So when Barack Hussein Obama changes his mind on Iraq will Janett still support him?

[wmbwinn]

Obama Web site removes `surge' from Iraq problem

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's aides have removed criticism of President Bush's increase of troops to Iraq from the campaign Web site, part of an effort to update the Democrat's written war plan to reflect changing conditions.

ADVERTISEMENT

Debate over the impact of President Bush's troop "surge" has been at the center of exchanges this week between Obama and Republican presidential rival John McCain. Obama opposed the war and the surge from the start, while McCain supported both the invasion and the troop increase.

A year and a half after Bush announced he was sending reinforcements to Iraq, it is widely credited with reducing violence there. With most Americans ready to end the war, McCain is using the surge debate to argue he has better judgment and the troops should stay to win the fight. Obama argues the troop increase has not achieved its other goal of fostering a political reconciliation among Iraqi factions.

After Bush delivered a nationally televised address on Jan. 10, 2007, announcing his plan, Obama argued it could make the situation worse by taking pressure off Iraqis to find a political solution to the fighting.

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Obama continued to argue throughout 2007 that the troop increase was a mistake. By the early part of this year, he was acknowledging that it had improved security and reduced violence, but he has stuck by his opposition to the move.

In a speech Tuesday, he argued that since the surge began, the strain on the military has increased, the United States has spent another $200 billion in Iraq, Afghanistan has deteriorated, the Taliban and al-Qaida have rebuilt and Iraqis have not made political progress. "That's why I strongly stand by my plan to end this war," Obama said.

McCain said Obama is failing to acknowledge success. "Today, we know Sen. Obama was wrong" to oppose the surge, McCain said.

As first reported Tuesday by the New York Daily News, Obama's campaign removed a reference to the surge as part of "The Problem" section on the part of his Web site devoted to laying out his plan for Iraq.

The change was part of many broader changes that Obama spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said were made to reflect current conditions. She provided the full text of the old site and the updated version, which includes a new section on the recent resurgence of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and another on this year's negotiations over a Status of Forces Agreement that would detail the legal basis for the ongoing presence of U.S. military forces operating in Iraq.

The changes stress that Obama's plan to end the war is responsible and designed to improve national security. They include:

• An updated Obama quote at the top of the page. The previous quote stressed how Obama had the judgment to oppose the "rash war" from the start. This was a popular message among Democratic voters and was meant to draw distinctions with primary rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, who initially supported the war. The new quote focuses on how ending the war will make Americans safer — a message aimed at general election voters who are more likely to trust McCain on issues of national security, according to polling.

• A description of Obama's plan as "a responsible, phased withdrawal" that will be directed by military commanders and done in consultation with the Iraqis. Previously, the site had a sentence that has since been removed that flatly said, "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq." Morigi said that his plan hasn't changed, but they wanted to expand the description. "There's not an intent to shift language," she said.

• A new sentence that says Obama "would reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq."

Only one of his plan's subheads remains unchanged, the first one — "Judgment You Can Trust." That's a message the campaign wants Americans to embrace

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/...sNh5c3uuSMwfIE

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Obama Web site removes `surge' from Iraq problem

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Obama continued to argue throughout 2007 that the troop increase was a mistake. By the early part of this year, he was acknowledging that it had improved security and reduced violence, but he has stuck by his opposition to the move.

I think that one's going to leave a mark on Janett..

[dude1394]

This might leave a mark too. Wrong direction there eh Janett?


http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/1...-want-to-hear/

From tonight’s monster 33-page omnibus poll, the “new politics” halo is officially off. Note the trend:

[dude1394]

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapun...es2/021730.php

MORE ON THE OBAMA WEBSITE'S Iraq war airbrushing, at the L.A. Times.

UPDATE: Some surprisingly strong Obama criticism in the Washington Post:

At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued -- wrongly, as it turned out -- that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a "spike" in violence. Now, he describes as "an achievable goal" that "we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future -- a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge." How will that "true success" be achieved? By the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable. . . .

The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.

Indeed.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by GuerillaBlack

I have a question dude, do you use John McCain's middle name when typing online, or out speaking about him? I doubt it.

Who's John McCain?

Oh you mean McBush/McSame/McWar/McInsane/McSenile?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by GuerillaBlack
I have a question dude, do you use John McCain's middle name when typing online, or out speaking about him? I doubt it.

I don't know what it is. Is it embarrassing to him? If so I certainly wouldn't, he's my candidate.

Looked it up Sidney...Nah...it's not funny, feel free however

[emil]

They're both politicians ... this is what they do ... I don't get the fuss.

Do you realize you are actually bitching about how good of a politician Obama is? As if McCain is not a just another politician who would trade his left nut for the political skills Obama has ...

Money and the market are going to determine the election, a Republican should like that, right?
You are not now going to flip-flop and cry about things being unfair, competitive, cutthroat, and what not, right?

The "better" man doesn't always win, you'd think a Republican would know that.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by emil

They're both politicians ... this is what they do ... I don't get the fuss.

Do you realize you are actually bitching about how good of a politician Obama is? As if McCain is not a just another politician who would trade his left nut for the political skills Obama has ...

Money and the market are going to determine the election, a Republican should like that, right?
You are not now going to flip-flop and cry about things being unfair, competitive, cutthroat, and what not, right?

The "better" man doesn't always win, you'd think a Republican would know that.

Sure, we know that. Afterall, Bill Clinton won twice.

And I don't recall anyone on this chatboard complaining about how "unfair" the election is. We're just pissed that the Republicans chose the absolute worse candidate of the 5 that ran in the primaries.

[dude1394]

Flip-flopping around and not having core values is not being a good politician. With all of the advantages Barack Hussein Obama has you would expect him to be up by 10+. Instead he's looking pretty shakey.

[emil]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Flip-flopping around and not having core values is not being a good politician. With all of the advantages Barack Hussein Obama has you would expect him to be up by 10+. Instead he's looking pretty shakey.

Both guys have changed positions, so I don't see your point there and if you expected a young/black/muslim/democratic president candidate to be up by 10+ points in post-911 America you greatly overestimate the voting sheep

I also don't understand how you can say he is looking shaky, he is winning in swing state polls and might raise a half a billion, he is in good shape.

[emil]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Sure, we know that. Afterall, Bill Clinton won twice.

And I don't recall anyone on this chatboard complaining about how "unfair" the election is. We're just pissed that the Republicans chose the absolute worse candidate of the 5 that ran in the primaries.

Just wondering could you rank the five you are mentioning and the one you voted for in the primaries.
Point out the ones you think could have beaten Obama.

[dude1394]

McCain hasn't come anywhere close to flip-flopping like barack has. He's flip-flopped on iraq, fisa, gun control, campaign finance reform. These are big ticket items, not small ones.

McCain from what I can recall (you can illuminate me) has flip-flopped on drilling and I guess others but I can't recall them. Very few big-ticket items.

Barack has the poor polling numbers of dubya and the republicans. If you don't think he has lots of advantages you aren't paying attention.

[GuerillaBlack]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I don't know what it is. Is it embarrassing to him? If so I certainly wouldn't, he's my candidate.

Looked it up Sidney...Nah...it's not funny, feel free however

I don't see the gain on the Republican side and calling him by his middle name. It is just a scare tactic by them to label his Middle Eastern middle name as scary. It's dumb (but not as dumb as that 9/11 billboard). Not even John McCain will do it.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dude1394

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapun...es2/021730.php

MORE ON THE OBAMA WEBSITE'S Iraq war airbrushing, at the L.A. Times.

UPDATE: Some surprisingly strong Obama criticism in the Washington Post:

At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued -- wrongly, as it turned out -- that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a "spike" in violence. Now, he describes as "an achievable goal" that "we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future -- a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge." How will that "true success" be achieved? By the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable. . . .

The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.

Indeed."

--------------------------------------------


He has already tailored his message to that reality. That is why the Far Left media is screaming mad at him for retreating on his position to end the war.

He is now saying that we will end the war as soon as it is over and we have been successful.

Now, those words are mine and they are my summary.

His words are more like:
1)We expect to remove combat troops AS THE FACTS ON THE GROUND SUPPORT IT (ie, when the Generals say we don't need the combat troops which means the same thing as my words above)
2)We will still have troops in place to help with training, support, technology, air support etc. (just like in Afghanistan, the "just like in Afghanistan" phrase is mine). He says that we should not misunderstand him to mean that all troops will be removed over time. He says that troops will stay [for training, support, etc.]


So, Obama has already moved his position to reflect that he understands the necessity of success in Iraq. If you are voting for him "to end the war in Iraq" you are deluded.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by emil

Just wondering could you rank the five you are mentioning and the one you voted for in the primaries.
Point out the ones you think could have beaten Obama.

Sure, here are the 5 republican candidates in order of my preference:

Romney
Thompson
Paul
Huckabee
McCain

By the time the TX primary took place, both Romney and Thompson had dropped out. I chose to not vote in the primary, because at that point the three remaining candidates were crap, IMO.

The ones I think could have beaten Obama... It's only fair to go back to when they were all 5 in the running, without including all of the Obama flip-flops we have seen in the last couple of months. So based on what we knew back then, I think the only candidate who could have beaten Obama is Romney. Thompson didn't excite anyone. Ron Paul is seen as a fringe kook. Huckabee and McCain never had a chance, IMO.

Now looking forward to today, after Obama has shown his true colors (i.e., all his major flip-flops), I think McCain has a chance. But it's not because of anything McCain said or did (with the exception of supporting offshore drilling). It's because this election is Obama's to lose. He has shot himself in the foot.

[emil]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Sure, here are the 5 republican candidates in order of my preference:

Romney
Thompson
Paul
Huckabee
McCain

By the time the TX primary took place, both Romney and Thompson had dropped out. I chose to not vote in the primary, because at that point the three remaining candidates were crap, IMO.

The ones I think could have beaten Obama... It's only fair to go back to when they were all 5 in the running, without including all of the Obama flip-flops we have seen in the last couple of months. So based on what we knew back then, I think the only candidate who could have beaten Obama is Romney. Thompson didn't excite anyone. Ron Paul is seen as a fringe kook. Huckabee and McCain never had a chance, IMO.

Now looking forward to today, after Obama has shown his true colors (i.e., all his major flip-flops), I think McCain has a chance. But it's not because of anything McCain said or did (with the exception of supporting offshore drilling). It's because this election is Obama's to lose. He has shot himself in the foot.

I think Romney might have had a chance simply because he might have something to say about the economy, but ultimately I think McCain was still the strongest candidate with the best chance to beat Obama.

As far as the whole shooting himself in the foot thing both you and dude are pushing is greatly exaggerated in my opinion he is just moving towards the center which is quite common and should have been expected.

Actually one of the items dude mentions as one of his big flip-flops (Iraq) which will supposedly "shoot him in the foot" I find quite appealing. Situations change and I would actually expect a leader to be able to reevaluate and adjust, and he is doing that.

I'm going to vote for Obama because I believe he has shown he is intelligent enough to properly evaluate situations (Won't be napping or having elderly moments in important briefings), take advice from both sides (Anyone "dead certain" around here?), and form or adjust his strategies properly (Flip-flop? I hate that word.).

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by emil

I think Romney might have had a chance simply because he might have something to say about the economy, but ultimately I think McCain was still the strongest candidate with the best chance to beat Obama.

As far as the whole shooting himself in the foot thing both you and dude are pushing is greatly exaggerated in my opinion he is just moving towards the center which is quite common and should have been expected.

Actually one of the items dude mentions as one of his big flip-flops (Iraq) which will supposedly "shoot him in the foot" I find quite appealing. Situations change and I would actually expect a leader to be able to reevaluate and adjust, and he is doing that.

I'm going to vote for Obama because I believe he has shown he is intelligent enough to properly evaluate situations (Won't be napping or having elderly moments in important briefings), take advice from both sides (Anyone "dead certain" around here?), and form or adjust his strategies properly (Flip-flop? I hate that word.).

I'm not surprised at all that you feel McCain has had the best chance all along to beat Obama. I have spoken with several Obama supporters at work, and they have all told me the same. Of all the candidates we had on the Rep side (6 if you include Rudy), McCain was the favorite amoung Democrats, because he was the most moderate/liberal of the bunch.

I have no problems with you supporting Obama. However, based on the reasons you listed, I think you should raise the bar just a little. Nothing you quoted is a real accomplishment, nor anything I would say qualifies someone to be President. Just my opinion, of course... I liked Romney because his list of accomplishments was impressive (2 term Republican governor of liberal MASSACHUSSETTS, CEO of a company, turned the Olympics around, etc). I can't name anything remotely similar in Obama.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

I'm not surprised at all that you feel McCain has had the best chance all along to beat Obama. I have spoken with several Obama supporters at work, and they have all told me the same. Of all the candidates we had on the Rep side (6 if you include Rudy), McCain was the favorite amoung Democrats, because he was the most moderate/liberal of the bunch.

I have no problems with you supporting Obama. However, based on the reasons you listed, I think you should raise the bar just a little. Nothing you quoted is a real accomplishment, nor anything I would say qualifies someone to be President. Just my opinion, of course... I liked Romney because his list of accomplishments was impressive (2 term Republican governor of liberal MASSACHUSSETTS, CEO of a company, turned the Olympics around, etc). I can't name anything remotely similar in Obama.

Your argument assumes that there are "accomplishments" a non-President can have that bode well for him as President, and at the same time that a lack of said accomplishments bodes poorly for the candidate.

I am not at all convinced that this is true. After all, Clinton did a bang-up job as governor of Arkansas, did he not?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Your argument assumes that there are "accomplishments" a non-President can have that bode well for him as President, and at the same time that a lack of said accomplishments bodes poorly for the candidate.

I am not at all convinced that this is true. After all, Clinton did a bang-up job as governor of Arkansas, did he not?

The difference between Clinton and Obama is that Clinton held the position of Governor. Whether or not you feel he did a good job, at least he did SOMETHING. He was the head of the executive branch of the state government. That is an accomplishment in and of itself. He wasn't a "newbie" when he took the Oath of Office to be POTUS. Tell me what Obama has done that in your opinion qualifies him to be President. Please give me at least ONE legitimate reason to vote for him. And when I say "legitimate", I mean something not related to his party affiliation, race, religion, or ability to speak.

[emil]

Originally Posted by jefelump

I have no problems with you supporting Obama. However, based on the reasons you listed, I think you should raise the bar just a little. Nothing you quoted is a real accomplishment, nor anything I would say qualifies someone to be President.

I'm glad you don't have a problem with me supporting Obama, although with all due respect it wouldn't matter to me if you did

Also as basic as the the requirements I listed were, they are extremely important to me and are the basis for proper decision making, which is all it comes down to after the votes have been cast.

PS: I don't know much about Romney but, considering how much money he spend per vote I can't really see him being some financial genius.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

The difference between Clinton and Obama is that Clinton held the position of Governor. Whether or not you feel he did a good job, at least he did SOMETHING. He was the head of the executive branch of the state government. That is an accomplishment in and of itself. He wasn't a "newbie" when he took the Oath of Office to be POTUS. Tell me what Obama has done that in your opinion qualifies him to be President. Please give me at least ONE legitimate reason to vote for him. And when I say "legitimate", I mean something not related to his party affiliation, race, religion, or ability to speak.

We could, I imagine, start a lengthy conversation about what "qualifies" a man to be the POTUS. I'm not sure either of us would ever get the best of it. More often than not (every time there is not an incumbent), we elect a man who has no experience on the job. You yourself may deem that experience as the head of the executive branch of a state government qualifies you, but that leaves out guys like Kennedy and Eisenhower. In short, there doesn't seem to be any one tried-and-true formula for presidential success.

And I might add that Bush did a fantastic job of running the Texas government but a lot of folks seem to disapprove of the job he has done as the leader of the US government.

So when you ask for a justification of why Obama deserves to be deemed an acceptable candidate for POTUS, I would tend to ask what exactly it is you are looking for.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by jefelump

The difference between Clinton and Obama is that Clinton held the position of Governor. Whether or not you feel he did a good job, at least he did SOMETHING. He was the head of the executive branch of the state government. That is an accomplishment in and of itself. He wasn't a "newbie" when he took the Oath of Office to be POTUS. Tell me what Obama has done that in your opinion qualifies him to be President. Please give me at least ONE legitimate reason to vote for him. And when I say "legitimate", I mean something not related to his party affiliation, race, religion, or ability to speak.

Agreed...I hate it that we are going to have to choose between two senators..they're the worst.

[emil]

Originally Posted by jefelump

And when I say "legitimate", I mean something not related to his party affiliation, race, religion, or ability to speak.

Is being intelligent a legitimate reason?
Magna Cum Laude at Harvard Law is a lot better than bottom of the class at West Point, right?

Resourceful?
Using the internet masterfully, he has managed to set up a campaign that could raise a half-billion dollars while his opponent might not even know what the internet is.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

We could, I imagine, start a lengthy conversation about what "qualifies" a man to be the POTUS. I'm not sure either of us would ever get the best of it. More often than not (every time there is not an incumbent), we elect a man who has no experience on the job. You yourself may deem that experience as the head of the executive branch of a state government qualifies you, but that leaves out guys like Kennedy and Eisenhower. In short, there doesn't seem to be any one tried-and-true formula for presidential success.

And I might add that Bush did a fantastic job of running the Texas government but a lot of folks seem to disapprove of the job he has done as the leader of the US government.

So when you ask for a justification of why Obama deserves to be deemed an acceptable candidate for POTUS, I would tend to ask what exactly it is you are looking for.

Good job side-stepping the question... Based on your lack of an answer to my question, I'll assume you can't name anything Obama has done to qualify him for President. I can't either.

Obviously when a sitting president has served 2 terms and can't run again, we elect someone without prior experience as POTUS (even if we elect the prior VP). However, if I'm going to compare a prior Governor to a Senator, I'll choose the Governor. Senators don't run anything. Senators don't make the kinds of decisions Governors, Presidents, or CEOs make.

And I did not mean to imply that only prior Governors are qualified for the job. I simply listed that as an example of someone who has experience in leadership. I could be just as happy with a successful CEO. I have never voted for a Senator. Voting for McCain will be a first for me in that regard, and it makes me sick.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by emil

Is being intelligent a legitimate reason?
Magna Cum Laude at Harvard Law is a lot better than bottom of the class at West Point, right?

Resourceful?
Using the internet masterfully, he has managed to set up a campaign that could raise a half-billion dollars while his opponent might not even know what the internet is.

Good points. When I am assessing how well the two candidates might govern, the first thing I look to is how well they are running their respective campaigns. After all, these are the largest organizations either of the two have ever run. These should be the testing grounds.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Good points. When I am assessing how well the two candidates might govern, the first thing I look to is how well they are running their respective campaigns. After all, these are the largest organizations either of the two have ever run. These should be the testing grounds.

When you're talking about two Senators, you're right. Their campaign is the largest (and usually "only") organization they have run.

[dude1394]

Look for the type of judges they'll nominate. That'll just about tell you all you want to know.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Look for the type of judges they'll nominate. That'll just about tell you all you want to know.

Do any of us really know the type of judges they will nominate? All we have in these two laughing stocks is their word, and we all know politicians will say anything to get elected (on both sides).

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Good job side-stepping the question... Based on your lack of an answer to my question, I'll assume you can't name anything Obama has done to qualify him for President. I can't either.

Obviously when a sitting president has served 2 terms and can't run again, we elect someone without prior experience as POTUS (even if we elect the prior VP). However, if I'm going to compare a prior Governor to a Senator, I'll choose the Governor. Senators don't run anything. Senators don't make the kinds of decisions Governors, Presidents, or CEOs make.

And I did not mean to imply that only prior Governors are qualified for the job. I simply listed that as an example of someone who has experience in leadership. I could be just as happy with a successful CEO. I have never voted for a Senator. Voting for McCain will be a first for me in that regard, and it makes me sick.

You have set up a very convenient circular argument for yourself. You want evidence of something a senator has done to qualify himself for the office, yet at the same time you express your disdain for senators as potentially qualified leaders. Which is it? If senators, according to you, just don't make executive decisions, how am I supposed to show you evidence of Obama making executive decisions?

I suppose you realize by now that your argument of "what has Obama ever done" applies equally to McCain, within the confines you set.

Again...you know that Obama has only been a senator...and you have clearly expressed your disdain for senators...yet you ask for evidence why a senator should be favored as the choice for POTUS. In that case, let's not throw out "How is he qualified?" questions when you support a candidate with equally deficient qualifications in your eyes.

[wmbwinn]

Neither one of them are qualified. They both stink.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Do any of us really know the type of judges they will nominate? All we have in these two laughing stocks is their word, and we all know politicians will say anything to get elected (on both sides).

Yes we do. We know that obama believes in more government control over our lives, as the most liberal senator in the senate, you can be sure that he won't be nominating a clarence thomas for sure.

We know that he will have a tremendous pressure to nominate liberal judges, just as mccain will have pressure to nominate more conservative judges.

[emil]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Neither one of them are qualified. They both stink.

It's not that bad, you seem bitter.

PS: Are you currently holding a gun and reciting the bible? jk.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by emil

It's not that bad, you seem bitter.

PS: Are you currently holding a gun and reciting the bible? jk.

I'm glad to see humor. Chum is glum but emil smiles.

I am bitter. And, I am a gun owner. And, I do vote. And, I am the NRA.
It is that bad.

I am not, of course, suicidal.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I'm glad to see humor. Chum is glum but emil smiles.

I am bitter. And, I am a gun owner. And, I do vote. And, I am the NRA.
It is that bad.

I am not, of course, suicidal.

Why do you even care much anymore? The Supreme Court has validated your right to carry weapons wherever you go, so why is this still the sole issue for you?

[emil]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Yes we do. We know that obama believes in more government control [over our lives, as the most liberal senator in the senate, you can be sure that he won't be nominating a clarence thomas for sure.

What is it "more" than? What do you believe is the appropriate amount of government?

Just wondering ...
Do you agree that people are naturally self-destructive?
Do you agree that capitalism with out proper regulations quickens the self-destruction?
Do you realize this is a relatively young country?
Do you care about Americans in 25 years? 100 years?
Do you agree that trickle-down policies continuously widen the gap between middle class and rich? Do you care for the gap widening? Do you know what happens when the gap gets to big?

If you could please copy and paste the questions and answer each one bellow the question. It's interesting to me.

PS: I'm not socialist or liberal (meaning spending a lot) even, I just don't agree with
the mentality of leaving everything alone and letting things work themselves out.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by emil

What is it "more" than? What do you believe is the appropriate amount of government?

Just wondering ...
Do you agree that people are naturally self-destructive?

No..some are most aren't

Do you agree that capitalism with out proper regulations quickens the self-destruction?

Capitalism needs rules and regulations just like everything else. Where you have rules that try to manipulate an outcome is where I get po'd. Especially when it's a politician "picking" the winners. It should be equitable and transparent.

Do you realize this is a relatively young country?

I guess...I'm not sure why it's pertinent actually. Most countries are young if you take modern day governments as their basis. What difference does it make that france is old if they only had liberty as long as the US. Or china or russia. Having Kings run things in britain is a little bit different than liberal guvment.

Do you care about Americans in 25 years? 100 years?

Most definitely.

Do you agree that trickle-down policies continuously widen the gap between middle class and rich? Do you care for the gap widening? Do you know what happens when the gap gets to big?

You do realize that the US has great wealth mobility. More people starting at the bottom and becoming rich. If you are saying that socialists are better off than people in the US I call bulls***. In so many ways. Personal wealth, freedom, a job, home ownership and opportunity.

"Trickle-down" is a political statement imo that is used in class warfare, not an economic one. It may widen the gap, but you'll have to show me why it is bad if that same economic system continues to lead the G7 in growth and unemployment.
If this is your answer to "trickle-down" economics is to have a 45% income tax + 40% social security tax like germany.....no thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#Germany

If your answer is labor unions that will artificially drive up labor costs and cause companies to move out of the country, no thanks again. (12.6% in Germany for example).

[emil]

Originally Posted by dude1394

You do realize that the US has great wealth mobility. More people starting at the bottom and becoming rich. If you are saying that socialists are better off than people in the US I call bulls***. In so many ways. Personal wealth, freedom, a job, home ownership and opportunity.

"Trickle-down" is a political statement imo that is used in class warfare, not an economic one. It may widen the gap, but you'll have to show me why it is bad if that same economic system continues to lead the G7 in growth and unemployment.
If this is your answer to "trickle-down" economics is to have a 45% income tax + 40% social security tax like germany.....no thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#Germany

If your answer is labor unions that will artificially drive up labor costs and cause companies to move out of the country, no thanks again. (12.6% in Germany for example).

I haven't actually proposed anything yet, but I do find it irresponsible when people don't even consider policies simply because they come from socialist, communist, or whatever.

Anyhow, I do think the tax system is advantages to the rich (as does Warren Buffet) while things that correlate to upward mobility are becoming less and less affordable such as a college education.

A child born rich and a child born into middle/lower class of the same intelligence and ability level are in no way equivalent in the education, medical care, or even basic food that they will be able to afford.

While, people like John McCain won't even lessen the number of years that a person in the army would need to serve before getting a free college education because quote "it would lessen enrollment (in the army)" - and by the way that was a straight lie.

[dude1394]

As I said...I don't like the idea of senators being president, they just haven't done anything that prepares them at all.

Neither of these candidates are anywhere near the candidates I would pick. Obama on that same issue would certainly increase funding, he always will.

[wmbwinn]

"Do you agree that people are naturally self-destructive?
Do you agree that capitalism with out proper regulations quickens the self-destruction?
Do you realize this is a relatively young country?
Do you care about Americans in 25 years? 100 years?
Do you agree that trickle-down policies continuously widen the gap between middle class and rich? Do you care for the gap widening? Do you know what happens when the gap gets to big?"

Above questions from Emil

-------------------------------------
1)yes.
2)no.
3)yes, and the most successful government experiment to date
4)of course
5)the question is too narrow and vague and requires much discussion to clarify how much of the Reaganomics you intend to include in the question.
Reaganomics says that if taxes on business are reduced, that the economy will expand and benefit everyone. Do the rich hold onto some of that wealth and, to a degree, limit how much trickles down? Absolutely.
But, it does end up benefitting everyone. Even someone who is a left leaning socialists will have to admit that an expanding economy increases the ability of the government to re-distribute wealth because the absolute number of dollars coming into the government increases as a function of a larger GDP (with whatever the average effective national tax rate is). The Reagan era was an era that saw plenty of money enter Washington.
The economy itself in expansions sees an increase in the quality of life of essentially the entire populace in the USA and even the world as the US economy is important to the world economy. (note that oil prices fell precipitously because it appeared that the US economy was teetering and that had grave implications for the whole world's economy).
In that "trickle down" is not perfect and in that the wealthy will hold on to some of the wealth, there is a stretch between the very rich and the middle class. Is that a problem from my perspective? NO. The very rich are the employers of America. I want them to be very rich so that they continue to employ people, pay taxes, and otherwise drive the economy forward.

So long as the middle class have a job, a house, and the ability to handle their finances, then who really cares how big the jump is between the middle class and the richest Americans?

The real issue is the category of poverty. And, I have no problem whatsoever with government programs helping out here. And, I like to see American Charity in all of its forms helping out here.

If this fails, then "Houston, we have a problem."

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Why do you even care much anymore? The Supreme Court has validated your right to carry weapons wherever you go, so why is this still the sole issue for you?

The gun battle never dies just as the abortion battle never dies. There is the next nuance and next legislation and next judge. There is the next state law, the next city law, the next governor.

We won an important gun battle decision. It is not over. Obama did not really retreat. He is just smart enough to not talk about it. I believe his response was something like, "good, now we have some guidance to look at as we craft laws"

That is not a retreat. It is a sign that a new strategy will be developed.