Obama's speech in Berlin - Page 13 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Donkey_Left · #**181** (**permalink**) 07-25-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by sahara

Why does it matter to you the reasons why I do not support Obama? Some people have never heard of the FISA bill, DC handguns, campaign finance reforms and still hates Obama.

When I show up to the polls to vote on election day. No one questions me, regarding whom I am voting for, or my reasons for voting for them. I am just asked my name and signed a form. Then off to the booth I go.

I am making a point to say, YOU DO NOT NEEED TO GIVE AN EXPLANATION as to why you are not supporting a candidate. Your decision only has to make sense to you.

Don't you have other things to worry about?

Dude... you are on a political discussion board.

Just sayin'.

sahara · #**182** (**permalink**) 07-25-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donkey_Left

Dude... you are on a political discussion board.

Just sayin'.

I am aware of that.

WharfedaleTiger · #**183** (**permalink**) 07-25-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

No need to point out those points about McCain to me goober. You are preaching to the choir there. McCain is just as hollow as Obama.

Oh, and for the record, I believe if US politics was issue and detail driven we would infact see less Dems in office. As an added bonus, people would probably also stop mislabeling them as liberals.

Depends, if we look at the stats 67% of voters who voted for GWB in 2000 thought that personality was more important than policy/issues, 45% of Gore voters though the same-I think that says a lot about the views of the diffrent party voters.

The fact remains that Barack Obama has more detailed policy commitments and plans than McCain, indeed he's written a whole book on what he would do.

TheLastBoyScout · #**184** (**permalink**) 07-25-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

LBS, let me generalize what I said so that it's not specifically pointed at Sahara; perhaps that will make it more comfortable for you.

I do not believe that anyone honestly opposes Obama for the peripheral and inconsequential reasons that Sahara and others have presented on this board. I do not believe there are many, if any, voters who are against him because he is in his first Senate term, or because of his wife, his former pastor, his Muslim father, his friends, or his trouble speaking extemporaneously. I believe, rather, that people who claim to do so are actually opposing him because they disagree with some or all of what he wants to do, and are using these reasons as excuses, perhaps because they are aware that many people will like what Obama proposes and are looking for reasons to oppose Obama that they can present to liberals with some hope of convincing them. Or perhaps for some other reason; I don't know, as I have never been motivated to come up with excuse reasons to oppose a politician.

This is not a conservative monopoly, of course. There was a book that came out in the Reagan years called Ronald Reagan's Reign of Error, which listed a lot of gaffes that Reagan made, some of which were very funny. But that sort of thing was not the reason he never got my vote -- he never got my vote because I disagreed with his policies. And I don't believe that that sort of thing, or his age, or how he treated his first wife, was anybody's honest reason for opposing Reagan. I don't believe that the way McCain treated his first wife is anyone's honest reason for opposing him, either. Or -- show me someone who agrees with McCain down the line on the issues, who is against him because of how he treated his first wife or his temper or what he did in captivity, etc., and then I'll believe it, but I still won't believe it's common.

I do not much like dishonesty and disingenuousness, and that is what I consider all this irrelevant Obama-bashing to be. I do not say that Sahara doesn't have valid reasons to oppose Obama. I am merely saying those valid reasons are other than the ones that have been given.

Not only is it disingenuous to do this sort of thing, it is also bad strategy, because unless you have political reasons to WANT to oppose Obama, none of this stuff is going to convince you. You need excuses only for what you want to do; if you don't want to do it, then excuses are irrelevant.

Well. I understand what you're saying, but I don't see what you're expecting.

The Bush-Bashing has been over the top for at least the last 4 years. Certainly, there's going to be some over the top Obama bashing (protracted Obama bashing if he's elected).

You might say that it's not the same and the basis is not as justified, but it will do nothing to dissuade people who view themselves as part of an ideological "team" from disparaging their perceived opponents.

rooobosmith · #**185** (**permalink**) 07-25-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

The second point, regarding visiting wounded soldiers seems more valid, if based in heavy appeal to emotion. Of course, at this very moment, probably neither McCain nor Obama is visiting wounded soldiers, helping build orphanages, or rescuing kittens trapped in trees, and they may be criticized for this, correctly if rather preposterously. The fact that Obama originally scheduled a visit to the soldiers and then canceled it is probably the source of the outburst of indignation and sentimental outrage, but the issue would be moot had he never scheduled a visit to the soldiers in the first place, which arguably (at least in the emotive context here) would have been worse. And, to be honest, I don't think there's anything invalid about not wanting a bunch of soldiers recovering from war injuries to be fodder for some campaign photo op.

I heard that the visit was denied by the military as they thought it was inappropriate for a campaign event.

Steve · #**186** (**permalink**) 07-25-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by rooobosmith

I heard that the visit was denied by the military as they thought it was inappropriate for a campaign event.

You "heard" it?

Where, Air America?

Sen. Barack Obama scrapped plans to visit wounded members of the armed forces in Germany as part of his overseas trip, a decision his campaign said was made because the Democratic presidential candidate thought it would be inappropriate on a campaign-funded journey.

Source

He wants to be the Commander In Chief. Visiting the troops would be, in no way, inappropriate. Besides, it sure the fuck didn't keep his douchebag ass out of Iraq.

But, as if to make everything okay for His Grand Doucheness, he does this:

From NBC's Jim Miklaszewski
Obama made phone calls to wounded soldiers at Landstuhl Germany this morning, in lieu of a personal visit to the forces that was canceled by the Obama campaign.

Source

The military didn't deny anything. Obama's own campaign team is saying they cancelled it.

But, facts never seem to matter much to libs, so keep burping up your bullshit if it makes you feel better...

AjaxPress · #**187** (**permalink**) 07-25-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by sahara

To answer your question, I cannot wait for November 4th to vote for McCain.

Have a good day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sahara
I am just prejudiced against people who think that they can con us into believing that they are something when they are not.

So are you voting for McCain because he's a Republican or because he's white? So most of your complaints about Obama can also be directed towards McCain.

jviehe · #**188** (**permalink**) 07-25-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

So the debate has shifted from "he's done absolutely nothing" to "My grandma can write and co-sponsor and pass a senate bill." ?

I have no problem with people attempting to diminishing Obama's legislative record, but I do when people are people denying or distorting it.

It seems like we're slowly getting somewhere.

I never said hes done nothing. BUt if we are going to start listing bills that have been cosponsored prepare for a long list on McCains side.

jviehe · #**189** (**permalink**) 07-25-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by WharfedaleTiger

Depends, if we look at the stats 67% of voters who voted for GWB in 2000 thought that personality was more important than policy/issues, 45% of Gore voters though the same-I think that says a lot about the views of the diffrent party voters.

The fact remains that Barack Obama has more detailed policy commitments and plans than McCain, indeed he's written a whole book on what he would do.

Policy commitments which he keeps changing. Pull out of Iraq right now. NO wait, make it 16 months. No wait, maybe I should go there and see then refine my plan. Are you really prepared to say that a 2 term senator has more detailed policies than a 20 year Senator? Go look at both websites. Youll see plenty of promies on both sides.

Hafke · #**190** (**permalink**) 07-25-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

So are you voting for McCain because he's a Republican or because he's white?

Sahara didn't mention race.

jviehe · #**191** (**permalink**) 07-25-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

I believe the speech aired on several networks live and was repeated throughout the day on all cable news outlets.

The American audience was probably many times larger than that 200,000 in Berlin.

It seems that it makes perfect sense if you realize that he's in foreign countries, but all the while, he's speaking to the American people ...making the case "See, I can do this".

Each American can make up his/her own mind about whether Obama's representing our country well or poorly, but almost all American s are watching.

So McCain talk to Americans in the US. Obama goes to Germany. Anyone seeing any problems with this?

CorpMediaSux · #**192** (**permalink**) 07-25-2008

Quote:

Jviehe
Pull out of Iraq right now. NO wait, make it 16 months

How long, exactly have you been following Obama's plans for Iraq withdrawal. His calls for an "immediate pullout" never said "all brigades will leave at once." In fact, 12-16 months has always been Obama's timetable for Iraq.
PolitiFact | Obama's Iraq flip-flop? Nope

Quote:

• At a Democratic debate in Hanover, N.H. on Sept. 26, 2007, the late Tim Russert pressed Obama as to whether he would have all troops out by the end of his first term. "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there," Obama said. "I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out."

• At a Democratic debate in Cleveland on Feb. 26, 2008, Obama said, "As soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we will initiate a phased withdrawal, we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. We will give ample time for them to stand up, to negotiate the kinds of agreements that will arrive at the political accommodations that are needed."

• At a debate in Philadelphia on April 16, 2008, Obama said, "Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief."

• On "Meet the Press" on May 4, 2008, Russert asked Obama what he would do if advisers thought "a quick withdrawal" from Iraq would result in genocide. Obama replied, "Of course, I would factor in the possibilities of genocide, and I factored it in when I said that I would begin a phased withdrawal. What we have talked about is a very deliberate and prudent approach to the withdrawal -- one to two brigades per month. At that pace, it would take about 16 months, assuming that George Bush is not going to lower troop levels before the next president takes office. We are talking about, potentially, two years away. At that point, we will have been in Iraq seven years. If we cannot get the Iraqis to stand up in seven years, we're not going to get them to stand up in 14 or 28 or 56 years."

Where is the flip flop exactly?

drgoodtrips · #**193** (**permalink**) 07-25-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

So McCain talk to Americans in the US. Obama goes to Germany. Anyone seeing any problems with this?

Probably only people who already dislike Obama and are hunting for reasons to validate that.

TheLastBoyScout · #**194** (**permalink**) 07-25-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

I never said hes done nothing. BUt if we are going to start listing bills that have been cosponsored prepare for a long list on McCains side.

Fair enough. Likewise, I never claimed that Obama has more a lenthier record of legislative experience than McCain. McCain wins every seniority argument that can be made.

I think any sane person would concede that point, and I don't see where that argument is being made in this thread.

It wasn't you who claimed Obama had done nothing, but that point was being made in the thread and it's a common argument...."Name me one thing..etc..etc." That's essentially what Steve said, so my response was "Here's a few".

goober · #**195** (**permalink**) 07-25-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

Policy commitments which he keeps changing. Pull out of Iraq right now. NO wait, make it 16 months. No wait, maybe I should go there and see then refine my plan. Are you really prepared to say that a 2 term senator has more detailed policies than a 20 year Senator? Go look at both websites. Youll see plenty of promies on both sides.

Obama has been talking about pulling out of Iraq for a long time, and he has always talked about the process taking some time, he has never called for the overnight withdrawal of all forces. He's been putting that number "16 months" on it for quite a while too, and the Iraqi PM happens to agree with him that that sounds like the right thing to do.

McCain has yet to present a plan for Iraq, he was for the war, he has said he would have been for the war if he had known that Saddam had no WMDs or ties to terrorists, he has criticized, after the fact, things that did not work, he supported the surge, and now proclaims it a great victory, even after saying that Bush's "biggest mistake on Iraq" was declaring victory too early, McCain thinks the "Mission Accomplished" speech was the biggest mistake.
He still can't get his head around the fact that the war itself was the biggest mistake.

Don't you think it's a little ironic to criticize someone for their hollow rhetoric, when their opponent thinks "My plan is victory" is substantial?