Obama on the issues

Cypress said:
Here ya go Willie:

Missle Defense Shield: Who gives a crap? That's been the biggest corporate boondogle and wasted of taxpayer money (other than iraq) in the last 30 years.

Fetuses: Don't care. But, in reading your link, Obama voted against it on constitutional grounds because it would have defined a fetus as a person. Thereby laying the groundwork to outlaw a woman's right to choose. Which is really what the cons were after all along in that legislation.

Iraq: Don't make me laugh. The choice between Obama and McCain (100 years is fine by me) is crystal clear. The contrast couldn't be more stark.

Liberal voting record: Thank God.

Handguns in DC: Don't give a crap.


Pakistan: This has been debated and dispensed with. We're already bombing targets in Pakistan, on actionable intelligence. I trust Obama to be more judicious and prudent in not blowing up innocent people than Mr. Shock and Awe McCain.
Click to expand...


Missile defense, I care, it's a logical defensive system, and protects us from the worst weapons.

YouTube - Another Successful Missile Defense Intercept

Children selfishly terminated, yet happen to survive this barbaric practice you support, and you also defend not giving them medical care?

Iraq: the choice is clear, the surge has succeeded, and Al Qeada is on the ropes, to withdraw now simply hands ourselves defeat, and the terrorists, many from the same group that killed un-provoked 3,000 Americans, will follow our retreating troops home. That is the Democratic plan, the Republican plan is to finish them off, and by the next Presidential election have our troops home victoriously.

Handguns banned in DC, will lead to handguns banned in Texas. Once a legal precedent is set, no matter if it's unconstitutional, that power will grow. Funny how you all pick and choose which parts of the Constitution are legitimate and which are not.

Pakistan, then clearly you are misinformed we are not taking action inside Pakistan without their consent, don't misread geo-political politics.
 
OBL is just about ready to launch his nukes! Better build that shield.

Terrorists in SPACE!

mamali-missiles.jpg
 
Republican talking point for 200(4)(8) election...

"(Insert nominee here) has been rated the most liberal senator by (insert creditable sounding rating orginiation here)"
 
Dungheap said:
Willie is impervious to facts and reason.
Click to expand...

Wow this takes the cake, as if ib1's posting of game boxes proved their is no defense of this man's record, you're response to a long list of facts, backed up with credible links, is to dismiss them in only 7 words.

So I'll chalk you up to those who also can't defend this man's record. I love how democrats nominate candidates without examining their records.
 
WRL said:
Wow this takes the cake, as if ib1's posting of game boxes proved their is no defense of this man's record, you're response to a long list of facts, backed up with credible links, is to dismiss them in only 7 twords.

So I'll chalk you up to those who also can't defend this man's record. I love how democrats nominate candidates without examining their records.
Click to expand...


I will gladly defend his record. I'm just not sure what I am defending it against. I'll give it a shot though.

Obama is pro-choice. McCain didn't support Roe v. Wade, then did, then didn't.

Obama is against wasteful spending on pie-in-the-sky defense systems that don't work, won't work and that only lead to increased nuclear proliferation. McCain, staunch opponent of wasteful spending, is for throwing money away on systems that don't work, give a false sense of security and serve to increase the threat of nuclear proliferation.

Obama is for withdrawing our troops from Iraq over a 16 month period. The American people overwhelmingly agree. McCain supports an indefinite presence in Iraq until no Americans are being killed (which he "hopes" will be sometime before 2013) and thereafter keeping troops in Iraq for 10,000 more years.

Obama is for continuing our current policy regarding operations in Pakistan by attacking the real Al Qaeda which is currently operating in a safe haven in the tribal areas and has reconstituted its homeland attack capacity to 2001 levels. McCain would follow bin Laden to the gates of hell unless those gates happen to be in Pakistan.

Obama supports the ability of local jurisdictions to regulate firearms. It seems to be a fairly middle-of-the-road federalist position to me. States' rights and all.

I could go on, but why should I bother?
 
WRL said:
Missile defense, I care, it's a logical defensive system, and protects us from the worst weapons.
Click to expand...

Its a 30 year long corporate boondoggle for defense contractors. It doesn't work, and is simply intended to continue to line the pockets of Northrup, Grumman, and the rest. The fact that, three decades later, you continue to fall for this claptrap, doesn't surprise me. You fell for the Iraq war and George Bush.

Children selfishly terminated, yet happen to survive this barbaric practice you support, and you also defend not giving them medical care?
Click to expand...

Cons love to ascribe motivations to women who get abortions. Selfish? How the fuck would you or I know? I hate it when men talk like they know what a woman goes through, or her decision process in what is obviously a painful choice. The legislation Obama voted against, according to your article, was to thwart a rightwing attempt to define a fetus as a person. Which is a backdoor way to ban abortion, and control women.

Iraq: the choice is clear, the surge has succeeded, and Al Qeada is on the ropes, to withdraw now simply hands ourselves defeat, and the terrorists, many from the same group that killed un-provoked 3,000 Americans, will follow our retreating troops home. That is the Democratic plan, the Republican plan is to finish them off, and by the next Presidential election have our troops home victoriously.
Click to expand...

The surge has succeeded? Okay. Whatever. I'm not going to waste my time on that.

Handguns banned in DC, will lead to handguns banned in Texas. Once a legal precedent is set, no matter if it's unconstitutional, that power will grow. Funny how you all pick and choose which parts of the Constitution are legitimate and which are not.
Click to expand...

Handguns banned in Texas? LOL, okay, whatever.

Pakistan, then clearly you are misinformed we are not taking action inside Pakistan without their consent, don't misread geo-political politics.
Click to expand...

Okay, you want to get consent from nations to defend america. What a flip flopper.
 
Cypress said:
Its a 30 year long corporate boondoggle for defense contractors. It doesn't work, and is simply intended to continue to line the pockets of Northrup, Grumman, and the rest. The fact that, three decades later, you continue to fall for this claptrap, doesn't surprise me. You fell for the Iraq war and George Bush.
Click to expand...

Oh are you so partisan you can deny the many, many successes. I could post a dozen links on successful missile defense tests, but I doubt even that would change your hard line stances.

Cons love to ascribe motivations to women who get abortions. Selfish? How the fuck would you or I know? I hate it when men talk like they know what a woman goes through, or her decision process in what is obviously a painful choice. The legislation Obama voted against, according to your article, was to thwart a rightwing attempt to define a fetus as a person. Which is a backdoor way to ban abortion, and control women.
Click to expand...
This without a doubt has to be the one of the craziest logical leaps this election, aside from Bush mentioning appeasement, and Obama instantly inferring it was a direct insult.

For Obama to vote to ban medical care to babies that survive an attempted abortion, on that extreme logical leap you just stated is barbaric, inhuman, and downright disgusting.

Oh, and I have children, so don't pretend I don't know what goes through your mind, even though killing my son never entered my mind.


The surge has succeeded? Okay. Whatever. I'm not going to waste my time on that.
Click to expand...
typical non-defense.

Attacks in Baghdad fall 80 percent

 http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL1880448320080216

Handguns banned in Texas? LOL, okay, whatever.
Click to expand...
The law sets legal precedence, and the ball rolling on extreme measures to remove our guns. Didn't expect a Democrat to care.

Okay, you want to get consent from nations to defend america. What a flip flopper.
Click to expand...
Okay, so you want to start a third war chasing remnants of the taliban into Pakistan, and when they flee to India, do we strike inside India without notice either?
 
I will gladly defend his record. I'm just not sure what I am defending it against. I'll give it a shot though.
Obama is pro-choice. McCain didn't support Roe v. Wade, then did, then didn't.
Click to expand...
McCain has personal beliefs but he believes in states rights.
Obama is against wasteful spending on pie-in-the-sky defense systems that don't work, won't work and that only lead to increased nuclear proliferation. McCain, staunch opponent of wasteful spending, is for throwing money away on systems that don't work, give a false sense of security and serve to increase the threat of nuclear proliferation.
Click to expand...
http://www.google.com/search?q=succ...eid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS255

have a look at the successes of this 'pie in the sky' idea.

Increased Nuclear proliferation, yeah right, it's a defensive system, and it renders conventional systems obsolete, and the only nations upset with it are nations who's cold war arsenal's would be rendered obsolete by it, and I don't think the US should be holding ourselves back, so that other nations can keep up.

Obama is for withdrawing our troops from Iraq over a 16 month period. The American people overwhelmingly agree. McCain supports an indefinite presence in Iraq until no Americans are being killed (which he "hopes" will be sometime before 2013) and thereafter keeping troops in Iraq for 10,000 more years.
Click to expand...
Give me a break on McCain, that was some spin. With Barrack, Who knows, he's said he'll pull them back to Kuwait and if the situation explodes, as it surely will, we'll go back in, he also says he'll bomb inside Pakistan without consent, that's just going to spark more wars, and destroy any friendships we have in the region.

Obama is for continuing our current policy regarding operations in Pakistan by attacking the real Al Qaeda which is currently operating in a safe haven in the tribal areas and has reconstituted its homeland attack capacity to 2001 levels. McCain would follow bin Laden to the gates of hell unless those gates happen to be in Pakistan.
Click to expand...
He would certainly kill Bin Laden, however, we've already invaded two nations, and randomly bombing in a third isn't going to kill the problem, transforming the region towards moderation, will, and that will require we work with some nations, finish the job in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is a political battle, we invade Pakistan, they'll flee to India, do we then invade India? We need to follow through like the marshall plan and institute the foundations of democracy and moderation of politics.

Obama supports the ability of local jurisdictions to regulate firearms. It seems to be a fairly middle-of-the-road federalist position to me. States' rights and all.

I could go on, but why should I bother?
Click to expand...
No that was a violation of our Constitutional rights, baning the sale of firearms, requiring already owned firearms to be disassembled, middle of the road, only in liberal land.
 
There are several things that bother me about Obama.


In a recent interview, he was asked if he knew that when capital gains taxes were lowered there was a resulting increase in tax revenue, and when capital gains taxes were raised there was a resulting decrease in tax revenue. Obama replied that he did know this. Then he went into his plan to raise the capital gains tax. This shows he is not wanting to use tax revenues to fund the government, but wants to use them to punish the rich for their successes.

At recent event in Oregon, Obama said "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." Now I understand the need for diplomacy. I also understand that we aren't the only people on the planet. But does he expect us to choose our cars, select our diet and set our thermostats based on what other countries think? I am willing to bet that a lot of other countries don't think free speech, a free press and women with careers is ok either.

Obama also started whining that the republicans are picking on his wife. But didn't his wife get a lot of publicity for saying something like "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country"? Ok, so she has never been proud of the USA? I understand that there are plenty of things NOT to be proud of, but surely our work in the relief effort after the tsunami in SE Asia, our relief work all over the world, and our spending $15 billion to fight AIDs in Africa might be worthy of some pride? But if she isn't proud of that, I guess she has her own standards. But Barack, you are in the big game now. There is pretty much nothing that is off limits.
 
WRL said:
Wow this takes the cake, as if ib1's posting of game boxes proved their is no defense of this man's record, you're response to a long list of facts, backed up with credible links, is to dismiss them in only 7 words.

So I'll chalk you up to those who also can't defend this man's record. I love how democrats nominate candidates without examining their records.
Click to expand...
And yet when the experience of your candidate in 2000 was questioned no one on the right said anything other than "he is the Governor of the state of Texas, one of the most populous states in the US" WITHOUT mentioning that the governor in Texas is one of the most constitutionally weak governors in the US. The Lt Governor has more power in policy that the governor. He had zero foreign affairs experience, until he was elected he had never seen an intelligence estimate. Obama has. So has McCain, but you Republicans went with a political neophyte and NOW you want to talk about experience. Most of you voted twice for a guy that had little understanding of foriegn policy, EVEN after 4 years. Shit just recently the dumb ass actually said he hadn't even heard that Gas was going to 4 dollars a gallon HERE.
 
Solitary said:
There are several things that bother me about Obama.


In a recent interview, he was asked if he knew that when capital gains taxes were lowered there was a resulting increase in tax revenue, and when capital gains taxes were raised there was a resulting decrease in tax revenue. Obama replied that he did know this. Then he went into his plan to raise the capital gains tax. This shows he is not wanting to use tax revenues to fund the government, but wants to use them to punish the rich for their successes.

At recent event in Oregon, Obama said "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." Now I understand the need for diplomacy. I also understand that we aren't the only people on the planet. But does he expect us to choose our cars, select our diet and set our thermostats based on what other countries think? I am willing to bet that a lot of other countries don't think free speech, a free press and women with careers is ok either.

Obama also started whining that the republicans are picking on his wife. But didn't his wife get a lot of publicity for saying something like "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country"? Ok, so she has never been proud of the USA? I understand that there are plenty of things NOT to be proud of, but surely our work in the relief effort after the tsunami in SE Asia, our relief work all over the world, and our spending $15 billion to fight AIDs in Africa might be worthy of some pride? But if she isn't proud of that, I guess she has her own standards. But Barack, you are in the big game now. There is pretty much nothing that is off limits.
Click to expand...

you'll quickly learn everything is 'out of bonds' with Obama.
 
Dungheap said:
I am an Obamaton, not an Obamabot.

As for defending his record, why should I bother? You obviously aren't interested in debating on the merits.

I'd ask you to defend McCain's record but since he's been on both sides of every issue I'm not sure how to do it.
Click to expand...

merits, I've listed many of the key issues that will come up this election, documented and linked, and Obama's stances on those key issues, which is clearly against the will of the majority of Americans. So any time your ready to get into the merits of his positions then I'm all ears.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top