New Obama thread

[Mr._johngalt]

Yes, DH was there! But, with me it is all intellectual.

Someone who is smart and gives the feeling that there is hope, not just cynical bashing of the other side is the person that I'd like to see in charge.

If you see "hope" in this guy.........well, you need more help than you can receive here. OTOH, he might get elected in my lifetime. Such is the
low opinion I hold vis-a-vis the American voter. Sorry. I know how this
sounds, but I am old and have seen many politicians come and go.
Mostly whores IMHO.

JG

 

[shiny]

I want someone who actually understands economics and international relations, chooses wise and diverse advisors (and avoids yes-men), and shows a preference for rationality over irrationality, ethics over partisanship, and understands that what makes America great isn't rah-rah jingoism, but taking the Constitution seriously.

I SO agree with this - especially taking the Constitution seriously. I realize that as a former attorney I may be biased about this, but I think training in Constitutional Law is a big plus for someone who is in charge of the country.

 

[Alex]

I'd like someone who can apply intelligence and good judgment to solving problems and moving in new directions, who treats all justly (no preferential treatment for the wealthy or the religious, for example), and who is capable of hiring great people and making great decisions--not necessarily a person with a specific previous job experience.

Someone who commands respect among national and world leaders--instead of in the frat house. Not someone whose father's friends/colleagues are needed time and again to set him up in business/government and bail him out of financial and governance mistakes. I want someone who actually understands economics and international relations, chooses wise and diverse advisors (and avoids yes-men), and shows a preference for rationality over irrationality, ethics over partisanship, and understands that what makes America great isn't rah-rah jingoism, but taking the Constitution seriously.

I don't know yet if Obama is this person, but I do know that he's a lot closer than the guy we're stuck with at the moment.

lol.... then why don't you start an "I hate bush" thread? Obama is not a serious candidate.

 

[shiny]

Obama is not a serious candidate.

Why do you say that? Just curious. I haven't decided if he could really make it, but I'm wondering why you say he isn't a serious candidate.

 

[Alex]

Why do you say that? Just curious. I haven't decided if he could really make it, but I'm wondering why you say he isn't a serious candidate.

DISCLAIMER: this is just my opinion, so save the vitriol for someone else who gives a ****.
I think he is the flavor of the month for the media. He has no executive experience, less than two years in the senate, and is a virtual unknown outside of the hardcore political types and his home state. He was crushed by Bobby Rush when he ran for Congress in 2000 with less than 30% of the vote.

Maybe in the future he can become a viable candidate, but as things stand today he lacks gravitas.

 

[shiny]

You may be right, Alex, but I'm kind of thinking that's maybe who can win right now - someone without some long political history to give ammunition for attack. We'll see. Thanks for the response!

 

[astromeria]

why don't you start an "I hate bush" thread? Obama is not a serious candidate.

Maybe because I don't hate Bush--he's just an ordinary man (at best), a dreadful President, and positive proof of the Peter Principle.

In any case, someone who doesn't believe in global warming or the dangers of high cholesterol probably wouldn't like any candidate of the Democratic persuasion, particularly scientific, rational ones

 

[shiny]

Astro, I always think our quotations look funny when they are quoted back to back.

You can't get want you want til you know what you want, you may not get what you want, but you may get what you need...

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I SO agree with this - especially taking the Constitution seriously. I realize that as a former attorney I may be biased about this, but I think training in Constitutional Law is a big plus for someone who is in charge of the country.

I attended a lecture yesterday (by a guy with stellar credentials, who I
respect). He says fully 96% of law school professors are registered
Democrats, focused mostly on constitutional issues (you all know how
scary that is to someone like me). The 3+% of professors who are
registered Republicans tend to focus on corporate law. To me this does
not bode well and explains (confirms) the gradual dismemberment
of the Constitution/BOR by the judiciary. He had lots of other good stuff
but that stat really stuck with me.

JG

 

[haha]

I attended a lecture yesterday (by a guy with stellar credentials, who I
respect). He says fully 96% of law school professors are registered
Democrats, focused mostly on constitutional issues (you all know how
scary that is to someone like me). The 3+% of professors who are
registered Republicans tend to focus on corporate law. To me this does
not bode well and explains (confirms) the gradual dismemberment
of the Constitution/BOR by the judiciary. He had lots of other good stuff
but that stat really stuck with me.

JG

This guy must remain un-named?

Ha

 

[Alex]

Maybe because I don't hate Bush--he's just an ordinary man (at best), a dreadful President, and positive proof of the Peter Principle.

In any case, someone who doesn't believe in global warming or the dangers of high cholesterol probably wouldn't like any candidate of the Democratic persuasion, particularly scientific, rational ones

I suppose my not drinking the Kool-aid proffered by big pharma and Al Gore makes me weird? I can live with that. Personally, I think we should all question the data that we are fed. Especially when it comes from sources with an agenda.

At any rate, I do admit that there is one connection between Barack Obama and global warming, he's full of hot air, like most politicians.......

 

[haha]

DISCLAIMER: this is just my opinion, so save the vitriol for someone else who gives a ****.

You may be right, Alex, but I'm kind of thinking that's maybe who can win right now - someone without some long political history to give ammunition for attack. We'll see. Thanks for the response!

Well Alex, it looks like you didn't need to be concerned about vitriol.

Ha

 

[Alex]

Well Alex, it looks like you didn't need to be concerned about vitriol.

Ha

I am happy about that. I really loathe politics and discussing them only gets people upset, especially when the other party to the discussion is a ideologue or rabid partisan. I am a skeptic at heart.

 

[Arc]

I sincerely hope that I am wrong and that our country would elect either a female or a black to the presidency, but I think that there are still too many "good old boys" out there.

That would be Condi Rice - and she would have a chance if she ran.

 

[Arc]

Personally, I'd like someome with experience as an executive.

And that would be Dick Cheney - not sure you can talk him into running though!

 

[JohnEyles]

Maybe because I don't hate Bush--he's just an ordinary man (at best) ...

I don't hate him either. I kind of feel sorry for him. He is so obviously in way
over his head ...

I think he thinks he is doing what's best for the country. Unfortunately he comes
to it as a religious fanatic, and like all religious fanatics he is SURE that he is right
because he talks to God**, and therefore since he KNOWS he is right he can do
whatever is necessary to achieve his agenda, even if it involves illegal and immoral
activity.

Now, Cheney and Rumsfeld I hate. Powell I have contempt for, going along with
something he knew was wrong, because of loyalty to his Commander in Chief - what
about loyalty to the country he's sworn to serve, for God's sake ?

** What more proof do we require of this than his admission in Bob Woodward's
book that he never talked to his father about invading Iraq, because instead he
talks to a higher father ?!?

 

[Mr._johngalt]

This guy must remain un-named?

Ha

Nope. Just figured no one ever heard of him. His name is John R. Lott.
Among other things he wrote the bestseller 'More Guns, Less Crime'.
Anyway, brilliant guy (Mensa member). Check out
http://www.johnrlott.com

JG

 

[mb]

Maybe because I don't hate Bush--he's just an ordinary man (at best), a dreadful President, and positive proof of the Peter Principle.

Wrong on the Peter Principle! He is several levels above his level of incompetency!

 

[Khan]

Wrong on the Peter Principle! He is several levels above his level of incompetency!

His level of incompetency was fratboy.

 

[youbet]

Let's see.......this was an Obama thread...... I'll try to pull it back a little.....

Given Dem victories in 2006 and 2008 (possibly an Obama victory in 2008), what should Dem key initiatives be goinjg forward? Without expressing those initiatives in terms of GWB, who will be long gone at that time, what are the top priorities for the Dems? Again, without expressing them in terms of GWB.

 

[sgeeeee]

Let's see.......this was an Obama thread...... I'll try to pull it back a little.....

Given Dem victories in 2006 and 2008 (possibly an Obama victory in 2008), what should Dem key initiatives be goinjg forward? Without expressing those initiatives in terms of GWB, who will be long gone at that time, what are the top priorities for the Dems? Again, without expressing them in terms of GWB.

- Get out of Iraq.
- Fight a more focused and effective war against terrorism.
- Make modifications to tax/benefit structure to insure SS and Medicare continue long term.
- Improve voting procedures and make them more uniform across the country.
- Rebuild torn and broken relationship with allys.
- Medical system/medical insurance reform.

for a start.

The above probably require that many of the tax benefits granted during the "leave no billionaire behind" programs be repealed. Sorry, I couldn't let that one pass.

 

[youbet]

- Get out of Iraq.
- Fight a more focused and effective war against terrorism.
- Make modifications to tax/benefit structure to insure SS and Medicare continue long term.
- Improve voting procedures and make them more uniform across the country.
- Rebuild torn and broken relationship with allys.
- Medical system/medical insurance reform.

for a start.

The above probably require that many of the tax benefits granted during the "leave no billionaire behind" programs be repealed. Sorry, I couldn't let that one pass.

Pretty worthwhile looking list there sgeeeee. But, on the tax issue, when you say that the tax benefits granted during the "leave no billionaire behind" programs should be repealed, are you saying return the tax tables to where they were before or just change them to impact the really stinky rich, like billionaires?

When discussing raising taxes with folks, I've noticed that many want taxes raised for folks who make just a little more than they do, but, of course, not on themselves! (What a surprise! )

 

[sgeeeee]

. . . When discussing raising taxes with folks, I've noticed that many want taxes raised for folks who make just a little more than they do, but, of course, not on themselves! (What a surprise! )

How many people have you discussed raising taxes with who you also discussed personal income with?

This sounds like another made up fact to me.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

- Rebuild torn and broken relationship with allys.

Jeez, if "W" had a relationship with Kirstie, I wonder why the Dems
haven't used that in the campaign

JG

 

[youbet]

How many people have you discussed raising taxes with who you also discussed personal income with?

This sounds like another made up fact to me.

Hmmmmm.....don't know why you would say that sgeeeee. GWB's tax cuts are frequently discussed, at least in these parts, and "estimating" the income of a close friend or relative isn't exactly rocket science....... It's entertaining to listen to folk's opinions concerning the Bush tax cuts and their suggestions as to what new tax rates should be, especially when their suggestions inevitably seem to not include the suggester him/herself actually paying more, or very much more. Human nature I guess.

But, you're missing the question. You emphasized "billionaires" in your post. Do you think the tax tables should be changed only to have more impact on the stinky rich......the billionaire-types you mentioned? Or do we need something closer to home. Say, a tax structure that would significantly impact folks with AGI's in the $40K - $70K range.