Topic: Obama selling you the same old Jimmy C.

[GIBuff]

Barack Obama said, "This is a final verdict on the failed economic policies of the last eight years ... that essentially said that we should strip away regulations, consumer protections, let the market run wild, and prosperity would rain down on all of us".

Jimmy Carter had the same thoughts. He was great for the economy in the 70's. Inflation WITH negative growth. Can this country please move on from failed policies that have been proven bunk, hurt the middle-class, and put this country at risk?

It's everybody waiting to get rid of those Dodd&Frank democrat imposed crap mortgages to the government for more than they are worth instead of selling them for what they are really worth is what is 'freezing' up the markets.

20/20 mustache man knows the score:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/the_reregulation_mantra.html

[Scarecrow]

The problem is Obama doesn't know what he doesn't know.  And if he's wrong, he can go back and change his view (Georgia/Russia) or stick by his wrong answer (the Iraq surge).

  It's easy to say it's the problem, and it's an easy sell, but as it sounds it's not really practical.  And I see it as another unneeded government bureau that will cost the taxpayers even more.

Is it better to have a president who doesn't know everything or a president that thinks he knows everything?

[RedR8R]

The problem is Obama doesn't know what he doesn't know.  And if he's wrong, he can go back and change his view (Georgia/Russia) or stick by his wrong answer (the Iraq surge).

  It's easy to say it's the problem, and it's an easy sell, but as it sounds it's not really practical.  And I see it as another unneeded government bureau that will cost the taxpayers even more.

Is it better to have a president who doesn't know everything or a president that thinks he knows everything?

A man who knows, and knows he knows, is a leader.  Follow him.

A man who knows, and doesn't know he knows, is ignorant.  Enlighten him.

A man who doesn't know, and doesn't know he doesn't know, is a fool.  Avoid him.

A man who doesn't know, and knows he doesn't know, is a student.  Teach him.

[Scarecrow]

A man who knows, and knows he knows, is a leader.  Follow him.

A man who knows, and doesn't know he knows, is ignorant.  Enlighten him.

A man who doesn't know, and doesn't know he doesn't know, is a fool.  Avoid him.

A man who doesn't know, and knows he doesn't know, is a student.  Teach him.

Nice proverb.

[Scarecrow]

And the same as Hilary Clinton:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081015/pl_politico/14599

On Monday, Obama told a crowd in hard-hit Toledo, Ohio, that he wanted to impose a 90-day freeze on foreclosures by banks that partake in the $700 billion rescue plan.

When Clinton proposed a package that contained a similar measure in January, Obama nixed it. At the time, his staff posted news stories denouncing the freeze on his campaign Web site, including a Fortune magazine story that tagged it “perhaps the dumbest solution to the current mortgage mess.”

Health care was also a major flashpoint between Clinton and Obama during the primary, but Obama has moved closer to Clinton on this issue, as well.

During the primary debates, Clinton repeatedly hammered the Illinois senator, accusing him of refusing to sign on to her commitment to “universal” coverage, claiming Obama’s plan would deny benefits to 15 million Americans.

In July, Obama reversed course and signed onto Clinton’s proposal to grant health insurance tax credits for small business owners, telling a national Hispanic group that the “idea [was] championed by my friend Hillary Clinton, who has been leading the way in our battle to insure every American.”

The copycat claims are nothing new. During the primaries, Clinton’s staff circulated a memo enumerating what they believed to be Obama rip-offs, including his apparent adoption of her plan to create millions of “green-collar” jobs and Clinton’s proposal for a national infrastructure bank.

“Sen. Obama has clearly followed us on an entire range of issues," Neera Tanden, then Clinton's policy director, told Newsday in April. “It raises a fundamental question: If Sen. Obama can't propose his own major policies during the campaign, how is he going to do it as president?"

Tanden now works for Obama’s policy team in Chicago.

He flip-flops worse than John Kerry.  As president, will he even know what to do.  So far on the serious matters in the last couple months, he gives his idea and then awhile later sides with his political opponent. 

So far he's sided with Hillary on the economy and healthcare and John McCain on the Georgia/Russia.  He denies to this day that the surge  was worth it, but is calling for a surge in Afghanistan.  Afghanistan is a completely different landscape than Iraq and require more intelligence than just power in numbers.  The same surge in Iraq won't work in Afghanistan like Obama is suggesting.  I think Obama has even confused himself. 

I honestly think the average joe from Oklahoma would be a better commander in chief for our troops than a left-wing community organizer from Chicago.

[mpalmer4]

That sucks for you because all signs to an Obama victory? Are all of who are so adamant that he will be so terrible, going to leave the country?

[GIBuff]

No, it sucks for all americans. Maybe you'll like an Obama depression because he is your guy. But your response says volumes about you and your intelligence and confrims my assumption of Obama supporters.

Hoover raised taxes and raised tariffs to further a recession to a depression. Obama is raising taxes and is proposing increased tariffs. And we are in a recession. The market is already starting to react to a Obama/Carter regulation future.

[mpalmer4]

The markets have been EXTREMELY down for 2 weeks, minus one day.  And that has nothing to do with Barack Obama.  His policies aren't in place yet.  He is 3 weeks away from potentially being elected, 3 months from being installed, and probably 3 years away from having policies start to show results, positive or negative.  Blaming the god-awful stock markets and economy on the Democratic Presidential Nominee is ridiculous and extremely asinine.   

[Bone Crusher]

The markets have been EXTREMELY down for 2 weeks, minus one day.  And that has nothing to do with Barack Obama.  His policies aren't in place yet.  He is 3 weeks away from potentially being elected, 3 months from being installed, and probably 3 years away from having policies start to show results, positive or negative.  Blaming the god-awful stock markets and economy on the Democratic Presidential Nominee is ridiculous and extremely asinine.   

People have been saying that the prospect of Obama becoming president could have played a factor.  It's normal to see the stock market react in a positive or negative way in the days leading up to the elections.

[architechguy]

The thing that worries me most about Obama is that he's going to be a puppet to Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank.  Of course we're not going to leave America when he gets elected, we're gonna stick it out like we've always done.  We've ridden the storm out on Bush's horrendous tenure and other bad presidents before him, so we can do it again.

[mpalmer4]

Of course we're not going to leave America when he gets elected, we're gonna stick it out like we've always done.  We've ridden the storm out on Bush's horrendous tenure and other bad presidents before him, so we can do it again.

Exactly.  Because despite how horrible a President we have, the foundations of country remain very stable and intact.  People act like if Obama wins, the country is going to suddenly become communist and they will be taxed 99%, and the government will control everything, etc.  If no other President before him has been able to do such things, why would he be able to?  You can keep living your life the way that you want to in terms of constitutional freedoms.  Let's hope whoever wins can fix the economy so financially it can continue to happen as well.

[GIBuff]

That's right mpalmer. A technology advanced country could never fall for a charismatic cult of personality. I mean Germany pulled out of the depression voting for Nazis. (While we credit the new deal democrats) But we are too smart to fall for that...

Here you go mpalmer, pin your star, pitch your tent and munch your cheetos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2naSzb1psU If we could only get rid of those dissenting 10 republican voices in the house and senate, things would be much better for our glorious leader.

Don't believe me? It has already started:
Step 1. Make american history irrelevant to the youth and educated: http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/report/major_findings_finding1.html

Step 2. Have ACORN elect Obama and a filibuster proof senate and house.

Step 3. Pack the Supreme Court and pack the constitution into the basement of the capital. And just tell americans what it means when they they bring it up. It eventually will fade from memory. See Step 1.

Step 4. Open the borders and abolish whats left of US citizenship. We are all glorious global citizens of Obama.

Step 5. Follow Gov. Lamm's plan to destroy america already in progress: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp

Step 6. Enjoy your cheetos. (maybe too much)

[mpalmer4]

I fully expect you to be seeking Canadian citizenship beginning on November 5th.  Seriously, what's your deal?  Are you really that concerned about a black man running this country?  Just have some balls and come out and say it.  I've met plenty who actually have the nuts to say they aren't voting for him because he's black.  You're weak like McCain: all you can do is attack the other because you don't have anything of your own to promote.  While McCain was busy attacking Obama, Obama was busy taking over the election and getting pretty substantial leads.  And it's glorious. 

So have a good life in Canada!

[Bone Crusher]

GIBuff, are you working on your resume for the Mounties?    Does that hat in that avatar look almost like the ones the mounties wear?



Think of this way, if the Dems do the worst job out there, we very well could have another run of strong Republican majorities in both houses and in the White House not that long ago.  Older people who are more like 35 to 40 will remember the Jimmy Carter years but people under 35 most likely will not remember that well because they weren't old enough to do so or not born yet.  It's of human nature to be stubborn and they just have to exprience it.

Maybe the long Republican run is coming to an end and we might see a Democract run like the one after the Great Depression.  Remember that FDR led us through WWII and wasn't he a Dem?

FDR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

Notice that FDR seems to not have any exprience in the military?  He had affairs outside his own marriage.  I would rather have a president with high character but at the same time, some of our best presidents had their share of moral failings.  The same goes with John McCain and his first wife.  It's good that we have all the criticism of both canadiates so they will know that any misgivings will NOT be tolerated by the American public.

Now back to the exprience issue, Time Magazine had an article and it is: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717926-1,00.html

It seems to suggest that the less the exprience, the better the president's term turns out.  I have argued that Obama was too inexprienced and he does seem inexprienced to the likes of Bill Clinton, Ronald Regan, and FDR.

[architechguy]

Maybe the long Republican run is coming to an end and we might see a Democract run like the one after the Great Depression.  Remember that FDR led us through WWII and wasn't he a Dem?

The democratic party back then, and the one today are hardly the same party.  There's been an ideological flip in that party that I'd estimate happened in the late 60's.  New Deal Era democrats didn't give handouts like they do today, they created jobs working on civic improvement projects so people could earn a living that way.  They were the party of the working man, today the Republicans are the party of the working man.  Huckabee even talked about it in convention speech, he said people in his hometown in Arkansas love Jesus, Elvis and FDR "not necessarily in that order".

[Scarecrow]

The Democrats at one time was the conservative party.  Archi is right. 

I'm with GIBuff on this one.  If Obama is elected and he continues to sell off country, there won't be much USA left. 

We already have a global economy.  If we hit a global depression (Economists say Obama's plan will send us to a depression), I believe all the industrial countries will look to the European Union.  We'll set up a World Bank, a governing body (most likely a socialist), and we'll have a one world economy and government.  The Great USA won't be the sovereign country that our Constitution guarantees because we'll give those freedoms away for fear or for keeping our "cheetos" lifestyles.

When American is rendered "powerless" Israel will be the target. (American isn't mention in the bible probably because we'll be worthless as a national power by then.  We'll have already been consumed.)

As an American, I hate to see this, but it is inevitable if you believe the bible.  2012 has been the next year forcasted as the Armageddon.  That happens to be the end of the next presidents term. 

FWIW, I'm not even sure McCain can keep us from this, but he'll put up a bigger fight.

I already have my plan in the works if it all comes down in the next 4 years.  And I won't go to Canada, but will go back to where I grew up in NE where I know I can survive off the land.

If/when me and my family survive, I am going to be sure to educate my kids about how great the USA once was.  Though I am sure the history books won't agree.  On the history channel, it says before some of their programs that you can't reproduce the program and can only use it for two years without violating their copyright laws because the history books are being rewritten.

The powers of this world don't believe that people need a voice.  If you think otherwise, you're naive.  A lot of American's died so people could have a voice, but slowly we are being convinced we have better things to do than to stay educated on "boring" politics and watching Heroes is more important than going out and voting.  This is a numb society and we will lose our country to "the powers that be", and they won't have America's best interests in mind.

If Obama is elected, it's because it is destiny.  I'm just gonna roll with the punches and keep supporting the American conservative movement.  We have to conserve what this country was founded on.  Progressive should be a dirty word to all of us.  Communism was considered "progressive" in its infant stages.  We saw how that worked out.

If you want the government to be responsible for your health, income, where you spend your money, what job they'll make available to you, then Obama is the perfect candidate for you because you are a socialist.  I think the black people they put on the news after these hurricanes that the government to take care of them and complain when we taxpayers to give them enough are socialist.  A vote for Obama is a vote for socialism.

[mpalmer4]

FWIW, I'm not even sure McCain can keep us from this, but he'll put up a bigger fight.

When you say things like that, you have to say that it's your opinion.  Unless you can see the future, then you have no idea what is going to happen if either candidate wins.  There's no debating that.

[Scarecrow]

When you say things like that, you have to say that it's your opinion.  Unless you can see the future, then you have no idea what is going to happen if either candidate wins.  There's no debating that.

 

Actually I only have to look at the policies, character, past history, and endorsements.

McCain gave everything he had to this country.  I honestly think he'll do everything he can to keep our country from being taken over.

Just a question...

Who do you think George Washington, Andrew Jackson, and Teddy Roosevelt would endorse? 

Which of the former presidents do you think would support Obama?

The biggest reason I think Bush's Presidency was destructive to this country is because people will vote for a change which they don't know what the change entails.  We'll be happy to give our country away.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, doesn't scare your at all?

Do you believe that these people have our best interests as citizens of the USA in mind?

[architechguy]

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, doesn't scare your at all?

Do you believe that these people have our best interests as citizens of the USA in mind?

Nope!  It's not just them though, I have an inherent distrust of all politicians in Washington.  I would say that 95% or more don't have our interests in mind, politics is a career for them and public service was never intended to be a career.  I wish we could put a two term limit on all elected officials.

Progressive should be a dirty word to all of us.  Communism was considered "progressive" in its infant stages.  We saw how that worked out.

I'm curious to hear your definition of "progressive".  I like to describe my views as progressive, but I think there are many different interpretations of that term.  I like to think it means having the philosophy that there are always new and effective methods, and not just keeping things the same for the sake of keeping it the same.  I whole heartedly agree with you about the dangers of change without specifically outlining those changes, but that's not what I think the term "progressive" was meant to describe.

[GIBuff]

I think I will hide out in Alaska. Too many patriots there for Obama political officers to control. Plus I heard there is a pretty good Gov. that has more experience and better results/policies than Obama.

Bone, you talk as if FDR has anything to do with the democrats of today. Wasn't Wallace a democrat? Aren't there still KKK leaders in the Congress as democrats? Remember the dixiecrats?

Don't the liberal democrats still believe the Rosenbergs were innocent? http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-radosh17-2008sep17,0,490961.story Try to find that little nugget in the DailyKos.

If you asked an Obama supporter what party supported slavery in the civil war most would say the Republicans. That is how history is being rewritten. That is how Obama will put this country is grave danger and destroy our way of life. And then lockstep media will spin and tell us how glorious it is to have this man in office.

You don't believe me? How many Obama supporters blame Freddie Mac on Bush? All of them which includes Ahmadinejad. http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/ahmadinejad_blames_bush/2008/09/23/133605.html And I have not heard one coherant fact or argument that supports this. Yet it is fact according to the masses. (Why is it that all of our enemies support Obama?)

Dumbing of the masses, yes, thats you too mpalmer.

[thedrUNKenLoper]

The comparisons between Carter and Obama are pretty valid for a few reasons. In the 1976 election the country was sick of the Nixon Admin of the '70's, the economy wasn't in good shape, and gas was high. 2008 the country isn't a fan of the Republican President, the economy isn't so hot and gas is high. Common denominator is Carter was a folksy guy who was a decent speech giver with a southern drawl. Barack Obama great public speaker, great organization (maybe he was an organizer in a previous life), able to appeal to many in his party, raising a ton of money. Now I'm not going to say that John McCain is Gerald Ford because McCain is a better candidate. However Obama and the left have done a masterful character assignation job of McCain in making a decent of people think that McCain will be a third Bush presidency. Its pretty powerful for people to hear McCain = More of the Same. This election isn't over but I think thats is getting to the point where Dole/Clinton results could be the endgame results. My biggest problem with this election is how the Republican party turned its back on John McCain twice now. 2000 they all supported George W Bush which they just cannibalized McCain. 2008 when McCain become the apparent winner of the nominator the GOP begrudgingly supported McCain with the precursors of you will do what we tell you and support what we support which was a 180 from what put McCain into the position to win the nomination. Personally I think that if the GOP would have let McCain do his own thing this campaign may look different not saying that a McCain/Liberman ticket could have a different feel to it but here is the point McCain is a moderate Maverick at heart being forced to adopt his parties failed policies. For those who love the GOP this can go two ways, 1) after losing to Carter in '76 they GOP retooled and took back Washington D.C. from 1980-1992 then 2000-08 with only the Clinton years in there 2) Obama wins but with all the promises that he made can't or won't fulfill them all and a better pool of candidates will be there for Republicans in 2012 then here in '08. Finally side by side its easy to see how Obama is winning this election he captured the imagination of the young people (people my age), extremely organized, lots of ground support, potentially killed the word CHANGE if he doesn't do what he promised, played it safe towards the end starting with picking old man Biden.     

[GIBuff]

Obama is spending $427 million.
McCain is spending $185 million.

142 million expected to vote.

Obama leads in the polls 49.2 to 43.1.

Obama expects 69.8 million votes.
McCain expectes 61.2 million votes.

Obama has spent $6.12 per vote.
McCain has spent $3.02 per vote.

[mpalmer4]

Obama is spending $427 million.
McCain is spending $185 million.

142 million expected to vote.

Obama leads in the polls 49.2 to 43.1.

Obama expects 69.8 million votes.
McCain expectes 61.2 million votes.

Obama has spent $6.12 per vote.
McCain has spent $3.02 per vote.

You're point is what exactly?  Are you trying to suggest he is "buying" votes?  I wonder how many times the guy who spends less wins the election.  Obama has had ridiculous amounts of fundraising, which is now leading to accusations by McCain. 

[thedrUNKenLoper]

What do you think this election would have looked like if both would have agreed to the same public funds agreement? Just asking a hypothetical question, because we've all new when it got down to two Obama had so much more money then whoever he ran against.

[Bone Crusher]

Obama is spending $427 million.
McCain is spending $185 million.

142 million expected to vote.

Obama leads in the polls 49.2 to 43.1.

Obama expects 69.8 million votes.
McCain expectes 61.2 million votes.

Obama has spent $6.12 per vote.
McCain has spent $3.02 per vote.

Your comment is one-sided.  You failed to include how much money both candiates have raised to date.  I will present data from CNN that shows money raised through July.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/index.html

Obama has raised $401,165,231 as of this typing compared to McCain's $171,092,498.

Obama has spent $335,292,072 while McCain has spent $148,436,425.

Obama has spent 0.83579544 of the money he raised while McCain has spent 0.86757997 of the money he raised.

Any comments GIBuff?  If you look at how much cash both had on hand, is it of little wonder that Obama has been buying a lot of commerical spots?