Obama's electability

joefromchicago wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Given the facts, it is not a stretch to think that Obama was interested in buying the side lot at the time Rezko purchased, it, and that the two transactions were certainly related.

I suppose you could arrive at that conclusion, so long as you ignore the fact that the sellers have said that the two transactions were not linked at all and the statement of the real estate agent who confirmed that the Obamas weren't interested in buying the side lot.

I know this is unrelated to our current discussion, but when Bill Clinton swore he didn't have sexual relations with that woman, you believed him, didn't you?

0 Replies

Just like you probably still believe that Bush didn't lie us into Iraq.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Just like you probably still believe that Bush didn't lie us into Iraq.

Or Woodrow Wilson about WWI; or Franklin Roosevelt about WWII or JFK about Vietnam.

So what is your point?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I know this is unrelated to our current discussion...

That's correct: it is certainly unrelated to our current discussion.

Ticomaya wrote:

...but when Bill Clinton swore he didn't have sexual relations with that woman, you believed him, didn't you?

"B-b-b-but Clinton...!" The last refuge of the defeated conservative.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
...but when Bill Clinton swore he didn't have sexual relations with that woman, you believed him, didn't you?

"B-b-b-but Clinton...!" The last refuge of the defeated conservative.

Clinton -- the former golden boy of most Obamaniacs, who have torn him down of late and now seem to wish to disown him -- is certainly not the "last refuge" for those examining Obama's character and judgment. As the campaign season heats up for the stretch run, it will be fun to see how many more skeletons he has hiding in his closet that have not yet come to light in Obama's relatively brief political career. I suspect some of the cards have been held back close to the vest -- but that remains to be seen. How many more questionable contacts does he have in his past that he will now attempt to distance and detach from. How many more times will you attempt to convince us the many turds smell like fresh bedsheets on a spring morning?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Advocate wrote:
It seems that all the right can do is nit pick Dems on personal matters. I could less about those things. We now need a president who will do something about deficits, the wars, the economy, the dollar, health-care coverage, the environment, social security, and other important matters affecting the health of the country.

I think that Obama is much more able to accomplish cures.

Yeah right. Just like President Bush's religious views or IQ or education or military record or family ties or associations with oil companies or the people he surrounded himself with or his track record as Governor of Texas were never even mentioned by your side. Your side didn't care about anything other then the economy, the dollar, health-care coverage, the environment, social security, and other important matters affecting the health of the country. Uh huh.

Does that make it right for you to do this to Obama? BTW, I for one have not dwelled on petty personal things.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Advocate wrote:
It seems that all the right can do is nit pick Dems on personal matters. I could less about those things. We now need a president who will do something about deficits, the wars, the economy, the dollar, health-care coverage, the environment, social security, and other important matters affecting the health of the country.

I think that Obama is much more able to accomplish cures.

Yeah right. Just like President Bush's religious views or IQ or education or military record or family ties or associations with oil companies or the people he surrounded himself with or his track record as Governor of Texas were never even mentioned by your side. Your side didn't care about anything other then the economy, the dollar, health-care coverage, the environment, social security, and other important matters affecting the health of the country. Uh huh.

Does that make it right for you to do this to Obama? BTW, I for one have not dwelled on petty personal things.

Well I guess that would depend on what you judge to be 'petty' wouldn't it.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
...but when Bill Clinton swore he didn't have sexual relations with that woman, you believed him, didn't you?

"B-b-b-but Clinton...!" The last refuge of the defeated conservative.

Clinton -- the former golden boy of most Obamaniacs, who have torn him down of late and now seem to wish to disown him -- is certainly not the "last refuge" for those examining Obama's character and judgment. As the campaign season heats up for the stretch run, it will be fun to see how many more skeletons he has hiding in his closet that have not yet come to light in Obama's relatively brief political career. I suspect some of the cards have been held back close to the vest -- but that remains to be seen. How many more questionable contacts does he have in his past that he will now attempt to distance and detach from. How many more times will you attempt to convince us the many turds smell like fresh bedsheets on a spring morning?

Or, in other words, you no longer want to talk about the specifics of the Rezko matter. I understand. If my position were as weak as yours, I'd want to change the subject too.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Advocate wrote:
It seems that all the right can do is nit pick Dems on personal matters. I could less about those things. We now need a president who will do something about deficits, the wars, the economy, the dollar, health-care coverage, the environment, social security, and other important matters affecting the health of the country.

I think that Obama is much more able to accomplish cures.

Yeah right. Just like President Bush's religious views or IQ or education or military record or family ties or associations with oil companies or the people he surrounded himself with or his track record as Governor of Texas were never even mentioned by your side. Your side didn't care about anything other then the economy, the dollar, health-care coverage, the environment, social security, and other important matters affecting the health of the country. Uh huh.

Does that make it right for you to do this to Obama? BTW, I for one have not dwelled on petty personal things.

You can say this when in 20 seconds I found these posts of yours just on this thread alone:

Quote:

The media hasn't made much mention of the fact that he is a serial adulterer, who left his permanently disabled wife (who was faithful to him while he was a POW for years) for a 19-year old heiress

Quote:

Do you doubt that McCain is a sleaze.

Quote:

I think the media have been very of McCain. For example, they have not sufficiently discussed (anew) his very serious wrongdoing with the Keating Five gang, which cost the taxpayers half a trillion.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
...but when Bill Clinton swore he didn't have sexual relations with that woman, you believed him, didn't you?

"B-b-b-but Clinton...!" The last refuge of the defeated conservative.

Clinton -- the former golden boy of most Obamaniacs, who have torn him down of late and now seem to wish to disown him -- is certainly not the "last refuge" for those examining Obama's character and judgment. As the campaign season heats up for the stretch run, it will be fun to see how many more skeletons he has hiding in his closet that have not yet come to light in Obama's relatively brief political career. I suspect some of the cards have been held back close to the vest -- but that remains to be seen. How many more questionable contacts does he have in his past that he will now attempt to distance and detach from. How many more times will you attempt to convince us the many turds smell like fresh bedsheets on a spring morning?

Or, in other words, you no longer want to talk about the specifics of the Rezko matter. I understand. If my position were as weak as yours, I'd want to change the subject too.

But what's to talk about? Re the Rezko indictment, the issue is not whether Obama was involved in it. There is no evidence or even any suggestion that he was. The issue is the kinds of people Obama surrounds himself with, enlists as allies, depends on for support, accepts support from, etc. etc. and how this sometimes does not pass the smell test--the appearance of impropriety and all that. 'Insufficient evidence' counts in a court of law, but not always in the court of public opinion.

Will the Court of Public Opinion affect Obama's electability? It is too soon to say. Given the kinds of people associated with Obama, however, I'm guessing that all shoes that might possibly drop have not yet been dropped. And there's no way to tell if any of these are more damning that what we already know. What we already know hasn't even made his devoted supporters blink though I'm guessing they would be portrayed as much more damning if attached to McCain.

So goes the wierd world of politics.

0 Replies

Fox, the piece I furnished contained some personal things, but included a monumental failing, which is his founding and operation of the Keating Five. His actions caused major damage to the country.

The Reps are ten times worse relative to dwelling on the petty.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

I find it hard to believe that you all, liberals, seem to believe that 2 years in the senate qualifies him to be the president of change. D.C is filled with political sharks not only conserative, but liberal. Its going to take four years just for him to learn how to avoid being eaten. He docent have the Bush "who cares' temperament to survive. And if he chooses his advisors the way he chooses his friends were in a lot of trouble. Assuming he wins the election of course. It looks to me like were screwed no matter who wins.

One question: Why do you keep typing "docent" when you clearly mean "doesn't?" Just curious.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Fox, the piece I furnished contained some personal things, but included a monumental failing, which is his founding and operation of the Keating Five. His actions caused major damage to the country.

The Reps are ten times worse relative to dwelling on the petty.

It's old history Advocate and he was not charged. So dredging it up now speaks to an issue of character that has nothing to do with the economy, strength of the dollar, etc. etc. etc. wouldn't you say? (And let's don't forget your 'serial adulterer' line which of course has everything to do with healthcare and social security........not. Saying stuff like that while criticizing others for delving into 'personal stuff' and claiming that you are above that sort of thing could be viewed as....well....hypocritical.)

Having said that, McCain's character as related to how he might govern and the kinds of people he is likely to surround himself with when he governs is certainly fair game for scrutiny. As is Obama's.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

One question: Why do you keep typing "docent" when you clearly mean "doesn't?" Just curious.

Because he's giving his two cents. "Docent" is derived from the present participle (docens, docentis) of the Latin word docēre, meaning "to teach". So he's apparently trying to teach you something.

Now, why did you put the question mark on the inside of the second quotation mark? Just curious.

0 Replies

Let's not forget that Obama's resume being without substance does not reveal much about the real Obama and what his core believes are. Therefore as one analyst noted a vote for Obama is tantamount to buying a pig in a poke.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Let's not forget that Obama's resume being without substance does not reveal much about the real Obama and what his core believes are. Therefore as one analyst noted a vote for Obama is tantamount to buying a pig in a poke.

I have been trying to recall all the different things (on different threads and other sites) that I have been told are off limits or irrelevent in discussing Obama:

Let's see. Some of those are:

1. His name, especially his middle name. Use it and you will be branded racist.
2. His race
3. His religion/church/pastor
4. His African ties/allegiance
5. Contents of his books
6. His wife/family
7. His education record
8. His friends/business associates/political contacts
9. His legal advocacy in Chicago
10. His tenure in the Illinois legislature (irrelevent)
11. His tenure on the U.S. Senate (irrelevent)
12. His campaign staff (irrelevent)
13. His lack of military service or exposure to international issues
14. The specifics of his agenda for America (he can't be expected to spell in out or answer questions in detail during the campaign.)

We are all at liberty to discuss anything else, however.

0 Replies

Subject: Fw: A Black Essayist on Obama-excellent piece

An Old Newness:
Thomas Sowell
Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow
The Hoover Institution
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305

By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of his long career. He entered a ballgame with 2,999 hits -- one hit away from the landmark total of 3,000, which so many hitters want to reach, but which relatively few actually do reach.

Waner hit a ball that the fielder did not handle cleanly but the official scorer called it a hit, making it Waner's 3,000th. Paul Waner then sent word to the official scorer that he did not want that questionable hit to be the one that put him over the top.

The official scorer reversed himself and called it an error. Later Paul Waner got a clean hit for number 3,000.

What reminded me of this is the great fervor that many seem to feel over the prospect of the first black President of the?United States.

No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black president, just as it was only a matter of time before Paul Waner got his 3,000th hit. The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached.

Paul Waner had too much pride to accept a scratch hit. Choosing a President of the?United States?is a lot more momentous than a baseball record. We the voters need to have far more concern about who we put in that office that holds the destiny of a nation and of generations yet unborn.

There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president -- especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.

Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen.

The three leading candidates for their party's nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics -- race, sex and age -- as if that is what the job is about.

One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries.

Just the power to nominate federal judges to trial courts and appellate courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, can have an enormous impact for decades to come. There is no point feeling outraged by things done by federal judges, if you vote on the basis of emotion for those who appoint them.

Barack Obama has already indicated that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law . He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults.

Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things -- using the mantra of "change" endlessly -- the cold fact is that virtually everything he says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not -- all this is a re-run of the 1960s.

We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.

The violence and destruction were concentrated not where t here was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances and hamstringing the police.

Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes -- including the media magic of meetings between heads of state -- was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.

Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of "Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy".

0 Replies

Au, when did you become a Republican?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Au, when did you become a Republican?

Cycloptichorn

Did you kick someone else out of your Party, Cyclops?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Au, when did you become a Republican?

Cycloptichorn

Never have been. Although I am a registered democrat, that has never stopped me from voting for the candidate I believe would be best for the nation. Unfortunately the decision I have to make in this election is to determine which is the worst of the two rotten apples the electorate has been presented with. Neither in my opinion is worth a tinkers damn.

0 Replies

Obama's electability

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know