Change? Would it be a good thing?

Change? Would it be a good thing? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events

Message

Thessa -> Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/2/2008 5:52:26 PM)
Obama is promising change - but im not sure people realize what kind of change would really take place if he was to be nominated into office. Hes really great at making speeches and making himself look like the 'only way for America to get back on track' but he is a liberal Democrat, which totally negates everything hes been saying in his speeches. When is change a bad thing? When its pushed by a person who has no clue how to make that happen. Mark my words - if hes elected people will regret it. Theres no doubt in my mind.

csl7037 -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 6:57:25 AM)
I think he knows how to make change happen - but I agree, we'll regret it! For generations! People in this country have become lazy and looking for a handout and think life and the government owe them - and I'm not talking about people on welfare! In subtle ways, this is the mentality of Americans across the board. And that's what Obama is appealing to...and that's what he'll give them.

huangshan -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 7:21:43 AM)
It depends on what "change" means. Given Obama's policy proposals, I think that kind of change would be a great thing. He seems to be pretty good at rallying Democrats and moderate Republicans behind him, so I think he'd be pretty effective at bringing about that kind of legislative change. His foreign policy ideas are extremely attractive though, and that's the biggest draw for me. McCain is essentially more Bush （early Bush... bush has gotten better in the past year or so, but is still poor), but with more chest-thumping. I don't think America needs more of that. I think change in that respect would be good.

letusreason -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 8:03:43 AM)
I think Fred Thompson helped shine a light on that democrat buzz word pretty well in his speech last night: quote: To deal with these challenges the Democrats present a history making nominee for president. History making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President. Apparently they believe that he would match up well with the history making, Democrat controlled Congress. History making because it's the least accomplished and most unpopular Congress in our nation's history. Together, they would take on these urgent challenges with protectionism, higher taxes and an even bigger bureaucracy. And a Supreme Court that could be lost to liberalism for a generation. This is not reform. And it's certainly not change.

letusreason -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 8:10:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: huangshan McCain is essentially more Bush The montra of the liberal media lol ...nothing original to add on your own? I couldnt believe how I saw commentators last night straining to keep McCain linked to Bush by asking questions like "how is he like George Bush"? Of course I flipped the channel. I thought it was interesting how they noted that even though McCain's hero was Ronald Regan, he voted against deploying troops to Beirut (of which I was part of in the Navy). Say what you want about him but he is his own person and not the poll driven puppet like Obama would be

iluvatar -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 8:52:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: huangshan It depends on what "change" means. Given Obama's policy proposals, I think that kind of change would be a great thing. If change means raising the level of public discourse in this country to the point where two opponents can remain civil and debate the issues while not sniping at each other, then I'm all for Obama. And no, I do not believe McCain would accomplish that. The way he and Romney responded to each other during the primary debates was immature and petty. -Dan.

Jhud -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 9:31:20 AM)
quote: If change means raising the level of public discourse in this country to the point where two opponents can remain civil and debate the issues while not sniping at each other, then I'm all for Obama. And no, I do not believe McCain would accomplish that. The way he and Romney responded to each other during the primary debates was immature and petty. As Joe Lieberman so aptly pointed out last night, McCain has already accomplished bi-partisan dialogue long before Barak had his short term in the Senate. And the Barak/ Hillary exchanges were nothing to write home about.

huskarine -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 9:38:20 AM)
i think Obama means "change" to be about no more bureaucracy and Washington politics...too bad he has flip-flopped (GWOT and ANWR, even nuclear power) like a typical politician (and yes, i know mccain has as well)... change in this manner is impossible. we would have to wipe the slate clean. but the more reasonable alternative is for local government to matter more, like it was originally designed to be.

Sophie11 -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 9:41:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: huskarine i think Obama means "change" to be about no more bureaucracy and Washington politics...too bad he has flip-flopped (GWOT and ANWR, even nuclear power) like a typical politician (and yes, i know mccain has as well)... change in this manner is impossible. we would have to wipe the slate clean. but the more reasonable alternative is for local government to matter more, like it was originally designed to be. Great post, I agree with you entirely! [:)]

raivyne -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 9:46:11 AM)
I wish Fred had actually wanted to win the nomination...

iluvatar -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 9:49:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: If change means raising the level of public discourse in this country to the point where two opponents can remain civil and debate the issues while not sniping at each other, then I'm all for Obama. And no, I do not believe McCain would accomplish that. The way he and Romney responded to each other during the primary debates was immature and petty. As Joe Lieberman so aptly pointed out last night, McCain has already accomplished bi-partisan dialogue long before Barak had his short term in the Senate. I was thinking more about the way that the public perceives things. Maybe if a moderate candidate can get up there and show "the other side" that "their side" isn't all that bad, we can start down a path that doesn't require demonization of the opposition to achieve persuasion. -Dan.

huskarine -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 9:58:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: iluvatar quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: If change means raising the level of public discourse in this country to the point where two opponents can remain civil and debate the issues while not sniping at each other, then I'm all for Obama. And no, I do not believe McCain would accomplish that. The way he and Romney responded to each other during the primary debates was immature and petty. As Joe Lieberman so aptly pointed out last night, McCain has already accomplished bi-partisan dialogue long before Barak had his short term in the Senate. I was thinking more about the way that the public perceives things. Maybe if a moderate candidate can get up there and show "the other side" that "their side" isn't all that bad, we can start down a path that doesn't require demonization of the opposition to achieve persuasion. -Dan. problem is that you will never know what the moderate stands for... i at least want to know what my candidate stands for.

csl7037 -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 10:22:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: iluvatar If change means raising the level of public discourse in this country to the point where two opponents can remain civil and debate the issues while not sniping at each other, then I'm all for Obama. How in the world has Obama done that??!?! This is turning out to be the most down and dirty, nothing is sacred, campaign in American history. Obama's standing up pretending to be above it while all his supporters are the ones looking desperately for mud to throw. Whatever.

huangshan -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 12:56:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: letusreason quote: ORIGINAL: huangshan McCain is essentially more Bush The montra of the liberal media lol ...nothing original to add on your own? The closer to election day, the more his stated policy goals and proposals match Bush. Foreign policy (my personal biggest concern) is essentially early Bush, which I would argue is the worst Bush. Tax policy, Bush. Abortion Bush. Etcetera. I am happy with McCain's motions towards nuclear energy though, sadly unrealistic though they may be. Curiously enough, "liberal media lol" is rather less than original as well. I would be honored to receive a letusreason original. Should I hold my breath?

letusreason -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 1:09:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: huangshan quote: ORIGINAL: letusreason quote: ORIGINAL: huangshan McCain is essentially more Bush The montra of the liberal media lol ...nothing original to add on your own? The closer to election day, the more his stated policy goals and proposals match Bush. Foreign policy (my personal biggest concern) is essentially early Bush, which I would argue is the worst Bush. Tax policy, Bush. Abortion Bush. Etcetera. I am happy with McCain's motions towards nuclear energy though, sadly unrealistic though they may be. Curiously enough, "liberal media lol" is rather less than original as well. I would be honored to receive a letusreason original. Should I hold my breath? Instead of trying to marginalize the terminology i use to point out your parroted phrases, how about provide some specifics on how McCain's foreign policy is like Bush's? On Tax? On Abortion? That way you can raise your arguement rather than try to lower someone else. Here's a new paradigm for you, maybe the reason that McCain seems like Bush is that they are both on the same platform??!? Consequently , if another republican ran , then THEY would be like Bush. Get the point? Furthermore, would you like to spell out how Obama is not going to be like past democrats?

huangshan -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 1:28:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: letusreason Here's a new paradigm for you, maybe the reason that McCain seems like Bush is that they are both on the same platform??!? Consequently , if another republican ran , then THEY would be like Bush. Get the point? Furthermore, would you like to spell out how Obama is not going to be like past democrats? To the first, that was almost entirely my point. I was assuming you disagreed with it, which seemed really odd... and given your apparent support, I'm confused as to why you took the tone you did. To the second, Obama is extremely charismatic and, should he win, comes with an extremely energized electorate and, in all likelihood, a congress that can start cleaning up after Bush. He has also shown considerably better judgment than many past Democratic candidates, particularly with respect to the Iraq war.

stamper_ben -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 2:10:56 PM)
Do you want to know what change I want to see? Oh well, you're gonna hear it anyway.[8D] I want to see a huge change in Washington. What I want to see changed is to have those in Congress who identify with the GOP actually vote that way! And if they don't then I'd like to see a change in personnel, see them booted out of office until someone can and will vote for what it is their constituents want. I suppose this same change could apply to both sides of the aisle. But I won't hold my breath. I enjoy life too much.

letusreason -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 2:56:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: huangshan To the first, that was almost entirely my point. I was assuming you disagreed with it, which seemed really odd... and given your apparent support, I'm confused as to why you took the tone you did. To the second, Obama is extremely charismatic and, should he win, comes with an extremely energized electorate and, in all likelihood, a congress that can start cleaning up after Bush. He has also shown considerably better judgment than many past Democratic candidates, particularly with respect to the Iraq war. I said the first because I think it's cheap, unoriginal, intellectually dishonest, and unfair to try to tie McCain to a President with low approval ratings as if his policies are the reason for that. If that is true, Obama should win in a land slide which he won't. So Bush's policies are supported by 44% of America as indicated in McCains support, if it is as you say and they are the same. Can you see the lack of logic in your statement now? I'm trying to help you break away from what the media is telling you to think and think for yourself. I just wanted to see if you actually had any specifics to illustrate your knowledge on the subject of your opinion. However, I didn't get any. All I got was "energized electorate" and "charisma". So that is what you are voting for??

csl7037 -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 3:51:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: huangshan quote: ORIGINAL: letusreason Here's a new paradigm for you, maybe the reason that McCain seems like Bush is that they are both on the same platform??!? Consequently , if another republican ran , then THEY would be like Bush. Get the point? Furthermore, would you like to spell out how Obama is not going to be like past democrats? To the first, that was almost entirely my point. I was assuming you disagreed with it, which seemed really odd... and given your apparent support, I'm confused as to why you took the tone you did. To the second, Obama is extremely charismatic and, should he win, comes with an extremely energized electorate and, in all likelihood, a congress that can start cleaning up after Bush. He has also shown considerably better judgment than many past Democratic candidates, particularly with respect to the Iraq war. He meant any other Republican would be portrayed like Bush - because that's all they've got. They don't have the foundation to argue on issues because the failed, historically flawed ideals of liberalism can only be sold by slight of hand, buzz words, and meaningless, deceptive rhetoric. The democratic platform can't even hold up their original change mantra with a straight face anymore. All they can think to use is to claim that a man who has been the bane of President Bush's (and the Republican party's) existence at times the last four years is just like him. It only works if you either want to believe it or you've lived in a cave the last eight years. Problem is, some people want to beleive the fairy tale of socialism and others pay as much attention as if they might as well be living in a cave! I'm just praying the number of people who actually understand history and think things through plus the number who come out of their cave to vote because Palin's pretty or a mom or can handle a rifle - or whatever reason they latch onto, outnumber the ones falling for the scam.

csl7037 -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 3:53:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: letusreason All I got was "energized electorate" and "charisma". So that is what you are voting for?? You forgot that friendly Congress! That makes me feel better!

Thessa -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 5:27:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: csl7037 quote: ORIGINAL: iluvatar If change means raising the level of public discourse in this country to the point where two opponents can remain civil and debate the issues while not sniping at each other, then I'm all for Obama. How in the world has Obama done that??!?! This is turning out to be the most down and dirty, nothing is sacred, campaign in American history. Obama's standing up pretending to be above it while all his supporters are the ones looking desperately for mud to throw. Whatever. Do you know whats down and dirty? Its being sexist and putting Palin down before she even had a chance to speak. And yes - - - a Democratic advisor did that.

kernsfamily -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 5:51:10 PM)
quote: If change means raising the level of public discourse in this country to the point where two opponents can remain civil and debate the issues while not sniping at each other, then I'm all for Obama. Pelosi, Reid and all their ilk need to be removed immediately. Then, that will happen. Their "agenda" all along, for 8 years, is to block George W. from doing anything...obstructionists....and, ignore ANY and ALL "good news" and successes....but, yell from the rafters when things go bad. want change? I like another part of Thompson's speech last night: We need a president who understands that you don't make citizens prosperous by making Washington richer, and you don't lift an economic downturn by imposing one of the largest tax increases in American history. Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they're just going to tax "businesses"! So unless you buy something from a "business", like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business", don't worry ... it's not going to affect you. They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the "other" side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform.

iluvatar -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 8:59:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: huskarine problem is that you will never know what the moderate stands for... i at least want to know what my candidate stands for. Did you come to that conclusion on your own or were you told that? I have a hard time believing anybody w/o some serious bias or agenda can come to that belief. Moderate doesn't mean that you don't stand for anything. It means that your positions are extreme. There IS a difference. quote: ORIGINAL: csl7037 quote: ORIGINAL: iluvatar If change means raising the level of public discourse in this country to the point where two opponents can remain civil and debate the issues while not sniping at each other, then I'm all for Obama. How in the world has Obama done that??!?! This is turning out to be the most down and dirty, nothing is sacred, campaign in American history. Obama's standing up pretending to be above it while all his supporters are the ones looking desperately for mud to throw. Whatever. I'm hoping his attitude and decorum will rub off. quote: ORIGINAL: kernsfamily I like another part of Thompson's speech last night: We need a president who understands that you don't make citizens prosperous by making Washington richer, and you don't lift an economic downturn by imposing one of the largest tax increases in American history. Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they're just going to tax "businesses"! So unless you buy something from a "business", like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business", don't worry ... it's not going to affect you. They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the "other" side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform. Come on. Has supply-side/trickle-down economics REALLY worked? Or at least as well as some would like us to believe? If things are really this simple, then why have corporate profits been rising as a % of gdp while wages have been falling as a % of gdp? Obviously, Fred Thompson's description is true to a degree, because if companies earned no money, they couldn't pay anybody. But to imply that there's a direct linear correlation like that is pretty silly and is one of the reasons why I've become fairly disheartened by the Republican party. If your goal really is to improve the economy and the lives of everybody, then come up with some policies that will really do it. But don't try to sell me on lower capital gains and corporate taxes just so they can continue offshoring jobs and keeping the extra money for themselves. -Dan.

huangshan -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/3/2008 9:54:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: letusreason quote: ORIGINAL: huangshan To the first, that was almost entirely my point. I was assuming you disagreed with it, which seemed really odd... and given your apparent support, I'm confused as to why you took the tone you did. To the second, Obama is extremely charismatic and, should he win, comes with an extremely energized electorate and, in all likelihood, a congress that can start cleaning up after Bush. He has also shown considerably better judgment than many past Democratic candidates, particularly with respect to the Iraq war. I said the first because I think it's cheap, unoriginal, intellectually dishonest, and unfair to try to tie McCain to a President with low approval ratings as if his policies are the reason for that. If that is true, Obama should win in a land slide which he won't. So Bush's policies are supported by 44% of America as indicated in McCains support, if it is as you say and they are the same. Can you see the lack of logic in your statement now? I'm trying to help you break away from what the media is telling you to think and think for yourself. I just wanted to see if you actually had any specifics to illustrate your knowledge on the subject of your opinion. However, I didn't get any. All I got was "energized electorate" and "charisma". So that is what you are voting for?? I guess I don't understand. Why else wouldn't people like Bush? I mean, the policy is pretty much all there is to look at...? And I suppose I should be a little more accurate, no, not every Republican is like Bush. Some, or many of them are. McCain is, except he has a more enthralling personal history and the media likes him a lot more. He also has maintained his "maverick" image in the face of growing similarity to Bush policy. Image-wise, McCain is more attractive than Bush, I think, though I don't think the substance justifies this discrepancy. With respect to Obama, yeah, basically I'm voting for a Democrat who is exceptional at pursuing a Democratic agenda. And if you care to go there, image and personality-wise, he's leagues away from Bush and McCain.

Thessa -> RE: Change? Would it be a good thing? (9/4/2008 12:00:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: huangshan And if you care to go there, image and personality-wise, he's leagues away from Bush and McCain. Thats actually very true. lol Obama will NEVER be as wonderful a politician as Bush and McCain are.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI