NationStates Jolt Archive

A couple of things:
1: I am amazed that my post got sincerely Godwinned. When discussing a black democrat president no less.

2: Obama has more than charisma. He has the sense of someone who will keep working at something until it's fixed. He has the sense of someone who won't give up. He has the sense of someone who will get up every day, and spend every day trying to make this nation better. Perhaps a voting record that can be slandered in commercials is more important than that, but I don't think so. Obama has told us what is important to him. In the next two years, I have little doubt we will hear well articulated plans for many of the things he wants to accomplish. He stands for everything I stand for, and more than anyone I think is the best person for the job. The american public doesn't care about "young and inexperienced" especially when someone has "Vision" and "courage".

3: Voting for Hillary because you figure Bill will do most of the work has got to be one of the most sexist things I've ever heard.

Because, even when you do make a valid point, people will look at it with extreme skepticism, especially if it deals with something racial in nature.

You didn't have a valid point, anyway. Your claims against him are just as empty as how you attempt to paint him. Regardless of your comments, he is still a charismatic and inspiring speaker, much more so than any of the candidates currently in the running, and is in no way a "tub-thumping" demagogue. Also, he's made no attempt to capitalize on his own childhood. His famously frank autobiography, Dreams From My Father, was written years before he entered even state politics. There is no calculating political motive at work there.

You fail -- please do not try again.

I disagree, greatly. The speech I heard sounded alike to Gordon Brown's at the 2003 Labour Conference; inspiring, bombastic, but empty. I can appreciate why people fawn over him, but I've seen two Barack Obama's in British politics; Cameron and Blair, and frankly neither are politicians who inspire great admiration once they attain any sort of power.

I see the fluffle spam has ended. :(

I see the fluffle spam has ended. :(
Not yet, beyotch!:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

I disagree, greatly. The speech I heard sounded alike to Gordon Brown's at the 2003 Labour Conference; inspiring, bombastic, but empty. I can appreciate why people fawn over him, but I've seen two Barack Obama's in British politics; Cameron and Blair, and frankly neither are politicians who inspire great admiration once they attain any sort of power.

No offense, but British politics are so fucked up that I wouldn't even try to compare an American politician to a European counterpart. The roles and powers of our head of state are different from those that you have. Beyond which, JFK was charismatic and "bombastic" and he created the fucking Peach Corps. Maybe you're just judging Obama 'cuz you're a BNP fanatic type.

No offense to our Brits, I just dislike the populist parliamentary structure that most European nations use.

I disagree, greatly. The speech I heard sounded alike to Gordon Brown's at the 2003 Labour Conference; inspiring, bombastic, but empty. I can appreciate why people fawn over him, but I've seen two Barack Obama's in British politics; Cameron and Blair, and frankly neither are politicians who inspire great admiration once they attain any sort of power.

So being charismatic makes him a bad politician? At best, you are saying here that he's not necessarily that great, which really doesn't seem to justify the despise you have for him.

Not yet, beyotch!
*Flufficide*

Not the time or the place young one. Semper Fluf.

I disagree, greatly. The speech I heard sounded alike to Gordon Brown's at the 2003 Labour Conference; inspiring, bombastic, but empty. I can appreciate why people fawn over him, but I've seen two Barack Obama's in British politics; Cameron and Blair, and frankly neither are politicians who inspire great admiration once they attain any sort of power.

Barack = Blair how? *puzzled look*

No offense, but British politics are so fucked up that I wouldn't even try to compare an American politician to a European counterpart. The roles and powers of our head of state are different from those that you have. Beyond which, JFK was charismatic and "bombastic" and he created the fucking Peach Corps. Maybe you're just judging Obama 'cuz you're a BNP fanatic type.

No offense to our Brits, I just dislike the populist parliamentary structure that most European nations use.

It is awful, I'll give you that. At least the US president, I am told, selects such positions as sec. of state and the like from those best qualified, not simply who was elected.

As for Obama, I don't like him because for countless reasons. His ethnicity not being one of them, not that it'll make any difference.

A couple of things:
1: I am amazed that my post got sincerely Godwinned. When discussing a black democrat president no less.

2: Obama has more than charisma. He has the sense of someone who will keep working at something until it's fixed. He has the sense of someone who won't give up. He has the sense of someone who will get up every day, and spend every day trying to make this nation better. Perhaps a voting record that can be slandered in commercials is more important than that, but I don't think so. Obama has told us what is important to him. In the next two years, I have little doubt we will hear well articulated plans for many of the things he wants to accomplish. He stands for everything I stand for, and more than anyone I think is the best person for the job. The american public doesn't care about "young and inexperienced" especially when someone has "Vision" and "courage".

3: Voting for Hillary because you figure Bill will do most of the work has got to be one of the most sexist things I've ever heard.

1: All I meant by that post was that you can't base a person on how well s/he speaks!

2: Wow. You can "sense" someone's character based on how he talks? Mind "sensing" tomorrow's winning lottery numbers for me? I have college to pay for :( . But seriously, yes, what America needs is a man with true vision, passion and a drive (i.e. leadership), one of the few things Americans really respond to, right now. Thing is, can he deliver? He can speak well, but can he lead?

3: I agree

Not for me.

Barack = Blair how? *puzzled look*
Because he needs to insult Obama somehow, and this is the best way he can think of doing so without making himself look like even more foolish.

So being charismatic makes him a bad politician? At best, you are saying here that he's not necessarily that great, which really doesn't seem to justify the despise you have for him.

Firstly, I don't think he's charismatic, I think he appeals to the masses. There's a difference.

Secondly, thats the wrong inference to draw. I dispute the credentials of any politician who attempts to rise to power by claiming to be an injection of new blood

Because he needs to insult Obama somehow, and this is the best way he can think of doing so without making himself look like even more foolish.

No. Fuck off and think. Blair actually did much the same as what Obama may well do; usurp a more established candidate through mass appeal, and then win the election.

Firstly, I don't think he's charismatic, I think he appeals to the masses. There's a difference.
Again... what the hell is wrong with appealing to the masses? Isn't that the point of democracy? Doesn't that say something good about Obama as a candidate? Doesn't pining for an un-popular politician stink of elitism?

Secondly, thats the wrong inference to draw. I dispute the credentials of any politician who attempts to rise to power by claiming to be an injection of new blood
He doesn't claim to be an injection of new blood. He is an injection of new blood. The last thing we need is a political dynasty (Bush or Clinton) or another corrupt political insider -- we need a fresh face, who has proven himself to stand upon his principles even when they are not politically convenient (Iraq).

My own suspicion is that he's doing it as a lark. Think about it from his viewpoint - The only thing in his favor really is that the Media likes his body smell. That's quite a bit actually, since it served to get both John Kennedy and Jimmy Carter elected so there's no reason why it mightn't work for him as well. :D But that sort of "Vote for me because I'm a bishimen" support is fickle and can run out unexpectedly more often than it's sustained (Anyone who doubts this is welcome to looks at the examples of Gary Hart and all the other "prettyboys" who ended up on the dumpheap of history because the moment came when their backers changed their mind. (For that matter look at the way poor Jimmy Carter lost his reputation even before he went toe to toe with that powerful killer rabbit while armed with nothing more than a wooden oar! :P Took him 20 years as an unskilled carpenter before some people were willing to take him seriously again! ^o^).

Mr. Obama's not dumb and he knows this. But what does he lose by running anyway? Being President of the United States is a lot more fun than not being President of the United States and even if he loses he just goes back to be an Illinois Senator which is a pretty good job in and of itself. As long as no one takes a closer look at his support of Todd Stroger he should actually be OK. Whoops! Did I write that last part out loud? ^_~

the fact that someone would willingly put an (R) next to their name at this point is pretty damning of the content of their character all by itself

LOL!

QFT

doing anything in the Senate requires 60 votes

hey, remember when the republicans were threatening to do away with that whole filibuster thing? wouldn't they have needed a filibusterproof majority to do it?

There are times when I think you can responsibly vote person over party, but generally that's more in local races than federal ones.

and even there, it's probably just because the party structures aren't as developed at that level.

Hmm, I just saw this, strange coincidence.

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/obama-watch-launch.php

B. Hussein Obama is not the black populist candidate he pretends to be on TV and on the campaign trail. He is actually a white black-power extremist who wants to destroy the middle class and discards our antiquated white value system in favor of this "Black Value System".

:p

Again... what the hell is wrong with appealing to the masses? Isn't that the point of democracy? Doesn't that say something good about Obama as a candidate? Doesn't pining for an un-popular politician stink of elitism?

In short, because generally the masses are wrong. Once more, I point to Tony Blair. Great popular appeal, and has played to concerns of the masses, but has done so at the expense of national stability, wellbeing and security. Surely democracy should rule in the interests of the people, not what they're interested in?


He doesn't claim to be an injection of new blood. He is an injection of new blood. The last thing we need is a political dynasty (Bush or Clinton) or another corrupt political insider -- we need a fresh face, who has proven himself to stand upon his principles even when they are not politically convenient (Iraq).

Possibly, however, we cannot substantiate whether Obama is mendacious in this or not. Cynic that I am, I fail to believe that he is quite the new man he claims to be, given that he must have exploited the extant political system to arrive at the verge of candidacy.

Firstly, I don't think he's charismatic, I think he appeals to the masses. There's a difference.

Secondly, thats the wrong inference to draw. I dispute the credentials of any politician who attempts to rise to power by claiming to be an injection of new blood

You say he "appeals to the masses" as if you are implying he's hoodwinking us. Because otherwise, forcing politicians to appeal to the masses is the reason we invented democracy.

Obama never claims to be an injection of new blood. Everyone else keeps saying it, because it's true. He really doesn't talk about himself in that way much at all. Have you ever listened to his speeches?

You say he "appeals to the masses" as if you are implying he's hoodwinking us. Because otherwise, forcing politicians to appeal to the masses is the reason we invented democracy.

Obama never claims to be an injection of new blood. Everyone else keeps saying it, because it's true. He really doesn't talk about himself in that way much at all. Have you ever listened to his speeches?

It is. Rarely are electoral promises fully kept.

As for the speeches, I've already stated I've listened to one, and it wasn't my cup of tea. Personally, I think Thatcher and Hague speak better, but then again they don't have popular appeal do they?

It is. Rarely are electoral promises fully kept.

As for the speeches, I've already stated I've listened to one, and it wasn't my cup of tea. Personally, I think Thatcher and Hague speak better, but then again they don't have popular appeal do they?

1: So that makes him worse than any other candidate how? He certainly has a sense of someone who will at least work very hard to keep his promises. The Democrats seem to have that as a part of their new party charter, actually doing what you say your going to do, and so far it's working out pretty well.

Oh, and to the person who asked how I can "sense" a person's character? It's called a sense of empathy and intuition, based on my experience with human beings. You may in fact possess some degree of these amazing powers yourself. I know I'm not the only one with the ability to detect a decent human being.

2: So what your saying is that having popular appeal will make him a bad politician? That being the person the people want, in a democracy, is the wrong thing? Because if you are, maybe the whole parliamentary revolution Britain went through in the 1800s left you behind.

In short, because generally the masses are wrong.
Great -- now you're against democracy?

Once more, I point to Tony Blair. Great popular appeal, and has played to concerns of the masses, but has done so at the expense of national stability, wellbeing and security.
I'm reminded of a quote from Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." Case in point: Bush. He was popular enough with conservatives to get into office twice, but bad enough in the long run that two out of every three people disagree with his policies. He lost his precious legislative majority, and is soon to be out on his ass with a loathsome legacy to follow. Democracy may screw up every once in awhile, but it does course-correct.

Surely democracy should rule in the interests of the people, not what they're interested in?
Then what do you propose instead?

Possibly, however, we cannot substantiate whether Obama is mendacious in this or not. Cynic that I am, I fail to believe that he is quite the new man he claims to be, given that he must have exploited the extant political system to arrive at the verge of candidacy.
I'm sorry?

He arrived at the verge of candidacy on his own merits. He lived a good and decent early life, did charitable and community service work, climbed his way up the political ladder without relying on cronyism and corruption, and delivered a powerful and inspiring speech on the national stage. His fame and reputation have been earned, reluctant though you may be to believe it.

1: So that makes him worse than any other candidate how? He certainly has a sense of someone who will at least work very hard to keep his promises. The Democrats seem to have that as a part of their new party charter, actually doing what you say your going to do, and so far it's working out pretty well.

Oh, and to the person who asked how I can "sense" a person's character? It's called a sense of empathy and intuition, based on my experience with human beings. You may in fact possess some degree of these amazing powers yourself. I know I'm not the only one with the ability to detect a decent human being.

2: So what your saying is that having popular appeal will make him a bad politician? That being the person the people want, in a democracy, is the wrong thing? Because if you are, maybe the whole parliamentary revolution Britain went through in the 1800s left you behind.


No, I simply think democracy is amongst the worst forms of government in existence. The average joe cannot know the best course for his country to take, nor should he have to.

In any case, you are good at leaps of logic no? I do not suggest that being popular renders him a poor politician, however, I do think that the necessities of democracy divert attention from that which is necessary to that which is popular.

1: So that makes him worse than any other candidate how? He certainly has a sense of someone who will at least work very hard to keep his promises. The Democrats seem to have that as a part of their new party charter, actually doing what you say your going to do, and so far it's working out pretty well.

Obama seems to be the most honest of the politicians running at the moment. His messages of his plans for the future instead of complaining about the past are certainly a breath of fresh air. Especially when compared to Hillary's "If I were president" speeches. In his speech where he announced his intention to run he even addressed the fact that other politicians lied in their campaigns and so invited the people to get more involved so it "isn't all about me". Smooth of him. :)

Great -- now you're against democracy?

In the absence of anything better, no.


I'm reminded of a quote from Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." Case in point: Bush. He was popular enough with conservatives to get into office twice, but bad enough in the long run that two out of every three people disagree with his policies. He lost his precious legislative majority, and is soon to be out on his ass with a loathsome legacy to follow. Democracy may screw up every once in awhile, but it does course-correct.

However, he's still contrived to fuck the US up big time, just as Blair has done in the UK. Surely, if democracy is as effective as is inferred, the people would percieve such poor rulers prior to their being elected?


Then what do you propose instead?

See the above.


I'm sorry?

He arrived at the verge of candidacy on his own merits. He lived a good and decent early life, did charitable and community service work, climbed his way up the political ladder without relying on cronyism and corruption, and delivered a powerful and inspiring speech on the national stage. His fame and reputation have been earned, reluctant though you may be to believe it.

So, you tell me he has never played politics, ever, to elevate himself?

This man is not the second coming.

No, I simply think democracy is amongst the worst forms of government in existence. The average joe cannot know the best course for his country to take, nor should he have to.



Wow, I am at a loss for words.

Wow, I am at a loss for words.

It's true. I appreciate that democracy is better than any alternative, but equally, the democratic electorate are not millions of Otto von Bismarks arethey?

In the absence of anything better, no.
No, I simply think democracy is amongst the worst forms of government in existence. The average joe cannot know the best course for his country to take, nor should he have to.
So, in your mind, democracy is simultaneously the best and worst system of government in history.

However, he's still contrived to fuck the US up big time, just as Blair has done in the UK. Surely, if democracy is as effective as is inferred, the people would percieve such poor rulers prior to their being elected?
Again, like I said, even democracies make mistakes. But their virtue is that they can kick out said mistakes if things get too bad. Damage is minimized as much as possible.

So, you tell me he has never played politics, ever, to elevate himself?
Not that I can think of. Care to trot out an example? Anything at all, really.

This man is not the second coming.
Agreed. But he is among the best we've got.

No, I simply think democracy is amongst the worst forms of government in existence. The average joe cannot know the best course for his country to take, nor should he have to.

Well, since I doubt we will ever have a benevolent dictatorship, democracy is our best bet.

Possibly, however, we cannot substantiate whether Obama is mendacious in this or not. Cynic that I am, I fail to believe that he is quite the new man he claims to be, given that he must have exploited the extant political system to arrive at the verge of candidacy.

Funny how you utterly fail to apply this cynicism to George W. Bush or Thatcher itself (and I use "it" for beings that haven't got identifiable gender here), is it not?

Now, come on, please. Give me a better argument than "he speaks too well to be a good leader" or "he's black" or else I'll stop playing nice.

Come on, get mean. Playing nice is so 1996. :p

Let's see what Chris offers, shall we?

Now, come on, please. Give me a better argument than "he speaks too well to be a good leader" or "he's black" or else I'll stop playing nice.

Come on, get mean. Playing nice is so 1996. :p

Let's see what Chris offers, shall we?
Nothing, apparently.

Nothing, apparently.

Awww... :p

And it was so fun, too. I mean, the guy was getting to the point where he favored a dictatorship over Barack Obama...

Awww... :p

And it was so fun, too. I mean, the guy was getting to the point where he favored a dictatorship over Barack Obama...

His afterlife will be Barack Obama as dictator.

Awww... :p

And it was so fun, too. I mean, the guy was getting to the point where he favored a dictatorship over Barack Obama...

Quite curious, especially now with Michael Savage thinking of running. I think there are clearly much more worthy targets to be going after than Obama.

Quite curious, especially now with Michael Savage thinking of running. I think there are clearly much more worthy targets to be going after than Obama.

Be careful, Chris might support Savage.

Obama about Israel:

Sen. Obama: U.S. must support Israel's right to self defense
By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondent

WASHINGTON - United States Senator Barack Obama, a Democrat from Illinois who is competing for his party's presidential nomination, told Haaretz on Thursday that the United States should help protect Israel from its "dangerous" enemies.

"My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," he said.

"Israelis want more than anything to live in peace with their neighbors, but Israel also has real - and very dangerous - enemies," Obama said.

Advertisement

Obama, the first black candidate with a real chance at the Democratic nomination, intends to present his policy regarding Israel soon, and his staff has been drafting a speech on the subject.

In his speech, Obama intends to remove any doubts that the Democratic Party's donors and constituents, many of whom are Jewish, may have about his support for Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/826665.html

Iraq cannot be fixed by us and it is not our job to pour more money into a black hole. They don't even want our help and never did. Iraq must be left to decay into overall anarchy(warlord-govt) or to split into the pieces it should always have been in...

Yeah, "we totally fucked up the country but its not our problem what will happen there".:rolleyes:

I like reasons 1 and 2, but I don't plan to vote for him because:
1. His middle name is "Hussein", which by itself turns me off to him
2. After the 9/11 attacks, I just don't feel comfortable with a Muslim in the White House; that idea sounds to me a little bit (I SAID A LITTLE BIT) like the fox guarding the henhouse, depending on how radical or moderate a Muslim he is. I understand that more Muslims than not are moderate, peace-loving, live-and-let-live, and tolerant, but just enough of them are terrorists that I don't feel comfortable with ANY of them being elected President of the USA. Sorry if that offends anybody, but that's the way I feel.


1. Is too dumb to even respond to
2. He's a Christian. He belongs to the United Church of Christ.

Olmedreca;12339516']Obama about Israel:

Sen. Obama: U.S. must support Israel's right to self defense
By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondent

WASHINGTON - United States Senator Barack Obama, a Democrat from Illinois who is competing for his party's presidential nomination, told Haaretz on Thursday that the United States should help protect Israel from its "dangerous" enemies.

"My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," he said.

"Israelis want more than anything to live in peace with their neighbors, but Israel also has real - and very dangerous - enemies," Obama said.

Advertisement

Obama, the first black candidate with a real chance at the Democratic nomination, intends to present his policy regarding Israel soon, and his staff has been drafting a speech on the subject.

In his speech, Obama intends to remove any doubts that the Democratic Party's donors and constituents, many of whom are Jewish, may have about his support for Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/826665.html

I don't know where he stands on this issue, so this will be very enlightening.

Be careful, Chris might support Savage.

You are just trying to frighten me. I tell you, it won't work!

*shudders dramaticly*

:D

You guys do know right that Obama isn't a Muslim right? That was just some crap that Fox pulled, as far as I know he's a Christian, but either way it shouldn't matter. Remember that the official religion of America is no religion, it is secular.

I honestly cannot understand how so many Dems can be so obsessed about the fact that "he's young, he'll clean stuff up and make everything since he's obviously not a politician!"
I would figure that since Bush was himself an inexperienced politician, you Dems would be more wary of picking a guy without experience. But wait, I forgot, he's black.
I see utterly no reason for me to vote for him, and to tell the truth, I really don't like anyone in the Democratic Party. Hillary has taken a turn to the left, and given she was the most conservative Dem, I'm just seeing a bunch of hard-left Dems for President.
As for Obama himself, hell no. He is no way a conservative, and hence I will simply not support him (though I will admit, he is better from my perspective than Edwards.)
As for the Muslim bullshit, I do sympathize with him for that. But there's no reason for me to vote for him.

I'm just seeing a bunch of hard-left Dems for President.

If you really think this then you need to take a closer look at what the Democratic candidates stand for. Especially if you are calling Hillary Clinton "hard-left". :rolleyes:

I'm not calling Clinton hard-left at all, I did say she is the most conservative of the Dems. I simply said that she has taken a turn to the left.

I'm not calling Clinton hard-left at all, I did say she is the most conservative of the Dems. I simply said that she has taken a turn to the left.

How so? I'm curious as to what constitutes a turn to the left.

I honestly cannot understand how so many Dems can be so obsessed about the fact that "he's young, he'll clean stuff up and make everything since he's obviously not a politician!"
I would figure that since Bush was himself an inexperienced politician, you Dems would be more wary of picking a guy without experience. But wait, I forgot, he's black.
I see utterly no reason for me to vote for him, and to tell the truth, I really don't like anyone in the Democratic Party. Hillary has taken a turn to the left, and given she was the most conservative Dem, I'm just seeing a bunch of hard-left Dems for President.
As for Obama himself, hell no. He is no way a conservative, and hence I will simply not support him (though I will admit, he is better from my perspective than Edwards.)
As for the Muslim bullshit, I do sympathize with him for that. But there's no reason for me to vote for him.

Obama was not a coke-snorting alcoholic fratboy who dodged the Vietnam draft with Daddy's help. Check.

Obama did not get Cs at Harvard and in fact became Editor of its law journal. Check.

Obama did not run three businesses provided by Daddy into the ground. Check.

Obama did not run a superpower into the ground. Check.

If you really think this then you need to take a closer look at what the Democratic candidates stand for. Especially if you are calling Hillary Clinton "hard-left". :rolleyes:

You must realize that there are a lot of posters on this forum who would consider George Wallace a moderate, and anything to the left of him a "hard left" pinko.

How so? I'm curious as to what constitutes a turn to the left.

See my previous post.

Obama did not run a superpower into the ground.

Oh boy, I was having a drink here, this nearly cost me my keyboard! :D

Bush wants to repeal EVERY AMMENDMENT BUT the second. And you claim Obama doesn't believe in freedom? Cream of mushroom soup is made with champignons, not with the ones you used!

I never claimed Bush was any better. America won't be any better off with a Democrat. You know what they say about "assumption" don't you? As my usual stance, I'll be voting Libertarian or other "third" parties. What better way to exercise Constitutional rights than to vote for a party other than the fat-cat Democons or Republicraps?

So, undermining the other Amendments doesn't count, so long as you get to have a gun?

What you really mean is that he doesn't favor the ridiculous absolutist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that you do, and so you don't support him. That's fair--stupid, but fair. Saying that he doesn't believe in freedom is just stupid.

Well, considering that the 2nd was put in place to ensure that the rest would remain... True freedom cannot exist unless the CITIZENS are allowed the right to defend themselves. Not from just criminals, but their own gov't if necessary. That is the purpose to the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately many people in the US today are too complacent with their $300,000 mortgages and oversized under-utilized SUVs to pay attention to anything other than "American Idol" and "Survivor". They have complete apathy for anything that really matters. And who's to say Bush and his cronies aren't out to do damage as well? Under the current administration the BATFE has redefined what surplus parts can be imported (parts that do not affect a firearms function), Bush himself stated he would sign the "Assault Weapons" Ban renewal which did not actually stop any criminals from obtaining weapons accroding to the Justice Department, and the administration hasn't done anything to repeal junk laws that harm law-abiding citizens and don't punish criminals.

Beyond that, it's a waste of time to try explaining any further. There's no point trying to describe such ideals to someone that doesn't want to think for themselves.

Hell, I would vote for Obama just because he's black.

You must realize that there are a lot of posters on this forum who would consider George Wallace a moderate, and anything to the left of him a "hard left" pinko.

I have indeed noticed a few individuals on NS of a similar political persuasion as the example you have given. :)

Hell, I would vote for Obama just because he's black.
Isn't that just as bad as not voting for another candidate just because he/she is white?

Isn't that just as bad as not voting for another candidate just because he/she is white?

Yes. However, I think that having a black president will be good for the American soul. Since I don't have any reason to vote against Obama, I'll default to voting for him because he's black.

Yes. However, I think that having a black president will be good for the American soul. Since I don't have any reason to vote against Obama, I'll default to voting for him because he's black.

How about "I'll vote for Obama because he's not a Bushevik?"

How about

READ OBAMA'S BOOKS

He was a community organizer BEFORE going to Harvard Law School, and taught constitutional law for 8 Years before entering the US Senate. (I'd love to hear from his former students)

I was 40% convinced of his sincerity after listening to him speak, 60% after reading his views on issues as well as interviews with others, and now 95% after reading his book The Audacity of Hope.

The man has a voting record, for several years he was on the Illinois State Senate. You can judge a man on how he votes locally.
From Wiki and my own Research is True:

"Among his legislative initiatives, Obama helped to author an Illinois Earned Income Tax Credit that provided benefits to lower-income families, worked for legislation that would support residents who could not afford health insurance, and helped pass bills to increase funding for AIDS prevention and care programs.

Reviewing Obama's career in the Illinois Senate, a February 2007 article in the Washington Post noted his ability to work effectively with both Democrats and Republicans, and to build bipartisan coalitions."



Surprisingly, in his book the Audacity of Hope Obama graciously does not criticize President Bush as many democrats do. He tells of how he met President Bush, and simply says he realized the "dangers of the isolation power can cause".



He also is very candid in the Audacity of Hope about how he did have to go to some wealthy donors for fundraising for his campaign for US Senate because he had previously turned down "rich fundraising" in his run for the State Legislature some years earlier.

He says how these people are often in the top 1% income earners, and how out of touch they are with the majority of Americans. He speaks of himself as a politician and how politicians have to be careful to not keep only these sort of people aroudn them, how easy it is because of fundraising needs to have only the wealthy around, and how he keeps himself in touch with the average person.

He speaks candidly about how Senators think, and why the nation is in the state it is today.

Barack Obama is an idealist to the core, I truly hope he does not end up like JFK if he does become President because he will intend to make changes.