Political Argument Arena!!!

[tigerdave]

So the real question is do you want a 70 year old senior citizen to continue the failed polices of the previous administration and further weaken this country's military, economy, and international standing? Or do you want to go in a more positive direction and try and cut out all the partisan bs that renders Washington ineffective,get America moving forward, focus on squashing the Taliban, extricate ourselves from an Iraqi civil war, begin ending our reliance on Arab oil, and balance the budget? The choice is easy. Maybe it would be easier for a lot of Americans if Obama was 100% white and had a last name of Smith but it's time for middle America to look beyond the surface and pay attention to the details.

If you don't know what Obama stands for it's only because you don't want to know. I find it hard to believe a bunch of rightwing soccer dorks can find the most obscure stats on some unknown Russian striker no one has ever heard of yet claims to not know one thing the leading Presidential candidates platform and then use their own ignorance as a reason not to vote for said candidate. Your argument is illogical considering Barrack has written two books and maintains a website with his platform and clearly explained and outlined and it's even available for download.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

I mean can you Replicans stop lying just once? you don't know how funny to me that you use Micheal Savage and Mary Maitlan to make your point. What's next Bill O'Rielly and Rush with Ann Coulter in the bullpen. Real intellectual heavyweights.:p ( I would expect that from ToonUSA but not you)

If you would have gone to the Savage Politics homepage you would have seen that it is in no way, shape or form associated with Michael Savage. Nice try though. I also never said that I support McCain or Hillary either. In fact, I think we're pretty well ********ed no matter who wins because the MoveOn-ers will have the majority in both houses so it doesn't matter who the figurehead is.

Getting to why I don't like Obama, though: He is the most liberal senator in the Senate. Any bi-partisanship on his part involves Republicans crossing the aisle to support his left-wing socialist policies, and that's the kind of bi-partisanship I want absolutely no part of. Even the "conservative" approaches he has, like cutting taxes to the middle class, etc., conflict with the massive amount of social program he wants to instill. There is absolutely nothing conservative about his policies, period, and that is why I oppose him so fiercely. I am not anti-black, I'm not anti-Arabic(not Swahili as he said)-named people. I am, however, anti-Socialist, and a conservative who will support people of any political ilk that speak TRUTH. Not the truthiness that your boy Barack has been shown to..er, misspeak.

[Dirt McGirt]

Getting to why I don't like Obama, though: 1. He is the most liberal senator in the Senate. Any bi-partisanship on his part involves Republicans crossing the aisle to support his left-wing socialist policies, and that's the kind of bi-partisanship I want absolutely no part of. 4. Even the "conservative" approaches he has, like cutting taxes to the middle class, etc., conflict with 2.the massive amount of social program he wants to instill. There is absolutely nothing conservative about his policies, period, and that is why I oppose him so fiercely.3. I am not anti-black, I'm not anti-Arabic(not Swahili as he said)-named people. I am, however, anti-Socialist, and a conservative who will support people of any political ilk that speak TRUTH. Not the truthiness that your boy Barack has been shown to..er, misspeak.Here's your moment to shine. (if you care to back your words up)

1. Please reference what in Obama's voting record in either Ill. or the US Senate leds you to believe he's a socialist more so then the actual socialist senator from Vermont?

2. What massive amounts of social programs are you referring to?

3. I was referring to a segment of the American population not you in particular.

4. Cutting taxes for the middle class is not a conservative belief or tactic. I think you may be confused on that point. What other conservative tactics are you referring to with "etc"?

Do you realize a Neo Con Republican has run up the worst deficit in American history after taking over a balanced budget from a Democratic administration?

[Dirt McGirt]

HAHAHAHAHA

I was going to write an actual response but since you have just proven that there is no point, I won't waste my time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051203014.html

Some great examples from your state illustrate my previous point regarding a certain segment of America.

[tigerdave]

Here's your moment to shine. (if you care to back your words up)

1. Please reference what in Obama's voting record in either Ill. or the US Senate leds you to believe he's a socialist more so then the actual socialist senator from Vermont?

2. What massive amounts of social programs are you referring to?

3. I was referring to a segment of the American population not you in particular.

4. Cutting taxes for the middle class is not a conservative belief or tactic. I think you may be confused on that point. What other conservative tactics are you referring to with "etc"?

Do you realize a Neo Con Republican has run up the worst deficit in American history after taking over a balanced budget from a Democratic administration?

1. Multiple outlets have rated him as the most liberal senator, even more liberal than that nutjob from Vermont. But even if you don't think he's THE most liberal, he is ONE OF the most liberal senators in the Senate, and my statement about the only bi-partisanship being Reps who agree with Obama's policies still holds true.

2. Let's see, the near-one trillion dollars in NEW spending he's proposed above and beyond what's already being spent in government, (link earlier in this thread), baby bonds, socialized health care, everyone going to college, etc.

3. I live in Idaho, you forget. I am middle America. :)

4. I used "conservative" in quotes because the only thing that could be remotely considered conservative about him is some modicum of tax cut. Etc., as you know, is things along that line. You know, like voting for funding the Iraq War time and again despite being against it from the onset and all that.

I'm not a neo-con. I disagree with a lot of what Bush has done (namely, failing to adhere to any pillar of conservatism other than national defense and low taxes), particularly where he's spending out the ass without cutting elsewhere, or just flat doing without in the aspects of government that don't matter, in my opinion.

[Russell1892]

2. Let's see, the near-one trillion dollars in NEW spending he's proposed above and beyond what's already being spent in government, (link earlier in this thread), baby bonds, socialized health care, everyone going to college, etc.

And the Iraq war is costing????

Sorry just putting the cat amongst the pigeons. BUT... I don't understand why a lot of Americans see spending on a pointless war more important than making life better for its own citizens.

Those sound like British government ideas... or "Champagne socialists" as we call the Labour party these days. Everyone going to College has created a skills gap in this country that has been plugged by Eastern Europeans. Ironically the plumbers and plasterers are making out like bandits compared to those that go to Uni in a lot of cases.

[tigerdave]

And the Iraq war is costing????

Sorry just putting the cat amongst the pigeons. BUT... I don't understand why a lot of Americans see spending on a pointless war more important than making life better for its own citizens.

Those sound like British government ideas... or "Champagne socialists" as we call the Labour party these days. Everyone going to College has created a skills gap in this country that has been plugged by Eastern Europeans. Ironically the plumbers and plasterers are making out like bandits compared to those that go to Uni in a lot of cases.

You just pretty much made my point for me. :)

As to the war's cost, I don't really like the fact that we're spending so much there, but I subscribe to the "cleaning up our own mess" theory as opposed to debating the legalities/ethics/morality/etc. of our being there. It's a necessary evil at this stage of the game.

[Dirt McGirt]

1. Multiple outlets have rated him as the most liberal senator, even more liberal than that nutjob from Vermont. But even if you don't think he's THE most liberal, he is ONE OF the most liberal senators in the Senate, and my statement about the only bi-partisanship being Reps who agree with Obama's policies still holds true. Typical election year gamesmanship. It's an old political ploy and one that is less effective as time goes on. I would love to compare his voting record to say McCain's or Clinton's.

2. Let's see, the near-one trillion dollars in NEW spending he's proposed above and beyond what's already being spent in government, (link earlier in this thread), baby bonds, socialized health care, everyone going to college, etc. Sounds very vague. Where are you getting your numbers? Do you have any idea how much Iraq is costing us?

3. I live in Idaho, you forget. I am middle America. :) I think Middle America become more a state of mind rather then a physical location exclusively and Idaho is actually considered part of the PacNW.

4. I used "conservative" in quotes because the only thing that could be remotely considered conservative about him is some modicum of tax cut. Etc., as you know, is things along that line. You know, like voting for funding the Iraq War time and again despite being against it from the onset and all that.

I'm not a neo-con. I disagree with a lot of what Bush has done (namely, failing to adhere to any pillar of conservatism other than national defense and low taxes), particularly where he's spending out the ass without cutting elsewhere, or just flat doing without in the aspects of government that don't matter, in my opinion. You sound almost Libertarian to me but your explanation really helps me understand your point of view. For the record I consider myself a center left Progressive .

I must say I'm disappointed with McCain and the Bush White House failure to support increased benefits for Veterans and improving the GI Bill.

[Russell1892]

You just pretty much made my point for me. :)

As to the war's cost, I don't really like the fact that we're spending so much there, but I subscribe to the "cleaning up our own mess" theory as opposed to debating the legalities/ethics/morality/etc. of our being there. It's a necessary evil at this stage of the game.

I was trying to make the point that if Bush had put the war in Iraq in his manifesto, compared to what similar spending could have achieved in terms of bettering the lives of US citizens. I just find it funny that people recoil in horror at massive spending making their own country better, as opposed to being poured down the drain in a foreign shit-hole.

At this stage of the "game" though I agree with the philosophy.

[tigerdave]

Like I said, Dirt, the Iraq War spending (which Obama voted in support of pretty much every time it was specifically on the docket, according to his Senate voting record, despite being vocally against the war from the beginning or what-have-you) is a necessary evil in my opinion. I don't really like that kind of government spending but we really have no choice in order to A) save face (regrettably, this is a big part of it) and B) make sure that some modicum of order remains in Iraq after we're done.

My numbers on Obama come from US News and World Report, if I remember correctly. I linked it in a reply to Colin a while back but I can't be bothered to go find it as I'm at work at the moment.

And I am more libertarian as far as government interference in my life goes. I want government the hell out of my life, day to day. But I'm a staunch conservative as far as policy (national defense, low taxes, fiscal responsibility, etc.) goes.

And the Vets deserve better, yes. Part of military spending should be allocated this way, in my opinion, without creating more spending (e.g. cut from somewhere else rather than raise taxes on anyone).

[JaredSS07]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051203014.html

Some great examples from your state illustrate my previous point regarding a certain segment of America.

Great point. So because Indiana has some stupid jackasses, I am not able to mock the idea that Obama is so perfect only a racist would vote against him?

How many voters are voting for Obama because he is black? I have had many friends, from here is racist Indiana, say they are only voting for Obama because he is black. One told me that he thinks having a black president will make other countries like us more.

Do you have any idea how many Bush/Cheney HQ's were attacked in 2004? My boss had to barricade the door to his office in Minnesota to keep high school volunteers and other volunteer's children safe during a union attack.

[Dirt McGirt]

Great point. So because Indiana has some stupid jackasses, I am not able to mock the idea that Obama is so perfect only a racist would vote against him?

How many voters are voting for Obama because he is black? I have had many friends, from here is racist Indiana, say they are only voting for Obama because he is black. One told me that he thinks having a black president will make other countries like us more.

Do you have any idea how many Bush/Cheney HQ's were attacked in 2004? My boss had to barricade the door to his office in Minnesota to keep high school volunteers and other volunteer's children safe during a union attack.Your missing the point which was a lot of ignorant people won't vote for Barrak because of the following illogical reasons.

1. His name
2. They think he's muslim
3. His race

Voting against for him politcal reasons was not mentioned for obvious reasons.

[JaredSS07]

Here's your moment to shine. (if you care to back your words up)

1. Please reference what in Obama's voting record in either Ill. or the US Senate leds you to believe he's a socialist more so then the actual socialist senator from Vermont?

2. What massive amounts of social programs are you referring to?

3. I was referring to a segment of the American population not you in particular.

4. Cutting taxes for the middle class is not a conservative belief or tactic. I think you may be confused on that point. What other conservative tactics are you referring to with "etc"?

Do you realize a Neo Con Republican has run up the worst deficit in American history after taking over a balanced budget from a Democratic administration?

1. Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007 (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/)

2. "Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans," "Create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund," "Establish 20 Promise Neighborhoods," "Obama will double the federal Jobs Access and Reverse Commute program," "Create Fund to Help Homeowners Avoid Foreclosures," "Establish 20 Promise Neighborhoods, and "Create Automatic Workplace Pensions."

3. Whatever. You play the same line that smug coastal liberals play about middle America. It is no different than the line that ignorant middle Americans use about coastal liberals. Just admit it.

You always run a large deficit during a war.
"The biggest deficits by far -- measured as a percentage of the economy -- came during World War II. In 1943 the deficit was $54.3 billion -- which today would amount to little more than rounding error. But back then it amounted to more than 30% of the wartime economy. Nothing since the war years has come close." Link (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2004/biggest_deficit_in_history_yes_and_no.html)

Maybe if Obama really wanted to help the debt he wouldn't fight for earmarks (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/politics/14campaign.html?ref=politics).
"Senator Barack Obama on Thursday released a list of $740 million in earmarked spending requests that he had made over the last three years..."

[JaredSS07]

Your missing the point which was a lot of ignorant people won't vote for Barrak because of the following illogical reasons.

1. His name
2. They think he's muslim
3. His race

Voting against for him politcal reasons was not mentioned for obvious reasons.

Call me racist if you want, but I think it is illogical to vote for him because he is black.

In Indiana only the urban counties went for Obama, the rural counties went for Hillary. Race is an issue in this election, I am not claiming otherwise. You need to either admit that both sides of the Democratic Party are racist or admit that there are differences in the candidate platforms that appeal to different areas and stop acting like only racists don't like Obama.

[Dirt McGirt]

1. Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007 (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/)

2. "Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans," "Create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund," "Establish 20 Promise Neighborhoods," "Obama will double the federal Jobs Access and Reverse Commute program," "Create Fund to Help Homeowners Avoid Foreclosures," "Establish 20 Promise Neighborhoods, and "Create Automatic Workplace Pensions."

3. Whatever. You play the same line that smug coastal liberals play about middle America. It is no different than the line that ignorant middle Americans use about coastal liberals. Just admit it.

You always run a large deficit during a war.
"The biggest deficits by far -- measured as a percentage of the economy -- came during World War II. In 1943 the deficit was $54.3 billion -- which today would amount to little more than rounding error. But back then it amounted to more than 30% of the wartime economy. Nothing since the war years has come close." Link (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2004/biggest_deficit_in_history_yes_and_no.html)

Maybe if Obama really wanted to help the debt he wouldn't fight for earmarks (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/politics/14campaign.html?ref=politics).
"Senator Barack Obama on Thursday released a list of $740 million in earmarked spending requests that he had made over the last three years..."
1.Arbitrary Republican garbage. Election year stunt by the right wing media again compare vote for vote. Explain McCain not voting to support the wounded warriors with a stronger GI Bill and in increase in benefits for those that gave the ultimate sacrifice.

2. Rescind the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% and get our troops out of Iraq should more then help fund these vital programs to help the American middle class and still have enough left over to help get us back on the road to fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget.

3. Middle America is a state of mind one that helped elect one of the worst Presidents in the history of our country and no matter how much it matters will vote out of fear rather then reality. Ask me again why the South votes Republican since 1964.

As far as the race issue it's McCain's only hope and it will be exploited by him, the RNC, and whatever PAC group that comes to McCain's aid. Let me be clear about something because I don't think you understand. There may be a million legitimate reason for one not to support Obama. To me race, religion and his name aren't in that category. Exit polls have shown in many states including your own that many people listed race as a deciding factor in there decision and overwhelmingly these people voted for Clinton. So don't get all angry white man talk radio:D like I'm calling you a racist(because I'm not and I haven't) when I'm not I'm merely pointing out what they data has shown in some of these mid west battleground states (including your home state). I promise not to get all angry black preacher man on you when discussing Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain.

I agree that's it's stupid to vote for someone just based on gender or race alone as the sole deciding factor. I'll be honest I would have a hard time voting for a Mormon but I would at least try listen to what that candidate has to say first and see if it mirrors some of my own political opinions and beliefs. If I like what I heard I would most likely put prejudices asdie and cast a vote for him or her.

[ToonUSA]

Do you realize a Neo Con Republican has run up the worst deficit in American history after taking over a balanced budget from a Democratic administration?

Yes, the same Democratic administration that weakened the US enough in the foreign policy field that it opened the door for 9/11.

Was it a good trade off in your eyes? :rolleyes:

[BayernWake]

Yes, the same Democratic administration that weakened the US enough in the foreign policy field that it opened the door for 9/11.

Was it a good trade off in your eyes? :rolleyes:

Are you blaming the Democrats for 9-11?

It's very sad when one party blames another for that disaster.

[Dirt McGirt]

Yes, the same Democratic administration that weakened the US enough in the foreign policy field that it opened the door for 9/11.

Was it a good trade off in your eyes? :rolleyes: The Clinton administration tried to warn the new Bush administration on the threat of Bin laden and were continuously rebuffed by the new Bush team. It's all in Richard Clarke's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke) book. Also read the 9-11 commissions report it's very interesting.


Pre-9/11 memo about Al Qaeda threat

Clarke and his communications with the Bush administration regarding Osama bin Laden and associated terrorist plots targeting the United States were mentioned frequently in National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice's public interview by the 9/11 investigatory commission on April 8, 2004. Of particular significance was a memo [15] from January 25, 2001 that Clarke had authored and sent to Rice.

Along with making an urgent request for a meeting of the National Security Council's Principals Committee to discuss the growing al-Qaeda threat in the greater Middle East, the memo also suggests strategies for combating al-Qaeda that might be adopted by the new Bush Administration.


Honestly I lay the blame at Ronald Reagan's feet for arming and training Bin Laden in the first place and supporting the Islamic fundamentalists in Afganhastan in the 80's.

I agree that the Bin Laden should have been pursued more aggressively during the Clinton administration but remember the Republican led congress would have squashed that in a heart beat considering they were at war with the President. Remember the outcry from the right regarding Bosnia?

[Dirt McGirt]

Dunkin Donuts pulls Rachael Ray ad (http://www.boston.com/ae/celebrity/articles/2008/05/27/dunkin_donuts_yanks_rachael_ray_ad/)

http://gothamist.com/attachments/nyc_arts_john/052808rachaelray.jpg
I'm scared of a scarff.

Does Dunkin’ Donuts really think its customers could mistake Rachael Ray for a terrorist sympathizer? The Canton-based company has abruptly canceled an ad in which the domestic diva wears a scarf that looks like a keffiyeh, a traditional headdress worn by Arab men.
more stories like this

Some observers, including ultra-conservative Fox News commentator Michelle Malkin, were so incensed by the ad that there was even talk of a Dunkin’ Donuts boycott.

‘‘The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad,’’ Malkin yowls in her syndicated column.:confused:

The company at first pooh-poohed the complaints, claiming the black-and-white wrap was not a keffiyeh. But the right-wing drumbeat on the blogosphere continued and by yesterday, Dunkin’ Donuts decided it’d be easier just to yank the ad.

Said the suits in a statement: ‘‘In a recent online ad, Rachael Ray is wearing a black-and-white silk scarf with a paisley design. It was selected by her stylist for the advertising shoot.

FoxNews keeping America free of paisley scarfs.

[ToonUSA]

Are you blaming the Democrats for 9-11?

It's very sad when one party blames another for that disaster.

No, but I hardly think that it's ok for the Clinton Administration to try and boast of such a Golden era.

The Clinton administration tried to warn the new Bush administration on the threat of Bin laden and were continuously rebuffed by the new Bush team. It's all in Richard Clarke's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke) book. Also read the 9-11 commissions report it's very interesting.
O yea, they tried to "warn" them. Why not take care of the guy during the 8 years of the Clinton Presidency? There were 3 attacks on American citizens on American soil and the Clinton Administration did absolutely nothing about it. Except for bomb a chemical plant in the Sudan, at which point no less than 6 Clinton officials stated that Iraq had been helping the Sudanese during their nuclear quest...but of course Iraq has never had anything to do with WMDs. :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/24/bomb.damage/

The United States also claims it had other evidence linking the plant with chemical weapons production. That evidence includes links between officials at the facility in Sudan and an Iraqi official who has been labeled by U.S. intelligence as "the father of Iraq's chemical weapons program."

Clinton and Gore get convenient amnesia... (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1160442/posts)

On February 17, 1998, President Clinton, speaking at the Pentagon, warned of the "reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." These "predators of the twenty-first century," he said, these enemies of America, "will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Honestly I lay the blame at Ronald Reagan's feet for arming and training Bin Laden in the first place and supporting the Islamic fundamentalists in Afganhastan in the 80's.

I agree that the Bin Laden should have been pursued more aggressively during the Clinton administration but remember the Republican led congress would have squashed that in a heart beat considering they were at war with the President. Remember the outcry from the right regarding Bosnia?
Blame Reagan but they didn't turn on us during his Administration, they did it during Clinton's. Couldn't Ol' Bill have gone after them? And what about Bosnia? Clinton showed why people's claims that "he was the first black President" are a complete farce by letting hundreds of thousand of people get murdered in Rwanda while he did nothing. The man spent maybe 30 minutes in the whole country after the incident. But then when Bosnians in Europe are getting massacred he rushed to their aid. Just a little amusing.

[tigerdave]

Two Senators who back McCain stepped down from associations with a Veterans non-profit group because the group ran two ads attacking Obama. This PC election makes me ********ing sick. In fact, PC-ness in general makes me ********ing sick.

You don't get a trophy for participating, little Billy. You suck. Get better.