"Barack Obama isn't really one of us."

[SD Jarhead]

That's your definition of his position. If you asked him, or anyone, of course they are not going to say he is going to single-handedly and completely change Washington. Of course, as I said before a couple times and you just ignore, there is going to be politicking. There is going to be compromise. There is going to be changing or evolving of position. There is going to be trading votes. He is mostly talking about the constant bickering and relentless partisanship not all partisanship. That is what he talks about when he says he wants to change Washington, he says it all the time. Of course he doesn't believe he will get rid of all special interests. He wants to change the way it seems like everything is determined by special interests.

 

Of course there is a history of him acting like any politician would. And of course, he is politicking when he says stuff like that. It's implicit.

 

Kelly, Give me ONE example of where The Messiah has 'walked the walk' WRT his mantra of 'Change'. When has he crossed party lines to get something done? He's an empty suit.

 

The only change he has in mind is a swing to the hard left.

 

Now apply that to 'McBush' as your talking points have instructed you to call him. McCain used to be called a maverick because he would cross party lines if he thought it was the right thing to do for the nation. Though he was wrong on many things, (McCain-Feingold as an example), he would often do so.

[Chilly]

Now apply that to 'McBush' as your talking points have instructed you to call him. McCain used to be called a maverick because he would cross party lines if he thought it was the right thing to do for the nation. Though he was wrong on many things, (McCain-Feingold as an example), he would often do so.

 

Erm, the only way he was "wrong" on BCRA is that it didn't go far enough.

[Wacka]

He wants to change the US into a Socialist Worker's Paradise.

[Kelly the Dog]

His definition isn't that he is going to fundamentally change Washington?

 

"And four years later, you're right back, making the very same promises about the very same problems. I mean this isn't the first time this gas tax holiday has come up. It comes up every two years right before election time, because somebody thinks this is going to be good politic, but it doesn't solve the problem. Well, this year, you have a choice. If you want to take another chance on the same kind of politics we've come to know in Washington, other candidates to choose from. But I still believe we need to fundamentally change Washington if we want to change America." - Barack Obama.

 

 

 

I believe he phrases it as "transcending divisive politics". Here are the definitions of the word divisive from M-W:

 

Transcending: a: to rise above or go beyond the limits of b: to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of : overcome c: to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)

Divisive: creating disunity or dissension <a divisive issue>

 

 

 

His rhetoric isn't to remove special interests from Washington, just to scale them back?

 

"Do we continue to allow lobbyists to veto our country's progress, or do we finally put our national interests ahead of the special interests, and address the concerns people feel over their jobs, their health care and their children's future? That's why I'm running for President of the United States. Because to meet these challenges, changing parties isn't change enough. We need something new. We need to turn the page," said Senator Barack Obama.

 

"My experience tells me that real change and reform come when we're willing to put the people's interests before the special interests and partisan interests." - Barack Obama

 

"That's the kind of movement that can change the special interest-driven politics in Washington and transform our country. And it's just the beginning," said Barack Obama.

 

 

 

 

 

Which means his campaign is complete crap. One of his main calls is for honest and open government. By definition, if his rhetoric doesn't match up with reality, then it is not honest and open.

Fundamentally change something doesn't change it completely, and exclude all elements of its past. We're just going around in circles here. When Republicans say we're going to eliminate the threat of terror and Al Qaida do they mean there is going to be no more terror or Al Qaida? Of course not, and I would never come close to holding that above their heads. It's not being realistic. If there is gay marriage, it fundamentally changes marriage but it doesn't eliminate or change or even effect the billions of other marriages. When companies undergo fundamental changes they don't completely change, a huge portion of the business remains, it's just significantly different, thought of different, approached different, some of its business is different.

 

Not all lobbyists are bad. Not all special interests are bad. He doesn't want to ban or eliminate the 40,000 lobbyists in Washington. Putting people above special interests doesn't mean eliminating special interests. I think you're being just ridiculous in these dictionary definitions.

[Chilly]

Fundamentally change something doesn't change it completely, and exclude all elements of its past. We're just going around in circles here. When Republicans say we're going to eliminate the threat of terror and Al Qaida do they mean there is going to be no more terror or Al Qaida? Of course not, and I would never come close to holding that above their heads. It's not being realistic.

 

Of course its not being realistic, and I don't hold it above Bush's head either. Know why? He didn't campaign on a platform of honesty and change in Washington.

 

If there is gay marriage, it fundamentally changes marriage but it doesn't eliminate or change or even effect the billions of other marriages.

 

And this is similar to fundamentally changing Washington how, exactly?

 

When companies undergo fundamental changes they don't completely change, a huge portion of the business remains, it's just significantly different, thought of different, approached different, some of its business is different.

 

Which is exactly what I am talking about here - not eliminating our Government, but making it significantly different, thought of different, and approached different.

 

Not all lobbyists are bad. Not all special interests are bad. He doesn't want to ban or eliminate the 40,000 lobbyists in Washington. Putting people above special interests doesn't mean eliminating special interests. I think you're being just ridiculous in these dictionary definitions.

 

Here is your problem: By allowing some special interest groups and lobbyists to influence government, you are allowing all of them a path to influence government. The politicians will again pick and choose which special interest group they support, and which they don't - they will pick which ones they view as benefiting their people, and which ones they don't. This is what currently happens in today's government. Want proof? Look at Obama's speech on the farm bill, where he chooses one group of special interests over another. If Obama means that he will still allow some to influence government, instead of eliminating all of them, this does not represent, as you put it in your words, a "significantly different", "thought of different", or "approached different" government. This is the same old government that we currently have, not change of any sort.

[Kelly the Dog]

Kelly, Give me ONE example of where The Messiah has 'walked the walk' WRT his mantra of 'Change'. When has he crossed party lines to get something done? He an empty suit.

 

The only change he has in mind is a swing to the hard left.

 

Now apply that to 'McBush' as your talking points have instructed you to call him. McCain used to be called a maverick because he would cross party lines if he thought it was the right thing to do for the nation. Though he was wrong on many things, (McCain-Feingold as an example), he would often do so.

I have no idea what the talking points are, I don't even know the Democratic party's position on a lot of things because I don't care what it is and it wouldn't affect me one bit. I've never been to a party website once.

 

I think we should drill in ANWAR and other places, I've been for almost all wars in my lifetime (except the last one), I've voted for Republicans including for President, I think people should own guns, I think every single government program should be slashed by at least 33% in both manpower and budget immediately, and after that is over, work on cutting more of it, I don't think universal health care is really possible or the answer... I just take each issue as it comes and decide what side I am on. There are probably more that I lean left, but that's because I am liberal minded overall. I'm not for a lot of taxes, only because I think we can slash the government spending and pay for anything we want. I think the entire tax code is out of whack, and probably wouldn't mind a flat tax if it was actually going to be withheld, which I doubt. I really don't mind taxing the very wealthy since I believe they get away with not paying so many taxes that it somewhat evens out. It just pisses me off when people refer to "talking points" about my politics.

[Chilly]

I think we should drill in ANWAR and other places,, I've voted for Republicans including for President, I think people should own guns, I think every single government program should be slashed by at least 33% in both manpower and budget immediately, and after that is over, work on cutting more of it, I don't think universal health care is really possible or the answer... I just take each issue as it comes and decide what side I am on. There are probably more that I lean left, but that's because I am liberal minded overall. I'm not for a lot of taxes, only because I think we can slash the government spending and pay for anything we want. I think the entire tax code is out of whack, and probably wouldn't mind a flat tax if it was actually going to be withheld, which I doubt.

 

This whole paragraph goes completely against your candidate's platform, cept these two lines:

 

I've been for almost all wars in my lifetime (except the last one)

I really don't mind taxing the very wealthy since I believe they get away with not paying so many taxes that it somewhat evens out.

 

[Kelly the Dog]

This whole paragraph goes completely against your candidate's platform, cept these two lines:

 

 

 

I know. I don't expect to be for everything he wants, nor would I want something I don't want, just because he does.

[Chilly]

I know. I don't expect to be for everything he wants, nor would I want something I don't want, just because he does.

 

I found it interesting that the topics you decided to include (seemingly the important ones to you) went directly against your candidate's platform. Or was that only to prove your non-partisanship, thus showing that you do know what the Democratic platform is?

[Kelly the Dog]

Of course its not being realistic, and I don't hold it above Bush's head either. Know why? He didn't campaign on a platform of honesty and change in Washington.

 

 

 

And this is similar to fundamentally changing Washington how, exactly?

 

 

 

Which is exactly what I am talking about here - not eliminating our Government, but making it significantly different, thought of different, and approached different.

 

 

 

Here is your problem: By allowing some special interest groups and lobbyists to influence government, you are allowing all of them a path to influence government. The politicians will again pick and choose which special interest group they support, and which they don't - they will pick which ones they view as benefiting their people, and which ones they don't. This is what currently happens in today's government. Want proof? Look at Obama's speech on the farm bill, where he chooses one group of special interests over another. If Obama means that he will still allow some to influence government, instead of eliminating all of them, this does not represent, as you put it in your words, a "significantly different", "thought of different", or "approached different" government. This is the same old government that we currently have, not change of any sort.

My examples above were to show and prove that "fundamentally changing" something doesn't mean completely changing it. Yet when you claim that Obama wants to fundamentally change Washington, you imply and say that he's not going to completely change it because he still has lobbyists and special interests. He doesn't mean they will all go away. Do you want to ban special interests and lobbyists? There are some important things they do. Influence isn't bad. Undue influence, and influence for votes and money IS bad.

[Kelly the Dog]

I found it interesting that the topics you decided to include (seemingly the important ones to you) went directly against your candidate's platform. Or was that only to prove your non-partisanship, thus showing that you do know what the Democratic platform is?

It was only to say that I think for myself, and don't kowtow to any party's or any candidate's interests. I'm not with Obama on those things and that's fine with me. I am so strongly for Obama for basically one major reason: I think because of the war and because of Bush's mentality and actions, America has lost its moral highground and its strong standing across the globe. Almost everywhere. I think it's an enormous problem, and I think Obama is by far the best candidate to start to mend fences and build new bridges and re-establish our power and responsibility. I also think it's an enormous step for civil rights. I think he's very smart and we could use a smart guy in the White House. And I like the way he thinks before he speaks. You may not always agree with him, I don't, but he thinks. That's a refreshing change and one we can believe in.

 

I also think that he's a good, strong, shrewd politician. That's the profession he's in, politics.

[Chilly]

My examples above were to show and prove that "fundamentally changing" something doesn't mean completely changing it. Yet when you claim that Obama wants to fundamentally change Washington, you imply and say that he's not going to completely change it because he still has lobbyists and special interests. He doesn't mean they will all go away. Do you want to ban special interests and lobbyists? There are some important things they do. Influence isn't bad. Undue influence, and influence for votes and money IS bad.

 

No, I get that he wants to remove "undue influence". I'm saying that he's not going to change anything because his plans don't essentially eliminate them from the system.

 

Its not practical to ban "lobbying", "special interests" and "lobbyists" as they are constitutionally protected. They are free to send all the marketing materials to politicians that they want. I did not consider this, for the purpose of our argument, "influencing the system". I was referring to removing direct influences on the system.

 

Removing them from the system means publicly financed elections and the destruction of the iron triangle. Short of that, lobbyists and special interests will always be part of the system, and will always have undue influence.

 

Obama's proposition goes something like this (paraphrasing): "choosing to put the American people's interests above the lobbyists". The problem with that statement is that it is up to each candidate and each politician to decide what issues are in the American people's interests and which aren't. Hell, I will even go so far as to say it might even work for the time Obama is in office, since at the moment it is politically advantageous to do so.

 

History has shown that unless the system is fundamentally changed, once people feel that the government has been reformed, and the Democrats have goodwill with the people, this will not last. It no longer becomes that politically advantageous to turn down lobbyist money, as it becomes worth more than keeping up the appearance of a "reformed government". At this point, everything will be back to the way that it is now.

 

Leaving any path where lobbyists are directly part of the system means that we have not fundamentally changed anything.

 

*EDIT: Forgot to finish my sentence on what removing them from the system meant

[Kelly the Dog]

No, I get that he wants to remove "undue influence". I'm saying that he's not going to change anything because his plans don't essentially eliminate them from the system.

 

Its not practical to ban "lobbying", "special interests" and "lobbyists" as they are constitutionally protected. They are free to send all the marketing materials to politicians that they want. I did not consider this, for the purpose of our argument, "influencing the system". I was referring to removing direct influences on the system.

 

Removing them from the system means publicly financed elections. Short of that, lobbyists and special interests will always be part of the system, and will always have undue influence.

 

Obama's proposition goes something like this (paraphrasing): "choosing to put the American people's interests above the lobbyists". The problem with that statement is that it is up to each candidate and each politician to decide what issues are in the American people's interests and which aren't. Hell, I will even go so far as to say it might even work for the time Obama is in office, since at the moment it is politically advantageous to do so.

 

History has shown that unless the system is fundamentally changed, once people feel that the government has been reformed, and the Democrats have goodwill with the people, this will not last. It no longer becomes that politically advantageous to turn down lobbyist money, as it becomes worth more than keeping up the appearance of a "reformed government". At this point, everything will be back to the way that it is now.

 

Leaving any path where lobbyists are directly part of the system means that we have not fundamentally changed anything.

I agree with virtually all of that. Obviously, I haven't sat down and spoke with him about what he means. My interpretation of what he means is that if he is elected President, and sets an example, and politicians and the general public see that example work, and that it's to your advantage rather than disadvantage, that it will fundamentally change Washington.

 

Granted, it is quite pollyanish, but this is a political campaign. You need to paint in broad strokes. He's not always going to be above the fray, but you can't come out and say I am not going to be above the fray all the time. It's a little arrogant to think that he will set this example, and it will work, and people will follow, and Washington will fundamentally change. But like my team's quarterback, I want my country's President to be extremely confident and a little arrogant (just not go overboard and be consistently wrong, intractable and stubborn like GW). And furthermore, when you try to be perfect, knowing full well that you are going to fail quite often, it still gets you further along toward perfection, which is good.

 

I like how he usually takes the high road. I like how he doesn't usually get overly emotional which often leads to bad decisions. I like the fact that he is bi-racial, was brought up black by middle class white people, and then made something of himself on his own. This elitist tag is laughable to me.

[SD Jarhead]

I have no idea what the talking points are, I don't even know the Democratic party's position on a lot of things because I don't care what it is and it wouldn't affect me one bit. I've never been to a party website once.

 

I think we should drill in ANWAR and other places, I've been for almost all wars in my lifetime (except the last one), I've voted for Republicans including for President, I think people should own guns, I think every single government program should be slashed by at least 33% in both manpower and budget immediately, and after that is over, work on cutting more of it, I don't think universal health care is really possible or the answer... I just take each issue as it comes and decide what side I am on. There are probably more that I lean left, but that's because I am liberal minded overall. I'm not for a lot of taxes, only because I think we can slash the government spending and pay for anything we want. I think the entire tax code is out of whack, and probably wouldn't mind a flat tax if it was actually going to be withheld, which I doubt. I really don't mind taxing the very wealthy since I believe they get away with not paying so many taxes that it somewhat evens out. It just pisses me off when people refer to "talking points" about my politics.

 

As BF mentioned, your position on the issues above are completely opposed to what Obama stands for. I appologize for the 'talking points' comment, but your opinions in various threads serve to support them. FWIW, I agree with most everything you posted.

 

I will say that I was in favor of the war when we went in, although I questioned the sense of urgency that Bush pressed for. I trusted that they knew something we didn't and that was the reason for invading. I was wrong, and hindsight being 20/20, I think we could've kept him contained. I attended a brief by then recently retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, who was always opposed to the war and listened to him discuss the NeoCon rationale for invading. Long story short, Zinni was right, Bush was wrong and it cost us much in treasure, live etc.

 

However, I do feel that things being where they are today, WE MUST finish this. We are winning, and contrary to what the idiot Harry Reid says, we have not lost, nor is it a civil war over there.

 

BUT- you did not answer my original question- Name me ONE example of where Obama has demonstrated where he has crossed party lines of been any type of bridge builder between the two parties. The FACT is that he is a hard line Leftist where as McCain is a centrist. I firmly believe this. Also, if spending reduction is that important to you, how can you rationally consider Obama? Seriously...

[/dev/null]

My interpretation of what he means is that if he is elected President, and sets an example

 

We don't want Obama setting an example. He's a smoker. We don't want smokers setting an example. What would Rob Reiner and truth.com have to say about that?

[Chilly]

I agree with virtually all of that. Obviously, I haven't sat down and spoke with him about what he means. My interpretation of what he means is that if he is elected President, and sets an example, and politicians and the general public see that example work, and that it's to your advantage rather than disadvantage, that it will fundamentally change Washington.

 

Right now, the reason why Obama is popular is because of the very low governmental ratings, same for the reason why McCain is popular. There is a point when it doesn't help you politically to act like he is proposing.

 

Most of American history is filled with candidates trying to take the high road, the moral road, and losing. The difference is that in the current moment, unlike conventional wisdom, it is politically advantageous to do so. Why? Because of just how freaking bad Bush currently is.

 

Granted, it is quite pollyanish, but this is a political campaign. You need to paint in broad strokes. He's not always going to be above the fray, but you can't come out and say I am not going to be above the fray all the time. It's a little arrogant to think that he will set this example, and it will work, and people will follow, and Washington will fundamentally change. But like my team's quarterback, I want my country's President to be extremely confident and a little arrogant (just not go overboard and be consistently wrong, intractable and stubborn like GW). And furthermore, when you try to be perfect, knowing full well that you are going to fail quite often, it still gets you further along toward perfection, which is good.

 

I like how he usually takes the high road. I like how he doesn't usually get overly emotional which often leads to bad decisions. I like the fact that he is bi-racial, was brought up black by middle class white people, and then made something of himself on his own. This elitist tag is laughable to me.

 

He's a politician - all politicians are elitist and arrogant, lol.

 

Anyway, I take issue with him claiming the moral high ground because I don't believe that any politician can reasonably claim the moral high ground. I'd feel much better about it if he acknowledged that he's not going to "fundamentally change" politics, but that he has a strong policy as to why the government will be much improved after Bush, and then explain those policies. I don't want a politician who claims they essentially aren't a politician (my paraphrasing) - that throws up a huge red flag to me that they are dishonest with themselves and with the country. I don't want a politician who claims they have this grandiose view of American politics as being pristine or free from undue interests from special interests - again, he's not being realistic or honest with himself or the country.

[Kelly the Dog]

As BF mentioned, your position on the issues above are completely opposed to what Obama stands for. I appologize for the 'talking points' comment, but your opinions in various threads serve to support them. FWIW, I agree with most everything you posted.

 

I will say that I was in favor of the war when we went in, although I questioned the sense of urgency that Bush pressed for. I trusted that they knew something we didn't and that was the reason for invading. I was wrong, and hindsight being 20/20, I think we could've kept him contained. I attended a brief by then recently retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, who was always opposed to the war and listened to him discuss the NeoCon rationale for invading. Long story short, Zinni was right, Bush was wrong and it cost us much in treasure, live etc.

 

However, I do feel that things being where they are today, WE MUST finish this. We are winning, and contrary to what the idiot Harry Reid says, we have not lost, nor is it a civil war over there.

 

BUT- you did not answer my original question- Name me ONE example of where Obama has demonstrated where he has crossed party lines of been any type of bridge builder between the two parties. The FACT is that he is a hard line Leftist where as McCain is a centrist. I firmly believe this. Also, if spending reduction is that important to you, how can you rationally consider Obama? Seriously...

He's only been in the Senate for four years, the last of which was spent campaigning. A junior, 42-46 year-old Senator from Illinois is not going to get much legislation passed.

 

But the specific answer to your question, to name one, is the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act required full disclosure of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds each year. Every single one. On a publicly accessible database.

 

The Obama-Luger Nuclear Nonproliferation Threat Reduction Act

 

The Bunning-Obama Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act --

 

The 2007 Senate Ethics Reform bill where he fought Harry Reid and other Dems. The first major ethics reform passed in the Senate in quite awhile.

[Kelly the Dog]

We don't want Obama setting an example. He's a smoker. We don't want smokers setting an example. What would Rob Reiner and truth.com have to say about that?

I just heard him say he hasn't had one in months.

[Nervous Guy]

That makes sense since...This time we are now in has been called "The Time of Trial on Earth," "Judgement Day," "The Time of Great Purification," "The End of this Creation," "The Quickening," "The End of Time as We Know It," "The Shift of the Ages." It is foretold that the completion of the Precession brings regeneration of Earth, offering awakening to all open, willing hearts. This cycle we are in will end 12/21/12. Many peoples spoke of these last days of the Great Cycle, including the: Maya, Hopi, Egyptians, Kabbalists, Essenes, Qero elders of Peru, Navajo, Cherokee, Apache, Iroquois confederacy, Dogon Tribe, and Aborigines.

 

The Hopi and Mayan elders do not prophesy that everything will come to an end. Rather, this is a time of transition from one World Age into another. The message they give concerns our making a choice of how we enter the future ahead. Our moving through with either resistance or acceptance will determine whether the transition will happen with cataclysmic changes or gradual peace and tranquility.

 

Obama will lead us into this new world!

[Chef Jim]

I just heard him say he hasn't had one in months.

 

Wait until that phone rings at 3:00am. He'll be chain smoking by the time he hangs up.