Which Democrat are you supporting in the primaries?

Archived discussion from Toril-2.

Which Democrat do you support?

Joe Biden
2
7%
Hillary Clinton
12
41%
Chris Dodd
1
3%
John Edwards
0
No votes
Mike Gravel
1
3%
Dennis Kucinich
1
3%
Barack Obama
10
34%
Bill Richardson
2
7%
 
Total votes: 29
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:12 pm

Birile wrote:
Corth wrote:Despite Birile's contention that Hillary represents the working class, her true support has always come from the elite.


*eyebrow*

You mean the "elite" people in households making less than $50,000 a year? The "elite" Medicare crowd? The "elite" women? Or did you mean the "elite" Hispanics?

I feel bad for the downtrodden Obama supporters making over $200K a year with their MBAs with the last name Kennedy. They're always getting sh*t on. :(


Are you guys seriously berating democrats for appealing to the so-called elite?

You sound like the retarded republicans arguing over who is more conservative. And I know you guys aren't retarded, so wtf?
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:13 pm

avak wrote:
Birile wrote:
Corth wrote:Despite Birile's contention that Hillary represents the working class, her true support has always come from the elite.


*eyebrow*

You mean the "elite" people in households making less than $50,000 a year? The "elite" Medicare crowd? The "elite" women? Or did you mean the "elite" Hispanics?

I feel bad for the downtrodden Obama supporters making over $200K a year with their MBAs with the last name Kennedy. They're always getting sh*t on. :(


Are you guys seriously berating democrats for appealing to the so-called elite?

You sound like the retarded republicans arguing over who is more conservative. And I know you guys aren't retarded, so wtf?


My post was a direct response to Corth's notion that Clinton has always claimed her support from the elite. I do, however, see your concern with the words I chose.

I happen to think Obama has a lot of good intentions and when he's got a script in front of him, boy he sounds inspiring! Those are great qualities. To paraphrase one of his favorite lines that makes my skin crawl (just a personal opinion): I wasn't impressed when I "lifted the hood and kicked the tires." I didn't find a lot of evidence showing he's capable of bringing his ideas to fruition. And when he's without a script, or thrown off guard, he doesn't have the same verbiose manner that he has when he's reading from a script, and--worse--he winds up with a foot or two in his mouth. I really have a hard time trusting him with international relations with that sort of track record.

Personally, I'm not berating Obama for appealing to the elite. Or to the rich (I'm sorry, the "well to do"). Or to the young. Or to the highly educated, for that matter (I myself fall into some of these categories). My problem is that he's not spending enough time trying to understand the plight of the average American living day to day in this country. Not one of his ideas can be implemented immediately or in one simple step. They all need time to develop, and involve longterm vision. I'm all for longterm vision, don't get me wrong. But while President Obama would be working on these longterm goals, there are millions of Americans who are trying to survive one day after another, desperately wondering why their president has his head in the clouds and not on the ground taking care of them. This is what people don't seem to understand. Obama appeals to the better-off because they can afford to think well into the future. He appeals to the young because he gives good speeches, is charismatic, and also because, in general, young adults in college aren't concerned with the everyday plight. They're young, they shouldn't be expected to be concerned about such things, and that's just fine. I very much appreciate what Obama is all about. I think he has a genuine concern for the American people. I just think he needs to spend a lot more time worrying about the "smaller" things in life.

Clinton, on the other hand, actually listens to people and their concerns. To me, she seems to understand that our daily lives matter. She knows she can't just think in the long term OR the short term. She speaks to the concerns of the everyday person. Let me emphasize that. She speaks to people, not about them or over them. I honestly have never heard someone say that after they met Clinton they felt as though they couldn't connect with her. I've heard quite the opposite. A lot. That's not something of small import. Add to all of this the fact that, thus far in her career, she has addressed problems head on and worked for solutions that benefit here and now as well as in the future.

In short, I think of Obama as the thinker and Clinton as the doer. Being who I am, I would much prefer a doer as President. Call me pragmatic. :)
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:00 pm

Birile wrote:
avak wrote:
Birile wrote:
Corth wrote:Despite Birile's contention that Hillary represents the working class, her true support has always come from the elite.


*eyebrow*

You mean the "elite" people in households making less than $50,000 a year? The "elite" Medicare crowd? The "elite" women? Or did you mean the "elite" Hispanics?

I feel bad for the downtrodden Obama supporters making over $200K a year with their MBAs with the last name Kennedy. They're always getting sh*t on. :(


Are you guys seriously berating democrats for appealing to the so-called elite?

You sound like the retarded republicans arguing over who is more conservative. And I know you guys aren't retarded, so wtf?


My post was a direct response to Corth's notion that Clinton has always claimed her support from the elite. I do, however, see your concern with the words I chose.

I happen to think Obama has a lot of good intentions and when he's got a script in front of him, boy he sounds inspiring! Those are great qualities. To paraphrase one of his favorite lines that makes my skin crawl (just a personal opinion): I wasn't impressed when I "lifted the hood and kicked the tires." I didn't find a lot of evidence showing he's capable of bringing his ideas to fruition. And when he's without a script, or thrown off guard, he doesn't have the same verbiose manner that he has when he's reading from a script, and--worse--he winds up with a foot or two in his mouth. I really have a hard time trusting him with international relations with that sort of track record.

Personally, I'm not berating Obama for appealing to the elite. Or to the rich (I'm sorry, the "well to do"). Or to the young. Or to the highly educated, for that matter (I myself fall into some of these categories). My problem is that he's not spending enough time trying to understand the plight of the average American living day to day in this country. Not one of his ideas can be implemented immediately or in one simple step. They all need time to develop, and involve longterm vision. I'm all for longterm vision, don't get me wrong. But while President Obama would be working on these longterm goals, there are millions of Americans who are trying to survive one day after another, desperately wondering why their president has his head in the clouds and not on the ground taking care of them. This is what people don't seem to understand. Obama appeals to the better-off because they can afford to think well into the future. He appeals to the young because he gives good speeches, is charismatic, and also because, in general, young adults in college aren't concerned with the everyday plight. They're young, they shouldn't be expected to be concerned about such things, and that's just fine. I very much appreciate what Obama is all about. I think he has a genuine concern for the American people. I just think he needs to spend a lot more time worrying about the "smaller" things in life.

Clinton, on the other hand, actually listens to people and their concerns. To me, she seems to understand that our daily lives matter. She knows she can't just think in the long term OR the short term. She speaks to the concerns of the everyday person. Let me emphasize that. She speaks to people, not about them or over them. I honestly have never heard someone say that after they met Clinton they felt as though they couldn't connect with her. I've heard quite the opposite. A lot. That's not something of small import. Add to all of this the fact that, thus far in her career, she has addressed problems head on and worked for solutions that benefit here and now as well as in the future.

In short, I think of Obama as the thinker and Clinton as the doer. Being who I am, I would much prefer a doer as President. Call me pragmatic. :)


You know, some might say a lot of our problems derive from putting too much emphasis on short term thinking and not enough on long term thinking. Everything you just said as a negative about Obama makes me like him more.

Then again, who knows... since they're both so close in the primaries why not just run together? The loser gets to be the VP, and everyone's happy.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:37 pm

I saw this on Metafilter and it is a few days old now, but this presentation by Lawrence Lessig really articulates what many people are feeling instinctually about Obama. For those of you that don't want to watch it, he basically makes the case that Clinton and Obama are very very similar on policy, but vastly different in character. And, as Sarvis (and many others) points out, that is precisely what is needed right now. The gravity of Obama's ability to lead and inspire cannot be underestimated. He is changing the political landscape as we speak. I'm on a steering committee for a pac and I can tell you first hand that the rhetoric, even in a red state, is shifting towards Obama and his principled, visionary style of leadership. I can respect Birile's take on Clinton's track record for incremental change, but she represents old guard, divisive politics that are not going to fundamentally change the country.

http://lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_minut ... _am_4.html
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:49 pm

Holy crap, did someone just agree with me!?! ;)
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:54 pm

I thought I would add this quote since I am surfing the net this morning.

"In other words and in short, Obama's slogan, "stand for change", is not a vacuous message of uplift, but a content-laden token of dissent from the old-style liberal orthodoxy on which Clinton and Edwards have been campaigning. At the same time, Obama is not offering a retread of (Bill) Clintonism, Liebermanism, triangulation, neoliberalism, the Third Way or whatever we might wish to call the business-friendly centrism of the 1990s. For all its lofty talk of new paradigms and boundary shifting, the Third Way in practice amounted to taking a little of column A, a little of column B, and marketing the result as something new and innovative. Obama and Goolsbee propose something entirely different - not a triangulation, but a basis for crafting public policy orthogonal to the traditional liberal-conservative axis."

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dan ... style.html
Birile
Sojourner
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Birile » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:08 am

Sarvis wrote:You know, some might say a lot of our problems derive from putting too much emphasis on short term thinking and not enough on long term thinking. Everything you just said as a negative about Obama makes me like him more.


I agree with that first sentence. I prefer to strike a balance between short- and long-term thinking/goals/what-have-you. Diversification is a wonderful thing, and the whole point of it is to strike a balance. I have not seen any evidence that Senator Obama can do that, nor am I convinced he's even tried to prove he can.

As for everything I noted as a negative... if everything I noted makes you like him more... well I don't think you were taking everything I noted into consideration when you said that. Rather, I think you focused solely on what I mentioned about short- and longterm needs of the country.

I don't think he's an evil man. I'm not blind and I can appreciate how inspired some people are by him. I would vote for him over Giuliani, Huckabee, Thompson, Romney or Paul any day. Put him up against Clinton? No contest for me. That's all.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:52 am

avak wrote:I thought I would add this quote since I am surfing the net this morning.

"In other words and in short, Obama's slogan, "stand for change", is not a vacuous message of uplift, but a content-laden token of dissent from the old-style liberal orthodoxy on which Clinton and Edwards have been campaigning. At the same time, Obama is not offering a retread of (Bill) Clintonism, Liebermanism, triangulation, neoliberalism, the Third Way or whatever we might wish to call the business-friendly centrism of the 1990s. For all its lofty talk of new paradigms and boundary shifting, the Third Way in practice amounted to taking a little of column A, a little of column B, and marketing the result as something new and innovative. Obama and Goolsbee propose something entirely different - not a triangulation, but a basis for crafting public policy orthogonal to the traditional liberal-conservative axis."

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dan ... style.html


In recent days I have come to a similar conclusion regarding Obama. I'm a libertarian. I don't see eye to eye on many things that either of them are promoting. However, it seems to me that Hillary is still hung up on some of the old battles from the 60's, and Obama isn't. I still would vote for Hillary before Obama, because she is a known quantity... but Obama is refreshing in a weird sort of way. I *like* him a lot more than Hillary. I could see myself voting for him in a few years, despite the fact that I disagree with most of his positions, after hes had a chance to put up a record, and also because I think its time for this country to have a black president.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Feb 08, 2008 9:08 am

Obama is the right man for the presidency right now. The reason why he's the right man is because he will never be the right man for the job.

With as much as he will screw up this country, it is my hope that we will never, ever even have to deal with or see another vacuous populist "I want you to believe in yourselves," drug using boozing smoker, parking ticket non-paying, frat boy scrub (weak person, probably) that has never served in the armed forces and can do nothing better during his time in the senate than writing a BAD book.

On the upside, Obama was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, and generally doesn't seem to buy into party line politics. He's well known for his vote to confirm Condolezza Rice as the secretary of state.

But to be honest, he has no serious plan for the nation, no real vision, and a far from solid grasp on the problems that face our nation today. He lacks experience, although I admit that's not unusual for the current field of candidates.

Good luck to the democrats in the thread hoping for a good primary vote result. The Republican side isn't looking all that great either.

By the way, if you think Obama has a plan for this country read this so you can laugh (and cry) along with me:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:32 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:By the way, if you think Obama has a plan for this country read this so you can laugh (and cry) along with me:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/


Maybe you could make a substantive point instead of a vacuous snark (to borrow your adjective).

Given your advanced level of insight on, well, everything, perhaps you could give the unenlightened ones (like myself) some guidance on what good economic plans might look like, who actually embodies those plans and/or what the problems with Obama's plan are.

See, that is precisely one of the appealing aspects of Obama. Instead of endless whining about how everything sucks and everything is broken, he has the moral courage to put forth an ambitious, thought out plan for the country.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:20 am

avak wrote:instead of a vacuous snark (to borrow your adjective)


It was only intended to be a vacuous snark. Anyone who really cares about who they're voting for will find out for themselves. I'm not here to convince, just to wave my hands and say angry things about Obama, the tool, who doesn't have a plan, but some flashy things to say about the perceived problems of this nation.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Dalar
Sojourner
Posts: 4876
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Dalar » Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:42 am

Image

Image[/img]
It will be fixed in Toril 2.0.
Aremat group-says 'tanks i highly suggest investing 20 silver in training weapons from cm to cut down on the losing scales to shield'
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:13 am

I'm really hoping Obama gets the nod for the Dems. McCain needs to lose because Republicans will get confused if he pursues his liberal agenda and enough of them will go along. At least if a Dem wins, the Repubilcans will know they should be against their agenda.

Someone get me my "Obama Republican" bumper sticker!
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:28 am

How well do you know your favorite candidate?

OBAMA:

How many kids does OBAMA have?
- Do they attend public or private school?
- What (kind of) church do they go to?

What is OBAMA's military service record like?
- What branch of the military did he volunteer for?
- Did he ever volunteer for the military at all?

How much experience does OBAMA have in foreign policy?
- What Senate committees has he chaired? Participated in?
- What foreign dignitaries has he met (ever)?

What kinds of drugs has OBAMA done?
- Crack?
- Heroin?
- Weed?

OBAMA promises America that he will 'fix' NAFTA?
- How?
- Where will he even begin?
- Has he detailed even the loosest strategy in any campaign speech or debate? At all?

Has OBAMA ever changed anything?
- Did he pay all of his unpaid parking tickets he ignored from 20 years ago?
- Has he introduced one single groundbreaking piece of legislation in his time as a Senator?
- What did he do in his time in private life before becoming a Senator?

Should I vote for OBAMA?
- Is 'change' always a good thing? Or is there another, hidden option that we're being lied to about?
- Is there anything substantial to what he says, after the whole 'change' thing? At all?
- Was OBAMA one of the Senators that received Senate intelligence briefings on the interrogation tactics being used that INCLUDED waterboarding but didn't say anything about it for two-three years?
- Did Obama vote to extend the Patriot Act?
- Did Obama vote to fund military operations in Iraq?


"I want you to believe in yourselves!"
- Obama
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:14 am

With regard to senate intelligence briefings on interrogation techniques.. I don't think you can criticize Obama for failing to disclose the classified information that he learned. Quite the opposite.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:54 am

Corth wrote:With regard to senate intelligence briefings on interrogation techniques.. I don't think you can criticize Obama for failing to disclose the classified information that he learned. Quite the opposite.


With regards to classified information, wasn't there a senator that did that during a public senate session and got taken to court over it? I can't remember when it was... a while ago. I just remember covering the case in my con law course a few years back. Obama could have done the same thing if he were really passionate about it :)
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Feb 29, 2008 1:50 pm

Kifle wrote:
Corth wrote:With regard to senate intelligence briefings on interrogation techniques.. I don't think you can criticize Obama for failing to disclose the classified information that he learned. Quite the opposite.


With regards to classified information, wasn't there a senator that did that during a public senate session and got taken to court over it? I can't remember when it was... a while ago. I just remember covering the case in my con law course a few years back. Obama could have done the same thing if he were really passionate about it :)


So you're saying you want politicians to reak the law, "as long as they're really passionate about it?"
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:50 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Kifle wrote:
Corth wrote:With regard to senate intelligence briefings on interrogation techniques.. I don't think you can criticize Obama for failing to disclose the classified information that he learned. Quite the opposite.


With regards to classified information, wasn't there a senator that did that during a public senate session and got taken to court over it? I can't remember when it was... a while ago. I just remember covering the case in my con law course a few years back. Obama could have done the same thing if he were really passionate about it :)


So you're saying you want politicians to reak the law, "as long as they're really passionate about it?"


Actually, I'm pretty sure he was found to be within his constitutional rights when he did it, so it wasn't really breaking the law. And, if this country has signed certain human rights treaties, looks down it's nose against other countries who do it, find it grossly against ethics, and actually invade other countries because certain dictators also commit similar human rights violations, then yes, I do believe it would be an expectation for somebody with his claimed convictions and positions to do so. But, hey, I'm happy an inexperienced, insubstantial, spineless plagarist is going to be voted in office.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:09 pm

Perhaps you could point to a politician in US history that has been able to mount a serious presidential campaign, but has an -unquestionable- record of valor and substance with experience in all aspects of policy.

I mean, seriously, congratulations on finally finding something to call in to question. I am so unfathomably relieved that the FUD-iots of the country finally appear to be in the minority.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:32 pm

No presidential candidate is perfect.. but some are certainly more qualified than others. The problem is, even if we could agree on what qualities are important in a candidate (we can't), nobody exists who could fill those shoes completely. The presidential selection process is about finding someone who is closest to the ideal of the majority of voters.

It will be a very interesting contrast between Obama and McCain. McCain, despite his attempts to cultivate a bit of a rebel image, represents old school Washington. He has been involved in his share of scandals over the years, he has made friends and enemies in high places, he's known for having an unreasonably quick temper, and his leadership abilities, under extreme duress, are beyond question. With McCain, you know exactly what you are getting. Then you skip two generations forward, and you have the X'er, Obama. His leadership abilities are unproven, as he has only been on the scene a few years. In a sense, thats his greatest advantage. Nothing is written in stone with him. He can be all things to all people. He represents change and hope, but there is little indication of what kind of president he will be if elected.

So do we choose the dependable old dog or the energetic young pup to hold the most powerful office in the world? It will be very interesting to me to see what the voters are looking for out of our next president.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:57 pm

A couple answers:

How many kids does OBAMA have?

TWO

- Do they attend public or private school?

THEY ATTEND A PRIVATE SCHOOL
(EDWARDS' CHILDREN ATTENDED PUBLIC SCHOOL, AS DID THE CLINTONS'.)

- What (kind of) church do they go to?

OBAMA'S CONGREGATION IS "UNASHAMEDLY BLACK AND UNAPOLOGETICALLY CHRISTIAN" with "ROOTS IN THE BLACK RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE" ... "WE ARE AN AFRICAN PEOPLE, AND REMAIN 'TRUE TO OUR NATIVE LAND,' THE MOTHER CONTINENT"

What is OBAMA's military service record like?

OBAMA HAS NOT SERVED IN THE US MILITARY

- What branch of the military did he volunteer for?

OBAMA HAS NOT VOLUNTEERED TO SERVE

- Did he ever volunteer for the military at all?

OBAMA HAS NOT VOLUNTEERED TO SERVE




maybe more later

Further reading: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywar ... n_mil.html

"Obama says we need to 'show the world' that America is the last, best hope on Earth, offering what he calls 'a new vision of American leadership and a new conception of our national security' based upon the view that 'the security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people.'"

Yet, Obama wants to withdrawl troops from Iraq, "with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31st, 2008."

Anyone else see a bit of an issue there? Double talk, flawed ideaology. Yeah, real change.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:40 pm

Kifle wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
Kifle wrote:
Corth wrote:With regard to senate intelligence briefings on interrogation techniques.. I don't think you can criticize Obama for failing to disclose the classified information that he learned. Quite the opposite.


With regards to classified information, wasn't there a senator that did that during a public senate session and got taken to court over it? I can't remember when it was... a while ago. I just remember covering the case in my con law course a few years back. Obama could have done the same thing if he were really passionate about it :)


So you're saying you want politicians to reak the law, "as long as they're really passionate about it?"


Actually, I'm pretty sure he was found to be within his constitutional rights when he did it, so it wasn't really breaking the law. And, if this country has signed certain human rights treaties, looks down it's nose against other countries who do it, find it grossly against ethics, and actually invade other countries because certain dictators also commit similar human rights violations, then yes, I do believe it would be an expectation for somebody with his claimed convictions and positions to do so. But, hey, I'm happy an inexperienced, insubstantial, spineless plagarist is going to be voted in office.


You cite one case saying a senator got off for releasing classified information. That doesn't mean it's legal or that it would be the right thing for Obama to do. Painting him as a spineless, insubstantial plagiarist because he followed the law even when it was inconvenient/against his beliefs? And you wonder why no one listens to conservatives anymore... :roll:
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:39 am

In some ways, Obama is more conservative than McCain. That is why I'll end up voting for my first Dem ever over McCain.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:45 am

Sarvis wrote:
Kifle wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
Kifle wrote:
Corth wrote:With regard to senate intelligence briefings on interrogation techniques.. I don't think you can criticize Obama for failing to disclose the classified information that he learned. Quite the opposite.


With regards to classified information, wasn't there a senator that did that during a public senate session and got taken to court over it? I can't remember when it was... a while ago. I just remember covering the case in my con law course a few years back. Obama could have done the same thing if he were really passionate about it :)


So you're saying you want politicians to reak the law, "as long as they're really passionate about it?"


Actually, I'm pretty sure he was found to be within his constitutional rights when he did it, so it wasn't really breaking the law. And, if this country has signed certain human rights treaties, looks down it's nose against other countries who do it, find it grossly against ethics, and actually invade other countries because certain dictators also commit similar human rights violations, then yes, I do believe it would be an expectation for somebody with his claimed convictions and positions to do so. But, hey, I'm happy an inexperienced, insubstantial, spineless plagarist is going to be voted in office.


You cite one case saying a senator got off for releasing classified information. That doesn't mean it's legal or that it would be the right thing for Obama to do. Painting him as a spineless, insubstantial plagiarist because he followed the law even when it was inconvenient/against his beliefs? And you wonder why no one listens to conservatives anymore... :roll:


I only called him spineless because of that. The other observations were from other instances of his incompetance. Also, I'm not a conservative by any means. Obama isn't your mom, stop getting so defensive.

Also, as far as I remember, our justice system largely follows the precident system. So, that being the only case I can recall (again, it's been years), I think he could make quite the case if someone actually tried to call him out if he did grow a spine. He's a politician just like all the rest. There's nothing new about him except for the fact that he's been in the system for less time than any other candidate. He just goes to show... you really can sell shit to the american public as long as you wrap it up in something bright and shiny.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Vigis » Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:05 am

Well, the primaries are just about over, and to be honest, the ones that are left don't have much weight behind them anyway.

I've been behind Obama since he announced his candidacy. I hope he wins for the same reason that a lot of people worry about him, his lack of political history.

I really want somebody in the office who does not have a political record. If the president doesn't have a political record, he/she doesn't have any record to uphold. He/She can actually go with his/her own views instead of trying to cater to his/her political base.

I am sick and tired of politicians who are only interested in promoting party politics. The parties in the U.S. suck. The most counterproductive thing in our history was allowing only two parties to gain so much power. Our country grows stagnant while politicians try to keep their seats.

Even if Obama wins and turns out to be a major screw up, I think we would come out better. We might end up seeing a third party candidate actually win in the next election. More and more voters are leaning toward the center, if they get screwed by a Republican for awhile, then get screwed by a Democrat for awhile, they might actually wake up. (Of course, if I was literally getting screwed by anybody who looks like a politician, I'd do the polite thing and pretend to be asleep because I wouldn't want to make them uncomfortable).
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'

Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:54 am

There's nothing new in American politics about newcomers that make fast promises and mislead the idiots that make up our voting population with a silver tongue.

Hate to break it to you all.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:40 pm

Vigis wrote:Even if Obama wins and turns out to be a major screw up, I think we would come out better. We might end up seeing a third party candidate actually win in the next election. More and more voters are leaning toward the center, if they get screwed by a Republican for awhile, then get screwed by a Democrat for awhile, they might actually wake up. (Of course, if I was literally getting screwed by anybody who looks like a politician, I'd do the polite thing and pretend to be asleep because I wouldn't want to make them uncomfortable).


You have too much faith in the average American. They will do what they have always done when they get screwed by one party -- go to the other. Until there is a major reform movement in this country, it will always be a two-party system.

As far as these primaries are concerned, I'm pretty upset. I'm just happy I'll only be in the country for another year. If it gets better under Obama, I'll move back, but I don't think it's likely.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:55 pm

MUNCIE, Indiana (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama on Saturday tried to clarify what he meant when he said some small-town Pennsylvanians are "bitter" people who "cling to guns and religion."



Obama also labeled the dust-up that's developed as "a little typical sort of political flare-up" because, as he contends, he said something that "everybody knows is true."



You know, he sends his kids to a private school - he must be so in touch with other Americans. Apparently, Obama only wants you to "believe in yourself," if you only exercise your first and second amendment rights when you're not bitter.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:41 pm

Always good to read it in context. Being from a rural area I can completely understand.


OBAMA: So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.

Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:14 pm

I for one think its about time that the democrats nominated someone who very clearly articulates core liberal positions and beliefs. I have to say that Obama deserves respect because he is forthright. Thats not an easy thing for a politician. I personally believe it would be a disaster if we actually elected him, but thats not up to me to decide. Americans will see exactly what he stands for... big government (he isn't hiding it). Then they will choose if they want it or not.

If my single vote meant the difference between having Clinton and Obama as president, I would cast it for Clinton in a heartbeat. She's too concerned with focus groups to seriously screw up the country. :)
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Vigis » Sun Apr 13, 2008 7:36 pm

Corth wrote:If my single vote meant the difference between having Clinton and Obama as president, I would cast it for Clinton in a heartbeat. She's too concerned with focus groups to seriously screw up the country. :)


Mine would go to Obama, I'd prefer somebody who actually has the potential to screw up the country without having to cater to a fuckus (intended misspelling) group.
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'



Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests