Obama Campaign Theatrics --- woman faints @ rallies a scam?

[uofom3]

Not if you vote for some one that wants to remove the government from business. Oh ya, you all though Ron Paul was crazy. Now you are singing his songs.

Ron Paul wasn't entirely crazy, he just backed some things that will never be adopted again (Goldstandard, for instance). He seems crazy libertarian, which is something that I don't have a personal problem with (entirely).

[DarkWing6]

Look, I am not drinking from the Obama Kool-Aid bowl. His plan is no less of a joke than the Bush tax cuts.

I have not seen in my lifetime a candidate who generated more interest and excitement than Obama. At the same time, I am not sure I have seen one who does a better job of talking so much and saying so little.

His whole "just words" thing he lifted off of the Mass governor is a perfect example. Gee, "Yes we Can" . . . Can what????

No matter who ends up in the Oval office, it will continue to be about whose palms get greased, not what makes economic sense. Big pharma, big oil, big ag.business,etc, etc will still come out good, no matter who is in power.

Not if you vote for some one that wants to remove the government from business. Oh ya, you all though Ron Paul was crazy. Now you are singing his songs.


EDIT - And I agree with what you are saying about Obama. He is an excellent speaker, but sooner or later he is going to need to add some substance. He added in his speech in Houston and shot himself in the foot.

[DarkWing6]

plan's are over-rated. :) dubya survived 8yrs and he has no fucking clue how to even tie his own shoe-laces

I don't think you have a clue either.

[LINUS]

Socialized health care would push me to make that much more $$$ to continue private heath care. Luckily, I'm single/no kids - so even decent health coverage isn't as much $$$ as some people play it up to be.

You just opened the Pandora's Box of reasons I can't vote for anyone willing to entertain that idea as good to the overall health of this country. Socialized healthcare will permanently change the US, and not for the better.


Yes, the rich get better care. Go figure out a way to make enough so you have those docs. Simple enough.

Dave: it's all good. I'm going to go see it right now - never heard this one.

[Hallen]

Yes. Its the same reason a lot of people voted for Bush II in 2004. He played on those emotions by framing the argument that they would not be safe if they did not re-elect him. (never mind that his debacle of a war has made our position/security in the world worse rather than better).

At least Clinton had some experience as an executive, having been Governor. Obama - I still am not sure what the appeal is other than he's a hell of a speaker. If it comes down to him and McCain, I have to say I have a tough choice. I have always voted for the Democrat, going back to 88. But I am not so sure I would in that race.

Dave, you do make many good points, but I can't let this one go by without questioning it.

Where is the evidence to back up your statement that "his debacle of a war has made our position/security in the world worse rather than better"?

I am not trying to debate the decision on the war, but rather you throwing out a statement as fact that is definitely debatable. It sounds a bit too much like the trash that the main stream media spews out rather than something that has any sound reasoning or definitive fact behind it.

It is a can of worms and probably not something that we who don't have real security analysis and access to CIA data, etc could effectively argue though. I am just throwing it out there as a counter point.

[uofom3]

I thought we couldn't trust what they write in the NYT????




:p

You have to pander to your audience ;)... If I quoted Fox News - you wouldn't believe me :)

[Dave]

Anyone for a reason why you shouldn't have socialized healthcare?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/wo...html?ref=world

I thought we couldn't trust what they write in the NYT????




:p


I watched the video - it came up when I was looking for the one that shows Obama using, word for word, the "Just Words" speech from Deval Patrick. That guy is a nutter for sure.

[uofom3]

Dave, you're making excellent points - and I've heard that video is funny as shit but haven't pulled it up.

Anyone for a reason why you shouldn't have socialized healthcare?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/wo...html?ref=world

[Dave]

Just to lighten it up - (Ben, I hope you dont mind) - anyone seen the YouTube video of the guy who claims that he sucked Obama's dick in the back of a limo and that he smoked crack with him?

[Dave]

Yes. Its the same reason a lot of people voted for Bush II in 2004. He played on those emotions by framing the argument that they would not be safe if they did not re-elect him. (never mind that his debacle of a war has made our position/security in the world worse rather than better).

At least Clinton had some experience as an executive, having been Governor. Obama - I still am not sure what the appeal is other than he's a hell of a speaker. If it comes down to him and McCain, I have to say I have a tough choice. I have always voted for the Democrat, going back to 88. But I am not so sure I would in that race.

[Hallen]

Look, I am not drinking from the Obama Kool-Aid bowl. His plan is no less of a joke than the Bush tax cuts.

I have not seen in my lifetime a candidate who generated more interest and excitement than Obama. At the same time, I am not sure I have seen one who does a better job of talking so much and saying so little.

His whole "just words" thing he lifted off of the Mass governor is a perfect example. Gee, "Yes we Can" . . . Can what????

No matter who ends up in the Oval office, it will continue to be about whose palms get greased, not what makes economic sense. Big pharma, big oil, big ag.business,etc, etc will still come out good, no matter who is in power.

I agree with most of that. I do believe that by leaving money in the hands of people who make it and spend it is better than channeling that money through the government and into the hands of people who didnt earn it. I believe that has a positive impact on the economy as a whole.

Your statement about Obama is true and that is why I fear for America. Not because of Obama's policies, but because so many Americans are swallowing his rhetoric and think it is meaningful. They are voting on emotion. They are voting on surface traits. They are wowed by theatrics. They have successfully suspended disbelief just like they were watching a movie. There are plenty of intelligent, kind people, many of whom I call my friend that have fallen for this drivel. It is very sad.

Obama won't kill America any more than Bill Clinton did when he was elected using exactly the same traits and tactics that Obama is using now. But it is just one more link in the chain that leads to failure.

[uofom3]

Look, I am not drinking from the Obama Kool-Aid bowl. His plan is no less of a joke than the Bush tax cuts.

I have not seen in my lifetime a candidate who generated more interest and excitement than Obama. At the same time, I am not sure I have seen one who does a better job of talking so much and saying so little.

His whole "just words" thing he lifted off of the Mass governor is a perfect example. Gee, "Yes we Can" . . . Can what????

No matter who ends up in the Oval office, it will continue to be about whose palms get greased, not what makes economic sense. Big pharma, big oil, big ag.business,etc, etc will still come out good, no matter who is in power.

Fair enough.

And you raise another excellenet point. It's not like big business isn't gettin greased by the dems. That's what cracks me up - at least some of the conservatives are honest about being bought and support the big bidness - whereas the dems still get fed and then shpeel about how they are evil and wrong.

Politics would be a great game if it weren't for the people involved.

[LINUS]

are you for fucking real? this is r3v OT hello! this the home of pointless banter. im just playing along, don't get your panties in a bunch. i'm not counter arguing, because i don't see the point. they are all the same and frankly after bush the idiot, anyone will be better.

T's right you're not bringing anything to conversation here.

If you wish to step up, please enlighten us. Otherwise as was mentioned, leave well enough alone in my thread. So far this has been an intelligent, curse-free thread & you aren't helping things. Don't ruin the 1st infant-free political thread by bringing it down to the level that you normally run on. Make your own thread please.

[Hallen]

Nah - All you guys just out of or still in College - keep it up with your talking points. You have yet to have much experience in the market and the real world.

You really think there is that big of a difference between McCain and Obama? Other than the war issue (granted that is the big issue), I doubt we would see much different one way or the other from a McCain or Obama administration.

No, I have been out of college for a long time and have 15 years of real world experience working in private and publicly held businesses and 20 years of military experience. Those hard lessons teach you something about the behaviour of people.

You are right that the differences between the two front runners will be less in the end than is apparent now. But, that is part of the effect of our three legged governmental system.
However, Obama's proposed economic plans are... (I am struggling for the right words here because I don't want to over state it but I also don't want to just brush past it) they are designed to buy votes by promising money to people who didn't earn it and playing on people's fears and distrust of corporate America. I am not saying that Republicans don't also buy votes... they do via pork barrel politics and via "cooperative deals". But the Republican way is how business gets done in Washington by all parties (which doesn't make it better, it just is what it is for now).

I just find it very offensive and demeaning when a politician blatantly promises to give me money if I will vote for them and damn the consequences of those actions.

Obama (and Clinton) comes across as standing on principle and being there to help the little guy when we all know that is not true. He has principles, I am sure, but no honest and intelligent person could really believe that those economic policies are what is best for America. He is telling us that we are incapable of taking care of ourselves and we have no personal responsibility so therefore, smart people like him need to step in and take care of us. People call the Republican far Right the "thought police" but I would argue that a far bigger portion of the Democratic Left are more egregious offenders of the "thought police" policies than the Republican Right ever has been (but that is not fact, just my opinion).

Anybody remember the last political campaigns and a guy named Dan Rather and a story run about Bush? I am thinking the timing on this and the eagerness of the NY Times to find anything to discredit the obvious front runner for the Presidency probably jumped the gun on this story. Until they come up with witnesses and facts, it is just rumors and innuendo and should not have been published. One source without confirmation does not make news. Since the standards of reporting in this nation went down the tubes after Watergate, it is impossible to believe this type of story (and it is a story, not a report or news).

[Dave]

Could you enlighten us? My experiance has nothing to do with it. Tell us where we are wrong. Simple logic and a day it economics class is all you need to understand that Obama's plan is a joke.

Look, I am not drinking from the Obama Kool-Aid bowl. His plan is no less of a joke than the Bush tax cuts.

I have not seen in my lifetime a candidate who generated more interest and excitement than Obama. At the same time, I am not sure I have seen one who does a better job of talking so much and saying so little.

His whole "just words" thing he lifted off of the Mass governor is a perfect example. Gee, "Yes we Can" . . . Can what????

No matter who ends up in the Oval office, it will continue to be about whose palms get greased, not what makes economic sense. Big pharma, big oil, big ag.business,etc, etc will still come out good, no matter who is in power.