Obama- Where's the Change, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times


reply posted on 2-9-2008 @ 09:53 PM by jam321
reply to post by SmileyMan34


I agree. Do you really think that politicians who have been in Washington for decades are going to let a 2-4 year Senator President tell them what to do? Whoever does has a surprise waiting for them.

Pelosi is gonna grab him by the gonads every time he mentions the word change...


reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 08:22 AM by jam321
reply to post by southern_Guardian


Obama intends to bring in universal health care.


From what I understand his plan only covers the 47 million without insurance. If you already have insurance you may see lower premiums. In addition he will still keep medicaid and the SCHIP program. How do you see that as being universal?


reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 02:05 PM by jam321
reply to post by autowrench


Do you really think Ron Paul could have made those changes?

I admire what he says but even if he was elected he would have a hard time getting Congress to go along. They would fight him at every corner tooth and nail to ensure he didn't succeed where the Dems or Reps couldn't.

In order for someone like Paul to succeed we need more people who think like him in Congress. That would be change and a refreshing change at that.


reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 03:29 PM by mhc_70
Not sure about Obama, but there is no question Palin knows how to intiate change.

Despite the threats of prosecution, she went public as a whisle-blower. She wrote a famous op-ed for the state's largest newspaper which contained the memorable statement that the only difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is lipstick. And she proceeded to prove that point by continuing to direct public attention to the scandal.

She was helped along by criminal investigations that have since ended up with indictments and convictions of several public officials. Renkes was forced to resign as attorney-general. Reudrich ended up agreeing to pay a substantial fine for his ethics violations — not just the noncompliance with the disclosure forms, but substantive violations based on too-close ties with and favors from VECO, the drilling contractor that's been at the center of most of the Alaskan ethics scandals — and to quit the Commission.

And the capstone came when Palin ran in the 2006 GOP primary against the incumbent governor who'd appointed and then ignored and tried to silence her, Frank Murkowski. She whipped him soundly, and then went on to whip another former governor, popular Democrat Tony Knowles, in the 2006 general election.

Barack Obama mouths platitudes about how "he passed" ethics reform legislation in the U.S. Senate. In fact, that was done on a bipartisan basis in which he was only one of many senate sponsors, and it was at no risk to himself or his party. Palin, by contrast to Obama, actually put her entire political future on the line to take on political forces far better known and more powerful than she was, relying on nothing but her own integrity and, ultimately, the public's.


reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 03:40 PM by jam321
reply to post by mhc_70


Now that is change. I guess the question is if she would be able to do the same with members of Congress and their lobbyists.

McCain has the best chance for change. He knows he has a limited time of life left, not that anybody can't die at any given moment. But knowing this he could say hell to both parties and fight that Congress do things for America and not itself. He has nothing to lose. He is literally on his way to the next world and I doubt he would be up for seeking reelection.

Obama on the other hand is a different story. I just can't see Pelosi and the other lifelong Democrats allowing him to change things upside down. They know they are going to have the majority in Congress and I am sure they already have an agenda that they plan on passing whether Obama likes it or not. This isn't a hit on Obama. He probably means well but I don't think the democrats will be all for Change once Obama wins.


reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 03:53 PM by sos37
reply to post by southern_Guardian


Post a link to where McCain voted with Bush 100% of the time. I haven't seen that. And no, Obama never did vote in-line with Bush's policies. Worse - he voted 96% of the time in line with current Congress' policies, aka Senate majority leader Harry Reid. Congress' approval rating has trickled down to a pathetic 9% in national polls.

Barack Obama has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 96.0% of the time during the current Congress. This percentage does not include votes in which Obama did not vote.


Source: projects.washingtonpost.com...

President Bush's approval rating, last I checked, was at least 36%. So it looks like McCain at least breaks from Bush more than Obama breaks from his party.

So who is the bigger hypocrite here? Obama calling McCain more of the same or Obama voting in line with a senate leader who is partly responsible for the worst approval rating in history?


[edit on 3-9-2008 by sos37]


reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 03:57 PM by jerico65
Originally posted by southern_Guardian
Obama isnt going to keep troops in Iraq which is costing us $200 million a day and nobody knows why we're there anymore.


Yeah, he's just gonna send them to A-stan instead. Or invade Pakistan.

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
McCain admits that washington has done nothing to solve the foreign oil dependence for the last 28years, oh hold on wasnt he in office the last 28years?


Biden was in Washington for 32 years.

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
Where was McCain during hurricane Katrina? Celebrating with Bush, now he wants to distance himself from him and act all rightous over gustav. Yep its election season folks.


Where was Obama? I sure didn't see him in NO during Katrina filling sandbags.

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
Obama intends to bring in universal health care.


Funded by our tax dollars

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
Obama intends to focus more on alternative fuel.

McCains only answer to the fuel crises is to drill drll drill in Alaskas northern slope, an area that has been drilled before. And how useful of him to pick a pro-drilling alaskan governor.


"Focus" is different from actually doing something.

Obama is anti Nuke, anti coal, anti drilling. Just what are we to do until the alternative fuels come online? Oh, yeah, just keep buying foreign oil.

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
McCain cant recall howmany houses he has, says that your rich if you earn over 5 million and calls Obama and elitist despite the fact Obama earns less that.


Obama took a vacation to Hawaii that set him back a cool half million? million dollars? Don't try to pawn Obama off as an "everyman". He's just another rich, elite, politician.


I could go on, but why bother?


reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 04:02 PM by sos37
reply to post by jerico65


Excellent comebacks based on the facts, sir! Star for you. I love how the left ignores the double standard every day.


reply posted on 4-9-2008 @ 08:41 AM by jam321
reply to post by sos37


So who is the bigger hypocrite here? Obama calling McCain more of the same or Obama voting in line with a senate leader who is partly responsible for the worst approval rating in history?



I personally think the Democrat led Congress held back on fixing issues on purpose to help ensure that a Democrat would be elected President. Why else would you say that you have a common sense plan to lower gas prices and as of 2008 have yet to unveil that common sense plan.

once again, where's the change.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^