[mkfarnam]

Originally Posted by Schousse

Um ..... I am.

It is about time that this country was dragged into the current century and had a woman and a black man as Presidential candidates.

Aside from their gender and race, I think that the Democrats put forth candidates that will make changes for the better in this country.

McCain seems to be a nice guy, but is more of the same of what we have now.

Schousse, no offense, but do you know of any accomplishments that have been made any of these 3 canidates to where that person deserve the label President of the United States?


any of the 3 Canidates will only make changes for the worse.

[karibear]

Originally Posted by okpondlady

It sounds real good till the Federal Government cuts off funding for Education, medical, transportation, ect programs. That is discounting AFDC and Welfare programs. Not that I don't think it is great.. I do. But then the US Military supplies cease trickling into the National Guard and we have to fund them ourselves... I don't think I wanna be on the billing end of any of those programs, I figure I already pay enough.

In a way, they've already done that. Cut off funding, I mean, or at least cut down on it. A lot of it now goes to states in the form of block grants, which look substantial, until one realizes that the state is responsible for redistributing those dollars to even more agencies than before. Then it's up to each agency to set it's own guidelines [within certain parameters]. Then, frequently, local independent charities such as food banks, rely on the state agencies' guidelines regarding who may or may not be qualified to receive their services. And just to make it even more interesting, federal agencies don't talk to each other, if they can possibly avoid it.

[peggydavis]

We have a better choice now than we had the last 2 elections. I think either of the candidates will be better for the US than the dingaling we have for president now.

[Goodpasture]

Originally Posted by mkfarnam

Schousse, no offense, but do you know of any accomplishments that have been made any of these 3 canidates to where that person deserve the label President of the United States?

You could have said the same about Lincoln, or Truman, or Kennedy, or Reagan. On the other hand, Johnson, Nixon and Carter all had long distinguished resumes of service to the country. And who did more damage to the country? Carter or Kennedy? Lincoln or Nixon? Johnson or Truman? Bush had a record of success as a governor of Texas, and look at the disaster he has been.

Originally Posted by mkfarnam

any of the 3 Canidates will only make changes for the worse.

If they have no record of accomplishments, how can you say that? Frankly I think it is presumptive to try to predict how a person is going to fail at a position that has no real record.

As you are aware, the President is administration....he is supposed to administer the law of the land. The courts decide whether or not laws are constitutionally compliant. And Congress makes the laws. So all a President can do is articulate a policy or position and try to persuade Congress to go along with him in a way the courts will accept. FDR ran into that problem several times.....to the point he tried to expand the number of Supremes so he could stack it. The real success of a President comes from his ability to select people who are competent to do the job they are hired to do. Clinton's success came from his hiring really good people, not from his own sterling character. Bush's failure came from hiring incompetent people, not from his own lack of character.

To date, Obama appears to have been making the best choices in people. His campaign people are probably the best this nation has ever seen. His vote on the Iraq war was right on the money. OTOH, McCain has vacillated between being an opponent of Bush to walking in lock step with Bush. Although I don't agree with several things either of them offer, and I agree with several things they both offer, I agree, in principal, with Obama more than I do with McCain.

But I am certain that any prognostication as to the quality of the next President is premature. All we can do is look at the people around the candidate, evaluate the quality of the candidates support, evaluate the consistency in their message, and support the one that appears to provide answers to issues you are concerned about.

[Annemieke Roell]

Originally Posted by mkfarnam

any of the 3 Canidates will only make changes for the worse.

Care to expand on that and share with us why you think that is?

[oz in SC]

Staying out of the political debate here, but as to the declaration by Oklahoma, this can be nothing but good.

States are meant to be separate from the federal gov't, the fed gov't is meant to actually be quite weak when it comes to internal matters of the United States.

If the PEOPLE of Oklahoma want to provide daycare to all,the PEOPLE should decide this through voting,not through unfunded mandates from a government thousands of miles away in Washington DC.

Just as the British gov't was unreponsive to the needs and desires of the colonies in the 18th century, so is the federal government today.

And it will only get worse, not because of the individual candidates running(all poor choices in my opinion) but because of what the federal government has become.

Does a bureaucrat sitting in DC really know what is best for Oklahoma?
I highly doubt it.

As to funds being witheld,well a lot of those funds are collected by the states for the federal government.....IF the Federal government wanted to try and blackmail the state into submission there could be a problem.

Not sure about y'all but I LIKE the idea of a weak federal government when it comes to deciding internal matters,the federal government really only has a few duties to perform and sadly seems to be failing at them as well.

[Annemieke Roell]

Originally Posted by oz in SC

Staying out of the political debate here, but as to the declaration by Oklahoma, this can be nothing but good.

States are meant to be separate from the federal gov't, the fed gov't is meant to actually be quite weak when it comes to internal matters of the United States.

If the PEOPLE of Oklahoma want to provide daycare to all,the PEOPLE should decide this through voting,not through unfunded mandates from a government thousands of miles away in Washington DC.

Just as the British gov't was unreponsive to the needs and desires of the colonies in the 18th century, so is the federal government today.

And it will only get worse, not because of the individual candidates running(all poor choices in my opinion) but because of what the federal government has become.

Does a bureaucrat sitting in DC really know what is best for Oklahoma?
I highly doubt it.

As to funds being witheld,well a lot of those funds are collected by the states for the federal government.....IF the Federal government wanted to try and blackmail the state into submission there could be a problem.

Not sure about y'all but I LIKE the idea of a weak federal government when it comes to deciding internal matters,the federal government really only has a few duties to perform and sadly seems to be failing at them as well.

OMG .... hadens just froze over. I agree with the Oz - by and large ....

[Goodpasture]

Originally Posted by Schousse

OMG .... hadens just froze over. I agree with the Oz - by and large ....

Little early to be drinking, isn't it?

[BillyC64]

I was enjoying the thread and then it drifted into "personal political perspective" Anyway I think it is good to see...we need to remember we are the United States not the United State. Before our civil war we referred to ourselves as "These" United States; afterwards we moreoften used the term "The" United States. Now that is all we use. I am a born and raised (now displaced) Okie so I like to keep an eye on the homeplace and I am proud when they do good things. It just so happens that I moved to a state (S. Carolina) that has been known to buck the system on occasion (Fort Sumpter) So I feel quite sure we would be happy to stand up and be counted. I'm not for any type of breakup but I do think we need alot less federal meddling

[Annemieke Roell]

Originally Posted by goodpasture

little Early To Be Drinking, Isn't It?

:d