Conquer Club

all hes gonna do is give the welfare douchebags more power

Well, for one, he'd take away this terrible distraction we call Iraq.

stlcard1521 wrote:all hes gonna do is give the welfare douchebags more power

I didn;t realise he had announced his major policies yet.

heavycola wrote:

stlcard1521 wrote:all hes gonna do is give the welfare douchebags more power

I didn;t realise he had announced his major policies yet.

He hasn't, except for foreign policy and energy.

exactly. everyone loves him because he keeps saying "hope" and "change" but what the hell is he going to do? what a fraud i cant beleive hes actually beating mccain in the polls

He won't change anything, for the good anyways. Neither would McCain, its all in their plan.

Obama just just gave a speech.... some time before 9:00 PST in which he used the term responsible withdraw from Iraq and winning the war on Terror... Not sure what those mean but he didn't explain them well enough for my taste!

TotoroHat wrote:Obama just just gave a speech.... some time before 9:00 PST in which he used the term responsible withdraw from Iraq and winning the war on Terror... Not sure what those mean but he didn't explain them well enough for my taste!

You obviously weren't listening then.

In any case, his call for change is not what appeals to me, it's his intelligence. And I would have intelligence over set policies any day for my candidate.

I'm still looking for the candidate trying to pay off our trillions of dollars in debt. Their stance on the war in Iraq and welfare doesn't mean much to me when it's very possible we won't have the financial backing to afford either of them in twenty years or so.

stlcard1521 wrote:all hes gonna do is give the welfare douchebags more power

Care to provide any support for this clear and concise analysis? Or are you just a troll?

Curmudgeonx wrote:

stlcard1521 wrote:all hes gonna do is give the welfare douchebags more power

Care to provide any support for this clear and concise analysis? Or are you just a troll?

Well, I don't know about you, but I wasn't aware of any "welfare douchebags" in existence. What does he mean, people who receive welfare? By definition they have basically no power. People who...er...legislate welfare? Like, the government? A little late there...oh, does he mean the Democrats? THE DEMS!?!? Shit, it isn't like it matters...neither candidate is a big enough change, so I guess we'll just have to vote by party lines again.

Obama is clearly for "change." Yes sir, a roll of quarters for every American. (your choice of state) Nickels and dimes too. For the priviledged few, a "Susan B. Anthony" dollar coin.

stlcard1521 wrote:exactly. everyone loves him because he keeps saying "hope" and "change" but what the hell is he going to do? what a fraud i cant beleive hes actually beating mccain in the polls

I guess most voters are working on the principle that if morons like you dont like him then he is probably the sensible choice.

joecoolfrog wrote:

stlcard1521 wrote:exactly. everyone loves him because he keeps saying "hope" and "change" but what the hell is he going to do? what a fraud i cant beleive hes actually beating mccain in the polls

I guess most voters are working on the principle that if morons like you dont like him then he is probably the sensible choice.

5 star-quote!

stlcard1521 wrote:all hes gonna do is give the welfare douchebags more power

Can you put together a complete thought please?

Who exactly are these "powerful douchebags"?

stlcard1521 wrote:exactly. everyone loves him because he keeps saying "hope" and "change" but what the hell is he going to do? what a fraud i cant beleive hes actually beating mccain in the polls

Maybe it's because McCain has the integrity of a rabbit. Just ask his first wife.

IF OBAMA truly wanted to make a change he would end affirmative action and long term welfare programs.
the mere fact that a black man can run for president (and have a real chance of winning) in the usa is proof that we no longer need to be giving out charity to people who know nothing of slavery other than 2'nd hand knowledge.

this is the U.S.A. land of opportunity, people are still coming here looking to improve their lives thru hard work and perserverance no one needs to live in poverty.
just like in the bible it says give a man a fish and he will eat once, but teach a man to fish and he will eat forever.

Welfare was meant to be temporary , not a permanant condition.

a bigger issue in this country is the lack of quality health care for all.

azezzo wrote:IF OBAMA truly wanted to make a change he would end affirmative action and long term welfare programs.

Yes, because that is the only way one can create change...

the mere fact that a black man can run for president (and have a real chance of winning) in the usa is proof that we no longer need to be giving out charity to people who know nothing of slavery other than 2'nd hand knowledge.

"2'nd hand knowledge"? What does this mean? That they haven't read primary documents? Also, I would like to point out the irony of that quote.

this is the U.S.A. land of opportunity, people are still coming here looking to improve their lives thru hard work and perserverance no one needs to live in poverty.
just like in the bible it says give a man a fish and he will eat once, but teach a man to fish and he will eat forever.

Welfare was meant to be temporary , not a permanant condition.

Welfare IS temporary, Bill Clinton made it so. You cannot live on welfare for your entire life.

Honestly, I don't understand wtf is wrong with some people. How much money do we honestly spend on welfare? And how much are we spending on this war again...? Get your priorities straight. When Obama talks about change, he means intelligent use of money (ie, get out of Iraq, focus on Afghanistan). Now that WOULD be a change.

a bigger issue in this country is the lack of quality health care for all.

True. How do you suppose this be fixed by a government if it doesn't use tax money? You're opposed to welfare but you want the government to somehow fix our health care problems?

azezzo wrote:IF OBAMA truly wanted to make a change he would end affirmative action and long term welfare programs.

He probably would. The irony is that AA was applied to a number of minority groups, African Americans were just one of them. My father, a Ex-POW / DAV was always removed off of the layoff list, because of affirmative action although he was never told this by his manager until the day he retired.

McCain probably had more of a boost from AA than Obama.

As for long term welfare programs, why do you think Rev. Jackson is so angry? Because Obama keeps saying that it is individual responsibility that is important:

“Now, I know there’s some who’ve been saying I’ve been too tough talking about responsibility. NAACP, I’m here to report, I’m not gonna stop talking about it,” he said to a rousing applause. “Because as much as I’m out there fighting to make sure government’s doing it’s job and the market place is doing it’s job and we’re passing laws to bring more investment and more education and more infrastructure into our communities and putting our young people back to work. No matter how much money we invest in our communities, how many 10-point plans we propose, how many government programs we launch – none of it will make a difference, at least not enough of a difference, if we also at the same time don’t seize more responsibility in our own lives.”

“We need societal responsibility and we need individual responsibility. We need politicians doing what they’re supposed to do and CEO’s doing what they’re supposed to do, and we need parents doing what they’re supposed to do….if we’re serious about reclaiming that dream, we have to do more in our own lives, there’s nothing wrong with saying that.”

And thus the conundrum: GIVE ME MORE STUFF! WAAAAA! But don't make me pay more taxes, heaven forbid!

InkL0sed wrote:Get your priorities straight. When Obama talks about change, he means intelligent use of money (ie, get out of Iraq, focus on Afghanistan). Now that WOULD be a change.

This is the irony of it all, because it's not "intelligent" by any means. Afghanistan is a million times worse than Iraq. The enemy can attack from Pakistan any time they want, and the Pakistan government is brokering peace deals to allow them to maximize their potential. Unlike Iraq we have no friendly influential leaders who can help us root out the insurgents. Commanders in the field from a number of nations are preparing for a long term insurgency war that will last decades.

tzor wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:Get your priorities straight. When Obama talks about change, he means intelligent use of money (ie, get out of Iraq, focus on Afghanistan). Now that WOULD be a change.

This is the irony of it all, because it's not "intelligent" by any means. Afghanistan is a million times worse than Iraq. The enemy can attack from Pakistan any time they want, and the Pakistan government is brokering peace deals to allow them to maximize their potential. Unlike Iraq we have no friendly influential leaders who can help us root out the insurgents. Commanders in the field from a number of nations are preparing for a long term insurgency war that will last decades.

So it's harder. What's less intelligent about it? I suppose next you're going to say that the Revolutionary War was a stupid waste of money, I mean, the British could attack from anywhere and then get back on their ships, all the while they kept undermining the Revolution with the Loyalists.

Hologram wrote:So it's harder. What's less intelligent about it?

We don't have to invade a sovergein nuclear weapon armed nation to directly attack the insurgents in Iraq. In order to "win" Afganistan, we have to root out the insurgents in Pakistan, and that nation has no intention of letting us do that. Not now, not never.

I agree.

Why should we spend our hard earned money to help our own fellow Americans anyway? We've got a massive hole in the sand that needs to be filled with money!

The priorities of some people never cease to amaze me.

Screw our poor fellow American neighbors. Instead, let's spends billions more to bomb a small country on the opposite side of the planet because their leader didn't like "pappy".

tzor wrote:

Hologram wrote:So it's harder. What's less intelligent about it?

We don't have to invade a sovergein nuclear weapon armed nation to directly attack the insurgents in Iraq. In order to "win" Afganistan, we have to root out the insurgents in Pakistan, and that nation has no intention of letting us do that. Not now, not never.

So, what, you're thinking we should just leave Afghanistan just because Pakistan's giving us a little trouble? That's fine, I suppose, just answer one question for me: what, pray tell, do you plan on doing this next September 11? Planning on visiting any world trade centers?


I've heard it argued that there are no good wars. They're just empty money-pits and places for people to go kill and be killed and there's nothing good about war at all. There are, however, just wars, in which the reason for spending trillions of dollars and hundreds and even thousands of good men and women's lives is good. The war in Afghanistan is one of those wars. A militant terrorist group came into our country and killed thousands of innocent civilians, and they were based out of a country with a government that was sympathetic to their cause. To avoid another of those events and to hunt and capture those responsible and bring them to justice we went to war with that country and it's government and when we finished that job, we went about rounding up those responsible. Now, obviously, there is the Pakistan factor that is making everything difficult and will probably be solved more by diplomacy and/or indirect coercion than by military force, but to call it a stupid waste of money is telling all the families of those who died in the Pentagon and WTC bombings, "Well, we tried, but then it got too expensive, and, well, we gave up. We're sorry for your loss, but we're just gonna bring the troops home because your neighbors think that the money would be better spent elsewhere than on bringing the murderers of your husbands/wives/children to justice."

I'd just like to note that the entire world was behind us entering Afghanistan. No one ever questioned that war.

I'd also like to mention that I am in France at the moment, and it seems to me that one of the things Europeans like about us Americans (or at least, that's the impression Le Monde gave me) is that we are strong in the face of adversity. They contrasted us with Spain, who pulled back their troops after their equivalent to 9/11, essentially giving in to the terrorists, to us, who at least tried to retaliate. What they don't like is what they saw as lack of forethought.

This is why Obama to me seems like a great candidate. He is obviously very smart and will most likely give every action at least more thought than Bush seemed to, but at the same time not back down in the face of adversity.