The Obama Delusion

[RobMoney$]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902336.html



The Obama Delusion

By Robert J. Samuelson (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/robert+j.+samuelson/)
Wednesday, February 20, 2008; Page A17


It's hard not to be dazzled by Barack Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline). At the 2004 Democratic convention, he visited with Newsweek (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Newsweek+Inc.?tid=informline) reporters and editors, including me. I came away deeply impressed by his intelligence, his forceful language and his apparent willingness to take positions that seemed to rise above narrow partisanship. Obama has become the Democratic presidential front-runner precisely because countless millions have formed a similar opinion. It is, I now think, mistaken.

As a journalist, I harbor serious doubt about each of the most likely nominees. But with Sens. Hillary Clinton (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Hillary+Clinton?tid=informline) and John McCain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+McCain?tid=informline), I feel that I'm dealing with known quantities. They've been in the public arena for years; their views, values and temperaments have received enormous scrutiny. By contrast, newcomer Obama is largely a stage presence defined mostly by his powerful rhetoric. The trouble, at least for me, is the huge and deceptive gap between his captivating oratory and his actual views.

The subtext of Obama's campaign is that his own life narrative -- to become the first African American president, a huge milestone in the nation's journey from slavery -- can serve as a metaphor for other political stalemates. Great impasses can be broken with sufficient goodwill, intelligence and energy. "It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white," he says. Along with millions of others, I find this a powerful appeal.

But on inspection, the metaphor is a mirage. Repudiating racism is not a magic cure-all for the nation's ills. The task requires independent ideas, and Obama has few. If you examine his agenda, it is completely ordinary, highly partisan, not candid and mostly unresponsive to many pressing national problems.

By Obama's own moral standards, Obama fails. Americans "are tired of hearing promises made and 10-point plans proposed in the heat of a campaign only to have nothing change," he recently said. Shortly thereafter he outlined an economic plan of at least 12 points that, among other things, would:

• Provide a $1,000 tax cut for most two-earner families ($500 for singles).

• Create a $4,000 refundable tuition tax credit for every year of college.
• Expand the child-care tax credit for people earning less than $50,000 and "double spending on quality after-school programs."

• Enact an "energy plan" that would invest $150 billion in 10 years to create a "green energy sector."

Whatever one thinks of these ideas, they're standard goody-bag politics: something for everyone. They're so similar to many Clinton proposals that her campaign put out a news release accusing Obama of plagiarizing. With existing budget deficits and the costs of Obama's "universal health plan," the odds of enacting his full package are slim.

A favorite Obama line is that he will tell "the American people not just what they want to hear but what we need to know." Well, he hasn't so far. Consider the retiring baby boomers. A truth-telling Obama might say: "Spending for retirees -- mainly Social Security, Medicare (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Medicare?tid=informline) and Medicaid (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Medicaid?tid=informline) -- is already nearly half the federal budget. Unless we curb these rising costs, we will crush our children with higher taxes. Reflecting longer life expectancies, we should gradually raise the eligibility ages for these programs and trim benefits for wealthier retirees. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for inaction. Waiting longer will only worsen the problem."

Instead, Obama pledges not to raise the retirement age and to "protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries." This isn't "change"; it's sanctification of the status quo. He would also exempt all retirees making less than $50,000 annually from income tax. By his math, that would provide average tax relief of $1,400 to 7 million retirees -- shifting more of the tax burden onto younger workers. Obama's main proposal for Social Security is to raise the payroll tax beyond the present $102,000 ceiling.

Political candidates routinely indulge in exaggeration, pandering, inconsistency and self-serving obscuration. Clinton and McCain do. The reason for holding Obama to a higher standard is that it's his standard and also his campaign's central theme. He has run on the vague promise of "change," but on issue after issue -- immigration, the economy, global warming -- he has offered boilerplate policies that evade the underlying causes of the stalemates. These issues remain contentious because they involve real conflicts or differences of opinion.

The contrast between his broad rhetoric and his narrow agenda is stark, and yet the media -- preoccupied with the political "horse race" -- have treated his invocation of "change" as a serious idea rather than a shallow campaign slogan. He seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story. The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation's major problems when, so far, he isn't.




This article raises some great points as did McCain last night when he said:


I will make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than the people.


If people would actually listen to his ideas instead of being mesmerized by his platitudes they might see what a disaster his policies would be. If the stock market hasn't collapsed before he gets elected if definitely will after.

[b i o n i c]

rob (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/09/09/PH2007090901969.gif) says

Political candidates routinely indulge in exaggeration, pandering, inconsistency and self-serving obscuration. Clinton and McCain do.

that negates the rest of what he says.

[yeahwho]

Maybe after the last 10 years, America is finally sick of attack politics in general, which jibes well with Obama's innate appeal. Sometimes "charisma" is a synonym for "just not being a total dick."

[RobMoney$]

He's nothing more than a fairy-tale, man.

[roosta]

Don't vote then

[jennyb]

I think a KEY quality of having leadership abilities is the power to inspire and move people. He's clearly got it. I'm just adoring this extremely intelligent and sophisticated man right about now. ...and I will happily vote for him.

[NoFenders]

Good article Rob. I'm very happy knowing that there's plenty of time left for us all to see exactly who these people are and what they will/wont do when/if they get in office. I think he hit the road running a bit too fast. But,we'll see. There is still months and months to go.

:cool:

[b i o n i c]

the press using the word delusion is an allusion to a "dream". he's at least just as capable as gw bush going in, which isnt saying much - yet the same people in media who are doubting obama thought bush was "presidential" enough. this news story and others like it are about him being black and the delusion that they are really referring to is that of a black man being elected, not his ability and potential.

[RobMoney$]

this news story and others like it are about him being black and the delusion that they are really referring to is that of a black man being elected, not his ability and potential.


LOLZ


I think the opposite side of the coin is true when it comes to Obama and race.

I think a lot of the younger voters are afraid NOT to vote for a black man because they want to show how open-minded and liberal they are.
Someone who is truley open-minded would judge him based purely on his performance, track record, and his plan and policies he would like to bring to the office of President, and when you look at him from that perspective, he's clearly not in McCain or Clinton's league,
at least not yet.

[yeahwho]

There is still months and months to go.


I sort of doubt it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYARPKdVJDE&eurl=http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=+name+clinton+supporters&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn)

[saz]

I think a lot of the younger voters are afraid NOT to vote for a black man because they want to show how open-minded and liberal they are.
Someone who is truley open-minded would judge him based purely on his performance, track record, and his plan and policies he would like to bring to the office of President, and when you look at him from that perspective, he's clearly not in McCain or Clinton's league,
at least not yet.

lol mccain? he's the biggest hypocrite of all time, making himself look like a total ass by appealing and selling out to the gop nutjob base, and flip-flopping on torture. plus sucking up to jerry falwell and all of the other agents of intolerance, as he once called them. it's pathetic how far one will go, and sell himself out, just for a shot at the presidency. it's a slap in the face to those who actually sympathized and rooted for him as he took on the radical right machine in '00. he also doesn't understand how staying in iraq is running the military into the ground, and has left america completely vulnerable and unprepared for any attack; and, that the mere presence of american troops in iraq (let alone occupying) is fanning the flames of islamic fundamentalism, ditto guantanamo, torture, no palestinian state etc.

hillary has done nothing while in the senate except pander and accept corporate money. obama has done very little as well, but at least obama has a much better chance of beating mccain than hillary does. a hillary nomination would completely motivate all conservatives and the nutjobs to come out and vote against her, even though they'd have to vote for mccain in order to do so.

meanwhile there's always the greens (http://www.gp.org/index.php), who are what the democratic party were forty to sixty years ago.

[saz]

yeahwho is going to love this.

i was wrong on obama's record in the senate. here is a comparison of what hillary has done for the last six years in the senate, and obama's record in both the illinois state and u.s. senate:


In her first six years she managed to author and pass into law 20 pieces of legislation. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress, but to save us the trouble of looking them up, she listed them.

1- Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2- Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3- Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4- Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5- Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6- Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7- Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8- Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9- Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10- Congratulate the Syracuse University Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11- Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12- Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13- Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14- Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15- Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.
16- Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17- Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18- Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19- Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20- Designate part of the National Forest System in
Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the Hillary legislative facts straight from the Senate records.

During his first eight years in the Illinois legislature, Obama sponsored more than 820 bills.

* 233 regarding healthcare reform
* 125 on poverty and public assistance
* 112 crime fighting bills
* 97 economic bills
* 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills
* 21 ethics reform bills
* 15 gun control
* 6 veterans affairs and many others
* Many more miscellaneous bills

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills, and co-sponsored another 427.

These include:

* Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - enacted.
* Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act - enacted.
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate.
* 2007 Government Ethics Bill, enacted.
* Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, in committee.

In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1,096.

link (http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_sandy_sa_080219_obama_or_clinton_3f_yo.htm)

[QueenAdrock]

I think a lot of the younger voters are afraid NOT to vote for a black man because they want to show how open-minded and liberal they are.

But it's private voting, no one knows how they vote. They could just as easily vote for who they truly want and lie to their friends or whoever is making them "afraid" to not vote for a black guy. I think more than anything, he's just appealing to younger people because they can relate to him more than a crusty old white dude who keeps talking about how we need to stay in Iraq, where their friends currently are.

[yeahwho]

But it's private voting, no one knows how they vote. They could just as easily vote for who they truly want and lie to their friends or whoever is making them "afraid" to not vote for a black guy. I think more than anything, he's just appealing to younger people because they can relate to him more than a crusty old white dude who keeps talking about how we need to stay in Iraq, where their friends currently are.

There's that. And just not being a total dick. Hillary and McCain have not hit a nerve with the voting public like Obama because they have and still do "condescend" rather than "include".

I feel as if Obama speaks not only for and to his supporters... he also projects the idea he is speaking with his constituency. The other candidates try this and not only is it awkward, it's disingenuous. Honestly if you think about it nobody under age 40 has much at all in common with Hillary and McCain.

Hillary's first campaign song was Celine Dion... a white Canadian Diva. :confused:

McCain was told by John Mellencamp to stop playing his music at rallies. Publicist Bob Merlis said Mellencamp told him that the situation made him uncomfortable and he couldn't imagine McCain would want to be associated with him.

Obama's playin' "99 Problems" at his rallies.

[NoFenders]

Honestly if you think about it nobody under age 40 has much at all in common with Hillary and McCain.

Think harder.


Hillary's first campaign song was Celine Dion... a white Canadian Diva. :confused:

McCain was told by John Mellencamp to stop playing his music at rallies. Publicist Bob Merlis said Mellencamp told him that the situation made him uncomfortable and he couldn't imagine McCain would want to be associated with him.

Obama's playin' "99 Problems" at his rallies.

My point exactly on how warped our society is when you nit pick campaign songs.

Relating to somebody because they are not an old crusty white dude is not cool. I'm not calling QueenAd out on this, it just goes along with my opinion that the majority of America is now warped by the media and Hollywood for the worse. It's not American Idol people. You had better check twice before you think Obama is gonna make everything dandy like candy. I prefer keeping the money I make.
:cool:

[QueenAdrock]

It has nothing to do with the media. I'm saying they relate to Obama better because he shares the same ideals. McCain keeps talking about Iraq and how we need to stay there, blah blah, no timetables. Well, my generation is over there fighting. I have two friends who were sent there and haven't seen their newborns yet. It's bullshit. They signed up out of high school in 2001 because they wanted to protect our country, and then they get this bullshit war which isn't protecting anything and wasting their time. People my age are against the war, because they're the ones dying. So when they hear McCain talk about how we need to stay there another 100 years, then no, they don't really relate to that.

As for the money I make, I'd rather see libraries, police officers, new roads, post offices, schools being funded...but maybe that's me being selfish.

[Burnout18]

As for the money I make, I'd rather see libraries, police officers, new roads, post offices, schools being funded...but maybe that's me being selfish.

No, thats not selfish, thats the government's job... like i think sazi said in another thread,,,, without tax dollars more bridges will collapse, like in minnesota this past year...

[NoFenders]

Yes, roads need to be built. Yes bridges should be kept up. That basic function will never stop. No matter who gets in office, that will be taken care of. Mostly on a state level. I'm happy you all make enough money to not want more. I want what I work for. I pay my taxes on the land I own. That pays for shools and roads. The money that comes outta my check shouldn't have to increase, but hey, you guys seem to think it should, and on top of that, I should feel a sense of pride knowing I just gave a chunk of my hard earned cash to the gov, who's going to build roads with it. Yeah, thanks anyway. I'll keep what's mine, or atleast I'll bitch about it. :cool:

[saz]

well, just like reagan before him, bush has created colossal, astronomical debts, ie irresponsible tax cuts for rich people, and a stupid war that's costing hundreds of billions of dollars. and bush is borrowing the money to pay for all of this.

so, like it or not, someone is going to have to raise taxes (or at least the elite could pay their fair share) and get america out of this fiscal mess, as opposed to bush's solution and leave it up to future generations to clean up his messes.

[QueenAdrock]

NoFenders, I sincerely doubt you're one of the elite millionaires that will be paying for the tax rollbacks. Bush put a cut in place for the richest people in America, Obama is planning to roll that back and tax them enough to pay for what we need - taxing the people who can afford it. If you're middle or lower class, you have nothing to worry about. It's funny how it's mainly the middle class who worry the most about "tax increases" when it doesn't even apply to them. Republicans are very good at convincing normal Joe Blows that THE LIBERALS WILL STEAL ALL OF YOUR MONEY if you elect them, but that just ain't true.

[yeahwho]

Think harder.

Just did and am pretty damn sure I'm 100% correct.



My point exactly on how warped our society is when you nit pick campaign songs.

Relating to somebody because they are not an old crusty white dude is not cool. I'm not calling QueenAd out on this, it just goes along with my opinion that the majority of America is now warped by the media and Hollywood for the worse. It's not American Idol people. You had better check twice before you think Obama is gonna make everything dandy like candy. I prefer keeping the money I make.
:cool:

Your delusional if you think I've watched American Idol, like ever. Who the fuck is expecting anybody to make anything dandy like candy. I'm just hedging that perhaps the current world climate of killing to solve problems can become a little more contained. The biggest mistake made in most every argument about Obama supporters is they are sunny upbeat naive newcomers to the political world.

Better recheck the math. We're pressuring the competition into the corner. That's how naive we are.

[NoFenders]

NoFenders, I sincerely doubt you're one of the elite millionaires that will be paying for the tax rollbacks. Bush put a cut in place for the richest people in America, Obama is planning to roll that back and tax them enough to pay for what we need - taxing the people who can afford it. If you're middle or lower class, you have nothing to worry about. It's funny how it's mainly the middle class who worry the most about "tax increases" when it doesn't even apply to them. Republicans are very good at convincing normal Joe Blows that THE LIBERALS WILL STEAL ALL OF YOUR MONEY if you elect them, but that just ain't true.


Umm, I've gotten incredible tax returns in the past 7 years. It was all because of a Republican. When a Dem gets in office, more of my paychek will go to the gov, and less will be returned. That's fact. No spin, no nothing. Obama has already said he'll give me a break, but he's actually cutting what I get now in half. At least he stated what he felt the middle class was "anyone who makes under 70K". That's a start. But I doubt he'll stick to that.
:cool:

[NoFenders]

Just did and am pretty damn sure I'm 100% correct.

I'm under 40 and think he's my best option. So, you're wrong.





The biggest mistake made in most every argument about Obama supporters is they are sunny upbeat naive newcomers to the political world.



I don't think they're newcomers, but everything else is pretty much spot on.
:cool:

[QueenAdrock]

Umm, I've gotten incredible tax returns in the past 7 years. It was all because of a Republican. When a Dem gets in office, more of my paychek will go to the gov, and less will be returned. That's fact. No spin, no nothing. Obama has already said he'll give me a break, but he's actually cutting what I get now in half. At least he stated what he felt the middle class was "anyone who makes under 70K". That's a start. But I doubt he'll stick to that.
:cool:

Uh-huh. And where are you getting these "facts"? Since there's no spin, surely you can back up your claims? Because this is what I've found:

Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle, Under Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html)

Obama Proposes Tax Cuts for the Middle Class and the Elderly (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us/politics/19obama.html)

[DroppinScience]

NoFenders must work on Wall Street and not have a mortgage because those are the only people who are benefitting under Bush.

[RobMoney$]

I have to laugh when people say they're going to pay less tax if so & so is elected. I paid the same rate when Clinton was in office as I paid when Bush was in Office, 28% and I got back very similar returns. Even if someone raised my tax 5% to a total of 33% (which wouldn't happen anyway), If I made $50k a year, that's a total of $2500 a year, or about $50 a week.

Unless you make a lot of money from investment income, like say from stocks, bonds, or some sort of dividend, or you are expecting to inherit money, the influence whoever gets elected will have on the average americans tax rate is marginal.

You should be more interested in who is going to be better for the economy and business, who's going to help the rising price of gas. I pay $50 to fill my tank now, which I have to do at least once a week.

I can tell everyone who cares to read this, my 401k fund was ridiculously successful when Clinton was in Office, and the success came to a grinding halt almost immediatly when Bush came into office. Clinton also initiated the Child Tax Credit.

Republicans standard motto is "Lower Taxes", but never tell you about inflation. I just paid $4.30 for a gallon of Milk yesterday.

[Echewta]

I think I would rather vote for a fairy tale and dream that for the people in power who remind us of the nightmare this world is and how they can keep us tucked in and safe while destroying the very blanket that protects us.

How sad that the feeling of hope and good things is considered a delusion to some and the current status quo is consisdered the norm and our path we must follow in order to be "free." We've had 8 years to follow that path and have only make the nightmare even worse.

Enough of the Christian Zionist. Enough of the Islamic Radicals. I'm tired of that minority winning the world from the majority.

[QueenAdrock]

Holy shit, I thought you were dead Chewy!

[alien autopsy]

right on brotherman

[Knuckles]

I think I would rather vote for a fairy tale and dream that for the people in power who remind us of the nightmare this world is and how they can keep us tucked in and safe while destroying the very blanket that protects us.

How sad that the feeling of hope and good things is considered a delusion to some and the current status quo is consisdered the norm and our path we must follow in order to be "free." We've had 8 years to follow that path and have only make the nightmare even worse.

Enough of the Christian Zionist. Enough of the Islamic Radicals. I'm tired of that minority winning the world from the majority.

I love you man.

[RobMoney$]

Dream, Dream, Dream, Dreeeeam, Dreeeeeeeeeeeeeaaam


Do you really think America will elect someone who won't even put his hand over his heart
for the pledge of allegiance over a Decorated P.O.W. Vietnam Veteran (McCain)?

Obama is un-electable.
The best shot the Dems have to win the election is Hillary.

[yeahwho]

Dream, Dream, Dream, Dreeeeam, Dreeeeeeeeeeeeeaaam


Do you really think America will elect someone who won't even put his hand over his heart
for the pledge of allegiance over a Decorated P.O.W. Vietnam Veteran (McCain)?

Obama is un-electable.
The best shot the Dems have to win the election is Hillary.

Just a bunch of bullshit (http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/11/02/barack-obama-refused-to-say-the-pledge-of-allegiance-youve-been-played-for-a-daggone-fool/), are you actually that far behind the 8-ball?


Bottom line is she is being out-hustled by one of the most brilliant, vibrant political campaigns in the history of the United States. That my friend is impressive beyond all expectations. Hillary has been and soon McCain will be schooled in the political realities of 2008.

The "100 years in Iraq" speech by McCain is completely against the will of the overwhelming majority of US citizens, but I suppose it's patriotic to some of the minority who like the idea of killing those who never threatened us.

Frank Rich from todays NYTimes puts Hillary in excellent perspective,

The Audacity of Hopelessness (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?em&ex=1204088400&en=3e9996b4403c243c&ei=5087%0A)

The Clinton camp was certain that its moneyed arsenal of political shock-and-awe would take out Barack Hussein Obama in a flash. The race would “be over by Feb. 5,” Mrs. Clinton assured George Stephanopoulos just before New Year’s. But once the Obama forces outwitted her, leaving her mission unaccomplished on Super Tuesday, there was no contingency plan. She had neither the boots on the ground nor the money to recoup.

[RobMoney$]

Just a bunch of bullshit (http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/11/02/barack-obama-refused-to-say-the-pledge-of-allegiance-youve-been-played-for-a-daggone-fool/), are you actually that far behind the 8-ball?


Umm, like I said, he's still not putting his hand over his heart.
You might want to actually watch that video you linked.

Bottom line is she is being out-hustled by one of the most brilliant, vibrant political campaigns in the history of the United States. That my friend is impressive beyond all expectations. Hillary has been and soon McCain will be schooled in the political realities of 2008.



Un-electable. The GOP will have a field day with Mrs. Obamas' comment on being proud of this country for the first time in her adult life.

[Echewta]

The country certainly didn't vote for a Vietnam vet who had three purple hearts but instead voted for someone who was in the National Guard. And didn't vote for a soldier who was a reporter in Vietnam and was a vet but instead voted for someone who was in the National Guard.

Twice that someone with zero combat experience was elected over people who were actually in a conflict.

So, I don't really understand your point rob.

Again, its sad to know that a requirement to be an American and serve this country politically means you needed to be a soldier. How is my U.S. birth certificate any less American than yours or theirs? Where is this neocon list of requirements to be American, let alone lead this country? Is doing coke on the list?

[RobMoney$]

First off, lets all agree on one thing. Bush didn't win anything, he and his brother rigged the election in Florida and he lost the popular vote altogether.
Although Bush's service record was questionable compared to Kerry, it's not like Bush was a draft dodger who burned the flag.


My point is that if America is faced with the choice of the POW Vietnam Vet, or the guy who doesn't put his hand over his heart for the pledge and refuses to wear the American flag pin on his lapel, most of America will choose the guy who's put his life on the line for our country, which makes Obama un-electable.

Obama may be able to win the Clinton battle,
but he can't win the McCain War, and I don't want to be in Iraq for 100 years.

[yeahwho]

Umm, like I said, he's still not putting his hand over his heart.
You might want to actually watch that video you linked.

It's not the pledge of allegiance, you may want to read the words. This is without a doubt the dumbest conversation I've ever engaged in on this site. Trolling today or just not quite up to snuff on real facts?



Un-electable. The GOP will have a field day with Mrs. Obamas' comment on being proud of this country for the first time in her adult life.

You know, I'm a little sickened by that ugly dude Obama gave a blowjob to, but that is not technically sex, ask Hillary's husband.

Remember the last debate? (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/#mea=221776)

[alien autopsy]

its all bullshit rob. they are all sell outs. theres no point in arguing over anything political. especially in here.

[alien autopsy]

but hey, go for it, get ya self fired up.

[yeahwho]

My point is that if America is faced with the choice of the POW Vietnam Vet, or the guy who doesn't put his hand over his heart for the pledge and refuses to wear the American flag pin on his lapel, most of America will choose the guy who's put his life on the line for our country, which makes Obama un-electable.


Dude, are you like the only guy in America who doesn't know that was doctored? It is not the Pledge of Allegiance. Read the fucking story.

He regularly puts his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. Figure it out before you post....

I never took you to be this gullible. I think your trolling or worse just not campaigning for your own candidate. Who are you voting for? Let's delve into that. Overall, your the one who is delusional. Your story here is fucked up.

[yeahwho]

its all bullshit rob. they are all sell outs. theres no point in arguing over anything political. especially in here.

So hence the name above us here, General Political Discussion, is actually another delusion. The BBMB Delusion.

[DroppinScience]

Wait, are we still on Obama choosing not to wear the American flag lapel on his suit?

That's called the lazy man's patriotism. Nobody was pressing Lincoln, FDR, Truman, JFK, etc. over their own lack of lapel pins. :rolleyes:

[Documad]

Umm, I've gotten incredible tax returns in the past 7 years. It was all because of a Republican. When a Dem gets in office, more of my paychek will go to the gov, and less will be returned. That's fact. No spin, no nothing. Obama has already said he'll give me a break, but he's actually cutting what I get now in half. At least he stated what he felt the middle class was "anyone who makes under 70K". That's a start. But I doubt he'll stick to that.
:cool:

Maybe I'm missing something. Like Rob said, the tax rate for most people hasn't changed dramatically. I think my federal tax rate went from 30 to 28%, from Clinton to Bush. If Obama was going to double your taxes, he would have to raise the rate to well over 50%. That's never going to happen. And if you make less than $70,000, it's never ever going to happen -- not in a million years.

I'm worried about you because you are talking about how much money you are getting back via a tax return. If you're getting large amounts back when you do your taxes, that's a product of you filling out the forms at your job wrong. You should change your deductions so that the government takes less from you in the first place.

And if you've ever managed a personal budget, you should understand that Bush cut the tax rate while spending tons and tons of money, so we're in big time debt. That means that we're all paying shitloads of interest and we're going to have to pay far more in the future for the little bit of cash you think Bush put in your pocket last year.

[Bob]

Maybe I'm missing something. Like Rob said, the tax rate for most people hasn't changed dramatically. I think my federal tax rate went from 30 to 28%, from Clinton to Bush. If Obama was going to double your taxes, he would have to raise the rate to well over 50%. That's never going to happen. And if you make less than $70,000, it's never ever going to happen -- not in a million years.

I'm worried about you because you are talking about how much money you are getting back via a tax return. If you're getting large amounts back when you do your taxes, that's a product of you filling out the forms at your job wrong. You should change your deductions so that the government takes less from you in the first place.

And if you've ever managed a personal budget, you should understand that Bush cut the tax rate while spending tons and tons of money, so we're in big time debt. That means that we're all paying shitloads of interest and we're going to have to pay far more in the future for the little bit of cash you think Bush put in your pocket last year.

:cool:

[RobMoney$]

I think your trolling or worse just not campaigning for your own candidate. Who are you voting for? Let's delve into that. Overall, your the one who is delusional. Your story here is fucked up.


My candidate can't run.
He would still be President today if it weren't for the two term limit.
Bill Clinton's going to make one hell of a VP though.

[yeahwho]

My candidate can't run.
He would still be President today if it weren't for the two term limit.
Bill Clinton's going to make one hell of a VP though.

Thats the thing about the internet, I thought you may of been pro-Clinton, I just was not realizing it is Bill, Not Hillary. Thats cool, I understand your point of view now. You have Bill Fever. It's a small group of people but that makes it kind of punk rock.

[yeahwho]

Dream, Dream, Dream, Dreeeeam, Dreeeeeeeeeeeeeaaam


Do you really think America will elect someone who won't even put his hand over his heart
for the pledge of allegiance over a Decorated P.O.W. Vietnam Veteran (McCain)?

Obama is un-electable.
The best shot the Dems have to win the election is Hillary.

You are aware of that while your typing the most current polls and statistics (http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&ncl=1136923680&topic=h) compiled show the opposite of your sentiments.

I know polls are usually bullshit, but on occasion I take heed in statistical information before I leap. Anyway I'm not trying to rain on your parade, just thinking if the topic is delusion let's try and make some succinct points clear.

There is NO evidence of Obama ever in his life not putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.

All indicators and every poll, statistic and the past 11 primaries and caucuses indicated without question Obama has a much more probable chance of Clinton to beat a Republican candidate, especially McCain.

Are there any other delusions you would like to clear up? Any other real issues outside of personality attacks that even Hillary has resorted to? Lets just be clear, all of this has been the sort of low ball attacks that have nothing to do with ability. I'm not running around saying McCain has a communist dog and Bill is not proud of America. Things are floundering to a name calling level and hearsay. The template has been set by Obama which is why he's winning. Whenever Hillary goes outside the template she looks worse. That is how the game is won.

And having Stevie Wonder on your side is pretty much the whole present wrapped and bowed.

[alien autopsy]

obama wont change much, hilary will make it worse, mccain will make it far worse. my predictions.

[QueenAdrock]

Irony?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5LZI50dMbM

I think so. I mean, at very least, if you know you're going to be on TV bashing this guy, you may want to make sure you don't look like a hypocritical jerkoff.

[RobMoney$]

What was ironic?

I thought his point of not wearing one at the moment, and refusing to wear one being two totally seperate things was the correct answer.

[yeahwho]

So it's comedown to a flag lapel pin, the delusion is something about an ornament put on a suit lapel? It must be a multi-candidate problem, seems as if this delusion is really just ignorance. Obama never said he refused to wear an American flag lapel pin, he said he was through wearing the pin for now.

Is that fucked up or what? Hillary hasn't been wearing one either. Fuck I just noticed that all of the Republican candidates (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcWHyxAj68o)in this debate except Rudy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJIseaGD-Ek) are buck ass naked w/o their motherfuckin' American flag lapels. SOB! That pisses me off.

Totally deluded. Maybe this guy (http://www.komotv.com/features/kenschram/16079757.html)can help us out on the Obama Delusion.

[QueenAdrock]

If you're going to be going on national TV condemning this man for not wearing a lapel pin, why wouldn't you go out of your way to get a pin and stick it on your lapel so you could be taken seriously and avoid that conversation altogether? If I were going on TV talking about how people should wear pink to stop bullying, I'd probably put on a piece of pink clothing as well. And if I were going to insult someone for refusing to wear pink, I would definitely make sure to wear something pink. It's just common sense.

[yeahwho]

If you're going to be going on national TV condemning this man for not wearing a lapel pin, why wouldn't you go out of your way to get a pin and stick it on your lapel so you could be taken seriously and avoid that conversation altogether? If I were going on TV talking about how people should wear pink to stop bullying, I'd probably put on a piece of pink clothing as well. And if I were going to insult someone for refusing to wear pink, I would definitely make sure to wear something pink. It's just common sense.

If a reporter/network is going to ask a about an ornament trinket or if a guy's National TV presentation is to condemn somebody for lack of pin thereof, you had best be in fucking Iraq securing the airport road and be legitimately pissed. Otherwise I consider these guys to be the biggest wimps to ever walk down the pike.

Mass Media breeds Mass Deception. Total waste of time. Like this thread and the moronic accusations being perpetuated. It is not working and it only bolsters Obama's chances. This is free publicity whether you like the delusion or not.

So thanks for enhancing my "Going to Back Barack (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=84687)" thread I started 12/18/08. The haters make it easy.

[saz]

"you're getting pissy about a broach, you drama queens" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ocwetg_03iY) (y)

[yeahwho]

"you're getting pissy about a broach, you drama queens" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ocwetg_03iY) (y)
Yeah that Maher clip is great, linked it above already though on post #50 click except Rudy. (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1562578&postcount=50)

Assholes run amuck during these campaigns, Obama gets big points just for not being a total dick. He also has an uncanny way of exposing total dicks for what they are.

[kaiser soze]

Wait, are we still on Obama choosing not to wear the American flag lapel on his suit?

That's called the lazy man's patriotism. Nobody was pressing Lincoln, FDR, Truman, JFK, etc. over their own lack of lapel pins. :rolleyes:

Agree'd, bush wears a flag lapel while he sells this country out one soldier, one port, one job, one right, one chance at a time. talk about real patriotism (n)

It's just a goddamned piece of paper (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml)

As long as I'm the dictator (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD3xfT0c99g&feature=related)

He says it again?!? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A09Ha5M82us&feature=related)

Where's the flag lapels?

Obama's dig is making change and many across the nation will bite.

Empty promises? We'll see.

[yeahwho]

Where's the flag lapels?

Obama's dig is making change and many across the nation will bite.

Empty promises? We'll see.

The only reason to justify such drivel as the flag lapel issue is I'm tired of it. It being outright lies and innuendo about any of the candidates. I've tried to be fair and open to most all of the other candidates, so from here on out I'm just going to call bullshit on all attacks.

Empty promises sound so much better than Outright Lies. Just containing and backing off from killing first as an option sounds sort of different.

[saz]

A fundamental trait of today’s right wing is the willingness to lie, baldly and repeatedly and without shame. And it always catches the Democrats off guard. Just ask war criminal John Kerry or Munchausen Syndrome sufferer Al Gore. Are people like Sean Hannity really so dumb that they think Barack Obama is an African spy who’s plotting to be the Lion King? Well, in his case, yes, but…People like Karl Rove know that the more ridiculous the charge you make, the better. Because they’re not aimed at rational people. They’re aimed at that great teeming mass of Americans who wept with joy when they heard “American Gladiators” was coming back. They’re called “undecideds” or “swing voters”, but I prefer the traditional term, “morons”.

watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCL0yNu6_5A) (y)

[yeahwho]

The attacks will surely come, but this time it will be different. I'm not sure how. I have seen a steadfast galvanization of many supporters of Obama, but I've been ignoring Hillary's campaign. I know Hillary Clinton can be politically wicked, but this is also why I ignore her.

In the end McCain has huge strength within the military for his courage and ability to return with honor from the Hanoi Hilton POW camp, an amazing story that gives him an edge that is huge as far as being a tough guy.

I actually do think part of the equation in this race will be who the vice president choices are. Until then the tone is sort of still not set. These early attacks are sort of a push and see how pliable the opponent is.

The way I see this between McCain and Obama currently is a race between "Hope through peace" vs."Despair through war".

McCain has really screwed himself into a military corner with his 100 year war. Bankrupting the damn country to murder is a bit limited as far as solutions.

[alien autopsy]

blind fath, in any circumstance, is a dangerous thing.

[King PSYZ]

That's why digging deeper is such a good thing... (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=85599)

[russhie]

It has nothing to do with the media. I'm saying they relate to Obama better because he shares the same ideals. McCain keeps talking about Iraq and how we need to stay there, blah blah, no timetables. Well, my generation is over there fighting. I have two friends who were sent there and haven't seen their newborns yet. It's bullshit. They signed up out of high school in 2001 because they wanted to protect our country, and then they get this bullshit war which isn't protecting anything and wasting their time. People my age are against the war, because they're the ones dying. So when they hear McCain talk about how we need to stay there another 100 years, then no, they don't really relate to that.

As for the money I make, I'd rather see libraries, police officers, new roads, post offices, schools being funded...but maybe that's me being selfish.

I don't agree with this argument that we should feel sorry for soldiers who haven't seen newborns, soliders who are fighting useless wars, whatever.

Sure, it's a crappy predicament but people should understand what they're signing up for before they actually sign up. Here, the government looks after you with tax free pay, housing, excellent healthcare and various other benefits if you're in the army. They look after you, and in return, you go where they say and do what they ask of you no matter how distant, pointless or inconvenient it is.

You can't say "oh, but I joined the army to protect my country, not do this" - surely, you know when you sign up it's not all going to be about dashing off into battle and emerging as some sort of saviour.

I don't have an opinion on the war, I'm not well informed enough to even pretend to know enough about it, but I do feel that soldiers aren't really entitled to some undue amount of sympathy - at the end of the day, they're doing their job 'serving their country' no matter how misguided the attempts are/seem to be.

Carry on :o

[King PSYZ]

do you realise that many people are being pressed into repeated service tours so no they didn't know wha they were getting into.

and like a friend of mine who got pregnant after entering the service and they want her back in Iraq regardless of having nobody to care for her son now since she's a single parent.

[russhie]

^ Still, to some degree you should know...

The government doesn't give you the benefits associated with being in the army without taking what it needs in return - and if that's repeated service tours, then, what can you do, really? All I'm saying is that if you choose to serve your country, you don't get to choose the way in which you serve - you do what your country/government tells you to do. I thought that much was understood, and that's what I'm getting at.

I'm not saying I'm without complete sympathy, of course I have sympathy...but...yeah.

Anyway. This just seems similar to an argument I had a friend about policemen here.

[King PSYZ]

you forget when these people signed up they were told the rules about deployment

generally one or possibly two tours for a specific ammount of time and a set ammount of time between tours.

the armed services brass changed both of those figures and now people are basically being pressed into continuous service til they're dead or the president brings them home.

[QueenAdrock]

I don't agree with this argument that we should feel sorry for soldiers who haven't seen newborns, soliders who are fighting useless wars, whatever.

Sure, it's a crappy predicament but people should understand what they're signing up for before they actually sign up. Here, the government looks after you with tax free pay, housing, excellent healthcare and various other benefits if you're in the army. They look after you, and in return, you go where they say and do what they ask of you no matter how distant, pointless or inconvenient it is.

You can't say "oh, but I joined the army to protect my country, not do this" - surely, you know when you sign up it's not all going to be about dashing off into battle and emerging as some sort of saviour.

I don't have an opinion on the war, I'm not well informed enough to even pretend to know enough about it, but I do feel that soldiers aren't really entitled to some undue amount of sympathy - at the end of the day, they're doing their job 'serving their country' no matter how misguided the attempts are/seem to be.

Carry on :o

I feel sorry for anyone who can't see their family due to their jobs. And yes, many people thought that joining the army meant being sent to wars that were the right ones to fight (Afghanistan, etc). If they complained about having to go overseas and fight Al Qaeda, I'd understand your point. That's what they signed up for, fighting threats to America. They signed up to protect our country. They never signed up for this crap - multiple tours of duty, not being allowed to return back home even after their tour is up, having their benefits slashed, etc. I have a friend who came back from the war and tried to get the army to pay for his college, like they promised. It took months and months of trying to get them to pay, finally, he had to pay for it out of pocket. When he asked for reimbursement, they said that they could only pay the school, that they flat-out refused to pay him (even though they'd just be paying him back what they would have owed the school).

If this is how we treat those who go over there to "protect and serve" then yeah, I do feel sorry for them. They give so much (including body parts!) and get so little in return, especially with the recent slashes that have gone through. It's easy to say "they knew what they were getting into," but if you actually had a good friend who had limited choices after leaving college and got suckered into the army, it's hard to look them in the eye and say "It's your own damn fault that you can't see your baby, you know." I still love the guy, and yeah, I still feel badly that he can't see his children.

[russhie]

I do know people who have had 'limited options' after finishing highschool, none of them are in the army. And I'm not so callous that I'd turn to someone who can't see their baby and say "You asked for it".

There is no such thing as a noble or justified reason for mass bloodshed, and if that's why you signed up then you have to take the good with the bad, I'm sorry.

A family friend was injured (not in service) but the army looked after his medical bills, paid his wages and also footed the bill for more schooling after he recovered so he can get a decent paying job outside of the army. From your experience, the army has not been so kind to your friend, but it has been to mine, and that's all I have to say, really.

[QueenAdrock]

I think a justifiable reason for mass bloodshed would to be to prevent even more mass bloodshed. Going into Darfur and stopping the janjaweed, for instance. They've killed 800,000 civilians, I always wonder what would happen if we actually cared about poor African countries that are undergoing mass genocide. Could our army help prevent it? Perhaps. We'd never know, because we'd never go into situations like that, and let the killing continue.

Either way, I'm glad to hear your friend had a good experience with the army. Many people over there (and those who have returned) haven't had such luck. As much as Republicans would love to cram down your throat that soldiers love being over there and aren't demoralized and think they're doing a great job, that's not true for a lot of them. This war has been dragging on for 5 years, there's no end in sight, and it's quite depressing for everyone involved, thus my point of people being more attracted to Obama's platform than McCain's.

Someone's gotta be elected who is going to do something about this war rather than just keep letting them die over there. Keeping the status quo is a terrible platform, and one of the main reasons I think McCain will lose.