7 Lucky Pages of

YES WE CAN

2/20/2008 12:05:37 PM

terpball,

1) I am not calling Obama a socialist. In fact, the whole point of my post is that his proposal is NOTHING like the systems they have in France or Canada (which I would call "socialized"). That's why neither his nor Hillary Clinton's proposals will do much to lower costs.

2) Just because health care "needs to be fixed", that doesn't mean that Obama's plan is the best way to go or that it will be substantially improved through the legislative process. McCain has at least made it clear that his goal is to lower costs. Obama and Hillary have made it clear their main concern is expanding coverage, which they hope will lower costs through prevenative medicine.

but Hey, this campaign is all about hope right? So why can't we hope Obama will be a better President than he has been as a Presidential Candidate?

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 12:29 PM. Reason : ``]

2/20/2008 12:16:01 PM

I think he's been an excellent candidate, he has been running a pretty brilliant campaign. He obviously knows how to organize and raise money. I can't wait to see him take on McCain, it'll be great.

2/20/2008 12:25:50 PM

hey socks``

didja hear? 10 in a row.

hillary and her negative attack machine is going down.

2/20/2008 12:26:10 PM

terpball,

Good for him. But on policy he has been lousy. As I have said before, his health care reform package is ill concieved, his position on global warming is confused, and his position on Iraq is unclear at best and at worst will only leave the mess in Iraq and hope it doesn't bite us in the ass.

That guy is all about hope.

2/20/2008 12:33:53 PM

Quote :

"Kainen, Ethnic hatred? LOL. So saying someone's name is now ethnic hatred. Arent you taking this PC bullshit to the next level. Of all the shit this man says and proposes things we cant support, you attack me on his middle name? Typical"

Dude that line is vapid. You know, just as I and everyone else in this tread knows....you highlight his middle name for a reason. Lest we not forget his name sounds like TERRORISM!

2/20/2008 12:47:11 PM

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 12:48 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2008 12:47:26 PM

Quote :

"Dude that line is vapid. You know, just as I and everyone else in this tread knows....you highlight his middle name for a reason. Lest we not forget his name sounds like TERRORISM! "

I didnt highlight is middle name. I used his initials, look back if you need to. Besides, that is his fucking name and his initials.

mark, you made a reasonable arguement in your last post, you actually showed that you have thought about thier proposals, I respect that.

The govt will not come out with its own plan. It will simply supply the money to private insurances to provide "the governement program". My point is that if they force the insurance companies to accept everyone, what would be the need for the young and healthy to buy it if not forced? Its like being able to buy life ins. after someone has died.

Im just trying to show you the differences between auto ins and health, and if the govt forced people to fix your car for free, people wouldnt be buying it.

2/20/2008 1:16:12 PM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8605.html

this is getting really weird.

I don't get it. I wish I did, but I can't understand wanting to vote for someone based on charisma and no substance.

It must be nice to suspend all rational thought and jump on the Obama train. I will have to consider it.




[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 3:34 PM. Reason : fail]

2/20/2008 3:26:59 PM

i don't know why it's such a mystery

we're a society based on catch phrases and marketing

2/20/2008 3:47:18 PM

^ the winz

2/20/2008 4:06:47 PM

quit dodging me in every thread and answer my question.

2/20/2008 4:07:48 PM

What was the question?

2/20/2008 4:13:12 PM

the question about Hillary and Kosovo.

2/20/2008 4:14:20 PM

That she allegedy mispronounced Kosovo?

2/20/2008 4:15:17 PM

No. It isn't about a mispronunciation. Rather, her statement about Kosovo's Independence was a major error in judgment on her part. By calling it Kosova, she is blatantly being anti-Serb. At a time in which it is necessary to normalize relations with Serbia, as strong Serbia is important to the security of Europe and the world, most notably in the War on Terror. Not only did she call it Kosova, which is a major slight at Serbia, but she also refuses to acknowledge the day-to-day realities of the Balkans.

Hillary was being thoroughly undiplomatic and it only serves to be more evidence of her foreign policy failures and short-sightedness. Is this really being able to be Commander and Chief on day one?

2/20/2008 4:27:40 PM

sputter, I agree. Its scary that people are crying over a lawyer and politician. If that ever happens to me, Ill seek therapy.

THe qoutes from cloney and berry made me laugh. I can see the comparisions between hilter that some have drawn with those idiots making statements like they did.

2/20/2008 4:39:50 PM

Quote :

"Its scary that people are crying over a lawyer and politician"

unless this lawyer and politician was a republican - then i'm sure you'd jump for joy, scream like a little girl, then bust a nut all over the place whenever you saw John McCain.

2/20/2008 4:43:24 PM

I see. Well that all sounds very bad.
Though I do not keep up with politics in the Balkans.

2/20/2008 4:43:30 PM

If she is going to make the comment about being ready to lead on day 1, then it is imperative that she understand it.

When the statements between Obama and Clinton are compared, there is no way you can walk away and claim she has a better understanding of Foreign Policy.

2/20/2008 4:45:54 PM

nutsmakr,

I see. Obama is more fit to lead because Hillary said "Kosova" instead of "Kosovo" and that demonstrates an diplomatic ignorance on her part that can't be over come. Well, I'll take your word for it.

terpball,

I'm normally a Democrat and even I find the Obama-fanatics creepy.
This isn't Democrat v. Republican. It's Brutus v. Mark Antony (read your Shakespeare).

2/20/2008 4:51:25 PM

socks, my post was in no way directed to you

so... take your shakespeare and shove it up your ass

2/20/2008 4:53:31 PM

Quote :

"i'm sure you'd jump for joy, scream like a little girl, then bust a nut all over the place whenever you saw John McCain. "

Oh yeah. John McCain does it for me. LOL

I doubt I could ever find myself emotional over a politician. Although I imagine BHO will bring me many tears over the next 4 yrs when I get whatever he deams I need out of my paycheck.

2/20/2008 4:54:58 PM

Sometimes I wonder why I try so hard.

2/20/2008 4:54:59 PM

^^ Who knows, maybe something good could happen? Perhaps we'll have an administration that, instead of scaring your vote to force troops into a deadly moneymachine for a few people's private contracting companies, we'll have an administration that actually does what the majority of Americans want it to do!

2/20/2008 5:07:58 PM

^ Because the only reasonable point of comparison is George W Bush.

I'm actually expecting things to go like they did with JFK. There'll be a lot of good speeches and a lot of "glamour", but no major policy changes will be made.

Why? Because politics is ugly and dirty. It requires horse-trading and compromising. And Messiahs don't compromise.

2/20/2008 5:13:15 PM

Quote :

"socks`` : I see. Well that all sounds very bad. Though I do not keep up with politics in the Balkans."

wait, what?

youre the one in here constantly howling about you want "substance" "debate" "policy" "issues" and "details"

youre the one in here constantly howling about how other people here are only paying attention to "feel-good rhetoric"

and now you say you dont "keep up" with the single place in the world that has been the focal point of two major world wars, a bloody civil war, and the second worst documented case of state-sponsored genocide ... all in just the 20th century alone?



fuck dude, I wonder why we even try so hard

2/20/2008 5:13:21 PM

Quote :

"^ Because the only reasonable point of comparison is George W Bush."

I was actually talking about McCain, but I see how it's easy to get the 2 confused

2/20/2008 5:17:46 PM

Quote :

"Why? Because politics is ugly and dirty. It requires horse-trading and compromising. And Messiahs don't compromise."

wrong.

Hillary is the one who doesn't compromise.

Obama has been involved in numerous bipartisan legislative efforts both in the US Senate and in the Illinois State Senate.

no one seems to think Obama is some kind of messiah except for the screechy Hillary fans and the scared republicans. On the contrary, he's a damn smart motherfucker who still has enough common sense and humility to listen to the opposing sides, and even admit when he's wrong. if that's a fucking political messiah, then i think we need a few of them.

2/20/2008 5:18:39 PM

Quote :

"I see. Obama is more fit to lead because Hillary said "Kosova" instead of "Kosovo" and that demonstrates an diplomatic ignorance on her part that can't be over come. Well, I'll take your word for it."

If you were to put your hate stick down for one moment, and actually read the statements release by both individuals about Kosovo, you'd see what I am talking about. It is blatantly clear, however, that you would rather be a Clintonista hack

2/20/2008 5:21:28 PM

Joe Schmoe,

What do you mean by "be involved". Help me out here. Obama has sponsored 63 bill, 3 of which have been passed by the Senate. Here they are:

Quote :

" [110th] S.CON.RES.25 : A concurrent resolution condemning the recent violent actions of the Government of Zimbabwe against peaceful opposition party activists and members of civil society. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 3/29/2007) [110th] S.RES.133 : A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 3/28/2007) [110th] S.RES.268 : A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day". Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 7/11/2007)"

http://thomas.loc.gov/

Are these the major efforts you were talking about? If not, what were they?

Please help me. Point to some examples.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 5:48 PM. Reason : ``]

2/20/2008 5:39:12 PM

Quote :

"we'll have an administration that actually does what the majority of Americans want it to do! "

Which is give them free shit it sounds like.


Obama was voted the most liberal senator and has a history of voting straight dem 97% of the time. His talk about working together is just that. If that is an important issue for you, vote mccain. Its one of the reasons I dont like him, but he sure does work with the other side alot if that really matters to you.

Socks, you forgot his Global Fight on Poverty which hands over control of a percentage of our GDP to the UN to battle poverty. Because nothing cures poverty like throwing more money at it.

Ron Paul has one of the best lines Ive heard. " You want more of something, let the govt subsidize it."

2/20/2008 6:14:11 PM

Quote :

"Obama was voted the most liberal senator and has a history of voting straight dem 97% of the time. His talk about working together is just that. If that is an important issue for you, vote mccain. Its one of the reasons I dont like him, but he sure does work with the other side alot if that really matters to you."

You do understand that voting as a senator is a completely different job than being the president, right?

2/20/2008 6:23:57 PM

^ See? More Hope! We'll HOPE he'll be more bi-partisan as President than he has been as Senator!!!

YES WE CAN
YES WE CAN
YES WE CAN

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 6:32 PM. Reason : Hope Springs Eternal.]

2/20/2008 6:26:47 PM

Quote :

"Obama was voted the most liberal senator and has a history of voting straight dem 97% of the time"

you do understand that until 2006, the Reps had both houses of Congress, so he would have to vote straight Dem to give us some semblance of balance in politics?

2/20/2008 7:08:52 PM

Socks``,

don't be so disingenuous. it really doesn't look good, and it plays into the stereotype of bitter and angry Clinton supporters.

now instead of focusing on these lesser bills (bills that every senator and congressman are involved in for their constituents), how about you focus on some of the truly important bipartisan legislation that Sen. Obama has sponsored:

S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (15)

S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology , and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (3)

S.433 : A bill to state United States policy for Iraq, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 1/30/2007) Cosponsors (3)

S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 1/31/2007) Cosponsors (20)

S.674 : A bill to require accountability and enhanced congressional oversight for personnel performing private security functions under Federal contracts, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 2/16/2007) Cosponsors (4)

S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 2/28/2007) Cosponsors (34)



that's just the first two months in 2007.

and here you are trying to paint him as an ineffectual legislator who passes only frivolous bills. you really had to look hard for that, didn't you. probably almost as hard as Hillary's staffers had to look to find where Obama had riffed on a line from Pat Deval's speech.

do you wonder why people are rejecting your candidate? perhaps you should find a better model to emulate.



[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 8:00 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2008 7:57:37 PM

I'm gonna have to side with Socks" here. Sponsoring bills doesn't mean shit if you can't even get them passed in a democrat-controlled congress.

Every new candidate campaigns on hope, ideology and change. The reality is that Washington doesn't move that fast, and he'll have nothing but excuses and unfulfilled promises by the end of his term if he gets elected. For all his rhetoric about bringing people together, he's delusional if he thinks he can bring congress along with his ideologically driven platform.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 8:15 PM. Reason : 2]

2/20/2008 8:12:54 PM

do you have ANY IDEA the likelihood of getting a bill passed, by any member of congress?

do you have any idea how many bills just by their very nature get bogged down in committee?

find me a freshman senator who has gotten a number of bills passed

2/20/2008 8:21:50 PM

^ I was not being disingenious. Those are honestly the only bills Obama has sponsored that passed the Senate.

You list ones he's sponsored, but that have not passed.
Are you saying that simply introducing a bill signifies an achievement?

Yes, it's very hard to get a bill passed, but you claimed he's been a part of major legislative efforts.
What are they?

PS* Prawn Star has it right.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 8:56 PM. Reason : ``]

2/20/2008 8:42:34 PM

2/20/2008 8:49:29 PM

As Keith Olberman said last night, can you name any significant accomplishment by Congress the last 8 years?

2/20/2008 10:14:15 PM

^ Does that mean you agree Obama has not made any significant accomplishments as a US Senator? That you would disagree with Joe Schmoe?

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 10:25 PM. Reason : ``]

2/20/2008 10:21:23 PM

No, I am saying that you would be challenged to find many legislators that have had a long list of major accomplishments. He has been at the forefront on many significant bills since the day he entered the Senate, including several bills cosponsored with McCain. Also, his legislative career is in fact longer than Hilary's if you count State legislative experience (surely it counts more than First Lady). Either way, you have just Senators left, and legislative experience certainly does not translate directly to success as a President.

2/20/2008 10:39:53 PM

Wow. The language chaanges from "significant accomplishments" (which you claim don't exist) to being at the "forefront" of significant bills (which doesn't have a clear meaning). Care to share any examples? Or to define what you mean by being at the forefront?

But you're probably right about legislative experience not being important.
So what is?
Why do you support Obama?

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 10:54 PM. Reason : ``]

2/20/2008 10:50:39 PM

why do you keep asking?

the answer is clear

this nation was founded on abstract ideas

a new paradigm shift wants to occur

better or worse, it's the future

go rome

2/21/2008 12:35:23 AM

If you seriously think Obama hasn't had any legislative accomplishments and no actual ideas on how to lead then please read this thanks in advance

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

[Edited on February 21, 2008 at 1:35 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2008 1:35:14 PM

Does the lady in the picture above remind anyone of the lephrechan in that horrible horror movie with jenn aniston?

She looks like she is going to eat his face.

2/21/2008 1:48:22 PM

no

2/21/2008 2:05:47 PM

11 straight: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hUPSXLSf9BMjfyPSCc2sdK8RtV8QD8UUQMM02

2/21/2008 2:13:18 PM

ActionPants,

Kos did exactly the same thing I did. It all depends on how you spin the results.

Obama's "legislative accomplishments", as listed by Kos, amount to a list of AMMENDMENTS he made to other people's bills. And he ONLY compares Obama's and Hillary's records for the 110th congress. He apparently doesn't care what Hillary was doing for the majority of the past decade, while Obama was making nice speeches.

Now, If making ammendments to other people's bill counts as "leadership" in Kos' book, well I hope he never googles John McCain. The man will wet his fucking pants.

While Obama makes ammendments to other people's bills, John McCain leads a bi-partisan fights on Climate Change, Soft Money, Torture. You know, the stuff Obama waxes so philosophical about. And McCain has done so at great political risk (how many Republicans have standed up to Bush like McCain has).

Now, none of McCain's efforts have been perfect. There have been losses and compromises. But THAT'S fucking politics. It's not pretty or inspiring or winner-take-all. It's ugly and boring and about give and take. And I can't see Obama getting his hands dirty like that.

That's exactly why he will never get anything accomplished if gets into office.

[Edited on February 21, 2008 at 3:58 PM. Reason : ``]

2/21/2008 3:53:00 PM