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 .
Where are the 67 users who voted for Obama in the thread poll? How can you defend this? Do you even get it? Are you brain dead?

Brain dead? Hmmm, that's not playing very nice. Maybe that's the reason why you conservatives keep getting screwed, you're not treating people the way you think you should be treated.

There isn't much to defend here from the Conservative Hate Machine, you guys are looking for little bones to pick. Truthfully, I think Republicans have more to worry about other than opposing the Democrats right now. Get your party figured out, maybe you guys can have a chance in 2010, or better yet, 2012.

Until then, let me know when you, the conservative movement, and your party "gets it."

EDIT:

By no means does this condone everything the Democrats are doing either. Until everyone calms down about things, instead of running around screaming "the sky is falling!" and actually seeks a reasonable solution to our unfolding problems, we're doomed to continue down a misguided path of destruction. Of course, this would also require people with reasonable ideas to you know, get them out there. So far, that isn't happening.
 
Last edited:
See, but the solution is in my sig. No snake oil required. Republicans will win when they get new leadership that condemns the Bush years and cleans out all the bad apples.

Until then, I'm pulling for Otto Guevara and the ML party in Costa Rica.
 
Republicans will win when they get new leadership that condemns the Bush years and cleans out all the bad apples.

I couldn't agree more. However, I fear that what you and I are thinking of is going to require a major split in the party. Perhaps it will be for the better...
 
I don't have problems voting republican if they can get the bible humpers out of the running. That was the biggest turn off of McCain, having cancer wears you out, not sure he is really up for the challenge. And god knows what kind of crap we would be in with bible spice as a president. And before I get crap saying I'm with Obama, I don't support his policy's. I didn't even vote, I didn't turn 18 until a couple weeks later.
 
"Bible humpers"?

Just because you have a faith doesn't mean you're crazy. If you do feel that way, you should leave the word "god" out of your statements.

Interesting. Very interesting. I occasionally wonder if you're joking. This doesn't help.

No jokes this time. The current Republican leadership does not represent me.
 
"Bible humpers"?

Just because you have a faith doesn't mean you're crazy. If you do feel that way, you should leave the word "god" out of your statements.

Its a phrase... I say god all the time but more for a symbolic reasoning not a literal one.


And I never said if you have faith your crazy, but when your going to make decisions for a country of 300 million people based on religious believes I think you are crazy for thinking its reasonable.
 
I don't know of any person in the political area who would govern based on religion and would negatively impact the American people.
 
No jokes this time. The current Republican leadership does not represent me.

And the state-humping Bush leadership did? If that's the case, it's hard to have consistency if you're hating on Obama. Unless you're just angry that some other party took control of power.
 
I don't know of any person in the political area who would govern based on religion and would negatively impact the American people.

I don't think it's possible to govern based upon religion and NOT negatively impact the American people.

I assume you have a torch ready to take to your copy of the Constitution?
 
I don't think it's possible to govern based upon religion and NOT negatively impact the American people.

I assume you have a torch ready to take to your copy of the Constitution?

Actually, it is possible. Christianity does not endorse violence, and because a state is the institutionalization of violence, the Christian government would in itself be an incompatibility. The problem with Christianity is that it is so easily corrupted. That's why there has been only one Christ.

Taoism also provides for anarchy; ideally an anarcho-capitalist society. Christianity provides for a kingdom, albeit a completely free (and consequently benevolent granted the charity of neighbors) one. It is a strange one, though. I suppose the King would be goodness (God). That makes sense to me anyway.
 
Last edited:
when your going to make decisions for a country of 300 million people based on religious believes I think you are crazy for thinking its reasonable.
That's a bigoted view. You're insisting that everyone who holds religious beliefs is irrational, and that denies thousands of years of history that is premised on the universe having rational, systematic design, and that the human being is a creation and has intrinsic value. If not for the influence of Judeo-Christianity over the past 2000 years, human rights worldwide may well be on the order of the Taliban and sharia law.

Anyway, the Obama administration just dumped one trillion dollars into our economy, by essentially... printing it. Your dollar just dropped in value at least 90 cents, and it may get much worse. Notice that gold is going up rapidly in value. Obama, in his irrational rush to spend his way into some kind of utopia, is going to cause the collapse of this country on the order of the fall of the Wiemar Republic in Germany. In case this is lost on you, actions taken by the government similar to this caused hyper-inflation, to the point that burning money was cheaper than coal.

Well, this is going to happen unless someone slaps some sense into the misguided leadership in Washington anyhow. If not, I'd suggest buying some goods which will last and get you through the hard times, and learn some skills which will be useful in any environment.
 
Last edited:
Actually, it is possible. Christianity does not endorse violence, and because a state is the institutionalization of violence, the Christian government would in itself be an incompatibility. The problem with Christianity is that it is so easily corrupted. That's why there has been only one Christ.

Taoism also provides for anarchy; ideally an anarcho-capitalist society. Christianity provides for a kingdom, albeit a completely free (and consequently benevolent granted the charity of neighbors) one. It is a strange one, though. I suppose the King would be goodness (God). That makes sense to me anyway.

I completely agree with this statement. One thing, though; I don't think that's quite what Duke meant by "taking a torch to the Constitution".
 
Faith is inherently irrational. Faith is the intentional rejection of rationality. It's not bigotry, it's fact.

Yeah but the problem is that people take religion as meaning absolute faith in salvation/whatever for any kind of behavior. Religion is primarily about morality. There's nothing wrong with morality.
 
Faith is inherently irrational. Faith is the intentional rejection of rationality. It's not bigotry, it's fact.
It is not a fact. If it was, then philosophy and science would not have thrived in religious frames of reference. There are entire fields where the three coexist, and have for thousands of years, without you there to browbeat them. ;)

Where did you learn that religion was inherently irrational?
 
Last edited:
No jokes this time. The current Republican leadership does not represent me.

Interesting that we have the same problem, but for completely different reasons. There was a point in time that Mike Steele would have been a good way to help change the party, but that's gone down the toilet.

I guess I'll just have to hope that we Republicans can scrape together well enough to make a halfway decent run for the governor's office here in Michigan. I hear Hoekstra wants to take a crack at it in 2010, and even though he can be the kind of Republican that I hate at times, overall, I like and respect the guy.
 
Yeah but the problem is that people take religion as meaning absolute faith in salvation/whatever for any kind of behavior. Religion is primarily about morality. There's nothing wrong with morality.

There is if it isn't based on rationality. Faith-based morality often gets it wrong.

It is not a fact. If it was, then philosophy and science would not have thrived in religious frames of reference. There are entire fields where the three coexist, and have for thousands of years, without you there to browbeat them. ;)

Where did you learn that religion was inherently irrational?

A key ingredient in religion is faith. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if you don't have faith, you're not religious. There are two approaches to the discovery of truth. One is rational, the other is spiritual. The rational approach deals in observation, repeatability, testing, and empirical sampling of truth. Spirituality deals with introspection - it attempts to extract truth from emotion. Rationality never actually has to be tied directly to truth. In matters where we use rationality, we accept that truth is not known, but rather, approximated. Spirituality requires faith to tie it to truth, because it isn't an approximation of truth. Faith is the leap that ties your discoveries from your analysis of your emotions to truth. Without faith, spiritual introspection is useless for discovering anything but your own mental state.

Faith is by definition a belief in something irrational. Since faith is required for religion, and faith is inherently irrational, religion is inherently irrational.
 
you guys are looking for little bones to pick.
I was unaware that $700+ billion was little. I wasn't aware that a discriminatory tax policy was little. Making fun of him for doing little "stay in touch with America" gimmicks, like filling out an NCAA bracket is little.

Sure, picking at everything will mean little stuff too but his biggest problems are huge.

Truthfully, I think Republicans have more to worry about other than opposing the Democrats right now. Get your party figured out, maybe you guys can have a chance in 2010, or better yet, 2012.
Only someone who takes politics seriously can say this and mean it. Here si what you basically said: Don't worry about one=sided policies that are creating a ton of debt until you can win an election. That should be your priority.

I'll be the first to say that Republicans are in trouble and don't focus where they should, but saying that their strategy should involve planning to win their next elections is only something someone who is losing touch with true importance could say.

The fact is: Whoever actually has ideas to really fix this country will be very unpopular and if they worry about winning their next election then they will fail at their goals.

Worrying about the next election is how the Clintons ran things.

Until then, let me know when you, the conservative movement, and your party "gets it."
I guess I'll just have to hope that we Republicans
Irony. Honestly, as a non-Republican I personally think you have been too supportive of President Obama's ideas for you to honestly still relate to the Republican party.

Interesting. Very interesting. I occasionally wonder if you're joking. This doesn't help.
I wonder if you are joking. Bush won two terms. Even if you want to discuss how close they were, it still means that a very large number of people agreed with him...twice. You act like because you and a number of former Republicans fell out of favor with Bush that it means everyone did.
 
Interesting that we have the same problem, but for completely different reasons. There was a point in time that Mike Steele would have been a good way to help change the party, but that's gone down the toilet.

My support for Steele ended here (3:41):

 
Obama appeared on Jay Leno the other night, and described being President as "like being on American Idol, except everyone is Simon Cowell" - that faint pop you heard last night was Simon Cowell's ego exploding.

In other (slightly more important) news, Barack Obama has made an unprecedented statement addressed to the leaders of Iran (full transcript here), promising "engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect", which has been met with guarded optimism in Iran...
 
Last edited:
As for T Mars' post above, I wonder how much longer it will be until Obama sponsors a "Take a terrorist to lunch" initiative...
Well, if you can think of a better way to deal with Iran, I'd like to hear it. Whatever your views on the war in Iraq, you cannot even begin to hope of using a similar approach toward Iran - whichever way you slice it, Iran poses a completely different type of problem, one that requires diplomacy on many fronts and on many levels. This, IMO, is a good start.

As for the stuff about evolution, I will post a reply to that later in the C v E thread...
 
I was unaware that $700+ billion was little. I wasn't aware that a discriminatory tax policy was little. Making fun of him for doing little "stay in touch with America" gimmicks, like filling out an NCAA bracket is little.

Sure, picking at everything will mean little stuff too but his biggest problems are huge.

I have no problems with the "big" issues, but going on about DirectTV on Air Force One and such never accomplishes much. I understand the news organizations want to make a big deal out of it because they have 24 Hours of air-time to fill, but that doesn't make it necessary to be a part of the political discourse.

I'll be the first to say that Republicans are in trouble and don't focus where they should, but saying that their strategy should involve planning to win their next elections is only something someone who is losing touch with true importance could say.

The fact is: Whoever actually has ideas to really fix this country will be very unpopular and if they worry about winning their next election then they will fail at their goals.

This is the problem, the Republican party doesn't have any goals. Every single one of them is screaming as loud as they can trying to get their point through where instead it makes it out to seem that they have no point at all. There are plenty of Republicans in the party that I agree with, that I'd like to see their ideas acted upon... But until we get rid of the Rush Limbaugh pit boss, get rid of Mike Steele and his idiotic "Hip-Hopification" of the GOP, and actually take the problems facing the country seriously and address it with realistic answers other than "MOAR TAX CUTZ PLZ, KTHNXBYE" nothing will actually get solved.

I'd like to see the Republican party stick around, but until they can hone their message and stay on task, they're not going anywhere. Of course, that would be my own political analysis of the party.

Irony. Honestly, as a non-Republican I personally think you have been too supportive of President Obama's ideas for you to honestly still relate to the Republican party.

Point taken, and trust me, I've been thinking a lot about changing fully to an "Independent" status. However, I do not think that my support of Obama and some of his policies should require me to leave the Republican party. The problem right now is that we're not having an adequate discussion from within the party on what is the right thing to do, other than simply oppose the Democrats on everything they want to do. As a Republican who supports Obama, I'd view my position as saying "I like the idea, but we need to do it a little more differently" and vice versa. But, of course, since we have to politicize everything this day and avoid realistic solutions for our problems... That can't happen.

You act like because you and a number of former Republicans fell out of favor with Bush that it means everyone did.

There is a significant portion of the Republican party that fell out, or was pushed out, based on Bush policy and the ideology that formed out of it toward the end of his administration. What it comes down to is that moderate and liberal Republicans are not allowed a voice any longer, and if they do act on their political beliefs, they are chastised by the current leadership as traitors, for giving up on their morals, and ultimately giving up on America. That is massively inappropriate, and consequently, it will serve as the end of the party if we don't come together to fix this problem.

Republicans had touted their "big tent" nature for decades, attempting to appeal to a massive number of voters who could generally agree on some basic ideals, but it has all been tossed out in favor of pushing a very narrow agenda that can only motivate a shrinking number of people. It is not a sustainable way of operating a party.

=-=-=-=-=

Hmmm. A whole bunch not about Obama, what a surprise. Anyway:

RE: Obama and his Iranian Message

Its a good move on his behalf, I believe, to begin to possibly engage the Iranians directly. It appears as though Iran has accepted the message in a pretty decent way as well, which has me thinking positively of it, but much of this will hinge on their elections that take place in June. Still, I believe that if we can work with the Iranians in the Middle-East, we may be able to address far more security concerns within the region than ever before, so this is a wonderful step forward.

...How about Cuba next time?
 
Tenacious D: I moved your post to the Creation vs. Evolution thread.
 
My support for Steele ended here (3:41):



Glen Beck should be going after people who vote for the spending, not the earmarks.

Earmarks have been totally twisted by politicians over the last 4 years, and the media bit on it hard.
 
Back