Skull & Bones candidate 1 v Skull & Bones candidate 2 (2004)
CFR candidate 1 v CFR candidate 2 or 3 (2008)
Pick your poison...
Skull & Bones candidate 1 v Skull & Bones candidate 2 (2004)
CFR candidate 1 v CFR candidate 2 or 3 (2008)
Pick your poison...
- Feb 20, 2006
- 2,321
- 0
- 0
Again, I fail to see what that has to do with anything? The OP has nothing to do with "Vote Nader", even though if you asked him, the author would surely like for you to do so. The article simply points out Obama's voting record and examines how he is as duplicitous as the next guy. I guess I should expect that certain people are either too lazy to read the article or too challenged to consider the actual points made within.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
Obama is beginning to smell like a peanut farmer from Georgia...
I don't care if he's achieving rock star status, the problems he's offering to fix don't offer up easy solutions.
Even if he's elected by a landslide, (unlikely BTW), a "mandate" by the people won't change the fundamental issues this country needs to address.
Don't get me wrong, I loved Jimmy Carter, he was an honorable man, and I suspect Obama is too, it's just that being a boy scout isn't gonna fix things.
The Clinton machine has another few waves of flying monkeys to release...
I don't care if he's achieving rock star status, the problems he's offering to fix don't offer up easy solutions.
Even if he's elected by a landslide, (unlikely BTW), a "mandate" by the people won't change the fundamental issues this country needs to address.
Don't get me wrong, I loved Jimmy Carter, he was an honorable man, and I suspect Obama is too, it's just that being a boy scout isn't gonna fix things.
The Clinton machine has another few waves of flying monkeys to release...
Well, the article seems to try to find flaws in everything Obama did. Look hard enough and you will find flaws (some legitimate). But the people that support him like him as much for his policies as his character. The only people protraying Obama to be a rock star are the envious. The rest of us just want somebody different in Washington. I'm a Republican that used to be for the Iraq war. But I can't stomach the thought of voting for people that either continue to support it fullheartedly (McCain) or see which way the wind is blowing before offering their opinion (Clinton). And I sure as hell ain't going to vote for Nader.
I don't understand what people have against Carter. He did his best in awful times. Hell, the guy sacrificed his Presidency by actually trying to fight inflation. People make it sound like his presidency was the worst ever. It wasn't.
As opposed to the other candidates...?
Obama's reach may exceed his grasp, but at least he's willing to try...which is more than I can say for most everyone else involved in politics today. It's certainly lightyears ahead of Hillary and McCain.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
Stagflation was not his fault. He fixed the problem of run-away inflation. Nobody said it would be painless. Who would you rather have, a competent leader that tries to fix the nation's economic problems by making the tough and right choices (Carter) or someone that starts false wars and spends the nations's earnings away like a drunk sailor (Bush)?
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
When anyone questions Obama or says they don't plan to support him they get slammed for being a cynical jerk who has no hope for the future. How exactly is that any different from the tactic of questioning someone's patriotism when they, I don't know, refuse to wear an american flag on their lapel?
Feel free to contest the message, but characterizing anyone who doesn't view Obama as the bastion of sainthood as emotionally dead or hopeless makes you look like the chump. Currently Obama has support from just over 50% of democrats, and essentially zero republicans. Basically 75% of the country must be blind deaf and dumb according to you, since they couldn't possibly think that someone else might actually make a decent president. Now that's a cynical outlook.
Actually I don't think you are being very fair. I have reserved my comments, I'm fairly sure, to people who attack Obama as a purveyor of false hope and mere rhetoric. I see the psychological root of that mental defect, a need not to have hope because of what it would awaken. You probably don't see what I see and therefore don't understand where I'm coming from. But it does seem that something about my approach makes you feel bad, or as I would say, more aware you already feel that way.
Someone once asked Mulla Nasrudin what they did with old moons. He replied that they cut them up to make 40 stars.
The article doesn't simply point out his voting record, it's 99% opinion. You're showing your bias as clearly as the author is if you can't see that. The article takes votes that most readers know nothing about and then spins it to mean exactly what the author wants it to mean.... something negative against Obama. When you decide from the beginning that everything done by every politician is duplicitious, of course you'll read that bias into all information. The only real laziness is when a scholar refuses to look up every vote that Obama made, see which ones the scholar disagrees with, then look up Obama's stated reasons for voting the opposite way, and forming one's own decision. To instead rely on Obama's political enemies to define his position for you is laziness, the sign of being challenged, and a terrible place to start an examination of a candidate.
Obama has very different reasons for his votes than what the author states, and all of that information is out there. If this was an objective article, it would quote Obama's reason for the vote and analyze if his reasons hold up. Instead the author frames the vote through a warped lens, completely ignores Obama's perspective and stated reasons, and then offers his own unsubstatiated reasons for why Obama voted the way he did.
It's a hit piece by his political opposition, and the author has no desire to be objective. He simply cherry picks votes that can be easily twisted to the uninformed, and then attempts to persuade the reader that the reason for the vote is something nefarious. The article is full of insinuations, many of which can be proved false after research.
Very well put, yowolabi.
Politics is the art of the possible, a yes or no on what it was possible to bring to a vote. The idealist dreams his dreams of perfection and criticizes all who fall short while he himself can never bring his own ideas to a vote. What good is Ralph Nader to the welfare of the nation, were he God himself, if he can't get a single idea to be agreed to by a majority. A leader is a leader because he can lead.
A dreamer can only point to his dream. When you deal with the possible you deal with some really bad choices. Judgment is choosing the best. The job of the voter is to chose the leader who will lead in the direction of the voter's interest rather than special interests contrary to those of the voter and in steps that can actually be taken.
A leader is he who motivates from the ground up to create political pressure for change. You can chose that or you can chose to vote for those whose interests are already well established in Washington.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter