Objective Voice

One thing good about U.S. presidential elections, for every candidate who wins this country goes through some changes.

The Kennedy era brought the country out of a recession and spurred economic growth through innovation and imagination.

The Johnson era, which initially carried forward Pres. Kennedy's ideals on strong economic growth and development, eventually brought on fear and seperatism as the Viet Nam war and Civils Rights took center stage.

The Nixon era began with renewed emphasis on honesty and harmony, but ended in dishonesty and disgrace. However, no one can deny that it was Pres. Nixon's foreign policy initiatives that placed the U.S. back in favor with the world-at-large.

The Ford era was nearly forgettable. Marred by pardoning former Pres. Nixon and growing inflation, there was little to lament concerning Pres. Ford's tenure despite the country's economy rebounding slightly near the end of his term.

The Carter era was positive on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts. His focus on energy control and conservation, peacekeeping initiatives and his strong stance on drawning down the proliferation of strategic/ballistic missiles were overshadowed only by the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

The Reagon era is still receiving much debate (at least in private circles). However, most agree that American confidence was at its zenieth under Pres. Reagon's leadership. Under his tenure, the county was deeply embedded in an "U.S. -vs- Them" mentality with "them" being defeating Communism, particularly within the Soviet Union, at all cost. For the most part, Reagonomics was a good thing. Government spending was significantly reduced, the military was strengthened across all branches, many Americans saw a reduction in their taxes and who can forget the First Lady, Nancy Reagon, and "the war on drugs". Unfortunately, the Reagon presidency became the first to experience global terrorism first-hand. The Iranian Hostage Crisis reached a conclusion at the start of his presidency. Reagan's presidency concluded with the Lebonese hijacking of an American airliner, the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, and the decisive air strikes against Lybia for their terrorist activites in Europe. Nonetheless, despite Pres. Reagon's worldly successes, his presidency was marred in scandal by the Iran-Contra Affair.

The Bush era (George Bush or "Bush-41") was in most respects a continuation of the Reagon era. Pres. Bush's greatest accomplishments were his push to strengthen NATO ties and his swift and decisive move to come to the defense of the small nation of Kuwait against an unprovoked Iraqi invasion.

The Clinton era was perhaps the first presidency to yield a budgetary surplus since the Kennedy era. His emphasis on broadening free trade through programs such as NAFTA opened the door to increased U.S. exports. Alot took place during the Clinton presidency, such as the Internet boom, dealings with global terrorism ("Operation Desert Storm" and the World Trade Center bombing), health care reform, HIV/AIDS prevention (research, education and outreach), and a host of other social services programs. Unfortunately, as with all presidents who bolster good records, the Clinton era was marred in the Monica Lewinski scandal. Still, Pres. Clinton remains the only U.S. president to leave office with an approval rating greater than 50%.

The current presidency, the "W" era, should stand for "win", particularly in the wake of the so-called "global" War on Terror. Unfortunately for Pres. George H. W. Bush, the "W" may very well stand for "W"aste. His foreign policy measures have, by all accounts, been a disaster, the country is still deeply involved in a two-pronged war (one of which remains highly questionable and has cost this country dearly in loss of life and funds in the billions!), the country's economy is in extreme dire straights and the Congress is deeply divided. As hard as I've tried, the only positive I could find concerning G.W.'s presidency is his immediate actions following 9/11 and how the country rallied behind this unprovoked and most devastating attack since Pearl Harbor. Otherwise, his presidency will forever be cast in shadow darker than Nixon, Johnson, Clinton and Reagon's combined!

I've taken the reader along this trip down memory lane to ask one fundamental question:

"Where do you see this country going under Senator Obama or McCain's leadership?"

I would ask of ALL posters to do the following before posting their reply:

1) No sarcastic remarks directly related to either candidate. What I'm looking for is "informed commentary" based on your understanding of each candidate's policy proposals.

2) No bashing posters. Remember where we are - an OPEN forum. You're allowed to express your point of view, just be respectful of one's opinion and each other.

3) Give close consideration as to where this country currently resides within the framework of the foreign and domestic landscape and where you'd like to see it go.

4) Most important: Consider your own life experiences and really think about what you hope to gain and/or believe you stand to lose depending on which candidate wins the presidency.

The reason I've posted this thread is as I've watched reactions from those individuals who are for Sen. McCain, one common theme has emerged: many Republican voters have this premature and/or unwarranted fear that somehow Sen. Obaman's policies will take this country backwards, not forward, and that somehow one's "values" will be treaded upon. Personally, I really don't understand where this mentality is coming from. Therefore, I'm trying to wrap my mind around it, this despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Case in point: The McCain aids and Palin speeches that mirror those of Sen. Clinton's where both camps have used Sen. Obama's middle name in an effort to connect him with radical Islam and terrorism in the minds of would-be voters (i.e., "Hussein" = Muslim = radical Islam = terrorism). This is one example of how a play on our fears distorts and blinds us from looking for truth while also affording openess and fairness to both sides. That's not to say the Sen. Obama is perfect - the Second Coming as some have proclaimed him. He has his faults. But for me, it's a matter of Sen. Obama's policies and his outlook for the future for this country being more in-line with my views than anything else. (Although I would be lying if I said his race didn't also play into him having my vote. Nonetheless, if he were white and proposed these same policies, he'd still get my vote.)

So, give it some thought, folks. And let the debate begin.

veganshawn

Are you kidding Reganomics wasn't a good thing in any way, I grew up in the 80's and my family and town where victims of this stupid mans policies. The only thing I thank Reagan for is my radical view!

Sorry off topic

If McCain wins I see Americas decent towards fascist tendencies increasing, I think we will invade Iran with in the first year, I think the finical crisis will get worse and I think America will get closer to a second civil war. I think Roe v Wade will be overturned, the war on terror will effect more innocent Americans like myself who have a differing view point then the neo-cons. I think global warming will reach a no turning back effect on the environment, I think people will start thinking hockey is a legitimate sport in other words I think we would be f#$ked

If Obama wins I think depending on the make up of the Congress and Senate will have a decent chance of turning America around, though faced with the horrible job W has done it may take the whole first term to see a difference. I am a little scared of his rhetoric with wanting more troops in Afghanistan, I really hope he can get us out of these wars and start worrying about our country first, fixing our problems before we start play world cop.

I really don't think either party cares about America and both are beholden to their corporate donors, I hope that Obama proves me wrong though. I hope this in keeping how you wanted this thread to go, I tried not to be sarcastic.

Reverend_Hellh0und

Uhm Desert Storm was under Bush I.

__________________
كافر
Never forget those who died.
Never forget those who killed them.

Objective Voice

Thanks for the correction. However, I noticed you didn't provide an input as to the primus of the thread topic. If anyone would have had an opinion I thought it certainly would have been yourself. Take your time...give it some more thought if that's what you need. I'd be interested in your honest, non-bias opinion. I'll provide mine some time after the final presidential debate.

Vegonshawn,

You're is exactly the type of honest input I'm looking for.

Thank you.

BmanMcfly

Obama, being bought and paid for by the same people that bought and paid for McCain; will see the financial get worse. He has talked about reinstating the draft (which would mean DRASTIC expansion on the 'War on Terror'). The race issue will be used as a divide to bring us closer to a new civil war.

These guys are two heads of the same corrupt coin.

The ONLY way America has a chance (albeit a small one) is to bring in an independant or third party candidate... and to protect his life for long enough to bring about this REAL change.

Cause otherwise the only CHANGE offered by these two candidates is the face we see at the 'addresses to the nation'. They will both say anything to get elected; but their loyalty to the public ends there. Not to mention what's going to happen with the issues like China on the verge of 'owning' america... and Russian posturing to return us to 'cold war' status.... the next 4 years are going to be a huge challenge to everyone.

Edit : In other words; the choice is really would you prefer a d!ck that goes around f@@cking everything possible, or an a$$hole that goes around sh!tting on everything.

DivineComedy

First, the Budget and Impound Control Act of 1974 came after the Nixon surplus and completely removed the final tool of the president to directly fight to have a surplus without a successful veto or a good Congress, so the so-called "Clinton" surplus is Newt's fault.

*****

Second, the Carter era was NEGATIVE on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts, the Carter era was overshadowed by a crisis of confidence and a naive foreign policy:

American Experience | Jimmy Carter | Primary Sources

Before Carter:

"For the first time in a generation, we are not haunted by a major international crisis or by domestic turmoil, and we now have a rare and a priceless opportunity to address persistent problems and burdens which come to us as a nation, quietly and steadily getting worse over the years." (Jimmy Carter, State of the Union Address 1978) State of the Union Address 1978

After Carter:

"This last few months has not been an easy time for any of us. As we meet tonight, it has never been more clear that the state of our Union depends on the state of the world. And tonight, as throughout our own generation, freedom and peace in the world depend on the state of our Union.

The 1980's have been born in turmoil, strife, and change. This is a time of challenge to our interests and our values and it's a time that tests our wisdom and our skills.

At this time in Iran, 50 Americans are still held captive, innocent victims of terrorism and anarchy. Also at this moment, massive Soviet troops are attempting to subjugate the fiercely independent and deeply religious people of Afghanistan. These two acts--one of international terrorism and one of military aggression--present a serious challenge to the United States of America and indeed to all the nations of the world. Together, we will meet these threats to peace." (Jimmy Carter State of the Union Address 1980) State of the Union Address 1980

*****

Third, as for Clinton's foreign policy it was "Operation Desert Fox," and you can find that foreign policy referenced here:

One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq!

Now, as to the Fabian Socialist movement and the Communist one Martin Luther King (admittedly took their money) was associated with, the Obama rise is directly linked more with the Neocommie way than with the Fabian Freeway or Clinton Third Way socialism. Wiki has Obama as Third Way, and it is not backed up by his words or the commies he associates with.

*****

You said:

"many Republican voters have this premature and/or unwarranted fear that somehow Sen. Obaman's policies will take this country backwards, not forward, and that somehow one's "values" will be treaded upon. Personally, I really don't understand where this mentality is coming from. Therefore, I'm trying to wrap my mind around it, this despite all the evidence to the contrary."

There is no evidence to the contrary whatsoever, values must be tread upon if democracy demands my state and the people of the Tenth Amendment translate our concerns into universal values. Your Obamanation democracy demands the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal whore of Babylon values or one value system or party.

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values." (Barack Hussein Obama)

Democracy demands nothing; only a communist who believes in "A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY," or spreading the wealth around, would say democracy demands anything. Democracy demands every state must accept the Digambara at a little league game? Democracy does not demand the Muslim, Christian, or Jew accept the naked whore on the street corner. Just as Democracy does not demand the Libertarian state accept the redistribution of wealth.

Communist Chinese government experiments have proven than economic parity can only come from dictatorship (or a so-called Obamanation "democracy") demanding from each according to their ability to each according to their need.

The problem here is, where "universal values" and "universal change" meet:



"The Messiah is absolutely speaking"

Where Do You "See" This Country Headed?

Communist dictatorship with a "Civilian National Security Force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as our military" to keep Obama Posse Comitatus boy in power.

__________________
“[59.14] They will not fight against you in a body save in fortified towns or from behind walls; their fighting between them is severe, you may think them as one body, and their hearts are disunited; that is because they are a people who have no sense.”

Yeah, a wall and a border patrol will protect us. {sound of laughter}

Objective Voice

It's been 10-days since I started this thread and so far only 3 posters have replied: 1 clearly articulated point of view, 1 spouting rhetoric and the other completely avoiding the subject matter.

C'mon, people. The presidential election is less than 14-days away. And with all the negative views being thrown about in this forum, I'd have thought more people would have chimed in by now.

I'll continue to reserve my opinion until November 3rd (if anyone is interested in knowing what I think). Until then, I'd really like to hear from the conservatives out there WITHOUT the talking points.

Hatuey

Crackers will be lynched. Niggers will run the country. There'll be more cookouts at the White House. More cousins running through the back and cars screwed up on the drive way. The American flag with be replaced by a tricolor crescent and the new anthem will be Wu-Tang-Clan Ain't Nothing to **** with. Doom, gloom. Etc etc.

--------------------------------------------

That being said I don't think much will change if either Obama or McCain get elected. McCain is a liberal puppet and Obama is a liberal. Sarah Palin is a distraction and Joe Biden is irrelevant for the most part. Liberals win.

__________________
Is Intolerant Because He Won't Let The Intolerant Run Other People's Lives.

DivineComedy

When you put it that way my fears do sound kind of silly.

Whoever the next president is hopefully things will change for the better. Just yelling at them and screaming "socialist" will not get anything fixed.

We have had a hell of a lot higher progressive tax in the past, and it was not the end of the world, just need complexity to make sure the rich get a break for expansion that creates DOMESTIC jobs. Redistribution, and government programs paid for with higher taxes on the owners of the principle means of production, will not in itself create jobs or provide opportunity. Government programs to create jobs, that tax the rich, must do more than Jimmy Cotter Pin's CETA, it must build dams (TVA) or solar panels (not just tax credits), it must build nuclear plants, it must give power to America where the wealth helps all equally and stays here.

Give a man a redistribution handout and feed him for a day, give a man power and knowledge to build and you will feed him for a lifetime.

The cookouts do sound promising. Reminds me of Freda M. Wingard's chicken.

veganshawn

Wu Tang ain't nothing to f##k with would make a good anthem

RIP Ol Dirty!

__________________
You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it. -Malcolm X