A Guide to Obama Supporters

[pocketfullofshells]

I wouldnt say that the left blindly follows the left leaders. There are groups within the left that differ. Some say we shouldnt have gone to even Afganastan, some say yes we should bethere but not Iraq.

It is Obama that I thik tey follow blindly. NO obama supporter stands up to the stupid things he says and disagrees, they run to defend it. even andys post that was mocking obama and his energy plan. without one slight critical thing, they blindly defended it, and they blindly defend everything he says and does.

I dont see that for any other person on the left or the right. This guy, its as if he has a spell on his "followers"

seems the only spell I see is on you, because I know many supporters and all have there issues and disagreements on issue with him. I am a supporter and I have never had any issue stating I don't always agree. Maybe its because internally we will debate the stuff, but dont want to give a inch to the Right because we are sooo sick of Bush and we want a new Direction,,,and McCain does not seem the Direction we want. As much as I respect him, and think he would be 20 times better then Bush...I don't see him making the changes needed. I think your lack of having anyone to support , makes you prone to only seeing negative and not the positives. I have no idea where your hate comes from, I dont understand it at all, and I know you would sit and say he is a racist and say look at his chuch and all that, but I dont see that at all, regardless of what his Church leader said. And I say that even when I was not supporting him and giving McCain alot of thought. YOur hate of him seems to be nothing but the same thing you claim in his supporters at times.

 

[GenSeneca]

Maybe its because internally we will debate the stuff

Where? Please tell me where I can find people complaining about Obama and his policies.... I would feel even better to hear that than I felt when he chose Biden as VP.

I frequent the KOS and DU websites and there's nothing but praise for O and seething hatred for Bush, McCain and the Right in general. The only "Complaint" that I ever hear is that the Left is too soft and needs to be more authoritarian when dealing with the Right.

 

[Pandora]

seems the only spell I see is on you, because I know many supporters and all have there issues and disagreements on issue with him. I am a supporter and I have never had any issue stating I don't always agree. Maybe its because internally we will debate the stuff, but dont want to give a inch to the Right because we are sooo sick of Bush and we want a new Direction,,,and McCain does not seem the Direction we want. As much as I respect him, and think he would be 20 times better then Bush...I don't see him making the changes needed. I think your lack of having anyone to support , makes you prone to only seeing negative and not the positives. I have no idea where your hate comes from, I dont understand it at all, and I know you would sit and say he is a racist and say look at his chuch and all that, but I dont see that at all, regardless of what his Church leader said. And I say that even when I was not supporting him and giving McCain alot of thought. YOur hate of him seems to be nothing but the same thing you claim in his supporters at times.

Well I can agree with you that I have a lot of hate lately. It could be pent up fustration from hearing the hate spread about Bush for the last 8 years, I dont know. But I do admit I hate Obama and his wife and nancy pelosi. I dont care for a number of others but its not hate.

If the libs have any doubt about obama (NOT COUNTING HILLARY SUPPORTERS) they have hid it well because I have never heard a peep. just blind faith for him.

and thats another thing, some hillary supporters like silouette were bashed in the teeth like a dirty republican for daring not to fall lock step in line for "THE ONE" its like the chicago mob mentality, you will be beat in the face if you dont go with the guy we say to go with.

all that sets wrong with me and it makes me hate obama more and totally have no respect for his zombies

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Where? Please tell me where I can find people complaining about Obama and his policies.... I would feel even better to hear that than I felt when he chose Biden as VP.

I frequent the KOS and DU websites and there's nothing but praise for O and seething hatred for Bush, McCain and the Right in general. The only "Complaint" that I ever hear is that the Left is too soft and needs to be more authoritarian when dealing with the Right.

I was talking in real life...I don't go to other boards. Most of my freinds talk Politics with me, as they all like my opinion on things ...and alot of them got more into them becuse I was always talking about issues.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

We can agree on those... But I do think there is nuance where Patriotism is concerned. Like the issue of saying its patriotic to debate and disagree when its nothing more than obstruction and political grandstanding. Also, I know very few on the right who question patriotism of the Left and instead see the vast majority questioning the Lefts judgment. They all said the surge wouldn't succeed, then after it did they said - we never said it wouldn't.

Now the blind following cuts both ways... I see plenty of it on both sides. However, at least from where I'm sitting, I see more of it on the Left than the Right. The Left almost never voices complaints about their own and the result is they keep horrible people in office while the Right is adamant about pushing undesirables out when they get busted. Top & Pop call fellow Democrats that disagree "traitors" and think they should be pushed out of the party - even if they agree 95% of the time with Democrats on policy. Thats just too totalitarian to compare with the right who only pushes out members for being caught in cases of impropriety.

thats odd becuse form my view that is the strengh of the Right, they normaly just fall in line and walk in step with the party and Hold to what eer teh party line is...the Left is so fragmented that it eats itself alive with its so many interests and groups. I realy only see a few groups on the Right, the Neo Cons, the Christian Right, the Buisness leaders, and the liberarian side...and for a long time they seemed to all work with each other with only the libatarian group and some "true" conservitives being left out. LIke Pat Buchanen and those who went on to the LIbitarian party, and myself who was sick of the Christian Rights power in the party for the most part. ( neo Cons where not big then)

and as for the I see the unamerican thing all the time. You may recall it was McCain's saying that Obama would rather win the Election and lose the war in Iraq that made say I was done with McCain..to me that was basically saying he cares more about him and the party then America and our troops in Iraq...I find that totally unacceptable and disrespectful and everything that pissed me off about so many on the right ( especially in the lead up to the Iraq war) Even those we support our troops bumper stickers....notice that it has Our underlined? To most its nothing, to me its a subtle jab implying that somehow those who did not support the war, supported the other side. Even The American Flag to me almost became nothing but a Republican political gimmick to try and act like they are more American. I think its really sad that I would even get to that point, personaly I never was a flag waver...to me its just a symbol but one that means nothing if not backed with actions. I know people who would fly the flag but then tell me they where to lazy to even vote, because they did not want to go threw the work....To me going out and supporting Democracy and voting, and all that , regardless of for what party...is worth alot more then just hanging up a flag.

Sorry I think I ranter....I do that

someone once called me unamerican on a diff board. I typed a lashing back rant at them so long I had to use 2 pages to fit it all....I was just a bit pissed lol

 

[GenSeneca]

You may recall it was McCain's saying that Obama would rather win the Election and lose the war in Iraq

I happen to think the Anti-War message has enough political traction and populism associated with it that the Left is glad to pander to such views in order to win an election, when in fact they are not against the war.

Obama WAS against the surge and I think thats entirely because that was the popular stance at the time and it did help him to win the election.... McCain was calling for a surge long before it was popular and, believe it or not, so was Gore. So.. Was it that Obama was willing to lose the war in Iraq to win that election? I see it that way but I don't think thats applicable now in the '08 election. Back in his last election, Obama wasn't making any arguments for victory, only arguments for quitting - with the justification that it would cause the Iraqi's to take control of their own security. (I also think Biden's plan back then to partition the country was a horrible plan that would have created more problems than it solved.. But it sounded good and became quite popular)

Pelosi and the Gang ran in '06 on ending the war to win the election But did they end the war? Nope... I don't think they wanted to either, they just wanted to give the impression to placate their Anti-War crowd and then turn around and blame the Republicans for blocking attempts to end the war... They could have pulled the purse strings before the surge was put in place, back when things were looking their bleakest, they had the votes and chose to pass non-binding resolutions instead.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I happen to think the Anti-War message has enough political traction and populism associated with it that the Left is glad to pander to such views in order to win an election, when in fact they are not against the war.

Obama WAS against the surge and I think that's entirely because that was the popular stance at the time and it did help him to win the election.... McCain was calling for a surge long before it was popular and, believe it or not, so was Gore. So.. Was it that Obama was willing to lose the war in Iraq to win that election? I see it that way but I don't think that's applicable now in the '08 election. Back in his last election, Obama wasn't making any arguments for victory, only arguments for quitting - with the justification that it would cause the Iraqi's to take control of their own security. (I also think Biden's plan back then to partition the country was a horrible plan that would have created more problems than it solved.. But it sounded good and became quite popular)

Pelosi and the Gang ran in '06 on ending the war to win the election But did they end the war? Nope... I don't think they wanted to either, they just wanted to give the impression to placate their Anti-War crowd and then turn around and blame the Republicans for blocking attempts to end the war... They could have pulled the purse strings before the surge was put in place, back when things were looking their bleakest, they had the votes and chose to pass non-binding resolutions instead.

I don't think he was against it because it was popular...I think he was against it because he felt that we needed to be getting out, not putting more in...and we needed to let Iraq learn to start dealing with its problems without us babysitting. I don't see pulling troops out as a not claiming Victory ( well realy Bush already claimed that anyway) because of 2 reasons. Getting iraq to stand on its own 2 feet was the goal, and had we left it was felt by many and is that only they could they really start to do that...and if that is the case and we left and they stood up for themself finnaly ,,,,then is that not a Victory? I have to ask that because based on the reasons we went to war and Bush gave...I have no Freaking idea what a "Victory" even would look like.

And as For Bidens Plan its not far from what ended up happening anyway, the Fighting basically split Iraq into 3, and when we leave you will see in the years to come it slit more and more anyway. I am willing to bet that in 30 years Iraq's borders do not look the same anymore as part of it split off or is more or less running itself. Thing is from the start at best it was a idea we could push, but it was up to Iraq to decided.

 

[GenSeneca]

I don't think he was against it because it was popular...

I disagree based on his record for waffling on popular issues. Perhaps you can point to an Unpopular but principled stance he has held onto that hurts him in the polls... that would go a long way to convincing me it wasn't purely a political calculation.

And as For Bidens Plan its not far from what ended up happening anyway, the Fighting basically split Iraq into 3

I disagree with that characterization. They went from a dictatorial centralized government that held together 3 distinct regions to a more Federalist system like we have. We have 50 states each with their own government, Iraq has 3 states who now have far more self governance than before, but there's still just one Federal Government that all the states must abide by.

I think the only way Iraq would move toward 3 independent nations would be if outside forces, mainly their neighbors, were allowed to push it that direction. The Iraqi Federal Government needs to be strong enough to hold together the 3 states but flexible enough to give each one the autonomy they are promised under the system. We do play a roll in making sure that happens and I think calling it babysitting to do so undermines the real objective... Stability.

Thats what Victory in Iraq has been all along, to have a stable ally in the WOT in the ME. Iraq splitting into 3 independent nations would create more problems, not less, especially diplomatically, and we would need to have all 3 on board as allies or the ones left out would be nervous about our relationship with the others and would gravitate towards our enemies for security.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I disagree based on his record for waffling on popular issues. Perhaps you can point to an Unpopular but principled stance he has held onto that hurts him in the polls... that would go a long way to convincing me it wasn't purely a political calculation.

I disagree with that characterization. They went from a dictatorial centralized government that held together 3 distinct regions to a more Federalist system like we have. We have 50 states each with their own government, Iraq has 3 states who now have far more self governance than before, but there's still just one Federal Government that all the states must abide by.

I think the only way Iraq would move toward 3 independent nations would be if outside forces, mainly their neighbors, were allowed to push it that direction. The Iraqi Federal Government needs to be strong enough to hold together the 3 states but flexible enough to give each one the autonomy they are promised under the system. We do play a roll in making sure that happens and I think calling it babysitting to do so undermines the real objective... Stability.

Thats what Victory in Iraq has been all along, to have a stable ally in the WOT in the ME. Iraq splitting into 3 independent nations would create more problems, not less, especially diplomatically, and we would need to have all 3 on board as allies or the ones left out would be nervous about our relationship with the others and would gravitate towards our enemies for security.

I think what we see when we leave as a government and what we find years from now will not be very close to the same. Maybe I will be wrong, I hope I will be, but I dont see it staying together..And so far in regards to Iraq from the start just about everything I had guessed , turned out true...even though I would have rather been wrong and had it go well.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Young I am fine with, Inexperienced...I question if you even know my experience...is the naive part that I take offense to. So yea, when someone calls me that, I tend to not take that. And the Libtards ..I am defending Liberals not me, I know you always say but not me, but fact is most liberals I know are just like me, and thus I will Defend them.

Great, we have established that you are in fact young. Experienced? If you feel that you have some great amount of experience in life that we're unaware of that precludes you from that observation, then by all means, enlighten us. Naive? OK, then allow me to elucidate. When you have clearly stated that you are going to be supporting a candidate who is extremely inexperienced, is extremely unqualified, who can't string together a simple sentence without a teleprompter without saying "uh", and "um", after every other word, who can't decide from one day to the next where he stands on any particular issue, and who has repeatedly lied, not "flip-flopped", not "changed his position based on new information", but LIED about his beliefs, simply because you "like" him, I consider that to be extremely naive.

Now, if you disagree with that assessment, then by all means, PLEASE enlighten us as to exactly why you feel that Obastard is MORE qualified to be the Commander In Chief of the United States military and the leader of the entire free world than John McCain at this particular point in history.

Late Edit:
PFOS, here's the deal my young friend; the job of POTUS isn't about "bread and circuses", which is what Liberals, NeoCons, and RINO's (notice I didn't say "conservatives") are all about, the job of POTUS is first and foremost to defend America. The President is bound by the Constitution, just as Congress is SUPPOSED to be, and any time I hear a Presidential candidate talking about abortion, Social Security, Welfare, raising taxes, or any of that, he/she is talking about EXCEEDING the authority granted them in the Constitution, and as such are promising to break their Oath before they even take it, because NONE of those things, and for that matter none of the vast majority of what Liberals stand for, complies with the clear letter and meaning enumerated within the Constitution, which in my mind automatically disqualifies them from holding ANY office of trust.

Speaking as an "old phart", a father, a grandfather, a lifelong student of the Constitution, a Veteran, and a business owner, or in other words, as someone with REAL life experience, there is not the first thing in Obastards resume` that has given me any indication that he has even the first true qualification to be POTUS, and in fact, he is so UN-qualified that I'd have a hard time understanding how the people of the State of Illinois hired him to represent them in the Senate.

 

[top gun]

I admit that Bush has spent a ton, but Bush is not on the ballot in 2008. Further, I posted the breakdown of all of the promises Obama has made and the cost they will take and the tax rates that will have to be enacted to pay for it.

If Obama keeps his promises, he will deficit spend to higher levels than Bush did. So if you are against massive spending, how do you support Obama?

Also, the Bush tax cuts helped me, so I do not want to see them go really no. Also, I am of the opinion that trade deficits are meaningless, now the national debt is a problem, but the solution to this problem is not to increase spending, taxes, and the deficit to record levels. I think we can all agree on that, the only problem is that is what Obama is promising to do.

Well we have some common ground and that's always a good thing.

We both agree Bush has spent too much... more than anyone else.

I conclude that since John McCain is now preaching Bush economic philosophy this problem would only get worse.

All candidates swing for the fences on what they say they will provide if elected (and only a fraction ever really comes to pass). Republicans do this nearly as much as Democrats they just target different areas where money would be spent and have no problem with paying for any of because they have become the Party of debt... push the bill off to the next generation, our children.

So I see this as a wash except I'm more in favor of where Democrats spend our money and I think the Clinton economics of clearing debt proved to bring forth an excellent economy.

I relate with you well on the tax cuts not because they helped me all that much I make about 55K my wife about 40K... in Ohio that's not too bad. But my brother & his wife (also in Ohio) are very well off I'd estimate together they're at least double that. So as you'd expect he's a pretty Republican voting guy.

Now I'm not going to lie to you and say he's going to vote for Senator Obama. But he has told me he likes Senator Obama on a lot of things from his positions on the War in Iraq to some kind of major change to our Healthcare system (his wife has been diagnosed with MS). He could go either way with Social Security but then he's been in the markets for years so he's comfortable there.

He thinks McCain comes off as too old and bad tempered to really be an effective top executive (my brother is an executive) and he sees a lot more War spending with a McCain in office.

Last we talked he said he's sitting this election out... his wife originally leaned Clinton but now says she'll probably vote Obama (a lot has to do with their sky high Healthcare cost) unless she sits out too.

So I do understand your perspective. I can understand not wanting to take more of a tax hit. But I really think when this deficit spending really catches up with us (and that hasn't even close to have happened yet) you'd find the Democratic costs not much worse on you with some services actually costing you less.

Good to have a civil conversation.

 

[Federal Farmer]

We both agree Bush has spent too much... more than anyone else.

More lies! Even if you just count the Iraq War, which is currently at $550 Bn, it's still a non-starter. WWII cost us $306 Bn, in 1940 dollars, which traslates to over $4.553 TRILLION in 2007 dollars! That's $101 Bn A MONTH tg, for the 45 months of WWII. Operation Iraqi Freedom has been going on since March of '03, or 65 months, which works out to only $8.46 Bn per month.

It's LONG past time guys like you started doing some basic research before tryinig to spread your lies to anyone other than your Kool-Aide chugging sycophants, because nobody else is buying it.

 

[top gun]

More lies! Even if you just count the Iraq War, which is currently at $550 Bn, it's still a non-starter. WWII cost us $306 Bn, in 1940 dollars, which traslates to over $4.553 TRILLION in 2007 dollars! That's $101 Bn A MONTH tg, for the 45 months of WWII. Operation Iraqi Freedom has been going on since March of '03, or 65 months, which works out to only $8.46 Bn per month.

It's LONG past time guys like you started doing some basic research before tryinig to spread your lies to anyone other than your Kool-Aide chugging sycophants, because nobody else is buying it.

Farmer... you love me... you took me off your ignore list... Yea!

You are seriously clueless if you think this invasion and occupation built totally on lies is not expensive and the serious borrowing we are doing mainly from Communist China is good for our economy.

You don't have to be Mr. Wizard to figure out it's an ECONOMY KILLER. It's what Reagan did with deficit spending with "star wars". It will last living on credit for about two terms and then it tanks long & hard. It tanked on Bush #1 the exact same way.

The only difference is that Bush #2 ain't all that good with math and it started tankin' early making him look like an idiot instead of the next guy!

Republicans couldn't run a good economy with two hands and a flashlight!

 

[BigRob]

I conclude that since John McCain is now preaching Bush economic philosophy this problem would only get worse.

How is it worse when Obama is preaching much higher spending and tax levels?

All candidates swing for the fences on what they say they will provide if elected (and only a fraction ever really comes to pass). Republicans do this nearly as much as Democrats they just target different areas where money would be spent and have no problem with paying for any of because they have become the Party of debt... push the bill off to the next generation, our children.

Bush "swung for the fences" and then spent more than he said. Most people end up spending more than they promise. This is a problem for me because Obama is promising to increase spending to never before seen levels. His plan to pay for this spending does not work mathematically, and I think this is a problem.

So I see this as a wash except I'm more in favor of where Democrats spend our money and I think the Clinton economics of clearing debt proved to bring forth an excellent economy.

Obama's plans calls for raising taxes like Clinton did to pay for his spending increases. His promised spending already totals over $300,000,000,000 plus a year, while the Clinton tax cuts (called the largest in history) only generated $270,000,000 over a five year period. How does this add up to paying down the debt?

I relate with you well on the tax cuts not because they helped me all that much I make about 55K my wife about 40K... in Ohio that's not too bad. But my brother & his wife (also in Ohio) are very well off I'd estimate together they're at least double that. So as you'd expect he's a pretty Republican voting guy.

What did he do with his saved money? I invested pretty much all of it, which gets more money to companies who then grow and create jobs and grow the economy.

If the plan is to basically send out another stimulus check (like Bush did, and basically like Obama wants to do) the economy does not really respond, as we have seen. The money is spent in few places, and it does not grow the economy.

Now I'm not going to lie to you and say he's going to vote for Senator Obama. But he has told me he likes Senator Obama on a lot of things from his positions on the War in Iraq to some kind of major change to our Healthcare system (his wife has been diagnosed with MS). He could go either way with Social Security but then he's been in the markets for years so he's comfortable there.

I think your comments are interesting on Social Security. If we took SS private and had everyone putting money into the market for years, would we all not be much better off now?

He thinks McCain comes off as too old and bad tempered to really be an effective top executive (my brother is an executive) and he sees a lot more War spending with a McCain in office.

War spending perhaps, I think there will be no avoiding this for either McCain or Obama. I do not think Obama would not do a decent job of managing, it is just what he will enact as a "manager" that I have a problem with.

Last we talked he said he's sitting this election out... his wife originally leaned Clinton but now says she'll probably vote Obama (a lot has to do with their sky high Healthcare cost) unless she sits out too.

Well you need to get him back on track voting for McCain

So I do understand your perspective. I can understand not wanting to take more of a tax hit. But I really think when this deficit spending really catches up with us (and that hasn't even close to have happened yet) you'd find the Democratic costs not much worse on you with some services actually costing you less.

Good to have a civil conversation.

I still do not mind deficit spending all that much. I think that the policies Obama wants will slow the market and rise inflation, and further weaken the dollar. Econ 101 will tell you that setting price controls on different sectors does not work and never has.

We have to let the market work itself now, not try to govern our way out of every problem.

 

[top gun]

BigRob;57431]How is it worse when Obama is preaching much higher spending and tax levels?

Senator Obama would do like Bill Clinton did. Put the tax levels back where they were and focus on deficit reduction. He would end the occupation much quicker in Iraq... huge savings. He would work to end some of the huge Tax Breaks (Corporate Welfare) for Corporations that are absolutely making a fortune already and would still be without them.

Really the only thing in question is a National Healthcare System. And I'm not sure he'll be able to pull that off myself with all the debt that Bush is laying in his lap. But I'll tell you this it could have been done easily if we were in the same economic position we were under President Clinton. It's a goal.

I look for National Healthcare to take quite awhile. But I also think with a Democratic President and Democratic Congress several things to lower prices can be done almost immediately.

Bush "swung for the fences" and then spent more than he said. Most people end up spending more than they promise. This is a problem for me because Obama is promising to increase spending to never before seen levels. His plan to pay for this spending does not work mathematically, and I think this is a problem.

I've said this before. Republicans spend just as much or more than Democrats. Look it up. Spending tends to go up more under Republicans. The only difference is where they spend it. If you want a real small government you need to go Libertarian.

I think your comments are interesting on Social Security. If we took SS private and had everyone putting money into the market for years, would we all not be much better off now?

What you think is true is actually a recipe for old age homelessness. I've said this before. If you really believe that everyone investing on their own is as good... FDIC Insure it. Make it guaranteed that you can't lose more than the current benefit. But you can't because the whole point is their IS risk!

There's an old saying that applies here with Bush and what would be the following McBush economic policy.

When you find yourself in a hole... quit digging! That's what Bush trickle down type economics is... a hole that the middle class gets buried in.

We need a change... we need it now... and not just by name.