Here is a list of legislative accomplishments Rep. Watson could come up with on MSNBC.
The following is what he could come up with AFTER some time to reflect:
http://www.kirkwatson.com/media/whats-new/2008/02/20/msnbc-and-me/
Obama is not even a good Senator for crying out loud. As President he will be a disaster. Think Carter with less conviction, ethics and vision. You’ll get change alright and you better hope it doesn’t last too long.
The only thing that Obama has to offer on Iraq is to turn it into a humiliating defeat for America and to let Alqaeda and Iran carve it up.
Then he wants to go and start a war with Pakistan. A country with over a hundred million people and nuclear weapons.
At the same time he is going to get rid of all of Americas nuclear weapons in the hope that other countries would then feel obliged to do the same thing. Nuclear weapons keep a lot of things in check. A nuclear free world would have a lot more wars.
The only change Obama is going to make is to make this world a lot more dangerous.
Doggie style?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Interesting take by a pro-Obama columnist:
When backing Barack feels like joining a cult
By Margery Eagan | Thursday, February 21, 2008 |
…
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1074977&format=text[/quote]
That was good - in a slightly different vein:
[Internal links omitted]
http://www.slate.com/id/2184536/\
[i]LOW CONCEPT
It’s Not You, It’s Me
Letter from a young, hip, cynical former Obamamaniac.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Updated Thursday, Feb. 14, 2008, at 6:43 PM ET
Dear Barack:
I know it’s kind of lame to break up with you on Valentine’s Day. And on the Internet to boot. But it’s also kind of ironic. And that’s what I need to tell you. As an ironic, contrarian, so-hip-it-hurts Gen X-er, I just can’t love you anymore. I can’t like you because �?� because, well, everyone else does. And suddenly supporting you just seems soooo last week.
Last week, my hip friends were all thronging stadiums and manning phone banks for you. Now they’re all blogging against you and downing water and Tylenol like they’ve just done 12 Obama shooters in 20 minutes and then barfed in the cloakroom.
I know this is going to sound strange, but it’s not you, Barack, it’s me. Really it always was me, but now it’s really, really about me. I don’t know when we started to feel weird supporting you, but: My friend Hanna thinks it started with that “Yes We Can,” video. I mean, last week I was totally crying watching it. Now just thinking about how choked up I got gives me the creeps. I think I felt something at the time, but even if I did, I’m pretty sure I don’t want to feel it anymore. Feeling inspired is soooo early-February.
Or maybe it started when everyone began madly posting last week about how you are not the Messiah. And that got me thinking. Then, when commentators started accusing me of being a venomous drone in a “cult of personality,” I just needed to get out. I mean cults are soooo 1970s. And cults of personality? So totally first century.
Cult or no cult, this week I just started getting really confused about you. I mean, when people start to say that your strengths are actually weaknesses? That just makes sense, if you really think about it. I mean, what’s the point of being such an inspirational speaker if all you can do is give inspirational speeches? Do better, Barack. I mean, do worse!
So I’ve been thinking a lot about our time together, Barack. Supporting you wholeheartedly was the best damn 14 days of my life. I liked you before liking you was cool. But now it is, so it’s not. Know what I mean? At least now I can go back to being flip and cynical and edgy again. I bet you wish you could, too.
But don’t be sad! My friend has a Web site: IlikedObamabeforehewascool.com. It’s not much of a site, but it sure is funny. As for me, well, I just can’t be comfortable liking you now that liking you is like liking an iPhone. Maybe if you can be more of a jerk or play hard to get or something? Maybe you could uninspire some of your fans? Maybe then I could believe in you again. I’m hopeful. Or at least just hopeful enough to still be cool.
Me, I’m going to roll up my sleeves and start working for the Dennis Kucinich 2012 campaign. Edgy, no? And if things start really truly going south for you, I want you to know that you can count on my future fleeting and conditional support in the months and years ahead. Yes, you can.
Dahlia Lithwick is a Slate senior editor.[/i]
Piledriver…
Falling head over heels for Obama.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. BB, you mean to say you haven’t read the official “Blueprint For Change?” I bring to you, in PDF format, the manifesto of Change.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
[/quote]
I had already read most of what is on his website, so I am familiar with the contents of his Blueprint. Still, reading it literally makes me sick to my stomach. His ideas on all of the major issues are completely backwards.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Falling head over heels for Obama.
[/quote]
Come on, now, it’s not Barack’s fault that people are fainting. I blame global warming.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Falling head over heels for Obama.
Come on, now, it’s not Barack’s fault that people are fainting. I blame global warming.[/quote]
Nah. It’s the Obama groupie ladies. They ge so worked up with all that jumping around, crying, and screaming, that they simply fall out. Further evidence:
I think Obama’s views and points are too good to be true. He’s either putting a front on before the people or he, in his inexperience, is being a little unrealistic of accomplishing all that he says he’s going to accomplish. Vote for Hilary or McCain.
If he passes gun control and then laws regarding citizenship, once he’s our leader, I will then believe in re-incarnation.
The unions and the elitist Democrat’s (see Ed Kennedy) want a Dem in the White House. They see, Hill as unelectible. She cannot beat a Repub. I would beg to differ.
What in the Senate has obam done, right. Obam is nothing more than a meat puppet for the elitist Dem’s. Hillary and John may or may not be the same. Yet Hill and Jake, at least have done something positive for the U.S. and both have extensive domestic and foreign policy experience.
I see a huge disaster if Obam get’s the nod for President. The U.S. needs to be strengthen both domestically and internationally. Obam has no experience doing either. Kinda like Michael Spinks and 32 seconds later from punch by Mike Tyson. Is thanking his mom for the new Red Rider BB Gun he got for Christmas.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I’m interested to know, really. Aside from the rhetoric, what about his candidacy is “change” from traditional U.S. “progressivism”?[/quote]
Uhmmm…I don’t think he’s talking about a change from progressivism (which would be about change, moving foward, etc.)
[quote]100meters wrote:
Uhmmm…I don’t think he’s talking about a change from progressivism (which would be about change, moving foward, etc.)
[/quote]
Exactly - so he is a predictable, status quo candidate with a predictable, status quo platform.
You are correct sir. His positions are classic liberal/progressive - which is ironically named, given that reverting to high taxes and more regulations would hardly be progress in the normal sense of the word.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
Uhmmm…I don’t think he’s talking about a change from progressivism (which would be about change, moving foward, etc.)
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Exactly - so he is a predictable, status quo candidate with a predictable, status quo platform.
You are correct sir. His positions are classic liberal/progressive - which is ironically named, given that reverting to high taxes and more regulations would hardly be progress in the normal sense of the word.[/quote]
“high taxes”? I’ll assume you mean “higher” taxes for the tiny little segment of the population that might be affected, but those taxes certainly wouldn’t be high by any historical measure, as I’m sure you’re actually quite aware. And obviously the economic benefits of the higher taxes would be progress, so not a whole lot of irony me thinks.
Still the larger issue is change from what?
Like I said it’s not a change from commonsense (progressivism/liberalism) but a change to commonsense.
Looks like a prescription to stimulate more outsourcing, if you ask me.
[quote]100meters wrote:
“high taxes”? I’ll assume you mean “higher” taxes for the tiny little segment of the population that might be affected, but those taxes certainly wouldn’t be high by any historical measure, as I’m sure you’re actually quite aware. And obviously the economic benefits of the higher taxes would be progress, so not a whole lot of irony me thinks.
Still the larger issue is change from what?
Like I said it’s not a change from commonsense (progressivism/liberalism) but a change to commonsense.
[/quote]
No, I meant high taxes - they can be both higher than now, and high overall. Just because there were times when they were higher than now doesn’t mean they’re not high - particularly not compared to the original expectation, not that they’ll ever get that low again…
As for progress, I suppose you can define it any way you wish, and you obviously do, but going toward more governmental control of the economy, less free trade, and less choice in health care isn’t progress in many people’s minds - and hopefully the majority of voters.
And as far as Obama’s policies go, the change would be from bad to worse…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
“high taxes”? I’ll assume you mean “higher” taxes for the tiny little segment of the population that might be affected, but those taxes certainly wouldn’t be high by any historical measure, as I’m sure you’re actually quite aware. And obviously the economic benefits of the higher taxes would be progress, so not a whole lot of irony me thinks.
Still the larger issue is change from what?
Like I said it’s not a change from commonsense (progressivism/liberalism) but a change to commonsense.
No, I meant high taxes - they can be both higher than now, and high overall. Just because there were times when they were higher than now doesn’t mean they’re not high - particularly not compared to the original expectation, not that they’ll ever get that low again…
As for progress, I suppose you can define it any way you wish, and you obviously do, but going toward more governmental control of the economy, less free trade, and less choice in health care isn’t progress in many people’s minds - and hopefully the majority of voters.
And as far as Obama’s policies go, the change would be from bad to worse…[/quote]
Uhh… taxes on the wealthy are historically very, very, very low. And at no point did those previous levels prevent them from making even more money.
We have governmental control now, we don’t really have free trade now, and you’ll have the same health care choices. These are fake issues.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Uhh… taxes on the wealthy are historically very, very, very low. And at no point did those previous levels prevent them from making even more money.[/quote]
Marginal rates matter - and they particularly matter when the economy is in a down cycle.
[quote]100meters wrote:
We have governmental control now, we don’t really have free trade now, and you’ll have the same health care choices. These are fake issues.
[/quote]
Nice rhetorical trick. I said “more governmental control,” and you argue that we already have governmental control so increasing it doesn’t matter… I said “less free trade” you said we don’t have free trade now so it doesn’t matter. More governmental control and less free trade matter.
As for health care, it will be worse than now with Obama’s plan. There are parts of his plan that are fine - why not invest in digital records, for example. But most of his plan is not the same and would not be better overall. There are good health care reforms - they don’t involve socializing medicine. They do involve individual choice and individual ownership (and equal treatment of individuals and employers under the tax code), and competition (easily done by allowing companies to sell policies across state lines).