The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Maybe It's Just Because I'm from Mass...

  • Thread starter Thread starter falconfan
  • Start date Start date
F

falconfan

Guest
but I still ain't buying the Obama for significant change shtick. Perhaps it's because I bought into a similar version of it during our gubernatorial elections and voted for Deval Patrick. It was the same basic idea... this young charismatic leader is different and idealist and wants to get new things done... and you know what he's accomplished nada. Other than realizing that things are harder to get done than he expected and spending money frivolously he's done a whole lot of nothing and I really don't want to see the same thing happen on a global scale when it appears there is a candidate who knows how to get things done.
 
Maybe you are right. I'd vote for Obama still when the other two options are Hillary (who just lies and lies and lies) or McCain who would continue Bush's policies.

Obama, promising change, is an easy choice.
 
I think it is because you are from Massachusetts.

I live in Michigan but am originally from Illinois and keep up on my native state - there Obama is known for his many accomplishments -

a very good article that details that is in this thread

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=212050

you'd have to click on the link in that thread and the article is long, but well worth reading, especially for the high regard Obama is held in Illinois for his getting things done - which is perhaps why his Illinois primary vote this year totally dwarfed Clinton's in a same day state vs state comparison
 
Palindromos said:
I'm beginning to have the same reservations although I did vote for him in my state's primary.

The longer this goes on, the more his flaws are revealed. In some respects, that's good. He's beginning to look more and more like an ordinary politician, so we should not set our expectations too high.
Click to expand...

no human being is without flaws - if anything he sure has handled whatever has come up with aplomb and his garnering the endorsements during this period of Richardson, Reich, Nunn, and Boren - what a picture of diverse that is - shows he is the person we need.

I suggest again the article that is linked in my post above - its a long read, but please read it - Elizabeth Drew is one of our best commentators around -

and I'd suggest that as the longer this campaign process has gone on, it has revealed a lot of very unpleasant things about Obama's opponent which is perhaps why her national negatives keep rising and rising to levels where she puts not only the presidency but everything we do in November at risk because of what a national drag on the ticket she would be
 
It's inevitable that if Obama becomes President real change will be extraordinarily difficult to deliver (though if he has a Democratic congress to work with, as he surely will, that'll help). When I hear his message of Change I don't imagine him to be the Messiah who's going to magically transform all our country's ills; that's a lazy and silly notion to buy into and sometimes his gargantuan rallies (35,000 in Philly last week) can give fodder to cynics who say he's just a rock star/flash in the pan -- all style and no substance.

But to me, the huge rallies give voice to the enormous hunger in this country for change and he at least is trying to address that. Clearly he's tapped into that hunger in a remarkable way. He's identified and is in tune with the zeitgeist of the moment and consequently has the potential to marshall that visible desire to productive ends. I don't demand that he be better than any one man can be expected to be, but I admire the fact that he puts his neck on the line by daring to say, "We deserve REAL change and I aim to fight for it." That puts him in a precarious position at a time when it'd be much safer simply to tinker at the edges.

He himself put it best when, speaking recently of his Democratic rival, he said, “Her message comes down to this. We can’t really change the say-anything, do-anything, special interest-driven game in Washington, so we might as well choose a candidate who really knows how to play it.”

I'm sick to death of the game. I don't want someone who helped make it what it is. I want someone who changes the game itself.

Or to put it another way, Hillary reminds me of a really competent mechanic who says, "Are you sick of getting flat tires? Come to me; I'm a faster and more proficient tire changer than anyone out there; I'm a tire changer par excellence!" -- without changing the roads that lead to the flat tires in the first place.
 
I agree with your entire post, byro; very eloquently stated.

I agree that it is naive to think Obama is going to come into the White House like a hurricane and have an FDR like 100 days. It's going to take a long time to change the system. But the only way to change it is to start.

I think the Obama change has already started. Lots of people new to politics are getting involved, and issues that have been sidelined before (like race) have gotten much more attention. Even if he loses, Obama is planting the seeds of change; it may not come to fruition for thirty years, but it's still there.

Look at the huge victories Obama has wrapped up in traditionally red states. The Clinton forces would have you believe that these states are not winnable in November and thus have no larger significance. That totally misses the point. It is a harbinger of things to come. Howard Dean's 50 state strategy in 2006, followed by Obama's primary victories this year, indicate that the future looks much brighter in these Republican strongholds than it has in a long, long time. And even this year, big Democratic gains in red states may not mean electoral votes, but it could mean congressional seats, not to mention more seats in state legislatures.
 
You are not alone in Massachusetts, McCain has pulled even with Obama in Mass. Clinton also does better against McCain in Pa, Ohio and Florida than Obama does.



http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1088709
Barack Obama, meet John Adams.
Adams noted during the Boston Massacre trial that “Facts are stubborn things.” And it appears that, for the moment, the facts have caught up with Obama here in Massachusetts.
How else to explain the amazing, astounding and unthinkable results of the latest SurveyUSA presidential poll: Republican John McCain is tied with Barack Obama in the Bay State.
Click to expand...
 
^^How is any of this surprising? Obama and Clinton have been in a slugfest for months, putting them both in an unattractive light. McCain has barely made the news and so is unscathed as of now; of course he's going to be at least even in the polls -- until he's put through the wringer in the general election.
 
byro said:
It's inevitable that if Obama becomes President real change will be extraordinarily difficult to deliver (though if he has a Democratic congress to work with, as he surely will, that'll help). When I hear his message of Change I don't imagine him to be the Messiah who's going to magically transform all our country's ills; that's a lazy and silly notion to buy into and sometimes his gargantuan rallies (35,000 in Philly last week) can give fodder to cynics who say he's just a rock star/flash in the pan -- all style and no substance.

But to me, the huge rallies give voice to the enormous hunger in this country for change and he at least is trying to address that. Clearly he's tapped into that hunger in a remarkable way. He's identified and is in tune with the zeitgeist of the moment and consequently has the potential to marshall that visible desire to productive ends. I don't demand that he be better than any one man can be expected to be, but I admire the fact that he puts his neck on the line by daring to say, "We deserve REAL change and I aim to fight for it." That puts him in a precarious position at a time when it'd be much safer simply to tinker at the edges.

He himself put it best when, speaking recently of his Democratic rival, he said, “Her message comes down to this. We can’t really change the say-anything, do-anything, special interest-driven game in Washington, so we might as well choose a candidate who really knows how to play it.”

I'm sick to death of the game. I don't want someone who helped make it what it is. I want someone who changes the game itself.

Or to put it another way, Hillary reminds me of a really competent mechanic who says, "Are you sick of getting flat tires? Come to me; I'm a faster and more proficient tire changer than anyone out there; I'm a tire changer par excellence!" -- without changing the roads that lead to the flat tires in the first place.
Click to expand...

Beautifully said. :=D:
 
All that is great but just because American's agree they want "change" doesn't mean they agree what the same end state should be. And it's that short sightedness that results in stagnancy. I still don't hear anything from this man other than Bush sucks, and seeing as Bush has a like 20-30% approval rating of course people agree. I agree. I've said that since 2000... doesn't mean I know how to govern a nation... just means I have some common sense. Hillary has very well thought out health care plans that she's been trying to implement for years. She has the connections that are necessary to get things done. She can talk to and cooperate with both sides of the aisle. I mean that's what you need to get things done in a democratic system. Vision, connections, and a willingness to compromise... not just the ability to say I told you so.

In the end my gut tells me that Obama (and Bill really) are far better POLITICIANS than Mrs. Clinton but as a leader she'd probably far exceed them both.
 
falconfan said:
I still don't hear anything from this man other than Bush sucks
Click to expand...

This is the only part of your post I don't understand. Did you hear his speech on race in mid-March? Have you ever heard a politician speak that way before -- i.e., as though you were a rational adult capable of holding two or more thoughts in your head at the same time?

As to the rest of what you've said, I understand where you're coming from and it'd be presumptuous of me to say you're wrong.

In the end, I think part of the so-called Obama Phenomenon has to do with how much you're willing to risk.

I've lived long enough (48 years) to see the United States slide slowly and inexorably into the toilet and I don't think, at this point, that we can afford NOT to take the risk of reversing course in a major way. Working within the system that currently exists (which Hillary says is her strong suit) isn't enough, in my book, to stave off further devastation; the system itself is rotten -- designed to defeat climate change-related reform, campaign finance reform, equity in the criminal justice system, equitable taxation, etc. As Obama himself said (and I wish I could quote him verbatim), The real risk comes not from taking a chance, but from doing the same old things in the same old way in the hope that things will change.

I guess I'm talking about a macrocosmic, rather than a microcosmic approach. Yes, if you've just lost your job or can't afford groceries it may be that the macrocosmic approach seems too vague and woolly and it's very appealing to look to someone who says "I've got a toolbox full of problem solvers." And it may very well be that if Hillary were to become President with a Democratic congress to support her she'd be effective at implementing a beneficial program here and a change of policy there and I don't underestimate how much those things can affect someone's day-to-day life.

But in the end, not much will really have changed. It'll still be a rotten system designed by and run for the benefit of the status quo -- which is the very thing that has led us into the toilet in the first place. To my mind, the clock is ticking fast and we can't afford the luxury of more of the same.
 
byro said:
This is the only part of your post I don't understand. Did you hear his speech on race in mid-March? Have you ever heard a politician speak that way before -- i.e., as though you were a rational adult capable of holding two or more thoughts in your head at the same time?
Click to expand...

It was a very impressive speech... but there was no suggestion of any policy change or policy he wished to institute. It was a summation of race-relations in this nation and it was only done because he was forced into doing it by a political fire he needed to extinguished. The fact he extinguished it well is hunky doorey but it doesn't mean he stated anything he wanted to change or how he plans to change it.

As far as us sliding slowly into the toilet I couldn't disagree with you more! Progress is slow but it's progress nonetheless. If anything we're slowly sliding FORWARD. Look at the inroads that have been made in relation to race, women's lib, and even homosexual rights. We're a nation that is moving forward and has recently had a huge set back. But this is the system with have. It's the system that weeks of blood, sweat, toil, and debate brought the founding fathers to bear.

Now I don't consider myself a pessimist but in our society money talks so the special interests walk. No politician is going to change the over riding American mindset that money=success and therefore will not be able to sever the undeniable link between money and power in our society. It would be great if politicians ignored big business but they can't because if they do someone else won't.... and the person who is willing to cave gets elected. Not that ANY of this has to do with the presidency! The president doesn't make laws if Obama would like to do that he should keep his ass in congress. Largely the presidents roll is to make appointments and talk to foreign leaders.... why then do we not elect the person who is fully capable of those things because of years of experience?

One thing that is really telling to me was when Obama and Hillary were asked if they'd meet with leaders of Iran and S. Korea without condition. Obama said yes.... made sense to me. Why not? Then I heard Clinton's response and I knew she had something young idealists like me and Senator Obama don't... experience. She was right in pointing out such a thing could be used for propaganda and it was dangerously naive to assume that these other leaders must just want to work it out. That we should be open minded but cautious. I like them both I do... but I think Obama can spend 8 years as vice before I'm ready to elect him.
 
byro said:
As am I. I may not agree with you, falcon, but I respect your thoughtfulness. It's an all-too rare thing in politics -- and these forums.
Click to expand...

Why thank. I also appreciate your eloquence, intelligence, and thoughtfulness. It's nice to have a political conversation that's not just a shouting match.

I also appreciate your icon lol beautiful
 
falconfan said:
One thing that is really telling to me was when Obama and Hillary were asked if they'd meet with leaders of Iran and S. Korea without condition. Obama said yes.... made sense to me. Why not? Then I heard Clinton's response and I knew she had something young idealists like me and Senator Obama don't... experience. She was right in pointing out such a thing could be used for propaganda and it was dangerously naive to assume that these other leaders must just want to work it out. That we should be open minded but cautious. I like them both I do... but I think Obama can spend 8 years as vice before I'm ready to elect him.
Click to expand...

Faconfan - I have not yet commented on your posts, but I have been reading them. I assume your reference to S. Korea was a typo. Maybe it was the result of confusion between S. Korea (friend of US) and N. Korea (enemy of US).

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080422_robert_scheer_apr_23_clinton_and_iran/

"Pres. Hillary's" ready response to a hypothetical nuclear attack by Iran - a country that has no nuclear weapons - on Israel - a country that has a substantial nuclear arsenal - would be "obliteration" of Iran does not reflect well on Sen. Clinton's "foreign policy" experience and knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top