View Full Version : Obama
Warrior-Mentor
10-23-2006, 18:55
Worth watching his Meet the Press interview from this weekend:
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&t=s53&g=e10461f7-89e1-415c-aa58-80d1b6f8066e&p=hotvideo_m_edpicks
If it doesn't work, try:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/
I'd be surprised if he did not run for POTUS in 2008...:munchin
Stay safe.
My daughter just turned 18 and Obama is the first politician in whom she's shown an interest -- ditto with several of his friends.
blowfish
10-24-2006, 12:23
I think Obama would do a better job of garnering a broader support base than Hillary, or certainly Kerry. He is articulate, intelligent, politically savvy, and is positioning himself as the new face of the Democratic Party.
While some of his points are valid – such as prioritizing the budget, and working to make government more efficient, he is generally far on the left side of the political spectrum, as shown by his voting record.
I know I will sound like a single-issue voter, but bills allowing gun makers to continue to be sued when their products are used in a crime, or to ban the sale or transfer of semi-auto weapons to civilians, both received his support.
SEN. OBAMA: I think, I think the categories we’ve been using were forged in the ‘60s. You know, I think the arguments about big government vs. small government, the arguments about, you know, the sexual revolution, military vs. nonmilitary solutions to problems. I think, in each and every instance, a lot of what we think about is shaped by the ‘60s, and partly, you know, the baby boomers is—are a big demographic. I write about the fact that, whether it’s the market for Viagra or how many cup holders are going to be in, in a car, a lot of it’s determined by what the baby boomers want. Our politics isn’t that different, and my suggestion is that—take the example of big government vs. small government. My instinct is is that the current generation is more interested in smart government. Let’s have enough government to get the job done. If, if we’re looking at problems, if the market solution works, let’s go with the market solution. If a solution requires government intervention, let’s do that. But let’s look at what are the practical outcomes. And I think that kind of politics is what the country’s hungry for right now.
He was damn impressive. I always thought it would be James Dobson, Sen. Santorum or that Asian guy in Lethal Weapon 1 who zaps Riggs with a car battery, that would make me vote for a Democrat. Obama may need to be added to my list for different reasons. I think he's off the mark on Iraq, but then again so is Tony Snow.
What did you think WM?
If I was Obama...
"I'd try and court Colin Powell.";)
Obama will wait until after the November elections before he makes a move....:munchin
Stay safe.
jfhiller
10-25-2006, 10:00
From what I've seen and heard from Obama, he's a guy who I can respect as an individual, but not vote for. His voting record does not impress me. Here are some ratings stats from newsbusters.org (http://newsbusters.org/node/8520):
Planned Parenthood 100% in 2006.
National Right to Life Committee 0% in 2005-2006.
Americans for Tax Reform 0% in 2005.
NAACP 100% in 2005.
American Conservative Union 8 percent in 2005.
Illinois Environmental Council 100% in 2003 .
Children's Defense Fund [Hillary's old beat] 100% in 2005.
National Organization For Women 100% in 2005.
NRA, 'F' in 2004.
Federation for American Immigration Reform 0% in 2005.
2005 AFL-CIO 92%.
Americans for Democratic Action [old-style liberal organization] 100% in 2005.
That's all not to mention that his sum total experience is 2 years in the US Senate (4 in 2008) and 7 years in the Illinois State Senate. He could be a formidable candidate, though. Should be interesting.
The Reaper
10-25-2006, 10:40
Plastic man, who will say and do what he needs to do to get elected.
I am no big fan of the politics of Colin Powell, but I would much rather have him than B.O.
Better yet would be Condi.
TR
Warrior-Mentor
10-25-2006, 13:02
I disagree TR. If that was true that he only says what's popular, he would have followed the zeitgeist of the lemings with the vote on Iraq. Was very unpopular to vote against Iraq at that point (before we went in). Yet he did.
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051122-moving_forward_in_iraq/index.html
Looking for more meat...but keep in mind that this was written about a year ago.
The Reaper
10-25-2006, 14:06
I disagree TR. If that was true that he only says what's popular, he would have followed the zeitgeist of the lemings with the vote on Iraq. Was very unpopular to vote against Iraq at that point (before we went in). Yet he did.
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051122-moving_forward_in_iraq/index.html
Looking for more meat...but keep in mind that this was written about a year ago.
Beg to differ.
When he voted for the War, it passed by a significant margin and was publicly popular.
TR
Roguish Lawyer
10-25-2006, 14:12
He is a commie
He is a commieArnold did the same thing in CA, look at his numbers....:lifter
Stay safe.
Beg to differ.
When he voted for the War, it passed by a significant margin and was publicly popular.
TRThis war ain't "popular" any longer...
"I'll fight it because: that's what I'm good at!"
Stay safe.
Roguish Lawyer
10-25-2006, 16:41
Arnold did the same thing in CA, look at his numbers....:lifter
Stay safe.
Osama Obama makes the Governator look like Attila the Hun.
incommin
10-25-2006, 17:17
Obama needs a few seasons yet before he could be elected. He could possibly squeeze in as second in command.
The war in Iraq isn't popular. Americans have too short a memory and tend to think we are safe. The war in Vietnam wasn't popular. We lost a lot when our government quit. Millions in SE Asia lost much more, their lives. I tend to think we will lose much if we quit in Iraq before the country is stable. And we will lose more than we lost (world trust, fear, credibility) than we lost in screwing South Vietnam.
Oh yea, I too think Obama is way too far left.
Jim
Osama Obama makes the Governator look like Attila the Hun.Look at the video again...
Obama is positioning himself for a run for POTUS or VP.
Stay safe.
Roguish Lawyer
10-25-2006, 18:05
Look at the video again...
Obama is positioning himself for a run for POTUS or VP.
Stay safe.
Can't watch it again, but I'll watch it. ;)
Can't watch it again, but I'll watch it. ;)Watch his movements...;)
His movements are disarming...take a look at Bill Clintons, you will see...:munchin
Stay safe.
Roguish Lawyer
10-25-2006, 18:38
OK, I watched it. Whatever. It would be good if he ran against Hillary -- it would make both of them "move" to the left to win the primary. But as a practical matter, Hillary already has sewn up the nomination. She's got the money and the endorsements already -- the other Dems have virtually no chance.
Plastic man, who will say and do what he needs to do to get elected.
TR
Absolutely could not agree more. I've said it before, he is more into placating anyone on any issue...I don't hear a passionate POV from him one way or another.
"Plastic man, who will say and do what he needs to do to get elected."
Sounds like every politician I know.
GreenMtnTac
10-25-2006, 19:54
OB is the Republican's secret weapon. He may be the darling of Democrats, soccer moms, and pigheads in the media, but there is no way in hell the American people would elect him. They are too smart for that.
Consider, he's done nothing and has no significant experience. No military record. Until 2004, just an unknown state senator. He's a Harvard law school graduate, and to paraphrase Wm F Buckley, I'd rather see the country run by the first 100 people listed in the Boston phone book than the entire Harvard faculty. A pretty face, kinda the Jessica Simpson of politics.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
The Reaper
10-25-2006, 20:04
OB is the Republican's secret weapon. He may be the darling of Democrats, soccer moms, and pigheads in the media, but there is no way in hell the American people would elect him. They are too smart for that.
Consider, he's done nothing and has no significant experience. No military record. Until 2004, just an unknown state senator. He's a Harvard law school graduate, and to paraphrase Wm F Buckley, I'd rather see the country run by the first 100 people listed in the Boston phone book than the entire Harvard faculty. A pretty face, kinda the Jessica Simpson of politics.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Hmm, I think back to 1992 when I heard similar words.
TR
Surf n Turf
10-25-2006, 20:58
Here are some ratings stats from newsbusters.org (http://newsbusters.org/node/8520):
[ That's all not to mention that his sum total experience is 2 years in the US Senate (4 in 2008) and 7 years in the Illinois State Senate. He could be a formidable candidate, though. Should be interesting.
jfhiller,
I have resorted your list ---
I am not sure Hillary will be the eventual nominee --- her “negatives” are in the 48% range ---
These groups MAY help him get a Democrat nomination in 2008 ---- Remember, the convention is dominated by the far left
· Planned Parenthood 100% in 2006.
· Children's Defense Fund [Hillary's old beat] 100% in 2005.
· Illinois Environmental Council 100% in 2003 .
· National Organization For Women 100% in 2005
· Americans for Democratic Action [old-style liberal organization] 100% in 2005.
· NAACP 100% in 2005.
· 2005 AFL-CIO 92%.
BUT -- These groups would stop him cold from being elected (on a National level) – where the “center” is the place to be positioned ----
· National Right to Life Committee 0% in 2005-2006.
· Americans for Tax Reform 0% in 2005.
· American Conservative Union 8 percent in 2005..
· NRA, 'F' in 2004.
· Federation for American Immigration Reform 0% in 2005.
I believe the big issues in the 2008 election will be Immigration, Terror, and Taxes.
He has two years to (re) establish himself as a “moderate” pro defense --- and will have to win over the “center” and independent voters. Additionally, the NRA has already started the fight.
SnT
Edited for clarification
NousDefionsDoc
10-25-2006, 21:16
He is a commie
+1
GreenMtnTac
10-25-2006, 21:19
Hmm, I think back to 1992 when I heard similar words.
TR
Yeah, but we underestimated just how slick Slick Willy was. Can you imagine OB debating the meaning of the word "is?" ;)
Sounds like every politician I know.
Couldn't agree more. Remember hearing "We don't do nation building" as a campaign platform seven years ago to win over the Southern-Isolationist wing of the GOP? It's just the nature of the game.
I don't hear a passionate POV from him one way or another.
Good.
"Passion" is the Air America-Fox News-ification of our political culture. "Passion" is flag-burning lefty-pinkos and Bible-thumping rightwing theocons. This "passion" is the triumph of emotion over reason, something I normally associate with the left but has been increasingly the case on the right. If anything we need more dispassion, dispassion allows us to think clearly.
Senator Obama has so far shown an impressive ability to work bipartisanly to get things done. Which is a hell of a lot more than I can say about some of his downright childish senior colleagues in the Sentate.
The Reaper
10-25-2006, 22:05
Couldn't agree more. Remember hearing "We don't do nation building" as a campaign platform seven years ago to win over the Southern-Isolationist wing of the GOP? It's just the nature of the game.
Good.
"Passion" is the Air America-Fox News-ification of our political culture. "Passion" is flag-burning lefty-pinkos and Bible-thumping rightwing theocons. This "passion" is the triumph of emotion over reason, something I normally associate with the left but has been increasingly the case on the right. If anything we need more dispassion, dispassion allows us to think clearly.
Senator Obama has so far shown an impressive ability to work bipartisanly to get things done. Which is a hell of a lot more than I can say about some of his downright childish senior colleagues in the Sentate.
Couldn't disagree more.
I live in the South, and am a conservative. Seven years ago, 9/11 was yet to come. Am I a member of the Southern-Isolationist wing of the GOP because I think that leaving an unstable Iraq or Afghanistan will breed despotic regimes and provide harbors for terrorists? Were the efforts under the previous leadership in Haiti and Bosnia more noble?
I have seen little of the religious fanatics that the left is always railing about. How many do you know? What characterizes them from people of faith? Is it just Christians that you feel exhibit inappropriate "passion"?
Obama's "bipartisan work" has proven to me that some members are willing to compromise their integrity if the money or political winds are blowing in that direction. Teaming up with Kerry or Kennedy would seem to me to be poor choices of bedfellows. He appears to believe in certain parts of the Constitution, but not the all of it. I demand a little more from the people who get my vote.
I think that B.O. would sell this country down the river in a flash for a shot at being POTUS. How many presidential elections have you participated in? How many of your friends have paid for that right? Are you willing to serve if he were elected? I like to think that with age and experience comes some deeper insight into character than I am seeing in some comments. But I could be wrong, I suppose.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
Now that is a +1...........
Guys like this are easily transparent. Just like billy the zipper was when he first appeared on the scene. Maybe it is all the decades of watchin' these schmucks. Really isn't all that tough. Just common sense and feeling and facts.
A zealot is a zealot is a zealot is a zealot. ;)
OK, I watched it. Whatever. It would be good if he ran against Hillary -- it would make both of them "move" to the left to win the primary. But as a practical matter, Hillary already has sewn up the nomination. She's got the money and the endorsements already -- the other Dems have virtually no chance.Hopefully Condi steps up...:lifter
racing_snake
10-26-2006, 08:33
Originally Posted by The Reaper
Plastic man, who will say and do what he needs to do to get elected.
The Manchurian Candidate
jfhiller
10-26-2006, 09:43
A zealot is a zealot is a zealot is a zealot. ;)
I hear that often, but I strongly disagree. The cause for which one is zealous makes a world of difference. William Wilberforce was a zealot for abolition - fought for the cause tirelessly for decades. There are significant differences in the evil zealots, too. The Fred Phelps type of zealot says and does hatefully obscene things, which nearly everyone condemns, but doesn't practice physical violence while the OSB types are zealous to spread their version of a religion through coercion and violence.
Ideas and words have consequences.
edited:
After writing, I realize this may be slightly off-topic. I don't think BO is a zealot. I could be wrong...
Couldn't disagree more.
Sir, I use the term southern-isolationist in reference to a faction in the Republican Party. The Civil War (or War of Northern Aggression) lead by Northern Republicans sent Southern Whites into the ranks of the Democratic Party for years afterward. The Civil Rights movement and GOP strategy then brought Southern Whites into the Republican Party. With the vision of Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman’s “nation building” still etched in cultural memory, this group has traditionally been skeptical of foreign intervention. The Republican Party has long had a strong isolationist movement which can be seen in Pat Buchanan’s “America First” movements in ’96 and 2000. It is no wonder then that President Bush at the time (2000) criticized the interventionist “nation building” practices of the Clinton administration, in order to carry favor with this influential voting block.
I know quite a few fanatics; I also call some of them good friends. They have a highly authoritarian view of God, in that they believe he is judgmental and highly involved in daily lives and world affairs. They tell me 9/11 happened because of homo’s getting married. They believe God actively favors the United States and that GOP stands for God’s Own Party. It is not just Christians I see this in TR, I think from Morocco to Manila the effects of fatalism has ravaged the Islamic world.
If Sen. Obama working with Sen. Coburn to pass the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S. 2590), so tax payers can see how the hell federal funds are appropriated making government at least somewhat accountable, is “compromising integrity”, then it is a virtue not a vice.
My .02, Respectfully
blowfish
10-26-2006, 11:16
tk27,
One point to consider is that the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S. 2590), to the best of my knowledge, only makes it easier to access records that were already available via other methods (such as FOIA). While it is a great idea, I think that it is touted as something more than it is. Various groups have been tracking government-spending data for years in the name of accountability. While this new tool will probably make the task of researching this data easier, in effect it provides a lot of bark and very little bite. It does nothing to change the manner in which the government spends tax dollars, but provides the sponsors of the bill with the opportunity to say that they have taken action towards making the Federal government more fiscally responsible.
That being said, I think that the key here is to focus on the worthiness of the candidate as a whole. As I stated earlier, Obama's overall voting record shows him to be on the far left when it comes to the majority of issues. He says he wants a more efficient government, but he has shown that he wants a more efficient, larger government - one with strong socialist leanings.
jfhiller
10-27-2006, 11:32
Well, regardless of what we all think, Ted Kennedy clearly has a high opinion of Sen. Obama. He likened him to a big supporter of the Dems.
Kennedy on Obama (http://www.fatboy.cc/Audio/Obama%20Bin%20Laden.mp3)
racing_snake
10-29-2006, 08:36
He is ABSOLUTELY named after the flying donkey!
Obama, left his rural Luo-speaking village and his Muslim father to become an "agnostic" and study economics abroad.
When young Obama was six, his mother married an Indonesian oil manager, a "non-practicing Muslim," and the family moved to Jakarta.
Obama was visited by and talked with his biological father. During adolescence he struggled to comprehend his mixed racial and cultural identity and experimented with marijuana and cocaine.
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511
Well, regardless of what we all think, Ted Kennedy clearly has a high opinion of Sen. Obama. He likened him to a big supporter of the Dems.
Kennedy on Obama (http://www.fatboy.cc/Audio/Obama%20Bin%20Laden.mp3)
Oops, no more cocktails for him. :rolleyes: :D
Obama was visited by and talked with his biological father. During adolescence he struggled to comprehend his mixed racial and cultural identity and experimented with marijuana and cocaine.
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511Get ready for Obama...
"I'll walk the racial divide, until I get elected into something or somewhat; then I'll show my true colors...Jesse Jackson" LMMFAO!:eek: :D
Stay safe.
My .02
Obama bin Illini will throw his hat into the ring for POTUS.
Hillary won't like it. It takes away the Lime Light from her. But what she doesn't know is, she'll be the media darling in NH and Iowa, but come Super Tuesday, she'll get her A** handed to her and she'll find out she's not as popular as her Ego thinks she is.
Obama bin Illini will get the dem Nod.
He'll loose and loose big time.
Again...my .02
I predict Hilary for president w/ Obama as her VP.
Just a guess... but who knows who will come out of the woodwork in the next couple years.
Will be interesting to see what the republicans come up with to be competitive.
The Reaper
10-31-2006, 09:09
Does anyone else think that losing the House and exposing the country to two years of efforts by the Dems to impose their liberal agendas might make it easier to defeat their Presidential candidates in 2008?
If the Republicans hold their majority, then they will continue to get the blame (much of it well-deserved) for abandoning their conservative, deficit-controlling, small government positions for earmarks and special interests.
A win by the Dems will not only expose their true agenda, but will set up some nasty internal knife-fights between the liberal anti-war, anti-Bush, far-left Democratic whackos, and the conservative Dems who would appear to be running as DINOs (Democrats In Name Only).
IMHO. that would make it more difficult to win the Presidential election than if the Republicans retain control and receive two more years of yellow journalism by the media.
As long as the Republicans hold the Senate (where they are actually more useless and liberal) to block idiotic legislation and to confirm conservative judges, I am not overly worried about 2008.
Thoughts?:munchin
TR
Roguish Lawyer
10-31-2006, 11:09
As it stands right now, I don't see us winning in 2008 no matter what happens. Who are our potential candidates, anyway? I am not aware of any viable ones. (And please don't start with the Condi Rice thing -- she is not even close to viable.)
The Reaper
10-31-2006, 11:21
As it stands right now, I don't see us winning in 2008 no matter what happens. Who are our potential candidates, anyway? I am not aware of any viable ones. (And please don't start with the Condi Rice thing -- she is not even close to viable.)
Yeah, and in 1990, who knew who Bill Clinton was.:rolleyes:
I disagree completely on Condi. If she were to choose to run, and with the right partner, she could be a juggernaut. She also could hold up either half of a McCain or Giuliani ticket, and provide them some much needed conservative creds.
Frankly, I do not think that Hillary or Osama Obama will be winning candidates. Hillary's negatives are too high and Obama's admittedly limited record is not going to withstand too much scrutiny.
You need to stop being a defeatist and look for ways to win, Counsel. Don't let your USC problems make you a hater.
TR
As it stands right now, I don't see us winning in 2008 no matter what happens. Who are our potential candidates, anyway? I am not aware of any viable ones. (And please don't start with the Condi Rice thing -- she is not even close to viable.)I've been thinking the same thing, even though I'm a registered "Independent.":lifter
I thought about what GackMan said....I predict Hilary for president w/ Obama as her VP.
Just a guess... but who knows who will come out of the woodwork in the next couple years.
Will be interesting to see what the republicans come up with to be competitive.The states that Hilary can't win, in comes Obama.
Add this in also...If they can get Colin Powell on-board to replace Condi early on in the race......:munchin
Stay safe.
Roguish Lawyer
10-31-2006, 11:31
Yeah, and in 1990, who knew who Bill Clinton was.:rolleyes:
I disagree completely on Condi. If she were to choose to run, and with the right partner, she could be a juggernaut. She also could hold up either half of a McCain or Giuliani ticket, and provide them some much needed conservative creds.
Frankly, I do not think that Hillary or Osama Obama will be winning candidates. Hillary's negatives are too high and Obama's admittedly limited record is not going to withstand too much scrutiny.
You need to stop being a defeatist and look for ways to win, Counsel. Don't let your USC problems make you a hater.
TR
ROTFLMAO!
The fact that someone would be a great President does not make them a viable candidate. How much cash does Condi have in the bank right now? I suspect none. She has no experience as a candidate, and I put her chances of winning the GOP nomination (remember you have to do that before you get to run in the general) at just slightly above zero.
Hillary will be a very formidable candidate -- she has the money, she has about a billion political chits to call in, and she almost certainly will be the Democratic nominee. No one should underestimate her -- she is a formidable opponent and we need a candidate with similar political abilities if we want to stop her.
I asked who is a viable candidate because I am looking for ways to win. Are there any viable candidates out there? Still haven't heard any decent suggestions. No offense, I like Condi Rice, but she is not viable. And I am surprised to hear you talking about Giuliani and McCain -- didn't you say you'd stay home rather than vote for a RINO?
:munchin
ROTFLMAO!
The fact that someone would be a great President does not make them a viable candidate. How much cash does Condi have in the bank right now? I suspect none. She has no experience as a candidate, and I put her chances of winning the GOP nomination (remember you have to do that before you get to run in the general) at just slightly above zero.
Hillary will be a very formidable candidate -- she has the money, she has about a billion political chits to call in, and she almost certainly will be the Democratic nominee. No one should underestimate her -- she is a formidable opponent and we need a candidate with similar political abilities if we want to stop her.
I asked who is a viable candidate because I am looking for ways to win. Are there any viable candidates out there? Still haven't heard any decent suggestions. No offense, I like Condi Rice, but she is not viable. And I am surprised to hear you talking about Giuliani and McCain -- didn't you say you'd stay home rather than vote for a RINO?
:munchinI damn sure don't believe this...
Three-day Bill Clinton birthday bash raises money for foundation Tickets to the three-day affair started at $60,000, with a VIP package - which includes special seating at the concert and dinner and a photo with Clinton - running $500,000.
Full Story (http://www.examiner.com/a-366571~Three_day_Bill_Clinton_birthday_bash_raises _money_for_foundation.html) Reminds me of that old saying..."Money talks and BS walks.":eek:
Stay safe.
I disagree completely on Condi. If she were to choose to run, and with the right partner, she could be a juggernaut. She also could hold up either half of a McCain or Giuliani ticket, and provide them some much needed conservative creds.
I think a McCain/Condi ticket would be very electable... McCain the maverick with military credentials from the SW paired with a brilliant female minority from the south. They could take a lot of votes from the single race/sex motivated voters.
but I doubt that pair could survive the republican primaries unless they ran far to the right.
Surf n Turf
10-31-2006, 22:18
Does anyone else think that losing the House and exposing the country to two years of efforts by the Dems to impose their liberal agendas might make it easier to defeat their Presidential candidates in 2008?
If the Republicans hold their majority, then they will continue to get the blame (much of it well-deserved) for abandoning their conservative, deficit-controlling, small government positions for earmarks and special interests.
A win by the Dems will not only expose their true agenda, but will set up some nasty internal knife-fights between the liberal anti-war, anti-Bush, far-left Democratic whackos, and the conservative Dems who would appear to be running as DINOs (Democrats In Name Only).
As long as the Republicans hold the Senate (where they are actually more useless and liberal) to block idiotic legislation and to confirm conservative judges, I am not overly worried about 2008.
Thoughts? TR
TR,
Agree with most --- Discovering who the DEMS really are could make 2008 a big win for the Republicans --- and maybe a loss (of the house) in 2006 would send a message about our irritation with "deficit-controlling, small government positions for earmarks and special interests"
As long as they can keep the Senate, I don't see a big problem
Not sure that McCain / Giuliani can win the Republican primary -- They better get a viable candidate quickly
SnT
Thing is that Senators do not win Presidential elections (JFK was the last to do so), the caucuses, strategists and primary voters all take this into consideration. In this regard Obama’s inexperience in the Senate could be asset instead of a liability. Governors win, there will a strong push to run a governor for both parties. For the dems: Mike Easley(NC), Phil Bredesen(TN), Tom Vilsack(IA), and Bill Richardson(NM), GOP: Romney(MA), Pataki(NY), Huckabee(ARK) and Tommy Thompson (former WI).
My .02: Long term were looking at a turd-sandwich no matter who wins (debt, oil dependency, crises of confidence in govt, religious extremism, etc), and to turn things around everyone is going to have to take a huge bite of it. Only a cult of personality President of the JFK / Reagan cut will be able to hold things together. I think Barack Obama could fill this role.
The Reaper
11-01-2006, 08:28
I do not think America would survive his presidency.
If it did, it would be a testament to the balancing act of the Legislative and Judicial branches that the Founding Fathers designed. Too liberal, and too inexperienced, IMHO.
TR
CoLawman
11-01-2006, 14:31
My .02: Long term were looking at a turd-sandwich no matter who wins (debt, oil dependency, crises of confidence in govt, religious extremism, etc), and to turn things around everyone is going to have to take a huge bite of it. Only a cult of personality President of the JFK / Reagan cut will be able to hold things together. I think Barack Obama could fill this role.[/QUOTE]
tk:
You continue to impress with your eloquent writing. This leads me to believe that you have researched Barrack's stances on major issues. I was wondering if you agree with his stances and if not, then why would you consider him a viable candidate to "fill this role"?
Supports Affirmative Action.
Supports Abortion Rights.
Supports continued extension of medical benefits to Illegal Aliens.
Supports a Guest Worker Program
Voted No on extending the Bush Tax Cuts
Voted No on repealing death tax.
Against the Death Penalty
Voted for the barring of drilling in the ANWR (Alaska Drilling)
Proposed a Nationwide Health Plan to cover all children.
Voted No against extending the Patriot Act, until modifications were made.
Voted No on Alito confirmation
Voted No on Roberts confirmation
tk27,
I am begining to think that you are at the very least just left of center and Liberal if not a full blown member of the "apeasement left". America is not ready for Obama right now (and I am very happy about it too!). I live in a state that is technically "blue" but I can tell you that we are "red" in the suburbs and rural areas. We, with the exception of maybe Cleveland, would not vote for him. His apperance and excecution of demeanor to me reminds me of someone like Malcom X or Farrakhan(sp?) and that is truely a "turn-off". I am a memeber of the Independant party, but vote Replublican most of the time because they stand for the same things that I do.
I am:
Christian (strong Bible base and belief!)
Pro Second Admendment
Anti-Abortion
Anti-Homosexual
For SMALLER government
Lesser taxes
and...
very pro military (not a vet either!)
Therefore, I also know of people who are so far left that they almost believe that what has been considered traditionally and morally right, wrong and they rationalize it in ways that defies common sense. I will vote for a person that is passionate about something before I will someone who would rather rationalize a position and/or a belief.
I am curious to know. Where the Clinton years the best years for you and your family so far?
Just my $.02
CoLawman
11-01-2006, 20:14
[QUOTE=MAB32]tk27,
His apperance and excecution of demeanor to me reminds me of someone like Malcom X or Farrakhan(sp?) and that is truely a "turn-off".
Or maybe it is a bit more than a semblance.
As I imagined myself following Malcolm X's call, one line in his book stayed me. He spoke of his wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged. I knew that, for Malcolm, that wish would never be incidental. I knew as well that traveling down the road to self-respect my own white blood would never recede into mere abstraction. I was left to wonder what else I would be severing if and when I left my mother at some uncharted border.
Source: Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p. 80 Aug 1, 1996
I am curious to know. Where the Clinton years the best years for you and your family so far?
:munchin
tk,
While Obama was a State Senator in Illinois he voted against the following, which to me indicates that his thinking is closely aligned with the ACLU;
Voted Against allowing homeowners to defend themselves against Intruders.
Voted Against the death penalty for Gang Members who kill police officers.
Voted Against legislation allowing police to conduct "no knock" search warrants on fortified drug houses.
Oh Yeah, he is a proponent for sex education starting in Kindergarten.
Your statement about his filling the need might be appropriate in Berkeley, San Francisco, and Taxachussetts, but not in my neighborhood. He might fill the need if you want to reverse the Dow continually moving to record highs, or allow him to reverse the current burgeoning tax receipts because of federal tax receipts. Or maybe we need him to fix the unemployment rate that is around 4%. Or maybe he could do something about home mortgage rates at 6.25 or attack the rising interest being paid on CD accounts at 5.5% Perhaps he could undue the freedom newly enjoyed by millions of people as a result of President Bush. Certainly he could handcuff our intelligence system by undoing the Patriot Act or FISA. We need someone of his ilk to buttress Row v. Wade with far left appointments to the Supreme Court. Now there is one issue he really fills the need. Gun Ownership!
:rolleyes:
I was wondering if you agree with his stances
No not all, some sure.
I voted for and worked on George Bush’s campaign, did I agree with all his stances? No not at all, I disagree with a lot of them. Why did I do it? I believed at the time that he was the lesser of two evils, the least bad option, and the better man. Is the lesser of two evils still evil? Sure, if that helps you sleep better, personally I think it is hogwash. Evil is a subjective term, accordingly President Truman’s dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be considered evil or not evil. For me it doesn’t matter, I would still make the same decision he did. Its pragmatism, something the GOP used to stand for. This of course was before the faction that never learned how to balance a checkbook, because they were too busy touting their own moral superiority like a San Francisco progressive, took over.
then why would you consider him a viable candidate to "fill this role"?
I largely agree with Fukuyama’s End of History theory, so I really don't have many fears of Communism coming back.
It is not that I love Obama’s stances. It is a matter of pragmatism. Politicians are not a panacea, if anything they are a part of the problem. The guy is a cult of personality, him in office offers the possibility of at least a second or two of our country not bickering amongst itself like little children. This opening buys time for apolitical professionals to get this country back on track so we don’t:
a. Become owned by the Chinese
b. Stay addicted to oil
c. Destroy ourselves
d. All the above (they are all kind of interconnected)
JFK and Reagan’s success was a result of their cult of personality, people liked them, they were not overly divisive, and this let the people around them work. It allowed largely apolitical smart professionals room to operate.
I am begining to think that you are at the very least just left of center and Liberal if not a full blown member of the "apeasement left".
I'm glad our country's political discourse has retarded into a bipolarity of stereotypes. Funny I've spent the last the last five years being called a warmonger. I think war should and is being fought for oil, yep, Jim Baker and I, huge libs! Guess I'll have to cancel my subscription to The National Interest.
I live in a state that is technically "blue" but I can tell you that we are "red" in the suburbs and rural areas. We, with the exception of maybe Cleveland, would not vote for him. His apperance and excecution of demeanor to me reminds me of someone like Malcom X or Farrakhan(sp?) and that is truely a "turn-off". I am a memeber of the Independant party, but vote Replublican most of the time because they stand for the same things that I do.
I've lived in "purple states" too: Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and born in Illinois. Also lived in solid red Kansas, solid blue Rhode Island, and pink Belgium and France. Moved around alot growing up, still wouldn't count any of these places voting for or against w/o looking at polling data. Malcolm X is a hero of mine, Farrakhan is an oxygen thief. Obama's dad was an African immigrant, a group often at odds with the black community, he was a mutt, the guy made his own way.
I am:
Christian (strong Bible base and belief!)
Good, I'm not, I dont care what you are, nobody does or should. But keep letting Jerry Falwell tell you different, and make sure your check clears.
Pro Second Admendment
So am I. The dems have largely dropped gun control because it is dumb and a political loser. Keep letting the NRA tell you otherwise, and definitely make sure the check clears this month my resume is going there this month.
Anti-Abortion
Don't have one then.
Anti-Homosexual
I like chicks too. I have little desire to go around converting them. Hell, those gay guys are clean, stylish, and on average wealthier than straight dudes. Frankly I hope they stay gay, don't need that kind of competition.
For SMALLER government
Couldn't agree more
Lesser taxes
Aren't we all. Funny, I just dont see how we can go around converting all these gun-snatching, Godless, Gay, baby-killers without raising taxes and expanding government. I know, we can pray! Inshallah!
and...
very pro military (not a vet either!)
Me too. Kind of an ambiguous term. Are you the "retain the human capital we have in the armed forces" pro military, or the "cut troop levels and buy sleek new quarter billion dollar f-22's so we can dream about war with the Chinese, I mean hell their paying for em anyway", pro-military?
How about this, we admit that like life, politics is very complex, good answers do not fit onto bumper stickers, and what sits between our ears is whats going to get us through.
Respectfully
Peregrino
11-01-2006, 23:08
How about this, we admit that like life, politics is very complex, good answers do not fit onto bumper stickers, and what sits between our ears is whats going to get us through.
Respectfully
Nice summation. Sad to say, I'm still not enthused about letting the left get control of the machinery of government. And Obama is pretty far left. If he (or anyone like him - e.g. "Shrillery") were to run and be elected I don't see the left wasting their opportunity the way the right has squandered the last six years. Nor do I view the "apolitical professionals" you seem to be counting on to "fix" things in a positive light. From my perspective extra-Constitutional bureaucrats are a significant part of the problems we face as a nation. Cult of personality or not, "play nice together" is no longer the order of the day. IMNSHO the only thing keeping the train on the tracks is inertia. God help this country when that isn't enough any more. My .02 - Peregrino
NousDefionsDoc
11-02-2006, 06:49
Does anybody else here think McCain is helping Shrillary because he knows he can't win? I think he will be Shrillary's SECSTATE.
The Reaper
11-02-2006, 09:20
Does anybody else here think McCain is helping Shrillary because he knows he can't win? I think he will be Shrillary's SECSTATE.
For some reason, I think that he sees Hillary as a friend, or at least a colleague he can work with. He offered her up to the SOWF as a guest speaker when he couldn't make it. No disrespect to a great American, but you would think that he would have to be a better judge of character than that to have gotten as far as he has.
For the life of me, I fail to see why a sitting US Senator, particularly a senior one with national ambitions, would give up a solid seat in the Senate to take at best, a 4-8 year job in the Cabinet.
tk, I think that you write well, but are not seeing the wolf in sheeps' clothing. With a limited number of years under your belt, you may be blinded somewhat by your youth and lack of exposure to Democratic politics. Since there appears to be no way to convince you otherwise, if you are as openminded as you profess to be, we can let history be the judge. I would predict that if the Dems retake any part of government, you will see a resurgence of higher taxes, gun control, pro-abortion legislation, entitlement programs, pro-illegal immigration, anti-military policies, fleeing from the GWOT, affirmative-action, UN-world government movement, meaningless talks with the Iranians and NKs while they further develop WMDs and delivery systems, etc. The Dems can't help it. The wing of their party which is seeking power is on the far-left, and they will play to that constituency. Obama would be holding signing ceremonies in the Rose Garden for all of those above pieces of legislation.
I do not know why you have this particular phobia for Christians, but you need to quit articulating it here. Your consistent portrayal of Christians as some sort of mindless reactionaries is unfair and inflammatory. I am not a follower of any of the alleged Christian spokesmen, yet consider myself a conservative and a Christian.
Malcolm X was a thug, a criminal, an addict, and a revolutionary Marxist who advocated the violent overthrow of the US government. Hardly the sort that I would call a hero, but since I am advocating tolerance here, have at it.
Good luck.
TR
tk27,
Your assumptions on who I follow/believe/worship is interesting to say the least, but untrue. I believe that based on what you have said, you are a liberal and do believe in appeasement instead of leaving all your options open. I am also curious to see what you'd call yourself in a political sense and who you feel was or is your idea of a "great" President?
Obama is a dangerous man and any other office that he may hold, higher than what he holds now, would be a threat to national security, the Constitution, and to our way of life here in Free America.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Clinton assist us in our "dependency" on the Chinese?
I also believe that TR hit the nail on the head. You are are not seeing the "wolf in sheep's clothes". This could be one of three reasons I believe:
1) Because you don't want to see it
2) Deny it exists
3) You are one yourself
Which is it?
My pro-military stance means this:
1) Give them what they need to get the job done
2) Take care of them and their immediate families
3) Stay behind them (i.e., no cut-and-run policy)
Politics is simple, you and other people who share your beliefs choose to make it hard.
CoLawman
11-02-2006, 13:34
Malcolm X is a hero of mine, ..... Obama's dad was an African immigrant, a group often at odds with the black community, he was a mutt, the guy made his own way.
tk, if Malcolm X was a hero of yours then where do you stand on Che Guevara?
I take your use of the pejorative term "mutt" personal when applying it toward someone who is racially mixed.
Don't have one then. RE: response to abortion.
Aren't we all. Funny, I just dont see how we can go around converting all these gun-snatching, Godless, Gay, baby-killers without raising taxes and expanding government. I know, we can pray! Inshallah!
Me too. Kind of an ambiguous term. Are you the "retain the human capital we have in the armed forces" pro military, or the "cut troop levels and buy sleek new quarter billion dollar f-22's so we can dream about war with the Chinese, I mean hell their paying for em anyway", pro-military?
Your comments, though articulate, seem superficial or contradictory. I guess that would meet the definition of Glib.
There is nothing wrong with being a Democrat! Some of my best friends are! The fault lies with being a wolf with a lambs wool coat!
Peregrino
11-02-2006, 14:14
Alright Guys - Play nice or don't play! Civilized discourse demands mutual respect and this thread is starting to "lose the bubble". Peregrino
And away we go...
Obama, McCain hit the hustings two years early
Two contenders crisscross the country, stumping for the party faithful (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15530334/)
Stay safe.
x SF med
11-02-2006, 16:12
Alright Guys - Play nice or don't play! Civilized discourse demands mutual respect and this thread is starting to "lose the bubble". Peregrino
+1
This is a discussion of candidates, not a bashing session among the frequenters of the site.
I personally do not care who on this site: is or is not a Christian; pro or anti- abortion; homophobic or homo-neutral; or other irrelevant issues that are personal - I will concede that most (all?) of the frequenters of this site are military-friendly (at a minimum).
Lets follow Peregrino's advice and not piss in the sandbox during recess.
Oh, yeah I've not posted here until now because I don't know enough about Obama, and don't feel like Dem-bashing.
Roguish Lawyer
11-02-2006, 16:20
I personally do not care who on this site: is or is not . . . homophobic or homo-neutral.
Homophile? :eek: :D
TR's Post
My grandfather’s democratic party was not the same as my parents generation democratic party (Ma-Pa TK aren’t Dems), and the Dems in my lifetime will be different from them. The world is not static; I can say this with limited experience by looking at history. Observe, Orient, Decide, Act, right?
I apologize if my remarks about Christians were inflammatory. My trouble is that people of faith are to be secure in their beliefs, this is not aimed at you Sir, but religious organizations that have become powerful lobbies is this country. No amount of threats real or perceived should hinder a person’s individual faith if they are of strong will. Organizations need money, power, and influence to survive; it’s not a diabolical plot, just how things go. Just like with my hawkish small-government conservatism I see hawkish secularism as essential to protecting personal freedom. Christians and objectivists got along great killing communists, that threat is gone now-did a great job, times change.
Malcolm X certainly was a thug and drug user at one point in his life. I can’t help but not respect the man for fighting fiercely to be his own man, to not be a slave to the system. And abso-freakingly-lutely the system keeps black people slaves albeit not directly in bondage. My own Grandfather who worked for the bureau under J. Edgar Hoover targeted the guy under COINTELPRO. Up until welfare reform in the 90’s, the system kept the black population in this country helpless and dependent for years, mandatory minimum sentencing to this day inadvertently keeps the community in chains. Malcolm X was no saint, but I can’t help but not appreciate a man who doesn’t bend over for anyone. I keep a running list of quotes I pick up, here are the ones from him that stand out the most to me:
- "It doesn't mean that I advocate violence, but at the same time, I am not against using violence in self-defense. I don't call it violence when it's self-defense, I call it intelligence."
- "I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don't believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn't want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn't know how to return the treatment."
- "History is a people's memory, and without a memory, man is demoted to the lower animals."
- When asked: "Do you consider yourself militant?" "I consider myself Malcolm!"
It is through this perspective that I admire the man.
Your assumptions on who I follow/believe/worship is interesting to say the least, but untrue. I believe that based on what you have said, you are a liberal and do believe in appeasement instead of leaving all your options open. I am also curious to see what you'd call yourself in a political sense and who you feel was or is your idea of a "great" President?
- I advocate a foreign policy that involves killing people and/or having other peoples fight each other to secure our nations life blood (oil). At the same time I advocate finding alternatives to oil because AQ is a direct result of our policy that secures our oil. I see nation-building and spreading democracy as a tactic or strategy, not a purpose. If our efforts only unite factions against, change direction; pit them against each other in order to secure said oil. This is callous and heartless, but perfect options do not exist. You are right I am a huge appeasing lib!
- I would call myself a libertarian-conservative. In the foreign policy realm I am a realist.
- My favorite President’s are: Jefferson, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, J. Carter (He was a horrible President except for one thing: Wear a freaking sweater! Dependency make us insecure), Bush 41. As far as candidates that lost: Barry Goldwater.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Clinton assist us in our "dependency" on the Chinese?
No, we can thank President Reagan for that. He didn’t intend for it to happen, it just kind of evolves that way.
Taxes cuts + Increased Spending = Debt = Discount on Government
A discount on government means buying more of it, this means increased government and debt. The Chinese buy our debt, because our spending buys force, our force protects market and energy flows that allow the Chinese to make money. The system has worked so far, but I don’t like the implications of it.
My reasoning is largely a synthesis from Tom Barnett and William Niskanen’s work.
I also believe that TR hit the nail on the head. You are are not seeing the "wolf in sheep's clothes". This could be one of three reasons I believe:
1) Because you don't want to see it
2) Deny it exists
3) You are one yourself
Which is it?
1.) Is that what the Senator dressed up as for Halloween?
2.) Deny that liberals exist? They do indeed exist, are they the enemy? We kill or contain the enemy, not sit down and negotiate tax legislation with them. Liberals may be political opponents, but there is no need to de-humanize them by calling them the enemy, lets save that for the people who we make dead.
3.) Yep, I am a huge pink wolf that’s wants to kill foreigners for oil, while decreasing our need to do so.
TR’s perception is just that, TR’s perception, and perception is different for everyone. This is not to say TR’s perception is not sharper then most, it is, but rather to say his perception is shaped by his experiences and background. My experiences and background provide a hindsight view of the Cold War, the divisions of the left are visible, I can see the errors in our intelligence analysis. His perceptions might be different because they were shaped by a “I am too busy kicking their ass, to see the divisions” perception. So really I cannot answer 1,2, or 3.
My pro-military stance means this:
1) Give them what they need to get the job done
2) Take care of them and their immediate families
3) Stay behind them (i.e., no cut-and-run policy)
1. This is subjective, a grunt may need new socks and some Copenhagen, an Air Force General who has a six-figure gig lined up with Lockheed when he retires next month may say he needs an air wing of new f-22’s. How do you distinguish?
2. Absolutely
3. The military executes policy, politicians make it. It’s wrong to take anger against policy out on our troops like those oxygen-thieves did during Vietnam. If it’s a bad policy that’s the politicians fault not the troops. So I don’t see how adhering to bad policy supports them. If during the Vietnam War I disagreed with the Westmorelandization of the country, instead advocating an Unconventional Warfare approach, would I still be standing behind them?
I can offer a handshake and a beer when they get back no matter what. That’s apolitical.
Politics is simple, you and other people who share your beliefs choose to make it hard.
I’ll have to debate this with Bill O’Reilly when I see him in hell.
I take your use of the pejorative term "mutt" personal when applying it toward someone who is racially mixed.
Yes, because all of us are racially mixed somehow, we are all mutts. America is particularly a nation of mutts, I quote the cinematic classic Stripes:
John Winger: We're all very different people. We're not Watusi, we're not Spartans, we're Americans. With a capital "A", huh? And you know what that means? Do you? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts.
I have a big interest in the history of the Mongol Empire. I think a lot can be learned from them, particularly when it comes to racial and ethnic relations. The great Khan was a liberal of his day.
Your comments, though articulate, seem superficial or contradictory.
Thank you Sir, I have always wanted to be a political pundit.
Respectfully
Pergrino & x_sf_med,
I thought we were having a "spirited" debate?:p
CoLawman
11-02-2006, 16:36
Thank you Sir, I have always wanted to be a political pundit.
Respectfully
You are welcome Sir.:)
x SF med
11-02-2006, 17:53
Homophile? :eek: :D
Nope - just homo innured - lived in NY too long, they don't mess with me, I don't mess with them. You're the one that lives in the land of fruits, nuts and fairies...:confused:
x SF med
11-02-2006, 17:58
Pergrino & x_sf_med,
I thought we were having a "spirited" debate?:p
Spirited debate is fine - baiting based on personal beliefs is verboten - leave the debate to the issues, arguments ad hominem prove one's inability to form a cogent rebuttal to the facts, by attacking one's opponent's character based on his/her beliefs on areas not bound by the isses at hand.
Be as spirited as you like, just don't piss on the leg of the person on the other side of the debate.
x_sf_med,
Mine was a harmless debate and it evidentally looks like it was your leg that had the leak taken on. If you have a problem with the way I spoke up PM me and we can discuss it off forum. My apoligies to everybody else that I may have offended with my beliefs.
x SF med
11-02-2006, 19:03
Mab-
Mine was a general comment, as was Peregrino's - we saw the debate turning and just put up guide rails to keep the cars on the track. But, in response to the 'having my leg pissed on' comment - it was, the forum rules clearly state that personal attacks are verboten, as a QP I felt that the rules needed to be restated, before the big dogs came into the game and shut the thread down. Think of it as a Civic Action mission.
I have no issues with anybody's beliefs, or with humorous personal jabs (see RL's kick at my shins above, and my response). I also would have said nothing different in a PM than in this open forum, had I had an issue with just your comments - all needed to have a little 'reinforcement' before the debate went way too far off track.
No issues, no problems on my end, no regrets for the posting either.
OK, no foul or harm here either. Also, no regrets. However, I am still curious and will leave it at that.
Politically, I'm registered as a Democrat because my parents were Democrats--the party of FDR. However, the Democrats of the central valleys of Northern California were for paying their bills, keeping their word, believing in and supporting this nation, and helping those in need...but only for a short period of time until they got back up and got back into the game of "earning" a living. The party has changed and today I refer to "yellow-dog" Democrats as "Dims" and vote across party lines for the candidate I think will do the best job. IOW, I'm not quite sure what I am today (other than fairly conservative) and who I'll vote for in the next national elections. However, after everything I've read--and after his commencement speech at Knox College last year and Oprah appearance--I don't think Obama is ready for the job of POTUS and sure wish Colin Powell would run.
Peregrino
11-02-2006, 22:19
Mab-
Mine was a general comment, as was Peregrino's - we saw the debate turning and just put up guide rails to keep the cars on the track. But, in response to the 'having my leg pissed on' comment - it was, the forum rules clearly state that personal attacks are verboten, as a QP I felt that the rules needed to be restated, before the big dogs came into the game and shut the thread down. Think of it as a Civic Action mission.
I have no issues with anybody's beliefs, or with humorous personal jabs (see RL's kick at my shins above, and my response). I also would have said nothing different in a PM than in this open forum, had I had an issue with just your comments - all needed to have a little 'reinforcement' before the debate went way too far off track.
No issues, no problems on my end, no regrets for the posting either.
Thanks, you saved me a bunch of writing. And I really hate writing. Almost as much as I hate refereeing. Peregrino
Radar Rider
11-03-2006, 06:03
I do not think America would survive his presidency.
If it did, it would be a testament to the balancing act of the Legislative and Judicial branches that the Founding Fathers designed. Too liberal, and too inexperienced, IMHO.
TR
Sir, I believe what you stated also applies to our very recent history. The late 20th Century saw the same situation; while American diplomacy and prestige went downhill, the checks and balances of the system at least kept us above water. Fortunately, the country survived. What happens next remains to be seen - the appeasement of North Korea during that administration is one of the challenges that we are stuck with now. The world is more dangerous now, because it was more important for the Chief Executive at that time to satisfy his libido and his desire to play golf.
At any rate, I don't think Osama Obama (to quote the drunkard Ted Kennedy) will be electable; hopefully, if he does run, he and hellary will tear each other apart.
That all being said, and I've said it before, I'd be quite pleased if Condoleeza Rice would run. I DO think that she could win, regardless of her race and gender. Of course, the next couple of years will be nebulous; were Condi to declare her candidacy, though, I'd feel very optomistic about the future of our country.
x SF med
11-03-2006, 07:34
Thanks, you saved me a bunch of writing. And I really hate writing. Almost as much as I hate refereeing. Peregrino
No Prob brother - we all do what we can, I work, write, referee, sail and drink a couple of beers occasionally - the latter two are the most enjoyable.