Your Opionion of Barack Obama

RainDog

cincybearcat wrote:

Meaning his is opposed to tax cuts that benefit all Americans. That's what I said. It is helping to create and sustain the class warfare...but oh well. It's easy money to grab because tons of people hate other successful people and love to see them pick up the tab.

I'm not sure why that is fair. They're already paying a higher percentage. Where's Forbes when you need him?

Well, you said "Tax Cuts for All Americans," not Tax Cuts that Benefit All Americans.

Still, I don't share your opinion that when the upper class gets a tax cut, all America is washed over in the healing salve of "More Money." So when someone, like Forbes I suppose, starts complaining about how he's only personally able to keep 12 million out of every 20 million he earns, I can say I don't really get choked up over it. People like him get a higher benefit from our society, so they pay a higher percentage. Sounds fair - at least as far as "fair" goes, which isn't very, whether we're talking about tax codes, biology, or the Matrix sequels.

polaris

angelica wrote:

While I understand this is a valid view, it's also the view based on the programming I speak of and I don't mean in just you--but in everyone. When such advanced ideas like the ones Kucinich holds begin to filter into mainstream (and they come from far and wide, not just him) people will realize the "rigged" aspects are limits they hold in their minds. And we can always change our minds. When we change our minds, we can also change the structures--political and otherwise--that are not working for the good of all, or the whole country.

I realize these are ideas that need to filter in and take root with people, and that takes time. I don't believe it's an inherent flaw in the system that can't be changed, though. I see that people are waking up slowly and surely. When enough people realize the self-defeating nature of self-ishness, all, including business/corporation people will evolve. 'Cause when we see the actual consequences of self-interests at the expense of the whole, there is NO choice.

You may view the "rigged" aspects as something we will eventually evolve away from, too. I'm pointing to the seeds we can begin to plant now. There is no time like the present. I'm not saying vote for the guy. I don't even know if I would. I see the potency in the idea of looking to a better way, and to be actively creating it, TODAY.

and i consider myself an optimist!! ...

really tho - the thing is that yes - things take time but we are not progressing towards a truly democratic society - the progression is further and further away ...

here's a great example ... people in the democratic party hired/paid someone to discredit another member of the party and it worked ... what kind of game is that? ...

if kucinich or ron paul for that matter even get a whiff of a chance to win - you will see the ugliness come forth ... right now, with no realistic chance of winning - they are both allowed to speak freely ...

RainDog

VictoryGin wrote:

. yeah, he's not going to accomplish everything the way he wants, but who would? having a democratic congress is going to help that, though they also have to be careful not to push too much because look what happens when you have republican congress and president. it's going to swing back and forth, and maybe we can postpone that next swing by taking smart, slower steps to rebuild.

True. I often have to wonder about the American Left, and I include myself in this - 'cause I'm just as likely to fall for idealism over realism myself, historically. But why the fetish for shooting ourselves in the foot? Do we really think it will be easier to get a more liberal country with a Republican controlled government?

My new strategy is get the Democrats in power, then become a "radical." That way, I'm pulling on a government that's already on my side of the river - and I won't have to drown them to get them closer to where I stand.

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

True. I often have to wonder about the American Left, and I include myself in this - 'cause I'm just as likely to fall for idealism over realism myself, historically. But why the fetish for shooting ourselves in the foot? Do we really think it will be easier to get a more liberal country with a Republican controlled government?

My new strategy is get the Democrats in power, then become a "radical." That way, I'm pulling on a government that's already on my side of the river - and I won't have to drown them to get them closer to where I stand.

I hear what you're saying...I said the same things with Kerry. But this time I'm voting my conscience and staying true to my ideals...it's that simple. I'm not strategically compromising myself again. Obama's stance on war, his support for moderates over progressives, his support of nuclear energy, the credit card cap vote, among other things...I can see he's not for me. To me, there seems to be TOO much compromise from his behalf and this is only campaign time...in office will only get worse. But to each their own.

El_Kabong

Deni wrote:

My opinion of Barack Obama... I think he's cool! I'm not 100% sure why yet, but I'm keeping my ear to the ground! lol

and that is what we are saying...ppl say they support him but don't know why?

El_Kabong

polaris wrote:

and i consider myself an optimist!! ...

really tho - the thing is that yes - things take time but we are not progressing towards a truly democratic society - the progression is further and further away ...

here's a great example ... people in the democratic party hired/paid someone to discredit another member of the party and it worked ... what kind of game is that? ...

if kucinich or ron paul for that matter even get a whiff of a chance to win - you will see the ugliness come forth ... right now, with no realistic chance of winning - they are both allowed to speak freely ...

and i call bullshit...he's taken political hits in his congressional elections over his stances and alwasy stayed firm

in the end maybe the abortion issue is what decides it for you or someone else, not me...i will take his stances on the war in iraq, his voting against capping credit card interest rated at 30%, his stance on nuclear energy, having ppl as top advisors that are high up in citigroup, ppl who helped craft and push NAFTA thru then argued a year or 2 ago that the WTO needs to be escalated...maybe those stances don't matter to you...and that's fine, but they matter to me and that is why i will not support obama even if he were to win the democratic nomination. you can ignore it all you want and say kucinich's stance on abortion is the same, to you it could be, to me it's not

it's ok to disagree

El_Kabong

VictoryGin wrote:

i don't think i took it personally. i posted what i did because it is a waste of my time to go back and forth with you on some things. it's just that i have other things to do.

sorry but you supporting 'my guy' has nothing to do with it.

ok, my bad, maybe it's the way i'm taking it, but it seems like you get hyper defensive and highly annoyed whenever anyone is critical of obama, now if it was what you think is something was 'misleading' i could understand that, but it seems like it goes beyond that

polaris

El_Kabong wrote:

and i call bullshit...he's taken political hits in his congressional elections over his stances and alwasy stayed firm

in the end maybe the abortion issue is what decides it for you or someone else, not me...i will take his stances on the war in iraq, his voting against capping credit card interest rated at 30%, his stance on nuclear energy, having ppl as top advisors that are high up in citigroup, ppl who helped craft and push NAFTA thru then argued a year or 2 ago that the WTO needs to be escalated...maybe those stances don't matter to you...and that's fine, but they matter to me and that is why i will not support obama even if he were to win the democratic nomination. you can ignore it all you want and say kucinich's stance on abortion is the same, to you it could be, to me it's not

it's ok to disagree

uhh ... what are you calling bullshit to?

El_Kabong

polaris wrote:

uhh ... what are you calling bullshit to?

to:

polaris wrote:

if kucinich or ron paul for that matter even get a whiff of a chance to win - you will see the ugliness come forth ... right now, with no realistic chance of winning - they are both allowed to speak freely ...

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I hear what you're saying...I said the same things with Kerry. But this time I'm voting my conscience and staying true to my ideals...it's that simple. I'm not strategically compromising myself again. Obama's stance on war, his support for moderates over progressives, his support of nuclear energy, the credit card cap vote, among other things...I can see he's not for me. To me, there seems to be TOO much compromise from his behalf and this is only campaign time...in office will only get worse. But to each there own.

Cool. President Hillary Clinton it is, then.

Actually, Ralph Nader has as much said he'll run if Hillary gets the nod. So it's President Republican-Yet-to-be-Named, then.






I'm just joshin' ya. If Obama doesn't get the nod, I'll likely be voting Nader myself.

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

Cool. President Hillary Clinton it is, then.

Actually, Ralph Nader has as much said he'll run if Hillary gets the nod. So it's President Republican-Yet-to-be-Named, then.






I'm just joshin' ya. If Obama doesn't get the nod, I'll likely be voting Nader myself.

I have a feeling I'll be voting for Nader, too.

my2hands

RainDog wrote:

So it's President Republican-Yet-to-be-Named, then.

dont even fucking joke about that :(

polaris

kabong,

i think you misread the context ... you'll have to see the whole conversation i was having with angelica ... i'm not saying kucinich or paul would resort to anythng petty - simply that the game they are playing is rigged ...

if either of them have a decent chance of winning - you can be sure the powers that be will start spreading false rumours and go on a smear campaign to discredit these candidates ...

it's not the people - it's the game they are playing ... it's flawed

my2hands

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I have a feeling I'll be voting for Nader, too.

not me, i am righting in Edward Vedder. i bet we can get him about 1,000 votes if we tried

RainDog

my2hands wrote:

dont even fucking joke about that :(

Come On! Everybody Shout!!

FEAR MORE YEARS!
FEAR MORE YEARS!!
FEAR MORE YEARS!!!

El_Kabong

RainDog wrote:

Back when I was a young'un in '92 a lot of the alterna-punk rockers I hung out with continually dumped on Pearl Jam for being too mainstream. I tried explaining to them that even though Pearl Jam were popular, they weren't trying to be the new pretty boy pop band they were made out to be. That they were actually pretty honest in their musical approach and that their popularity had more to do with the state of the world and music in general at the time as well as a media push generated by their initial recognition. But my friends never listened. Pearl Jam were sell-outs all. Now I'm hearing what appears to be the same chorus against Obama. Just an observation.

Anyway, in a side by side comparison:
Abortion
Obama: Strongly Pro-Choice
Kucinich: Somewhat Pro-Choice since 2002 - flipped for the 2004 campaign (likely because the polls said he should)
Afirmative Action
Both support it.
Gay Rights
Both are pretty gay friendly. Kucinich supports outright marriage, Obama supports civil unions. I'll give it to Kucinich there, but not by much.
Flag Desecration
Obama: Voted against a constitutional ban on flag desecration.
Kucinich: Voted in favor of a constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Huh?!?!)
Federal funding for health coverage
Both favor more funding
Both oppose Privatizing Social Security, School Vouchers, the Death Penalty, Mandatory Sentencing, Absolute Right to Gun Ownership, Tax Cuts for the Wealthy, Expansion of Free Trade.

Where they differ the most? Obama supports churches providing some welfare, while Kucinich opposes it (point Kucinich IMO, though not one of my biggest issues). Kucinich wants to cut military spending significantly, Obama doesn't (kind of a wash there for me- it's the use I'm worried about).

Verdict? I'd vote for either of them in the general. In the primary, I'm going with Obama. Why? Well, not to borrow from the Republican Meme Use Handbook, but he's more of a uniter than Kucinich - and that's not a "should-be or shouldn't-be" argument. It's simply a statement of fact.

And, to my original statement - well, it seems Nirvana's the band hocking the most shit now, not Pearl Jam.

http://www.answers.com/topic/dennis-kucinich
His congressional voting record has also leaned toward a pro-life stance, although he noted that he has never supported a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion altogether. In 2003, however, he began describing himself as pro-choice and said he had shifted away from his earlier position on the issue.[10] Press releases have indicated that he is pro-choice but also wants to initiate a series of reforms, such as ending the "abstinence-only" policy of sex education and increasing the use of contraception in hopes of making abortion "less necessary" over time.


the flag burning thing i have no clue about, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion and personally i would rather someone vote for a ban on flag desecration than vote to reauthorize the patriot act like obama did.

why i won't vote for or support obama is not b/c he's the popular guy it's b/c

-he voted to reauthorize the patriot act

-voted against capping credit card interest rates at 30%
Obama, in one of his earliest Senate votes, departed with his own party and voted for class action “reform” legislation. The bill, as Ken Silverstein wrote for Harper’s, was “lobbied for aggressively by financial firms, which constitute Obama’s second biggest single bloc of donors.” An amendment to the legislation, which the senator opposed, would have capped credit card interest rates at 30%. Obama, unfortunately, didn’t see a need for any cap on such predatory lending.

-his support for an attack on iran if they built a nuke "all options are on the table" does that mean using nukes ourselves against them?

-has as top economic and trade advisors a guy high up in citigroup and another guy who helped craft and push NAFTA through advised Mexico on NAFTA dealings and argued for escalting the WTO just 1-2 years ago, a credit card lobbyist and big oil poponent
**note, here's what wikipedia has to say of obama's man from citigroup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rubin#Citigroup_and_post-political_career
He sparked controversy in 2001 when he contacted an acquaintance at the Treasury Department and asked if the department could convince bond-rating agencies not to downgrade the corporate debt of Enron, a debtor of Citigroup. Rubin wanted Enron creditors to loan money to the troubled company for a restructuring of its debt; a collapse of the energy giant might have serious consequences for financial markets and energy distribution.

also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup#Business_Issues
Citigroup was accused of helping Enron and other companies hide their losses by loaning money to those companies in a special way that would reduce liabilities visible on the balance sheet.

that link has other scandals involving citigroup while rubin was an exec, some violating SEC regulations
-thinks nuclear power is 'green' energy source
Barack Obama believes nuclear power is “green” and told the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, of which Barack is a member, that Congress should allow “nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration”. Employees of Exelon, which is the nation’s largest nuclear power plant operator, have donated over $159,000 to Obama’s presidential campaign as of March 31, 2007. That amount has likely increased since the first public tallying of campaign contributions two months ago.

-previously stated we needed to stay in iraq until the insurgency was defeated adn even then we keep a permanent presence there to let iran and syria know we are serious

-didn't really support any of the actual progressives in their campaigns (sorry, vg, but i don't see raising money 2 years earlier while you go out on a publicity tour is really supporting the actual person...if dick cheney won the democratic primary he would've gotten the money, too. if john lee malvo won the primary he'd get the money, too...instead he put any actual support behind hawks like joe lieberman

now, to some of you maybe kucinich saying he is against abortion personally but supports a person's right to choice is too big of an issue or the flag desecration act....but to me, just the handful of reasons i have of why i won't back obama faaaaaaaaaaaar outweigh those 2 things for me. if you all are fine w/ that then support away, it just seems to be contradictory, far more so than those 2 kucinich issues, compared w/ previous posts but everyone is entitled to change their minds.

i'm not trying to attack anyone or start a fight, but come on, picking the president is a pretty big thing and i take these issues i listed very seriously, they do not embody what i believe, in fact they are pretty much in direct contradiction w/ my view. maybe 'the world' isn't ready for my view...oh well, i'm not gonna wait around for it to be, i'll stand behind what i believe and not compromise any more on certain things, especially these...it always seems we have to compromise to suit the status quo, i say, for me, no more, i'm stepping out of your line

if you don't think those issues are important fine, but don't act like they are misleading if you won't back up how or why they are

this, to me, looks far better to my world view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich#2008_Presidential_campaign

to me, i look at obama's list above and think 'same old shit'

gue_barium

Nice post Kabong.

Now, VG...comvince me your candidate is the one I should be voting for.

gue_barium

my2hands wrote:

not me, i am righting in Edward Vedder. i bet we can get him about 1,000 votes if we tried

you're doing a lot of "righting" lately. Every time you post, all that "righting" in your signature makes me have to scroll over to see the whole page.

fix that, dammit.

Deni

El_Kabong wrote:

and that is what we are saying...ppl say they support him but don't know why?

Well really, that was a joke. Here are the reasons I support him.

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

And that's not counting the fact that I just like him. I JUST LIKE HIM. When it boils right down to it I'm going to go with my gut and pick the person who I think is the nicest person. I'd like a nice person in the office next term, please! Not a self serving ego maniac.

gue_barium

Deni wrote:

Well really, that was a joke. Here are the reasons I support him.

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

And that's not counting the fact that I just like him. I JUST LIKE HIM. When it boils right down to it I'm going to go with my gut and pick the person who I think is the nicest person. I'd like a nice person in the office next term, please! Not a self serving ego maniac.

Barack has written two books about himself.