0

Barack Obama: Rockstar. Motivational Speaker. President???

Are these guys for real? What a bundle of poppycock. Appeaser is the new mud word to fling around for someone that likes to start a dialog. Bush's remark was very calculated. I am sure he had no idea about the actual historical event he was referencing.

Here are some more of those unpatriotic appeasers:
JFK talked to the Russians about Cuba.
Nixon talked to the Chinese about improved relations.
Reagan talked to the Russians about nuclear missiles.

Not talking to your perceived enemy gets you into wars.

0

I don't know about the rest of you, but I found the comments to this blog post quite entertaining.

Heh. Now approaching 1500 comments. One that caught my eye was this one:

Ok, first of... I'm not American so my opinion might not matter a damn. However... in 1945 the US of A freed my country from the Nazis. They also sat at the table with the Soviets and made sure that we won't end up as yet another trophy on Stalin's wall.

Thus, I'm going to say this:

1) It seems to me that both, the Reps and the Dems are wanting to copy Europe. Bad idea. I live here, I see the crap that a centralized government spews out on a daily basis. The EU is such a government. The EU doesn't care about the member states, it spits on them. The EU even normed the size, shape and color of beer bottles to have an EU-wide standard. It's overblown and eats up billions of Euro every year without producing anything of value (and it's 100% undemocratic). US politicians, no matter what camp they're in, should be wiser, they can see how that doesn't work by just looking at Europe, yet they try to copy it.

2) Health insurance, I love that thing. Here in Austria (8.5 million inhabitants), our health insurances managed to make a DEFICIT of ~470 million USD in 2007. The estimation for 2008 is just the same and the year's not even half gone.

3) Social security. Germany is pumping ~30% of their annual budget into social "stuff". Mostly supporting people who don't want to work. And frankly, why work when the state gives you everything? Go to Germany, you will see enough young and able people who don't work but drive HUGE Mercedes. Germany also has an unemployment rate of soon 10%, while those who work get screwed over left and right by their (left-wing) government.

Meanwhile, my father pays 43% taxes on his salary, while I pay 50% taxes on it. And then we have to pay taxes on everything we buy. A normal bottle of coke? 20% taxes. Bread? 10% taxes. And don't get me start on the fuel, it's crazy.

4) Illegal immigration. Crack down on it, massively. Here in Austria we had a case where the daughter of an illegal immigrant threatened to kill herself should the family be deported. The Green party said that Austrians should hide illiegals from the police. This happens when you let pseudo-marxists run free.

This, and together with the extension of the Schengen treaty, leads to a massive rise of crimes. There are even areas in Europe (namely in France, the UK, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Italy) where us natives don't dare to venture anymore, due to the completely messed up immigration. In some areas even the police fears entering.

5) After WW2 several of my relatives went to the US, legally. They became Americans, they worked hard. They didn't go there and screamed "government give me stuff!!!". They worked and earned their place in society.

So, Republican politicians, don't look at Europe and how "great" it is here. Let Hillary and Obama dream of their marxist "paradise" and fail with it. Trust me, it doesn't work. I always say, we should all learn from Japan. I love their immigration laws (I have to deal with them on a regular basis and I really wish that Austrian police could do what Japanese police does).

When I look at November I must admit, I'm glad not to be American. I wouldn't want to vote for any of them.

Oh, by the way... please, don't call them "liberals". They're not "liberals", they don't care about liberty and freedom. No true liberal would support a nanny state.

I think America needs a strong president, who will reduce the government to its basic needs, who will not oppress the people with laws that are totally pointless and stupid, who will do everything to protect his country and his people. When I look at the three running for POTUS I, from far away across the Atlantic, have to say... none of them can do that job. They're all the same. What really is the difference between those three except gender, color and age?

I fear for the world and for America.

Posted: Andreas Kolb on May 18, 2008 at 10:59 AM

-2

No woman should be the president of USA, not because i am against any woman and all that stuf. But i think to keep a hold on oil producing country and to control terrorism, USA will have biggetst effect in future, and so we need one who can take good strict decisoin!

Votes + Comments
Horrible logic, delusional, ignorant
One of the most ignorant things I have read in some time.
0

No woman should be the president of USA, not because i am against any woman and all that stuf. But i think to keep a hold on oil producing country and to control terrorism, USA will have biggetst effect in future, and so we need one who can take good strict decisoin!

White men have been screwing up this nation for the past 250 years, its about time someone else gets the chance, and someone who doesn't have one foot in the grave and the other foot slipping :)

Votes + Comments
exactly
0

biggetst effect in future, and so we need one who can take good strict decisoin!

Margaret Thatcher was no better or worse than any other Prime Minister in the UK. She served for something like 10 years, took on the labor unions, etc., etc. Hopefully, in any election where there is some kind of discrimination, the pro-female/race/age voters and the anti cancel each other out so the race becomes about who will do the best for the people. The US Democratic Party's nomination campaign is more about selfish vs. will try to serve the people perceptions, than it is about gender or race.

0

A favorite from yesterday:

Now here’s the really strange part of all this:

The more leftward Bush has turned, the more the Democrats and the media have branded him an archconservative. So Bush’s failures have been ascribed to conservative policies when they have been nothing of the kind.

The election of someone such as Barack Obama would ensure that most of the Bush policies (with the notable exception of the war) would be retained and expanded. Where Bush gave us a new entitlement, Obama would give us nationalized healthcare. Where Bush spent big, Obama would spend bigger.

Obama would give us a third Bush term.

0

First pastor Mike Huckabee in front of the National Rifle Association suggesting that someone could have shot Obama, and then Hillary Clinton saying she was staying in the race because someone could shoot/assassinate Obama, is this a sick country or something?

0

In the USA people love their guns, so they will probably vote for the candidate that is willing to use a gun.

0

Kind of a thread mix, but I was re-reading Hitchikers again and came across this: "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

0

I find the amount of people I meet that simply won't vote for Obama because he is half black alarming. There are also many people that have read the republican smear-mail and believe he is a muslim. Bigotry is live and well in this country!

0

I carpooled with a guy who absolutely would not vote for Clinton if Obama did not get the nomination; said he would rather vote for McCain. When I pointed out issues w/McCain, he said he would vote for Nader. I pointed out what happened the last time that happened. He waffled a bunch - I don't think he ever came around; but at least he started thinking about his vote.

Any knee-jerk reaction is just stupid.

0

I find the amount of people I meet that simply won't vote for Obama because he is half black alarming. There are also many people that have read the republican smear-mail and believe he is a muslim. Bigotry is live and well in this country!

The other thing I find absolutely unreal is the people who ask "why do people call Obama black? he is only half black". This is bigotry trying to hide behind historical amnesia.

0

I find the amount of people I meet that simply won't vote for Obama because he is half black alarming. There are also many people that have read the republican smear-mail and believe he is a muslim. Bigotry is live and well in this country!

Does anyone have any idea what percentage of people think Obama is a Muslim? I'm generally the optimist and am constantly getting in arguments with my friends regarding such issues, with me arguing that only a tiny percentage of Americans think Obama is a Muslim or other such lunacy, and them being more cynical. It occurs to me that I actually have no polling data or anything like that when I make these claims (so I probably shouldn't make 'em), so I'm just guessing. Has anyone seen any kind of polling data on that? It seems to me that the silver lining for Obama in this Reverend Wright debacle is that he can't possibly be accused of being a Muslim anymore.

0

Does anyone have any idea what percentage of people think Obama is a Muslim? I'm generally the optimist and am constantly getting in arguments with my friends regarding such issues, with me arguing that only a tiny percentage of Americans think Obama is a Muslim or other such lunacy, and them being more cynical. It occurs to me that I actually have no polling data or anything like that when I make these claims (so I probably shouldn't make 'em), so I'm just guessing. Has anyone seen any kind of polling data on that? It seems to me that the silver lining for Obama in this Reverend Wright debacle is that he can't possibly be accused of being a Muslim anymore.

A Newsweek poll just out:
Asked to identify his religion, 58 percent of respondents correctly said Obama was a Christian. But a surprising 11 percent said he was a Muslim. And 22 percent said they did not know what his religion was.

0

John McCain pulled a very slick trick to have George Bush appear at one of his fund risers, but to exclude the press from the event. I guess he doesn't want to be seen publicly next to GW. After all, GW might come through as the brighter of the two!

0

The fundraiser was first listed as open then McCain realized he did not really want any pictures of himself with Bush so he closed it and did not allow press. I don't think he wanted POTUS to say "Way to go, John" or something as damning

0

First his pastor, now his wife, nobody seems to be talking about the condidate himself anymore. What will be next, the gardener, barber, plumber, taxi driver, pilot, butler, washer woman, paper boy, neighbor to the left, grocer?

0

Irrelevant Apologies

It is amazing how seriously the media are taking Senator Barack Obama's latest statement about the latest racist rant from the pulpit of the church he has attended for 20 years. But neither that statement nor the apology for his rant by Father Michael Pfleger really matters, one way or the other. Nor does Senator Obama's belated resignation from that church.

For any politician, what matters is not his election year rhetoric, or an election year resignation from a church, but the track record of that politician in the years before the election.

Yet so many people are so fascinated by Barack Obama's rhetorical skills that they don't care about his voting record in the U.S. Senate, in the Illinois state senate, the causes that he has chosen to promote over the years, or the candidate's personal character and values, as revealed by his actions and associations.

Despite clever spin from Obama's supporters about avoiding "guilt by association," much more is involved than casual association with people like Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger.

In addition to giving $20,000 of his own money to Jeremiah Wright, as a state senator Obama directed $225,000 of the Illinois taxpayers' money for programs run by Father Pfleger. In the U.S. Senate, Obama earmarked $100,000 in federal tax money for Father Pfleger's work. Giving someone more than 300 grand is not just some tenuous, coincidental association.

Are Barack Obama's views shown by what he says during an election year or by what he has been doing for decades before?

The complete contrast between Obama's election year image as a healer of divisions and his whole career of promoting far-left grievance politics, in association with America-haters like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, are brushed aside by his supporters who talk about getting back to "the real issues."

There is nothing more real than a man's character and values. The track record of what he has actually done is far more real than anything he says, however elegantly he says it.

There is no office where the character and values of the person in that office matter more than the office of President of the United States. He holds the destiny of 300 million Americans in his hands and the fate of generations yet unborn.

That was never more true than today, with Iran moving ever closer to a nuclear bomb, while the United Nations wrings its hands and Congress fritters away its time on everything from steroids in sports to earmarks for pet projects back home.

Does anyone seriously consider what it would mean for Iran to have nuclear weapons? They are already supplying terrorists with the means of killing people in other countries, including killing American troops in Iraq.

Senator Obama has been downplaying the Iran threat, saying that they are just "a small country," not like the Soviet Union. The people who flew planes into the World Trade Center were an even smaller group than the Iranian government.

Half a dozen terrorists like that with nuclear weapons would be a bigger danger than the Soviet Union ever was, because the Soviet leaders were not suicide bombers. They could be deterred by the threat of what we would do to Moscow if they attacked New York.

You cannot deter suicidal fanatics. They are not going to stop unless they get stopped. Rhetoric is not going to do it.

Not only Senator Obama, but too many other Americans, seem to have no concept of the seething hatred that can lead people to destroy their own lives in order to lash out at others.

But terrorists have been doing this repeatedly, not only in Iraq and in Israel, but in other countries around the world-- including the United States on 9/11.

Have we already forgotten how the Palestinians were cheering in the streets over the news of the attack on the World Trade Center? How videotapes of sadistic beheadings of innocent people by terrorists have found an eager audience in the Middle East?

Are we going to leave our children hostages to hate-filled sadists with nuclear weapons? Are we to rely on Barack Obama's rhetoric to protect them?

Senator Obama's foreign policy seems to be somewhere between Rodney King's "Can't we just get along?" and Alfred E. Neuman's "What, me worry?"

0

So Dave - are you claiming those statements as support for your personal beliefs? Do you take the cow pucky that is spouted in that article so deeply to heart that you not only posted a link but quoted ad naseum? What point are you trying to make?

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.