Barack Hussein Obama

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

I understand your frustration ... you need more details. Would you agree that there are issues where change is needed but the method of change isn't known or at least for now can't be agreed on? I can think of many issues where there needs to be change but I can't say for certain how I get from where we're at now to what I conceive as the final outcome. I see change not so much as a destination but as a journey .... I know that is kind of a corny philisophical statement but that's how I wrap my mind around all the rhetoric of "change".

The issue of change is one I've always agreed on. Me and the others in the 81% of the country that feel we are headed in the wrong direction. I just can not wrap my mind around undefined "change" that Obama espouses without seeing the plan and the impact in other areas. I don't write blank checks to anyone on the faith that they will do what they say. Why would anyone else?

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by Palmguy

I guess I spoke too soon...

Uhhh...Harry Reid, William Jefferson? For crying out loud Etta, they are ALL (both parties) bad. Why won't you admit it?

Yes, politicians from both parties have been corrupt. I think the whole system is corrupt, so anybody who participates in it is suspect.

What did Harry Reid do?

I REALLY disliked Tom DeLay.

[Frenchy]

The change in my opinion, is a return to the laws of principals set forth by our founders. It sickens me to hear politicians from both sides declare their faith and allegiance to the Constitution, while violating it at every turn.
It is the evil of government...all governments.

[Palmguy]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Yes, politicians from both parties have been corrupt. I think the whole system is corrupt, so anybody who participates in it is suspect.

What did Harry Reid do?

I REALLY disliked Tom DeLay.

If Jack Abramoff has ANYTHING to do with your strong distate for Tom Delay, you might want to look into the Abramoff-Harry Reid connection.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

I can go with the bolded above and beyond for that matter. I understand that candidates will never nail themselves down to the point that the finger can be pointed at them for not living up to specific promises. That is political reality.

To use your example about Obama and troop drawdowns, does anyone really know what the end result of this promise if kept hard and fast would be? If this turns out to be a mistake after all, would politics allow a change of heart? Or would he be villified for breaking a promise and in spite of all good sense continue draw downs in the face of realities that have become apparent?

The only real point I've been trying to hammer home is that change can go in two directions. Is it always good? IMO, no. It depends on the direction. That's it. I get frustrated with those that keep on with the
"change is needed" mantra without much further explanation. This mostly goes to the Obama campaign. Show me what you mean and I may even be there for it.

Yep, total destruction of the planet
People who have fought for 1000+ years continuing to fight.
Peace, Love, and Understanding.

[Ishpeck]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

a candidate that has no chance of winning that has good ideas on some fronts (less government), but seems naive on foreign affairs with the potential of a disaster on that front

I beg your pardon. What about "we can't afford it" is at all naive? If the money isn't there, it's just not there. No matter how much you NEED to spend it, if you don't have it, you're pretty much fscked. I would imagine believing we should spend money we don't have is more naive. What about reading the facts collected by the CIA (actually doing their job!?!?) is naive? I don't agree 100% with the whacko's who claim that Iraq is nothing but pure waste, evil, and wrong -- but I don't think that analyzing facts with more in your head than irrational fear of Muslims is naive.

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by Ishpeck

I beg your pardon. What about "we can't afford it" is at all naive? If the money isn't there, it's just not there. No matter how much you NEED to spend it, if you don't have it, you're pretty much fscked. I would imagine believing we should spend money we don't have is more naive. What about reading the facts collected by the CIA (actually doing their job!?!?) is naive? I don't agree 100% with the whacko's who claim that Iraq is nothing but pure waste, evil, and wrong -- but I don't think that analyzing facts with more in your head than irrational fear of Muslims is naive.