Nissan 370Z Tech Forums banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,302 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Ok people....I've got 3 questions for our friendly neighborhood Obamaniacs......

* What does Obama stand for? And don't say "hope and change." Those are non-answers.
* Can you tell me two specific policy initiatives Obama has proposed? See if you can get past national health care and higher taxes on the evil rich.
* Name three Obama accomplishments --- and being elected Senator doesn't count .. there are 99 others in office right now who pulled that one off.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,584 Posts
Ok people....I've got 3 questions for our friendly neighborhood Obamaniacs......

* What does Obama stand for? And don't say "hope and change." Those are non-answers.
* Can you tell me two specific policy initiatives Obama has proposed? See if you can get past national health care and higher taxes on the evil rich.
* Name three Obama accomplishments --- and being elected Senator doesn't count .. there are 99 others in office right now who pulled that one off.
(1) I don't know (2) I don't care (3) I'm voting for Obama
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,348 Posts
Ok people....I've got 3 questions for our friendly neighborhood Obamaniacs......

* What does Obama stand for? And don't say "hope and change." Those are non-answers.
* Can you tell me two specific policy initiatives Obama has proposed? See if you can get past national health care and higher taxes on the evil rich.
* Name three Obama accomplishments --- and being elected Senator doesn't count .. there are 99 others in office right now who pulled that one off.
You can also learn a **** of a lot about the candidates by watching the CNN Debates.

There was a good one on last night, that keeps being replayed by CNN. I'm willlng to bet you can find it, in its entirety online.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,627 Posts
Justin, I cannot answer your questions. What I can tell you is I have listened to all the candidates through several debates and interviews. With Obama, I get a sense of someone who would be a good leader and who wants to make decisions that will be good for the country. I may or may not agree with all his views, but I feel confident the decisions he makes will be in the interest of the greater good, not special interest, corporations, or whatever.

I do *not* get this impression from any other candidate (sorry, excluding Ron Paul because he is just too far out of the running at this point)

I do not question Obama's experience because he has pointed out (and I strongly agree), no one had more experience than Dick Cheney when we entered the Iraq war and we see how that has turned out. Experience is just used to help establish if a candidate has good judgment. And that is where Obama will get my vote. I have more confidence in his judgement than anyone else left as an option at this point.

BTW, I'm a registered republican.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,302 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
The reason I was asking those questions was to determine if the people who supported them could answer them moreso than because I wanted to know. It's as if these days Obama has become more of a rock star than a candidate for President.

If it were up to me....the Government would get back to basics. Many years ago the Imperial Federal Government began working outside the confines of the Constitution, which clearly outlines what the Federal Government can and cannot do. No where in the Constitution does it say that it's the Federal Government's job to have welfare programs. In fact...it does say that any power not specifically given to the Feds in the Constitution and not denied to the states is to be held by the States themselves or the people. That's the 10th Amendment.

Originally posted by The Constitution of the United States
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Any politician that wants MORE government is not ok in my book. At this point in History that grow-the-government group includes all Democrats and a large number of Republicans as well.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,627 Posts
The reason I was asking those questions was to determine if the people who supported them could answer them moreso than because I wanted to know. It's as if these days Obama has become more of a rock star than a candidate for President.

If it were up to me....the Government would get back to basics. Many years ago the Imperial Federal Government began working outside the confines of the Constitution, which clearly outlines what the Federal Government can and cannot do. No where in the Constitution does it say that it's the Federal Government's job to have welfare programs. In fact...it does say that any power not specifically given to the Feds in the Constitution and not denied to the states is to be held by the States themselves or the people. That's the 10th Amendment.
Any politician that wants MORE government is not ok in my book. At this point in History that grow-the-government group includes all Democrats and a large number of Republicans as well.
Then you are most definitely a Ron Paul voter... and if he had a chance of getting the republican nomination, I would probably vote for him over Obama but it would be a tough call.

I like Ron Paul's view and intentions, but I question if he could actually execute... he would meet sooooo much opposition from congress, lobbyists, other govt agencies.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,357 Posts
I do not question Obama's experience because he has pointed out (and I strongly agree), no one had more experience than Dick Cheney when we entered the Iraq war and we see how that has turned out. Experience is just used to help establish if a candidate has good judgment. And that is where Obama will get my vote. I have more confidence in his judgement than anyone else left as an option at this point.

BTW, I'm a registered republican.
I really hate to say this...and I know that its almost hijacking the thread.. but... why assume that Obama is correct in the assumption that Cheney is at fault for the unfolding of events in Iraq. Therefore making his analogy meaningless.

So here is my opinion.

The past difficulties in Iraq stemmed from a failure of the Generals to adopt the appropriate strategy. The proper strategy for fighting modern wars has been a topic of debate since the end of the cold war and included such figures as Powell, Shinseki and many others... throughout a few different administrations.

One side of the debate argued to maintain a large force that could fight a global war on two fronts... this was basically a continuation of the cold war strategy. This doctrine did not rule out adopting new mobile hardware in lieu of large force size.. it only argued to maintain a large force for various reasons.... Shinseki I beleive was in this camp. Many have blamed Bush for pushing him out of the Army. The fact is the arguement was going on for a long time within the Army before Bush/Cheney/Rumy ever came along.

And we all know the other side of the debate... a small fast highly mobile force.

We see which side one... the small, mobile force. The first Gulf war was an overwhelming lesson in highly mobile warfare... it never addressed a force left behind to administer and rebuild a country.

And guess what... both sides were right... we just didnt have the large force in place after major hostilities ended....

Was that Cheney's fault? no.

Bush, Cheney and Rumy were not sitting down at a table mapping out strategy... the Generals did that.. The Generals messed up.

Bush has said many many times... over and over that he responds to the Generals. If they need troops he would send them... the Generals didnt ask.

Finally it took the surge to compensate for their failings.

So to assume that experience doesnt matter... it does.

Fact of the matter is that our Army hasnt had experience in nation building since 1945.... and we didnt remember those lessons... we thought they were out of date lessons. They went on ideas and hunches of what modern war should be and they got it half wrong.

Experience only counts if you learn from the past as well... and i dont think Obama has a clue about these matters.

I realize that i just blamed everyone involved... but i lay the bulk of the blame on the generals... at least the republicans knew enough about the situation to adapt. Obama's solution would be to pull out and leave a country to slaughter itself without our help.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,627 Posts
I really hate to say this...and I know that its almost hijacking the thread.. but... why assume that Obama is correct in the assumption that Cheney is at fault for the unfolding of events in Iraq. Therefore making his analogy meaningless.

So here is my opinion.

The past difficulties in Iraq stemmed from a failure of the Generals to adopt the appropriate strategy. The proper strategy for fighting modern wars has been a topic of debate since the end of the cold war and included such figures as Powell, Shinseki and many others... throughout a few different administrations.

One side of the debate argued to maintain a large force that could fight a global war on two fronts... this was basically a continuation of the cold war strategy. This doctrine did not rule out adopting new mobile hardware in lieu of large force size.. it only argued to maintain a large force for various reasons.... Shinseki I beleive was in this camp. Many have blamed Bush for pushing him out of the Army. The fact is the arguement was going on for a long time within the Army before Bush/Cheney/Rumy ever came along.

And we all know the other side of the debate... a small fast highly mobile force.

We see which side one... the small, mobile force. The first Gulf war was an overwhelming lesson in highly mobile warfare... it never addressed a force left behind to administer and rebuild a country.

And guess what... both sides were right... we just didnt have the large force in place after major hostilities ended....

Was that Cheney's fault? no.

Bush, Cheney and Rumy were not sitting down at a table mapping out strategy... the Generals did that.. The Generals messed up.

Bush has said many many times... over and over that he responds to the Generals. If they need troops he would send them... the Generals didnt ask.

Finally it took the surge to compensate for their failings.

So to assume that experience doesnt matter... it does.

Fact of the matter is that our Army hasnt had experience in nation building since 1945.... and we didnt remember those lessons... we thought they were out of date lessons. They went on ideas and hunches of what modern war should be and they got it half wrong.

Experience only counts if you learn from the past as well... and i dont think Obama has a clue about these matters.
You are arguing the wrong side of this... I think the implication is that the wealth of experience of those currently in the White House has not produced a solution for a long standing problem. Not so much that they were or were not the cause, but that the years of experience have not let to good judgment in arriving at a way to handle it. BTW, in case you haven't checked lately... the President is still the CIC of the armed forces... . The generals actions or inactions ultimately fall on his shoulders. If things are not being resolved, different decisions need to be made... perhaps other people should be placed in charge. These kind of things have been done and the situation is still not resolved. That is the point... a wealth of experience has not produced a good solution, so saying a candidate lacks experience really doesn't carry much weight.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,357 Posts
You are arguing the wrong side of this... I think the implication is that the wealth of experience of those currently in the White House has not produced a solution for a long standing problem. Not so much that they were or were not the cause, but that the years of experience have not let to good judgment in arriving at a way to handle it. BTW, in case you haven't checked lately... the President is still the CIC of the armed forces... . The generals actions or inactions ultimately fall on his shoulders. If things are not being resolved, different decisions need to be made... perhaps other people should be placed in charge. These kind of things have been done and the situation is still not resolved. That is the point... a wealth of experience has not produced a good solution, so saying a candidate lacks experience really doesn't carry much weight.
Actually "The Surge" has worked and is still working... and it came from the military's civilian leadership Bush and the republicans.. not the Dems.

oh and here is my edit* to my previous post that didnt make it into your quote... i didnt get it in fast enough

I realize that i just blamed everyone involved... but i lay the bulk of the blame on the generals... at least the republicans knew enough about the situation to adapt. Obama's solution would be to pull out and leave a country to slaughter itself without our help.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,739 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
16,332 Posts
The reason I was asking those questions was to determine if the people who supported them could answer them moreso than because I wanted to know. It's as if these days Obama has become more of a rock star than a candidate for President.

If it were up to me....the Government would get back to basics. Many years ago the Imperial Federal Government began working outside the confines of the Constitution, which clearly outlines what the Federal Government can and cannot do. No where in the Constitution does it say that it's the Federal Government's job to have welfare programs. In fact...it does say that any power not specifically given to the Feds in the Constitution and not denied to the states is to be held by the States themselves or the people. That's the 10th Amendment.

Any politician that wants MORE government is not ok in my book. At this point in History that grow-the-government group includes all Democrats and a large number of Republicans as well.
This is an interesting dichotomy. If you follow my viewpoints and look at the political spectrum thread, you will see I have anarchic leaning tenancies. Deep inside I think the government should just leave us alone and begin to fizzle away. There are so many laws these days that you cant even go out in your front yard without breaking some kind of law.

On the other hand, I acknowledge that anarchy will not work. It just won't, so i concede the government is needed to keep the world running somewhat smoothly. However it is a bloated monster at this point in time. I see you are bringing up the issue of getting back to the Constitution, but at the same time you are taking jabs at "all democrats". This should be changed to "all politicians". Bush and Co. have actively sought to trample all over the constitution and our personal freedoms in the name of "terror". John McCain? I really don't know. He is as much a flip-flopper as Kerry was. He worries be because it is very unclear what he is all about. On top of that Giuliani supports him and that is not a good sign in my book.

So now we have a huge government that spends trillions of dollars a year. The question now is, what should they do with that? I would rather see it put to good use increasing the standard of living for everyone rather than waging war at every opportunity. I, for one, welcome socialized medicine. There is no reason taxes should increase for this either. We should decrease military spending and shift money to more positive uses.

Then you are most definitely a Ron Paul voter... and if he had a chance of getting the republican nomination, I would probably vote for him over Obama but it would be a tough call.

I like Ron Paul's view and intentions, but I question if he could actually execute... he would meet sooooo much opposition from congress, lobbyists, other govt agencies.
I think Ron Paul's views were excellent, however I also concur that there is little probability he could get elected, and if he did there is even less likelihood of him executing any of his plans.

I really hate to say this...and I know that its almost hijacking the thread.. but... why assume that Obama is correct in the assumption that Cheney is at fault for the unfolding of events in Iraq. Therefore making his analogy meaningless.

So here is my opinion.
Stop thread jacking. Iraq was a mistake period. Afghanistan? Sure we should have blown their **** doors off. Iraq? No. We had no reason to go in there, and the fear mongering is what convinced us that we should.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,584 Posts
Sucks for you Cliff.....
There is a motive to my decision for Obama. Not to mention he is the best one to chose from them.

This is an interesting dichotomy. If you follow my viewpoints and look at the political spectrum thread, you will see I have anarchic leaning tenancies. Deep inside I think the government should just leave us alone and begin to fizzle away. There are so many laws these days that you cant even go out in your front yard without breaking some kind of law.

On the other hand, I acknowledge that anarchy will not work. It just won't, so i concede the government is needed to keep the world running somewhat smoothly. However it is a bloated monster at this point in time. I see you are bringing up the issue of getting back to the Constitution, but at the same time you are taking jabs at "all democrats". This should be changed to "all politicians". Bush and Co. have actively sought to trample all over the constitution and our personal freedoms in the name of "terror". John McCain? I really don't know. He is as much a flip-flopper as Kerry was. He worries be because it is very unclear what he is all about. On top of that Giuliani supports him and that is not a good sign in my book.

So now we have a huge government that spends trillions of dollars a year. The question now is, what should they do with that? I would rather see it put to good use increasing the standard of living for everyone rather than waging war at every opportunity. I, for one, welcome socialized medicine. There is no reason taxes should increase for this either. We should decrease military spending and shift money to more positive uses.



I think Ron Paul's views were excellent, however I also concur that there is little probability he could get elected, and if he did there is even less likelihood of him executing any of his plans.


Stop thread jacking. Iraq was a mistake period. Afghanistan? Sure we should have blown their **** doors off. Iraq? No. We had no reason to go in there, and the fear mongering is what convinced us that we should.
+1


My bumper sticker was Anarchy, until 9-11 2001.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,302 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
On the other hand, I acknowledge that anarchy will not work. It just won't, so i concede the government is needed to keep the world running somewhat smoothly. However it is a bloated monster at this point in time. I see you are bringing up the issue of getting back to the Constitution, but at the same time you are taking jabs at "all democrats". This should be changed to "all politicians".
You might notice I did mention that "large number of Republicans" as well. I'm more than willing to recognize that under the Bush administration, the Government has grown more than under any other previous President.

So now we have a huge government that spends trillions of dollars a year. The question now is, what should they do with that? I would rather see it put to good use increasing the standard of living for everyone rather than waging war at every opportunity. I, for one, welcome socialized medicine. There is no reason taxes should increase for this either. We should decrease military spending and shift money to more positive uses.
Canada and Great Britain (to name but two examples) are proof enough that you should NOT want Socialized medicine. There is a reason that Canadians come to the US to get medical problems taken care of and that Great Britain is actually looking at doing away with their program. I'd also like to ask you to name the last time our Government actually did something right? Now...bearing that in mind, would you really want to entrust your healthcare to that same group?

But you know what? I can think of way better use of all that money that the Government seizes from us every year. How about they reduce the size of the Government and give us our money back? You want to increase the standard of living? Having more of the money you earn in your pocket rather than in some government welfare program would do that.

Afterall...who's better suited to decide what's best for you? The Imperial Federal Government or you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,055 Posts
You might notice I did mention that "large number of Republicans" as well. I'm more than willing to recognize that under the Bush administration, the Government has grown more than under any other previous President.
Canada and Great Britain (to name but two examples) are proof enough that you should NOT want Socialized medicine. There is a reason that Canadians come to the US to get medical problems taken care of and that Great Britain is actually looking at doing away with their program. I'd also like to ask you to name the last time our Government actually did something right? Now...bearing that in mind, would you really want to entrust your healthcare to that same group?

But you know what? I can think of way better use of all that money that the Government seizes from us every year. How about they reduce the size of the Government and give us our money back? You want to increase the standard of living? Having more of the money you earn in your pocket rather than in some government welfare program would do that.

Afterall...who's better suited to decide what's best for you? The Imperial Federal Government or you?
...couldn't have said it better myself :)

We all want to see Americans have a better standard of living, healthcare, etc. Some people think government policies are the answer. Some people think the free economy will provide the best opportunity to find the answer. I'm in the latter group. I think most politicians (including republicans) fall into the former group.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
16,332 Posts
Canada and Great Britain (to name but two examples) are proof enough that you should NOT want Socialized medicine. There is a reason that Canadians come to the US to get medical problems taken care of and that Great Britain is actually looking at doing away with their program. I'd also like to ask you to name the last time our Government actually did something right? Now...bearing that in mind, would you really want to entrust your healthcare to that same group?
You can't pick 2 countries as proof it will not work. I will 1-up you then... Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Finland... The list goes on. Their health care systems work very well. Look for yourself

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c...ORLDHEALTH2.png
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,357 Posts
You can't pick 2 countries as proof it will not work. I will 1-up you then... Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Finland... The list goes on. Their health care systems work very well. Look for yourself

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c...ORLDHEALTH2.png
whos thread jackin' now... hehe j/k (80%)

Anyway... Of course they work.. but at what cost... there are many systems that can work. some of which are consumer driven.

Consumers have the power... ppl Dependant on the govt do not.

Right now we do not have a consumer driven health care industry, it is an insurance company driven system... even the doctors dont know how much their own services actually cost.

Back to Obama... i tried to keep my war post relating to him... and this just further illustrates my belief that Dems think they are the only ones with the real solutions. Anyone that differs must be a black-hearted, evil, baby-eating, warmonger.. that only cares about big business. They dont even consider anything that doesnt fit into their peacenick socialist mold.

I dont see this from Obama yet.. .but he is part of the liberal system that excludes such independent thinking that can provide answers to things like better health care programs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,348 Posts
It's NOT the Government's responsibility to provide Healthcare for all of its citizens.

The role of Government is to protect the citizens, not to take care of them like children

The Feds need to stop all of this Malpractice Litigation, and start cracking down on Insurance Companies that constantly deny claims for any reason they see fit. This will drastically reduce the cost of insurance, while still maintaining the hiring of good Doctors. People would still have to pay (lowered)insurance premiums and co-pays, which would help to curb any abuse that will definitely occur if you give people healthcare for free.

The people living in dire poverty would still be able to apply, and get Medicaid if they qualify.

The keywords for the day are "Personal Responsibility"
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top