I don't advocate that move, for obvious reasons. But there was no lack of intellect. A good many "fiscal conservatives" vote, almost on a single issue basis, on who will lower their taxes. It isn't a lack of intellect, it is serving a constituency what they want in order to prepetuate your own power and solidify a voting block. ...a move which had bipartisan support in both houses of Congress. If I googled it, I could find Nancy Pelosi's statements from 2003 supporting military action against Saddam Hussein, but at 2:24 am, I don't want to take the time. It has been brought up in many threads. If you are referring to the foreclosure crisis, the wheels were put in motion on this a long time ago. Also, if the mortgagor and mortgagee are willing to enter into an ARM contract, the federal government has limited ability to do anything about it because of the Contracts Clause to the US Constitution. If you are referring to the declining dollar, some of that is because of bad monetary policy, but most of it is because of the trade imbalance, which is getting worse. The trade deficit is largely due to NAFTA and to foreign companies simply building a better mousetrap at a competitive price. In the case of the auto industry, you can blame a lot of that on the UAW. 1. It is naive to think that we haven't been doing this in every conflict we have been in. 2. It isn't intellectually bankrupt. It is morally bankrupt. Those are two very different things. Look at Congress. Dems are in power. There is plenty of blame to go around. I am not saying that the current Republican leadership is what I want it to be. I am saying that if you believe that the Democrat leadership will be 180 degrees, I think you will be very disappointed.
Why you haven't smeared him directly in this thread you are referencing a smear and using that as a basis to judge Obama. I think the issue that this question involves is a smear: The evidence that Obama supports reparations is extremely tenuous at best as Obama is on record that he doesn't support reparations.
i'm not "judging" anybody, i'm trying to get enough info so i can form an educated "judgement" in the future, should he be the dem nominee. in light of what so many of you feel about Bush not being qualified, you'd think you'd want to get as much info as possible in 2008.
Your title "the danger of Obama" suggests you are about to outline some things you feel our "DANGEROUS". Definition of Dangerous: full of danger or risk; causing danger; perilous; risky; hazardous; unsafe. So what is perilous, risky, hazardous or unsafe about Obama if the American public (which is what I assume you mean by "we"), ignore's his record? It isn't particularly hazardous or unsafe. GWB had a thin record and look at the mess he got this country into. So maybe I see your point Basso. If Obama is as "Dangerous" as GWB, then maybe the public should take notice. So I guess the counter measure to "The Danger of Obama" is to vote for Clinton or McCain. They bring plenty of experience. Thanks for shedding light on the subject. Maybe I'll reconsider Obama now.
Out of curiousity, have you ever seen any comments by Clinton, Edwards, Huckabee, Romney, Guiliani, or McCain on slave reparations?
That's true in general but this is a non-issue that is trying to be spun rather than attempting to understand the candidate. Obama has said he doesn't support reparations and doesn't support handing checks out to blacks. What more is there you are trying to get out of him in regard to that issue?
danger is a metaphor for making uninformed choices. the counter measure you seek is to get informed before you cast your vote.
I disagree. Anyone who will put themselves through the slog of raising that much money, going through that much scrutiny and spending that much campaigning has to be crazy on some level. That applies to all presidential candidates.
Concur. My brother in law works for a senators office. It is full of people who are scary in my eyes (and this is just the young-and-upcoming/gruntworker group!). There is a fine line between "politically attuned" and "politically psychotic" and the people willing to deal with the awfulness of campaigning, schmoozing, pandering, mud-slinging and plain old villainy fall squarely in the latter camp.
What exactly are the "hard questions" that aren't being asked? Please tell me this isn't about reparations, as he's answered that question clearly.
You would have been better served to have used a title like, "Do we really know Obama?" To be fair, you'd probably get hammered for that, as well. Impeach Bush.
I'm not seeking ...you are the "open-minded" one ...and you are the one warning of DANGER DANGER Will Robinson. If all you are saying is that the public needs to be informed, you could have just said that rather than making some sensational bull crap thread title like DANGER! capped off by saying you are "open-minded." pwned An "open-minded" person doesn't refer to the subject of interest as DANGEROUS.
While they may not all be crazy, all serious politicians have a weird mix of ego and insecurity that compels them to come forward and say "Out of everyone in this country, I am the best one to lead all of you and I really want you to affirm that by casting your vote for me."
