Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

How would you vote in the 2008 US Presidential Election?

  • Obama-Biden (Democrat)

    Votes: 67 59.3%
  • McCain-Palin (Republican)

    Votes: 18 15.9%
  • Barr-Root (Libertarian)

    Votes: 14 12.4%
  • Nader-Gonzales (Independent-Ecology Party / Peace and Freedom Party)

    Votes: 5 4.4%
  • McKinney-Clemente (Green)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Baldwin-Castle (Constitution)

    Votes: 7 6.2%
  • Gurney-? (Car & Driver)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Other...

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    113
  • Poll closed .
Well if any government told the people Abortion was legal or not, it certainly shouldn't be the federal government.

And the issue of abortion is not just a religious belief. It's a scientific fact that a new life-- a being of its own unique DNA-- is created at conception. The issue is where or when personhood under law is achieved. That's why issues like this are best dealt with as locally as possible.
 
It's up for debate but another thread perhaps?

Take something wholly religious, teaching of creationism in public schools. Don't you think someone like Huckabee would want to push for that in this country? Like I said the man seriously believes the Bible is an accurate description of what happened and I'm guessing subscribes to the whole 6000 year old earth thing as well. I would have a serious issue with the government, any government in the US, trying to push that through because that to me would be a violation of the Constitution since it's setting forth one religion and not encompassing all of them.

This is why I won't support a religious leader for a political position. It's not me attacking religion and you seem to be making it. I just think religion has zero place in US politics because as I have said you have the right to practice whatever you want here or choose not to practice anything, like myself.
 
Someone needs to tell Hilary to shut her racist mouth:

BBC News
_44450729_obama_ap_203b.jpg


US Democratic front-runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have traded accusations over a photo of Mr Obama circulating on the internet.

The picture, sent to the Drudge Report website, shows Mr Obama wearing traditional African dress during a visit to Kenya in 2006.

The Obama camp said it was circulated by Mrs Clinton's staff as a smear. Mrs Clinton's team denied the accusation.

The row comes as the rivals campaign for two crucial primaries next week.

Analysts say Mrs Clinton needs to win the contests, in Texas and Ohio, to remain in the race to choose the Democratic candidate for November's presidential election.

'Fear-mongering'

The photograph shows Mr Obama - whose father came from Kenya - wearing a white turban and a white robe presented to him by elders in the north-east of the country.

According to the Drudge Report, which published the photograph on Monday, it was circulated by "Clinton staffers".

Some Clinton aides have tried in the past to suggest to Democrats that Barack Obama's background might be off-putting to mainstream voters.

A campaign volunteer was sacked last year after circulating an email suggesting, falsely, that Mr Obama was a Muslim.

But the BBC Justin Webb in Ohio says the photograph - coming at this pivotal moment in the campaign - is being seen by the Obama team as particularly offensive.

His campaign manager, David Plouffe, accused Mrs Clinton's aides of "the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election".

The accusation was dismissed by Mrs Clinton's campaign manager Maggie Williams.

"If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed," she said.

"Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely."

Mrs Williams did not address the question of whether staffers circulated the photo.

This is disgraceful. What is wrong with wearing a traditional clothing? I understand that Clinton is losing ground but this is just a low blow and I've lost a lot of respect for her after pulling crap like this. I see this no different then someone of Scottish decent, like myself, wearing a kilt.
 
I hate Clinton, and I sort of like Matt Drudge, BUT, there’s no evidence that it was actually provided by a staffer, plus a staffer doing it does not necessarily mean that Clinton approved or knew about it.
 
I don't know this seems shady. Of course Clinton will deny she had anything to do with it but for some reason I can see her involved. I don't know how much I really like Obama but I would rather have him in office over Clinton.

It's sad that I have to pick the lesser of the evils.
 
Well, you've been listening to her speeches as of late, no? Shes become very desperate, losing the last 13 states to Obama. Simply put: She loses Texas or Ohio, and you can put a stamp on it. Shes scared, she knows shes pretty much lost the nomination (which I may add is an instant-ticket to the White House), and shes going to have to play dirty to get her way in there.

Word is that Michigan could play a pivotal role in the nomination process if the rumors of caucuses are true, but I have no idea if its going to happen or not.

Either way, bring it down to Obama vs McCain, and its pretty much Obama's race to lose.
 
Barack Hussein Obama, eh? Boy, Willie went a little wild on this one. I just find it hard to believe that McCain didn't know who Bill Cunningham was, or his highly opinionated style. He obviously didn't or he wouldn't have let Willie speak ahead of him in Cinci. I have a feeling the majority of the public--since they're from Cinci and everyone in the area knows Willie--understood his remarks differently than McCain and his people.

Oh, but don't mind him calling Barack Hussein Obama a hack...

This is from the Business Courier of Cincinnati.

And here is FOX's version.
 
Meh, its going to happen either way. Oddly enough, you can't cut taxes and then proceed to spend more money, it just won't work!
 
Meh, its going to happen either way. Oddly enough, you can't cut taxes and then proceed to spend more money, it just won't work!
Yeah, but the problem isn't in how much money is coming in but how much money is going out. You can properly spend money and not have to raise taxes.

Of course, asking the government to spend less money is like asking a person not to breathe.
 
I would have no issue with paying higher taxes if I saw a benefit to it. If the US had top notch health care, education, transportation system, etc. then being charge additional taxes wouldn't bother me. Although if the government was smarter in their spending like FK said I'm sure a lot more would be able to get done with the amount being taken right now from the public.
 
You can properly spend money and not have to raise taxes.

Last time we cut taxes federal tax revenue went UP.

If the US had top notch health care, education, transportation system, etc. then being charge additional taxes wouldn't bother me. Although if the government was smarter in their spending like FK said I'm sure a lot more would be able to get done with the amount being taken right now from the public.

And it's no coincidence that the government is not smart about its spending. No government is smart about its spending, it just doesn't work like that.
 
And if a government is smart about spending on health care and the like, it amounts to nothing more than efficient robbery.
 
Ok I have literally no knowledge on politics but here goes.

I watched quite a bit of each runner's campaign speeches, To me Barack Obama seems the man. Hillary accused him of stealing his ideas but since when has a collection of brilliant things been a bad thing? it's like saying we've got keira knightly Abi titmus and 5 random playboy bunnies all in that hot tub over there. Hillary's replay would be along the lines of ' Those girls are from playboy you didnt make them yourself". Ok that view is very strange and most probably about to be killed by Famine, TM, Danachorism or Daan but hey.

Dont get me wrong Hillary would do a good job aswell, but I'm not as sure about McCain.
 
What exactly is brilliant that Barack is saying?
  1. Announce intent to do everything
  2. Get elected president
  3. ???
  4. Fix the world

At least that is what I get from he and Hillary both.
 
This is why I don’t watch debates. It’s a collection of meaningless aphorisms and vitriolic remarks. You get absolutely nothing useful from them.
 
This is why I don’t watch debates. It’s a collection of meaningless aphorisms and vitriolic remarks. You get absolutely nothing useful from them.
Yeah, ideas are great and all, but I would really like to hear a plan.

I know, have a debate with a theme so that instead of two minutes to answer a question with your idea or desire, but instead you and your opponent spend the next two hours explaining how you would deal with a current issue by first presenting your plans in an opening statement and then debating what would actually work and what flaws you believe your opponent's plan has.

Of course, neither party would agree to support such a debate.
 
I heard a sound bite this morning from Obama saying that Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq until Bush had us go in.

How would Obama know this to be fact?
 
Um, I think its a pretty well known fact if you look into things. If anything, Al-Qaeda wanted nothing to do with Iraq up until we created a power vaccum in the area and left it wide open for them. Sadly, Bush and his cronies refute the fact that they screwed up, again and again and again.

Just remember: Iraq caused 9/11. Iraq has WMD. Iraq was lead by a tyrant. Iraq needs democracy. Iraq needs safety.

...America needs oil...
 
Uh, no there wasn't. Point is, Iraqi liberation is accomplished. Occupation = bad. Let's not get into it here. We've already had this discussion and I'm sure we all know where each of us stands.

None of us are going to change eachothers' minds anyway.
 
((This may be off topic))Is it me but during certain debates, certain candidates look like they are reading a piece of paper to answer a question? Are they given the questions ahead of time, so that they can prepare?
 
Bottom line - the US was justified in invading and there are sound moral reasons for doing so.

It was a bit of a joke, but yes, rational thought gives a mixed review to all of it.

And in the end?

I completely support Obama's critique of the war. Even the Israelis had it right; We should have been going after Iran, not Iraq. Hussien, a secular leader, was a boil on the back of Osama, and he was the last guy in the Mid-East that he'd have wanted to "work with."

And the only reason why we knew they had WMD? Because we gave them to them...

===

Either way, we're committed for the short-term. Even Obama knows we'd likely be there for another year or two into his term. Thing is, we need to look for a way out...
 
I heard a sound bite this morning from Obama saying that Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq until Bush had us go in.

How would Obama know this to be fact?
Well, putting it into context:

During the debates he and Hillary were both asked about dealing with terrorism in Iraq.

Obama said something along the lines of, "If Al-Qaeda were in Iraq I would do something, but as it is, no."

So, the next day at a rally McCain says, "Excuse me Senator, but Al-Qaeda is in Iraq, in fact they call themselves Al-Qaeda in Iraq." <snicker>

So Obama's statement was in response to that, basically realizing his screw up and backtracking because he basically said he would stay in Iraq, which he didn't mean. So, to translate what he was implying: He will withdraw troops from Iraq, despite Al-Qaeda now being there, because it is all Bush's fault. If new terrorist cells that threaten America pop up in Iraq then he will defend the US, but not when it is part of the aftermath of "Bush's War." You know, because those are less of a threat.

((This may be off topic))Is it me but during certain debates, certain candidates look like they are reading a piece of paper to answer a question? Are they given the questions ahead of time, so that they can prepare?
Depends on the debate. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. And sometimes they are allowed to have notes with them so they don't stumble over their talking points.

And the only reason why we knew they had WMD? Because we gave them to them...
So that makes it OK to commit genocide then without repercussions?

Either way, we're committed for the short-term. Even Obama knows we'd likely be there for another year or two into his term. Thing is, we need to look for a way out...
Wait, I thought his plan was:
Troops home by August, 2009
Universal Healthcare by 2010.

You mean he may have just been saying things that sounded good to get votes? But he's the only hope for change and the greatest politician since Kennedy. [/sarcasm]


And I saw this interesting op-ed piece today about how all the leading candidates promise energy independence but voted for (or abstained) a bill that forces more dependence on OPEC.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333574,00.html
 
So that makes it OK to commit genocide then without repercussions?

Of course not, but here is where the problem is:

Look at how many times we've changed or reasoning for being in Iraq. Until people realize that even our leaders can't make their minds as to why we're there, how the hell are we supposed to be able to complete the mission and go home?

Wait, I thought his plan was:
Troops home by August, 2009
Universal Healthcare by 2010.

You mean he may have just been saying things that sounded good to get votes? But he's the only hope for change and the greatest politician since Kennedy. [/sarcasm]

Everyone does it...

*sigh*

I like how McCain dances around the '100 years in Iraq' quote now. Something has to be done, and I don't see McCain as the viable option to do it.

What do I suggest?

- Push the Iraq government until the end of 2009
- Shift forces into Afghanistan and complete the mission (ie, wipe out the Taliban)
- Go home

It may be asking too much, who knows, but I'm sure we can do better than blowing over $600 Billion a year in a war without end.
 
Of course not, but here is where the problem is:

Look at how many times we've changed or reasoning for being in Iraq. Until people realize that even our leaders can't make their minds as to why we're there, how the hell are we supposed to be able to complete the mission and go home?
When did we change our reasoning? I have yet to hear anything official outside the 20+ reasons given by Congress in 2002.

Everyone does it...

*sigh*
I wasn't debating what Obama says, I am just pointing out that Obama has been full of nothing but ideas without plans from day one.

I like how McCain dances around the '100 years in Iraq' quote now. Something has to be done, and I don't see McCain as the viable option to do it.
Considering I don't see any of the front runners as a viable option for president, I agree.

As for the 100 years in Iraq quote, seeing as how we have been in Germany for over 60 years he may have a valid point.

What do I suggest?

- Push the Iraq government until the end of 2009
- Shift forces into Afghanistan and complete the mission (ie, wipe out the Taliban)
- Go home
You are making the same mistake Obama does. Making it sound way easier than it probably is.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the Iraqi government get their crap together so we can get out as much as anyone, but I think it isn't as easy as telling them to do it or else. That sounds more like political jargon said by politicians to get the anti-war vote. Why do you think Democratic voters are angry at Democrats for not getting us out of Iraq already? Because the politicians promised something that wasn't as easy as they said, and everyone of them knew it when they said it.

That's why I have issues with a lot of Obama's ideas. Sure it sounds like a great thing to his supporters, but none of them are feasible. Even though I disagree with him on many issues I would at least respect him if he wouldn't just say what but how. Hell, I'd respect any of them that said how.

It may be asking too much, who knows, but I'm sure we can do better than blowing over $600 Billion a year in a war without end.
Come on, we know they would just blow on something else.
 
I'd rather them blow the money on something in this country no matter how dumb it maybe then a country half way around the globe.
 
What do I suggest?

- Push the Iraq government until the end of 2009
- Shift forces into Afghanistan and complete the mission (ie, wipe out the Taliban)
- Go home

It may be asking too much, who knows, but I'm sure we can do better than blowing over $600 Billion a year in a war without end.

The Taliban will never be wiped out. Well, they could be, but there will always be opposition regimes antagonizing US-installed governments. You're right, though. I'm just worried about how countries that depend on the US are going to fare when the US can't support them anymore.

Do we break the crumbling chains now, or do we spend more and more money and wait until they rot away?
 
Early indications seem to be suggesting that Clinton has taken Texas and Ohio...

I noticed on the news last night that one of Obama's campaign teams in Ohio had banners that called him O'Bama... I thought it was a funny typo, but maybe there is more to it than that? Allegedly, O(')bama does indeed have Irish ancestry! (and who would have guessed that famine was to blame?!)

Ancestry.com, a genealogy Web site, says it has traced Obama’s complicated family tree to 19-year-old Falmouth Kearney, who landed in New York from Ireland in 1850, escaping famine in Ireland.
 

Latest Posts

Back