For once I agree with Hillary...

He's not delusional. He's optimistic. Honestly though, I'd rather have a president with an optimistic attitude than a president with a defeatist attitude.

 

Yes he is, or optimistic, as noted by StefanM.

I prefer realism and pragmatism myself.

What really bothers me about Obama at this stage of the campaign is he has no specifics on how he's going to attain those high sounding idealistic pledges.

I believe he is somewhat naive and woefully inexperienced.

 

www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

 

Thanks Ken, but I don 't visit self promoting propaganda sites.

I doubt that it would tell us just how he intends to "unify" this deeply divided country.

 

I wonder if you would make that statement if it was a conservative website, carpro.

I challenge you to expand your horizon and at least scan Senator Obama's proposals.

 

You don't have to wonder any longer, unless you wish to call me a liar. Go ahead . I expect it.

I understand that Obama's recipe for change is pretty much standard liberal democrat fare. And when he mentions "change" he means change from a republican administration to a liberal democrat one, nothing any more fundamental than that.

When he mentions unity, I believe he means a united liberal democrat front. If he doesn't, he certainly hasn't offered anything but platitudes about how he will unify the country.

Maybe he's planning to turn his head for a major terrorist attack, like Bush has been accused of.

 

That is clearly not true regardless of how often you and Hillary Clinton repeat it.

 

You're correct, Ken! I read the document and find it to be 64 pages of the typical Democratic agenda for expanding government. The plan translates to more taxes and building launch pads for much more to follow. Government has a terrible record of solving problems and of excessive mismanagement of tax payer's money yet politicians continue to gain converts daily who falsely believe people like Obama - or Clinton - have the magical ability to somehow make all their personal problems disappear. None of these candidates are advocating eliminating even one little part of the imperial federal government. They do, however, have plenty of ideas on how to supposedly rescue all the poor helpless subjects from their own lack of responsibility. Not that long ago it would have been called Socialism or Communism. One day it will be called tyranny and then the price to remove the yoke from our necks will be far greater than many will want to pay.

 

Thank you for proving to the skeptical that Senator Obama does indeed have concrete proposals. You are a gentleman and a scholar. :thumbs:

 

Has anyone noticed that since KenH got on the Obama band wagon and off of Ron Paul's he quit talking abot the Constitution? Interesting.

 

Huh?

I find it interesting that some talk about the Democrats wanting bigger government and spending but do not complain about Bush's excessive spending. I mean he has outspent any Democrat in history and with him as president we are going into further debt at over 1 billion a week. The US is now a huge debtor nation and the majority of that debt is to China.

Bush is the no. 1 spender in the history of the US and Reagan is 2nd ... both Republicians.


Come on people, stop repeating old worn out lines that are no longer true and look at both sides and at recent history.:tonofbricks:

 

Most assuredly Bush has allowed too much national debt but Mr Bush is not running. This thread is about who is running and the policies they will bring to the office.

 

That is true and is why I said look at both sides and at recent history. I do not see either party saying anything about cutting down on spending greatly. Everyone should watch carefully to say what is said by all candidates. of course politicians of all stripes often promise much and deliver little.
:tonofbricks:

 

As long as a Republican has to follow a Democrat that has gutted the military and increased the welfare rolls, there will be an increase of spending attributed to the Republican for his term.
To rebuild the military and fighting Congress for cutting social entitlements that Congress will not touch. To get the spending they need for military strength Congress will "earmark" other funds for projects in their districts. Remember the Newt "Contract for America" led Congress that proposed among other things a "Line item veto" that would allow a President to veto "Pork"? So if a President is committed to no taxes he will show a net spending increase. Look what happened to Bush 41 when he broke his promise of "Read my lips, No new taxes".

However, like you, I too grow very weary of our ever increasing debt both public and private.

 

G. Bush has not rebuilt the military. He actually has gone a long way in destroying the US military. The war was totally unjustified and so the billions of dollars and the thousands of lifes lost and the tens of thousands of young people's lives ruined through horrible wounds has been a total waste.:tonofbricks:

 

As I heard a libertarian say to a radio talk show host yesterday: "The Democrats want to take away my money. The Republicans want to take away my rights. I can make more money."

 

I think that KenH is in his covert conservative mode.
He claims to support Obama, all the while his motive is to get the debate of Obama's liberal stance out into the open so us overt conservatives will have our debate skills honed to a very sharp edge. And ready to slice the Democratic platform to millions of shreds when Obama begins to carry this liberal platform to the general elections.