Barak Obama (1408 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -0.74 on 33 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by sword (View user info) at 2009-01-05 05:39:15 EST
I don't like Barak Obama and my feelings about him are such that I have trouble understanding how anyone could legitimately believe that he will make a good president. My purpose here is two fold; first, I would like to explain where my dislike comes from, I would like to make my case against Barak Obama. Second, I hope to elicit some enlightening response explaining the appeal and strength of Obama.
Obama values personal power and ambition over the good of the nation. There is an apocryphal story that George Washington was asked to be King of the nascent United States but declined. If Obama were given the same choice I feel he would accept - he wants what is best for him - not the nation.
Let us take a look at gay marriage. Obama's position: "I don't like to say that I am against gay marriage, but rather for civil unions." Clever wording perhaps, but what it means is that he is against gay marriage. Why?
Much ink has been spilled on topic of gay marriage and discussing that issue is not my intention here but it is important to my case to ask why they should not be married if they should be allowed civil unions? The only defense of this position I have heard made, and not made by Obama, is that allowing gay marriage would "Alter the definition of marriage" and this is a patently absurd and evil claim to make - suggesting that maintaining some individuals' definition of a word is more important than the freedom and equality of other individuals. How can an intelligent and left leaning man like Obama believe that we should disallow gay Americans the right to marriage? A better question does he, in fact, believe that we should prohibit gay marriage or does he believe that claiming so was more conducive to his election?
Let us suppose he believes the latter and this is the more charitable assumption in my opinion. What this means is that he lied to electorate, misrepresented himself in his campaign and ultimately traded the freedoms of American citizens in order to further his own personal power.
A defense can be made of Obama that the majority of voters don't have enlightened beliefs on the subject, and Obama is going to do such wonderful things in office, but he won't be able to do so if he allows the troglodyte voters to know his true opinions and keep him from that office. And so, Obama had no choice other than to mislead people in order to take the office for the greater good. I find this explanation of his crimes deplorable. Aside from balancing on a dark and precarious slope, the reason that so many people in our country still have medieval views on subjects like gay marriage is likely because politicians cater to those individuals and are unwilling to confront those issues with intellectual honesty. If the cause of freedom demands the career of a few politicians the price is quite cheap in my opinion. Obama had the opportunity in his campaign to stand up for the freedoms of gay Americans, instead he sold those freedoms to help pay for his ticket to the oval office.
I mentioned earlier how I was making a charitable assumption regarding why Obama chose to be against gay marriage. The other option is of course that he believes gays shouldn't have the right to marry the people they want to. This seems such a silly and indefensible belief that I have no need to explicate its shortcomings. If Obama does believe this though then let me say I would dislike him for being close minded.
While we are on the subject of people Barak Obama abandoned to make his way into office I would also like to discuss Jeremiah Wright. Obama was a long time member of Wright's church and a close friend to Wright. Wright was the man who converted Obama to Christianity. Now, like most people who trot out the name Jeremiah Wright when talking about Obama, I have no choice but to believe after twenty years of attending Wright's church Obama knew all about Wright's beliefs and even agreed with them. Unlike most of those people who like to invoke Jeremiah Wright against Obama I haven't heard Wright say anything that I find either offensive or out of keeping with modern Christian theology.
Before I explain further I would like to add the caveat that the only sermon I have ever heard Wright deliver is the notorious one where he seems to be crying out for the damnation of America - but I have watched this sermon in its entirety. Wright's sermon was well delivered, impassioned, effective and mainstream in terms of ideology. The point Wright was making was that nobody is really innocent, everyone has sinned, and we make a mistake when we pray for justice because our just deserves are an eternity in hell. Wright pointed out how we decry terrorist attacks as loathsome but defend actions like the nuclear attack on Hiroshima as justified. These concepts are absolutely Biblical and nothing I have not heard in the twenty or so years I have attended my own church.
Now either Obama is A) Not very observant (Didn't hear what Wright was saying those twenty years), B) Too stupid to recognize Christian doctrine when he hears it or C) Willing to denounce a good friend and spiritual guide, not to mention short selling those Christian principles all in order to further his own personal power. If Obama had defended Wright or tried to explain his message I have no doubt it would have hurt him in the polls and so we Obama was given a choice. Defend people and ideas you believe to be correct or do what is necessary to further your own ambitions. Given the choice between what is correct and what is beneficial to his campaign Obama does what is best for the campaign. He is a man more interested in his own ascension than right or wrong.
When Obama does make decisions he makes poor ones. Obama wrote that he resorted to using cocaine in high school in order to push the questions of who he was out of his mind in his book "Dreams of My Father". Personally, I have no problem with individuals who want to use drugs - it is their choice but objectively I believe this choice is a bad one. Cocaine has serious and widely known damaging side effects and risks and Obama decided to use this drug anyway which constitutes a very poor and dangerous decision on his part and evinces poor decision making capability. I can imagine two possible dismissals of this point, one is that we should forgive people for making some mistakes and the other is that using cocaine is not really such a harmful thing.
The idea that we should forgive people for making some mistakes is correct - I don't think Obama is a bad person because he took drugs, I don't hold it against him personally, but the President of the United States should be the best possible candidate for the job and I have a hard time believing that the best possible applicant in a group of 350 million or so had cocaine user on his resume. We should forgive people certainly, but that doesn't mean we should discriminate any less when screening applicants for the job of running of our country.
To handle the other complaint, that taking cocaine isn't such a bad thing, I can only reference the armfuls of medical research available and common sense. Common sense will tell you the risks versus rewards for doing cocaine are something like
Rewards: Fleeting high
Risks: Imprisonment, permanent record, serious health effects, death by ingesting toxins that were unknowingly combined with drug, death by people mixed up in the business of selling drugs, death by overdose, and so on.
Whether or not using cocaine is good or bad is not my prerogative here. I am simply trying to show that it is a foolish choice if you value your life, career or future over your feelings at the moment. Despite it being a foolish choice it is nevertheless a choice made by Barak Obama.
Obama declared in his campaign that he was setting a time table to withdraw from Iraq. All troops out in sixteen months was his plan. This became all combat troops out in sixteen months, which is basically the same plan President Bush has. Now Obama has said this plan may need to be refined based upon discussions with military leaders. Is this another case where Obama said something just to help his election campaign? Or did just make the wrong choice when he said all troops out by 2010, and then make the wrong choice again when he said all combat troops out by 2010 before having those discussions with his military advisors?
Obama was against the war in the beginning and he has criticized its execution at every turn. Rightly so in my opinion and in the opinions of many people who voted for Obama. So, how will Obama correct the poor implementation of our war effort using the same plan for withdraw that President Bush has? The Secretary of Defense has a huge role in the United States' war machine and Obama has chosen Robert Gates for the position in his cabinet. Robert Gates will be a huge change from Bush's Secretary of Defense - Robert Gates.
After criticizing the war and its execution Obama has seemingly chosen to follow the route we have pursuing all along. Obama has made other poor choices in his cabinet. While Gates is at least qualified for the position of Secretary of Defense, as a veteran, long time CIA man and former Secretary of Defense, other members of Obama's cabinet are not qualified for the positions Obama has arranged for them.
Janet Napolitano for example is the Governor of Arizona. Arizona is one of the least secure states in the Union. Illegal immigration and drug smuggling are rampant and barely controlled. The two biggest cities in Arizona are Phoenix and Tucson. Using www.cityrating.com just to get an idea of these places we can see that Phoenix is in the 96th percentile in terms of safety. Tucson is in the 99th percentile. That means citizens in Tucson are more likely to have crimes and violent crimes committed against them than 99 percent of the rest of the country. These facts don't seem to say much for Napolitano's ability to keep her citizens safe. Naturally, Obama has chosen her for the position of Secretary of Homeland Security. Being Governor of one of the most dangerous states in the country is her only qualification.
Aside from allowing crime to grow wild in her state Napolitano also allows characters like Joe Arpaio to work in her state. Arpaio is the sheriff in Maricopa County and has more prison rights abuse claims filed against him than any other sheriff in the country. In fact, fifty times more prison rights lawsuits were filed against Maricopa County than were filed against New York, Las Angeles, Chicago and Houston jail systems combined! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Arpaio for more staggering facts about Joe Arpaio.
Napolitano not only has a history of failing to protect the people she should, she also has a history of underlings with a reckless disregard for human life. Napolitano has no suitable credentials for the position Obama picked her for and many glaring defects. She is a poor choice for Secretary of State.
Obama has made other poor choices in his cabinet. During the primary campaign he was dismissive of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience. He correctly pointed out multiple times her experience consisted of being a mere figurehead at best. Now he has chosen her for Secretary of State; a position where foreign policy experience would be extremely valuable.
Why did Obama pick Clinton for this spot? Why did Obama pay off Clinton's campaign debt after she dropped her Presidential bid? I read an interesting blog on this subject at http://theregulation.blogspot.com/ titled "Obama is just as bad as Blagojevich and Bush is much worse". Which articulates the major points I would like to make against Clinton and Obama, so if you are at all curious, you can read them through that link.
As Obama himself has suggested on numerous occasions, Hillary Clinton does not have anything resembling foreign policy experience. She is not a suitable candidate for the job and Obama chose her anyway. Some might describe this as giving favors to people in the party. If this is true then Obama has deprived his country of an effective Secretary of State in order to give recompense to Hillary Clinton.
Clinton's appointment seems the most glaring case of corruption but it is not the only
one. Obama has also appointed Eric Holder, Shaun Donovan and Melody Barnes to his cabinet and all three of these are people who worked for his campaign. I believe that the President should choose the people he believes are best suited to the jobs in his cabinet, not just appoint friends or people who worked for him. I have a hard time believing though that best people for the job of Attorney General, The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Directory of Domestic Policy were all individuals who happened to work for the Obama campaign.
Maybe you wouldn't consider giving people who worked for you cabinet appointments corruption. But it is not a change from the old school of Washington politics. It is not a good choice and appointing people because you owe them favors comes at the expense of the American public. If you voted for Barak Obama you probably voted for him because you thought he could help the country, not because you wanted to help him pay back some people he owed favors to.
This is not even the only instance of corruption in Obama's story though. During the campaign I heard a lot about "Rezko" and the Rezko Corruption or the Rezko scandal and so on but I never quite knew what the deal was. If you are in the same boat I was then let me tell you. Rezko was convicted of a number of crimes, among them public corruption. What he did was gather money and illegally contribute it to the campaigns of politicians. Rezko wasn't an idealist, he wasn't committing crimes to help out a party or an idea he believed in, he was committing crimes to make money. Rezko made illegal contributions to the campaigns of democrats, like Blagojevich for example, and republicans alike. Rezko helped people get elected and then demanded favors and kickbacks from them.
So how is this scumbag connected to Obama? Obama wanted to buy a house, the guy selling the house wouldn't sell unless whoever bought the house also bought an adjacent parcel of land for 200,000 dollars. Obama didn't have the money or wasn't willing to buy the land. Rezko bought it for him and later sold Obama the land for much less. In effect Rezko gave Obama 200,000 dollars to buy a new house. Rezko was convicted of giving politicians money and demanding favors from them later. What did he get in exchange for the 200,000 he gave Obama?
You may have noticed a lot of the complaints I have against Obama have been about his personal life. There are two reasons for this. First, I think the mistakes and evidence of corruption in his personal life allow us to see the flaws in his character and demonstrate why he would make a poor president. Second, it is because, aside from his personal life and his cabinet appointments Obama has not really done much of anything politically.
I know it is cliché to harp on Obama's lack of experience so I won't do it - much. Hillary Clinton, Obama's dubious choice for Secretary of State, pointed out how Obama had voted "Present" 130 times during his tenure as a state senator in Illinois. In the U.S. Senate Obama hasn't had a much more impressive record. The Senate offers a tool to look up what individual senators are doing or have done. You can find it here: http://thomas.loc.gov/. Using it we can find out that Obama has been the primary sponsor of six items, including such ground breaking legislation as S.Res 291: A Resolution to Congratulate the Chicago White Socks and two separate resolutions regarding "National Summer Learning Day" which, thanks to diligent efforts of Obama, changed from the 13th of June in 2006 to the 12th in 2007.
I realize I have gone on at some length so thanks for reading and I tried to raise a broad variety of issues. To summarize what I have claimed: Obama values his personal advancement over the well being of our country. He places his own ambition over righteousness. He has made poor choices in his life and in government. He has selected cabinet members who have proven themselves incompetent, who he claims to disagree with and he has promoted cabinet members seemingly as a boon for loyalty to himself or to his party. Obama has a history of corrupt behavior. Far from being a change to traditional politics he is a creature of those politics and will bring nothing new or beneficial to the country.
Thanks for taking the time to read the opinions I have expressed here and I look forward to hearing why you think I am wrong, where you think I am wrong or reasons you have that will make Obama seem a good choice despite all this.
User Reviews
Submitted by Cakes (user info) at 2009-09-29 03:02:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Obama values personal power and ambition over the good of the nation. There is an apocryphal story that George Washington was asked to be King of the nascent United States but declined. If Obama were given the same choice I feel he would accept - he wants what is best for him - not the nation.
-----
You totally pulled that out of your ass, jeeezus!
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2009-01-08 13:40:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2009-01-06 19:48:22 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
That said, if somehow I am wrong, and Obama really is as bad as Bush, then we are doomed as doomed could be. Another 8 years (or even 4) of this worthless shite and Mexicans will stop trying to immigrate here because they would be better off staying home.
------
funny enough, the immigrants in my area are going back home because the economy has tanked. our illegal population as it stands is about a third of the area and another couple grand in legals, mostly from south america.
i wonder what my local demographic will look like when this has finally hit bottom.
Submitted by kgbpasha (user info) at 2009-01-08 13:25:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I think I read the title and the first line or two..
then I couldn't take any more of your mispiled werds.
1. You suck
2. See 1.
Submitted by stinkfish (user info) at 2009-01-07 14:03:41 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
This article is both pee and poop
Submitted by Maddog (user info) at 2009-01-07 10:10:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You want to marry your gay lover. I get it.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2009-01-06 19:48:22 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by dismas712 (user info) at 2009-01-06 00:06:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DietCoke (user info) at 2009-01-05 09:04:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
WTF! I'm not reading all that.
The most fucked up president in the short history of the U.S.A. was George Bush. He can't possibly do any worse or come close.
If you knew anything about American History you would know that Jimmy Carter was the worst President.....you dumb cock
==============================================
Dumb cocksucker--GW Bush was 100X worse than Jimmy Carter, and I know plenty on history and am old enough to remember the 70's. Bush has been so bad that we will be living with the blowback and consequences of his grotesque incompetence for 30 years easily. And that is if we are lucky enough to not have society degrade to Mad Max craziness sooner than that because of his bringing on the Great Depression II. I knew when he got elected he would be a turd, but I could never have imagined how awful the last 8 years would be.
And for this author to suggest Obama could be anything as awful as GWB is silly. Bush has plenty of corruption, personal life flaws, and, you stupid fuck, GWB did cocaine too. He did anything to be elected and re-elected, no matter how scummy. Nor had Bush accomplished anything before becoming President.
That said, if somehow I am wrong, and Obama really is as bad as Bush, then we are doomed as doomed could be. Another 8 years (or even 4) of this worthless shite and Mexicans will stop trying to immigrate here because they would be better off staying home.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2009-01-06 08:43:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2009-01-05 11:47:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
I honestly wanted to read this in earnest and give my feedback in return, but there are too many reasons not to before I even get half way there.
Submitted by jared.melton (user info) at 2009-01-06 05:03:50 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2009-01-06 01:43:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
american presidents are not as influential as americans want us to think
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DING DING DING!
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2009-01-06 01:43:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
american presidents are not as influential as americans want us to think
Submitted by dismas712 (user info) at 2009-01-06 00:06:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DietCoke (user info) at 2009-01-05 09:04:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
WTF! I'm not reading all that.
The most fucked up president in the short history of the U.S.A. was George Bush. He can't possibly do any worse or come close.
If you knew anything about American History you would know that Jimmy Carter was the worst President.....you dumb cock
Gay marriage is a completely religious topic. If a gay couple wants to be recognized as a married couple by a God that condemns them for it that's there choice. However, if a gay couple that loves each other wants to apply for the same benefits as a straight couple that don't, and get a civil union, then they should be able to.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2009-01-05 23:17:14 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You misspell almost everything!
Asshole is spelled B U B B A.
Got that, retard?
You suck.
Submitted by Otter (user info) at 2009-01-05 21:31:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The thing is, he's already been elected to office, none of the items you mentioned are going to get him kicked out of office. ALL presidents have made bad decisions. The only thing right now that could possibly get him kicked out of office is the whole thing with his place of birth, but it doesn't look like that has gone anywhere. The only thing that any of his bad choices will do is keep him from getting elected to a second term if the American population feels that these bad choices have made him a bad presedent.
Also, Janet Napalatano sucks as the gov of AZ, not too sure she'll do any better as Homeland Security director. The only good thing about her getting the new job is the woman coming into fill the Gov position will do a far better job. Might even get rid of these stupid speed cameras.
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2009-01-05 18:31:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
1. Sorry I misspelled Barack. Honest mistake.
2. To the people saying these ideas are no longer relevant I have to such suggest that you are morons of unparalleled and contemptible magnitude. You seem to believe that once the election everything is decided and should just be let go for the next four years. This is an awful, simple minded and ultimately incorrect thing to believe. This man is going to be running our country and you fools suggest we should just turn a blind eye to him.
3. To people who say we should give him a chance I ask why? If I see something I disagree with now I am going to mention it now. I am not going to wait and see if it goes away on its own. I hope he is a great president. I don't think he will be and as I mentioned at the start of the post I am confused that other people think differently. I am trying to find an explanation for why people think he will make a good president, not platitudes about giving him a chance.
4. Sacriliciouos - I said at the beginning of the post it was about my opinion on Obama and the gay marriage section ties directly into my opinion that Barack Obama places personal power over the good of the country. It is explicitly stated how several times in the post.
Submitted by sandmantate (user info) at 2009-01-05 18:07:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
pure shit
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2009-01-05 17:33:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Otter (user info) at 2009-01-05 17:19:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Wow, give the guy a negative rating simply because he can't spell the guy's name correctly.
Rev Wright had been spewing racist staments for a while. Oprah Winfrey attended that same church for a short time but left because she didn't like the message the good Rev was delivering.
Submitted by HurtByTheSun (user info) at 2009-01-05 15:01:12 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2009-01-05 13:22:51 GMT (#)
Ranking: 0
The only thought I have on Barrack Obama is his silence on the Gaza crisis is undermining his reputation in the Middle East.
===========
To be fair, I don't think he cares much about a crazy alcoholic ex-footballer.
I would have read this, but the fact you can't even spell the mans name makes you a bit of a thick cunt.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2009-01-05 13:24:55 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Too fucking bad for you, since he's already been elected President. As such, now would probably also be a good time to learn how to spell *Barack*.
Submitted by RageMode (user info) at 2009-01-05 12:58:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
On the fact that he's admitted to participating in illicit drug use, by what right does any government institution have the power to tell anyone what the can, or cannot, ingest? It is a personal choice that the government has taken from the public under the pretense of "safety".
Many presidents have partaken in a relatively* harmless plant, now known as marijuana. Thomas Jefferson (I'm fairly sure, however it may have been Benjamin Franklin) said that many of his favorite memories are from sitting out on his back veranda smoking cannabis. George Washington was known to have his own plantation while he was the president. However, this past president, GW2, is known to have tried, at the least, Ecstasy (blasts whole sections of the brain, possible from first use), which can be much more worse for your health then either Cocaine (a plant that is harvested then mixed with some chemicals or whatever, can blast your brain if chemicals are messed up), or Marijuana (Plant that just grows that way, and if you so happen to light it afire, it may have some effects).
Overall, I feel that the article was OK, but I disagree wholeheartedly.
Submitted by no1hasdis (user info) at 2009-01-05 12:33:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Way to late to be posting this. Would have been relevant a few months ago. At least you actually put in some thought and research though, unlike most political posts around here.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2009-01-05 12:04:33 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Lame and boring article full of bs to start my first day back at work.
Maybe I should just get to to work.
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2009-01-05 11:47:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
I honestly wanted to read this in earnest and give my feedback in return, but there are too many reasons not to before I even get half way there.
You start off what is supposed to be an argument based on facts, with "Obama values personal power and ambition over the good of the nation." That is an opinion, and you don't even attempt to establish what you mean by that before you move on. Unless the next paragraphs re: gay marriage were meant to support it- in which case I'll say that while I agree 100% that gays should be allowed to marry, I doubt he believed that about 10% of the population would get him elected- it's not as if before his campaign, homosexuals were voting republican in record numbers.
Obama was not 'converted' to Christianity by Rev Wright. Obama's mother was raised a Christian. She led a more secular life than a Christian one, but it's not as if Obama was atheist or Muslim and was converted.
Then your argument about cocaine became muddled and a little preachy, so I stopped reading.
Submitted by sage104 (user info) at 2009-01-05 10:47:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Meh.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2009-01-05 09:09:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2009-01-05 07:14:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think it's kind of hard to blame Obama for the economical crisis, skrap.
-----
I didn't do so. I said it will be blamed entirely on Bush even though the Dems have controlled the House and Senate through all of the development of the current economic situation and that I think Obama will make it worse.
Submitted by DietCoke (user info) at 2009-01-05 09:04:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
WTF! I'm not reading all that.
The most fucked up president in the short history of the U.S.A. was George Bush. He can't possibly do any worse or come close.
I suppose the "Maverick" would have been better with the regular hockey mom? Those two could have been worse then W.
The nigger can't .... wait. THE HALF NIGGER can't be bad.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2009-01-05 08:22:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The only thought I have on Barrack Obama is his silence on the Gaza crisis is undermining his reputation in the Middle East.
Submitted by CarterPFly (user info) at 2009-01-05 07:28:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Its completly pointless. He's been elected and shortcomings or not he's gonna be president so discuss all you want but you cant go back once the decision has been made and rubberstamped.
Fact is everyone has shortcomings, everyones flawed and every candidate had things that will make them a good and a terrible president. But once the bell has tolled and the day is won you just have to take the good with the bad until the next chance to fuck it up comes around in another 4 years.
Submitted by ICO (user info) at 2009-01-05 07:14:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think it's kind of hard to blame Obama for the economical crisis, skrap.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2009-01-05 07:02:24 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
yes. he even fooled me with his incorrect spelling!
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2009-01-05 06:46:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think he's incompetent to do the job, should never have even been considered for it, comes from a political background so corrupt as to make him untrustworthy just by proximity if not by fact, and was largely elected by idiots who foolishly equated "different" with better. I suspect his Presidency will be one of exploding government and taxation, drastic reduction in personal freedoms, considerable unrest of the populace, $7 gasoline, quadrupled electric bills, economic depression which will be blamed on the last Rep President and not at all the Dem Congress and House, the institution of socialism in the US (and he will call it that), and the loss of what little international prestige and power the US has held on to. But, though I clearly have absolutely zero belief in his tenuous and imaginary "plans", I'm willing to give him a chance to manage to not fuck it all up. A chance. And I can spell "Barack" properly.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2009-01-05 06:19:19 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
oh fuck Barak Obama, fuck him up his washboard tum
Submitted by sword (user info) at 2009-01-05 06:03:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'd consider discussing the short comings of a man who is soon to be running this country very relevant CarterPFly.
Submitted by CarterPFly (user info) at 2009-01-05 05:42:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
wtf? perhaps this would have been relevent last year..