President Barack H Obama

decides2dream

this...

MrBrian wrote:

americans can return to shitting pop tarts and cotton candy like back during the clinton years.

sooooooooo made me laugh. awesome!



hey, if that's what was going on during the clinton years, i'll take it.
bring on the pop tarts and cotton candy obama!

drew0

MLC2006 wrote:

McCain has spent his whole career voting on both sides of the aisle.

I wasn't aware that his 100% siding with Bush over the last couple years is considered on "both sides of the aisle". And McCain's "maverick" label that he earned in the late '90s & early '00s should be thrown out the window considering he's reversed his opinion on many of those issues, also known to the right as "flip-flopping", but that's not important when it's their own candidate, right?

MrBrian

decides2dream wrote:

hey, if that's what was going on during the clinton years, i'll take it.
bring on the pop tarts and cotton candy obama!

hahaha! indeed it does sound weirdly tempting...but the question is, are you really willing to trade long term health for some short term ass candy?

decides2dream

MrBrian wrote:

hahaha! indeed it does sound weirdly tempting...but the question is, are you really willing to trade long term health for some short term ass candy?

of course not.
however, it is obvious that you and i, amongst others, have very different pov in regarding how to secure this 'long term health.'

i thought the clinton years, overall, were damn fine years for this country. so i'd take more of that, absolutely. if you view those years as 'shitting pop tarts and cotton candy'...as i said, sign me up!

MrBrian

decides2dream wrote:

of course not.
however, it is obvious that you and i, amongst others, have very different pov in regarding how to secure this 'long term health.'

i thought the clinton years, overall, were damn fine years for this country. so i'd take more of that, absolutely. if you view those years as 'shitting pop tarts and cotton candy'...as i said, sign me up!

The Clinton years had it's highs for sure. But while it was alrite in America it was bad for many other countries because of America.

So a return to the bubbled american life would not be good long term.
Remember after 9/11 the first average american kinda reactions were (other than "what the hells an afganistanis pa?" was "why did this happen? because we are free?"

you know, that kinda thinking. let's not get back to that.
---

decides2dream

MrBrian wrote:

The Clinton years had it's highs for sure. But while it was alrite in America it was bad for many other countries because of America.

So a return to the bubbled american life would not be good long term.
Remember after 9/11 the first average american kinda reactions were (other than "what the hells an afganistanis pa?" was "why did this happen? because we are free?"

you know, that kinda thinking. let's not get back to that.
---

i never viewed it as 'bubbled american life'...but seeing as i am an american, perhaps i was too deep in my bubble?



seriously, i get what you're saying, and i do agree that what you refer to is not a good thing, but i still say, overall....i'd take the clinton years over the last 8, and many others as well, hahaha....and hell, of the rest of the world i would guess the clinton years were probably still better than the last 8. some may think it's all a lesser of two evils cop-out, i don't see it like that. however, sure....i'll agree, leave the past behind, learn from it, move on...in a NEW direction, to a better place. for this country and absolutely, the world at large.


btw - i don't think the 'average american' thought that. i think that was BS spin, media crap. while sure there are a good deal of not well-informed people out there in the world, not just the states, i think for most...while shocked.....did not take that pov. i am a NYer, work in NYC, know many effected personally, and hell no...i know NO one who thought like that. however, another topic entirely.

MrBrian

decides2dream wrote:

i never viewed it as 'bubbled american life'...but seeing as i am an american, perhaps i was too deep in my bubble?



seriously, i get what you're saying, and i do agree that what you refer to is not a good thing, but i still say, overall....i'd take the clinton years over the last 8, and many others as well, hahaha....and hell, of the rest of the world i would guess the clinton years were probably still better than the last 8. some may think it's all a lesser of two evils cop-out, i don't see it like that. however, sure....i'll agree, leave the past behind, learn from it, move on...in a NEW direction, to a better place. for this country and absolutely, the world at large.


btw - i don't think the 'average american' thought that. i think that was BS spin, media crap. while sure there are a good deal of not well-informed people out there in the world, not just the states, i think for most...while shocked.....did not take that pov. i am a NYer, work in NYC, know many effected personally, and hell no...i know NO one who thought like that. however, another topic entirely.

Yeah, I was living in Florida at the time It's all I would hear all day. well around most of the southern states and whatever. Other parts just got all into the flag waving and pride kinda stuff and also lined up behind Bush right after 9/11...

Of course, not everyone fell into order. But i think it's fair to say that majority did. But maybe i'm wrong,

Abookamongstthemany

Thecure wrote:

that is the question will he end the war, what about the talk about Iran? he has been talking really tough about Iran.

Not to mention how he wants to expand and modernize the military and increase troops by 90,000. What a peacenik, this guy!

What's so great about him again?

Abookamongstthemany

decides2dream wrote:

i never viewed it as 'bubbled american life'...but seeing as i am an american, perhaps i was too deep in my bubble?



seriously, i get what you're saying, and i do agree that what you refer to is not a good thing, but i still say, overall....i'd take the clinton years over the last 8, and many others as well, hahaha....and hell, of the rest of the world i would guess the clinton years were probably still better than the last 8. some may think it's all a lesser of two evils cop-out, i don't see it like that. however, sure....i'll agree, leave the past behind, learn from it, move on...in a NEW direction, to a better place. for this country and absolutely, the world at large.


btw - i don't think the 'average american' thought that. i think that was BS spin, media crap. while sure there are a good deal of not well-informed people out there in the world, not just the states, i think for most...while shocked.....did not take that pov. i am a NYer, work in NYC, know many effected personally, and hell no...i know NO one who thought like that. however, another topic entirely.

There was quite a lot about the Clinton years that constitute as 'fucked up american policy'...just because life was easier then than it has been under Bush doesn't excuse or make either right. They both had their fair share of horrible. I don't feel we should settle for slightly less horrible.

fuck

Eddie was right... Obama will end all future wars...

continuing wars (Afghanistan) is another thing though...

and technically we are at an "economic war" with Iran, so if military strikes were necessary he'd just be "continuing" it, not "starting" it...

Kann

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

a. The Bush administration has been anything but "conservative".

True enough that example was not a good choice. However left governments never lead to the economic breakdown that was usually promised by outed conservative govermnents.

b. you didn't actually make a valid argument against my premise

I don't pretend to understand correctly everything happening in the economy in our globalized world. But I disagree with the argument taxes=destruction of the economy. I don't know how high the dollar will be in a year/year and a half but if it does collapse, I doubt it will be because of Obama's taxes.

c. saying "yeah but the repubs fucked it up too" does not mean that Obamas policies will not be equally or more devastating.

Completely agree. Actually I believe any government (not advocating major changes like Ron Paul) would probably fuck up in the current climate.

d. the reason this country is economicaly fucked right now has to do with systemic issues in the banking system directly related to fiscal policy. it has nothing to do with George Bush or "conservative" "economic policy"

Strongly disagree here. Obviously the "laissez-faire" policy mostly used by "conservative" governments shows some kind of limits. And no this isn't a problem linked to the fed as almost every western country is hurt and almost every western country doesn't have the "fed".

e. almost every motivation to keep money in the US financial markets has evaporated over the last 8 months. we don't need to add tax hikes to the list of disinsentives.

Will lowering taxes change anything? I strongly believe lowering your debts could help more than lowering your taxes.

f. you didn't say a word about social programs (like national civil defense force or health care or SS or so forth and so on) ... given Obama seems to have dropped his plans for any significant shift in war policy, where is this money coming from, besides printing more of it?

He will probably need to print more money. I'm not saying that's smart. I think raising taxes should be used to lower the debt not to fund wars. I wasn't defending Obama (I don't vote in the US), I was arguing against an old cliche you used.

g. this is all cart before horse, as i still harbor significant doubts that Obama will actually be the next president.

I actually believe he will. What makes you think he won't?

Drew263

This talk of Clinton balancing the budget is laughable...who had control of Congress then? Who has control now? Since 2006, things domestically have gone in the shitter. Wonder why?

Both parties are fucking us over. The sooner we all realize this, the better...

Meanwhile, I'll be patiently waiting for Obama to be elected and the immediate economic turnaround that the media will announce. I can't wait for him to take my money (and people like me who actually work and achieve) and pass it on to deadbeats. B/c he knows who to give it to better than I. I'm just a little person.

decides2dream

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

There was quite a lot about the Clinton years that constitute as 'fucked up american policy'...just because life was easier then than it has been under Bush doesn't excuse or make either right. They both had their fair share of horrible. I don't feel we should settle for slightly less horrible.

i never suggested we should. nor did i say everything during the clinton years was all peachy, but simply given the OPs first post, especially how he worded it, said i'd take that. i do think the clinton years were far 'better' for lack of a better term. i also find bush's share of 'horrible' FAR worse than clinton's but differing perspectives. in the post you quoted i agreed we should move beyond the past and work towards a better tomorrow. how we choose to get there is where i think many of us disagree. a-ok by me. i definitely don't think we should settle, either.

MrBrian wrote:

Yeah, I was living in Florida at the time It's all I would hear all day. well around most of the southern states and whatever. Other parts just got all into the flag waving and pride kinda stuff and also lined up behind Bush right after 9/11...

Of course, not everyone fell into order. But i think it's fair to say that majority did. But maybe i'm wrong,

yikes!


well of course, many bought into what was being sold....FEAR. a very sad part of american history to be certain. the fact that such a tragedy set into motion present events is even more sad. so i wouldn't so much as say you're wrong, just that you're not enitrely right. like most things..shades of grey....

DriftingByTheStorm

Kann wrote:

However left governments never lead to the economic breakdown that was usually promised by outed conservative govermnents.

You're right about that. Again, the economy isn't meant to be ruled by a political party. Economies are supposed to be capable of working independent of federal government policy. The limits placed on federal government in the constitution (and baring constitutional amendments) should have prevented it from being able to so vastly affect the broad US market. Unfortunately the government itself is now a monster. That being said the preeminent factor affecting the general business climate in America for the last 100 years (and baring war) has been the Federal Reserve and its policies.

Kann wrote:

But I disagree with the argument taxes=destruction of the economy. I don't know how high the dollar will be in a year/year and a half but if it does collapse, I doubt it will be because of Obama's taxes

Taxes don't automaticaly mean the destruction of the economy. In the current climate though, they can only hurt. You are strangling an already suffering consumer as well as putting downward pressure on business.
Economicialy speaking, taxes hikes can only serve to decrease market productivity.

Kann wrote:

Completely agree. Actually I believe any government (not advocating major changes like Ron Paul) would probably fuck up in the current climate.

Sadly, even Ron Paul would fuck this one up.
Especially Ron Paul in the short term.
The market gears would come to a stand still if the inflation machine were shut down.

Kann wrote:

Strongly disagree here. Obviously the "laissez-faire" policy mostly used by "conservative" governments shows some kind of limits. And no this isn't a problem linked to the fed as almost every western country is hurt and almost every western country doesn't have the "fed".

This is a problem with the Fed. The entire Western world is run by the same financial system. Its the Fed or the ECB or the pick the appropriate central bank for your country. Most of the global fall out is directly related to housing contractions related to "below market" interest rates given to commercial banks via the central banks ("the fed") ... this flood of cheap credit only came to banks that LENT money in the first place. This mechanism, coupled with delibrately shoddy automated underwriting practices (the credit approval process, like for buying a home) caused the housing "bubble". The central banks, owned by the commercial banks, wanted to invest, but conventional loans were stretched thin, and so they decided to take even riskier "subprime" loans in order to get more income on their books. They didn't give a flying fuck about the consequences, because as far as they were concerned, if the poor sap couldn't pay his mortgage, they would just get the house at the end of the day anyhow. Unfortuantely for them, it looks like the entire system is still tinkering on the brink of collapse. They may have gone to far.

Kann wrote:

Will lowering taxes change anything? I strongly believe lowering your debts could help more than lowering your taxes.

Actualy "lowering your debts" is the WORST thing we could possibly do, ironic as it is. Debt=money. You MUST understand that, to get how this system works. There is NO MONEY that is not LENT MONEY -- ie. DEBT. Paying down debt = DELETING money. Deleting money = monetary contraction. Monetary contraction = recession ON A GOOD YEAR. In a year where the bubbles are all bursting, and the 4 trillion dollar backbone of the housing market (Fannie\Freddie) is on the verge of collapse, monetary contraction = guaranteed EPIC FAILURE.

Kann wrote:

He will probably need to print more money. I'm not saying that's smart. I think raising taxes should be used to lower the debt not to fund wars. I wasn't defending Obama (I don't vote in the US), I was arguing against an old cliche you used.

Its not an old cliche, its a truth. You just don't see economies normally so affected by tax raises on the people because this is offset with "free money" provided in the form of low interest rates to the corporations.

Again, in today's climate, it could be catacalysmic.
The consumer in general can not handle the burden.
And business can't be helped by it.

Obama will do what he is told.
Assuming he is elected.

Kann wrote:

I actually believe he will. What makes you think he won't?

National Security.
And i think that the real powers in this country aren't 100% on board with Obama. I think there is a faction that believes that is the right way. And a stronger more desperate faction that thinks he is not "on the level" (or "in the pocket") enough to be the right president currently.

He is young. He thinks he has his own ideas.
And on some level, i think he truly believes he actualy gets to be president.
And they don't like that.

McCain is a marching man, and he takes orders well.
And even on the facade he is the better "business" candidate.
Note i didn't say the best for your financial interests,
but they are the best for Wall Street -- more of the same.
And he likes war.
He likes 'em big and long.

And there are still a good few months until the elections.
A few months where anything can happen,
and something surely will.

I still have my eyes on the DNC for starters.
:eek:

cornnifer

callen wrote:

Obama's the long shot....there are lots of white folk that will not vote for Obama...also McCain hasn't yet started his attack campaign....give it another month.

We havn't been hearing THIS since February. :rolleyes: "Obama will never win. White folks won't vote for 'im, Blah... Blah... Blah..." What happened? i forgot. Oh, now i remember. Plenty of white folks voted for him and... HE WON! "Oh you just wait 'til them republikins start their attackin'. That Barack Hoosain Obamma won't be able to take it, heh, heh." Ummmm. have you forgotten that Hillary Clinton already stole all their bullets and fired about every round they had at him and... HE STILL WON.

DriftingByTheStorm

cornnifer wrote:

We havn't been hearing THIS since February. :rolleyes: "Obama will never win. White folks won't vote for 'im, Blah... Blah... Blah..." What happened? i forgot. Oh, now i remember. Plenty of white folks voted for him and... HE WON! "Oh you just wait 'til them republikins start their attackin'. That Barack Hoosain Obamma won't be able to take it, heh, heh." Ummmm. have you forgotten that Hillary Clinton already stole all their bullets and fired about every round they had at him and... HE STILL WON.

No one is saying Obama doesn't have a chance.
What we are saying is your over-optimism is a bit naive.

All this election needs is one "good" terr'ist event world wide,
hell, maybe even a disease outbreak or bio-attack,
and McCain could be the next overlord ... er ... i mean, president.

cornnifer

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

No one is saying Obama doesn't have a chance.
What we are saying is your over-optimism is a bit naive.

All this election needs is one "good" terr'ist event world wide,
hell, maybe even a disease outbreak or bio-attack,
and McCain could be the next overlord ... er ... i mean, president.

i was refering specifically to the post that said Obama was a longshot because white people wouldn't vote for him and republicans would attack him.
Dumb.

DriftingByTheStorm

cornnifer wrote:

i was refering specifically to the post that said Obama was a longshot because white people wouldn't vote for him and republicans would attack him.
Dumb.

yeah i'll give you that.

Obama is attracting self-loathing whiteys left and right.
no problems there.

He is still only 4 to 12 points ahead in the polls though.

rocketman

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

An autistic homeless person could probably beat McCain wit a few well placed cue cards and a shave.

That said, I think it will probably be something like a 60/40 split at best.

I guess we'll finally see how the stereotypes hold up.

Are you available?

raszputini

Write it down. It's not because Obama is black (half), and isn't because of his name, but it will be because of fear. Whether you like McCain or not (I don't), he is FAR MORE QUALIFIED to be President and is therefore the less risky choice. Yeah, Obama smoked Hillary in the Primaries - a lot of people were afraid of her - she's a little too mean and bitchy, and Obama is sharp and charismatic. But come November, the states Obama HAS to win (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, Georgia, Texas) will vote for McCain.

The reason: Obama's only national experience is a three year Senate term, during which he did virtually nothing. He missed as many votes as he cast and voted as non-controversially as possible, when he did. So here is his resume:

Barack Obama: 3 years, US Senate (2004-2007)

McCain, even though I think he's out of touch, is far more prepared to be President:

4 years US House (1983-1987)
19 years, US Senate (1988-2007), Committe on POW/MIA, Senate Armed Services Committee, Chairman of Senate Commerce Committee, countless bill sponsorships on everything from campaign finance reform to tax reduction.

Primaries are the time we Americans play games with our votes, but come the General Election, the electorate has a history of not making risky moves, just look at our past Presidents. All have serious legislative or executive experience:

-GW Bush was the Governor of Texas for six years, plus grew up in the White House
-Clinton was the Arkansas Attorney General, and the Governor for eight years
-Bush senior was Vice, Head of the CIA, US Rep to the U.N. and assorted other things
-Reagan was California Governor for 8 years, and ran unsuccessfully for Pres. in '76 (he lost the primary by about he same margin as Hillary did and spoke at the convention like Hillary will)
-Carter - Governor of Georgia , State Senator for 10 years
-Ford - Vice President, 25 years in the House (8 years as House Minority Leader).

So, going all the way back to Nixon, who also had significant experience - we only elect as President candidates with significant legislative experience (Ford, Bush Sr), candidates with executive experience (Clinton, Reagan, Carter, GW Bush) and Vice Presidents (Bush Sr, Ford).

Also remember that in August 2004 (this time the last election), John Kerry had a double-digit lead over Bush, all it took to make the electorate lose their stomach was "swift boats".

Obama seems sharp to me, and I think he will have his time - he's young and he'll be active in politics for years to come. But there is NO WAY he wins this election. The Republicans play games in Presidential elections until late September/early October and then all hell breaks loose. There will probably be a serious foreign policy crisis to remind Americans how important it is to have someone with a background in foreign affairs. They will skewer Obama over his lack of experience, inconsistencies in voting record and policy platforms, they will succeed in labelling him as "elitist" - because he acts the role, they will blast him over his Vice Presidential choice (no matter who it is) and use that as proof of his lack of sound decision-making ability, and finally they will take the few things he DID in the Senate and use that to make him look like a "Globalist" who is willing to give U.S. sovereignty to the UN, which will create all the doubt needed about Obama's loyalties and priorities. In the meantime, McCain will contrast himself as much with Bush as with Obama, and in November McCain will be elected by an electorate that is afraid of Obama and certain McCain is not as shitty as Bush.