Running for Jimmy Carters second term?

[John Gault]

Obama needs to figure out that even some democrats (not the ones here but some) don't like being told what to do or how to do it. Some don't give a rats ass what the rest of the world thinks about how we live our lives within our borders. We produce and/or pay for the energy we use. He makes it sound as if the other countries don't get any energy because we take it from them. What a moron.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXIvmJ8xenc&feature=related

Yep he is going for Jimmy Carters Second term alright, break out the sweaters.

I now know why he does not want to do town hall style debates with McCain. When he is not doing a well prepared and rehersed speech his is not so good. Listen to haw he speaks in this video and notice he is not nearly so fluid or even that articulate.

PS - you can bet this sound byte will make it's way into a political ad, for the republicans.

[Trueblue]

Maybe people won't be as stupid now as they were when Carter brought up the sweaters.

You fail to grasp that people now understand that we have an energy crisis.

I figure people will have the intelligence to understand what Obama is saying, and that they will certainly find it a better message than "more wars, less jobs".

[Trueblue]

And something else-haven't you actually admitted that the Iraq war was about oil, and that was OK with you? If dropping bombs and invading a country doesn't count as "taking", then what in the hell does?????

[John Gault]

Maybe people won't be as stupid now as they were when Carter brought up the sweaters.

You fail to grasp that people now understand that we have an energy crisis.

I figure people will have the intelligence to understand what Obama is saying, and that they will certainly find it a better message than "more wars, less jobs".

As long as his true feelings escape in those few non-scripted moments, he will not win cause in todays world everyone gets to hear every speech. As he discovered with his 'bitter' remarks, no speech he gives will not get out to the rest of us.

As to the 'energy crisis', you leftists always complain that everything is a crisis. A Climate crisis, an energy crisis, a mortgage crisis.....

All promoted for the government to take over and save the day.

Like the dems in congress starting to talk about nationalizing the oil companies.

There is no energy crisis, a crisis would be if it were not available, it is available it is just expensive because of poor decisions by our government no to allow us to go after our own known reserves. We all know that most of the no drilling no refineries are coming frm the left and the democrat party.

The democrat answer to the energy 'crisis' is to raise taxes on the oil companies?

What you figure and count on is that people will follow the cult of personality of Obama and not look at who is behind the curtain.

Don't count those chickens just yet.

[Lone Laugher]

John Gault....keeps setting up those straw men.....and we just keep mowing them down. You've got nothing JG. Now, Obama isn't even articulate. What....do his speech patterns turn Negro when he's speaking without a script? Is that it?

Energy crisis.....who ever said it was a crisis? Not the folks you support...they are fucking loving it. Six years of a Republican Congress and a Republican White House and NO moves to drill in ANWR or anywhere else. And you ate it all up. You continue to eat it all up. And you say we follow a cult of personality.

What you are doing is vastly underestimating the level of intellect of the "libs" on here and out there....we don't follow leaders blindly and we don't buy the spin. The only crisis you should worry about is the one about to wreck your party....it is going to get ugly. I count $300,000,000 chickens to your $85,000,000 ugly ducklings.

[jim]

As long as his true feelings escape in those few non-scripted moments, he will not win cause in todays world everyone gets to hear every speech. As he discovered with his 'bitter' remarks, no speech he gives will not get out to the rest of us.

As to the 'energy crisis', you leftists always complain that everything is a crisis. A Climate crisis, an energy crisis, a mortgage crisis.....

All promoted for the government to take over and save the day.

Like the dems in congress starting to talk about nationalizing the oil companies.

There is no energy crisis, a crisis would be if it were not available, it is available it is just expensive because of poor decisions by our government no to allow us to go after our own known reserves. We all know that most of the no drilling no refineries are coming frm the left and the democrat party.

The democrat answer to the energy 'crisis' is to raise taxes on the oil companies?

What you figure and count on is that people will follow the cult of personality of Obama and not look at who is behind the curtain.

Don't count those chickens just yet.

:bullshit:bullshit:bullshit Republicans...:rip

[John Gault]

John Gault....keeps setting up those straw men.....and we just keep mowing them down. You've got nothing JG. Now, Obama isn't even articulate. What....do his speech patterns turn Negro when he's speaking without a script? Is that it?

Energy crisis.....who ever said it was a crisis? Not the folks you support...they are fucking loving it. Six years of a Republican Congress and a Republican White House and NO moves to drill in ANWR or anywhere else. And you ate it all up. You continue to eat it all up. And you say we follow a cult of personality.

What you are doing is vastly underestimating the level of intellect of the "libs" on here and out there....we don't follow leaders blindly and we don't buy the spin. The only crisis you should worry about is the one about to wreck your party....it is going to get ugly. I count $300,000,000 chickens to your $85,000,000 ugly ducklings.

Hey! The republicans passed ANWAR drilling in the house and had a majority in the Senate ready to vote for it, but the democrats in the Senate fillibustered it. Looks like it is their fault on that too. In 95 They passed it in the house and Senate, Clinton vetoed it. Said that it would take 10 years to get the oil going. Gee lets see, 1995 + 10 years equals




THRE FUCKING YEARS AGO

The key to the video is not really how he says it, it is what he says.

[John Gault]

And something else-haven't you actually admitted that the Iraq war was about oil, and that was OK with you? If dropping bombs and invading a country doesn't count as "taking", then what in the hell does?????


Taking the oil means we actually take the oil without paying for it. Is there something going on I don't know about?

[toxic]

Taking the oil means we actually take the oil without paying for it. Is there something going on I don't know about?
...


That was the plan, but Bush and your flunkies couldn't execute it.

What's new ... your boys have failed at every task they have attempted.

Your lack of analytical skill demonstrates why.

[Wabash]

Maybe people won't be as stupid now as they were when Carter brought up the sweaters.

You fail to grasp that people now understand that we have an energy crisis.

I figure people will have the intelligence to understand what Obama is saying, and that they will certainly find it a better message than "more wars, less jobs".

We don't have an energy crisis....we have a POLITICIAN and LEADERSHIP crisis! Now and in the years ahead!!!

[Trueblue]

As long as his true feelings escape in those few non-scripted moments, he will not win cause in todays world everyone gets to hear every speech. As he discovered with his 'bitter' remarks, no speech he gives will not get out to the rest of us.

As to the 'energy crisis', you leftists always complain that everything is a crisis. A Climate crisis, an energy crisis, a mortgage crisis.....

All promoted for the government to take over and save the day.

Like the dems in congress starting to talk about nationalizing the oil companies.

There is no energy crisis, a crisis would be if it were not available, it is available it is just expensive because of poor decisions by our government no to allow us to go after our own known reserves. We all know that most of the no drilling no refineries are coming frm the left and the democrat party.

The democrat answer to the energy 'crisis' is to raise taxes on the oil companies?

What you figure and count on is that people will follow the cult of personality of Obama and not look at who is behind the curtain.

Don't count those chickens just yet.

I count on several things, one of them is that you won't grasp any issue at any level beyond your own personal financial interests.

Taking the oil means we actually take the oil without paying for it. Is there something going on I don't know about?

Idiot!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFYlhw3g4P8

Something is happening, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?

You are SO Mr. Jones.

We invaded their country, and THEN we bought their oil.

Dumb ass.

[Wabash]

John Gault....keeps setting up those straw men.....and we just keep mowing them down. You've got nothing JG. Now, Obama isn't even articulate. What....do his speech patterns turn Negro when he's speaking without a script? Is that it?

Energy crisis.....who ever said it was a crisis? Not the folks you support...they are fucking loving it. Six years of a Republican Congress and a Republican White House and NO moves to drill in ANWR or anywhere else. And you ate it all up. You continue to eat it all up. And you say we follow a cult of personality.

What you are doing is vastly underestimating the level of intellect of the "libs" on here and out there....we don't follow leaders blindly and we don't buy the spin. The only crisis you should worry about is the one about to wreck your party....it is going to get ugly. I count $300,000,000 chickens to your $85,000,000 ugly ducklings.

That was the plan, but Bush and your flunkies couldn't execute it.

What's new ... your boys have failed at every task they have attempted.

Your lack of analytical skill demonstrates why.

Let me see now....the poor of this country have been promised many things over the last 50 years by Democraps....and they are still poor!

[Wabash]

We just experienced an overhyped, positively outrageous primary
election season that has left me cold and wondering where the heads of
our citizens are hiding out. Must be someplace where the sun doesn't
get to very often.

At one time in my life I was a determined, dedicated and ever loyal
registered Democrat. Then something happened (Lyndon Baines Johnson)
that turned my life around and gave me much pause as to the veracity
of a party that dwelt on and fed off of the most unfortunate among us.
Some of those unfortunates were in their positions in life by way of
their own choosing and others were there by circumstance. But always,
always with a door open to them to reach for new heights, achieve new
goals, change their lives for the better. And also, always ever
present were the bottom feeders doing everything they could to take
advantage of those who had not or have not seen the light of better
days and times nor realizing they were in fact the masters of their
own destiny. They had come to believe that they were dependent on
those in power in Washington and that they would look out for them and
take care of their every need. They are still waiting and expecting all
those promised freebies.

Most people aren't even aware that the Democrats ruled Washington for
over 40 years. It wasn't until 1994 when the so called Gingrich
Revolution changed that for a short period of time. Nor do people
realize that it was the Dem's that created the failed policies of the
many entitlement programs that are falling apart right before our
eyes. Please do not think I find the Republicans blameless in all
this. They too, suffer from ego inflation and greed motivators built
into the system. It's just that the past few months I've listened to
the rantings and railings of the left in America calling for more
giveaways and better ways to obtain the proverbial 'free lunch'.

I think that to sum up my feelings and why I am so set apart from
those within the circles of political power and influence can be
illustrated best by a quote by noted basketball legend and talk show
co-host Charles Barkley:

"Poor people have been voting for Democrats for the last fifty
years....and they are still poor".

And now with the election results comes the promises of "change".
"Change we can believe in." "Change for the future". When in fact if
you really, I mean REALLY listen to what the new messiah is asking for
is not 'change of policy' or 'change for the better'. He is warning
all of us that he wants our change all right, 'loose change', pocket
change', social change and political change......So people wake up.
For if you don't, the change you get may not be the change you were
expecting, or the change you wanted.

To close my screed, I want to leave you with some JM predictions in
the event the junior Senator from Illinois becomes President and
especially if the House and Senate are veto proof.

1). Strict new gun laws will be enacted even though he promised he
would not.
2). The phrase "In God We Trust" will be removed from all currency.
3). He will back away from his pledge to Israel and leave them to the
wolves of Islam.
4). Hillary Clinton will be named to the Supreme Court.
5). Tax rates will return to their highest levels in 30 years.
6). T he capital gains tax will be at least double current levels.
7). Retired Army General Wesley Clark will be named Secretary of
Defense.
8). The borders will be 'basically open' to all comers. Especially
those from the Middle East and South America.
9). Amnesty will be granted to all illegals now in the U.S regardless
of status or even gang members (MS-13).
and
10). The war in Iraq will be brought to an abrupt end and the results
will be tragic and the consequences to our military will be devastating.

I realize that my predictions may not sit too well with some people
and the best we could all hope for is that I am totally wrong. Any bets?

Jerry Molen

[Lone Laugher]

Hey dummy! The republicans passed ANWAR drilling in the house and had a majority in the Senate ready to vote for it, but the democrats in the Senate fillibustered it. Looks like it is their fault on that too. In 95 They passed it in the house and Senate, Clinton vetoed it. Said that it would take 10 years to get the oil going. Gee lets see, 1995 + 10 years equals




THRE FUCKING YEARS AGO

The key to the video is not really how he says it, it is what he says idiot.


Listen ....I'm talking 2000 to 2006 when your guys had it all and could do anything they fucking wanted. Don't talk Clinton and don't talk post 2006...the time you had it all...your guys did jack shit.

If you insist on commenting on my intelligence as you have in this thread I will commence to point out :censored every chance I get. It will be too easy.

[Matt]

Wasn't that laugh of McCain's the most pathetic sounding laugh you have ever heard.
He either didn't have a clue what he was talking about ~ or he knew that Carter was really the only one with the guts to face up to the oil situation ~ which went down the drain as soon as Reagan got elected ~ and by some miracle got the Iranian hostages released a minute later.
What a man! (What a farce!)

[Judge Smails]

Let me see now....the poor of this country have been promised many things over the last 50 years by Democraps....and they are still poor!

In 1950 on average, males over the age of 15 earned $17,011.00 in 2004 dollars.

In 2004 on average, males over the age of 15 earned $35,555.

(World Census Figures)

Which would you prefer...$17,000 or $35,000?

I'd say the Democrats have made some realistic strides since 1950.

I don't believe that earning 35,000 dollars in 2004 puts a person in the lower income bracket.

If you earn less than $112,000/year...you better vote for Obama if you want more money. If you prefer higher taxes, vote for McCain...unless of course anyone here makes over $600,000/year.

Anyone here make $600,000/year???

[Lone Laugher]

Now you went and did it!

[Judge Smails]

Amusing that the republicans cited a "Carter second term" as a response to the "bush third term" line used by the Democrats.

Besides the fact that the phrase "bush third term' is relevant in the case of this election as it relates to McCain and his embrace (literally) of bush and the Carter utterance is not (for instance how many voters were of an age to remember Carter?) Why didn't the republicans choose to use the phrase "Clinton's Third Term"?

The much hated Bill Clinton???

Perhaps it's because Clinton was a much better President than bush (either one).

Perhaps, that even now, Clinton is much more popular than bush.

Yeah, all those years of prosperity in the 90's sure did stink.

We're much better off now than we were 8 yeras ago.

$1.00 gas is over-rated anyway.

So's a budget surplus.

[John Gault]

That was the plan, but Bush and your flunkies couldn't execute it.

What's new ... your boys have failed at every task they have attempted.

Your lack of analytical skill demonstrates why.

Tell me :censored, you have any proof of that assertion?

Boring...

[John Gault]

I count on several things, one of them is that you won't grasp any issue at any level beyond your own personal financial interests.



Something is happening, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?

You are SO Mr. Jones.

We invaded their country, and THEN we bought their oil.

Dumb ass.


Bull crap, at my current level of income I would pay less taxes under Obama than I do now. But of course that is always how it starts.

I don't vote based on my own financial interests, that would be most democrats. I vote on principle which is why I can never vote for democrats.

[John Gault]

Listen you piece of shit....I'm talking 2000 to 2006 when your guys had it all and could do anything they fucking wanted. Don't talk Clinton and don't talk post 2006...the time you had it all...your guys did jack shit.

If you insist on commenting on my intelligence as you have in this thread I will commence to point out just how stupid you are every chance I get. It will be too easy.

They did pass drilling in ANWAR and the democrats in the SENATE kept it frm coming to a vote with a fillibuster.

Can't you read :censored?

[John Gault]

In 1950 on average, males over the age of 15 earned $17,011.00 in 2004 dollars.

In 2004 on average, males over the age of 15 earned $35,555.

(World Census Figures)

Which would you prefer...$17,000 or $35,000?

I'd say the Democrats have made some realistic strides since 1950.

I don't believe that earning 35,000 dollars in 2004 puts a person in the lower income bracket.

If you earn less than $112,000/year...you better vote for Obama if you want more money. If you prefer higher taxes, vote for McCain...unless of course anyone here makes over $600,000/year.

Anyone here make $600,000/year???

Obama is admiting he will raise taxes on families making over 250k. That means individuals making 125k will go back to the tax rates of Clinton.

I don't vote my pocket, if I did I would vote for Obama. I vote on principle, that means I can't vote for Obama or any democrat.

[Wabash]

Bull crap, at my current level of income I would pay less taxes under Obama than I do now. But of course that is always how it starts.

I don't vote based on my own financial interests, that would be most democrats. I vote on principle which is why I can never vote for democrats.
DITTO! I vote for a person on principle and the gun issue...that's for starters. I've been in the workforce since I was 14, that's well over 40 years and as far as I can tell my income was not affected by any one President. I've always been an entrepreneur in addition to having a good job. That makes for lots of extra side money. One summer I got my hands on 120 truck inner tubes that were just sitting around...bought em for $20 and sold em for $1200 to young folks floating the river....took me 5 days to unload all of them ...just one example out of many!
Bottom line, I'm gonna make money no matter who is President.....it's not about the money, I still don't like paying taxes!

Obama is admiting he will raise taxes on families making over 250k. That means individuals making 125k will go back to the tax rates of Clinton.

I don't vote my pocket, if I did I would vote for Obama. I vote on principle, that means I can't vote for Obama or any democrat.

Thing is, Demos find other ways to tax folks....they disguise them as a fee or surcharge or other terminology...but a tax it is nevertheless! Demos are very sneaky.....and liars too!

[Wabash]

Amusing that the republicans cited a "Carter second term" as a response to the "bush third term" line used by the Democrats.

Besides the fact that the phrase "bush third term' is relevant in the case of this election as it relates to McCain and his embrace (literally) of bush and the Carter utterance is not (for instance how many voters were of an age to remember Carter?) Why didn't the republicans choose to use the phrase "Clinton's Third Term"?

The much hated Bill Clinton???

Perhaps it's because Clinton was a much better President than bush (either one).

Perhaps, that even now, Clinton is much more popular than bush.

Yeah, all those years of prosperity in the 90's sure did stink.

We're much better off now than we were 8 yeras ago.

$1.00 gas is over-rated anyway.

So's a budget surplus.

I disliked Carter a bit more than Clinton...both screwed up a lot of things....but Carter....there wasn't one thing he did that I liked....Our gun rights were under assault for 4 straight years...his religion got in the way of his job as President! He made for a good preacher and a piss poor President!
Again...I propsered in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and now...I'm just not greedy!
Obie will make for a piss poor President too...mark my words!

[Judge Smails]

Obama is admiting he will raise taxes on families making over 250k. That means individuals making 125k will go back to the tax rates of Clinton.

I don't vote my pocket, if I did I would vote for Obama. I vote on principle, that means I can't vote for Obama or any democrat.

Principle???

You?

So we don't have to worry about you whining about taxes going up and Democrats anymore if you don't vote with your pocket.


Scratch that off your list.

[Judge Smails]

Obama is admiting he will raise taxes on families making over 250k. That means individuals making 125k will go back to the tax rates of Clinton.

I don't vote my pocket, if I did I would vote for Obama. I vote on principle, that means I can't vote for Obama or any democrat.

Actually you'd have to make $603,000/year for Obama to raise your taxes.

And the increase?

$12.00

No that's not a typo....12 bucks a year.

[Lone Laugher]

After further research, I have to concede the point to John Gault....there were, it seems, attempts in Congress to open up ANWR between 2000 and 2006.



From the Washington Post November 10, 2005:

"The decision to drop the ANWR drilling language came after GOP moderates said they would oppose the budget if it was kept in the bill. The offshore drilling provision was also viewed as too contentious and a threat to the bill, especially in the Senate."

-----------------------------------------

Then opening ANWR was indeed killed by a filibuster ( which required support of some GOP members ) when Ted "Bridge to NOwhere" Stevens" tried to attach it to the Military spending Bill in December of 2005.

You were right on the legislative history, JG.

[Trueblue]

Bull crap, at my current level of income I would pay less taxes under Obama than I do now. But of course that is always how it starts.

I don't vote based on my own financial interests, that would be most democrats. I vote on principle which is why I can never vote for democrats.

I vote my principles, always. For example, here in Tennessee, where we both live, I am in favor of an income tax, even though it would cost me more.

So tell me, are YOU in favor of a state income tax in Tennessee?

[wvpeach]

Okay smart guy lets hear it what did Jimmy Carter do wrong about the economy? History and economists have written much on the subject so lets see some facts and figures smart boy.

Or are you one of those typical neo cons who just makes up crap?



Obama needs to figure out that even some democrats (not the ones here but some) don't like being told what to do or how to do it. Some don't give a rats ass what the rest of the world thinks about how we live our lives within our borders. We produce and/or pay for the energy we use. He makes it sound as if the other countries don't get any energy because we take it from them. What a moron.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXIvmJ8xenc&feature=related

Yep he is going for Jimmy Carters Second term alright, break out the sweaters.

I now know why he does not want to do town hall style debates with McCain. When he is not doing a well prepared and rehersed speech his is not so good. Listen to haw he speaks in this video and notice he is not nearly so fluid or even that articulate.

PS - you can bet this sound byte will make it's way into a political ad, for the republicans.

[patriotsblade]

I edited the inults from this thread because it's in a moderated area. So would everyone :chill

[issac the dragon]

Why does Obama want to lower taxes on the middle class? I think that is irresponsible and pandering. If he is so damn smart, why not tell the people that our infrastructure is falling apart and we are going to have to fix it? The problem is not going to go away. So Obama just tells people "I'll lower your taxes," and sits back and does nothing. That sounds like four more years of Bush. Bush is a master at doing nothing. But Obama is supposed to be about 'change.' He still hasn't said what he is going to change. Oh, lower taxes as a crisis is ready to fall on us. That is not change. That is the same ol' same ol'.

[Trueblue]

He has offered a lot of change.

[Judge Smails]

Why does Obama want to lower taxes on the middle class? I think that is irresponsible and pandering. If he is so damn smart, why not tell the people that our infrastructure is falling apart and we are going to have to fix it? The problem is not going to go away. So Obama just tells people "I'll lower your taxes," and sits back and does nothing. That sounds like four more years of Bush. Bush is a master at doing nothing. But Obama is supposed to be about 'change.' He still hasn't said what he is going to change. Oh, lower taxes as a crisis is ready to fall on us. That is not change. That is the same ol' same ol'.

He's lowering taxes on the working stiff and off setting them with an increase for the CEO's who have been the benificiaries of bush and his band of war criminals.

I think the first thing he needs to do is close the Enron loop hole, which will have an almost immediate effect not only on gas prices but on food costs, travel/tourism, truckers, etc. We need to get oil out of the speculation market and allow supply and demand to dictate the prices.

[Judge Smails]

Here's an interesting web site concerning not only the Enron Loophole but overseas loopholes as well.


http://www.stopoilspeculators.com/

[Judge Smails]

Why does Obama want to lower taxes on the middle class? I think that is irresponsible and pandering. If he is so damn smart, why not tell the people that our infrastructure is falling apart and we are going to have to fix it? The problem is not going to go away. So Obama just tells people "I'll lower your taxes," and sits back and does nothing. That sounds like four more years of Bush. Bush is a master at doing nothing. But Obama is supposed to be about 'change.' He still hasn't said what he is going to change. Oh, lower taxes as a crisis is ready to fall on us. That is not change. That is the same ol' same ol'.

Issac; Here's a link to Obama's "Blueprint of Change". If you get a chance, look it over and tell me what you think.

Judge Smails

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

[issac the dragon]

I have been to the sight Judge. The same old tired promises that the Dems have been making since FDR. They have had the presidency, and super majorities, and they haven't gotten those things done. Except raising taxes on the rich, which I agree with. I'd go along with what they do in England. Any money earned over $200,000 a year, that's our dollars, it all goes to the government. I think the rich should have to pay through the nose to live in this country. And if they idea is so bad, why haven't all the rich bailed out of England?

Obama's going to end the war? The minute he is elected, the military is going to fall on him and convince him he can't just stop the war. Actually, he doesn't claim that anymore. Well, the last president who stopped a war in this country was DDE. The last president who promised to was RMN, and four years later he was re-elected with the same promise. And Ford wouldn't end it, so congress did by withholding funding. Why haven't the Dems done that? It is easy to make promises. He has backed off of the first principled stand he has come up to. So much for principles and promises. You guys dream on, I live in the real world, and all politicians are liars.

[matrixx8]

Obama needs to figure out that even some democrats (not the ones here but some) don't like being told what to do or how to do it. Some don't give a rats ass what the rest of the world thinks about how we live our lives within our borders. We produce and/or pay for the energy we use. He makes it sound as if the other countries don't get any energy because we take it from them. What a moron.
Indeed. Why should natural resources be shared equally, or at least proportionately? As Orwell wrote in Animal Farm "All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others."

Right?

As far as being told what to do, those of us who live in democratic countries have to content with something called the rule of law. Remember that? It's part of the social contract -- the system that protects the rights that humans ascribe to themselves.

Presumably, the context of Obama's statement translates into eco footprints. Unless and until a form of energy is discovered that does not result in a zero sum outcome, it seems perfectly logical that those who appropriate the most natural resources should make allowances for those who do not do so. It's sort of like breathing the air, drinking water or living on land. Without these natural resources, life cannot survive.

Surely, you're not suggesting that some humans deserve to survive and others do not. Injecting a normative conclusion into a basically biological issue is not particularly scientific.

As you choose to wear your philosophical prejudices on your proverbial sleeve, John Gault, I suggest you check your premises!

[issac the dragon]

"Surely, you're not suggesting that some humans deserve to survive and others do not. Injecting a normative conclusion into a basically biological issue is not particularly scientific."

Don't bet your life on it.

[Trueblue]

I have been to the sight Judge. The same old tired promises that the Dems have been making since FDR. They have had the presidency, and super majorities, and they haven't gotten those things done. Except raising taxes on the rich, which I agree with. I'd go along with what they do in England. Any money earned over $200,000 a year, that's our dollars, it all goes to the government. I think the rich should have to pay through the nose to live in this country. And if they idea is so bad, why haven't all the rich bailed out of England?

Obama's going to end the war? The minute he is elected, the military is going to fall on him and convince him he can't just stop the war. Actually, he doesn't claim that anymore. Well, the last president who stopped a war in this country was DDE. The last president who promised to was RMN, and four years later he was re-elected with the same promise. And Ford wouldn't end it, so congress did by withholding funding. Why haven't the Dems done that? It is easy to make promises. He has backed off of the first principled stand he has come up to. So much for principles and promises. You guys dream on, I live in the real world, and all politicians are liars.

Actually, what he will do is start being the Commander in Chief of the Military, and because his objectives will be different, the military will respond with another plan. I think from what we've all heard the military is more than ready for a new plan.

Cynicism and unrealistic expectations are not particularly "real world", IMO. You've got the bar set so high no one can possibly jump over it and please you.

[Judge Smails]

I have been to the sight Judge. The same old tired promises that the Dems have been making since FDR. They have had the presidency, and super majorities, and they haven't gotten those things done. Except raising taxes on the rich, which I agree with. I'd go along with what they do in England. Any money earned over $200,000 a year, that's our dollars, it all goes to the government. I think the rich should have to pay through the nose to live in this country. And if they idea is so bad, why haven't all the rich bailed out of England?

Obama's going to end the war? The minute he is elected, the military is going to fall on him and convince him he can't just stop the war. Actually, he doesn't claim that anymore. Well, the last president who stopped a war in this country was DDE. The last president who promised to was RMN, and four years later he was re-elected with the same promise. And Ford wouldn't end it, so congress did by withholding funding. Why haven't the Dems done that? It is easy to make promises. He has backed off of the first principled stand he has come up to. So much for principles and promises. You guys dream on, I live in the real world, and all politicians are liars.

I guess I'm a little more optimistic.

The war isn't going to end with the flip of a switch. No armada of cargo planes leaving at zero hour for home if that's what you are refering to, but he will pull the troops out of Iraq and reposition some into Afghanistan. We will still be at war, but we will be after Bin Laden and the 9/11 murderers.

I mean how long does it take to train Iraqi troops to defend themselves?? 6 years is long enough.

You seem like an intelligent poster Issac....what made you so cynical??

BTW I completely agree with your signature regarding fascism.

[matrixx8]

Why does Obama want to lower taxes on the middle class? I think that is irresponsible and pandering. If he is so damn smart, why not tell the people that our infrastructure is falling apart and we are going to have to fix it? The problem is not going to go away. So Obama just tells people "I'll lower your taxes," and sits back and does nothing. That sounds like four more years of Bush. Bush is a master at doing nothing. But Obama is supposed to be about 'change.' He still hasn't said what he is going to change. Oh, lower taxes as a crisis is ready to fall on us. That is not change. That is the same ol' same ol'.
A bit pessimistic, don't you think? You have to ask yourself at this point, what is the alternative?

Let me state right off, I come to praise McCain, not bury him. He is an honorable man.

It's hard to imagine, however, any real change taking place under a McCain cabinet. International relations might benefit -- somewhat. Domestic issues might improve -- somewhat. Government influence over the economy is limited. The overall image of the USA might benefit -- somewhat. But what is really at issue in this presidential election?

Obama offers a new direction. The old direction is the neo-con road to war, international conflict, "us versus them" and cold-war diplomacy.

Obama proposes to change that direction, to end the unnecessary war in Iraq and to take a diplomtic approach to dealing with America's adversaries. He proposes delimiting the influence of lobbist groups, to focus American resources on going after the real terrorists in Aghanistan and Pakistan.

Now, as you suggest, this may all be a waste of time. Nevertheless, the refusal to deal with problems is in itself a problem. The steps that the US government takes tomorrow will determine the length and breadth of support that the US has in the future for its policies -- and its influence in the world.

That influence has dwindled significally under Bush.

Judging from his statements about Iraq, for example, McCain is likely to continue going down the same road that George W. Bush has gone down the last eight years.

Is that really in America's interest?

Politics is always about compromise. After all, people are never unaminmous in their views. The democratic way is to follow the majority view.

Looking at the US elections from abroad, it looks to me as if Obama is the only candidate at present who is attuned to what is going on in the world.

If America is going to re-establish its global reputation as the leader of the free world and draw the support of other democratic nation, it needs leader who understands and responds to these sentiments, both domestically and abroad.

Obama is such a leader, or so it seems to me.

[Matt]

After further research, I have to concede the point to John Gault....there were, it seems, attempts in Congress to open up ANWR between 2000 and 2006.



From the Washington Post November 10, 2005:

"The decision to drop the ANWR drilling language came after GOP moderates said they would oppose the budget if it was kept in the bill. The offshore drilling provision was also viewed as too contentious and a threat to the bill, especially in the Senate."

-----------------------------------------

Then opening ANWR was indeed killed by a filibuster ( which required support of some GOP members ) when Ted "Bridge to NOwhere" Stevens" tried to attach it to the Military spending Bill in December of 2005.

You were right on the legislative history, JG.

Tell me it isn't true!
Some Republicans in charge have an environmental and economic conscience beyond their wallet. :confused

[Yellowdogtexan]

BTW, the whole Carter line of attack is just plain stupid to me and to others. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/21/obama-carter-comparisons_n_108442.html While Carter's political legacy may roil older, conservative voters, few under 40 have any memory of his presidency. To them and to many others, Carter is better known for his work on Habitat for Humanity and as a global humanitarian whose endeavors brought him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.

Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University, said the Carter comparison would do almost nothing to help McCain attract young voters from Obama.

"For younger voters, there isn't any clear image of Jimmy Carter at all except for his international work," Black said. "The better way would be for McCain to talk to them about problems facing the country and what he'd do about them, rather than bringing up Jimmy Carter."

A former Georgia governor, Carter defeated incumbent Republican Gerald Ford in 1976. He served just one term, losing in a landslide to Republican Ronald Reagan in 1980.

During his presidency Carter struggled with an energy crisis that contributed to high inflation. He also faced major foreign policy challenges including the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iranian hostage crisis in which 52 Americans were detained by Islamic students at the U.S. embassy for more than a year.

When Carter left office, the inflation rate hovered at about 12 percent. The unemployment rate was 7.7 percent and much higher in some industrial areas.

McCain can't make the same comparison to the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who was governor of Arkansas and just 44 when elected president in 1992. Even though a sex scandal led to Clinton's impeachment in 1998, many voters remember his two terms in office as a time of peace and economic stability.

Jody Powell, who served as Carter's White House press secretary, noted that Carter had made serious proposals as president to develop alternative energies and clean coal technology but they languished in Congress after he left office.

"John McCain knows this, but he has a real problem with his base. And I'm sure attacking Jimmy Carter resonates well with the old, extreme right wing of the Republican base," Powell said.Bottom line is that this attack just makes mc :cane look older which is not a smart idea. This line of attack will not help mc :cane with voters under the age of 40 or so and will only be effective with the older voters who mc :cane is doing okay with to beging with.

Getting the young people to vote for mc :cane is probably a lost cause to begin with but stupid attacks like the comparison of Senator Obama to Jimmy Carter is not going to help.:LL

[wvpeach]

Bottom line is attacking Carter is the passtime of the under or uneducated.

Ask them what Carter did wrong and they can never tell you they just sputter the same kool aid they have been drinking. Hostages and high gas prices. No shit sherlock and what exactly could Carter have done to avoid that?

[Trueblue]

They also get mad over Carter's honoring the Panama Canal treaty. :roll

[wvpeach]

Yeah and Carter being a real peace maker upsets the snot out of them too.

They prefer war and arm chair quarter backing.

Perhaps we should have out lawed sports in this country long ago along with our stupid war on drugs.