Obama will overturn all unconstitional laws within 100 days

[Nick]

That is, if he wins.

http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/0 ... bama-says/

This can only be good news for everyone? It's a soundbite, but its still more of a promise than has been made by anyone else either in the administration or with a chance of getting in within the last 8 years.

So who thinks this is a bad idea then? Presumably if you're against it you're unpatriotic, at least, and idiotic, at worst.

[Noysyrump]

Are we going to rely on the man that sees dead people in all 58 states decide what's constitutional and what's not? We already have people whos job this is, and it aint the president's. So call me an idiot, but I say nay.

[Nick]

Noysy, your idiocy is a given.

Fox news acolytes are so boring.

[Fash]

Is Obama the black Ron Paul?

[Nick]

A more realistic question would be "is John McCain an uglier George Bush?"

[Fash]

You think W is a handsome man, don't you?

[Sabek]

“I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution,” said Obama

So Bush is the only president that has signed laws that fall into the category he is talking about?
If this was anything more than a thinly veiled snipe at Bush he would have said ALL recent prior presidents or something to that effect. I am sure if it was looked at Clinton has some that would shakey too etc.

Other goals for his first 100 days: work out a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq; make progress on alternative energy plans and launch legislation to reform the health care system.

Nice soundbites, but if anyone truly thinks any politician elected isn't going to immediately going to forget all the things they said to get elected you are deluded.

[Aslanna]

Nice soundbites, but if anyone truly thinks any politician elected isn't going to immediately going to forget all the things they said to get elected you are deluded.

So then you base who you vote on... on what?

[Siji]

We already have people whos job this is, and it aint the president's. So call me an idiot, but I say nay.

And they've been doing such a wonderful job the last 7 years..

[Funkmasterr]

Nice soundbites, but if anyone truly thinks any politician elected isn't going to immediately going to forget all the things they said to get elected you are deluded.

So then you base who you vote on... on what?

The way they have voted during their career on issues that matter to me. People don't change, especially politicians. If they have voted one way on an issue in the past but claim to think the opposite way to sound good during their campaign, I will immediately assume that they are full of shit (as opposed to them changing their mind.)


That's just me, but I guess I kind of figured anyone with some common sense would act similarly.

[Aslanna]

Except, as your buddy Midnyte would point out, that's not looking at the big picture.

[Fash]

It's a bigger picture than looking at their campaign promises alone, wouldn't ya say?

[Funkmasterr]

Except, as your buddy Midnyte would point out, that's not looking at the big picture.

If that is the case, then I disagree with him. I'm allowed to do that, right?

[Aslanna]

It's a bigger picture than looking at their campaign promises alone, wouldn't ya say?

I don't believe anyone suggested going on campaign promises alone. I know I didn't. It should be a combination based on what they've done in the past and what they plan to do in the future. Just focusing on one side of the coin or the other is not looking at the big picture.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

We would disagree on that then Funk. Consistency is good, but having a representative with enough intelligence to change his/her stance as new information is made available is much more advantageous. You wouldn't want your money being invested by a broker who stuck with his instincts despite trends and new information showing he was wrong, would you?

[Funkmasterr]

We would disagree on that then Funk. Consistency is good, but having a representative with enough intelligence to change his/her stance as new information is made available is much more advantageous. You wouldn't want your money being invested by a broker who stuck with his instincts despite trends and new information showing he was wrong, would you?

Like I said, I don't have much faith in people changing, especially not when it comes to the big issues that most people care about. I also assume, from the jump, that every politician never verbalizes any truth to the public, it's easier that way. This is the oversimplified reason why I feel that way.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

We would disagree on that then Funk. Consistency is good, but having a representative with enough intelligence to change his/her stance as new information is made available is much more advantageous. You wouldn't want your money being invested by a broker who stuck with his instincts despite trends and new information showing he was wrong, would you?

Like I said, I don't have much faith in people changing, especially not when it comes to the big issues that most people care about. I also assume, from the jump, that every politician never verbalizes any truth to the public, it's easier that way. This is the oversimplified reason why I feel that way.

Well, that is also very true. Very good point. You never really know how a politician feels. You only know what he says, and even that can be swayed in many different directions. But, in a dream world, in which most democrats live in, a true earnest man/woman is out there who will CHANGE it all and make it all better. This messiah should be one who can change their positions based on new information.

[Funkmasterr]

We would disagree on that then Funk. Consistency is good, but having a representative with enough intelligence to change his/her stance as new information is made available is much more advantageous. You wouldn't want your money being invested by a broker who stuck with his instincts despite trends and new information showing he was wrong, would you?

Like I said, I don't have much faith in people changing, especially not when it comes to the big issues that most people care about. I also assume, from the jump, that every politician never verbalizes any truth to the public, it's easier that way. This is the oversimplified reason why I feel that way.

Well, that is also very true. Very good point. You never really know how a politician feels. You only know what he says, and even that can be swayed in many different directions. But, in a dream world, in which most democrats live in, a true earnest man/woman is out there who will CHANGE it all and make it all better. This messiah should be one who can change their positions based on new information.

People are bad, things in the world are bad, they always have been and always will be. I don't feel the need to put my faith in some politician who has little real power making any earth shattering changes to the world as we know it, let alone even the country we live in.

I believe the reason for this is similar to the reason I don't feel the need to believe in some fucking joke of a fairytale to make my life whole and explain what happens to me when I die instead of accepting reality, which is; we don't know how the world started, shit sucks, people are evil, and when you die you are going to fucking rot in the ground.

This isn't pessimism, it's reality.

[Kaldaur]

/wrist