quote:


You know this for a fact?

quote:

ORIGINAL: doublecross

OBAMA'S GLOBAL TAX BILL.

Your (our) money will be his to dispose of. And that is the kind of power he wants to exercise over you.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Wait after he gets elected.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_global_tax_bill_coming.html

After many of these the only change that will be left are the two cents you will be rubbing together.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear

It's interesting, conservatives against Obama in this thread don't say why McCain's the better choice!
It's just vague threats and speculation, no hard evidence from the Obama (or the McCain) campaign.
"He's a Democrat, he must be bad" is how Bush got elected. Twice.
Do you really think that's going to work a third time?!

How about taking things at face value? Obama's the candidate because he's young & energetic. He's managed to free himself from influence groups by tapping $upport from the internet. He's bold in his statements & unafraid to disagree with conservatives and liberals alike. For the youth in America, he represents the "Morning in America" change of Reagan & the fresh new ideas of JFK. For us older folk who are moderates or Democrats, he represents a return to even-handed government and rational foreign policy.

You don't have to vote for him, but at least have the decency to present hard facts as to why he's bad for America. He may be a "minority", but he's the majority's candidate. Be frightened if you like, but most Americans no long share your fear of the unknown future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD

quote:

ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear

It's interesting, conservatives against Obama in this thread don't say why McCain's the better choice!
It's just vague threats and speculation, no hard evidence from the Obama (or the McCain) campaign.
"He's a Democrat, he must be bad" is how Bush got elected. Twice.
Do you really think that's going to work a third time?!

How about taking things at face value? Obama's the candidate because he's young & energetic. He's managed to free himself from influence groups by tapping $upport from the internet. He's bold in his statements & unafraid to disagree with conservatives and liberals alike. For the youth in America, he represents the "Morning in America" change of Reagan & the fresh new ideas of JFK. For us older folk who are moderates or Democrats, he represents a return to even-handed government and rational foreign policy.

You don't have to vote for him, but at least have the decency to present hard facts as to why he's bad for America. He may be a "minority", but he's the majority's candidate. Be frightened if you like, but most Americans no long share your fear of the unknown future.

I think it goes to say, that the OP asked this question, maybe in other words, but has Obama really freed himself from influence?

And I will add or has he found other ways to receive the benefits of those influences while keeping it from the public?

quote:

The story of Obama’s success is very much a story about money. It provided his initial credibility. It paid for his impressive campaign operation. It allowed him first to compete with, and then to overwhelm, the most powerful Democratic family in a generation—one that understood the power of money in politics and commanded a network of wealthy donors that has financed the Democratic Party for years.

What’s intriguing to Democrats and worrisome to Republicans is how someone lacking these deep connections to traditional sources of wealth could raise so much money so quickly. How did he do it? The answer is that he built a fund-raising machine quite unlike anything seen before in national politics. Obama’s machine attracts large and small donors alike, those who want to give money and those who want to raise it, veteran activists and first-time contributors, and—especially—anyone who is wired to anything: computer, cell phone, PDA.

Here’s another thing: he is doing it almost effortlessly. That is to say, in an era when the imperative for campaign dollars demands more and more of a politician’s time and lurks behind so many recent scandals (including the auctioning-off of the Lincoln Bedroom), Obama has raised more money than anybody else without plumbing ethical gray areas or even spending much of his own time soliciting donations. During the month of February, for example, his campaign raised a record-setting $55 million—$45 million of it over the Internet—without the candidate himself hosting a single fund-raiser. The money just came rolling in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: its_GO_time

quote:

TaoPoohBear

It's interesting, conservatives against Obama in this thread don't say why McCain's the better choice! McCain?Conservative?

How about taking things at face value? Obama's the candidate because he's young & energetic.(agreed) He's managed to free himself from influence groups by tapping $upport from the internet(and from America hater George Soros).

For the youth in America, he represents the "Morning in America" change of Reagan & the fresh new ideas of JFK.(None of the ideas he's presented are "new", and JFK would be a right wing nutcase compared to BHO and the Dems of today)

You don't have to vote for him, but at least have the decency to present hard facts as to why he's bad for America. He may be a "minority", but he's the majority's candidate(now we really see why we must not be critical of BHO-accusations of racisim). Be frightened if you like, but most Americans no long share your fear of the unknown future.

Like I've said before: He's merley the figurehead for the same ol', same ol' of the liberal Democrats. It's his election to lose. The GOP is busy fufilling the Proverb that says: "Without vision the people perish". It is just sad that so many are ready to throw away their country for more entitlements, and goodies, at the expense of the "rich".

quote:

ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear

quote:

ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD

quote:

ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear

It's interesting, conservatives against Obama in this thread don't say why McCain's the better choice!
It's just vague threats and speculation, no hard evidence from the Obama (or the McCain) campaign.
"He's a Democrat, he must be bad" is how Bush got elected. Twice.
Do you really think that's going to work a third time?!

How about taking things at face value? Obama's the candidate because he's young & energetic. He's managed to free himself from influence groups by tapping $upport from the internet. He's bold in his statements & unafraid to disagree with conservatives and liberals alike. For the youth in America, he represents the "Morning in America" change of Reagan & the fresh new ideas of JFK. For us older folk who are moderates or Democrats, he represents a return to even-handed government and rational foreign policy.

You don't have to vote for him, but at least have the decency to present hard facts as to why he's bad for America. He may be a "minority", but he's the majority's candidate. Be frightened if you like, but most Americans no long share your fear of the unknown future.

I think it goes to say, that the OP asked this question, maybe in other words, but has Obama really freed himself from influence?

And I will add or has he found other ways to receive the benefits of those influences while keeping it from the public?

The Amazing Money Machine, June 2008 Atlantic Monthly

quote:

The story of Obama’s success is very much a story about money. It provided his initial credibility. It paid for his impressive campaign operation. It allowed him first to compete with, and then to overwhelm, the most powerful Democratic family in a generation—one that understood the power of money in politics and commanded a network of wealthy donors that has financed the Democratic Party for years.

What’s intriguing to Democrats and worrisome to Republicans is how someone lacking these deep connections to traditional sources of wealth could raise so much money so quickly. How did he do it? The answer is that he built a fund-raising machine quite unlike anything seen before in national politics. Obama’s machine attracts large and small donors alike, those who want to give money and those who want to raise it, veteran activists and first-time contributors, and—especially—anyone who is wired to anything: computer, cell phone, PDA.

Here’s another thing: he is doing it almost effortlessly. That is to say, in an era when the imperative for campaign dollars demands more and more of a politician’s time and lurks behind so many recent scandals (including the auctioning-off of the Lincoln Bedroom), Obama has raised more money than anybody else without plumbing ethical gray areas or even spending much of his own time soliciting donations. During the month of February, for example, his campaign raised a record-setting $55 million—$45 million of it over the Internet—without the candidate himself hosting a single fund-raiser. The money just came rolling in.

Sorry for the long quote, but it's a 3 page article and VERY INFORMATIVE top to bottom. This answers your question to the best of my ability about influence. If he's making millions off the internet, why would he do something ethically compromising for mere tens of thousands?
Now, votes are something else, but that can easily be tracked. What has he promised voters that is so wrong? (that discussion has yet to be voiced by the concerned conservatives)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD

I originally highlighted influence for a reason, not just to say where is his money coming from. But I think this article says a lot. We don't necessarily see the outside influence, and see just the money rolling in. I am sorry, but someone somewhere is pulling his strings, and we will find out later than sooner. He is beholden to someone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear

quote:

ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD

I originally highlighted influence for a reason, not just to say where is his money coming from. But I think this article says a lot. We don't necessarily see the outside influence, and see just the money rolling in. I am sorry, but someone somewhere is pulling his strings, and we will find out later than sooner. He is beholden to someone.

But money has been the main reason people, groups & organizations (not to mention companies!) get influence. Take away the need for their money, and all you need is their votes. Now your talking about a whole new demograpic - poor over rich, have nots over the has lots.........

Outside influence to what ends? I don't disagree that Obama's getting all sorts of "informed opinions", but I doubt if he's being manipulated. Guided into a certain direction, sure. So is every boss at every company in America.
The question is, who is he beholden to? If it's not because of money, what's the "hold" in the beholden?

quote:

Your post makes my point. Altering my words into slur and inuendo, deleting things you can't answer - "For us older folk who are moderates or Democrats, he represents a return to even-handed government and rational foreign policy".

quote:

ORIGINAL: its_GO_time

quote:

Your post makes my point. Altering my words into slur and inuendo, deleting things you can't answer - "For us older folk who are moderates or Democrats, he represents a return to even-handed government and rational foreign policy".

Not sure where I altered your words into "slur and ineundo" I was only giving you a response- I haven't figured out how to copy/paste line for line yet.
I'll agree that the foriegn policy of GWB is a disaster. But BHO was ready to take on Pakistan not too long ago... Rational???
As for the youth: If Ford introduced the Edsel in '09, would it be new, simply the youth hadn't seen one before? BHO is carrying the water for decades of Democratic socialist plans, in a shiny new wrapper.
Is McCain a better choice? He's a choice, certanily not my choice.
As for failed Conservative policies. I haven't seen a conservative policy in years, let alone a failed one. Show me one that has to do with protecting our borders, sound money, reduced spending, and a anti-interventionist forgein policy, that failed, then I perhaps can answer that, too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: its_GO_time

As for the youth: If Ford introduced the Edsel in '09, would it be new, simply the youth hadn't seen one before? BHO is carrying the water for decades of Democratic socialist plans, in a shiny new wrapper.

quote:

His economic advisers are moderate, mostly free-market-oriented wonks. His campaign strategists would presumably love it if he breathed a bit more populist fire. And the candidate himself balances a lifelong devotion to progressive causes with what seems to be a pretty keen sense of the tradeoffs inherent in economics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

It still took Democrats (Kennedy and LBJ) to create the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

quote:

And, on the other matters - we have already beat that horse to death, John - and I'm not going to discuss with you anymore, because you do not listen to the other's view - instead you call the other person names - an action that speaks volumes of you as a person. And I simply do not have to participate in such antics of yours.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PhunkD

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

quote:

ORIGINAL: PhunkD

quote:

BHO is merely the packaging for basically the exact same ideas, as HRC, Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, Pelosi, Reid, or Gore.

Clinton, Kerry, Pelosi, and Reid, were all part of our stupid rush into war. That's a big difference.

Obama has spoke on the need for personal responsibility more than Dukakis and Mondale combined.

And Gore (actually the rest of them, too) was connected to special interests.

Other differences:

he doesn't come from money.

he comes from a single parent family.

He has lived in a foreign country.

He is an adult convert to Christianity.

He has experience as a community organizer.

Not...

John

Good, intelligent conversation!

Not. . . .

quote:

It still took Democrats (Kennedy and LBJ) to create the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

quote:

I suggest you check the vote record...

quote:

And, on the other matters - we have already beat that horse to death, John - and I'm not going to discuss with you anymore, because you do not listen to the other's view - instead you call the other person names - an action that speaks volumes of you as a person. And I simply do not have to participate in such antics of yours.

quote:

In other words you can't defend the liar...
John

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

It still took Democrats (Kennedy and LBJ) to create the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

quote:

I suggest you check the vote record...

"As the world witnessed the use of police dogs and fire hoses as weapons against nonviolent protesters in Birmingham, the movement to enact federal civil rights legislation was advanced. Following the Birmingham Campaign, President John F. Kennedy announced before the nation his plans for civil rights legislation. ....

." The March on Washington in 1963, along with the murder of four little girls in Birmingham and the shock following Kennedy’s assassination, provided further momentum for the passage of the Civil Rights Act, which was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on 2 July 1964."

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/enc_civil_rights_bill.htm

quote:

I didn't say that, John, you did. That's the thing about you - you say things that the other person did not say. That's why I refuse to discuss with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovebabies

First off, no one gets in the race for president if they do not satisfy the shadow government that really rules America. Elected officials are just props to make us think we have a say in government. So Obama obviously satisfied the shadow government that is composed of the real power players with all the money and resources.

quote:

First off, no one gets in the race for president if they do not satisfy the shadow government that really rules America. Elected officials are just props to make us think we have a say in government. So Obama obviously satisfied the shadow government that is composed of the real power players with all the money and resources. It is no wonder to me, Obama is a team player and does not care for the public at large. If he did he would have been dumped long ago. Look what happened to Kucinich who spoke out against the illegal Iraq war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: saved9201
Interesting take and one I've heard more than a few times before. Which is one reason I started this thread. I just wonder who Obama's "power players" are?

- Julius

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

It still took Democrats (Kennedy and LBJ) to create the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

quote:

I suggest you check the vote record...

"As the world witnessed the use of police dogs and fire hoses as weapons against nonviolent protesters in Birmingham, the movement to enact federal civil rights legislation was advanced. Following the Birmingham Campaign, President John F. Kennedy announced before the nation his plans for civil rights legislation. ....

." The March on Washington in 1963, along with the murder of four little girls in Birmingham and the shock following Kennedy’s assassination, provided further momentum for the passage of the Civil Rights Act, which was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on 2 July 1964."

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/enc_civil_rights_bill.htm

Just for record.... It took the following...

Civil Rights Act of 1964

By party
The original House version:[7]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[7]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[7]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)


Interesting notes on the subject...

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[3]

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation.

quote:

I didn't say that, John, you did. That's the thing about you - you say things that the other person did not say. That's why I refuse to discuss with you.

Calling a someone who lies a liar isn't calling them names... Same goes for their support of murder. Sorry you can't deal with that because you support the person...

John

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana


I was not argueing the aforementioned, John. I said that LBJ and Kennedy created the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which they did.

quote:


Whatever, John. Even though I'm undecided...but, that's right, John, you know me better than I do You know who I've voted for more than I do And you are the all-powerful one that can judge....