Pro-Obama thread..list his good ideas, strategies, attributes, etc.

[615 Vol]

aight, i usually disregard those type of emails but since it had his quotes in them i thought it was interesting. he's still a terd tho

That's funny. I know what you mean, I get those e-mail too and I never know what to believe. I'm not sure if Snopes is even accurate, how do we know?

 

[allvol123]

I'm saying it's understandable why people would be wary of increased oil production off their shores with the potential for more incidents like this one (which I'm sure you're aware of):

Mississippi oil spill strands Carnival ship at sea - Cruise Log - USATODAY.com

It's easier for someone in Arkansas or Tennessee or Kentucky to call for more drilling than someone who actually lives near the coast and whose livelihood depends on not having oil spills.

One, nothing of the above supports any kind of reasoning for supporting such a restrictive energy policy.

Two, most people support offshore drilling and if they don't it should be decided on, on a local basis. Not by a federal policy. Can you show me these local polls of coastline people that are against the drilling, just curious.

 

[Vol Mania 21]

That's funny. I know what you mean, I get those e-mail too and I never know what to believe. I'm not sure if Snopes is even accurate, how do we know?

true, i guess if we read the book we wld know. but i'm not buying his books and supporting him in any way shape or form. i disagree w/ many of his platforms, and if you ask me i think he's a snake in the grass. if he is elected he will bite the ppl in the arse.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I'm saying it's understandable why people would be wary of increased oil production off their shores with the potential for more incidents like this one (which I'm sure you're aware of):

Mississippi oil spill strands Carnival ship at sea - Cruise Log - USATODAY.com

It's easier for someone in Arkansas or Tennessee or Kentucky to call for more drilling than someone who actually lives near the coast and whose livelihood depends on not having oil spills.

wonder why they aren't calling for oil tankers to be removed from the logistics train?

I understand that likelihood of mishaps and would prefer we not have to drill in the sea, but the reality is that there are reasonable tradeoffs and we should be trying to make them. I don't have any problem with forcing those removing oil to isolate the operations from the rest of the ocean, even at high cost. There has to be means of cordoning off an area and going to work. I know the oil types would grouse at the expense, but they're unlikely to get any support, given current sentiment.

 

[BigPapaVol]

i guess no one wants to comment on my post.

I will.

It's probably the best post you've ever made, even though it was 95% quotes from someone else.

You're bringing nothing new to light, however, in proving that Obama is 100% race focused and doesn't mind divisive politics. Obama is very much about black liberation theology. It's also understood amongst objective folks that he has a very soft spot for the muslims. Many want to argue both of these points, but there really isn't any debate.

 

[Smokefatty]

One, nothing of the above supports any kind of reasoning for supporting such a restrictive energy policy.

Two, most people support offshore drilling and if they don't it should be decided on, on a local basis. Not by a federal policy. Can you show me these local polls of coastline people that are against the drilling, just curious.

Do you have polls showing "most people support offshore drilling"? You seem to demand a lot of proof from others while providing very little but rhetoric yourself. Very Obama-like.

 

[Smokefatty]

wonder why they aren't calling for oil tankers to be removed from the logistics train?

I understand that likelihood of mishaps and would prefer we not have to drill in the sea, but the reality is that there are reasonable tradeoffs and we should be trying to make them. I don't have any problem with forcing those removing oil to isolate the operations from the rest of the ocean, even at high cost. There has to be means of cordoning off an area and going to work. I know the oil types would grouse at the expense, but they're unlikely to get any support, given current sentiment.

I like this approach, BPV.

I do still have a problem with the idea promoted by others in this thread that we should just start drilling at will with no regulation. Left up to their own devices, businesses will not do those things above, so the "free market" that certain people champion would not work without some oversight.

 

[Smokefatty]

It's probably the best post you've ever made, even though it was 95% quotes from someone else.

I assume you we speaking relatively since most of the post was either false or misleading.

 

[allvol123]

Do you have polls showing "most people support offshore drilling"? You seem to demand a lot of proof from others while providing very little but rhetoric yourself. Very Obama-like.

Here you go, I had to scour the internet for seconds, but I did it for you.

Poll: 74 percent support offshore oil drilling in U.S. : National : Naples Daily News

And by the way, I really don't care what polls say. I prefer the politician make the most logical decision. It just so happens that the polls support the logical thinking at this moment.

 

[utvolpj]

Do you have polls showing "most people support offshore drilling"? You seem to demand a lot of proof from others while providing very little but rhetoric yourself. Very Obama-like.

Rasmussen Reports: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

Most voters favor the resumption of offshore drilling in the United States and expect it to lower prices at the pump, even as John McCain has announced his support for states that want to explore for oil and gas off their coasts.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey—conducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue--finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18% disagree and 15% are undecided.

 

[utvolpj]

oops I hurt your % allvol

 

[allvol123]

oops I hurt your % allvol

No problem. I am just amazed you were able to find any poll that agreed with mine. They are hard to find.

 

[KB5252]

I like this approach, BPV.

I do still have a problem with the idea promoted by others in this thread that we should just start drilling at will with no regulation. Left up to their own devices, businesses will not do those things above, so the "free market" that certain people champion would not work without some oversight.

It is and has been regulated and I know I for one would want their to be reasonable regulation. The problem is some of the regulations ARE a big part of the problem and need to be scaled back to a reasonable extent. I will let those who are for more experienced in those areas decide where that will be. Bottom line is the environmentalist and oil companies need to both be reasonable and find a "happy medium" here and move forward.

 

[Smokefatty]

Here you go, I had to scour the internet for seconds, but I did it for you.

Poll: 74 percent support offshore oil drilling in U.S. : National : Naples Daily News

And by the way, I really don't care what polls say. I prefer the politician make the most logical decision. It just so happens that the polls support the logical thinking at this moment.

Wow! I'm surprised the numbers are that high. I'm not sure that gets to the point of TennNC regarding those it actually affects. I fully support dumping all of our trash in the state of Arkansas, but I'm guessing the people there would feel differently.

I don't necessarily oppose more offshore drilling if done the way BPV posed above.

 

[Smokefatty]

It is and has been regulated and I know I for one would want their to be reasonable regulation. The problem is some of the regulations ARE a big part of the problem and need to be scaled back to a reasonable extent. I will let those who are for more experienced in those areas decide where that will be. Bottom line is the environmentalist and oil companies need to both be reasonable and find a "happy medium" here and move forward.

I agree with that. I would just hope the happy medium erred on the side of the environment rather than oil companies.

Btw, with regard to an earlier post, I'm not a lefty, just anti-extremist right wing.

 

[allvol123]

Wow! I'm surprised the numbers are that high. I'm not sure that gets to the point of TennNC regarding those it actually affects. I fully support dumping all of our trash in the state of Arkansas, but I'm guessing the people there would feel differently.

I don't necessarily oppose more offshore drilling if done the way BPV posed above.

Hmmm...equating trash to oil, those propaganda campaigns do work.

 

[utvolpj]

I agree with that. I would just hope the happy medium erred on the side of the environment rather than oil companies.

Btw, with regard to an earlier post, I'm not a lefty, just anti-extremist right wing.

so you think the countries about to start drilling will take care of the environment? The fact we're sitting around debating while others are doing is a bigger issue to me.

 

[Smokefatty]

Hmmm...equating trash to oil, those propaganda campaigns do work.

Where did I equate trash to oil? I was drawing an analogy to the oil situation, not equating the two. If you can't pick that up from reading the previous sentence, I don't know what to tell you. The point being, it's easy to be for something that will benefit you personally but not harm you.

Apparently, propaganda campaigns do work. Look at the misleading and false quotes attributed to Obama just a few pages back. Look at the number of Americans that believe that Obama is a practicing muslim. I appreciate you implying my opinions are based upon propaganda, though. There's certainly not any out there from the right that sound similar to your ideas.

 

[Smokefatty]

so you think the countries about to start drilling will take care of the environment? The fact we're sitting around debating while others are doing is a bigger issue to me.

No, but I don't like the "but they're doing it, too" argument. If we're going to do it, we need to do it the right way.

Must get back to work. Have a good one.

 

[allvol123]

Where did I equate trash to oil? I was drawing an analogy to the oil situation, not equating the two. If you can't pick that up from reading the previous sentence, I don't know what to tell you. The point being, it's easy to be for something that will benefit you personally but not harm you.

Whether you intended to or not, you were. Dumping trash as opposed to dumping oil. It will not just beneift me personally, it will benefit this country. Oh geez....what the hell....why would we want to provide more security and stability for this country? Also, with all these fears of massive oil spills if we drill off the coast I have to ask. With oil being so valuable, what incentive do the oil companies have to be lazy and careless and spill all that liquid money?

 

[utvolpj]

No, but I don't like the "but they're doing it, too" argument. If we're going to do it, we need to do it the right way.

Must get back to work. Have a good one.

The US already has some of the tightest regs in the world and we can still almost compete. What you advocate would seriously damage any hope of getting it done. But I suspect that's the point

 

[TennNC]

Stabilizing the middle east to reduce threats of terrorism? Absoulutely.

Well, I voted for Bush in 2000 and supported the decision to remove WMDs from Iraq, b/c I thought it directly threatened our national security. I didn't give a rat's a$$ about Saddam Hussein only as much as I thought he might "launch a nuke" our way.

I absolutely would not have supported a decision to invade Iraq to "stabilize the area." That's not our job. And it was clear that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had very little to do with Al Qaida or fighting terrorism. That was already happening in Afghanistan and covertly throughout the region. Since we went into Iraq, however, there is a link between that country and terrorism. And next up is Iran.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I assume you we speaking relatively since most of the post was either false or misleading.

how can you be misleading when quoting someone? I'm sure you have the same problems with every newspaper on earth.

 

[KB5252]

Well, I voted for Bush in 2000 and supported the decision to remove WMDs from Iraq, b/c I thought it directly threatened our national security. I didn't give a rat's a$$ about Saddam Hussein only as much as I thought he might "launch a nuke" our way.

I absolutely would not have supported a decision to invade Iraq to "stabilize the area." That's not our job. And it was clear that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had very little to do with Al Qaida or fighting terrorism. That was already happening in Afghanistan and covertly throughout the region. Since we went into Iraq, however, there is a link between that country and terrorism. And next up is Iran.

A confrontation with Iran has been brewing a long time now. Ahmadinijad (SP?) has publicly stated that he will not dismantle his nuclear program. It looks like Israel will be forced to strike soon, many predict it will happen before the next president is sworn in, and will be more likely to happen if Obama were to be our next president. It is beginning to look more and more like a coming battle that we will have to fight to some extent.

 

[emainvol]

Let me just say if a white person would have said things like this they'd be calling for his head.

Below are things that are taken from his books, enjoy everyone.

From Dreams of My Father: 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of! himself, maybe. And white.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the b! lack ma sses, to strike out and name names.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my! father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

From Audacity of Hope: 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'


Thoughts?(I got that from OE)

Actually they wouldn't be calling for your head, depending on the context in which you made the statements. That is the problem with picking and choosing quotes from a speech or a book, they are all made in context.

The one that really jumps out at me is talking of "standing with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." There was a point after 9/11 that I feared that Muslims might be the victims of religious persecution, even in this country, and I would have stood with the Muslims that I knew then (and believe me, there were quite a few of them) Looking back, it never got that bad, but if it had I would think any decent human being would feel the exact same way that I do, which in turn, would be the same way Obama felt.