Barack - What Are His Positions?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
I am surprised no one has brought up exactly how original Obama’s words are.

Barrack seems to stand behind his zero accomplishments based his powerful words, but I wonder exactly how many of those words are his.

Wow. He lifted that completely. When are people going to wake up? This man is a fraud.

Yeah, the thing is…deval suggested he use those lines, they’re good friends, and have exchanged ideas…

I mean he wrote 2 books and most of all his speeches and you’ve latched onto a suggested line.

but yeah good post otherwise.

A line? Did you watch the videos? Every line. The man is a fraud.

Yes every line from a friend, who share lines, who is a campaign co- chair, who suggested using it… god your just hopelessly stupid.

[/quote]

Dude, do you realize this clown stands only on his borrowed words? That is the problem. He has nothing other than his words to stand on…and you can watch him tout how they are “just words,” insinuating there is much more to it than just the words.

Well, they are someone else’s words and the strong words he is quoting are not someone else’s…they are original…“I have a dream” Dr. Martin Luther King, and on and on.

I can sit back and talk all day about what can, will, how, this and that, but unless I actually accomplish something, my words mean NOTHING, and my words mean even less than nothing if they are borrowed words.

How can you not see a problem with this? The issue is not that he borrowed the words…that is not in question and never has been, the issue is that his platform stands only on his words because he has zero accomplishments, and his words are borrowed. This equates to zero accomplishments and zero words.

Get it? ZERO ACCOMPLISHMENTS. And you call Zap stupid?

162

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
…

McCain is not going to win in November, and do you really want Hillary in office? There is no way Obama can do a worse job than the current administration has, so I’m trying to be optimistic, this is the way the cards will lie, might as well make the most of them.

I just registered democrat to vote for Hillary in April. That is how much I do not want to see Obama.

He is the big unknown and what little I do know I do not like. Not what I want for a president.
[/quote]

Uh, what position of Hillary’s do you prefer over Obama?

163

[quote]100meters wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
I can not and will not vote for a Presidential candidate that has accomplished nothing during their Senate career.

Since when is accomplishing nothing a positive attribute? The assertion that zero accomplishments is good because there is no negative history is asinine.

I want this to be very clear, I am not saying he has not done much with his career, I am saying he has accomplished nothing as a Senator.

What do you do when the candidate was never a senator?
I mean the requirement is be 35 years old.
He has more legislative experience than Clinton and has better judgement on foreign policy than either McCain (obviously) or Clinton. And McCain doesn’t know anything about the economy.

Seems like an easy choice.[/quote]

What seems easy is sitting back and saying what I would have done in hindsight. What is easy is painting a rosy picture with no history of accomplishments and zero bipartisanship to speak of. What is easy is talking about all this change.

Actually accomplishing something and actually having been there to vote are more difficult.

I am willing to bet you are one of the tools that sat back with Bill in office and the economy booming and the lowest deficit in history claiming Bill is not president…Hillary is. And now that Hillary is running against this guy you claim she had nothing to do with the presidency when Bill was in office.

Do you really think it is worse to have Hillary who is intelligent, accomplished, and experienced; and married to Bill who is intelligent, accomplished, experienced, and turned the largest deficit in US history into the largest surplus in US history than having one person with zero accomplishments and BIG WORDS OF CHANGE?

Man, no wonder this country is where it is at. I bet you would be all about Oprah running for president.

If the candidate has never been a senator…I see no reason to vote for them just like a senator that has never accomplished anything. And by the way, there are more requirements than just being 35. If 35 were the only requirement your boy Arnold would run.

164

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
I am surprised no one has brought up exactly how original Obama’s words are.

Barrack seems to stand behind his zero accomplishments based his powerful words, but I wonder exactly how many of those words are his.

Wow. He lifted that completely. When are people going to wake up? This man is a fraud.

Yeah, the thing is…deval suggested he use those lines, they’re good friends, and have exchanged ideas…

I mean he wrote 2 books and most of all his speeches and you’ve latched onto a suggested line.

but yeah good post otherwise.

A line? Did you watch the videos? Every line. The man is a fraud.

Yes every line from a friend, who share lines, who is a campaign co- chair, who suggested using it… god your just hopelessly stupid.

Dude, do you realize this clown stands only on his borrowed words? That is the problem. He has nothing other than his words to stand on…and you can watch him tout how they are “just words,” insinuating there is much more to it than just the words.

Well, they are someone else’s words and the strong words he is quoting are not someone else’s…they are original…“I have a dream” Dr. Martin Luther King, and on and on.

I can sit back and talk all day about what can, will, how, this and that, but unless I actually accomplish something, my words mean NOTHING, and my words mean even less than nothing if they are borrowed words.

How can you not see a problem with this? The issue is not that he borrowed the words…that is not in question and never has been, the issue is that his platform stands only on his words because he has zero accomplishments, and his words are borrowed. This equates to zero accomplishments and zero words.

Get it? ZERO ACCOMPLISHMENTS. And you call Zap stupid?

[/quote]

well, yeah Zap is stupid.

But again, I’m not sure that you’re getting it. Deval suggested he use that bit. And he did. It’s one bit. He speaks multiple times a day, everyday, and Zap is hung up on one bit that Obama’s friend and co chair suggested he use.

Also I checked, he does have more than zero accomplishments.

I think you’re mistaken on both of your points, but otherwise good post.

165

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
100meters wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
I can not and will not vote for a Presidential candidate that has accomplished nothing during their Senate career.

Since when is accomplishing nothing a positive attribute? The assertion that zero accomplishments is good because there is no negative history is asinine.

I want this to be very clear, I am not saying he has not done much with his career, I am saying he has accomplished nothing as a Senator.

What do you do when the candidate was never a senator?
I mean the requirement is be 35 years old.
He has more legislative experience than Clinton and has better judgement on foreign policy than either McCain (obviously) or Clinton. And McCain doesn’t know anything about the economy.

Seems like an easy choice.

What seems easy is sitting back and saying what I would have done in hindsight. What is easy is painting a rosy picture with no history of accomplishments and zero bipartisanship to speak of. What is easy is talking about all this change.

Actually accomplishing something and actually having been there to vote are more difficult.

I am willing to bet you are one of the tools that sat back with Bill in office and the economy booming and the lowest deficit in history claiming Bill is not president…Hillary is. And now that Hillary is running against this guy you claim she had nothing to do with the presidency when Bill was in office.

Do you really think it is worse to have Hillary who is intelligent, accomplished, and experienced; and married to Bill who is intelligent, accomplished, experienced, and turned the largest deficit in US history into the largest surplus in US history than having one person with zero accomplishments and BIG WORDS OF CHANGE?

Man, no wonder this country is where it is at. I bet you would be all about Oprah running for president.

If the candidate has never been a senator…I see no reason to vote for them just like a senator that has never accomplished anything. And by the way, there are more requirements than just being 35. If 35 were the only requirement your boy Arnold would run.

[/quote]

I prefer Obama over Hillary. I don’t hate Hillary.

That being sad, on the biggest issue facing her at that time, she voted yes on AUMF WITHOUT reading the N.I.E., and that vote infers another failure in judgement, trusting President Bush. You call this playing armchair quarterback, but at the time she could have done her own “scouting” and at least have read the NIE. Also there were any number of democrats who did have the sense to vote no. She didn’t along with countless other dems clearly more concerned about the next election cycle.

I don’t see why I have to reward her now for her horribly failed judgement, and also Bill was known to have been more informed on issues than the people coming to inform him (i.e. he’s a reader). I wish Hillary had displayed that same curiosity.

what were the other requirements of experience to be president.
the only one I know of is 35 years of life experience.

166

Other requirements include being a native born US citizen or born abroad from native born us citizens(hence my Arnold joke).

Well 100 I do agree with you. She has some skeletons in her closet. Originally I supported Obama because Hillary was just too dirty to support, but then I did a little research and found he has accomplished nothing as a senator and has little to no international experience, and Hillary actually has stood for the right cause art times.

My vote changed to Hillary when I looked at what both of them accomplished. Hillary has done too much to be ignored, and she has Bill whispering in her ear.

Hillary was in the middle of the white water scandal and refused to turn over court ordered documents…which were later found on her desk, she voted to allow nuclear power companies in New York to charge OPEC prices for power, she dropped universal health care to become the second highest recipient of campaign contributions from the AMA, she chastises the current administration but has never once stood as a leader and done anything about it, and the list goes on.

I tell myself she voted the way she has at times to keep her bipartisan appeal. Having the other side on your side helps. Bill had a republican majority house and senate during his career but still managed to get many things passed that were not in repub. favor.

I am afraid Obama will not be able to levy bipartisan support and the government will stagnate in debate. Obama seems to be very one sided, and that is simply not going to work. He has little to no international experience which is important at this time. He has no accomplishments or voting on major issues to gauge his judgement, only hindsight and rhetoric (perhaps not even his own rhetoric). These far reaching ideas such as opposition to free trade and diposing of nuclear weapons are delusions of grandeur at best. Cuba suffers big time because of trade embargoes placed on them. How can an argument be made against free trade?

I can’t say I have followed politics closely within the past year and that is because I think it was driving me nuts. I am all about educating myself for the best vote I can make.

167

[quote]100meters wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
I can not and will not vote for a Presidential candidate that has accomplished nothing during their Senate career.

Since when is accomplishing nothing a positive attribute? The assertion that zero accomplishments is good because there is no negative history is asinine.

I want this to be very clear, I am not saying he has not done much with his career, I am saying he has accomplished nothing as a Senator.

What do you do when the candidate was never a senator?
I mean the requirement is be 35 years old.
He has more legislative experience than Clinton and has better judgement on foreign policy than either McCain (obviously) or Clinton. And McCain doesn’t know anything about the economy.

Seems like an easy choice.[/quote]

Better judgement? Bomb Pakistan and suck up to Iran? Double talk about pulling out of treaties?

This is good judgement?

168

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
…

McCain is not going to win in November, and do you really want Hillary in office? There is no way Obama can do a worse job than the current administration has, so I’m trying to be optimistic, this is the way the cards will lie, might as well make the most of them.

I just registered democrat to vote for Hillary in April. That is how much I do not want to see Obama.

He is the big unknown and what little I do know I do not like. Not what I want for a president.

Uh, what position of Hillary’s do you prefer over Obama?
[/quote]

I think domestically they both suck and will raise taxes. Hillary will probably be more reasonable than Obama but her targeted taxes reek of too much government control in our lives.

Foreign policy Hillary is hands down the winner. Obama is so far off the mark it is amazing.

The choice between Hillary and Obama is choosing between bad and worse. Obama is worse.

169

[quote]100meters wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
I am surprised no one has brought up exactly how original Obama’s words are.

Barrack seems to stand behind his zero accomplishments based his powerful words, but I wonder exactly how many of those words are his.

Wow. He lifted that completely. When are people going to wake up? This man is a fraud.

Yeah, the thing is…deval suggested he use those lines, they’re good friends, and have exchanged ideas…

I mean he wrote 2 books and most of all his speeches and you’ve latched onto a suggested line.

but yeah good post otherwise.

A line? Did you watch the videos? Every line. The man is a fraud.

Yes every line from a friend, who share lines, who is a campaign co- chair, who suggested using it… god your just hopelessly stupid.

Dude, do you realize this clown stands only on his borrowed words? That is the problem. He has nothing other than his words to stand on…and you can watch him tout how they are “just words,” insinuating there is much more to it than just the words.

Well, they are someone else’s words and the strong words he is quoting are not someone else’s…they are original…“I have a dream” Dr. Martin Luther King, and on and on.

I can sit back and talk all day about what can, will, how, this and that, but unless I actually accomplish something, my words mean NOTHING, and my words mean even less than nothing if they are borrowed words.

How can you not see a problem with this? The issue is not that he borrowed the words…that is not in question and never has been, the issue is that his platform stands only on his words because he has zero accomplishments, and his words are borrowed. This equates to zero accomplishments and zero words.

Get it? ZERO ACCOMPLISHMENTS. And you call Zap stupid?

well, yeah Zap is stupid.

But again, I’m not sure that you’re getting it. Deval suggested he use that bit. And he did. It’s one bit. He speaks multiple times a day, everyday, and Zap is hung up on one bit that Obama’s friend and co chair suggested he use.

Also I checked, he does have more than zero accomplishments.

I think you’re mistaken on both of your points, but otherwise good post.[/quote]

You are a complete fucking idiot. I am hung up on nothing. Obama using someone else’s words is just par for the course for this empty suit. He brings nothing to the table, no realistic ideas, just empty words. And they are not even his.

170

Pete,

Obama is not without scandal:

[i]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article

A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko’s wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago’s Kenwood neighborhood – a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million – $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko’s wife paid full price – $625,000 – for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko’s wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it “boneheaded” because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.

Eight months later – in October 2006 – Rezko was indicted on charges he solicited kickbacks from companies seeking state pension business under his friend Gov. Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors maintain that $10,000 from the alleged kickback scheme was donated to Obama’s run for the U.S. Senate. Obama has given the money to charity.

[/i]

This clown is a crooked politician just like th erest of them.

171

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
I can not and will not vote for a Presidential candidate that has accomplished nothing during their Senate career.

Since when is accomplishing nothing a positive attribute? The assertion that zero accomplishments is good because there is no negative history is asinine.

I want this to be very clear, I am not saying he has not done much with his career, I am saying he has accomplished nothing as a Senator.

What do you do when the candidate was never a senator?
I mean the requirement is be 35 years old.
He has more legislative experience than Clinton and has better judgement on foreign policy than either McCain (obviously) or Clinton. And McCain doesn’t know anything about the economy.

Seems like an easy choice.

Better judgement? Bomb Pakistan and suck up to Iran? Double talk about pulling out of treaties?

This is good judgement?
[/quote]

Bomb pakistan: he said willing to strike al qaeda targets if pakistan is unwilling or unable. We do this now, yesterday even, and why on earth would you ever be against this.

McCain said he said bomb pakistan, and Hillary does the same. They are either cowards or trying to smear him. Either way strikes against both of them.

Yes Obama is willing to meet with folk we don’t agree with. We do this now. You and others are just picking which bad folks we talk with.

By treaties, I’ll assume renegotiate NAFTA? He’s not pulling out, and didn’t say he was going to pull out. We’re going to renegotiate, which I’m sure we’re all for.

Also I see you are borrowing right wing talking points verbatim. You are a fraud. And apparently a coward (unwilling to hit al qaeda targets, good lord!)

172

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
I am surprised no one has brought up exactly how original Obama’s words are.

Barrack seems to stand behind his zero accomplishments based his powerful words, but I wonder exactly how many of those words are his.

Wow. He lifted that completely. When are people going to wake up? This man is a fraud.

Yeah, the thing is…deval suggested he use those lines, they’re good friends, and have exchanged ideas…

I mean he wrote 2 books and most of all his speeches and you’ve latched onto a suggested line.

but yeah good post otherwise.

A line? Did you watch the videos? Every line. The man is a fraud.

Yes every line from a friend, who share lines, who is a campaign co- chair, who suggested using it… god your just hopelessly stupid.

Dude, do you realize this clown stands only on his borrowed words? That is the problem. He has nothing other than his words to stand on…and you can watch him tout how they are “just words,” insinuating there is much more to it than just the words.

Well, they are someone else’s words and the strong words he is quoting are not someone else’s…they are original…“I have a dream” Dr. Martin Luther King, and on and on.

I can sit back and talk all day about what can, will, how, this and that, but unless I actually accomplish something, my words mean NOTHING, and my words mean even less than nothing if they are borrowed words.

How can you not see a problem with this? The issue is not that he borrowed the words…that is not in question and never has been, the issue is that his platform stands only on his words because he has zero accomplishments, and his words are borrowed. This equates to zero accomplishments and zero words.

Get it? ZERO ACCOMPLISHMENTS. And you call Zap stupid?

well, yeah Zap is stupid.

But again, I’m not sure that you’re getting it. Deval suggested he use that bit. And he did. It’s one bit. He speaks multiple times a day, everyday, and Zap is hung up on one bit that Obama’s friend and co chair suggested he use.

Also I checked, he does have more than zero accomplishments.

I think you’re mistaken on both of your points, but otherwise good post.

You are a complete fucking idiot. I am hung up on nothing. Obama using someone else’s words is just par for the course for this empty suit. He brings nothing to the table, no realistic ideas, just empty words. And they are not even his.[/quote]

Using lines suggested by a friend and co chair make you an empty suit.

You do realize that most politicians have these things called “speech writers” who write their speeches for them.

Do you think Bush writes his State of the Union, or other major speeches? Those words aren’t his. They’re the speech writer’s. The whole damn speech. McCain has them too. Making up things for the candidate to say every damn day.

As it’s been pointed out Obama writes most of his speeches, probably more than the other candidates can say.

Again you are an idiot. a coward. a fraud.

never heard of speech writers. what a moron.

173

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
I can not and will not vote for a Presidential candidate that has accomplished nothing during their Senate career.

Since when is accomplishing nothing a positive attribute? The assertion that zero accomplishments is good because there is no negative history is asinine.

I want this to be very clear, I am not saying he has not done much with his career, I am saying he has accomplished nothing as a Senator.

What do you do when the candidate was never a senator?
I mean the requirement is be 35 years old.
He has more legislative experience than Clinton and has better judgement on foreign policy than either McCain (obviously) or Clinton. And McCain doesn’t know anything about the economy.

Seems like an easy choice.

Better judgement? Bomb Pakistan and suck up to Iran? Double talk about pulling out of treaties?

This is good judgement?

Bomb pakistan: he said willing to strike al qaeda targets if pakistan is unwilling or unable. We do this now, yesterday even, and why on earth would you ever be against this.

McCain said he said bomb pakistan, and Hillary does the same. They are either cowards or trying to smear him. Either way strikes against both of them.

Yes Obama is willing to meet with folk we don’t agree with. We do this now. You and others are just picking which bad folks we talk with.

By treaties, I’ll assume renegotiate NAFTA? He’s not pulling out, and didn’t say he was going to pull out. We’re going to renegotiate, which I’m sure we’re all for.

Also I see you are borrowing right wing talking points verbatim. You are a fraud. And apparently a coward (unwilling to hit al qaeda targets, good lord!)[/quote]

Nice spin. He also pretends AQ isn’t in Iraq so we should pull out now. Of course if they sneak back into Iraq then he reserves the right to give them a severe talking to.

The guy is a sham and is in way over his head.

174

[quote]100meters wrote:
typical bs

never heard of speech writers. what a moron.[/quote]

Speech writers =/= doing the same speech that has already been done. He is fortunate he didn’t accidently read his pastor’s speech.

175

[quote]100meters wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
Can peoples reads?

My point remains arguing the causation is silly, because uh, yeah there’s more to the economy than the tax rate. Taxes can be higher and the economy can still make significant gains (and has) and taxes can be cut a whole lot and not make a difference at all (2001) or just barely (2003). So it follows a president can be a tax raiser and reap enormous benefits, or be the ultimate tax cutter and have anemic results (GWB).

You’ll remember I said,
Taxes will be raised and everything will be fine.
Yes, both can happen.

And my point was different - that your correlations weren’t informative.

Let’s refocus: What sort of effect would you expect raising of marginal income tax rates to have, ceteris parabus, on the production of income? Same question, but with regard to raising the investment tax rates (cap gains and dividends) on investing?

hmmm…for me, to refute higher taxes destroy the economy, the 2 charts I linked to (real gdp/per admin and change in personal tax%—because as is obvious to most, your marginal rate is not actually the percentage of your income you pay in taxes) make the basic point.

You could (or anyone) of course point us to charts or data that show how yes, the higher tax rates of democratic presidents have sunk their respective economies compared to the economies of republican presidents.

and yes I understand the CW of taxes.
Of course the government can increase personal income by cutting taxes/and/or spending. The question is how effective is it when those cuts are actually deferrals, well not that effective because at some point the costs have to be paid for…

So can the gov. borrow a boatload of cash and boost GDP, hell yeah! It just comes at a cost later, the GHWB to RR if you will.

100–
I don’t mean to be a referee here, but BB is making valuable points. Would you care to address just 2 of them:
–“marginal tax rate changes do…”
–“ceteris paribus.”

expect + ceteris paribus = less income

Now on to the charts clearly showing the tax policies of democratic presidents have destroyed their respective economies…

[/quote]

Hey dumbfuck why don’t you pay my income tax for me. I know you couldn’t but if higher taxes are so good why don’t you lead by example.

You are embarassing yourself on this thread. Time to go idiot.

176

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Pete,

Obama is not without scandal:

[i]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article

A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko’s wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago’s Kenwood neighborhood – a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million – $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko’s wife paid full price – $625,000 – for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko’s wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it “boneheaded” because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.

Eight months later – in October 2006 – Rezko was indicted on charges he solicited kickbacks from companies seeking state pension business under his friend Gov. Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors maintain that $10,000 from the alleged kickback scheme was donated to Obama’s run for the U.S. Senate. Obama has given the money to charity.

[/i]

This clown is a crooked politician just like th erest of them.

[/quote]

Thats just great.