Discussion in 'Congress' started by Orange_Juice, Sep 7, 2008.
though they know nothing much about her
Tells you a lot about these people
Like what ?
I'm still waiting for all the Obama diehards to tell me which of his policies or accomplishments impresses them the most.
Ohh come now THAT is different.
Simply because Democrats are too lazy to know their politicians doesnt mean the right is. We, after all, knew who she was months ago and thought she would be a fabulous VP choice.
Much like I have no doubt Gov. Jindal would be an excellent leader. But than I doubt you know who he is either. Cause unless you get your talking points from the media, you dont have a clue who someone is or whether you like them or not.
The rest of us actually study up on things.
I wasn't a diehard til Palin came along. But the things that attracted me to Obama were (1) he did some good work on anti nuclear proliferation, and (2) reform measures, in the senate.
Most importantly, the way in which he brings about change, and wants to bring about change, is right on. He inspires movement from the grassroots.
The early democratic campaigning had Hillary saying what a fighter she was. Obama was saying how strong we all are. Hillary's great, but her style was oppositional and his was inclusive. When she said the press was hard on her and easy on Obama, I always thought it was because he was so much more willing to work cooperatively, even to the extent of using inclusive language, with people. That style is much more likely to be effective for a president working with congress or for a president working with other heads of state.
A divisive, argumentative, my-way-or-the-highway approach gets you no friends a world full of enemies, as the Bush years have shown.
It's all about style baby.
Well, you do seem to be the style over substance type .
love the hat.
Thanks, and it's glockmail's hat but it is nice isn't it?
I suppose that in terms of policy, but this still gets to style, it's that I like his foreign policy approach better. I think the smartest way to know your enemy is to actually talk to them, and he is a big proponent of diplomacy first.
I always thought Bush's approach was nothing short of immoral. Ignore the intelligence you don't like, go with your gut feeling, and use whatever force you have and damn the collateral this is war. Well that's how it always seemed to me. Bush has a very confrontational manner.
McCain seems to have absorbed some of that. The groupthink of 'we must fight the terrorists there or else they'll come over here and kill us' seems to have become generally accepted among some on the right, and it's just nuts. Absofuckinglutely nuts. How many of 'them' do we kill to avoid losing one of 'us?'
We're making enemies faster than we can kill them.
I like Obama's strategy because it doesn't give the masses 'over there' any new recruitment tools, and frankly I suspect it would be just as effective (moreso) in terms of reducing actual threats. It might even gain us the odd ally here and there.
SOmeone recently pointed out that if Iran had armies in Canada and in Mexico, we might want to pretend we were more heavily armed than we actually were, just because they were breathing down both sides of our neck. Well, you know, look at that map. Here we are on both sides of Iran and wondering why they aren't welcoming us with open arms, it's nuts. Just a crazy approach, what leader in their right mind would respond any differently to the aggressive foreign policy that Bush has ushered in.
i know nothing about yo-bama except he is a racist, terrorist supporter, as well as a friend of a felon.
those 3 reasons alone are enough for disqualification.
wow... another baseless hit and run post by libtroll#2
Separate names with a comma.