Obama '08?

And what are you going to do about the people that dont want to participate in his dreams, either because of apathy, laziness, or whatever other reason they come up with?

If they dont want to participate, will they be penalized?
And if its "self government", does that mean that the people will vote on every proposition and law?

mysteryman wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

CI said...

Quote:

Me too! Change will have to start small, but can grow in leaps and bounds once the American People can see "The Change" works.

But will the American people see that in 4 years.

Even Obama, with all of his promises and all of his rhetoric, cant change the whole federal beurocracy in 4 years.
What he is talking about will require a complete and total makeover to the entire federal govt, from the top down to bottom.
EVERY govt employee will have to change how they do business and how they think.
And the hardest part will be getting the congress and all of the various govt agencies to change how they operate.

Do you really think Obama can do that in 4 years?
I dont.

Wow. And I thought Foxy had built the Golly Green Giant of Strawmen. Where the hell did you get the idea somebody thought Obama could do that? (Surely not what you quoted, right?)

No, I quoted the wrong person.

But that still doesnt change the jist of what I posted.
To get the "change" that Obama is talking about will require a complete and total overhaul of how the govt works (or doesnt work) today.

That means every govt employee will have to be on board with what Obama wants, and I dont think that will happen.

Obama (and Hillary) and also McCain to some extent do in fact suggest that they will do such an overhaul in several areas--taxes, healthcare, education, immigration as well as a number of policies and procedures addressing various ways of doing government not to mention. Now and then they even express sort of a clue in how to go about doing such change but mostly it is likely to be nice sounding rhetoric to please the crowd.

My post that O-bill defines as a 'huge straw man' is not a straw man at all nor was it targeted at Obama or anybody else in particular. It was in response to the inference by him and others that any change at all is better than the status quo and how that could be a really poor reason to vote for anybody.

Unless you can show where someone, anyone, was "assuming that there must be a 100% reversal in order to move away from the status quo.", you have offered a counter argument to a ridiculously exaggerated version of what was actually suggested. This is a text-book strawman. After all these years on A2K; you should recognize these before posting... let alone when it's pointed out

You can bet Osamabama wants to change the Constitution.

Not gonna happen.

Big HRC fundraiser defects to Obama
Posted: Friday, April 25, 2008 2:18 PM by Chuck Todd

One of the things that both Dem campaigns are always nervous about is defectors. In particular, Clinton is more vulnerable to this problem since she's the candidate that is trailing. Well, NBC News has learned that a major fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, former Amb. to Chile Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon is leaving the campaign to join up Barack Obama's campaign. Officially dubbed a "Hillraiser," Guerra-Mondragon raised nearly $500,000 for Clinton's campaign, according to some estimates. He has been informing people inside Clintonworld this week in what's been described as some tough conversations. A formal announcement of a role for Guerra-Mondragon on Obama's national finance committee will be made next week. Guerra-Mondragon was appointed Amb. to Chile by Pres. Clinton in '94 and served until '98.

Among the reasons for Guerra-Mondragon to defect, according to one informed source, was he was uneasy with the tone of the Clinton campaign and was beginning to worry about what this would mean for the general election.

It's unclear if this defection will lead to others; the Clinton camp has been particularly effective at getting folks to keep their powder dry. For Obama, this comes at a time when his campaign is trying to re-convince insiders that the math indicates he has the nomination virtually wrapped up. In addition, Guerra-Mondragon's defection could serve as a tipping point with some key Hispanic Democratic leaders that Obama is ready to start making a bigger effort to court Hispanics.

Obill writes

Quote:

Unless you can show where someone, anyone, was "assuming that there must be a 100% reversal in order to move away from the status quo.", you have offered a counter argument to a ridiculously exaggerated version of what was actually suggested. This is a text-book strawman. After all these years on A2K; you should recognize these before posting... let alone when it's pointed out

Obama assumes there must be a 100% reversal in the capital gains tax cuts implemented during the Bush administration. He assumes there must be a 100% reversal in people choosing how they will be or whether they will be insured for healthcare. He has stated a 100% reversal in allowing flexibility in the game plan in Iraq albeit he has adjusted that to allow for a bit of wiggle room. He has suggested a 100% reversal of NAFTA as it currently exists. Other ideas he has put out would bring about slower or incremental change.

All I meant with my post that is that 'change from the status quo' whether a 100% change or a less ambitious change should not be seen as desirable if the change would be worse than than the status quo.

I think reasonable people read my post that way. You may choose to be different, but whatever your motives, that was not a straw man post.

Foxfyre wrote:

Obill writes

Quote:

Unless you can show where someone, anyone, was "assuming that there must be a 100% reversal in order to move away from the status quo.", you have offered a counter argument to a ridiculously exaggerated version of what was actually suggested. This is a text-book strawman. After all these years on A2K; you should recognize these before posting... let alone when it's pointed out

Obama assumes there must be a 100% reversal in the capital gains tax cuts implemented during the Bush administration. He assumes there must be a 100% reversal in people choosing how they will be or whether they will be insured for healthcare. He has stated a 100% reversal in allowing flexibility in the game plan in Iraq albeit he has adjusted that to allow for a bit of wiggle room. He has suggested a 100% reversal of NAFTA as it currently exists. Other ideas he has put out would bring about slower or incremental change.

All I meant with my post that is that 'change from the status quo' whether a 100% change or a less ambitious change should not be seen as desirable if the change would be worse than than the status quo.

I think reasonable people read my post that way. You may choose to be different, but whatever your motives, that was not a straw man post.

And there's a fine example of why I usually ignore your posts in the politics forum.

Elizabeth Drew reports that House Democrats who are SDs will vote for whoever wins the pledged delegate count. And that the reason they haven't come out is because they do not want to go to war with the Clintons which proves my contention all along that if this were not the Clintons this would have been over long ago.

yes ass... BPB gets it.

and having a president people are wary of is entirely different from having a sociopathic homicidal maniac that people fear because they don't know what he might do next...

see.....it's cj who doesn't get it :wink:

Bill may be a sociaopath... but he's not a homicidal maniac...that distinction belongs to george dickhead bush