Your Opionion of Barack Obama

El_Kabong

mca47 wrote:

I like Obama

well, that's it! fuck dennis kucinich, i'm an obama man, now!!!



that's all ikeep hearing...ppl like him, he doesn't see things in black and white...but what about him do ppl like? it just seems like a big popularity contest, to me.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Obama...uhh..yeap...I guess I like him...why?...umm...I don't know...I guess he looks ok you know...

When's American Idol on next?

arrghh...

El_Kabong

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Obama...uhh..yeap...I guess I like him...why?...umm...I don't know...I guess he looks ok you know...

When's American Idol on next?

arrghh...

i like his stances...what stances? uhhhhh....well...his stance on health care...well...he hasn't really defined his stance on that yet, perse, but....ummmm...i like his stance on the war...it's just a coinidence he changes it around the same time the polls do....hey, why are you asking me, you some kinda racist??? :mad:

RainDog

El_Kabong wrote:

i like his stances...what stances? uhhhhh....well...his stance on health care...well...he hasn't really defined his stance on that yet, perse, but....ummmm...i like his stance on the war...it's just a coinidence he changes it around the same time the polls do....hey, why are you asking me, you some kinda racist??? :mad:

He laid out a universal health care plan last week. It works with the private sector, it's not single payer, but it's a plan. I don't know if plan is synonymous with stance, but there you go.

He opposed the war in Iraq from the start and believes we are in a position to pull the troops out by March of '08. Maybe not soon enough for you, but it's still a stance and likely ahead of any real pull out date anyway. I haven't seen any real deviation from that, polls or not.

If you don't like him, that's fine. It's not racist to oppose someone based on position. Sure, politicians cast their opinions in such a way to garner themselves the most votes - sometimes without completely turning against their beliefs, sometimes they do turn completely. The degrees might be different depending on who we're talking about - but they all do it. For further proof of this phenomenon, see Dennis Kucinich's varied stances on abortion.

RainDog

Cheguevara6 wrote:

i think he is different than most politicians, and has charm and charisma, but all in all I feel, his stance on north korea and iran is troubling. According to him, if president, attacking both countries isnt off the table, and isnt out of the question. Thats scary!

Truthfully, attacking Britian isn't off the table. It's extremely unlikely - and would have to be proceeded by some sort of major breakdown in our relations, but who knows how the future will unfold (trite, I know, but that doesn't make it any less true - it's not like we haven't fought each other before). North Korea and Iran just happen to be in the news these days.

blackredyellow

RainDog wrote:

Truthfully, attacking Britian isn't off the table. It's extremely unlikely - and would have to be proceeded by some sort of major breakdown in our relations, but who knows how the future will unfold (trite, I know, but that doesn't make it any less true - it's not like we haven't fought each other before). North Korea and Iran just happen to be in the news these days.

Yeah... I'm not convinced either way on Obama yet, but ruling him out because of saying a military strike isn't off the table seems unrealistic to me. There is a BIG difference in keeping a military strike as a bargaining chip and actually doing it. What was the line that he used before? something like "I'm not against all wars, just stupid wars." I am the same way, but I haven't gotten a feel yet for where he draws the line. I was for (and still for) the war in Afghanistan... I just wish that it was done right and this whole Bil Laden, Al Qaeda thing could have been contained.

RainDog

blackredyellow wrote:

Yeah... I'm not convinced either way on Obama yet, but ruling him out because of saying a military strike isn't off the table seems unrealistic to me. There is a BIG difference in keeping a military strike as a bargaining chip and actually doing it. What was the line that he used before? something like "I'm not against all wars, just stupid wars." I am the same way, but I haven't gotten a feel yet for where he draws the line. I was for (and still for) the war in Afghanistan... I just wish that it was done right and this whole Bil Laden, Al Qaeda thing could have been contained.

For someone like me, who's neither a pacifist nor a warmonger, his position doesn't sound all that unusual. Of course "all options are on the table." To me, that's common sense. If you own a gun, you own the option to use it. On a national scale, the military is our gun. And, like a gun, it's ridiculous to wave it around screaming that you've got one and aren't afraid to use it (Cheney, I'm looking at you), and naive to think people will believe you when you say "gun, what gun?" I don't hear any candidate saying we should disband the military. So, if we're keeping the military, we're keeping the option to use it.

Unfortunately, we've had an administration that's so goddamned trigger happy, it's understandable that many, many of us are little gun-shy.

RainDog

El_Kabong wrote:

hey, why are you asking me, you some kinda racist??? :mad:

I just saw what happened in the "why should I vote for Obama" thread. Yeah, that was more than a little unfair. Of all the "-ists" you might fall under, "racist" isn't one of them.

mca47

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/

You can get a little more info about someone reading it rather then listening to 2 minute response from a "debate".

El_Kabong

RainDog wrote:

He opposed the war in Iraq from the start and believes we are in a position to pull the troops out by March of '08. Maybe not soon enough for you, but it's still a stance and likely ahead of any real pull out date anyway. I haven't seen any real deviation from that, polls or not.

he has deviated from that b/c a year and a half ago his 'stance' was we stay until the insurgency was defeated and even then we keep US troops there...he even made the point to state "Notice that I say "reduce," and not "fully withdraw." "

he also wanted to maintain permanent military bases in iraq so syria and iran know we are serious...

now that the polls say pullout he is about pulling out?

RainDog

El_Kabong wrote:

he has deviated from that b/c a year and a half ago his 'stance' was we stay until the insurgency was defeated and even then we keep US troops there...he even made the point to state "Notice that I say "reduce," and not "fully withdraw." "

he also wanted to maintain permanent military bases in iraq so syria and iran know we are serious...

now that the polls say pullout he is about pulling out?

You want your guy to win, so you'll say it's based on polls. You could be correct.

Me? I'd vote for either in the general. So I'll say that while it's possible it's based on polls - it's just as likely that in the last year and a half, roughly eighteen months' worth of events have happened.

But I don't know exactly what he said one year and six months ago. I'll have to go back and find it.

angelica

mca47 wrote:

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/

You can get a little more info about someone reading it rather then listening to 2 minute response from a "debate".

The thing is this link shows very carefully contrived and presented perspectives, geared to minimize flaws and faults--like how a resume presents a false and "best" rather than realistic face for us. The way someone answers off the top of their head in two minutes can give hints into their real personality, beneath the carefully constructed communication efforts, designed by entire and savvy teams who brief them regarding all levels of their image. This process is geared to bring them victory. In a debate, they are all lined up with their carefully constructed responses, and the glaring flaws and strong points leap out at us from behind the facades.

I study communication, and man, this link is top-quality in terms of public relations polish, whether constructed by him or by someone else. That is not to say anything bad about the man himself.

Just check out his "action" words, "illustrating" to us unconscously, how he is the man to defend america:

"As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Obama has fought to strengthen America's position in the world. Reaching across the aisle, Obama has tackled problems such as preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and stopping the genocide in Darfur."


It's very intense, in convincing us beyond our surface awareness. This stuff is brilliant in terms of neurolinguistic programming. And yes, they also do this in public with their speaking, but in a debate, their humanness gets hooked from behind the polish and they react from who they ARE as well as from the image.

mca47

angelica wrote:

The thing is this link shows very carefully contrived and presented perspectives, geared to minimize flaws and faults--like how a resume presents a false and "best" rather than realistic face for us. The way someone answers off the top of their head in two minutes can give hints into their real personality, beneath the carefully constructed communication efforts, designed by entire and savvy teams who brief them regarding all levels of their image. This process is geared to bring them victory. In a debate, they are all lined up with their carefully constructed responses, and the glaring flaws and strong points leap out at us from behind the facades.

I study communication, and man, this link is top-quality in terms of public relations polish, whether constructed by him or by someone else. That is not to say anything bad about the man himself.

Just check out his "action" words, "illustrating" to us unconscously, how he is the man to defend america:

"As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Obama has fought to strengthen America's position in the world. Reaching across the aisle, Obama has tackled problems such as preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and stopping the genocide in Darfur."


It's very intense, in convincing us beyond our surface awareness. This stuff is brilliant in terms of neurolinguistic programming. And yes, they also do this in public with their speaking, but in a debate, their humanness gets hooked from behind the polish and they react from who they ARE as well as from the image.

I agree that it is important to have debates so that the public can actually hear what the candidate is saying. The reason the link was provided is because many have stated that he hasn't come out and really made clear what he stands for. Of course you will get extremely well chosen words on a candidate's page, if not any mistake will be amplified by other candidates and the media. It pretty much works that way on any politician's website. I was simply providing a means for people to learn a little bit more about him, rather then saying "well shit, his two minute response on health care didn't really cover every step he will take to fix the problem..."

VictoryGin

RainDog wrote:

You want your guy to win, so you'll say it's based on polls. You could be correct.

Me? I'd vote for either in the general. So I'll say that while it's possible it's based on polls - it's just as likely that in the last year and a half, roughly eighteen months' worth of events have happened.

But I don't know exactly what he said one year and six months ago. I'll have to go back and find it.

when you do find it, can you tell me if he ever said something like 'this is how i feel about this now and i will never, ever change my plan--certainly not after reading new intelligence reports, meeting with military advisors, and certainly most absolutely not after listening to the american people, especially the residents of the great state of illinois--the people who voted me in office to act as their representative'.? depending on your answer, i may have to reconsider some things here.

what continually surprises me about media/general public reactions to politicians, is that some seem to forget that politicians are supposed to act on our behalf, well that's one of the two main ways to do it (the other model is to do whatever they want and ignore their constituents' wishes and leave it up to them to vote them back in office, and a somewhat third is a combination of both models). so what is so bad if one reason a decision is made is that the public opinion changed? that's their job, they are politicans that we elect. i can understand though that this could have been forgotten seeing as though the bush administration did not really give a care at what public opinion was. though i suppose they support the *other* model.

gue_barium

VictoryGin wrote:

when you do find it, can you tell me if he ever said something like 'this is how i feel about this now and i will never, ever change my plan--certainly not after reading new intelligence reports, meeting with military advisors, and certainly most absolutely not after listening to the american people, especially the residents of the great state of illinois--the people who voted me in office to act as their representative'.? depending on your answer, i may have to reconsider some things here.

what continually surprises me about media/general public reactions to politicians, is that some seem to forget that politicians are supposed to act on our behalf, well that's one of the two main ways to do it (the other model is to do whatever they want and ignore their constituents' wishes and leave it up to them to vote them back in office, and a somewhat third is a combination of both models). so what is so bad if one reason a decision is made is that the public opinion changed? that's their job, they are politicans that we elect. i can understand though that this could have been forgotten seeing as though the bush administration did not really give a care at what public opinion was. though i suppose they support the *other* model.

Sure, our elected officials are the peoples laborers, but it's a different dynamic when they are running for election. If they are going to be vague and pat-answer-everyday blah-blah-blah, waiting for the mood that best exemplifies the moment...then they aren't anything better than the next Republican. Clinton and Barack are just such candidates, and that's the fact, ma'am.

VictoryGin

gue_barium wrote:

Sure, our elected officials are the peoples laborers, but it's a different dynamic when they are running for election. If they are going to be vague and pat-answer-everyday blah-blah-blah, waiting for the mood that best exemplifies the moment...then they aren't anything better than the next Republican. Clinton and Barack are just such candidates, and that's the fact, ma'am.

i don't think obama has been too vague for me. i don't think i've known so much about a candidate this far ahead of an election. so i disagree with your facts, not that it even matters.

gue_barium

VictoryGin wrote:

i don't think obama has been too vague for me. i don't think i've known so much about a candidate this far ahead of an election. so i disagree with your facts, not that it even matters.

He's interchangeable with any moderate in DC today.

angelica

mca47 wrote:

I agree that it is important to have debates so that the public can actually hear what the candidate is saying. The reason the link was provided is because many have stated that he hasn't come out and really made clear what he stands for. Of course you will get extremely well chosen words on a candidate's page, if not any mistake will be amplified by other candidates and the media. It pretty much works that way on any politician's website. I was simply providing a means for people to learn a little bit more about him, rather then saying "well shit, his two minute response on health care didn't really cover every step he will take to fix the problem..."

Okay.

Innocent_Bystander

I think he is an inexperienced nobody running an campaign of exploitation. Don't let him or Hilary win, please! We need a real leader, and I haven't seen a single candidate competent for the job (maybe Bill Richardson).

blackredyellow

Innocent_Bystander wrote:

I think he is an inexperienced nobody running an campaign of exploitation. Don't let him or Hilary win, please! We need a real leader, and I haven't seen a single candidate competent for the job (maybe Bill Richardson).

I have been a fan of Richardson's for a few years now and I think that he has the perfect background to be a president, but he is not doing himself any favors in these debates. He just isn't good at the soundbyte answer format, but in a one on one interview where he can explain himself, he is very engaging.

I would be comfortable however voting for Obama in the general election if it got to that point.