Question for Obama supports.....

ledvedderman wrote:

No. JFK turned out to be one hell of a leader and his experience is comparable to that of Barack Obama.



I guess that's just a matter of opinion. I have no problem with Joe Biden. I really wish it would have been Mark Warner or Tim Kaine, but it is what it is. I don't think that takes away from his "change".

I think it did take away from his change message for his first big decision ending up being "More of the same".

Thecure wrote:

if i remember correctly, he was never found guilty of anything. (maybe wrong) also it did happen along time ago. i am sure that you can dig up alot on anyone who has been in the government as long as McCain has.

all 5 were reprimanded by the ethics committee ... McCain admits that his judgement was flawwed on the Keating 5 issue.

It was during the savings and loan collapse ... something that could be seen as important during the current climate of the housing market.

But, you don't see the Obama campaign carting this issue out.

jimed14 wrote:

all 5 were reprimanded by the ethics committee ... McCain admits that his judgement was flawwed on the Keating 5 issue.

It was during the savings and loan collapse ... something that could be seen as important during the current climate of the housing market.

But, you don't see the Obama campaign carting this issue out.

teh reason for that is that he fears the Renzo (sp?) problem. its not liek he would't if he did not fear that issue.

So you are now responding to the response...

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=302697

Good reading.

digster wrote:

So you are now responding to the response...

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=302697

Good reading.

WOW I didnt even see your thread. I saw the McCain one and thought I would make this one.

Weird!

RainDog wrote:

And I got called a conspiracy theorist yesterday for thinking people were out in droves across the internet attempting to drive down voter turn-out with innuendo and loaded questions.

ha ha....I saw that...

I think you're on to something....

4Powers20 wrote:

does his lack of having any real experience other than the term as senator (half of which was spent campaigning) worry you?

and also, if he is such an advocate of change, why did he choose a DC longtimer ,father of a credit card lobbyist, someone who got a military deferment four times for his VP?


(before you all flip your lid that I am a god fearing consevative , I am simply asking a question. I am waiting until after the debates to decide who to vote for but this is a very big concern of mine regarding the chosen one Obama)

i'll answer you...no he does not worry me at all...i think he has a good handle on what the problems that face average americans face...he has offered people new ideas to try and face them! it will not be more of the same. as for biden obama picked someone who has more foerign reations expierence then anyone on either ticket!

now does it bother you that mccain says he thinks the economy is going well? that its smart to keep the tax cuts that have gotten us in trouble in the first place? and said 0 about creating new jobs. as for runningmates palin has little expierence and thus they have to invent "attacks" on her! if she cant take politics why run? maybe mccain thinks all women are the same? i'm just asking also...frankly i think picking pallin was smart...u cant say a word about her without them screaming sexism and its working

MattyJoe wrote:

Wtf does that mean?

I think what he means, and I don't want to put words into his mouth, but I think he means that it has been shown, for the second time in thirty years, that a trickle-down "Reaganomics" economic policy simply does not work. In the 80's it ravaged the lower-income class, and now it's ravaging everyone. I mean, a higher deficit doesn't just happen by accident.

MattyJoe wrote:

Higher deficit has nothing to do with economics. Blame Congress for all that spending.

What do you mean the trickle-down policy doesn't work? It hasn't been done since then! Bush's tax cuts came before the economy went down. And how did Reagan's policy ravage the lower class?

What's funny is Obama pledges to crack down on oil companies to lower they're prices.. by RAISING taxes on them??? Because the reason companies raise their prices ISN'T because of higher costs, which would go even higher as a result of a tax increase, right? WRONG. I don't know where Obama learned economics but it certainly wasn't on this planet.

Bush passed the tax cuts without reducing spending, and remember the Republicans controlled Congress until early 07, just as the real pinch was beginning. Trickle-down policy does not work, and Bush's tax cuts came far before the economy went down; I don't think anyone's saying that a President's economic policy when enacted is going to upend things overnight.

How didn't Reagan manhandle the working class? Refused to sign a raise in the minimum wage, slashed taxes which led to reduced spending and programs for working class individuals who needed them, his Air Traffic Controller stunt in 81 led to the revitalization of union busting, the gulf between the rich and poor widened considerably under his presidency. That oft-heard statistic that the richest 1% own an exorbitant amount ofthe nation's wealth? That increased handsomely under Reagan. There's more, but those are some of the more heinous actions.