PDA

View Full Version : What do you all think of Barack Obama?


Moooo
06-05-2006, 10:48 PM
I know he's only been a senator for a few years now, but this guy seems super charismatic and really smart the little I've heard.

Do any of y'all think he is a possible future contender for something in the executive branch? Like I said, it'll take at least 10 years before he develops enough credibility to be our leader, but maybe someday?

Moooo

jAZ
06-05-2006, 10:54 PM
He had originally said he wasn't going to consider running for President until 2012, but I heard a mention of his name the other day for 2008. I think he hired some big-name consultant to work with him.

Moooo
06-05-2006, 10:56 PM
He had originally said he wasn't going to consider running for President until 2012, but I heard a mention of his name the other day for 2008. I think he hired some big-name consultant to work with him.

I think he's smart enough to do the job, and I also would LOVE to see someone of color get into the office. Not only because of what it represents, but to open the door for so many others who are more than good enough for the position.

Moooo

jAZ
06-05-2006, 11:13 PM
His 2004 Dem National Convention speech...

http://www.c-span.org/2004vote/convention.asp?Cat=Special_Topic&Code=DEMS&Rot_Cat_CD=DEMS

Scroll down and Click the "Barack Obama, State Senator from Illinois & U.S. Senate Candidate (07/27/2004)" link.

jAZ
06-05-2006, 11:15 PM
A short speech at a Darfur rally...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0JUyLgfcmTM"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0JUyLgfcmTM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

patteeu
06-06-2006, 06:05 AM
I think he's an Uncle Tom who doesn't keep it real. [/TIC]

Cochise
06-06-2006, 06:14 AM
He's been invisible since he got called a babydaddy on election night.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2006, 06:35 AM
His domestic policies are too left wing for me (socialist).

jAZ
06-06-2006, 09:41 AM
His domestic policies are too left wing for me (socialist).
What don't you brand "socialist"?

Donger
06-06-2006, 09:56 AM
Slick, smart, polished, used car salesman. He reminds me Bill Clinton in those regards.

Taco John
06-06-2006, 10:04 AM
I'd buy a car from Bubba...

Donger
06-06-2006, 10:05 AM
I'd buy a car from Bubba...

Of course you would. And, metaphorically, you probably did twice.

banyon
06-06-2006, 10:13 AM
What don't you brand "socialist"?

:cuss: DLC socialists! :rolleyes:

So what does that make Dennis Kucinich I wonder?

jAZ
06-06-2006, 10:21 AM
:cuss: DLC socialists! :rolleyes:

So what does that make Dennis Kucinich I wonder?
A communist?

If so, I'm not sure what that makes Gorbachev (circa 1980).

Dave Lane
06-06-2006, 04:54 PM
He needs a better name preferably one that doesn't rhyme with Osama.

Dave

Dave Lane
06-06-2006, 04:56 PM
I'd buy a car from Bubba...


Definately before I'd buy one from Duyba. His would record all my conversations, stick a probe up my ass and then claim I was hiding WMDs and disembowel me.

Dave

Taco John
06-06-2006, 05:16 PM
Of course you would. And, metaphorically, you probably did twice.



I'm going to need an assist on that metaphor.

banyon
06-06-2006, 05:38 PM
He needs a better name preferably one that doesn't rhyme with Osama.

Dave

I always liked this story that I heard back in 04'

Jan Schakowsky told me about a recent visit she had made to the White House with a congressional delegation. On her way out, she said, President Bush noticed her “obama” button. “He jumped back, almost literally,” she said. “And I knew what he was thinking. So I reassured him it was Obama, with a ‘b.’ And I explained who he was. The President said, ‘Well, I don’t know him.’ So I just said, ‘You will.’ ”

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040531fa_fact1

jAZ
06-06-2006, 05:45 PM
I'm going to need an assist on that metaphor.
Bubba = Bill Clinton
Buy a used car = Voted
Twice = Twice

Donger
06-06-2006, 06:47 PM
Bubba = Bill Clinton
Buy a used car = Voted
Twice = Twice

ROFL

Thanks for the assist, jAZ.

alnorth
06-06-2006, 10:18 PM
What do you all think of Barack Obama?

Not particularly impressed, and I simply dont get the reason for all the virtual orgasm over this guy's supposedly bright future.

He's not a bad politician as far as Democrats are concerned, but thats like asking me which AFC West rival I dislike the least. In the end, I still root for the Chiefs to win and everyone else to lose on Sundays.

As far as the presidency is concerned, I frankly dont think he will ever have much of a chance at all no matter what he does for as long as he may live, and it has nothing to do with his race, unless his opponent were also a Senator. There's a reason why governors win damn near every 4 years.

Outside of the presidency, who cares? He has 1 vote out of 100.

jAZ
06-06-2006, 10:21 PM
...I simply dont get the reason for all the virtual orgasm over this guy's supposedly bright future.

At least you admit that the reason you don't see his bright future is because he doesn't play for your team.
He's not a bad politician as far as Democrats are concerned, but thats like asking me which AFC West rival I dislike the least. In the end, I still root for the Chiefs to win and everyone else to lose on Sundays.
That's a good bit more honest than most Republicans around here.

stevieray
06-06-2006, 10:22 PM
I think no one here knew or cared until he gave a speech.

I also think it speaks volumes about some equating someone that is well spoken as a legitmate politician.

alnorth
06-06-2006, 10:25 PM
At least you admit that the reason you don't see his bright future is because he doesn't play for your team.

I'm an economic conservative and social moderate (and by moderate I mean moderate, not liberal). That puts me decidedly right-of-center. So it may not be 100% accurate to say I'll blindly vote straight-ticket GOP because if the Democrat was more conservative, then party labels would mean nothing to me.

Since thats probably not ever going to happen in a national election, the party simplification probably suffices, but its not like its an arbitrary decision, which could be argued by some for football fans rooting for their favorite type of laundry.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2006, 10:51 PM
I wanted to know where "progressive" Obama stood on Iraq and more ME military excursions, so I looked it up:

He is for "surgical" missile strikes against Iran and even on Pakistan,
should the the Muslim extremists take over.

Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004

"[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?"


Link (http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=4521)

jAZ
06-06-2006, 10:59 PM
I wanted to know where "progressive" Obama stood on Iraq and more ME military excursions, so I looked it up:

He is for "surgical" missile strikes against Iran and even on Pakistan,
should the the Muslim extremists take over.

Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004

"[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?"


Link (http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=4521)
I'd say that's about where almost all Democrats have been and still are/would be on Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and any other ME nation that that is hostile to our interests and pushes toward a nuclear program.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2006, 07:06 AM
I'd say that's about where almost all Democrats have been and still are/would be on Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and any other ME nation that that is hostile to our interests and pushes toward a nuclear program.
Then that's further proof that there's little difference between the parties.

banyon
06-07-2006, 08:05 AM
Then that's further proof that there's little difference between the parties.

Does this mean that they're all socialists?

jAZ
06-07-2006, 08:42 AM
Then that's further proof that there's little difference between the parties.
It seems that Republican's prefer ground troops and decade long wars of choice. I'd say that's a pretty huge difference.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2006, 08:53 AM
Does this mean that they're all socialists?


Not "all"...not certain individuals in the GOP, people like Ron Paul.

What people fail to spot is that socialist ideas have trickled down so much into our society, the world even, that few recognize where such ideas have come from as they have become part of the woof-and-warp of our mindset today. The education system fosters it, as does the media. It's not surprising that it's what we are now.

Take a look at what wikipedia says under it's explanation of a "progressive."
It's Fabian socialism aka creeping socialism. It is not just an economic system it is also a social system that attacks the culture. It's the goal of an egalitarian society as in treating everyone the same, not equality under the laws—but unequal laws for equal results in the name of egalitarian social justice. Haven't you read any Marx?

I see the Dems as soft-Wilsonians: Work through the UN, multinational international peacekeeping forces, international socialism etc. etc. etc.

I now see the RHINO/NeoCons/GOP as hard-Wilsonians: Unilateralism without the UN, or UN reform of course to bully the worlds, militarism and what has been called Third Way Socialism (Corporatism-mix of socialism and mercantilism...I guess that is similar to facism)

patteeu
06-07-2006, 09:58 AM
Does this mean that they're all socialists?

For the most part, yes.

patteeu
06-07-2006, 10:04 AM
It seems that Republican's prefer ground troops and decade long wars of choice. I'd say that's a pretty huge difference.

The only reason the democrats are different on this point is that they are willing to cut and run before a war of choice can last a decade. They certainly aren't against wars of choice that are likely to result in decade long commitments (e.g. Bosnia). The biggest difference I see between the wars of choice of the last two administrations is that the Bush administration goes to war over national interests and the Clinton administration went to war over international/nonUS interests. (Note: I'm using the term "war" loosely so BucEyedPea doesn't have to point out that war wasn't adequately declared by Congress).

patteeu
06-07-2006, 10:08 AM
Not "all"...not certain individuals in the GOP, people like Ron Paul.

What people fail to spot is that socialist ideas have trickled down so much into our society, the world even, that few recognize where such ideas have come from as they have become part of the woof-and-warp of our mindset today. The education system fosters it, as does the media. It's not surprising that it's what we are now.

:thumb: Socialism has become a part of what we think of as freedom. Actual freedom is unthinkable today.

jAZ
06-07-2006, 10:15 AM
They certainly aren't against wars of choice that are likely to result in decade long commitments (e.g. Bosnia).
What are you talking about?

Kosovo (Operation Allied Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Allied_Force)) was an air campaign that lasted all of 3 months.

patteeu
06-07-2006, 10:44 AM
What are you talking about?

Kosovo (Operation Allied Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Allied_Force)) was an air campaign that lasted all of 3 months.

We are still in Bosnia.

jAZ
06-07-2006, 11:01 AM
We are still in Bosnia.
We are still in Germany, Japan, Cuba, the Phillipines too...

banyon
06-07-2006, 12:12 PM
Not "all"...not certain individuals in the GOP, people like Ron Paul.

What people fail to spot is that socialist ideas have trickled down so much into our society, the world even, that few recognize where such ideas have come from as they have become part of the woof-and-warp of our mindset today. The education system fosters it, as does the media. It's not surprising that it's what we are now.

So have fascist ideas, so have anarchic ideas, etc...

BucEyedPea
06-07-2006, 01:51 PM
So have fascist ideas, so have anarchic ideas, etc...

That's probably true.

I personally don't know of any fascism* before Mussolini though, historically or even anarchic ideas before the last 200 years. Not sayin' it's unlikely I've never studied the history of those as extensively. Where'as there were Bread & Circuses in Rome and even ancient Greece's democracy voted themselves largesse to the point of extinction and contention. It was more mercantilism during the Age of Discovery...which is similar to corporatism today.

Communism, the real kind, had been around earlier too.



facism* is an economic system too that shares approx 6 points with socialism

BucEyedPea
06-07-2006, 01:55 PM
Also, banyon, what I meant by socialism trickling down is that every society has it's intellectuals that originate it's new ideas. In the 1930's with Russia falling to the Bolsheviks, the Russian experiment became "chic" in those circles which crossed over into politics and filtered down to the people eventually. It was in that era we got our first major thrusts into socialism,just in the form of the wealth transfer state.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2006, 02:00 PM
(Note: I'm using the term "war" loosely so BucEyedPea doesn't have to point out that war wasn't adequately declared by Congress).
:thumb: :D You do think like a lawyer!!!!

TeeHee...I understand the context in which you speak here.

banyon
06-07-2006, 02:09 PM
That's probably true.

I personally don't know of any fascism* before Mussolini though, historically or even anarchic ideas before the last 200 years. Not sayin' it's unlikely I've never studied the history of those as extensively. Where'as there were Bread & Circuses in Rome and even ancient Greece's democracy voted themselves largesse to the point of extinction and contention. It was more mercantilism during the Age of Discovery...which is similar to corporatism today.

Communism, the real kind, had been around earlier too.



facism* is an economic system too that shares approx 6 points with socialism

Well, the Spartans had some fascist qualities. A lot of Plato's Republic could be construed that way as well, Straussian or not. Robespierre's France probably wasn't so hot either if you'd just been "j'accused".

BucEyedPea
06-07-2006, 02:24 PM
Well, the Spartans had some fascist qualities. A lot of Plato's Republic could be construed that way as well, Straussian or not. Robespierre's France probably wasn't so hot either if you'd just been "j'accused".

Sparta was a totalitarian state. I don't know if it would be facist.
I'm gonna look up whether it had socialist dicatorship qualities or not.
But really there is not a whole lot of difference between a facism and a socialism...as I posted above they share more than half their planks with each as they operate for the collective good where the group welfare is all. It's just a matter of degree and form. It's left on my scale.( I believe it to be a correct scale too)

Plato's Republic is the model for the Soviet dicatorship version of socialism. It probably can apply to facism too. The whole idea of a "philosopher king" is the idea behind the govt taking care of so many things for the people because he knows best. It's the other way around.

Robespiere's France was a socialist communist movement.

Rousseau's Social Contract falls into the same collectivist camp.

The American revolutionary idea was one of the first breaks with such systems...it too was considered a great experiment for this reason. Mainspring of Human Progress isolates this from the past. It shows how there has been a constant push-pull struggle for true freedom on this planet throughout history. It came and it went etc. etc.....until America. America has a great message...but it's being lost from inside. And it need not be implemented with military force....her message is too great and powerful for this. This is why the NeoCons are Trotskyites, they're importing something else.

Dave Lane
06-07-2006, 02:50 PM
We are still in Germany, Japan, Cuba, the Phillipines too...

ROFL Nice...

Dave

Dave Lane
06-07-2006, 02:53 PM
Fascism is just dictatorship in an extreme form. There are way too many to list here take Saddam Hussein he qualifies on almost every count and a scad of middle age kingdoms would as well.

Definately the Jews of the Bible would be fascists.

Dave

go bowe
06-07-2006, 03:22 PM
Fascism is just dictatorship in an extreme form. There are way too many to list here take Saddam Hussein he qualifies on almost every count and a scad of middle age kingdoms would as well.

Definately the Jews of the Bible would be fascists.

Davemoses as fascist...

intriguing notion...

banyon
06-07-2006, 03:37 PM
Plato's Republic is the model for the Soviet dicatorship version of socialism. It probably can apply to facism too. The whole idea of a "philosopher king" is the idea behind the govt taking care of so many things for the people because he knows best. It's the other way around.
.

I think this is correct to an extent. Lenin's "Vanguard Class" certainly has a lot in common with Plato's "Guardian Class"

However, Plato regarded Women and slaves as inferior to normal citizens. Soviet Russia was actually a pretty egalitarian place for women. There are alot of female ex-scientists and women with advanced degrees that complain now that they were forced out of their jobs by a newly chauvinistic society. Plato also did not want to try to convert other nations to his political ideology by force a la the Soviets.

patteeu
06-07-2006, 06:49 PM
We are still in Germany, Japan, Cuba, the Phillipines too...

When we went into those places we didn't claim that we'd be out in one year did we? More importantly, each of those places have been of more strategic interest to the US than the post cold war Balkans. (Not to mention, since it's ancient and therefore irrelevant history, that we entered most of those places under democrat presidents too).

jAZ
06-07-2006, 07:57 PM
When we went into those places we didn't claim that we'd be out in one year did we? More importantly, each of those places have been of more strategic interest to the US than the post cold war Balkans. (Not to mention, since it's ancient and therefore irrelevant history, that we entered most of those places under democrat presidents too).
What does any of that have to do with the fact that our involvement in a war in Kosovo lasted about 3 months and was exclusively a Air support. Come on man. Find another ejection cord.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-07-2006, 08:19 PM
I know he's only been a senator for a few years now, but this guy seems super charismatic and really smart the little I've heard.

Do any of y'all think he is a possible future contender for something in the executive branch? Like I said, it'll take at least 10 years before he develops enough credibility to be our leader, but maybe someday?

Moooo

He reminds me of the kind of guy who escalates up draft boards because of his measurables. The truth is, people fell in love with Obama more because of the fact that he was a 'whitish' black man and therefore both 'normal' and 'diverse' than any of his political qualifications. The fact of the matter is that if Jack Ryan hadn't tried to give that bitch from Star Trek a Houston Hot Dog Vendor in public, we would have never have heard of the junior Senator from Illinois.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2006, 09:09 PM
I think this is correct to an extent. Lenin's "Vanguard Class" certainly has a lot in common with Plato's "Guardian Class"

However, Plato regarded Women and slaves as inferior to normal citizens. Soviet Russia was actually a pretty egalitarian place for women. There are alot of female ex-scientists and women with advanced degrees that complain now that they were forced out of their jobs by a newly chauvinistic society. Plato also did not want to try to convert other nations to his political ideology by force a la the Soviets.

Yes, but his views about women just shows that he was a product of his time which really didn't start to change much much later in time. Same pretty much for slavery.

However, with women it was just plain survival for societies to have them breed and raise children full time because so many babies did not survive, and many children did not reach adulthood. I feel that it was largely improvements in standard of living and health that helped to free women...after which the political part came, just like the Soviets.

There were lots of societies that devalued women and killed female children.
In fact Christianity (RCC in particular) helped the lot of women in some respects, which stemmed from the reverence for Mary. Even the Muslims give her the same respect.

You could also argue that Sparta was warlike and there was Alexander the Great who conquered for empire too. Similar to Soviet expansion. Those are the types of states that engage that behavior.

patteeu
06-07-2006, 11:52 PM
What does any of that have to do with the fact that our involvement in a war in Kosovo lasted about 3 months and was exclusively a Air support. Come on man. Find another ejection cord.

It has everything to do with the strand of this thread that began with post #32.

jAZ
06-08-2006, 12:41 AM
It has everything to do with the strand of this thread that began with post #32.
Exactly right. I'm still waiting for your example of a decades long commitment that the Dems are so eager to engage in. It's sure as hell isn't your Kosovo example. Maybe you should have used Korea or WWII as an example? By your absurd criteria, those are multi-decades long "commitments".

picasso
06-08-2006, 02:13 PM
He needs a better name preferably one that doesn't rhyme with Osama.

Dave

Why?
Great marketing stuff there.

"We gonna Obama Osama!!!" (James brown singing background vocals)

"How do you catch a six foot Osama? With a five foot Obama!"

"The good, the bad, and the ugly theme.
Obama, Osama, and the wetbacks." (Obama and Osama in a spaghetti western commercial, with a mexican trying to cross our border)

It's endless!