Granted there is a major crisis occurring in the U.S., but McCain's move to suspend his campaign, and bypass the presidential debate is in very bad taste, as far as leadership is concerned. How about, when you become president, and we go to war, you just suspend your presidency when you see fit. Mr. McCain, we want to hear what your thoughts are on topics, especially now, in a time when a firm sense of leadership is most important.
These days, I wouldn't think that a politician in one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, could not correspond with Washington via email, or phone, or Blackberry device. But, oh yeah! I forgot, McCain, can flip barbecue ribs, but he can't click send for an email. (watch this!)
On a separate note, regarding the financial crisis. Have you ever experienced trying to contact congressional members online. I spent a good part of Wednesday afternoon, submitting messages to congress via web forms, and more than three quarters of them were restricted by zip code. So, in other words, if you don't live in that congressional district you can't inform members of Congress of anything. I don't desire a response, so there is no taxpayer money going into dealing with my email, and it cost near nothing to receive an email. So, why is contacting our government so restricted? The email address of a Senator or Congress person is not private information, and should be made readily available for any American citizen.
So what I was forced to do was look up the coverage area of each member's district, locate a city, and find a business address that was located within this district, and use that zip code. I had to reference three separate sites to do so (conservativeusa.org of all sites; good old faithful, Wikipedia, the U.S. Postal Service, and lastly, Google maps). The first site, lists all the Senators and Representatives of the current Congress. In Wikipedia, you can search for a state's district, simply by putting in, for example, "Alaska's 1st congressional district", and it will return a plethora of info, and a map. From there I picked a city name, and went to Google maps to find a business that was located in that district, copy and paste it's street address into the USPS's zip code finder, along with state and city name, and it will return a proper zip code for the congress person's district. Sorry folks, spamming is nearly impossible, but if you have the time, I would definitely follow through with some emails to the only people in our government who can actually listen to us.
Okay, so back to my rant on McCain. Bush made the request to have McCain and Obama come back to Washington to has out some ideas on moving Paulson's grand scheme to save our economy forward. This is the most absurd political maneuver I have ever witnessed, and not only is it disruptive to the process of selecting a new president, but it is evident that Bush, and McCain, are completely incapable of running a nation based on slew of mixed messages, unstable political stances, and the inability to aptly inform the American public what their true intentions or plans are. In an interview with Katie Couric, Palin, stated, "'America may find itself on' the road to 'another Great Depression.'" (Couric, Letterman too much for McCain and Palin). Then last night with McCain, when asked about Palin's statement, he responded, "I, I don't know if, if, if it's exactly the depression...". Come on! What the fuck is going on here? Do these candidates even communicate with each other? I, mean, really, if they did, maybe they could actually get their stories straight, and deal with the real issues, not ones that don't even exist.
The only consistent politician in this mess, the only figure who has acknowledged the failures of our current government, and the out of touch ideologies of the Republican right wing, that has destroyed our nation's welfare to thrive, is Obama. It is evident because, McCain, has not only bailed on his constituents, but has advertised himself as a person, who can only get the job done when the circumstances are beneficial to his political needs, and not the needs of the people. The debate should go on. Why would McCain suddenly bail on Letterman, and instead do an interview with Katie Couric? Because, McCain, and his GOP vote thieves, probably thought that since Couric is a morning show host, and most at-home moms are watching at that time, then it would make sense to grab hold of that demographic in the evening, and present himself in a better light, pulling the old female card again. I loved Letterman's reactions. How do you blow off Letterman?
Anyhow, I'm done griping for today. I just wanted to note this mess. You conservative big boys can dodge the truth all you want, but sooner or later it will come to the surface, and people will not tolerate your scheming, the secrecy, and the candy-coated baloney you keep dishing out.
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
You've Been Had
Obama said something that made a huge amount of sense, today, "the American people have been suffering long before Wall Street has." This couldn't be made clearer to the current leadership, who has devastatingly ignored the real problem that the U.S. was and is currently facing. All of this could have been avoided, but when the wealthy in this country are not effected, and the wealthy are so closely tied in with the political elite it is no wonder no one in the U.S. congress, the presidential administration, or the treasury couldn't accept or acknowledge the looming financial crisis that has slammed us hard.
It is worth noting that the current Bush administration has, since 9/11/2001, has governed with the drive of its own interests, committing it's political maneuvers to high level secrecy, without an ounce of regard for the American people and its well being. Now in an attempt to secure our financial crisis, Congress has made an attempt to shore up this crisis, by obliterating party lines, and seriously taking care of this matter once and for all. But, yet again, the Bush administration has not offered up any information regarding its approach to salvaging flailing Wall Street firms, and members of Congress are still in the dark, on both side of the aisle, to boot.
So, the U.S. Treasury is planning to buy up bad mortgages with a estimated value of 2 trillion dollars, and will implement a ban on short selling of financial stocks. The ban is a great idea, because it is definitely a Wall Street trait of abusing financial security and is representative of its ability to abuse the markets. This may work or it may not, but the point is that this was an administrative decision to put a proxy in place to shore up the crumbling walls of big financial firms on Wall Street, at the cost of the American taxpayer. Congress (in other words your voices in government), had no say in the matter.
With all the sympathy from Obama and McCain (not both Congressional members) about how much middle America is suffering and is in financial dire, yet the government insists on shoveling more money into failed business ventures, not because the failure was circumstantial, but because that failure was a product of cheating the American people out of their hard earned money, and the government blatantly wants to foster that with financial rescue.
It's not the smaller number of investment firms with larger amounts of financial debt, but the folks at the bottom end of the market, the taxpayer, the individual investor, the homeowner, who need the bailouts, and may make up a smaller dollar amount of the nation's debt. Yet the government wants to shove 2 trillion dollars into bad mortgages, that will undeniably force a raise in taxes for the individual American.
America's outstanding credit in 2006 reports by the U.S. Census shows that American consumers owe $2,405,000,000,000.00. The financial market's outstanding credit comes in at a whopping $14,129,000,000,000.00. Now I'm willing to bet that those numbers have since increased, and the ratio of difference has, if not remained the same, has also increased. And one could only assume that the best way to approach fixing the market is putting cash into the lower of the two, since it would be a more feasible strategy toward economic stabilization, and let the money trickle up.
There is no financial backbone in America. The value at the top is so ridiculously inflated, that Americans are not capable of reaching for a balance that isn't justifiably within reach. It is so inflated that practically is fictional and non-existent. Those who owe will owe forever because the final balance keeps moving upwards, and continues to be pushed away by the actions of the Federal government. Those who owe are losing jobs, losing investments, face mediocre salaries, and higher costs, and will await an increase in taxes. With that we are expected to pay back on ever-inflating balance sheets. How much more can we possibly endure?
How's this? Why don't all Americans withdraw all of their investments, and use the tax from that to dump back into Wall Street? There's really no difference between that and having to pay more taxes further down the road, which is money that could be placed into a thriving market's investments. This way we could benefit from a thriving market, and not continue to lose our money to bad decisions, and a corrupt corporate America, and government.
It is worth noting that the current Bush administration has, since 9/11/2001, has governed with the drive of its own interests, committing it's political maneuvers to high level secrecy, without an ounce of regard for the American people and its well being. Now in an attempt to secure our financial crisis, Congress has made an attempt to shore up this crisis, by obliterating party lines, and seriously taking care of this matter once and for all. But, yet again, the Bush administration has not offered up any information regarding its approach to salvaging flailing Wall Street firms, and members of Congress are still in the dark, on both side of the aisle, to boot.
So, the U.S. Treasury is planning to buy up bad mortgages with a estimated value of 2 trillion dollars, and will implement a ban on short selling of financial stocks. The ban is a great idea, because it is definitely a Wall Street trait of abusing financial security and is representative of its ability to abuse the markets. This may work or it may not, but the point is that this was an administrative decision to put a proxy in place to shore up the crumbling walls of big financial firms on Wall Street, at the cost of the American taxpayer. Congress (in other words your voices in government), had no say in the matter.
With all the sympathy from Obama and McCain (not both Congressional members) about how much middle America is suffering and is in financial dire, yet the government insists on shoveling more money into failed business ventures, not because the failure was circumstantial, but because that failure was a product of cheating the American people out of their hard earned money, and the government blatantly wants to foster that with financial rescue.
It's not the smaller number of investment firms with larger amounts of financial debt, but the folks at the bottom end of the market, the taxpayer, the individual investor, the homeowner, who need the bailouts, and may make up a smaller dollar amount of the nation's debt. Yet the government wants to shove 2 trillion dollars into bad mortgages, that will undeniably force a raise in taxes for the individual American.
America's outstanding credit in 2006 reports by the U.S. Census shows that American consumers owe $2,405,000,000,000.00. The financial market's outstanding credit comes in at a whopping $14,129,000,000,000.00. Now I'm willing to bet that those numbers have since increased, and the ratio of difference has, if not remained the same, has also increased. And one could only assume that the best way to approach fixing the market is putting cash into the lower of the two, since it would be a more feasible strategy toward economic stabilization, and let the money trickle up.
There is no financial backbone in America. The value at the top is so ridiculously inflated, that Americans are not capable of reaching for a balance that isn't justifiably within reach. It is so inflated that practically is fictional and non-existent. Those who owe will owe forever because the final balance keeps moving upwards, and continues to be pushed away by the actions of the Federal government. Those who owe are losing jobs, losing investments, face mediocre salaries, and higher costs, and will await an increase in taxes. With that we are expected to pay back on ever-inflating balance sheets. How much more can we possibly endure?
How's this? Why don't all Americans withdraw all of their investments, and use the tax from that to dump back into Wall Street? There's really no difference between that and having to pay more taxes further down the road, which is money that could be placed into a thriving market's investments. This way we could benefit from a thriving market, and not continue to lose our money to bad decisions, and a corrupt corporate America, and government.
Monday, September 08, 2008
The Global Bloc
Okay, I got two wonderful bits of information for you guys today. First off, I read an interesting article from former CEA chairman N. Greg Mankiw (however you pronounce that), who conveniently slipped an op-ed piece into the New York Times today, regarding the similarities of Obama's tax policies to those of George W. Bush. Now I'm not really up on my high level economics lately, but it seems that this article was a bit of a reach a former White House economic adviser to slam Obama on his tax policies, being that Bush was such a screw up, Mankiw sets Barack at his level, stating that he has "embraced a central element of the Republican agenda", regarding corporate dividend tax.
So now that I've made up my mind about who I want to vote for, some economic guru comes along, and casts a shadow of doubt on my prospects, and for what reason? Now, for some of you not up on their Economics 101, based on the Wikipedia, dividend tax "is an income tax on dividend payments to the stockholders (shareholders) of a company." In other words, the profit made by stockholders on stock, is taxed on top of tax deducted from the company's profit. So, now that that is laid out for you, in 2003, Bush proposed to Congress to eliminate dividend tax, saying, it was a form of "double taxation", and that it would cause our economy to falter.
Now, Mankiw, is stating in his piece that in 2008 Obama plans on proposing "only a modest increase in the top tax rate, to 20 percent from 15 percent." He goes onto say that this would appeal to Bush's policy.
I simply am not getting this. If Bush planned on cutting the dividend tax, and then moved Congress forward with bills to do so, how is that following in the footsteps of a president, whose policies from every angle have sent the economy into a downward death spiral. The increase would put more pressure on those who reap heavily from investments (mostly upper middle class, and the rich), not those who are poor, and in most cases don't even own stock. Obama plans to draw from sources that have resources of money. It is a way to open up the economy from the top, instead of throwing a tax blanket over the general revenue base in the U.S.
Also noted, in an LA Times blog entry, it links to an Obama campaign plan document, that lays out in print, that even though he is raising the dividend percentage to 20%, "the rate on dividends will be 39% lower than the rate president Bush proposed in 2001." This is a smarter way to deal with the upper echelon of taxpayers, who have over the past eight years played an unfair game of fiscal irresponsibility, costing the middle class, and the poor more than they could pay out to the government (reflections of Enron and Anderson Consulting). There is absolutely no connection between Obama's plan for policy, and Bush's policies that have proven a failure to the American people. Mr. Mankiw, you are an outright propagandist, and you have sold out your own people for the sake of having another hack elected to office, John McCain.
I also wanted to address something I've been noticing over the past year or so, and that is how much effort the Bush administration has put into trying to pull the wool over our eyes, when it comes to globalization. In The World is Flat by Tomas L. Friedman, I found a passage that struck me, stating, "At the precise moment when the world was being flattened…requiring some very important adjustments in our own society and that of many other Western developed nations-American politicians not only were not educating the American public, they were actively working to make it stupid." Is that not a slap in the face as a wake up call or what? On this note, I shouldn't single out the Bush administration, because it had a lot to do with our Congressional leaders as well, who fought ferociously to keep the Republican bills to pass that fostered NAFTA. Then to come full circle, in this passage in Friedman's book, our good friend Mankiw shows up having been lambasted by the media, and his own administration tucking him away from the media, for supporting the gains that could be made from outsourcing, which would be a major part of NAFTA, and a "manifestation of the gains from trade that economists have talked about..."
I for one support outsourcing, and I see it as a way to open our country up to some new business and manufacturing concepts and applications. We are flailing in a sea of offshoring and outsourcing, and our leaders, Republican and Democrat, have purposefully set the course for hiding globalization from the American public. Why? Is the conservative wing and wealthy Democrats of the U.S. attempting to stay ahead of the rest of the competition, by eliminating public knowledge of the globalization effort, of which corporate strongholds in the U.S. are taking full advantage, by outsourcing jobs, offshoring production, and benefiting from these elements? It seems that the political/economic right in the U.S. does not follow a fair policy of capitalism, and by not leveling the playing field for all entities in America, it seems they are controlling the economy (a.k.a. Communism).
Call it what you will.
So now that I've made up my mind about who I want to vote for, some economic guru comes along, and casts a shadow of doubt on my prospects, and for what reason? Now, for some of you not up on their Economics 101, based on the Wikipedia, dividend tax "is an income tax on dividend payments to the stockholders (shareholders) of a company." In other words, the profit made by stockholders on stock, is taxed on top of tax deducted from the company's profit. So, now that that is laid out for you, in 2003, Bush proposed to Congress to eliminate dividend tax, saying, it was a form of "double taxation", and that it would cause our economy to falter.
Now, Mankiw, is stating in his piece that in 2008 Obama plans on proposing "only a modest increase in the top tax rate, to 20 percent from 15 percent." He goes onto say that this would appeal to Bush's policy.
I simply am not getting this. If Bush planned on cutting the dividend tax, and then moved Congress forward with bills to do so, how is that following in the footsteps of a president, whose policies from every angle have sent the economy into a downward death spiral. The increase would put more pressure on those who reap heavily from investments (mostly upper middle class, and the rich), not those who are poor, and in most cases don't even own stock. Obama plans to draw from sources that have resources of money. It is a way to open up the economy from the top, instead of throwing a tax blanket over the general revenue base in the U.S.
Also noted, in an LA Times blog entry, it links to an Obama campaign plan document, that lays out in print, that even though he is raising the dividend percentage to 20%, "the rate on dividends will be 39% lower than the rate president Bush proposed in 2001." This is a smarter way to deal with the upper echelon of taxpayers, who have over the past eight years played an unfair game of fiscal irresponsibility, costing the middle class, and the poor more than they could pay out to the government (reflections of Enron and Anderson Consulting). There is absolutely no connection between Obama's plan for policy, and Bush's policies that have proven a failure to the American people. Mr. Mankiw, you are an outright propagandist, and you have sold out your own people for the sake of having another hack elected to office, John McCain.
I also wanted to address something I've been noticing over the past year or so, and that is how much effort the Bush administration has put into trying to pull the wool over our eyes, when it comes to globalization. In The World is Flat by Tomas L. Friedman, I found a passage that struck me, stating, "At the precise moment when the world was being flattened…requiring some very important adjustments in our own society and that of many other Western developed nations-American politicians not only were not educating the American public, they were actively working to make it stupid." Is that not a slap in the face as a wake up call or what? On this note, I shouldn't single out the Bush administration, because it had a lot to do with our Congressional leaders as well, who fought ferociously to keep the Republican bills to pass that fostered NAFTA. Then to come full circle, in this passage in Friedman's book, our good friend Mankiw shows up having been lambasted by the media, and his own administration tucking him away from the media, for supporting the gains that could be made from outsourcing, which would be a major part of NAFTA, and a "manifestation of the gains from trade that economists have talked about..."
I for one support outsourcing, and I see it as a way to open our country up to some new business and manufacturing concepts and applications. We are flailing in a sea of offshoring and outsourcing, and our leaders, Republican and Democrat, have purposefully set the course for hiding globalization from the American public. Why? Is the conservative wing and wealthy Democrats of the U.S. attempting to stay ahead of the rest of the competition, by eliminating public knowledge of the globalization effort, of which corporate strongholds in the U.S. are taking full advantage, by outsourcing jobs, offshoring production, and benefiting from these elements? It seems that the political/economic right in the U.S. does not follow a fair policy of capitalism, and by not leveling the playing field for all entities in America, it seems they are controlling the economy (a.k.a. Communism).
Call it what you will.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Obamanated!
Yeah I know, another Obamanym, but I couldn't resist. Anyhow, I just got done watching the speech given by Obama at Mile High Stadium, and up until about 5 minutes into his 45 minute speech, I was convinced that he's going to be the greatest thing to happen to this country in a long while. Now I say this from a former Republican standpoint, because I come from a conservative background, and tend to not have a lot of tolerance for extreme liberalism. I am starting to see a swing to the right a bit more in the Democratic party with Obama getting the presidential nod. I like that he has called McCain, and the GOP out on the floor, and is demanding that they start getting in touch with the reality of governing the United States of America, instead of their political mumbo-jumbo, full of empty promises to the American people. He has made it clear that Republicans do not govern, but instead they let the country ride the dangerous wake of their disorganized, unplanned, and threatening foreign and domestic policies. All of which have left the American people out in the cold and harsh realities of economic despair, employment hardships, and a government toward whom they cannot turn. I think my decision has been made based on Obama telling us, that we have come the crossroad, "a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more."
Obama has brought in both parties and even an awakening third, the Independents, by not only making note of them in his speech, but recognizing that McCain was a true war hero, and a political hero for breaking away from his party when he felt that his beliefs and views were in contrast to those of his out of touch, and failing party. This is what I like about Obama, because unlike a "celebrity", he puts his political ego aside to recognize his opponents strengths as a non-partisan player. Unlike the GOP, that constantly bashes Obama and the Democrats, nit-picking at every last detail of their platforms, moral fiber, and even their family members. If we consider how Bush in his 8 years of false "compassionate conservatism", we can see that the Republican party is not at all compassionate, and really has no sense of understanding the deep rooted suffering that Americans have faced during his presidency. Where's the compassion in that? Where is the compassion in their foreign policy, when they decided to go to war? Where was the compassion, in letting hurricane victims drown, and be permanently removed from their homes? Where is the compassion in even showing up to your own party's national convention? What is so compassionate about lying in order send our men and women into battle?
Anyhow, McCain is steeped also in that lack of compassion, because in Obama's words, he just "doesn't get it." The Republicans are out of touch, and when this is the case, they really can't comprehend the needs, and the hardships of the people they are supposed to serve. The Republicans don't get it simply because, when the Democratic National Convention occurred, 84,000 people packed into a football stadium to hear Obama accept his nomination. Obama had the full support of all his former Democratic contenders. The streets were filled with more protestors than there were police forces, and there was no need for showboating. The show came to Obama, and Denver was raising the roof.
In contrast to this, the Republican National Convention, was held in a much smaller venue, the current president, for the first time in the history of the RNC, didn't show up to support his party's candidate, and McCain scrambled for a female president absolutely incapable of running a state, let alone an entire country. The Democrats didn't need to desperately seek out an individual to leech off the Republican's female support. And what respectable presidential candidate of a conservative party selects a running mate without even a glance at their political background, which contains numerous discrepancies. On top of this have you seen the amount of police force used in St. Paul over the passed few days, in response to peaceful protests? It just goes to show, whether they were violent or not, there were a lot of people there who were not just angry, but absolutely fed up with the Republican party's failure to effectively govern.
Effective governing comes from the people, and not from its leadership. The masses know what is good for them, and what will provide them safety from the cold threatening world. We will not stand to be fearful of things that we cannot control. We will not let a small handful of powerful men control our thoughts, freedoms, and livelihood. We will decide the fate of our country, not the Republicans, not the Bush administration, not the rich, not the police, and we will decide who will make our country stronger, and a fruitful place to live. We have withstood way too much passive aggression from the current administration, and it's conservative supporters, and Obama hit it home for me when he said, "change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time."
Obama has brought in both parties and even an awakening third, the Independents, by not only making note of them in his speech, but recognizing that McCain was a true war hero, and a political hero for breaking away from his party when he felt that his beliefs and views were in contrast to those of his out of touch, and failing party. This is what I like about Obama, because unlike a "celebrity", he puts his political ego aside to recognize his opponents strengths as a non-partisan player. Unlike the GOP, that constantly bashes Obama and the Democrats, nit-picking at every last detail of their platforms, moral fiber, and even their family members. If we consider how Bush in his 8 years of false "compassionate conservatism", we can see that the Republican party is not at all compassionate, and really has no sense of understanding the deep rooted suffering that Americans have faced during his presidency. Where's the compassion in that? Where is the compassion in their foreign policy, when they decided to go to war? Where was the compassion, in letting hurricane victims drown, and be permanently removed from their homes? Where is the compassion in even showing up to your own party's national convention? What is so compassionate about lying in order send our men and women into battle?
Anyhow, McCain is steeped also in that lack of compassion, because in Obama's words, he just "doesn't get it." The Republicans are out of touch, and when this is the case, they really can't comprehend the needs, and the hardships of the people they are supposed to serve. The Republicans don't get it simply because, when the Democratic National Convention occurred, 84,000 people packed into a football stadium to hear Obama accept his nomination. Obama had the full support of all his former Democratic contenders. The streets were filled with more protestors than there were police forces, and there was no need for showboating. The show came to Obama, and Denver was raising the roof.
In contrast to this, the Republican National Convention, was held in a much smaller venue, the current president, for the first time in the history of the RNC, didn't show up to support his party's candidate, and McCain scrambled for a female president absolutely incapable of running a state, let alone an entire country. The Democrats didn't need to desperately seek out an individual to leech off the Republican's female support. And what respectable presidential candidate of a conservative party selects a running mate without even a glance at their political background, which contains numerous discrepancies. On top of this have you seen the amount of police force used in St. Paul over the passed few days, in response to peaceful protests? It just goes to show, whether they were violent or not, there were a lot of people there who were not just angry, but absolutely fed up with the Republican party's failure to effectively govern.
Effective governing comes from the people, and not from its leadership. The masses know what is good for them, and what will provide them safety from the cold threatening world. We will not stand to be fearful of things that we cannot control. We will not let a small handful of powerful men control our thoughts, freedoms, and livelihood. We will decide the fate of our country, not the Republicans, not the Bush administration, not the rich, not the police, and we will decide who will make our country stronger, and a fruitful place to live. We have withstood way too much passive aggression from the current administration, and it's conservative supporters, and Obama hit it home for me when he said, "change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time."
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Cuba? Who Cares!
McCain, today, spoke to voters in Florida today, addressing foreign relations with Cuba, and challenged Obama's ability to effectively negotiate with the leadership in Cuba. Why all of a sudden is Cuba an issue? What factor does it have on our bad economy, and shotty leadership in place in the U.S. currently? Cuba has not either been a threat or a benefit to the U.S. at all in the past 40 years, and thus shows us that the Republicans are either really reaching for a valid political platform to stand on, or they're just plain scheming to undercut a very efficient politician.
We all remember what happened last time we got involved with Cuba, we almost started World War III, lost our brave soldiers to a battle in the Bay of Pigs, and a Democratic president was assassinated by a communist extremist, who sympathized with Cuba.
Who cares about Cuba, Mr. McCain. It seems to me that you're reaching. Cuban leaders are thugs, and just as bad as the so called leaders in the Middle East, that your party labels as supporters of terrorism. Cuba refuses to deal with us through negotiation, unlike Obama who is willing to talk, but negotiation is a two way street.
Obama, should just stay off the Cuba path all together. It neither boosts or takes away from his campaign, and the Cuba point McCain made is irrelevant. It's simply a plot to attempt to destructure the already thriving Democratic party, and a lousy attempt to give a flailing GOP a chance. There's no chance for conspirators, crooks, and liars. Obama I beg you not to stoop to the GOP's level, stay away from Cuba, and on that note don't visit Texas in a convertible!
We all remember what happened last time we got involved with Cuba, we almost started World War III, lost our brave soldiers to a battle in the Bay of Pigs, and a Democratic president was assassinated by a communist extremist, who sympathized with Cuba.
Who cares about Cuba, Mr. McCain. It seems to me that you're reaching. Cuban leaders are thugs, and just as bad as the so called leaders in the Middle East, that your party labels as supporters of terrorism. Cuba refuses to deal with us through negotiation, unlike Obama who is willing to talk, but negotiation is a two way street.
Obama, should just stay off the Cuba path all together. It neither boosts or takes away from his campaign, and the Cuba point McCain made is irrelevant. It's simply a plot to attempt to destructure the already thriving Democratic party, and a lousy attempt to give a flailing GOP a chance. There's no chance for conspirators, crooks, and liars. Obama I beg you not to stoop to the GOP's level, stay away from Cuba, and on that note don't visit Texas in a convertible!
Monday, March 17, 2008
Refusing to Buy into the Obama Hype
Obama is a seedling. He's the next G.W. Bush. Not very well established in the political arena, and a neophyte at best. How can we let a senator who's had less than 2 terms as a major political figure. What has he done? What are his national values? I find myself thinking that this guy is on someone's A list, and will be fast-tracked into office, in order to fulfill some global demographic. I won't buy into it either. In my opinion the American public is pissed that they made the mistake of voting in a conservative white good old boy, who failed to manage the presidency well, and now the American public is like, "Well gosh, maybe we should see what the complete opposite would do". A very bad decision, with no backing. We need a president who can do the job, and as far as I'm concerned, I'm not too sure that Obama can do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)