Barrack Obama -- Do you still see him as the second coming?

[J. Wagner B]

After learning about the friends he keeps (unrepentant weathermen underground), the man he considers "his spiritual guide and mentor," his economic policies that will lead to an economy that would make the gas line days during the Carter administration feel like a holiday, his foreign policy that will bring laughter to our enemies and tears to our friends, have you changed your mind about him or do you still see him as the second coming?

Hope and change are wonderful slogans, but they are not very specific. Hope for what? What kind of change?

tashi deleks,

J. Wagner B.

[tchii]

Gee, seeing how well things have worked out with the Bush administration, I can't imagine why anyone would want to vote anything else but republican. I mean, what with the illegal occupation of Iraq going so well, the planning for other wars, the price of food, gas etc. I can't see how it could get much better! We don't need no stinkin change, we need to keep the status quo. We need to keep putting off paying our bills so that our children will have the opportunity to pay them. Or they can simply learn from us and put off paying their bills so that their children can pay for their follies as well! Plus most likely, they'll have the opportunity to learn chinese and (as our president would say) mexican, so they'll certainly be more multi-cultural. Just imagine the benefits!
So boy am I worried about what other people than Barack Obama have to say or are all about. Don't watch the man in front of you. Don't pay attention to how each individual acts during the debates. And for God's sake, don't watch any other channels than fox news, nor travel out of the country to any other place (like Europe, especially not France) and whatever you do, don't consider your own situation or think for yourself.
Just do whatever the new channels, especially fox news tells you and everything will be just as it is if not more so....

Namaste J. Wagner B.,
tchii

[J. Wagner B]

Why Hello Tchii,

It's been so long since we have heard from you, I hope all is well with you.

"Gee, seeing how well things have worked out with the Bush administration, I can't imagine why anyone would want to vote anything else but republican."

Considering what the Bush administration was up against things have gone well. Not perfect, but much much better than it could have gone. It inherited an economic recession from Clinton and then was attacked on 9/11. Thanks to the Bush tax cuts we were able to get out of that recession, withstand the economic damage caused by 9/11 and even increase tax revenues. And in spite of the wars costs we are spending less on the military in relation to GNP (4%) when comparing it to the Kennedy or the Reagan administrations.

"I mean, what with the illegal"

False

"occupation"

It was a liberation from the Saddam regime with its mass graves and support of terrorists. Remember Saddam gave $24,000 to the families of any suicide bomber in Israel. The list of known terrorists living in Iraq before the invasion is long and well established.

"of Iraq going so well,"

Yes, now that "The Surge" is in place things are going well over there. Of course, if Barrack gets elected (which the terrorists and Iran are hoping for) he'll bring the boys home. That'll make you feel better, but blood will run in the Middle East and America will never be trusted again in that part of the world. If you really want to understand what is going on in Iraq go to iraqstatusreport.com rather than moveon.org.

"the planning for other wars,"

Ah, what other wars? Though I do hope that our generals in the Pentagon are thinking and planning for any and all possible future wars. That is one of the reasons they are there.

"the price of food, gas etc."

One of the major reasons for the rising price of food has to do with the mandates on biofuels. The rising price of gas has to do with world demand (China and India) and speculators of the market. Do a little research rather than quote party line.

"I can't see how it could get much better!"

I do see how it could get better, but Barrack is not the answer.

"We don't need no stinkin change, we need to keep the status quo."

I do not want the status quo, but neither do I want the package the Democrats are selling. Of the three contenders McCain is the better choice. Though I wouldn't call myself a strong McCain supporter. He is just better than Obama or Hillary. Better in character and better in policies.

"We need to keep putting off paying our bills so that our children will have the opportunity to pay them. Or they can simply learn from us and put off paying their bills so that their children can pay for their follies as well!"

"There you go again." The same silly rhetoric that was thrown at Reagan. Did you know that Barrack said he wants to raise capital gains taxes and that when it was pointed out to him that by doing so the tax revenues would be less not more he was fine with that? The usual petty class envy warfare that does not help anyone and does not help the American people.

"Plus most likely, they'll have the opportunity to learn chinese and (as our president would say) mexican, so they'll certainly be more multi-cultural. Just imagine the benefits!"

You're understanding of economics is very poor. The American economy has grown under Bush. It has grown the equivalent of a whole new Chinese economy. The pie has grown, not just our share of the pie -- the whole pie is bigger because of the American economy. Still, learning Chinese would be a great benefit for anyone -- I could read Sun Tzu, Lao Tzu, and the I Ching in the original. That would be cool!

"So boy am I worried about what other people than Barack Obama have to say or are all about."

I do watch and listen to what Barrack has to say and I have read his policy positions and they are not good for the American economy, American foreign policy, or the American people. What he proposes amounts to a spending increases of around 300 million (or was that billion) a year, higher taxes for everyone (rich, middle class and poor), and the terrorists in Iraq claiming that they defeated and chased the Americans out of Iraq.

"Don't watch the man in front of you. Don't pay attention to how each individual acts during the debates."

Barrack doesn't want to do any more debates. He did not do very well in the last one with Hillary and now that it is getting closer he's afraid that the media has run out of the puff questions.

"And for God's sake, don't watch any other channels than fox news,

Petty rhetoric and talking point lies gets you nowhere."

"nor travel out of the country to any other place (like Europe, especially not France) and whatever you do,"

Did you know that the French were even more anti-American right after WW II? Its a long tradition of theirs, nothing new. Funny how those nations with the memory of being under the yoke of the Soviets love America and love Bush.

"don't consider your own situation or think for yourself.

LOL! I am not the one blinded by an image or buying into a cult of personality.

"Just do whatever the new channels, especially fox news tells you and everything will be just as it is if not more so...."

LOL! Your projecting again tchii and you haven't got a clue.

Namaste and tashi deleks tchii

J. Wagner B

PS- Now its your turn to reply with more of your lies and blind rhetoric.

[tchii]

It's true what they say: The blind leading the blind!
I'm sorry, but before I start supplying links and facts, I think you should. Anybody who still believes this current administration is doing a bang up job is either rich, somewhat retarded, or just scared sh*tless of the so-called terrorist threat.
Mr J. Wagner B says I haven't got a clue, but in this new forum, my posts are not available (see old lightmind look-up tchii posts!), yet back in the beginning of this fiasco that J. Wagner B blindly supports, I knew that the invasion of Iraq was going to be a quagmire vs the so-called experts who claimed variously that the war would only cost 30 billion and would only last a few months and that we would be greeted as liberators etc etc etc.
What was the Bush administration up against? Nothing until they completely failed in their primary responsibility, ie protecting the people of the US. No sir, with headlines like: "U.S. Outlook Is Worst Since '92, Poll Finds" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2...) the onus is on you to provide reasons why it's not. Apparently 71% of the population of this country thinks this administration, specifically this president, has done a bad job.
For the first time in modern history, the European Union has a higher GNP than the US!
You can say this or that, but nobody is believing that line of bs anymore, except for that hard core 29% that still support this president and his administration.
Finally, if it's possible, remember what McCain said and preached in 2000 and what he's saying and preaching now....he appears to be a Hillary Clinton clone in that he has abandoned (betrayed) his previous positions (I would have actually voted for McCain had he won in 2000) in order to get elected, certainly losing my respect for him and I suspect many others who may actually be paying attention.
I cannot wait to see Barack debate McCain.

Namaste J Wagner B

[J. Wagner B]

Hello tchii,

>It's true what they say: The blind leading the blind!

Which is the reason you will vote for Barack Obama. Following a Cult of Personality.

>I'm sorry, but before I start supplying links and facts, I think you should.

Why? You are the one making the claims. You are the one who brought up GW, Republicans, and etc. Why should I supply links for your false accusations?

>Anybody who still believes this current administration is doing a bang up job is either rich, somewhat retarded, or just scared sh*tless of the so-called terrorist threat.

In the extremist liberal lexicon, anyone who refuses to accept party doctrine are either 'rich, retarded, or scared sh*tless.'

>Mr J. Wagner B says I haven't got a clue, but in this new forum, my posts are not available (see old lightmind look-up tchii posts!),

We have read your past posts on the old forum and you were just as delusional than as you present yourself now. Its not like we haven't played this game before tchii.

>yet back in the beginning of this fiasco that J. Wagner B blindly supports,

No Sir I did not blindly support, I supported the invasion of Iraq with eyes wide open. Saddam was a tyrant who had killed around two million of his own people, some with biochemical weapons of mass destruction which he also used on his enemies. The terror of his regime may have only been an echo compared to the magnitude of the horror of his heroes Hitler and Stalin, but the terror forced upon the Iraqis was no different in kind or type. Hitler and Stalin were evil, but neither of them employed an official state rapist with benefits and good health insurance like Saddam. Usually they were used to rape the daughters or wife of some guy Saddam or his sons or some Baathists wanted to punish. He was either forced to watch as it happened or the official state rapist would video the rape and give him a copy later. We now know the full extent of Saddam's corrupting and compromising of the UN 'Food for Oil' program. Saddam was making around 30 billion a year. That's B as in Billion. Its not like he was ever in compliance with any of the 17 UN resolutions. Pre-invasion, pre-9/11 the choir to lift the sanctions against Iraq was getting larger and louder. They kept saying that the US backed sanctions (they were UN sanctions) against Iraq were killing millions of Iraqi children every years. I believe that the reasons millions of Iraqi children died was because the Saddam regime was corrupt and did not care if Iraqi children died when they stole the monies meant for medicine. All the signs were there that the sanctions were going to be lifted. If the sanctions had been lifted he would have gone right back to seeking to secure nuclear weapons -- all of the programs were in place and ready to continue. I have already pointed out how Saddam publicly supported terrorist activity in the region -- giving $24,000 dollars to the families of suicide bombers. Unlike very poor young Kim of North Korea, Saddam sat on top of one of the largest oil reserves in the region (if we had allowed him to keep Kuwait he would have had the largest). The Iraqi government was broke, but Saddam was cash rich. In a playground for his sons and him to terrorize all and any within there reach. We now also know that Uda, one of Saddam's sons, kidnapped, beaten, raped, and killed at least twenty or thirty young girls that he would have picked up from the university or in the surrounding areas of Baghdad. This he did for pleasure.

After Gulf War I we encouraged the Iraqis to revolt, when the Shiite in the south and some of the Kurds in the north did we sat back and watched the Baathist Party massacre Shiites and Kurds. We cheered for the Iraqi Shiites and the Kurds, but we did not lend a hand. Eventually we put up the no fly zones, but the damage had been done and Saddam was back in control of the country. The way we evaluate threats to our interests radically changed after 9/11. For so many reasons I supported invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power.

>I knew that the invasion of Iraq was going to be a quagmire vs the so-called experts who claimed variously that the war would only cost 30 billion and would only last a few months and that we would be greeted as liberators etc etc etc.

iraqstatusreport.com

For those who want the FACTS about what is going on in Iraq rather than party talking points.

>What was the Bush administration up against?

The first crisis was trying to get every one of the Bush administration personal into their new positions in government. The stupidity of the 2000 election delayed the process of turning over the government to the new administration by months. The first "international crisis" Bush had to deal with was the incident with the Chinese Air Force jet that crashed into our 707(?) spy plane, which was then forced to land -- at a Chinese Air Force base.

>Nothing until they completely failed in their primary responsibility, ie protecting the people of the US.

The 9/11 operation was set up during the Clinton administration. Policies set up by the Clinton administration made it very difficult for those who knew of the real threats out there to talk to those who could do something about it. Remember the so-called "Wall" that kept the CIA from talking to the FBI? Prior to 9/11 Bush never had the opportunity to take out Ben Laden, Clinton passed on a few opportunities. The one who is primarily responsible for the attacks of 9/11 is Osama Ben Laden.

>No sir, with headlines like: "U.S. Outlook Is Worst Since '92, Poll Finds" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2...) the onus is on you to provide reasons why it's not.

Please tell me how an OPINION POLL is real news or the equivalent of an examination of the facts about the economy, or the current conditions in Iraq, or the obvious lack of knowledge your hoped for president has shown about historical events?

>Apparently 71% of the population of this country thinks this administration, specifically this president, has done a bad job.

Opinions fad and change with the winds, Bush hatred is in vogue. Millions of people think Dancing with the Stars is worth watching. The Wizard of Oz bombed in the movie theaters, but now it is watched by millions of Americans every year.

>For the first time in modern history, the European Union has a higher GNP than the US!

Well, it's good to see that the EU with the 200 million extra citizens to put to work than the US has, is finally doing so well.

>You can say this or that, but nobody is believing that line of bs anymore, except for that hard core 29% that still support this president and his administration.

The only this or thats I throw around are facts. You know ... facts, those things you ignore.

>Finally, if it's possible, remember what McCain said and preached in 2000 and what he's saying and preaching now....he appears to be a Hillary Clinton clone in that he has abandoned (betrayed) his previous positions (I would have actually voted for McCain had he won in 2000) in order to get elected, certainly losing my respect for him and I suspect many others who may actually be paying attention.

Not really sure what you are referring to -- what positions did he have in 2000 that he has betrayed? McCain appears to me to be acting like the same old McCain -- pissing of conservatives, making liberals laugh, and for the most part, in government, getting what he wants. This Nov. will be the first time I vote for McCain.

>I cannot wait to see Barack debate McCain.

Yea : ) that will be fun to watch. Barack has been showing his complete ignorance about foreign policy and American-International history over the last couple of weeks, since he got all hot and bothered about Bush's speech before the Israeli government, (a speech which had nothing to do with Barack). Barack has almost gone out of his way to show how ignorant he is about John F. Kennedy meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, I believe a year before the Cuban Missile Crisis. From which Nikita thought Kennedy was weak, which was one of the factors in the decision of Nikitia's to send nukes to Cuba. During the Cuban Missile Crisis Kennedy called and presented photographic proof of Soviet missiles in Cuba to the UN and then set up a naval blockade of Cuba and told Nikita to remove the missiles. There was some back room dealing but Nikita did remove them. Mostly I think Nikita thought Fidel Castro was a lunatic and he wanted to get the missiles as far away from Castro as he could. During the Cuban Missile Crisis we never "talked" directly. Most of the US Soviet communications went through the Embassy in Washington, DC or at the UN in New York. At the presidential level we never sat down with the Soviets unless we had already got what we came for. One of the few exceptions to that rule is the other example Barack has been giving of the US meetings with its enemies. Reagan meeting Gorbachev. Reagan had said no to meetings with the past premiers of the Soviet Union, they kept dying. Reagan met Gorbachev from a position of strengthen. Gorbachev had already instituted both perestroika (economic 'restructuring') and glasnost 'openness' policies within the Soviet Union. The Soviets were also worried about Pershing missiles in Europe and Reagan's Star Wars. Reagan walked out on the meeting. Gorbachev wasn't ready to deal, so Reagan announced well then there is no reason for me to be here and left. Reagan never sat down with a Soviet leader without either knowing what he was going to accomplish or knowing what he was going to get.

Barack's descriptions of these historical events are not only a different interpretive point of view, they are a whole new narratives with their own new context and even new facts that support his world view and his 'idea' about foreign policy. : )

tashi deleks,

J. Wagner B.

[Mike Jamieson]

I've had 10 and a half hours of close up with Obama. Including about two hours privately with
fellow precinct captains.

My answer to your question is "no".

Carter would never go into the tribal regions of Pakistan to hunt down and kill Osama
without Pakistani approval. Obama will do so. (And, was called naive, irresponsible and
reckless for this.)

Your post predates Obama's break with his former pastor, when the pastor basicly called
Obama a phoney.

[J. Wagner B]

Hello Mike,

Sorry that I did not reply, I was having too much fun with tchii and then had some personal duties that kept me away from the computer.

I am curious what you thought of Obama after spending time with him? While you answered my question with a "no" I wonder if you will still vote for him?

>Carter would never go into the tribal regions of Pakistan to hunt down and kill Osama
without Pakistani approval. Obama will do so. (And, was called naive, irresponsible and
reckless for this.)

Not only would it be reckless and irresponsible to invade an ally without their approval for one person, in the case of Pakistan it could likely destabilize the Pakistani authority and possibly lead to its downfall. While we may wish for a more honorable and just leadership in Pakistan ignoring their authority undermines it and gives an opening to a possible coup that would give nuclear weapons to a far more dangerous band of fanatics. All for one person? I and everyone else would love to see Osama captured or killed, but his removal now will not change the current dynamics of the war on terror in any real way. Osama has become a figurehead without any real operational command. The US effort has either killed or captured around 75% of the original Al Qaeda leadership. Yes, there has been a resurgence in membership, but they no longer have the operational experience or training the originals had. They are also tied down in Iraq and loosing, Al Qaeda has stated that Iraq is their main and most important battlefield against the US. Yes, I know there was not a large Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before the invasion, though there was some, but by invading Iraq the US had chosen the battlefield, rather than have it chosen for us by the enemy. I'd rather have our boys fighting in Iraq than in downtown New York City. And such a fight would be more like what Israel faces on a nearly daily basis than any kind of conventional battle. My parents live in New York City. My Dad had an office in the WTC, tower 2 if I remember correctly. My stepmother watched the second plane hit through the window of their apartment.

>Your post predates Obama's break with his former pastor, when the pastor basicly called
Obama a phoney.

That is the only thing I agree with Wright about. After going through most of the material on Barrack's website and watching/reading his speeches, recognizing the leftist ideology underlying Barrack's rhetoric, and seeing how ignorant he is about economics, foreign policy, and US history my only conclusion is that Obama is either a phony or an empty suit. ; )

Thank you for answering my question and tashi deleks,

J. Wagner B.

[tchii]

Sundance "You just keep on thinking there Butch, that's what you're good at. "
Butch "Australia, I thought you secretly wanted to know...."

Butch "For a minute there I thought we were in real trouble!"
...

If we could just vote in one more republican president, I believe that they could really finish the job!

It's been almost 8 years now of republican rule and you can really tell how well they governed by the state of the nation today!

Yep what we need now is another 8 years of Republican rule to keep on the track we're on now! YeeHaw!
Where's Beetlejuice when you need him?
Damn where's that book, what to do when you're dead, or was it how to cope with the living..wait a minute, what? You mean I'm not dead and gone to hell yet...then where the hell am I?

Namaste J. Wagner

[tchii]

PS. I have a new slogan that I'm sure will win the hearts and minds of those who are unsure whether to vote for McCain or not:

If you're insane in the membrane,
Vote McCain!

Namaste J. Wagner

[J. Wagner B]

Hello tchii,

Sundance "You just keep on thinking there Butch, that's what you're good at. "
Butch "Australia, I thought you secretly wanted to know...."

Butch "For a minute there I thought we were in real trouble!"
...
O k a y. Great movie.

If we could just vote in one more republican president, I believe that they could really finish the job!

Its the nature of government that the job will never be finished. Voting Republican is not that important to me. Voting for the better candidate is what's important. Obama is not the better candidate. He has no experience worthy of serious consideration (a couple of years as a US Senator, a few as a State Senator, and a few as a community activist). The policies (higher taxes and higher government spending) he promotes have historically not helped the economy. They have all been tried before and they have failed each and every time. His foreign policy recommendations will not help national security -- 'talking' to our enemies (such as the JFK-Khrushchev meeting Obama keeps using as an example and completely gets wrong) only legitimizes our enemies and makes us appear weak in their eyes. And considering his friends and spiritual mentors his judgment is not worth our trust. Obama is a radical leftist right out of the 60s. All rhetoric, all image, no substance, no character.

It's been almost 8 years now of republican rule and you can really tell how well they governed by the state of the nation today!

Am I happy with the Republicans? No. Because of the Republicans in Congress the Democrat Party should've been able to guarantee a win across the board. The Democrat Party has nearly gone out of their way to ruin their own edge of a win that should have been easy. Considering what Bush has had to deal with the state of the nation today is very good. Even with the beginnings of the economic downturn the nation is doing good. Look at the numbers tchii, don't regurgitate party talking point lies you have memorized.

Yep what we need now is another 8 years of Republican rule to keep on the track we're on now!

I am no fan of McCain. But I recognize just how much better he is compared to Obama.

YeeHaw!
Where's Beetlejuice when you need him?
Damn where's that book, what to do when you're dead, or was it how to cope with the living..wait a minute, what? You mean I'm not dead and gone to hell yet...then where the hell am I?

Namaste J. Wagner

PS. I have a new slogan that I'm sure will win the hearts and minds of those who are unsure whether to vote for McCain or not:

If you're insane in the membrane,
Vote McCain!

I know the only reason you reply with these inane petty and insulting posts is because you have nothing of substance to fall back on. You cannot explain your rational logical reasoning for supporting Obama, because you have none. You support Obama for wholly emotional reasons -- mostly out of your hatred of everyone not accepting your leftist worldview. Every feeble attempt you make at giving reasons, you fall back on talking points and lies given to you by others. So I will challenge you to give specifics --
What qualities, experience, examples of good judgment does Obama exhibit that you believe make him worthy of become our president?
What policies have Obama put forth that you believe will help America and what evidence (historical or otherwise) do you have that leads you to believe that they can help America?
What specific indicators lead you to believe that the state of the nation is so horrible today?

Lies and moveon.org talking points will not be accepted. Thank you. : )

tashi deleks,

J. Wagner B.

[Mike Jamieson]

This seems like a great thread to post relevant updates.

First, J. Wagner B., let me clarify: yes, I support Obama. Been volunteering since
March 2007! And, at noon on this coming Monday, I will be feeding 17 fresh, brand new
"Obama Organizing Fellows" who are receiving training (three days of it) in organizing.
They commit to 6 weeks of volunteering. 3600 are being trained in 17 states on Sat., Sun.,
and Mon. 10,000 had applied.

Also, most of you have probably caught this url on the news, but just in case:
http://www.fightthesmears.com

[J. Wagner B]

Hello Mike,

So, I guess, you still see him as the second coming, or at least someone close to the second. Personally, as you may have been able to tell, I do not think very highly of Obama as someone worthy of being president. Regardless of his charisma, he is not qualified for the job of commander-in-chef and his statements about the economy tells me that he does not understand economics. Also his statements about historical events, like the JFK-Khrushchev meeting, tells me that his understanding of history is very flawed and biased. He sounds good, as long as he is working from a prepared speech, but sounding good does not qualify one for any job. His choice in friends and spiritual mentors also leads me to question his judgment and character. When he claims that Rev. Wright is now not the man he knew and brought him to "Jesus," I don't believe him. I would not hang out with a racist for 20 years, and it would only take me 2 or 3 days to recognize Rev. Wright as a racists conspiracy nut and to choose not to join his church. As far as I can tell, Obama is not a liberal, he is a radical leftist like his friends. With all that said, sadly, I believe it is very likely that Obama will be the next president. It will be a difficult four years. If he wins Americans will realize what they bought and they will not sign up for another four year contract.

Yes, I have seen the fightthesmears.com. And like MediaMatters it has launched itself by taking Rush out of context. While I agree the "whitey" rumor is a bit tasteless, but it was begun by a Hillary blogger, not right-wingers.

Obama claims that he is a uniter, yet there is nothing he has done that leads me to believe that. He was not even able to unite the Democrat Party, winning only 48% with Hillary winning 47% of the total votes during the primaries. There was nothing he has done in the Senate that shows he can reach across the aisle (across the liberal/conservative boundary) to push forward any kind of substantive legislation.

All the above being said, he is probably a really nice guy and great at parties. He is also probably a very effective community activist, but that does not mean he is ready for prime time.

tashi deleks,

J. Wagner B.