Barack Obama

[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!

[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

[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