The Big Cat Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 That would be me. In actuality, it is going to get worse before it gets better no matter who is elected. Once you've lived enough, you will understand that no matter how bad it is right now, it can always get worse. But I believe an Obama-led America could get a lot worse. First, while Obama is out trying to get the rest of the world to like us again, he is going to make us vulnerable but showing we are no longer resolute in our defense of democracy and human rights. He may be able to assemble a great team that will prevent that, but most Americans thought George W. Bush had assembled a great team for foreign policy. A good team can only be as good as its leader. Obama's thoughts on State Department affairs are fundamentally flawed. Scribo, thank you for outlining specifically why Obama will be at the center "things getting worse." Unlike everyone else who conveniently ignored the context of this thread, you actually stayed on topic. I guess nobody here thinks that a 24 year old can grasp the fact that things have been worse in the past and are going to get worse. I asked the question (in large print, yes) in the context of how worsening affairs will be a direct result of an OBAMA presidency. So: I'd like to know specifically what Obama will do to make the rest of the world think we've lost our defense supremacy. He'd have to cut the military budget in half to even hint at this. That won't happen. Our defense of human rights and democracy doesn't have to be done by occupying a sovreign country. May be you don't believe this. I do. Obama seems to. Diplomacy works, we haven't tried it in 8 years, it's time we did. The only people who would even remotely entertain the notion that Bush surrounded himself with "a great team for foreign policy" would be neo-cons. That I think we can agree on. When you say that Obama's thoughts on the State Department are fundamentally flawed, I sure hope you're not referring to these "undconditional meetings" that McCain keeps erroneously alluding to. Yes, unconditional meetings WOULD be a fundamental misunderstanding of the state department, but since that's Obama's policy according only to MCCAIN, I would ask that you refrain from citing misleading campaign rhetoric to make your point. Here's the team that Obama would surround himself with (in his own words): "I associate myself with my running mate, Joe Biden or with Dick Lugar, the Republican ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, or General Jim Jones, the former supreme allied commander of NATO." Where is the weakness in this team? Obama reminds me a great deal of Carter. I wonder how Obama would handle another Iran Hostage Crisis. My view is that his early statements about negotiating with terrorist-sponsored states makes him look too weak to deter those states from striking first. You're making an unfair assumption here, IMO. I could just as easily assume that McCain would be like Truman and drop an A-bomb an all our enemies, just to make a point. Second, our nation's small businesses are going to fail at an even worse rate than they are now if Obama's health care plan and/or tax plan get enacted. Socialism has already been given a head-start with the Wall Street bailout, and Obama's tax plan and mentality, especially with Obama having control of the House and Senate, could very well propel socialism into the official way of life here. Say that isn't possible all you want, but it is and we already aren't that far from it. You only need to look back 15 years ago to the collapse of the super power that was the USSR. If it could happen there, it could happen here. I'm not going to touch his tax policy or what you think it might do to small businesses because insofar there's no tax policy IN PLACE. The banking system has already been nationalized, and that's a FAR GREATER step towards socialism than RAISING TAXES. But let me say this: the fall of the Soviet Union had NOTHIGN to do with taxes on small businesses. Turns out we were involved with this "arms race" thing and compared to the US they were much more bloodied after WWII since parts of it actually took place on its turf. (Please don't cite Pearl Harbor as a way to tell me I'm ignorant to say that WWII wasn't fought here- it's like apples and oranges, and I'd thank you to not cherry pick that comment from everything else mentioned here)<--fruity statement? Back to my point, the Soviet Union was spending at an unsustainable rate to keep up with the US, and many mnay factors, corruption being a big one, contributed to its collapse. It had very very little to do with high taxes on small businessses. Call me an alarmist, but socialism smashed the economies of the former Soviet republics into shambles. Civil wars and ethnic violence broke out between the republics which compare to our states. And the quality of medical care, educational facilities and residential housing deteriorated all the way from some of the world's highest standards to conditions found in third-world countries. That disarray, destruction and decay was the logical legacy of the application of the collectivist ideal. That ideal included three ideas: the theory of a planned economy, the belief in collective or group rights, and the notion of socialized or state-provided social services. Sound familiar? So, yes, I believe it is entirely reasonable to fear things could get worse with Obama in the White House. Okay, well assuming the United States had the stability of a third world country before being released into the throws of socialism, yes these would be fair assumptions to make about our own fate. Alas, you're putting things into incomparable context here. So, we'll have to agree to disagree. SD JARHEAD: It's just one word-'melodramatic- and yes, the country has been through worse times, and yes things probably can get worse. The context of this thread, and the context under which I asked the "question" was how Obama will be directly responsible for things getting worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 I think we finally found out just who Obama is. I think this is a pretty accurate assessment, from Madison Powers, writing for CQpolitics: For many months the McCain campaign has been asking who Barack Obama is. The campaign has been tantalizingly vague, dropping hints along the way, but leaving it to us to connect the dots. Now, thanks to the McCain-Palin campaign, the answer has finally come into focus. He’s a celebrity Muslim socialist who pals around with terrorists at elite Hyde Park gatherings attended by Republican college presidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Kelly, that quote makes me laugh. Edit: I had to sig it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 SD JARHEAD: It's just one word-'melodramatic- and yes, the country has been through worse times, and yes things probably can get worse. The context of this thread, and the context under which I asked the "question" was how Obama will be directly responsible for things getting worse. Ugh, thanks for the spelling correction. But if you want to know how Obama could make things worse, look at his planned policies or research Jimmy Carter and do a compare and contrast with Obama. If you do an honest assessment, you might be suprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Ugh, thanks for the spelling correction. But if you want to know how Obama could make things worse, look at his planned policies or research Jimmy Carter and do a compare and contrast with Obama. If you do an honest assessment, you might be suprised. Any information I have on Jimmy Carter has come to me second hand from a biased source. I will do some poking around on my own and let you know what I think. When it comes to Carter, having the convenience of retrospect over you old balls may skew my perception vs. yours- but that's why I'd post my findings here! True, and honest feedback! Jarhead, I appreciate the respectfulness of your responses and I will certainly look forward to your feedback on Carter as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Any information I have on Jimmy Carter has come to me second hand from a biased source. I will do some poking around on my own and let you know what I think. When it comes to Carter, having the convenience of retrospect over you old balls may skew my perception vs. yours- but that's why I'd post my findings here! True, and honest feedback! Jarhead, I appreciate the respectfulness of your responses and I will certainly look forward to your feedback on Carter as well. Let me save you some time. Jimmy Carter sucked a$$. Big time. There ya go. Your welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Remember, us "old balls" lived through it and saw it first hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Remember, us "old balls" lived through it and saw it first hand. Yeah, but you're still old balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Ugh, thanks for the spelling correction. But if you want to know how Obama could make things worse, look at his planned policies or research Jimmy Carter and do a compare and contrast with Obama. If you do an honest assessment, you might be suprised. Carter never listened to anyone but himself, even when he was right... Pissed everyone else off including Dems so that no one would work with him in the end. High inflation, unemployment and the Hostage rescue debacle did him in as Reagan asked the question are you better off than you were four years ago. So I will ask the question again, are you better off than you were 8 years ago or do you want more of the McSame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Let me save you some time. Jimmy Carter sucked a$$. Big time. There ya go. Your welcome. Yeah, a great man but unfortunately not so effective as a president. I say when you get a Nobel Prize, you're redeemed though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Yeah, a great man but unfortunately not so effective as a president. I say when you get a Nobel Prize, you're redeemed though Arafat redeemed? de Klerk? What you say reveals what you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Arafat redeemed? de Klerk? What you say reveals what you know. F.W. de Klerk was instrumental in ending apartheid, regardless of his motives or what kind of man he was. And Arafat, well it's wrong to say he's redeemed, but the Oslo Accords were a pivotal moment at the time and I won't say those men didn't deserve the award. On another note, you seem intent on flaming me and calling into quesiton my intelligence on several topics...did I do something to offend you? I mean, in all fairness you could have stopped at "Arafat redeemed? de Klerk?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 So I will ask the question again, are you better off than you were 8 years ago or do you want more of the McSame I'm much better off than I was 8 years ago. But I realize the President had nothing to do with it, it was all of my own doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts