Last minute doubts for Obama

jreeves

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2008
6,588
319
48
www.dcexaminer.com >> Melanie Scarborough
Lines are going to be long at the polls tomorrow, so maybe there will be time to ask Barack Obama's supporters to clarify a couple of things.

For one, I'm confused by their notion of "economic justice." Last week, in defending his plan to "spread the wealth around," Obama said that "when everybody's got a little more money at the end of the month -- then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money. They decide, 'Maybe I can afford a new car; maybe I can afford a computer for my child.' They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling, and everybody is better off."

Everybody, that is, except the person who earned or saved the money that was redistributed.

Consider the retired gentleman who told me he took a brown-bag lunch to work every day to save the money it cost to eat out. If he saved an average of $5 every day, he accumulated more than $50,000 by the end of his 43-year career. By whose lights is it fair to redistribute those savings among individuals who chose to spend their money in restaurants?

I'd also like one of Obama's supporters to explain why they're eager to elect as president a man who says the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. Given that when a president takes the oath of office, he vows to do only one thing -- "protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States" -- doesn't Obama's willingness to take that oath make him either unprincipled or dishonest?
Perhaps I'll bump into one of the people who claim to be voting for Obama as a repudiation of George W. Bush and ask if they don't detect the same arrogance in Obama.

We've already seen him toss off his campaign plane reporters from newspapers that endorsed John McCain. His campaign instructed supporters to jam the phone lines of radio stations that give air time to Obama's critics.

On Halloween, Omaba got angry at being photographed while taking his daughter trick-or-treating and ordered the press to "leave us alone" and "get back on the bus." Monarchs can banish the media from their presence; presidents are supposed to tolerate coverage.

Most of all, I would like to know if Obama's supporters truly aren't the least bit concerned about electing as president a man with so little understanding of -- and perhaps even contempt for -- Americans' traditional way of life.

I know, I know; we're not supposed to talk about such things, but the facts speak for themselves. Only one of Obama's parents was an American, and she lived well outside the cultural mainstream.

Obama spent his grade-school years in his stepfather's native Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim-majority country. While his contemporaries in the United States sat in classrooms adorned by pictures of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and performed school plays about the founding fathers -- perhaps even took a field trip to Washington, D.C. -- Obama recalls "puzzling out the meaning of the muezzin's call to evening prayer."

A child growing up in Indonesia would be unfamiliar with experiences common to youngsters raised in the United States: Trick-or-treating, Thanksgiving pageants, the Pledge of Allegiance, Fourth of July traditions. It is remarkable that out of 300 million Americans, about the only one not steeped in Americana is likely to be our next president.
Obama spent his teenage years being raised in Hawaii by grandparents -- hardly a typical arrangement. He moved to the mainland only after he was grown, settling in Chicago.

What could Obama possibly know of the nation's heartland -- of the small towns sustained by small businesses where most Americans live? No wonder people in rural and suburban areas are such an unknown quantity to him that he described them as "bitter" individuals who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them...as a way to explain their frustrations." He doesn't understand them at all.
So…Obama is critical of both capitalism and the Constitution; he's not too keen on the First Amendment; his experience with small-town America is almost non-existent -- and what he knows of it, he doesn't like.


Any comments Obama supporters?
 
www.dcexaminer.com >> Melanie Scarborough
Lines are going to be long at the polls tomorrow, so maybe there will be time to ask Barack Obama's supporters to clarify a couple of things.

For one, I'm confused by their notion of "economic justice." Last week, in defending his plan to "spread the wealth around," Obama said that "when everybody's got a little more money at the end of the month -- then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money. They decide, 'Maybe I can afford a new car; maybe I can afford a computer for my child.' They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling, and everybody is better off."

Everybody, that is, except the person who earned or saved the money that was redistributed.

Consider the retired gentleman who told me he took a brown-bag lunch to work every day to save the money it cost to eat out. If he saved an average of $5 every day, he accumulated more than $50,000 by the end of his 43-year career. By whose lights is it fair to redistribute those savings among individuals who chose to spend their money in restaurants?

I'd also like one of Obama's supporters to explain why they're eager to elect as president a man who says the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. Given that when a president takes the oath of office, he vows to do only one thing -- "protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States" -- doesn't Obama's willingness to take that oath make him either unprincipled or dishonest?
Perhaps I'll bump into one of the people who claim to be voting for Obama as a repudiation of George W. Bush and ask if they don't detect the same arrogance in Obama.

We've already seen him toss off his campaign plane reporters from newspapers that endorsed John McCain. His campaign instructed supporters to jam the phone lines of radio stations that give air time to Obama's critics.

On Halloween, Omaba got angry at being photographed while taking his daughter trick-or-treating and ordered the press to "leave us alone" and "get back on the bus." Monarchs can banish the media from their presence; presidents are supposed to tolerate coverage.

Most of all, I would like to know if Obama's supporters truly aren't the least bit concerned about electing as president a man with so little understanding of -- and perhaps even contempt for -- Americans' traditional way of life.

I know, I know; we're not supposed to talk about such things, but the facts speak for themselves. Only one of Obama's parents was an American, and she lived well outside the cultural mainstream.

Obama spent his grade-school years in his stepfather's native Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim-majority country. While his contemporaries in the United States sat in classrooms adorned by pictures of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and performed school plays about the founding fathers -- perhaps even took a field trip to Washington, D.C. -- Obama recalls "puzzling out the meaning of the muezzin's call to evening prayer."

A child growing up in Indonesia would be unfamiliar with experiences common to youngsters raised in the United States: Trick-or-treating, Thanksgiving pageants, the Pledge of Allegiance, Fourth of July traditions. It is remarkable that out of 300 million Americans, about the only one not steeped in Americana is likely to be our next president.
Obama spent his teenage years being raised in Hawaii by grandparents -- hardly a typical arrangement. He moved to the mainland only after he was grown, settling in Chicago.

What could Obama possibly know of the nation's heartland -- of the small towns sustained by small businesses where most Americans live? No wonder people in rural and suburban areas are such an unknown quantity to him that he described them as "bitter" individuals who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them...as a way to explain their frustrations." He doesn't understand them at all.
So…Obama is critical of both capitalism and the Constitution; he's not too keen on the First Amendment; his experience with small-town America is almost non-existent -- and what he knows of it, he doesn't like.


Any comments Obama supporters?

Becareful the Libbo's are about to start labeling you as a racist.
 
Becareful the Libbo's are about to start labeling you as a racist.

I don't believe the article ever mentions his race, maybe I'm wrong? The centerpiece of the article deals with Obama's extremist views.
 
Calm down, McCain's going to win.

Paperboy posted a poll showing McCain leading in Pennsylvania 53% to 33%, and McCain was tied in California.

Now, unless Paperboy is a pathological liar and fraud, those poll numbers should mean McCain is going to roll over Obama.



And your right about something. If Obama hates the Constitution and Capitalism, he adores Marxism, and he's in league with terrorists he's going to lose. Big time. . Unless you Cons have been lying your asses off about all that, those reasons in and of themselves will repel american voters. The reasons to vote against Obama will be self evident.
 
Last minute doubts for Obama ..

Michelle, do I wear the red tie to the celebration or the blue one?
 
www.dcexaminer.com >> Melanie Scarborough
Lines are going to be long at the polls tomorrow, so maybe there will be time to ask Barack Obama's supporters to clarify a couple of things.

For one, I'm confused by their notion of "economic justice." Last week, in defending his plan to "spread the wealth around," Obama said that "when everybody's got a little more money at the end of the month -- then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money. They decide, 'Maybe I can afford a new car; maybe I can afford a computer for my child.' They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling, and everybody is better off."

Everybody, that is, except the person who earned or saved the money that was redistributed.

Consider the retired gentleman who told me he took a brown-bag lunch to work every day to save the money it cost to eat out. If he saved an average of $5 every day, he accumulated more than $50,000 by the end of his 43-year career. By whose lights is it fair to redistribute those savings among individuals who chose to spend their money in restaurants?

I'd also like one of Obama's supporters to explain why they're eager to elect as president a man who says the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. Given that when a president takes the oath of office, he vows to do only one thing -- "protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States" -- doesn't Obama's willingness to take that oath make him either unprincipled or dishonest?
Perhaps I'll bump into one of the people who claim to be voting for Obama as a repudiation of George W. Bush and ask if they don't detect the same arrogance in Obama.

We've already seen him toss off his campaign plane reporters from newspapers that endorsed John McCain. His campaign instructed supporters to jam the phone lines of radio stations that give air time to Obama's critics.

On Halloween, Omaba got angry at being photographed while taking his daughter trick-or-treating and ordered the press to "leave us alone" and "get back on the bus." Monarchs can banish the media from their presence; presidents are supposed to tolerate coverage.

Most of all, I would like to know if Obama's supporters truly aren't the least bit concerned about electing as president a man with so little understanding of -- and perhaps even contempt for -- Americans' traditional way of life.

I know, I know; we're not supposed to talk about such things, but the facts speak for themselves. Only one of Obama's parents was an American, and she lived well outside the cultural mainstream.

Obama spent his grade-school years in his stepfather's native Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim-majority country. While his contemporaries in the United States sat in classrooms adorned by pictures of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and performed school plays about the founding fathers -- perhaps even took a field trip to Washington, D.C. -- Obama recalls "puzzling out the meaning of the muezzin's call to evening prayer."

A child growing up in Indonesia would be unfamiliar with experiences common to youngsters raised in the United States: Trick-or-treating, Thanksgiving pageants, the Pledge of Allegiance, Fourth of July traditions. It is remarkable that out of 300 million Americans, about the only one not steeped in Americana is likely to be our next president.
Obama spent his teenage years being raised in Hawaii by grandparents -- hardly a typical arrangement. He moved to the mainland only after he was grown, settling in Chicago.

What could Obama possibly know of the nation's heartland -- of the small towns sustained by small businesses where most Americans live? No wonder people in rural and suburban areas are such an unknown quantity to him that he described them as "bitter" individuals who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them...as a way to explain their frustrations." He doesn't understand them at all.
So…Obama is critical of both capitalism and the Constitution; he's not too keen on the First Amendment; his experience with small-town America is almost non-existent -- and what he knows of it, he doesn't like.


Any comments Obama supporters?

This is more like last minute whining from the right .. the death throes of a dying breed.
 
heh, I never knew you were considering voting for the Obamination, jreeves.

Actually, I didn't always have such a negative view of Obama. In the primaries I viewed him more favorably than Clinton. Until I found out a little more than Hope and Change and what extreme policies he supports.
 
Any comments Obama supporters?

Well, I don't look back to his childhood, FWIW. Nor to McCain's.

What I look at are trends and general policy philosophies.

For example, if a particular philosophy economically rewards the top few percent of the country and if, over time, the separation between really wealthy and really poor becomes more and more exaggerated, then i start to consider that maybe the other philosophy, the one that rewards the working bulk in the middlle, might be a better investment in the country in the long run.

Here's an example from a few years ago:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0227-02.htm

The number of Americans living in severe poverty has expanded dramatically under the Bush administration, with nearly 16 million people now living on an individual income of less than $5,000 (£2,500) a year or a family income of less than $10,000, according to an analysis of 2005 official census data.

The analysis, by the McClatchy group of newspapers, showed that the number of people living in extreme poverty had grown by 26 per cent since 2000. Poverty as a whole has worsened, too, but the number of severe poor is growing 56 per cent faster than the overall segment of the population characterised as poor - about 37 million people in all according to the census data. That represents more than 10 per cent of the US population, which recently surpassed the 300 million mark.

The widening of the income gap between haves and have-nots is nothing new in America - it has been going on steadily since the late 1970s. What is new, though, is the rapid increase in numbers at the bottom of the socio-economic pile. The numbers of severely poor have increased faster than any other segment of the population.

"That was the exact opposite of what we anticipated when we began," one of the McClatchy study's co-authors, Steven Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University, said. "We're not seeing as much moderate poverty as a proportion of the population. What we're seeing is a dramatic growth of severe poverty."

The causes of the problem are no mystery to sociologists and political scientists. The share of national income going to corporate profits has far outstripped the share going to wages and salaries. Manufacturing jobs with benefits and union protection have vanished and been supplanted by low-wage, low-security service-sector work. The richest fifth of US households enjoys more than 50 per cent of the national income, while the poorest fifth gets by on an estimated 3.5 per cent.

So, I listen to economic policy with the broad population in mind, because I don't want to live in a class society any more stratified than it already is, thankyouverymuch.

That's one example. On most, but not all, policy and philosophical positions, I think Obama is more about investment in the future and McCain is more about policies that have been tried and failed in the past.
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't look back to his childhood, FWIW. Nor to McCain's.

What I look at are trends and general policy philosophies.

For example, if a particular philosophy economically rewards the top few percent of the country and if, over time, the separation between really wealthy and really poor becomes more and more exaggerated, then i start to consider that maybe the other philosophy, the one that rewards the working bulk in the middlle, might be a better investment in the country in the long run.

Here's an example from a few years ago:

Poverty Gap in US Has Widened under Bush



So, I listen to economic policy with the broad population in mind, because I don't want to live in a class society any more stratified than it already is, thankyouverymuch.

That's one example. On most, but not all, policy and philosophical positions, I think Obama is more about investment in the future and McCain is more about policies that have been tried and failed in the past.

Yet can you name one social program that Bush has cut in the last eight years? It is rather easy to spout talking points, how about a little evidence now?
 
The evidence I provided in the post was the increase in the gap between the rich and poor under Bush. There are even numbers for you to think about. Percentages and mean income.

Trends that occur under a philosophy, in this case a philosophy since reagan, are evidence. Trends under carter are another piece of evidence.

(Citing programs that a pres cut is not evidence of anything relevant here. )


The causes of the problem are no mystery to sociologists and political scientists. The share of national income going to corporate profits has far outstripped the share going to wages and salaries. Manufacturing jobs with benefits and union protection have vanished and been supplanted by low-wage, low-security service-sector work. The richest fifth of US households enjoys more than 50 per cent of the national income, while the poorest fifth gets by on an estimated 3.5 per cent.
 
Last edited:
The evidence I provided in the post was the increase in the gap between the rich and poor under Bush. There are even numbers for you to think about. Percentages and mean income.

Trends that occur under a philosophy, in this case a philosophy since reagan, are evidence. Trends under carter are another piece of evidence.

(Citing programs that a pres cut is not evidence of anything relevant here. )

If a President is going to have an effect on income disparity then surely he has cut social programs or etc....

What has the President done to cause the disparity in incomes?
 
If a President is going to have an effect on income disparity then surely he has cut social programs or etc....

What has the President done to cause the disparity in incomes?

Borrowed $700 billion from China to fund the invasion of Iraq.

Allowed business to go unregulated until the whole house of cards came down.
 
Dipshit, Congress passes regulation laws not the President. The President doesn't borrow money from China.....:cuckoo:

Right....

Bush bears no responsiblity for the war in Iraq or anything that's happened the last eight years.

:cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:
 
The only "last minute doubts" are the desperation and attempts by the GOP to scare people into not voting for Obama.

This article is highly biased.

This article finds something wrong with Obama asking the media to leave him and his daughter/daughters alone when they went trick or treating?

Are you kidding me?
 

Forum List

Back
Top