Who do you like?

[Jerry]

So what's worse.. a sorry loser, or a gloating winner?

Well, I realize I am in the minority on this thread in the forum, but don't think I am gloating. I understand where a lot of you are coming from; I was opposed to Bush on 2000 and again in 2004. Difference so far is that all the bad things I thought would happen under a Bush administration have come true. I hope the same does not happen with your fears, although I acknowledge it might.

My point is Republicans have had their shot, and the political pendulum is swinging back to the center. Even McCain is more centrist than Bush. Had he been elected McCain would have had to move more to the center to govern effectively. For that reason, his pick of Palin hurt his candidacy; as entertaining as Palin was, her right-wing policies did not sit well with the majority of voters.

I am not trying to convince anyone that Obama has al the answers, that he will do miraculous things, or that peace and prosperity is around the corner. To do so would be absurd. However, it seems fair (to me) to point out some obvious disconnects between the rhetoric and the facts on the ground, such as the socialism that everybady seems to decry is, in fact, already well under way under the Bush administration.

I voted for Obama. I did not send him money, attend his rallies, or host election parties. I voted for him as I believed he represents a move to govern from the center, not from the right. In that sense I did not personalize my decision, nore do I expect his administration to make all the right decisions. Even Bush has been right a couple times, so it stands to reason Obama will be wrong on occasion.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind with these posts. I do hope to put the election is a broader perspective. If Obama doesn't work out there is another election comming up in 4 years, along with the chance of repudiating Obama's administration if it comes to that.

[Incubus]

This is the way I see it. Fifty years ago black Americans were required to drink at separate fountains and ride in the back of the bus. I remember, in my youth, companies I worked for hiring "token" black men (never women). These guys were invariably thick as a brick. I think that was by design. I think companies did not want to hire blacks, so when they were required to meet a quota or were trying to buff their image with a minority hiring they would purposely choose someone who was dumb so they could justify not hiring any more.

Over the past few years I have worked with, and for, a number of black men and women who got where they were because they were smart and worked harder than everyone else. They earned what they got -and the times are changing.

Against that background, consider Obama. He ran a near perfect campaign and with such a short history since the Jim Crow days he managed, as a black American, to convince the American public to pick him as its leader. The dude is smart. Really smart. People that smart I want on my side. I want them working for me and my interests.

I look forward with great hope. Obama is a smart, driven guy who is well aware of his place in history. I believe he will do his very best on the job. Does that mean he won't make mistakes or bad decisions? No, but it means that the decisions he makes will come only after very careful thought and consideration. A very refreshing change from our current administration.

We are all in this together. He not my president, he's our president. Like LBJ said, he's the only one we've got. I believe we ought to give the guy a chance before we decide he is a failure, a socialist, a communist or any other tag people are putting on him before he has served a single day.

I think John McCain in 2000 should have been elected president. I think John McCain in 2008 bought into the Karl Rove smear, hate and fear machine. That ruined him, in my eyes. We've had enough of those politics. It's time for a new dawn of hope.

Patrick

[trbig]

"I don't ask for much. For the most part I would like to government to leave me alone and take care of the things it was formed to do:"

This is also what I want. It seems a little funny to me that you'd say that, yet vote democrat? Democrats used to be the the frugal small government side of the parties, but have changed into the huge all-encompassing government that wants to control every aspect of people's lives.. and create money hungry government offices to do so that are difficult if not impossible to desolve once established.

Maybe Obama can change things from the "It takes a villiage to raise a child" democratic mentallity and turn it back towards "It takes PARENTS to raise a child" mentality. Again.. I'm hopefull, but I doubt it. I see larger government, gun control, smaller military, and higher taxes against the people that work.. to pay for the people that won't. I sure would like to eat my words here and be proven wrong though...

Tod

[Ivan]

My point is Republicans have had their shot, and the political pendulum is swinging back to the center.

Obama is the single most left voting senator in the system. He has NEVER voted in favor of the unborn, even voted against protecting those who survived a botched abortion. The list goes on, FOCA, the fairness doctrine, etc. His voting record puts him to the extreme left. Couple this with the supreme court nominations he will most likely weigh in on, and the nearly filibuster proof senate, and I would hardly say the pendulum is swinging back to center. The pendulum was already left of center and now is swinging back to the far left.

Against that background, consider Obama. He ran a near perfect campaign and with such a short history since the Jim Crow days he managed, as a black American, to convince the American public to pick him as its leader.

I'm guessing by the family photo he isn't black.

[Toolmaker Tim]

Change?????

Let's see how much 'change' obama is bringing. Joe Biden, Has been a Senator since dirt was made. Made the comment that he had never had a boss. Guess that includes the people who elected him. Hillary, her husband (who was impeached for lying, not his sexual activities) is a Lobbiest wwho was consulted by a foreign company on how to properly present themselves toget a contract to watch over our ports. Of course he won't influence Hillary in any way. Janet Reno's chief of staff for Attorney General. Reno was probably the least capable AG we have ever had. The list goes on. THIS IS CHANGE???

[Jerry]

WASHINGTON — Federal spending is outstripping economic growth at a rate unseen in more than half a century, provoking some conservatives to complain that government under Republican control has gotten too big.
The federal government is currently spending 20.8 cents of every $1 the economy generates, up from 18.5 cents in 2001, White House budget documents show. That's the most rapid growth during one administration since Franklin Roosevelt.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...spending_x.htm
From Trbig:

Democrats used to be the the frugal small government side of the parties, but have changed into the huge all-encompassing government that wants to control every aspect of people's lives.. and create money hungry government offices to do so that are difficult if not impossible to desolve once established.

Once again, facts on the ground do not support the rhetoric. The largest growth in the Federal government has happened under Republican administrations. The first quote is from 2006, when Republicans had control of the presidency, House, and Senate. It is not the Democrats who have increased the size and spending of the federal government. Here is another statistic:

The numbers confirm what every despondent conservative already knows. Since Reagan's stunning victory in 1980, conservative journals have annihilated forests to print articles about excessive government spending. Conservative think tanks have produced sweeping plans for reducing the welfare state. Republicans occupied the White House for 18 of the 26 years after 1980, and held a Senate majority for 16½ years and a House majority for 12 years. Yet the result is a federal establishment bigger and more influential today than in 1980.

http://www.claremont.org/publication...cle_detail.asp

The idea that Republicans are more likely to be conservative when it comes to federal spending does not hold up under research. Therefore, the rhetoric that would put Obama and the Dems up as the liberal tax and spend party don't ring true; it is the Republicans, including Regan, who have bloated the government over the last couple decades.

Again, the rhetoric pointed at Obama about fiscal policy seems to be unrelated to the facts on the ground.

[trbig]

LOL.. We can sit and copy and paste article clippings all day, but to try to prove or say that the democratic party is the more frugal and smaller government party can't possibly be said with a straight face... unless you're a politician...

The Democrats have continually offered more and more programs to attract voters who want government to take care of them. This is also the government that required lenders to give mortgages to people who the lenders knew couldn’t carry the load. And now they blame the lenders. Do we need to start copying and pasting news clippings of Obama's role in Sally Mae? No... wouldn't change anything.

The governement is going to grow regardless of which party is in control at the time. But the basic facts are that Democrats generally choose roles for the government to play a bigger role in people's every day lives, and to "Redistribute" wealth.. meaning tax the rich and give to the poor. This idea is fine for the poor who CAN'T work, but to take my money and give to someone who just WON'T work pisses me off.

Republicans generally vote more on the side of people self governing themselves...(Freedoms and liberties) They tend to think that people make the best decisions.. not the governement. Democrats generally think the governement would make the best decisions for the people. I just happen to disagree with that.

If you want me to copy and paste some drivel from some news page or printing to "Prove" my point.. I can do that.


Tod

[Jerry]

Republicans generally vote more on the side of people self governing themselves...(Freedoms and liberties)

Well, several points. I am arguing the over-all cost and size of government. It is true that where the money goes can vary under Republican and Democratic administrations, but undoubtedly the size of government and its influence on our daily lives has grown more under Republican administrations. This is not the same as saying the Dems favor smaller and more frugal government; it is saying that a huge government expansion under Obama is unlikely. Measured against expansion of government under Republicans, the Republicans hold the title.

As for Republicans voting for freedoms and liberties...not really. I would like to find 1 instance of a Republican-sponsored bill that extends rights and liberties to the common person as opposed to favoring big businesses. Even Bush's No Child Left Behind program removes the right of local citizens to control their schools and gives more power to the central government. As another example, I suggest you look into the Terri Schaivo case. Here is a good link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governm...i_Schiavo_case
Just in case you don't remember it, the Republicans tried to intervene in a Florida case, overriding Florida laws, and leading to the most-litigated case of its type in the history of the US. The Republicans lost.

Democrats do believe in a larger role in regulation of certain areas, including financial markets. They are also stronger in environmental areas, which certainly benefits more people than the Republican's efforts to gut them.

This idea is fine for the poor who CAN'T work, but to take my money and give to someone who just WON'T work pisses me off.

I agree. That is why I am against "mortgage assistance" and the $309 Billion dollar bailout of CITI Group earlier this week, as well as other bailout programs. I don't like a great deal of the discussion I've heard over this issue. However, I don't see any real difference between the Republicans and Democrats, either in regard to corporations or individuals. For that reason I don't see that the Dems have a monopoly on this issue. Republicans tend to favor corporate largess; Dems favor individual largess. What is needed is a balance between the two. So far I've not hard a plan from either party that I really like.

They tend to think that people make the best decisions..

Lets hope they are right this time; they voted for Obama as the next president.

As far as the "tax the rich and give to the poor"...bit. Remember the G.I. Bill? It gave taxpayer money to a lot of people who could not have otherwise afforded a higher education. Was this a mistake? All you have to do is look a the benefits the country enjoyed as a result. The bill was signed into law by a Democratic president, Roosevelt. Signed in 1944, by 1951 it had cost the government just over 14 billion dollars. (As a comparison, the 1951 Federal budget was about 45.5 billion dollars.)
http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/research...944gibill.html
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php
Not all "redistribution" of wealth is a bad thing, regardless of Republican's attempt to stigmatize it as such.

Sorry to hear you think my links to supporting documents are "drivel". I attempt to back up statements of facts with actual facts, not opinion. When I do state an opinion I try to identify it as such, and when I present something as fact I like to back it up.

[prometheus578]

"You know too much, old man..."

I learned long ago to not debate against Jerry.
(at least... not on subjects that he knows something about)

[tarzan]

But Jerry,

Posting leaks doesnt make it fact.It is still some persons interpretation of the facts.
I'm not trying to start an argument ,I just believe the newspapers and generally and most forms of media have liberal wiews in general so we get their "facts".
This is an interesting thread ,it does bring about different points of view.I also think with everything that is going on these days a lot of people are starting to sit up and take notice and are trying to gain a little understanding on what is going on with our country.And it is scary to see how inch by inch we are losing hold of the very freedoms and rights that this country was founded on.

[GNEPIG]

Things ARE starting to look up!...


Dick Cheney just invited Obama to go hunting...

[Jerry]

Posting leaks doesnt make it fact.It is still some persons interpretation of the facts.

All lies and jest, still the man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest

(Simon and Garfunkle, "The Boxer")
Certainly, what you believe is interpretation of facts, opinion, and personal experience. I am posting to this thread to try and correct certain "facts" that are really opinions or stereotypes. What you make of the information is up to you. Given that I am in the minority, I am trying to put forth some counter arguments that may help aleviate some of the tension that some people are feeling about the pending Democratic administration.

As to the media being liberal, that is probably true. However, I also watch or monitor several conservative pundits, such as George Will and others, and find the most outlandish distortions occur on the conservative side of the fence. For example, take this quote from Rush Limbaugh from November 6, 4 days after the election:

RUSH: The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen. Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression. He hasn't done anything yet but his ideas are killing the economy. His ideas are killing Wall Street.

(http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...107.guest.html) 4 days after the election and the recession is caused by Obama's ideas. What crap. However, it is typical of the "information" you get from the far right conservative side of the media. (Somehow Rush, Hannity, Bill O, and others never seem to be considered part of "the media" by critics who say media has a liberal bias. Thats why you have to look at both conservative and liberal viewpoints, check the facts through at least a 3rd source, and decide what to believe.

[prometheus578]

"A great weight has been lifted..."

I see clearly now, where once, things were cloudy.

Something about this thread has been bothering me for weeks.
Deep down... at a primal level; barely registering, yet still there.
Just a general uneasiness...
Like that queasy feeling you get when you've had one too many burritos.
I sensed that a terrible mistake has been made somewhere...
I could never figure out just what it was... till now.

I know we all have opinions on this matter, but...
Why anyone would start a thread titled "Who do you like?" is beyond me.

The subject of the sentence being "you", "who" becomes the object of the verb and as such, the more formal "whom" should be used.

Thus, the title should not read "Who do you like?", but "Whom do you like?"


I feel better, now.

[madmax-im]

I see clearly now, where once, things were cloudy.

Something about this thread has been bothering me for weeks.
Deep down... at a primal level; barely registering, yet still there.
Just a general uneasiness...
Like that queasy feeling you get when you've had one too many burritos.
I sensed that a terrible mistake has been made somewhere...
I could never figure out just what it was... till now.

I know we all have opinions on this matter, but...
Why anyone would start a thread titled "Who do you like?" is beyond me.

The subject of the sentence being "you", "who" becomes the object of the verb and as such, the more formal "whom" should be used.

Thus, the title should not read "Who do you like?", but "Whom do you like?"


I feel better, now.

Oh you're just a flamin English lovin liberal

[madmax-im]

The world is flat...the world is flat...Obama means doom to us all....yeah right this whole thread deserves to be flushed down the toilet