You too We both can speculate about what kind of job he is going to do. Im not alone in doing that.

i'm not the one calling him a savior or calling him a complete fake after two days


you've hated his guts since the get go though, so i don't expect you to wait and see what happens.

I think he is a complete fake. He lied in his autobiographies.. Did you know that? Im sure you have read them. I recommend a book for you to read: "The Obama Nation"

I didnt say you were calling him a savior. Ive never heard you say that but I have seen and heard people talking about him as if he is one.

Are you kidding me? I HOPE he does some good. What other chance do I have but to sit and wait around? Im not moving anytime soon.

i haven't read any of his books/books about him

Maybe you should.

i wouldn't read obama nation anyway because of how much shit has been said about it's accuracy being incorrect so i wouldn't even mess with a book that's already had tons of stuff written about it's inaccuracy.

I think more than anything the reason obama was elected was not because of his plans for america but of the mere fact that America needs hope right now he is compared to Kennedy alot and his speeches are inspiring, Bush said he wouldnt nation build, yet he did in IRAQ, Bush said he would work together with Democrats, instead he works with neocons. Lieing in an autobiography to make the general public feel hopeful of the future is alot better then lieing about policies and future plans, as for the next president after obama, since the republicans have to put someone, I would say their A candidate would be Mitt Romney. Hes a mormom, so Utah would go to him, he was Governor of Massachusetts so that state would go to him, and born in michigan, he also raised alot of money for the campaign, however even if Mitt Romney would be the Republicans best bet, I feel obama will have a second term, even if he hasnt done anything significant yet :]

cause you know, books tell all right, how about you just stfu and wait till something actually happens before you judge

Yes, your right. Obama's speeches are inspiring, he is an eloquent speaker, he "offers" hope. But since when did we stop counting on people's experience as a factor in electing someone president? Now its nothing but words? Everyone was so quick to judge how little experience Palin has.

And I agree that Mitt Romney would have been a better pick than McCain. But McCain had a hell of a lot experience in national security and reform. I guess he just didnt give good enough speeches to "inspire" people.




And just how accurate is Obama's autobiographies? But, seriously, whatever. I dont care what you read.


You really dont make any sense. If you want me to stfu, you can just leave the forum and watch a little CNN.

Yea, I agree with the experience part, I mean, he was a candidate for the senate seat, then the next thing you know he is our president. but I personally feel Obama will achieve alot and if he dosent, then at least we made history :]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200808040005#200808050

i think that whole page of stuff is similar to what i saw, which was someone interviewing him about the factual lies in his book. so no, i have no interest in reading it. he's known for his smear now anyway after two books trying to inaccurately smear democratic candidates.

if i was going to read something anti obama, i would personally probably at least pick something more credible in light of all that. so i doubt i'll read it. as i said i haven't read obama's autobiographies. i don't really care to anytime soon either cause i have other reading i'd rather do. whether i like those books or not wouldn't change the fact that he's the president so we might as well accept it and see what happens.

i doubt i'll read anything anti obama or pro obama though cause i don't really care at this point since it is what it is for now.

You need to STFU unless you actually try researching some of the stuff you spew out.

74% of voters are WHITE. 74%! An overwhelming majority. And they mostly voted for McCain. And they still lost. Now how many of those white people who voted for your candidate do you think made uninformed decisions?

The minorities? The blacks, the asians, and the latinos? They all voted for Obama. Because he is the candidate the non-mainstream want to see take office. We are tired of the same type of person taking office over and over and over again.

We are tired of Republicans who protect the wealthy so the wealthy stay and continue to get richer. I am tired of seeing my college tuition increase when I see no increase of benefits for myself. I am tired of nearly half our nation unable to afford basic health care, which is detrimental to society because they cannot be productive citizens. Many people share my views. Yes, they are a little socialist but we are tired of the entitled staying entitled and not benefiting society.

I don't care if you're conservative. I don't care how many times you say you are not racist. You can say you're an informed voter but you have done NOTHING to show that you are different from the people you're talking about.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/...exit-polls.html

Now thats how we debate here <3333

I really think dosomeshit needs to stop posting in debate because they continue to say the most ignorant things known to jesus.

As much of a little jackass you are, I have to kind of agree on this part.

YOU NO SPEAK ENGLISH?

The same type of person taking office over and over has only part to do with the crap going on in washington. You cant just single it out as the President who is messing it all up. How about the Congress? There are plenty of greedy people in Washington and outside of Washington who have a big part in why our economy is in a hole.

I want the same things as you do.. but it has nothing to do with what we are debating about. You want all of those things.. yet you believe a man with no experience in reform is going to bring them to you? Okay, we will just have to wait and see. And you think there is nothing wrong with a "little" socialism? Okay. You think spreading the wealth around is a good idea? You are going to college to make a good living just to have it given back to people who dont work as hard as you? And it is not just the Republicans protecting the wealthy, Democrats are pretty guilty of that too.

And I dont care about New York Time's polls. A lot of people did vote. A lot of people didnt vote. I was simply offering who I think should run against Obama in 2012.


... and, uh, many people also share my views. They just dont happen to visit this website.

Be careful with your words next time. Your previous posts were generalizing people. I don't completely agree with Obama either, but hes better than McCain. I got friends in the war, I'd hope to see them again. Yeah there are a lot of people who share your views, but what, there's twice as more that don't

You're singing a totally different tune now.

You don't care about the NYT polls because they don't say what you want.

What I'm talking about has everything to do with what we're talking about. And you clearly do not understand the history behind American politics. Republicans have allowed a free market with little government control and Mccain's party would not have done differently if elected. That's the very basis of Republican ideals: little government involvement. And the republicans were fine about not involving themselves until the shit hit the fan. Which is part of the reason why people want change.

And don't use Congress as an example. Republicans use to have the majority. And the president has vetoing powers. And, things that Congress should have focused on got overshadowed by the Iraqi War and the random re-focusing on illegal immigration. Government is tricky business.

And I'm not advocating taking people's hard earned money and just handing it out. It's social responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves. Helping those to become more productive members of society.

/long tangent

If excluding the possibility of Obama running for re-election, Hilary Clinton should try and get the Democrat ticket.

The debate has progressed, Im not going to say the same things again. Im responding to Comptine, who changed the tune.



There are plenty of polls. Plenty that say what I want and plenty that say what you want. That is why I dont care about your NYT polls.

You can say that I dont know how politics works and that I am ignorant because I think differently from you. Well, actually, from everyone else here. Whatever. Republicans: smaller govt. and less govt. control. Democrats: more govt. and more govt. control. I know that. If you are referring to how the Republicans jumped on the bandwagon regarding the bailout, I dont agree with that. We should have let the banks fail and resurfaced with proper regulation minus the greedy CEO's. But there is hardly any consequences for people's actions nowadays because we do have a corrupt govt. and a sorrupt society.
And dont insult me to the point by saying that I dont know govt. is tricky business.

And by saying that a little socialism is okay, you are advocating that people be handed your money. It is our responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves to a degree.



By telling me im ignorant, thats just a way of making you sound like your right. Im not ignorant and it would be good if you learned to be tolerant of other's views. If not, you can surround yourself with people who think just like you and call everyone else ignorant. But you are not debating, so unless you want to tell me how I am being "ignorant", you really have nothing important to say.

i actually agree with this. some of people running in here and calling her ignorant aren't even giving real replies. why the hell should what you say make any difference to her when you aren't even saying anything relevant to the topic? just running in and saying how she's so stupid and ignorant and leaving again is annoying. not just to her, but probably to all the people who actually took over 15 seconds to write a reply. ffs

dosomething and i don't agree on hardly ANYTHING political but at least she will actually reply saying something. some of the people who are calling her ignorant have never even proven they themselves aren't ignorant to politics.(not everyone replying, but a couple imo who i won't name) i would wager she knows more about what's going on than a lot even though we see the same events in different ways obviously.

MOTHER f*ckERS

/rant


anyway @ dosomething, you said we should help people who cannot help themselves to a degree. isn't that "a little bit socialist"by your definition because you're redistributing a little bit of wealth? what's your cut off line for that degree though, that's what i don't get? i mean obama isn't flat out taking all of your money and handing it to someone else. i would think anything he's doing is to a degree.

I'd point out (since most of what I'd like to say has already been covered) that it is simply untrue to say that Republicans are for less government and less government control. That may be the thought behind their economic policies, but it doesn't apply to their social stances in the least. Republicans are very much in favor of social control, which is obviously governmental.

And for the record, not making up statistics is one way to avoid looking ignorant. If you're going throw around 90% this, 90% that, back it up with something. Sweeping unfounded generalizations are generally something you want to avoid.

Also, I think someone else pointed this out too, but seriously. Wanting to help people "to a degree" is absolutely "a little socialism." There always has been, always will be at least a little socialism in our government. You don't think we've ever been truly capitalistic, do you? Because that is thoroughly not the case. I know socialism is scary stuff (), but you don't actually want an economy that isn't mixed, either.

oh yeah i forgot about that. hm, either way, if presidents were allowed to serve more. i don't think they would vote for bush again. our economy is doing horrible, so if bush was running again, i don't think anybody would have voted for him. if you say you would, then cool, i don't have anything against it.

Look, on most circumstances I agree with the laissez-faire approach to the free market. However, with the poor being poorer and Exxon masturbating in its own billions, don't you think socialism is somewhat acceptable at this point in time?