Michelle Obama rumor- October surprise

[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.

[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?