Poor guy's gonna get crushed.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
So democrats pick between a (half) black man and a white woman.
Which guilt complex will overcome!?!?
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
-- George Herbert Walker Bush
What WILL hurt him is his lack of record as a national legislator. Granted you can draw on his record from when he was with the Illinois legislature, but perceived inexperience could really strangle him.
On the flip side, it can get played several ways. The problem with a lot of the Democratic candidates this go around is that they voted for what has ultimately become a rather screwed up military situation. It doesn't actually matter if it was going into these places in the first place or the management once we got there that represents the biggest fuck-up, it's the fact the populace loathes the war (popular opinion polls on it are sucking silt), and the President has acquired a caster-centered DoT of ass funk that spreads and permeates anyone who went along with his policies. So while Obama may not have experience...he also didn't vote to go into this war.
Now...Edwards is pretty popular. If they did the Iowa voting now, he'd win for the Dems. He got away from his record early by saying he feels that in hindsight, his choice to vote for the war was a bad one. Buuuuuuuut...there's still the whiff of ass funk.
Hilary Clinton seems to revel in her share of the ass funk when it suits her...she's over in Iraq "seeing things first hand" before she comes home to flip-flop. Question is if the White Queen can beat out Obama. She's got this whole carefully-crafted life plan she has rolling, but Obamamania is riding high in the saddle right now. Plus Hilary just plain creeps a lot of people out. Little too Lieberman.
I would personally vote for Democrats over McCain (who's gotten irrevocably attached to the President's policy and may be sucked down with it if the proposed surge doesn't work out), and Obama over Hilary.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
ACES! Another post by Leftover Mog:
Its a shame I realy doubt he could win, he seems like good poeple, but being black and having a last name stupidly close to osama realy aint gonna help him
The people who won't vote for him because he is black are the same people who won't vote for him because he's a democrat. I think being black isn't as a big of a problem as you might think.
His speeches talk about encouraging a dymanic free market and keeping the government out of our lives, but his voting records include strict gun control measures, opposition to the privatization of social security, opposition to tax cuts, praising "The New Deal" welfare state, and all manner of nanny state bullshit.
The guy talks like a conservative but acts like any other idiotic socialist idealogue.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
I haven't been following Obama much because I honestly didn't think he had a snowball's chance until recently, but after reading the wikipedia article on him I have to say he sounds utterly two faced.His speeches talk about encouraging a dymanic free market and keeping the government out of our lives, but his voting records include strict gun control measures, opposition to the privatization of social security, opposition to tax cuts, praising "The New Deal" welfare state, and all manner of nanny state bullshit.
The guy talks like a conservative but acts like any other idiotic socialist idealogue.
Heaven forbid he vote in favor of what the majority of his constituency thinks. The idea is that if he were president he would instead act in the best interests of everyone. I can't see into the future but from what I've seen he actually can and does change his mind on topics. I have also heard nothing but good things about him from my sister's fiance who is a close friend of his and one of the main lobbyists for the banker's associations in Illinois (and we all know how durn liberal the bankers are).
quote:
Demos's account was hax0red to write:
Heaven forbid he vote in favor of what the majority of his constituency thinks. The idea is that if he were president he would instead act in the best interests of everyone. I can't see into the future but from what I've seen he actually can and does change his mind on topics. I have also heard nothing but good things about him from my sister's fiance who is a close friend of his and one of the main lobbyists for the banker's associations in Illinois (and we all know how durn liberal the bankers are).
This is about the worst praise I've ever heard from anyone about anything.
It's just that that doesn't become apparent until you have something in your wallet for them to intrude on.
quote:
Blindy.ing:
Or maybe when he's talking about governmental intrusion he's thinking about into our personal lives (ie: abortion, birth control, patriot act) and not into our wallets.
Ah, ok, so he only wants to take away our guns, money, property rights, and individual sovereignty. He's gracious enough to let us keep everything that's become a point of leftist advocacy, though.
Man, I just can't wait to fucking vote for this guy.
quote:
Maradon! - Maradon! = 0:
Ah, ok, so he only wants to take away our guns, money, property rights, and individual sovereignty. He's gracious enough to let us keep everything that's become a point of leftist advocacy, though.Man, I just can't wait to fucking vote for this guy.
Yeah I don't know about that property rights or individual sovereignty part.
But yeah, a fact of life is that the government does cost money to run, and we are not collecting enough money to run it. So cut the government or raise the taxes. I'm for the former rather than the later.
quote:
x--DemosO-('-'Q) :
Heaven forbid he vote in favor of what the majority of his constituency thinks.
Right, you're going to have me believe that he's not an extremist, he's just representing an extremist constituency? Yeah, I'll bank on that one. His voting record isn't the only thing that shows his hideous true colors, also his choice of topics for his debate with Keyes and the elements of his election platform.
quote:
The idea is that if he were president he would instead act in the best interests of everyone.
Or at least everyone who thinks Cuba is a pretty awesome place.
quote:
I can't see into the future but from what I've seen he actually can and does change his mind on topics. I have also heard nothing but good things about him from my sister's fiance who is a close friend of his and one of the main lobbyists for the banker's associations in Illinois (and we all know how durn liberal the bankers are).
Since you're so well connected, maybe you can find for me some evidence that this man is not a hardline socialist marching in lockstep with the rest of his hardline socialist party.
I've been looking around extensively since last night and I have not found one shred of evidence in transcripts of the man's speeches and debates or in his entire political history that would indicate that he is anything but a cookie-cutter tax-'n-spend, we-know-how-to-run-your-life democrat.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Blindy. who doth quote:
Yeah I don't know about that property rights or individual sovereignty part.
Then you don't understand what property rights or individual sovereignty are.
quote:
But yeah, a fact of life is that the government does cost money to run, and we are not collecting enough money to run it. So cut the government or raise the taxes. I'm for the former rather than the later.
Well, you're wrong in a number of ways here.
First off cutting the tax rates raises federal revenue, it doesn't decrease them. The Bush tax cuts are evidence of this, federal reciepts increased considerably. The problem is that taxes weren't cut enough to afford the staggering amount of pork domestic spending going on under Bush - domestic pork spending being something that democrats are also extremely fond of.
Second, it actually isn't a fact of life that government costs money to run. The most expensive things the government is doing are total failures, and it had no right to be doing them in the first place. The fact that you think that MORE government is a good thing only serves to show how backwards your thinking really is - the government is nothing but a corporation that points a gun at you and forces you to buy their product.
It DOESN'T mean everybody gets that product, it just changes the distribution method from one based on merit into first come first serve.
It DOESN'T mean the rich pay for that product and the poor do not, the rich pay for it with money and the poor pay for it with decreased job mobility and increased cost of the actual products they buy.
The government is just another company, like any other. The only difference is the government can and will shoot you if you refuse to buy their product. For this reason, the government should be selling as FEW things as is reasonably possible.
quote:
Blindy.ing:
Well considering that you think that everyone one seat to the left of you on the political scale is a communist, that isn't saying much.
Not quite, I consider everybody advocating communist ideals to be a communist.
I really can't help it if that's most of the american democratic party.
quote:
Maradon! needs the precioussses:
Well, you're wrong in a number of ways here.First off cutting the tax rates raises federal revenue, it doesn't decrease them. The Bush tax cuts are evidence of this, federal reciepts increased considerably. The problem is that taxes weren't cut enough to afford the staggering amount of pork domestic spending going on under Bush - domestic pork spending being something that democrats are also extremely fond of.
To a point, and no one knows where that point is, or if we've gone beyond it, or not, or if the point is static or dynamic, and what factors effect it, and a million trillion billion other things.
You cut taxes if you want to stimulate economic growth.
You raise taxes to keep economic growth at a sustainable level.
But, like all things, it's on a curve. Cutting taxes will stimulate more economic growth to a point, but the more you cut taxes the more and more cuts it takes to achieve smaller and smaller gains, until you get to the point where cutting taxes will actually decrease revenue because taxes are no longer a factor in restraining economic growth.
You don't seem to understand that. You seem to think there is a direct 1 to 1 relationship, and it makes you sound like a god damn fool when you quote it time and time again.
quote:
Second, it actually isn't a fact of life that government costs money to run. The most expensive things the government is doing are total failures, and it had no right to be doing them in the first place. The fact that you think that MORE government is a good thing only serves to show how backwards your thinking really is - the government is nothing but a corporation that points a gun at you and forces you to buy their product.
Huh? No. The government costs money to run. It always cost money to run. And I just said I'm for cutting the government, so how the fuck did you read that i think MORE government is a good thing? Blindy. fucked around with this message on 01-19-2007 at 04:09 PM.
