Question for those that voted for Obama?

[Scot]

I ask that you answer these questions honestly, logically, and objectively.

(1) I think there is no debate that if you voted for Obama, you wanted change. What EXACTLY, and I mean EXACTLY and SPECIFICLY did you, or do you think he will change?

Please consider the consequences to fellow Americans in your answer. Please be honest if you think you may have been duped.

[Pudge]

I voted for Obama because I did not like what I saw from the Republican party. Seemed to me like they would tolerate McCain, hope that he either left office, died in office, or decided not to run in 2012, so they could get Sarah Palin as president.

Sarah Palin is the reason why I voted for Obama. She's George W. Bush with less brains and a prettier face. I could list many reasons why I didn't like her as a candidate, but that would derail the thread.

I was under no illusions that Obama would 'change' things, or that he was anything other than a tax-and-spend Democrat. I only hope that after four years we have enough sense to elect a true individual liberty-minded conservative who is not beholden to Christian Supremacists or the corporatocracy who is currently robbing our future generations blind with bailouts while they go on lavish vacations and pad their golden parachutes.

[PeterGriffin]

I think I might have been duped. He hasn't revealed his Muslim agenda or articulated his plan to kill America, and it's been over a month. In fact, the sonofagun seems intent on SAVING America, even over conservative objections. Starting to feel like I got took.

[rory]

I wanted health care to be reformed, the nation to get off ME oil and all oil for that matter sooner rather than later. I want the nation to start manufacturing again, even though I'm pro-life I want stem cell research to get going, I want the war in Iraq over and the war in Afghanistan resolved.
I want him to handle Iran rather than ignore the problem, the same with North Korea.
I want the economy jump started even if it means a lot of spending.
So far he has done almost everything I wanted him to do right away.
15 months from now just remember that the Repubs had nothing to do with any of these changes.
177-0

[angelicmadrigal]

I only hope that after four years we have enough sense to elect a true individual liberty-minded conservative who is not beholden to Christian Supremacists or the corporatocracy who is currently robbing our future generations blind with bailouts while they go on lavish vacations and pad their golden parachutes.

Evidently no one will settle for an independant moderate....that's sad.

[BrittleBullet]

Evidently no one will settle for an independant moderate....that's sad.

When I see him/her, I might have a go at it.

[ImNewHere]

I think I might have been duped. He hasn't revealed his Muslim agenda or articulated his plan to kill America, and it's been over a month. In fact, the sonofagun seems intent on SAVING America, even over conservative objections. Starting to feel like I got took.

A 20% drop in the Dow, which represents a lot of personal wealth and retirement accounts in a month, based only on what he said is saving America?

But then again, if you share the "trickle-up poverty" economic policies of our current administration, this president is a raging success.

[peter45]

I voted anti-"conservative".

The "conservatives" have no clue how they are being manipulated.
The genuine Conservatives don't seem to want to tell the "conservatives" that they are useful idiots for the Special Interests.

I don't really care what Obama does.

Any group that blames the CRA for the demise of Bear Stearns needs to disappear.

[croupier101]

1 change that has happened that I like, is that conservatives finally give a **** about the economy again.

[CaptainPike]

1 change that has happened that I like, is that conservatives finally give a **** about the economy again.

Is that the change you were expecting when you voted for him?

[peter45]

1 change that has happened that I like, is that conservatives finally give a **** about the economy again.



The only reason they care about the economy is because they can no longer reward the Special Interests with as much tax money as they did before.

Now, they need to save the tax money.

Save it for the next time they get into power so there is still enough to give to the Special Interests again.

[sgtmac_46]

I only hope that after four years we have enough sense to elect a true individual liberty-minded conservative who is not beholden to Christian Supremacists or the corporatocracy who is currently robbing our future generations blind with bailouts while they go on lavish vacations and pad their golden parachutes. I can agree with that.......or the socialists who are bailing out failing corporations that should have been left to be eaten by the system, as part of the natural order.

[sgtmac_46]

The only reason they care about the economy is because they can no longer reward the Special Interests with as much tax money as they did before.

Now, they need to save the tax money.

Save it for the next time they get into power so there is still enough to give to the Special Interests again.

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) Yet again you PROVE that you're truly delusional, petey....:))

'they can no longer reward the Special Interests with as much tax money as they did before'? :)) How much was Obama's Pork-Barrel 'special interest' spending bill again, genius? How much money did ACORN get?

Don't bother answering......just crawl back in your cave....:))

[sgtmac_46]

A 20% drop in the Dow, which represents a lot of personal wealth and retirement accounts in a month, based only on what he said is saving America?

But then again, if you share the "trickle-up poverty" economic policies of our current administration, this president is a raging success.

'Trickle-up poverty'.....that pretty damn well sums it up! :))

[sgtmac_46]

1 change that has happened that I like, is that conservatives finally give a **** about the economy again. I should damn well hope everyone cares about the economy at this point........given the new depths your tin-pot moron messiah is digging it in to! :eek:

Through most of Bush's term there was no reason to care about the economy.......if it ain't broke don't fix it......that is until the moron-democrat inspired Fannie/Freddie fiasco, that is......:wall: :doh:

The good news, though, is that in two years, most folks will have gotten over the 'Bush was the worst president ever' non-sense, when our Jimmy Carter II and his malaise are in FULL SWING! :))

[King Cantona]

The good news, though, is that in two years, most folks will have gotten over the 'Bush was the worst president ever' non-sense, when our Jimmy Carter II and his malaise are in FULL SWING! :))

I'll have you a friendly bet mate, that in four years Barack Obama is returned to the Whitehouse for a second term.....

And by the way people will still say that Bush was the worst President ever.......;).........

[PeterGriffin]

A 20% drop in the Dow, which represents a lot of personal wealth and retirement accounts in a month, based only on what he said is saving America?

But then again, if you share the "trickle-up poverty" economic policies of our current administration, this president is a raging success.

Of course, this has nothing to do with housing and financial bubbles as a result of the previous administration policies. It also seems logical that when you begin 'stress testing' the big banks, you're going to reveal what everybody knows and what Geithner (probably the biggest disappointment) and everybody with eyes knows; the big banks are technically insolvent, because all that 'wealth' was built out of tissue paper and lies. Financial deception enabled by a lax regulatory environment wasn't something the current administration had a hand in.

So yes, it's normal and expected that when you start peeling back the onion i.e. 'stress tests' on the big banks that are technically insolvent, their value is going to drop and pull down a lot of things with it.

One thing I never hear conservatives offer up beyond the usual kvetching is an alternative idea. , other than 'reinflate the bubble'. Myself, I wonder exactly how much influence banks like Citi have that they haven't been nationalized already. The Fed has been nationalizing on average three banks a week since last summer with a whoooole lot more to come. Why not Citi and the others? Are they protecting the remaining 3% of shareholder value? LOL.

[peter45]

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) Yet again you PROVE that you're truly delusional, petey....:))

'they can no longer reward the Special Interests with as much tax money as they did before'? :)) How much was Obama's Pork-Barrel 'special interest' spending bill again, genius? How much money did ACORN get?

Don't bother answering......just crawl back in your cave....:))


The intellectual level of your comment is certainly

[sgtmac_46]

I'll have you a friendly bet mate, that in four years Barack Obama is returned to the Whitehouse for a second term.....

And by the way people will still say that Bush was the worst President ever.......;)......... I'll take that bet! I'll raise you a bet that Obama replaces Bush as the perceived worst president in recent history!

This jackass is only a month and a half in office and many folks that supported him are already grumbling.......delusions and wishful thinking can only carry Barry-boy so far.

[sgtmac_46]

The intellectual level of your comment is certainly Certainly what? Nonsensical sentence fragments seem to be par for the course with you.

[Amallek]

I voted for Obama because of George W. Bush, because of what the Republican party has become, and because of the most un-Christian right. I was tired of seeing our values destroyed, people being tortured, domestic spying, out of control spending, policies designed to protect the rich. I was tired of people who wanted to control my life and the lives of my friends, of hypocrits who fought gays even after it was disclosed they were one, and of Christians who wanted to protect the unborn but could care less about the born. I was tired of the treatment of science and knowledge as some sort of evil, of denial of responsiblity for the planet we live on. I could not stand the arrogance and the ignorance that Republicans seemed to stand for. McCain offered some hope of change, but he was too old. Palin would have taken us even further down that dirty road.

So, I voted for Obama - for change, ANY change, because I trust that any change cannot be for the worse. We already had the worse.

[sgtmac_46]

I voted for Obama because of George W. Bush, because of what the Republican party has become, and because of the most un-Christian right. I was tired of seeing our values destroyed, people being tortured, domestic spying, out of control spending, policies designed to protect the rich. I was tired of people who wanted to control my life and the lives of my friends, of hypocrits who fought gays even after it was disclosed they were one, and of Christians who wanted to protect the unborn but could care less about the born. I was tired of the treatment of science and knowledge as some sort of evil, of denial of responsiblity for the planet we live on. I could not stand the arrogance and the ignorance that Republicans seemed to stand for. McCain offered some hope of change, but he was too old. Palin would have taken us even further down that dirty road.

So, I voted for Obama - for change, ANY change, because I trust that any change cannot be for the worse. We already had the worse.

And the results......domestic spying continues, Obama's proposing farming out Gitmo prisoners to their home countries to be tortured, values are still being destroyed, spending is even MORE out of control, and Obama is giving EVEN MORE money to bail out the 'rich'.....:)) GOOD CALL! :))


A proposal......how about next time we all vote 'Libertarian'?

[Amallek]

And the results......domestic spying continues, Obama's proposing farming out Gitmo prisoners to their home countries to be tortured, values are still being destroyed, spending is even MORE out of control, and Obama is giving EVEN MORE money to bail out the 'rich'.....:)) GOOD CALL! :))


A proposal......how about next time we all vote 'Libertarian'?

Libertarians, rightly or wrongly, are viewed as goofy.

What we need is a political party that is truly fiscally conservative, adamant about small government and protecting individual rights, and truly libertarian on social issues. Although republicans like to claim that party, they fail miserably on every count. The party I described would be a worthy competitor to the democratic party. The present republican party is what Marx would call the decaying Bourgeoise. Our system of government rests on two powerful parties - one pushing for more rapid change and the other encouraging restraint in government. What we have now is two party fighting for rapid and diametrically opposed change. The winner always screws up in that system.

[sgtmac_46]

Libertarians, rightly or wrongly, are viewed as goofy.

What we need is a political party that is truly fiscally conservative, adamant about small government and protecting individual rights, and truly libertarian on social issues. Although republicans like to claim that party, they fail miserably on every count. The party I described would be a worthy competitor to the democratic party. The present republican party is what Marx would call the decaying Bourgeoise. Our system of government rests on two powerful parties - one pushing for more rapid change and the other encouraging restraint in government. What we have now is two party fighting for rapid and diametrically opposed change. The winner always screws up in that system. And you just described Libertarianism as what you want......:think:

truly fiscally conservative, adamant about small government and protecting individual rights, and truly libertarian on social issues.

Seems like the problem is that you really can't commit to what you say you want.

Though, your assessment of the Democratic party and it's goals are a bit inaccurate.......they are, I suppose, pushing for 'faster change' in a sense, but 'More and Greater Control' would be a more accurate statement.

[ImNewHere]

Of course, this has nothing to do with housing and financial bubbles as a result of the previous administration policies. It also seems logical that when you begin 'stress testing' the big banks, you're going to reveal what everybody knows and what Geithner (probably the biggest disappointment) and everybody with eyes knows; the big banks are technically insolvent, because all that 'wealth' was built out of tissue paper and lies. Financial deception enabled by a lax regulatory environment wasn't something the current administration had a hand in.

So yes, it's normal and expected that when you start peeling back the onion i.e. 'stress tests' on the big banks that are technically insolvent, their value is going to drop and pull down a lot of things with it.

One thing I never hear conservatives offer up beyond the usual kvetching is an alternative idea. , other than 'reinflate the bubble'. Myself, I wonder exactly how much influence banks like Citi have that they haven't been nationalized already. The Fed has been nationalizing on average three banks a week since last summer with a whoooole lot more to come. Why not Citi and the others? Are they protecting the remaining 3% of shareholder value? LOL.

What Obama is doing is not change. It's what Bush did, only this time it's on steroids. Overspending and debt got us into this mess and more spending and debt will not get us out. You don't cure a heroin addict by giving them more heroin, unless you want to kill him.

Which is what it looks like your guy wants to do in order to create a more perfect Soviet Union.

[sgtmac_46]

What Obama is doing is not change. It's what Bush did, only this time it's on steroids. Overspending and debt got us into this mess and more spending and debt will not get us out. You don't cure a heroin addict by giving them more heroin, unless you want to kill him.

Which is what it looks like your guy wants to do in order to create a more perfect Soviet Union.

That's what they meant by change.......'Bush PLUS'! :))

[Amallek]

And you just described Libertarianism as what you want......:think:



Seems like the problem is that you really can't commit to what you say you want.

Though, your assessment of the Democratic party and it's goals are a bit inaccurate.......they are, I suppose, pushing for 'faster change' in a sense, but 'More and Greater Control' would be a more accurate statement.

I definitely support true libertarians. But the present libertarians seem to include too many anarchists, who believe all government is bad, and those who like part of the agenda - but reject the social libertarianism (drugs gays and abortion gotta be illegal and remember, we are a christian nation people). Some also violate the a foundational principle of the libertarian party, which is we don't invade other countries.

Plus, they are just too goofy. Start a new party with a new label, and leave the kooks behind.

All politicians push for more and greater control. It is necessary for their survival. It is up to the people to control it, and for that we have elections every two years. My guess is that unless the republicans start appearing to be for something, they will lose more seats in 2010, giving the dems total control. Then the dems will abuse that and lose back many seats in 2012, and if they are too abusive, they could even lose the presidency.

[sgtmac_46]

My guess is that unless the republicans start appearing to be for something, they will lose more seats in 2010, giving the dems total control. Then the dems will abuse that and lose back many seats in 2012, and if they are too abusive, they could even lose the presidency.

That much I agree with......with the exception of a disagreement on the timeline of the Democrat meltdown. I predict it'll occur by 2010.

The problem is that the Republicans don't really have to be for anything......they don't have any power. That sounds great to the Democrats, until they realize that without any power, the Republicans also don't have any culpability for the disasters of the next 2 years.

[USAF Medic]

Hmm,

Well only two Obama supporters who actually had any type of real specifics for the OP's question regarding what was going to change.

Ray

[XB70]

I voted for Obama because of George W. Bush, because of what the Republican party has become, and because of the most un-Christian right. I was tired of seeing our values destroyed, people being tortured, domestic spying, out of control spending, policies designed to protect the rich. I was tired of people who wanted to control my life and the lives of my friends, of hypocrits who fought gays even after it was disclosed they were one, and of Christians who wanted to protect the unborn but could care less about the born. I was tired of the treatment of science and knowledge as some sort of evil, of denial of responsiblity for the planet we live on. I could not stand the arrogance and the ignorance that Republicans seemed to stand for. McCain offered some hope of change, but he was too old. Palin would have taken us even further down that dirty road.

So, I voted for Obama - for change, ANY change, because I trust that any change cannot be for the worse. We already had the worse.


Wow, just WOW!!!:wall::wall:

[badkarma]

15 months from now just remember that the Repubs had nothing to do with any of these changes.
If, in 15 months time, these changes have not worked, will you remember them and hold President Obama accountable? Or will you be a partisan hack and start telling everyone that 15 months (your time line, that you set out) was just not enough time for President Obamas plan to work?