Is it partisanship or racism?

Discussion in 'Congress' started by midcan5, Jul 3, 2008.

  1. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,795
    Thanks Received:
    2,367
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,310
    "I don't know what's the matter with people: they don't learn by understanding; they learn by some other way, by rote, or something. Their knowledge is so fragile!" Richard Feynman


    I have been listening to reasons why some would not vote for Barack Obama and one mentioned often is lack of experience. When Bush Jr ran for office the very same people excused his lack of experience claiming he would select good smart people who would give him sound advice. So why isn't BO given the same leeway? He is certainly a great deal smarter than W, has done a great deal more, and he too will have good smart people to consult with, so ask yourself why is it a negative in one case and not the other? Is it partisanship or racism?



    "Ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think is most reasonable to enact." John Rawls
     
  2. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    While I am no fan of Bush, I have to say he at least was a 2 term Governor which is 8 more years of executive experience Than Obama. I personally would have no problem voting for a more experienced Black man, if he were not so liberal.

    However I am confident Liberals will label anyone who will not vote for Obama, for what ever reason, A racist.

    Charles
     
  3. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,586
    Thanks Received:
    5,907
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,015
    I will never vote for a flaming Liberal. Obama is dangerous because of what he BELIEVES and because of what he will try to do as President. His short record is CLEAR on his positions.
     
  4. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,795
    Thanks Received:
    2,367
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,310
    Bush was a figurehead governor, Texas is smart, they don't allow incompetent men a reign of mistakes.

    If 80% of people studied harbor racist inclinations then it is relevant to the conversation. Remember david duke could have been governor of Louisiana based on the white vote.

    You do realize we are a liberal nation? I realize that some want a combination fascist plutocracy but still our founding ideas were and are still liberal. Iran or Saudi Arabia we are not, at least not yet.

    Notice too that RGS and others use a word for thinking, not thinking but mindless drivel feed into their head by wingnuts. Label someone a liberal and all thought ceases. Imagine this country without the great liberal minds of Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, and LBJ.

    PS if you want to read about RGS' thinking or lack thereof, I strongly suggest Joe Bageant's "Deer Hunting with Jesus." Excellent read and funny.


    A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.
     
  5. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,586
    Thanks Received:
    5,907
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +9,015
    You are a socialist boob, you would gladly turn this country into a socialist country with no rights except to the ruling class, which would be your liberal buddies.
     
  6. Steerpike
    Offline

    Steerpike VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,847
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +182
    Seems to me that over the past couple of decades or more the liberals want to do as much or more interfering as the conservatives.
     
  7. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    So I have heard and been told.

    But I didn't really know so I looked up the Constiution of the State of Texas.

    A casual persual leads me to think that the governor of Texas actually holds a fair amount of power and responsibility, much like the President of the US holds sway over Federal government.

    He can veto bills, he can issue pardons, he is responsible for the executive departments; he is commander and chielf of Texas military forces.

    Sounds like a fairly executive psoition to me.

    Maybe someone who understands Texas political scinece better than I can explain why so many people tell us that the governors position is a figurehead.

    I can't see that from my reading of the constitution..
     
  8. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Because the people that voted for Bush and willing to give him the benefit of doubt identified more with his alleged conservative ideals than they do with Obama's liberal ideals. Conservatives don't want a liberal in office.

    How hard is THAT?

    Attempting to throw out the race card is lame, but becomng WAY typical of the left. Give it a rest. There are racists on both right and left that won't vote for Obama. Don't let that cloud the fact that he's too liberal for most conservatives and THAT is the reason they dislike him, his idealism, and won't vote for him nor give him ANY benefit of doubt.
     
  9. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,728
    Thanks Received:
    10,831
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,479
    President Bush had executive experience both with an oil company and with a ball team. He learned the hard way what is entailed in management, what it is to succeed, and what it is to fail. Despite attempts to besmirch his military record, he did earn his wings in the Texas Air National Guard, was honorably discharged from that service, and thereby obtained some hands on experience in how the military functions. He served as quite popular and successful governor of the State of Texas with an economy second in the nation and fifteenth largest in the world. These are pretty impressive qualifications for President of the United States. And in both jobs he did surround himself with highly qualified and capable people despite making a few abysmally bad appointments. Some dubious or disastrous or unfortunate appointments have been obvious in EVERY administration, however, so there is nothing unusual about that.

    President Bush has been a disappointment to many of us in several ways, but his administration has also competently accomplished some good stuff and I suspect historians will be much kinder to him than has been his press and approval ratings. Time will tell about that.

    Now for Barack Obama: he is nice looking and personable. He was very briefly a law instructor. Then he was a 'community organizer' with ACORN, a quite shadowy and controversial group that is receiving scant scrutiny by the mainstream media despite the fact that this is a key component of his resume and is being flouted (by Clark and others) as a qualification to be President. I suspect Obama is not at all interested in having that relationship closely scrutinized. Then he served some time in the Illinois State Legislature with a record of pushing through little legislation or voting on much of anything before being elected to the U.S. Senate where for three years now he has not been instrumental in pushing through any significant legislation, where he has recorded numerous non votes, and where he has been mostly absent two of the three years while he runs for President.

    So inexperienced? Absolutely moreso than anybody else who has had a good chance to be elected President.

    As for depending on others for expertise the candidate lacks, Obama's track record has been liberally checkered with some extremely dubious and controversial characters that he now disavows any knowledge of their shady dealings or 'they aren't the person that he knew then', yadda yadda. There is no reason to suspect that he will choose better friends and associates as President. He has to pay back those who have brought him to this point.

    Couple all that with the fact that he changes his mind and/or position on ANYTHING depending on how he thinks the political winds are blowing plus he has the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate.

    And all THAT is why I won't be voting for Barack Obama, and I suspect THAT is why many others will choose not to vote for him as well.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2008
  10. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,560
    Thanks Received:
    13,013
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,439
    Baby Bush had experience at oil companies and in running a baseball team.

    He failed at both. Hardly commended him for the presidency.

    Ultimately, we all know it comes down to ideology and competence. Given Baby Bush proved himself incompetent at everything he ever did, I'd say that was pretty good indication of what you were getting.
     

Share This Page