Obama will be the next president..

Options
1356

Comments

  • Posts: 2,672
    Kenny Olav wrote:
    i totally disagree. i think racism has been rapidly dying in america and has one foot in the grave. xenophobia is another issue. but racism alone could not defeat barack obama or any other black candidate. i am actually 100% positive about that.

    I think thats fairly accurate. (xenophobia is the next thing)
    ---

    Also, I think the only reason people are voting/supporting obama is becoz he's black! I've said this many times before, I bet most obama fans have no idea about most of his policies.
  • Posts: 13,066
    Obama ended up voting for the renewal and update of the Patriot Act.

    He said he would support missile strikes on Iran, and he's not against military action in Pakistan.

    Is this still his current ideology, or has he conveniently reneged on this pro Bush pro neo-con war doctrine?

    Obama is a bit of a media darling imo...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Posts: 176
    Ebizzie wrote:
    Huckabee is a baptist minister. I'm no theologian, but I believe baptists are fairly liberal when it comes to many social issues, much more liberal than say catholics, mormons, or evangelicals.

    The guy seems pretty genuine to me. If the general election were Obama vs. Huckabee, I'd have a hell of a time choosing. Unless, of course, my main man RP is running as a 3rd party candidate, then the decision is easy.


    Baptists are very very conservative. The Catholic Church has stated that it understands that the Earth is older than what the Bible says and evolution did happen.
  • Posts: 21
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Obama ended up voting for the renewal and update of the Patriot Act.

    He said he would support missile strikes on Iran, and he's not against military action in Pakistan.

    Is this still his current ideology, or has he conveniently reneged on this pro Bush pro neo-con war doctrine?

    Obama is a bit of a media darling imo...

    That's not a neo-con war doctrine. The neo-con war doctrine is to attack pre-emptively, stupidly, and with no foresight. You don't give the conditions on why he wouldn't rule out strikes on Iran or Pakistan, which are the key issues. Saying "I would never attack any nation no matter what it did" would be far more naive than saying "under extreme conditions i would have to authorise missile strikes". You twist his words to make it seem as though he'd support the missile strikes the Bush administration would like to make, but that simply isn't true. He's publically criticised Clinton on her vote for calling some official Iranian forces a terrorist organisation precisely becuase it may have given the Bush administration the authority to attack iran - not exactly the position of someone waiting to go in with guns blazing.
    The headshrinkers
    They want everything
    My Uncle Bill
    My belisha beacon
  • Posts: 2,672
    Mental Block wrote:
    That's not a neo-con war doctrine. The neo-con war doctrine is to attack pre-emptively, stupidly, and with no foresight. You don't give the conditions on why he wouldn't rule out strikes on Iran or Pakistan, which are the key issues. Saying "I would never attack any nation no matter what it did" would be far more naive than saying "under extreme conditions i would have to authorise missile strikes". You twist his words to make it seem as though he'd support the missile strikes the Bush administration would like to make, but that simply isn't true. He's publically criticised Clinton on her vote for calling some official Iranian forces a terrorist organisation precisely becuase it may have given the Bush administration the authority to attack iran - not exactly the position of someone waiting to go in with guns blazing.


    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?
  • Posts: 21
    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?

    Because it's been framed poorly - the talks about strikes on Iran are in the context of "wouldn't rule out" rather than "is in favour of", a significant difference you're neglecting to mention.

    He did not in any way state what you say about Pakistan; his stance as discussed in the NH debates last night was that if al-Qaeda is operating strongly in Pakistan, they're preparing another attack on the US or a similar threat then to strike at al-Qaeda in Pakistan. And even then, that's only if Musharraf (or whoever it may be at the time) outright refuses to co-operate with the effort to remove al-Qaeda. The framing of a question is as important as the answer. "If Iran bombed us would you use military action?" is a question to which "Yes, i would use military action against Iran" would be a reasonable answer. You speak as if he is campaigning for immediate action, which is entirely untrue. His main message has been about diplomacy, he was even criticised early on for "naivety" after saying he would meet with the Iranian leadership rather than ostracising them and increasing tensions. Honestly, you're totally misrepresenting his positions.

    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iran

    There's his official stance on Iran, and the rest of the page should give you the foreign policy stance. If you look at the quote at the top of the page, he pledges to restore habeus corpus and close Gitmo.

    The Patriot Act is admittedly trickier, but given his stances on Gitmo and so on it would be odd to just be a vote for it outright. IIRC, there were curbs on the legislation when it was renewed. Since the Republicans still held a strong majority in Congress in 2005, I think it was a question of accepting a curbed version of the bill instead of having the Republicans push through another version of it that offered no compromise. However, that's my own speculation, and most google results just turn up blogs talking about the patriot act, so it's hard to find anything.

    However, http://www.issues2000.org/Barack_Obama_VoteMatch.htm

    Go to near the bottom of that link. Other than the curbed renewal vote, his voting record has been strongly against the provisions of the Act and similar policies. He can't exactly be painted as a lifelong devotee to this thing.
    The headshrinkers
    They want everything
    My Uncle Bill
    My belisha beacon
  • Posts: 2,672
    Iran
    The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That's why Obama stood up to the Bush administration's warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq.

    ----

    I mean what obama seems to do is this, Obama likes to stab things, Just not all the way. he will stick a knife in you half way and everyone thinks its better, "hey the knife aint..I mean it's not all the way in like Bush!"

    Obama needs to throw the knife away, he really does not stand out, other than he's black in a white game is really the only major diff
  • Posts: 13,066
    Obama on Iran

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irh_aMf2tRY

    Obama was against the war but is not ready to start phasing down troops and bring them home. Nice lip service it seems.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Posts: 21
    MrBrian wrote:
    Iran
    The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That's why Obama stood up to the Bush administration's warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq.

    ----

    I mean what obama seems to do is this, Obama likes to stab things, Just not all the way. he will stick a knife in you half way and everyone thinks its better, "hey the knife aint..I mean it's not all the way in like Bush!"

    Obama needs to throw the knife away, he really does not stand out, other than he's black in a white game is really the only major diff

    No, it's just a reasonable summation of Iran's stance. "Sticking in a knife half-way" appears to be your way of saying "the issue is black and white, do one or the other" - since you either stab something or don't, there's no real middle ground - which is the kind of lazy thinking that hurts discourse. Your analogy is flawed further, too - to stab someone even a bit (or halfway) is still, as i said, stabbing them - still instigating and causing violence. His position is quite clearly to use diplomacy, which can't exactly be called a "stab".

    Not just that, but expecting him to be radically different on every issue to every other candidate is ridiculous, and your "black" comment is odd because if anyone's playing that kind of card, it's Hillary's camp. Obviously more in the "woman" way than the "black" one, she probably wouldn't get far with the latter. If he was using the race card, he would have countered Hillary's "A woman president would be a change" line with "what would a black president be, then?" or something similar.

    In fact, rather than telling us what you intuitively feel is wrong, why not give us a rational explanation of what is wrong with his position?
    The headshrinkers
    They want everything
    My Uncle Bill
    My belisha beacon
  • Posts: 13,066
    Ron Paul v.s. Obama.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glJyRJEm9TI

    .
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Posts: 21
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Obama on Iran

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irh_aMf2tRY

    Obama was against the war but is not ready to start phasing down troops and bring them home. Nice lip service it seems.

    Get me a full quote to talk about rather than a biased youtube video and we'll talk. One of my main points in this thread has been context and the context there is sorely lacking.
    The headshrinkers
    They want everything
    My Uncle Bill
    My belisha beacon
  • Posts: 21
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Ron Paul v.s. Obama.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glJyRJEm9TI

    .

    AHAHAHAHA

    an unbiased and reliable source, no doubt
    The headshrinkers
    They want everything
    My Uncle Bill
    My belisha beacon
  • Posts: 2,672
    Mental Block wrote:
    No, it's just a reasonable summation of Iran's stance. "Sticking in a knife half-way" appears to be your way of saying "the issue is black and white, do one or the other" - since you either stab something or don't, there's no real middle ground - which is the kind of lazy thinking that hurts discourse. Your analogy is flawed further, too - to stab someone even a bit (or halfway) is still, as i said, stabbing them - still instigating and causing violence. His position is quite clearly to use diplomacy, which can't exactly be called a "stab".

    Not just that, but expecting him to be radically different on every issue to every other candidate is ridiculous, and your "black" comment is odd because if anyone's playing that kind of card, it's Hillary's camp. Obviously more in the "woman" way than the "black" one, she probably wouldn't get far with the latter. If he was using the race card, he would have countered Hillary's "A woman president would be a change" line with "what would a black president be, then?" or something similar.

    In fact, rather than telling us what you intuitively feel is wrong, why not give us a rational explanation of what is wrong with his position?

    Why is it so ridiculous? becoz it will get him less votes? talking about how iran is a problem becoz it denies the Holocaust is whats crazy!

    Why is he not talking about the giant threat israel is to iran? Its israel thats talking about bombing them, not the other way around.

    Yes, as long as the knife is in a little bit its still a stab. but voters just see it as not stabbing as much as the other guys are doing.and they dont seem to care. get the point?
  • Posts: 13,066
    Mental Block wrote:
    AHAHAHAHA

    an unbiased and reliable source, no doubt

    Debunk anything of what he said. I'd like to see you try.

    edit: here's the vid again to save you some time in trying ;)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glJyRJEm9TI
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Posts: 21
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Debunk anything of what he said. I'd like to see you try.

    edit: here's the vid again to save you some time in trying ;)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glJyRJEm9TI

    You don't understand - the burden of proof is on YOU. Get some decent sources that aren't an angsty anti-zionist kid in a Ron Paul hoodie on youtube and we can debate them. Surely you can understand why i'm not going to waste time debunking every guy with a camera and a youtube account?
    The headshrinkers
    They want everything
    My Uncle Bill
    My belisha beacon
  • Posts: 13,066
    Mental Block wrote:
    You don't understand - the burden of proof is on YOU. Get some decent sources that aren't an angsty anti-zionist kid in a Ron Paul hoodie on youtube and we can debate them. Surely you can understand why i'm not going to waste time debunking every guy with a camera and a youtube account?

    Yes, I do understand, and I've just provided it.

    This guy is an expert on the subject, as well as an author, and runs his own political website. He also does a fair amount of radio interviews internationally. Everything of what he is saying is under a lot of scrutiny by many, many, internet sources, and 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.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Posts: 21
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Yes, I do understand, and I've just provided it.

    This guy is an expert on the subject, as well as an author, and runs his own political website. He also does a fair amount of radio interviews internationally. Everything of what he is saying is under a lot of scrutiny by many, many, internet sources, and 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.

    You do have to prove the truth when it exists if you want to get anywhere in argument, you do realise that, right? Don't get all "truth just is" on me, it's a meaningless statement.

    If you want to get the information discussed then FINE, source it. But this guy is not a reliable information source.

    Here's why: i checked his website - it's a page anyone could make, it has nothing on it to convince me of any expertise or qualification. Why should a person with a webpage be considered reputable?
    His publisher is iUniverse, who you pay to publish your book, as far as i can ascertain. It's not an accredited scholar getting a book deal done, he has paid to print it himself. That is a MAMMOTH difference, because once again any person at all who wants a book could go through them to publish one. It does nothing to make him more reputable.

    Give me the arguments he states backed with reasonable sources - no, he himself doesn't count - and i will debate them with you, i promise. But as it stands it's a waste of time.
    The headshrinkers
    They want everything
    My Uncle Bill
    My belisha beacon
  • Posts: 21
    One other thing - you're not a "Loose Change" person are you, because it would definitely explain some things.
    The headshrinkers
    They want everything
    My Uncle Bill
    My belisha beacon
  • Posts: 2,672
    U know what, any candidate that supports israel is a bad candidate. Israel is an apartheid state. Just as any politician that supported apartheid south africa, would you of voted for them also?
  • Posts: 13,066
    Mental Block wrote:
    You do have to prove the truth when it exists if you want to get anywhere in argument, you do realise that, right? Don't get all "truth just is" on me, it's a meaningless statement.

    If you want to get the information discussed then FINE, source it. But this guy is not a reliable information source.

    Here's why: i checked his website - it's a page anyone could make, it has nothing on it to convince me of any expertise or qualification. Why should a person with a webpage be considered reputable?
    His publisher is iUniverse, who you pay to publish your book, as far as i can ascertain. It's not an accredited scholar getting a book deal done, he has paid to print it himself. That is a MAMMOTH difference, because once again any person at all who wants a book could go through them to publish one. It does nothing to make him more reputable.

    Give me the arguments he states backed with reasonable sources - no, he himself doesn't count - and i will debate them with you, i promise. But as it stands it's a waste of time.

    Who do you think is going to actually publish that type of information due to it's content? Don't disqualify yourself before actual thought occurs.

    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.

    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.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In
Register

Quick Links

Categories