Obama Is Cake Walking To Be The Next Us President

[Guest Sundancefisher]

The Canadian Liberals and the media are expounding on the US turning liberal and yet they clearly show they have not taken social studies or understand the faintest thing about US politics.

 

The US Democrats are more conservative than Canadian right wing conservatives. The Republicans are even more right wing. The US system would see the Canadian Liberals like Canadians see the left wing socialist NDPers compared to Canadian Liberals.

 

The Liberals are claiming to a degree that there is a liberal victory in North America.

 

What a laugh...

[Pythagoras]

Whatever...

 

Obama sure had a wicked acceptance speach though.

[Brownstone]

I was quite impressed with Mcains loser speech too..

[agbff]

Do you think Obama will end up passive or actually take a stand and make some change? What do you think the first thing he will do in january when he takes office?

 

I thought it was pretty insane when Mccain was making his speech and his supporters were boo'ing and being goofs when ever Obamas name was mentioned, but when obama brought up ol johnnie in his speak the crowd seemed to be a lot more respectful.... Different wings of voters i guess?

[wongrs]

The Canadian Liberals and the media are expounding on the US turning liberal and yet they clearly show they have not taken social studies or understand the faintest thing about US politics.

 

The US Democrats are more conservative than Canadian right wing conservatives. The Republicans are even more right wing. The US system would see the Canadian Liberals like Canadians see the left wing socialist NDPers compared to Canadian Liberals.

 

The Liberals are claiming to a degree that there is a liberal victory in North America.

 

What a laugh...

 

CBC radio has mentioned through their hosts and their guest speakers that the US democrats are 'further right' than Canadian conservatives several times over the past few weeks that I've heard.

 

Also, why wouldn't 'Canadian Liberals' be happy that a democrat was elected? It's either got to be a republican or a democrat so it's the better of the 2 options from their perspective. Seems logical to me but then again, not everybody values logic.

 

Really, I think everyone should be relieved that Palin isn't in a position to be president. Her in control is scary. She can talk up a useless verbal storm though if we ever need that skill.

[orvisonly]

Really, I think everyone should be relieved that Palin isn't in a position to be president. Her in control is scary. She can talk up a useless verbal storm though if we ever need that skill.

 

I'll tell you what is scary. It is scary how easily weak minds can be shaped by the media. One thing is certain and that is that whether a media outlet is liberal or conservative - the facts they present are never that. If you have ever had inside knowledge of a story that is reported in a major newspaper, you will have noticed that they got much of the information wrong. This is the same for every story.

 

I don't know Ms.Palin. I also don't know Mr. Biden. I doubt you do either. I do know that I do not trust people who have a vested interest in selling me something - that includes the media and politicians.

 

I will say that I found it very interesting that at 6:00 pm yesterday, it was announced that Palin was cleared of any wrongdoing by the Ethics panel - wonderful timing don't you think?

 

We have many socialists in Canada, and they serve a purpose. Things that you say, or believe do not scare me any more than things that someone on the far right might say or believe. What would scare me is if everyone was of one view or the other collectively.

[wongrs]

i'm basing my opinion on palin based entirely on the full interviews she has given. if someone talks like a moron, then guess what, i think they are a moron.

 

claiming that they are portrayed as a moron because the media is liberal-biased is way too easy of a cop-out. i haven't seen much republican support of palin either. is that a coincidence?

[LynnF]

I, for one, think Americans made the right choice. I think if anyone is going to lead the U.S. to something better it's going to be him. McCain's undoing was Palin. Once he announced her as his running mate he sealed his own fate. The U.S. is not ready to accept a woman as President yet, let alone Palin. Maybe if there was a chance that she might not ever get into office (i.e. McCain wasn't so old) then MAYBE he would have stood a chance. But I'd side with not.

 

The things we know about Palin are the things she's been coached and coddled and taught to say. And that, in itself, is scary. If that's the public "her" they wanted to portray, I'd hate to see what she's really like.

[orvisonly]

Very good points. If you could just point to the part where I said that the media was liberal-biased, I'll be on my way.

 

Perhaps you think I was referring to the media as being liberal-biased because the media has been delivering a message that anyone that criticizes the media is accusing them of being liberal biased. In reality, I specifically said that both liberal and conservative media groups distort the information you receive.

 

You believe you saw the full interviews? What you saw were the portions of the interviews that were chosen by the network to air. However, the media will show you what you want to see - so I don't blame them. I blame you for taking that and basing your beliefs on it.

 

Imagine if the statment made by Barack Obama about 'his Muslim faith' was all that you saw of the interview with George. Would you believe he was really a Muslim? Probably not, because you wouldn't want to believe it. But others would want to believe it, and so they do.

 

You probably look down on anyone who gets their information from the National Enquirer. The 'respected' media outlets are not much different, they just deceive a different group of people - sometimes with bias and intent, other times the deception is just a product of ingorance.

[SanJuanWorm]

The media is like any other business. They get people to watch their gig by any means necessary. I believe that the media sells bullshit and I never buy it, just like 90% of the fish stories on here.

 

The old adage "I'll believe it when I see it" are words I live by. Hell I bought my first TV at age 30.

[DonAndersen]

SanJuanWorm,

 

All media ain't bad. Consider the guy from Red Deer who mailed me a free paper once a week. I finally meet him and thanked him for his paper. He wanted to know what I liked about it. I came clean and told the guy that it was somewhere to gut my fish.

 

catch ya'

 

 

Don

 

PS - I really agree with your comment "The old adage "I'll believe it when I see it" are words I live by. Hell I bought my first TV at age 30."

 

For me:

 

 

I still think the world is flat.

 

[SanJuanWorm]

Don,

 

The world is not flat............its fat and getting fatter.

[TerryH]

.............I came clean and told the guy that it was somewhere to gut my fish.

catch ya' Don

Don Andersen guts fish???? What's left for a guy to believe in? Terry

[wongrs]

Very good points. If you could just point to the part where I said that the media was liberal-biased, I'll be on my way.

 

Perhaps you think I was referring to the media as being liberal-biased because the media has been delivering a message that anyone that criticizes the media is accusing them of being liberal biased. In reality, I specifically said that both liberal and conservative media groups distort the information you receive.

 

You believe you saw the full interviews? What you saw were the portions of the interviews that were chosen by the network to air. However, the media will show you what you want to see - so I don't blame them. I blame you for taking that and basing your beliefs on it.

 

Imagine if the statment made by Barack Obama about 'his Muslim faith' was all that you saw of the interview with George. Would you believe he was really a Muslim? Probably not, because you wouldn't want to believe it. But others would want to believe it, and so they do.

 

You probably look down on anyone who gets their information from the National Enquirer. The 'respected' media outlets are not much different, they just deceive a different group of people - sometimes with bias and intent, other times the deception is just a product of ingorance.

 

if i am understanding you correctly, there is no way to receive information on facts or events from any kind of media because it is inherently spun. is that correct?

 

i go back to my previous point, if somebody is asked a question and they open their mouth and total stupidity comes flying out of there (uninterrupted), then yes, i believe that person is a moron.

 

hey orvis, do you support palin? are you offended that i'm slamming palin because if so, i can stop.

[orvisonly]

if i am understanding you correctly

 

You are not. I apologize for confusing you, it was not my intention. This is why I would not be a good elementary school teacher.

 

if somebody is asked a question and they open their mouth and total stupidity comes flying out of there (uninterrupted), then yes, i believe that person is a moron.

 

Does this apply to written statements as well?

 

hey orvis, do you support palin? are you offended that i'm slamming palin because if so, i can stop.

 

I believe I said I do not trust politicians. Perhaps this was not clear enough. I am more conservative in my views than some, and less than others. I understand and accept both views and more importantly, the need for both views. I do not form an opinion of the person's character or intelligence based on those views or based on clips of network interviews.

 

I understand why someone who is wealthy would want less tax, and an immigrant making minimum wage would support more tax. I understand that the vast majority of people in a democracy are woefully uninformed, and base their views on meaningless issues. In most cases, the two extremes of ignorance balance out and we end up close to the middle. Whether it is a Democrat in the oval office or a Republican, in the long run it makes little difference.

 

I'm not offended that you feel Ms.Palin is not intelligent. I suggested to you that your opinion on this was based on known unreliable sources, and tried to balance that by using a similar example with Barack Obama. I believe that a few others echoed this sentiment - that you cannot believe everything you read or see on TV.

 

I think you are 'slammin' yourself more than anyone else, by refusing to acknowledge the real reason you 'fear' Ms. Palin - you disagree with her political views (or what you think her politcal views are).

[reevesr1]

Interesting read.

I gotta somewhat agree with OO on this (first time for everything). I have no way of knowing whether or not Sarah Palin is intelligent. She was put in a position she was woefully ill-prepared for. Not because she is or is not stupid, but because she did not have a grasp on the issues, either domestic or foreign. Why would she? Her job did not demand it. So when she was asked questions on the issues, just how was she supposed to sound. I do know that she will be around for the next election cycle. Who doesn't think she'll have a much better grasp of the issues then?

 

I actually don't doubt her intelligence. Odds are she didn't get to where she is by being stupid? I don't agree with her policies (and I am willing to admit I only know her position by what I've heard and read), as I think she is too conservative for me.

[wongrs]

Sorry, I've been traveling for work and was not able to reply in a timely fashion. Perhaps it's not even worthwhile posting a reply at this stage but I thought I'd try to clarify some of my statements anyways.

 

Rick, I entirely agree with your statements. I don't believe she is not intelligent and I should apologize for my vague comments earlier. When I use comments such as 'stupidity' and 'moron' in a colloquial setting, it refers to lots of things that are socially bad and I did not intend the comment to be taken literally to mean that she has a low IQ. I agree with you that she can't be entirely stupid and be a governor of a US state. I'll even admit that even George Bush Jr. is likely more intelligent than people give him credit for.

 

Orvis, clearly I've written something that you have taken exception to and I apologize for that..You probably don't realize it but I agree with you statements to some degree (although a small degree). I agree with you that various sources of information (newspapers, tv, radio, internet collectively known as 'the media') have inherent biases. I believe these are based on the personal beliefs/values of individual reporters rather than an over-arching goal of the media organization controlling the message getting out.

 

Regarding Palin, I still believe that she is not suited to be the VP or P of any country at this stage. I've watched dozens of interviews from different media and the vice-presidential debate. I believe she was chosen for entirely political purposes to woo the dejected Clinton voters. She hasn't said a single thing yet that I would consider to be a credible concrete thought that belongs to her. That's my interpretation of all interviews but I realize it might be for different reasons such as she's being intensely coached by the republican party to say certain things like 'maverick' or whatever. And I realize that she hasn't been on the national stage before and is new to it and national issues. Personally, I find that she's not trustworthy and all of her answers are shifty and vague.

 

Hopefully this clears up my comments. I'm curious to know more about where the mistrust for 'the media' comes from. An idea for another thread.

[dryfly]

1) I am confused about the election outcome, or more specifically where Obama will lead the US energy policy. See below.

2) Consider that had McCain won, the USA was one heart attack away from haveing Palin as president and THAT would be indeed a scary scenario. I bet we all agree on that.

 

Here is an Obama statement from an interview with San Francisco Examiner earlier this year.

 

Let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there. I was the first to call for a 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them.

 

Cap and trade won't work any better in NA than in Europe. Carbon values have apparently crashed. Solar, wind and biodiesel and highly environmentally questionable mass energy sources. Conservation is the main way to reduce use of fossil fuels. Yet we are ALL so bloody two-faced on this matter. Big cars. Big houses. Even us warm-and-fuzzy fly anglers are fossil fuel piggies. Me. You. All of us. Some are better than others, but we all use too much fossil fuel. What RAE the solutions to that? They sure as hell are NOT wind, solar and biofuels.

 

 

Is Obama just another misguided idealist with no sense of reality and what the world needs to keep running? Methinks. (BTW, Kevin Taft once again this week used the phrase, "Post carbon society." That is such a naive, irrational and impossible mission. It is utter nonsense. In the foreseabel future--say 50 years-- the world cannot stop using fossil fuels. Just fossil fools think so.)

 

Ideology is grand...but it can lead to freezing our asses off. England will have a huge shortage of electrical power within 10 to 20 years as they are closing old coal plants and have no plans to replace them with nuclear power. Last week the British parliament passed a new climate change law that calls for carbon emissions to drop by 80 percent by 2050. Absolute lunacy that is simply unattainable. WTF ar they thinking? They want 20 percent of their power form wind which they wil find to be impossible for many economic, engineering, environmental and practical reasons--and at teh end of the day teh carbon reduction from wind is small. Wind farms are obscene and Obama needs to learn this fast.

 

Obama had better be reading the British newspaper ... as biased as the media is...as wongr rightfully stated.

 

The current economy in the USA (and world) has put a big chill on eco-weenie idealism. And the fact that the earth temperatures have been cooling for a few years...on my!

 

Cheers!

 

Clive

 

 

[reevesr1]

Regarding Palin, I still believe that she is not suited to be the VP or P of any country at this stage. I've watched dozens of interviews from different media and the vice-presidential debate. I believe she was chosen for entirely political purposes to woo the dejected Clinton voters. She hasn't said a single thing yet that I would consider to be a credible concrete thought that belongs to her. That's my interpretation of all interviews but I realize it might be for different reasons such as she's being intensely coached by the republican party to say certain things like 'maverick' or whatever. And I realize that she hasn't been on the national stage before and is new to it and national issues. Personally, I find that she's not trustworthy and all of her answers are shifty and vague.

 

Though I don't believe she is suited to be a VP or P either, you can bet she is on the short list of candidates to run out next cycle. She was completely chosen for political purposes-but I would consider the possibility that the political purpose had nothing to do with this election. This election was lost before it started, and I believe the RNC knew it. This would explain McCain as nominee as he has no chance of running again, and rolling out Palin to get her on the stage as a setup for next cycle.

 

May be too much of a conspiracy theory, but seems plausible.

[wongrs]

i just watched a fairly candid interview on cnn with palin post-election. it was refreshing to hear her speak honestly and openly instead of trying to use the word 'maverick' in every sentence. she was surprisingly down to earth and believable. she was probably being pressured by the rnc to put forth a certain image that just wasn't her and came across as fake to me.

 

 

[Weedy1]

i just watched a fairly candid interview on cnn with palin post-election. it was refreshing to hear her speak honestly and openly instead of trying to use the word 'maverick' in every sentence. she was surprisingly down to earth and believable. she was probably being pressured by the rnc to put forth a certain image that just wasn't her and came across as fake to me.

 

This one?

 

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/...fights.back.cnn

 

[flyfishfairwx]

Conservation is the main way to reduce use of fossil fuels. Yet we are ALL so bloody two-faced on this matter. Big cars. Big houses. Even us warm-and-fuzzy fly anglers are fossil fuel piggies. Me. You. All of us.

 

Was about to mid-evil on you Clive......

 

Good thing you added the bit on the bottom part of this Quote, as I have gone from Toyota Tundra to Toyota Matrix,and a 3000sqft home to a 1000sqft home, to be able to afford my Piggie warm-and-fuzzy Fly Fishing.

 

Some are better than others, but we all use too much fossil fuel. What RAE the solutions to that? They sure as hell are NOT wind, solar and biofuels.

 

 

 

 

Clive

 

[reevesr1]

So one week post election. How many times any of you seen McCain? How about Palin? Seems she is on TV almost every day already rehabing her image.

 

Smart money says she is a US Senator within the next several months once Ted Stevens wins his seat, is kicked out of the senate after being convicted of failing to disclose gifts he received, a new election is completed and Ms. Palin is the next Junior Senator from Alaska. How long before she is serving on one of the more important committees you think? Nice thing she is attractive as you are going to be seeing LOTS of her in the next few years. Think a much better looking Newt Gingrich.

[reevesr1]

Sarah is on Larry King right now. Man, she is getting more exposure than Obama!

[jksnijders]

 

 

She's not going into obscurity without a fight.. All the "God willing" talk makes me want to vomit. Points to her for broadening her appeal though, the "hockey mom" bit was good, but stepping up the religious cue card rhetoric takes the cake.