Obama

November 6, 2008 01:42 by Lisey

there are a lot of fears concerning Obama from Cyn apparently. Chicken little's "The sky is falling' type of attitude when we haven't even seen one hint that Obama is satan as she claims seems really irrational.  I voted against raising taxes and I voted for a cool, calm president who might be able to soothe all the messes Bush and his cronies have made.

First of all, there's something about Obama that rings true to me when he talks.  He surrounds himself with people across the board and really listens to opposing viewpoints.  I feel he is much less 'hot-headed' then McCain, and I think we need someone very cool and calm to erase all the issues Bush created with his 'wars'.  It's kind of like listening to someone and the spirit confirms they are genuine.  I get such a feeling and confirmation listening to Obama, not McCain.  McCain scares the hell out of me in what he'll do with my money.  There are two ways to vote:  Fear based - such as Cyn keeps on spouting, or hope based - such that I voted.  I'm voting on faith that calm heads will prevail and clean up the messes WE made.  I think Obama is a realist.  He told black fathers to stop being irresponsible, he sees that a lot of the issues of race is internal in the black community.  He pissed off the black leaders by saying it as it was.  I don't think he's going to be blinded by PC and lobbyists.

I never wanted to go into Iraq.  Saddam was a despot, but he was secular and kept Iran from growing it's religious army.  Iraq was NOT bin Ladan, and had no weapons. I never believed they had weapons. We should have targeted Afghanistan and the taliban with all our might.  Now the taliban is growing again because we were so focused on Bush's war in Iraq.  I think Obama recoqnizes how we completely messed everything up. I also feel Obama hates the taliban as much as McCain does, Obama will fight the taliban just as much as McCain.  In addition, I frankly don't care how much people in other countries want freedom.  If they want it bad enough they will fight for it themselves and have revolution (we did).  Just like the Berlin wall, which was not fought with our guns and airships, freedom only comes from internal sources.  I'm sick of the far right saying it's our duty to go into soveriegn countries and force them to change to democracies (which they aren't going to do anyway.)   

Environmentally, McCain used to be green, then he completely changed during the election (his change and pandering to the far right is what cost him the election.) I liked McCain before 6 months ago.  I think Obama will get us off oil and use all those old oil tax breaks and change them to renewable energy tax breaks.  Change in energy will only happen when there are enough encentives and it's financially viable for companies to go that way.  Bush and unfortunately McCain, were refusing to stop giving tax breaks to oil instead of solar.

Socialism:  in the last few months, McCain was sounding just like those pandering to the 'less forunate'.  In fact, he wants to give hundreds of millions of my tax dollars to irresponsible homeowners so they can keep their house (and not work for it.)  He's rewarding people who are forclosing.  Obama hasn't even gone that far.  In really reviewing Obama's ideas, the only one that feels socialistist is the healthcare and even that isn't mandatory.  People can still 'opt out' if they so choose.  Business will be affected as they either have to offer some type of plan or contribute to a government pool, but McCain's plan was just as bad, if not worse in that in five years his plan would cost so much more than Obama's of tax payers money.  In the end, I am completely against the healthcare policies of either candidate.

Guns: it may be true that Obama is going to scale back gun laws, but in no way can he remove them.  Montana, Wyoming and Idaho would leave the nation (since they signed on only on the condition people can bear arms.) the supreme court just ruled in gun law's favor and it will be years until Obama can put a new justice in, if ever.  We're going to stock up now just in case, but I'm just not thinking it's a rational fear.

Money: out of the wealthy (those who make 250K and up) 65% voted for Obama.  I think that says something.  We need to stop being the bully on the block in the world, we need to be more humble and calm, we need to clean up the environment and get off oil.  Once oil isn't a factor, then the middle east loses all their power.  We need to get back to focusing on invention and the future - not this bloody war that's stupid because no one (including the majority of the Iraqi people) want us there.


Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Related posts

Comments

November 6. 2008 04:17

Fidel

While I admire and agree with so much of what Lisey wrote, please remember that Obama will not be allowed to do anything to really change the status of the elite in America (any more than JFK was allowed to end the Viet Nam war before it really got going). And Civil Rights and the Welfare State courtesy of LBJ were just sop to buy off major Revolution in the Streets as it was in the Sixties taking place in most of the Country's major cities! (People lining up for food stamps to buy licker and tobbaca don't have time to overthrow an unjust economic system...) Therefore, I don't have any great hopes of Obama accomplishing much whatsoever as far as changing America for the Better, only as our Supreme Leader Noam Chomsky said in that video that nobody dared watch (below), he wasn't John McCain and Barbie Doll Palin...and that was probably the BEST thing that can said for him! As to Cyn's continual struggles against The Devil, I suggest she just give in and enjoy it for a change. It would make all the difference in the world for her.

Fidel

November 9. 2008 17:19

witteafval

I voted for Bush in 2004 because, unlike Kerry, he didn't promise to lose the war. I take umbrage in people calling the war in Iraq "Bush's war" when it had the support of me and many other Americans. In the future, please call it Bush and Buhler's war.

witteafval

November 10. 2008 12:05

Cyn

Witteafval:

Thank goodness there are two of us on this site....I was feeling really lonely! I believe that we are actually winning in Irag but the damn media will never print things in favor of this President. Even the terrorists attacking peaceful people in Irag are finding it hard....therefore they are going to Afghanistan, where the chaos is such that they can kill more people.

Cyn

Cyn

November 10. 2008 12:31

Lisey

It's not about winning or losing, it's about if we should be there in the first place. The only reason terrorists can come into Iraq is because WE opened the doors and enabled them. We should have focused solely on the Taliban and Bin Ladan, not Saddam, (who is the major enemy of the Islamic religious Iran).

In the words of a computer who learned winning/losing isn't the point... "how about a nice game of chess?"

Lisey

November 16. 2008 07:50

witteafval

Since we're there, we can only choose to win or lose. If you don't like those options, I suggest someone figure out time travel and stop Saddam from being born.

The idea that terrorists weren't in Iraq before we invaded is absurd. There were terrorists in the country, and Saddam supported terrorism. He offered rewards to the families of Palestinians who killed Israelis; if that isn't supporting terrorism, I don't know what is. Whether Al-Qaeda had any presence in Iraq before 2003 is irrelevant; it's a war on terrorism we're fighting, not a war on Al-Qaeda.

It sickens me that the media has applied the term "Bush Doctrine" to a policy of preemptive war, when the few times people in the administration used it was in reference to a policy of opposing states that supported terrorism. Yet everyone believes the media!

Saddam's Iraq was a danger to the region and American interests, and would have been more dangerous had we not intervened. We'll never know how much longer it would have been before Iraq's potential for destructiveness would have become realized, but Saddam's government never indicated it wasn't willing to carry out its ideals.

For me, the weapons of mass destruction motive was never the most compelling reason for invading Iraq, nor was going after Al-Qaeda; we had taken the fight to them in Afghanistan 18 months previously, and they were on the run. No, for me the most important reason for invading Iraq was the overthrow of a totalitarian dictator who had violated numerous conditions of the cease-fire he had agreed to at the end of the Gulf War 12 years earlier. Shooting at our planes, obstructing international investigators, continuing to rebuild his weapons program--the world is better off without such a head of state. The very least of his crimes was fooling his people into believing they had won the Gulf War. Some liberated Iraqis have called Saddam himself a weapon of mass destruction; the number of people killed by his regime support that sentiment.

Are we really so helpless that we can't overthrow a totalitarian regime and hunt down the leaders of a terrorist organization at the same time? Has America become so weak after fighting Germany and Japan simultaneously a mere 50 years earlier? America's not so pathetic that we can't do two things at once.

Some would like to think it's unimportant if we win or lose. But losing shows weakness, and weak nations are much easier to push around and prey upon than strong nations. Predatory animals prefer sick and weak prey over the healthy and strong.

Some believe all we have to do is declare victory, declare that a certain objective was achieved, and go home. This was how we left Vietnam, and some older history books say America won the Vietnam War. But let me say something so simple that even a stupid playground bully can understand it: If you walk away from a fight before your opponent has given up, you have lost. Having gotten into this fight, our only objective can be to make the other side give up. We'll know we've won in Iraq when people stop attacking us and those who support us.

I know that doesn't sound like a very clear way to end a war; most wars end with treaties between sovereign states, not secret extralegal organizations. We're still in Korea, protecting a free society from an oppressive regime that lacked the intent or ability to harm our country, yet I've heard no one demand we pull out of there. Keeping American troops in Iraq for the next 50 years, facing off a hostile neighbor, sounds much better to me than declaring victory prematurely--or declaring that victory is irrelevant--and pulling out. Our victory in Korea wasn't clear-cut, but the outcome was much better than it was in Vietnam.

As for Iran, the potential North Korea to Iraq's South Korea, the claim is that the destabilized condition we've put Iraq into has upset the delicate balance of power in the Middle East to Iran's favor. But doesn't anyone realize the dangers a free Iraq can represent to its totalitarian neighbors? There are Iranians seeking the overthrow of their government, and a free Iraq helps, not hurts, their cause.

To me it's not about remaining there or leaving, it's about winning against the enemies of liberty. Chess is about winning, too.

witteafval

Add comment


(Will show your Gravatar icon)  

  Country flag

[b][/b] - [i][/i] - [u][/u]- [quote][/quote]



Live preview

January 5. 2009 15:44