PDA

View Full Version : Elections *****Late Night, Tired of Studying Thread*****


Mizzou_8541
10-21-2008, 10:29 PM
Ok, so I am almost as tired studying tonight as I am trying to figure out who I am going to vote for in this POTUS election. The ads, blogs, message boards are full of propaganda, flaming and ridiculous claims from both sides. Honest question-As an undecided voter, what would someone say to me to sway my vote that has to do with issues and that doesn't attemp to discredit the other side?

Donger
10-21-2008, 10:32 PM
Honestly, I would ask you if you are ready for radical change toward the left. Barack Hussein has made it clear that he favors massive government intervention in some areas, namely and most dramatically in health coverage. Are you willing to let your federal government take tacit control of such an industry and, if so, are you willing to risk them never giving up such control (as with Social Security)?

If you are, vote Barack Hussein.

DeezNutz
10-21-2008, 10:34 PM
If you would like some of Donger's money, vote Obama. Donger's not going to give it to you any other way, so you might consider this...:D

Mizzou_8541
10-21-2008, 10:36 PM
Honestly, I would ask you if you are ready for radical change toward the left. Barack Hussein has made it clear that he favors massive government intervention in some areas, namely and most dramatically in health coverage. Are you willing to let your federal government take tacit control of such an industry and, if so, are you willing to risk them never giving up such control (as with Social Security)?

If you are, vote Barack Hussein.

And I would reply to you (not that I disagree)-what are my priorities? Should I sacrifice nationalization of certain areas for improved diplomatic relations? Meaning, is it more important to have the rest of the world view us in a positive light (which is apparently more likely with B.O.) than to a have government-free private sector (generic)?

HolmeZz
10-21-2008, 10:36 PM
I think Barack provides the best break from the past and the greatest opportunity to restore our standing in the world, which is underrated by most; it directly effects out economic and security interests. The United States should be the envy of the world. I think the past 8 years have damaged that reputation.

Guru
10-21-2008, 10:38 PM
Heh, none of the above.:D

Mizzou_8541
10-21-2008, 10:39 PM
I think Barack provides the best break from the past and the greatest opportunity to restore our standing in the world, which is underrated by most because of how it directly effects out economic and security interests. The United States should be the envy of the world. I think the past 8 years have damaged that reputation.

I agree with you wholly (sp?) that the US should be the envy of the world. However, what will I be giving up to (re)obtain that claim?

Jenson71
10-21-2008, 10:40 PM
What were you studying?

Mizzou_8541
10-21-2008, 10:43 PM
What were you studying?

I should STILL be studying Human Resources. I haven't been on CP for so long I thought I would take a break and catch up.

Direckshun
10-21-2008, 10:43 PM
You've really given us nothing to work with, Mizzou.

I would ask that you provide us a rough sketch of the issue(s) most important to you.

From there, I can go to work.

HolmeZz
10-21-2008, 10:45 PM
I agree with you wholly (sp?) that the US should be the envy of the world. However, what will I be giving up to (re)obtain that claim?

I don't know the details of our personal life. If you are a very wealthy American(which you likely aren't if you're just a college student), you'd be giving up more in taxes. If you have a regular job, you're probably going to see your taxes go down a bit.

Other than that, I'm not terribly sure what you mean by what you'd be giving up by voting for either candidate. Anything specific?

Mizzou_8541
10-21-2008, 10:49 PM
You've really given us nothing to work with, Mizzou.

I would ask that you provide us a rough sketch of the issue(s) most important to you.

From there, I can go to work.

Fair enough.

I find that I am conservative on some social issues namely abortion. I don't want this to turn into an abortion thread, but that is something that will not budge in my mind for personal reasons.

What could budge, however, is my stance on healthcare. I see both sides on this issue.

Also, as a decorated veteran from multiple Iraq deployments, I know what people (at least in the middle east) think of the US. that being said, I also saw first hand progress being made.

As a college student, the damaged economy has yet to impact my life, however, I am outraged (at seemingly a very inconsequential point) that the corporations who were bailed out are now going on lavish hunting trips, CEOs walking with multi-millions, etc. The corruption on Wall Street has to stop, but I'm not sure if that means "government" being a player. I hope that makes sense. I will clarify if need be.

Direckshun
10-21-2008, 11:05 PM
Fair enough.

I find that I am conservative on some social issues namely abortion. I don't want this to turn into an abortion thread, but that is something that will not budge in my mind for personal reasons.

What could budge, however, is my stance on healthcare. I see both sides on this issue.

Also, as a decorated veteran from multiple Iraq deployments, I know what people (at least in the middle east) think of the US. that being said, I also saw first hand progress being made.

As a college student, the damaged economy has yet to impact my life, however, I am outraged (at seemingly a very inconsequential point) that the corporations who were bailed out are now going on lavish hunting trips, CEOs walking with multi-millions, etc. The corruption on Wall Street has to stop, but I'm not sure if that means "government" being a player. I hope that makes sense. I will clarify if need be.

That's enough for me to go on. Let me offer you my perspective on each.

Abortion's a fair issue for you to take alarm on. If you're pro-life, you're pro-life. I commend you for, at the very least, being open to other issues. Hardcore pro-lifers care about little else than that one issue.

My counter, as an Obama supporter, to someone who is prolife is that neither candidate will realistically end abortion. Abortion rates will not decrease under either administration. Abortion will not be made illegal. However, there is something to be said about lives that are already born -- we have one of the highest infant mortality rates, we have a dreadful healthcare setup, and our prescription drug prices are oftentimes disgraceful.

Between the two candidates, only one has made any significant inroads on these topics, and that's Obama. Obama's universal healthcare will offer an optional buy-in process for the however many million Americans who can't achieve full-time, professional jobs. McCain offers a $4,000 tax credit for Americans to choose their own doctors, but I'm simply not sure that's enough.

Since you obviously know the importance of the American reputation across the world, let me further expound on that issue. An Obama presidency presents an opportunity for a great image across the world, a clean American repudiation of Bush, who's destroyed our reputation.

Restoring America's reputation is a national security issue. The higher in esteem our country is held, the lesser chance we will be attacked. Restoring America's reputation is an economical issue. The higher in esteem our country is held, the greater chance that citizens of the world will buy American products worldwide. Restoring America's reputation in a human rights issue. The higher in esteem our country is held, the more and more countries will follow our lead on human rights.

All these things can improve under Obama, the cleanest, sharpest break from Bush that the world overwhelmingly supports.

The fact that you're a college student is significant, because in addition to the ailing economy, you're going to start off your career, most likely, under the weight of thousands of dollars in student loans. Only Obama has offered a plan to reduce the ridiculous size of these loans -- by paying thousands of them for you, if you put your collegiate knowledge to work and volunteer in your community 100+ hours a year. It's like a built-in stipend.

As for the economy itself, neither candidate has taken a particularly strong stand on the bailout, but at least Obama's tax philsophy makes sense. McCain's view of taxes and regulation is exactly the same as Bush's -- more tax cuts for the people who need them least, and smaller government and less regulation to worry about those businesses that are raping the American public like the banks are right now.

The choice is particularly clear for me, and that's Obama. Good luck with yours.

Mizzou_8541
10-21-2008, 11:16 PM
That's enough for me to go on. Let me offer you my perspective on each.

Abortion's a fair issue for you to take alarm on. If you're pro-life, you're pro-life. I commend you for, at the very least, being open to other issues. Hardcore pro-lifers care about little else than that one issue.

My counter, as an Obama supporter, to someone who is prolife is that neither candidate will realistically end abortion. Abortion rates will not decrease under either administration. Abortion will not be made illegal. However, there is something to be said about lives that are already born -- we have one of the highest infant mortality rates, we have a dreadful healthcare setup, and our prescription drug prices are oftentimes disgraceful.

Between the two candidates, only one has made any significant inroads on these topics, and that's Obama. Obama's universal healthcare will offer an optional buy-in process for the however many million Americans who can't achieve full-time, professional jobs. McCain offers a $4,000 tax credit for Americans to choose their own doctors, but I'm simply not sure that's enough.

Since you obviously know the importance of the American reputation across the world, let me further expound on that issue. An Obama presidency presents an opportunity for a great image across the world, a clean American repudiation of Bush, who's destroyed our reputation.

Restoring America's reputation is a national security issue. The higher in esteem our country is held, the lesser chance we will be attacked. Restoring America's reputation is an economical issue. The higher in esteem our country is held, the greater chance that citizens of the world will buy American products worldwide. Restoring America's reputation in a human rights issue. The higher in esteem our country is held, the more and more countries will follow our lead on human rights.

All these things can improve under Obama, the cleanest, sharpest break from Bush that the world overwhelmingly supports.

The fact that you're a college student is significant, because in addition to the ailing economy, you're going to start off your career, most likely, under the weight of thousands of dollars in student loans. Only Obama has offered a plan to reduce the ridiculous size of these loans -- by paying thousands of them for you, if you put your collegiate knowledge to work and volunteer in your community 100+ hours a year. It's like a built-in stipend.

As for the economy itself, neither candidate has taken a particularly strong stand on the bailout, but at least Obama's tax philsophy makes sense. McCain's view of taxes and regulation is exactly the same as Bush's -- more tax cuts for the people who need them least, and smaller government and less regulation to worry about those businesses that are raping the American public like the banks are right now.

The choice is particularly clear for me, and that's Obama. Good luck with yours.

Direckshun- wow, thank you. That is the most straightforward answer I have heard to date and I is much appreciated. I agree in principle with everything you said above, but, for the sake of argument let me pose a few more questions (which I promise are not ground-breaking by any means).

This will sound silly, so anyone else reading please, flame on, but is there a chance of B.O. becoming to powerful?

Next question-will this means more dependence on government and place less emphasis on presonal responsibility?

Finally, a subject near and dear to me, (and I will stress that this info is second-hand) I have heard that B.O. simply had photo ops with the troops on his trips overseas. How do you see this playing out in the near future if he is elected? If he pays lip service to the troops who are defending the US, what else will he pay lip service to?

Jenson71
10-21-2008, 11:26 PM
Is there anything wrong with becoming a volunteer in order to get payments taken off of your student loan?

When I think of volunteerism, it is strictly that a person does something for nothing in return -- they do it only because it is the good thing to do. When we expect something in return, or that is the end of the means, does it still remain volunteer work?

I don't know of this program Obama has talked of, but I'm initially inclined to think "volunteering" is not the right word, on account of the actual volunteers who do give up their time and expect nothing in return.

'Hamas' Jenkins
10-21-2008, 11:28 PM
Direckshun- wow, thank you. That is the most straightforward answer I have heard to date and I is much appreciated. I agree in principle with everything you said above, but, for the sake of argument let me pose a few more questions (which I promise are not ground-breaking by any means).

This will sound silly, so anyone else reading please, flame on, but is there a chance of B.O. becoming to powerful?

Next question-will this means more dependence on government and place less emphasis on presonal responsibility?

Finally, a subject near and dear to me, (and I will stress that this info is second-hand) I have heard that B.O. simply had photo ops with the troops on his trips overseas. How do you see this playing out in the near future if he is elected? If he pays lip service to the troops who are defending the US, what else will he pay lip service to?

If I may interject:

Obama becoming "too powerful" really isn't something that I would concern myself with. The Democrats have about a 3/10 shot of attaining 60 seats in the Senate, which would mean that they could stop the Republicans from filibustering. Is this a bad thing, or is it merely the will of the people who want to see a change in their current representation?

Even with that having been said, the issues most likely to be filibustered are his Health Care policy, and perhaps judicial appointments. The odds of a Republican retiring during the next four years is exceedingly low, but Obama could name 3 new SC justices. They would all be replacing liberals, however, so the balance of the court would remain the same.

As far as Health Care is concerned, we spend more per capita on HC than any country in the world and are 37th in quality. Something needs to be changed. Countries like Canada and Britain not only spend a lower percentage of their GDP on Universal Health Care, but their citizens like it more and are healthier.

The only thing that has prevented UHC thus far is the power of the insurance lobbying groups.

Furthermore, I would suggest that you read up on the Unitary Executive Theory. If anyone would be accused of wielding too much power, it would be the current admin.

Finally, I would tell you that someone who wants to remove the troops from harm's way for a mission that he doesn't feel should have been authorized or waged isn't paying lip service to them. He's recognizing that they shouldn't be put in that danger for something that was a mistake.

'Hamas' Jenkins
10-21-2008, 11:28 PM
Is there anything wrong with becoming a volunteer in order to get payments taken off of your student loan?

When I think of volunteerism, it is strictly that a person does something for nothing in return -- they do it only because it is the good thing to do. When we expect something in return, or that is the end of the means, does it still remain volunteer work?

I don't know of this program Obama has talked of, but I'm initially inclined to think "volunteering" is not the right word, on account of the actual volunteers who do give up their time and expect nothing in return.

He calls it a civil service program.

Mizzou_8541
10-21-2008, 11:30 PM
Is there anything wrong with becoming a volunteer in order to get payments taken off of your student loan?

When I think of volunteerism, it is strictly that a person does something for nothing in return -- they do it only because it is the good thing to do. When we expect something in return, or that is the end of the means, does it still remain volunteer work?

I don't know of this program Obama has talked of, but I'm initially inclined to think "volunteering" is not the right word, on account of the actual volunteers who do give up their time and expect nothing in return.

I agree. I'm not sure how one could give of themselves for pseudo-compensation and still refer to it as "volunteering" but I think it is a great idea. Does that make me a sell-out?

Mizzou_8541
10-21-2008, 11:33 PM
If I may interject:

Obama becoming "too powerful" really isn't something that I would concern myself with. The Democrats have about a 3/10 shot of attaining 60 seats in the Senate, which would mean that they could stop the Republicans from filibustering. Is this a bad thing, or is it merely the will of the people who want to see a change in their current representation?

Even with that having been said, the issues most likely to be filibustered are his Health Care policy, and perhaps judicial appointments. The odds of a Republican retiring during the next four years is exceedingly low, but Obama could name 3 new SC justices. They would all be replacing liberals, however, so the balance of the court would remain the same.

As far as Health Care is concerned, we spend more per capita on HC than any country in the world and are 37th in quality. Something needs to be changed. Countries like Canada and Britain not only spend a lower percentage of their GDP on Universal Health Care, but their citizens like it more and are healthier.

The only thing that has prevented UHC thus far is the power of the insurance lobbying groups.

Furthermore, I would suggest that you read up on the Unitary Executive Theory. If anyone would be accused of wielding too much power, it would be the current admin.

Finally, I would tell you that someone who wants to remove the troops from harm's way for a mission that he doesn't feel should have been authorized or waged isn't paying lip service to them. He's recognizing that they shouldn't be put in that danger for something that was a mistake.

I was refering to the support of the troops themselves and not that actual mission. Believe me, I don't(didn't) want to be put in danger for a mistake, but I considered it my duty regardless.

Direckshun
10-21-2008, 11:35 PM
Direckshun- wow, thank you. That is the most straightforward answer I have heard to date and I is much appreciated. I agree in principle with everything you said above, but, for the sake of argument let me pose a few more questions (which I promise are not ground-breaking by any means).

This will sound silly, so anyone else reading please, flame on, but is there a chance of B.O. becoming to powerful?

Next question-will this means more dependence on government and place less emphasis on presonal responsibility?

Finally, a subject near and dear to me, (and I will stress that this info is second-hand) I have heard that B.O. simply had photo ops with the troops on his trips overseas. How do you see this playing out in the near future if he is elected? If he pays lip service to the troops who are defending the US, what else will he pay lip service to?
Very welcome. Whether you agree or not, it's a worthwhile conversation.

There is very much a chance of Obama becoming too powerful. The power of the Presidency has expanded with every Presidency since Carter, with perhaps a brief pause during the Bush I administration. Clinton and Bush in particular have expanded the President's power to such bloated proportions that it's single-handedly starting outweigh the checks and balances system.

This is where a couple times come into play for Obama that I, an Obama supporter, cherish and admire. First of all, he was for a period of time a Constitutional Law professor at a Top 10 law school in this country. As a guy who has spoken with law professors at length at a law school that barely breaks the Top 100, I can vouch for their collective brilliance. Obama understands the historical overreaches of Clinton, Bush, and Reagan perhaps better than anybody, and has spoken about them at length.

Of particular importance in this debate are the extralegal prisons like Gitmo, domestic spying, signing statements and line item vetos, and complete aversion to legislative oversight. McCain's stances on these issues are confusing (Gitmo, spying, and oversight he's gone back and forth on) or nonexistant (signing statements? hello?). Obama's campaign has also been far more transparent than the McCain campaign, which bodes well for oversight.

In addition to that, his record as President of the Harvard Law Review is promising. When elected as the first black president of the law review, liberals and blacks throughout the law school were his harshest critics, complaining that he wasn't doing enough to further their partisan causes (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html). That's right, instead of being the President of People Who Agree With Me, he used his power responsibly to further the quality of the publication. That's promising to me.

To your second question, I wish to remind you that there is always a fundamental choice we have to make in this country: between equality and freedom. We can't have complete versions of both, so the question becomes how far along the spectrum are we willing to slide to either end.

There is no doubt that McCain favors sliding to the freedom end, and Obama equality. As Obama's policies dictate, however, the only people who will see their taxes submit to a great slide towards equality will be the richest 5% of Americans, or people who earn greater than a quarter million a year. In other words, the Americans who can afford it more. And it's completely manageable: a person earning $250,000 a year sees his taxes go up less than $800.

The photo-op thing is a difficult stance to grapple with. It's tough to say. I will say that Obama visited with troops plenty when he made his trip to Afghanistan -- there is video out there that shows him shooting hoops with soldiers. So the visits he skipped out with the injured soldiers in Germany is your call, but the scandal isn't whether Obama was to visit these soldiers, because he already had visited with some. The question was whether Obama visited with enough soldiers. And I'm of the opinion that you never can.

'Hamas' Jenkins
10-21-2008, 11:38 PM
I was refering to the support of the troops themselves and not that actual mission. Believe me, I don't(didn't) want to be put in danger for a mistake, but I considered it my duty regardless.

I personally haven't seen anything about Obama that would suggest that he doesn't value the sacrifices of the men and women in uniform.

In fact, from his own site:

Strains on the Military: More than 1.75 million servicemen and women have served in Iraq or Afghanistan; more than 620,000 troops have completed multiple deployments. Military members have endured multiple deployments taxing both them and their families. Additionally, military equipment is wearing out at nine times the normal rate after years of constant use in Iraq’s harsh environment. As Army Chief of Staff General George Casey said in March, “Today’s Army is out of balance. The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other
contingencies.”

While he may not know what it is like to have served as active duty military, I think that he has a definite and profound respect for what you all sacrifice.

Direckshun
10-21-2008, 11:38 PM
Hey Mizzou,

I may have misread your statement about Obama simply paying lip service to the troops. My apologies.

I can say that Obama has brought in more donations from the troops than any other candidate in this entire election cycle -- easily eclipsing John McCain. The only other candidate that could keep up with him was Ron Paul. Obama's voted consistently for aid packages sent over to the troops in Iraq, and only on a couple occasions did he vote against it -- and it was never because he had a dislike of the troops obviously, but because of other provisions of those bills.

Whether that's enough is up to you.

Mizzou_8541
10-21-2008, 11:45 PM
Very welcome. Whether you agree or not, it's a worthwhile conversation.

There is very much a chance of Obama becoming too powerful. The power of the Presidency has expanded with every Presidency since Carter, with perhaps a brief pause during the Bush I administration. Clinton and Bush in particular have expanded the President's power to such bloated proportions that it's single-handedly starting outweigh the checks and balances system.

This is where a couple times come into play for Obama that I, an Obama supporter, cherish and admire. First of all, he was for a period of time a Constitutional Law professor at a Top 10 law school in this country. As a guy who has spoken with law professors at length at a law school that barely breaks the Top 100, I can vouch for their collective brilliance. Obama understands the historical overreaches of Clinton, Bush, and Reagan perhaps better than anybody, and has spoken about them at length.

Of particular importance in this debate are the extralegal prisons like Gitmo, domestic spying, signing statements and line item vetos, and complete aversion to legislative oversight. McCain's stances on these issues are confusing (Gitmo, spying, and oversight he's gone back and forth on) or nonexistant (signing statements? hello?). Obama's campaign has also been far more transparent than the McCain campaign, which bodes well for oversight.

In addition to that, his record as President of the Harvard Law Review is promising. When elected as the first black president of the law review, liberals and blacks throughout the law school were his harshest critics, complaining that he wasn't doing enough to further their partisan causes (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html). That's right, instead of being the President of People Who Agree With Me, he used his power responsibly to further the quality of the publication. That's promising to me.

To your second question, I wish to remind you that there is always a fundamental choice we have to make in this country: between equality and freedom. We can't have complete versions of both, so the question becomes how far along the spectrum are we willing to slide to either end.

There is no doubt that McCain favors sliding to the freedom end, and Obama equality. As Obama's policies dictate, however, the only people who will see their taxes submit to a great slide towards equality will be the richest 5% of Americans, or people who earn greater than a quarter million a year. In other words, the Americans who can afford it more. And it's completely manageable: a person earning $250,000 a year sees his taxes go up less than $800.

The photo-op thing is a difficult stance to grapple with. It's tough to say. I will say that Obama visited with troops plenty when he made his trip to Afghanistan -- there is video out there that shows him shooting hoops with soldiers. So the visits he skipped out with the injured soldiers in Germany is your call, but the scandal isn't whether Obama was to visit these soldiers, because he already had visited with some. The question was whether Obama visited with enough soldiers. And I'm of the opinion that you never can.

Again, I appreciate you thoughtful remarks. I guess I really have nothing left to say back to that other than "thread over."

Seriously though, it is disconcerting to read over and over how Obama will ruin our nation, or McCain will simply be Bush x2. Forgive me for being sappy and sentimental but, I love this county so much I just want to see it remain a leader for all nations. I have seen to many 18, 19, 20 year old kids sacrifice too much to see it ripped apart by partisans. It has just turned me off the whole election thing and want things to get back to where they were pre-911.

Anyway, I will step off my podium now.

Mizzou_8541
10-21-2008, 11:49 PM
I personally haven't seen anything about Obama that would suggest that he doesn't value the sacrifices of the men and women in uniform.

In fact, from his own site:

Strains on the Military: More than 1.75 million servicemen and women have served in Iraq or Afghanistan; more than 620,000 troops have completed multiple deployments. Military members have endured multiple deployments taxing both them and their families. Additionally, military equipment is wearing out at nine times the normal rate after years of constant use in Iraq’s harsh environment. As Army Chief of Staff General George Casey said in March, “Today’s Army is out of balance. The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other
contingencies.”

While he may not know what it is like to have served as active duty military, I think that he has a definite and profound respect for what you all sacrifice.

Yes, but to clarify again (I don't make my point well) I heard from friend that he was cold, rushed, wanting to leave ASAP and simply there for photo-ops when he was in country.

I do not doubt that he is fully aware of the circumstances of soldiers or thier families. I was simply stating that I heard from Marine friends of mine that he wanted out of there ASAP and didn't want anything to do with anyone that didn't further his cause. What I am NOT saying is that it is true.

Mizzou_8541
10-21-2008, 11:50 PM
Hey Mizzou,

I may have misread your statement about Obama simply paying lip service to the troops. My apologies.

I can say that Obama has brought in more donations from the troops than any other candidate in this entire election cycle -- easily eclipsing John McCain. The only other candidate that could keep up with him was Ron Paul. Obama's voted consistently for aid packages sent over to the troops in Iraq, and only on a couple occasions did he vote against it -- and it was never because he had a dislike of the troops obviously, but because of other provisions of those bills.

Whether that's enough is up to you.

No worries at all.

And that is something I did not know. I apparently am not a very informed voter.

Direckshun
10-21-2008, 11:53 PM
Again, I appreciate you thoughtful remarks. I guess I really have nothing left to say back to that other than "thread over."

Seriously though, it is disconcerting to read over and over how Obama will ruin our nation, or McCain will simply be Bush x2. Forgive me for being sappy and sentimental but, I love this county so much I just want to see it remain a leader for all nations. I have seen to many 18, 19, 20 year old kids sacrifice too much to see it ripped apart by partisans. It has just turned me off the whole election thing and want things to get back to where they were pre-911.

Anyway, I will step off my podium now.

The good news is that neither candidate has a history of being particularly partisan. Until the past few years, John McCain has always been a wildcard whose sported a handful of refreshingly liberal views, and has stood up as much as any Republican to the Bush administration. There's a reason he was my favorite Republican in the GOP primaries, and he's long been a favorite of Democrats. If McCain could have run with Leiberman, he would've.

On the other hand, it wasn't until this election kicked into high gear that Obama's generated that much animosity from the other side of the aisle, who have long found his political talents and true eagerness for bipartisanship laudable. He has passed legislation with some of the most conservative members of Congress, and if you haven't read that link about Obama's tenure as President of the Harvard Law Review, you should. It tells an extensive tale about how Obama's dedication to Everybody, not just Those Who Agree With Me, was commendable by those on the right and even frustrated those on the left who wanted him to be a far more partisan figure.

I've long been a fan of both men as long as I've seriously followed them, but my enthusiasm waned for McCain when he realized, skeptically but accurately, that he simply could not win the GOP nomination without marrying himself to Bush, who at that point was still a darling of the base. This sell-out would be fine by me if it were simply superficial, but even after winning the nomination, McCain has marred himself by touting nothing but arch-conservative foreign policy and economic policies, and has selected an unqualified running mate who does nothing but incite culture wars and suggests the non-Republican parts of the country aren't truly American.

'Hamas' Jenkins
10-21-2008, 11:53 PM
Yes, but to clarify again (I don't make my point well) I heard from friend that he was cold, rushed, wanting to leave ASAP and simply there for photo-ops when he was in country.

I do not doubt that he is fully aware of the circumstances of soldiers or thier families. I was simply stating that I heard from Marine friends of mine that he wanted out of there ASAP and didn't want anything to do with anyone that didn't further his cause. What I am NOT saying is that it is true.

I have no idea whether or not this is true or false, so I really can't comment any further. I'm not going to make something up to try and delude you, I can only say to perhaps seek out more contacts and see if they noticed a similar pattern.

Mizzou_8541
10-21-2008, 11:55 PM
I have no idea whether or not this is true or false, so I really can't comment any further. I'm not going to make something up to try and delude you, I can only say to perhaps seek out more contacts and see if they noticed a similar pattern.

Yeah, thank you. Without knowing for sure, I should not have mentioned it.

Mecca
10-22-2008, 12:02 AM
All I really know in relation to Obama and the military is I've seen several people who are vets of the Iraq war, with sites like votevets.org saying that Obama supports vets more than McCain does in their voting records.

Mizzou_8541
10-22-2008, 12:08 AM
All I really know in relation to Obama and the military is I've seen several people who are vets of the Iraq war, with sites like votevets.org saying that Obama supports vets more than McCain does in their voting records.

Well, I think that could be seen two ways. I was personally involved with the passing of the 21st century G.I. bill and there are two ways to look at that.

One way is the way it was passed. Pay veterans an very fair amount to matriculate at institutions of higher education. that is what was passed and that is what I am using. I mean, veterans deserve to attend college and earn a degree whether they can pay for it outright or not. Great, right?

The other way to look at it is (the Mccain way) this new g.i. bill has simply hurt retention in the military because it has made college more lucrative than a career in the military. If it hurts retention then, for obvious reasons, it hurts the military and the troops.

I see this both ways so I can't make the judgment that mccain does less for the troops. Its kind of the "less is more" argument.

patteeu
10-22-2008, 06:41 AM
And I would reply to you (not that I disagree)-what are my priorities? Should I sacrifice nationalization of certain areas for improved diplomatic relations? Meaning, is it more important to have the rest of the world view us in a positive light (which is apparently more likely with B.O.) than to a have government-free private sector (generic)?

We do not have poor diplomatic relations with the rest of the world despite what Barack Obama and his supporters would have you believe. Yes, I'm sure we could get some Arab countries to like us better if we threw Israel under the bus and I'm sure we could get some kudos from Hugo Chavez and his ilk if we embraced their communist regimes and propped them up with sweetheart trade deals, but these aren't the kinds of improved relations that we need or can afford, IMO.

patteeu
10-22-2008, 06:49 AM
If I may interject:

Obama becoming "too powerful" really isn't something that I would concern myself with. The Democrats have about a 3/10 shot of attaining 60 seats in the Senate, which would mean that they could stop the Republicans from filibustering. Is this a bad thing, or is it merely the will of the people who want to see a change in their current representation?

It's not a bad thing if you're a fan of one party government.

patteeu
10-22-2008, 07:14 AM
Very welcome. Whether you agree or not, it's a worthwhile conversation.

There is very much a chance of Obama becoming too powerful. The power of the Presidency has expanded with every Presidency since Carter, with perhaps a brief pause during the Bush I administration. Clinton and Bush in particular have expanded the President's power to such bloated proportions that it's single-handedly starting outweigh the checks and balances system.

This is where a couple times come into play for Obama that I, an Obama supporter, cherish and admire. First of all, he was for a period of time a Constitutional Law professor at a Top 10 law school in this country. As a guy who has spoken with law professors at length at a law school that barely breaks the Top 100, I can vouch for their collective brilliance. Obama understands the historical overreaches of Clinton, Bush, and Reagan perhaps better than anybody, and has spoken about them at length.

Of particular importance in this debate are the extralegal prisons like Gitmo, domestic spying, signing statements and line item vetos, and complete aversion to legislative oversight. McCain's stances on these issues are confusing (Gitmo, spying, and oversight he's gone back and forth on) or nonexistant (signing statements? hello?). Obama's campaign has also been far more transparent than the McCain campaign, which bodes well for oversight.

In addition to that, his record as President of the Harvard Law Review is promising. When elected as the first black president of the law review, liberals and blacks throughout the law school were his harshest critics, complaining that he wasn't doing enough to further their partisan causes (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html). That's right, instead of being the President of People Who Agree With Me, he used his power responsibly to further the quality of the publication. That's promising to me.

To your second question, I wish to remind you that there is always a fundamental choice we have to make in this country: between equality and freedom. We can't have complete versions of both, so the question becomes how far along the spectrum are we willing to slide to either end.

There is no doubt that McCain favors sliding to the freedom end, and Obama equality. As Obama's policies dictate, however, the only people who will see their taxes submit to a great slide towards equality will be the richest 5% of Americans, or people who earn greater than a quarter million a year. In other words, the Americans who can afford it more. And it's completely manageable: a person earning $250,000 a year sees his taxes go up less than $800.

The photo-op thing is a difficult stance to grapple with. It's tough to say. I will say that Obama visited with troops plenty when he made his trip to Afghanistan -- there is video out there that shows him shooting hoops with soldiers. So the visits he skipped out with the injured soldiers in Germany is your call, but the scandal isn't whether Obama was to visit these soldiers, because he already had visited with some. The question was whether Obama visited with enough soldiers. And I'm of the opinion that you never can.

This worship of the guy because he taught constitutional law is one of the most silly things I've ever witnessed. Especially coming from a guy who ought to have some insight into law professors. To think that he's less likely to misinterpret the constitution simply because he taught the subject is unsupportable given that we have people representing diametrically opposed constitutional viewpoints teaching the subject at the finest law schools in our country.

As an obvious example, John Yoo is a constitutional law professor at a top 10 law school (UC-Berkeley). Do Yoo and Obama see the Constitution the same way? Of course not. On many points they probably can't be much farther apart in their views. Yoo is, by far, a more accomplished constitutional scholar in terms of original writings and actual constitutional law practice than Obama but yet you suggest that because Obama taught school part-time on the subject it is unlikely that he'd abuse the constitution in ways that are analogous to the ways in which you'd claim that Yoo has. It's nonsensical.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/yoo%20jpeg.jpg

As a less obvious example, do you think your constitutional law professor sees the constitution the same way Obama does?

http://www.law.umkc.edu/Faculty/profiles/Kobach/images/787.jpg

I had two different con law professors. They had some major disagreements on how the constitution should be viewed.

patteeu
10-22-2008, 07:27 AM
Hey Mizzou,

I may have misread your statement about Obama simply paying lip service to the troops. My apologies.

I can say that Obama has brought in more donations from the troops than any other candidate in this entire election cycle -- easily eclipsing John McCain. The only other candidate that could keep up with him was Ron Paul. Obama's voted consistently for aid packages sent over to the troops in Iraq, and only on a couple occasions did he vote against it -- and it was never because he had a dislike of the troops obviously, but because of other provisions of those bills.

Whether that's enough is up to you.

Again with the donations from the troops. LMAO

Those donations weren't much more than enough to feed the workers at one of Obama's local campaign headquarters but only if they ate Taco Bell. They wouldn't be able to afford Arby's. In other words, this is trivial and can't possibly be used to gauge military support for Obama with any reliability at all.