Why GOP Is So Afraid Of Obama

[jillian]

I think Obama's stated policies would spell economic disaster on a scale that will make our current problems seem like the good old days.

And yes I am very afraid of that.

After what your boys did for the last 8 years?

Gee... let's reward failure... what a great idea.

pure genius....

NOT...

You can't even say it's that you're afraid of socialists anymore. Bush just announced the biggest socialist move in the history of this country.

 

[Navy1960]

You never stop wiggling, do you?

Obama opposed the war from the beginning and has never changed that.

Nor has he changed his position on a withdrawl timeline. He has only stated that that timeline may be modified depending on the conditions on the ground.

No responsible CIC would ever make an unconditional withdrawl policy.

7 1/2 years would correspond pretty closely withdrawl plan starting at the beginning of his Presidency. Do the math.

I can see now I am going to have to give you some visual proof I suppose, I was hoping that I would not have to plow though that youtube mess again, but so be it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hq7IyrjghLo]YouTube - On Iraq?Obama Flip-Flops Twice The Same Day[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVsqFQTbKXo&feature=related]YouTube - Obama Flip-Flops on Iraq Withdrawl[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fa-eKzQGPA&feature=related]YouTube - Obama Wishes You Don't See This! (IRAQ FLIP FLOP)[/ame]

Those are just a few, of his shifting positions and you do the math, 2003 plus 7 1/2 is what? Last time I checked its not 2009

 

[Charles_Main]

After what your boys did for the last 8 years?

Gee... let's reward failure... what a great idea.

pure genius....

NOT...

You can't even say it's that you're afraid of socialists anymore. Bush just announced the biggest socialist move in the history of this country.

I am not defending what Bush and his boys did in the last 8 years. I just do not agree with you when you claim McCain will be the same as bush.

You are correct Bush has caused and is planning some of the most socialist movements in our history. Where I differ with you is I do not think electing someone even more socialist than Bush is the answer.

Yes I can say I am afraid of Socialism sweet heart. I have no control over what Bush is doing. I can not stop the bail out. All I can do is choose the candidate I think will do less damage come November, and I believe that is McCain.

The last thing this nation needs is more spending, Higher Income taxes, Higher SS and Medicare Taxes, and a massive increase on the capitol Gains tax.

I do not claim to have all or even any of the answers. All I can do is go with my gut, and my gut tells me obama's Policies will devastate an already aliging Economy.

Will McCain be the answer, I do not know, But I think he will do less to damage us than Obama will. Simple as that.

now clearly you do not agree, and that is your right. What I will not do is sit here and call you stupid, or any other names simply because we do not agree.

I leave that to you.

 

[Silence]

we're ALL Democrats now.

McCain has turned overnight into a champion of regulation and government oversight of corporations and wall street; McCain is railing against tax breaks and coddling of oil companies; McCain just gave a speech in Michigan favorably quoting Franklin Roosevelt- My jaw hit the floor-, a republican trying to link himself to FDR.

The GOP is prentending that they don't know Bush, and neither bush nor cheney were invited to their convention

yeah, I almost pissed myself when McCain quoted FDR... I was like WTF is going on here? Is he trying to switch parties before the election? I know he dabbled with the idea of jumping to the other side after the 2000 election and how badly he was treated by his own party but dude has seriously lost it now...

 

[freethought]

Chris really? I'm not a fan of George W. Bush but seriously , George W. Bush has an MBA from Harvard. and Obama has a Law degree from Harvard.

George W. Bush: A Who2 Profile

Obama by his own admission is an admitted, drinker, pot smoker, and cocaine user. He was so for most of his undergraduate time at Columbia. In his book, he even said the only reason he didn't use heroin is because his dealer could not get it. So Chris, if I apply your logic to Obama then I suppose by that logic Obama would be fried too yes?

There is a difference though. Dubya gave up drinking at the age of 40. Not his 20s, like Obama. There was a much longer history of abuse.

As for Harvard.... you need to also throw in mention of Yale. He went to TWO IVY league schools, and didn't merit getting into either. Every report is that he had strings pulled to get him in, and when he got in, he didn't do every well; no better than a C avg, and a C- at Harvard, if I recall.

Not getting in on your own merits/having daddy pull string, and then not doing well is a far cry from getting in on your own merits and then editing the law review and graduating Magna Cum....

Bill Minutaglio's (sp?) book on Dubya is very telling. It was very non-critical, he was granted all sorts of access, and he still protrayed him is a dunce, and the stories about how he got in to Yale and Harvard were not disputed.

 

[del]

What about his opposition to the war in Iraq? That was VERY unpopular even in the Democratic party.

yeah. that took real guts to stand up in the Illinois legislature and come out against a war he had no say in. i'm still awestruck. honest.

 

[midcan5]

I agree, I think Obama has the potential to be a great president but I think the republican echo machine has made us a redneck nation. Simple ideological propaganda has great power over many.


"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill

 

[freethought]

yeah. that took real guts to stand up in the Illinois legislature and come out against a war he had no say in. i'm still awestruck. honest.

This is a big misconception, or rather an issue that seems to be misdunderstood. It does take guts to stand up and vote or speak out against a war in our country. Especially so, if you want a future in politics. Going 'against the troops', or against the army, or against 'security' can destroy your career, or bring its upward momentum to a halt.

So, while not the same thing as casting that vote in the Senate or the House, speaking out did carrying the chance of grave repercussions. Pointing this out is a valid point, but to use it in the way you did is misleading and inaccurate.

 

[Silence]

This is a big misconception, or rather an issue that seems to be misdunderstood. It does take guts to stand up and vote or speak out against a war in our country. Especially so, if you want a future in politics. Going 'against the troops', or against the army, or against 'security' can destroy your career, or bring its upward momentum to a halt.

So, while not the same thing as casting that vote in the Senate or the House, speaking out did carrying the chance of grave repercussions. Pointing this out is a valid point, but to use it in the way you did is misleading and inaccurate.

I agree, I think it took tremendous courage to speak out against the war in Iraq when NO ONE else was doing it. Regardless of whether he had a vote or not he didn't hide his opinion and go with the flow which is what most Democrats now say they did... they claim there were against the war but voted for it anyway...

 

[del]

This is a big misconception, or rather an issue that seems to be misdunderstood. It does take guts to stand up and vote or speak out against a war in our country. Especially so, if you want a future in politics. Going 'against the troops', or against the army, or against 'security' can destroy your career, or bring its upward momentum to a halt.

So, while not the same thing as casting that vote in the Senate or the House, speaking out did carrying the chance of grave repercussions. Pointing this out is a valid point, but to use it in the way you did is misleading and inaccurate.

it takes no guts to second guess someone else's decision without bearing any responsibility.
It's not even remotely the same as casting a yea or nay vote that actually counts.
his career seems to have been made on his ability to deliver a speech and his opposition to the war.
he delivers a good speech, when the prompter's working. huzzah

 

[Red Dawn]

it takes no guts to second guess someone else's decision without bearing any responsibility.
It's not even remotely the same as casting a yea or nay vote that actually counts.
his career seems to have been made on his ability to deliver a speech and his opposition to the war.
he delivers a good speech, when the prompter's working. huzzah

man, you neocons just hate the fact that obama made the right call on your trillion dollar war for phantom wmd.

In late 2002 and 2003, when obama was speaking out against your war, he was already thinking about running for US senate. One doesn't decide to run for US senate on a lark.

It was a risk to his upcoming senate run to come out so strongly against your war. If obama had been wrong, and your president had been right, Obama would have looked like a fool by the time he tried to run for US senate.

If obama was purely a political animal interested only in the advancement of his career, he could have kept his mouth shut in 2002. That would have been the smart move for a purely political politician. Nobody expects a state senator to make an anti-war speech. He could have flown under the radar and played it safe

 

[Silence]

logic, Red Dawn... don't confuse them with logic...

 

[Charles_Main]

I agree, I think it took tremendous courage to speak out against the war in Iraq when NO ONE else was doing it.

When no one else was doing it? Are you for real?

 

[jillian]

it takes no guts to second guess someone else's decision without bearing any responsibility.
It's not even remotely the same as casting a yea or nay vote that actually counts.
his career seems to have been made on his ability to deliver a speech and his opposition to the war.
he delivers a good speech, when the prompter's working. huzzah

A lot of us said that invading Iraq because of 9/11 was something like if the U.S. had invaded Mexico after Pearl Harbor.

It didn't take prescience... and it isn't second guessing.

 

[AllieBaba]

He's an intelligent man. That will be a refreshing change from Bush or McCain

Dictionary.com
Look up "intelligent" because apparently you don't know what it means.

 

[AllieBaba]

A lot of us said that invading Iraq because of 9/11 was something like if the U.S. had invaded Mexico after Pearl Harbor.

It didn't take prescience... and it isn't second guessing.

We didn't invade Iraq because of 9/11. We invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam, as we should have the first time we were there. Once there, it was obvious terrorists were flooding into the county from all over the middle east, and so we stayed, in order to protect Iraq and help them establish their own government.

I know that's a hard pill to swallow. Helping people is, after all, bad. And God knows we should just let them be slaughtered by the al queda roaches. But there you have it. We did it, it was a good thing, and the Iraqis are thankful to us.

 

[jschuck12001]

Don't like the remark, as I said , many times in the past ray, prove me wrong, prove how Obama has gone against his own party on an issue on a consistant basis because the Bill or idea before him was the right thing to do? Wait, thats right he voted with his own party 97% of the time. Oh, I almost forgot, what did he say the other day when asked about his policy on the economy? I'm going to wait and see what George Bush does first. Told you before, the truth maybe be hard to hear, for you as an Obama supporter, and I understand that, but it's hardly stupid. Oh and guess what your retort to come, about him voting with George Bush 90% of the time, guess what? He's been in the Senate a bit longer than George Bush has been president, so that retort doesn't work on me. The real number for him is 77%. As for George Bush himself, vs. Obama as a republican hopefully we will never get the chance, but if he does, I wouldn't count on that if I were you.

He didnt say "I'm going to wait until I see what George Bush does first" He said he wanted to look at the entire issue before he said anything, this is smart. I dont want politicians giving me bullshit answers before they know all the facts which is what Mccain did because Mccain blabbed that he was against the bailout of AIG and then the next day and he said was for it because he didnt realize the consequences of pension loss.

 

[Navy1960]

He didnt say "I'm going to wait until I see what George Bush does first" He said he wanted to look at the entire issue before he said anything, this is smart. I dont want politicians giving me bullshit answers before they know all the facts which is what Mccain did because Mccain blabbed that he was against the bailout of AIG and then the next day and he said was for it because he didnt realize the consequences of pension loss.

*Obama seems to be saying that he didn't know enough before the collapse, would have consulted with his advisers, and trusts that the collective wisdom of the Treasury Secretary, Fed governors and economic experts would lead him to the right solution. The Fed has a lot of information that Obama doesn't, and the information asymmetry, Obama seems to be saying, is enough to give them the benefit of the doubt.

McCain (and Joe Biden) viscerally and publicly opposed an AIG bailout, and then both men seem to have been subsequently educated by events.

So in essenence, he is waiting on what George W. Bush will do! So sue me, I paraphrased. Interesting thing here is, that isn't George Bush the guy that Obama blames for everything from Iraq to the common cold? and here he is agreement with him are you democrats going to call him into the Howard Deans office for detention hall on that? I did find and interesting youtube video though I thought you might like.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0]YouTube - Explosive Video, Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and the Dems the "Family" and "Conscience" of Fannie Mae[/ame]

 

[Jon]

and neither bush nor cheney were invited to their convention

How silly...no, how ignorant...of you. They were invited, they didn't come. Not that anyone (including me) wanted them there. But they certainly WERE invited. Excuse McCain for not giving them center stage for half their convention. His convention was about him and the Palins. Obama's was about the Clintons.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

man, you neocons just hate the fact that obama made the right call on your trillion dollar war for phantom wmd...

"The surge worked beyond anyone's wildest expectations"...except for the neocons ...and the military..and the president...and Gen Petreaus (whom Obama tried to denigrate)...and McCain

Some leader. Followed by stammering through Russia's invasion of a non-threatening nation. Followed by deferring to Bush's handling of the Fannie/Freddie fallout (you'fd think L'il 'O's advisors would have warned him).

BTW - Read the 2002 AUMF vs Iraq. It mentions terrorism and Saddam's support of it as the reason for war 3 times more frequently than it mentions WMD.

I guess what you people are really admitting is Obama won't prosecute a war against terrrorists.

But then we wouldn't expect anything less from Bill Ayers' lapdog and Jerry Wright's padawan.