Auto-SummaryThe post is a debate between Mr. Klimt and the author regarding Barack Obama's political stance and potential presidency. They discuss Obama's liberal views, his ability to reach across the aisle, and his strong performance in debates. The author argues that Obama is more appealing to the youth, blacks, and will have higher voter turnout in the election. They also criticize McCain's moderate conservative views and flip-flopping, as well as the tax cuts. The author concludes by challenging Mr. Klimt to accept a $50 bet about Obama's presidency.
First off Mr. klimt, are you accepting my $50 bet?
Now I'll get to your post.
Quote:
Do you know Obama is the most liberal senator in the country? Do think America is that liberal? Is that drawing people back in? Obama has only sung platitudes; it has worked, but he is going to have to get to the issues; besides his policies being on par with a high school senior, they will divide because once you know where he stands you can't shape him into an imaginary mold.
Even if he is the most liberal senator, it's his demeanor that will convince people that he is cool and calculated. His performance in debates so far have shown that he can keep up under fire. You say he has sung his platitudes, I point you to his voting record as a member of the Illioni's legislature. He got a lot done there and has an excellent record of reaching across the aisle. Many bills he introduced we're co-sponsored by republicans. Finally, how do you say he hasn't really talked about the issues. That was what happened over the course of the 20 or so democratic debates. The differences between him and McCain are vast and will make it even easier for him to explain in broader terms than he has been able to so far. Right now in debates he has to explain small differences in his policies due to their similar nature with Billary's plans. I don't shape him into any mold other than the one that will win. He's got presidential qualities in addition to his ideas that will lead America into the very uncertain future.
Quote:
Obama was at the height of his power not long ago, he is no longer so infatuating. He's
just an over hyped up politician. One who is actually the most polarizing of them all. His strongest area is among the youth, who I bet will not turn out for him anyway.
When McCain raises $12 million in Feb, Billary raises $35, and Obama raises $50 million, explain how he's not as infatuating? He's not just good with the youth, but also the blacks. Expect a higher black and young voter turnout in Nov. If, you'd bet on the youth not showing up, then bet on McCain. I could use the $50. 
Quote:
Your statement about McCain is incorrect. He is a moderate conservative. I don't think the statement about flip-flopping will work. I bet most people believe he is sincere about making tax cuts permanent and is a "straight talking". McCain could just as easily fire back at Obama: He was for the war, then against the war, against the successful surge, invading our ally Pakistan, talking with Chavez, talking with Iran, re-establishing relationship with Cuba -- all without conditions. Obama has not been tested.
No one on the republican side will admit it, but he's as liberal as they come. Most republicans don't work with dems on bills. They work with other repubs the majority of the time. McCain Finegold or whatever, Lieberman, they've got the "true" conservatives in a tizzy. As for straight talking, I really liked when he came to MI and told the auto companies that they needed to go green and have better fuel efficiency, that yesterdays jobs are gone and we have to recover in new ways with new tecnologies. However, he did flip on the "tax cuts". There's no denying it. Maybe he is sincere now, but this is not a good thing with the independants. Check this lnk out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
A bunch of tax breaks on stock holdings and capital gains. Awesome. The average Joe doesn't care about the income tax being lowered on his 401K. This only helped the people making a living off the stock market, or that just have huge holdings. Instead, the working class is making up this lost tax revenue.
Your claim that B-Rock was for the war is distorted rhetoric that I'll let Obama debunk in some debate down the road. As for his stance on foreign policy, he did back off from his original stance. However. he may have just mispoke. He said HE would meet with these people. I believe he meant HE as in HIS policy would be to meet with these people, not necessarily him. He got attacked by Billary and had to clarify.
Quote:
Finally, I think you misunderstand Bush and U.S. history to say Bush was the worst President in American history. I'll give that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and Bush has to take responsibility for it. But the wheel of history is still turning, and so is the tide in Iraq. Violence is down, al-Qaeda has been critically wounded, and Iraqi citizens are rising up and against violence and for their country. The government in Iraq and Afghanistan are still corrupt and largely nonfunctional but so are all newly formed governments. What remains to be seen is if we can strike a deal with Iran (and we just snubbed Iran a two weeks ago), so we wait. We threaten Iran with sanctions and war; we threaten their Hezbollah; Iran threatens us with increased violence (and recently with taking al Sadr hostage). But in the end it is in our best interest to work together. So again we wait... but Bush has had one of the most difficult times thrown upon (something he didn't want to spend his presidency doing) and overall he made big mistakes but not nearly as big to make him the worst President in U.S. history.
I'm glad you realize Iraq was a mistake. Now if you would only realize that McCain backs this mistake and that alone pretty much ends this race. You can say it's getting better, but when a manufacturer isn't meeting quotas, then he hires an additional 100,000 workers to supplement the 300,000 he already has, suddenly he meets those quotas every month. No different here, except the taxpayers are paying this bill. Also, we all know that Al Quida wasn't in Iraq until we invaded (even the Pentagon acknowledged this week that Saddam didn't have ties to Al Quida). So don't go spouting the anti-terrorist thing. It's a terrible argument. Somewhere you said Barack supported attacking Pakistan. Yep, if he had GOOD intelligence saying Bin Laden was there. And then it would only be a strike at that location. That should be America's policy, it's sad that Iraq distracted us from that.
As for Bush, this time is no harder than any other. Imagine Bush during WW2, the Civil War (he'd support slavery, I just know it), the Cuban Missile Crisis, or the Great Depression. He's a bumbling fool. You say he won't be the worst, I say he is. You provide no one else to consider and your the person with the burden of proof. I'd be glad to hear of another president who fucked up as badly as Bush has.
Here's a nice farewell from the shittiest person in our country.
Now, I know I probably didn't change your mind, so how bout that bet?
--------------------
My advice is to find those things that give pleasure and do them often without too much attachment and relax and wait for the show to end.
-Icelander-
I like free markets and all. Truly I do, at least in general, but there needs to be some kind of oversight in recognition of sustainability. Life works the same way, on a bunch of sustainable systems. Why not honor what made us what we are and take some lessons? Nature FTW!
~dill705~
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
zappaisgod 
klimt 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
zorbman
carbonhoots
1 2 all )
Anonymous
trebbihm
lonestar2004
ekomstop