Do Any of You Gimps Still Believe in Obama?

[-Jrabbit]

We're talking about politicians here. All promises are empty, corruption is a certainty (whether current or eventual), and hidden agendas assumed and expected. The certainty of this fact transcends political parties and dogma.

The last time the U.S. had a highly intelligent, reasonably honest president who actually seemed to care about public service (James Earl Carter), it was a total disaster.

The only thing interesting about the current election is that the US electorate has an opportunity to put a significantly different agenda into power. The faces fronting the agendas are meaningless.

In politics, I've always been a big believer in change. And by that I mean: Vote out all incumbents. Always. Even if they seem to agree with you. The more entrenched they are, the more comfortable they are with manipulating the apparatus of power for their own ends.

[Wiglaf]

In politics, I've always been a big believer in change. And by that I mean: Vote out all incumbents. Always

You're a complete moron.

[Timexwatch]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


*BLINK BLINK IMA DOUCHEBAG BLINK WINK *

I know you have a yamaka but it does NOT shield you from criticism. You can be wrong AND jewish.

As far as Obama, does anyone know if porch monkey is a racial slur or does it just mean lazy person? I am arguing with some girl over Obama and don't want to turn her off.

Why don't you take a walk around DC and test whether or not "porch monkey" counts as a racial slur? It's a perfect laboratory. In fact, I know of a perfect Section 8 apartment building around the corner you can try it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Darius871
I. Agree. With. Aggie.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
We're talking about politicians here. All promises are empty, corruption is a certainty (whether current or eventual), and hidden agendas assumed and expected. The certainty of this fact transcends political parties and dogma.

The last time the U.S. had a highly intelligent, reasonably honest president who actually seemed to care about public service (James Earl Carter), it was a total disaster.

Well, "reasonably honest" doesn't generally happen (and when it does, they tend to be naive about the game), so we should, IMO, go with intelligent people who you believe will advance somewhat of your own agenda and aren't too lying and corrupt.

[Kidlicious]

I'm really starting to really hate him. His speech in Berlin was total BS.

[Whoha]

I think we can count on him to throw out the previous entrenched bureaucracy, which is certainly a plus in his column.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Agathon


I disagree. I think he is the best possible nominee for the kind of political system he is operating in (which is why he has been such a success so far and so quickly). He's a fine orator, probably the best that the US has had since Ronald Reagan.

The fact that he is a success tells you more about the US political system than it does about him. This has been evident for a while, since voters chose Bush, who is pretty empty headed and incompetent over Al Gore, who was the opposite (does anyone honestly think that the US would be so reviled or that things like Katrina would have been so badly mishandled if Gore was the president?).

If democracy is to work, then we really should be electing people like Al Gore (or his conservative equivalent), people who make it their mission to be informed of the facts and who are responsible enough to change when new evidence comes to light. But instead, people seem to prefer electing incompetent cretins. Obama has the potential to be the next Warren Harding. He looks presidential, and that seems to be enough for people. But there seems to be nothing behind it.

As usual, people will attempt to blame someone else for this. The right will blame the vast liberal conspiracy and the left will blame the corporations, when the real blame ought to rest on the voters themselves or the system that allows them to vote. As usual, the thing that is causing the problem is the very last thing that people want to give up or blame.

Originally posted by Darius871
I. Agree. With. Aggie.

[Winston]

Agathon agrees with me. Good on him.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Agathon


I disagree. I think he is the best possible nominee for the kind of political system he is operating in (which is why he has been such a success so far and so quickly). He's a fine orator, probably the best that the US has had since Ronald Reagan.

The fact that he is a success tells you more about the US political system than it does about him. This has been evident for a while, since voters chose Bush, who is pretty empty headed and incompetent over Al Gore, who was the opposite (does anyone honestly think that the US would be so reviled or that things like Katrina would have been so badly mishandled if Gore was the president?).

If democracy is to work, then we really should be electing people like Al Gore (or his conservative equivalent), people who make it their mission to be informed of the facts and who are responsible enough to change when new evidence comes to light. But instead, people seem to prefer electing incompetent cretins. Obama has the potential to be the next Warren Harding. He looks presidential, and that seems to be enough for people. But there seems to be nothing behind it.

As usual, people will attempt to blame someone else for this. The right will blame the vast liberal conspiracy and the left will blame the corporations, when the real blame ought to rest on the voters themselves or the system that allows them to vote. As usual, the thing that is causing the problem is the very last thing that people want to give up or blame.

Agree about Obama but you will have to sell me Gore if you can. I have seen the documentary he made and it really made him seem like a truly good guy. I like what he is saying about global warming but I am really skeptical about Gore, wouldn't issue like that be the easiest way ever to make political capital without risking anything?

Gore has endorsed Obama who doesn't support carbon tax (Gore does or did iirc).
Also as the way I heard it he could have done more in his time as VP (and whatever else he has been) but didn't. Is this true? Afterall, the documentary an Inconvenient truth made Gore seem like somebody who has had climate change as a very important issue for himself even when he could have done something about it.

[chequita guevara]

[Zkribbler]

Hmm, let's see:

Obama doesn't take a dime from lobbyists or PACS. McCain uses them to staff his campaign.

Obama pushed through ethics reforms both in Illinois and in the U.S. Senate.

Obama came out earlier against the Iraq War, recognizing our enemies are those who attacked us, not those who didn't--something McCain has yet to grasp.

Both Presidents Maliki and Bush have essentially endorsed Obama's timeframe for withdrawing from Iraq.

Obama supports a middle-class tax cut, while McCain wants to grant more tax cuts to billionaire and megacorporations.

Obama wants to reinstitute Paygo. McCain wants to increase our rate of borrowing.

Obama wants to restore international respect for the U.S. McCain was to stay the course of American arrogance.

Obama has run a clean campaign. McCain's campaign head is a former Rove protegee, and McCain's speeches are now merely exercises in throwing mud.

So the question should be, why is ANYONE supporting McCain??

[DaShi]

Americans would never swallow the extremely large pill that Gore would give them as president, no matter how good it is for them.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
So the question should be, why is ANYONE supporting McCain??

This is how I feel. Obama's not perfect; but compared to the other guy, he really is a saint.

[LordShiva]

BTW, we need:
-frog
-vomit
-better crying
-happy putin
-kool aid
smileys.

edit: x-post