[HB]

Originally Posted by maxiep

He stands for "post partisan politics" yet he doesn't cross the aisle.

He stands for a "post racial candidacy" but he ridicules working class white people.

He stands for "change" and "hope" but seems to have one answer for everything: more government. What he has no idea how to do is execute the plan. That's what I mean by standing for nothing. He has fuzzy goals (fairness, equality, getting out of Iraq) but has no idea how to achieve them.


Thanks for your opinion. I disagree.

You do know that in PA, most of the people polled on the topic said they agree with Obama on the bitter issue.

Regarding the bolded part, do you think his opponent has explained how he is going to achieve his goals any better than Obama?

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by HB

You do know that in PA, most of the people polled on the topic said they agree with Obama on the bitter issue.

I guess that's why those bitter folks clinging to their guns and their religion overwhelmingly voted for the other person.

Originally Posted by HB

Regarding the bolded part, do you think his opponent has explained how he is going to achieve his goals any better than Obama?

I don't think Sen. McCain shares the same goals. For example, my impression is that he doesn't care about everyone living at the same level as much as he shoots for an even playing field. And he certainly doesn't seem to be lloking for an exit plan in Iraq unless we've won. If anything, McCain is more dedicated to the War on Terror than is Bush.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by HB

From the get go, Barack Obama has staunchly been against the Iraq War. Its probably the trump card that got him the party's nomination. Its a stand that he hasn't wavered on. Can you dispute this?

I have no doubt that Sen. Obama is firmly anti-war. It was a brave position to take, and one that has paid off for him. However, it's because he's so anti-war that I don't believe him to be fit to run this country's foreign policy. Then again, I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks about us, especially those totalitarian regimes that don't share our values.

However, this issue is an excellent example about which I'm writing. He wants to get out of Iraq. He started his campaign by saying he would bring our troops home immediately. He then changed his position saying he would bring out a brigade a week. He's now saying that he will meet with his generals and figure out the best way to leave. In other words, he has a goal (to get out of Iraq), but doesn't have the faintest notion of how to do so.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by barfo

Sounds pretty specific to me. And apparently sufficiently so to your bud Goolsbee.

barfo

It should be. AG wrote it.

[HB]

Originally Posted by maxiep

I guess that's why those bitter folks clinging to their guns and their religion overwhelmingly voted for the other person.

She had a significant lead going into that state prior to that comment. At the end of the primary, he had cut into the lead. The comment wasnt why he lost

I don't think Sen. McCain shares the same goals. For example, my impression is that he doesn't care about everyone living at the same level as much as he shoots for an even playing field. And he certainly doesn't seem to be lloking for an exit plan in Iraq unless we've won. If anything, McCain is more dedicated to the War on Terror than is Bush

.

I must have missed the memo. All he ever talks about is Iraq and Iran and how the surge is working. Obama, who you say stands on nothing, is the only one that constantly speaks of the growing Al Qaeda threats in other regions of the middle East. When he said he has no qualms in going into regions of Pakistan where Al Qaeda has been confirmed, Mccain and Hillary jumped on him.

Interestingly enough, George Bush today, seems to be agreeing with Obama, that diplomacy might be the best way to deal with Iran. John Mccain on the other hand, on the same vein today, just said bringing home the troops is not important and has no qualms sending more troops over there. Now maxiep, I take it you are a smart guy, is it really wise for the United States military to invest so much in one country and ignore the growing threats in other regions?

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by stockfire

It's painfully obvious to read to the OT board these days.

Then I guess there's no reason for you to continue to read it.

Originally Posted by stockfire

It's as if lil' blazer boy, maxie, and the rest had a back room meeting of "ok guys, let's put up a post everyday trashing Obama. We know our candidate is ****, and the only way to make him look passable is to attempt to ruin the other guy...

Then you haven't been reading closely enough. First, I'm not a registered Republican. Second, I was a Giuliani supporter.

Originally Posted by stockfire

ready? everyone grab your line of rhetoric and remember... repeat it over and over and. Eventually they won't bother responding and we'll look right. Goooooo team * group kiss*"

I come here to have a discussion, not to win a pointless debate with a bunch of people I don't know. I'm sorry you find criticisms of Sen. Obama so offensive, but if you want to continue to believe that he is, perhaps you should just put me on the ignore list. Only an idiot wouldn't have serious questions about his ability to lead this country. I had serious questions about Sen. Clinton's and Sen. McCain's abilities as well, but they both proved they were at least up to the job.

[HB]

Originally Posted by maxiep

I have no doubt that Sen. Obama is firmly anti-war. It was a brave position to take, and one that has paid off for him. However, it's because he's so anti-war that I don't believe him to be fit to run this country's foreign policy. Then again, I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks about us, especially those totalitarian regimes that don't share our values.

However, this issue is an excellent example about which I'm writing. He wants to get out of Iraq. He started his campaign by saying he would bring our troops home immediately. He then changed his position saying he would bring out a brigade a week. He's now saying that he will meet with his generals and figure out the best way to leave. In other words, he has a goal (to get out of Iraq), but doesn't have the faintest notion of how to do so.

Hmm, lets see, the United States keeps loosing money and lives in what looks like a never ending war, and Obama is wrong for saying he wants to decrease the amount of troops in that region. Never mind that its the smartest move. Everyone from Colin Powell to the media have all said, at some point the US is going to have to start pulling back troops from Iraq. Its just not smart to ignore other threats and keep sending troops to Iraq. The only one who seems to think this is a good move is John Mccain.

The fact that he actually says he will listen to the generals and go with their best judgement is something to be applauded not chided. George Bush got the country into that mess by not listening to those same military strategists, its interesting that Mccain uses that to try and differentiate himself from Bush on voting for the Iraq war.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by HB

I disagree. I actually think he shows how exemplary a character he is, if he is surrounded by so many shady friends and yet he himself has not been involved in any scandal. That tells me that the guy's moral compass is very strong.

We'll agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by HB

I wont even get into the whole Wright thing, because the media has made him out as a loon, do you really think all Wright preaches is hate? For goodness sake the man is a pastor, he was a marine for the United states, Bill Clinton invited him to the white house. You think any loon can get into the white house.

It should be noted that Louis Farrakhan does a ton of good for the folks on the South Side, that doesn't mean he doesn't also preach hate. And do you really want to make the test of a man's decency as to whether or not he's invited to the WH? Two words: Lincoln. Bedroom.

Originally Posted by HB

Regarding Ayers, once again he is a free man, shouldnt the United States government be blamed for letting a terrorist roam the streets of America as a free man. And if he is free, why make a big deal out of it?

Because of his beliefs. He still believes the same things he did as a member of the Weather Underground. He felt his group didn't do enough.

Originally Posted by HB

And your final statement, sounds very much like the arguements I get from Fox News all the time.

This line of argumentation is one of my favorites. If you can't attack the idea, attack the source. Kobe used the same tactic on that concierge in Eagle County.

Originally Posted by HB

Remember you keep saying your an independent but these are the very same points and arguements I hear from the right all the time.

I am an independent. Does an independent have to have a specific set of beliefs? Actually, it's just the opposite. Let's see, I'm pro-life, pro-gay marriage, in favor of the teaching of only evolution in school and many other ideas that if that's all you knew about me, would make you believe I was on the far left.

Originally Posted by HB

I'll say this again, the man is 46 years old, his opposition have combed through all his records and still cant find anything shady about it, its why they refer to the petty tactics, the religion issue, being unpatriotic, his associates. If he really were the same old politician, where are the scandals? Isnt that what politicians are known for?

He's like a Supreme Court candidate. Find a guy with no record on controversial issues who looks good, like someone who voted "present" 130 times in the Illinois Senate. Get some wink-wink assurances from him on the stances he or she will take and then have him or her speak in generalities. When pressed on specific issues, claim they're off-limits or they're unfair attacks.

It's a pretty common tactic.

[HB]

Originally Posted by maxiep

He's like a Supreme Court candidate. Find a guy with no record on controversial issues who looks good, like someone who voted "present" 130 times in the Illinois Senate. Get some wink-wink assurances from him on the stances he or she will take and then have him or her speak in generalities. When pressed on specific issues, claim they're off-limits or they're unfair attacks.

It's a pretty common tactic.

So how did he get the title of the most liberal voter in the Senate then? Surely it cant be from all those 130 present time votes

Regarding the other points made, not really much to say, I still stand by my stance, his opponents cant find anything wrong with his character, there are no scandals to latch unto, so why not make his associates the problem. Never mind Obama's book which pretty much explains what his values are, lets disregard that. I could care less about Ayers, Rezko, Wright and co. because I know they have no bearing whatsoever on Obama's administration. If he appoints any of them to work with him, thats when I get worried.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by HB

She had a significant lead going into that state prior to that comment. At the end of the primary, he had cut into the lead. The comment wasnt why he lost.

Yep, and all he had to do was spend four times as much money as Sen. Clinton to do it. He got closer through gains in Philadelphia, Montgomery Country, Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. The rural vote was a blowout.

Originally Posted by HB

I must have missed the memo. All he ever talks about is Iraq and Iran and how the surge is working. Obama, who you say stands on nothing, is the only one that constantly speaks of the growing Al Qaeda threats in other regions of the middle East. When he said he has no qualms in going into regions of Pakistan where Al Qaeda has been confirmed, Mccain and Hillary jumped on him.

See, the problem is that the surge did work. Do you want confirmation? The Democrats stopped trying to use it as a political issue. If it were even a draw, the Democrats would have been all over the surge like white on rice.

I think it's great that Sen. Obama wants to focus on Afghanistan. In fact he wants to clear out of Iraq so we can send all of our translators there--genius.

The reason Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain ripped him on wanting to go into Pakistan is it highlights his naivete. Pakistan is an ally, not a perfect one, but an ally. If you want to put Pakistan firmly in the hands of the Islamic extremists, go ahead and invade Waziristan. The problem is that Pakistan has the bomb. It would be an unbelievably stupid and destabilizing move. Say what you will about Iraq, but that war has been contained largely within that country's borders.

Originally Posted by HB

Interestingly enough, George Bush today, seems to be agreeing with Obama, that diplomacy might be the best way to deal with Iran. John Mccain on the other hand, on the same vein today, just said bringing home the troops is not important and has no qualms sending more troops over there. Now maxiep, I take it you are a smart guy, is it really wise for the United States military to invest so much in one country and ignore the growing threats in other regions?

Right now, we've left the EU in charge of negotiating with Iran. THAT's how we've been negotiation with them. Of course, once they get the bomb, we've lost our leverage.

I heard that comment from Sen. McCain today, and it made me happy. I'm glad that he's saying there's no way the terrorists are going to run out the clock on President Bush's term if McCain is elected to the office. You conveniently left out that his focus isn't troop level, but casuality figures.

As for me, I am a believer in dedicating full resources to settling Iraq down. We can keep the Taliban occupied with lower levels of forces while we take care of Iraq. Don't forget, both NATO and the UN are in Afghanistan. We don't have to go it alone.

As for the notion that we shouldn't focus our troops across the board, I would invite you to look at the Allies' strategy against Japan. We kept the focus on the islands while playing defense in Burma and China.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by HB

So how did he get the title of the most liberal voter in the Senate then? Surely it cant be from all those 130 present time votes.

What don't you understand about the dif