This election sucks for me.

fuck

unsung wrote:

It means he is the most liberal Senator, look it up.

...
yeah, how does that even make sense though? his policies are certainly not 'too left' when put in comparison with the other "liberal" senators...

unsung

brandon10 wrote:

Pure racism. It's so obvious.

We get it. Anytime anyone disagrees with a person of color it is racism in your mind. Save it, it is weak.

unsung

_outlaw wrote:

...
yeah, how does that even make sense though? his policies are certainly not 'too left' when put in comparison with the other "liberal" senators...

just a quick google

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/31/625886.aspx

BamaPJFan

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

What stances of Jim Webb's and even Edwards or Clinton do you prefer that you also don't see in Obama? ...other than healthcare, of course as you mentioned....which ironically enough, Obama is to the right of on that particular issue.

Obama, without argument, is currently the most liberal senator in the country. I'm afraid that if elected (excuse me, when elected) he will be too much of a liberal activist president. I also mentioned that I'm for the most part a moderate democrat. I prefer someone who will be a tough, level-headed commander-in-chief (I'm not comfortable in knowing that Obama will be in charge of our military). I feel like Clinton would have made an excellent commander-in-chief (and to a lesser extent John Edwards), while at the same time she would have implemented very positive domestic policy back home.

El_Kabong

double post

El_Kabong

BamaPJFan wrote:

Obama, without argument, is currently the most liberal senator in the country. I'm afraid that if elected (excuse me, when elected) he will be too much of a liberal activist president. I also mentioned that I'm for the most part a moderate democrat. I prefer someone who will be a tough, level-headed commander-in-chief (I'm not comfortable in knowing that Obama will be in charge of our military). I feel like Clinton would have made an excellent commander-in-chief (and to a lesser extent John Edwards), while at the same time she would have implemented very positive domestic policy back home.

yes, but she keeps asking you what makes him the most liberal senator, what actions were these that put him in that category?? or is it just b/c you said so?

or did you mean he votes liberally being that he's missed nearly 1/2 of the senate votes since he's been elected?

El_Kabong

unsung wrote:

just a quick google

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/31/625886.aspx

he also missed 1/3 of the votes used to compare the 'most liberal senator' and nearly 1/2 of the total votes in the senate

BamaPJFan

El_Kabong wrote:

yes, but she keeps asking you what makes him the most liberal senator, what actions were these that put him in that category?? or is it just b/c you said so?

or did you mean he votes liberally being that he's missed nearly 1/2 of the senate votes since he's been elected?

You're trying to bait me evidently into something, but I'm not quite sure. Bottomline, like I said in my post above, he's too much of a liberal activist for my taste and his voting record supports that. I'm a moderate, southern democrat and I do not support Obama.

I'm sure those of you who love Obama have wonderful reasons for doing so.... more power to you.

El_Kabong

BamaPJFan wrote:

You're trying to bait me evidently into something, but I'm not quite sure. Bottomline, like I said in my post above, he's too much of a liberal activist for my taste and his voting record supports that. I'm a moderate, southern democrat and I do not support Obama.

I'm sure those of you who love Obama have wonderful reasons for doing so.... more power to you.

i'm not baiting you into anything other than backing up your words. why so reluctant? you keep saying he's too much of a liberal activist and ppl keep asking what he's done to make him that? his voting record supports that?? which votes?

he always voted to reauthorize the patriot act
he voted to confirm condi rice
or any of the stuff mentioned here
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5409414&postcount=21
?

that doesn't look very liberal to me

LONGRD

unsung wrote:

That is a little hard to read. What do you mean by nuclear facilities? Missiles? Power plants? Please explain.

sorry wasn't clear enough...but he wants to work on reducing nuclear missiles and weapons for a Nuclear Free World...

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#nuclear wrote:

Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.

Its Evolution Baby

Until I got to this board all I ever heard was how liberal Obama is.

Yet the few people on here are trying to lead this Obama=McCain brigrade.

I'm not buying it. He doesn't support Bush's patriot act. He has worked hard to reform it but he was defeated. Still some of his changes did make it onto the new bill so he voted for it as a sign of solidarity.

He has always been against the Iraq war but you have to vote to fund it or the Soldiers won't have ammo or food. I don't think Bush would send them home just because the Senate stopped funding. He'd find a way to keep them there.

Not every American is sure they want Universal Health Care the the tax increased that would go with it. He pledges that every child will have universal coverage and to me that is a start. I like my health care plan through my job and would not want it to change to the Canadian system where it takes a month to get an appointment.

He voted to confirm Condi Rice because she was qualified for the position. It is not Senate's job to agree with the Presidents policies or cabinet members. They just need to be qualified to do whats required with the position and she clearly is qualified to do that.

He does not support war with Iran. He want to have diplomatic meetings. No other candidate has stated they would do this. All he said is that war will not be taken off of the table. WHAT A HAWK!!!

What no one seems to understand around here is that a President must work with his congress to make changes because of America's Check and Balances system. Even an extreme liberal like Nader would have to adopt some centrist polices or he would watch everyone of his bills fail to pass through congress.

Pacomc79

There isn't anyone really worth voting for in the presidential election. Write in someone you like, or just write in no thanks, like I will.

It's not the end of the world, of course, the country survived 8 years of Bush after all... but I don't know anyone in the running currently that I think much of. Local and state elections matter more to most peoples lives anyway or the should.

El_Kabong

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Until I got to this board all I ever heard was how liberal Obama is.

Yet the few people on here are trying to lead this Obama=McCain brigrade.

I'm not buying it. He doesn't support Bush's patriot act. He has worked hard to reform it but he was defeated. Still some of his changes did make it onto the new bill so he voted for it as a sign of solidarity.

soldiarity of what??

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

He has always been against the Iraq war but you have to vote to fund it or the Soldiers won't have ammo or food. I don't think Bush would send them home just because the Senate stopped funding. He'd find a way to keep them there.

they can vote to give the troops what they need while not voting to keep the war going for another year

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Not every American is sure they want Universal Health Care the the tax increased that would go with it. He pledges that every child will have universal coverage and to me that is a start. I like my health care plan through my job and would not want it to change to the Canadian system where it takes a month to get an appointment.

most americans DO want universal health care. and obama's won't give kids universal health care coverage, just thet opportunity to have it...their parents still need to purchase it

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

He voted to confirm Condi Rice because she was qualified for the position. It is not Senate's job to agree with the Presidents policies or cabinet members. They just need to be qualified to do whats required with the position and she clearly is qualified to do that.

how is she 'clearly qualified'???? let's see, she was an oil exec who has a freighter named after her and her office just 'forgot' that the cia kept sending memos and calling them saying they disagreed w/ statements this administration was making , like the yellow cake claim....sorry, but if you can't remember the head of the cia telling you these things i don't think you deserve a promotion to sec of state

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

What no one seems to understand around here is that a President must work with his congress to make changes because of America's Check and Balances system. Even an extreme liberal like Nader would have to adopt some centrist polices or he would watch everyone of his bills fail to pass through congress.

but if nader was elected it would be b/c it's what the ppl want, so how will congress explain sticking up for corporate interests instead of theirs?

when's the last time congress actually acted as a check and balance??? seems like all they do is say one thing, get elected then act as a rubber stamp.

they were elected to end the war...they tried ONCE and gave in afterwards

they complained of FISA during elections, then they get elected and let teh law be changed so what the administration is doing isn't illegal anymore....

Its Evolution Baby

El_Kabong wrote:

soldiarity of what??

Since they adopted some of his changes he voted for the bill. More like striking a deal if that makes you feel better.

El_Kabong wrote:

they can vote to give the troops what they need while not voting to keep the war going for another year

As far as I know they just voted to keep funding the war. How is that different from what I said.

El_Kabong wrote:

most americans DO want universal health care. and obama's won't give kids universal health care coverage, just thet opportunity to have it...their parents still need to purchase it

How do you know what most American's want? Its 50-50 at best with the health care issue. Health care should be available to anyone who can't get it thru their jobs or school. If we had nationwide health care not only would taxes go up but my coverage would be worse. Why would I want that?

El_Kabong wrote:

how is she 'clearly qualified'???? let's see, she was an oil exec who has a freighter named after her and her office just 'forgot' that the cia kept sending memos and calling them saying they disagreed w/ statements this administration was making , like the yellow cake claim....sorry, but if you can't remember the head of the cia telling you these things i don't think you deserve a promotion to sec of state

A simple wiki search of Condi's career could help you here. Not a fan of her or her policies but she was a top educator at Stanford for 20 years. She was clearly in line for a cabinet position when Bush was "elected" president.

El_Kabong wrote:

but if nader was elected it would be b/c it's what the ppl want, so how will congress explain sticking up for corporate interests instead of theirs?

They wouldn't explain it because its congress and they have behaved this way for hundreds of years.

El_Kabong wrote:

when's the last time congress actually acted as a check and balance??? seems like all they do is say one thing, get elected then act as a rubber stamp.

they were elected to end the war...they tried ONCE and gave in afterwards

they complained of FISA during elections, then they get elected and let teh law be changed so what the administration is doing isn't illegal anymore....

Its not like they are voting for all of Bush's policies in. I think they have both not accomplished anything because anything Bush wants they don't pass and anything they pass (like the children's health care for example) Bush vetoes. That's what happens when Congress and the President don't like each other. Think back to Clinton butting heads with Republicans in congress for 6 years. It got so bad they tried to remove him from office for receiving a BJ.

El_Kabong

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Since they adopted some of his changes he voted for the bill. More like striking a deal if that makes you feel better.

what changes were made? it's still voting for shit

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

As far as I know they just voted to keep funding the war. How is that different from what I said.

b/c they can put up to vote for specific things, they aren't just confined to voting to fund the war or not...they can pass money for what the troops need...shit, even when they vote to fund the war the troops still don't get what they need!

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

How do you know what most American's want? Its 50-50 at best with the health care issue. Health care should be available to anyone who can't get it thru their jobs or school. If we had nationwide health care not only would taxes go up but my coverage would be worse. Why would I want that?

polls, for one thing. taxes wouldn't need to go up if we cut wasteful spending. naders plan calls for a 3.5% payroll tax, which is less than i pay now for my shitty health insurance thru my job. an educated and healthy public are in our nation's best interests, but not corporate interests

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

A simple wiki search of Condi's career could help you here. Not a fan of her or her policies but she was a top educator at Stanford for 20 years. She was clearly in line for a cabinet position when Bush was "elected" president.

and i think her and her office constantly 'forgetting' teh head of the cia telling them they are wrong in what they are saying is enough to say she should be out of that line

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

They wouldn't explain it because its congress and they have behaved this way for hundreds of years.

and we have no one to blame but ourselves for allowing our elected representatives to continually lie to us and work against our interests

kenny olav

it was better when our Presidents sounded like the Wizard of Oz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-5Bk1Hjstc&feature=related