Going to Back Barack

[yeahwho]

In the multitude of choices for the future President of the United States, I've decided Barack Obama is the clearest choice for myself as our next President.

I have always been a huge supporter and vocal proponent of Kucinich, but it's the reality of the matter that his true democratic ways are never going to fly with the current populist of the USofA. So as much as it is true I'm compromising my own political beliefs, it is also important to think about what sort of future is obtainable to the Country as a whole.


some quick reasons for my choice.

10. this NYTimes Op/Ed helped

9. he opposed the Iraq War from the outset.

8.Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year. He would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq's leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation.

7. I bet his vice presidential choice is better than Cheney.

6.Oprah

5."Agent of Change" has a nice ring to it.

4. I like his health care ideas and responses,
it's time to let the drug and insurance industries know that while they'll get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair.

3. He is instrumental on watching how our taxes are spent, applauding transparency in government spending and actions. That is something completely different from the past 3 administrations.

2. Dude is a great speaker, we are in desperate need of great speaking skills.

1. The thought of "Bush., Clinton, Clinton, Bush., Bush., Clinton" is so very depressing.

[King PSYZ]

I'll be pulling the handle right along side of ya.

Barack gives me a hope for a better America, because I am ashamed of what has transpired since 2000 here.

[drizl]

barack isnt going to do shit. besides hilary would get the vote before he would.

[drizl]

just my humble opinion. he feels like another suck-dick senator who is trying to climb the ladder. council on foreign relations, congrats. ron paul is the only hope in this election for the real change america needs. out of iraq? great. he's even said that it would be a slow process that would take years. so, immediate pullout isnt really what he means. we all know that as long as there are troops in the middle east, there will be more aggression towards the us, and more bullshit american foreign policy.

ronnie is for an end to the us militarism plaguing the world, hes the only one that isnt afraid to speak the truth about our history, our foreign policy, our health care system, the federal reserve, etc... the man's protested his own pension!

please reconsider.

[King PSYZ]

no thanks

[fucktopgirl]

Originally Posted by yeahwho

1. The thought of "Bush., Clinton, Clinton, Bush., Bush., Clinton" is so very depressing.

hehe

That about the only good reason you got to vote for him, because other then that, it will not change a damn thing!!!!!!

[yeahwho]

Originally Posted by drizl

out of iraq? great. he's even said that it would be a slow process that would take years. so, immediate pullout isnt really what he means.

Wrong.

Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year. He would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq's leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation. He would use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional security compact. And he would take immediate steps to confront the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Iraq. LINK

[yeahwho]

Originally Posted by drizl

ronnie is for an end to the us militarism plaguing the world, hes the only one that isnt afraid to speak the truth about our history, our foreign policy, our health care system, the federal reserve, etc... the man's protested his own pension!

please reconsider.

Give us all a written policy by Ron Paul of his plan for Iraq troop withdrawals and dealing with the damage done from US intervention and consequent war? Or would that be meddling?

[abcdefz]

I'm voting for him.

First, I actually like him as a candidate; second, it's almost like voting against Clinton, which gives me great satisfaction.

[wrongwayandugg]

yeah. i'm thinking about voting for obama. his rhetoric is convincing and i grew up with oprah on the telly

[drizl]

i dont trust him at all. he's too young and moved up too fast. i think he is also somewhat cocky. when he talks i get the feeling its all just rhetoric with no balls behind it. and as a member of the council on foreign relations, he is well into maintaining american foreign policy, which is broken and is the reason why the majority of the rest of the world does not like the US. i get the feeling he will only perpetuate the bullshit, make a few minor changes, stay the course for the war on terror, keep our military bases in iraq (which will not please the iraqi people) and continue the legacy of taking money from big business to pull through bullshit bills rewarding oil companies, health care companies, defense contractors, etc... he wont make, what i feel, are the necessary changes, he wont even touch the topics that ron brings up because he stands for big change, and obama grew up in the system, plays by the systems rules, and wishes to move forward in the system. he might have a big dick because he's black, but he has no balls.

[saz]

if i were american i'd be behind edwards 100%. kucinich is practically perfect and a dream come true, but unfortunately he gets zero coverage and attention in the states.

edwards is touting economic populism and populist ideals. he has taken on huge corporations on behalf of the little guy and won numerous times. edwards is one of the very few championing the poor, impoverished, defenceless and marginalized. he also recognizes that we are facing a global crisis with climate change, and that immediate, drastic action is required, ie 'there's more to be patriotic about than war'.

obama is a nice guy and seems very genuine, i like him a lot, he's definitely not a dlc elitist or washington beltway insider. however he's been biting edwards ideas here and there, and supports the peru free trade agreement which will likely lead to more outsourcing of jobs.

p.s. ron paul is a nut job and a corporate mouthpiece. while he's spot on in regards to u.s. foreign policy, he's on the record defending david koresh and the branch davidians, he believes that kofi annan and the united nations are part of a socialist plot to take over the world, he regularly bashes universal health care, and wants to privatize the department of education. so, not only should americans be screwed out of their right to proper health care (plus being charged up the ass, and even though they might have insurance they might be denied emergency care or specific operations), but they should also have to fork over money so their kids can go to school, and therefore only those who can afford to send their kids to school will be able to do so.

[drizl]

Originally Posted by sazi

if i were american i'd be behind edwards 100%. kucinich is practically perfect and a dream come true, but unfortunately he gets zero coverage and attention in the states.

edwards is touting economic populism and populist ideals. he has taken on huge corporations on behalf of the little guy and won numerous times. edwards is one of the very few championing the poor, impoverished, defenceless and marginalized. he also recognizes that we are facing a global crisis with climate change, and that immediate, drastic action is required, ie 'there's more to be patriotic about than war'.

obama is a nice guy and seems very genuine, i like him a lot, he's definitely not a dlc elitist or washington beltway insider. however he's been biting edwards ideas here and there, and supports the peru free trade agreement which will likely lead to more outsourcing of jobs.

p.s. ron paul is a nut job and a corporate mouthpiece. while he's spot on in regards to u.s. foreign policy, he's on the record defending david koresh and the branch davidians, he believes that kofi annan and the united nations are part of a socialist plot to take over the world, he regularly bashes universal health care, and wants to privatize the department of education. so, not only should americans be screwed out of their right to proper health care (plus being charged up the ass, and even though they might have insurance they might be denied emergency care or specific operations), but they should also have to fork over money so their kids can go to school, and therefore only those who can afford to send their kids to school will be able to do so.

obviously you are not from the US.
what corporation is benefitting from what ron paul has to say? blackwater, kaiser permanente, chevron....how have they benefitted from ron pauls views? last i checked, he supports a healthcare system that is affordable to everyone while not being socialized, the way it was before nixon got kaiser permanente in the white house. back then, our healthcare system was top notch, affordable and didnt financially destroy people. (i was at a hosipital the other night, 1,500$ per night for a room!!! not including patient fees and doctor costs! just the room!)
as per blackwater, he wants to end america's bullshit foreign policy, how does that help defense contractors like blackwater?

corporate media obviously favors giuliani, romney, clinton and barack. they dont give paul the time of day when it comes to reporting.

heres a quote regarding how ron paul feels about big oil subsidies:
"I don't like subsidizing oil companies. They've been doing that for years. We go to war to protect oil, so that we can buy more oil, and burn more oil. So I say our foreign policy contributes to global warming -- by subsidizing a policy that is deeply flawed. And that's why we're in the Middle East, to protect oil interests."


show me which corporations are benefitting from ron paul, because it certainly arent any that are benefitting right now.

[drizl]

its okay to have an opinion, but at least have some substance behind it

[checkyourprez]

i really like my man bill. but hill just comes off as such a fake bitch, with the big corps in her pockets.


obama actually sounds like he can do something for the good. i mean theres only up to go from here.

[saz]

Originally Posted by drizl

obviously you are not from the US.
what corporation is benefitting from what ron paul has to say?

the entire pharmaceutical industry, by keeping health care in their hands.

Originally Posted by drizl

blackwater, kaiser permanente, chevron....how have they benefitted from ron pauls views?

i wasn't talking about blackwater. again, by keeping health care private, and not advocating universal coverage, these private corporations - such as kaiser permanente - will continue to reap massive profits, while millions go without coverage, or are denied coverage.

Originally Posted by drizl

last i checked, he supports a healthcare system that is affordable to everyone while not being socialized, the way it was before nixon got kaiser permanente in the white house.

oh right, the "socialized" medicine boogeyman card. like universal health care has been such a disaster in canada, england, france, germany, sweden etc. right, a private health care system that is affordable for everyone. sure. and the entire pharmaceutical industry will surely get behind that concept.

Originally Posted by drizl

back then, our healthcare system was top notch, affordable and didnt financially destroy people.

how do you know?

Originally Posted by drizl

(i was at a hosipital the other night, 1,500$ per night for a room!!! not including patient fees and doctor costs! just the room!)
as per blackwater, he wants to end america's bullshit foreign policy, how does that help defense contractors like blackwater?

i never accused paul of being in bed with private defence contractors.

Originally Posted by drizl

corporate media obviously favors giuliani, romney, clinton and barack. they dont give paul the time of day when it comes to reporting.

it's also because paul has spoken to and addressed white supremicist and right-wing extremist organizations, who are supporting him. meanwhile the corporate media isn't exactly crazy about obama. hillary? absolutely. obama? no. they're having a field day falsely trying to label him as a muslim, and having once attended a muslim school.

Originally Posted by drizl

heres a quote regarding how ron paul feels about big oil subsidies:
"I don't like subsidizing oil companies. They've been doing that for years. We go to war to protect oil, so that we can buy more oil, and burn more oil. So I say our foreign policy contributes to global warming -- by subsidizing a policy that is deeply flawed. And that's why we're in the Middle East, to protect oil interests."

cool.

Originally Posted by drizl

show me which corporations are benefitting from ron paul, because it certainly arent any that are benefitting right now.

again, the pharmaceutical industry will continue to reap massive profits under the private system that paul supports.

Originally Posted by drizl

its okay to have an opinion, but at least have some substance behind it

look who's talking.

Originally Posted by drizl

barack isnt going to do shit.

and just how do you know?

Originally Posted by drizl

just my humble opinion. he feels like another suck-dick senator who is trying to climb the ladder.

"he feels". feels. again, you don't know. you're just going on a baseless assumption.

Originally Posted by drizl

council on foreign relations, congrats.

whoa, the council on foreign relations. angelina jolie is also a member of the council on foreign relations.

Originally Posted by drizl

ron paul is the only hope in this election for the real change america needs.

right. private health care, and a privatized education system and school vouchers. education only for the rich, or those who can afford it.

Originally Posted by drizl

out of iraq? great. he's even said that it would be a slow process that would take years. so, immediate pullout isnt really what he means. we all know that as long as there are troops in the middle east, there will be more aggression towards the us, and more bullshit american foreign policy.

i actually agree with that.

Originally Posted by drizl

ronnie is for an end to the us militarism plaguing the world,

so are edwards, kucinich, and gravel (but too bad he dropped out).

Originally Posted by drizl

hes the only one that isnt afraid to speak the truth about our history, our foreign policy, our health care system,

again, he supports the privatized system.

Originally Posted by drizl

please reconsider.

you know, i'm sure there might be some out there who actually might do so and reconsider. however, you're not going to win anyone over with such patronizing remarks as:

Originally Posted by drizl

its okay to have an opinion, but at least have some substance behind it

[drizl]

obviously as long as there are medicines, there will be a pharmeceutical industry. he doesnt advocate the industry, but the people, wanting for them fair health care.

i know that our healthcare system used to be a lot better, because it has gotten a lot worse. we led the industrial revolution and have been on top of technology and industry ever since. healthcare was affordable. we had top doctors. the best universities. etc...


i dont really know what else to refute, nothing else stands out as worthwhile. really picking me to peices huh? something to think about....

a true patriotic candidate would be outraged at almost every route of the american political system beacuse corruption has manifested at every corner, and actually puts congress folk and presidents into office. anyone who isnt as outraged and passionate to change things as ron paul doesnt have my trust. he has the balls to do something about it too. he's not worried about "political suicide" or lack of media respect. he's focused on changing america for the better, not simply taking his turn as next in line.

paul is the best choice, i repeat paul is the best choice. please reconsider.

[drizl]

are you suggesting that barackjolina on the council on foreign relations is a good thing? or that the council is not that big of a deal? they are used to decide/dictate US foreign policy, its not just a clever name. that is why barack being in on it is a big deal. because his foreign policy will not be all that different from that of the council on foreign relations, because he is a member. and as you agree, our foreign policy is not something to be proud of.
angelina is used by the council on foreign relations because she has influence over ignorant media fanatics.
...not really something for barack to be proud of.

[yeahwho]

Originally Posted by drizl

paul is the best choice, i repeat paul is the best choice. please reconsider.

I do not know how you have come to this conclusion, honestly. Do us all a favor here and just like I asked before,

Give us all a written policy by Ron Paul of his plan for Iraq troop withdrawals and dealing with the damage done from US intervention and consequent war? Or would that be meddling?


Ron Paul has an ideology and record of voting NO on most every bill that has come across his plate as United States Congressman. Ron Paul is an interesting politician in his views, but having a plan of action that entails US policy is what is needed. Not "I'm against it", vote for me. Propose what he is going to do to solve the Middle East crisis.

[DroppinScience]

Barack Obama is definitely guilty of some pandering (his "I'd send troops to Pakistan" comment was horribly misguided, especially when you consider what he's supposed to represent and what sort of people see in him when they support him), but on the whole, if he actually got the nomination and the presidency, you can bet he'll take things in the right direction. It wouldn't be perfect (Kucinich is indeed perfect in terms of views, and I do like Edwards' comments on the poor and helping them), but it'd be a very important symbolic victory and give confidence for the U.S. to do the right thing (both at home and abroad).

It would mean an administration that would care about civil rights, that would be a lot less likely to wage illegal wars, and would (hopefully) mark a turn away from Clinton-esque centrism for the Democratic party.

At least one would hope.

[drizl]

Originally Posted by yeahwho

I do not know how you have come to this conclusion, honestly. Do us all a favor here and just like I asked before,

Give us all a written policy by Ron Paul of his plan for Iraq troop withdrawals and dealing with the damage done from US intervention and consequent war? Or would that be meddling?


Ron Paul has an ideology and record of voting NO on most every bill that has come across his plate as United States Congressman. Ron Paul is an interesting politician in his views, but having a plan of action that entails US policy is what is needed. Not "I'm against it", vote for me. Propose what he is going to do to solve the Middle East crisis.

he believes fervently in the constitution as law and so votes down things like the patriot act, homeland security act, homegrown terrorism act, etc... which impinge on our freedoms and rights as american citizens.

thats good to vote no to those bills.

i dont know if i have heard his iraq exit strategy. im pretty sure it would be leave asap, and help iraq rebuild. its kind of a yes or no question, and i believe he would say yes, get out of iraq. im skeptical of anything hillary says about iraq because she is already in too deep and would probably help her friends and herself make money off the war like most others, especially the other republican candidates would do. she is a very powerful woman, and has been in the game (and played with the big boys) long and high enough to be trusted in my opinion. barack as a member of council on foreign relations, a think tank, media mongering, group of policy makers who have done nothing to stop dubya, the war, etc... cant be trusted either. ron pauls voting record of "no's" proves he is more trustworthy than the other condidates in my opinion.

[QueenAdrock]

Originally Posted by drizl

we led the industrial revolution and have been on top of technology and industry ever since.

Actually, it started in Europe and spread to the States. James Watt was a Scottish inventor and helped create one of the pivotal instruments of the revolution - the steam engine - which was invented and patented in England. The lead chamber process, glass making, machine building, all the major things came out of Europe...Europe had a much larger role to play than America did. Not that it matters in this context, it's just that seeing someone say "America led the industrial revolution" bothers the European historian inside of me.

Anyways, as of now, I'm still unsure of who to vote for, but I'm leaning towards Edwards and Richardson. We'll see though, the primaries are still *fairly* far away....

[Documad]

^^ Your home state must have a primary then. Can you vote in the primaries by mail? You can't for caucuses, but it won't matter -- it will all be over long before my state caucuses happen.

I'm going to vote for whoever the democratic candidate is in the general election and even then I doubt my vote will matter -- my state always goes for the democrat.

I don't much like Obama, but then I don't like any of them. I thought Richardson had potential before I started reading about him. Of the somewhat viable candidates, I honestly like Hillary best but that's because I figure that I already know the worst about her. With the others, the more you dig, the more icky stuff you find out. Of the non-viable candidates, I kind of like Biden because he's willing to say truthful non-political stuff. But the only reason he can do that is because he's running for secretary of state instead of president. And he's got loads of skeletons in his closet too.

I've been giving my money to local candidates. The money being spent on the national election makes me sick to my stomach.

[abcdefz]

From CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Just two weeks until the Iowa caucuses, the Democratic presidential candidates appear to be in a dead heat in
the Hawkeye State, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll.

John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are virtually tied for the Democrats' top spot in Iowa.


Thirty percent of likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers support Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York as the nominee, with Sen. Barack Obama
of Illinois at 28 percent and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina at 26 percent, according to the poll, released Thursday morning.

With the poll's sampling error at plus or minus 4 percentage points, it's a virtual tie for the top spot in Iowa, the first state to vote in
the race for the White House.

[QueenAdrock]

Originally Posted by Documad

^^ Your home state must have a primary then. Can you vote in the primaries by mail? You can't for caucuses, but it won't matter -- it will all be over long before my state caucuses happen.

Yup...I believe I'm voting in Maryland for the primaries (which occurs on Super Tuesday) but the tricky thing is, I'm going to be registering to vote in North Carolina since that's where my primary residence in the US is now. And I'm changing that all over in the next week or so (hopefully) so uh, where the heck do I vote? MD has already sent me something in the mail, so I feel like I should stick with that, but if my primary residence isn't there anymore then maybe I shouldn't...but will NC be able to get my absentee ballot out in time then? I'm pretty sure I needed to request it for the primaries by November. :-/

Maybe I'll just stick with MD for this round and then after the primaries, vote in NC.

[jabumbo]

i would wait until after the primaries to change your voter registration.



as far as my choices go, i really have no idea who i am going to vote for

[Documad]

QA: You shouldn't vote in a state that you can't honestly call your state of residence. I know it seems like a small thing but it's a crime and it's not worth the risk. You never know. You might run for office someday and you don't want it on your record. Go ahead and register in the state that you can honestly call your place of residence so that you're ready for the general election.

[QueenAdrock]

Well that's the tough part. My parents live in North Carolina, so when I come home, it's to see them, and all of my U.S. correspondances, letters, and records have been forwarded to their address. But I grew up in the state of Maryland and it's the only state I've ever lived in in the US. So...technically both are my residency. If you asked which I felt was MORE my residency, that would be Maryland...but since I don't live there, don't have an address there anymore, don't have an address I CAN use there...therefore my residency is reverted to where my closest relatives live, right? I dunno. I mean, I'm sure I'm not the first overseas voter who had their parents move to another state, right?

Anyone? Bueller?

[Documad]

The only thing I know for sure is that you can only have one legal residence/domicile in the US at a time. It's commonly thought to be the place that you intend to return to permanently. It's not really related to where your parents live if you don't actually live with them.

My brother lived overseas for several years. During that time he had no residence in the US. As I recall, he only got to vote for the US president in the general election. He wasn't allowed to vote in any state races, even though before and after he moved to London he lived in the same state and always intended to return to it. That was a long time ago though.

[drizl]

wow, the more i read on council on foreign relations, the more i realize i would never vote for anyone who is a member of its elite.

(not sure if all of these folk are still in the run, but as of july 07 this was the list of current candidates who are members of the council on foreign relations)
Fred Thompson
Michael Bloomberg
Rudy Giuliani
John McCainMitt Romney
Jim Gilmore
Newt Gingrich
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson



not bad! looks like american foreign policy and neo colonialism have a pretty good shot at maintaning stature in the '08 election! i am highly skeptical of any of them promising troops out anytime soon. that is not the direction of american foreign policy within the council on foreign relations. if you are in the council, you are only that much more of a sell-out suck-dick elitist who believes in the america that we have today, (not in the constitution). if they did care, they wouldnt be wasting their time in the council on foreign relations. the council is another tool used by elitist to think up new ways to dominate the world and perpetuate the shit. stay away