PDA

View Full Version : Does Obama Scare you?


Pages : [1] 2

corplinx
12th February 2007, 08:15 AM
I am a grinch or scrooge? Do I just "not get it"? I can't get swept up by Obama fever....

I turn on 60 Minutes and they are interviewing a very charismatic man who has wide eyed eager followers every place he stops. They look like wii buyers lined up outside a best buy on launch day. These people scare me. All I see if a very smart and charismatic man but they see a presidential messiah.

People look for this candidate everey 4 years it seems. John McCain was once this candidate of dreams but seems to have fallen out of favor for the new blood.

Am I just a contrarian jerk here? These hordes of youths attending Obama rallies and ready to support whatever crazy thing he proposes (natioalizing health care) scares me when I look at cults of personality like Hugo Chavez and see what they can get away with by having charisma and leading by it.

IllegalArgument
12th February 2007, 08:30 AM
I think you are just forgeting the cult of personality that developed around Clinton and Reagan.

Obama, the media image, is an empty vessel that people are projecting their hopes into.

I'm not going to pay attention to the race, or at little as possible, till late 2007.

Darth Rotor
12th February 2007, 08:33 AM
I am a grinch or scrooge? Do I just "not get it"? I can't get swept up by Obama fever....

I turn on 60 Minutes and they are interviewing a very charismatic man who has wide eyed eager followers every place he stops. They look like wii buyers lined up outside a best buy on launch day. These people scare me. All I see if a very smart and charismatic man but they see a presidential messiah.

People look for this candidate everey 4 years it seems. John McCain was once this candidate of dreams but seems to have fallen out of favor for the new blood.

Am I just a contrarian jerk here? These hordes of youths attending Obama rallies and ready to support whatever crazy thing he proposes (natioalizing health care) scares me when I look at cults of personality like Hugo Chavez and see what they can get away with by having charisma and leading by it.
Looking for the new political Messiah is a rather old problem in American politics. The key piece of analysis to perform is to look at who he hires, who makes up the team that he'll bring (the unelected people) into Washington with him if he is elected. Then make your decisions: who is he a front man for? Can you live with their agenda? If yes, vote for him.

Living Color for fifty, Alex. ;)

DR

hgc
12th February 2007, 08:45 AM
Looking for the new political Messiah is a rather old problem in American politics. The key piece of analysis to perform is to look at who he hires, who makes up the team that he'll bring (the unelected people) into Washington with him if he is elected. Then make your decisions: who is he a front man for? Can you live with their agenda? If yes, vote for him.

Living Color for fifty, Alex. ;)

DR
Good advice. I'd add that if the person Obama hires to help him find a VP candidate finds himself, then that's a bad sign. Just sayin'.

TobiasTheViking
12th February 2007, 08:46 AM
who? and no, i'm not kidding.

ETA: I just realized that i don't care, so no need to tell me who it is.

IllegalArgument
12th February 2007, 08:48 AM
who? and no, i'm not kidding.

Presidental canidate for 2008.

http://www.barackobama.com/

He has a lot of media buzz right now.

Ladewig
12th February 2007, 08:50 AM
Good advice. I'd add that if the person Obama hires to help him find a VP candidate finds himself, then that's a bad sign. Just sayin'.

I think that story was so telling, but most folks don't see it as a big thing.

AmateurScientist
12th February 2007, 08:57 AM
I think you are just forgeting the cult of personality that developed around Clinton and Reagan.


I think you're right on the money.


Obama, the media image, is an empty vessel that people are projecting their hopes into.


Agreed, and from the brief clips and sound bites I've seen and heard, Obama is shrewdly playing right into their Messianic hopes. He's a modern JFK.

AS

corplinx
12th February 2007, 09:02 AM
I think you are just forgeting the cult of personality that developed around Clinton and Reagan.


Do you think its comparable? Obama right now is a media phenom. Clinton only became so when he became "the comeback kid" during the primaries.

Cheesejoff
12th February 2007, 09:07 AM
I am a grinch or scrooge? Do I just "not get it"? I can't get swept up by Obama fever....

You're probably just reacting by launching ad-hominem attacks against his supporters.

And the fact that you consider nationalising healthcare "crazy" is, well, slightly disturbing.

IllegalArgument
12th February 2007, 09:09 AM
Do you think its comparable? Obama right now is a media phenom. Clinton only became so when he became "the comeback kid" during the primaries.

Yes, I think it's comparable.

AS is right Obama is just wisely riding the hype right now. He is all things to all people or at least the people that will possibly vote for him.

If he stumbles, he will be quickly forgotten, like the others, people I can even remember.

Remember Dean was the riding a big wave of hype till the first vote.

bigred
12th February 2007, 09:11 AM
Am I just a contrarian jerk here?
No, you just have the audacity to look at him with both eyes open and admit it - unlike a very scary number of boneheads out there (eg the ones you mentioned).

Re. why so many people (mostly liberals) are so ga-ga over him: even if we disregard the elephant in the room, ie he's a Democrat and almost all liberals/conservatives vote for "their" party's candidate, it's because he's a liberals' wet dream. ie:

- He's black
- He's young
- He's "cool"


Given that, who needs to worry about his very junior status or stands on issues and boring stuff like that?

The 08 election scares the bejeebies outta me. :boxedin:

King of the Americas
12th February 2007, 09:15 AM
Obama 'looks' the part...

He carries himself very well, is well spoken, and is without the gimickie stuff Sharpton and Jackson brought with them.

Personally, I try not to get too attached to a candidate until after the primaries, but admittedly Obama has my hopes high.

I hope that the Democratic ticket has Edwards, Clinton, or Obama on it, any pairing of those 3 would make a pretty formatable foe against whatever the GOP puts up.

toddjh
12th February 2007, 09:17 AM
Whether or not he would make a responsible president is a different matter entirely, but for election purposes he definitely has "it."

He's young, charismatic, easy on the eyes (for a politician), and he's not saddled with a whole lot of political baggage yet. He hasn't had too many chances to make a huge fool out of himself, so people are still free to project their own desires and expectations onto him.

bigred
12th February 2007, 09:18 AM
You're probably just reacting by launching ad-hominem attacks against his supporters.

And the fact that you consider nationalising healthcare "crazy" is, well, slightly disturbing.
Because.........

Congrats on getting the term "ad hom" in there though (even if you used it incorrectly and surprise surprise are guilty of the very thing you accuse him of). :rolleyes:

Snide
12th February 2007, 09:19 AM
No, you just have the audacity to look at him with both eyes open and admit it - unlike a very scary number of boneheads out there (eg the ones you mentioned).

Re. why so many people (mostly liberals) are so ga-ga over him: even if we disregard the elephant in the room, ie he's a Democrat and almost all liberals/conservatives vote for "their" party's candidate, it's because he's a liberals' wet dream. ie:

- He's black
- He's young
- He's "cool"


Given that, who needs to worry about his very junior status or stands on issues and boring stuff like that?

The 08 election scares the bejeebies outta me. :boxedin:My sister, attended an Obama rally and was quoted in the paper as to why she likes him. She's politically active, liberal, and this is the candidate she likes. Like with many of his other supporters, there's really nothing "ga-ga" going on here.

headscratcher4
12th February 2007, 09:20 AM
Do any of the major candidates not scare you? Why does Obama scare you more than Romeny, Brownbeck, Clinton, McCain...or any one of them?

bigred
12th February 2007, 09:22 AM
My sister, attended an Obama rally and was quoted in the paper as to why she likes him. She's politically active, liberal, and this is the candidate she likes. Like with many of his other supporters, there's really nothing "ga-ga" going on here.

1 - Note I wasn't speaking specifically of your sister

2 - Why does she like him?

headscratcher4
12th February 2007, 09:23 AM
By the way...how's the whole Bush thing working for you on the fear scale?

bigred
12th February 2007, 09:24 AM
Do any of the major candidates not scare you? Why does Obama scare you more than Romeny, Brownbeck, Clinton, McCain...or any one of them?
Obama doesn't particularly scare me per se - what scares me is the wave of popularity and why it exists, as already explained.

IllegalArgument
12th February 2007, 09:26 AM
By the way...how's the whole Bush thing working for you on the fear scale?

Haha. True, Bush scares me a lot more.

bigred
12th February 2007, 09:29 AM
By the way...how's the whole Bush thing working for you on the fear scale?
If you're interested in yet another Bush-bashing and/or political ping-pong match of the 2 sides going "your guy sucks" - "....oh yeah?? well YOUR guy sucks" etc etc and similar gibberish....there are more than enough threads around here to satisfy. Can we stick to the actual topic? Or are you too offended and upset at someone daring to so much as question the Almighty Obama that it's asking too much? In fact, if you bothered to actually pay attention, you just might notice that what's being questioned here is not Obama per se, but the wave of hype about him.

fuelair
12th February 2007, 09:31 AM
I am a grinch or scrooge? Do I just "not get it"? I can't get swept up by Obama fever....

I turn on 60 Minutes and they are interviewing a very charismatic man who has wide eyed eager followers every place he stops. They look like wii buyers lined up outside a best buy on launch day. These people scare me. All I see if a very smart and charismatic man but they see a presidential messiah.

People look for this candidate everey 4 years it seems. John McCain was once this candidate of dreams but seems to have fallen out of favor for the new blood.

Am I just a contrarian jerk here? These hordes of youths attending Obama rallies and ready to support whatever crazy thing he proposes (natioalizing health care) scares me when I look at cults of personality like Hugo Chavez and see what they can get away with by having charisma and leading by it.

Why no, no he doesn't. George Bush angered me (enough to make me a Yellow Dog Democrat) though.

headscratcher4
12th February 2007, 09:35 AM
I don't think Obama is allmighty in any way...merely wondering if he is sacrier than other's running or the President we have now? Fear is in the eye of the beholder, obviously. To me, I like Obama, but he seems just like any number of politicians...not particularly worse or better.

Hype is indeed the question. But, as noted, is Obama hype any worse than any other kind of political hype...look at St. McCain. It will pass, or not. Not much you can do about it.

I actually as a baseline was responding to the initial point about Obama...my point, I guess, is that Obama scares Corplinx...but is he scarier than Bush? I'm not sure I know the full answer to that but, at least for the moment, Bush scares the cra* out of me. He did when he ran for office originally. Could Obama really be worse?

Upchurch
12th February 2007, 09:44 AM
Obama has family in the area where I grew up. One of his (second,third?) cousins is my father's financial adviser. (All of whom are "white" relatives of the "black" candidate. :D We're all just mutts at this point, imho.) On a purely emotional level, I feel like I have a connection with the guy. He feels like one of "my people" in the sense that I've grew up and hung out with some of his (probably very) extended family.

Because of that, I've started listening to his podcast to see what he has to say. What I've been hearing certainly seems reasonable to me so far.

So, no. Obama doesn't scare me. We could do worse, and certainly have in the past. Some of his more zealous supporters scare me as much as zealous supporters or detractors of anything scare me.

webfusion
12th February 2007, 09:47 AM
Obama vs. Giuliani

Scary.

hgc
12th February 2007, 09:47 AM
If you're interested in yet another Bush-bashing and/or political ping-pong match of the 2 sides going "your guy sucks" - "....oh yeah?? well YOUR guy sucks" etc etc and similar gibberish....there are more than enough threads around here to satisfy. Can we stick to the actual topic? Or are you too offended and upset at someone daring to so much as question the Almighty Obama that it's asking too much? In fact, if you bothered to actually pay attention, you just might notice that what's being questioned here is not Obama per se, but the wave of hype about him.
Yes I know that the very thought of Bush is most unpleasant, but it's hardly irrelevant to be discussing the current president and the hype that got him elected within the context of the new presidential election.

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 09:52 AM
Agreed, and from the brief clips and sound bites I've seen and heard, Obama is shrewdly playing right into their Messianic hopes. He's a modern JFK.

AS

That is exactly what I was thinking listening to Obama's announcement speech. He is trying to come off as a JFK. Going so far as to mention he has written two books (a la Profiles in Courage and Strategy of Peace), and turning lack of experience into a Kennedyesque "new generation" of change.

Combined with the choice of location for announcement and its connection to Lincoln, he's got the slick PR part of politics down cold.

skeptifem
12th February 2007, 10:00 AM
lol I was watching race-o-rama on vh1, and according to the people on that show a black man being president is supposed to scare the crap out of me, but honestly I dont know anything about him.

Upchurch
12th February 2007, 10:00 AM
{snip}

turning lack of experience into a Kennedyesque "new generation" of change.

{snip}

he's got the slick PR part of politics down cold.
Y'now, the same could probably be said of every successful first term Presidential campaign, baring VP's who move up to the big chair.

geni
12th February 2007, 10:00 AM
No, you just have the audacity to look at him with both eyes open and admit it - unlike a very scary number of boneheads out there (eg the ones you mentioned).

Rather fanic fans appear to be an important part of your electorial system. They have been rather muted the last couple of times but that says more about the quality of the candiates. Dull (Gore). Too much baggage (Kerry)


Re. why so many people (mostly liberals) are so ga-ga over him: even if we disregard the elephant in the room, ie he's a Democrat and almost all liberals/conservatives vote for "their" party's candidate, it's because he's a liberals' wet dream. ie:

- He's black
- He's young


Because as everyone knows only old white guys are any good at running things. In any case 45 isn't that young.


Given that, who needs to worry about his very junior status


Your country was founded by people with little experence of running a country.


or stands on issues and boring stuff like that?


His anti war stance is one of the reasons he has been picking up support.


The 08 election scares the bejeebies outta me. :boxedin:

Because unless the US is very very lucky in iraq republicans are going to have a really hard time?

What would you rather the candidates were?

Hillary clinton vs Jeb Bush?

Ted kennerdy vs Rick Santorum?

Upchurch
12th February 2007, 10:02 AM
What would you rather the candidates were?

Hillary clinton vs Jeb Bush?

Ted kennerdy vs Rick Santorum?
No, thank you. :boxedin:

Darth Rotor
12th February 2007, 10:18 AM
Obama vs. Giuliani

Scary.

How about:
Obama + Giuliani? (Not sure who gets top billing)

Dream ticket

DR

Katana
12th February 2007, 10:20 AM
How about:
Obama + Giuliani? (Not sure who gets top billing)

Dream ticket

DR

What do you like about Giuliani?

Not questioning your judgement - I haven't formed an opinion on him, so I was curious to know more about how you came to yours.

gnome
12th February 2007, 10:29 AM
How about, he's an outspoken liberal that isn't uncharismatic or obviously sleazy?

Seems to happen so rarely, what else do we have to get excited about?

corplinx
12th February 2007, 10:30 AM
Obama's biggest negative is his biggest plus. He doesn't have a track record. Look at all the swirl about Hillary's vote on Iraq.

The next time some pinhead in the media tries to split hairs with her on the vote, she should bring up the fact that Iraq was in violation of a ceasefure and with the intelligence at the time, the question is why Obama opposed it.

hgc
12th February 2007, 10:33 AM
Obama's biggest negative is his biggest plus. He doesn't have a track record. Look at all the swirl about Hillary's vote on Iraq.

The next time some pinhead in the media tries to split hairs with her on the vote, she should bring up the fact that Iraq was in violation of a ceasefure and with the intelligence at the time, the question is why Obama opposed it.
What kind of a crazy, mixed-up world do we live in where people who were right have some 'splaining to do and people who were wrong get all the respect?

Tony
12th February 2007, 10:34 AM
I am a grinch or scrooge? Do I just "not get it"? I can't get swept up by Obama fever....

I turn on 60 Minutes and they are interviewing a very charismatic man who has wide eyed eager followers every place he stops. They look like wii buyers lined up outside a best buy on launch day. These people scare me. All I see if a very smart and charismatic man but they see a presidential messiah.

People look for this candidate everey 4 years it seems. John McCain was once this candidate of dreams but seems to have fallen out of favor for the new blood.

Am I just a contrarian jerk here? These hordes of youths attending Obama rallies and ready to support whatever crazy thing he proposes (natioalizing health care) scares me when I look at cults of personality like Hugo Chavez and see what they can get away with by having charisma and leading by it.

Run for the hills, run for the hills!!! A black politician is popular!!!! Let me get this straight, Obama scares you (black men can be soo menacing), but Bush, and his gaggle of fundies who thought he was the second comming didn't/doesn't? No, you're not being a contrarian jerk. You're being a useful idiot. If this country can survive fundie scum like Bush and his circle of religious fanatics, it can survive a moderate liberal like Obama.

skeptifem
12th February 2007, 10:35 AM
^^But really if we are going to do something history making with the next president I want them to be good, I want to have something to base my vote on. I dont want some jerk saying "look what happened last time we let a _____(black or woman) into office", I swear if obama or hillary does a bad job it will just help bigots feel more justified in their thinking. Hillary makes a lot more sense to me than obama in that respect, I am confident in her integrity and competency.

steverino
12th February 2007, 10:40 AM
I photographed Gary Hart for a suburban Chicago paper in, well, it must have been for the 1984 election. A lot of electricity in the air. There were photographers and videographers from Italy, Japan, everywhere. They seemed as excited as the local citizens who crammed into the Unitarian church. He was a tall, good looking guy. Kennedy-esque. Had new ideas to spark the economy and to help the little guy. Carol King was there, and played "You've Got a Friend" to introduce him.

There was no stopping him. Oh, wait.

Snide
12th February 2007, 10:41 AM
1 - Note I wasn't speaking specifically of your sister

2 - Why does she like him?Already noted.

She likes his politics better than others', and his intelligence. I'm sure the charisma doesn't hurt, either.

Beerina
12th February 2007, 10:42 AM
who? and no, i'm not kidding.

ETA: I just realized that i don't care, so no need to tell me who it is.

Then please decline commenting in the future about the things the US does around the world. :p

Tony
12th February 2007, 10:43 AM
By the way...how's the whole Bush thing working for you on the fear scale?

Exactly. If Bush doesn't scare you, but Obama does. Well, that says more about your state of mind than it does about Obama.

Beerina
12th February 2007, 10:44 AM
By the way...how's the whole Bush thing working for you on the fear scale?

:)

steverino
12th February 2007, 10:48 AM
Exactly. If Bush doesn't scare you, but Obama does. Well, that says more about your state of mind than it does about Obama.

Why can't both Bush and Obama scare us for different reasons? Bush for what he does, and Obama for what he might, or might not do.-

F.G.

headscratcher4
12th February 2007, 10:51 AM
Why can't both Bush and Obama scare us for different reasons? Bush for what he does, and Obama for what he might, or might not do.-

F.G.

Every politiation should scare you for what he might or might not do...

BPSCG
12th February 2007, 10:54 AM
Tony PWI again:
Run for the hills, run for the hills!!! A black politician is popular!!!! Let me get this straight, Obama scares you (black men can be soo menacing)Imputing racist motives to a guy asking an honest question that a lot of other people are asking. Nice.

, but Bush, and his gaggle of fundies Y'know, I've asked several times, in other threads for people (you might have been one of them) to identify all the "fundies" that are running the government. I even gave a list of who I thought were the top twenty most powerful people in the U.S. government (included presidents, cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, house and senate committee chairmen, etc.) and asked for people to identify all the fundies. Not once have I gotten an answer.

So I'm calling bull*** on your "gaggle of fundies" comment.

No, you're not being a contrarian jerk. You're being a useful idiot. Insults instead of reasoned argument. Nice.

If this country can survive fundie scum like Bush and his circle of religious fanatics, More insult in place of reasoned argument. Nice, again.

Tony, I've suggested before, and I suggest again, that you limit your alcohol intake before you post. You've made not a single coherent argument here; all you've done is spew invective until the saliva and the distilled spirits ran down your chin.

Or maybe just take an anger management class.

Ladewig
12th February 2007, 10:56 AM
Obama's biggest negative is his biggest plus. He doesn't have a track record. Look at all the swirl about Hillary's vote on Iraq.



I agree. Not just lack of a voting record, but also a lack of having made stupid or obviously insincere statements.

I consider his lack of experience a drawback, others (some with stars in their eyes) see it as a plus.

Upchurch
12th February 2007, 10:58 AM
Every politiation should scare you for what he might or might not do...
And it isn't like Obama has no record, it's just a very brief record. 10 years, give or take, if you include his time in the Illinois State Legislature.

Tony
12th February 2007, 10:59 AM
Why can't both Bush and Obama scare us for different reasons? Bush for what he does, and Obama for what he might, or might not do.

Sure, some people can't help but see boogymen everywhere. I prefer to stay reasonable.

Ladewig
12th February 2007, 11:00 AM
it's because he's a liberals' wet dream. ie:

- He's black
- He's young
- He's "cool"



- He's clean. Don't forget that one. (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070211/OPINION01/702110306/1008)

Mephisto
12th February 2007, 11:01 AM
What kind of a crazy, mixed-up world do we live in where people who were right have some 'splaining to do and people who were wrong get all the respect?

I agree!

The elections are over a year and a half away and I'm already dizzy from the spin.

At least the Swift Boats $hitheads won't get a go at him.

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 11:02 AM
Y'now, the same could probably be said of every successful first term Presidential campaign, baring VP's who move up to the big chair.

Can you name one first term President who was not either the VP or a Governor before being elected? How far back do you have to go?

That's right. 48 years. Kennedy. I think Obama is deliberately playing on that.

Executive experience matters.

Having none matters.

Upchurch
12th February 2007, 11:10 AM
No, you're not being a contrarian jerk. You're being a useful idiot.
Insults instead of reasoned argument. Nice.
Dude. :boggled:
Wasn't that what Useful Idiot Rachel Corrie was too stupid to get out of the way of?

Tony
12th February 2007, 11:11 AM
Tony PWI again:
Imputing racist motives to a guy asking an honest question that a lot of other people are asking. Nice.


I don't think he's asking an honest question.


Y'know, I've asked several times, in other threads for people (you might have been one of them) to identify all the "fundies" that are running the government. I even gave a list of who I thought were the top twenty most powerful people in the U.S. government (included presidents, cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, house and senate committee chairmen, etc.) and asked for people to identify all the fundies. Not once have I gotten an answer.

So I'm calling bull*** on your "gaggle of fundies" comment.

LOL. And you accuse me of posting drunk?

Insults instead of reasoned argument. Nice.

I answered his question. I guess you missed the symbol at the end of his sentence. Grown-ups call that symbol a question mark. I signifies when someone is asking a question.

Tony, I've suggested before, and I suggest again, that you limit your alcohol intake before you post.

Insults instead of reasoned argument. Nice.

You've made not a single coherent argument here;

Insults instead of reasoned argument. Nice.

all you've done is spew invective until the saliva and the distilled spirits ran down your chin.

Insults instead of reasoned argument. Nice.

Or maybe just take an anger management class.

Insults instead of reasoned argument. Nice.

Upchurch
12th February 2007, 11:14 AM
Can you name one first term President who was not either the VP or a Governor before being elected?
I was talking about the idea of the new guy being a change from the "business as usual" government and having your PR act down pat. Sorry if I didn't communicate that sufficently.

Ladewig
12th February 2007, 11:20 AM
My liberal friends believe that the Right-Wing Spin Machine is going to try to scare people by pointing out that Obama's middle name is "Hussein."

hgc
12th February 2007, 11:23 AM
At least the Swift Boats $hitheads won't get a go at him.
They've already started, a la the phony story about the school Obama attended when he was 6 years old. Not just any Swiftboaters either, but Rev Moon's Insight Magazine.

steverino
12th February 2007, 11:24 AM
...having your PR act down pat.

Richard Nixon had it down Pat.:p

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 11:27 AM
I was talking about the idea of the new guy being a change from the "business as usual" government and having your PR act down pat. Sorry if I didn't communicate that sufficently.


Okay. :)

I think Obama is trying to fill the vacuum in his c.v. with allusions to Kennedy without invoking the name. But someone will probably invoke it for him eventually.

One parallel he probably won't allude to is that the 1960 election was a tighter squeaker than the 2000 election. And it was believed by some that the election was "stolen" in Chicago. Which is Obama's territory. :D

Darth Rotor
12th February 2007, 11:30 AM
My liberal friends believe that the Right-Wing Spin Machine is going to try to scare people by pointing out that Obama's middle name is "Hussein."
Remember Jennifer Flowers? If a story breaks early enough, it can become a non story in time for elections. Being a philanderer is a bit more elective a story than what your parents named you.

So, Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein.

BFD. I personally find it hilarious, ironic, and full of potential for jokes about "hanged" and "hung."

The "story" is out, will be and will stay out, and will have been neutralized long before it matters at the voting booth.

It's also not a story.

DR

BPSCG
12th February 2007, 11:32 AM
Y'know, I've asked several times, in other threads for people (you might have been one of them) to identify all the "fundies" that are running the government. I even gave a list of who I thought were the top twenty most powerful people in the U.S. government (included presidents, cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, house and senate committee chairmen, etc.) and asked for people to identify all the fundies. Not once have I gotten an answer.

So I'm calling bull*** on your "gaggle of fundies" comment.

LOL. And you accuse me of posting drunk?And another fundy-baiter cuts and runs from his own claim.

Any time you want to identify those eeeevil fundies who've taken over our government, I'll be here, waiting.

Cleon
12th February 2007, 11:32 AM
I would submit that once you compare an early-stages Democratic presidential primary to Hugo Chavez, you have left the realm of rational thought.

punchdrunk
12th February 2007, 11:40 AM
I would submit that once you compare an early-stages Democratic presidential primary to Hugo Chavez, you have left the realm of rational thought.

Correct. It's the commie version of Godwining a thread.

Upchurch
12th February 2007, 12:08 PM
...once you compare an early-stages Democratic presidential primary to Hugo Chavez...
Sorry to be dense, but what are you referring to?

Tony
12th February 2007, 12:09 PM
And another fundy-baiter cuts and runs from his own claim.

Any time you want to identify those eeeevil fundies who've taken over our government, I'll be here, waiting.

Ample evidence has been chronicled on this forum about the fundy influences and support in the Bush administration. If you really cared about said evidence, you'd seek it out. You don't and you won't. Come back when you have evidence that Bush has more support from and is more influenced by moderate, non-fundamenalist christianity. I'll be here, waiting. I predict for a long, long time.

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 12:13 PM
Even Obama thinks it is silly for him to run for President with such a lack of experience.


Obama Will Not Run in 2008
Calling it as "a silly question," Sen.-elect Barack Obama (D-IL) pledged "he would resist any overtures to run for president or vice president before the end of his six-year term as a U.S. senator," the Chicago Sun-Times reports.

Said Obama: "I was elected yesterday. I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I've never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I'm immediately going to start running for higher office just doesn't make sense."

Link. (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/11/04/obama_will_not_run_in_2008.html)

Darth Rotor
12th February 2007, 12:19 PM
Even Obama thinks it is silly for him to run for President with such a lack of experience.




Link. (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/11/04/obama_will_not_run_in_2008.html)
November 04, 2004 Obama Will Not Run in 2008

I think he's allowed to re evaluate after two years. Being electable is what this is about, not qualified. What is nice is that he seems to be pretty intelligent. That's a plus. Of course, Jimmy Carter was pretty intelligent, so that is not enough.

What is important is: who are his connections, who can get th ings done for him? Hillary has a network like that, established over the past 10-15 years.

If the idea is to elect a non-threateninggentleman, an anti-TR kind of president, one who won't run hog wild and scare people, Obama may be just the ticket.

What does he stand for? He has about 18 months to let us know. He is wise to pace it, to slowly build his platform.

DR

billydkid
12th February 2007, 12:20 PM
I photographed Gary Hart for a suburban Chicago paper in, well, it must have been for the 1984 election. A lot of electricity in the air. There were photographers and videographers from Italy, Japan, everywhere. They seemed as excited as the local citizens who crammed into the Unitarian church. He was a tall, good looking guy. Kennedy-esque. Had new ideas to spark the economy and to help the little guy. Carol King was there, and played "You've Got a Friend" to introduce him.

There was no stopping him. Oh, wait. I have to believe that Gary Hart had it in for himself. No one is that stupid not on purpose. I believe the possibility became too real for him and scared him. He said, essentially, follow me everywhere and scrutinize everything I do - and then he did something any idiot would know would ruin his prospects. It is certainly possible that the same sort of thing could happen to Obama. I perfer to maintain the hope that he is precisely who he appears to be. Boy, that would be refreshing.

Walk The Line
12th February 2007, 12:20 PM
Every politiation should scare you for what he might or might not do...

My thoughts exactly. All politicians have the potential to reserve course on promises and principles once elected.

One example: I remember that Mr. Bush, when asked about nation-building prior to becoming president, responded that he didn't believe in it. Yet America is trying to build a democracy in Iraq under Bush's watch.

hgc
12th February 2007, 12:20 PM
Even Obama thinks it is silly for him to run for President with such a lack of experience.

Link. (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/11/04/obama_will_not_run_in_2008.html)
Oh come on. Do you read your own cites?

I was elected yesterday. I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I've never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I'm immediately going to start running for higher office just doesn't make sense.That "yesterday" was November 2, 2004. Is 2+ years later "immediately?"

Now, if you want to say that he's not experienced enough for the job, then you can make that argument. But you can't conceivably make the the claim that he said it, at least not based on that quote. You may also criticize him for breaking an implied (or explicit, if there is one) promise to serve his full term.

corplinx
12th February 2007, 12:21 PM
Sorry to be dense, but what are you referring to?

He was saying that my drawing of a parallel to the dangerous political power of a charismatic leader somehow makes my worries null and void.

He is pulling ye olde "find one nit to pick and close your ears to the rest".

I think its insulting to Hugo Chavez to say that comparing him to someone is a form of godwin arguement. Chavez doesn't run death camps. He's just a a very very leftist socialist who like nationalize businesses in the name of social justice. His power comes from popularity drawn from his own charisma.

Chavez may be a whipping boy of the armchair political commentators and we all have a fun time laughing at him holding up a Chomsky book and calling people devils. However, he is not running death squads and labor camps.

When I say that Obama worries me, the Chavez comparison is very apt since they both have charismatic qualities that cause people to overlook his actual policies.

Can you imagine if Obama nationalized the US health care system on the force of his popularity alone if he was elected? Right or wrong, nationalizing our health care system isn't exactly nationalizing an oil company or a gold mine. Its a high complex thing that I wish politicians would at least act more wary of instead of acting gungho about.

Nationalizing businesses even by a thin proxy of national health insurance is a bold leftist precedent. Obama is supposedly a constitutional scholar so this disturbs me even more deeply.

varwoche
12th February 2007, 12:25 PM
At least the Swift Boats $hitheads won't get a go at him. Depends on definition. The sleazoid who financed the Swifties, Bob Perry (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68527), was the largest political contributor in the country in 2006, and he backed some of the truly slimy 2006 campaign activities. I'd be surprised not to hear from him in the future.

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 12:26 PM
Oh come on. Do you read your own cites?

That "yesterday" was November 2, 2004. Is 2+ years later "immediately?"


Not immediately, and not in four years.

"So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I'm the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois."

Link (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20041104/ai_n12566462).

Katana
12th February 2007, 12:26 PM
He was saying that my drawing of a parallel to the dangerous political power of a charismatic leader somehow makes my worries null and void.

He is pulling ye olde "find one nit to pick and close your ears to the rest".

I think its insulting to Hugo Chavez to say that comparing him to someone is a form of godwin arguement. Chavez doesn't run death camps. He's just a a very very leftist socialist who like nationalize businesses in the name of social justice. His power comes from popularity drawn from his own charisma.

Chavez may be a whipping boy of the armchair political commentators and we all have a fun time laughing at him holding up a Chomsky book and calling people devils. However, he is not running death squads and labor camps.

When I say that Obama worries me, the Chavez comparison is very apt since they both have charismatic qualities that cause people to overlook his actual policies.

Can you imagine if Obama nationalized the US health care system on the force of his popularity alone if he was elected? Right or wrong, nationalizing our health care system isn't exactly nationalizing an oil company or a gold mine. Its a high complex thing that I wish politicians would at least act more wary of instead of acting gungho about.

Nationalizing businesses even by a thin proxy of national health insurance is a bold leftist precedent. Obama is supposedly a constitutional scholar so this disturbs me even more deeply.

But is Obama calling for nationalizing healthcare or is he advocating universal healthcare coverage?

BPSCG
12th February 2007, 12:27 PM
Ample evidence has been chronicled on this forum about the fundy influences and support in the Bush administration. If you really cared about said evidence, you'd seek it out. You don't and you won't. Come back when you have evidence that Bush has more support from and is more influenced by moderate, non-fundamenalist christianity. I'll be here, waiting. I predict for a long, long time.Translation from the original Tony-speak: "I can't answer the question BPSCG asked me, so I'll give an answer to a question I want to answer instead."

Since you won't (or can't) identify which of the 20 or so most powerful people in the U.S. government today are fundamentalists, why don't you tell us who the "fundy influences and support in the Bush administration" are? You can start with the cabinet. I'll just throw a few of the more important names out there for you to start with, and you can highlight the fundies in your reply. Feel free to add more Bush administration fundies as you find them:

Rice (state)
Gates (defense)
Gonzales (justice)Lemme know what you come up with.

corplinx
12th February 2007, 12:29 PM
Tony and BPSCG. Go have a piss fight in your own thread and please delete all your posts directed at each other from mine.

Thank you.

Cleon
12th February 2007, 12:30 PM
He was saying that my drawing of a parallel to the dangerous political power of a charismatic leader somehow makes my worries null and void.

No. I'm saying that your "worries" are simply ridiculous and based more on FUD than reason.


Nationalizing businesses even by a thin proxy of national health insurance is a bold leftist precedent. Obama is supposedly a constitutional scholar so this disturbs me even more deeply.

This is ridiculous. Pretty much every Democratic candidate is coming out with their own pet universal healthcare plan, and it's been a staple of Democratic campaigns for years. Hell, Bill Clinton got elected largely on the basis of his promise of universal health care. (He then made a half-assed attempt at it, got his wife involved, screwed it up, and dropped it before six months had passed.)

The idea that Obama is making some "bold leftist precedent" by introducing a universal health care plan is silly. To actually be worried about it? Bizarre.

Tony
12th February 2007, 12:32 PM
Translation from the original Tony-speak: "I can't answer the question BPSCG asked me, so I'll give an answer to a question I want to answer instead."

Since you won't (or can't) identify which of the 20 or so most powerful people in the U.S. government today are fundamentalists, why don't you tell us who the "fundy influences and support in the Bush administration" are? You can start with the cabinet. I'll just throw a few of the more important names out there for you to start with, and you can highlight the fundies in your reply. Feel free to add more Bush administration fundies as you find them:

Rice (state)
Gates (defense)
Gonzales (justice)Lemme know what you come up with.

In otherwords, you have no evidence to counter and cannot debunk the body of evidence already presented on this forum that demonstrates the support and influence fundies enjoy in the Bush administration.

Upchurch
12th February 2007, 12:32 PM
Tony and BPSCG. Go have a piss fight in your own thread and please delete all your posts directed at each other from mine.

Thank you.

Hold off on that T&B. I was just about to start my own thread on the subject. you can piss fight in it all you like.

Tony
12th February 2007, 12:34 PM
Tony and BPSCG. Go have a piss fight in your own thread and please delete all your posts directed at each other from mine.


I agree, BPSCG would rather nit-pick over long proved facts about Bush than talk about Obama. Take your whining somewhere else BP.

BPSCG
12th February 2007, 12:35 PM
But is Obama calling for nationalizing healthcare or is he advocating universal healthcare coverage?How do you get universal healthcare coverage without making it mandatory? And how do you make it mandatory without making it a government mandate?

Tony
12th February 2007, 12:38 PM
Nationalizing businesses even by a thin proxy of national health insurance is a bold leftist precedent.

Then the military must be a bonafide communist plot.

corplinx
12th February 2007, 12:39 PM
This is ridiculous. Pretty much every Democratic candidate is coming out with their own pet universal healthcare plan, and it's been a staple of Democratic campaigns for years.


And I ignore them in as much as the congressional gridlock won't see them happen. I write them off out of hand because of the Clinton health plan.


Hell, Bill Clinton got elected largely on the basis of his promise of universal health care. (He then made a half-assed attempt at it, got his wife involved, screwed it up, and dropped it before six months had passed.)


Can you back up this assertion? He ran on tax cuts, healthcare, cutting waste, and most importantly changing direction from the reagan/bush era.


The idea that Obama is making some "bold leftist precedent" by introducing a universal health care plan is silly. To actually be worried about it? Bizarre.

Obama being a cult of personality, might actually be able to get it passed. If there's one thing that scares me, its congress trying to write a health plan.

Tony
12th February 2007, 12:39 PM
How do you get universal healthcare coverage without making it mandatory?

You write it into the law.

AmateurScientist
12th February 2007, 12:42 PM
You write it into the law.

Which makes it mandatory. Think about it.

AS

Tony
12th February 2007, 12:43 PM
If there's one thing that scares me, its congress trying to write a health plan.

I agree. It's better to have a congress that takes it upon itself to push religious non-sense, restricts personal freedom, and threatens legislation that undermines the independence of the courts. Healthcare is soo scary. All those needles and cold examination tables. Downright scary I tell ya.

Katana
12th February 2007, 12:43 PM
How do you get universal healthcare coverage without making it mandatory? And how do you make it mandatory without making it a government mandate?

Nationalization of healthcare means that the government takes control of it.

Creating universal healthcare coverage can take many forms, some of which may permit the continued existence of a private healthcare sector.

Tony
12th February 2007, 12:46 PM
Which makes it mandatory.


So, writing into law that it won't be manditory makes it manditory? How? I see no reason why having national health insurance precludes the existence of a private sector. This sounds like more woo right-wing fear mongering.

gnome
12th February 2007, 12:49 PM
Which makes it mandatory. Think about it.

AS

Fallacy of Division. Because the law itself is mandatory, being the law, does not mean that particular provisions require mandatory participation. A law can specify an option.

geni
12th February 2007, 12:54 PM
He was saying that my drawing of a parallel to the dangerous political power of a charismatic leader somehow makes my worries null and void.

He is pulling ye olde "find one nit to pick and close your ears to the rest".

I think its insulting to Hugo Chavez to say that comparing him to someone is a form of godwin arguement. Chavez doesn't run death camps. He's just a a very very leftist socialist who like nationalize businesses in the name of social justice. His power comes from popularity drawn from his own charisma.

Chavez attempted a coup d'état back in 1992. I'm not aware of any democratic presidential candidate trying that one of late.


Chavez may be a whipping boy of the armchair political commentators and we all have a fun time laughing at him holding up a Chomsky book and calling people devils. However, he is not running death squads and labor camps.

When I say that Obama worries me, the Chavez comparison is very apt since they both have charismatic qualities that cause people to overlook his actual policies.

Not really. Chavez's policies are what makes him popular in Venezuela


Can you imagine if Obama nationalized the US health care system on the force of his popularity alone if he was elected? Right or wrong, nationalizing our health care system isn't exactly nationalizing an oil company or a gold mine. Its a high complex thing that I wish politicians would at least act more wary of instead of acting gungho about.


Historicaly universal healhcare has not been atchived by being wary.


Nationalizing businesses even by a thin proxy of national health insurance is a bold leftist precedent. Obama is supposedly a constitutional scholar so this disturbs me even more deeply.

Large scael nationalisation has largly been abandoned by the left in this day and age.

geni
12th February 2007, 12:55 PM
Nationalization of healthcare means that the government takes control of it.

Creating universal healthcare coverage can take many forms, some of which may permit the continued existence of a private healthcare sector.

Yup UK has a private healthcare industry.

gnome
12th February 2007, 12:59 PM
Nationalization of healthcare means that the government takes control of it.

Creating universal healthcare coverage can take many forms, some of which may permit the continued existence of a private healthcare sector.

Nailed it.

I don't know if nationalizing is a good idea... right now I favor the idea of having the government act as an insurer of last resort. This leaves in place the private healthcare sector and the medical free market.

Sort of what's already being done in many states for particular groups such as children or seniors. An example is Florida KidCare here in my own state.

Hutch
12th February 2007, 01:01 PM
Am I just a contrarian jerk here?

Yep. :p :D

(sorry, corp, it was a hanging curve ball and Tony at best got a foul tip..)


That task completed, let's go to the topic at hand.

No, the "cult of personality" that Obama has doesn't worry me much at present. Been more than a few folks that were the next greatest thing (anybody remember when Lee Iaccoca was suppossed to come forth and run the US with the same ability and elan that he ran Chrysler?).

Soon enough, he'll have to get down to the nitty-gritty of politics and the infighting that is part and parcel of them, and that personality will be sorely tested by political pros both Democrat (Clinton et. al.) and Republican (Gulianai and McCain, etc.). He'll lose both his cool and his followers after a bit.

IMHO he's trial-horsing for 2012, when he'll have four more years of experience and, if he's lucky, a failed President (of either party) that is ripe for the plucking. Even if he has to wait until 2016, he's got youth on his side.

We shall see.

A couple of extra points:

The Springfield/Lincoln comparison has one other allusion, espeically for folks like LukeT who are concerned about his experience; Lincoln served a total of 2 years in the Congress and lost his only race for the Senate.

The major difference between Obama and JFK is that Obama doesn't have a father that could buy him a state (W. Virginia) during the primaries and a political boss (Daley) to deliver him Illinois...

Press on.

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 01:05 PM
The major difference between Obama and JFK is that Obama doesn't have a...political boss (Daley) to deliver him Illinois...

You may want to re-examine that claim. :D

He has exactly that, (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=23572&rel=1) corruption and all.

BPSCG
12th February 2007, 01:17 PM
IMHO he's trial-horsing for 2012, when he'll have four more years of experience and, if he's lucky, a failed President (of either party) that is ripe for the plucking. Even if he has to wait until 2016, he's got youth on his side.I'm thinking that was his intent. And then the MSM just went bats over him, for reasons I do not fathom. The Washington Post's coverage of him should get its publisher in trouble on Sunday for breaking the commandment about having "no other Gods before me."

JFK ran for the VP nomination in 1956, with the idea of setting up a 1960 run. It worked perfectly for him; he didn't get the nomination, Eisenhower trounced Stevenson and Kefauver, and JFK got the couple of weeks' worth of national exposure needed to make people think about him in 1959-60.

I'm thinking Obama intended the same thing, and is probably as surprised as the rest of us that the whole country seems to be in love with him even though they know nothing about him. "What the heck," he's probably thinking, "I might as well go for it."

Heard on the radio today that he had his first stumble: Said U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq had wasted their lives, or something like that, and that he's been doing some damage control. Well, he's still ahead of Biden, who managed two or three stumbles in one sentence.

Slate has an Obama Messiah watch (http://www.slate.com/id/2158578/).

Hutch
12th February 2007, 01:19 PM
You may want to re-examine that claim. :D

He has exactly that, (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=23572&rel=1) corruption and all.

Hmmmm...thanks for the link, Luke, interesting that Daley would say that this early in the process--but I don't think (and I could be wrong) that Daley the younger (albeit at 62 he's no spring chicken anymore) has quite the clout and machine that Daddy did.

Still, an Obama/Daley combo would provide Obama a strong base to operate from.

hgc
12th February 2007, 01:25 PM
I'm thinking Obama intended the same thing, and is probably as surprised as the rest of us that the whole country seems to be in love with him even though they know nothing about him. "What the heck," he's probably thinking, "I might as well go for it."
I think so too. He probably asked himself that despite his plans to wait until 2016 (or 2012 if improbably a Republican were elected next time), how could he pass up this groundswell of support for his candidacy in the here and now.

Tricky
12th February 2007, 01:34 PM
As a self-professed liberal, (albeit a moderate one) I have to say that I am very wary of Obama. He gives a great speeches, but listen to what he says in them. Nothing. Oh yeah, he's anti-war (having had the good fortune of not being in the Senate when Bush's invasion was okayed), but nothing specific. Oh yeah, he wants universal health care, but no specifics about how to pay for it. He's probably in favor of motherhood too.

I'm not saying he's untrustworthy, just that, for now, he's an unproven commodity. I will say though that his ability to think on his feet is a good trait for a person who will be placed in a lot of delicate situations, but it is not the only thing. But it is still quite a while until the primaries. I'm pretty sure we'll get something to chew on before then. For now, though, my money (and hopes) are still on John Edwards, in spite of the annoying similarity of his name with a known vulture.

corplinx
12th February 2007, 01:38 PM
I'm not saying he's untrustworthy, just that, for now, he's an unproven commodity. I will say though that his ability to think on his feet is a good trait for a person who will be placed in a lot of delicate situations, but it is not the only thing. But it is still quite a while until the primaries. I'm pretty sure we'll get something to chew on before then. For now, though, my money (and hopes) are still on John Edwards, in spite of the annoying similarity of his name with a known vulture.

Not to derail my own thread, but you could PM me with what the attraction to John Edwards is?

I can see what people see in Hillary. Some lawyers I was in St. Lucia with want JE because they think he will protect legal jackpots which republicans are trying to limit all over the country. I'm not sure what John Doe sees in John Edwards though.

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 01:46 PM
I would bet, without having looked (much ;)), that Obama's state legislature voting record was far left.

bigred
12th February 2007, 01:47 PM
Tony, I've suggested before, and I suggest again, that you limit your alcohol intake before you post. You've made not a single coherent argument here; all you've done is spew invective until the saliva and the distilled spirits ran down your chin.

Or maybe just take an anger management class.
Frankly BP, you have been warned more than once about feeding the trolls. I think you're the one who needs time out. :cool: Is this some charity project of yours? For crying out loud cut bait already - sheesh

Tricky
12th February 2007, 01:47 PM
Not to derail my own thread, but you could PM me with what the attraction to John Edwards is?

I can see what people see in Hillary. Some lawyers I was in St. Lucia with want JE because they think he will protect legal jackpots which republicans are trying to limit all over the country. I'm not sure what John Doe sees in John Edwards though.
A combination of populism, savvy, experience, environmentalism and most importantly, I think he can win the election. I have serious doubts that Hillarama can do that.

The Repubs tried to smear him last time because he was a trial lawyer who won big suits for people. They seem to have no problem with lawyers who win big suits for big business.

Darth Rotor
12th February 2007, 01:49 PM
Not to derail my own thread, but you could PM me with what the attraction to John Edwards is?

I can see what people see in Hillary. Some lawyers I was in St. Lucia with want JE because they think he will protect legal jackpots which republicans are trying to limit all over the country. I'm not sure what John Doe sees in John Edwards though.
A slick talking ambulance chaser who changed careers? I'll wait a bit before I start to listen to Edwards' line, as he is still in the "one stupid remark and he's done" zone. Get a little momentum, and I think his platform will take on greater shape.

DR

AmateurScientist
12th February 2007, 01:51 PM
So, writing into law that it won't be manditory makes it manditory? How? I see no reason why having national health insurance precludes the existence of a private sector. This sounds like more woo right-wing fear mongering.

National health insurance is not the same as universal healthcare coverage. If it's universal, then by definition it's mandatory that everyone be offered coverage, which is another way to say that everyone has the opportunity to elect coverage, and that it be paid for with tax dollars. It doesn't follow that any given individual must elect just government coverage; anyone is free to pay for his own private health insurance and/or private healthcare if he or she can afford it.

The "mandatory" part refers to the supply side, not the demand side. Writing it into law obviously doesn't require that any individual consumer of healthcare services use the government paid-for system (or in some cases, government run).

There is no woo involved. It's simple miscommunication.

AS

Tricky
12th February 2007, 01:55 PM
A slick talking ambulance chaser who changed careers? I'll wait a bit before I start to listen to Edwards' line, as he is still in the "one stupid remark and he's done" zone. Get a little momentum, and I think his platform will take on greater shape.

Gosh. A lawyer who became a politician. Do you think there are any others? Is "ambulance chaser" a more effective slur than "corporate shill"?

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 02:00 PM
Hmmmm...thanks for the link, Luke, interesting that Daley would say that this early in the process--but I don't think (and I could be wrong) that Daley the younger (albeit at 62 he's no spring chicken anymore) has quite the clout and machine that Daddy did.

I've followed Daley the Younger's exploits off and on for a while. He's about as neck deep in the Sleaze Factor as his Dad was. And he will have held office longer than his Dad by the end of his term. That speaks to one heck of a lot of clout.

Still, an Obama/Daley combo would provide Obama a strong base to operate from.

Yep. Daley can deliver Illinois for Obama. As long as none of the sleaze finally sticks to him. Obama being from Illinois to begin with will make it easier for him. :)

billydkid
12th February 2007, 02:12 PM
A combination of populism, savvy, experience, environmentalism and most importantly, I think he can win the election. I have serious doubts that Hillarama can do that.

The Repubs tried to smear him last time because he was a trial lawyer who won big suits for people. They seem to have no problem with lawyers who win big suits for big business. I feel the same way when people talk about "welfare queens". These same people don't have an issue with corporations and those with connections swilling down our taxes at the public trough, but somehow, someone using food stamps to keep their kids fed offends them mightily.

Upchurch
12th February 2007, 02:16 PM
I would bet, without having looked (much ;)), that Obama's state legislature voting record was far left.
oof. State legislature voting records are not as readily available as you might think.

These guys (http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/illinoiss.html) rate Obama as "Very Anti-Gay"


Wow. and that is where my Search-Fu fails me. That is the only one I could find that referenced Illinios state voting records for individual congressmen.

billydkid
12th February 2007, 02:18 PM
Incidentally, I fully expect to take a lot of flack when Obama crashes and burns. I won't expect anything else and will dissappointed if it doesn't happen. On the other hand, if I am right and he goes all the way, I fully expect to be given my just accolades for my prescience.

Upchurch
12th February 2007, 02:20 PM
Incidentally, I fully expect to take a lot of flack when Obama crashes and burns. I won't expect anything else and will dissappointed if it doesn't happen. On the other hand, if I am right and he goes all the way, I fully expect to be given my just accolades for my prescience.
Well, at least you know what you're getting in to.

Darth Rotor
12th February 2007, 02:21 PM
Gosh. A lawyer who became a politician. Do you think there are any others? Is "ambulance chaser" a more effective slur than "corporate shill"?
What, he wasn't an ambulance chaser?

DR

Darth Rotor
12th February 2007, 02:23 PM
oof. State legislature voting records are not as readily available as you might think.

These guys (http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/illinoiss.html) rate Obama as "Very Anti-Gay"


Wow. and that is where my Search-Fu fails me. That is the only one I could find that referenced Illinios state voting records for individual congressmen.
That would likely make him very appealing to the Hispanic community here in South Texas. I wonder if he has already done a demographic analysis, and decided where he stands to get the most votes on that angle.

DR

Upchurch
12th February 2007, 02:32 PM
That would likely make him very appealing to the Hispanic community here in South Texas. I wonder if he has already done a demographic analysis, and decided where he stands to get the most votes on that angle. That was from when he was in the Illinois Senate. It'd be pretty impressive if he was thinking that far ahead.

Cleon
12th February 2007, 02:34 PM
That would likely make him very appealing to the Hispanic community here in South Texas. I wonder if he has already done a demographic analysis, and decided where he stands to get the most votes on that angle.

That would make him popular in the South, too, if they could overlook that whole "Black" thing. The "funny name" part doesn't help, either.

But if he's THAT anti-gay, he won't be able to sell that to the Democrats' liberal base, health care or no.

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 02:34 PM
oof. State legislature voting records are not as readily available as you might think.

These guys (http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/illinoiss.html) rate Obama as "Very Anti-Gay"



Pro-lifers hate him, too. Especially for voting against the Illinois Induced Birth Infant Liability Act (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1661LV.html) which would require doctors to give medical care to infants born alive after a botched late term abortion.

A similar federal law was passed by Congress in 2002 with only 15 nays.

Darth Rotor
12th February 2007, 02:37 PM
But if he's THAT anti-gay, he won't be able to sell that to the Democrats' liberal base, health care or no.
I think you are right about that, and that Hillary Clinton faces no such obstacle in that regard.

DR

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 02:41 PM
You'll be glad to know that Obama voted in favor (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB0037.html) of an Illinois law making it illegal to:
manufacture, sell, transfer, purchase, possess, or carry a firearm in the shape or design of a wireless telephone.

:D

hgc
12th February 2007, 02:44 PM
I guess James Bond will be buying his guns elsewhere.

Upchurch
12th February 2007, 02:53 PM
You'll be glad to know that Obama voted in favor (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB0037.html) of an Illinois law making it illegal to:
Wow. 51 to 0.


So, where does that put him on the left-right spectrum?

steverino
12th February 2007, 02:53 PM
Yep. Daley can deliver Illinois for Obama.

I have just two words to say about all this..."OPRAH"

Tricky
12th February 2007, 02:55 PM
What, he wasn't an ambulance chaser?

That depends on how you define the term. If you define every personal injury lawyer an ambulance chaser, then yes he was. If you define every member of of a company's legal staff a "corporate shill" then yes they are. I try to avoid such dichotomies. There are good lawyers, bad lawyers, crooked lawyers and ethical lawyers (so I've heard).

Corporate lawyers are in the business of trying to win cases for their company. Personal injury lawyers are in the business of trying to win cases for their clients.

Now you won't get any argument from me if you say that there have been many outrageous legal awards for personal injury claims and that this is a problem for our country. I'm guessing I won't get any argument from you if I say that many businesses use their vast legal departments to avoid following the intent of the law, and that this is also a problem for our country. But to say a person is unqualified to be a lawmaker (or a president) because he has been a personal injury lawyer or to use derogatory terms to describe their legal background, smacks of the kind of dirty politics that I have come to despise, and yet expect, especially in presidential elections.

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 02:57 PM
You can see a list of Illinois legislative bills sponsored by Obama here (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sponsor/OBAMA.html).

Some samples of legislation he sponsored below.

Obama on spoiled ballots (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB0033.html):
Provides that an election judge at the polling place shall advise voters that if they accidentally or mistakenly spoil their ballots, they are entitled to receive replacements.

Obama on racial profiling (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB0375.html):
Requires the Department of State Police to provide training to State Police officers concerning sensitivity toward racial and ethnic differences. Requires the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board to provide for similar training for probationary police officers. Provides for a 4-year traffic stop statistical study based on information that must be recorded on the face of a uniform traffic citation, warning citation, or uniform stop card by State and local law enforcement officers. Provides that no reimbursement by the State is required for the implementation of any mandate created by this amendatory Act. Effective immediately.

Obama on prescription drugs (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB0622.html):
Provides that a pharmacy may not charge a Medicare beneficiary more than the Medicaid reimbursement rate for prescription medications, plus an additional dispensing fee. Requires the Department of Public Aid to monitor pharmacies' compliance and to report to the General Assembly.

Obama on "charity begins at home" (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1111.html):
Provides that, for 5 taxable years, each taxpayer is entitled to an income tax credit for an investment in a qualified venture capital fund in Illinois. Provides that (i) the fund must have its primary office in Illinois (ii) at least 50% of the total number of investments in the fund's portfolio must be in companies that are based in Illinois. The amount of the credit is based on several factors: economic need of the region in Illinois where the investment occurs, the population of the county in Illinois where the investment occurs, whether the company vested in is an Illinois company that is minority or women owned, and whether the investment is a seed-level investment in an Illinois company.

Obama on gun control (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1338.html):
Creates the offense of unlawful use of a semiautomatic assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device, defined as knowingly selling, manufacturing, purchasing, possessing, or carrying a semiautomatic assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device.

Obama on spouse abuse (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB0041.html):
Provides that all orders of protection must contain a provision requiring the person against whom the order is issued to forfeit all firearms in his or her possession for the duration of the order of protection, regardless of whether that person has threatened to use a firearm or is deemed likely to do so.

Katana
12th February 2007, 02:59 PM
I have just two words to say about all this..."OPRAH"

Good point there.

Bill Thompson
12th February 2007, 03:04 PM
I am a grinch or scrooge? Do I just "not get it"? I can't get swept up by Obama fever....

I turn on 60 Minutes and they are interviewing a very charismatic man who has wide eyed eager followers every place he stops. They look like wii buyers lined up outside a best buy on launch day. These people scare me. All I see if a very smart and charismatic man but they see a presidential messiah.

People look for this candidate everey 4 years it seems. John McCain was once this candidate of dreams but seems to have fallen out of favor for the new blood.



You are mixing apples and libs.

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 03:04 PM
Wow. 51 to 0.


So, where does that put him on the left-right spectrum?

:)

On the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act Senate vote (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB1661.html), there were 31 "yea" votes, 11 "nay" votes (including Obama), and 10 who voted "present" (which I assume is the same as abstaining).

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 03:05 PM
I have just two words to say about all this..."OPRAH"

Has Oprah ever endorsed a candidate? I honestly don't know.

Darth Rotor
12th February 2007, 03:05 PM
Now you won't get any argument from me if you say that there have been many outrageous legal awards for personal injury claims and that this is a problem for our country. I'm guessing I won't get any argument from you if I say that many businesses use their vast legal departments to avoid following the intent of the law, and that this is also a problem for our country. But to say a person is unqualified to be a lawmaker (or a president) because he has been a personal injury lawyer or to use derogatory terms to describe their legal background, smacks of the kind of dirty politics that I have come to despise, and yet expect, especially in presidential elections.
Unqualified? He's already served in the Senate, right, from North Carolina? I don't see from his record that he set the world on fire, but he also did not attract a great deal of scandal to his name. He's had at least six years on the job training for national level government.

Qualified isn't the issue, electable is, and integrity is. I think that most of the ambulance chaser rhetoric was expended in the 2004 election lead up, with a few stories here and there pounded into dust by the usual suspects. ** cough Hannity and Coulter cough**

What remains to be seen is how much more digging opponents will do, both in the Dem internal struggles, and, if he gets the nom, by the Republicans, since he is a Presidential, not vice Presidential, candidate.

A replay of the Swift Boat methodology seems likely. I don't think his opponents will show their hands early. I think the exposure of any skeleton, or perceived skeleton, will be carefully timed.

DR

Katana
12th February 2007, 03:06 PM
Has Oprah ever endorsed a candidate? I honestly don't know.

I looked this up, too (somewhat half-heartedly, I'll admit). According to draftobama.com, she has not.

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 03:07 PM
For any Democratic candidate, the question boils down to, "Can he/she win any red states?"

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 03:08 PM
I looked this up, too (somewhat half-heartedly, I'll admit). According to draftobama.com, she has not.

No candidate ever? Kerry? Gore? Bush?

If not, then I respect the hell out of that. That woman has tremendous influence which she hopefully will always use for good.

AmateurScientist
12th February 2007, 03:09 PM
That would make him popular in the South, too, if they could overlook that whole "Black" thing.

Come on, Cleon. That's not fair or accurate in 2007. This isn't 1957. Although I don't think his race will make much of a difference in the election, if anything I think his being black is a plus for him in the South.

AS

varwoche
12th February 2007, 03:16 PM
These guys (http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/illinoiss.html) rate Obama as "Very Anti-Gay". On the surface, this rating appears to be bogus in the extreme.

I don't see what these votes have to do with sexual orientation one way or the other. Check out the votes that Obama "failed" -- 2, 3, 4, 6.

corplinx
12th February 2007, 03:18 PM
Come on, Cleon. That's not fair or accurate in 2007. This isn't 1957. Although I don't think his race will make much of a difference in the election, if anything I think his being black is a plus for him in the South.

AS

Goodness gracious. The black mayors of major southern cities will be shocked to find out that they couldn't get elected. Willie Herenton of Memphis might just not run for a sixth term.

Upchurch
12th February 2007, 03:27 PM
On the surface, this rating appears to be bogus in the extreme.I know. I was struggling to find anything at all.

I bow to Luke's superior political Search-Fu.

steverino
12th February 2007, 03:38 PM
There are links that say Oprah endorses Obama, and links that say she does not. I heard on the news that she was financially backing him with her millions. Something isn't adding up here. I could see why Oprah would want to keep her powder dry so that she can have Hillary access for TV ratings, and I am sure Oprah would prefer Hillary to every other candidate, perhaps save Obama. But as with all things political in Chicago, a cold wind blows, and it kicks up a lot of fakery in its path.

Darth Rotor
12th February 2007, 03:40 PM
There are links that say Oprah endorses Obama, and links that say she does not. I heard on the news that she was financially backing him with her millions. Something isn't adding up here. I could see why Oprah would want to keep her powder dry so that she can have Hillary access for TV ratings, and I am sure Oprah would prefer Hillary to every other candidate, perhaps save Obama. But as with all things political in Chicago, a cold wind blows, and it kicks up a lot of fakery in its path.
Oprah need not commit herself at all. She can nudge in whichever direction she chooses, or in multiple directions.

She's not in politics, she's in the opinion shaping business for profit. There is a subtle difference.

DR

Katana
12th February 2007, 03:41 PM
There are links that say Oprah endorses Obama, and links that say she does not. I heard on the news that she was financially backing him with her millions. Something isn't adding up here. I could see why Oprah would want to keep her powder dry so that she can have Hillary access for TV ratings, and I am sure Oprah would prefer Hillary to every other candidate, perhaps save Obama. But as with all things political in Chicago, a cold wind blows, and it kicks up a lot of fakery in its path.

I found the same, so it's unclear as to whether she has endorsed Obama or not. What I couldn't find was any statements that she had endorsed anyone else in any other election(s) except for the suggestion of a Gore endorsement simply by having him on her show right before the election.

Cleon
12th February 2007, 03:44 PM
Come on, Cleon. That's not fair or accurate in 2007. This isn't 1957. Although I don't think his race will make much of a difference in the election, if anything I think his being black is a plus for him in the South.


I *live* here. And I don't mean just in Atlanta--I get out of the city, into the real South. Atlanta might have a Black mayor, but our governor is good ol' boy Sonny Perdue (and I'm NOT making that name up!) for a reason.

You get out of the city, and race is still very touchy. I played in a band once with a guy who once asked me (of my Arab friends) what "them sand n*****s thought of bluegrass music?" Outside the city, you hear the n-word a lot, actually.

Hell, in Tennessee the Democrats tried to give the South its first black Senator since Reconstruction. In response, the Tennessee Republicans ran ads so blatantly racist (http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/200601024_harold_ford_ad/) they actually attracted nationwide condemnation--from Republicans! (And yes, he lost.)

If it were the Southern cities that represented the Southern vote, the "red" states would be much, much bluer. No, it's the good ol' Southen boys who drive Ford pickups with Confederate flag stickers listen to radio stations with names like "KCRST: Today's Christian Country."

steverino
12th February 2007, 03:46 PM
she's in the opinion shaping business for profit. DR

Whereas we on this forum are not-for-profit opinion-shapers.:p

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 04:10 PM
Maybe I am beating a dead horse, but I think Obama's vote on the infant bill is probably going to come up during the campaign. So I just wanted to add that when Obama voted against it, the Democrats were in the majority of the Illinois Senate. And yet the vote for the infant bill was 31 in favor, 10 against, with Obama being against.

I think that is going to come back at him. I'm sure he has a response for it.

Basically, the bill made it a law that if an infant was born alive despite an attempt to abort it, that doctors were obligated to use all available means to keep it alive and provide medical care. Once out of the womb, it was given "human" status.

Obama had a problem with that.

ETA: With 2/3 (last time I checked) of Americans against late term abortions to begin with, Osama's vote on letting a live infant die in such a cold fashion won't go over well.

EATA: Yeah. 2/3 against (http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm), according to CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

AmateurScientist
12th February 2007, 04:33 PM
I *live* here. And I don't mean just in Atlanta--I get out of the city, into the real South. Atlanta might have a Black mayor, but our governor is good ol' boy Sonny Perdue (and I'm NOT making that name up!) for a reason.

You get out of the city, and race is still very touchy. I played in a band once with a guy who once asked me (of my Arab friends) what "them sand n*****s thought of bluegrass music?" Outside the city, you hear the n-word a lot, actually.

Hell, in Tennessee the Democrats tried to give the South its first black Senator since Reconstruction. In response, the Tennessee Republicans ran ads so blatantly racist (http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/200601024_harold_ford_ad/) they actually attracted nationwide condemnation--from Republicans! (And yes, he lost.)

If it were the Southern cities that represented the Southern vote, the "red" states would be much, much bluer. No, it's the good ol' Southen boys who drive Ford pickups with Confederate flag stickers listen to radio stations with names like "KCRST: Today's Christian Country."

Every single state is more urban and suburban than rural. No one caters to the rural vote.

If Atlanta represented the South, then it would be much bluer, but despite what many Atlantans seem to believe, Atlanta does not equal the South. There is actually a South out there more than 25 miles outside 285. You sure wouldn't know it by talking to your typical Atlantan.

(Conversation I have with virtually every Atlantan upon hearing that I'm from Alabama: Them: "Really? Gosh, what do you do for fun there?" Me: "Watch the grass grow, dumbass, and shuck corn. Oh, and we dream of one day visiting the Big City to go to market and to them fancy eatin' places. What do you call those again, McDonnells?")

AS

Tony
12th February 2007, 04:45 PM
Maybe I am beating a dead horse, but I think Obama's vote on the infant bill is probably going to come up during the campaign. So I just wanted to add that when Obama voted against it, the Democrats were in the majority of the Illinois Senate. And yet the vote for the infant bill was 31 in favor, 10 against, with Obama being against.

I think that is going to come back at him. I'm sure he has a response for it.

Basically, the bill made it a law that if an infant was born alive despite an attempt to abort it, that doctors were obligated to use all available means to keep it alive and provide medical care. Once out of the womb, it was given "human" status.

Obama had a problem with that.

ETA: With 2/3 (last time I checked) of Americans against late term abortions to begin with, Osama's vote on letting a live infant die in such a cold fashion won't go over well.

EATA: Yeah. 2/3 against (http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm), according to CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

I doubt it. If the Texas Futility care law (which is essentially the same thing) didn't leave a mark on Bush, this shouldn't leave a mark on Obama.

Cleon
12th February 2007, 04:57 PM
If Atlanta represented the South, then it would be much bluer, but despite what many Atlantans seem to believe, Atlanta does not equal the South. There is actually a South out there more than 25 miles outside 285. You sure wouldn't know it by talking to your typical Atlantan.

Yes--this is exactly my point.

Achán hiNidráne
12th February 2007, 05:06 PM
Does Obama "scare" me?

No.

From what little I've heard about his actual positions, I can't say I'll vote for him (or anyone else from either party for that matter). But he doesn't "scare" me.

Now, the likes of a Gus Hall or a David Duke having a chance at the Oval Office; THAT would scare me.

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 05:17 PM
I doubt it. If the Texas Futility care law (which is essentially the same thing) didn't leave a mark on Bush, this shouldn't leave a mark on Obama.

The Texas futility care law is not the same thing. Where did you get that idea?

And anyway, the Texas futility law passed both houses of the state unanimously, and was signed by Governor Bush.

So why should that have left a mark on Bush?

AmateurScientist
12th February 2007, 05:18 PM
Yes--this is exactly my point.

No, it isn't. Your point is that there is a rural, redneck South outside Atlanta. I'm trying to point out to you that there actually exist cities besides Atlanta in the South. Atlanta is not synonymous with "Southern City." It is but one. One.

AS

steverino
12th February 2007, 05:23 PM
Basically, the bill made it a law that if an infant was born alive despite an attempt to abort it, that doctors were obligated to use all available means to keep it alive and provide medical care. Once out of the womb, it was given "human" status.

Christ. Maybe THAT's what happened to me. Thanks Mom. :boggled:

DanishDynamite
12th February 2007, 05:27 PM
No, Obama doesn't scare me. He seems like a run-of-the-mill politician, of the American variety.

Is there some scandal I should be aware of?

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 05:34 PM
No, Obama doesn't scare me. He seems like a run-of-the-mill politician, of the American variety.

Is there some scandal I should be aware of?

No. I think what corplinx was referring to was that Obama is so fervently admired and desired without anyone really knowing anything about him except that he sounds good, and that is scary in the context of Potential Leader of the Free World. :)

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 05:36 PM
Obama said words to the same effect. On NPR this morning, they had a sound bite from him to the effect that he has written two books which have sold over a million copies each and describe his position on a multitude of topics, but that the media doesn't ask him about that, instead all they care about is how he looks in a bathing suit (a reference to a recent photo of him in a bathing suit in People magazine).

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/108645d1084ca3b58.jpg

steverino
12th February 2007, 05:39 PM
he sounds good, and that is scary in the context of Potential Leader of the Free World. :)

My girlfriend thinks he's "cute.":mad:

I'm sure other women give him enormous stock based on his cuteness.

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 05:41 PM
I would just like to point out that the People photo is evidence that Obama does not walk on water.

DanishDynamite
12th February 2007, 05:43 PM
No. I think what corplinx was referring to was that Obama is so fervently admired and desired without anyone really knowing anything about him except that he sounds good, and that is scary in the context of Potential Leader of the Free World. :)
I see. Does this differ from other presidential-elects in the US?

Tony
12th February 2007, 05:44 PM
The Texas futility care law is not the same thing. Where did you get that idea?


I meant it was essentially the same as voting against the "infant bill". Is it only wrong to let someone die who was a botched abortion?

And anyway, the Texas futility law passed both houses of the state unanimously, and was signed by Governor Bush.

So why should that have left a mark on Bush?

Because he signed it into law.

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 05:45 PM
No, it isn't. Your point is that there is a rural, redneck South outside Atlanta. I'm trying to point out to you that there actually exist cities besides Atlanta in the South. Atlanta is not synonymous with "Southern City." It is but one. One.

AS

And there is another factor not being taken into account. The number of blacks in the South who don't vote because they feel disenfranchised by both parties. They would turn out in massive numbers for Obama.

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 05:46 PM
I see. Does this differ from other presidential-elects in the US?

Yes, as I pointed out earlier in the topic. You have to go back 48 years to find a candidate with so little executive experience.

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 05:51 PM
I meant it was essentially the same as voting against the "infant bill". Is it only wrong to let someone die who wasn't a botched abortion?

Explain how the two are essentially the same.

Because he signed it into law.

Along with every Democrat and Republican in both houses. Your logic is seriously flawed.

DanishDynamite
12th February 2007, 05:52 PM
Yes, as I pointed out earlier in the topic. You have to go back 48 years to find a candidate with so little executive experience.
In other words, it doesn't differ much (unless you go back 48 years).

So what's the hysteria about?

Tony
12th February 2007, 05:59 PM
Explain how the two are essentially the same.


They're both provisions that would either require, as in the case in Illinois, or forbit, as was the case here in Texas, a doctor to do everything he could to save a life.

Along with every Democrat and Republican in both houses.

So? How is this relevant?

Your logic is seriously flawed.

It's your logic. I'm simply applying it to another case to demonstrate a point.

If Obama's vote against something that would require a doctor to do everything in his power to save a life would "come back at him", then Bush should have taken hell for signing into law a bill that forbids a doctor from doing everything in his power to save a life.

Tony
12th February 2007, 06:02 PM
So what's the hysteria about?

It should be noted that this hysteria vis-a-vis Obama is mostly a right-wing phenomenon. They're running scared of a popular, likeable black guy who has the actual potential of getting elected.

DanishDynamite
12th February 2007, 06:06 PM
It should be noted that this hysteria vis-a-vis Obama is mostly a right-wing phenomenon. They're running scared of a popular, likeable black guy who has the actual potential of getting elected.
Aaaahhhhaaah! Now I understand. Thanks, Tony!

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 06:09 PM
They're both provisions that would either require, as in the case in Illinois, or forbit, as was the case here in Texas, a doctor to do everything he could to save a life.

I had a feeling you didn't know what the futility bill was, and this confirms it.

The futility bill allows for a doctor to stop keeping a patient alive, even if the family disagrees.

So? How is this relevant?

If you condemn Bush, you condemn every member of both houses as well. I know you hate Bush, but to go to such lengths to find a reason to hate him, and based on a complete misunderstanding of the bill you are condemning him over, well, that is just insane.

It's your logic. I'm simply applying it to another case to demonstrate a point.

If Obama's vote against something that would require a doctor to do everything in his power to save a life would "come back at him", then Bush should have taken hell for signing into law a bill that forbids a doctor from doing everything in his power to save a life.

Try to follow along. Obama voted against the majority in favor of allowing an infant to die.

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 06:11 PM
It should be noted that this hysteria vis-a-vis Obama is mostly a right-wing phenomenon. They're running scared of a popular, likeable black guy who has the actual potential of getting elected.

The only hysteria I have seen is the hysteria in favor of Obama, based on no substance.

DanishDynamite
12th February 2007, 06:14 PM
The only hysteria I have seen is the hysteria in favor of Obama, based on no substance.
And the "no substance" bit has apparently been a characteristic of all presidents for at least 48 years, correct?

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 06:18 PM
And the "no substance" bit has apparently been a characteristic of all presidents for at least 48 years, correct?


I guess you haven't read the entire topic. :)

Not that I blame you. I skip over stuff in topics I am late to, too. :D

What I pointed out earlier is that for the last 48 years, every President came into office with executive experience either as a Vice President or as a Governor. So it has NOT been a characteristic as it is with Obama, of having NO executive experience.

In short, you have to go back 48 years to find someone with as LITTLE experience as Obama. And even Kennedy had more time in the Senate than Obama.

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 06:19 PM
For all I know, I'm the only person outside of Illinois who has ever looked up Obama's state legislature voting record. :D

So exactly what is it that people see in Obama?

Dr Adequate
12th February 2007, 06:19 PM
My girlfriend thinks he's "cute.":mad:

I'm sure other women give him enormous stock based on his cuteness. Yes, but how tall is he? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_height_order)

DanishDynamite
12th February 2007, 06:29 PM
I guess you haven't read the entire topic. :)

Not that I blame you. I skip over stuff in topics I am late to, too. :D

What I pointed out earlier is that for the last 48 years, every President came into office with executive experience either as a Vice President or as a Governor. So it has NOT been a characteristic as it is with Obama, of having NO executive experience.

In short, you have to go back 48 years to find someone with as LITTLE experience as Obama. And even Kennedy had more time in the Senate than Obama.Got it.

And yes, I just jumped right in, without having read a single post except the OP.

To address your point, is the current hysteria happening due to the fact that Obama has not previously been tainted by "executive experience"?

Luke T.
12th February 2007, 06:46 PM
To address your point, is the current hysteria happening due to the fact that Obama has not previously been tainted by "executive experience"?

Obama made a very compelling keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic national convention, and that propelled him into the national spotlight. He was then a candidate for US Senate against a real right-wing loon, Alan Keyes. It was an easy win for Obama. I think he got the highest percentage of votes ever.

Because of his keynote speech and his election to the U.S. Senate, a sort of groundswell began which has continued unabated for the last couple years.

And that's all there is to it. The man simply sounds good. As one Democratic politician (Biden) put it, Obama is "articulate" and "clean". Biden got in a lot of trouble for that, because it carries an unspoken "for a black man" racial tone to it.

I myself wrote to Obama last year. And I am not even from Illinois. But I read a very articulate (;)) speech by Obama which was positively breathtaking in its tone of reconciliation toward Republicans. It impressed me enough to write to him to offer my respect, and I don't do that often when it comes to politicians. And sure as hell not when it comes to Democrats. :D

I'm probably better informed about Obama than the average bear, so I am kind of puzzled about the enthusiasm over him. I am waiting for people to explain why it is they want him as President. It seems the only solid answer I have seen is about the war in Iraq.

I doubt most people who like him even heard his keynote address in 2004. :eek:

Darth Rotor
12th February 2007, 07:05 PM
(Conversation I have with virtually every Atlantan upon hearing that I'm from Alabama: Them: "Really? Gosh, what do you do for fun there?" Me: "Watch the grass grow, dumbass, and shuck corn. Oh, and we dream of one day visiting the Big City to go to market and to them fancy eatin' places. What do you call those again, McDonnells?")

AS
In Atlanta, it is called The Varsity.

*sigh*

Been a while since I have had an all the way dog and a big orange at The Varsity.

DR

Darth Rotor
12th February 2007, 07:09 PM
And there is another factor not being taken into account. The number of blacks in the South who don't vote because they feel disenfranchised by both parties. They would turn out in massive numbers for Obama.

Al Sharpton recently made a remark on this that set me back for a second or two. He was referring to Obama, and was speaking at a Black America political rally of some sort.

"He's our color, but he's not our kind."

It took me a moment to decipher that.

1. Sharpton is jealous of Obama's broad appeal, something he does not have.

2. High Yellow for fifty, Alex. :p Sharpton seems to be playing the "paper bag" game.

DR

Upchurch
12th February 2007, 07:09 PM
The only hysteria I have seen is the hysteria in favor of Obama, based on no substance.
I point you back to the OP, or heck, even just the title of this thread.

Darth Rotor
12th February 2007, 07:13 PM
Obama made a very compelling keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic national convention, and that propelled him into the national spotlight. He was then a candidate for US Senate against a real right-wing loon, Alan Keyes. It was an easy win for Obama. I think he got the highest percentage of votes ever.

Because of his keynote speech and his election to the U.S. Senate, a sort of groundswell began which has continued unabated for the last couple years.

And that's all there is to it. The man simply sounds good. As one Democratic politician (Biden) put it, Obama is "articulate" and "clean". Biden got in a lot of trouble for that, because it carries an unspoken "for a black man" racial tone to it.

I myself wrote to Obama last year. And I am not even from Illinois. But I read a very articulate (;)) speech by Obama which was positively breathtaking in its tone of reconciliation toward Republicans. It impressed me enough to write to him to offer my respect, and I don't do that often when it comes to politicians. And sure as hell not when it comes to Democrats. :D

I'm probably better informed about Obama than the average bear, so I am kind of puzzled about the enthusiasm over him. I am waiting for people to explain why it is they want him as President. It seems the only solid answer I have seen is about the war in Iraq.

I doubt most people who like him even heard his keynote address in 2004. :eek:
I saw it on TV, but it was a replay.

It was smoothe, and did nothing to stir me.

Obama is electable. That is his appeal. He is also pretty smart. As I noted elsewhere, being well connected with influence peddlars might make him a better President, should he ride his electability into office.

DR

DanishDynamite
12th February 2007, 07:20 PM
Obama made a very compelling keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic national convention, and that propelled him into the national spotlight. He was then a candidate for US Senate against a real right-wing loon, Alan Keyes. It was an easy win for Obama. I think he got the highest percentage of votes ever.

Because of his keynote speech and his election to the U.S. Senate, a sort of groundswell began which has continued unabated for the last couple years.

And that's all there is to it. The man simply sounds good. As one Democratic politician (Biden) put it, Obama is "articulate" and "clean". Biden got in a lot of trouble for that, because it carries an unspoken "for a black man" racial tone to it.

I myself wrote to Obama last year. And I am not even from Illinois. But I read a very articulate (;)) speech by Obama which was positively breathtaking in its tone of reconciliation toward Republicans. It impressed me enough to write to him to offer my respect, and I don't do that often when it comes to politicians. And sure as hell not when it comes to Democrats. :D

I'm probably better informed about Obama than the average bear, so I am kind of puzzled about the enthusiasm over him. I am waiting for people to explain why it is they want him as President. It seems the only solid answer I have seen is about the war in Iraq.

I doubt most people who like him even heard his keynote address in 2004. :eek:
So, he's a senator. And articulate. And "clean". Seems to me he's got the current president beat on at least three counts.

Elizabeth I
12th February 2007, 07:28 PM
Run for the hills, run for the hills!!! A black politician is popular!!!! Let me get this straight, Obama scares you (black men can be soo menacing), but Bush, and his gaggle of fundies who thought he was the second comming didn't/doesn't? No, you're not being a contrarian jerk. You're being a useful idiot. If this country can survive fundie scum like Bush and his circle of religious fanatics, it can survive a moderate liberal like Obama.

Um, Tony, I think maybe you should read the whole thread. The original poster has explained that what worries him/her is what seems to be a groundswell of starry-eyed fanatic supporters making a decision on a candidate without much information about him, but the guy's the NEW THING, so they're in love. Not a word about black or any other skin color. At least not from him/her.

See?
They look like wii buyers lined up outside a best buy on launch day. These people scare me. All I see if a very smart and charismatic man but they see a presidential messiah.

People look for this candidate everey 4 years it seems. John McCain was once this candidate of dreams but seems to have fallen out of favor for the new blood.
Geeze!

What [shouldn't that be "who"?] would you rather the candidates were?

Hillary clinton vs Jeb Bush?

Ted kennerdy vs Rick Santorum?
:aaa!

gnome
12th February 2007, 07:42 PM
Obama made a very compelling keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic national convention, and that propelled him into the national spotlight. He was then a candidate for US Senate against a real right-wing loon, Alan Keyes. It was an easy win for Obama. I think he got the highest percentage of votes ever.

Because of his keynote speech and his election to the U.S. Senate, a sort of groundswell began which has continued unabated for the last couple years.

And that's all there is to it. The man simply sounds good. As one Democratic politician (Biden) put it, Obama is "articulate" and "clean". Biden got in a lot of trouble for that, because it carries an unspoken "for a black man" racial tone to it.

I myself wrote to Obama last year. And I am not even from Illinois. But I read a very articulate (;)) speech by Obama which was positively breathtaking in its tone of reconciliation toward Republicans. It impressed me enough to write to him to offer my respect, and I don't do that often when it comes to politicians. And sure as hell not when it comes to Democrats. :D

I'm probably better informed about Obama than the average bear, so I am kind of puzzled about the enthusiasm over him. I am waiting for people to explain why it is they want him as President. It seems the only solid answer I have seen is about the war in Iraq.

I doubt most people who like him even heard his keynote address in 2004. :eek:

It was in fact the keynote address that caught my interest in the first place. I also enjoy his tone of finding solutions rather than scoring political points... and in general his is a positive message rather than negative--something the Democrats sorely need.

I've also begun to see signs that he doesn't change his opinion based on who's asking him the question--something Hillary, Bill, and Howard Dean have all screwed up from time to time.

BPSCG
12th February 2007, 07:50 PM
I would just like to point out that the People photo is evidence that Obama does not walk on water.Hmmm... meteoric rise, unbelieveable charisma, denying he has aspirations to global power even during his rapid ascent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Carpathia)...

At the age of 33, Carpathia stepped into the political scene as a junior senator in the lower house of the Romanian legislature. Falling victim to Fortunato's blackmail, the President of Romania soon abdicated in favor of Carpathia, with the unanimous support of that country's parliament. Shortly thereafter, in the chaos following the Rapture, Carpathia was appointed Secretary General of the United Nations. Throughout his swift rise to global prominence, he feigned humility, saying he wished only to serve and denying that he ever sought power.Is Barak Obama the Antichrist? I have yet to hear him deny it. :boggled:

BPSCG
12th February 2007, 07:56 PM
He was then a candidate for US Senate against a real right-wing loon, Alan Keyes. It was an easy win for Obama. I think he got the highest percentage of votes ever.I remember watching the returns with Mrs. BPSCG. The first early ones from Illinois showed Obama with something like 90% of the vote. Later on, Keyes had narrowed the gap; Obama now had only something like 80%.A while later, with about a quarter of the vote counted, Obama was down to about 75%, and I turned to Mrs. BPSCG and said, "You see? Keyes is roaring back."

Obama finished, IIRC, at about 70%; for you furriners, 60% in a U.S. senate race is generally considered a landslide.

DanishDynamite
12th February 2007, 07:56 PM
Hi BPSCG,

Just noticed that you've got me quoted in your sig. I have to say I'm honored! This is a first for me. I have no idea what is expected of me! :)

AmateurScientist
12th February 2007, 08:03 PM
In Atlanta, it is called The Varsity.

*sigh*

Been a while since I have had an all the way dog and a big orange at The Varsity.

DR

Been there many times. There's one in Athens too. Been there more times.

AS

BPSCG
12th February 2007, 08:06 PM
Hi BPSCG,

Just noticed that you've got me quoted in your sig. I have to say I'm honored! This is a first for me. I have no idea what is expected of me! :)As Lincoln said, this, too, shall pass. Because of the 500-character sig line limit, I am forced to restrict the number of quotes I use in my sig lines. My rule is generally the accountant's FIFO rule for pricing inventory: first in, first out. As you can see, yours is the most recent, so it will probably be there for a while.

What is expected of you is that, in order to stay in it permanently, you must regularly post something addressed to me that is either gratuitously insulting or calamitously stupid.

I have high hopes for you. Please do not disappoint me.

DanishDynamite
12th February 2007, 08:12 PM
As Lincoln said, this, too, shall pass. Because of the 500-character sig line limit, I am forced to restrict the number of quotes I use in my sig lines. My rule is generally the accountant's FIFO rule for pricing inventory: first in, first out. As you can see, yours is the most recent, so it will probably be there for a while.

What is expected of you is that, in order to stay in it permanently, you must regularly post something addressed to me that is either gratuitously insulting or calamitously stupid.

I have high hopes for you. Please do not disappoint me.
(My highlighting)

Fantastic reply! Wonderful! Exquisite! :D :D

latent aaaack
12th February 2007, 08:29 PM
It was in fact the keynote address that caught my interest in the first place. I also enjoy his tone of finding solutions rather than scoring political points... and in general his is a positive message rather than negative--something the Democrats sorely need.

I've also begun to see signs that he doesn't change his opinion based on who's asking him the question--something Hillary, Bill, and Howard Dean have all screwed up from time to time.

All Bush ever talked about prior to being elected was changing the negative tone in Washington and being a uniter not a divider but he was suspiciously absent on details and what that actually meant he would do as president to enact that. He was also widely viewed as more charismatic and personable than dull, akward, stiff Gore. In Obama's announcement of his candidacy he said something along the lines of "let us finish the work that needs to be done, and usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth." Thinking back now to Bush's kind of charismatic but non-specific language does anyone want to give the odds for an Obama administration ushering a new birth of freedom on this earth? I'm not scared of Obama, but I am deeply disconcerted about the direction of the American political system, how short attention-span media-driven it is, and how gullible people are.

BPSCG
12th February 2007, 08:30 PM
(My highlighting)

Fantastic reply! Wonderful! Exquisite! :D :DSorry, that won't get you in.

BPSCG
12th February 2007, 08:40 PM
In Obama's announcement of his candidacy he said something along the lines of "let us finish the work that needs to be done, and usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in...Abraham Lincoln, Washington, D.C., March, 1865

we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, November, 1863

Speaking from Springfield, Illinois, I guess Obama would want you to believe he was Abraham Lincoln 2.0.

When Gerald Ford, another midwesterner, became president, in his first speech to the nation, he said, "I'm a Ford, not a Lincoln." Some people understand you have to make a reputation before you claim it for yourself.

latent aaaack
12th February 2007, 08:49 PM
Abraham Lincoln, Washington, D.C., March, 1865

Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, November, 1863

Speaking from Springfield, Illinois, I guess Obama would want you to believe he was Abraham Lincoln 2.0.

When Gerald Ford, another midwesterner, became president, in his first speech to the nation, he said, "I'm a Ford, not a Lincoln." Some people understand you have to make a reputation before you claim it for yourself.


Then all we need is a civil war and that would be a very appropriate use of plagiarism. If that's really lifted from Lincoln, then I'm pretty much convinved he's going to be a victim of his hype, this isn't someone that will be able stand on their own feet convincingly.

Rob Lister
12th February 2007, 08:52 PM
To address the original Topic Post question, no more than the others.

They should make me the pres...Sure, it'd be scary, but boy what fun I'd have in my first (and likely only) half a year.

AmateurScientist
12th February 2007, 08:53 PM
If that's really lifted from Lincoln... [snip]

It is. Beeps didn't make it up, and he's not the first to notice. 60 Minutes mentioned it just last night, for instance.

AS

Rob Lister
12th February 2007, 08:56 PM
Then all we need is a civil war and that would be a very appropriate use of plagiarism. If that's really lifted from Lincoln, then I'm pretty much convinved he's going to be a victim of his hype, this isn't someone that will be able stand on their own feet convincingly.

Actually, after seeing a few interviews, I'd say Obama is already quite good at ad lib -- he can not answer a question in a very articulate and convincing manner. Not that such is a prerequisite; Bush set the standard for that.

Still, he's got a tough row to hoe in beating the political machine that is Hillary, et al. I give him 1 chance in 5 of getting the dem nod -- and that assumes that the pics of Hillary with Monica become public.

steverino
12th February 2007, 09:38 PM
a popular, likeable black guy.

I'm leaning toward the popular, likeable Italian guy.

latent aaaack
12th February 2007, 10:43 PM
Actually, after seeing a few interviews, I'd say Obama is already quite good at ad lib -- he can not answer a question in a very articulate and convincing manner. Not that such is a prerequisite; Bush set the standard for that.

Still, he's got a tough row to hoe in beating the political machine that is Hillary, et al. I give him 1 chance in 5 of getting the dem nod -- and that assumes that the pics of Hillary with Monica become public.

But that's leaving out the possibility that Hillary throws the Obama campaign into disarray by claiming that she's actually the next Napolean. The madrassa angle failed, so expect the unexpected you could say, when you already have one candidate in the race playing Lincoln.

Luke T.
13th February 2007, 07:12 AM
Abraham Lincoln, Washington, D.C., March, 1865

Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, November, 1863

Speaking from Springfield, Illinois, I guess Obama would want you to believe he was Abraham Lincoln 2.0.

Son of a-

I should have caught that. I've read many of Lincoln's speeches and writings.

Stealing Lincoln's material. For shame.

Luke T.
13th February 2007, 07:19 AM
But that's leaving out the possibility that Hillary throws the Obama campaign into disarray by claiming that she's actually the next Napolean. The madrassa angle failed, so expect the unexpected you could say, when you already have one candidate in the race playing Lincoln.

Obama will probably end up as the Vice President candidate, and if the Dems win the White House, he will be positioned/groomed for the Chief Executive position for 2016, or 2012.

The problem with all these announcements so early is that is gives them all plenty of time to screw up.

WildCat
13th February 2007, 07:22 AM
Speaking from Springfield, Illinois, I guess Obama would want you to believe he was Abraham Lincoln 2.0.
That was definitely part of the plan, it had been talked about by the Chicago media weeks in advance.

eta: Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0702110388feb11,1,675983.story?ctrack=1&cset=true) story:
The last time Barack Obama delivered a formal address in Illinois' state capital, it was to mark the opening of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum where he hailed the 16th president as a man who "did not equivocate or duck or pass the challenge on to future generations."

Nearly two years after that address, and using the home of Lincoln's famed "house divided" speech as a backdrop, Obama was expected Saturday to make formal his historic entry into the 2008 presidential campaign, presenting himself as a symbol for a new generation of leadership and politics.

Upchurch
13th February 2007, 07:56 AM
Son of a-

I should have caught that. I've read many of Lincoln's speeches and writings.

Stealing Lincoln's material. For shame.
Trusting an uncited quote taken out of context. For shame.

Obama's announcement speech (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/02/10/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_11.php)

By ourselves, this change will not happen. Divided, we are bound to fail.

But the life of a tall, gangly, self-made Springfield lawyer tells us that a different future is possible.

He tells us that there is power in words.

He tells us that there is power in conviction.

That beneath all the differences of race and region, faith and station, we are one people.

He tells us that there is power in hope.

As Lincoln organized the forces arrayed against slavery, he was heard to say: "Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought to battle through."

That is our purpose here today.

That's why I'm in this race.

Not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation.

I want to win that next battle - for justice and opportunity.

I want to win that next battle - for better schools, and better jobs, and health care for all.

I want us to take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union, and building a better America.

And if you will join me in this improbable quest, if you feel destiny calling, and see as I see, a future of endless possibility stretching before us; if you sense, as I sense, that the time is now to shake off our slumber, and slough off our fear, and make good on the debt we owe past and future generations, then I'm ready to take up the cause, and march with you, and work with you. Together, starting today, let us finish the work that needs to be done, and usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth.
You call it stealing Lincoln's material. I call it referencing Lincoln's material with proper credit given.

BPSCG
13th February 2007, 07:58 AM
In Obama's announcement of his candidacy he said something along the lines of "let us finish the work that needs to be done, and usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth."Well, I, for one, am glad to see Obama is a neocon, who wants to bring democracy to everyone. Guy is full of surprises.

Or is that not what he meant?

Upchurch
13th February 2007, 08:02 AM
Well, I, for one, am glad to see Obama is a neocon, who wants to bring democracy to everyone. Guy is full of surprises.

Or is that not what he meant?
BPSCG, you have got to work on the reading skills. That isn't even what he said.

How do you get "democracy to everyone" out of "usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth"?

hgc
13th February 2007, 08:05 AM
BPSCG, you have got to work on the reading skills. That isn't even what he said.

How do you get "bringing democracy everywhere" out of "usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth"?
Not for nothing, Uppy, but in the very post where you admonish BP for misquoting, you misquote him. :D

Upchurch
13th February 2007, 08:07 AM
Not for nothing, Uppy, but in the very post where you admonish BP for misquoting, you misquote him. :D
Okay, yes. oops. I'll go fix it.

BPSCG
13th February 2007, 08:09 AM
BPSCG, you have got to work on the reading skills. That isn't even what he said.

How do you get "bringing democracy everywhere" out of "usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth"?Okay, if he doesn't want to bring it to everyone, then who does he want to bring it to? He's saying a new birth of freedom. Is he talking about bringing it to the oppressed people of Springfield, Illinois? I don't think so. He talks about ushering it in "on this Earth;" Lincoln restricted himself to "this nation, under God..."

Think about it. If Bush had said, "usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth," you'd be yelling, "Yeah, just like in Iraq, right?"

Upchurch
13th February 2007, 08:22 AM
Luke, aside from the OP, here is a little more hysteria against Obama:
Okay, if he doesn't want to bring it to everyone, then who does he want to bring it to? He's saying a new birth of freedom. Is he talking about bringing it to the oppressed people of Springfield, Illinois? I don't think so. He talks about ushering it in "on this Earth;" Lincoln restricted himself to "this nation, under God..."

Think about it. If Bush had said, "usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth," you'd be yelling, "Yeah, just like in Iraq, right?"

Again not knowing the answer, I went and looked at the source material to figure out the answer rather than just reacting and making something up. From the speech:
I want us to take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union, and building a better America.

{snip}

Together, starting today, let us finish the work that needs to be done, and usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth.
From the context (read the speech for more detail), he's talking about finishing what Lincoln started. I take that to mean, in part, by finishing the emancipation of blacks in America to the point where one could actually be elected President of the United States, thus obtaining true equality not only in words and understanding but also in action.

Perhaps you interpret it differently, but try to avoid the strawmen.

Cleon
13th February 2007, 08:24 AM
Think about it. If Bush had said, "usher in a new birth of freedom on this Earth," you'd be yelling, "Yeah, just like in Iraq, right?"

Well, the difference there is that Bush has already screwed that particular pooch.

I, for one, am perfectly content to see Obama's channeling of Lincoln for exactly what it is; pointless political rhetoric devoid of actual substance.

Upchurch
13th February 2007, 08:29 AM
I, for one, am perfectly content to see Obama's channeling of Lincoln for exactly what it is; pointless political rhetoric devoid of actual substance.
Not pointless. It's point is for market positioning, but otherwise devoid of actual substance. :D

corplinx
13th February 2007, 08:36 AM
I don't think the op was hysterical. Then again I'm biased. It poses a question as its title to poison the well. However, it merely points out the danger of leading by charisma and which is worrisome since obama is an unknown.

I don't think any of us are checking the closet for Obama before we go to bed. Well, except BPSCG. But thats more out of hope than fear.

BPSCG
13th February 2007, 08:39 AM
I, for one, am perfectly content to see Obama's channeling of Lincoln for exactly what it is; pointless political rhetoric devoid of actual substance.That it is. Are you saying he shouldn't be held accountable for it, that he should get a pass and not have to make clear what he means? Does he want a new birth of freedom for the U.S., or for the entire Earth? This wasn't an off-the-cuff remark; this was a prepared speech. What does he mean?

BPSCG
13th February 2007, 08:40 AM
I don't think any of us are checking the closet for Obama before we go to bed. He's gay? Who knew?

Cripes, Barak Obama, the Gay Antichrist... :rolleyes:

corplinx
13th February 2007, 08:50 AM
That it is. Are you saying he shouldn't be held accountable for it, that he should get a pass and not have to make clear what he means? Does he want a new birth of freedom for the U.S., or for the entire Earth? This wasn't an off-the-cuff remark; this was a prepared speech. What does he mean?

You remind me of a good point. What happens when the media love affair turns into cynicism and scrutiny? What happens when they hound him to clarify his every statement (look at what they are doing to hillary right now).

On the other hand, Obama's supporters I see dancing and shouting at his rallies won't be fazed by this. They do not seem to be fair weather voters. For the swing voter, can media scrutiny deflate Obama?

I think him talking the way he is, is an attempt to mimic Reagan to some extent BPSCG. I think they are looking for him to be a big crossover candidate and he will be talking broadly about America and freedom.

Cleon
13th February 2007, 09:17 AM
That it is. Are you saying he shouldn't be held accountable for it, that he should get a pass and not have to make clear what he means? Does he want a new birth of freedom for the U.S., or for the entire Earth? This wasn't an off-the-cuff remark; this was a prepared speech. What does he mean?

What he's saying is "Blah blah blah vote for me." Trying to read actual policy from this sort of thing is pointless.

Every candidate uses fluff like this in their speeches. For example, it took me all of two seconds to find a collection of 2004 campaign speeches (http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/campaign/index.html). If you want to word-parse it, you've got your work cut out for you:

Bush, victory speech: "With that trust comes a duty to serve all Americans. And I will do my best to fulfill that duty every day as your president." - What, does this mean that he's going to go door-to-door asking how he can help people? Does it mean that he's going to introduce more social programs? What does he mean?*

Kerry, Milwaukee: "Give me the chance to lift our country up. Give me the chance to make our country strong." What, does he mean that he's going to increase troop levels? Expand the military? Expand the economy? What does he mean?*

Bush, Hershey, PA: "I believe all these things because freedom is not America's gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty God's gift to each man and woman in this world." What, Bush has reverse course and no longer believes that it's his job to bring democracy to the world? It's for God to do, all of a sudden? What does he mean?*

Kerry, Cleveland, speaking at East Mt. Zion Baptist Church: "First, I want to say that say that America would be a much better place if all Americans followed your example of faith and service to our people." (Emphasis added.) What, he wants all Americans to become Christian? What does he mean?*

* Answer - NOTHING! It's all fluff. And these were all prepared speeches, too. You're trying to word-parse a bit of meaningless fluffery into some sort of political statement. It ain't.

billydkid
13th February 2007, 09:20 AM
Actually, after seeing a few interviews, I'd say Obama is already quite good at ad lib -- he can not answer a question in a very articulate and convincing manner. Not that such is a prerequisite; Bush set the standard for that.

Still, he's got a tough row to hoe in beating the political machine that is Hillary, et al. I give him 1 chance in 5 of getting the dem nod -- and that assumes that the pics of Hillary with Monica become public. The whole trick to being good with ad libs is to tell the truth and to express what your opinions and views actually are as opposed to strenuously trying to remember what it is you are supposed to believe or stand for. I think the vast majority of Americans respect a person who is telling the truth whether they completely agree or not. The feeling I have gotten from BO is that he is inclined to want to speak truthfully. For most other politicians concern for the truth seems not merely to be a secondary consideration, but rather not a consideration at all.

Luke T.
13th February 2007, 09:33 AM
Not pointless. It's point is for market positioning, but otherwise devoid of actual substance. :D

But now, anyone here who likes Obama and has read post #123 can say, "I like Obama for his positions on gun control, domestic abuse, prescription drugs, income tax credits, racial profiling, and spoiled ballots", and sound very informed.

Or if they don't like Obama, and read posts #123 and #116, they can say, "I don't like Obama because of his positions on gun control, domestic abuse, prescription drugs, income tax credits, racial profiling, spoiled ballots, and late term abortions".

And you don't have to read his two books.

:D :D :D

Dr Adequate
13th February 2007, 09:38 AM
Okay, if he doesn't want to bring it to everyone, then who does he want to bring it to? He's saying a new birth of freedom. Is he talking about bringing it to the oppressed people of Springfield, Illinois? I don't think so. He talks about ushering it in "on this Earth;" Lincoln restricted himself to "this nation, under God..." One of us can't remember how the Gettysburg address ends.

... that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

It's not as if it would have perished "from the earth": Switzerland would have remained a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" whatever happened in the States.

Luke T.
13th February 2007, 09:40 AM
I don't like Obama for his position on cell phone guns.

steverino
13th February 2007, 10:00 AM
One of us can't remember how the Gettysburg address ends.

... that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

It's not as if it would have perished "from the earth": Switzerland would have remained a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" whatever happened in the States.

Big slavery problem in the South of Switzerland was there?

hammegk
13th February 2007, 10:01 AM
I don't like obama because he is a standard issue pc'lib tax-raising democrat; he scares me no more or less than any of their candidates.

Tony
13th February 2007, 11:40 AM
I don't like obama because he is a standard issue pc'lib tax-raising democrat; he scares me no more or less than any of their candidates.

Your brain is stuck in 1994.

hammegk
13th February 2007, 11:43 AM
At least I have a brain.

Tony
13th February 2007, 11:44 AM
The only hysteria I have seen is the hysteria in favor of Obama, based on no substance.

You haven't been paying attention then Luke.

steverino
13th February 2007, 11:46 AM
Your brain is stuck in 1994.

The left has been known to accuse the right of having their brains stuck in the '50's. The right accuses the left of having their brains stuck in the '60's.

I am here for ALL the people. I say, let's live our lives with an innocent, Leave-It-To-Beaver sensibility, and let us ALSO have a little free-love action to make it worth waking up in the morning.;)

Happy Birthday Tony

Tony
13th February 2007, 11:54 AM
I'm leaning toward the popular, likeable Italian guy.


Who Guliani? Screw that cross-dressing wop. ;)

Really, I like Rudy. I very much want to vote for him, but I don't want to give the republicans more power, which, having a republican president, no matter who he is, is sure to do. Now if he changed parties...

Darth Rotor
13th February 2007, 11:57 AM
Who Guliani? Screw that cross-dressing wop. ;)

Really, I like Rudy. I very much want to vote for him, but I don't want to give the republicans more power, which, having a republican president, no matter who he is, I sure to do. Now if he changed parties...
*whoops*
When I first read your post, the last line grokked as

"Now, if he changed panties . . ." and seemed to fit hand in fingerless glove with your "cross dressing" opener.

Happy Birthday.

DR

corplinx
13th February 2007, 11:58 AM
I don't like Obama for his position on cell phone guns.

cell phone gun bans sound like the work of Quahog Mayor Adam West. Now I won't have to worry about being shot with cell phones.

Tony
13th February 2007, 12:00 PM
At least I have a brain.

Yeah atleast. It enables you to accomplish simple tasks, handle a fork, and punch keys on a keyboard, but judging by your activity on this board, that's about it.

steverino
13th February 2007, 12:01 PM
"Now, if he changed panties . . ."DR

Shemp? Where are you?

BPSCG
13th February 2007, 12:18 PM
One of us can't remember how the Gettysburg address ends.

... that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

It's not as if it would have perished "from the earth": Switzerland would have remained a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" whatever happened in the States.I doubt Lincoln was thinking about Switzerland, or if he was, it was as a tiny exception. Read the entire Gettysburg address, in particular, "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation" (i.e., the U.S.), "or any nation" (my emphasis) "so conceived and so dedicated" (to the proposition that all men are created equal) "can long endure." Part of what Lincoln was saying at Gettysburg was that the war was a test of self-government, that if it failed in the U.S., it would mean that men were not capable of self-government, certainly not on a large scale.

Read Garry Wills's Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America for a fascinating window into the way Lincoln's mind worked, and an explanation of how the style of the speech had its antecedents in ancient Athens. It also includes the entire text of Edward Everett's two-hour long oration - delivered from memory! - that preceded Lincoln's address.

Tony
13th February 2007, 12:19 PM
"Now, if he changed panties . . ." and seemed to fit hand in fingerless glove with your "cross dressing" opener.


I like to see my presidential candidates in a thong before I vote for them.


Thanks for the Happy B-day wishes everyone. :D

gnome
13th February 2007, 12:20 PM
I don't like obama because he is a standard issue pc'lib tax-raising democrat; he scares me no more or less than any of their candidates.

I take issue with "pc'lib" if PC stands for "Politically Correct" obsessed. Didn't he just recently blow off all the media huff about Biden's "clean" comments? Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson would have been all over that. He chose to let it slide. Doesn't sound like someone obsessed with PC.

Maybe you have an example I don't know about?

hgc
13th February 2007, 01:16 PM
Read Garry Wills's Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America for a fascinating window into the way Lincoln's mind worked, and an explanation of how the style of the speech had its antecedents in ancient Athens. It also includes the entire text of Edward Everett's two-hour long oration - delivered from memory! - that preceded Lincoln's address.
I 2nd the motion! Loved that book. It's a short book that that conveys a lot of understanding about that era, from cemetaries to oratory to the character of Lincoln to the Civil War itself; along with a representation of this speech as a sort of inflection point between the antebellum US (these United States) to the new world to come (The United States).

Luke T.
13th February 2007, 01:20 PM
It is my understanding that Everett told Lincoln that he (Lincoln) made the better speech in two minutes than he (Everett) had made in two hours. He was humbled.

BPSCG
13th February 2007, 01:31 PM
Okay people, there you have it. hgc and BPSCG agree this book is wonderful. Such commonality of judgment you will not again soon behold. You must therefore read it, especially if you're an American, and also especially if you're not.


I have two copies (second was a gift) and one of them has a photo of Lincoln standing with George McClellan.

Lincoln had fired McClellan (for the second time) a good seven months before the battle of Gettysburg, and was already on his third post-McClellan general (Burnside, then Hooker, then Meade).

hgc
13th February 2007, 01:46 PM
It is my understanding that Everett told Lincoln that he (Lincoln) made the better speech in two minutes than he (Everett) had made in two hours. He was humbled.
And that's high praise. Everett was the most revered orator of the age.

BPSCG
13th February 2007, 01:46 PM
It is my understanding that Everett told Lincoln that he (Lincoln) made the better speech in two minutes than he (Everett) had made in two hours. He was humbled.Lincoln replied that nobody would have forgiven Everett had he given a shorter speech, nor Lincoln if he had given a longer one.

ETA: What hgc said. In those days, people came from miles around to hear an orator speak for hours on end. If you pick up a copy of the Lincoln-Douglas debates (and you should - again, marvelous insight into Lincoln's thinking), you'll see that each one went on for several hours, each man talking for as much as a half-hour at a time.

hammegk
13th February 2007, 02:18 PM
Yeah atleast. It enables you to accomplish simple tasks, handle a fork, and punch keys on a keyboard, but judging by your activity on this board, that's about it.
Wipe your chin before the froth drips on your shirt.

hgc
13th February 2007, 02:22 PM
Wipe your chin before the froth drips on your shirt.
Wipe your butt before you stain your shorts.

Tony
13th February 2007, 02:23 PM
Wipe your chin before the froth drips on your shirt.

No worries. I have a bib.

hammegk
13th February 2007, 02:24 PM
:p :D

:)


hgc: Pull my finger.

hgc
13th February 2007, 02:30 PM
hgc: Pull my finger.
Hmmm. No, I'd rather not associate you with the beloved memory of my own dad. He was the finger-offering master.

hammegk
13th February 2007, 02:42 PM
It seems you already did.

Bododio
13th February 2007, 04:37 PM
So far I'm impressed with Barack Obama, not necessarily for his position on the issues, as much as we know about them to date, but his straightforward, seemingly honest approach, as well as his demeanor. He doesn't seem to get ruffled over anything, nor does he try to duck criticism of his perceived shortcomings. In addition, he has a lot of charisma. I realize the campaign is in its infancy, and we still have a long way to go before the candidates and issues get sorted out. I'm definitely not a liberal, and BO's positions may yet put a scare into me.

My own personal observation is that a lot of people make their selection for US president not based on the issues, but based on superficial criteria, that is, charisma, outward appearance, etc. The closest they get to the issues are the few sound bites they hear during the campaign. Now that scares me.

latent aaaack
13th February 2007, 06:46 PM
...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

Hi I'm Ronald Reagan.

Hi I'm Abraham Lincoln.

Hi Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln. My cat's name is Mittens.

All the more sickly ironic remembering that Gore was caught and roasted for telling what wasn't a lie, that he 'took the initiative in creating the internet' when in fact he is a relatively honest man but not charismatic, while other politicians get away with murder and the current president can't even pronounce the name of the internet that Gore did indeed help to create a little. It really seems like there's a spirit of anti-intellectualism and charisma worship taking over American politics. People want to elect a drinking buddy in chief not a president.

Dee
13th February 2007, 06:53 PM
I am not in the least worried or afraid of Obama. I welcome his candidacy and hope he does well. He's a breath of fresh air.

Darth Rotor
13th February 2007, 07:18 PM
I like to see my presidential candidates in a thong before I vote for them.

There goes Dick Cheney, and likewise Hillary Clinton.

You utter bastard, that visual may haunt me for a month! :eek:

Score: Tony 2 DR 0.

DR

Schneibster
13th February 2007, 07:58 PM
No. Next.

steverino
13th February 2007, 08:20 PM
I am not in the least worried or afraid of Obama. I welcome his candidacy and hope he does well. He's a breath of fresh air.

Fresh air scares me. I don't trust it, yet.

gnome
13th February 2007, 11:22 PM
Obama: Do I frighten you? ... Do you want me to?

Upchurch
14th February 2007, 08:17 AM
I don't think any of us are checking the closet for Obama before we go to bed.Nor do I think any of his supporters are expecting him to walk on water or raise the dead. I meant hysterical in the same way that I assume Luke did when he used the term, but maybe he could expand on what he meant when he said the only hysteria he saw was in support of Obama.


Well, except BPSCG. But thats more out of hope than fear.
:D

marksman
14th February 2007, 11:25 AM
I am not in the least worried or afraid of Obama. I welcome his candidacy and hope he does well. He's a breath of fresh air.
How do you know what fresh air is like. Do you have a stash somewhere? You holdin' out on us?!

I, for one, welcome our Obama overlord.

Dr Adequate
14th February 2007, 12:28 PM
I doubt Lincoln was thinking about Switzerland, or if he was, it was as a tiny exception. Read the entire Gettysburg address, in particular, "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation" (i.e., the U.S.), "or any nation" (my emphasis) And my emphasis, oddly enough.

Why did he say that? Pure rhetoric, wasn't it?

Darth Rotor
14th February 2007, 12:32 PM
How do you know what fresh air is like. Do you have a stash somewhere? You holdin' out on us?!

I, for one, welcome our Obama overlord.
Oh no, not another Hussein apologist. :D

DR

Tony
14th February 2007, 03:32 PM
There goes Dick Cheney, and likewise Hillary Clinton.

You utter bastard, that visual may haunt me for a month! :eek:

Score: Tony 2 DR 0.

DR

Muahahahahahaha. My plan has almost come to fruition.