Early Obama LEFT Test

[Some Darn Xian]

If small bursts of anger is McCain's biggest issue, then we don't have much to worry about.

What we should worry about is tax paying dollars paying and reinforcing addictions to government programs like welfare or subsidized insurance, efforts to end world poverty by forcing tax payers to increase spending 3 times the current rate, or using environmentalist policies to stunt the productivity of capitalism, which ultimately harms the working class much more than the middle and upper classes.

Poor policies are far more dangerous than occasional and momentary fits of anger.

If grabbing a person's clothing is considered a small burst of anger, try it sometime on a stranger on the street, or a person in the work place. It would be called assault and battery, misdemeanor in only clothing is grabbed, felony if a blow is placed or a person is injured as a direct result of the contact. This isn't a flattering personality trait for a Commander in Chief. If one of my officers were to ever come at me in this fashion, he would be looking for a new job at the end of it. Period.

As for addictions to government programs, how can we move people to work when the workplace for these unskilled workers is continually dismantled, and shipped over seas? The days of going to the local factory and filling out and app and getting a job are gone. This is the disconnect that conservatives seem to overlook in their complaints about government programs. I'm all for moving people into family sustaining work that removes their dependency on the government. But this has to be done in coordination to with the employers--employers who incidentally didn't create the number of jobs W promised with his tax cuts in 2002. Where are the jobs? GM is cutting, as is Ford. One figure I heard years ago was that up to 25% of the American work force directly or indirectly was tied to the auto industry. Growing the economy? I don't think so.

When the rich rely on the markets to make money, they cannot cut out the people who spend money on items that the markets rely on to make that money.

So far, the last 7 years have seem like the rich don't care.


AND THAT IS WHAT IS SCARY!!!!!!!!!

[Some Darn Xian]

Obama will lead to a huge increase in taxes, to support his policies and those of the dim congress.  The taxayer is about to assume up to ONE TRILLION DOLLARS IN LIABILITY for the bailout of Freddy and Fannie May.

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!You apparently hold no mortgage on your property.

I still have a few years to go. Fannie Mae and Feddie Mac are victims of the deregulation that has occurred under your administrations watch. The regulations that seemed quaint and outdated were put in place for one simple reason: Prevent the greed of a few from destroying the best interests of the many.

I say forget the bailout. It will only wipe out some of the richest conservatives in the US. That might be a good idea.

But, the over reaching problem is the basics of the American dream will be destroyed.

Good Xian concern you have. I really see the love of Christ in your position on this one. WOW!

The middle class will disappear, the poor will literally pour into the streets, and the economy which you claim as a success because of your conservative principles will disappear.

What Would Jesus Do?

[Some Darn Xian]

We are headed for a  period of more regulation and with it will come more taxes and more government bumbling and corruption.  Did you know that the former head of Freddie Mac (a dem of course) gave himself a $20 Million dollar bonus??  Other board members only got $1 Million.  We should get that back.

How did that regulation harm the US economy during the post-WWII era? I don't recall reading anything in my history studies that have indicated the US was somehow enslaved because of banking regulation.

As for government bumbling and corruption, where have you been for the last 7 years? The PATRIOT Act is the single biggest bumbling step into corruption the US has ever seen. How about the Rumsfeld approach to war? We spend more on private contractors in Iraq than we do on our enlisted personnel. That sounds like corruption to me.

Oh, a CEO with less than a $30 million golden parachute is considered to be a poor man. And the trend started with guys like Kazinski from Tyco, who happened to be a major contributor to W in both 2000 and 2004, so I really think this is a reach, even for you Lee.

[Some Darn Xian]

This congress is controlled by Democrats and has instuted proceedures and programs that serve mostly to win elections for Democrats and keep the congressional boondogles and perks.  As I write this I understand that the dems are meeting with business leaders to tell them what they must contribute to the dim party in order for their voice to be heard.

Obama is the topic and he is an imature, untested young congressperson who has not record of doing anything.  If he gets elected, he will be the stooge of this Democrat congress and God help us.

Congress is controlled by Democrats, not without the struggle of the REPUBLICANS in 2000 who redrew congressional districts to include mostly Republican majorities where ever possible. The loss in 2006 isn't a statement to Republican intelligence, but rather the awaken of the American people to the perils of complacency.

As for meeting with business leaders, WHERE ARE YOU?!?!?!?!?!

This has been a political game for decades, which, incidentally, the Republicans have mastered almost a decade before the current Democratic party has. And the lobbies in DC haven't been an issue since 2000, have they?

As for stooges, W has the award for being the biggest one, with McCain coming up strong to challenge. Where is the Straight Talk Express of 2000? Oh, wait, it has some transmission problems. It can only idle in neutral and often can only travel in reverse.

[Some Darn Xian]

The threat of Obama is that he has no executive experience and he would be a pawn of the dim leaders in Congress. 

Again, I ask where is the "executive experience" on McCain's resume?

This is a red herring, nothing more. George Washington didn't have executive experience. So, by that standard, we should be still fighting the British for independence.

Get a new talking point. PLEASE.

[Acumen]

If small bursts of anger is McCain's biggest issue, then we don't have much to worry about.

What we should worry about is tax paying dollars paying and reinforcing addictions to government programs like welfare or subsidized insurance, efforts to end world poverty by forcing tax payers to increase spending 3 times the current rate, or using environmentalist policies to stunt the productivity of capitalism, which ultimately harms the working class much more than the middle and upper classes.

Poor policies are far more dangerous than occasional and momentary fits of anger.

If grabbing a person's clothing is considered a small burst of anger, try it sometime on a stranger on the street, or a person in the work place. It would be called assault and battery, misdemeanor in only clothing is grabbed, felony if a blow is placed or a person is injured as a direct result of the contact. This isn't a flattering personality trait for a Commander in Chief. If one of my officers were to ever come at me in this fashion, he would be looking for a new job at the end of it. Period.

I won't disagree with you there.  A display of anger is nothing short of losing control.  And control is something we expect of the most significant authoritative position in the world.  However, these are momentary lapses.  Although they are wrong and illegal if applied to real people in real situations, they aren't very damaging to the nation as a whole like a bad policy, or a fundamental misunderstanding of what government is supposed to do.  There have been presidents in U.S. history who had anger management problems, and I don't recall them being poor presidents like Jimmy Carter for instance.

As for addictions to government programs, how can we move people to work when the workplace for these unskilled workers is continually dismantled, and shipped over seas? The days of going to the local factory and filling out and app and getting a job are gone.

I think you buy too much into the liberal hype.  There are always jobs available.  They may not be the ones you want necessarily, but they will put food on the table and clothes on your back.  The bottom line is that people, families, and societies must take responsibility as "contributers" to society, not parasites.  Wasn't it a democrat that said, "ask not what your country can do for you . . ."?

I know, I know, that sounds like a typical cold and callous conservative.  Let me ask you this, how well has welfare served our society since it's implementation?  Given the job you currently have (and you know what I'm talking about), how many homes do you enter of welfare recipients that have multiple TVs, expensive cell phones, and beat up cars with shiny rims and large sub woofers?  How many times have you entered a home where they have about 3-6 able family members that can take them to the hospital for their non-emergency problem?  How many of them do you already know on a first name basis, or you don't really need to ask for their health history because you already know it? 

I'll tell you what, if they see mommy without a job making ends meet, then why on earth would they work hard for a living when they can depend upon Uncle Sam?  The problem with government programs is it misunderstands the purpose of government as our protector.  Back in the day when society was primitive and simple, families and clans only needed the organization of government to protect them from bigger and stronger families and clans.  Government wasn't created to support people - that's what families are for.  Now that we have this problem of government programs, how on earth do we get people to wake up and take care of themselves?

No, not all of our jobs are going oversees, and not all jobs going oversees is a bad thing either.  Those companies that move factories oversees are often able to expand, create more jobs, and create more positions because of increased efficiency provided by the free market.  That is how they survive in a competitive environment.  Forcing companies to make decisions that end up costing them more ultimate causes more unemployment than permitting them to reallocate resources for survival.  And trust me, economists are on my side of this issue.

Where are the jobs? GM is cutting, as is Ford. One figure I heard years ago was that up to 25% of the American work force directly or indirectly was tied to the auto industry. Growing the economy? I don't think so.

Gee, I wonder why the auto industry is cutting jobs?  Could it be that we have a failed energy policy no thanks to your democrat controlled congress?  Just two years ago, I distinctly remember Pelosi ridiculing a republican controlled congress for a 44% gas increase over 6 years.  In just 18 months of democrats taking control, gas prices hiked up 95%.  Is she blaming her party?  Nope.  She started by blaming Big Oil execs, and when the American public didn't buy into her charade, she went after oil speculators.  She ought to look in the mirror.  When the congress was controlled by the GOP, Clinton vetoed the ANWR bill.  Your party has consistently obstructed any efforts to diversify oil production all along our coasts from the east to the west - and for what?  Hey, I'm all for investing in new technology and energy efficiency, but we need to drill for oil until we can find a way to replace it.  It's really that simple.

[SquirleyWurley]

Among the things I like about McCain, is that he has shown over the years that he can think critically, talk to people who disagree with him, and disagree with the party line.  I think McCain was right to be critical at the beginning of the Iraq War, and I give him credit for that, and that makes me feel better about him than other Republican candidates.  When it comes to lobbying etc., he has become less stridently anti-lobby, it is true, and I'm not sure how much of that is exasperation/frustration/giving up, and how much of it is practical insight about how the system works: just because one works with lobbyists does not mean one is unethical.  In certain areas McCain has shifted position in a way that I find unfortunate, but he is a complex individual, and he (like Obama) has been trying to make sure the Party Faithful show up at the polls.

A display of anger is nothing short of losing control.  And control is something we expect of the most significant authoritative position in the world.  However, these are momentary lapses.

I would hope so.  But there are those who feel that we really need to have someone who can keep it together under the most difficult stressful positions, and this isn't comforting.

The bottom line is that people, families, and societies must take responsibility as "contributers" to society, not parasites.  Wasn't it a democrat that said, "ask not what your country can do for you . . ."?

One of the nice things about the "New Deal" over the "Great Society" is that the New Deal emphasized public works, jobs creation.  I think things went a bit too far away from the focus on preparing people for good jobs, creating good jobs.

I think it's important that people not be demoralized by dependence.  So educational and job opportunities are crucial, along with flexible/temporary safetynets, in transitioning from a culture of dependence to a culture of healthy risk-taking/creative/productive work.  More pell grants, more education tax cuts, more support for community college and voc-tech training, more flexibleand temporary health-care/housing/food assistance, can help CUT the permanent programs of dependence.

[Faithfulee]

The threat of Obama is that he has no executive experience and he would be a pawn of the dim leaders in Congress. 

Again, I ask where is the "executive experience" on McCain's resume?

This is a red herring, nothing more. George Washington didn't have executive experience. So, by that standard, we should be still fighting the British for independence.

Get a new talking point. PLEASE.

You obviously have no respect for the military.  Me and many others deeply respect our military experience and the leadership training that it involved.  McCain was an officer in the US Military, and no doubt learned much there.

As to Washington "In February 1753, the twenty-one-year-old George Washington began a new career as a major in the Virginia militia."  I think that demonstrates your ignorance on this topic also.

OBAMA HAS NO EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE,  unless you want to call "community organizer" some sort of executive experience comparable to the US military. "community organizer" is a far cry from "commander in Chief of the United States milirary"  And these are serious times with no room for on the job training for amatures..

 

[jacknky]

If experience begets the missteps of Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush, who were all ate up with experience, then by all means let's try someone with less experience.

As for taxes, I'd prefer to pay a trillion dollars to rebuild the infrastructure and economy and reduce the deficit than pay a trillion dollars to pay for an inept corrupt war that has no purpose.

[SquirleyWurley]

I personally do not believe that selecting the one person who will be President is the most important thing, politically, practically, really.  A president has a cabinet, people informed from various sources of varying quality/content, different influences/pressures are involved all around, there are three branches of government, etc., etc.

I think we would have wound up in Iraq if Gore was elected, and I think we might be in a similar position today if Kerry was elected, but the process would have looked different.  I think McCain would manage things better than Bush.  Perhaps Obama would, too.  It seems to me the problems with the war in Iraq have come from many angles, the situation was a mess to begin with, the place is a mess to deal with regardless, the UN and our allies were a mess, Bush's Cabinet contributed to the mess, intelligence was a mess, and yes, Bush himself contributed to the mess.

IMO, whatever one may say about Obama or McCain, one must remember others also will have a tremendous effect, and everyone brings their own unique share of mess to situations.

[Acumen]

The threat of Obama is that he has no executive experience and he would be a pawn of the dim leaders in Congress. 

Again, I ask where is the "executive experience" on McCain's resume?

This is a red herring, nothing more. George Washington didn't have executive experience. So, by that standard, we should be still fighting the British for independence.

Get a new talking point. PLEASE.

You obviously have no respect for the military.  Me and many others deeply respect our military experience and the leadership training that it involved.  McCain was an officer in the US Military, and no doubt learned much there.

As to Washington "In February 1753, the twenty-one-year-old George Washington began a new career as a major in the Virginia militia."  I think that demonstrates your ignorance on this topic also.

OBAMA HAS NO EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE,  unless you want to call "community organizer" some sort of executive experience comparable to the US military. "community organizer" is a far cry from "commander in Chief of the United States milirary"  And these are serious times with no room for on the job training for amatures..

 

Faithfulee,

I think the best way to respond to his position is to agree that "executive experience" doesn't entail that one will be a good Commander in Chief, but it provides a candidate with the best chance of being the most effective in the White House.  That's really the bottom line. 

[Faithfulee]

If experience begets the missteps of Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush, who were all ate up with experience, then by all means let's try someone with less experience.

As for taxes, I'd prefer to pay a trillion dollars to rebuild the infrastructure and economy and reduce the deficit than pay a trillion dollars to pay for an inept corrupt war that has no purpose.

NO Purpose??

Liberated millions of Muslims from a dictator

Facilitated the second democracy in the Middle East

Routed al Quaeda from Iraq

AND most importantly, no attacks on US soil since 9/11/01



I am proud of these accomplishments, and you should be also.

Acuman said

I think the best way to respond to his position is to agree that "executive experience" doesn't entail that one will be a good Commander in Chief, but it provides a candidate with the best chance of being the most effective in the White House.  That's really the bottom line. 
Reduced American deaths in Iraq to lowest point in the war.

I dont agree with that.  Executive experience is experience where one is in charge and responsible.  Obama has none of that, and POTUS is no place for a kindergardener.

Being effective in the White House requires actions and decisions, and Obama has no experience there.  His claim to fame is his personality and his quest to become the first Black US president.  We don't need a racist president in the White house.  Today he laid the groundwork for giving Blacks reparations.  wonder how much that will cost.

[SquirleyWurley]

G.W.Bush only had experience as a governor in a state that doesn't even give it's governor much say-so because it thinks governors are basically jerks who shouldn't be trusted...  I mean, if you supported him, why not Obama, if you are talking about experience...

[Faithfulee]

G.W.Bush only had experience as a governor in a state that doesn't even give it's governor much say-so because it thinks governors are basically jerks who shouldn't be trusted...  I mean, if you supported him, why not Obama, if you are talking about experience...

Being governor of any state is Executive Experience.  You are held responsible for all the things that go on in that state,  even those you have little control over.  That is the nature of executive responsibility.  Obama not only doesn't have any such experience, but he has no concept of how to handle such authority.  He plays the "blame game"  constantly and will not accept responsibility for his own errors of judgement, like the vote against the surge for instance.

For example, the US Navy today replaced the captain and executive officer of a Nuclear Air Craft Carrier.  Why, because deep in the bowls of the ship a crew member was smoking near some improperly stowed material and a fire ensued. 

McCain knows what it is like to have that kind of responsibility,  Obama doesn't have a clue.

The Obama record is that of the most liberal member of congress,  and with that he passes the 'left test" with flying colours.