Obama on the issues

WRL said:
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.
Click to expand...


I must have missed it. Why don't we proceed one issue at a time? I'll let you pick it.
 
OK. Obama believes that the Constitution likely confers individuals the right to bear arms. Obama further believes that local jurisdictions ought to have the power to regulate firearms.

What seems to be the problem?
 
I think you are clearly misrepresenting his record, one that has voiced support for the now overturned, and declared unconstitutional DC Gun Ban, one that baned the sale, and required already owned firearms, to be disassembled inside residences, a ban that has clearly failed as DC has one of the nations highest gun crime rates in the nation. He clearly has a distorted view of the 2nd Amendment, and believes the government can enact insane laws that all but ban guns to law biding citizens in a round about way.
 
Clearly if one saw such an Unconstitutional law attacking our 2nd Amendment rights as perfectly fine, then he doesn't side with an 'individuals' right to bear arms, and holds the ultra liberal position on guns, his record suggests he would.

Nice try though, moving on, how about him claiming to have opposed this war from the beginning, because in 2004 he said 'On Iraq... There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.', clearly President Bush hasn't changed his position, so Obviously Obama's has, so why is he framing his campaign around an issue he hasn't be solid on himself?

I mean, Ok, in 02 he gave an anti- war speech, but then in 04, there wasn't a difference in his position on the war and the President's, but now he's real staunchly antiwar, even as he rejects going to Iraq to see the progress himself.

But I suppose you see clarity in this mess as well?
 
WRL said:
I think you are clearly misrepresenting his record, one that has voiced support for the now overturned, and declared unconstitutional DC Gun Ban, one that baned the sale, and required already owned firearms, to be disassembled inside residences, a ban that has clearly failed as DC has one of the nations highest gun crime rates in the nation. He clearly has a distorted view of the 2nd Amendment, and believes the government can enact insane laws that all but ban guns to law biding citizens in a round about way.
Click to expand...


Last I checked DC was a local jurisdiction. As I said, Obama supports allowing local jurisdictions regulate firearms. Maybe he believes that local jurisdictions can enact insane laws that all but ban guns in a round about way, but what in the hell does that have to do with anything? He's running for president, not mayor of DC.
 
WRL said:
Clearly if one saw such an Unconstitutional law attacking our 2nd Amendment rights as perfectly fine, then he doesn't side with an 'individuals' right to bear arms, and holds the ultra liberal position on guns, his record suggests he would.

Nice try though, moving on, how about him claiming to have opposed this war from the beginning, because in 2004 he said 'On Iraq... There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.', clearly President Bush hasn't changed his position, so Obviously Obama's has, so why is he framing his campaign around an issue he hasn't be solid on himself?

I mean, Ok, in 02 he gave an anti- war speech, but then in 04, there wasn't a difference in his position on the war and the President's, but now he's real staunchly antiwar, even as he rejects going to Iraq to see the progress himself.

But I suppose you see clarity in this mess as well?
Click to expand...


OK, here is the speech that Obama gave in October of 2002. You know, before the war:

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Click to expand...



I think his position is fairly clear on this one.
 
So you're fine electing a gun grabber for President, I don't think that will sell well with the general public. But whatever. With a Democratic controlled Congress, they will be passing insane guns laws the next shooting we all hear about, and do you want a Pelosi rubber stamp signing Unconstitutional gun laws into record, laws that will take decades to get overturned, or would you support some balance in the Government by at least having John McCain check the excesses of the Democrats who control both chambers of Congress already?
 
Right, I didn't need a transcript of the speech, I havn't tried to distort his record, yes he did give some antiwar speech in 02, but then changed his positon in 04, by shareing the same view as the President, now he's come full circle and is back to not supporting the war effort, even to the extent, of refusing to see the progress for himself, I guess he's afraid of this...

U.S. troop deaths in Iraq fell to their lowest level last month since the 2003 invasion and officials said on Sunday improved security also helped the country boost oil production in May to a post-war high.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topN...?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Click to expand...
 
WRL said:
So you're fine electing a gun grabber for President, I don't think that will sell well with the general public. But whatever. With a Democratic controlled Congress, they will be passing insane guns laws the next shooting we all hear about, and do you want a Pelosi rubber stamp signing Unconstitutional gun laws into record, laws that will take decades to get overturned, or would you support some balance in the Government by at least having John McCain check the excesses of the Democrats who control both chambers of Congress already?
Click to expand...



Willie - At the national level the gun debate is largely over and the NRA won. I'm all for remaining vigilant, but really, you need to relax.
 
Dungheap said:
Willie - At the national level the gun debate is largely over and the NRA won. I'm all for remaining vigilant, but really, you need to relax.
Click to expand...

Then why are laws like the DC ban still being fought in the courts, why is a man who supported them running for President, well because most people can't name a single Obama legislative accomplishment, but that will change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top