Obama may accept nomination at NFL stadium

[Tigermike 3,046]

"My name is John McCain and I'm gonna balance the budget by winning them wars we're in!"

Nice try, but Obama is the snake oil salesman,

[TexasTiger 12,974]

"My name is John McCain and I'm gonna balance the budget by winning them wars we're in!"

Nice try, but Obama is the snake oil salesman,

And, yet, you use a photo of McCain...

[TexasTiger 12,974]

The Obama campaign officially announced today that Sen. Obama will accept the Democratic presidential nomination in an open air event expected to draw 75,000 people. The campaign takes pains to point out that free tickets will be available for the torchlight rally acceptance speech, but...

"If you make a donation of $5 or more between now and midnight on July 31st, you could be one of 10 supporters chosen to fly to Denver and spend two days and nights at the convention, meet Barack backstage, and watch his acceptance speech in person. Each of the ten supporters who are selected will be able to bring one guest to join them."

Obama will sell anything. So much for the new politics. Obama's campaign is more motivated by money and fundraising than any campaign in recent memory. One wonders if this will continue into an Obama presidency.

Meanwhile, those who are just dying to see Johnny Boy in person, will have had to have paid a ton of money, because that's how the RNC works.

Having a Republican complain about fundraising is rich.

[otterinbham 0]

Yes, I think it will be a cool deal. So what?

I think that's basically the crux with the Obama crowd. ... Instead, there's this wholesale obsession with the theatricality of it all.

From a fella who voted for this guy-- twice:

The Hypocrisy Express continues...

Oh, stuff.

The vote in 2000 was between two well-defined economic ideas. I fully admit voting for the man the first time. In fact, his first year economic policies fully confirmed the wisdom of my vote. Who would have guessed that he would have totally gone off the rails?

However, as I have pointed out on this board, I argued against the Iraq adventure from the get-go. And I held my nose in the voting booth in 2004. In fact, it was essentially a coin toss between two unimpressive candidates. A lot of people voted that way. Had the Democrats actually nominated a reasonably moderate candidate in 2004, they would hold the White House today.

That being said, there is a fanboy quotient to the Obama candidacy that's quite remarkable. It really does remind me of Jimmy Carter and the Peanut Express. There are no clearly articulated notions by the Obama camp outside that of change. Well, 'change' from the standpoint of Obama is nothing more than a recrudescence of Johnson's policies. The only difference is that the Obama fan base is squealing with girlish delight, as if a bunch of teenagers clutching their brand new copy of Tiger Beat--without a clear understanding of the economic consequences of his policies.

[TexasTiger 12,974]

Yes, I think it will be a cool deal. So what?

I think that's basically the crux with the Obama crowd. ... Instead, there's this wholesale obsession with the theatricality of it all.

From a fella who voted for this guy-- twice:

The Hypocrisy Express continues...

Oh, stuff.

The vote in 2000 was between two well-defined economic ideas. I fully admit voting for the man the first time. In fact, his first year economic policies fully confirmed the wisdom of my vote.

However, as I have pointed out on this board, I argued against the Iraq adventure from the get-go. And I held my nose in the voting booth in 2004. In fact, it was essentially a coin toss between two unimpressive candidates. A lot of people voted that way. Had the Democrats actually nominated a reasonably moderate candidate in 2004, they would hold the White House today.

That being said, there is a fanboy quotient to the Obama candidacy that's quite remarkable. It really does remind me of Jimmy Carter and the Peanut Express. There are no clearly articulated notions by the Obama camp outside that of change. Well, 'change' from the standpoint of Obama is nothing more than a recrudescence of Johnson's policies. The only difference is that the Obama fan base is squealing with girlish delight, as if a bunch of teenagers clutching their brand new copy of Tiger Beat--without a clear understanding of the economic consequences of his policies.

I won't necessarily hold two votes for the worst President in history against a person, even though his incompetence should have been obvious to anyone from the getgo-- unless they act as arrogantly as you do about someone else's choice. You've forfeited any credibility to be so arrogant. You are essentially the fool calling others foolish.

That being said, the manner in which you paint with such a broad brush betrays your ignorance. Your over-broad, substance-free criticism of Obama being substance-free is pretty ironic.

This time around, there is a subgroup of Obama supporters who are exuberant in their enthusiasm-- McCain wishes he had a few of those. In the last two elections there was a subgroup of folks just wild about Dubya. Loved the guy. Thought he was a "strong leader", "decisive", blah blah blah... Bought W wear they're now ashamed of...

Most of Obama's supporters don't fit your silly, simplistic stereotype. They just look at your guy and are utterly unimpressed. You're just part of the echo chamber with this one. A guy as bright as you should try being less lazy and a bit more original.

[otterinbham 0]

Yes, I think it will be a cool deal. So what?

I think that's basically the crux with the Obama crowd. ... Instead, there's this wholesale obsession with the theatricality of it all.

From a fella who voted for this guy-- twice:

The Hypocrisy Express continues...

Oh, stuff.

The vote in 2000 was between two well-defined economic ideas. I fully admit voting for the man the first time. In fact, his first year economic policies fully confirmed the wisdom of my vote.

However, as I have pointed out on this board, I argued against the Iraq adventure from the get-go. And I held my nose in the voting booth in 2004. In fact, it was essentially a coin toss between two unimpressive candidates. A lot of people voted that way. Had the Democrats actually nominated a reasonably moderate candidate in 2004, they would hold the White House today.

That being said, there is a fanboy quotient to the Obama candidacy that's quite remarkable. It really does remind me of Jimmy Carter and the Peanut Express. There are no clearly articulated notions by the Obama camp outside that of change. Well, 'change' from the standpoint of Obama is nothing more than a recrudescence of Johnson's policies. The only difference is that the Obama fan base is squealing with girlish delight, as if a bunch of teenagers clutching their brand new copy of Tiger Beat--without a clear understanding of the economic consequences of his policies.

I won't necessarily hold two votes for the worst President in history against a person, even though his incompetence should have been obvious to anyone from the getgo-- unless they act as arrogantly as you do about someone else's choice. You've forfeited any credibility to be so arrogant. You are essentially the fool calling others foolish.

That being said, the manner in which you paint with such a broad brush betrays your ignorance. Your over-broad, substance-free criticism of Obama being substance-free is pretty ironic.

This time around, there is a subgroup of Obama supporters who are exuberant in their enthusiasm-- McCain wishes he had a few of those. In the last two elections there was a subgroup of folks just wild about Dubya. Loved the guy. Thought he was a "strong leader", "decisive", blah blah blah... Bought W wear they're now ashamed of...

Most of Obama's supporters don't fit your silly, simplistic stereotype. They just look at your guy and are utterly unimpressed. You're just part of the echo chamber with this one. A guy as bright as you should try being less lazy and a bit more original.

Wow. You're running out of tangible arguments, aren't you?

[TexasTiger 12,974]

Yes, I think it will be a cool deal. So what?

I think that's basically the crux with the Obama crowd. ... Instead, there's this wholesale obsession with the theatricality of it all.

From a fella who voted for this guy-- twice:

The Hypocrisy Express continues...

Oh, stuff.

The vote in 2000 was between two well-defined economic ideas. I fully admit voting for the man the first time. In fact, his first year economic policies fully confirmed the wisdom of my vote.

However, as I have pointed out on this board, I argued against the Iraq adventure from the get-go. And I held my nose in the voting booth in 2004. In fact, it was essentially a coin toss between two unimpressive candidates. A lot of people voted that way. Had the Democrats actually nominated a reasonably moderate candidate in 2004, they would hold the White House today.

That being said, there is a fanboy quotient to the Obama candidacy that's quite remarkable. It really does remind me of Jimmy Carter and the Peanut Express. There are no clearly articulated notions by the Obama camp outside that of change. Well, 'change' from the standpoint of Obama is nothing more than a recrudescence of Johnson's policies. The only difference is that the Obama fan base is squealing with girlish delight, as if a bunch of teenagers clutching their brand new copy of Tiger Beat--without a clear understanding of the economic consequences of his policies.

I won't necessarily hold two votes for the worst President in history against a person, even though his incompetence should have been obvious to anyone from the getgo-- unless they act as arrogantly as you do about someone else's choice. You've forfeited any credibility to be so arrogant. You are essentially the fool calling others foolish.

That being said, the manner in which you paint with such a broad brush betrays your ignorance. Your over-broad, substance-free criticism of Obama being substance-free is pretty ironic.

This time around, there is a subgroup of Obama supporters who are exuberant in their enthusiasm-- McCain wishes he had a few of those. In the last two elections there was a subgroup of folks just wild about Dubya. Loved the guy. Thought he was a "strong leader", "decisive", blah blah blah... Bought W wear they're now ashamed of...

Most of Obama's supporters don't fit your silly, simplistic stereotype. They just look at your guy and are utterly unimpressed. You're just part of the echo chamber with this one. A guy as bright as you should try being less lazy and a bit more original.

Wow. You're running out of tangible arguments, aren't you?

Like, that one?

[RunInRed 16,454]

I respect views when they are substantive, not cribbed out of a stump speech. That being said, since you have now provided a substantive policy focus rather than ooohhhing and aaaahhhhing over the guy, let's address those.

I have been discussing all of these issues and my stances on them over the past 2 years on this board. In fact, I would argue that it would be rather difficult to not know where I stand on any of them if you have even half way been paying attention. In just the past few days, we have had numerous discussions about energy, faith, the economy, etc. To suggest that I am just now providing issue-based discussion is a flat out misrepresentation of the ongoing dialogue here.

1) Getting our troops out of Iraq and refocusing our resources on AQ in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Well, as I noted in another post, it might actually become fait accompli anyway by the end of the year, by the progress occasioned by our change in military strategy and its resulting stability and credibility of the Iraqi national government. However, cutting out (the course favored by Obama) would have proven to be the most disastrous option of all. This makes me seriously question the man's poise in any situation where a sustained military operation is involved--a necessary component for any man who occupies the Oval Office.

I love how many of you act like Obama or his supporters want Iraq to fail, as if some how this will prop up our positions. Give me a break. As for the current situation in Iraq, I have some what of a unique view on it - the conversation/pressure started by Obama and others stating that Iraq does not have a blank check from the U.S. (in terms of U.S. troops or treasure), has been a contributing factor in helping propel the success we are seeing now. This is not to say our troops/the surge have not peformed brilliantly, it is simply to say the dialogue/pressure that has been created due to the extended primaries and presidential campaigns, has definitely turned the heat up over there. Iraqis and their leaders know they must act and act soon because a new U.S. administration is on the horizon, who will not give them the open-ended/ regardless of results, commitment they have been used to. Call it an "imaginary time table" if you will, but I think it has been a factor in driving the success we are seeing today. And guess what? I am THRILLED about it.

2) Ending our dependence on fossil fuels and big oil. Solving our energy crisis by making America an energy independent country. This is a vague objective, one that nobody can really argue with. The question comes in the details. Do we wreak large-scale financial havoc by policies that ultimately drive oil up to $200 a barrel based on a childlike belief in a visit from the Energy Fairy, who waves her wand and whips up new technologies out of thin air? Or do we gradually reduce dependency from foreign sources while simultaneously weaning ourselves from petroleum? Note that I do not choose to succumb to the shrill panic mongering of the Global Warming crowd, especially in light of the gathering dissent of climatologists. I view it strictly as a geopolitical and economic issue, not as a looming ecological disaster.

More to the point, I don't think you realize how disastrous an incorrect approach to this problem could be. Just look at the effects of the 1974 and 1979 price hikes had on the economy to understand what a knife edge we're on at the moment. Personally, I think gas prices will begin dropping in September barring a major supply interruption. But electing a president whose policies seek to keep gasoline high will keep inflation high, unemployment high, and will slow the economy down to a crawl--the very thing Obama's trying to avoid in the first place. Even though tax rates did get ratcheted higher in the early 1990s, what you omit is the fact that the Republican-led Congress kept spending increases to a crawl. That allowed the government some breathing room to actually lower the national debt, something that would have proved utterly impossible had Bill Clinton's vision of nationalized healthcare been implemented.

We had an entire thread just the other day where I discussed my position on how I thought we should tackle the energy solution - in short, I favor renewables to more drilling but also realize there are a multitude of options to become energy independent.

3) A return to fiscal responsibility in Washington and beginning to reduce our national debt. Bravo. The problem with W was not his tax cuts. It was the monumental spending hikes that took place during his administration. You imply I am "macro-blinded" (Is that even a word?) to the tax issue. That's because, in economy after economy, the level of taxation is a determinant of economic health, not an afterthought. Obama does not seem to understand this. He does not understand the correlation of higher taxes on prolonging the Great Depression and he does not understand how the higher taxes of the Great Society program nearly brought the American economy to its knees by the early 1970s. He does not look at the moribund economies of Europe and understand that a huge part of their problem are their high taxes, overarching welfare state, and overregulated economy.

Again, you completely ignore the fact the economy was in fine shape in the 90s, despite Clinton's "higher" tax policies. Of course, i'm sure there is still some justification from you to try to marginalize the results and make whole your talking points (but it was the Republicans who controlled congress, the economic boom was just an artificial internet bubble, and on and on).

Further, it is completely disingenious and nothing more than political fodder as usual to suggest Obama is just some "tax and spend liberal" who wants some huge "overarching welfare" state. Again, his tax proposals primarily focus letting the Bush tax cuts sunset on the top two income groups (an effective ~3% increase on oridinary incomes rates for those making more than 200k/250k(jointly)). And the truth is, the majority of every one else will actually see even more tax breaks under an Obama administration (see, earned income tax credit/payroll offset for middle class and elimination of taxes all together for seniors making less than 50k). But you never talk about any of this in your "analysis". You just trot out the same old lines about how Democrats will raise your taxes, turn us into a European socialist state...blah blah blah

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

"My name is John McCain and I'm gonna balance the budget by winning them wars we're in!"

Would you please provide a link to your supposed quote?

[TheDrewYouKnew 3]

Yes, I think it will be a cool deal. So what?

I think that's basically the crux with the Obama crowd. ... Instead, there's this wholesale obsession with the theatricality of it all.

From a fella who voted for this guy-- twice:

The Hypocrisy Express continues...

Oh, stuff.

The vote in 2000 was between two well-defined economic ideas. I fully admit voting for the man the first time. In fact, his first year economic policies fully confirmed the wisdom of my vote.

However, as I have pointed out on this board, I argued against the Iraq adventure from the get-go. And I held my nose in the voting booth in 2004. In fact, it was essentially a coin toss between two unimpressive candidates. A lot of people voted that way. Had the Democrats actually nominated a reasonably moderate candidate in 2004, they would hold the White House today.

That being said, there is a fanboy quotient to the Obama candidacy that's quite remarkable. It really does remind me of Jimmy Carter and the Peanut Express. There are no clearly articulated notions by the Obama camp outside that of change. Well, 'change' from the standpoint of Obama is nothing more than a recrudescence of Johnson's policies. The only difference is that the Obama fan base is squealing with girlish delight, as if a bunch of teenagers clutching their brand new copy of Tiger Beat--without a clear understanding of the economic consequences of his policies.

I won't necessarily hold two votes for the worst President in history against a person, even though his incompetence should have been obvious to anyone from the getgo-- unless they act as arrogantly as you do about someone else's choice. You've forfeited any credibility to be so arrogant. You are essentially the fool calling others foolish.

That being said, the manner in which you paint with such a broad brush betrays your ignorance. Your over-broad, substance-free criticism of Obama being substance-free is pretty ironic.

This time around, there is a subgroup of Obama supporters who are exuberant in their enthusiasm-- McCain wishes he had a few of those. In the last two elections there was a subgroup of folks just wild about Dubya. Loved the guy. Thought he was a "strong leader", "decisive", blah blah blah... Bought W wear they're now ashamed of...

Most of Obama's supporters don't fit your silly, simplistic stereotype. They just look at your guy and are utterly unimpressed. You're just part of the echo chamber with this one. A guy as bright as you should try being less lazy and a bit more original.

Wow, what a great debater you are! I voted for Bush twice and I am proud to say that both times I made the best choice out of the two candidates presented to me. If you keep making claims like your worst president jab, even your two fans will lose respect for your cunning political aptitude .