- This topic has 76 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 9 months ago by
gold_dredger_phd.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 12, 2008 at 10:29 AM #152111February 12, 2008 at 10:29 AM #152381
cr
ParticipantDepends what you mean by safe: safe personally or safe for the US.
No president is “safe”.
Safe for the U.S.? That depends on your income level primarily.
I get tired of hearing people blame W for economic woes – yes the war is an expense we’d be better off without, and yes it contributes to higher oil, but so do lower rates, so really Greenspun and Berhanky are equally culpable.
The self-proclaimed intelligent anti-conservative “non-liberals” who think B.O. is the best thing for this country, despite his lack of experience and his own personal Religious dedication, don’t realize he still does nothing more than shovel empty promises he can’t deliver.
It’s one thing to want change, but another to want it so bad that the consequences of the alterative are ignored. And if he does win the liberals/lobbyists and Oprah will be running the country anyway, like the oil companies do now.
Obama may have a nice smile, but unless that’s worth paying higher taxes for, I suggest you reconsider.
February 12, 2008 at 11:17 AM #152151VanMorrisonFan
ParticipantI think Barak is popular precisely because he does not emphasize particular issues or opinions, but rather talks about themes that make almost everyone feel good. Who is against “unity”? Who will argue with the statement, “Yes we can!” Who doesn’t want change of some sort? These are platitudes – they aren’t specific policy positions.
The problem Obama will have if he gets elected is that he has raised hopes very high. Some of his supporters see him as a man who can bring about heaven on earth. He can’t.
Our political system is practically designed for gridlock. This makes it difficult for one leader to change things unless he/she wins a “realignment” election which dramatically alters the composition of the House and Senate. I don’t think the 2008 Election will be like that.
Our founders were conservative, not in the modern Reagan/GW Bush sense of the word, but in the sense that they feared large-scale, sudden change. They set up a system that makes it hard to bring about big changes quickly. There’s a good side to that, and a bad side to that. It’s very difficult for a President to get his initiatives passed, but its also very difficult for Congress to over-ride a Presidential veto.
I think if Barak wins he will have a difficult time convincing Congress to pass his initiatives, unless he moderates them somewhat.
February 12, 2008 at 11:17 AM #152519ParticipantI think Barak is popular precisely because he does not emphasize particular issues or opinions, but rather talks about themes that make almost everyone feel good. Who is against “unity”? Who will argue with the statement, “Yes we can!” Who doesn’t want change of some sort? These are platitudes – they aren’t specific policy positions.
The problem Obama will have if he gets elected is that he has raised hopes very high. Some of his supporters see him as a man who can bring about heaven on earth. He can’t.
Our political system is practically designed for gridlock. This makes it difficult for one leader to change things unless he/she wins a “realignment” election which dramatically alters the composition of the House and Senate. I don’t think the 2008 Election will be like that.
Our founders were conservative, not in the modern Reagan/GW Bush sense of the word, but in the sense that they feared large-scale, sudden change. They set up a system that makes it hard to bring about big changes quickly. There’s a good side to that, and a bad side to that. It’s very difficult for a President to get his initiatives passed, but its also very difficult for Congress to over-ride a Presidential veto.
I think if Barak wins he will have a difficult time convincing Congress to pass his initiatives, unless he moderates them somewhat.
February 12, 2008 at 11:17 AM #152448ParticipantI think Barak is popular precisely because he does not emphasize particular issues or opinions, but rather talks about themes that make almost everyone feel good. Who is against “unity”? Who will argue with the statement, “Yes we can!” Who doesn’t want change of some sort? These are platitudes – they aren’t specific policy positions.
The problem Obama will have if he gets elected is that he has raised hopes very high. Some of his supporters see him as a man who can bring about heaven on earth. He can’t.
Our political system is practically designed for gridlock. This makes it difficult for one leader to change things unless he/she wins a “realignment” election which dramatically alters the composition of the House and Senate. I don’t think the 2008 Election will be like that.
Our founders were conservative, not in the modern Reagan/GW Bush sense of the word, but in the sense that they feared large-scale, sudden change. They set up a system that makes it hard to bring about big changes quickly. There’s a good side to that, and a bad side to that. It’s very difficult for a President to get his initiatives passed, but its also very difficult for Congress to over-ride a Presidential veto.
I think if Barak wins he will have a difficult time convincing Congress to pass his initiatives, unless he moderates them somewhat.
February 12, 2008 at 11:17 AM #152427ParticipantI think Barak is popular precisely because he does not emphasize particular issues or opinions, but rather talks about themes that make almost everyone feel good. Who is against “unity”? Who will argue with the statement, “Yes we can!” Who doesn’t want change of some sort? These are platitudes – they aren’t specific policy positions.
The problem Obama will have if he gets elected is that he has raised hopes very high. Some of his supporters see him as a man who can bring about heaven on earth. He can’t.
Our political system is practically designed for gridlock. This makes it difficult for one leader to change things unless he/she wins a “realignment” election which dramatically alters the composition of the House and Senate. I don’t think the 2008 Election will be like that.
Our founders were conservative, not in the modern Reagan/GW Bush sense of the word, but in the sense that they feared large-scale, sudden change. They set up a system that makes it hard to bring about big changes quickly. There’s a good side to that, and a bad side to that. It’s very difficult for a President to get his initiatives passed, but its also very difficult for Congress to over-ride a Presidential veto.
I think if Barak wins he will have a difficult time convincing Congress to pass his initiatives, unless he moderates them somewhat.
February 12, 2008 at 11:17 AM #152422ParticipantI think Barak is popular precisely because he does not emphasize particular issues or opinions, but rather talks about themes that make almost everyone feel good. Who is against “unity”? Who will argue with the statement, “Yes we can!” Who doesn’t want change of some sort? These are platitudes – they aren’t specific policy positions.
The problem Obama will have if he gets elected is that he has raised hopes very high. Some of his supporters see him as a man who can bring about heaven on earth. He can’t.
Our political system is practically designed for gridlock. This makes it difficult for one leader to change things unless he/she wins a “realignment” election which dramatically alters the composition of the House and Senate. I don’t think the 2008 Election will be like that.
Our founders were conservative, not in the modern Reagan/GW Bush sense of the word, but in the sense that they feared large-scale, sudden change. They set up a system that makes it hard to bring about big changes quickly. There’s a good side to that, and a bad side to that. It’s very difficult for a President to get his initiatives passed, but its also very difficult for Congress to over-ride a Presidential veto.
I think if Barak wins he will have a difficult time convincing Congress to pass his initiatives, unless he moderates them somewhat.
February 12, 2008 at 12:44 PM #152482patientlywaiting
ParticipantLike VanMorrison said, the President can only do so much. So even if he wins, if he can’t drum up popular support, his agenda will go nowhere.
Republicans like to compare the President to a CEO. Well, shareholders’ wealth has been declining. It’s time to change the leadership.
I don’t know if Obama can deliver or not (like we don’t know when housing will boom again) but I’m willing to give him (or Hillary) a chance.
Can things get any worse than they are now?
I’m not saying that the Democrats have the answers. But it’s either a democrat or McCain (a 72 year-old President who will escalate the war in Iraq like Johnson did in Vietnam).
Obama or Clinton vs. Mc Cain. Those are the practical choices that we have.
February 12, 2008 at 12:44 PM #152486ParticipantLike VanMorrison said, the President can only do so much. So even if he wins, if he can’t drum up popular support, his agenda will go nowhere.
Republicans like to compare the President to a CEO. Well, shareholders’ wealth has been declining. It’s time to change the leadership.
I don’t know if Obama can deliver or not (like we don’t know when housing will boom again) but I’m willing to give him (or Hillary) a chance.
Can things get any worse than they are now?
I’m not saying that the Democrats have the answers. But it’s either a democrat or McCain (a 72 year-old President who will escalate the war in Iraq like Johnson did in Vietnam).
Obama or Clinton vs. Mc Cain. Those are the practical choices that we have.
February 12, 2008 at 12:44 PM #152508ParticipantLike VanMorrison said, the President can only do so much. So even if he wins, if he can’t drum up popular support, his agenda will go nowhere.
Republicans like to compare the President to a CEO. Well, shareholders’ wealth has been declining. It’s time to change the leadership.
I don’t know if Obama can deliver or not (like we don’t know when housing will boom again) but I’m willing to give him (or Hillary) a chance.
Can things get any worse than they are now?
I’m not saying that the Democrats have the answers. But it’s either a democrat or McCain (a 72 year-old President who will escalate the war in Iraq like Johnson did in Vietnam).
Obama or Clinton vs. Mc Cain. Those are the practical choices that we have.
February 12, 2008 at 12:44 PM #152212ParticipantLike VanMorrison said, the President can only do so much. So even if he wins, if he can’t drum up popular support, his agenda will go nowhere.
Republicans like to compare the President to a CEO. Well, shareholders’ wealth has been declining. It’s time to change the leadership.
I don’t know if Obama can deliver or not (like we don’t know when housing will boom again) but I’m willing to give him (or Hillary) a chance.
Can things get any worse than they are now?
I’m not saying that the Democrats have the answers. But it’s either a democrat or McCain (a 72 year-old President who will escalate the war in Iraq like Johnson did in Vietnam).
Obama or Clinton vs. Mc Cain. Those are the practical choices that we have.
February 12, 2008 at 12:44 PM #152580ParticipantLike VanMorrison said, the President can only do so much. So even if he wins, if he can’t drum up popular support, his agenda will go nowhere.
Republicans like to compare the President to a CEO. Well, shareholders’ wealth has been declining. It’s time to change the leadership.
I don’t know if Obama can deliver or not (like we don’t know when housing will boom again) but I’m willing to give him (or Hillary) a chance.
Can things get any worse than they are now?
I’m not saying that the Democrats have the answers. But it’s either a democrat or McCain (a 72 year-old President who will escalate the war in Iraq like Johnson did in Vietnam).
Obama or Clinton vs. Mc Cain. Those are the practical choices that we have.
February 12, 2008 at 4:59 PM #152340gold_dredger_phd
ParticipantHillary would probably have him whacked just like they killed Eileen Willy’s cat.
February 12, 2008 at 4:59 PM #152613ParticipantHillary would probably have him whacked just like they killed Eileen Willy’s cat.
February 12, 2008 at 4:59 PM #152618ParticipantHillary would probably have him whacked just like they killed Eileen Willy’s cat.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.