Michelle Obama rumor- October surprise

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

What are you going on? Is it something I could read or is it more from talking to people who aren't really going to go on record?

UGAalum, he's written two books. And they weren't ghostwritten either.

So apparently this "surprise" video is actually Michelle Obama talking about George Bush and saying "Why'd he" not "Whitey"

Unless there's another one which is probably just as silly.

[AKA_Monet]

I'm baaack!!!

A picture's worth a 1000 words!!!



Welcome to the land of "real"...

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

UGAalum, he's written two books. And they weren't ghostwritten either.

Right, but it seems to point back to rhetoric rather than reality. The skills it takes to write inspirational somewhat political books and what it might actually take to govern and get stuff done may not be the same skill set.

Shinerbock seems to believe Obama will actually get stuff done and I'm curious why Shinerbock believes it. Anyone else is welcome to answer but reference to Obama writing books doesn't really deliver what I'm looking for.

(I think this is coming off as snippier than I mean it to. I'm not blowing your comments off because I generally find them interesting and insightful. It just seems like you're responding to a different question than I asked.)

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

So apparently this "surprise" video is actually Michelle Obama talking about George Bush and saying "Why'd he" not "Whitey"

Good gracious.

[shinerbock]

UGA, I'm not willing to say he'll "get stuff done," but I do think he has a pretty concrete agenda. I don't think he spouts fluff because there is nothing below the surface, I think he does that because what is below the surface isn't mainstream, easily-consumable liberalism. I think he is aligned with the fringe extreme-left most often represented in the realm of academia.

Maybe I'm wrong, and he's a typical opportunist who won't stray too far, like Hillary. But I certainly have my doubts. If he's elected, to start, I expect radical increases in taxation, new gun control legislation, increased deference to foreign authority, and jurists who are very flexible with constitutional interpretation. There is little doubt that he'll promote larger government and more socialistic economic policy. The only questions are how significant the shifts will be, and whether he'll be successful.

Unfortunately, Democrats will likely have large majorities in both houses, and thus I find it more important than ever to keep them from having a complete grip on both Congress and the Exec.

[EE-BO]

I think you are exactly right shinerbock- in fact every time Obama has gone a bit deeper- such as in his interview on CNBC when he got into the capital gains tax- he revealed an incredibly liberal approach.

Obama's "Hope and Change" attitude is a cover for the fact he has the mentality of an angry liberal during the Reagan Administration. He is NOT a man for our time- and even back then at the height, that kind of liberalism was never given free reign. America gave centrist Bill Clinton a Democrat-controlled Congress for 2 years. They won't do that for Obama- assuming it becomes apparent he might win, and I think he has no chance.

The fact "Hope and Change" is a snow job is what goes a step further and makes Obama a huge hypocrite and the worst politician of all in this race.

McCain can be an incredible speaker. Plus he has substance and gets very specific when he talks on key issues. I really think that in their first debate McCain will get all the undecideds and swing voters he needs for this to be essentially over.

Many times during the Obama-Hillary debates, Obama got flustered when Hillary nailed him on something. Many people, myself included, think Hillary "won" just about all the debates with him in terms of logical argument. But Obama and Hillary largely agree. There was not a whole lot to debate there from a big picture perspective.

Just wait until he gets one on one with McCain. I am going to enjoy watching Obama get his clock cleaned by a man who really does respect America and the intelligence of its citizens.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

I am going to enjoy watching Obama get his clock cleaned by a man who really does respect America and the intelligence of its citizens.

That is a ridiculous statement.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

That is a ridiculous statement.

Did you see the recent speech where Obama said we should not worry about Iran because it is a tiny country? I am not speaking out of context- that is what he said. That is a complete and utter disregard for what terrorism is and how terrorism works. It was not some huge nation that killed 3,000 Americans on 9-11.

Have you heard the many speeches Obama has made on evil oil companies or high gas prices? They sound very appealing but lack in substance or solutions.

How often has Obama given you specific information you can understand and trust in when it comes to why and how he would accomplish something- and where the money would come from?

Did you hear Obama talk about poor people who cling to guns and religion?

Have you heard the very few times Obama has spoken about taxation and given very strong indications he will raise the capital gains tax by double digits and increase taxes across the board? Has he ever explained who the capital gains tax really affects to your satisfaction? Are you familiar with who that tax effects in the most common types of transactions to which it is subject? Did you know higher capital gains taxes decimate the middle class as well as "rich folks" and "big business."

Why did it take him until this weekend to withdraw from his church?


I am proud and happy to say that Obama is a liberal elitist who really thinks the average American is stupid enough to buy into his Utopian "Hope and Change" crap when all the time he is the ONE candidate who is refusing to put his neck on the line and be specific about his goals and honest about his past influences.

Hillary and McCain have both been very specific about what they will do, and very pragmatic in their approaches. They show a degree of intelligence, experience and maturity to rule this nation.

Obama does not. He is a fraud. Call me wrong all you want, but just wait until November when he get absolutely skunked in the general election.

[EE-BO]

PS- Apologies if the strength of my conviction comes off personally preciousjeni. I do not mean to attack you at all. I really am this adamant about Obama, but if I am this strong in my view with blinders on to the other side- then I know and accept others are in the opposite camp with perhaps just as strong a view with just as strong a personal conviction.

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

Did you see the recent speech where Obama said we should not worry about Iran because it is a tiny country? I am not speaking out of context- that is what he said. That is a complete and utter disregard for what terrorism is and how terrorism works. It was not some huge nation that killed 3,000 Americans on 9-11.

Have you heard the many speeches Obama has made on evil oil companies or high gas prices? They sound very appealing but lack in substance or solutions.

How often has Obama given you specific information you can understand and trust in when it comes to why and how he would accomplish something- and where the money would come from?

Did you hear Obama talk about poor people who cling to guns and religion?

Have you heard the very few times Obama has spoken about taxation and given very strong indications he will raise the capital gains tax by double digits and increase taxes across the board? Has he ever explained who the capital gains tax really affects to your satisfaction? Are you familiar with who that tax effects in the most common types of transactions to which it is subject? Did you know higher capital gains taxes decimate the middle class as well as "rich folks" and "big business."

Why did it take him until this weekend to withdraw from his church?


I am proud and happy to say that Obama is a liberal elitist who really thinks the average American is stupid enough to buy into his Utopian "Hope and Change" crap when all the time he is the ONE candidate who is refusing to put his neck on the line and be specific about his goals and honest about his past influences.

Hillary and McCain have both been very specific about what they will do, and very pragmatic in their approaches. They show a degree of intelligence, experience and maturity to rule this nation.

Obama does not. He is a fraud. Call me wrong all you want, but just wait until November when he get absolutely skunked in the general election.

his thoughts on oil and gas companies are some of the most idiotic, clueless things i've ever heard

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Right, but it seems to point back to rhetoric rather than reality. The skills it takes to write inspirational somewhat political books and what it might actually take to govern and get stuff done may not be the same skill set.

Shinerbock seems to believe Obama will actually get stuff done and I'm curious why Shinerbock believes it. Anyone else is welcome to answer but reference to Obama writing books doesn't really deliver what I'm looking for.

(I think this is coming off as snippier than I mean it to. I'm not blowing your comments off because I generally find them interesting and insightful. It just seems like you're responding to a different question than I asked.)

Well you're talking about substance over style and I'm assuming you haven't read the books? The first was written before he was elected for political office and about his life, his struggles to find his identity. It's not really political or "inspirational" other than it is his life up through his work as an organizer in Chicago. The second is actually presents his political perspective and what he'd like to see for the government and the country. It's not just high level talk about change and hope, it's also detail oriented. Don't brush off the books just because of their titles or your assumptions about them.

If all you do is watch the headline news, you don't see the substance because the media (whether CNN or FOX) doesn't really care. The political question/answer shows are better because at least there people are forced to answer, or to make and obvious dodge. But if you listen to actual speeches, read opinion articles from all perspectives, etc. you can see the substance.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

I'm baaack!!!

A picture's worth a 1000 words!!!



Welcome to the land of "real"...

I hope you're really fired up because the republican war machine is going to drag that man through the mud. How long until Obama is a running joke on South Park?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

So apparently this "surprise" video is actually Michelle Obama talking about George Bush and saying "Why'd he" not "Whitey"

In other words, my Whitney comment wasn't too far off. LOL.

[ThetaPrincess24]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

I hope you're really fired up because the republican war machine is going to drag that man through the mud. How long until Obama is a running joke on South Park?

HAHAHAHA!! That show is great for that kind of stuff!!!

Each time I see the battles for this election on TV I think about the douchebag vs. terd sandwich episode.

A quick run down for those who dont know what I'm talking about before anyone gets offended (but you might anyway)---The kids of south park had to choose a new school mascot and they had to pick between a douchebag and a terd sandwich. Each side had their own campaigns going door to door etc. Stan didnt like either choice and didnt want to vote for either so he was outcast from south park. Once he's finally let back in his realization is that he might as well learn to pick between a douchebag and a terd sandwich because that's usually the only choice you're going to have. This episode came out not too long after the 2004 election I believe.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Well you're talking about substance over style and I'm assuming you haven't read the books? The first was written before he was elected for political office and about his life, his struggles to find his identity. It's not really political or "inspirational" other than it is his life up through his work as an organizer in Chicago. The second is actually presents his political perspective and what he'd like to see for the government and the country. It's not just high level talk about change and hope, it's also detail oriented. Don't brush off the books just because of their titles or your assumptions about them.

If all you do is watch the headline news, you don't see the substance because the media (whether CNN or FOX) doesn't really care. The political question/answer shows are better because at least there people are forced to answer, or to make and obvious dodge. But if you listen to actual speeches, read opinion articles from all perspectives, etc. you can see the substance.

I have watched him and read him and about him in action and his great gifts seems to be rhetorical rather than substantial to me. You can see and experience the charisma, wit, and underlying intelligence certainly when you see him in action, but I don't see an accumulation of deeply held beliefs I could expect him to act on. [ETA: or maybe I should say deeply held beliefs that I think can possibly hold up in the face of the reality he will have to deal with if elected. What he says about foreign policy is an example. It's not that I doubt he believes what he's saying today, but I think reality is going to be a slap in the face and I don't know what he will actually be able to do.]

But even if I came to an understanding of what motivated his beliefs after reading the books and I felt like he had a lot of substance, I'd still have to reconcile my impression with the candidate in the race, and I'm not sure it would come off favorably.

The whole church thing from beginning to end is just [another but different] kind of a case in point.

What are we to conclude about what Obama believes about Wright or Trinity? Why isn't a reasonable conclusion that he participated and aligned himself with the church as long as he benefited politically from that relationship but jettisoned that relationship when it was no longer beneficial? How do you reconcile that with having real substance or with the content of the speech he made shortly after the Wright thing first blew up?