To my dearest Obamabots

[A4NoOb]

I like how the OP isn't responding to this. Logic doesn't work on far right wing voters. It's against their nature. It's why they all cling to their religion - it's easier than finding out the truth. Yes, I went there. No, I won't apologize.

For the record, I'm not even Catholic or religious. If people are voting for McCain because of religious similarities or because it's in the family tradition, they are equally as stupid as Obamabots.

QUOTEHere's some things on the issues that you might care about:
Taxes:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/econo...xproposals_tpc/

Energy:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=93218190

Education:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-carno...i_b_116246.html

Health Care:
http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/08/18...-care-policies/

Or do you also buy the GOP line that this election isn't about the issues? If that's the case, please stay home on November 4.

No counter-terrorism plans? No issues about the Iraq war? No issues about the Russian-Georgian conflict? Is it these issues are irrelevant or are they issues Obama has failed to discern upon in roughly a year.

 

[PizzaPasta]

HEY FELLAS! HE'S RIGHT, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING!!!!!

 

[bobrules]

I think CNN is bias towards Obama. I haven't seen any negative news about Obama yet.

 

[Jiggah]

McCain is for self-sufficient energy. Our renewable energy plans are basically draining more money than it gives us. McCain wants to promote the use of clean coal, nuclear power plants and drill for oil along the Pacific and Gulf coasts. When the issue of The Surge arose, McCain stood alone against the media. And The Surge Was Successful. He encourages missile defense systems in NATO countries and took immediate action against Russia when they invaded Georgia. He wants to increase troops in Iraq and Afghanistan so they can finish the war more efficiently. This is an addendum to initiating smaller governments and cutting more taxes
[\quote]

McCain for some reason has changed his position on renewable energy as he states himself during his speech. He is now for everything solar, wind, etc. So, the issue of money is out the door there. The use of clean coal, nuclear power and limited drilling are also part of Obama's plan.

The Surge is successful in that it reduced violence, but again the Surge was suppose to have two components. One was to reduce violence, which did happen, and the other was to use that drop in violence to allow the Iraqi government to gain some political progress, which it still has not done. Are we now defining victory as not crossing the finish line? Again, it was the same with Iraq, "victory" was used for the fall of Saddam but it clearly didn't indicate the necessary steps needed to secure the area.

When you stated that he took immediate action against Russia, what action? You should rephrase that sentiment. He stated "We are all Georgians," even before making the declaration to allow the U.N. to bring in a resolution. He was quick to draw the gun. I also think your understanding of the Georgian-Russo conflict is a bit off. Georgia attacked a separatist region, who had allied themselves with Russia. The issue that the U.S. as well as the U.N. are worried about is the fact that Russia over stepped it's use of force.

 

[Hooya]

What I posted are direct policy issues. There's no room for spin there in my opinion. I picked the sources I did because they had things laid out in an easy-to-digest format.

And just because I didn't post anything about national security doesn't mean that McCain and Obama don't have stances on those issues. Please realize that I didn't post only Obama stats there, so You're right, based on what I posted McCain has No plans for counter-terrorism or the Iraq war. /snark

 

[Ace Gunman]

Hey now! What's all the hubbabubba-balloo? I hate to burst your bubble, but this topic is getting a bit sticky for my liking. Calm'er down or I'll be forced to chew you out.

 

[granville]

@A4NoOb

You didn't watch the Dem Convention did you? You at least didn't listen to Obama's speech there. He said we were pulling out of Iraq within months and sending more troops to the people who ACTUALLY ATTACKED US: terrorists in Afghanistan. Try to remember that the Iraq war was waged based on a complete lie (and one that the Bush administration KNEW they were lying about) and should never have taken place.

As for the Russia-Georgia problem, even Bush himself doesn't know how to comprehend or handle this. So it's hard to attack the democrats on that. I expect the situation to pop up in the coming presidential debates, so you're likely to get your answer soon enough.

I'm an Independent who swings any way I feel like. Lately, my personal opinions lay along with the Democratic position. It's nothing to do with race (I'm white), partisan ties, or any other stupid affiliation with a person. I ally myself with whoever shares my ideas, regardless of party.

BTW, I was sort of neutral to the Clinton administration. They seemed to handle the economy well, but they had some serious scandal and other problems.

And I like McCain personally. I feel he's a great hero and a pretty cool person underneath. I just don't think he's what our country needs right now.

And I respect anyone's opinion who has the balls (or boobs) to suck it up and respect mine).

It's all the news channels (even Fox News) that are biased towards Obama. He's new and fresh for them to talk about and for good reason once you think about it.

 

[754boy]

 

[JPH]

That's classic

 

[laminaatplaat]

I also think your understanding of the Georgian-Russo conflict is a bit off. Georgia attacked a separatist region, who had allied themselves with Russia. The issue that the U.S. as well as the U.N. are worried about is the fact that Russia over stepped it's use of force.

The separatist region south-ossetia was the start of the conflict. This region separated itself from Georgia in 92 separation war. No country but Russia accepts this separation of south-ossetia. Russia has been keeping the peace with peace troops ever since. What happened was that Georgia send a army into the Russia protected zone (that is officially Georgia) To retake the region. This was after being attacked by long range weapons from the side of Russia (Of course Interfax denies this) So that's the reason they moved their troops. Then Russia being loyal to the region showed their muscles and kicked Georgian ass for no good reason but to show their power to western civilisation. And the fact that no economic sanctions have been taken against Russia just shows how much power they have gained the last few years with oil and gas becoming more and more valuable.

edit: little edit now =no

 

[jtroye32]

i'm not voting for anyone because we need a whole new system of government in general that's not run based on big business while we sit here and argue about "you rich people are doing this.. it's your fault" "well, you middle class poor people are doing that" etc. Meanwhile the super-rich are sitting there going "keep going, we're just going to keep getting richer and more powerful while you little guys argue". we're the ones that need to change the country.

 

[Hooya]

OK, since you asked:

Iraq:
Obama: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin
McCain: (best I could do) http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...c7ea83f11d8.htm

I couldn't find anything better than those. For the most part it's meaningless rhetoric on both sides. Simple distillation though is that Obama wants us out eventually and McCain says "stay the course". My personal belief from the beginning was that the war was wrong, set on false pretenses, and that since we got in, we should support our troops - by getting them back home. We will leave a mess behind no matter how long we stay, better we get out now, especially since the Iraqis want us out anyway.

Georgia/Russia: (not great links, sorry)
McCain: http://news.yahoo.com/story//afp/20080812/...te_080812124306
Note that he calls for UN Security Council on the situation even though at the convention the GOP lauged at Obama for suggesting the same thing.
Obama: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3585750,00.html

I personally don't think Russia is completely at fault as so many people belive. Too many first hand reports of people directly effected (and forced to leave their homes) say that the Georgian government was first at fault. It's a messed up situation and honestly I don't think we have ANY right to get involved right now. At any rate, I think that McCain's "Shoot first ask questions later" approach is the wrong way to address things. The fact that Obama took a couple of days to figure out the best solution shows actual planning on his part. Yes, McCain turned out to be right, as he turned out to be right that the surge "worked". The bigger issue isn't to look at the things that happened to go his way - good for him - but to look at the judgement process that either candidate went through to get to their solution. When it comes to a conflict literally on the other side of the world that doesn't directly involve us, I think taking a couple of days to think things through isn't a bad idea.


Flip-Flopping on the issues:
McCain: http://therealmccain.com/
Obama: http://www.nelsonguirado.com/index.php/asy...-flip-flop-list

For the record I don't believe that the so called flip-flop is necessarily a bad thing. I admire an official that can say "After re-consideration I now think this...". What I don't like is when they pretend to have had their current position all along, when that's clearly not true. What bothers me about McCain is that he's still trying to go by the Maverick title when in the last 2-3 years he's been increasingly voting down the party line. In 2000 he was a Maverick, but he is not any more. They both flip-flop. All politicians do. My personal belief is that Obama changes his mind on issues based on new evidence or experience, while McCain just seems to have pandered to his party in recent years (I don't believe for one minute that 2000 McCain would have picked Palin for a VP, even if under party pressure).

Now, don't you DARE call me an "obamabot". I just did more issue pointing and research in the last few hours than I suspect you have done throughout the presidential race. MOST "obamabots" are actually like this. And I would really appreciate since I went through the time to look all these things up that at least the OP, if not some others, actually look at them...

 

[Hooya]

I also think your understanding of the Georgian-Russo conflict is a bit off. Georgia attacked a separatist region, who had allied themselves with Russia. The issue that the U.S. as well as the U.N. are worried about is the fact that Russia over stepped it's use of force.

The separatist region south-ossetia was the start of the conflict. This region separated itself from Georgia in 92 separation war. No country but Russia accepts this separation of south-ossetia. Russia has been keeping the peace with peace troops ever since. What happened was that Georgia send a army into the Russia protected zone (that is officially Georgia) To retake the region. This was after being attacked by long range weapons from the side of Russia (Of course Interfax denies this) So that's the reason they moved their troops. Then Russia being loyal to the region showed their muscles and kicked Georgian ass for no good reason but to show their power to western civilisation. And the fact that no economic sanctions have been taken against Russia just shows how much power they have gained the last few years with oil and gas becoming more and more valuable.

edit: little edit now =no

Gosh, I hate it when a super-large military power steps in to police an international situation and gets carried away with their military force over a little country with almost no firepower to speak of.

oh wait....

Well, it must be OK when the USA does it.

(yes, I know the situations are very different, Russia had more right to do what they did than we did with Iraq)

 

[laminaatplaat]

I also think your understanding of the Georgian-Russo conflict is a bit off. Georgia attacked a separatist region, who had allied themselves with Russia. The issue that the U.S. as well as the U.N. are worried about is the fact that Russia over stepped it's use of force.

The separatist region south-ossetia was the start of the conflict. This region separated itself from Georgia in 92 separation war. No country but Russia accepts this separation of south-ossetia. Russia has been keeping the peace with peace troops ever since. What happened was that Georgia send a army into the Russia protected zone (that is officially Georgia) To retake the region. This was after being attacked by long range weapons from the side of Russia (Of course Interfax denies this) So that's the reason they moved their troops. Then Russia being loyal to the region showed their muscles and kicked Georgian ass for no good reason but to show their power to western civilisation. And the fact that no economic sanctions have been taken against Russia just shows how much power they have gained the last few years with oil and gas becoming more and more valuable.

edit: little edit now =no

Gosh, I hate it when a super-large military power steps in to police an international situation and gets carried away with their military force over a little country with almost no firepower to speak of.

oh wait....

Well, it must be OK when the USA does it.

(yes, I know the situations are very different, Russia had more right to do what they did than we did with Iraq)

uhm...

Let it be absolutely clear that I think it is outrages what Russia has done and I think economical sanctions should have been taken directly when it happend. To bad that Russia has Veto inside the U.N. and country's are to shitty to act on their own. (I don't blame em on that

)

And your right, The Iraq war can not be compared to the Ossetia conflict.

 

[jtroye32]

the US supplies weapons to terrorist/oppressing factions all the time. i read that there is a facility here in the US somewhere (name slips my mind at the moment) that trained a lot of major oppressors. This facility went under investigation so they changed the name of it and it still operates today. our government loves chaos for some reason, it's sickening if you look at the facts. the amount of money our government spends on our military in 1 year we could use to solve a lot of the worlds poverty and we can't even solve our own.

 

[SkankyYankee]

Obama 08, but McCain 08 in the testing area!

Im hoarding LCDs as we speak.

LULZ! I meant LSD. I'm not going to change it either. You know, for posterity.

LOL, that too. doomsday is going to be great with all those extra colors!

 

[Prophet]

"Now secondly, I am a black man. Hi. Let me put this as bluntly as possible. Don't tell my people how they should or should not vote; after slavery, after Jim Crow, after the lynching of our fathers, after the rape of our mothers, after desegregation, after being 3/5s of a man, after the death of our leaders, after the FBI wire taps, after poor schools and housing, after all this at the hands of the white ruling class... Do not tell me or my people not to vote based on race. We have been murdered and oppressed for our race and now you would cry foul if we thought to vote based on the color of our skin?"

Hahah Wow, So your going to vote based on race, Thats probably the MOST idiotic I think you could do. You should vote for who will actually Help this country, Not promise the world to people in his speeches, but will most likely if elected,Not follow up on anything mentioned in his speeches.

McCain/Palin 08'

I at no point said I would be voting based on race. But far be it for anyone to bemoan the idea of using race as a deciding factor. That is to say, men have died in this country over race. Race was a good enough reason to kill us, was good enough reason to oppress us, for years it was a good enough reason not to allow us to vote, but now race is small; too tiny a reason to use when choosing a candidate. Now that race, in the context of this campaign, might for once not serve the agenda of the white ruling class; now we need to throw race out the window. Your ignorance literally pains me, because I feel that reaching you is hopeless.

To clarify, when I say the “white ruling class” I am speaking about the top 1% in America who seemingly own 90% of everything. The rank and file Caucasian is not my intended target. Many whites have felt oppression too and often at the very same hands of the ruling class that has pained my people. But it remains true that it is under the shoe of prominent whites, that the spirits of the minority have been trampled.

@A4NoOb

You are worst than a fool. A fool is not ignorant by choice, whereas you are so content in your ignorance that you rather speak lies and utter non-sense than concede a point. Why do you come and post this gibberish if you aren't even willing to consider the possibility that you are wrong?

 

[BlueStar]

Lol.
I was a Biden supporter in the Iowa caucuses.
And now I support Obama, even though hate his guts.
It ultimately comes down to our personal beliefs, man.
I am Pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-liberal, stances that differ from McCain by far.
Why should I vote for someone who won't represent my views when I can vote for someone who, although he isn't as experienced, has an excellent VP and staff team who can help him through the tough decisions?
Please enlighten me.

I completely respect that you are voting for Obama for like-principles. What I have a problem with, is the people who buy into Hollywood propaganda, and vote for Obama because he's a good orator. Majority of Democrats don't even know what Obama stands for, and they think his eloquent speeches are proof enough that he's credible. This whole issue of "I'm voting for Obama because he's for change!" is the most ignorant fallacy I've seen. Jumping out of the frying pan into the fire is also change.

Uh-uh, the accusations about the "cult of Obama", "celebrity candidate" and "OMG, scary change!" might have worked before Sarah Palin came along and delivered a speech with zero substance but smug, sarcastic cheap shots and chinless idiots were chanting at her speech like it was WWE. And then, of course, all of a sudden "Whoops, we''re for change too!"

Palin would be hilarious if she wasn't so vile, every time I see her I expect her to exclaim "Sometime I question your commitment to Sparkle Motion!"

 

[Hanafuda]

i read that there is a facility here in the US somewhere (name slips my mind at the moment) that trained a lot of major oppressors.

well, if you read it, it must be true.

 

[A4NoOb]

OK, since you asked:

Iraq:
Obama: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin
McCain: (best I could do) http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...c7ea83f11d8.htm

I couldn't find anything better than those. For the most part it's meaningless rhetoric on both sides. Simple distillation though is that Obama wants us out eventually and McCain says "stay the course". My personal belief from the beginning was that the war was wrong, set on false pretenses, and that since we got in, we should support our troops - by getting them back home. We will leave a mess behind no matter how long we stay, better we get out now, especially since the Iraqis want us out anyway.

Why should we propose waving a white flag when American casualties have almost dropped to 0? When the democratic government in Iraq has finally started controlling the situation by making negotiations with the Sunni population? And considering Ayatollahs from Iran are trying to destabilize the entire Middle east. Even if McCain wins the election, it will take a while for drilling in Alaska and off shore resources to offset American imports from the Middle East, so McCain's idea of "staying the course" makes more sense than the opposite.

Georgia/Russia: (not great links, sorry)
McCain: http://news.yahoo.com/story//afp/20080812/...te_080812124306
Note that he calls for UN Security Council on the situation even though at the convention the GOP lauged at Obama for suggesting the same thing.
Obama: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3585750,00.html

I personally don't think Russia is completely at fault as so many people belive. Too many first hand reports of people directly effected (and forced to leave their homes) say that the Georgian government was first at fault. It's a messed up situation and honestly I don't think we have ANY right to get involved right now. At any rate, I think that McCain's "Shoot first ask questions later" approach is the wrong way to address things. The fact that Obama took a couple of days to figure out the best solution shows actual planning on his part. Yes, McCain turned out to be right, as he turned out to be right that the surge "worked". The bigger issue isn't to look at the things that happened to go his way - good for him - but to look at the judgement process that either candidate went through to get to their solution. When it comes to a conflict literally on the other side of the world that doesn't directly involve us, I think taking a couple of days to think things through isn't a bad idea.

The Georgian-Russian conflict has started way before the night of the Olympics despite media reports. Georgian databases were hacked into and messages of Russian support were posted all over government websites 2 weeks before the conflict. Georgian reporters were shot at by Russian militants for merely video taping their aggression. Russians have tried to discredit Georgian reaction by citing the casualties in Tskhinvali, yet the Human Rights Watch have disproved Russian figures.

Flip-Flopping on the issues:
McCain: http://therealmccain.com/
Obama: http://www.nelsonguirado.com/index.php/asy...-flip-flop-list

For the record I don't believe that the so called flip-flop is necessarily a bad thing. I admire an official that can say "After re-consideration I now think this...". What I don't like is when they pretend to have had their current position all along, when that's clearly not true. What bothers me about McCain is that he's still trying to go by the Maverick title when in the last 2-3 years he's been increasingly voting down the party line. In 2000 he was a Maverick, but he is not any more. They both flip-flop. All politicians do. My personal belief is that Obama changes his mind on issues based on new evidence or experience, while McCain just seems to have pandered to his party in recent years (I don't believe for one minute that 2000 McCain would have picked Palin for a VP, even if under party pressure).

And I even agree with you. Reconsideration can even become an admirable element of one's leadership. However Obama's flip-flopping is demonstrated from his lack of leadership. On every issue from nuclear power, to clean coal, to drilling he would either be critical or on the fence. And when the public opinion seems to lean the other way, he would come to a conclusion that of McCain's. Especially when America is targeted under terrorism, political scrutiny and the media, the last thing we need is a pliable President. Obama's concerns are about placating the people, not serving them. While talking to a Hispanic community, he told them that the American population should learn Spanish to be able to talk to immigrants.

ProphetI at no point said I would be voting based on race.

QUOTE(Prophet @ Aug 1 2008, 05:54 PM)

Obama.

Because he is black and my niece and nephew need some light.

"You are worst than a fool. A fool is not ignorant by choice, whereas you are so content in your ignorance that you rather speak lies and utter non-sense than concede a point. Why do you come and post this gibberish if you aren't even willing to consider the possibility that you are wrong?"

Let me suggest, this is nothing short of typical for Obamabots.