Why vote Obama?
-
-
I Think just for fun, I will throw a little gas on this fire and see what happens. . .
this is from Chas. Krauthammer's column posted in yesterday's Washington Post:
***%(#BF0040)[The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.
Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?
Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?
There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?
And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.
The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.]***
-
-
@david. said:
Four more reasons NOT to vote for Obama:
Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250K
And, another:
Throw Out the Constitution for Reparative Economics (eg, Reparations by Redistribution)
The first link is very insightful. I never thought about the possibility of the Bush tax cuts expiring resulting in a de facto a tax increase. Not to mention Obama's claim he will raise capital gains tax rate from 15% to as much as 28%.
@Bob, we Americans are a capitalistic and entrepreneurial lot and not at all fond of government taking our money so they can "spread the wealth". We take great care of all our citizens. The poor (and the illegal aliens) have better health care plan than I do, for example.
-
Obama's motto: " Ask not what your country can do for you....demand it."
-
@glennwarner said:
Obama's motto: " Ask not what your country can do for you....demand it."
LOL. Good one for your first post!!
-
-
McCain "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"
Just what we need.
-
Someone just sent this to me. . ..
%(#FF0040)[Subject: redistribution of wealth- a practical application
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed--just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.]
-
-
@tomsdesk said:
@unknownuser said:
...Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.?...
Not this guy for sure:
And sure as hell not this guy:
-
@unknownuser said:
Someone just sent this to me. . ..
%(#FF0040)[Subject: redistribution of wealth- a practical application
...At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.]
Of course most of those voting for Obama will be on the receiving end of this redistribution. I can't even believe we're having a conversation regarding whether we should adopt socialism. Re-brand and redefine it how you will with wonderful sounding terms like "solidarity" or "social consciousness", it's still socialism.
-
-
-
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jsCEnrVzDQoU5tg63njLNy0UTDNAD9432D881Skin heads, noecons...any difference?
-
Obama Versus McCain
The Future versus The Past
Hope versus Fear
Unity versus Division
Love versus Hate
Humility versus Arrogance
Calm versus Rage
Core issues Versus Superifical ideas
Subtantials versus Gimmicks
Organised campaign versus Shamble campaign
Middle Class Versus Top 5%
Educated versus Non Educated
Computer literate versus No Computer skills
21st Century skills versus 20th Century skills
and the list can go on..... -
Socialism?
-
Palin taxed the oil companies and gave the money to Alaskans. That is not spreading the wealth? I don't expect to change any anti-Obama voters' minds, but I would at least ask them to take a breath and think of what they actually know about him - not based on what they have heard just from Republicans, but from other sources. He is not a socialist, Marxist, or terrorist. He is not against the second ammendment. Contrary to what you are getting from your party, most liberals have jobs.
Finally, when this is over, hopefully, we will have change and we will have two people who are qualified to be president, and we will have intelligence and dignity and vision restored to the White House.
It is sad for me to see so much conservative knee-jerk reaction - when conservatism used to be a proud, intellectual movement. Now it just seems based on fear and propaganda. Fight, fight, fight - that's what I hear from McCain. Well, fighting is not going to get us where we want to go - we have to be smart enough to work together, to find new solutions, and to innovate ourselves out of this crisis.
-
Wonderful article Paul, thoughtful sentiments Pete...thanks!
@bellwells said:
Glad you think my picture is funny.
No, I was laughing at your statements following it...here's a couple of factual definitions of the words you are throwing around:
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.
Now this is who we have always been as a country...and I'm all for it:
Egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning equal) is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.[1] Generally it applies to being held equal under the law and society at large.
-
No matter who wins or loses. . .I will just be glad when it's over. Hasn't this campaign gone on long enough?????
Advertisement