- This topic has 332 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 16 years ago by
Veritas.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 16, 2007 at 3:55 PM #8230January 16, 2007 at 4:03 PM #43536
no_such_reality
ParticipantCan we delete this SPAM?
Just what the country needs, another cult of personality.
January 16, 2007 at 4:21 PM #43539PerryChase
ParticipantI’m voting for Obama in the primary and for president if he gets the nomination. I’ll pass your email address around, zk. Perhaps some people I know might like to campaign for Barack Obama.
I’m tired of the good ol’ boys club in our leadership.
January 16, 2007 at 5:14 PM #43540zk
ParticipantThanks, PC.
Actually, let’s pass around this email address instead:
The . in the other email address (between the 3 and the 1) is easy to miss and leave out.
NSR, I’ll have a response to your post when I have time after work.
January 16, 2007 at 5:27 PM #43541North County Jim
ParticipantI’m tired of the good ol’ boys club in our leadership.
Columbia University, Harvard Law, Illinois State Legislature, US Senate. An impressive resume to be sure.
However, Perry, if you’re looking for an outsider to break up the “club”, a former president of the Harvard Law Review is not where I’d start.
January 16, 2007 at 6:50 PM #43544ParticipantThere’s no need, I don’t care.
It doesn’t matter if this is an off topic forum, I’m sick of continuous political election process. I sick of political hacks intruding on every aspect of civil life to push their candidate like a crack dealer.
Obama wants to lead, then he should do his Senate job for the next two years. That goes for McCain, Hillary and any other politico that is already positioning for the next election when the elected members from this election took office barely more than a week ago.
What’s Obama going to do about the housing bubble? The economy? Jack diddly, it’ll be three years before any budget or presidential discretion he has can take affect.
In the end, I may actually support him if he’s the best candidate, given the incredible lack of leadership in either party, that’s not difficult.
However, given that the election is 21 months away and the first Democratic primary in Iowa is 12 months away, can we just give it a rest for 6 bloody months were they do the JOB they’re currently elected for?
January 16, 2007 at 6:50 PM #43542Participantpost error.
January 16, 2007 at 6:50 PM #43543Participantpost error.
January 16, 2007 at 7:53 PM #43545sdnativeson
Participantdon’t want to interupt the lovefest between you and PC but zk where do you get your data? Obama has an extremely partisan voting record and hasn’t embraced the “both sides of the isle” approach. He has an almost perfect 100% partisan (liberal partisan!) voting record. What you’re really saying is you want a liberal democrat for president, and I am guessing you choose him as Hillary is just too scary, Kerry is to transparent (outwardly showing what every liberal believes), Edwards is just plain vapid and (in the off chance that he runs again) Sharpton is a bigot.
January 16, 2007 at 9:38 PM #43554Anonymous
GuestCoke-sniffin’, affirmative-action poster child Osama will lose out to Gore in the primaries.
Osama’s a flat out socialist; he’ll go nowhere fast with the biggest part of the Democrat base.
But, zk and PC, please do send your money to him now.
January 17, 2007 at 2:07 AM #43562Diego Mamani
ParticipantJG, do you watch CNN and Fox News?
The other day, while flipping channels, I saw the following on CNN, in big letters: “Where is Obama hiding?” or something like that. The story, by the way, was about Bin-Laden! I don’t think it was an innocent mistake. A few months ago, when Israel was bombing the hell out of Lebanon, CNN run headlines such as “The USA has a biblical obligation to help Israel”. I was utterly disgusted at the war mongering; it was as if Rumsfeld, Cheney, or Rove composed the CNN headings.January 17, 2007 at 7:20 AM #43566ParticipantLOL, cnn isn’t IMO a bastion of unbiased reporting (meaning wayyyy to the left)… and I don’t find Fox exactly fair and balanced either… but that is my observation.
Defending oneself and those who share some of the same common values against those who seek to subjugate or destroy you isn’t a definition of war-mongering.
January 17, 2007 at 8:21 AM #43570GuestDM, I just watch Fox News, and only occasionally (once a month). Never, ever, ever CNN or the networks.
It will be fun over the next two years, ‘mistakenly’ substituting ‘Osama’ for ‘Obama.’
January 17, 2007 at 9:08 AM #43577Participant“can we just give it a rest for 6 bloody months were they do the JOB they’re currently elected for?”
Well, if that’s what you were trying to say, then I agree with you. I think that the campaign process lasts much too long and, more importantly, takes too much time away from running the country and costs too much money.
But your “cult of personality” comment was typical of the “bash the other side” approach that Karl Rove has made so prevalent in today’s America. I say “America” rather than “American politics” because it seems to me that that mind set has started to permeate our culture in general.
sdnativeson, you’re right, his voting record is liberal. But that doesn’t contradict what I said, which is that he’s willing to reach across the aisle and reasonably debate and discuss issues with those who are opposite him ideologically. As opposed to calling them coke sniffers and otherwise attacking them personally.
The responses to this post sum up perfectly what I’d like to see changed about this country. And what I hope Obama will change. We’ve become a nation of people who interact through attacks and manipulation of emotion rather than calm, reasoned discourse. And, worse, we’ve become a nation that thinks that this is an acceptable way to interact. It’s time to start thinking about what’s best for our country and not what’s the best way to attack the other side. And, in my opinion, no one is more fit to affect that change than Barack Obama.
January 17, 2007 at 9:50 AM #43580capeman
ParticipantHmmm… I’m kind of putout by the idea that party pushers can put a guys face all over magazines and speak at conventions and all of a sudden he is qualified to run the country. I’m confused on what his qualifications are that will enable him to take 300+ million people and their country in the direction it needs to go. Ivy league schools don’t do it for me as it is the same Ivy Leaguers who think they can predict and talk the real estate market back to life while they are leading buyers to their doom. The dude hasn’t even finished one term as a Senator of one of the smallest states in the union. Looking at his resume I’m not seeing it and pundits telling me how it is doesn’t work when he is not backed up by the quals.
Arnold the Governator is way more qualified to be President. Someone amend the Constitution!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.