Why Obama is Winning this November

[MR2-Sooner86]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=W_pgfWK3sxw

Watch that, defend him, and try to convince me to vote for him. I could use a good laugh.

Congratulations GOP, you had a chance but decided to shoot yourself in the foot...again.

[OU_Sooners75]

So you are going off a question that was raised in 1994?

Want to take on this crap that was said in the distant past to rival what they say today?



Good afternoon. Let begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.





Good, but how can you say all that after saying all this:


Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.



And later say this:


But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.


Not to mention the oil prices and how he could actually help do something about it...but wont...now, but he was quick to offer up suggestions on how to wean us from Mid East Oil:


You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.


Thank god Obama has Solyndra to back him up!

And finally I leave you with this:


Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

And with almost every word he proves himself....He is ignorant and intolerant. He is corrupt and greedy. He is helping to impoverish more people than ever in this nation.

Yep....go ahead and reelect that guy and this nation will be like Greece before he is out of office!

[olevetonahill]

Ill vote fer what Romney warshed off his Cars roof before Ill vote fer Obammy :congratulatory:

[MR2-Sooner86]

"Your Savior Barack Hussein Obama 2002"

Really? REALLY!?

I figured everybody here knew I was a Ron Paul guy. If he can't get enough secret delegates into Tampa, then I'm pulling for Gary Johnson.

Crapitalism is better than Socialism but it's still not Capitalism.

If Obama gets elected he will send this country off the cliff but with Romney, it'll still happen but not as quickly. The thing is people will breathe a sigh of relief that "their guy" got in. Complacency will set in and the same back stabbing will continue with nobody giving a care in the world.

If Obama gets in, all eyes will be on him as he runs us off and cliff and maybe, just maybe, this powder keg of a country will finally blow.

I'm no longer partaking in this two-party puppet show that has been going on for far too long.


So you are going off a question that was raised in 1994?

If you watched the video you'll see many of these were during his last run in '08 and now. Some of them were even during this campaign. The man is a windmill that just spins whichever way the wind is blowing.

[OU_Sooners75]

Please do tell, why you like Paul?

The guy sia wing bag like the rest of them. And he has an agenda that would never get passed in this nation.

I like a lot of his points, but he is far from electable nationally.

[OU_Sooners75]

BTW, if you actually paid attention to the video, the bulk of the talknig points are from the distant past.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Please do tell, why you like Paul?

The guy sia wing bag like the rest of them. And he has an agenda that would never get passed in this nation.

I like a lot of his points, but he is far from electable nationally.

I know what he has voted, I know how he votes, and he's honest. In other words, he's a very, very, very rare breed in Washington.

The Congress might not like what he wants but he can slash Executive Power, write Executive Orders, but most importantly, use the Veto Pen, allot.

As for his electability...

Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R) edged Obama 44 to 43 in the daily tracking poll. (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/221163-rasmussen-obama-and-romney-tied-nationally)

That's from Rasmussen.

- limited Government
- free market economics
- personal liberty

This should be the Republican's platform and Ron Paul is all of that and more yet they've done everything possible to throw him out of the conversation.

As for the video, some are from the past but on like his abortion stance, he says he "was a pro-life governor" yet obviously he wasn't. It wasn't the fact he wasn't pro-life/choice it was that he lied about it. Why can't he just man up and say what he was/wasn't? Why lie?

[AlboSooner]

lol people trying to defend Romney. Gop likes Romney because they have to, not because they want to.

But yeah, barring any weird thing, Romney will not be president. Ever.

[Midtowner]

Well, the Tea Party forced folks in the primary to take some totally absurd positions. The fact is that Romney once ran as a common sense moderate Republican. He was destroyed outside of New England. Until the GOP can square the fact that it is actually a center-right party, it will continue to be disfunctional.

[Sooner5030]

Well, the Tea Party forced folks in the primary to take some totally absurd positions. The fact is that Romney once ran as a common sense moderate Republican. He was destroyed outside of New England. Until the GOP can square the fact that it is actually a center-right party, it will continue to be disfunctional.

What or who is 'THE' Tea Party? I know.....you're just repeating what the CNN/FOX/MSNBC or whatever has claimed. Have you been to any of 'THE' Tea Party's events?

[Midtowner]

What or who is 'THE' Tea Party? I know.....you're just repeating what the CNN/FOX/MSNBC or whatever has claimed. Have you been to any of 'THE' Tea Party's events?

U mad bro?

[AlboSooner]

U mad bro?

Look, I don't have the time to explain to you how you have to attend a political rally to know about it and have the internet authority to comment on it, it would be waste of time. You definitely have to have visited the Pyramids to know about them. Go to sleep. Personally, any information I know I have learned first-hand. Not one piece of information that I know has come to me by the lame-stream media.

[Sooner5030]

No...but I hate blaming THE tea party as much as fox and the pubs have somehow aligned the Tea Party groups within a party or ideology. It was never about that......at least back in 08

[Midtowner]

The Tea Party stands for the embrace of a certain Republican (definitely not Conservative) orthodoxy. Such an embrace has had generally poor results in major elections.

[okie52]

The Tea Party stands for the embrace of a certain Republican (definitely not Conservative) orthodoxy. Such an embrace has had generally poor results in major elections.

Hmmmm....less spending and lower taxes are denitely conservative.

[Chuck Bao]

The tea party movement is generally conservative plus hubris. The occupy wall street movement is generally liberal plus hubris. I like and agree with both camps which have merit without the hubris. I do not like the religious right, which is all hubris.

[Midtowner]

Hmmmm....less spending and lower taxes are denitely conservative.

How's that? Define what conservative means first, then continue. If by "conservative," you really mean "Republican," you may be on to something. Conservatism is supposed to stand for personal responsibility, small government, etc. These Tea Party types being in favor of all kinds of government intrusion to enforce their own moral code is simply not conservative. Tort reform, which allows corporations and individuals to not be held liable for the damages they cause others is also not conservative.

Buying into the orthodoxy of either party demonstrates that you really don't know what you believe in or that you'll believe anything you're told to believe in.

[okie52]

How's that? Define what conservative means first, then continue. If by "conservative," you really mean "Republican," you may be on to something. Conservatism is supposed to stand for personal responsibility, small government, etc. These Tea Party types being in favor of all kinds of government intrusion to enforce their own moral code is simply not conservative. Tort reform, which allows corporations and individuals to not be held liable for the damages they cause others is also not conservative.

Buying into the orthodoxy of either party demonstrates that you really don't know what you believe in or that you'll believe anything you're told to believe in.

It's you that are defining conservative as tea party although you at least got the smaller government and personal responsibility correct.

I could care less what the tea party has to say but I don't discard everything they say anymore than Obama...they both have some points. I am pretty sure my views on many things don't fit very well with either party.

And, I agree about tort reform probably not being really conservative since it does cap damages. What is conservative is loser pays where a person or corporation is responsible for returning an innocent man to whole.....but I'm pretty sure you're not for that brand of conservatism.

[Midtowner]

And, I agree about tort reform probably not being really conservative since it does cap damages. What is conservative is loser pays where a person or corporation is responsible for returning an innocent man to whole.....but I'm pretty sure you're not for that brand of conservatism.

English rule sounds great, but when you're talking about litigation expenses for a billion dollar corporation versus the individual they harmed, often who wins that case has nothing to do with who is right or wrong and everything to do with abusive discovery, stalling tactics, etc. Fix those things so that Joe and Susie homeowner can sue the tire factory next to their house for spewing out toxic pollution and have a reasonable chance of being successful and we'll talk.

[okie52]

English rule sounds great, but when you're talking about litigation expenses for a billion dollar corporation versus the individual they harmed, often who wins that case has nothing to do with who is right or wrong and everything to do with abusive discovery, stalling tactics, etc. Fix those things so that Joe and Susie homeowner can sue the tire factory next to their house for spewing out toxic pollution and have a reasonable chance of being successful and we'll talk.

Doesn't stop those same attorneys from taking loser pays on a contingency basis...and if they won't take it then it was a pretty thin case to begin with.

[badger]

The incumbent always has the upper hand unless things are Gray-Davis'-California-bad... and it ain't that bad yet, IMHO.

1. Romney will need to tell people how bad things are. Otherwise, there's no reason for a change from the status quo. There must be a strong decisive reason for change and it must be presented with a strong argument.

2. As such, he will be seen as "too negative" by some. It is virtually impossible to say how bad things are in a positive fashion, so being a negative nancy will turn many voters off.

3. It will be difficult to rally donors and voters while being negative. It is so important to get a strong, dedicate base to go out and help campaign, plant yard signs, mail junk, organize rallies... and an eternal pessimist at the top is not someone that you are going to be enthusiastic to support in a diehard fashion.

4. Without a strong donor base, your campaign funding will come up short. Even though Mitt is personally wealthy, it takes more than personal wealth to become president... or we might have seen a better campaign out of Steve Forbes (1996) or Ross Perot (1992).

Just some general rules of thumb, but 2012 could prove me wrong... if the world ends in December anyways, is it really that big of a concern if we vote for Mitt or Barack?

[cleller]

Just think of how many advantages Obama has with certain groups of people to begin with:
Liberals, minorities, and people who receive substantial government assistance will lean to him automatically. That a big jump start.

[KantoSooner]

Doesn't stop those same attorneys from taking loser pays on a contingency basis...and if they won't take it then it was a pretty thin case to begin with.

Not sure if folks in the UK, Aus of New Zealand would agree. Access to legal redress is far less than here. Which might not be a bad thing; we tend to trot off to the courthouse a bit too quickly in my opinion.

One thing I'd like to see is more aggressive use of FRCP 11 where an attorney can be penalized up to three times the amount being sued for PLUS costs if he/she takes and pursues a case that they know or should have known was frivolous. Mind you, this is a 'reasonable attorney' standard, so the bar is set fairly high in terms of allowing for heroic self-delusion, but still, it would be fun to watch some of the ambulance chasers have to hand over the titles to their benz's... or their corporate brethren have to sign over their bonuses for a year or three for supporting frivolous defenses.

[Midtowner]

Doesn't stop those same attorneys from taking loser pays on a contingency basis...and if they won't take it then it was a pretty thin case to begin with.

You realize what happens when we take a case on a contingent fee basis, right? We're so confident in the case that we're willing to take the chance that we're going to pour countless hours and dollars into a case and win it. I've never met an attorney who would take a frivolous case on a contingent fee basis. If they did, they'd quickly go out of business.

[okie52]

You realize what happens when we take a case on a contingent fee basis, right? We're so confident in the case that we're willing to take the chance that we're going to pour countless hours and dollars into a case and win it. I've never met an attorney who would take a frivolous case on a contingent fee basis. If they did, they'd quickly go out of business.

Kind of the point isn't it? We don't really need the frivolous cases in our court systems and we sure don't need innocent people having to pay for them. And perhaps more importantly, innocent people are restored to whole.

[Midtowner]

Kind of the point isn't it? We don't really need the frivolous cases in our court systems and we sure don't need innocent people having to pay for them. And perhaps more importantly, innocent people are restored to whole.

Clearly your experience with the legal system is very limited. Oftentimes you don't win because you're correct. You win because your lawyer got lucky and argued some arcane point of law, the opposing party missed a deadline, a key piece of evidence doesn't make it into evidence at the trial level, the defendant drains the plaintiff's resources to the point that they have to give up, etc. Have I lost my fair share of cases? Hell yeah I have, but I've NEVER brought a frivolous case and I've never seen one. We lawyers are busy enough without needing to bring cases we know are complete losers to court. Our reputation and credibility with the judge are on the line every time we set foot in a courtroom.

Frivolous cases do exist, but the courts deal with those rather quickly and there are mechanisms in place for compensating a Defendant in those sorts of situations.

But losing a case doesn't mean it was frivolous to begin with. The two concepts are nowhere close to synonymous.

[okie52]

Clearly your experience with the legal system is very limited. Oftentimes you don't win because you're correct. You win because your lawyer got lucky and argued some arcane point of law, the opposing party missed a deadline, a key piece of evidence doesn't make it into evidence at the trial level, the defendant drains the plaintiff's resources to the point that they have to give up, etc. Have I lost my fair share of cases? Hell yeah I have, but I've NEVER brought a frivolous case and I've never seen one. We lawyers are busy enough without needing to bring cases we know are complete losers to court. Our reputation and credibility with the judge are on the line every time we set foot in a courtroom.

Frivolous cases do exist, but the courts deal with those rather quickly and there are mechanisms in place for compensating a Defendant in those sorts of situations.

But losing a case doesn't mean it was frivolous to begin with. The two concepts are nowhere close to synonymous.

Well counselor, I haven't "tried" any cases but having had an insurance agency for 25 years and being in the oil and gas industry I have been exposed to a fair number of cases. And I wasn't just addressing frivolous cases, you jumped to that conclusion. I said cases where the merits of the case were thin.

You have heard of people going broke proving their innocence, haven't you? Now is that really "fair" in your eyes? And how many cases are "settled" just to avoid the excessive legal expenses that would be involved where the defendant knew he was innocent and could prove it but it was a better "business" decision to pay someone off rather than lose more money by going to trial? Is that the system you are supporting?

And back to your original point...you know, about conservatism. So it is not conservative to want "tort" reform by capping limits and I agreed...everyone should be responsible for their actions. But it also is conservative to expect an innocent party (you know, that pesky personal responsibility thing) to be restored to whole, i.e., loser pays. Yet you don't agree.

Just hard to see where your quest for conservatism is leading.

[OU_Sooners75]

The incumbent always has the upper hand unless things are Gray-Davis'-California-bad... and it ain't that bad yet, IMHO.

1. Romney will need to tell people how bad things are. Otherwise, there's no reason for a change from the status quo. There must be a strong decisive reason for change and it must be presented with a strong argument.

2. As such, he will be seen as "too negative" by some. It is virtually impossible to say how bad things are in a positive fashion, so being a negative nancy will turn many voters off.

3. It will be difficult to rally donors and voters while being negative. It is so important to get a strong, dedicate base to go out and help campaign, plant yard signs, mail junk, organize rallies... and an eternal pessimist at the top is not someone that you are going to be enthusiastic to support in a diehard fashion.

4. Without a strong donor base, your campaign funding will come up short. Even though Mitt is personally wealthy, it takes more than personal wealth to become president... or we might have seen a better campaign out of Steve Forbes (1996) or Ross Perot (1992).

Just some general rules of thumb, but 2012 could prove me wrong... if the world ends in December anyways, is it really that big of a concern if we vote for Mitt or Barack?

3.... Nah, Obama has the donors of the republican party lining up to give as much as they can.

[cleller]

Clearly your experience with the legal system is very limited. Oftentimes you don't win because you're correct. You win because your lawyer got lucky and argued some arcane point of law, the opposing party missed a deadline, a key piece of evidence doesn't make it into evidence at the trial level, the defendant drains the plaintiff's resources to the point that they have to give up, etc. Have I lost my fair share of cases? Hell yeah I have, but I've NEVER brought a frivolous case and I've never seen one. We lawyers are busy enough without needing to bring cases we know are complete losers to court. Our reputation and credibility with the judge are on the line every time we set foot in a courtroom.

Frivolous cases do exist, but the courts deal with those rather quickly and there are mechanisms in place for compensating a Defendant in those sorts of situations.

But losing a case doesn't mean it was frivolous to begin with. The two concepts are nowhere close to synonymous.


Good for you, and I believe you. I can promise you that frivolous cases do sometimes end up in front of a jury, though. I had to sit and face that jury. It cost the plaintiff nothing, and his attorney some marginal filing fees, and his time. It cost the taxpayers part of the salary of an attorney, and me some "severe emotional distress". The plaintiff was a no good ex-con criminal.

We received a defense verdict, but the whole process was a sham, and a filthy display of the way lousy crooks can manipulate the courts to try and make money, and certain lawyers are happy to accommodate them. Of course, I was not compensated in any sort of way.

[ouwasp]

I think BHO is winng this November because of the way the Electoral College shapes up. The Left Coast is in the bag. So is New England. Probabaly most of the Great Lakes states. We'll see how Ohio/PA shifts, that's prolly the tipping point.

[yermom]

3.... Nah, Obama has the donors of the republican party lining up to give as much as they can.

but is anyone really excited about President Romney?

[okie52]

but is anyone really excited about President Romney?

Not really....just really afraid of 4 more years of Obama.

[Midtowner]

Good for you, and I believe you. I can promise you that frivolous cases do sometimes end up in front of a jury, though. I had to sit and face that jury. It cost the plaintiff nothing, and his attorney some marginal filing fees, and his time. It cost the taxpayers part of the salary of an attorney, and me some "severe emotional distress". The plaintiff was a no good ex-con criminal.

We received a defense verdict, but the whole process was a sham, and a filthy display of the way lousy crooks can manipulate the courts to try and make money, and certain lawyers are happy to accommodate them. Of course, I was not compensated in any sort of way.[/QUOTE]

It isn't a perfect system, but it's the best system in the world.

We've made a conscious choice as a society that access to redress in the courts is more important than punishing those who bring cases which lose. That said, let's say you were given a judgment from the ex-con. How would you collect on said judgment?

Besides... you should see how insurance companies defend frivolous cases all the damn time. I've got one right now where we're set for a 4-day jury trial this summer. The insurance company still hasn't even come up with a plausible scientific theory as to how what happened to my client isn't their client's fault. We've expended about $60,000 in attorney's fees and expert fees at this point. I can tell you though that juries are strange creatures and no matter how solid our evidence is (and it's very solid), take it in front of 12 jurors, one of 'em gets hung up on some CSI BS as we could still lose.

[cleller]

It isn't a perfect system, but it's the best system in the world.



I don't know. I might like to try the Singapore system. I could manage to keep from spitting out my gum in exchange for an almost crime free society.

[okie52]

It isn't a perfect system, but it's the best system in the world.

We've made a conscious choice as a society that access to redress in the courts is more important than punishing those who bring cases which lose. That said, let's say you were given a judgment from the ex-con. How would you collect on said judgment?

Besides... you should see how insurance companies defend frivolous cases all the damn time. I've got one right now where we're set for a 4-day jury trial this summer. The insurance company still hasn't even come up with a plausible scientific theory as to how what happened to my client isn't their client's fault. We've expended about $60,000 in attorney's fees and expert fees at this point. I can tell you though that juries are strange creatures and no matter how solid our evidence is (and it's very solid), take it in front of 12 jurors, one of 'em gets hung up on some CSI BS as we could still lose.

Yeah, it's a great system that punishes the innocent.

[Midtowner]

I don't know. I might like to try the Singapore system. I could manage to keep from spitting out my gum in exchange for an almost crime free society.

Oh hey.. I am VERY much in favor of public caning for some.