Cricketics Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 :two_thumbs_up::two_thumbs_up::two_thumbs_up: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desi Cartman Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Obama will win .. Mccain is too old ... budha haai woh ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aditi Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 YES WE CAN! :-D Dems for President! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rajiv Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Not too excited abt this Obama fella Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ludhianvi Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 The Obama vs Hillary duel almost felt like a presidential campaign. It was hyped up so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cricketics Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 The Obama vs Hillary duel almost felt like a presidential campaign. It was hyped up so much. well i don't think it was hyped that grossly. it had it's own power, come on i mean first time a woman was heading and heading pretty rapidly to represent her party for the presidency.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainfade Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Not too excited abt this Obama fella Welcome to the club :)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Can't understand where all the scepticism about Obama is arising from. He ran a principled campaign and stayed away from the Washington lobbies - that in itself is good enough for him to win my support, not to mention an anti-war stance, emphasis on health care, social security, and raising corporate taxes. Really, what else can a guy say in an election campaign. As for delivering on these issues, he can do so only if he is elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainfade Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Can't understand where all the scepticism about Obama is arising from. He ran a principled campaign and stayed away from the Washington lobbies - that in itself is good enough for him to win my support' date=' not to mention an anti-war stance, emphasis on health care, social security, and raising corporate taxes. Really, what else can a guy say in an election campaign. As for delivering on these issues, he can do so only if he is elected.[/quote'] But shouldn't he have done the rounds a bit before he is elected President? It's like asking a surgeon to remove a brain tumor when all he has done is a spinal tap. Scary, if you ask me. He does have great potential, though. To use a cricket analogy, it would be like picking Abhishek Nayar over Subramaniam Badrinath for the test team. Is it worth risking the country's future to find out? In essence you are an optimist for what he can accomplish. I am in wait-and-see mode. I look for his record in the senate - how has he voted? What legislation has he drafted? What is his political record beyond the rhetoric? Very sketchy. As for the anti-war stance, I am still of the opinion that had he been a US Senator in 2002 and privy to the "intelligence" presented to the Congress by the C"I"A, he would not have had the same stance. Like I have always said, it was easy to hold an antiwar opinion if he didn't have the responsibility of voting on the Senate floor. Many Democrats spoke up against the war, but voted to authorize the "C-in-C" to do what he thinks is right after the C"I"A convinced them of the imminent danger. Even I was against the war in 2002 because I didn't have the C"I"A shoving false intelligence down my throat. You may should consider voting for me now! Beyond everything, my skepticism is issue-based. I don't care for him increasing payroll taxes. I don't care for his stance on partial birth abortions. I don't care for him wanting to increase government interference in healthcare (the government has driven up costs by mandating/subsidizing HMOs and messed up Medicare - I have posted ad nauseum about this issue here). I don't care for his trying to "reason with" the Ahmedinejads of the world. I do like his "Patriot employers" tax break for corporations that strive to keep jobs here. But if he ends up increasing corporate taxes all the way around, the costs will be passed on to the consumer, shift jobs overseas, and slow the economy down. Overall, his tax-and-spend strategies will render this country socialist. If you want a real candidate of substance, look for Dr. Ron Paul - a man of accomplishment, a man of principles, a man of vision based on years of experience. Unfortunately, he is too old. You know - in the end - none of this matters. I am not a citizen yet and don't have a vote, but do have an opinion :haha: ... sort of like, well ... Obama vis-a-vis the war in 2002. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 But shouldn't he have done the rounds a bit before he is elected President? It's like asking a surgeon to remove a brain tumor when all he has done is a spinal tap. Scary, if you ask me. He does have great potential, though. To use a cricket analogy, it would be like picking Abhishek Nayar over Subramaniam Badrinath for the test team. Is it worth risking the country's future to find out? I feel experience is an over rated virtue in politics. Some of the most radical and positive changes have been brought about by leaders with limited conventional political experience. Many a times experience has only served to stifle risk taking in politics. In essence you are an optimist for what he can accomplish. I am in wait-and-see mode. I look for his record in the senate - how has he voted? What legislation has he drafted? What is his political record beyond the rhetoric? Very sketchy. He hasn't been a senator for a long enough time to create an impressive senate resume. Many would think of this as a negative for him, and I understand that point, but I wouldn't pay much heed as to what he has done in the senate in his only term. I am willing to back him on potential. And most certainly when the alternative is McCain. As for the anti-war stance, I am still of the opinion that had he been a US Senator in 2002 and privy to the "intelligence" presented to the Congress by the C"I"A, he would not have had the same stance. Like I have always said, it was easy to hold an antiwar opinion if he didn't have the responsibility of voting on the Senate floor. Can't agree with that logic. There were many people who were in favor of the war even when they were not privy to the intelligence and there were a few who voted against it even after being privy to it. Impossible to extrapolate what Obama would have done. Beyond everything, my skepticism is issue-based. I don't care for him increasing payroll taxes. I don't care for his stance on partial birth abortions. I don't care for him wanting to increase government interference in healthcare (the government has driven up costs by mandating/subsidizing HMOs and messed up Medicare - I have posted ad nauseum about this issue here). I don't care for his trying to "reason with" the Ahmedinejads of the world. I do like his "Patriot employers" tax break for corporations that strive to keep jobs here. But if he ends up increasing corporate taxes all the way around, the costs will be passed on to the consumer, shift jobs overseas, and slow the economy down. Overall, his tax-and-spend strategies will render this country socialist. These are all important issues - social, economic, political and for you to say that you don't care about any one of them is perhaps trivializing them a bit. And a bit of a socialist touch to the country won't to the US any harm - these very corporates have played their part in hoodwinking the lower middle class and middle class in the current housing crisis we are facing. A bit of government regulation could perhaps have mitigated the situation earlier and even now the government is intervening - but to save Bear Stearns instead of the average John Doe. You can't have it both ways - if you are off government intervention then let these financial structures tumble and enjoy the disastorous consequences. IMO, it's better for the government to have foresight for an intervention beforehand rather than doing damage control all the time in an economic crisis. Things like $600 back, interest rate cuts by the feds etc. are reactive economics - still government intervention though. If you want a real candidate of substance, look for Dr. Ron Paul - a man of accomplishment, a man of principles, a man of vision based on years of experience. Unfortunately, he is too old. No doubt he would have been a good candidate but the choice was Hillary/Obama/McCain which has narrowed down to Obama-McCain. You know - in the end - none of this matters. I am not a citizen yet and don't have a vote Neither do I.:two_thumbs_up: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainfade Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 A quick clarification I'll try to respond to the rest of your post (unless life gets in the way), but just a quick clarification about this quote: These are all important issues - social, economic, political and for you to say that you don't care about any one of them is perhaps trivializing them a bit. When I said "don't care for", I did not mean "don't care about." I care about these issues, but don't care for (= don't agree with) BHO's position on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Obama is a poster boy. He is the Bill Clinton of mid-2000s, the way Bill was in the 90s. Flamboyance and color. Oration is good and prepared well. He was not so good in debates, quite naturally refused to debate Hillary after NC. ALso, he is not powerful, just like JFK. Without lobbyists, help from power blocks, even a popular president will not survive, I mean even not just politically, just like JFK. It looks like any democrat would win against McCain who seems to be the weakest Republican candidate almost as much as Bob Dole was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 When I said "don't care for", I did not mean "don't care about." I care about these issues, but don't care for (= don't agree with) BHO's position on them. Gotcha! Will reformulate my response if I get some time to cover these issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainfade Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 On a related note, one of these 2 could be McCain's running mate: Sarah Palin, Gov of Alaska Bobby Jindal, Gov of Louisiana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varun Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 :hysterical: @ ^^ .. If this is all that the Repugs are offering, then I seriously doubt that they are trying to win. Maybe they want the Dems to inherit the mess that Bush has created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varun Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 YES WE CAN! :-D Dems for President! Si Se Puede ! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainfade Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 :hysterical: @ ^^ .. If this is all that the Repugs are offering, then I seriously doubt that they are trying to win. Care to explain? On a less serious note - Sarah Palin is at least easy on the eyes; more than can be said for the likes of Hillary, don't ya think :winky: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varun Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Care to explain? On a less serious note - Sarah Palin is at least easy on the eyes; more than can be said for the likes of Hillary, don't ya think :winky: Jindal: The right-wing racist loons are uncomfortable with Obama because he's a bit too "different" , i.e. his skin color, his not being a Christian until adulthood, his strange name. You think they would accept Piyush "Bobby" Jindal ? The only reason I can fathom that they might have him in the reckoning is so that when the Repugs launch racist attacks on Obama being "too different" and get called on it, they can point to Jindal and say that they had him on the shortlist. Sarah Palin: She's not that bad a bet considering the Republicans think that the Dems are divided and are wooing the Clinton vote. Having a moderate Republican woman might not be a bad idea to get that vote. I haven't heard her speak yet and will give you more views when I get time to examine her stance on issues in detail. Either way, I highly doubt the Republicans can pull off a win in November given the state of the party, the mood of the country, and the fact that Grumpy Gramps McCain is at the top of the ticket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Jindal: The right-wing racist loons are uncomfortable with Obama because he's a bit too "different" , i.e. his skin color, his not being a Christian until adulthood, his strange name. You think they would accept Piyush "Bobby" Jindal ? No problem there. This Bobby is one among them right-wing loonies anyway, to begin with. The only reason I can fathom that they might have him in the reckoning is so that when the Repugs launch racist attacks on Obama being "too different" and get called on it, they can point to Jindal and say that they had him on the shortlist. Or to counter the McCain is too old attack from the Dems. Sarah Palin: She's not that bad a bet considering the Republicans think that the Dems are divided and are wooing the Clinton vote. Having a moderate Republican woman might not be a bad idea to get that vote. I haven't heard her speak yet and will give you more views when I get time to examine her stance on issues in detail. Either way, I highly doubt the Republicans can pull off a win in November given the state of the party, the mood of the country, and the fact that Grumpy Gramps McCain is at the top of the ticket Say that again. McCain is too old and weak to be a president. No wonder he lost out to Dubya in 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainfade Posted June 5, 2008 Share Posted June 5, 2008 Jindal: The right-wing racist loons are uncomfortable with Obama because he's a bit too "different" , i.e. his skin color, his not being a Christian until adulthood, his strange name. You think they would accept Piyush "Bobby" Jindal ? The only reason I can fathom that they might have him in the reckoning is so that when the Repugs launch racist attacks on Obama being "too different" and get called on it, they can point to Jindal and say that they had him on the shortlist. Sarah Palin: She's not that bad a bet considering the Republicans think that the Dems are divided and are wooing the Clinton vote. Having a moderate Republican woman might not be a bad idea to get that vote. I haven't heard her speak yet and will give you more views when I get time to examine her stance on issues in detail. She's not moderate. She's a strong fiscal and social conservative (but not a religious zealot). She has reduced taxes and cut spending. She is strongly pro-life. All of these qualities make her an attractive candidate, IMO. A perfect blend of politics and pulchritude :winky: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts