largely unavoidable. That 52% of Americans can't think of the leading GOP voice isn't necessarily awful; I'm a little surprised that number isn't even higher.

Well at least Sarah Palin wasn't mentioned.

[randolph]

Humm, looks like Obama is doing some payback.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Humm, looks like Obama is doing some payback.

Don't forget ACORN. Since '94, they've raised $53 million. Now they're eligible for $8 billion between this year and the next. And who says crime doesn't pay?

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

From Washington Monthly: LEADERSHIP VOID. The latest poll from USA Today/Gallup points to some interesting results about the state of the Republican Party. It notes, for example, that "one-third of Republicans now say they have an unfavorable opinion of their party"...

And yet for all this "Doom and Gloom" talk that the media likes to TRY and perpetually drum up, in the upcoming Gubernatorial races for both New Jersey and Virginia -- where Democrats once had clear and sizeable leads -- the Republicans are now leading in ALL the polls. Not to mention that just yesterday, thanks to two defections, the Republicans seized control of the New York State Senate as well.

Not to mention that many other polls show that Republicans are now being favored as a voter's choice in 2010 for Congressional seats, to specifically break up the Democratic strangle hold that exists on Capitol Hill right now, and as a way to stop Obama from spending any further and from enacting too many of his "changes you can believe in" (insert hacking, mocking cough here)...

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

That's not a good sign (for the Republicans)...

Well, since you were so quick to quote the Gallup Poll, let's ACTUALLY see how it's doing today, shall we?

Obama Job Approval....59%
State of the Nation.....64% DISSATISFIED.
Economic Outlook.......54% GETTING WORSE
Consumer Mood..........54% NEGATIVE.
Live Evaluation...........45% STRUGGLING

Oh, and the latest Rasmussen Poll likewise shows that 45% of the country now wants Obama's economic plan CANCELLED.

Huh. Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't consider any of THAT to be a good sign for the Democrats EITHER.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

And yet for all this "Doom and Gloom" talk that the media likes to TRY and perpetually drum up, in the upcoming Gubernatorial races for both New Jersey and Virginia -- where Democrats once had clear and sizeable leads -- the Republicans are now leading in ALL the polls. Not to mention that just yesterday, thanks to two defections, the Republicans seized control of the New York State Senate as well.

Not to mention that many other polls show that Republicans are now being favored as a voter's choice in 2010 for Congressional seats, to specifically break up the Democratic strangle hold that exists on Capitol Hill right now, and as a way to stop Obama from spending any further and from enacting too many of his "changes you can believe in" (insert hacking, mocking cough here)...

Perhaps the GOP is better off without any leadership.
Also, the massive spending is not only scaring the hell out of the Republicans.
Plus Obama is following Bush Doctrine in the Middle East. Growl!

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

A 52% majority of those surveyed couldn't come up with a name when asked to specify "the main person" who speaks for Republicans today...

Meaning that 48% have no problem coming up with a few names. And for the record, since you want to point to a number like that, keep in mind that studies in the last few years -- on average -- have showed that something like 40% of the people polled can't name the CURRENT Vice-President or Speaker of the House...something like 60% can't name one of their own two State Senators...and a staggering 80-plus % can't name their own local Congress person.

Not to mention, I LOVE the laugh out loud hypocrisy of the Left on this. Those on the Left will point to something like this article (mind you, with the next elections still a year and half away) and they will be the first to say "You Republicans need to HURRY! You don't have a definite spokesperson or your next candidate yet! Can't you see the click is ticking? TIME is of the essence there!!!!"....

...And yet these will be the SAME people, when hard questions are asked about Obama or fingers pointed at the obvious fuck-ups he's now clearly committing, that will be the first to get defensive and say, "For crying out loud, what's your hurry? He's only been in office for 100 days! Why are you watching the clock so much????"

Originally Posted by randolph

Well at least Sarah Palin wasn't mentioned.

Only because the Left is doing everything they can to STILL try and tear her down since they know what a populist powerhouse she remains. Which frankly, says something about how cowardly the Left is or about the Left's own faltering confidence in Obama, given his already lagging poll numbers. Look, there's just no way to deny it. It speaks VOLUMES that months after the election is over that the Left is STILL running scared shitless over Sarah Palin, especially when she's not even running for anything.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Meaning that 48% have no problem coming up with a few names. And for the record, since you want to point to a number like that, keep in mind that studies in the last few years -- on average -- have showed that something like 40% of the people polled can't name the CURRENT Vice-President or Speaker of the House...something like 60% can't name one of their own two State Senators...and a staggering 80-plus % can't name their own local Congress person.

Not to mention, I LOVE the laugh out loud hypocrisy of the Left on this. Those on the Left will point to something like this article (mind you, with the next elections still a year and half away) and they will be the first to say "You Republicans need to HURRY! You don't have a definite spokesperson or your next candidate yet! Can't you see the click is ticking? TIME is of the essence there!!!!"....

...And yet these will be the SAME people, when hard questions are asked about Obama or fingers pointed at the obvious fuck-ups he's now clearly committing, that will be the first to get defensive and say, "For crying out loud, what's your hurry? He's only been in office for 100 days! Why are you watching the clock so much????"



Only because the Left is doing everything they can to STILL try and tear her down since they know what a populist powerhouse she remains. Which frankly, says something about how cowardly the Left is or about the Left's own faltering confidence in Obama, given his already lagging poll numbers. Look, there's just no way to deny it. It speaks VOLUMES that months after the election is over that the Left is STILL running scared shitless over Sarah Palin, especially when she's not even running for anything.

Do YOU want Sarah Palin running for President?
She believes man roamed with dinosaurs! (gasp, choke, cough)

[transjen]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

Well, since you were so quick to quote the Gallup Poll, let's ACTUALLY see how it's doing today, shall we?

Obama Job Approval....59%
State of the Nation.....64% DISSATISFIED.
Economic Outlook.......54% GETTING WORSE
Consumer Mood..........54% NEGATIVE.
Live Evaluation...........45% STRUGGLING

Oh, and the latest Rasmussen Poll likewise shows that 45% of the country now wants Obama's economic plan CANCELLED.

Huh. Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't consider any of THAT to be a good sign for the Democrats EITHER.

Yeah next you'll show that 97% feel we were better off with W. Polls are BS a few diehards can swing a poll in either way and give a false reading Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Do YOU want Sarah Palin running for President?
She believes man roamed with dinosaurs! (gasp, choke, cough)

I don't.
Conservative economics - yes
Strong foreign policy - yes
Protect US sovereignty - yes
Fundie Bible thumper - NO

is that too much to ask? Apparently it is.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by transjen

Yeah next you'll show that 97% feel we were better off with W.
Polls are BS a few diehards can swing a poll in either way and give a false reading Jennifer

First of all, I made NO such claim about Bush, so it's disingenuous to make such a claim. Of course, what I do love is that fresh after election day and back when the Left wanted to trumpet "political mandates" and how America wanted to enact ALL of Obama's change, it had no trouble yelling "He's got a 70% approval rating! Look at the polls! You can't deny that they reflect what people want!"

But as his ratings now drop -- to the point, as I noted above, that it's now a LESSER number than the number of people who DON'T like the way he's running the country -- suddenly THEN the polls are total BS and not worth looking at. Or they've been somehow rigged and fixed.

Gee, funny how that works...

[TracyCoxx]

Rush:
Conservatives see Americans. They see human beings. They see potential. Liberals look at a group of people and they see incompetence, they see people that can't overcome the obstacles of life, they want a government program to help them.

So true...

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I don't.
Conservative economics - yes
Strong foreign policy - yes
Protect US sovereignty - yes
Fundie Bible thumper - NO

is that too much to ask? Apparently it is.

You know what? I agree with you.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

You know what? I agree with you.

Holy !

At the risk of throwing harmony back into chaos I have a question for you. Since it seems to be so hard to find a candidate that has all the qualities we like we have to make a choice.

Conservative economics
Strong foreign policy
Protect US sovereignty
Fundie Bible thumper

or

Spread the wealth, socialist type economics
Toothless foreign policy and apology tours
Illegals welcome -Open border policy
Secular government (possibly even muslim since he says we're not a christian nation but does say the US is one of the largest muslim countries in the world)

Which way do you compromise and why?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Holy !

At the risk of throwing harmony back into chaos I have a question for you. Since it seems to be so hard to find a candidate that has all the qualities we like we have to make a choice.

Conservative economics
Strong foreign policy
Protect US sovereignty
Fundie Bible thumper

or

Spread the wealth, socialist type economics
Toothless foreign policy and apology tours
Illegals welcome -Open border policy
Secular government (possibly even muslim since he says we're not a christian nation but does say the US is one of the largest muslim countries in the world)

Which way do you compromise and why?

No, I don't agree with the second set of policies, however I don't believe the Dems. are that stupid either. Obama is showing a very aggressive stance in the Middle East. Not that I agree with that either. Basically, I am a frustrated Republican of the old school (pre Reganomics).
This is what I like.
1- A fiscally responsible pay as you go government (no Reaganomics or Bush BS or Johnson BS, Clinton was better).
2- A reasonably ethical government that encourages thrift and responsibility.
3- A secular government that stays out of religious issues (ie abortion, gay marriage)
4- A government that keeps hands off other countries politics.
5- a government that actively fosters environmental/energy sustainability.
6- a government that carefully regulates capitalism but encourages "free" enterprise.
In the good old days we tried to avoid avoid foreign entanglements and we prospered (we made our own stuff). The world has changed (a LOT more people) trade is the name of the game so we have to compete.
As long as we keep giving away our productivity to China I don't see how we can afford elaborate welfare/health care programs. We don't have enough people working to support them.

Congress is so beholden to special interests (Dems. and Repubs. alike), I don't see much hope of any positive results. The banks own Congress so what are we to do? We have allowed ourselves to get thoroughly fucked up with materialism (from China). We need to make our own stuff, develop our own energy, and fuck the Chinese and fuck the Arabs.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by randolph

Congress is so beholden to special interests (Dems. and Repubs. alike), I don't see much hope of any positive results. The banks own Congress so what are we to do? We have allowed ourselves to get thoroughly fucked up with materialism (from China). We need to make our own stuff, develop our own energy, and fuck the Chinese and fuck the Arabs.

I couldn't agree with you more.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

No, I don't agree with the second set of policies, however I don't believe the Dems. are that stupid either. Obama is showing a very aggressive stance in the Middle East. Not that I agree with that either.

I wouldn't say his middle east stance is aggressive. He's continuing some of what Bush has done, is planning on canceling other things and is canceling the rest. I see no new offensive under his administration. (The increased activity in Afghanistan doesn't count, that was happening anyway under Bush). He appoints a flunkie to homeland security who seems more concerned about US military returning home, and right wing extremists (does that mean me?) than terrorists. Oh, and his administration doesn't use the word terrorist anymore. "War on terror" is gone, and "acts of terror" is now called "man made disasters". Ok, so what does he call the war on terror? He's got troops over in Afghanistan fighting for something. What is it? Is it a war? Police action? What is this activity we're involved in that brings us into other countries? He's canceling many of the covert actions and interrogation methods that have kept us safe up till now. I think he's delaying getting out of Iraq because if it implodes, no one can deny BO would be to blame.

Originally Posted by randolph

Basically, I am a frustrated Republican of the old school (pre Reganomics).
This is what I like.
1- A fiscally responsible pay as you go government (no Reaganomics or Bush BS or Johnson BS, Clinton was better).
2- A reasonably ethical government that encourages thrift and responsibility.
3- A secular government that stays out of religious issues (ie abortion, gay marriage)
4- A government that keeps hands off other countries politics.
5- a government that actively fosters environmental/energy sustainability.
6- a government that carefully regulates capitalism but encourages "free" enterprise.

Ok, I added your points under the candidates we had a choice on. Since this is the 2 candidates we had I also changed Protect US sovereignty to Weak stance against illegal immigration for McCain. Here are the two new lists:

McCain
1 - Conservative economics
2 - A more ethical government that encourages thrift and responsibility.
3 - Strong foreign policy that includes influencing other countries politics.
4 - a government that carefully regulates capitalism but encourages "free" enterprise.
5 - Fundie Bible thumper
6 - Weak stance against illegal immigration

or

Obama
1 - Spread the wealth, socialist type economics
2 - Toothless foreign policy and apology tours
3 - Illegals welcome -Open border policy
4 - A secular government that stays out of religious issues (possibly even muslim since he says we're not a christian nation but does say the US is one of the largest muslim countries in the world)
5 - a government that actively fosters environmental/energy sustainability by taking control of car companies and aiming to put coal mining out of business

These were our two candidates. I see that each candidate had good points & bad points. I'm wondering why you chose Obama if he violates 1,2,6 and as you're finding out 4 in your list of points?

Originally Posted by randolph

In the good old days we tried to avoid avoid foreign entanglements

Are you talking about before the Spanish American war? But seriously, the Korean war and Vietnam war was because of other countries politics. I know the republicans didn't start the Vietnam war, but Nixon continued it.

As for your comments on losing productivity, special interests and ing the Chinese and Arabs, I agree.

[TracyCoxx]

Steve Balmer, CEO of Microsoft on Obama's plans to enact a higher tax on U.S. companies' foreign profits:

"It makes U.S. jobs more expensive," Ballmer said in an interview. "We're better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S."

[randolph]

Tracy,
Nobody will tell me how to do selective quotes so my comments are not synchronized like yours.
Re: Randolph's six points
I don't particularly agree with your interpretations of my points and how they relate to the two candidates.
I think you exaggerate the negative aspects of the Dems. and overly support Repub. views but you are a conservative, right?
I used to like McCain, I think he has the best interests of the country at heart. However, He does seem to be somewhat erratic in his thinking.
Obama promised an alternative to the mean spirited hegemony obsessed Bush administration.
Will he come through, it remains to be seen.
Obama is very limited on what he can do, its up to Congress to come up with legislation that Obama can support.
I think you exaggerate Obama's "socialist" tendencies. His massive support of the banks would question that. He has "assured" us that owning GM is temporary. Will the Gov. allow GM to fail when it owns it.

Oh, I was thinking of the Monroe Doctrine as a start. Yes, I know we have rarely minded our own business, Teddy Roosevelt, Woody Wilson, Kennedy, Johnson, Ect.

[jimnaseum]

Obama will reduce the Republican party to Rush, Newt, Cheney, Hannitty, and O'Reilly for the next eight years. Nothing's going to stop the Democratics except the Natural Disasters that occur during that time. Obama's hand on the Rudder of the US might be the steadiest in it's history. I'm not makin' this shit up, it's going on!

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Steve Balmer, CEO of Microsoft on Obama's plans to enact a higher tax on U.S. companies' foreign profits:

Steve Balmer and Bill Gates were crying the same thing when King George was cutting taxes for the super rich, And US companies will keep crying as long as the US worker demands a living wage Jennifer

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

Obama's hand on the Rudder of the US might be the steadiest in it's history. I'm not makin' this shit up, it's going on!

At the end of last week, the Dems cheered because the stock market was up something like 15 points -- wow, 15! -- yet yesterday it plummeted over 200 points... then it dropped another 100 today... all while Obama continues to pitch his plan for universal health care, which is now estimated to cost taxpayers yet another TRILLION dollars just to start up. Needless to say, Wall Street and others aren't sold on what he's selling. Not even the AMA is on board. Why? Because once again in Obama Land those who can actually count and who have a real sense of money are asking the one basic question: "So where the hell is the money going to come from to pay for THIS???"

Answer: that's right, yet again the Left feels it can hit up the so-called "rich" in the country. The only problem is Obama's idea of who is "rich" has once again dropped, and now you're "rich" to him if you're simply a standard middle class family. Which means we're now officially talking about increasing taxes, across the board for everyone, which is certainly a joke in an economic downturn as severe as the one we're enduring.

Not to mention, you're talking about sticking a $1 TRILLION health care bill on top of spending $2 TRILLION in stimulus funds, which all by itself was going to raise our debt level to such a staggering number that it will now leave our kids with a $1 TRILLION deficit per year for the next 10 years -- thus putting the United States nearly $13 TRILLION in the hole. Sorry, but I don't care what kind of fuzzy math the Left wants to trot out, there's simply not enough "rich people" to tax and cover THAT kind of debt load.

Since the start of the year, like clockwork, weekly unemployment figures continue to roll in at an amazing rate of over 600,000 jobs shed per week. But I loved that last month the Obama White House crowed they "saved" 30,000 jobs. Seriously, think about that. Four weeks in a month times 600,000 per week translates into 2.4 MILLION jobs lost, yet they were so proud they saved 30,000. And now the White House has changed its own language about "creating" jobs to "saving" jobs instead. And topping it off, there are now meetings taking place overseas to discuss dumping the American dollar in favor of creating a new world currency simply because the rest of the world has lost faith in the American dollar, given the sheer amount of money that Obama is trying to spend, borrow, or simply asking the Fed to continually print up so he can spend that money TOO.

Sorry, but if this is your idea of the "steadiest hand in history" on the rudder of the U.S economic ship, I would sincerely advise everyone to strap on their life jackets and start heading to the life boats because there's one SERIOUSLY huge motherfucking iceberg ahead.

[randolph]

We are going to need more than life jackets to survive the relentless give away of our productivity to Japan, Korea, Taiwan and now China. Beginning in the 1960's we have allowed our core production to go overseas (cars, tvs, electronics, computers, tools, ect). How can we afford full health care without lots of blue coller jobs to pay for it? Detroit is dead, GM is dead, Chrysler is dead. Our own corporations have betrayed us by moving their manufacturing overseas and our government has actively encouraged it. We are committing slow suicide and nothing is being done about it. Corporate profits rule, to hell with the country.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

... all while Obama continues to pitch his plan for universal health care, which is now estimated to cost taxpayers yet another TRILLION dollars just to start up.

Wait. I don't understand. I thought we were out of money? Who's the guy who says, "uh sorry BO. We're out of money. You can't do that."?

I have not read all the thread so i will just say i think Obama is seen as a positive step forwards to a more peaceful world , i dont think it matters what country you are in .....corporate profits will always screw over the little guys

p.s he is very good at killing flies

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by sexchannel

I have not read all the thread so i will just say i think Obama is seen as a positive step forwards to a more peaceful world , i dont think it matters what country you are in .....corporate profits will always screw over the little guys

Well it's not your country he's ing up.

[transjen]

How can you F up a country that was all ready Fed by King George? You can point fingers all you like but this Fing mess all started under King Georges rain and since his ran the ship straight in to the iceberg he should take the blame plus he controled all three branchs of goverment for his first 6 yrs in which time he did what ever he wanted too and sadly he was allowed to do what ever he wanted for his final two years, He left a big mess to clean up a mess that will take in all likely hood at least 15 yrs to clean up

[TracyCoxx]

Sorry Jen, but if you're not going to back up any of your claims then I'm going to have to call BS yet again.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Sorry Jen, but if you're not going to back up any of your claims then I'm going to have to call BS yet again.

Just look back from 01 thru 08 who was in the white house now everyone knows the answer when did the bottom fall out? The house of cards started to fall in late 04 to early 05 you can cry BS all you want, Face facts your golden boy Fed up the country just like every company he ever ran Jennifer

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

Just look back from 01 thru 08 who was in the white house now everyone knows the answer when did the bottom fall out? The house of cards started to fall in late 04 to early 05 you can cry BS all you want, Face facts your golden boy Fed up the country just like every company he ever ran Jennifer

I think we already discussed this, and in terms of facts you came up empty. But go on and believe what you want to. It seems that it's important to you to believe that Bush is the lone evil man who destroyed America regardless of any facts. I'm more of a facts person which means my view has something to do with reality. So as I said before: Enjoy your fantasy.

[JohnTB]

Originally Posted by transjen

How can you F up a country that was all ready Fed by King George? You can point fingers all you like but this Fing mess all started under King Georges rain and since his ran the ship straight in to the iceberg he should take the blame plus he controled all three branchs of goverment for his first 6 yrs in which time he did what ever he wanted too and sadly he was allowed to do what ever he wanted for his final two years, He left a big mess to clean up a mess that will take in all likely hood at least 15 yrs to clean up

Listening to the ravings a man who:
1. cannot spell 'reign'

2. does not understand the American system, and

3. who calls George W, 'a king'

is a true waste of our time...

[ila]

Originally Posted by JohnTB

Listening to the ravings a man who:
1. cannot spell 'reign'

2. does not understand the American system, and

3. who calls George W, 'a king'

is a true waste of our time...

Regardless of your opinion of transjen's posts there is no reason to call her a man. Her profile clearly states female. Your first sentence is just plain insulting.