What Makes Obama Run

[no name 1]

He's obviously not a dye-in-the-liberal that you might think he is. From what I gather, his life experiences as child born from a white mother and African father who abandoned his family have had a profound impact on his views. He's as much white as he is black, accept that as far as first impressions go, people throughout his life, have only seen him as black.

I read that. I wasn't referring to his liberalism. All you have to do is look at his voting record to see that he falls on the side of the liberals 100% of the time. My question was about something else. I am worried that he will be so focused on helping out his race that he will not address the rest of the problems in America. Or worse yet try to stack the deck in his races favor. I hate to try and bring race into this discussion but that is what this story is about.

Decoding his political leanings is the easiest thing in the world. He is the most liberal Senator currently serving.

Yeah, well anything left of far right is considered liberal to some.

Well there is liberal and then there is Liberal. Look it up. Obama literally has the most liberal voting record in the senate. He has never "reached accross the isle" to work with the other party. How he will unite the nation is beyond me. As far as I can see he will polarize us more than we are now.

Not sure where you heard or read that from (Limbaugh?), Gary, but here's some facts on his bipartisanship...

Obama was a key co-sponsor of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S.2590) with the bill's primary sponsor, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (OK). In a press release upon Senate passage of the bill, Coburn himself referred to the legislation as the "Coburn-Obama Bill."

Obama also worked with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar (IN) to produce the "Lugar-Obama proliferation and threat reduction initiative," which President Bush signed into law on January 11, 2007, and which received funding on June 28 of that year. The initiative, according to Obama's Senate website, "expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction."

In addition, four of the 12 co-sponsors of Obama's bill (S.2125) to "promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo" were Republicans: Sam Brownback (KS), Susan Collins (ME), Mike DeWine (OH), and James Inhofe (OK). President Bush signed the bill into law on December 22, 2006.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803280011

Steve. Dude. What's up with you spoiling the party by introducing facts to the debate?

media matters

Well, not to you apparently. You seem to get your information from the gut. Ever wondered why people make the two or three snippets from Rev Wright a bi deal but are all hush hush about the fact that what Rev Wright says is in no way some radical fringe stuff within the African American community? That is where we as a people should be outraged; that there is a group of people in our midst that actually feels that way. That's what's outrageous.

Check the source above. Run by a man who has had a personal smear campaign against Bill & Hillary Clinton...

Frighteningly so, yet appropo, I will join Marc in

[no name 1]

I will ask you the same thing then. Given that Obama is even further left with his voting record than Clinton, do you think he will even attempt to work with republicans if elected?

Absolutely.

What makes you think that? From his record I see an idealog. They don't tend to try to work with those that disagree with them.

Doubt it Gary. It's not like we can look at his record & see (any) past decisions.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

He's obviously not a dye-in-the-liberal that you might think he is. From what I gather, his life experiences as child born from a white mother and African father who abandoned his family have had a profound impact on his views. He's as much white as he is black, accept that as far as first impressions go, people throughout his life, have only seen him as black.

I read that. I wasn't referring to his liberalism. All you have to do is look at his voting record to see that he falls on the side of the liberals 100% of the time. My question was about something else. I am worried that he will be so focused on helping out his race that he will not address the rest of the problems in America. Or worse yet try to stack the deck in his races favor. I hate to try and bring race into this discussion but that is what this story is about.

Decoding his political leanings is the easiest thing in the world. He is the most liberal Senator currently serving.

Yeah, well anything left of far right is considered liberal to some.

Well there is liberal and then there is Liberal. Look it up. Obama literally has the most liberal voting record in the senate. He has never "reached accross the isle" to work with the other party. How he will unite the nation is beyond me. As far as I can see he will polarize us more than we are now.

Not sure where you heard or read that from (Limbaugh?), Gary, but here's some facts on his bipartisanship...

Obama was a key co-sponsor of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S.2590) with the bill's primary sponsor, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (OK). In a press release upon Senate passage of the bill, Coburn himself referred to the legislation as the "Coburn-Obama Bill."

Obama also worked with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar (IN) to produce the "Lugar-Obama proliferation and threat reduction initiative," which President Bush signed into law on January 11, 2007, and which received funding on June 28 of that year. The initiative, according to Obama's Senate website, "expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction."

In addition, four of the 12 co-sponsors of Obama's bill (S.2125) to "promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo" were Republicans: Sam Brownback (KS), Susan Collins (ME), Mike DeWine (OH), and James Inhofe (OK). President Bush signed the bill into law on December 22, 2006.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803280011

Steve. Dude. What's up with you spoiling the party by introducing facts to the debate?

media matters

Well, not to you apparently. You seem to get your information from the gut. Ever wondered why people make the two or three snippets from Rev Wright a bi deal but are all hush hush about the fact that what Rev Wright says is in no way some radical fringe stuff within the African American community? That is where we as a people should be outraged; that there is a group of people in our midst that actually feels that way. That's what's outrageous.

Check the source above. Run by a man who has had a personal smear campaign against Bill & Hillary Clinton...

Frighteningly so, yet appropo, I will join Marc in

Since you're ever shorter on substance, you should join Marc in just celebrating yourself with smileys. Post some more. It'll make you feel good. And it requires no thought at all. Just pop 'em in there and feel good. Go ahead. It's okay.

[no name 1]

Since you're ever shorter on substance, you should join Marc in just celebrating yourself with smileys. Post some more. It'll make you feel good. And it requires no thought at all. Just pop 'em in there and feel good. Go ahead. It's okay.

Hey, at least I read & then comment.

[Peikko 1,575]

I have one further question re Barack's legitamacy as the idealist. Why is he seeking the presidency at such a young age? I may have read the American political scene incorrectly, but as I see it, once one has been the president, that's pretty much the end of the line for a politician. How many go back to the Senate or every day politics once they step down? If, as I suspect no one does, what Barack is in effect saying is that he can achieve his political goals in a very condensed time scale and a maximum of 8 years. That seems again, somewhat fanciful to me. Had he continued as a senator for however many terms is allowed (sorry, don't know the answer to that) and then sought the highest office, isn't it concievable that he would have achieved much more during his political career than is possible under his current game plan?

It's just one more piece in the puzzle that tells me Barack is in this more for Barack than for 'ordinary' people. Of course, should he succeed in his goal of brining 'everyone' together in some non partisan middle ground where ordinary people have clout in the new age politics well, who knows? However, I am not really convinced that this will ever become a workable reality, it's just too what, Marxist?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Since you're ever shorter on substance, you should join Marc in just celebrating yourself with smileys. Post some more. It'll make you feel good. And it requires no thought at all. Just pop 'em in there and feel good. Go ahead. It's okay.

Hey, at least I read & then comment.

Be courageous, use more smileys!

[GaryC 7]

I have one further question re Barack's legitamacy as the idealist. Why is he seeking the presidency at such a young age? I may have read the American political scene incorrectly, but as I see it, once one has been the president, that's pretty much the end of the line for a politician. How many go back to the Senate or every day politics once they step down? If, as I suspect no one does, what Barack is in effect saying is that he can achieve his political goals in a very condensed time scale and a maximum of 8 years. That seems again, somewhat fanciful to me. Had he continued as a senator for however many terms is allowed (sorry, don't know the answer to that) and then sought the highest office, isn't it concievable that he would have achieved much more during his political career than is possible under his current game plan?

It's just one more piece in the puzzle that tells me Barack is in this more for Barack than for 'ordinary' people. Of course, should he succeed in his goal of brining 'everyone' together in some non partisan middle ground where ordinary people have clout in the new age politics well, who knows? However, I am not really convinced that this will ever become a workable reality, it's just too what, Marxist?

Wow! Did the ground just freeze under my feet? I think hell just froze over! I agree with you PH!!

[kaydee457 13]

Another silly Barack article?......Number6 buffoonery again, sigh.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Another silly Barack article?......Number6 buffoonery again, sigh.

Actually it was Maviwaro's article from another thread. I don't think context is silly - certainly not as silly (or desperate) as the one from the other about his "lying" about quitting smoking.

[Heracles 417]

Another silly Barack article?......Number6 buffoonery again, sigh.

Number 6 should consider getting into politics. He has some innovative excuses, aka BS, for the politicians.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Another silly Barack article?......Number6 buffoonery again, sigh.

Number 6 should consider getting into politics. He has some innovative excuses, aka BS, for the politicians.

Well I could run on a platform telling people that social inequality doesn't exist and anyone who thinks otherwise should simply hop on a boat.

I should outline each and every policy idea with the prefix - "People should be forced...". No prizes for guessing who'd be the number one fan

[Heracles 417]

Well I could run on a platform telling people that social inequality doesn't exist and anyone who thinks otherwise should simply hop on a boat.

I should outline each and every policy idea with the prefix - "People should be forced...". No prizes for guessing who'd be the number one fan

Who is to blame for social inequality whitey? Sorry your BS guilt trip does not fly with me. Actually it also does not seem to fly with Obama considering his quote in the article you posted:

"Any solution to our unemployment catastrophe must arise from us working creatively within a multicultural, interdependent, and international economy. Any African-Americans who are only talking about racism as a barrier to our success are seriously misled if they don't also come to grips with the larger economic forces that are creating economic insecurity for all workers--whites, Latinos, and Asians. We must deal with the forces that are depressing wages, lopping off people's benefits right and left, and creating an earnings gap between CEOs and the lowest-paid worker that has risen in the last 20 years from a ratio of 10 to 1 to one of better than 100 to 1.

Edited April 8, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well I could run on a platform telling people that social inequality doesn't exist and anyone who thinks otherwise should simply hop on a boat.

I should outline each and every policy idea with the prefix - "People should be forced...". No prizes for guessing who'd be the number one fan

Who is to blame for social inequality whitey? Sorry your BS guilt trip does not fly with me. Actually it also does not seem to fly with Obama considering his quote in the article you posted:

"Any solution to our unemployment catastrophe must arise from us working creatively within a multicultural, interdependent, and international economy. Any African-Americans who are only talking about racism as a barrier to our success are seriously misled if they don't also come to grips with the larger economic forces that are creating economic insecurity for all workers--whites, Latinos, and Asians. We must deal with the forces that are depressing wages, lopping off people's benefits right and left, and creating an earnings gap between CEOs and the lowest-paid worker that has risen in the last 20 years from a ratio of 10 to 1 to one of better than 100 to 1.

If you're talking about "blame" in relation to social inequality - you're missing the point.

[HAL 9000 96]

I thought Cheney and Bush went to Iraq for "OIL"? Funny how that shite went by the wayside

Considering the current oil prices that must have been the worst theft, war for oil etc, in history..

Only if you assume that the public would be the beneficiary of such a policy. A lot of money is being made out of high oil prices - no?

Exxon posts biggest annual profit ever

Record oil prices help the world's largest public oil company earn $39.5 billion in 2006.

By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer

February 1 2007: 2:54 PM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. Thursday reported the biggest annual profit on record for a U.S. corporation - earning more than $75,000 every minute of 2006 on the back of record oil prices.

The world's biggest publicly traded company by revenue posted net earnings of $39.5 billion on revenue of $377.6 billion last year, topping its previous profit record of $36.1 billion in 2005, which at the time was the largest for any U.S. company.

Not adjusted for inflation, oil prices hit a record high of $77.03 a barrel last July, pushing gasoline prices above $3 a gallon nationwide.

Calming ethanol-crazed corn prices

The spike in gas prices led many politicians to call for a windfall oil profits tax, and some even suggested breaking up the nation's biggest oil companies, including Exxon (Charts), ConocoPhillips (Charts) and Chevron (Charts).

Although gas prices have eased back near $2 a gallon - and the fiery rhetoric in Washington has receded - the huge amounts of money involved have not gone unnoticed.

"It is our view that the huge profits that continue to be made by oil companies - and the countries that have huge oil reserves - should be re-invested in finding new sources of energy and energy conserving technologies," Geoff Sundstrom, a spokesman for the motorist organization AAA, said in a statement. "Not doing so invites a future of economic and environmental distress for people around the globe."

Naturally oil companies balked at a windfall profit tax back in the spring, saying they needed to retain their large size, and profits, to compete against big foreign national oil companies from Russia, Saudi Arabia, Norway and China.

Oil executives noted that oil prices, like other commodities, go through boom and bust cycles, and that the long-term profit margins at their companies are about average when compared to other industries.

Out of Exxon's $377.6 billion in revenue, the company said it spent $19.9 billion on exploration and production to bring new oil to market, a 12 percent increase over 2005.

"The results of our long-term investment program yielded an additional 172,000 oil-equivalent barrels per day of production, a 4 percent increase over 2005," CEO Rex Tillerson said in a statement.

The United States currently consumes about 21 million barrels of oil a day - making it by far the world's biggest user - out of worldwide consumption of about 84 million barrels a day, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Industry analysts noted that despite growing demand, Western oil companies have struggled to increase production.

High oil prices have driven up demand for drilling rigs and experienced workers, which has boosted the cost of finding new oil. And much of the world's remaining reserves lie in politically unstable areas or countries that are simply off-limits to foreign firms.

Oil companies have also returned much of their record earnings to shareholders.

Exxon said it spent $32.6 billion buying back stock in 2006 or boosting its dividend. Stock buybacks boost earnings per share, and can thus give a lift to the company's stock price.

It noted it paid $27.9 billion in income taxes last year.

For the fourth quarter, Exxon reported earnings of $10.2 billion, or $1.76 a share, down from $10.7 billion, or $1.71 a share, a year earlier.

Excluding special items, Exxon's quarterly earnings were $1.69 share, which topped First Call's estimates of $1.51 per share.

Exxon cited falling natural gas prices for the decline in fourth-quarter profit.

LINK

[HAL 9000 96]

Another silly Barack article?......Number6 buffoonery again, sigh.

Actually it was Maviwaro's article from another thread. I don't think context is silly - certainly not as silly (or desperate) as the one from the other about his "lying" about quitting smoking.

Written in 1995, no doubt to the chagrin of those that don't get points on their homework for turning in papers without a name/date.