The thing I'm finding most troubling about Obama

Epicurus said:
I will grant you this much. But the person who chimes in with that is usually our resident idiot Indisputable.

The intelligent conservatives and libertarians (admittedly a thinning number) are usually more reserved about pointing it out.
Click to expand...

Actually democrats are far more critical of their leadership than republicans .. in fact, the very reason the Republican Party is shrinking before ouyr eyes is because republican supporters followed their paryty into Hell without ever questioning.

Even on this board democrats criticize democrats .. I don't count there because I'm not a democrat, but I do criticize the left, of which I am an active card-carrying flag waving member of.

No one is hero-worshiping Obama.

Republicans would love to have the enthusiasm behind Obama behind any of their candidates.
 
blackascoal said:
As an African-American who has been alive longer than African-Americans have been relatively free in America, I'm naturally I'm proud and entusiastic about an African-American that I could support being this close to the presidency. Although, Obama simply being African-American doesn't necessarily mean that I could support him. Had he been Powell, Rice, Harold Ford, or John Lewis, I'd be voting for someone else. But Obama is antiwar, intelligent, reflective, articulate, has roots in issues I think most important, and he's run a brilliant campaign. Brilliant does not imply perfect, but he needed to run a brilliant campaign to defeat the Clintons, the most formidable opponent he's going to face in this election season.

But what I'm finding most troubling is his penchant to overreact. He's starting to appear like his course of actions and even what he believes can be dictated by the very forces he opposes. Talk about him not wearing a flag pin and he'll change course and put it on. Talk about him being a muslim and he'll go to AIPAC and give a speech like he was Benjamin Netanyahu .. then keep scarf-wearing women away from the stage. Talk about him having dialouge with leaders we don't like and he'll waffle on his position. Talk about him not going to Iraq and he'll schedule a visit to Iraq. Talk about him being weak and he'll start making Bushesque "dead or alive" statements about Bin Laden. Talk about his wife and he'll hide her and "make her over." Talk about his pastor, associates, or even those within his own campaign and he'll dump them.

This may not be all be his fault, and his pastor definately needed to be dumped, but there is a pattern emerging that I find troubling. I also recognize that he has to do what he has to do to become the president. But hopefully he's not going to govern this way. If the right can say BOO and make him jump, that doesn't bode well for Iran, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

If he can be bullied, bluffed, or badgered into taking positions that are counter to what drives the Obama movement, there are going to be an awful lot of disappointed, dis-spirited and de-energized Americans who rode him into office on a horse named Change.

It remains to be seen, but it bears watching.
Click to expand...

Now you also have to ADD being for only Public Financing in the Presidential campaign to him once again reneging.....

Yes, all that you have said labels him as a FLIP FLOPPER and shows him as being weak, not able to take a position and stand on it and being influenced by the "Political Insiders" that he spoke out against when he was running against Hillary.

He is showing that he is NOT a strong man of Character, but an easily influenced, inexperienced with keeping his word, of which he won this election on, individual.

And I am NOT saying that McCain would be the better choice, just that I agree with Epi, that he is a politician....just as Hillary is a politician, just as mccain is a politician, just as George Bush is a politician....this should not come as a surprise to anyone....but honestly, the only one, with a little bit of Darla in there, that has been critical of Obama has been you...on this particular thread....the others made "excuses" for his flip flops....God forbid if Hillary had flip flopped in the manner that he has on these multiple things....you all would have had her as Satan himself...

I call that hypocritical....in the gentlist of way... :D

I still love you guys....but Obama needs to get some BALLS and stick to what he told you all that voted for him or he is nothing less than a political HYPOCRITE himself...

there ARE NO EXCUSES when it comes to ones own WORD....we NEED a President that can stand by his ethical positions and not turn on them because the political WIND calls for it, damnit!

Care
 
Care4all said:
Now you also have to ADD being for only Public Financing in the Presidential campaign to him once again reneging.....

Yes, all that you have said labels him as a FLIP FLOPPER and shows him as being weak, not able to take a position and stand on it and being influenced by the "Political Insiders" that he spoke out against when he was running against Hillary.

He is showing that he is NOT a strong man of Character, but an easily influenced, inexperienced with keeping his word, of which he won this election on, individual.

And I am NOT saying that McCain would be the better choice, just that I agree with Epi, that he is a politician....just as Hillary is a politician, just as mccain is a politician, just as George Bush is a politician....this should not come as a surprise to anyone....but honestly, the only one, with a little bit of Darla in there, that has been critical of Obama has been you...on this particular thread....the others made "excuses" for his flip flops....God forbid if Hillary had flip flopped in the manner that he has on these multiple things....you all would have had her as Satan himself...

I call that hypocritical....in the gentlist of way... :D

I still love you guys....but Obama needs to get some BALLS and stick to what he told you all that voted for him or he is nothing less than a political HYPOCRITE himself...

there ARE NO EXCUSES when it comes to ones own WORD....we NEED a President that can stand by his ethical positions and not turn on them because the political WIND calls for it, damnit!

Care
Click to expand...

I appreciate your comments Care .. and I still love you too.

I agree with some of what you've said here, but I understand what he believes he must do to be president. I also believe there is a difference between how he must campaign and how he governs. I just hope he's paying attention to the perception that's growing and take steps to ensure it doesn't become reality.

All candidates have to play politician .. it's the nature of the beast.

In truth, he never gave his word that he would unequivically accept public financing. Read the words carefully.

Additionally, don't you think it strange that McCain only annouced he'd accept public financing today .. after Obama announced that he wasn't? Don't you think it strange that McCain has gone from saying he accept public financing when he was low on cash, to sayiong that he wouldn't accept it while using private financing, now back to him accepting it?

You are correct in that I would have commented about Hillary if she had the appearance of changing positions under pressure .. but I would have been saying the same things that I'm saying about Obama .. and you, my good sister, would have been defending Hillary .. as you should .. and seperating campaign from governance.

I say that as gentle as I can .. with fingers crossed. :)

If this board had a whisper mode I would have whispered it. :rolleyes:
 
Care4all said:
Now you also have to ADD being for only Public Financing in the Presidential campaign to him once again reneging.....

Yes, all that you have said labels him as a FLIP FLOPPER and shows him as being weak, not able to take a position and stand on it and being influenced by the "Political Insiders" that he spoke out against when he was running against Hillary.

He is showing that he is NOT a strong man of Character, but an easily influenced, inexperienced with keeping his word, of which he won this election on, individual.

And I am NOT saying that McCain would be the better choice, just that I agree with Epi, that he is a politician....just as Hillary is a politician, just as mccain is a politician, just as George Bush is a politician....this should not come as a surprise to anyone....but honestly, the only one, with a little bit of Darla in there, that has been critical of Obama has been you...on this particular thread....the others made "excuses" for his flip flops....God forbid if Hillary had flip flopped in the manner that he has on these multiple things....you all would have had her as Satan himself...

I call that hypocritical....in the gentlist of way... :D

I still love you guys....but Obama needs to get some BALLS and stick to what he told you all that voted for him or he is nothing less than a political HYPOCRITE himself...

there ARE NO EXCUSES when it comes to ones own WORD....we NEED a President that can stand by his ethical positions and not turn on them because the political WIND calls for it, damnit!

Care
Click to expand...

I agree completely with this. Earlier today I formed and reformed my reply to this thread but couldn't quite say what I wanted to. You did so eloquently. There are some of us who don't easily fit into the left or right wing mold. For me it is about voting for the lesser of the evils. It doesn't matter how inspired or inspiring a politician is...what matters is can he stay that way when surrounded and pressured by those in power positions who don't have the same interests or ideals...
 
blackascoal said:
Actually democrats are far more critical of their leadership than republicans .. in fact, the very reason the Republican Party is shrinking before ouyr eyes is because republican supporters followed their paryty into Hell without ever questioning.

Even on this board democrats criticize democrats .. I don't count there because I'm not a democrat, but I do criticize the left, of which I am an active card-carrying flag waving member of.

No one is hero-worshiping Obama.

Republicans would love to have the enthusiasm behind Obama behind any of their candidates.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? We call Dixie and the right-wing trolls dumbasses all the time. There has been a long tradition of paleocons and libertarians fighting with the idiot neocons, just as leftists of varying degrees duke it out...
 
blackascoal:
All candidates have to play politician .. it's the nature of the beast.

In truth, he never gave his word that he would unequivically accept public financing. Read the words carefully.
********************************************
blackascoal, I', not criticizing you, but saying, "in the gentlest of ways", that statements like those two sentences at the top are WHY we have such poor excuses for leaders. It's not just you, but most people, even I, sometimes are willing to "settle" for Dishonesty, Lack of Character and integrity, because "they ALL do it".

And when you start playing with INDIVIDUAL WORDS, and saying "unequivocally", "read it carefully", and other types of Lawyerspeak, it sounds like Bill Clinton, after Lying to the Grand Jury, saying, "It depends on what the Meaning of "is" is." And Bill Clinton, we were told, was the BEST Democrat, to come along in a Generation.
 
jollie said:
blackascoal:
All candidates have to play politician .. it's the nature of the beast.

In truth, he never gave his word that he would unequivically accept public financing. Read the words carefully.
********************************************
blackascoal, I', not criticizing you, but saying, "in the gentlest of ways", that statements like those two sentences at the top are WHY we have such poor excuses for leaders. It's not just you, but most people, even I, sometimes are willing to "settle" for Dishonesty, Lack of Character and integrity, because "they ALL do it".

And when you start playing with INDIVIDUAL WORDS, and saying "unequivocally", "read it carefully", and other types of Lawyerspeak, it sounds like Bill Clinton, after Lying to the Grand Jury, saying, "It depends on what the Meaning of "is" is." And Bill Clinton, we were told, was the BEST Democrat, to come along in a Generation.
Click to expand...
damn good post jolly....very good catch!!!!!! lol

care
 
BAC, I say you give Obama a little slack.
When was the last time a Senator with this little experience got the nomination.
Pretty soon he'll figure he's got Mcfossil on most issues and a huge lead and will stop sweating the swift boat righties moronic comments.
 
jollie said:
blackascoal:
All candidates have to play politician .. it's the nature of the beast.

In truth, he never gave his word that he would unequivically accept public financing. Read the words carefully.
********************************************
blackascoal, I', not criticizing you, but saying, "in the gentlest of ways", that statements like those two sentences at the top are WHY we have such poor excuses for leaders. It's not just you, but most people, even I, sometimes are willing to "settle" for Dishonesty, Lack of Character and integrity, because "they ALL do it".

And when you start playing with INDIVIDUAL WORDS, and saying "unequivocally", "read it carefully", and other types of Lawyerspeak, it sounds like Bill Clinton, after Lying to the Grand Jury, saying, "It depends on what the Meaning of "is" is." And Bill Clinton, we were told, was the BEST Democrat, to come along in a Generation.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your thoughts, but I know the beast very well and I know how the game has been played before .. but I'm not talking about how the game was played before, neither are millions of people who voted for him. Many support him to change how the game is played. It doesn't matter how you arrive at unconditional support for Israel or what semantics you use .. it still amounts to a bad decision that won't change a thing about American foreign policy.

Additionally, the politicians America gets are the exact politicians America deserves. If the argument is that politicians have to masquerade themselves in order to get elected, then the argument must also be that Americans aren't very bright people deserving of clowns because only clowns can get elected.

I don't subscribe to the "this is how it is" theory of "we can't do no better."
 
blackascoal said:
I appreciate your thoughts, but I know the beast very well and I know how the game has been played before .. but I'm not talking about how the game was played before, neither are millions of people who voted for him. Many support him to change how the game is played. It doesn't matter how you arrive at unconditional support for Israel or what semantics you use .. it still amounts to a bad decision that won't change a thing about American foreign policy.

Additionally, the politicians America gets are the exact politicians America deserves. If the argument is that politicians have to masquerade themselves in order to get elected, then the argument must also be that Americans aren't very bright people deserving of clowns because only clowns can get elected.

I don't subscribe to the "this is how it is" theory of "we can't do no better."
Click to expand...
Robert Heinlein said it best: "The qualities it takes to get elected are the opposite of the qualities needed in an elected official."

I remember one of Obama's earliest ads, where he says he wants to "change the way things are done in Washington." At that time I thought to myself "Interesting ideals, but you may as well flap your arms to get to the moon."

I disagree that America is getting the politicians we deserve. America is the people, as stated in the Constitution. But the political environment has been taken over by the vested interests of an economic oligarchy. The people have little choice, because by the time they are given the opportunity to choose, the selection has been carefully pared down to candidates acceptable to the oligarchy. It is not because the American electorate are too stupid to get anything but figures behind painted masks, it is because the electorate is offered nothing but figures behind painted masks that we are then forced to choose between the lesser of evils as opposed to having the opportunity to select between the greater of leaders.
 
Good Luck said:
Robert Heinlein said it best: "The qualities it takes to get elected are the opposite of the qualities needed in an elected official."

I remember one of Obama's earliest ads, where he says he wants to "change the way things are done in Washington." At that time I thought to myself "Interesting ideals, but you may as well flap your arms to get to the moon."

I disagree that America is getting the politicians we deserve. America is the people, as stated in the Constitution. But the political environment has been taken over by the vested interests of an economic oligarchy. The people have little choice, because by the time they are given the opportunity to choose, the selection has been carefully pared down to candidates acceptable to the oligarchy. It is not because the American electorate are too stupid to get anything but figures behind painted masks, it is because the electorate is offered nothing but figures behind painted masks that we are then forced to choose between the lesser of evils as opposed to having the opportunity to select between the greater of leaders.
Click to expand...

I SERIOUSLY disagree.

America is not the sole responsibility of politicians, it is the responsibility of the American people. We have abdicated that responsibility and we find it much easier to simply blame bad politicians .. who we elect .. over and over again.

Read the Declaration of Independence and I can assure you that you won't find "the lessor of two evils" within.

If we only elect clowns .. clowns are what we deserve.
 
blackascoal said:
I SERIOUSLY disagree.

America is not the sole responsibility of politicians, it is the responsibility of the American people. We have abdicated that responsibility and we find it much easier to simply blame bad politicians .. who we elect .. over and over again.

Read the Declaration of Independence and I can assure you that you won't find "the lessor of two evils" within.

If we only elect clowns .. clowns are what we deserve.
Click to expand...
So you want to blame a corrupted political process on the people? This is why your character sucks, and evidence that you suck at thinking.
 
blackascoal said:
I SERIOUSLY disagree.

America is not the sole responsibility of politicians, it is the responsibility of the American people. We have abdicated that responsibility and we find it much easier to simply blame bad politicians .. who we elect .. over and over again.

Read the Declaration of Independence and I can assure you that you won't find "the lessor of two evils" within.

If we only elect clowns .. clowns are what we deserve.
Click to expand...
Then why are you in a situation in which you are, like every one else, being forced to choose a candidate you don't trust, and minimally support? Whom would you elect, given free choice?

Clowns get elected because clowns are what are on the ticket. Care to name a single declared presidential candidate of either party, no matter how far in the background they were, who would not fit the clown descriptor? You can add third parties into that while you are at it, and I still defy you to come up with a single name who did not climb out of the miniature volkswagon in the center ring.

And while the Declaration of Independence is a great document, it has nothing at all to do with the situation. All it did was tell King George we weren't interested in being his subjects any longer - and why.

The document setting up elections and the resulting circus would be the Constitution. But it is not at fault for the clowns presented for election either. It is an inherent fault of the democratic process.

The inherent problme of democratic process is thus:

To get elected, a politician is literally engaged in a popularity contest. And popularity is a damned poor way to run a country. But, how many is going to deliberately vote for someone who is UNpopular? By definition, if lots of people get interested in voting for a candidate, that candidate becomes popular.

To get elected, the candidate must WANT to get elected. Therefore, they will do certain things to make themselves more popular. And again we end up with a popularity contest.

Of course, there are no systems which are superior to democracy. But that does not mean democracy is perfect, or can, even if politicians were not clowns, be perfected. It is imperfect, but still the best.
 
All it did was tell King George we weren't interested in being his subjects any longer - and why.


But he's still got 28% of Americans on his side. Hannity and Coulter count just as much as us!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top