Annnnnnnnnnd you still haven't named one accomplishment of the Barack Hussein Obama, besides getting elected to a political office. That doesn't count, I mean what has he accomplished since becoming an elected official?

You are right about the Clinton's that's why I'll be voting for a Republican.

Here are a few...

LiveLeak.com - Barak Obama's Accomplishments & Career/Bio

...and here are others...

Barack Obama - Senate Career - Wikipedia

...and here's an educated blog discussing the issue...

Obsidian Wings (The Voice of Moderation): Barack Obama

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will

The rumored superdelegate support looks to be true:

Clay Confirms Obama Has 50 New Superdelegates -- Political Wire

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO), Sen. Barack Obama's Missouri co-chairman and pledged Obama superdelegate, said Obama will gain the support of 50 undecided Democratic superdelegates later this week, according to the Columbia Missourian.

Said Clay: "She (Sen. Clinton) will not make up those numbers. This race is over."

Former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw first reported yesterday that Obama had about 50 secretly committed superdelegates.

Even given that understanding of Iraq's political situation, it still doesn't explain why oil prices have risen more, after our invasion, than before our invasion when we had greater stability in global markets. You seem to be implying that a common Offense would not result in increased oil consumption, that would otherwise have been consumed by the civilian sector of the global market. Without our engagement, oil prices should have stayed at the level they were prior to the invasion since consumption would have remained constant.

I would agree with your position more, if Congress had formally declared such a condition to exist. They have not, and there are other Constitutional mechanisms available for foreign policy that do not involve the extensive use of our exorbitantly expensive superpower.

I disagree with your contention about Saddam's election not being democratic since people voted in an election. He didn't have to have an election, at all.

How does your point of view account for our level of interference in the internal affairs of another sovereign state? From one perspective, it can be considered hypocritical to complain when a sovereign state interferes in our internal affairs. Would we have our current concerns over terrorism, if the UN had been more involved in helping red states become more productive members in our global economy?

In other words, even if their is a duly constituted authority, you are claiming that adherence to the rule of law, is a purely situational consideration for you. How do you account for that point of view when anyone else in the world can claim the same thing about the rule of law, and the US.

It is interesting that you do not consider a duly constituted authority to have an more moral authority in the exercise of that authority, than a does an authority that has no more moral authority to engage in such endeavors, other that the might of its sword. Since when does might, make right?

We also have the worlds largest economy. Any familiarity with our own tax rules should give a reasonable person a clue as to why we give a larger proportion of revenue to the UN.

Since when is the US in the business of exporting democracy? Our Constitution only guarantees a republican form of government to the member states of our Union.

Why should the UN always have the best interests of a single State at heart? The US is one of several States of that organization. Shouldn't the UN have the best interests of the entire membership, at heart, instead of only a single State?

We have plenty of work that could be done domestically. We still don't have zero percent official poverty in our first world economy. Having zero percent official poverty would do more to provide for the general Welfare of the United States, than would a multitude of foreign entanglements by politicians who offer no real solutions improve the standard of living of the populace of the US.

Ah and there is the key word duly constituted. The UN was never and must never be given authority over US sovereignty. What gives us the authority to act in the world is the right of self preservation and the fact that we have the greatest government ever established upon the earth and that sometimes oppressed people need help to realize their freedom and potential. Every nation that we have ever conquerored has determined their own form of government and are today sovereign nations, and we have not stood in the way of that.

Are you advocating an isolationist policy for the US? Not a bad idea, but not possible, no nation on earth has all the resources it needs to be self sufficient. We need each other, that's all there is to it.

Poverty will never be eraticated by human instrumentality, because it is more a spiritual condition than a physical condition. But we must try. It is not the governments job to feed the poor, or provide for its citizenery. The governments job is to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not provide for those things. We as individuals must bear one anothers burdens. I have found that those who advocate more government involvment are the one's who give nothing or very littel to actually help the poor. No they want to shrug that responsibility off on the government. Also these same people will pay less in taxes than anyone else, so that they are the least affected by the increase in the tax burden placed upon the people that is required to fund all these social programs.

Here is a better rationale and a basis for my opinion.

The US is a sovereign nation, just as Iraq is a sovereign nation. I thought you were for the rule of law. The UN is was constituted to help resolve issues of rule of law between sovereign states. The point however, is this, why are we providing for the general warfare, and making so many excuses concerning providing for the general Welfare of the United States?

I don't call it being willfully ignorant, I call it a form of states' rights.

We only engaged in war with Germany because they declared war on the US. There was no real requirement for that government to do so, except for mutual assistance with the other Axis powers.

Why does the US have veto power in the security council if that organization has no authority over the rule of law regarding sovereign nations?

It depends on what you mean by isolationist policy. Having better trade relations with other States is not necessarily what I would call isolationism. In that regard, the UN is a better arbiter of interstate commerce than is the US.

I have found the opposite to be more true. That people who advocate for private charity tend exhibit more of the qualities you would ascribe to people who advocate for public charity.

Poverty can be solved easier than can any use of the general warfare to ensure our security and can be more cost effective when done by a public sector.

Those are your opinions, but with no supporting evidence. Poverty has been around since the dawn of civilization and it will always be around. Man is incapable of solving the problem of poverty. How many poverty stricken people have won lotteries only to end back up in poverty? How many great athletes who grew up in poverty made it big in the sports world to only retire in poverty? Poverty is a condition of the soul and only God can cure that.

In the discussion that has evolved above on the issue of poverty and the governments responsibility, I have but one question to ask.

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

Sorry I lied, just one more question. Where in the constitution does it state that its the governments responsibility to provide for my welfare?

Preamble to the Constitution, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and so forth, and that those powers not delegated to the united states are reserved to the states and the people respectively. The congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states.

My question for you sir...

where in the constitution does it allow for a suspension of the bill of rights?

where in the constitution does it allow for committees and subcommittees?

for a budget drafted by the executive branch.

for an executive branch immune to congressional oversight.

for publicly held offices accepting money from foreign governments.


The American dream is that you work hard and you succeed.

If you work 50 hours a week you should not live below the federal poverty level.

The wealthy should be subject to civil service just like the rest of us?

Bridges to nowhere and museums of useless crap shouldn't exceed green technology tax incentives.

Wouldn't you agree?

__________________
"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt." -John Philpot Curran (1750-1817)


"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist." -Archbishop Helder Camara

"Semantics is the essence of debate."
-Me

What you say may be true of more capitalistic economies than that of the US, and most socialist countries. Socialism proved what can be possible with with more efficient uses of collective action, and statism (e.g. space race, Hoover Dam, arms race, drug and terror wars).

Poverty is a simple socio-economic condition that can be easily be solved. In socialist states (i.e command economies), without our type of social contract, the state simply ensures that the populace is required to work, and provides the necessary jobs.

In our form of statism, with our type of social contract (that provides for individual liberty and states' rights), we have developed a form of socialism called welfare, that provides a form of social safety net. Unfortunately, that form of social safety net has not solved the issue of official poverty, nor does it provide effective labor market based metrics. Excessive regulation of those types of programs also tend to increase the cost without ameliorating the underlying issue to be solved: poverty.

Consider a hypothetical state where official poverty is eliminated through market friendly public policy that provides for "at-will" unemployment income that is above the poverty rate. How can official poverty exist, if an individual adult can apply for that income and no longer be in poverty?

A market friendly type of program would also have the effect of increasing productivity in the labor market because most people who have the condition of the soul, sometimes known as couch potato syndrome, will be more likely to apply for that type of income, rather than provide labor input to the market at market based wages. In other words, even couch potatoes would no longer be in official poverty, even if they were predisposed to such an inclination.

Market friendly public policy would also have the effect of lowering the cost of the public sector (government) due to reduction in administrative costs, and lower some costs to the private sector (e.g. civic service).

Welfare, as we know it, doesn't accomplish any of those goals and has been criticized as being a cause of generational forms of continued non-participation in the labor market for market based wages. Simple economics based principles are not easily recognized in that type of public policy scheme due to the excessive amount of bureaucracy involved.

At-will unemployment would not foster that type of condition of the soul, since anyone would be able to provide labor input to the market, at market based wages, if they have the skill sets to command those wages. This type of policy could be based on simple economics principles that are easy to understand by anyone who lives in a mixed market economy.

Market friendly public policy would be more conducive to personal responsibility than current schemes that rely on excessive bureaucracy, since anyone receiving that type of income would still have to support themselves in a market friendly manner that is the norm in our mixed market economy. Anyone applying for a form of "at-will" unemployment would not need to develop any strategy to "game" the system.

Welfare, as we know it, requires that a recipient convince the bureaucracy that they have sufficient need. Excessive regulations generated from that type of bureaucracy may not be based on market principles or engender personal responsibility traits that are common when a person has to administer their own income. In other words, personal responsibility traits tend to be subordinated to fulfilling the requirements of the bureaucracy to obtain that form of social safety net (income). That would not be the case with a form of "at-will" unemployment.

As a matter of public policy, it is in the best interest of the state to ameliorate forms of poverty, since according to Aristotle, it is the parent of revolution and crime. Eliminating poverty is more conducive to individual liberty and forms of states' rights, than is the use of a states traditional police powers to ensure its domestic tranquility.

You know now there is talk about a ticket with BOTH Clinton and Obama.
I think it would be a good, unstoppable ticket once they work out their differences.

Obama is dismissing the idea as gamemanship. One thing I'm startig to realize about this guy is that he doesn't know how to fight back! Show some muscle for a change.

I have to give it to the Clintons for being 'crafty' as Obama calls it to get what they want , to push the policies and consistently getting what they want. Whether this is crafty or not, why isn't Obama playing the game too?
right now he just looks like a great college professor and not a President if you ask me.

As commander in chief, he would need to know the skills of diplomacy to get what the US wants. This takes a bit of craftiness. Otherwise, people are going to think the US is run by a wimp and we'll just get hammered by all sorts of crazies non-stop trying to figure out Obama's limits.

Sad to say, we really DO need someone in the President's chair that knows how to wrangle with Congress, other Sate lawmakers and the public's desires, and one who can send a clear message to the world of "Don't mess with the USA d*mmit or I'll light you up!"

Obama so far, as honorable man as he appears to be, seem slike he would get run over if he were President. D*mmit show some spine Obama!

In the rough world of politics, and in the rough world in general, I think we actually need Presidents who are NOT the nice guy and have a little bit up their sleeves.
I bet other countries and our enemies would LOVE to get Obama in office. North Korea would start with their missile threats again. Venezuela would surely try it's oil-holding tactics. Russia and China will be doing their illegal fly-over thing.
Thes countries would not dare try this crap with the Clintons since they know that the Clintons don't play and will bomb the h*ll out if them if they try any of that ****.

Let's face it, we are in a global society and the rest of the world has practically the same information that we are getting via the internet.

They know Obama is as nice as Gomer Pyle or Forrest Gump and will try to test that. Since Obama is so anti-war I don't know just WHAT would happen. Will he try to sweet-talk out of the situations? Or would he turn on his supporters and start a bombing campaign.
get real! not more than a month after the office change, there would be some internatinal threat. There HAS to be because the world is full of animals, looking to get ahead of us.

***I think I am switching my vote to Clinton and hope that Obama will be on the ticket. ****

I think he would be great at getting domestic issues through but Clinton is what is really needed abroad.
We REALLY need an Obama to get all our jobs back in the US and to get out dollar back where it should be. The problem is the US doens't make anything but paper deals anymore. That's waht got us into all this mess, esp. with the housing market. It's time we all quit being lazy and actually make something like airplanes, cars, food, and other tangibles that other countries will by and CONSUME rather than just re-invest in. We can't have other countries sub-investing on our investing instruments. That doesn't make any sense.
I think Obama understands that well enough that he would do an awesome job of generating real jobs and innovation. I was really impressed by his website and other things and realized he would help America stay on the forefront of technology.


Yet internationally, sometimes a little crooked is needed. The nice guy will always finish last in the world. That's just how it goes.

The world is a bad, bad place.

I don't want a guy who is *too* nice as President. I want a BULL DOG for President so I can sleep at night and Clinton is that dog.
Just let her and her team run the thing and Obama be V.P. His colors are really showing now of his lack of experience.
(Not to mention he just seems tired a lot. Anyone else ever noticed that?)

Apparently he has a little more to learn WHICH IS OK . He'll be very ripe for a Presidency in another term or two.

For all of Obama's supporters (including myself), especially those who gave a lot of money: Consider backing Clinton and we can be practically assured Obama will be in the White House as V.P. He would be a more active V.P.
than we have had lately, but this would be like getting two-for-one.
He want's it al though and he can't handle it all at this point without getting overwhelmed I think. (Eyes bigger than mouth --Remember: "are you going to eat all of that"?)

If he faces McCain alone, I fear he would get caught in the crosshairs and get run over like a deer in headlights. He will not even know what hit him, poor soul.


So do the country a favor, go with a duo-ticket, a yin-yang thing, and probably within the first six months of a Clinton presidency, we will be reaping the benefits of our investment. Think about the US regaining its position in the world as the leader.