U.S Presidency

[Descalzo]

To try to make any connection is outlandish.

I'll say it again: it's only outlandish to people who want Obama to be president. Ayers was a serious criminal. He was engaged in serious crimes. He launched Obama's career. He's clearly more than just 'on a couple of committees' with this dude. Obama may not agree with this guy, but it's obvious that Obama doesn't consider Ayers' views to be beyond the pale. There is a lot to say about Obama's character.

[killbot1000]

I'll say it again: it's only outlandish to people who want Obama to be president. Ayers was a serious criminal. He was engaged in serious crimes. He launched Obama's career. He's clearly more than just 'on a couple of committees' with this dude. Obama may not agree with this guy, but it's obvious that Obama doesn't consider Ayers' views to be beyond the pale. There is a lot to say about Obama's character.

 

What does it say about Obama's Character?

 

Is it guilt by association?

 

If so, a lot can be said about Sarah Palin's, and John McCain's Character.

 

Palin:

 

-Witch Doctor thing

-Pregnant daughter (while fully supportinng abstinence only, a perfect example of being proven wrong in your own house yet pushing with your own beliefs anyway at the expense of what has been proven to work)

 

-Alaska Independence party "Keep up the good work".

-Troopergate (abuse of power)

 

etc. etc.

 

McCain:

 

-Keating five

-Mafia Ties

-crazy pastor

-etc. etc.

 

My point...this is stupid. You can't draw conclusions about somebody based purely on who they are associated with. One might be able to draw some conclusions, but not all conclusions. Ayers said that he "wanted to help to overthrow the capitalist system and replace it with something much more humane" My question is, why is that so bad? If what Obama says to the crowds is true, and Ayers does have an influence on him, then it would be consistent with his views, Obama says he wants to help people get affordable healthcare, higher wages, more retirement flexability, business regulation. These reforms to me, sound more humane than "free market Capitalism".

 

There's nothing to worry about in terms of terrorism when it comes to Obama, what ayers does, does not translate to what obama does. If one looks at Obama's record, there is no real reason to be alarmed about him. He is NOT a one man sleeper cell waiting mess up the country. Drop this bull$hit please.

[Descalzo]

What does it say about Obama's Character?

 

Is it guilt by association?

By association, no. By alliance, maybe.

My point...this is stupid. You can't draw conclusions about somebody based purely on who they are associated with. One might be able to draw some conclusions, but not all conclusions. Ayers said that he "wanted to help to overthrow the capitalist system and replace it with something much more humane" My question is, why is that so bad?

This makes my point! People who like Obama see that he's willing to go a little farther and make alliances that will further what they think is the good of the country. I have no problem with this.

If what Obama says to the crowds is true, and Ayers does have an influence on him, then it would be consistent with his views, Obama says he wants to help people get affordable healthcare, higher wages, more retirement flexability, business regulation. These reforms to me, sound more humane than "free market Capitalism".

That's for another thread.

 

There's nothing to worry about in terms of terrorism when it comes to Obama, what ayers does, does not translate to what obama does. If one looks at Obama's record, there is no real reason to be alarmed about him. He is NOT a one man sleeper cell waiting mess up the country.

I agree with you. There is no threat of Obama becoming a terrorist.

 

Drop this bull$hit please.

You bet. As soon as the baloney about McCain and the Keating Five and Palin's support of the Secessionist party gets dropped.

 

This is my whole point!! Bringing up these associations makes very little difference. These guys are all politicians first and foremost (yes, even Palin!) and they do what they have to do to get their jobs done, even the non-corrupt ones.

 

All we can do is vote for the guy that we think is most likely to put into effect what we think is good government.

[brainbone]

I'll say it again: it's only outlandish to people who want Obama to be president.

 

 

Look. The only way you can show that Obama's character was tainted by this association is to demonize the Annenberg Foundation (Leonore Annenberg has endorsed McCain) and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (funded by the Annenberg Foundation). Ayer's past hold no argument in this debate, unless you can somehow bring up some point of fact showing that Obama endorsed the past illegal actions of Ayers, and Ayers view on those actions.

 

If McCain served on the board of a non-profit organization that tried to do good for its community and another board member happened to have been a white supremacist, McCain should not be demonized in any way for that association -- unless you could find factual information showing that McCain supported this other members views.

 

As soon as the baloney about McCain and the Keating Five and Palin's support of the Secessionist party gets dropped.

 

These actions are more to be concerned about as they actually do show insights into ones judgment. Palin was completely aware of AIPs stance, yet still supported it, and with McCain/Keating, it simply shows he made poor judgment.

 

Now, you can try to argue that Obama made "poor judgment" by joining a board with Ayers -- but on what grounds? Was it that the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was a terrible organization? If so, then why are you grasping onto Ayers? If Obama wasn't running for president, would this be such a bad thing? So, we can conclude that Obama made "poor judgment" only in a strategical sense for this presidential race. Now -- look at AIP and Keating. Irrespective of McCain or Palin's candidacy, they have shown poor judgment in these two situations.

[Descalzo]

Now, you can try to argue that Obama made "poor judgment" by joining a board with Ayers -- but on what grounds? Was it that the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was a terrible organization? If so, then why are you grasping onto Ayers? If Obama wasn't running for president, would this be such a bad thing? So, we can conclude that Obama made "poor judgment" only in a strategical sense for this presidential race. Now -- look at AIP and Keating. Irrespective of McCain or Palin's candidacy, they have shown poor judgment in these two situations.

 

Obama's political career was launched with Ayers giving him a fundraiser in his living room. If a Republican candidate had launched his political career at the home of an abortion-clinic bomber — even a repentant one — he would not have been able to run for dogcatcher in Podunk. And Ayers shows no remorse. His only regret is that he "didn't do enough."

 

 

Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright's angry racism or Ayers's unreconstructed 1960s radicalism?

 

 

No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama.

 

 

First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with — let alone serve on two boards with — an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?

 

 

Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success.

 

 

Obama is not the first politician to rise through a corrupt political machine. But he is one of the rare few to then have the audacity to present himself as a transcendent healer, hovering above and bringing redemption to the "old politics" — of the kind he had enthusiastically embraced in Chicago in the service of his own ambition.

 

 

Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama's core beliefs. He doesn't share the Rev. Wright's poisonous views of race nor Ayers's views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond.

 

 

Until now. Today, on the threshold of the presidency, Obama concedes the odiousness of these associations, which is why he has severed them. But for the years in which he sat in Wright's pews and shared common purpose on boards with Ayers, Obama considered them a legitimate, indeed unremarkable, part of social discourse.

 

 

Do you? Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament. But his character remains highly suspect. There is a difference between temperament and character. Equanimity is a virtue. Tolerance of the obscene is not.

 

Here is a link.

 

Don't kid yourself. Obama is a politician, straight up.

[brainbone]

Here is a link.

 

Don't kid yourself. Obama is a politician, straight up.

 

Don't kid yourself. Look past innuendo and into facts.

[aduffbrew]

Haven't we seen this all before?

 

 

Washington is all but completely broken at the moment. Even good people are reduced to pandering to the dumbest among us to even get elected. The masses don't want real solutions, they want magically painless and instantaneous solutions to all their problems and they don't want to be bothered with doing any of the work themselves.... that's why they vote the pandering promise givers into office in the first place.

 

I still think McCain AND Obama are a small step in the right direction. I wouldn't cry if either were elected. Neither are the real deal... how can they be in this political environment. Early in Obama's campaign I started to think that maybe he'd be wildly different. He isn't... but that doesn't mean he or McCain are the anti-Christ here to usher in the end of civilization as we know it. Take heart.... Bush will be gone. Things will be better... even if it's only a hairs difference.

[Descalzo]

Don't kid yourself. Look past innuendo and into facts.

I am! That's why I can recognize that my candidate is nothing more than a politician, albeit one who likely to do less stuff that I hate.

[jgrimes80]

I think all of you give WAY too much credit to the President. What does the "President" actually do for the country?

 

Does he/she write legislature? No.

Can he/she ensure something gets passed? No.

 

So how can a single person promise anything more than a political standing? The reality is that our President tries to effect items the Senate and House push through and set a tone for the economy and relationships with other countries.

 

I frequently find opposition in discussions about the current administration. How much of what we pin on the White House (as a WHOLE) is completely and entirely its fault? Sure there are things I'm not pleased about... but when it comes down to it. It's not just G. W. Bush, it's the government altogether. Regardless of who holds the position, there is (well, should be) collective responsiblity AND collective accountability. All members of the Federal Government should feel the wieght of the decisions/issues/failures it finds itself dealing with. We don't see these things. It's too easy to point a finger at a single person and say he/she is responisble.

 

Does anyone else feel the same way? Personally, I think the bi-partisanship will need to come to an end in order to actually get another President who cares about his/her people. Until my Joe "Six Pack" neighbor can decide he wants to become President and can at least get himself on a ticket... I refuse to believe the democratic process is anything more than a smoke screen. I honestly think, our neighbors in the suburbs have a better understanding and more commonsense than some of our elected officials. Thoughts?

[Descalzo]

I think all of you give WAY too much credit to the President. What does the "President" actually do for the country?

 

Does he/she write legislature? No.

Can he/she ensure something gets passed? No.

 

So how can a single person promise anything more than a political standing? The reality is that our President tries to effect items the Senate and House push through and set a tone for the economy and relationships with other countries.

 

I think this is all true, except when it comes to foreign policy and the selection of SC Justices.

 

On the economy (especially on the budget!!!) the President gets all the blame even though I don't think he earns half the blame. (Of course, even with that, I find Bush to be most disappointing on the economy).

[brainbone]

That's why I can recognize that my candidate is nothing more than a politician

 

Of course they're politicians.... If they weren't, they would be soon enough after getting elected.

 

I think all of you give WAY too much credit to the President. What does the "President" actually do for the country?

 

- Supreme court judicial selection (shaping the law for a good long time after they are in office)

 

- Foreign policy (see: Iraq)

 

- Veto power (unless there is an overwhelming majority of one party in congress (needing two thirds congressional support for any bill to override the veto), this allows the president to shape legislation with a broad stroke, by simply threatening to veto).

 

- Other various appointments (The mess Bush made of the DOJ should certainly wake you up to the powers a president has - and the risks of not putting them in able hands).

[aduffbrew]

- Supreme court judicial selection (shaping the law for a good long time after they are in office)

 

- Foreign policy (see: Iraq)

 

- Veto power (unless there is an overwhelming majority of one party in congress (needing two thirds congressional support for any bill to override the veto), this allows the president to shape legislation with a broad stroke, by simply threatening to veto).

 

- Other various appointments (The mess Bush made of the DOJ should certainly wake you up to the powers a president has - and the risks of not putting them in able hands).

Don't forget Signing Statements... YIKES!

[jgrimes80]

- Supreme court judicial selection (shaping the law for a good long time after they are in office)

So, the decisions and interpretations of the few appointed justices (which are actually appointed with the "advice and consent" of CONGRESS!) should be credited to the President?

 

- Foreign policy (see: Iraq)

 

Last I checked, the US Senate, House and Supreme Court gave the White House the authority to do everything they did. The president didn't single handedly do anything. What on earth made G. W. Bush an expert on Iraq? In fact, I doubt he knew exactly were it was when he took his oath. Actually, if you're really intrigued by this subject, take a look at the agenda for PNAC and its supporters. You'll see quite a few interesting names listed. Arguably something that would have occurred regardless of who was in office at the time.

 

- Veto power (unless there is an overwhelming majority of one party in congress (needing two thirds congressional support for any bill to override the veto), this allows the president to shape legislation with a broad stroke, by simply threatening to veto).

 

And somehow the President carries a Masters of Art and Science with full ranged educational background.... giving him/her the credible opinion and comprehension of effects in all legislature that gets passed through? Nope, this is his subcommittees, advisors, and partisanship.

 

- Other various appointments (The mess Bush made of the DOJ should certainly wake you up to the powers a president has - and the risks of not putting them in able hands).

 

I think you missed the point of my comments. My point was specifically, the president doesn't have nearly the power to do much as the general population credits him/her for... he/she is nothing more than a person to blame or give credit.

[brainbone]

So, the decisions and interpretations of the few appointed justices (which are actually appointed with the "advice and consent" of CONGRESS!) should be credited to the President?

 

The president makes the selection, the congress approves or denies.

 

Last I checked, the US Senate, House and Supreme Court gave the White House the authority to do everything they did. The president didn't single handedly do anything.

 

The administration (selected by the president, directly or indirectly) makes the decision, then finds ways to coerce the congress into doing what they wish.

 

 

And somehow the President carries a Masters of Art and Science with full ranged educational background.... giving him/her the credible opinion and comprehension of effects in all legislature that gets passed through? Nope, this is his subcommittees, advisors

 

All selected by the president, directly or indirectly.

 

Don't forget Signing Statements... YIKES!

 

Yes.. certainly don't forget this. "I sign this bill into law, but feel that A & B don't align with my interpretation of the constitution and executive authority -- so, I'm not going to do it".

 

he/she is nothing more than a person to blame or give credit.

 

Since the president appoints the individuals that generally cause all the trouble, I would say the president is indeed the appropriate person to blame -- unless congress overrides the president and passes a bill that is not in the best interest of the country, that he would otherwise veto.

[x86rev]

October Surprise !!! Hillary may still be in the race ! Wonder what the real reason was that Obama had to go back to Hawaii. Hmmmm

 

 

 

[peach-os]

why do you provide such {censored}? looks like you don´t have no more intelligent arguments.

if obama is bad for your country don´t vote for him - that´s how democracy works.

you should find solutions for your real problems instead of performing that ridiculous business - the rest of the world is waiting for it.

[dies]

October Surprise !!! Hillary may still be in the race ! Wonder what the real reason was that Obama had to go back to Hawaii. Hmmmm

 

 

 

Are you for real with this {censored} ?

 

 

Wow ...

[x86rev]

I knew this would happen. All I did was provide a link I ran across and you guys act like I'm the one who created this video. I didnt personally attack anyone, nor did I make any insulting or degrading remarks. So why are you guys attacking and insulting me. For something I found! If you disagree with it thats cool. I personally dont think its true but weirder things have happened in this world we live in. So guys lighten up. You are taking this whole thing - way- to serious. :-)

[peach-os]

I didn´t insult you personally.if you feel so - I´m sorry that wasn´t my intention. there wasn´t any sign for meaning that not "too serious"in your post. believe me I would have wrote the same if this {censored} was about mccain.

simply I don´t have the understanding for that nasty kind of behaviour against candidates. the closer the election comes the more stupid it get´s. therefore I can´t understand that you spread something like that.

[Descalzo]

Are you for real with this {censored} ?

Wow ...

Here's my take: The Constitution is the Constitution, and Obama must abide by it. I think he needs to release the records to prove his citizenship and clear all this up. Personally, I think he's clean (or at least clean enough) as far as his citizenship goes. There may be some gray area, and he may be in it. For example, in the youtube movie it mentions that even if he were a natural-born citizen and then regained his citizenship as a naturalized citizen, then that honestly sounds like it satisfies the Constitution, at least the letter of the law.

 

I predict that nothing will come of this. Either the movie is baloney, or the media won't sacrifice their Chosen One, or he'll fit in the gray area I mentioned, or something else, but he'll be fine.

[dies]

Here's my take: The Constitution is the Constitution, and Obama must abide by it. I think he needs to release the records to prove his citizenship and clear all this up. Personally, I think he's clean (or at least clean enough) as far as his citizenship goes. There may be some gray area, and he may be in it. For example, in the youtube movie it mentions that even if he were a natural-born citizen and then regained his citizenship as a naturalized citizen, then that honestly sounds like it satisfies the Constitution, at least the letter of the law.

 

I predict that nothing will come of this. Either the movie is baloney, or the media won't sacrifice their Chosen One, or he'll fit in the gray area I mentioned, or something else, but he'll be fine.

 

Thanks.

 

I feel dumber just for having read that.

 

 

To clarify :

 

Yup, the citizenship of a US senator who got nominated by their party for the presidency is "a gray area".

 

Get real.

[Descalzo]

Thanks.

 

I feel dumber just for having read that.

To clarify :

 

Yup, the citizenship of a US senator who got nominated by their party for the presidency is "a gray area".

 

Get real.

No. Whether or not he's a citizen might be gray area. The wording of the Constitution and the laws are unclear enough to make some gray area.

 

Our laws are full of gray areas. That's the whole job of the Supreme Court, isn't it? Of course, there's gray area there, too.

[m16]

No. Whether or not he's a citizen might be gray area. The wording of the Constitution and the laws are unclear enough to make some gray area.

 

Our laws are full of gray areas. That's the whole job of the Supreme Court, isn't it? Of course, there's gray area there, too.

You need to be a citizen of the united states to hold public office. He couldn't have fooled the government.... Also, its not his citizenship its whether he was born in the US thats up for debate... This is just another right wing fear mongering tactic to drive people away from the polls.

 

McCain - Obama whats the difference- they both suck - however it seems Obama has little more respect for civil rights. Neither would make it in Europe as a politician... Except perhaps in Germany...

[peach-os]

McCain - Obama whats the difference- they both suck - however it seems Obama has little more respect for civil rights. Neither would make it in Europe as a politician... Except perhaps in Germany...

 

wow............should that mean that you think german politicians are on a low level?

I´m just wondering.......................

[m16]

Germany seems to care very little about human rights just like McCain and Obama. In germany you do not even have free speech... Also Germany is ruled by the Christian Democratic Union... I don't know if other countries in Europe mix church and state together like germany but I'm sure US politicians would be a good fit for "christian politics"....

 

In the USA atheists are discriminated against...