View Full Version : Anti-Obama/Biden Thread
Fine. Since no one else will start this...
Let's talk about why Obama/Biden are not worth our vote. As someone that was very favorable towards Obama in the primaries, my liking for him has become less and less over the Presidential race. This is not because of what McCain says, but rather because of what Obama does.
A couple of my issues:
He said he would opt for public funds for the Presidential Campaign if his opponent would do the same. When called on it by McCain in a very sly political maneuver, Obama misses the opportunity to live up to his words and declines McCain's offer.
During his Primary Campaign he claims to be against FISA. He later votes in favor of it, promising to re-examine the unconstitutional aspects of the bill if he becomes President. Riiiight.
That was two chances for him to bring change to Washington and the election process. Both times he does not deliver. Begrudging the man because he is an excellent orator is silly. However, when his actions do not match his words, then what do you have left? Answer: a typical politician.
So what other issues are there with Obama? Hopefully this thread can still be interesting despite trying to avoid intentional flame-bait.
You should all it, "Poop on Obama/Biden!" :laugh:
Lateralus
10-02-2008, 10:43 PM
You should all it, "Poop on Obama/Biden!" :laugh:
Why? Would that make the argument against them more legitimate, somehow?
Modern Nomad
10-02-2008, 10:53 PM
That was two chances for him to bring change to Washington and the election process. Both times he does not deliver. Begrudging the man because he is an excellent orator is silly. However, when his actions do not match his words, then what do you have left? Answer: a typical politician.
I think it is silly to believe that washington can change.
lobbying would be considered bribing in most democratic countries that are newer than the USA.
im not sure what the point of believing washington can "change" is.
the only REAL change would be anarchy. but even that is a pretty remote possibility. but slightly more likely than change by itself. liklihood of change - .0000001% likelihood of anarchy - .0000002% LOL
On a positive note, McCain was hawt when he was young.
http://idata.over-blog.com/0/29/11/44/themes/john-mccain-1974-copie-1.jpg
I see, you're trying to make this thread about McCain, too.
I don't think the 'average American' is representative of this forum membership. So why would you try to preach to that audience?Understood, but aren't you concerned about the future? Please convince me how McCain/Palin are what's best for us.
Lateralus
10-02-2008, 11:03 PM
On a positive note, McCain was hawt when he was young.
http://idata.over-blog.com/0/29/11/44/themes/john-mccain-1974-copie-1.jpg
Understood, but aren't you concerned about the future? Please convince me how McCain/Palin are what's best for us.
Wrong thread.
Jeffster
10-02-2008, 11:05 PM
Understood, but aren't you concerned about the future? Please convince me how McCain/Palin are what's best for us.
Why should anybody do that? You ignore such requests for why anyone should vote for Obama. You only spout vocabulary words and slogans. You haven't given a single concrete reason ever for why you support him that I've seen. So I could say "McCain/Palin like totally rock and shit! They are like nine levels of AWESOME" and it would already equal anything you've put forth about Obama.
Why should anybody do that? You ignore such requests for why anyone should vote for Obama. You only spout vocabulary words and slogans. You haven't given a single concrete reason ever for why you support him that I've seen. So I could say "McCain/Palin like totally rock and shit! They are like nine levels of AWESOME" and it would already equal anything you've put forth about Obama.Sarah and I have things in common! Kewl! You may change my mind yet Jeffster! :smile:
heart
10-02-2008, 11:24 PM
This is most disturbing:
Obama voted to renew the Patriot Act. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00029)
Barack Obama: U.S. presidential election, 2008/On renewal of the Patriot Act - Congresspedia (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama:_U.S._presidential_el ection%2C_2008/On_renewal_of_the_Patriot_Act)
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) voted YES on March 1, 2006, on reauthorizing the Patriot Act. Obama votedNO on December 16, 2005, on the Motion for Cloture of PATRIOT Act (HR 3199).
Lateralus
10-02-2008, 11:32 PM
His political campaigns have been closely associated with Tony Rezko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Rezko).
This, alone, wouldn't necessarily keep me from voting for anyone. My problem with it is that the crux of his campaign is 'change', but his previous actions, like his association with Rezko, show me that he's just feeding everyone a line. He's just another politician. What amazes me is how so many people are just dying to gobble it up.
I think it is silly to believe that washington can change.
lobbying would be considered bribing in most democratic countries that are newer than the USA.
im not sure what the point of believing washington can "change" is.
the only REAL change would be anarchy. but even that is a pretty remote possibility. but slightly more likely than change by itself. liklihood of change - .0000001% likelihood of anarchy - .0000002% LOL
So, is this a post saying Obama's message of change is stupid, or that people who believe in Obama's message are dumb?
Edit: Also, I accept there will always be dirty dealing in Washington. Hell, even our founding fathers were far from saints. It becomes a serious problem, though, when the dirty dealing becomes so rampant that America suffers so a select few can make a quick buck.
Modern Nomad
10-02-2008, 11:38 PM
His political campaigns have been closely associated with Tony Rezko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Rezko).
This, alone, wouldn't necessarily keep me from voting for anyone. My problem with it is that the crux of his campaign is 'change', but his previous actions, like his association with Rezko, show me that he's just feeding everyone a line. He's just another politician. What amazes me is how so many people are just dying to gobble it up.
i think its because people believe America can change. not washington
Modern Nomad
10-02-2008, 11:41 PM
So, is this a post saying Obama's message of change is stupid, or that people who believe in Obama's message are dumb?
I think he can bring back the bill clinton days of just... dunno. wasn't that time so chill and good? like everything that happened, u just knew it seemed like everything was pretty cool? i mean, as a kid growing up, i never knew the president can have such a big effect on the overall watever it is.
but changing washington's lobby/bribing culture??? no way man. lol
Modern Nomad
10-02-2008, 11:46 PM
It becomes a serious problem, though, when the dirty dealing becomes so rampant that America suffers so a select few can make a quick buck.
ah if this is about the bailout/rescue plan.
this is the way I see it:
1) Gov't passed easy to buy homes laws. After all, i mean, kind of cool in a way... (remember all those infomercials about flipping properties?? making a quick buck??)
2) banks were reluctant at first, until they found out they can outsource to shadier subprime loan officers. and then turn around and sell those "risky easy to buy home" loans to these complicated things called CDO/MBS (collateralized debt obligations and mortgage backed securities) that few investors understood. (they were made to be hard to understand). So all that "easy to buy home" risks were hidden in complicated legal language.
3) so easy to buy home risks, got passed from the people---> banks----> investors---> to everyone back in the form of spreading that risk to all business (because all business is connected to financial institutions)
4) and now because everything is so connected, the gov't is called on to help set floor on how bad the risk will take the entire economy.
I think some people need to go to jail for sure. But there really is a lot of blame to go around. Ultimately, the way I see it, those taxes will come from all the property taxes the government collected when so many people saw their property values rise so much bc they were all in on the housing bubble plan.
There's a few more culprits in regards to "regulation".
Will credit default swaps cause the next financial crisis? - Sep. 30, 2008 (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/30/magazines/fortune/varchaver_derivatives_short.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008093012)
Thats an excellent article that outlines how this risk was transferred so easily from average homeowner---> banks---> investors...> all businesses that deal with financial institutions. Its worth a read if you are interested in that sort of thing.
This, alone, wouldn't necessarily keep me from voting for anyone. My problem with it is that the crux of his campaign is 'change', but his previous actions, like his association with Rezko, show me that he's just feeding everyone a line. He's just another politician. What amazes me is how so many people are just dying to gobble it up.
The reason is simple... the language he uses to communicate is refreshing. He rarely goes negative, and when he does it's most always about policies and not character attacks. He speaks in a positive language of hope and empowerment instead of fear and threats. America has grown weary of constantly hearing about the sky falling, so it's easy to cling to his message.
I'm actually not bothered that his plans tend to be about lofty milestones instead of concrete actions to achieve his milestones. However, if your message is going to consist of principles, you better stick to them!
Obama makes me think of every political movie where the dreamy, idealistic politician goes to Washington only to become the exact thing he wanted to fight against. I can't help but to hope we get to the scene where he realizes what he has become and resolves to ... ahem... change.
phoenix13
10-03-2008, 12:09 AM
Obama is not the agent for change. He strikes me as extremely cautious and thoughtful. McCain is the Maverick. Obama's line "You're using a hammer where a scalpel is needed" in response to McCain's spend freeze proposition is a good illustration of the difference between the two.
Just from the first debate, it seems that if you want change in Washington (especially if you want someone to clean the place of corruption), McCain's your man.
Obama is not the agent for change.
Agreed, and he ought to quit making it the cornerstone of his message.
Maybe I'm missing it, but he doesn't seem to be bragging that almost all his money comes from the people anymore. He's become mainstream, and appears to be taking plenty of money from the corporations now. He used the home-grown movement to propel him past Clinton and into the world where he can play the political game just like everyone else.
I liked him more when his money came from the people, so he felt accountable to them.
heart
10-03-2008, 12:39 AM
Obama is not the agent for change. He strikes me as extremely cautious and thoughtful. McCain is the Maverick. Obama's line "You're using a hammer where a scalpel is needed" in response to McCain's spend freeze proposition is a good illustration of the difference between the two. Hell, even the v.p. choices reflect that. Obama's decision was a well thought-out uncontroversial choice to balance his own weaknesses. McCain's was crayzay, period.
Just from the first debate, it seems that if you want change in Washington (especially if you want someone to clean the place of corruption), McCain's your man.
Neither is going to bring any change, at least ways not any real lasting changes that benefit most people. :coffee:
ptgatsby
10-03-2008, 12:43 AM
One word: FISA. WTF, Obama?
I respect your ability to rejudge a situation, but this was a betrayal of what you stand for. People wanted change, someone who was going to go for the throat of the bullshit that has gone on for the last 8 years. Hiding behing a marginal improvement to a highly dubious policy still counts as betraying the hope people had in you.
heart
10-03-2008, 12:53 AM
^ yeah really, I can see how someone might see Obama as lesser of two evils and go grudgingly vote for him, but cannot see how people can get all :static: over him after the FISA vote.
Modern Nomad
10-03-2008, 12:57 AM
Agreed, and he ought to quit making it the cornerstone of his message.
Maybe I'm missing it, but he doesn't seem to be bragging that almost all his money comes from the people anymore. He's become mainstream, and appears to be taking plenty of money from the corporations now. He used the home-grown movement to propel him past Clinton and into the world where he can play the political game just like everyone else.
I liked him more when his money came from the people, so he felt accountable to them.
interesting.
so obama is a sell out???
or might be a sell out???
would he have had a real chance if he didn't slightly sell out???
come on man.
the guy is a black guy in the eyes of a lot of rural america. you can't get that vote as a black guy unless u are somewhat of a policeman... hey im gonna protect you and america, kind of guy.
phoenix13
10-03-2008, 12:58 AM
^ yeah really, I can see how someone might see Obama as lesser of two evils and go grudgingly vote for him, but cannot see how people can get all over him after the FISA vote.
Because he's beeeeautiful:
HOT+4+OBAMA.jpg (image) (http://bp1.blogger.com/_W3KxvibGPKo/R585ZuKyaaI/AAAAAAAAA9Q/EKTVTP4GsIA/s1600-h/HOT+4+OBAMA.jpg)
Lateralus
10-03-2008, 01:00 AM
interesting.
so obama is a sell out???
or might be a sell out???
would he have had a real chance if he didn't slightly sell out???
come on man.
the guy is a black guy in the eyes of a lot of rural america. you can't get that vote as a black guy unless u are somewhat of a policeman... hey im gonna protect you and america, kind of guy.
He's already sold his soul. No politician can get as far as he has without doing it.
ptgatsby
10-03-2008, 01:02 AM
so obama is a sell out???
would he have had a real chance if he didn't slightly sell out???
He sold out on liberties. He was immediately reduced to another politician by doing so, rather than an agent of change. It is cause-effect, there is no degree of 'reasonable' in it.
His unique position - race, age, wealth - might of made him a good president on its own, but the system wouldn't of allowed it. He got where he was because he was more than that. A literal rock in the gears. Then, as he got closer, it became clear he was ground down enough to let the gears keep going.
It was a largest mistake of his campaign. He didn't need washington the way he needed the people, and he made his choice poorly.
Modern Nomad
10-03-2008, 01:02 AM
He's already sold his soul. No politician can get as far as he has without doing it.
why the hell would anyone want to be a politician.
being a dictator or a king is so much better! LOL
no selling out necessary. haha
ajblaise
10-03-2008, 01:04 AM
why the hell would anyone want to be a politician.
Because you get to be paid for being a dick?
Modern Nomad
10-03-2008, 01:06 AM
He sold out on liberties. He was immediately reduced to another politician by doing so, rather than an agent of change. It is cause-effect, there is no degree of 'reasonable' in it.
His unique position - race, age, wealth - might of made him a good president on its own, but the system wouldn't of allowed it. He got where he was because he was more than that. A literal rock in the gears. Then, as he got closer, it became clear he was ground down enough to let the gears keep going.
It was a largest mistake of his campaign. He didn't need washington the way he needed the people, and he made his choice poorly.
i never see anyone talking about liberties on television.
ptgatsby
10-03-2008, 01:07 AM
i never see anyone talking about liberties on television.
Not anymore.
EffEmDoubleyou
10-03-2008, 01:08 AM
Because you get to be paid for being a dick?
I thought that's why people became actors.
ajblaise
10-03-2008, 01:08 AM
i never see anyone talking about liberties on television.
Take away the economy and the war and the environment... and it would get more play.
heart
10-03-2008, 01:08 AM
Because he's beeeeautiful:
[(image)[/url]
That's no less sickening than when the women I knew used to gush about Dan Quayle.
ajblaise
10-03-2008, 01:09 AM
I thought that's why people became actors.
Same thing.
why the hell would anyone want to be a politician.
Decent paying job with GREAT hours and lots of extra cash to be earned for working 'overtime'.
phoenix13
10-03-2008, 01:13 AM
That's no less sickening than when the women I knew used to gush about Dan Quayle.
Quayle?
http://mf3076.k12.sd.us/Year/dan_quayle.jpg
Yeah, I'd do *cough* vote for that... (:alttongue:)
phoenix13
10-03-2008, 01:15 AM
Decent paying job with GREAT hours and lots of extra cash to be earned for working 'overtime'.
'overtime'? What does this mean?
heart
10-03-2008, 01:16 AM
^ casting couch?
Jack Flak
10-03-2008, 01:20 AM
Commies, the lot.
'overtime'? What does this mean?
Week long business meetings in Hawaii to listen to the issues Pharmaceutical companies are struggling with. Backroom and closed door meetings with lobbyists. That sort of thing.
A couple of my issues:
He said he would opt for public funds for the Presidential Campaign if his opponent would do the same. When called on it by McCain in a very sly political maneuver, Obama misses the opportunity to live up to his words and declines McCain's offer.
During his Primary Campaign he claims to be against FISA. He later votes in favor of it, promising to re-examine the unconstitutional aspects of the bill if he becomes President. Riiiight..
Those are the 2 balls I think he dropped too.
Considering the alternative, I'll still take him.
Obama seems to be poised to make a brand new variety of mistakes. Obama makes me nervous, and even if McCain makes me more so it doesn't change that basic fact.
Another thing... I'm uncomfortable about one party controlling both the legislative and executive branches. The country is always much healthier when the two temper each other out.
Jack Flak
10-03-2008, 04:14 AM
Another thing... I'm uncomfortable about one party controlling both the legislative and executive branches. The country is always much healthier when the two temper each other out.
Very true. If the majority were half as objective as I wish, nothing would ever get done in government, the damn way it should be.
Usehername
10-03-2008, 04:22 AM
I'm not Anti-Obama/Biden, however, I think Palin did an outstanding job debating. (Note: debate is not the same as quality/depth of knowledge, and I only got home from class with enough time to watch the 2nd half).
SHe's also a quick study to have leapt that far in such a short time with being able to duck the wrong questions and give her all to the right questions.
ygolo
10-03-2008, 07:14 AM
One word: FISA. WTF, Obama?
I respect your ability to rejudge a situation, but this was a betrayal of what you stand for. People wanted change, someone who was going to go for the throat of the bullshit that has gone on for the last 8 years. Hiding behing a marginal improvement to a highly dubious policy still counts as betraying the hope people had in you.
Yeah, McCain stuck to his promise so why didn't the "change" candidate on this issue.
The other main thing that really scares me about Obama/Biden is their promise to do everything great under the sun.
Tax cuts for almost eveyone, healthcare for everyone, alternative energy, economic recovery, ...
How the hell are they going to do that?
They won't and they know it. New issues, same old lies.
Lowering taxes, in particular, should be banned from being talked about during elections.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by
vBSEO 3.1.0