Originally posted by Alliance
You're the one who brought it up. Apparently all you see of Obama is the media image and the awe. Try looking at the person.Bullshit. Obama has more message than ANY othe candidate out there. He is the ONLY cnadidate I know that has given a major speech on religions and government. He is the ONLY candidate I know of that has a philosophy on how government is run. People complain that he is all vision and no specifics and YOU say that he has no message? I can't believe you listened to more than 3 minitues of his speeches.
He has more message? I didn't realize reading the democratic manifesto was that hard. Let's define message. You seem to think that a message is making a speech on what your beliefs are. I personally don't care about how John Edwards has found Jesus, or how Hillary Clinton really is a Midwest Christian. I want them to tell me about the issues. What about college tuition? Illegal immigration? Political science is all well and good, but Presidential candidates need meat, which is what I've been saying about Obama all along. I suppose it was easy to misunderstand, but since you proved my point, I'll say it again. Obama is style. Hillary is substance. Tell me, what is unique about Obama? He's a run of the mill candidate, who happens to be eloquent. Still doesn't change the point that Hillary has the operational toughness. She has real concrete plans, about issues ranging from Iraq to healthcare. I've read Obama's books, and yes, he is insightful, but he's either not showing his insights about the issues that face the United States, or the media isn't covering it well enough (which would not surprise me, given that they spent 8 months on the fact that Barack had Hussein for a middle name). I could contrast Barack's speeches to the speeches of many Presidents, ranging from mediocre, to great. He's been specifically vague. I would just, for one, like to hear his stances on issues. His convictions, etc.
And his speicific cause is changing the nature of politics. Is that good enough for you? Who the hell is goinjg to elect a president just to solve global warming or world hunger. J*ckass candidates like Tancredo pick issues because that is the only way they can stand up in the primary. Run of the mill my *ss.
Changing politics? Nobody else is talking about that, right? Not only that, but it's vague. I want meat. I want specifics. I don't want purty speeches on how America can be stronger. Say whatever you want, but Hillary has a lot more operational toughness. Why are we even talking about Tancredo? I just want me a candidate who knows what he/she's doing, and how they're going to do it.
I find it amusing, though, that you find the need to be crass and insulting. I can respect your opinion, why do you need to be so defensive? Really though, slow down. You don't have to shout at me. I can hear you fine. If you feel that my opinion is wrong, then say it, but you still don't have to shout at me.
Originally posted by Alliance
I'm not the one using red text. I swear in everyday language, you may read me as angry, but I'm not. You and strangelove can have all the clintonsex you want, but I'm sticking with Obama.I'm at work now, so I'll answer tonight.
Do you want me to change the color? I just thought red would be an easy color to see. Anyhow, how 'bout we agree to disagree?
Originally posted by Alliance
I don't like that position, because it assumes you have credibility.
Of course I have credibility. You have credibility too. Anyone has, since we're arguing from a subjective point of view. It's mainly my opinion, and when talking about subjective things like these, who is to say that my opinion is inferior to yours? I just prefer Hillary Clinton as a candidate.
Alright, I got a hold of the debate on YouTube, so here it is, in 11 parts.
Part 1
YouTube video
Part 2
YouTube video
Part 3
YouTube video
Part 4
YouTube video
Part 5
YouTube video
Part 6
YouTube video
Part 7
YouTube video
Part 8
YouTube video
Part 9
YouTube video
Part 10
YouTube video
Part 11
YouTube video
Enjoy 🙂
Originally posted by Alliance
I think there is a better choice, but Hillary would do fine as president. That is subjective.However, when it comes to Obama, you know beans. That is my issue. That is not subjective
I apologize then. I've only read his books, and I haven't been following him with much zeal. Let's try to play nice though, everyone.
I'm disappointed by the debate, and frankly by the candidates. On the whole. (Thanks for posting the debate for us Strangelove) Obama, Clinton and Edwards did alright....and just alright.
The rest of them, for what ever reason...be it to make those three look better or something else...did a terrible job. Very few of the answers giver were right, much less positive for the country. The one that really got me was Dodd saying he wouldn't get rid of earmarks....WTF is that?
And, the one saying the best things for the government is Kucinich, and it's too bad that I'm a fan and he still bores me.
Originally posted by Devil KingI agree with whoever on the stage said that it's dangerous to make a blanket statement that he/she will veto ANY bill containing earmarks. And sometimes earmarks themselves are necessary.
I'm disappointed by the debate, and frankly by the candidates. On the whole. (Thanks for posting the debate for us Strangelove) Obama, Clinton and Edwards did alright....and just alright.The rest of them, for what ever reason...be it to make those three look better or something else...did a terrible job. Very few of the answers giver were right, much less positive for the country. The one that really got me was Dodd saying he wouldn't get rid of earmarks....WTF is that?
And, the one saying the best things for the government is Kucinich, and it's too bad that I'm a fan and he still bores me.
When the emergency supplemental funding bill was passed in the House, it contained an "earmark" for harbor repair in Speaker Pelosi's district. It was accused of being "pork" by the GOP, but the harborfront did indeed need to be repaired. One of the jobs of Congressmen is to serve their constituents.
Originally posted by Strangelove
I agree with whoever on the stage said that it's dangerous to make a blanket statement that he/she will veto ANY bill containing earmarks. And sometimes earmarks themselves are necessary.
That was Dodd. And yes, sometimes they're a good thing. But the point of the question being asked was why is there a need to clump all these things together. All it does is make the politician's jobs easier....and I don't see a need for their job to be any easier.
Originally posted by Strangelove
One of the jobs of Congressmen is to serve their constituents.
I understand it's in the description, but they treat it like a side effect of their jobs. Something they have to do in order to keep their job. I know it's unrealistic to expect them to have good intentions, but I do.
Y'know, I actually like Kucinich's plan. I've always wondered why America is the only industrialized nation with such a crappy health care system. We might as well emulate the Canadians. They seem pretty happy with their thing.
@Devil King: So you'd prefer extra bureaucracy, an even slower and more bloated congress? Hooray for you. The truth is earmarks actually shear off a lot of the extra weight of congress, and really do away with redundancy. Yes, there should be moderation, as in all things, but most of the time, earmarks are actually helping the constituents. The whole 'no earmarks' brainbug, is something concoted by Republicans (who ironically pass a lot more earmarks than Democrats).
Originally posted by Ymir
Y'know, I actually like Kucinich's plan. I've always wondered why America is the only industrialized nation with such a crappy health care system. We might as well emulate the Canadians. They seem pretty happy with their thing.@Devil King: So you'd prefer extra bureaucracy, an even slower and more bloated congress? Hooray for you. The truth is earmarks actually shear off a lot of the extra weight of congress, and really do away with redundancy. Yes, there should be moderation, as in all things, but most of the time, earmarks are actually helping the constituents. The whole 'no earmarks' brainbug, is something concoted by Republicans (who ironically pass a lot more earmarks than Democrats).
No, that's not what I said, is it? Earmarks are used by politicians to kill a bill or to give it extra life. And I don't see why bureaucracy has to be expanded to get the job done. How many people do you know in this country that get two months off of their job? Do you? Stick around and get done the jobs you've been elected to do. Running our country isn't a part time job, and they all...democrats and republicans both....treat it as such. Bureaucracy expanding is not a necessary part of getting shit done.
Is there some down side to addressing a single issue? Why would there be a need to tack on spending for support for the homeless to a bill that mostly addresses measures to fight global warming?
My debate analysis:
1. Whats with all the patting eachother on the back? Edwards sounded like he wanted to marry Clinton, Obama, and Richardson.
2. Kidos for the kid who brought up mandatory service. Even more kudos to the candidates who supported it.
3. Why is Gravel in this?
4. Boycott the Olympics? WTF.
Clinton - A good preformance. Her specifics far surpassed any other candidate. She was direct, and often had some good comments. Still, she didn't "wow" me. call it a warm up. A
Obama - Did ok...was a bit too senatorial...needed to be more himself. had some good responses though. He was too unspecific and at the same time dropped his message. B
Biden - nice to see some energy here. he's not a serious candidate imo, but I like what he has to say and he's very direct. The frontrunners should learn from him. B
Richardson - Wow...total let down. For a guy with so much experience, he sounded like he was filling out a questioniare. I thought he migh be VP material...maybe not. D
Edwards - Always kissing @ss or off-topic...referring to questions that were asked three minutes ago. Just flat on most issues. Pwned by Obama. D
Dodd - Nothing very exciting...some interesting perspectives, but not good material imo. D
Kucinich - Great on some issues, but i swear sometimes I think he just wants to re-write the whole damn government. D
Gravel - Totally out of touch. Always off the deep-end. F
When I first heard Richardson mention it, I thought it would be a hollow gesture. Biden was right when he said that this is the time for action when it came to Darfur. Weak rhetoric on Richardson's part.
Something that the Republicans last night did better than the Democrats during the "town hall" debate: THEY ACTUALLY DID SOME STANDING