Do You Think Barack Obama Represents â??Changeâ?�?

In an election where a vast majority of people think the country is on the wrong track, itâ??s to be expected that politicians will try to present themselves as representing â??change.â?� Barack Obama has presented himself as representing â??change you can believe in.â?�

The change message is popular with Obamaâ??s supporters and they almost always cite the need for change when they talk about him. Some think he will end the Iraq war and get the economy on the right track. Some think he will change government priorities to favor people who have been ignored by this current administration. Some think he will change the perception of the US around the world. Some think he will focus on environmental issues that have been ignored by this current administration. Some think he will restore some individual constitutional rights that have been curtailed during this administration.

Others have called it an empty slogan with no specifics. Some think that all politicians answer to the same masters and nothing ever changes. They donâ??t think an Obama presidency will change anything.

And others have agreed that Obama represents change, but change in the wrong direction. Some disagree with his policies and think he represents a change for the worse. Some think his policies on the war will be a strategic mistake. Some think his economic, tax, and fiscal policies will cause economic problems.

So what do you think? Does Barack Obama represent change? Also be sure to answer the same question about John McCain in the McCain thread. http://boards.cannabis.com/politics/...ts-change.html

I'd like to believe that the change IN MY POCKET might be worth something again some day. No chance of that with Mcdrain.

I don't think Obama represents change.

He hasn't shown a history of bipartisan support.

He constantly is either a No Vote or has contradicted issues he has claimed to be strong on (you have to look at his voting history)

For a man who has so many ideas and is a representative of change he sure seems to do poorly in debates. He honestly seems like a bumbling fool. You would think that someone who is the messiah of change as they claim to be would have something on the tip of their tongue just waiting to share it during the democratic debtes.

For a person who is for change he sure has turned down John McCain on several invitations for debates.. for visiting Iraq together etc etc. If we want change then we need both parties working together. This does not give me any type of inclination to believe that Obama is going to work toward that goal. Quite the opposite.

I don't think he is very strong in economics. He has all these ideas and plans to put programs and services in place but my question to him is... where is he going to get the money for all this? It costs money to do things peope.. and who do you think pays for that? We do.. through our tax dollars. While I am in support of government sponsored programs and and services.. I don't exactly support the thought of being taxed more than I already am. The US needs more export goods. As it stands right now what is our major export and how much of it are we exporting? Is it any wonder that the American dollar is so low? We tax American companies for producing goods inside the united states but we don't tax imports equally.

I guarantee you if we began taxing imports more and gave incentive for American manufacturers then the domestic economy would pick up, people would have reason to buy American again and the dollar would strengthen....

but let's not do that. let's tax tax tax and make people poorer and the dollar weaker.. all in the name of neo-socialism.

I could go on and on.. I do not see Obama for change he suggests he stands for; however I do believe that just about anything would be an improvement over Bush

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psteve

I'd like to believe that the change IN MY POCKET might be worth something again some day. No chance of that with Mcdrain.

---

It's not always the amount you have in your pocket, but rather the value of that amount.

Do you believe that Obama is going to strengthen the value of the dollar?

I think Barack Obama definitely represents change, and I think it will be for the better.

Environmental issues are very important to me. Out current adminstration has worked hard to WEAKEN environmental protections and has worked AGAINST my state's efforts to address environmental issues. I think Obama will focus on environmental issues that have been ignored by this current administration.

I think Obama will improve the perception of the US around the world. Bush has destroyed our image internationally, and Obama will restore that.

I think Obama will restore some individual constitutional rights that have been trampeled upon by the Bush administration.

I think Obama will bring back the fiscal responsibility that Bush lacked. Bush inherited a budget surplus, gave it all away as tax cuts, and drove this country deeper into debt than it has ever been before. Obama will get us back on track.

Obama will definitely change the direction of the Iraq war. But I'm not sure if I agree with everything he has said about how he will handle it. I think out of necessity his strategy will have to be more nuanced than it has been in the primaries. I think he is smart enought not to do something totally stupid, but this is one area where I'm not sure I agree with all the changes he has proposed so far. And i'm not sure he would even be able to accomplish all the changes he has proposed for the war even if he wanted too.

I agree totaly. For once, we are going to have a president that inspires us and makes us proud to be american again. This is an exciting time :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Environmental issues are very important to me. Out current adminstration has worked hard to WEAKEN environmental protections and has worked AGAINST my state's efforts to address environmental issues. I think Obama will focus on environmental issues that have been ignored by this current administration.

I think Obama will improve the perception of the US around the world. Bush has destroyed our image internationally, and Obama will restore that.

I think Obama will restore some individual constitutional rights that have been trampeled upon by the Bush administration.

I think Obama will bring back the fiscal responsibility that Bush lacked. Bush inherited a budget surplus, gave it all away as tax cuts, and drove this country deeper into debt than it has ever been before. Obama will get us back on track.

---

I could see Obama working towards Environmental issues.. which is great.

I don't think Obama will improve the perception of the US around the world. He is a good speaker, but the guy doesn't even take the time to prepare for debates? And if he did prepare and still did that poorly then that speaks even louder for the type of president he will become.

Bush did inherit a budget surplus but everyone seems to ignore the fact that the economy was already going down rapidly. I am not saying Bush didn't contribute and amplify the problem, he did.. there's no denying that, but we would still be in this downward slope.

If anyone does market analysis they can tell you that the market works in a sloping trend that repeats itself. There are ways you can predict this trend and take measure to try to counteract it. The Clinton administration was warned several times

So if you're using the republican ticket to be able to point your finger at McCain then I think you should look elsewhere. The problem began at the end of the Clinton administration, Bush screwed it up worse.. both Individuals are to blame for this.

Most of your post I agree with on some level.. but I still don't feel strongly enough about Obama... at the same time I don't feel so strongly about McCain.

They are both weak candidates whom are not ideal for the American people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

It's not always the amount you have in your pocket, but rather the value of that amount.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Do you believe that Obama is going to strengthen the value of the dollar?

---

No, We'll be screwed for decades because of bush, but McAnal would not even try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psteve

Exactly.No, We'll be screwed for decades because of bush, but McAnal would not even try.

---

meh, to be honest I'm not sure either one of these two particular candidates can help us on that front.

All we can do is wish and hope and try to guess who's going to screw us over the least at this point... at least that's how I feel after seeing the two major candidates we have to choose from :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

I think Barack Obama definitely represents change, and I think it will be for the better.

---

We disagree already....like Carter, this "would" definately be a change for the worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Environmental issues are very important to me. Out current adminstration has worked hard to WEAKEN environmental protections and has worked AGAINST my state's efforts to address environmental issues. I think Obama will focus on environmental issues that have been ignored by this current administration.

---

GREAT...so much for nuclear power or drilling for oil in the U.S.. Building additional refineries....what about the one tooth chipmunk that might be affected? So much for additional power resources. I'm sure when we split from Iraq that 2.5 mill. barrels/day won't effect the price of oil either. Just saw a poll that stated 61% of Americans want us to drill the hell out of Anwar for oil...and other sites in the U.S.; can't do that when we are protecting our enviroment with a "green" hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

I think Obama will improve the perception of the US around the world. Bush has destroyed our image internationally, and Obama will restore that.

---

Explain how? IF he was to pull out of Iraq he'd lose any respect from any country in that region. Likewise with our allie Israel. Do you think that this would gain the respect of China OR Russia...hell no. If improving the perception means that we turn into a nation of runners that leaves our allies hanging...then I'd have to agree with ya. Not something I'd call for "the good".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

I think Obama will restore some individual constitutional rights that have been trampeled upon by the Bush administration.

---

And when there is a terrorist strike in our borders then he can blame it on Bush for stirring the world pot or not going after Al-Quada...how many Al-Quada in Iraq are left as compared to the ones sent to Allah? How many terrorist attacks have happened since 9-11? What major changes have you had to make in your life since your constitutional rights have been trampled on? What party is behind the "no smoking" policies that trample on alot of our rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

I think Obama will bring back the fiscal responsibility that Bush lacked. Bush inherited a budget surplus, gave it all away as tax cuts, and drove this country deeper into debt than it has ever been before. Obama will get us back on track.

---

9-11, Katrina, the Afghan war, Iraq war...but this surplus would have remained with a Dem? I suppose it could have if handled like either Carter or Clinton..."BAD OSAMA! Now don't do that again ya hear?"

And if anyone thinks that free healthcare, college and all the rest of the empty promises like pulling out of Iraq is going to save money they really need to take a look at the costs and ask themselves where this cash will come from: higher taxes OR a larger budget deficit?

Remember, this is the same Jr. Senator that has racked up more than $200,000,000 in earmarks in 3 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Obama will definitely change the direction of the Iraq war. But I'm not sure if I agree with everything he has said about how he will handle it. I think out of necessity his strategy will have to be more nuanced than it has been in the primaries. I think he is smart enought not to do something totally stupid, but this is one area where I'm not sure I agree with all the changes he has proposed so far. And i'm not sure he would even be able to accomplish all the changes he has proposed for the war even if he wanted too.

---

I ask this question frequently but seem to NEVER get a response. How many troops will it take to protect over 100,000 civilian workers, our diplomats, Embassy, and the Iraqi nationals that were loyal to us? As stated in a debate, this is his plan...the rest of the personnel won't be coming home but instead will be based out of Kuwait...just incase Al-Quada returns or our troops remaining are getting slaughtered.

Another issue is the "genocide" in Somalia he promised to cure. How many troops will that take? And while we're in Africa why not help our his cousin in Kenya?

Anybody can talk it up about "change" but without the full support of congress and senate the president is very limited in what "change" he can really do. Obama has NEVER reached across the aisle in order to make concessions...how much of his plan does anyone think he could really accomplish?

The rational part of me wants McCain to win for obvious reasons and the other part wants Obama for the Med. M.J. and also to see all the lil' dems cry when they face double digit inflation, unemployment, and interest rates just like in the days of good ol' J. Carter.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

All we can do is wish and hope and try to guess who's going to screw us over the least at this point... at least that's how I feel after seeing the two major candidates we have to choose from :(

---

You almost never have two GREAT candidates. And given the fact that people legitimately disgree over policy, you are never going to get everyone to AGREE that a candidate is great. But I'm not that disappointed in these choices. Maybe it's just that I have been conditioned to such low expectation by Bush, but I think either one will be an improvement, and neither one will be a disaster. I don't think either one of them is a bought-and-paid-for puppet like I consider Bush to be.

American politics is a pendulm that swings in favor of one group's interests for a time and then swings back. When Clinton's term was over, it was time to swing a bit more conservatively, and I wish it had been McCain who had beat Bush in the primaries in 2000. He would have been a responsible Republican president during the conservative period. But now I think it is time to swing back to a more liberal politics, and McCain's time was lost to Bush. I'm sure Obama will win, and it will represent a good change for a time. Other voices will be heard for awhile. McCain would have been a fine preisdent, but he lost his shot 8 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

You almost never have two GREAT candidates. And given the fact that people legitimately disgree over policy, you are never going to get everyone to AGREE that a candidate is great. But I'm not that disappointed in these choices. Maybe it's just that I have been conditioned to such low expectation by Bush, but I think either one will be an improvement, and neither one will be a disaster. I don't think either one of them is a bought-and-paid-for puppet like I consider Bush to be.

American politics is a pendulm that swings in favor of one group's interests for a time and then swings back. When Clinton's term was over, it was time to swing a bit more conservatively, and I wish it had been McCain who had beat Bush in the primaries in 2000. He would have been a responsible Republican president during the conservative period. But now I think it is time to swing back to a more liberal politics, and McCain's time was lost to Bush. I'm sure Obama will win, and it will represent a good change for a time. Other voices will be heard for awhile. McCain would have been a fine preisdent, but he lost his shot 8 years ago.

---

The real problem at hand here is that the republicans are too conservative and the democrats are too liberal.

What ever happened to being moderate? Meaning not fixing what isn't broken but being intelligent enough to see when something needs to change.. or be intelligent enough to cut your losses short when you see something not working.

Two party systems suck!

I put a sticky on your poll for ya.....it'll be lifted either at your request or if 30 days have past with no response.

By the way, great thead!:thumbsup: Should generate some good debate.....:D

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

I put a sticky on your poll for ya.....it'll be lifted either at your request or if 30 days have past with no response.

By the way, great thead!:thumbsup: Should generate some good debate.....:D

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

---

Thanks! Let the games begin!

It still amazes me that in a country of brilliant minds this is all we have to lead this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeffersonBud

It still amazes me that in a country of brilliant minds this is all we have to lead this country.

---

...Thanks to 20+ years of republican education policy.

Its called "The End Times" He plans to make alot of changes:wtf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Thanks! Let the games begin!

---

We had our chance in 2000, with Al Gore, Jr...son of the grey fox...we're fucked now....but, I enjoyed it, while it lasted....:thumbsup:

Obama represents a change for the worse.

I am absolutely terrified of the fact that he may be elected. With the socialised medicine (I fucking refuse to wait 3 weeks for an appointment. It hasn't worked anywhere else why would it work here? Healthcare is a quarter of our economy! The government can't even fix the roads but they want to control this shit.), huge taxes, redistribution of wealth, and a million other socialist crap.

I wasn't alive during Jimmy Carter (Thankfully)

But I do know thats he's the worst president ever. Gas lotteries anyone?

Change for the better. Bring on the progression, you've all seen how prosperous America has become under the George Bush republican regime, it can't get any worse, well maybe if McCain got elected and follows in his footsteps.

Random:

Why does everyone blame everything on Bush and the Republicans?

What about the 8 years of President Clinton? You can't act like America was fan-freaking-tastic then. Bush came into the Presidency and took all of the shit that had been building up from the Clinton regime.

Bush is by far not the best president, but to blame everything on him and say things like he's the worst clearly shows a lack of historic acuracy. He has had to make some pretty hard decisions. And unless you were there in the room, knowing all the info that he did I doubt anyone can have a proper opinion. Often in history Presidents are rated as being horrible only to have that stigma change a few years later when the air clears and people can see things in a better view.

But that's my 2 cents.

:dance:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

Bush came into the Presidency and took all of the shit that had been building up from the Clinton regime.

---

Yeah, he fixed up that budget surplus he got real quick.

This guy sums it up nicely:

"Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a budget surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the budget was almost balanced in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus."


Theres more at the link :)

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

It's easy to blame Clinton but i strongly feel Bush has robbed Americans of their constitutional rights with this 'patriot' act, funded a war in iraq which is completely farcical and unnecessary, wasting billions of dollars, including $23B not accounted for... He's contributed heavily to the destruction and respectability of the repuation of America. He's a complete and utter disgraceful embarresment and everyone who voted for him should be ashamed in my opinion or happy you got what you voted for. Unfortunately for others, they've suffered a tyranny of the majority. This isn't about the abismal bush legacy though. Obama is a much better leader who is actually in touch with the public, running for their rights and preferences, not like Bush who ran his own agenda. I don't see how Mccain can relate to this current situation, it seems he's living in the past. He'll get a lot of support from the older voters, perhaps he'll even pull through. I hope not.

I'm in no way saying he's a fantastic president but I'm saying is he has had a lot of hard decisions and it's easy to place blame on him but really he doesn't have THAT much power. You have to blame congress and the sentate also. Not to mention MANY of the Democrats were for the war at the time. (Obama SAYS he wasn't but he didn't even vote...because he wasn't even in OFFICE! Which goes to prove even more his complete lack of experience).

Obama is only "in touch with the public" because he continues to make huge promises that he can't financially account for. Well he'll get them payed for by raising taxes and then redistributing the wealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

I'm in no way saying he's a fantastic president but I'm saying is he has had a lot of hard decisions and it's easy to place blame on him but really he doesn't have THAT much power. You have to blame congress and the sentate also. Not to mention MANY of the Democrats were for the war at the time. (Obama SAYS he wasn't but he didn't even vote...because he wasn't even in OFFICE! Which goes to prove even more his complete lack of experience).

Obama is only "in touch with the public" because he continues to make huge promises that he can't financially account for. Well he'll get them payed for by raising taxes and then redistributing the wealth.

---

In the concept of distributive justice, i believe inequality is only justified when it benefits the least well off. I'm aware you're against socialism but when there's people suffering and dying, living in poverty in the richest country in the world, something is wrong imo. I agree with you it's very easy to blame politicians and that they make very hard decisions. However, it was his choice to run for president and he must accept full responsabilty for all his actions, no matter how hard the decision was, president isn't an easy job, it's full of media sharks waiting to smell blood then finish you off.

I don't only blame Bush, like you say the congress passed this without true evidence of WMD's, sure Sadam is dead, that changed things for the better.. We've initiated a democratic process which is positive, but at what cost? If i were to ask who's the most powerful man in America, would it not be the president? Politicians should represent the overwhelming interest of the public, i feel Obama is better at understanding people's needs better. Also, how will McCain strengthen the dollar any more then Obama would? In the battle of political ideologies, ofcourse i'd prefer anarchism but that's not viable. Thus, i'm a liberal, basing my values on liberty, freedom and equality, some of the great things america was founded upon. It seems to me the conservatives want to weaken our civil liberties for the purpose of 'national security' but i believe it's only sensationalist propaganda to gain votes. By eroding our liberties this only plays in to the hands of terrorists who wish to do exactly that, this is doing their job for them.

I think this will be a hard fought battle but i believe the charisma that obama shows will inspire more people to vote, especially those who never vote because they feel alientated from old white men conservatives with their own financial agendas who wish to interfere in your life. Negative liberty for the win.

I think Obama does represent change and I will support him, obviously. Although I talk a fairly big game about being far left, I'm actually more moderate than most people know and I hate the polarization we have in this country and on these boards because anyone with any sense knows the two parties have to work together. Polarization doesn't do this country any good, and it's the stuff of frighteningly simple black-and-white minds, I think, that have to reduce debates to two sides, like good and evil. (Like George Dubya Bush does.)

That being said, any candidate would represent change after the Bush administration. Even McCain, despite the fact that the Obama camp likes to paint him as the third Bush administration. Although I stand to the left of Senator McCain, I respect him a great deal.

I read a lot. I mean news magazines, Newspapers. Books. Some blogs. But mostly longer stuff. Blogs and electronic news are mostly just quick news bytes and headlines. That being said, objectively speaking and based on a long career in communications and speechwriting before I danced off to medical school, Obama's message of change is mighty vague right now, and I've been looking for a long time for specifics. It needs some meat and some definition. Does anyone else who supports Obama feel the same way? "Change you can believe in" to me is starting to make me think about the term "faith" for some reason. Like I'm being asked to take it on faith. I've always been one to take things on facts more than on faith.

I need some more in-depth definition of exactly how Obama plans to change things. That's when I'll feel more comfortable buying what he's selling. I'm still buying it, though. Make no mistake about that. If for no other reason than these two simple words: Supreme Court.

As far as pointing the finger 8 years back at the Clinton administration for the problems we're seeing now, that just makes me laugh hysterically. Anyone with eyes and a brain can read history and has seen the deficit go up, foreign policy and respect from the world go down, homeland security and, especially early on, defense policy, be mismanaged, freedoms and privacy be infringed, and ire in the Middle East be stirred up to levels that we'll never recover from. Seriously. That crap happened under Bush and no one else. Far more than what's listed here, too, by the way. If you don't believe that his foreign policy, by the way, has been appalling, you might want to educate yourself on what both Secretary of State Powell and Rice have worked in complete futility to try to do and how impossible it was--and still is, in Condi's case--to try to accomplish anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by illnillinois

Its called "The End Times" He plans to make alot of changes:wtf:

---

What i mean by (End Times). We are living in the last days.. Its funny that I hear of Natural Disasters ALL over the US in the last year, and it doesn't really even make a bleep on most peoples radar. We are so Desensitized to events. The anti-christ isn't stupid. Obamas coment of "He'll be the gap between the EAST-WEST, "christians and Musslims" When there is 7 years of peace in the middle east, better start getting your bags packed, but pack lite..
Obamas "ability to gather the masses" People are blinded. It was written down more then 2000 years ago. I am not going to pretend I am a bible guru, or even a proper christian, BUT i do know how to trust my gut.

Even if he doesn't make president, which I dont think he will. Watch out for him, and careful what we entrust him with...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by illnillinois

What i mean by (End Times). We are living in the last days.. Its funny that I hear of Natural Disasters ALL over the US in the last year, and it doesn't really even make a bleep on most peoples radar. We are so Desensitized to events. The anti-christ isn't stupid. Obamas coment of "He'll be the gap between the EAST-WEST, "christians and Musslims" When there is 7 years of peace in the middle east, better start getting your bags packed, but pack lite..
Obamas "ability to gather the masses" People are blinded. It was written down more then 2000 years ago. I am not going to pretend I am a bible guru, or even a proper christian, BUT i do know how to trust my gut.

Even if he doesn't make president, which I dont think he will. Watch out for him, and careful what we entrust him with...

---

Actually the anti-christ was Emperor Nero.

Every person of every generation has thought the end of times is near. Every person of every generation has thought the Anti-Christ appeared in their life-time an that the end of times is near.

Seeing as how history repeats itself I have to side with this not being the end of times.

but I've been wrong before. Ignorane is bliss right? heh

let's check history a bit ... Nero, Hitler, Chairman Mao, and Stalin ALL promised 'change' :wtf: ... they delivered it, too ... :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

but I've been wrong before. Ignorance is bliss right? heh

---

To be honest with you, i have never thought anyone was the anti-christ, But obama is going to surprise us all in the end..
I dont fall into the hype of 2012. I think we have about another 25/30 years. I know there is a lot more that has to come to pass.

Like the EU, the footprint of the roman empire. Talked about 2000 years ago.
I am not going to bore people with my personal opinions..

But what I can say is daihashi has one HELL of a green thumb.. I loved the grow log you put together..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by illnillinois

To be honest with you, i have never thought anyone was the anti-christ, But obama is going to surprise us all in the end..
I dont fall into the hype of 2012. I think we have about another 25/30 years. I know there is a lot more that has to come to pass.

Like the EU, the footprint of the roman empire. Talked about 2000 years ago.
I am not going to bore people with my personal opinions..

But what I can say is daihashi has one HELL of a green thumb.. I loved the grow log you put together..

---

With the way things are going I can see a collapse of some sort happening like you suggest. :thumbsup: And please continue with your opinions. Naturally people are going to agree/disagree but that's the fun in being able to intelligently discuss a subject. I like reading all the posts in here whether I agree or not :jointsmile:

bleh.. I was actually disappointed in that grow, but i'm glad you enjoyed it. I have some new stuff planned starting soon. It should be some very quality stuff.

Sour Northern Lights x Nevilles Haze. Stay tuned for that log starting up in a few weeks :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

:thumbsup: And please continue with your opinions. Naturally people are going to agree/disagree but that's the fun in being able to intelligently discuss a subject. I like reading all the posts in here whether I agree or not :jointsmile:

---

I do agree with you, its ok to have a good ol' debate :) or just sharing of thoughts and ideas..

I have pondered this for a while. I don't believe Obama could do much to change the culture inside the beltway. It's too embedded with money, power, too pompous to change. Even the most well-intention would realize they'll need to work with the devil in order to get things done. The difference between McCain and Obama is McCain has been embedded in the culture for too long to represent change. Obama has a fresher outlook on trying to steer the culture in a different direction. McCain will continue to be the status-quo of every republican beltway-insider, making DC richer rather than America richer.

I believe Obama will try to change some things. He'll steer health care in the right direction. He'll push to have a more sound fiscal policy. He'll implement an energy policy. Although I believe he'll deliver empty in a lot of his promises, I don't think he'll mess it up. Much of my decision to vote for him will depend on the vice president he chooses. If it's a democrat known for his fiscal responsiblity, I'd most likely vote for Obama.

Anything has got to be better than what the Bushes' have left Americans to deal with ,While they retire to thier lovely ranch...And Mcain offers the same Bushology...Is there really any choice?Obama or..........Bushology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue

wasting billions of dollars, including $23B not accounted for...

---

And the government has put a gag order on it so the public won't know about it.


A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions

how I am ever thankful for BBC news.

I believe the first change Obama will make is like Arnie in Calif.: He'll have to have his cigarette smoking room, latest is: he can't change his smoking habit! If he can't change himself and he so deperately states he wants and tries to--what can he change for us! Arnie built a cigar smoking shak in CA capital at his own expense. Then set off fire
sprinklers, etc. flooded the capital's first floor and parking lots--taxpayers had to pay for that.
What change did Obama bring for Illinois? Said he supported lowering gas prices, but people did not get lower gas price, the distributors took the profit. So, he did not think the plan out completely as to who would have to make up for the break and pay for it. So, it did not work. Well, it never got fixed, but he tried. So, will he represent change or trying and in so doing, making it worse. I think most Presidents are benign, it is the way our system is designed that is malignant! That is where we need change. For substantial, permanent change. The Senate and Congress! Every election is important. You must vote every time and on every issue, provide you understand it and if you cannot and try, don't!

Seriously, I was involved in JFK from nomination on; very interesting as a child.He was change; Every political platform is for change-new day, different words!

Change really happens in the Senate and Congress and if we take those elections any less serious than the president, we are foolish.

The most dramatic change I have seen is Nixon. like him or not: He did end Viet Nam. I attended many of my friends funerals then. Nothing like Iraq. Now, if he does something like that-sure that is a true change. I will not forget the day our guys got to come home from Viet Nam, Canada and everywhere else they fled to avoid the draft.

To change the climate of the nation, it takes more than someone sitting in a big white house smoking cigarettes consumed with inexperience to really make long lasting economical changes that we all so desperately need! If he does make great change, it will depend a lot on the people that are in the cabinet; congress and senate.

One way or another, it will be a change; Even if it is just ethnic! It will instill some hope for some, in one way or another and hope for all that Bush is gone with his dictorial type of presidency. His father wasn't even that bold and lost re-election. Maybe people liked a Czar type thing, but they are now tired of it. So, change, is it us who change our views or the president changing our views by what he says or tries to do?

We were upset on 9/11. If my insurance Co. cheated me in a settlement and it was wrong, do I go kill them. We have paid more innocent lives for 9/11 than it took. But, it was never about 9/11 anyway, just a good excuse to do what our czar planned. People loved it! Who knows what is right or wrong in the world scheme of things. Is Bush a good man. I am sure he and his family think so. Was he good for the nation. Well, maybe he is the reason this election is so popular! Once you eat beans for a long time then have steak, which would you prefer. A vegan, beans!

Change of the man or the real things that matter, health care has a solution, it may not
be socialized medicine, that would suck, I feel, but we knew the economic backbone of this nation wad going when, just like the Oil Co., Emeron and Insurance have all been allowed to price so high no one can afford the living they had with the ceiling on wages! Change, would be to increase wages, consistant with costs and interest rates. when the cost of living goes up over 9% and you can't even get 2% on your savings acct. that is wrong. I don't know how many of you remember, I use to get interest on my checking acct., instead of paying to let them use my money. The interest was around 8% or better. I actually made money on my checking acct.


The informed and educated that really care about planet Earth, economy, justice, war, peace, civil liberty, etc. I do not feel he has a lot to do with it! As bush tried to change the (I'd like to say 10 commandments) but I mean constitution, he could not and thank God!

The middle East problems, have been as old as time, blame Clinton or whomever you please, until they stop having religious wars there, they will always fight! In Iraq, we got into that with Reagan and maybe before, but I am not a history major and that is as far as I remember we did over there! We had a lot of little wars that went unnoticed with Clinton. I think Bosnia and dare I try to crack my brain open, I might find the others.

If you really study the '60's or lived it; you may see, as I do; same broken policies and a lot of Presidents later, we have not had change, as one person said; they go on a Pendulum. What goes up must come down or disappear, I guess!

The debt of the nation; Well, savings is when you decrease the rate of which you are rapidly going into debt by offsetting it. In doing so, you decrease the rate with which you go bankrupt and eventually pull out of it! We would need to see the U.S. Treasury reports from 2001 until now (with Iraq) to really see the spending difference! I do know, if the funds had not been taken from the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers and diverted to Iraq, Katrina would not have happened (but who cries over spilled milK). Funds for Social Security got so tight with this Iraq war, there were new policies in place for SSI and SSD. Many were taken off and it is too hard to get on without going to court now. We have taken funds from everything that matter to us as individuals to pay for this war.

n take it on a smaller scale. Calif. was in an economic mess, Arnie came along, let's consolidate and start all over. Well we did and now we do do! Meaning, he is looking for a way to pay off all the debt that kept growing and did not stop! Calif. is now in just as bad, if not, worse shape than when he took over, and we still have the debt he started with, set aside and not being paid!

Sure Obama is change! That is my answer. They all are! As psteve said; check your pocket and I believe that will be my gauge!

whew, didn't know I really had any strong feelings about it. But tired of hearing change and the only change I've seen is: from my pocket to the gov't and more of it. The penny costs more than a penny to make and we still make it! Nickel is no longer of nickel and the silver coins are not of silver! I did not vote on the McDrain, because too many times they run on one issue and do another. So, I won't vote on the Osama one either. I'll wait and see.

I guess we need to ask Oprah? I do think our liberties are going the wrong direction! If that changes, I guess I'll be happy. What has been screwed with for decades to make better is only getting worse. I don't remember, but one guy has a signature that says it all. We fight for freedom and then legislate our freedom away--or something like that!

ARLINGTON, Va., June 12 /Standard Newswire/ -- Today, on the fourth day of Barack Obama's "Change That Works For You" tour, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds issued the following statement:

"Barack Obama's assertion that the only problem with higher gas prices is that they've gone up too fast -- saying he'd prefer a 'gradual' increase instead -- shows how clearly out of touch he is with Americans struggling with record gas prices. At a time when Americans need relief at the pump, Barack Obama's support for higher gas prices and higher energy taxes is just another example of his weak economic judgment."

This Week In An Interview With CNBC, Barack Obama Said He Would Have Preferred If Higher Gasoline Prices Happened More Gradually:

In An Interview With CNBC, Barack Obama Said He Would Have Preferred A "Gradual" Increase In Gasoline Prices. BARACK OBAMA: "Well, I think that we have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage. And the president, frankly, hasn't had an energy policy. And as a consequence, we've been consuming energy as if it's infinite. We now know that our demand is badly outstripping supply with China and India growing as rapidly as they are. So..." HARWOOD: "So could these high prices help us?" BARACK OBAMA: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out o f this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now." (CNBC, 6/10/08)

Watch Barack Obama: YouTube - Obama: Higher Oil Prices Are Good? What???

Barack Obama Has Called For Taxing Coal And Natural Gas -- The Two Largest Sources Of Electricity In America:

Barack Obama Told A Texas Newspaper: "What We Ought To Tax Is Dirty Energy, Like Coal And, To A Lesser Extent, Natural Gas." ("Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama," San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)

Coal Is The Largest Source Of Electricity In America, Accounting For Nearly 49 Percent Of U.S. Total Net Generation In 2006. (Energy Information Administration Website, Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government, Accessed 6/9/08)

"The U.S. Has The World's Largest Coal Reserves, With The Western U.S. Accounting For 55 Percent Of Current U.S. Coal Production." (Energy Information Administration Website, tonto.eia.doe.gov, Accessed 6/9/08)

Natural Gas Is The Second Largest Source Of Electricity In America, Accounting For 20 Percent Of U.S. Total Net Generation In 2006. (Energy Information Administration Website, Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government, Accessed 6/9/08)

"The U.S. Is The World's Largest Consumer And Second-Largest Producer Of Natural Gas." (Energy Information Administration Website, tonto.eia.doe.gov, Accessed 6/9/08)

Barack Obama Has Called For A $15 Billion A Year Windfall Profits Tax:

Barack Obama Is Proposing A $15 Billion A Year Windfall Profits Tax On Oil Companies. "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year's profit levels, a campaign adviser said. ... Among the options Illinois Senator Obama is mulling is imposing a 20 percent tax on the cost of a barrel of oil above $80, said [Obama adviser Jason] Grumet, who spoke at a conference in Washington today." (Daniel Whitten, "Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax On Oil Company Profit," Bloomberg News, 5/1/08)

The Non-Partisan Congressional Research Service Found That The Windfall Profits Tax Reduced Domestic Oil Production And Increased Our Dependence On Foreign Oil By As Much As 13 Percent. "From 1980 to 1988, the WPT may have reduced domestic oil production anywhere from 1.2% to 8.0% (320 to 1,269 million barrels). Dependence on imported oil grew from between 3% and 13%." (Salvatore Lazzari, "The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Of The 1980s: Implications For Current Energy Policy," Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06)

The Tax Reduced Domestic Oil Supply And Increased Demand For Imported Oil. "The WPT had the effect of reducing the domestic supply of crude oil below what the supply would have been without the tax. This increased the demand for imported oil and made the United States more dependent upon foreign oil as compared with dependence without a WPT." (Salvatore Lazzari, "The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Of The 1980s: Implications For Current Energy Policy," Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06)

During The Eight-Year Imposition Of The Windfall Profits Tax, Domestic Oil Output Fell To Its Lowest Level In Two Decades. "Skeptics who want to check the data need to search no further than the eight-year 1980s run of the energy industry windfall profit tax. During that time, domestic oil output fell to its lowest level in two decades." (Editorial, "A Bleak Future," Investor's Business Daily, 5/29/08)

The Wall Street Journal: The Windfall Profits Tax Reduced Domestic Oil Production And Increased Prices At The Pump. "The last time Congress imposed a form of the windfall tax was the final gloomy days of Jimmy Carter, and the result was: a substantial reduction in domestic oil production (about 5%), thus raising the price of gas at the pump; and a 10% increase in U.S. reliance on foreign oil. A windfall profits tax is the ultimate act of economic masochism because it taxes only domestic production, while imports and foreign oil subsidiaries bear almost none of the cost." (Editorial, "Windfall Accounting Tax," The Wall Street Journal, 11/30/05)

Heritage's Ben Lieberman: The Windfall Profits Tax Ended Up Harming Consumers With Increased Energy Prices. "The track record for punitive measures like the windfall profits tax shows that they usually harm consumers along with the targeted industry. ... In the end, the tax hurt consumers more through higher energy prices than it helped them through higher tax revenues, which turned out to be far lower than originally predicted because the tax discouraged production." (Ben Lieberman, "Raising Taxes On Oil Companies Is No Way To Reduce Gas Prices," The Heritage Foundation: Devoted to the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense., 3/1/06)

Obama Plans To Pay For A Number Of His Proposals With The Tax. "The tax would help pay for a $1,000 tax cut for working families, an expansion of the earned- income tax credit and assistance for people who can't afford their energy bills." (Daniel Whitten, "Obama May Levy $15 Billion Tax On Oil Company Profit," Bloomberg News, 5/1/08)

The Congressional Research Service Found That When The Windfall Profits Tax Was Implemented From 1980 To 1988, Gross Revenues Were Significantly Less Than Projected. "The $80 billion in gross revenues generated by the WPT between 1980 and 1988 was significantly less than the $393 billion projected." (Salvatore Lazzari, "The Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Of The 1980s: Implications for Current Energy Policy," Congressional Research Service, 3/9/06)

Former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) Said Obama's Windfall Profits Tax Is Bad Energy Policy; It "Will Produce Less Energy And Not More." MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell: "John Breaux, you are from the oil patch. How do you feel about your candidate talking about a windfall profits tax?" Former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA): "Well a windfall profits tax is not going to produce a single barrel of oil. When we had a windfall profits tax back in the 1980s, we produced less energy than before we had the tax. A windfall profits tax may make you feel good as a punitive measure against the energy companies, but until we get the guys and women who produce the energy working with those that consume it, we are never going to solve the problem. A windfall profits tax will produce less energy and not more." (MSNBC's "MSNBC Live," 6/9/08)

FLASHBACK: Obama Is Following Jimmy Carter's Economic Policies, Supporting Higher Taxes During A Time Of Economic Weakness And Imposing A Windfall Profits Tax:

Carter Raised Taxes During An Economic Decline, Which Further Weakened The Economy. "There were two other occasions in recent American history when government raised taxes going into economic decline. Herbert Hoover tried it in the early 1930s; Jimmy Carter tried it in the late 1970s. Carter was the lucky one: He got 'only' a deep recession, Hoover got the Great Depression." (Editorial, "The Gingrich Recipe," The [Memphis] Commercial Appeal, 9/14/90)

President Carter Urged Congress To Enact A Windfall Profits Tax "Without Delay." President Carter: "These [energy independence] efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent. Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans to Americans. These funds will go to fight, not to increase, inflation and unemployment." (President Jimmy Carter, Speech, Washington, D.C., 7/15/79)

In The U.S. Senate, Barack Obama Voted For Higher Energy Taxes That Would Have Driven Up The Cost Of Oil And Gas In America:

Obama Voted In Favor Of An Amendment To Add A $32 Billion Tax Hike Package To The CLEAN Energy Act Of 2007. (H.R. 6, CQ Vote #223: Motion Rejected 57-36: R 10-34; D 45-2; I 2-0, 6/21/07, Obama Voted Yea)

The Tax Hike Would Have Hurt Domestic Oil And Gas Manufacturing. "Meanwhile, most of the revenue-raising offsets in the measure would affect the oil and gas industry, which would lose a deduction for domestic manufacturing and face a new tax on operations in the Gulf of Mexico." (Richard Rubin, "Baucus Says Energy Tax Package Can Be Revived, But Details Are Sketchy," Congressional Quarterly Today, 7/10/07)

The Tax Hike Would Have "Contributed To Higher Gasoline Prices." "[The tax increase] would have excessively burdened oil companies that operate in Louisiana and other oil-producing states. It would have discouraged oil exploration, and contributed to higher gasoline prices." (Editorial, "A Sensible Energy Policy," The [New Orleans] Times-Picayune, 6/23/07)

A Heritage Foundation Study Found The Tax Increase Would Have Raised Gas Prices To Over $6 By 2016. "A study by the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank showed that the proposed tax increase would boost the average price of regular unleaded gasoline from $3.14 per gallon to $6.40 in 2016." (S.A. Miller, "Senate Votes To Raise Auto Mileage Standards," The Washington Times, 6/22/07)

Obama Voted At Least 3 Times To Impose A Temporary Windfall Profits Tax On Oil Companies. (S. 2020, CQ Vote #339: Motion Rejected 50-48: R 9-45; D 40-3; I 1-0, 11/17/05, Obama Voted Yea; S. 2020, CQ Vote #331: Motion Rejected 35-64: R 0-55; D 34-9; I 1-0, 11/17/05, Obama Voted Yea; S. 2020, CQ Vote #341: Motion Rejected 33-65: R 0-54; D 32-11; I 1-0, 11/17/05, Obama Voted Yea)

In The Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama Voted To Tax Natural Gas Purchased From Out Of State

In 2003, Obama Voted To Tax Natural Gas Purchases. "Creates the Gas Use Tax Law. Beginning October 1, 2003, imposes a tax upon the privilege of using in this State gas obtained in a purchase of out-of-state gas at the rate of 2.4 cents per therm [sic] or 5% of the purchase price for the billing period, whichever is the lower rate. Amends the Gas Revenue Tax Act to eliminate an exemption on October 1, 2003 and to provide that beginning with bills issued to customers on and after October 1, 2003, no tax is imposed under the Act on transactions with customers who incur a tax liability under the Gas Use Tax Law. Effective October 1, 2003." (S.B. 1733, Bill Status, Illinois General Assembly Home Page, Accessed 2/11/08; S.B. 1733: Concurrence In House Amendment #4, Passed 31-27-00, 5/31/03, Obama Voted Yea)

The Tax On Natural Gas Purchased Outside Of Illinois Was Estimated To Cost $42 Million Annually To Illinois Businesses, Making It One Of The Largest Increases In Illinois In 2003. "One of the largest increases will be a new 5 percent tax on the sales of natural gas bought from out-of-state suppliers, which could reap $42 million for the state. Virtually every manufacturer in Illinois could face increased costs as a result, business leaders said. But they doubt the increases will produce the revenue Blagojevich is counting on because businesses will move quickly to avoid the new or higher fees and taxes." (John Schmeltzer, "New Taxes And Fees Are Bad For Business, Industrial Leaders Say," Chicago Tribune, 6/2/03)

The Natural Gas Tax Made Natural Gas More Expensive For Industrial Buyers Such As Steel Mills And Other Manufacturers. "The natural gas tax. A new policy under Blagojevich's budget will make natural gas more expensive to industrial buyers. Currently, Illinois offers an exemption on the sales tax paid for natural gas, but the new budget ends that exemption, a move that could become a major expense for steel mills and other factories that use large quantities of natural gas." (Kevin McDermott, "Area Dodged Legislative Hit On Schools, Roads," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 6/8/03)

The Natural Gas Tax Threatened Jobs At The Same Time That Illinois Was Leading The Nation In Jobs Lost. "Just as harmful to the state's economy are the large taxes on natural gas brought from out-of-state suppliers and the rolling stock sales tax. Both of these taxes will negatively affect important businesses as well as the employees who are dependent on these Illinois companies. I have received phone calls and letters from all sectors of the business community who reported that the projected loss of revenues due to these increased taxes and fees may well cause them to close their facilities in Illinois and move to a more business-friendly surrounding state while still serving Illinois customers. Illinois leads the nation in jobs lost. We cannot afford to drive more businesses from our state." (State Rep. Carolyn Krause, Op-Ed, "Increase Tax Incentives, Not Taxes For Businesses," Chicago Tribune, 6/13/03)
Barack Obama's 'Gradual Adjustment' to Higher Gas Prices - Standard Newswire

Quite a long read but if your looking to see what type of change Obama would make....this might shed some light.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thcbongman

I believe Obama will try to change some things. He'll steer health care in the right direction. He'll push to have a more sound fiscal policy. He'll implement an energy policy. Although I believe he'll deliver empty in a lot of his promises, I don't think he'll mess it up. Much of my decision to vote for him will depend on the vice president he chooses. If it's a democrat known for his fiscal responsiblity, I'd most likely vote for Obama.

---

But what will he change and how will he change it?

Obama has actually said nothing except for "change" and "hope". Change and hope don't mean anything, they are just words. If you explain what you plan to change and how you plan to change it then you are actually saying something that MIGHT be worth listening too.

Where is he going to get the money for change? Raise taxes?? If so then do the American people, in our economic downturn, need to lose even MORE of their money? We are already paying inflated prices for oil, which effects a number of other goods that we recieve. Food, delivery services, even things such as the cost of water may go up. If he plans on cutting funding to government programs then how does he plan on doing this? What are we going to have to lose and are we actually going to lose programs that are useless or will we lose something that is actually important?

We don't know because Obama doesn't actually say anything.

McCain is not my ideal choice, not even my 1st choice.. hell not even my 100th choice, but I would choose him any day over Obama. :hippy:

Great post P4B... keep spreading the truth!! :thumbsup: