Why You Support Obama

Originally posted by grover
also we simply have to stop this bouncing back and forth between this two family power base that has evolved over the past 20+ years... to continue it is an invitation to a train wreck for the republic.

How are you going to feel if Obama picks Hillary for VP, and then we get Hillary from 2016 - 2024?

That will make 44 years (1980-2024) of the Bush/Clinton dynasty in the White House either as POTUS or VP. They have gone a long way towards wrecking the republic already.

In fact, it's scary to see the same patterns emerge. Clinton turned the country against Democrats, almost handing Bush the Presidency on a silver platter. Now Bush has destroyed the Republican party to return the favor.

Originally posted by jamie83
And people wonder why Obama supporters are perceived as whiny babies all the time.

I would remind you that not all Obama supporters are alike. Thanks.

One thing I agree with Grover on... The big families... I honestly feel they're all the same. Obama is something different. I know... he's campaigning on change. I believe him.

I cannot see him picking Hillary for his running mate. If he does (and she accepts), he'll lose a LOT of votes.

Interesting site:
Political Truth-O-Meter

Looks like the Obamaites don't have a leg to stand on in their support of Obama when it comes to the issues.

How many of you are aware of Obama's world charity program? Obama wants to obligate a percentage our nations GDP to be sent to third world nations as charity, especially Africa.

I don't know how many of you have read up on what happens with charity funds, but most of it winds up going to the brutal dictatorships, oligarchies, and warlords that control these countries, and winds up being spent to buy weapons. What aid does arrive winds up creating a growing population that depends entirely on foreign aid. When the foreign aid is cut back by lack of funding or the local war lords demanding higher bribes, the U.S. gets blamed for causing the misery.

I don't know about the rest of you people, but I don't want to fund the ever increasing power of warlords in third world countries, nor do I want my children obligated to pay debts built up to help Obama's relatives take over Africa and establish the Muslim religion throughout Africa.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 31-5-2008 by poet1b]

Originally posted by poet1b

Looks like the Obamaites don't have a leg to stand on in their support of Obama when it comes to the issues.

I'm very disappointed that nobody who supports Obama has been able to point out a single, specific issue on which they based their preference of BO over Clinton.

The world charity thing seems like just another policy that panders to his core constituency -the CFR.

By the way, with current numbers Hillary is most likely going to win the popular vote. Whether or not you count Florida and Michigan delagates, more people voted for Hillary, and if Florida and Michigan were to hold another primary, Hillary would probably win by a bigger margin. Hillary has also won more counties than Obama.

The will of the people has spoken, and they have voted for Hillary, which means that Hillary should be the democratic nominee. Democracy means that the person who gets the most votes wins, not the person who succeeds in navigating the complicated set of rules that favor Obama and the DNC political machine over Hillary.

Further note, Obama spent more money campaigning in Florida before Florida's primary than Hillary did, breaking his promise not to campaign in Florida.

The super delegates can change their minds up until the convention, so the big push to declare Obama the winner is nothing but illusion put up by big media.

I happen to live in the CA's democratic stronghold, and Obama is not popular, most people will not vote for Obama, or will vote for McCain. If Obama can't win CA, he has no chance. The more people get to know Obama, the less they like him.

This World charity dream of Obama's is one hugely stupid idea, and will only spread violence and war throughout the third world. The press has been silent on this issue, but sooner or later it will come into play, and I think most people in the U.S. will very much oppose obligating a certain percentage of our nations GDP for world wide charity. We are deeply in debt, our infrastructure needs to be totally re-built, and re-tooled for a world without cheap good quality crude to cruise our broad interstates.

By the way, anyone else notice how it is always the neocon conservative types who talk up Obama, and put down Hillary? Gee, while they claim they think Hillary will be easier to beat, they certainly want Obama to win the DNC Nom. Here is the reality, repub voters where people can vote for any candidate in the primaries are what have kept Obama in the race. In states where only democrats could vote in the democratic primary, Hillary won by large margins. Obama is the choice of repubs, because they know he is the easiest candidate to beat. Obama is swift boat material if has ever been a candidate that is swift boat material.

Originally posted by jamie83
I'm very disappointed that nobody who supports Obama has been able to point out a single, specific issue on which they based their preference of BO over Clinton.

Don't be disappointed. How are people supposed to give you something that doesn't exist?

The world charity thing seems like just another policy that panders to his core constituency -the CFR.

Practically every presidential candidate is a member.

Originally posted by poet1b
Looks like the Obamaites don't have a leg to stand on in their support of Obama when it comes to the issues.

Fortunately, they don't need one. Voting for someone because you like him better or think he's more honest or shows promise of change is as valid a reason as any other.



[edit on 31-5-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

So when the repub attack machine makes Obama the most hated candidate, that will be alright too, and McCain will take the white house. Sounds like it fits well into Roves master plan. While the neocons don't particularly like McCain, he is most likely to start shutting down alot of the crooked scams the necons got going, they much prefer McCain to either candidate.

Hillary is about to clinch on the popular vote. If she wins the DNC Nom., she will take all the state Gore and Kerry took, plus Florida and Ohio, and Arkansas, which means the Clintons will take the white house once again, and bring back the prosperity of the nineties.

The neocons goal to get Obama the nom. They know they can't beat Hillary in the general, while Obama will be easy to beat in the general. Obama will not win Florida or Ohio, nor take any red states, and most likely will loose CA and NY, where the demo's there aren't interested in reviving the welfare state.

Nice way to condense all into one who the "Obama supporters" are.

I see more character and strength and him than I do in Hillary, but I guess that means im voting for him because he's black, amirite?

reply to post by Masisoar


What are Obama's positions that you support, that make you think Obama will be the best candidate? I think the purpose of the thread is to get away from the personal attacks, and discuss the issues.

Originally posted by Masisoar
Nice way to condense all into one who the "Obama supporters" are.

I see more character and strength and him than I do in Hillary, but I guess that means im voting for him because he's black, amirite?

You have the opportunity here to express which of Obama's position won you over.

This isn't about his personality, race, or oratory skills. The Obama supporters have repeatedly DEMANDED that no criticisms be made about his character, or who he associates with, so I made this thread so Obama supporters will have a place to describe the Obama policies that are most important to them, and how those policies differed from Clinton's.

reply to post by jamie83


44 years? Where do you get that... bush senior became VP in 1981 so that's 27 years.

Anywho... I would not be happy with that choice one bit but it would still be better than Keating Five member John McCain.

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by jamie83

 

44 years? Where do you get that... bush senior became VP in 1981 so that's 27 years.

Anywho... I would not be happy with that choice one bit but it would still be better than Keating Five member John McCain.

Ok, use 1981 instead of 1980 since that's when Bush Sr. took office.

Bush-Reagan: 1981 to 1992
Clinton: 1992 to 2000
Bush Jr.: 2000 to 2008
Obama/Clinton: 2008 to 2016
Clinton: 2016 to 2024

So if Obama names Clinton the VP, and Clinton takes over for 8 years starting in 2016, then it will be 44 years of Bush/Clinton in the White House.

Scary thought if you ask me.

And all the signs are pointing to Obama picking Clinton. Watch how this unfolds.

Yeah, and being that Obama is related to Cheney, and his Grandma's wealth connections, I guess McCain is the only outsider.

Well, in response to your post in the other thread, my preference for Obama over Clinton is more a matter of character and approach than of specific policies, but I'll offer a couple quick examples:

1] The War in Iraq, Obama opposed it from the start, and gave a great speech explaining very clearly why.

Hillary supported it from the start.

2] Obama voted for the Vitter Amendment along with Senate Republicans, which banned public firearms seizures like we saw in New Orleans after Katrina.

Only 16 Senators opposed the Vitter Amendment, including guess who?
Hillary Clinton

Despite all the current propaganda, Obama's reputation and record in the US Senate are far more moderate and far less partisan than Hillary Clinton's.

And despite the lampooning and oversimplification of his campaign theme of "hope and change", he is articulate and not afraid to speak to Americans as adults, as the speech I linked above demonstrates.

That's a nice change itself from most politicians we've seen in the last decade or so, with the exception of a few mavericks like Mike Gravel and Ron Paul.

I tell you what, I'll post why I prefer Barrack Obama over a third term for Bush and then you can post why you support McCain Jamie.

First off I'll state the obvious; he will end the war in Iraq. Unlike Hillary's proposal of withdrawal, his will be over a 16 month period allowing new UN-Iraqi joint forces to take the place of US troops. For a pointless war that costs the American tax payer over $200 million a day meanwhile the US economy suffers, go figure why this is important.

I support Obama because he intends to enforce gun control. Typical for Bushies to assume his going to ban all guns which in opinion is just stupid and impossible. After the Virginia Tech massacre, the Minnesota kindergarten shootings, the columbine high massacre I believe there need to be more control. I hated the fact one of these Bushies on news argued after the Virginia massacre that "had the students been allowed guns o campus and in highschools, they could have defended themselves" and some how pointed the blame to the liberals, honestly now, do you know how stupid such an argument is? Im not going to even go into that. The man has a nerve making such an argument after such a horrible event.

Obama is very much for universal health care which I believe Americans deserve. Many argue that the US is simply to big for the government to provide such healthcare but considering this $200 million a day war we have going on and the fact that the US spends over 10 times on the military what China spends, I pretty much see this policy with in reach of the government. The difference between his and Hillary's is that it is optional. The fact that Americans pay so much on health insurance every year in any case this further highlights the ability of the US to provide for its people.

He doesn’t take money from lobbyist. Yes many have said this is untrue and have made references to the "$1,000, $2,000" in contributions from CEOs to Obama campaign but these are donations from those individuals themselves. He does not accept money from lobbyists, on people who wish to donate and l like this fact. Over this month McCain had to distance himself from a number of lobbyists, shame.

He intends to put diplomacy first before any hostility. I see no harm sitting with those leaders the Bushies have labeled part of "the axis of evil". Diplomacy is important and may avoid an unnecessary confrontation, Reagan did it so did Kennedy even during the Cuban crises; he made sure diplomacy was first on the table before any hostilities with Cuba.

I remember hearing "patriot" and "axes of evil" names being said constantly by Bush and his cronies during 2003/4. Its real funny, libs are supposed to be the naive party right?

You know what was the most pathetic about Bush? That night he pulled that face of his when he announced war with Iraq, sort of like a pathetic fake puppy look to get Americans to believe him, urgh, just makes me feel sick inside.......

He takes global warming seriously and will enforce global warming policies where as McCain will not, yes McCain may take global warming seriously by the republicans do not and I don’t see them changing heart if the take back the Whitehouse.

Obama is for abortion and I see this somewhat as why I support however not completely. I am for abortion in certain circumstances where a woman has raped or a young girl sexually abused or those under 16, I believe in these cases abortion should be allowed. As for other cases I don’t believe abortion should be an option is it was that person’s decision to take that step. I cannot rule out abortion completely, not in this day and age, so given either to allow abortion or ban it, I’m sorry but rather allow it if that’s what it takes.

Now if you all would please tell us here why you support McCain. If your a self proclaimed "libertarian" as many bushies prefer to call themselves these days, wonder why...., please tell us why you prefer McCain over Obama, it would be great if you could quote each of my points above and say why McCains is better, this should be an interesting debate.



[edit on 31-5-2008 by southern_Guardian]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jamie83
And people wonder why Obama supporters are perceived as whiny babies all the time.

I would remind you that not all Obama supporters are alike.

Thanks.

One thing I agree with Grover on... The big families... I honestly feel they're all the same. Obama is something different. I know... he's campaigning on change. I believe him.

I cannot see him picking Hillary for his running mate. If he does (and she accepts), he'll lose a LOT of votes.

Interesting site:
Political Truth-O-Meter

After the "sudden" rise of threads which for the most involve personal attacks and complaining about the positive attention the Obama camp is getting, I find it real funny that the liberals are considered "whiny" by other Bushies.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by southern_Guardian]

reply to post by jamie83


It is called "bandwagon"...once the real election starts, he will fall flat because he really has no platform to stand on except his new face which is quickly growing old...

Originally posted by southern_Guardian

He doesn’t take money from lobbyist. Yes many have said this is untrue and have made references to the "$1,000, $2,000" in contributions from CEOs to Obama campaign but these are donations from those individuals themselves. He does not accept money from lobbyists, on people who wish to donate and l like this fact. Over this month McCain had to distance himself from a number of lobbyists, shame.

When a politician who is trying to appeal to populist ideals tells such a blatant lie on the issue of corporate contributions, he deserves to be called the liar and hypocrite that he is and therefore unqualified for the presidency.

Goldman Sachs $605,980

University of California $428,116

JPMorgan Chase & Co $403,407

UBS AG $370,130

Citigroup Inc $363,454

www.opensecrets.org... e=2008

These are the top 5 contributors for Obama. Is this the example of Obama not taking money from lobbyists?

And why the hell is the University of California in that list? Is my state tax dollars going to Obama??

reply to post by xmotex


Obama's position on the Iraq war has shifted back and forth. The record is there if you want to see it. Most libertarians supported the Iraq invasion back when GW was making his case. As a Ron Paul supporter did you originally support the Iraq war?

Ron Paul says that the war was sold on false information, which is correct, as a Ron Paul supporter, how can you blame Hillary for making a decision based on false information?

Obama did vote for the Vitter act preventing the confiscation of legally owned firearms in times of emergency, but his record as anti-gun rights is well established. Hillary's position isn't any better, and the vote against the Vitter act does make her look bad.

I find it extremely hard to believe that one vote for gun rights considering Obama's massive effort to obligate the give away even larger amounts of U.S. tax dollars to the U.N. to spend as they please on Charity. is enough to convince a Libertarian to support this very liberal Senator.

Originally posted by poet1b

Obama did vote for the Vitter act preventing the confiscation of legally owned firearms in times of emergency, but his record as anti-gun rights is well established. Hillary's position isn't any better, and the vote against the Vitter act does make her look bad.

How much weight can you even give to these votes knowing that they were cast based on calculated political expediency and not based on core principals?

I think it should be a requirement that once somebody begins running for POTUS they must resign their position as Senator due to the conflict of interest between their personal success in the election and their representation of the people of their state.