Political Discussions
Top 5 reasons for NOT voting the other guy
Posted by csiunatc • 9/11/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: election
Ok,
Let's try this, what are your personal reasons for not voting the other guy from what you are thinking now.
No debate needed, No point in trying to convince a previous poster that they are wrong. Everyone is entitled to their feelings and beliefs.
And please, tell us what you think, don't just post another Smear video link.
This is about personal opinion and your feelings on the matters. Just list your reasons why you think that the other guy shouldn't get your vote.
My top 5 reasons for Not supporting Obama are:
1. I think his policy on the Economy and Taxes will make things worse.
2. I think his policy on the War is irresponsible
3. I think his policy on Health care is wrong
4. I think that many of his policies are populist, and designed to appeal to lower income voters who normally stay on the couch to come out. Based on false promises about better times ahead.
5. I don't like his way of dealing with controversy. Rev Wright, Lipstick Pig etc. makes him look like an ass saver more than an honorable person.
User Comments
-
You call those reasons?
I like Obama's health care plan as I see it, so far he made it clear early on that it would not be free but that he was into getting the cost of health care under control so that it would be affordable. The only mandatory care is for children andit is not the impossible to institute national healthcare people seem to be alluding to. I wonder how many have even read his views on this.
I like the effort at Business Health Tax Credit to provide small businesses with a refundable tax credit of up to 50 percent on premiums paid by small businesses on behalf of their employees.
This idea, if you are a doctor or have doctors in your family you will know this next thing is significant - strengthen antitrust laws to prevent insurers from overcharging physicians for their malpractice insurance and will promote new models for addressing errors that improve patient safety, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship and reduce the need for malpractice suits.
The whole thing is reasonable and possible even workable though it will take a lot of work.
You can read it here
www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/ and argue the points if you'd like.
I vote because I like one plan over the other not because I don't like the other one.-
And you missed the point completely, but thanks anyway.
-
-
Yeah, these are really reasons. It's just kind of "I think he's wrong". Wouldn't it be more useful, if you intend to encourage thought, to explain what's wrong with those positions?-
Sigh, never mind.
-
The point was to just see why people didn't like the other candidates - not explain them - there are a million other threads like it.
At least I think that is what csi was going for...
For me, I'll be really brief for now:
Iraq, Iran, not enough Experience, I do not Trust him, Economy -
GallFire, what you wrote explains something to me..."I think Policy X is wrong" does not.
-
Mad X
Do you ever really contribute to a discussion or are you too busy finding faults with what you think the question should have been or how stupid the people who think something is?
If you don't like the question, find another topic. We all know you went to lawschool and you can nit-pick the issue instead of dealing with the meaning. But that was exactly what I wanted to avoid here.
I want to know what the areas of someones opposing side were the main problems for them.
Kinda leads me to believe that you never actually spend any time reading the other side since you can't come up with anything about them, either negative or in the positive thread. -
CSI, it will come as no surprise that you and I disagree about what is productive discussion. I firmly believe that one of the biggest reasons that the United States is in the disastrous state that it is is oversimplification. The fact that the general public does not grasp the complexity of the issues in play and that the media and politicians more concerned about votes than truth play creates an environment in which no one who is willing to speak the truth will ever get elected and politicians will continue to be rewarded for lying. I see NO possibility of turning around this downward spiral until the voting public begins to understand that there are no actual solutions that fit into a thirty-second soundbite and becomes willing to invest the effort to develop at least a basic understanding of the issues in play before choosing a candidate. As such,I believe that pointing out how ridiculously oversimplified the ideas and buzz phrases being bandied about are and trying to encourage at least a few people to think beyond the sound bite is the single most important thing that I (or anyone) can contribute to the political arena today.
-
-
If the post was a joke you're right I didn't get it.
-
No, the post was for you to tell me why you DONT want to vote for McCain, and you answer with why you want to vote for Obama.
We have heard the arguments everyone has FOR their guy's policy, i wan't to hear what you think are the main things wrong with the other side... -
I thought I answered that. I make my decisions based on the things I find most reasonable, things I think could work, not on what I don't like about the other guy. I make my decisions proactively not reactively. Surely you learned that reason usually requires non reactive decisions?
But fine.
I think he, along with Bush and all those who voted that way, were wrong on a preemptive war for oil, a war which has war profiteers laughing al l the way to the bank, a war which displaced more than a million Iraqis and killed over a hundred thousand civilians and allowed us to take out eye of Afghanistan which as you can see now is a little bit of a mess.
I am afraid of what he might put on the Supreme Court given his position of Roe v Wade.
He changes his mind as the wind blows.
Protecting Marriage - no thanks I don't want ideologies thrust upon me.
I saw that economic video and I'm sorry there is no depth to that at all and having read Obamas' and then the analysis of it in the Times I question McCain's knowledge in economics at all.
I wonder why he voted the way he did prior to the campaign if he was so much in support of veterans? It makes me cynical.
I hundred more I'm sure but though I'm off class today I do owe those I work for a couple hours of analysis, as that is what I do.
Don't wait up but I'll be back. -
Merely naming policies as the OP does means nothing. What are those policies? Are we talking about Obama's actual policies? McCain's characterizations of those policies in his commercials and speeches? Are we going to cite sources on these and work hard to get the facts straight? Or is this just supposed to be another pissing contest based on nothing but competing narratives and the facts be damned?
I started a thread earlier asking about actual stances on issues and requesting references from people on all sides of this contest, but there was no interest in that. Go figure. www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/mccain-palin-biographies-v-issue...
I still maintain that without this kind of information, a meaningful discussion among people with opposing ideas is impossible. -
Wow..
PLEASE.. read the original post..
Its about your feelings, what bothers you with the other sides policies. Regardless of why you are bothered with them. I said this is not about debate,
I was just asking to hear what people are thinking about. Not why or exactly how they think on that matter.-
How can I know what you're feeling about the candidates when I have no idea what you know about any of those policies that you criticize or why you're criticizing them? What's the point?
-
-
IM NOT ASKING WHAT I FEEL> IM ASKING WHAT YOU FEEL!
-
Last attempt to make myself clear to you: How can I respond to your OP with my own list, when I have no idea what you said in your OP? (See my first comment on this thread for an explanation of that.) Sure, I could ignore the fact that your OP is devoid of content and still talk about McCain, but that wouldn't exactly be a discussion. So . . . ciao.
-
Thank you.
-
-
csi - while I consider responding to your discussion point (I have many, many reasons for not voting for McCain), I want to respond to your "lipstick on a pig" comment. Obama's explanation wasn't "a*s saving". It was the truth, to wit:
www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/campaign.lipstick/index.html
McCain's campaign said Obama's remarks were offensive and a slap at Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin -- despite the fact that the Arizona senator himself used the phrase last year to describe a policy proposal of Hillary Clinton's...
In Iowa last October, McCain drew comparisons between Hillary Clinton's current health care plan and the one she championed in 1993: "I think they put some lipstick on the pig, but it's still a pig." He used roughly the same line in May, after effectively claiming the Republican nomination...
It wasn't the first time Obama used the line. In a phone interview with The Washington Post last September, he used it in reference to the situation in Iraq. "I think that both Gen. [David] Petraeus and Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker are capable people who have been given an impossible assignment," Obama told the Post. "George Bush has given a mission to Gen. Petraeus, and he has done his best to try to figure out how to put lipstick on a pig."
Now it's starting to look more like McCain being a trouble maker and a pot stirrer than like Obama being an "a*s saver."
[edit: I also want to respond to your comment about irresponsibility in Iraq, a place we shouldn't even be in the first place, since the "intelligence" that served as our justification for going was an outright lie, and since the Joint Chiefs and several military experts constantly say our troop commitment is causing us to lose the real war on terror in Afghanistan. I wrote an article on McCain's speech wherein I generally discussed my views against his foreign policy, including the war in Iraq, here: opinionstreams.com/blog/?p=50.
You may want to read the article and the comments. I had to go further in depth in response to a misguided negative comment.]-
Wrong place
-
-
NO, and here is why.
Either Obama was arguably the only person in that room that had no idea "lipstick" would point square at Palin. THe laughs prove that point if nothing else.
If this is true, he is callous in his word choice and obviously have no idea what is going on around him. Unlike the people who were laughing.
OR
He DID know that it would be a poke at Palin, in which case he is just flat out denying it like a little kid with his fingers behind his back. Relying on the escape route that the phrase has been used before. It doesn't change the fact that he knew exactly what people would think when he said lipstick.
You see, BEFORE has little merit here. Since the Pitbull joke at the RNC, EVERYONE knows what you mean when you refer to lipstick in politics.
Unless of course you are stupid. And if he is stupid, I don't want him in office anyway.
Its one or the other. And he can't have it both ways I'm afraid.-
The comment itself was a non issue. So make fun of it if you want to. But at least stand up and say that you used it to poke fun at someone. If it was a bad choice, then apologize for it.
Denying that he had any idea Lipstick would reflect on Palin makes him either the dumbest and least up-to-date person in the room. Or a liar. -
actually, watch all of the videos of Obama and McCain making the same comment over the last 20 months or so and every time there is laughter. Every time. No proof there. I actually respect Obama more for his handling of it. McCain is twisting words around to try and make Obama look sexist. Obama could have tried to save his a$$ by apologizing for McCain's twisting of his meaning but he didn't. He called McCain out. McCain's response, well if Obama had did want I wanted him to do with the town hall meetings, I wouldn't be so negative in this campaign.
Obama is showing some backbone here.
I wrote a humor piece on it.
www.inandoutoftruth.blogspot.com
"McCain calls Sarah Palin a crybaby" - sort of the same word twisting out of the McCain camp. -
Xmarks
Sorry, but please get me a link to that laugh..
These are the two videos i have of McCain using it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMPYkNQlJMM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMHlIfOTS1c&feature=iv
No laughter in either of them.
Your argument doesn't stand. -
this is soooooo your opinion, csi! An opinion which is obviously scewed by your dislike of Obama. The fact that you cling to your opinion (or your contrived "either/or" scenario above) in the face of clear evidence to the contrary speaks volumes about your ability to look at issues in this election with a discerning eye.
Addressing some of your issues (taking the time to address them all is just too labor intensive) - If I commonly use a phrase, I'm not just going to start biting my tongue and not use the phrase because someone used one word in the phrase in a different way on a different occasion. Let's be serious. And equating your perception of the audience's reaction with Obama's intention stretches the concept of reality just a little bit, don't you think? First of all, you have no way of knowing why the audience laughed. You just think you know. Second, even if the audience equated lipstick with Palin, how can you possibly assume that Obama meant it that way from the mere inference that the audience took it that way? Surely you know that in verbal communication people can understand things in a different manner than the speaker intended. That's why we have split decisions in the Supreme Court.
[EDIT: csi, my comment here addresses the entirety of your comment directly below, so I need not state anything further on this point. I will say though that it appears you keep making up different paper justifications to support an argument that was without merit in the first place] -
Oh, and just to add, like i said before and you completely ignored.
The Lipstick line changed connotation with the RNC, that someone has used it prior is not the issue.
If Obama didn't know what everyone else in the room knew, which is that Lipstick on an animal would connect to Palin, he is the least Up-to-date person in the room. -
Lets see now..
So he didn't intend it that way. FINE lets just assume that he DID know, but didn't think that this might be interpreted that way.
Then he could just have come out and said that, why didn't he.
Because he knows that not understanding what people would think based on his word choice is not a great Position for a president to take.
He had one great way out of this. Which would have been to say....
"Yes i took the lipstick comment and made it my own. This is a phrase that is well known in politics and I didn't think that Sarah Palin would consider it to be so offensive. I expected the VP nominee to have a little thicker skin than that. But since she is offended, I apologize. "
He could have ended with a punchline joke in the terms of
"I promise Governor Palin never to use lipstick again"
That response would have left the Republicans NOWEHERE to go with this.
His weaseling around and pretending that no one knew lipstick Referred to Sarah Palin just reeks of dishonest gamesmanship and really doesn't help his position at all. -
Yeah, again, I've already addressed this. You just keep coming up with different ways to make the same meritless point, so there's really nothing more for me to add...
-
LOL.. ok then. Just so you remember, your the one that brought the lipstick in this discussion to begin with.
I'll also note that you haven't ADRESSED the points i made.. But you enjoy your afternoon. -
I would rather a candidate not be immersed in this crap, and not knowing to you may seem naive but the fact is I'd rather a candidate that knows the issue and hasn't wasted his time our mine studying what "lipstick on a pig" (a term used by both him and McCain in the past, a term which means exactly what is metaphorically meant to mean) This is not kindergarten and the people he gives speeches to are not his students.
-
csiunatc" i'm not clear on this
"What that does, it force small companies to stay small. Many companies are organized as Sole proprietorships or partnerships, but those that make more than 200 thousand are crazy not to incorporate. So they would end up being h it by the tax."
My fathers makes well over that amount, his business is a small corporation( architectural firms employs a couple hundred people, my friend makes under a hundred thousand, both are incorporated she is sub s corp. With deductions they paid no tax, none at all - either of them. They are far from the only ones, this is not uncommon. This allows for them to grow, offer some insurance and with my father the retirement contributions, health insurance and education benefits.
That is not going to change much when the personal tax rate is changed because most people who are incorporated use corporate money for many of their daily living expenses including gas, auto insurance, groceries for "business parties", travel, home improvements, even toilet paper, trash, and electronics. You get the drift.
Neither my father or my friend paid any income tax last year. They are not going to die or complain if all of a sudden they are paying three hundred dollars a year or even a thousand. That is about all it would be based on their incomes and current situations.
Under a flat tax however that would change significantly from what I understand as the tax loopholes - the whole code for corporate deductions and loopholes and all would also have to change. Flat tax comes with those changes.
This is what wold actually stop or seriously impair cooperate growth.
-
-
So every time someone is offended we should apologize? Give me a damn break. It was not even a poor choice of words. He said it and I don't think we was talking about Palin?-
No I said being that this was a potential time bomb, the smart person would have done it.
It's all over the news. If he had approached it differently, he would have disarmed the opposition. He chose a way that allowed them to play this card.
His words, his choices, and I think he made the wrong choice here. -
it is a crock of shit and a none issue.
-
He responded exactly how he should have responded. This is just a game the right likes to play to distract the voters. -
GMoney,
2nd comment, amen.
-
-
- First and foremost, he's Republican and the Republican policies of the last 8 years have made life worse for most American citizens, not better.
- I think his policy on the Economy and Taxes will make things worse. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy haven't done much for the economy, why should McCains?
- I think his policy to stay in Iraq (for up to 100 years if necessary) is wrong and the $720 million a day expense will put our country further in debt.
- I think his policy on Healthcare is horrible. It offers little help for those who need it most and caters to private industry more than the American people.
- I don't like his foreign policy which favors aggression over diplomacy.
-
Thank you
- First and foremost, he's Republican and the Republican policies of the last 8 years have made life worse for most American citizens, not better.
-
Top five against McCain.
1. He lies.
2. He takes both sides of every issue.
3. He whines. "Nation of whiners?" Really. Who's crying over a made-up insult?
4. He's never voted against any military action.
5. His economic policies are pretty much identical to Bush's. -
Top five against Obama....
1. he is inexperienced on the world stage. thinking you can sit down with the folks in iran, etc. without pre-conditions is not only nuts, but irresponsible.
2. he championed change, change, change during the primaries. what does he do with his VP pick? he gets a guy with 30-plus years of washington experience. dems will say good pick, i say it shows how weak obama is on foreign policy experience.
3. he says he's for only taxing the rich guys. problem is, many small business owners would fall into his tax bracket and without healthy small businesses, this economy is dead in the water.
4. he wants us to believe that he sat in a church for 20 years and listened to a racist piece of garbage like jeremiah wright spew hatred towards whites and this country, yet he never heard any of those comments on the sundays he went. when asked how often he went to church, obama said about twice a month. i guess jeremiah wasn't on his best behavior the other 2 sundays.
5. he has a wife who said in the last year that for the first time in her adult life, she was proud to be an american. of course the obama 'spinmeisters' came to her defense and said she was proud of her husband running for president and being nominated, etc. problem is, most of us know what she really meant. i guess she wasn't proud that we helped end the cold war. i guess she wasn't proud when we removed saddam from kuwait. i guess she wasn't proud with the billions of dollars we have given to others in times of need, etc.-
@davet - this is from factcheck.org in regards to your point 3:
McCain has repeatedly claimed that Obama would raise tax rates for 23 million small-business owners. It's a false and preposterously inflated figure. We find that the overwhelming majority of those small-business owners would see no increase, because they earn too little to be affected. Obama's tax proposal would raise rates only on couples making more than $250,000 or singles earning more than $200,000...
According to a survey from the National Federation of Independent Businesses, about eight out of 10 small-business owners responding to the poll report that they are organized legally in a way that would require them to pay taxes on their business income as individuals, rather than as a corporation. But since Obama's plan wouldn't affect those making less than $250,000 for couples, or about $200,000 for singles, we need to estimate how many would fall into those high-income categories...
The actual number of business owners who would be affected turns out to be well under a million, and the number of employers would be even less. Based on the number of taxpayers who now report any sort of business income on their returns, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center projects that 663,608 taxpayers with business income, or business losses, will fall into the top two tax brackets in 2009, when any Obama tax changes would first take effect. Not all of those can properly be called "small-business owners," however. Some are farmers. Many are lawyers, accountants or other professionals who get some of their income in the form of partnership distributions. Others may be passive investors in real-estate partnerships or similar investment arrangements and not really persons who own and manage a business...
For all these reasons we judge that the actual number of small-business employers who would face higher tax rates under Obama is probably far below 663,608, and certainly a far cry from McCain's ridiculously inflated 23 million figure.
www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html
Regarding point 5 - I hope you realize the McCain has also said it's difficult to be proud of the U.S.? blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/06/14/mccain-it-can-be-tough-to-be-proud-of-...
Surely you're not naive enough to think that people, even presidential candidates' wifes, are always going to be proud of this country. We've done some things that no one should be proud of. It takes guts for both McCain and for M.O. to admit that rather than hiding behind some phoney mask of infallible patriotism. -
One there is a difference between having things you are not proud of, and "never having been proud of"
I hope you see that little difference.
2. Im going to take a distance to those numbers off the bat. BUt that is not the real problem.
What that does, it force small companies to stay small. Many companies are organized as Sole proprietorships or partnerships, but those that make more than 200 thousand are crazy not to incorporate. So they would end up being h it by the tax.
That means that it will be unfavorable for a sucessful company to reinvest and grow.
Not a good plan. -
@davet - regarding your point 1 - Obama has clarified the "without preconditions" comment, which was never his comment, by the way, it was just imputed to him. As he's explained countless times, it is stupid foreign policy to leave diplomacy off the table. Diplomacy worked for half a century during the Cold War and diplomacy has repeatedly worked at other times in our history. What's more, Bush Administration policy toward Iran is now changing to reflect what Obama advocates - diplomacy rather than rhetoric. If you think his willingness to employ diplomacy when dealing with Iran reflects inexperience, you haven't read up on the history of foreign relations.
Regarding point 4 - Much has been made of Wright's comments, and I have a general problem with the words of others being imputed to someone who didn't utter them, but there are several responses. For one, does it alarm you that John Hagee, whom many refer to as an anti-Semite and hatemonger, openly gave McCain an endorsement or that Sarah Palin is quoted has having expressed agreement with, even echoing, what some consider to be fanatical comments from her pastor? It cuts both ways.
Perhaps one of the best ways to address this, though, is to ask - do you agree with everything your parents have ever said or everything they believe or believe in? If you don't agree with everything, should your response be to cut all ties to your parents? I assume your answer to these questions is "no", and if so, you should be prepared to cut Obama some slack on the Wright issue. -
@csi - M.O. never said the comment you're trying to shove down her throat, so I don't have to continue this debate with you on that front.
Regarding your second point. It's not reasonable to assume that if a tax on a small percentage of small businesses goes back to the same level that that tax was 8 years ago, those businesses will suddenly implode or have a disincentive to expand. We're not talking about some astronomical figure here. We're talking about pre-Bush tax rates and, again, for a small percentage of small businesses. The economy grew wonderfully under that tax regime before, so there's no reason to assume it won't now.
And if you want to say "but the economy is worse", I'll say (1) Bush's foreign and domestic policy did it; and (2) you're missing the other aspects of Obama's plan that will make the economy better. This is simple history. For at least the past 36 years, our economy has experienced expansion under democratic presidents and recessions under republican presidents. -
he is inexperienced on the world stage. thinking you can sit down with the folks in iran, etc. without pre-conditions is not only nuts, but irresponsible.
Like the irresponsible way in which Reagan sat down with Gorbachev, right?
he championed change, change, change during the primaries. what does he do with his VP pick? he gets a guy with 30-plus years of washington experience. dems will say good pick, i say it shows how weak obama is on foreign policy experience.
McCain's been in Washington longer than marble columns -- not even a nice try. Please play again.
he says he's for only taxing the rich guys. problem is, many small business owners would fall into his tax bracket and without healthy small businesses, this economy is dead in the water.
First, that's just a plain lie and you're a gullible fool for falling for it. Two, McCain's policies are Bush's policies -- how's that workin' for ya so far?
he wants us to believe that he sat in a church for 20 years and listened to a racist piece of garbage like jeremiah wright spew hatred towards whites and this country, yet he never heard any of those comments on the sundays he went. when asked how often he went to church, obama said about twice a month. i guess jeremiah wasn't on his best behavior the other 2 sundays.
Is Wright running for President? I hadn't noticed that. Meanwhile, McCain sought out the endorsement of two freakin' nazis whose views were so extreme and so offensive that he had to later drop them.
he has a wife who said in the last year that for the first time in her adult life, she was proud to be an american. of course the obama 'spinmeisters' came to her defense and said she was proud of her husband running for president and being nominated, etc. problem is, most of us know what she really meant. i guess she wasn't proud that we helped end the cold war. i guess she wasn't proud when we removed saddam from kuwait. i guess she wasn't proud with the billions of dollars we have given to others in times of need, etc.
Is Michelle Obama running for president? I hadn't noticed that. Besides, unconditional pride has value how? That's not patriotism, that's blind nationalism. For the record, blind nationalism is a bad thing.
-
-
Top five against McCain:
1. He's trigger happy (diplomacy does not seem to be his forte)
2. He' not a good communicator (this one I'm giving to the Dems so I don't have to hear 4 more years of "he's dumb.")
3. Despite the fact Palin has energized the party...one heart beat away from the presidency? uh-huh...I don't think so. Can't picture it.
4. Age has worn on him...I really feel he was a better candidate 8-10 years ago...he does not sound fresh anymore...in his ideas or his presentation.
5. He's masquerading as a conservative...or at least trying to appeal to conservatives...but I do not see a genuineness to him.
Top five against Obama:
1. His liberal leanings.
2. His liberal associations.
3. His foggy stance on the legalities of abortion.
4. His liberal voting record.
5. His weakness in attacking extreme right viewpoints with authority
Why did I do both? Because I just may be switching from Republican to Independent after this election...and I can see weaknesses in both men fairly clearly. -
opinion,
where do i begin????
1. i will say the same thing to george bush that i'll say to barack obama. if you think you can sit down with that terrorist in tehran who helped in the 1979 take over of our building there without pre-conditions, good luck!!!
2. even the most supportive obama backers can't put a positive spin on the biden pick. is biden experienced? yes. do i think biden is a patriot and an overall good guy? yes. is he the change that obama trumpeted during the primaries? hell no. so while i don't have an ivy league education and haven't written any memoirs, i'm semi intelligent enough to see that obama's pick admits the illinois senator is weak on foreign policy experience.
3. we can turn the tax numbers 100 different ways from 100 different independent think tanks, fact checkers, etc. i recently started a small biz and i certainly don't make that kind of money at this point, but that is the goal before too long. obama's mathematics concern me.
4. it is hard to cut obama slack when we're talking 20 YEARS. if this were even a decade i would say bad call on his part, but i'll give him a pass. if mc cain had gone to church whose pastor uttered such hatred, etc. for 20 years, the left would have a field day with it.
5. finally, we've all had moments where we have challenged what our country has done. but by and large, i'm very proud to have lived here for 43 years. the problem with the 'blame america crowd' is people are starting to see through that. america by far does more good for the world than anyone else. now i know someone will come on here and talk about dead iraqi and afghan citizens, the fact we nuked japan twice, etc. etc. do i expect cindy mc cain to utter something ridiculous at some point if she already hasn't (obama followers suddenly doing google searches of every word CM has uttered over the last several years, lol.) of course i do. mrs. obama saying that for the first time in her adult life she is proud to be american smacks of arrogance and denial of all this country has done. she is a tad bit older than me and i'm 43. so considering most people feel adulthood begins at around 18, that is 25 years of events. and she's just proud now?????? please, i think you have some very credible points in your comments, but give me a break on this one. the woman should be ashamed of herself for such a comment.-
@davet - this is good discourse...
1. Please lay off the "without preconditions" thing. 1, Obama never said it, it was imputed to him. 2, even if you think he did say it, he's certainly retracted it. He's talking strong diplomacy here, not unconditional peace talks.
2. I will not deny you the right to draw that inference in the Biden pick. Certainly, on some level, Obama picked Biden to answer fears about his foreign policy experience. I see it more that way than as an admission of his weakness. But anyway, I hope you're also willing to be as circumspect about McCain's V.P. pick.
3. That's your preference. I just hope you're basing it on all the facts, rather than just on McCain's constant "he'll raise all your taxes" lie. And also see my response to csi above. We're talking about pre-Bush tax levels here. Small businesses thrived and enjoyed incredible expansion under Clinton.
4. I really hoped my "parent" example would work on you, since you're parents are with you for a significant portion of your life. I certainly don't agree with everything my parents say or believe, but I'd never cut them off and I'd never expect people to accuse me of believing what my parents believe in the face of me telling them I don't. I'll also say that I'm a church-goer and, though I agree with my Pastor's overall message, I don't agree with everything he says. So I understand Obama on this issue. You can cringe at some of the things your parents or your pastor says, but then remember that you can support them without supporting everything they stand for.
5. In your list of the bad things America's done, you left off the 400 years of slavery, coupled with the "sharecropping" and the Jim Crow laws that followed and which still existed during M.O.'s childhood. You may want to debate this issue till the cow's come home (but I won't), but suffice it to say that it's naive to think that the results of 500 years of nationally institutionalized political, legal, social and economic racism vanished with the Voting Rights Act. Given that history and the effects that this country still hasn't overcome, I have no problem with M.O. - or any other African American for that matter - spending considerable portions of their lives not feeling too proud of America's heritage. You may be of a different opinion, but you aren't really in a position to deny the validity of that sentiment to M.O.
-
-
from opinion,
1. Please lay off the "without preconditions" thing. 1, Obama never said it, it was imputed to him. 2, even if you think he did say it, he's certainly retracted it.
opinion,
ok...which is it? he didn't say it or he did say it and retracted it?
2. i've said before that mc cain's pick of palin was for a number of reasons, one of which was clearly to appeal to women voters, and in his hopes, hopefully a number of hillary supporters. but one must admit the left was totally caught off guard by the pick, so they've had to smear her personal life as a result to try and neutralize her. if he had picked pawlenty, huckabee, romney, etc. we would have heard the case against mc cain that it is the tired, old GOP...two pasty white men running for office again. so he picks a female, a fresh face, and someone who has some spunk and of course he is ridiculed for it. but as noted, there were clearly political reasons too behind her pick (women voters, etc.)
3. as for taxes, we agree to disagree.
4. can't give you a free pass on this one. it is what it is...20 YEARS of listening to garbage from jeremiah. even obama, who said he went to church usually twice a month, would have a hard time passing a lie detector if he said he never heard wright offer up any of this garbage in two decades.
5. again, can't give you a free pass on this one. when will black people move on with life and stop using the slavery card? do we still owe native americans an apology for raiding some of their villages in the 1800's?? much of the problem with race in this country is equally divided between blacks and whites. many (not all) blacks cry out when they are verbally challenged on an issue with the same reply... that whites are racists and are attacking them. many (not all) blacks cry out that police and juries are out to get them. many (not all) blacks turn a deaf ear when it is black on white crime. again, michelle obama has had at least 25 years of being an adult. i said it earlier and i'll say it again...we helped end the cold war in that time period, we drove a dictator out of kuwait, we have spent billions of dollars on AIDS research and assistance to foreign countries, we have opened our doors (legally and unfortunately illegally) to countless people to come and have a better life here in america. heck, even one of her own, bill clinton, helped to stop a genocide in the former yugoslavia. and this is the first time she is proud in her adult life to be an american? she needs to get off that 'blame america for everything' train and toot america's horn from time to time.-
@davet - I think we've reached equilibrium on 2-5. With regard to 1, as I've said, he didn't say it. I threw out the "retracted" comment in case you want to continue to believe he did say it. In other words, even if you believe Obama said it, you should also be willing to admit that subsequent comments constitute a retraction and a statement of "strong diplomacy". I think his subsequent statements were an unnecessary clarification. But since you (may) still think he said "no preconditions", you should at least be able to read subsequent statements as a retraction.
Glancing back over point 5, perhaps I'm not the best person to "champion the black cause", but statements like "when will black people move on with life and stop using the slavery card" really stick in my craw. It's like telling a rape victim she can't feel resentment toward her attacker. You can't deny a race of people the right to feel the after affects of 5 and a half centuries of institutionalized racism. And you can't tell them to "get over it" when the problem persists. Face it, this country did African Americans a grave disservice (to say the least), and to tell them now that they should "get over it" because we slapped a couple bandaid laws over the problem probably fosters that resentment. Again, try telling a rape victim to "get over it". Try telling victims of the Holocaust to "get over it". Whether or not you agree the situations are analogous, you should hopefully see that the reaction to the statement will be the same.
And for African Americans, none of the wonderful things you mentioned did a lick to change their domestic situation. So, forgive me, but I can understand why an African American would feel long-term resentment (and M.O. didn't say "resent") for the U.S. I think what the reaction to M.O.'s comment reflects is willful ignorance and refusal on the part of some Americans (without regard to political affiliation) to accept that there are real problems facing the black community and that some of those problems are, indeed, America's fault.
We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one though, because I won't continue to argue it.
On a lighter note, why are all our comments italicized now? Just an "it's way too late" observation. I'm off to bed, but I'll return to this exciting thread tomorrow...
-
-
opinion,
we'll let you get some sleep, but as regards to black people, some of my best associations and friends over the years have been colored folks (i know, not politically correct to say it that way, but i do live in a free country with freedom of speech). do they harbor this 'victim' syndrome? no.
i hate to get off the original topic...but february is black history month. suppose i as a white person wanted july to be white history month? my gosh, i'd be branded a racist.
black on black crime in this country is higher than white on black crime. many black leaders yell and scream at the top of their lungs (and they should) when an injustice is done to a black man. i ask in return that when 2 white female college students (auburn, north carolina) are gunned down in cold blood by black men with rap sheets longer than my christmas list, and it is on national news for weeks, that jesse, rev. al and the others reply with the same outcry. problem is, they didn't. many whites see a double standard in cases like this.
and i know michelle never said the word resent. but her comments, in MHO, were derogatory and foolish. does she have the right to make them? absolutely. many whites and blacks died in wars over the years to give her, you, myself and millions of others that right. were they one of the best first impressions america got of its potential next first lady? absolutely not.
she can spin it anyway she wants, but she should have a little more pride in her country. much that still divides us in this country is people not being able to move on in life. the victim role only works for so long....-
yeah, well. Like I said, I'm not going to keep going here with you. Some of what you said was quite telling though...
-
@davet - my last comment was broken up for some reason. I'll retype:
yeah, well. Like I said, I'm not going to keep going here with you. Some of the things you wrote were quite telling though...
-
-
I have only one:
McCain lies and slander
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_stretching_the_truth;_ylt=A... -
Opinion streams you need to close you italics code
Testing -
opinion streams you need to have a closing italics code way up there.
-
You mean this whole thing was my fault! I forgot to close emphasis!
Okay, I guess it's over now...whew! -
I still love you!
-
-
xmarks,
have you checked obama's nose lately???? he is looking more and more like pinocchio every day. even those lies he and his followers on the left perpetuate are catching up to him... -
opinion,
we can agree to disagree at the end of the day. i just want a potential first lady i can be proud of....and i'm not there yet with MO.-
Fair enough. You're entitled to that. She has tried to walk away from that comment though, in light of the people who took it the way you have. I hope you looked at her DNC speech ("And that is why I love this country..." - read the transcript. I have a link to the video on my article about the speech, which, of course, I suggest you read
opinionstreams.com/blog/?p=35). She's also discussed it in print and t.v. interviews.
Like Palin's explanation of the "God's plan" comment, I hope you'll at least give M.O. a fair chance to clarify the remark.
That's all.
-
-
opinion,
if MO wants to clarify the remark, great. i'm not happy with some of the things this country has done in my 43 years on the planet. but i've been proud of my country many more times than not in this lifetime. and it isn't a 'wrap yourself in the flag' kind of GOP lovefest or all those on the left are unpatriotic. i'm simply proud to be an american and have no trouble admitting that. -
Wisco
he is inexperienced on the world stage. thinking you can sit down with the folks in iran, etc. without pre-conditions is not only nuts, but irresponsible.
Like the irresponsible way in which Reagan sat down with Gorbachev, right?
he championed change, change, change during the primaries. what does he do with his VP pick? he gets a guy with 30-plus years of washington experience. dems will say good pick, i say it shows how weak obama is on foreign policy experience.
McCain's been in Washington longer than marble columns -- not even a nice try. Please play again.
he says he's for only taxing the rich guys. problem is, many small business owners would fall into his tax bracket and without healthy small businesses, this economy is dead in the water.
First, that's just a plain lie and you're a gullible fool for falling for it. Two, McCain's policies are Bush's policies -- how's that workin' for ya so far?
he wants us to believe that he sat in a church for 20 years and listened to a racist piece of garbage like jeremiah wright spew hatred towards whites and this country, yet he never heard any of those comments on the sundays he went. when asked how often he went to church, obama said about twice a month. i guess jeremiah wasn't on his best behavior the other 2 sundays.
Is Wright running for President? I hadn't noticed that. Meanwhile, McCain sought out the endorsement of two freakin' nazis whose views were so extreme and so offensive that he had to later drop them.
he has a wife who said in the last year that for the first time in her adult life, she was proud to be an american. of course the obama 'spinmeisters' came to her defense and said she was proud of her husband running for president and being nominated, etc. problem is, most of us know what she really meant. i guess she wasn't proud that we helped end the cold war. i guess she wasn't proud when we removed saddam from kuwait. i guess she wasn't proud with the billions of dollars we have given to others in times of need, etc.
Is Michelle Obama running for president? I hadn't noticed that. Besides, unconditional pride has value how? That's not patriotism, that's blind nationalism. For the record, blind nationalism is a bad thing.
wisco,
you can do better than that, right?
1. gorbachev wasn't some terrorist who helped storm our building in tehran in 1979, didn't threaten to wipe israel off the map numerous times, and didn't run a country that was a state supporter of terrorism.
2. nice job of dancing around obama's lack of foreign policy experience with a cheap shot at mc cain. i can't say i'm surprised.
3. as was noted in an earlier post, we can agree to disagree on the tax plans.
4. you're right, wright isn't running for president. but if mc cain had gone to this church for 20 years and listened to this racist piece of garbage spew his hatred, you'd have a field day with that.
5. you're right, michelle obama is not running for president. nothing wrong with being critical of your country at times. but you (MO) have no credibility when you've been an adult for nearly 30 years and now claim that for the first time, you are proud of your country.
my suggestion to strengthen your credibility in this room is to at least admit when the left/democrats/liberals/team obama/ etc. screw up or acknowledge some good things the right/republicans/conservatives/team mc cain/ etc. have done right. to just spew your obvious hatred of the right is as old, as well, joe biden's time in washington.-
gorbachev wasn't some terrorist who helped storm our building in tehran in 1979, didn't threaten to wipe israel off the map numerous times, and didn't run a country that was a state supporter of terrorism.
You're pretty much wrong on every count here. The Soviet Union promised to wipe us off the map and was a state sponsor of terrorism. They weren't real keen on Israel either. Really, let's keep our arguments within the confines of reality -- the USSR was the biggest existential threat the United States has ever faced. In comparison, Iran's a Mickey Mouse little annoyance.
nice job of dancing around obama's lack of foreign policy experience with a cheap shot at mc cain. i can't say i'm surprised.
Fine. Obama chairs the Senate's Subcommittee on European Affairs. McCain chaired the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Which committee spends more time on FP?
as was noted in an earlier post, we can agree to disagree on the tax plans.
Sure, you can, but that doesn't mean your info's correct. Again, let's keep our arguments within the confines of reality.
you're right, wright isn't running for president. but if mc cain had gone to this church for 20 years and listened to this racist piece of garbage spew his hatred, you'd have a field day with that.
I think the odds of McCain going to an inner city Chicago church are pretty slim, don't you? I'll tell you what, you spend fifty or sixty some years as a black guy in Chicago and let's see if you're not all that crazy about the way things are set up in America. You can start now; get back to me in 2058, when you've got an idea what you're talking about.
you're right, michelle obama is not running for president. nothing wrong with being critical of your country at times. but you (MO) have no credibility when you've been an adult for nearly 30 years and now claim that for the first time, you are proud of your country.
Except that's not what she said, is it? Why do I have to keep telling you to keep your arguments within the confines of reality?
my suggestion to strengthen your credibility in this room is to at least admit when the left/democrats/liberals/team obama/ etc. screw up or acknowledge some good things the right/republicans/conservatives/team mc cain/ etc. have done right. to just spew your obvious hatred of the right is as old, as well, joe biden's time in washington.
My credibility isn't the problem, yours is. That's the second time I've shot every argument you've made down point for point. Want to try again? I warn you, I've got the advantage -- reality has a liberal bias.
-
-
from wisco....
My credibility isn't the problem, yours is. That's the second time I've shot every argument you've made down point for point. Want to try again? I warn you, I've got the advantage -- reality has a liberal bias.
wisco,
i don't know whether to laugh or cry at your responses. i mean most of the lefty lovers who come in here at least back up their claims with credible answers, even if i don't agree with them.
1. so in your little fantasy world.... iran is a little mickey mouse annoyance. try telling that to israel and the other folks in the neighborhood. try telling that to our soldiers getting shot at and bombed in iraq every day. oops, i know, we shouldn't be there in the first place...my bad.
2. i think i to some detail got you to finally admit that obama picked biden because of obama's significant lack of foreign policy experience, so there is hope.
3. as noted before, you have your numbers you want to rely on, i'll have mine. i have no problem with folks coming in here from the left and saying their numbers are better or vice-versa. that is a fair debate.
4. this sounds like the usual left rhetoric....the poor black man has been held down for hundreds of years and they're just venting their anger at the white man. there are bigots in the white community, and we certainly have identified jeremiah wright as a bigot in the black community. the problem for obama, he sat and listened to this bigot for 20 years....but i'm sure it never influenced his way of looking at things....
5. go back and read MO's comments again and again if you have to. oops, i know, those evil folks on the right twisted her words like they always do.
finally...why are you so angry???? i know the thought of having another republican in the white house bothers the hell out of you, but chill out. you show your lack of credibility each time you respond when you can't point out any good things repubs have done in recent decades. i've said when i thought clinton did well, etc. so i at least acknowledge some success on the left.
now go have a margarita, maybe stop watching MSNBC or CNN for an evening for your talking points, and come back to play when you are a little calmer.
the only reality here is you're living in la-la land if you think iran isn't a threat, obama has plenty of foreign policy experience, you're going to get a big tax break with obama, jeremiah wright had no influence on the messiah, and michelle obama didn't say that for the first time in her adult life, she was proud of her country. if you believe all that, look for the price of gas to drop below $2 next week. i mean we went to war in iraq strictly for the oil, right? so why am i still paying nearly $4 a gallon?-
so in your little fantasy world.... iran is a little mickey mouse annoyance. try telling that to israel and the other folks in the neighborhood. try telling that to our soldiers getting shot at and bombed in iraq every day. oops, i know, we shouldn't be there in the first place...my bad.
Explain to me where in the Constitution it says we have to give a damn about apartheid states like Israel. They made their bed, now let them sleep in it. Our soldiers in Iraq (use some damned caps, would you? Do you blog this badly?) are getting shot at and bombed because we invaded a sovereign nation. I've got a little secret for you, when you start shooting up a neighborhood, people just might start shooting back. Anti-intuitive, I know, but that's just the way things are.
And yes, compared to the USSR, Iran is a Mickey Mouse little annoyance. If we could stare down the Soviets, but the Iranians kick our ass, then something's very, very wrong with the current crop of American leaders.
i think i to some detail got you to finally admit that obama picked biden because of obama's significant lack of foreign policy experience, so there is hope.
Could you translate that from whatever the hell it is into English, please?
as noted before, you have your numbers you want to rely on, i'll have mine.
Numbers straight out the the Dept. of John McCain's butt.
i have no problem with folks coming in here from the left and saying their numbers are better or vice-versa. that is a fair debate.
No, a fair debate is when both sides use truth. Math isn't a matter of opinion.
this sounds like the usual left rhetoric....the poor black man has been held down for hundreds of years and they're just venting their anger at the white man. there are bigots in the white community, and we certainly have identified jeremiah wright as a bigot in the black community. the problem for obama, he sat and listened to this bigot for 20 years....but i'm sure it never influenced his way of looking at things....
How could you write that and not get it? Do you think blacks in America have it as well as whites or what? And, BTW, is it 2058 already? Time sure does fly...
go back and read MO's comments again and again if you have to. oops, i know, those evil folks on the right twisted her words like they always do.
I'm not doing your legwork for you. You made the claim, you back it up.
finally...why are you so angry????
I'm allergic to having people lie to my face. It makes me break out with a bad case of I-give-a-f**k.
i know the thought of having another republican in the white house bothers the hell out of you, but chill out. you show your lack of credibility each time you respond when you can't point out any good things repubs have done in recent decades. i've said when i thought clinton did well, etc. so i at least acknowledge some success on the left.
Honestly, I can't think of any good thing Republicans have done lately. I suppose hooker and blow parties were fun for them, but I'm not big on vicarious thrills.
now go have a margarita, maybe stop watching MSNBC or CNN for an evening for your talking points, and come back to play when you are a little calmer.
I'm also allergic to smug condescension, just so you know.
-
-
The 2000 election was the first election in which I was able to participate. Today, I am a proud democrat and Obama supporter. In 2000, however, I registered as a republican. The reason I did so: John McCain. As I watched all of the candidates, democrat and republican, I felt that McCain was the right candidate. As recently as January, I can remember telling my wife (who is from Mexico and was not in the country during the 2000 election)that I would most likely vote for Obama or Clinton, but that I thought John McCain would make a good president. I can even remember saying something to the effect of "No matter which candidate becomes president, America wins." Unfortunately, I do not believe that anymore. Please realize that I am not so naive to think that Barack Obama would be the perfect president and that the US will be enjoying 50 cent a gallon gas, 0% unemployment, manna and quail from the skies, etc, etc, etc. That being said, here are my reasons that I do not plan on voting for John McCain, in no particular order (keep in mind this is just one man's humble opinion):
The economy: I am not convinced that John McCain understands the economy. The fact that he believes that we are better off now than in 2000 is a little scary. In a January Republican debate, he mentioned "low unemployment rates." The 2007 unemployment rate was 4.6%, the lowest it had been in some time. However, the 2000 unemployment rate was 4.0% Regardless of those numbers, I cannot believe that we are economically better off than we were in 2000. Not with the housing crisis and the new unemployment rate of 6.1%.
Taxes: John McCain will lower taxes for people in all income brackets. Obama will lower taxes for those who make less than $250,000 a year. According to a study by the Tax Policy Center, a working family making $60,000 a year will see their after-tax income increase by over $1,000 under Obama's plan. Under McCain's plan, that same family would see their after-tax income increase by around $300. While I realize that this is not necessarily a completely accurate look at their tax plans, a $600 difference is significant. Under McCain's plan, those in the top income brackets will benefit more. This is a question about what works? Do you believe that the working families should receive the benefits themselves? Or, do you think that the wealthiest citizens should receive the benefits and let those benefits "trickle down?" Whatever someone believes is ok, I just happen to believe the first. I'm no economist, though, so I may just be talking out of my rear. :-)
The maverick: While John McCain has spent his career fighting lobbyists and special interest groups, several of his current staffers are lobbyists. If a candidate wants to hire lobbyists, that's fine. It's his or her decision. However, if that candidate has spent his career speaking out against lobbyists, you can see how it seems a little... ...odd.
Foreign policy: My perception is that McCain would be more aggressive and less diplomatic in his handling of some situations. Don't get me wrong, there is a time for aggressiveness. There is also time for diplomacy. That is not to say that I think that McCain "loves war" or is a "warmonger" as I have heard him called. While I don't question his experience, I am not confident in his judgment. On the flip-side, I completely understand why Barack Obama's experience is being called into question. Personally, I believe that judgment is his strong point.
Again, this is just one man's humble opinion. Great question, by the way. It's always great to examine your beliefs!! My biggest problem with politics is that so many people believe what they are taught to believe.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
