Obama wins - Edwards 2nd, Clinton 3rd it seems

[White Eagle]

u have no clue about foreign policy - it is beyond ur understanding

i don't pretend to totally understand

so we're kinda in the same boat

difference is i don't irresponsibly throw stones at the pres saying that HE is responsible for 4000 deaths

and need i remind u that many dem leaders supported the decision to go to iraq - old story i know - but a damn good one - despite their/your attempt to wiggle out of it

oh yeah i remember - john edwards apologized for his vote - what a jerk

but a President has to make tough decisions - and i want a president who can make those decisions w/o worrying about polls - i give gwb credit for sticking with the surge - and btw it's working

as for obama talking with enemy leaders from iran and no. korea - man his whole attitude about this is lame - it cries out "im a newb" - "take advantage of me" and it suggests a lack of understanding that is frankly, very scary

I probably have more clue than you do about foreign policy. Don't go assuming that you know anything about me. Your answer to everything is you know more than anyone.

I don't throw stones irresponsibly about that asshole. He is responsible for those deaths. The idiot in chief is always responsible.
On 9/12/01 I was for the war as was the 70% you claim. But he lied. Remember this?

01 May 03 aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln
...my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

He kept on going.
As for obama talking with enemy leaders from iran and no. korea, I don't see what harm it can do. Someone has to get the world back to trusting us. We'll see what happens. We're not there yet.

 

[Kulindahr]

01 May 03 aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln
...my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

He kept on going.
As for obama talking with enemy leaders from iran and no. korea, I don't see what harm it can do. Someone has to get the world back to trusting us. We'll see what happens. We're not there yet.

I don't see what that quote has to do with anything. It was an accurate statement then, as it remains -- just as was the aircraft carrier's declaration "Mission Accomplished".

As for Obama... while diplomacy per se is a function of the executive, within Congress it's the purview of the Senate. Trotting around the globe talking with foreign leaders is hardly in the job area of a Representative, but for a Senator it's not out of line. Trying to negotiate a treaty would be out of line, for sure; asking what a foreign leader might settle for isn't. The only caveat I would put on that is that a Senator ought to do nothing in secret; discussions should be public, or should be reported to the President and to appropriate committees.

 

[Kulindahr]

There's a lot of people who won't vote for Obama because they believe he's unelectable--because he's biracial (or black, or whatever). This is sad, but true.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of voting for Obama in the primaries for this reason.

OTOH, I've heard people on the street here talk of voting for Obama because he's half black, and that's all they care about. "It's about time", someone in suit and tie said in a diner the other day, going on to indicate that his reason for planning to vote for Obama was because "it's time for a black".

We want to nominate a Democrat who has a chance of beating the Republicans. Think with your head, not your heart.

I want to see nominated... whoever will keep the government split.
And who really believes in liberty, which I'm not convinced any of the front runners on either side do.

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

Lostlover, you're 50% right.

There's a lot of people who won't vote for Obama because they believe he's unelectable--because he's biracial (or black, or whatever). This is sad, but true.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of voting for Obama in the primaries for this reason.

We want to nominate a Democrat who has a chance of beating the Republicans. Think with your head, not your heart.

What a load of Clintonian crap that is. Obama has just won an almost all white state (Iowa) with astounding numbers and is on track according to the polls to win another - NH.

Obama is the only Democratic candidate that is electible appealling to Democrats, Independants and Republicans as shown in Iowa.

Clinton's negatives and outright hatred by Republicans and many independents with by far the highest negatives of any candidate make her totally unelectible.

Obama is the wave of the future - and he will be the next President IMO (and so far I have been fortunetly been calling it right, while the Clinton guys here have been consistantly dead wrong). The nation has moved on from the Clinton era.

 

[Lostlover]

What a load of Clintonian crap that is. Obama has just won an almost all white state (Iowa) and is on track according to the polls to win another - NH.

Obama is the only Democratic candidate that is electible appealling to Democrats, Independants and Republicans as shown in Iowa.

Clinton's negatives and outright hatred by Republicans and many independents with by far the highest negatives of any candidate make her totally unelectible.

Obama is the wave of the future - and he will be the next President IMO (and so far I have been fortunetly been calling it right, while the Clinton guys here have been consistantly dead wrong). The nation has moved on from the Clinton era.

Exactly, Obama has mass appeal. Very charismatic. Very honest. Very intelligent. I don't think anyone up there matches him in charisma, wit, intelligence, etc.

Calling Obama unelectable after the Iowa wipeout and soon to be New Hampshire blow out is pathetic. What else does he need to do before he becomes electable? Win all states unanimously?

 

[Kulindahr]

Okay, this has probably been answered, but where does he stand on the Second Amendment?

 

[mike_n_herrin]

...but on the war/foreign policy front, i much prefer someone who has been there/done that - hillary, mccain, biden types...

what experience are you actually talking about? mccain was in war, but he was a solider, which to me is certainly not the same thing as some one who is directing/leading a war. even if it were, that still doesn't mean they have any experience talking to, working with, etc, other countries, diplomats, or leaders.

i'm glad oboma did well in iowa. i think he's honest and straight forward. he may not have the decades of experience in politics that some of the other candidates have, but that's what i'm looking for. someone who isn't just another typical politician. if he's as an intelligent person as what i think he his, he will fill his cabinet with people who have the expertise that he lacks. this appears to be what bush did, although he appears to have picked unethical intelligent people.

 

[JackFTwist]

Okay, this has probably been answered, but where does he stand on the Second Amendment?

I cannot answer your question.

Obama taught constitutional law at the U of Chicago Law School.

He may have published something or otherwise dealt with that issue in a way that can be found on the internet. If not, you may have to write to his campaign.

Sorry I cannot be of more help but I don't want to say anything that is not correct because I do not know his position. The only light I can shine my own self is that Obama had the support of the Federation of Police and other police organizations in 2004 in his senate campaign. What that means though on your issue - if it means anything at all - I cannoit say with any pretense of knowledge.

 

[chance1]

what experience are you actually talking about? mccain was in war, but he was a solider, which to me is certainly not the same thing as some one who is directing/leading a war. even if it were, that still doesn't mean they have any experience talking to, working with, etc, other countries, diplomats, or leaders.

i'm glad oboma did well in iowa. i think he's honest and straight forward. he may not have the decades of experience in politics that some of the other candidates have, but that's what i'm looking for. someone who isn't just another typical politician. if he's as an intelligent person as what i think he his, he will fill his cabinet with people who have the expertise that he lacks. this appears to be what bush did, although he appears to have picked unethical intelligent people.

mccain has been a senior senator for a long time - and knows many of the foreign players well - for example musharrif - biden has been to iraq more often than ALL of his democratic opponents (prior to him dropping out) combined

hillary has more experience having been first lady for 8 years and as senator of Ny and involved in foreign affairs

i agree that bush made many mistakes choosing his cabinet - rumsfeld is a prime example

 

[Kulindahr]

I cannot answer your question.

Obama taught constitutional law at the U of Chicago Law School.

He may have published something or otherwise dealt with that issue in a way that can be found on the internet. If not, you may have to write to his campaign.

Sorry I cannot be of more help but I don't want to say anything that is not correct because I do not know his position. The only light I can shine my own self is that Obama had the support of the Federation of Police and other police organizations in 2004 in his senate campaign. What that means though on your issue - if it means anything at all - I cannoit say with any pretense of knowledge.

Well, after twenty-some web sites...

Hillary has called Obama an extremist because he once supported banning all handguns. I can't find that anywhere else, so I have to decide if Clinton knows, or is lying.

Obama has said in Illinois that people in rural areas should be "allowed" to keep guns for protection, but people in inner cities should rely on the police. That doesn't reflect an understanding of keeping and bearing arms as a right (nor an awareness of realities in the inner city).

He's referred to the Second Amendment as being about hunting, which shows an incredible historical ignorance of its origins.

Obama believes that all semi-automatics should be banned, because no one has a need for a dozen or more shots. Nothing indicates whether he applies that to the police, which would be the logical extension.

Obama's wording in more than one statement about guns and self-defense strongly suggest he doesn't believe those in the cities are entitled to defend themselves, or have a need to.



Given those positions, Obama must believe that police are virtually omnipresent, so that they can arrive literally faster than a speeding bullet, and that the threat to kids comes from law-abiding gun owners.

For someone who's taught constitutional law, he seems to be very out of touch with the intent of the FFs, rudimentary grammar, and simple logic.


I'm disappointed, but not surprised. I like Obama, but it seems the "Democratic" party has rooted out just about every possible candidate of the Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey variety: common-sense Americans who honored the Second Amendment as much as the rest.

 

[Kulindahr]

I hope you're right, SixPack.

Just keep in mind that failure is disaster.

ABC just reported that Obama's lead got wider...

 

[opinterph]

… Obama must believe that police are virtually omnipresent, so that they can arrive literally faster than a speeding bullet, and that the threat to kids comes from law-abiding gun owners.

And by the way, Michelle, my wife, she was traveling up, I think, in eastern Iowa, she was driving through this nice, beautiful area, going through all this farmland and hills and rivers and she said 'Boy, it's really pretty up here,' but she said, 'But you know, I can see why if I was living out here, I'd want a gun. Because, you know, 911 is going to take some time before somebody responds. You know what I mean? You know, it's like five miles between every house. [Link]

– Sen. Barack Obama (From his days of campaigning in Downstate Illinois)​

2nd Amendment/Gun Control are NOT among the Issues on Obama’s campaign website.

[A] 1996 questionnaire asked whether he supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. The campaign's answer was straightforward: "Yes." Eight years later, he said on another questionnaire that "a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable" but reasonable restrictions should be imposed.

His legislative record in Illinois shows strong support for gun restrictions, such as limiting handgun purchases to one a month, but no attempts to ban them. Today, he stands by his support for controls while trying to reassure hunters that he has no interest in interfering with their access to firearms. [Link]

Senator Obama supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 100 percent in 2006. [Link]

And from the blog site of the Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon, Senator Obama's Position on Gun Ownership Rights (June 2007):

• Guns must be kept from those who may pose a threat, including criminals or the mentally ill.

• The rights of legitimate hunters and sportsmen should be reasonably balanced with public safety.

• The Assault Weapons Ban should be reinstated.

 

[Kulindahr]

Senator Obama supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 100 percent in 2006. [Link]

According to three different sites, including the GOA site, Obama has a consistent F rating. I went 'round and 'round on the Vote Smart site looking for some substance, but there's no documentation.

And from the blog site of the Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon, Senator Obama's Position on Gun Ownership Rights (June 2007):

• Guns must be kept from those who may pose a threat, including criminals or the mentally ill.

• The rights of legitimate hunters and sportsmen should be reasonably balanced with public safety.

• The Assault Weapons Ban should be reinstated.

With that first, he's just saying what the NRA and others have been saying since before Hubert Humphrey... who I'm starting to think was the last great Democrat.

The second item isn't about the Second Amendment, except insofar as he might be agreeing with many of the FFs that "the great goal is that every man be armed", which was their idea of public safety (as per the Secind Am.).

With the third, he's contradicting his statement "I will continue to work for ... effective law enforcement." Every law enforcement agency in existence concedes that the (so-called) "Assault Weapons Ban" accomplished nothing for law enforcement.

I'm not sure what youre point was, Op, but this just shows his ignorance again.



BTW, a review of his votes on gun measures reveals something interesting (besides the fact that he'll flip-flop): while the Chicago Tribune categorizes votes as for or against gun owners or manufacturers, a better description lies under the surface: he also votes for the interests of trial lawyers.

 

[opinterph]

I'm not sure what your point was, Op, …

No point intended, K. I was just reporting what I considered “interesting” results, which related (at least somewhat) to your initial question.

I’m not sure how Vote Smart determined Obama’s 100% rating in 2006, but I was under the impression that their reports are usually based upon feedback from the actual interest groups. It could be that they analyze voting patterns and decide for themselves to what extent a candidate matches the interests of each respective group. I did find it rather odd that they reported “Senator Obama supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 0 percent in 2005.” That, along with your search results, may add credence to the notion that Vote Smart’s “rating” is based upon an interpretation of congressional voting patterns, rather than feedback from groups, such as the GOA, in this and other instances.

I suspect Sen. Obama’s position on this issue will be brought into much greater clarity, should he become the Democratic Party nominee. It is at least apparent that he is presently unwilling to defy the “hunters and sportsmen” ~ although he might prefer that they eventually be restricted to bow and arrows.

 

[Kulindahr]

The silly thing is that if he were to stand by the actual meaning of the Amendment, he'd almost be guaranteed a win. I've already heard NRA members saying they'd "like to support him, but..."

There are four million NRA members and eight to twelve more million voters who take their lead from the NRA. With his position that no one should have semi-automatic weapons, he'll be writing most of those off. OTOH, if he'd return to the traditional position, such as what Humphrey held, that would be twelve to sixteen million votes suddenly available.

 

[Kulindahr]

IC, by your measure, Dr. Martin Luther King was impaired.

 

[White Eagle]

I would trust GWB to make decisions about most foreign policy/terror situations than Obama

easy call for me

can't make apologies for the U.S. - we're not the bad guys

Obama's "I'm gonna meet our enemey leaders" on day 1 - remember when he said that in a debate - and Hillary rightfully said "woah - don't wanna get used there - not a good idea" and let's face it that was a very bad and revealing moment for him - naivete in full bloom - but of course it's been forgotten with obama-mania

great guy (it seems) - great orator - inspirationsl to many - great potential

President making foreign policy decisions - life and death decisions??

no way

So, as a Democrat you have a problem with Obama meeting our enemy leaders. But it is ok for McCain to give the speech at Liberty. Fawell being an enemy to gays.

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=197117

Re: McCain the Maverick .......... is baaaaaaack Post #15

yeah - i know he visited Liberty - that makes him a panderer? he shouldn't talk to people he disagrees with? gimme a break