Close Topic Options

Barack Obama - Page 24

We can even call it "disenfranchising the populous from reality" if we would like, but it is still a lie. It is the same thing that you reprimand your child for doing, but we actually reward the best liars in this case with a better job!

Ahhh...Hollywood! If we want to play free association, this will be fun. Now it is not doubt that Hollywood is for Obama...see the attached:

Source 1

So, over the past 7 years, we have had a smorgassboard of fine fare from our influential friends in Hollywood. Let's see...

The Kingdom
Redaction
Redition
No True Glory
In the Vally of Elah
Lions for Lambs
Casualties of War

Now that is a lot of war movies! What do they all have in common? They basically export distrust of our government and their instruments around the globe. They are moral political war movies as portrayed by the influentials of Hollywood. But what else do they have in commom? They lost cash. Each one a glowing flop...they were bankrupt if we use business terms. So, we can then say that Hollywood is morally bankrupt once we put a few terms together. So, if Obama is the voice for Hollywood politics, he must be morally bankrupt? Well that just doesnt seem right! Of course it is not...

If we took the converse of what you are saying about Hollywood, they are responsible for not making the world better the, I am assuming, last nearly 8 years. So, since things are bad, Hollywood influenced the world negatively...on purpose? Shouldnt someone be jailed for this? I guess it was evil Russian vilan movies that brought down the WALL...who knew!

The president cannot fix the economy and if you are voting for him to do that good luck. It will be laws and measures that congress pass that have the greatest effect on the current crisis. The president does have the ability to enact executive acts, but they will not be enough to change what has been wronged. Because all the deregulation happily took place in congress from BOTH sides.

The current crisis is that of banking and it is global. The deregulation that has caught up with the US has caught up with Asia and Europe now. It isnt just greed of the US anymore...everyone got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Interestingly enough, it is about 30 years from deregulation and the bottom has fallen out. About one generation was all that could sustain the ever growing realestate market and then you have what has happened today...around the world. It is almost exactly like the recent oil price drop. There just werent enough speculators to keep the price rising and now there is overcapacity and the bottom is dropping on oil prices and explains why the OPEC nations are going to cut production. Can Obama fix this? I am sure he will want to talk with everyone.

The US trading with other countries hasnt been hurt, yet. There will be a significant decrease in the demand for cars and other high ticket items because people are getting thrown out of their homes and they arent being enticed to spend more through additional lending anymore. So yeah, the buckle has been tightened, but can Obama fix this? Likely not. You might say the tax plan? Well that was supposed to help them stay in their homes and relieve burden, not allow them to by foreign products. These people unfortunately couldnt afford the overpriced house they bought and the banks/insurance companies didnt have enough in reserve to cover excessive defaults and this is world wide.

If we want to play symantics... If a tribal leader in the highest parts of the Afghanistan stops burning wood for cooking fuel and switches to a totally raw vegetarian diet...isnt he changing the world? Should we import him and make him the leader of our country? I mean he does have a proven "change" background? Obama has been a senator of a while now...where was the sweeping change there? It is a catchy phrase and makes you feel good to say it and vote for it...but it is old. Every one besides GHWB, Ford claimed to be a change agent on their first election going back to Kennedy. You know what hasnt changed? People trying to be president promising change.

Obama Barack

Rather off topic, but... smorgassboard - you know I hadn't heard that word in a while.

So your saying that what the president lays out in their issues is all a lie then? Especially the economic issues, and what their policies are, these are all lies? I understand the rest of what you've said, but I still don't completely grasp that concept easily. Actually I don't think I could grasp it at all. And what they say with their issues, is just to tell you what they want the executive branch to pass on to him so that he can sign it into law? I though the president suggests things to congress, and then the executive branch either throws it out, or makes changes to it, then pass it onto the president for him to decide if the changes make or break the bill. Also, that the executive has the ability to propose bills that are reviewed and changed, then get passed onto the president to accept or veto the bill? So I think the president has more power than you give credit too. His word might not be absolute but he does have power.

So, I would think if you support Obama's policies more than McCain's, I would think it does make a difference. Also, I do think that the "Change" statements Obama throws in is kind of "Intellectual Dishonesty", because no matter which president you get, there will be change. I just don't think it is as much change as people expect.

Barack Obama History & Civil Business Politics

I was discussing Colin Powell endorsing Obama with my parents this evening. Their attitude was, "let Obama win -- he will inherit the current problems and have to deal with them for at least four years with no real solution or end in sight ... then let the next election come." Okay, that's one way of looking at it.

But how about this? How much damage can he do in four years to the state of America? There are Supreme Court justices pending retirement.... he's already discussed the changes he would make in regard to abortion .... and talking without pre-condition with our enemies... and create a national health care system ... increase immigration ... save the planet by setting up a carbon trading scheme .... etc. etc. etc.

Rather off topic, but... Still I struggle with the choices this election. There is NO clear choice between the two major candidates. It's very frustrating.

Page 24 Obama Barack

I thought the idea was to make a health care that the more poverty-stricken people can afford? But other than that, I guess everything else the view does depend heavily upon what side you wing, whether it be left or right.

Obama Barack

First off, the executive branch of government is the president and his cabinet. The legislative branch is congress. The VP (president of the senate) does act as the tie breaker vote in the Senate if it comes to that, but it rarely does. The judicial branch is the court system. So, the president can talk with typically the majority or minority whips from either house and the speakers from either house to kick off legislation, but most legislation is initiated without the executive branch involvment. Very few bills actually make it to the president for signature. Once they do, a miniscule amount are vetoed. Of those vetoed a small amount are overturned by congress.

Bill Clinton promised to make healthcare more affordable for everyone. It was one of his mantras on his first election. Guess what...nothing changed. Was it because Bill didnt try? NOPE...he put soon to be top level manager on the assignment and set her with the task of working something out. That was Hillary. Hillary pitched her idea, but guess what? Even though Bill loved it, it didnt pass. It didnt pass because Congress wouldnt allow it. Did Bill Clinton want to make healthcare more affordable for all. Probably, but the thing is...what he wants doesnt necessarily become true...even as a president. SO...If you like Obama and what he says he is going to do (with no real ability to make it happen) then you better be sure to pull the lever for any other member of both houses of congress that you can that backs the Obama platform because they are the ones that will make Obama's promises come true. If there is still a very small majority, congress will have gridlock and there will be NO CHANGE.

Now I did not say that whatever a president or a nominee lays out in their issues are all lies. This would mean that everything that comes out of a politicians mouth is a lie. I said, all politicians lie. They do tell the truth occassionally.

Actually, please study what a president can do and what the congress can do and you will find that the president is a important symbol of the US and a shaper of foreign policy, but the domestic power does lie elsewhere if they chose to use it. I tend to believe that the majority leaders of the house and senate (particularly the senate) have more power domestically than even the president in the grand scheme of things. However, in regards to foreign relations, the president and his cabinet basically work unabated. The president can sign treaties and intitate treaties...but they do have to be ratified by congress. This is why Bill Clinton actually signed the Kyoto deal but it was never ratified by congress. Bill absolutely knew this would happen, but he looked good for doing it at the time. It was the evil Bush administration that got hung with finally killing it. I am feeling intellec

The congress can override a presidential veto. The checks and balances are in place as the president can pass executive acts, but they have to be funded...guess who OK's funding if required...congress. The president can send troop to foreign lands and for emergencies, but it is congress that funds them. So if congress REALLY wanted to end the war and pull the troops home, they could at the next budget....just quit funding the war. It really is that easy.

However, they would have to take responsibility for what happens after that, which is why they dont use this power. It is easier and more comfortable for them to say that it is at the presidents requests and we are following him. There is no way that the congress would quit funding the war and bring home the troops instantly...like the democratic congress said that they would on their platform that got them victory 2 years ago. It has been 2 years now and we are starting to bring troops back home, but it is actually Bush that is doing all the work here...not congress, because they dont want to take responsibility for anything. So did they lie to get congressional power? So far...yes they did.

The closest to a change agent I have seen in my voting career was Reagan. However, Regan was supported by the overwhelming dislike of Carter and his handling of just about everything from economic issues and foreign policy. It was the overhauling of the congress (both houses) with the swearing in of Reagan that allowed him to get the most done in his first 100 days than any other president in recent memory. That was truly reform. It was what he ran on and it was what he delivered. He did it because the republicans that swept into the congress with him formed a majority and moderate democrats were tired too.

But what reform are we really concretely talking about here. There is no concrete. We are talking about talking about reform and maybe that is the difference...the change...more talking?

The idea of let him get elected so that the next president can be republican/conservative was pushed by Rush about a year ago. Looks like he has abandoned that now and is behind McCain. Honestly, unless there is a sweeping win of both houses for the democrats and the presidency...I wouldnt be concerned. However, if both houses go democrat to the extreme as to be able to overide a fillabuster, then you got the potential for some serious change (good or bad) as there will be nothing to stop one ideology. I am not concerned with the replacements of Supreme Court becasues he will be replacing a liberal for a liberal. The big change on the Supreme Court comes from a McCain victory if any of the liberal justices who have desperately been waiting for a democrat president finally decide to retire.

Edited: Vincenzo on 21st Oct, 2008 - 8:36am

Barack Obama

Do coloured men bring change? I feel this election for you Americans is more about if he is black then that is different and that will bring change.

Barack Obama - Page 24

To those outside the US, it would seem this way. However, I must ask, where is England's black prime minister...France's...Italy's... The US was the first to take a major stand in slavery and fought over it. Now they have had female's in top spots in Europe, so they got us their, but that isnt racism.

I cannot deny that it would be pretty cool to break that barrier of not having a black leader. But at what expense? What if's abound with the unknown. But "what if" he really is too inexperienced to do the job and is in WAY over his head?

I will agree with one thing that Obama says over and over again..."vote for change". It is not a president that brings change into the US, it is the people. WE MAKE CHANGE. We really do. Politicians today hold their fingers up to the polling winds on each vote to make sure their constituencies are happy and will keep electing them to office. Think of it this way. The religious right has been a powerful organization for decades. Are they powerful because they were granted power by the president or did they take power because they made presidents?

Initially, I had no fear of a Obama presidency because I saw the congress as the check to anything he and his cabinet might mess up. However, polls recently have suggested a strong majority democratic house and senate is possible out of this election. This coupled with a democratic president can bring about unchecked change with little regard to opposing voices.

Reagan got a lot done in his first 100 days as president. We probably should say that Reagan in teamwork with Congress got a lot done in its first 100 days, but it really took both democrats and republicans to get it done because there wasnt enough of a majority to ramrod whatever ideas the republicans had down everyones throats...they needed democrats votes. If it goes as far towards the democrats as has been reported potentially in the polls, there is little in the way of a check at that point...good or bad. Clinton did have a democrat congress in his first term, but there wasnt enough of a margin for him (through his congressional speakers) to just shutdown the republicans at will.

Oh...the Supreme Court appointees, if Obama gets elected basically ensure that abortion will be legal for at least the next likely 20 years. The 2-3 appointees, should he take the position of president, will be enough to ensure Roe vs Wade for about another generation. I am totally against abortion, but I do like the idea of the Supreme Court not being too far one way or the other.

Edited: Vincenzo on 21st Oct, 2008 - 9:16am

Barack Obama Politics Business Civil & History - Page 24

I did do some research right after I saw your post the first time. I guess when I read it though, I got the impression that you were saying voting for president is useless, they don't actually do anything. But, I read it again, and I see that I just had the wrong impression as to what you were implying. But, I did mess-up and got the executive and legislative mixed up. That I wasn't amazed of, I do it all the time.

Also on what you said Walter. I personally think Obama is one of those White black guys. But then again, he is only half-black. Also, I only agree with a few things the republicans offer this year, But I like Obama's view on Iraq and foreign policies better. Also, from what I have read from a few Russian independent news sites. Russia does not like, on any account McCain, Palin, or Bidden. Only Obama, and this does bring some conspiracy thoughts to my head, but Russia still doesn't like America at all. And considering they have more nuclear capabilities than we do at the moment, it might not be such a good idea to consider them the communist country they were in the 50's. They moved on, and are now a Democracy, we should probably do the same with what amount of credit we give them. But, either way, I'm not going to be old enough to vote this year, but I like the discussions.

Continuing on, I think it will be good for a year or so having the house and senate as democrats. I say this because, they might just fix some things that went wrong when it was on the right side during the years of bush (Not implying that everything the Republicans did were bad, but hey they are still people too, and if it is a more conservative mistake, I'm sure the liberals will try to clean it up, then boast about it). But, It can't stay that way for long. It will eventually need some right wing influence before everyone starts feeling a little socialist. Albeit it isn't really socialist, it just feels like a huge jump, even though it is only a few inches from one point of the right wing to the, still right-wing but more liberal part of it.

Edited: Rhieland on 21st Oct, 2008 - 9:24pm