Barack Obama

[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)

[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.

[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."