Obama talks with his hands?

Post Reply New Topic

If Hillary is elected I am sure that the use of that word will dramatically increase.

"Experience" = brainwashed by Washington groupthink and beholden to special interests and the Military-Industrial Complex. "Experience" is a minus to me, nut a plus. Oh, and any use of his middle name while bashing him makes my BS detector go off, since such things seem to be associated with lies claiming he is a Muslim and other such smear tactics.

Hillary is the puppet. Obama doesn't have the "experience" to have been turned into a puppet by Washington Groupthink.

I have far more respect for people like Obama who worked on the grass-roots level and were reluctant to go into politics then I do for careerists like Senator Clinton who are only in it for power and personal gain

how does someone talk with thier hands? sign language perhaps? i thought thats what mouths were for, anyways ive never really understood people talking with thier hands at all

azureflames...as I stated in my post, Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are my PREFERENCES...but since neither one seems to be a candidate at this point, then I'll go with Obama...definitely not Hillary.

Since you seem to be so much for Hillary because of her 35 years of experience...Can you tell me what her plans are TODAY, not 35 years ago, and why you agree with them? I can tell you that her lousy Health Care plan, where she plans to garnish MY wages to pay for it, whether I like it or not, is NOT something I agree with.

I have yet to read a valid reason based on what she NOW wants to do from someone who supports her as to why they are voting...except the same she has "blah, blah, blah experience"...

Rynessa...since you also support Hillary, which of her policies do you currently agree with?

And about the B word...well, I'm sure that will either increase or maybe the C word will take it's place...hmmm...

I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I do see why some liberal voters would like her healthcare plans. Oh, and the vitriol and thinly-veiled sexism directed at her from certain sectors quite sensibly strikes some women (and men, actually) the wrong way. Not a great reason to vote for someone (and I did not), but those are some reasons why someone might.

I remain confused about the political knowledge and leanings of this forum's membership. Torn between Paul and Gravel? On what planet does that make even one iota of sense? And people still don't realize that the policy differences between Clinton/Obama are relatively minor. I don't understand why someone would vote for Obama over McCain, but not Clinton. I once believed that only neurotypicals could be so irrational as to base their vote on something like personality or charisma, but I now see that I was wrong.

Some people actually vote based on both policy and character...and out of all the ones out there, the two most sincere and to the point are Paul and Gravel...Some would rather vote only on policy, although they know their choice only speaks of policy, yet has a horrible record and is also a liar and a thief...ie. Hillary.

And of course you can tell absolute levels of sincerity and truthfulness with your special abilities. I personally don't think I have that power--that is, the ability to judge with absolute certainty the character of someone I've never even met. It's hard enough for me to judge some people I actually know, let alone people I don't! I know better than to expect perfect sainthood in any political candidate. I also am rather skeptical of fringe candidates who pretend to be above it all when they might not. I don't know what about Sen. Clinton makes people despise her so, but it is clearly irrational in certain individuals, and I do despise irrationality. All the more so because I doubt people would react to her like that if she were a man.

Feel free to take "character" into account if you like, but when that means you're supporting candidates on opposite ends of the political spectrum, policy clearly is not figuring into your political decisions to any significant degree. And that, IMHO, is a travesty. It's the same kind of travesty which leads people to vote for George W. Bush because they'd rather have beer with him.

She's got a laundry list of dirt on her, I wouldn't be so fast to make excuses for her. Sure, all politicians are dirty. Does that mean we should just elect Stalin for president? If anything, I'm kinda getting to that point where politics are becoming pointless, they don't really matter. It's all a lie, a sham, a con.
You say you despise irrationality, but how rational is it to make excuses for someone and pledge your undying support for someone you've even admitted you've never met, just because she is the same gender as you?

That is hardly flip-flopping. The fact that you support someone in one election does not mean you must support them in every subsequent election.

Uh...did I say that I supported her, let alone that I pledged my undying support for her? I actually voted for Obama, though I will vote for Clinton in the increasingly unlikely event that she gets the nomination. That's because I agree with her much, much more frequently than I agree with John McCain. So no, I'm not supporting someone just because she shares my gender. (Though I can understand why many women, as well as many blacks, are excited about finally getting a chance to see someone "like them" in power. Gah, why does no one ever get on the case for white males for identity politics? On a board that's so replete with "aspie" identity politics, I have a hard time understanding the scorn for pro-feminist identity politics.) I don't know all of the "dirt" on her, but I'm sure that some of it is legit and some of it isn't. What proportion is what, I couldn't begin to tell you. I'm not making "excuses" for her, I'm merely expressing my opinion that some of the vitriol directed against her is irrational. Which it is. Not everyone who expresses skepticism about right-wing propaganda (in this case, about the Clintons) necessarily suppports the candidate in question during the primary.

I am a "skeptic of right wing propaganda" too, I'm also a "skeptic of left wing propaganda". I don't have a problem with femiNISTS, I have a problem with femiNAZIS, there is a world of difference between the two.
Though I do find it troubling that people have to label themselves in so many group identities, which then leads people to restricted thoughts and behaviors, out of fear of "distancing oneself from the tribe". I don't care to try to act aspie, or white, or whatever, I prefer to be me, a unique individual.

Although I prefer Hillary to Obama, I don't dislike Obama. I would FAR prefer him to McCain, who thinks we should stay in Iraq for a hundred years.

Here are SOME of my reasons for preferring Hillary:
1 Her health care plan covers everyone.
2 I thought Bill was a great president, so eight more years of Clintons is fine with me.
3 She's a woman, I'm a woman. I think this is a perfectly legitimate reason, and if you don't that's tough.
4 Obama said he would NEVER use nukes under any circumstance. I agree with that position, but I think it's a stupid thing to tell the world. They're there for leverage; we need other countries to believe we might fire them. I believe this statement shows his inexperience, and I don't want him saying similarly naive things in office.
5 I can't stand Oprah. I fear, with all her money and influence, she may become the "power behind the throne" and that makes me puke.

(I'm trying to have a civilized discussion here. I hope any responses will be intelligent and not pointless flaming.)

Talk to the hand topic

I thought this was a discussion on gesturing, and now it seems as though it is about politicians talking out of both sides of the mouth. Shape-shifters, I guess.

Topics morph into other topics and then return to their origins!