- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 1, 2008 at 10:10 pm #618747
TrickParticipantNewResident, I understand your view.
McCain has alot of history, some good, some bad.
What I do see is his shift more to the right.
Why? Because his campaign was bankrupt until he started to include these lobbyists (alot from the Bush camp) that raised $70 million for his campaign. You think they give that away without some strings attached?
Obama has surpassed all records on individual donations and doesn’t accept PAC or lobbyist money.
Can McCain claim-the-same?
*I think I just found a new slogan*
June 1, 2008 at 10:32 pm #618748
AnonymousInactiveObama want to crack down on foreign tax havens, McCain economic adviser and close friend Phil Gramm, lobbies for them.
June 2, 2008 at 12:10 am #618749
AnonymousInactiveI posted this before, but no one responded.
Did anyone read the interview of Nader in the WSJ? It was an interesting viewpoint on Obama (from a huge liberal)!
Wanted to see all your liberal thoughts on it. Is it too much to ask that you actually read something in the WSJ?
June 2, 2008 at 12:31 am #618750
charlabobParticipantIt isn’; that I won’t read the WSJ, NR; (though I muist admit since it reverted to Murdoch, I’ve spent less time with it. Nader???? I stay away from and always have — but, since you insist :-)…back atcha. (I assume he says Obama isn’t a very good liberal — duh — yup, that’s why he was about my third choice.)
If you want to see a liberal that many conservatives might love, check out the many tributes to Bobby Kennedy on the 40th anniversary of his murder.
June 2, 2008 at 12:42 am #618751
beachdrivegirlParticipantI went and found the article. Typically, I dont got to the WSJ site so i had to google it but figured I would since it seems to be such a huge issue to you. Personally, after reading the article, i was just a little less impressed with Nader than I already was. Rather than taking that time to actually talk about what he is for and how he would make the changes needed he let his bitterness of the Democratic party overtake the interview and took the time to bash his opponent because Obama is his
“competition” come November. Because with out Democrats supporting him he does not have a shot in he**. I am much less threatened by that man than the Republican party should be by Bob Barr running for President.
June 2, 2008 at 12:52 am #618752
AnonymousInactiveOK, for you, I read it. I actually agreed with it for the most part. I think everyone feels the 2 party system sucks. How to get that realistically changed, is beyond me. I don’t think Nader should be shut out like he is. And he certainly has a point about it not really being his fault that Gore lost. Against Bush it should have been a slam dunk.
But you were asking about Obama. That’s probably true as well. That’s he’s in the pockets of big business to a degree like everyone else. It’s hard to tell if that’s his personal ethics, or the way of the system. Nader is a prime example of what happens if you just run on your principles. You don’t win. Is that a reflection of the candidate or us?
And my first choice was always Edwards too. Actually, Edwards, Clinton, Obama, in that order. Clinton blew it, so this is where we’re at.
June 2, 2008 at 1:35 am #618753
AnonymousInactiveJT – Thank you for reading the article with your eyes open! I love that you can actually distinguish that Obama may be just like the rest of them (even if you did add “to a degree”).
Btw, I know this is talked about in other threads, but I love how Obama supporter’s claim that if Obama doesn’t win, either that region is racist or “doesn’t know how to vote”. Ever consider that there may be A LOT of people that just don’t want him to be our next President?
June 2, 2008 at 5:10 pm #618754
KenParticipantJust for comparison, Abe Lincolns accomplishments before being elected President.
http://www.nps.gov/history/logcabin/html/al1.html
Does he seem closer to one candidate than the other?
Note: the Republican party was started as the “progressive reform” alternative to the Democrats at the time. They did not become the party of big business until the late 19th century.
Of course the terms progressive and reform had different meaning in those days so while the party was formed from the free soil movement (anti slavery in new states )and the Whigs (Legislative power should trump executive power as long as it is ours )it was conservative pretty much in the meaning that they wanted no slavery because they wanted no Blacks allowed in the western states (which included Ohio in those days). It was progressive in that it fought the consolidation of executive power in the hands of the president. The Whigs, Liberty party and the free soil party all pretty much imploded at the time of the Missouri compromise and their respective bases plus the conservative Dems of the time formed the Republican party.
The original Progressive party had similar chaotic roots as a splinter of the Republican party of 1912. (See Teddy Roosevelt) This is the party some pundits try to associate with those who currently use the progressive label. The progressive party had some good anti oligarchy platforms but also embraced eugenics based on an imperfect understanding of humanities place in evolutionary theory.
Enough history for today. Use google if you want more.
June 2, 2008 at 5:25 pm #618755
walfredoMemberRalph Nader is completely right about his criticisms of the two party system. He has long established himself as a strong advocate of consumers, and government regulation to hold the corporate power structure accountable.
He should be commended for his lifetime of achievements. But, as far as being a presidential candidate, he is a terrible one. He is not a strong speaker, does not inspire people to coalesce. He is even older then McCain now. His ego destroyed the Green Party’s emergence after 2000, and he has done nothing in 20+ years to build the groundwork for a feasible third party, which most folks would agree would be more successfully built at the district and local level, then with continued national presidential campaigns…
Nader has a point that Obama is not perfect, and there are still many issues that are dominated by the two parties, where views overlap.
There is no candidate that would win Nader’s endorsement, as he runs himself every year and always endorses himself. This is I believe, his 5th presidential run? He got .5 percent of the vote in 2004 against Kerry and Bush. I would expect him to get less then that this time around…
June 2, 2008 at 5:48 pm #618756
rs261MemberNader (and the green party in general) have horrible economic policies. Maximum Income: Build into the progressive income tax a 100% tax on all income over ten times the minimum wage.
You will never get a majority of people to vote for you if you limit earnings.
Socialism is a step backwards for the US, not a step forward. Even Europe doesnt have a 100% income tax bracket.
Nader is crazy. I did vote for him once upon a time, in order to try and get the green party federal funding. Thankfully I’ve always lived in a state with an overwhelming majority of voters in one direction or the other…so I could waste my vote.
June 5, 2008 at 6:21 pm #618757
WSMomParticipanthttp://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=171106&title=headlines-obama-makes-history
“Fox News bashing a Republican, praising a Democrat. This truly was a historic night.”
Just in case you’re wondering, I do get my news from other sources…they just don’t make me giggle like Jon Stewart can.
June 5, 2008 at 7:26 pm #618758
beachdrivegirlParticipantNow I thought I would never live to see or hear the day. And WSMom you are so right about Jon Stewart and there is nothing wrong with being able to get a good laugh in during the news. :)
June 5, 2008 at 8:02 pm #618759
Tonya42MemberThe goal Obama has before him is to identify who he is and what he stands for. It goes without question the man is inexperienced, and contrary to what one poster stated above, experience does in fact count for much.
Besides being an eloquent speaker, what does the man stand for?
He says change but change of what?
We are already almost fully employed as a country, we already take care of our sick and elderly (although there is always room for improvement)we are leap years ahead of what other countries are doing to save the environment.
The one area I see that we as a nation need to tackle is complete healthcare coverage for all but the way Obama wants to do this is by socializing medicine and this is a failed plan. I know.
He will have to raise taxes in such a degree that it would cripple our economy and tank our gdp.
Obama is no less a creature of the system than is McCain. But he’s less smart, he’s far less experienced – and as the vile spectacles at his church have demonstrated, along with his weasel-words in reaction to them – he’s also far less courageous.
I believe Obama has been so promoted as an agent of change precisely because his inadequacies as a man and a politician will allow the oligarchs and plutocrats who actually rule America presently to continue doing what they do, while exploiting his flowery rhetoric and his popular appeal to make it appear as if change is actually occurring.
I welcome his nomination and I welcome the possibility that he could be the next president. Why? Because in a situation as desperate as that confronting America, in America’s chronic captivity to rampant oligarchicism disguised as democracy, you must always vote for the worst possible candidate in order to speed the dawn of the day in which the enire foul system collapses under the weight of its greed and corruption.
If he wins, he will be a catastrophic failure on an epic scale. A scale so great that the American people will finally remember what they’ve so conspicuously forgotten – that America belongs to them, and that those who govern do so at the will of the people.
So again, I ask what does the man have to offer?
Who is this man?
June 5, 2008 at 8:10 pm #618760
beachdrivegirlParticipantIn all seriousness, I think you should go buy his books. yes those books he wrote. i think it would not answer your questions about who is. And besides answering those questions and concerns of yours reassure you that Obama is the only choice for America if we want to turn our country around. Bush has failed our country. Bush has created annoymisty against us for no reason. McCain supports Bush’s policies and has been very inconsistent on his positions so would the American people much more than Obama ever could.
June 5, 2008 at 8:19 pm #618761
Tonya42MemberWhy should I have to go by his books when I am in a room full of his supporters?
I appreciate your replying Beachdrivegirl but there has to be more to be said and learned about the man without paying 9.95 at the bargain basement bin at Borders?
Anybody?
June 5, 2008 at 8:35 pm #618762
beachdrivegirlParticipantGo to the the Hot for Hillary thread or the originally Obama thread we have restated our reasons for supporting him over and over again.
In regards to the book, for me,I found his book amazing because I loved learning about him. Unfortunatly, as fantastic as it was that he wrote and published his book ten years ago before he was heavy into politics. This book may be a weakness for him come November because he did nto try to hide who he was. However, his book made me have a huge admiaration towards him. This admiration was a result of his sense of bringing community together. To me, our coutnry is facing more and more division every day between the classes and backgrounds of our citizens. Presently I dont feel that our presenet administration is for equality. It is time for us to elect soemone who can unite our country and bring that feeling of equality back. It was also very moving to me that he understood from such a young age on how to recognize things that needed to be changed. And then when he recognized he made a plan to acutally fix those things. This can be seen when he recognized the problems Chicago was facing with corruption and crime. Then he become an actiivist and shortly after being an activist he realized that was not enough. So rather than sitting back and letting others fix the problems he did what he needed to do and found a way to not only be an acitivist but found a way to put himself in a position of power. Beacuse acitivist dont change or fix problems. People in power do.
Our country has never been in a weaker position. We have more enemies in the world, we have a growing national debt, we are in a war that we never should have started, and we are in a recession. McCain has voted and supported for the policies that have put us in this position today. Therefore, after reading Obamas expereinces and now seeing what he has done in just ten years! Makes me 110% confident that not only will Obama win this election come November, but he will be the voice of reason to make America safer, he will have the economic policies to reverse the recession that Bush created, and while doing this he will also unite Republicans, Independents, Democrats, Libertans, and everyone else back into what is improtant one nation.
June 5, 2008 at 8:48 pm #618763
charlabobParticipantEdited: Response to T42 removed by charlabob, who is tired of having the same tired arguments with the same tired (types of) people. If I don’t respond, I don’t have to re-respond. :-)
June 5, 2008 at 9:04 pm #618764
Tonya42MemberEdited: Response to Charlabob to take a nap because she is so tired and will need her strength if she is going to make a case of Obama :)
June 5, 2008 at 9:09 pm #618765
TrickParticipant“Experience” seems to be the resounding soundbite.
My response is:
Experience like Dick Cheney,Donald Rumsfield,Scooter Libby,Dick Cunningham,Karl Rove,Dan Bartlett…..want me to go on?
I’ll take a chance on a progressive way of thinking than relying on the “politics as usual” mentality.
You’re not going to be open to a constructive debate on issues then why ask the question in the first place?
June 5, 2008 at 9:36 pm #618766
charlabobParticipantNo, T42 — I’m not napping — I save that luxury for McGeezer and for the Grover Nordquistians, who think they’ve won some imaginary battle. I believe that’s how Rome was destroyed :-)
June 5, 2008 at 9:43 pm #618767
walfredoMemberThe experience card just doesn’t work in an election. People are not going to vote based on who served longer in the senate.
Richardson, Biden, Dodd all much more experienced then Hillary and Barack.
If being experienced enough to be president means you have to be pushing 75 at your inaguartion, that is a weak sell.
How about this- Obama just ran the most effecient and effective campaign in recent memory. Beating the largest political machine in America head to head, and gaining the overwhelming support of the party elite in the process. He is 5 months from being the President of the United States.
Looking back at Barack’s life in his retirement years- in 25 years when he’s McCain’s age- he will have accomplished more then any man in his generation.
June 5, 2008 at 10:11 pm #618768
AnonymousInactiveTonya – Unfortunately, you won’t get a lot of answers if you try and question exactly “who” Obama is and “what” he is going to do.
You WILL get a lot of “He inspires me”, “He has run the best campaign ever” or “He’s going to turn America around!”.
I have, personally, gone to his website and browsed, but I agree with everything you have said.
And, unfortunately, I truly believe that there are things we have yet to learn about this man.
Because McCain has been in the Senate for so long, there are no skeletons, there’s nothing to uncover. That is why people continue to attack his supposed senility. There really is not much else, personally, that they can find.
You are right, Tonya, McCain is extremely intelligent and the Obama supporters have yet to see that.
June 5, 2008 at 10:22 pm #618769
walfredoMemberNewRes- what has McCain done in his many years in the senate? Please list his many accomplishments.
So far this month he has not had the guts to even show up to vote on a bill that would provide a college education as part of the GI Bill. A bill that got extreme bipartisan support, but was opposed by both Bush and McCain, and one that McCain chose not to show up for.
What exactly are the accomplishments we are going for? I mean, its a loaded question. Everything Obama has done since in adult life has been an accomplishment. What part of his resume do you find the most thin? When he left his poor upbringing and enrolled in Ivy League schools. His success at the schools? His time as a law professor? Community organizer? State-senator? Senator? I’m sorry but what part of this was inconsequential?
He just undertake what you would most closely compare to being the CEO of a major startup company, that used his charisma and message to beat the big behoameth in the industry at there own game. He surrounded himself with the best people, and showed tremendous character and judgement in doing so.
I guess I’m missing it- for a gentleman of his age what more is he supposed to have accomplished at this point? Find me a peer in his age group who is on the same planet as this guy in terms of accomplishments?
And when Barack gets to his retirement years and sits back in his rocking chair with Michelle out to pasture, you know when he is McCain’s age, he will have continued a life of groundbreaking, amazing, incomparable achievements that will stand second to none…
June 5, 2008 at 10:26 pm #618770
beachdrivegirlParticipantAnother McSame moment. A new release from his campaign on Monday contradict McCains December 20, 2007 position where he criticized the Bush Administration its five-year secret end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Now McCain not only admits that he too would spy on American citizens, but also is bringing into arguemnt Bush’s long lasting Article II citation that basically gives the president unlimited power during the time of war… (no wonder he wants 100 years of it!)McCain corners himself so well.
June 5, 2008 at 10:31 pm #618771
KenParticipantJust a bit of background for those who plan to continue in this thread.
There is a pretty accessible academic text on one researchers continuation of postwar research on the authoritarian personality.(Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson and Sanford, in 1950 )
Excerpt from the introduction:
OK, what’s this book about? It’s about what’s happened to the American government lately. It’s about the disastrous decisions that government has made. It’s about the corruption that rotted the Congress. It’s about how traditional conservatism has nearly been destroyed by authoritarianism. It’s about how the “Religious Right†teamed up with amoral authoritarian leaders to push its un-democratic agenda onto the country. It’s about the United States standing at the crossroads as the next federal election approaches.
“Well,†you might be thinking, “I don’t believe any of this is true.†Or maybe you’re thinking, “What else is new? I’ve believed this for years.†Why should a conservative, moderate, or liberal bother with this book? Why should any Republican, Independent, or Democrat click the “Introduction†link on this page?
Because if you do, you’ll begin an easy-ride journey through some relevant scientific studies I have done on authoritarian personalities–one that will take you a heck of a lot less time than the decades it took me. Those studies have a direct bearing on all the topics mentioned above. So if you think the first paragraph is a lot of hokum, or full of half-truths, I invite you to look at the research.
For example, take the following statement: “Once our government leaders and the authorities condemn the dangerous elements in our society, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.†Sounds like something Hitler would say, right? Want to guess how many politicians, how many lawmakers in the United States agreed with it? Want to guess what they had in common?
Or how about a government program that persecutes political parties, or minorities, or journalists the authorities do not like, by putting them in jail, even torturing and killing them. Nobody would approve of that, right? Guess again.
To read the book in chunks or as a whole, go here.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
You will recognize some of the authoritarian personality types from posts on this forum. I will not give any hints.
Especially instructive is the results of blind tests using a RISK like Global Change Game where the object is to lead your particular assigned country 40 years into the future.
enjoy.
Conservatives should probably avoid this link since some have recognized themselves and suffered cognitive dissonance that led to unwanted personality change.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.