Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mid Atlantic' started by wallysurfr, Oct 31, 2008.
Why is she running for Vice President and your posting on a surfing message board. Loser.
okay sometimes african americans can help this country. and i want all of you guys and girls to stop being racist to our other race, cause its not nice and just low on the totem poll. finally this country is a all equall country it doesnt matter if one person is richer than the other. Just follow the golden rule "TREAT OTHERS THE WAY YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED."
because im not even in college yet
so maybe i will run for vp in 25-30 years
I was being serious though.
No, sorry. You're way off! You are totally wrong and honestly I don't think you really know what you are writing in this thread. If Obama applied for a job as a civilian in the US Government, he would NOT pass the background check. His relationship with Ayers alone would rule him out. Not to mention the other sketchy relationships that he has had, rev. wright, tony resko, etc.
Sorry. Not so. Character assassinations don't cut it in the real business of the US Government. Check the facts.
Rod, you don't think his association with Ayers would hurt him on a background check for TS clearance?
shes running for VP because John McCain made a bad choice... not because she's a smart woman.
and p.s. she's not that hot
his association with Ayers? You mean the one where he served on the same educational board as him?
There's a little more to it than that. Have you read his book?
No more than I can be called a right wing co-conspirator or sympathizer because I have regular associations with several good friends who are "right wing conservatives." Likewise, there are congressional representatives and senators that are polar opposites politically, ethically and in temperament that sit on the same committees and work on the same subcommittees but that does not make them "guilty by association."
During the course of a national security clearance investigation the nature of the alleged association with Ayers could very well be investigated. The degree of investigation would probably reflect the nature of the background investigation... there is a big difference between a general background investigation and a top level investigation. The most recent comment by "pumpmaster" elevates the level of rigor from another person's original assertion "he would NOT pass the background check" to a much more stringent test "hurt him on a background check for a top secret clearance." If hurt means that an investigation would be more thorough and take longer, yes. However, based upon the open, vetted literature on the "association with Ayers" there is no reason to suspect that Obama would be denied a clearance. On the other hand, it is doubtful that Ayers would certainly receive a top level national security clearance.
Here's a little more that bears on all this "association" logic: "An association fallacy is an inductive formal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion."
that sounds about right. Besides, if Sen. McCain had reason to believe that Sen. Obama's past association with Ayers made him a security risk, or in any way unfit to serve, he should have made that argument. Sen. McCain didnt really even try...He brought it up once in the third debate, and just let it drop after Obama gave it a quick dismissal. So it seems McCain himself, who made national security a big part of his basis for running, didn't think much of it.
Thankfully in about 8 hours this whole thing will be over (assuming we have a clear winner and not a nightmare like 2000). I'd prefer McCain (of the 2) but it really won't matter. The next 3 years are going to be an economic nightmare that few on this board have ever experienced (those of us old people might remember the stagflation of the late 70s). I also think that Obama (who I think WILL win) won't be able to implement much of a leftist agenda anyway. There are many blue-dog dems who are conservative and understand that they will lose if they support too many left programs. I aslo think the press turns on Obama sometime around June 09.
Socialism? I don't think so.
Anyone who is claiming that the policies that are being proposed by Obama are reminiscent of socialism are sorely mistaken. It would take a mere glace at wikipedia, let alone reading one of the greatest political, social, and literary works of all time, "The Communist Manifesto", to understand that what Obama is proposing is not even close to central planning socialism.
Under Socialism, there operates a Board of Central Planners. This board makes decisions that, at best, represent the best interests of the working class--the same class that all of you in this forum are in. Under the discretion of these planners, the state would control, as well as own the rights to production of goods, and also control their distribution. This is contrary to supply and demand, the system that some how ran it's self into the ground after banks offered loans to people who they knew couldn't afford them. Big business, and corporations are the result, and we, as consumers get the short end of the stick. Subsidizing health care, a fundamental right in the opinion of many, should be the foremost concern to everyone in society. Quality of care will not diminish, and you will be able to choose the provider you want. We are currently, the only western, first world country without some type of universal health care. Obviously, the outrageous salaries of CEO's (who's worth is speculative at best) are more important than the few hundred dollars it would cost to insure your average citizen. The real way in which the system will change will be from the end of the insurance providers. They are the greed driven, maniacal tyrants that are systematically allowing close to a third of our population to be without coverage, or under covered. Secondly, with out governmental subsidies for things like education, the overall productivity of society would greatly diminish. There would be even more poor people, who through no fault of their own, would remain in the same economic condition that they were born into, perpetuating the cycle of poverty. So any idiot can see, that these programs, while not resembling true socialism in any way, are really in the best interest of everyone in society. Take a minute to think about that. Society, not the individual--not just you. It's a hard concept for many, especially the right. And for all you libertarians out there, socialism has historically, and even currently, had a better run than your self interested, self absorbed theory of individual liberty. We have just about as much individual liberty as is possible, while still providing a decent standard of living for everyone is society. Progressivism, not conservatism (the mindless adherence to principles that stress tradition and maintaining the status quo), should be the mentality of everyone in society. For it is far more beneficial for everyone in that society, including ultimately one's self. The proposed ideas for distribution of what are ultimately fundamental human rights in our current day and age, should be at the highest level of concern for every individual in our society. However, about half of our country is still cling to their own greedy motives, claiming that the left is taking their hard earned money. If you make enough money to live comfortably, then you have a moral obligation, especially if you identify with republicans who through some sort of twisted logic claim to be Christian, are on the moral grounds for at least choose the candidate who's tax policy helps those who have nothing.
In short, the same convoluted, unintelligible, uninformed arguments that are coming from people who ultimately accuse Obama of being an atheist and a Muslim, which is of course a contradiction, are the same people who largely claim to be Christians and Conservatives. There is then another logical contradiction on hand. Those who cling to the teaching of Christianity, largely out of fear, aren't even willing to sacrifice which will ultimately, under Obama's tax plan, amount to less than 100 dollars annually, to help their fellow man. Trickle down economics does not work, and it never has-- it was called the Regan Administration. Those who claim that Obama wants to take their "hard earned" dollars and spread the wealth around, into a system that is according to the right socialism, are sorely mistaken. It is not socialism, you are just greedy hippocrits.
uh oh... i guess youll be moving to the gold coast in two months
You are a moron. Could he REALLY mess things up worse then it has been the past 8 years? I guess you also support Bush. I understand, Bush has been the best president the country EVER had.
P.S. You won't be missed.
That would work accept for one little thing...human nature. that small strong central government would eventually seek more and more power. why is it that the communist/socialist experiment has never once come close to succeeding? Because once in power, the proletariat becomes enamored with power and seeks to accumulate more and more of it.
Bush wasn't stellar by a long shot but I challenge you to name ONE president who since the end of WWII who had to deal with the number of crisis that Bush had. He inherited a recession, then 911 then Katrina then this current financial disaster. Here's a good article fro you to think about (written by an ex-Kerry aide no less):
Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.
According to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% -- down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.
This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."
Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.
The president's original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.
It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.
Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.
Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, "We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America."
To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman's low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.
Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years -- and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.
Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.
Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004.
Wow, you just nailed that right on the head. Good one. It always amazes me why people don't like him. No one ever has a good answer, and if someone responds to this, "He is an idiot, he doesn't know what he is doing", I am going to scream. Someone give me a good answer, please.
He did not inherit a recession from Clinton, in fact the economy was doing pretty well.(http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html) As far as 9/11 goes, he obviously lost his cool, or just lied to people because there is multiple reasons i get for going to war with Iraq after we were attacked by people from Saudi Arabia, then afterwards a group based out of Afganistan took responsibility, then quickly fled to Pakistan where they are protected. I'm sorry but there is no justification for overthrowing Saddam, we had bigger problems. Katrina was probably the most challenging thing, but only because it came at a difficult time. It would seem that times were difficult however, due to the fact that we had a massive increase in the defense budget. As much as throwing money at the problem of Iraq didn't work, I think katrina might have been fixable by spending. The financial disaster is quite a challenge and he should not be blamed for this crisis. The mortgage bubble was allowed to happen by the government, but it was the responsibility of the banks, and of the people getting loans to be more responsible. Bush is reacting the way any president would in the face of such a complex crisis.