Obama

[hork]

Originally Posted by tymy

I love watching the "Ten Commandments" every Easter. Guess what I see shaping up as the similarity? In Roman times there were only two classes of people......the haves and the have nots.

with that i couldn't agree more (as evidenced by my tendency to lean left of center). but race isn't the issue, in fact i'd venture to guess the haves tend to be white more often than not. unfortunately, those in the have section are the one's making the rules and screwing the rest of us.

[hork]

Originally Posted by tymy

Ken,

Whether I agree with Rich's comments or not I will tell you this: in terms of a college eduacation the kids being left behind are Caucasion, their parents have not divorced, and their families are in the so called middle class.

I have two daughters in college and am well aware of how the "system" works. I am certain you are familiar with FASFA. I could not get a home mortgage at the same income percentage our government thinks I should spend on sending my girls to college. And then I have to wonder? How do so many with less income get into college universities?"

truth be told i'm quite familiar with the way financial aid works. and even more familiar with the demographics that make up most major US Universities. and surprisingly, the vast (and i mean vast) majority of students all tend to be white. in fact i work in a huge metro area in the deep south with a disproportionately large population of african-american residents yet i can count on my fingers the number of african-american students i had in the classes i taught last year. that's not the case with white students (or even international students for that matter)

now granted that may not be the case at all schools but it is definitely the case at the many universities around the nation i'm familiar with.

so again it's not about race (and i hope no one is truly foolish to believe that as i'm sure rich was just venting and didn't mean his words to come across as they did) it's about the class gap and it's continuing widening. and again it isn't the minorities responsible for that, it's the same 2% that's been screwing us since the 80's

[tymy]

Originally Posted by hork

with that i couldn't agree more (as evidenced by my tendency to lean left of center). but race isn't the issue, in fact i'd venture to guess the haves tend to be white more often than not.

I disagree, I would say that the stereotypical white, middle class family are the ones taking the screwing. Think about it, if we truely are headed towards a two class society who gets left behind? Granted, the majority of the upper class are Caucasions but that percentage pales to the number of minoritys who make up the lower class. So who gets left behind? An awful lot of law abiding simple folks who have never tried to beat the system, never tried to steal from someone else, never claimed the government owed us something, and have simply tried to do the best for our children. Maybe that's a part of what Rich was trying to point out.

[tymy]

Originally Posted by hork

that's not the case with white students (or even international students for that matter)

Again I respectfully disagree. My sister and her husband are both University of Illinois graduates. Their oldest daughter is a junior in high school with above average grades. Her desire was to attend the U of I but her hopes were diminished when a university advisor informed her that she was unlikely to be accepted because the university is "trying to create a more diverse student population". What the hell does that mean other than the average white family is being left behind?

[rich76]

Yes, I was in rant mode...and NO I HOPE my words were not mistakenly taken as my being racist in any way shape or form. I've been in many conversations regarding these issues....and mostly with some of my minority friends. We all agree that, as Obama has said, it is time for minorities to pick themselves up by their collective bootstraps and do what they need to do to better themselves and get off the handouts and freebies. I am not so naive to believe that white America has not taken advantage of welfare/foodstamps etc.

I am not digressing from the jist of my comments...not even close.

[P562045]

There are many factors of why whites are a very disproportional majority in many universities. And I don't even think we could come close to naming all of them if we tried.

I live in a major metropolitan area as well. And I have visited many different types of universities and colleges and what I have just described is the case in all of them except one.

There is a traditional black college in the city and that college was founded in the community because African Americans needed a place to learn back in the mid nineteenth century.

So there are exceptions to the rule of course but in general what I have said is true when it comes to universities I have visited and actually attended as well.

And there are even some colleges that have very exclusive programs such as medical research, law programs, etc.

The classic example of this would be like a place like Harvard. Very rigid academic standards to get in. And I am sure that Harvard does have many minority students but very few of them are African Americans.

We don't really want to admit to something like this but in some ways universities are a reflection of society as a whole.

There is this underlying reality of racism and of course no university would want to admit to something like this but I am sure that there are many examples of this across a very wide ranging amount of universities. I am sure there are many talented people that could really help society in a variety of ways that are not in a university as I mentioned earlier for a variety of reasons. This is truly sad to me.

And people do learn many beneficial things at a college or university. And just part of it is a person trying to better themselves in order to help their community as well and this happens all the time and very few people even realize it at the time. As I have said before universities and colleges do have their place in society as well.

I would encourage people to visit a university near them just to see what it is like. And I am sure with every university there are some things that a person would like about a particular university they go to; and also things a person would not like to see as well.

This was just my own personal experience as well. There was a greater mixture of minority students and many more African American students at the local community college than there was at the local university for sure. As I said before there can be many reasons for this but I am sure that financial situations are a very big factor with many more people than we would really want to admit to.

This is another reflection of society as well. We really in many cases try to "cover up" what I just mentioned for a lack of better term and one of the main reasons is many people just don't want to have to deal with the unpleasant side of society as a whole as well.

[SiteWolf]

Originally Posted by hork

it's the same 2% that's been screwing us since the 80's

nail, meet head!

Now, how the hell have we (the other 98%) allowed this to happen?!
More importantly, what do we have to do to stop it?

As you guys are well aware, the 'middle class' is responsible for a large majority of taxes paid....yet, as indicated in this thread, the 'middle class' seems to benefit the LEAST from all those taxes paid in.

Put whoever you want in the White House....Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative....call him/her whatever you want. Make Barry Bonds president, I don't care- if they can get us back to where the majority actually DOES rule rather than the elite few elected to Washington, they can be president for as long as they live as far as I'm concerned.

[P562045]

Originally Posted by SiteWolf

if they can get us back to where the majority actually DOES rule rather than the elite few elected to Washington, they can be president for as long as they live as far as I'm concerned.

There are several important things to mention about this. The founding fathers knew that having just a majority of people agree to something did not necessarily mean that whatever the idea was would be a good idea. This is the very reason why there are three branches of government in the first place. The founding fathers did not want such concentrated power to just a few people and whatever they say goes. But the founding fathers also set up a system that made it pretty easy for only a few people to have their ideas actually be the rules that the people have to follow. I have often thought about this. How many people in Washington actually have the ability to change the country? I would dare say very few people indeed. I am not saying the system we have is bad but there should be no doubt in people's mind that it is not perfect because very few things are as well. And actually I would not want to live under any other system of government.

Now part of the reason we are in the situation we are in now is that the congress in several key situations gave this president what he wanted without really wanting to discuss the consequences; and if the consequences were even discussed they were discussed in such a way that they did not seem like consequences as well. It is incredibly rare that the president gives themselves exclusive powers that do not come from the congress. The president we have now has done this more than many other presidents but he has been put in a very unique situations as well. That does not really excuse the president's actions but I for sure know part of the reasons why he felt the need to do so in the first place. The president himself has tried to explain this and he has some good reasons that are very unpleasant and the president also has some reasons that makes one really wonder about the president's reasons as well.

I must also mention one other thing about this notion about just a majority of people thinking something is a good idea so it just should be done no matter what. As I mentioned there can be unintended consequences to any idea as well.

[P562045]

You want change Obama will give you change.

I could not have said it any better than this political cartoon.

[-mmm-]

I find this "running to the center" bit both tedious and humerous. Ive read his books and listened to his speeches during the primary (admittedly Ive tuned him and McCain out for the most part this summer, but Im sure most everyone can be understandable in regards to that). And what Im reading he's saying now is basically the same stuff he said back than. He talked about faith initiatives, he's always talked about getting out of Iraq as carefully for as carelessly we got in, and that kind of stuff.

What I find funny is tracing back to where this all got started. A few weeks ago the liberal blogosphere was engaged in trying (fruitlessly) to stop FISA legislation that was being rammed through. When they found out Obama supported the compromised bill, they accused him of running to the center because he didnt agree with them. Arianna Huffington wrote about it, and the MSM ran with what she should, and conservatives ran with what the "liberal MSM" said about something a liberal hack, I mean blogger, said. Excuse me while I laugh some more at the stupidity of this non-story.

Of course there's also some flap over some magazine cover. But sometimes that brings out the best in writers, especially those who use satire to fight satire.

[P562045]

I am going to describe my political cartoon so if it disappears in a period of time people will still know what I am talking about.

There is a banner behind Obama that has the words change in big letters. But the banner also mentions it is a change in positions that Obama actually means and not actually changing Washington.

And then Obama's handlers in the cartoon also have a list of things that Obama has changed his mind on. But I find this to be only true in a few instances but not all of the things mentioned on the list.

These are the things on the list that this political cartoon wants to appear that Obama has changed his position on since the primaries and caucuses.

Nafta
Gun Bans
Public Financing of Campaigns
Wiretapping
Unconditional Talks with Iran
Immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq
Lapel Pin

NAFTA is the only one of these that I can say that Obama really has changed his positions on since the primaries. I believe it was in Ohio that Obama's handlers took Mrs. Clinton to task on her position on NAFTA. I mention this in post 5 of this thread.

Now onto gun bans and wiretapping. Did Obama even really talk about these two things during the primaries and caucuses?

I could also ask did Obama pledge to take public financing during the general election?

Now onto withdrawing troops in Iraq. Obama did mention this during the primary season but he did not really go into great detail about how long it would take for him to get us out of Iraq so I don't really see how that is position change because Obama clearly wanted people to know he wanted us to get out of Iraq but he did not really go into specific detail about how long it would take and even seem to remember that he, Edwards, and Mrs. Clinton all basically said the same thing to the New York Times but just in different ways of course. I seem to remember that none of these three candidates ever really said we will be out of Iraq by this date because they were being sort of cautious because at the time the so called "surge" was slowly starting to change some things Iraq and they wanted to have the ability to make their positions on Iraq clear by what was actually happening in Iraq. I actually think this is very important because as I have mentioned before I think we better make for darn sure that our getting out of Iraq does not cause total chaos in the country after we leave it. I just say this because once we leave Iraq I only want to have a very small presence in Iraq left. And I think the "top three" democrat candidates all mentioned this as well when talking to the New York Times. None of the three of them ever said that we would completely leave the country in Iraq and not have any presence at all after getting most of the troops out of Iraq.

To be quite honest I have no idea how Obama feels about dealing with countries like Iran and talks with them now. This all started way back with the Youtube debate where the snowman asked several democrat presidential candidates about Global Warming. The question about talking about several leaders from around the world raised some eyebrows with people because Obama made the mistake of saying that he would talk with leaders of the world without preconditions. Well Obama actually never said that it was actually Mrs. Clinton in response to the question that she said that she would also talk to these world leaders but she would have to go into the talks with several conditions beforehand because she was concerned that these leaders may actually use the talks with her for propaganda purposes in their own countries.

And last but not least I am sure I have asked this question several times why should I really care if Obama wears a flag lapel pin or not?

To be quite frank about this this is just a stupid attempt by republicans to paint this picture that Obama changes his positions on issues just like any other politician has that is running for president when it comes to the positions they have had in the primaries and caucuses and then it appears that person changes their position for the general election.

In summary out of the seven things mentioned in the political cartoon it appears to me that Obama has really only changed his position on two things that being Nafta and wearing a lapel pin but as I mentioned I could really care less about to wear the lapel pin or not wear the lapel pin. I always mention the lapel pin because to me things like this just take our focus away from things that are going to be very difficult for the next president to face no matter who they are.

I wonder how hard it would be for me to find a list that could be pretty long about the things that McCain has changed his mind about over the years as well?

[P562045]

Now as a person can see I have been pretty harsh on Obama so far in this thread. And I have not really articulated very well so far in this thread why I have reacted to Obama in this way.

I was reading something that just leaped out at me that is the real reason I have my natural reaction to Obama. And to McCain as well to be quite frank about it.

It is the last part of this sentence I am about to quote.

"In some cases -- foremost with warrantless wiretapping, where Obama went back on a pledge to filibuster the bill he wound up voting for -- the charges against Obama may be deserved. On others, like Iraq -- where Obama has said all along he'd seek guidance from the Pentagon on how best to withdraw U.S. troops within 16 months -- the shift is more in how he's talking about the issue, not what his essential policy is."

Story Here

And in a strange way the way this article is written focuses on the things that Obama has flip flopped on and not what his essential policies are. So without the person writing this really realizing it they probably made their point better than they will ever know.

Now there are some things that could be very important to think about when it comes to what Obama or even McCain has flip flopped about but there are other things as well that should concern the people a lot less than the focus that the main stream media has on them. I have a few examples of this already in this thread. The one about who pet owners prefer comes to mind right now.

This is extremely troubling to me that we are not really going to know to be very frank about this what either one of the two "main" presidential candidates essential policies are going to be until after they are president.

As I have mentioned many time before the next president is going to be facing some very difficult challenges no matter who they are.

And I don't really want to have to mention again that both of these people are running for one of the most important jobs in the world.

[P562045]

Well good old N.B.C. thinks we should mold our foreign policy for the express purpose of making only Obama look good.

There is a recent upsurge in violence in Afghanistan so we need to get some more troops there.

But this is kind of a wash though. Both of the "major" candidates are proposing sending more troops to Afghanistan; but of course this news story was about Obama the wonderful and not McCain who has the same idea of putting more troops in Afghanistan. I am sure Obama wants to put more troops in Afghanistan but I don't know that and I don't really care because I am sure Obama's number of troops would just make more sense to NBC than McCain number of troops for the express purpose of making Obama looking better.

Now I am sure that NBC would try to deny what I just said sort of like their blanket denial of them being biased; but NBC had some more coverage of Obama in Afghanistan as well. In other wonderful Obama news he was hanging out with the troops in Afghanistan and made a wonderful basketball shot while there.

And this was a really great basketball shot by Obama it sort of reminds me of the last shot Michael Jordan took in Utah to win the finals right before he retired the first time.

So I guess Obama just happened to take just that one shot? Or could that be the only basketball shot that NBC wanted to show in order to make Obama look good?

It never ceases to amaze me how far the main stream media will go out of their way to make Obama and only Obama look good when it comes to the people's image of the two "major" presidential candidates.

I would love to have an article about what I saw on the Today Show and Lester Holt was telling the story but I am sure the transcript will not be produced until after the show is over.

I have a rather good question for NBC or any other main stream media outlet for that matter what did Obama and the leader of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai talk about in their discussions while Obama was in Afghanistan?

That may just be something that the people would want to know about when they are making their very important decision on who the next president should be.

So sorry for my frankness on what I just described but this was so over the top Obama can do no wrong type of story it just simply amazes me how the main stream media portrays this guy.

[-mmm-]

Both Obama and McCain have more or less received the kids glove treatment from the traditional media. Sure you get some stories that come out like McCain and the affair with the lobbyist or the Reverend Wright story, but for the most part the media has been uncritical of either. And in regards to the two examples I mentioned, sensationalism will always trump policy anytime in modern media. But this just makes me wonder how much of it is about "access". To the typical Beltway journalist access, especially to the White House, is far more important than getting to the crux of the matter (even when the facts are in plain sight for everyone to see). And lets not even go into the realm of them asking hard critical questions (and when they do, the fact that nearly all of them accept the non-answer answers handed to them).

And where did the "access" matter crop up? Why during the beginning of the primary season when Fox News ran their Obama going to a madrassa story (I think that story ran in November, maybe December, guessing is fun when you dont google....hey Im qualified to be a reporter now! ). Anyways Obama than told the Fox News reporter that was covering his campaign that he could, more or less, beat it and hit the trail somewhere else. Obama than didnt conduct any interview with the network until the primary was more or less clinched for him and he was on Chris Wallace's show a couple months ago.

So Obama goes on around the world in 80 hours (well maybe longer, it just sounded catchy in my head ) and based on that past experience you have the networks all sending their top anchors to fawn over the guy who's leading most polls right now to....maintain their access? One of these days I'll have to watch a network evening newscast to get a better feel for this story, but just from reading it from afar via the blogs/online news sites, thats just the feeling I get from it.

[P562045]

So let me get this straight. Obama get fawned over so that the media can get non answers to their tough questions?

This just begs the question why does Obama choose not to answer the tough questions; and I am sure McCain tries to avoid the tough questions as well. But as a person may have noticed I am one person that wants these tough questions to be answered before November 4 of this year.

Are media outlets even trying to ask tough questions of the two "major" candidates? And if not what I just described may be the very reason why.

And all different types of media outlets then wonder why fewer and fewer people pay attention to them.

This is a annual or biannual story from the media why don't people that used to really pay attention to them don't really pay much attention to the media now. I have tried to explain this before and just part of the reason why is that people have so many other choices on how they get their news now and other distractions that are not even news as well.

I am trying to remember the last time I watched two consecutive segments on an evening news cast. Now I remember it was Katie Couric's first day on the CBS Evening News. And no I don't even really watch cable news much either.

This all goes back to the people really though. If they really wanted answers to the tough questions I would hope that the candidates would answer these types of questions as truthfully as possible. But I also know that these two candidates in particular are not very likely to do so they would just probably just give non answers to really good questions that people should be concerned about. And in this election there are plenty of those types of questions to ask on a very wide variety of topics.