Was this a good move by Biden?

[MrLabGuy]

Originally Posted by X5Flyboy

As I've posted before, I think Biden is a decent guy - But that ticket vs McCain/Palin..., who do you really think is actually going to achieve change?

Easy...Obama. Does my answer surprise you?


Scroll down....
















Change for the sake of Change is not always good. A VERY Liberal president Obama in line with Pelosi in the House and Reid in the Senate is bad news for America.

Change you can believe in is Obama's theme and believe me I DO BELIEVE his Changes will be bad for America.

[4point4eye]

Originally Posted by MrLabGuy

Easy...Obama. Does my answer surprise you?


Scroll down....
















Change for the sake of Change is not always good. A VERY Liberal president Obama in line with Pelosi in the House and Reid in the Senate is bad news for America.

Change you can believe in is Obama's theme and believe me I DO BELIEVE his Changes will be bad for America.

What's wrong with the left? Gay marriages? Giving women the choice to decide for themselves whether to pursue a pregnancy to full-term? Promotion of greener technologies?

[vinuneuro]

Hilary would've been the strategically sound choice; would've guaranteed them victory imo. Maybe that didn't happen because fate wouldn't allow the destruction of our economy.

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by 4point4eye

What's wrong with the left? Gay marriages? Giving women the choice to decide for themselves whether to pursue a pregnancy to full-term? Promotion of greener technologies?

Maybe it is the socialist mentality, raising of every business tax, raising of investment tax, numerous social programs, collective robin hood mentality, lack of definition to policy, no short term goals on energy or defense...

[carlgo]

Originally Posted by Wagner

Maybe it is the socialist mentality, raising of every business tax, raising of investment tax, numerous social programs, collective robin hood mentality, lack of definition to policy, no short term goals on energy or defense...

Actually, without debating the fear factor here, presidents often effect change in the opposite way you would think.

Conservatives wanted to isolate China. Nixon went there and opened things up. A Dem would have been hammered as a communist, etc.

Ike warned of the military-industrial complex. No Dem could have said the same thing without being accused of being soft on defense.

Obama could get far more international support for action against Iran and for the war on terror than McCain because people believe he isn't looking for trouble.

Obama could put the Cosby view of life out there in ways McCain never could. Only Obama can counter the myths of the Rev. Wrights out there.

You might find McCain saying "I am old, I have faced torture, I don't owe the right wing anything, I will do what is necessary and I will do this before I die and crazy Palin takes over".

So, he might be the one that says the health care system is stupid, the taxes unfair, too much corporate welfare, etc. It would be easier for him to enact these changes than it would be for Obama and he might well be both your candidate and your nightmare.

We have just gotten used to Bush who is a straight-up neo-con idealogue and never looks at any compromise or alternatives. Most of our presidents aren't like that.

Whoever wins, expect surprises, some that delight you and others that don't.

[Meiac09]

Its because we've somehow gone a week without Obama dominating the news, and he doesn't like it.

[X5Flyboy]

Originally Posted by carlgo

Obama could get far more international support for action against Iran and for the war on terror than McCain because people believe he isn't looking for trouble.

We have just gotten used to Bush who is a straight-up neo-con idealogue and never looks at any compromise or alternatives. Most of our presidents aren't like that.

Whoever wins, expect surprises, some that delight you and others that don't.

I don't think the word "support" is correct. I believe Eurore sees Obama as someone more "socialist", similar to them, someone they can "influence" to their view. Remember, their view has led to 2 world wars, and colonies whose economys were "looted" vs built up (read England here), resulting in many of the instabilities in this world

IMHO, I see more lack of compromise from Pelosi & Reid than I do Bush

and yes, I agree there will be things happening that I like & dislike, which is usually the definition of a good compromise

[X5Flyboy]

Originally Posted by MrLabGuy

Easy...Obama. Does my answer surprise you?

Change for the sake of Change is not always good. A VERY Liberal president Obama in line with Pelosi in the House and Reid in the Senate is bad news for America.

Change you can believe in is Obama's theme and believe me I DO BELIEVE his Changes will be bad for America.

Okay, let me redefine "change" as "change that rids us..., er, at least minimizes the influence of lobbyists and party politics; that breaks up the "good ol' boy" system inside the beltway, that pushes for the line-item veto, that demands term limits for Congress". That's MY definition of change. I wish both canidates would better define THEIR definition of "change"

[X5Dawg]

A recent poll of leaders of foreign countries showed the majority of them would like to see the United States weakened.

Also make note of which candidate is getting the majority of their support...

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by X5Dawg

A recent poll of leaders of foreign countries showed the majority of them would like to see the United States weakened.

Also make note of which candidate is getting the majority of their support...

Oh snap.