Barack Obama and Public Money. | 46 comments (46 topical, 0 hidden)
The real question, bias... (none / 0)
How can Obama be the candidate of "change" and truth when he accepts ANY money from any of the big firms that TWBA brings up. If he were an agent of change, he wouldn't accept money from any corporation, regardless of their orientation of business. But instead, we have yet another typical politician who lies and is just a deceitful and dishonest with his word as his opponent. Bottom line - "CHANGE" MY ASS!!! BTW - I would send money to my ex wife before I would donate to Obama. And that is NEVER gonna happen!!! :)

by bobo1 on 06/20/2008 02:57:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A Moderate View Of The Situation (none / 0)
That's the same kind of argument that keeps idealists like Ralph Nader and others from ever making a dent in the Two Party Monopoly.

As I've written many times before, in real life we have to balance practicality with idealism. That doesn't mean 50/50 or 90/10, but it does mean that 0/100 ain't gonna cut it.

Being a politician means sacrificing and compromising. The question is, to what extent?  On one end of the spectrum you have the uncompromising idealists, who are to be commended for their effort and honesty (except they ALWAYS LOSE).

On the other end there are the slimy, special interest driven Pander-Bears who rarely do anything positive for the American people *unless* it's also in their own personal/corporate interest.  They are only to be respected to the extent that they get elected over and over again.

In our current system, we have far too many people toward the wrong end of that spectrum, but the answer isn't to suggest that we have to flatly reject people unless they are totally impractical idealists. If we do that the end result will always be more of the same, because not enough people are paying attention.

Within the context of our system and it's severe limitations and pressures, the best we can expect *for now* is someone in the middle or left of center who once in power uses his/her leverage to push the system in that direction.

by Tom Hanc on 06/20/2008 03:14:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I understand that, bias... (none / 0)
But what I also understand is that he lied. OPENLY and without reservation. And the Obama supporters are lapping up his lies willingly and without reservation... So please spare me the lines about "changing the system" and "cleaning up politics" because your guy is evolving into yet another example of what is wrong with our politicians: Not sticking with what they say!! Thanks :)

by bobo1 on 06/20/2008 05:58:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What exactly did he lie about? (none / 1)
If I promise to do X, and circumstances change drastically such that the conditions under which I promised X no longer hold, am I a "liar" when I change my position on X?

Suggesting that I am is itself dishonest.  It ignores context and ignores the application of reason to changes in reality.

Sometimes you pretend not to be a troll.  Kurt Vonnegut once said that we tend to become what we pretend to be.  So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here:

Given everything that 8 years of a neoconservative Republican executive has given us, and given that you CLAIM to be against these and find that the country has gone down the proverbial shitter in the interim, do you really want 4 MORE years of Bushesque administration of our country?  You REALLY find yourself unable to vote for the candidate closer to your own agenda?

by jarett on 06/22/2008 03:46:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken is the liar (none / 0)

According to Ken anyway.

Ken defines a lie as asserting a statement that is not agreed upon by all (yeah, he really did in one of his most pathetic attempts to "defeat" me.  It was awesome.)

So when Ken calls Obama a liar here and he knows this is a heavily disputed statement, by his own definition, he is a liar.

Right, Ken? 

by ProfRich on 06/22/2008 09:57:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Barack Obama and Public Money. | 46 comments (46 topical, 0 hidden)