Obama will be the next president..

Mental Block

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Who do you think is going to actually publish that type of information due to it's content?

Controversy actually sells quite well, you know. Either way, it still doesn't make him credible. YOU were the one who used his book as proof of reliability, all I did was say any bugger could've done it, which is true.

Don't disqualify yourself before actual thought occurs.

What?

You can remain in the dark. It matter's not to me. I can't reiterate the history of the earth for you which is what seems to be required at this point.

No, i just want you to give me a reason for searching around looking for responses and counterarguments. I've argued with people like you before, and typically even if i find answers to the things in the video the next step is another video by someone different, who i then have to disprove. Asking for some outright positions to study is NOT trying to remain in the dark, but answering every video on youtube is something i'm not prepared to waste time doing, so stop getting dramatic.

The facts mentioned in that video speak for themselves and are not even under dispute. That's the funny part.

No fact speaks for itself, you're using meaningless terms again. You're expecting me to believe something just because both you and someone on youtube said it. Do you understand why i can't work on that principle?

Sometimes you just have to admit you don't know as much as other people and admit when you're wrong.

Resorting to arrogance instead of giving me something concrete to work on and discuss is not helping your case. I'm still willing to discuss things. Just because YOU hold this man in high regard doesn't mean I should.

Mental Block

Okay, you know what? I'll critique it to a point, as a sign of good faith. I'm not going to spend ages looking for minor things but i will try to search for the more major point if i find them misleading. However, i'm not going to just be linked to another video after this. You have to answer my points yourself, in argument, with some degree of sourced work.

Remember that i don't have to accept the narrative of the video as well as fact checking outright. Facts can be manipulated, and i'll explain where i think that's happening if i encounter it.

I'll post the rest of it here in this post when i'm done, but i'm putting this here first because it'll take a while. This way you know my intentions and can be ready to debate.

Note that i'm not agreeing to take this guy (or similar others) as an accredited source - from here on in i'll need more substantive information.

Fair enough?




Point one

Basic, easily fact-checked error: 10-12 seconds in, he states both Paul and Obama voted against the Iraq war. Obama wasn't a Senator when the Iraq war was authorised, he couldn't have voted against it.

sub-point one

Here's where i need sources: 20-22 seconds in, he mentions Obama supporting a resolution that supported the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. I checked his voting record on foreign aid and policy here http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490&type=category&category=32&go.x=13&go.y=9 and found nothing relating to it. I checked his full voting record at http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/page6/ at the time the conflict was escalating and occuring, and didn't see anything.

Does he mean he merely spoke out for it? To what extent and when? What does "support" mean? You see why i asked for sources now? I'm not saying he did or he didn't, but it's a part of his argument which needs to be sourced.


point two

Between 30-50 seconds i think.
The mention of AIPAC seems to be implying Obama's support for the killing of Lebanese we just saw in pictures. It's not explicitly stated, but it's a persuasive tactic not backed up by any actual argument that i've seen.
Going to speak at a conference there is different to being on their side 100%. Supporting the statehood or Israel is different to condoning all the actions they have taken.
I'll need a source for the money he takes from the AIPAC group. Again, not saying if it's right or wrong, but it needs sourcing. If nothing else, assuming he did take money, the size of the donation is critical to the point.
He then says Obama is "completely pro-Israel" because of this - another unproven statement, since one can be pro-Israel to an extent without loving everything they do - and goes again with the "thus obama supports bulldozing of homes and civilians" line, which is a bullshit tactic, in the same way that someone who supports the US doesn't necessarily support the killing of Iraqi civilians.

Images of bulldozed homes, appeal to emotion while trying to somehow implicate Obama supports this behaviour.

"Apartheid" claim is quite tenuous. Forgive the wiki link, but it's a well-sourced article at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid
This is in no way supporting the actions of israel, you understand. It's outright wrong about white/black meaning jew/palestinian - Arabs with Israeli citizenship retain the same rights as Jews with citizenship. The difficulties in getting citizenship are definitely worth discussing, but it's another issue for another day. This is meant to be about Obama.


Lots of news reporting


Point three

somwhere between 1:30 and 2:30, i didn't jot it down
"Considered missile strikes on Iran and Pakistan" line. Tries to say it's equivalent to Bush, which is wrong. Here's a thought experiment example:

Two people are being asked what it'd take to get them so angry they'd try to fight a man in a bar. One man says "If he looked at me funnily", the other says "If he drew a knife and started making noises about attacking". Are both sides the same? I'm not saying the specific positions are equivalent to Bush and Obama, but what he's saying is "If you would ever attack anyone for any reason, you're the same as someone who'd attack for bad reasons". Poor, inherently flawed logic from the guy.


Point four - a biggie

about 2:30-2:50
Outright wrong when saying Obama voted for a bill categorising the Iranian Republican Guard as a terrorist organisation. That bill was the Kyl-Lieberman bill, which can be seen here to show Obama as not being present for the vote: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13015.html

Not only that, but in one of the Democratic debates i saw, Obama directly criticised Clinton for voting for it. Possibly from November, i forget the exact one, maybe the youtube debate? He specifically stated by declaring them as such she could be giving Bush carte blanche to invade. Google search for "obama clinton iranian guard criticism" or some variant and you should get some results. As i recall, he wasn't able to get to the vote because he got the notification from Harry Reid on short notice and was away campaigning somewhere or other. Either way, he's spoken out against it, so there'd be no real reason for him to vote for it if he had been able to make it.


This guy isn't quite the savant he was made out to be, to be honest. Basic errors that could be corrected within a few minutes, lots of emotional appeals and assumptions, nothing more than a slightly above average Paul supporter thus far.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

he knows his shit inside and out.

He's bang on the money on every issue. You don't have to prove the truth when it exists. It just is.

Just like what is being said in his video.

edit: Any time you want to counter anything he's said feel free. Should be interesting to witness.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The facts mentioned in that video speak for themselves and are not even under dispute. That's the funny part.

Sometimes you just have to admit you don't know as much as other people and admit when you're wrong.

Doesn't seem to be quite as accurate now, does it? How funny are these basic errors that you presented as fact? Maybe you need to start vetting your sources a little more.

sub-point two

3:20-3:45
Cutting off Israel could easily cause some factions of the Arab world to begin hostilities. If Israel responds with the same disproportionate force it usually uses, it could get messy and they wouldn't even be listening to us. It's a debatable point to be sure, but he's not taking into account effects that cutting israel off may have on the region's stability. Ending the Iraq war point is fine though. This particular "fact" most certainly is under dispute.

sub-point three

4:00-6:00 or so
The gold standard is not seen as a solution to any current economists other than those who still follow von Mises and his lot. To be perfectly frank, this guy doesn't strike me as having particularly in-depth knowledge of economics. If you're saying that the gold standard is an indisputably good system and that there's no debate to be had about it, then you're nuts. Whether you support it or not, you have to know that it's disputable. Not only that, but there's been very little about Obama for quite a while.


point five

6:30ish
Same unsourced claims about Obama taking money (the amount and why is utterly relevant) from AIPAC. The spying charges are serious but aren't exactly sinister - two people from AIPAC got told about the US policy on Iran. I understand the severity of leaking national defence secrets but it's not as though they were wiretapping american people or some such, they were talking directly to an officer of the US. That's a VERY misleading argument, as it makes the Israelis seem hostile to the US. Unethical and dangerous as that breach of security may be, it's not quite what people imagine when "spying" is mentioned.


Palestinian footage from here on out, hard-hitting stuff but seems again like a smear to attach Obama's name to this as though he is partially responsible.




There, those are my thoughts. It may seem disorganised (i did have a shower in the middle somewhere), and some points are weaker than others, but i don't think your claim that it was all indisputable truth is even close to reality.

cornnifer

MrBrian wrote:

Why is he even talking about strikes on iran? what did iran do again? He's speaking like all the others. thats the point. if bin ladin is in pakistan, he's gonna bomb pakistan. Yeah thats so much better. where are his new ideas? all this change he goes on about? what about the vote for the patriot act update?

Allow me to use an analogy. Personally, i am a pacifist. Sincerely. Don't get me wrong, i'm from a tough neighborhood. i CAN fight. i choose not to. i don't like to. Not because of fear, but because of personal ethics. i am much more inclined to be a diplomat and that is always my first choice. it will take ALOT to get me to whoop somebody's ass. But i am not so naive as to "take that option off the table". Mess with my wife and kids, for example, and you're in trouble. My wife and kids know that i am not a hot head looking for a fight and will always seek to forgo a fight in favor of a diplomatic solution. i have three sons i am trying to pass these ethics onto. My wife and kids can also rest assured, however, that i will not punk out on them if it becomes necessary. i will, in fact, protect them. That doesn't make me a violent man or a "war monger". Get it?

know1

I think McCain is the next president. I don't want him to be and I won't vote for him, but that's what I think.

MrBrian

cornnifer wrote:

Allow me to use an analogy. Personally, i am a pacifist. Sincerely. Don't get me wrong, i'm from a tough neighborhood. i CAN fight. i choose not to. i don't like to. Not because of fear, but because of personal ethics. i am much more inclined to be a diplomat and that is always my first choice. it will take ALOT to get me to whoop somebody's ass. But i am not so naive as to "take that option off the table". Mess with my wife and kids, for example, and you're in trouble. My wife and kids know that i am not a hot head looking for a fight and will always seek to forgo a fight in favor of a diplomatic solution. i have three sons i am trying to pass these ethics onto. My wife and kids can also rest assured, however, that i will not punk out on them if it becomes necessary. i will, in fact, protect them. That doesn't make me a violent man or a "war monger". Get it?

Yes, but you would not go around with those threats to everyone, would you? "Hey, I'll fuck you up, I dont want to, but I will". it's just gonna get people angry, so by obama even suggesting these things it will only anger the other sides. I think he should avoid all this tough talk. simply work on why people are so pissed off at america. things he avoids doing.

Everyone knows america is sorta tough, no need to say it.

satansbedbugs

It seemd to me at the caucus, that obama was by far the most powerful speaker, and his views are 10 times better than everyone elses. I would like to see obama win. Anyone is better than that piece of crap we have in there now.

azwyldcats

ummmm, not a chance

cornnifer

MrBrian wrote:

Yes, but you would not go around with those threats to everyone, would you? "Hey, I'll fuck you up, I dont want to, but I will". it's just gonna get people angry, so by obama even suggesting these things it will only anger the other sides. I think he should avoid all this tough talk. simply work on why people are so pissed off at america. things he avoids doing.

Everyone knows america is sorta tough, no need to say it.

i don't think anything he said was threatening. He didn't really "suggest" anything. Just common sense. Obama, i believe is EXACTLY the kind of diplomat we need to improve our standing and rapport with the rest of the world.

cornnifer

azwyldcats wrote:

ummmm, not a chance

Keep telling yourself that.


i wouldn't bet the rent money on it though if i were you.

MrBrian

cornnifer wrote:

i don't think anything he said was threatening. He didn't really "suggest" anything. Just common sense. Obama, i believe is EXACTLY the kind of diplomat we need to improve our standing and rapport with the rest of the world.

Do you have specific examples that will lead me to believe he is exactly the kind of diplomat we need? He has a pro israel stance to start off with. What possible reason can he have for support of a state like that? apartheid israel.

Abuskedti

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Like it or not, it will be a definite upgrade from the last administration..

Who will he choose as vice president? Kucinich???

don't underestimate the American racist......

prism

MrBrian wrote:

Do you have specific examples that will lead me to believe he is exactly the kind of diplomat we need? He has a pro israel stance to start off with. What possible reason can he have for support of a state like that? apartheid israel.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. He will make a sustained push – working with Israelis and Palestinians – to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security


where does Obama say that he's favors one over the other when he says that he wants to work toward a two state solution?

not that i don't think that the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians is anything short of horrendous. however i haven't seen anything where Obama has said that he favors it or anything to that effect

MrBrian

prism wrote:

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. He will make a sustained push – working with Israelis and Palestinians – to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security


where does Obama say that he's favors one over the other when he says that he wants to work toward a two state solution?

not that i don't think that the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians is anything short of horrendous. however i haven't seen anything where Obama has said that he favors it or anything to that effect

That above obama insert is what Bush even has been saying, you know, "two states" "peace and security". I mean it sounds all nice I guess.

But if you start to refer to his own words. Like "israel our strongest ally in the mid east" "Our friend". I mean is he stupid? Israel is far from an ally.
Ok besides that. You wont find him even coming that close to a nice smile towards the palestinians. I would say "Israel needs to stop building settlements, stop the invasions into gaza and help the suffering of the palestinians, peace in the middle east, the end of palestinians fighting towards israel can only happen when israel learns to respect the people it lives next to, not continue to Push them into the waters."

But I guess he doesnt feel that way and he would not want to upset his close friends.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

What I find funny about the Obama supporters in a nutshell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ3qrqZZNT0

Only one candidate talks about going against all of the above issues, the rest (except Kucinich and Gravel) are just playing along...stringing you all along.

prism

MrBrian wrote:

That above obama insert is what Bush even has been saying, you know, "two states" "peace and security". I mean it sounds all nice I guess.

But if you start to refer to his own words. Like "israel our strongest ally in the mid east" "Our friend". I mean is he stupid? Israel is far from an ally.
Ok besides that. You wont find him even coming that close to a nice smile towards the palestinians. I would say "Israel needs to stop building settlements, stop the invasions into gaza and help the suffering of the palestinians, peace in the middle east, the end of palestinians fighting towards israel can only happen when israel learns to respect the people it lives next to, not continue to Push them into the waters."

But I guess he doesnt feel that way and he would not want to upset his close friends.

where and in what context did he say those things? link please

prism wrote:

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. He will make a sustained push – working with Israelis and Palestinians – to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security

what i posted are HIS WORDS from his website http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

sure Bush has said that he'd like to see a two state solution. however what the hell diplomatic measures has he undertaken to try to bring anything like that about? at least ole Bubba gave a go at it

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Quoted directly from transcripts of Obama's AIPAC speech:

As the U.S. redeploys from Iraq, we can recapture lost influence in the
Middle East. We can refocus our efforts to critical, yet neglected
priorities, such as combating international terrorism and winning the war
in Afghanistan. And we can, then, more effectively deal with one of the
greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran.

Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s regime is a threat to all of us. His
words contain a chilling echo of some of the world’s most tragic
history.

Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President
Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his
country, claiming it was a myth. But we know the Holocaust was as real as
the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to
Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the
pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington
and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60
years, it is time to deny the deniers.

In the 21^st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United
Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But
that is exactly what he has done. Neither Israel nor the United States has
the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric.

The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and
prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to
have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we
should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained
and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our
primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a
new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia
and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest
that could fuel greater instability in the region—that’s not just bad
for the Middle East, but bad for the world, making it a vastly more
dangerous and unpredictable place. Other nations would feel great pressure
to accommodate Iranian demands. Terrorist groups with Iran’s backing
would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear
umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran
could spread this technology around the world.

To prevent this worst-case scenario, we need the United States to lead
tough-minded diplomacy.

This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we
conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in
clear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy would
include real leverage through stronger sanctions. It would mean more
determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean harnessing
the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran’s major
trading partners. It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States
who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs. It would mean
unifying those states to recognize the threat of Iran and increase pressure
on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. It would mean full implementation
of U.S. sanctions laws. And over the long term, it would mean a focused
approach from us to finally end the tyranny of oil, and develop our own
alternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down.

We must also persuade other nations such as Saudi Arabia to recognize
common interests with Israel in dealing with Iran. We should stress to the
Egyptians that they help the Iranians and do themselves no favors by
failing to adequately prevent the smuggling of weapons and cash by Iran
into Gaza.

The United States’ leverage is strengthened when we have many nations
with us. It puts us in a place where sanctions could actually have a
profound impact on Iran’s economy. Iran is highly dependent on imports
and foreign investment, credit and technology. And an environment where
our allies see that these types of investments in Iran are not in the
world’s best interests, could help bring Iran to the table.

We have no quarrel with the Iranian people. They know that President
Ahamadinejad is reckless, irresponsible, and inattentive to their
day-to-day needs which is why they sent him a rebuke at the ballot box
this fall. And we hope more of them will speak out. There is great hope
in their ability to see his hatred for what it is: hatred and a threat to
peace in the region.

At the same time, we must preserve our total commitment to
our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military
assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense
programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and
repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza. And
when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel’s legitimate right
to defend itself. Last summer, Hezbollah attacked Israel. By using
Lebanon as an outpost for terrorism, and innocent people as shields,
Hezbollah has also engulfed that entire nation in violence and conflict,
and threatened the fledgling movement for democracy there. That’s why
we have to press for enforcement of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701,
which demands the cessation of arms shipments to Hezbollah, a resolution
which Syria and Iran continue to disregard. Their support and shipment of
weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, which threatens the peace and security in
the region, must end.

These are great challenges that we face. And in moments like
these, true allies do not walk away. For six years, the administration has
missed opportunities to increase the United States’ influence in the
region and help Israel achieve the peace she wants and the security she
needs. The time has come for us to seize those opportunities."


Sounds like Barak is tits deep for more war, military assistance, and involvement in the middle east to me. If you notice he seems to dodge any question on pulling the troops out of Iraq (correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing is off the table militarily for this guy. Scratch the surface and he's isn't anti-war anything, quite the opposite in fact.

He'll do exactly as he's told, and when, and allocate more troops, and support additional military intervention all the way.

MrBrian

I think he was speaking to aipac and he said those things again I believe in an interview. I have no links, i'll have to search for you.

nevertheless, the fact that he says these types of things, does it not worry you at all?

prism

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

What I find funny about the Obama supporters in a nutshell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ3qrqZZNT0

Only one candidate talks about going against all of the above issues, the rest (except Kucinich and Gravel) are just playing along...stringing you all along.

:rolleyes:

the dude in that youtube didn't even bother to check the site (nndb) that he was telling people to check out for themselves to see what organizations the candidates belong to. because if he had he would see that neither Barack or Michelle Obama have anything at all to do with the CFR or AIPAC.


it's one thing not to like a candidate or not agree with what they have to say but to make up shit just in order to try to make them look bad is just simply assinine

RolandTD20Kdrummer

prism wrote:

:rolleyes:

neither Barack or Michelle Obama have anything at all to do with the CFR or AIPAC.

That's one of the more hilarious things I've heard in a while. Obama is a staunch AIPAC supporter, and it's widely known he's a member of the CFR.

Regardless of who owns that site, and how it's been kept since that video was made. It matters little how it chooses to represent, edit, delete, etc.. people in this regard.

scroll down for Michelle:
http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/chicago_council_board_directors.php
Barack:
http://www.cfr.org/bios/11603/barack_obama.html

I could dig up a ton of AIPAC links...but it's pointless for me to do so. I already know about it.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

a couple more tidbits on Barack.

Gee did I really vote on that? hmm...quickly grabs drink...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoBKetz_YUg

Phasing down the troops?!...Sir no sir.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irh_aMf2tRY

Those not aware of AIPAC is might want to peruse this:
(Obama is in the middle of it shaking hands with the lobby and speaking to them @ 26:23 and 32:47)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2894821400057137878&hl=en

The disturbing thing is Obama didn't just attend the AIPAC convention. He gave a speech at it. Big difference.

another interesting article
http://www.counterpunch.org/smith10132004.html