Obama walking McCain...and you aint seen nuthin yet!

[black mamba1]

Originally Posted by kcobean

That about sums it up. I'm not a McCain fan by a long shot, but all the homework I've done on Obama makes me like him less when it comes to being a "rugged, independent American". I want the .gov out of my wallet and in large part, out of my life. I'll pay for what I use and I expect everyone else to do the same. I want the government to do what it's responsible for (civil infrastructure, etc.) and none of what it's not. I have no problem with things like Public schools, but if I want to "opt out" of the program via home-schooling or private schools, I should get some portion of the taxes I pay into the public school system back.

I don't have the answers for the skyrocketing cost of health-care and gasoline, but I know the .gov getting involved historically is a guaranteed way to screw things up.

Much as I hate to be, I'm a 'glass is empty' guy on our choices for President this year.

I agree w/ you totally KCO, things is, there are some very smart, and very greedy businessmen, that dont agree with you.

I am in Real Estate and mortgages (or whats left of it) and I see smart powerful people rigging contracts and taking advantage of unsophisiticated people all the time. I used to be a consultant for AT&T, and I saw contracts rigged all the time to take advantage of non English speaking people...one of my good friends is a high level executive a Bank of America...and she tells me how they target unsophisticated people all the time and hit them w/ all kinds of unnecessary fees and talk them into unnecessary products.

It goes all the way back to the beginning of our republic, smart sophisticated powerful people taking advantage of those less able....

and that is why we have $4.15/gallon gas, b/c OPEC and EXXON/MOBIL think we as a nation are too goddamn dumb to do anything about it, but pay it. BULL****.. We must stop this...and people see Obama as the anti establishment that has allowed this to happen.

[reidesign]

Please tell us how Obama is in touch and experienced.

What is the problem with knowing people in key positions and knowing how to work within the system to get things done?

Are the unions that support Obama not special interest groups?

Will Obama immediately pull our troops from Iraq as promissed? Not according to his latest backpeddling.

What is uncharismatic about being a Vietnam War hero?.

Please explain to us what Obama has to stand on, or for. So far, it has been for "change", though we don't know what that might be.

Please post links to the nine threads where you have defeneded McCain.

[kcobean]

Originally Posted by black mamba1

I agree w/ you totally KCO, things is, there are some very smart, and very greedy businessmen, that dont agree with you.

I am in Real Estate and mortgages (or whats left of it) and I see smart powerful people rigging contracts and taking advantage of unsophisiticated people all the time. I used to be a consultant for AT&T, and I saw contracts rigged all the time to take advantage of non English speaking people...one of my good friends is a high level executive a Bank of America...and she tells me how they target unsophisticated people all the time and hit them w/ all kinds of unnecessary fees and talk them into unnecessary products.

It goes all the way back to the beginning of our republic, smart sophisticated powerful people taking advantage of those less able....

and that is why we have $4.15/gallon gas, b/c OPEC and EXXON/MOBIL think we as a nation are too goddamn dumb to do anything about it, but pay it. BULL****.. We must stop this...and people see Obama as the anti establishment that has allowed this to happen.

A couple of thoughts....

The greed is hardly all at the top....the sub-prime mortgage disaster is the result of people wanting to "keep up with the Joneses", even though if they'd been honest with themselves about whether their income would increase sufficiently to cover the reset, they would have known they were committing financial suicide.

And if the .gov comes in and implements the windfall profits tax on the gas companies, we can fully expect them to calculate the point at which they're effectively 'working for the government" and take a nice long break until the next year. We'll be waiting in line for gas in no time.

[Warfang]

Originally Posted by black mamba1

Get on em KCO!

Bottom line is I never met a Viper owner I didnt like and would not invite to my own home. And this is not "bargaining"..its fact.

Likewise, you're welcomed here if you ever make it out to California. Heck, my neighbors will like you more than they do me... it IS lefty-central afterall.

[Bobpantax]

Hi again Keith. As you know, I did not write that Obama's wife's behavior would, by itself, be a significant factor. What I did write was that Obama's obvious inability to influence that behavior in a favorable way reflects poorly on him. It goes to character, strength and judgment. Just like Hillary's failure to throw Bill out of the house and divorce him after she was elected to the Senate ( thereby getting her consolation prize ) probably cost her many votes in the primaries. As for wealthy people, as you well know, Obama is also surrounded by plenty of those. And each and every one of them will want something. With respect to Iraq, I have never been one to be convinced soley by the number of people agreeing on something. There was a time when the majority thought slavery was OK. There was a time in germany when the majority thought concentration camps were OK. There have been many such times in many countries. My moral compass is not based on a vote of the majority. We chose to invade Iraq. We turned relative order into chaos. However awful Sadam's regime was, the country was relatively stable under his leadership. We need to do the right thing even if it hurts our collective pocketbooks. The use of power without assuming responsibility for its consequences is irresponsible and immoral. What Bush did is in the past. We will be defined by what Obama or McCain does after one of them takes office. Carter lacked proper assertiveness and severely diminished our world wide reputation and credibility. Obama, so far, seems cut from the same cloth.

Obama is no different than Kennedy, Carter and Clinton before him. The same "I promise you change and a better tomorrow" routine we have heard many times before. Except this time it's being delievered by someone who has even less experience. It was BS in the 60's, BS in the 70's, BS in the 90's and it's still BS now. The fact that people do not see it for what it is defines who they are: ignorant and naive. And before you say it, some of the most intelligent people I know are ignorant and naive. Speed of thought and street smarts are not always present in the same brain.

As for McCain, he is by no means perfect but he has the experience and connections to efficiently manage our vast federal government. Obama does not - and you know it.

[Solid Red 98]

As I said in another post, while we focus on electing a president, we are in fact, electing an administration. The president and his advisers will put together a group of people that meet their party's ideological criteria. Obama might be too new to the beltway, but the people who have helped him get this far are quite connected--as always. Hopefully ,we all know that we are not voting in a king, but a president of a quasi corporation; it is the way a capitalistic government model works, which is consistent with our culture. McCain is but one man, but the people behind him are the ones that many Citizens are fed up with. These are the same characters that have been bubbling up since the Regan era.

[slaughterj]

Originally Posted by black mamba1

- John McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time. Interpretation? McCain is a clone of Bush. Like it or not, that is how everyone that is not die hard GOP sees McCain.

Since Bush is not a Representative or a Senator and therefore does not "vote", exactly how is it that McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time? Do you mean that McCain voted for the republican position (which may or may not be Bush's position)?

Once you explain that, what % of the time did Obama "vote" with Bush?

Also, what % of the time did Obama "vote" as a liberal? As I have read, apparently he is a 100% voter in that area, meaning he is as extreme as one gets, far more so than McCain apparently. So once people get down to the details like this, does that not mean he is less likely to get elected via a consensus of centrist voters?

[ViperTony]

Whether you agree with it or not, whether its ignorance on the part of Obama's supporters, call it what you will...but I think people here are missing something very, very important: Obama supporters would rather have an inexperienced, potentially harmful leader in the White House rather than having McCain in the White House. Somehow Obama supporters have convinced a majority of the voters that Obama represents untainted leadership, someone that can lead the change that our country desperately needs without defining exactly what needs to be changed and how. You may hate Obama but you have to give props to his campaign team as they have seemed to accomplished. so far, what McCain can't accomplish in this race. I think that's a great example of leadership.

I don't believe most voters are against McCain, the man, so much as they are against what he represents: The GOP, be it for valid or invalid or ignorant reasons. I can't help but be reminded of when Clinton was running for office. People were fed up with Bush, they were fed up with the Republicans and wanted change. Bubba represented change back then. I think we're in the same place again. Question is: What is McCain going to do to turn these people around? Can his campaign come together and persuade this country that he is indeed the better candidate? It would take an exceptional leader to make that happen.

One thing is for certain, if Obama does get elected that will be a slap heard around the world.

[ViperJon]

Originally Posted by Solid Red 98

McCain is but one man, but the people behind him are the ones that many Citizens are fed up with. These are the same characters that have been bubbling up since the Regan era.

Obama is but one man as well, and how do you like the cast of characters "bubbling" up around him so far? We have racists, thieves, anti-american activists...Shudder....

[ViperTony]

Originally Posted by ViperJon

Obama is but one man as well, and how do you like the cast of characters "bubbling" up around him so far? We have racists, thieves, anti-american activists...Shudder....

Sounds like the republican camp...not a good argument you got there.

[ViperJon]

Originally Posted by ViperTony

Sounds like the republican camp...not a good argument you got there.

I forgot, Obama's associations are off limits. My bad.

[ViperTony]

Originally Posted by ViperJon

I forgot, Obama's associations are off limits. My bad.

No, not at all. I just think the criteria you listed regarding his associations could fit any party.

[ViperJay]

Thomas Sowell
Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow
The Hoover Institution
Stanford! University
Stanford, California 94305



An Old Newness
By Thomas Sowell
April 29, 2008

Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of his long career. He entered a ballgame with 2,999 hits, one hit away from the landmark total of 3,000, which so many hitters want to reach, but which relatively few actually do reach.

Waner hit a ball that the fielder did not handle cleanly but the official scorer called it a hit, making it Waner's 3,000th. Paul Waner then sent word to the official scorer that he did not want that questionable hit to be the one that put him over the top.

The official scorer reversed himself and called it an error. Later Paul Waner got a clean hit for number 3,000!

What reminded me of this is the great fervor that many seem to feel over the prospect of the first black President of the United States .

No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black president, just as it was only a matter of time before Paul Waner got his 3,000th hit. The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached.

Paul Waner had too much pride to accept a scratch hit. Choosing a President of the United States is a lot more momentous than a baseball record. We the voters need to have far more concern about who we put in that office that holds the destiny of a nation and of generations yet unborn.

There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president, especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.

Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen.

The three leading candidates for their party's nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics, race, sex and age, as if that is what the job is about.

One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries.

Just the power to nominate federal judges to trial courts and appellate courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, can have an enormous impact for decades to come. There is no point feeling outraged by things done by federal judges, if you vote on the basis of emotion for those who appoint them.

Barack Obama has already indicate d that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults.

Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things, using the mantra of 'change' endlessly, the cold fact is that virtually everything he says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not; all this is a re-run of the 1960s.

We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.

The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances and hamstringing the police.

Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes, including the media magic of meetings between heads of state, was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.

Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy

[Bobpantax]

Put the age and party affiliation issues aside for a moment. Assume that you are the Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the largest public company on the planet. You are looking for a new CEO. One candidate has extensive experience working with companies of similar size and a decent track record. The other has no experience working with companies of similar size and little or no track record. Who would you hire knowing that the shareholders can sue you for breach of your fiduciary duty as a director? A wish and a prayer? Or tried and true? A President is not a King but he or she is arguably the most powerful person in the world and needs experience based wisdom to run the ship of state. Carter proved that people like Obama make lousy Presidents. I would much rather have a Bush III than a Carter II.

[ViperJon]

Originally Posted by ViperJay

Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not.

I'll take that for the daily double, Alex.
What is the definition of the 2008 Democratic Party?