Yes…This is a one issue election for me, Like most Democrats, I don need the government to do everything for me. I took responsibility for my future years ago when I was younger and I’m sitting great right now. My 401K is earning money slowley…My housing issue is fine, my house has tripled in price and I have a 5% loan on the balance owed.
I have issues with McCain but he blows away obama and between the two he’s the better man. As for fuel it can go up to $8 0r $10 a gallon…I have a 12 mile commute 10 days a month I can Handel it . No I don’t feel sorry for people who bought a home for $800.000 and now they cant afford them and Obama wants to use my taxes to bail them out…
Way to completely avoid my two above posts. What was it you were trying to convince me of to begin with?
I know how you operate…I’ve seen behind the scenes in your private MOD room when it has been open.
How do I operate? Specific examples? I know you temporarily had access to the room that you probably knew you weren’t really supposed to read to begin with. The funny thing is that the room is pretty boring and at the moment is filled with deleted spam posts. Rarely is anything interesting in there at all…
So, what was it that you discovered in the Mod room? that we don’t agree on everything? That mods here, ones that don’t really like you all that much, defended you?
Um…I seen paragraphs in my threads disappear when they were aimed at someone…I guess some people can pitch but they cant catch, go ahead…say it doesn’t happen but I know better.
Eh? Which paragraphs are you talking about? I’ve never once deleted any of your stuff…
Um…I wonder what obama plans to do about terrorism or do you think this video is out of contex too? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZiw3qVdFzw&NR=1
LMFAO! He plans to invade the country that had nothing to do with 9/11 then allow most of the senior Al Qaida to remain free in our “allied” state of Pakistan…Of course!
What does McCain plan to do?
BTW, do you find videos easier than actually reading their positions for yourself?
Maybe a puppet show would be more effective…
Except employ you as a civil servant. A unionized one that reaps the benefits that the Democrats have fought for largely against corporationists. 
I took responsibility for my future years ago when I was younger and I’m sitting great right now. My 401K is earning money slowley…My housing issue is fine, my house has tripled in price and I have a 5% loan on the balance owed.
I’m happy for you. But I’m pretty sure you get a big gov’t pension. And obviously, the sheer scale of the problem indicates that it is bigger than you as subprime companies clearly flooded the market and made it not only too easy for some to get a mortgage, but proactively created the problem by creating a market which largely never existed…
I have issues with McCain but he blows away obama and between the two he’s the better man. As for fuel it can go up to $8 0r $10 a gallon…I have a 12 mile commute 10 days a month I can Handel it . No I don’t feel sorry for people who bought a home for $800.000 and now they cant afford them and Obama wants to use my taxes to bail them out…
No one wants to use your taxes for anything. It’s mostly leverage. And FYI, the gov’t ran a savings and loan during the 1930s that actually MADE MONEY!
I don’t really care who you’re for or against. The problem is you keep posting the same tinpot crap over and over again…
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11252.html
“The announcement is further evidence that an Obama administration would take an activist, populist approach to regulating business.”
Um…( I like that word now) what does a “populist approach” mean? After we’ve regulated or nationalized the oil industry and determined how much they can earn then what’s next? I think that cars, boats and planes have gotten way too expensive so if enough other people agree with me then it would be a very “populist” thing to go to the auto,boat and plane industry and tell them how much they can charge for their items and threaten to nationalize those industry’s if they don’t do it.
How about if people turn their attention to the price of natural and liquid propane gas, and decide they are paying too much for the gas and ask President O’Bama to do something about it. A “populist approach” would be to regulate the price of those two items as well.
The man is a communist. Everything he talks about from reasonable firearms laws to regulating the gas industry is another attempt to introduce an American form of communism to the country.
I think the American people will see through this poser.
edited…spelling
The House of Raspenau agrees with the Honorable gentleman from the U.S.A. Mike.
There is no benefit to The Grand Republic that can be derived from an Obama Presidency. Beadle him from our shores,that he may find succor within the few socialist enclaves of tyranny yet extant.
For me it makes no difference who wins the elections,but if Obama wins the elections,he’s the first black president.He’s sympathy for me.
go go go!
Clinton will be the first female President. (though personaly, I like Obama).
I like the way you talk tankgeezer.
Oh God, please make it so! If only…
Actually Mike, Obama is rather centrist when compared to either Hillary or Edwards…
The man is a communist. Everything he talks about from reasonable firearms laws to regulating the gas industry is another attempt to introduce an American form of communism to the country.
Communist? Really? :rolleyes: Feel free to enroll in a Political Science 101 course at any community college…Yeah, a self-made man in what is literally a rags-to-riches story is a commie now…
New Yorker: Obama — What’s the big idea?
16 months and 26 debates later he remains a puzzle to many voters
THE TALK OF THE TOWN
By Dorothy Wickenden
The New Yorker
updated 8:57 a.m. ET, Mon., June. 23, 2008
On October 7, 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio, George W. Bush delivered the defining speech of his Presidency. In the face of “clear evidence of peril” from a regime harboring terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, he declared, “we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”
Five days earlier, a forty-one-year-old Illinois state legislator had given a momentous speech of his own, although few recognized it as such at the time. “I don’t oppose all wars,” Barack Obama told a few hundred Chicago protesters, adding:
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
After the attacks of September 11, 2001, Bush discovered a big idea for his Presidency. He would bring down a tyrant, crush terrorism, and impose democracy and peace on what his regent, Vice-President Dick Cheney, called “freedom-loving peoples of the region.” As the world now knows, that idea was based on faulty intelligence reports and executed with a fatal disregard of political reality in the Middle East and at home. By the time of the 2008 Presidential campaign, Bush’s approval rating had shrunk from sixty-seven per cent to thirty-seven per cent, the Republican Party was coming apart, and Obama’s 2002 speech had proved a precondition for an astounding climb to victory this month as the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee for President.
Still, sixteen months after announcing his candidacy, and after twenty-six Presidential debates and thousands of public-speaking engagements, Obama remains a puzzle to many voters. Almost as dedicated a policy wonk as Hillary Clinton and arguably more centrist in his economic beliefs, he offers plenty of specifics about what needs to be done. But his captivating eloquence and his slogan—“Change We Can Believe In”—have seemed to lift him dangerously high above the concrete. He has proved his steadiness of purpose without clearly defining his priorities. What, above all, does he intend to accomplish if he is elected President?
Obama is said to have been dissatisfied with the slogan. If so, he has a point. The “change” he advocates can be understood as a pragmatic correction to the radical policies and the ineptitude of the Bush brigade. His political departure is a kind of return. He has written two unusually revealing books—one describing how he came to be who he is, the other delineating how he proposes to reclaim the qualities that once made America so admired. He argues that the United States must relearn the fundamental lessons of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and its own long journey toward a more perfect union, and then apply them to the global upheavals of the twenty-first century.
In his books, Obama emerges not as the personification of cool projected onto him by his young adherents—or as the disdainful élitist suggested by his offhand remark about a “bitter” working class—but as something of a square: someone who doesn’t have to strain to talk about “values,” God, and family. His eerily objective self-analysis is matched by his lawyerly ability to see things from the perspective of those on the other side. In January, after Obama uttered a few words of praise for Ronald Reagan in an interview with newspaper editors, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards rushed to condemn his apostasy. But he meant what he said. In 2006, in “The Audacity of Hope,” he had written, “Reagan spoke to America’s longing for order, our need to believe that we are not simply subject to blind, impersonal forces but that we can shape our individual and collective destinies, so long as we rediscover the traditional virtues of hard work, patriotism, personal responsibility, optimism, and faith.”
The general consistency of Obama’s policy views—with an occasional bald deviation, as on the public funding of his campaign—is a contrast to John McCain’s erratic shape-shifting. McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts as skewed toward the rich, and unsustainable; now he wants to extend them forever. He co-sponsored a relatively humane immigration bill; now he disowns it. He deplored the torture of detainees at Guantánamo; now he attacks the Supreme Court’s decision granting them the constitutional right to challenge in federal court their continued detention as “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”
Over the years, Obama has carefully calibrated his political message, and he has won a grudging respect among some conservatives. In The New Republic, Bruce Bartlett, a Treasury official in the Reagan and Bush père Administrations, writes that “Obamacons”—libertarians, disillusioned neoconservatives, even a few supply-siders—have been pushed “into Obama’s arms.” In The American Conservative, Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of international relations and history at Boston University, complains, “To believe that President John McCain will reduce the scope and intrusiveness of federal authority, cut the imperial presidency down to size, and put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis is to succumb to a great delusion.”
Obama promises to tell voters what they need to know and not what they want to know. It’s a risky strategy, and one he doesn’t always follow, but when he put it into effect in April, by attacking McCain’s proposed summer gasoline-tax holiday, he helped his campaign more than he hurt it. Last week, he denounced McCain’s latest reversal, on offshore drilling. But he needs to go further. A year ago, he likened “the tyranny of oil” to that of Fascism and Communism, saying, “The very resource that has fueled our way of life over the last hundred years now threatens to destroy it if our generation does not act now and act boldly.” This is the kind of unequivocal message that Obama needs to develop. By telling just such inconvenient truths, Al Gore has inspired a worldwide movement to arrest climate change. The next President could be its most powerful leader. Obama will not rouse voters by getting lost in a tussle with McCain over the virtues of cellulosic ethanol. He can, however, make voters part of the solution by helping them understand that the greedy oil companies, the failing auto industry, and the craven Congress will not redeem themselves until consumers demand that they do so by making some inconvenient changes of their own. A little more audacity will yield a lot more hope.
Originally published in The New Yorker magazine
Well, we could vote for Bush and get bigger gov’t, ever greater spending, and tax cuts that benefit mostly the rich at little gain to the shrinking middle classes…
Um, you need to get the paper at the station. Hillary is out! Obama will be the nominee…
Um, Bush isnt running.
You’re right! McBush is!
I was thinking more along the lines of the Libertarian party.
I guess I should watch more news…
I dont realy see the difference-maybe McCain is just older but thats it…
Well, there’s always Bob Barr.
The problem is that the system is set up to maintain dominance of one party or the other, not third parties. I see this as a problem as both the GOP and Dems are beset by multiple interests and “wings.”
Clinton and Obama in unity talks
Mr Obama faces a challenge to win over all of Senator Clinton’s supporters
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has held a joint fund-raising dinner in Washington with his former rival, Hillary Clinton.
The event was aimed at shoring up party unity, following the hardest-fought Democratic Party primaries in decades.
Mr Obama announced that he would personally donate $2,300 (£1,160), the maximum amount allowed by law, to help cover Mrs Clinton’s campaign debts.
He said he would call on his top financial backers to do the same.
Mr Obama received a standing ovation from a crowd of more than 200 at Washington’s Mayflower Hotel when he said he would enlist his supporters to help pay off Mrs Clinton’s debt.
Mrs Clinton is due to back Senator Obama’s bid for the White House for the first time on Friday at a joint campaign rally in Unity, New Hampshire - where they each got 107 votes in the state’s primary.
Reconciliation
Latest opinion polls suggest that while Mr Obama has made headway in winning over Mrs Clinton’s supporters, one in five of them has indicated they will vote for the Republican candidate, John McCain.
The risk is that the Hillary Barack meeting is simply too farcical for primetime
Waiting for the kiss
“I’m going to need Hillary by my side campaigning during this election, and I’m going to need all of you,” Mr Obama told the Washington audience.
Mrs Clinton’s advisers have warned Mr Obama that her ability to campaign on his behalf will be limited if she has to spend the summer raising money to pay off her more than $20m (£10m) debt racked up in her failed bid to win the nomination.
Mrs Clinton told her donors they must make electing Mr Obama a priority, as she acknowledged the often bitter fight between the two former rivals.
“This was a hard-fought campaign, that’s what made it so exciting and intense and why people’s passions ran so high on both sides,” she said.
“I know my supporters have extremely strong feelings, and I know Barack’s do as well. But we are a family, and we have an opportunity now to really demonstrate clearly we do know what’s at stake, and we will do whatever it takes to win back this White House,” she added.
Since Mrs Clinton suspended her campaign and endorsed Mr Obama, the former rivals have not met in person since they spoke at the Washington home of Senator Dianne Feinstein, two days after the last primaries.
Really im hoping for McCain because Barack like almost every other democrat thinks insulting republicans is displaying leadership. And on top of this a few months ago Hillary and Barack were insulting each other left and right but know suddenly hillary is cool with him that just gos to show a democrat will do anything just to get a little power in the white house even if it means teaming up with a rival. Now dont get me wrong i have nothing against a black president its just that hes not the right guy matter a fact i think condoleezza rice would make a great president. And who knows maybe a few decades ago i would have been a democrat but times have changed since FDR and in my opinion the democrats have lost their way.
Unlike the Republicans; whom believe in inclusion, showing respect to Democratic leaders, and bipartisanship!