|
|
|
|
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/19/2008 3:46:44 AM |
So we are going to ride bicycles, have no a/c or food and live like obama wants us to live. are we to become a third world country under obama? I think the american public
Thats what we call a false dichotomy.
In a false dichotomy (also called a false dilemma, either or, black or white, the missing middle) you are presented with two choices, when in fact there are more than two choices. If one choice is discredited, then the reader is forced to accept the other choice. But this is not an adequate argument, the choice favored must be supported by evidence.
So there are choices between rediculous excess and living like a third world country, just like there are choices between starving to death and being a big fat ass.
the rest of you post? 100% based on that false dichotomy.
Is Obama saying we can no longer feed our children the food they need to grow healthy
and live productive lives?
Oh and this? This is what we call a straw man.
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]
| |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/19/2008 4:45:36 AM | Thanks for the lesson dictionary man,nice to see that Obama supporters are upholding the elitist perception that so many have of Obama.
Hey if an education in logic makes you uncomfortable, I think it says something far greater about yourself, rather than me, or Obama for that matter.
Having some basic education in a field which allows you to tell when somebody isn't exactly making sense (I mean false dichotomies are hardly complicated stuff) it allows me to quickly destroy an argument that has zero merit. For instance what you're trying to pull right here?
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
you're not actually arguing that his argument is logical, you're not actually arguing the facts of the case, you're simply applying a label to Obama and myself. Which doesn't change a damn thing.
Also, the president of your country is by his nature a member of the elite class. Perhaps you should make an effort to understand what a term means exactly before you apply it to somebody as a prejorative.
1 asingular or plural in construction : the choice part : cream bsingular or plural in construction : the best of a class csingular or plural in construction : the socially superior part of society d: a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence e: a member of such an elite —usually used in plural
| |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/19/2008 5:54:39 AM |
I guess thats why you use the same statements on so many threads...
I use the same statement on so many threads, because the same tired logical fallacies are made by so many Republicans on so many threads.
When his real vision becomes common knowledge the average American will not support him.Most Americans do not want to see their hard earned money going to support other Countries or Socialist programs in America.
I simply don't believe you have some sort of magical insight into Obama's mind. Especially considering all you seem to do is apply labels. | |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/19/2008 10:18:49 AM | http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mzk0ZjRmZWUyZGE1NzlmM2RmNzBkMzBlM2Y4MjgzYWU=
Obama Change
A reversion to the policies of the discredited Left.
By Victor Davis Hanson
By this point in the presidential campaign, the public knows that a charismatic Barack Obama wants sweeping “change.” While the national media have often fallen hard for the Illinois senator’s rhetoric — MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said he felt a “thrill going up my leg” during an Obama speech — exactly what kind of change can Obama bring if he’s elected in November?
FOREIGN POLICY
Take Obama’s foreign-policy pronouncements, which promise a break with the unhappy past. Two doctrines are most prominent. One is to engage our enemies and be nicer to our allies. The other calls for leaving Iraq on a set timetable.
The problem with the first is that key allies like the conservative French, German, and Italian governments — unlike the days of rage in 2003 — now embrace pretty much the same policies that we do. Britain and the European Union just called for imposing tougher sanctions on Iran, while both France and Britain promise to send more troops to Afghanistan.
In February 2007, Sen. Obama called for American troops out of Iraq by March 2008. But in the last four months since that proposed final departure, violence is way down as the U.S. military and Iraqi army have stabilized much of the country.
The world in January 2009 will not be the same as it was in February 2007. So would a President Obama really engage Iranian president Ahmadinejad just as the Europeans are isolating him, or give up on Iraq when the American military may well gradually draw down in victory, rather than defeat?
ENERGY
Gas prices are soaring. Americans are frustrated (and a bit ashamed) that we continue to beg the Saudis to pump another half-million barrels a day on their soil and off their shores to ease global tight supplies, when we could pump much more than that in Alaska, off our coasts and on the continental shelf — and thus save hundreds of billions of dollars.
Yet Sen. Obama’s change probably wouldn’t include more drilling; more nuclear power plants; or fuel extraction from tar sands, shale, or coal. Instead, his strategy emphasizes more conservation; mass transit; and wind, solar, and alternate green energy. All that is certainly wise and could be a winning combination by 2030, but right now it won’t fill our tanks.
TAXES
Sen. Obama also wishes to raise trillions in new taxes by upping the capital gains margins, restoring inheritance taxes, raising the income rates on the upper brackets and lifting the income caps on Social Security payroll taxes. Such an old-fashioned soak-the-rich plan will please a strapped public tired of overpaid CEOs and Wall Street jet setting.
Yet forcing the affluent to pay even more won’t necessarily reduce annual deficits of the last eight years or pay down the huge national debt — not when Obama promises more vast entitlements in health care, education, and housing and current aggregate federal revenues were increased by past tax cuts that spurred economic growth.
Sen. Obama promises a new style of politics that is issue-based, rather than attack-dog. But so far, he has campaigned in conventional fashion: He’s tough on his opponents and as prone to overstatements and mischaracterizations as any other candidate.
The take-no-prisoners Moveon.org, which gave us the “General Betray Us” ads, is now an ally running third-party hit pieces on John McCain. Such outside help is customary in an election but seems inconsistent with Obama’s disavowals of the hardball politics of the past.
Sen. Obama has promised a new dialogue on race and tolerance. His own impressive personal journey may make that possible. But his 20-year intimate relationship with the racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright suggests that for years he was heavily invested in the rather tired and predictable identity politics of grievance rather than a vocal advocate of novel racial transcendence.
Overall, Obama’s announced policies are sounding pretty much the same old, same old once promised by candidates like George McGovern, Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, and John Kerry. Of course, a return to the standard big-government nostrums of the past may well be what the angry voters want after 20 years of the Bushes and Clintons. But it is not a novel agenda, much less championed by a post-racial, post-political emissary.
So what are the Democrats thinking? That a mesmerizing, path-breaking African-American candidate — coupled with Bush exhaustion — will overcome past public skepticism of northern presidential Democratic candidates, traditional liberal agendas, and Obama’s own relative lack of experience.
In other words: we should count on hope rather than change. | |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/19/2008 11:43:24 AM | Everyone says Obama is just the words "Hope and Change" without any substantiation. That they are just words.
We know this from what we see with the policies that have been in place for no less than 8 years on many and much longer on others... no change equals no hope. Obama's different philosophies alone provide change.
That's not to say that all change is good as I doubt the implementations of far left social domestic policies provides us with a better direction.
I no longer have a direct candidate that I support but if I was forced to vote for either Obama or McCain I consider these things.
1. Oil has experienced it's only downturn recently as consumption habits changed. Implement the gas tax holiday, consumption levels remain unchanged while prices rise to eliminate any visible savings to the consumer. One candidate got this right.
2. I personally think it would be great to see exploration and drilling where currently it is prohibited. I guess for as long as we want to remain dependent on fossil fuels then better to be our own. But it will take years to reach significant production and by this time we had better be on our way to alternative forms of energy. Those believing that we get timely relief by drilling/exploration will be sorely disappointed. One candidate knows where the focus should be moving ahead.
3. Diplomacy does not equal appeasement. A candidate that knew Iraq was not justified but is a proponent in pursuing AQ/Taliban targets where even the Bush administration will allow those targets to enjoy safe haven is more focused than soft. Again, one of the two(3) candidates seems to have a better handle on our foreign/military policies and the WOT.
There would be change... not all good, some hopeful and some not... but it is more than just words. | |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/19/2008 3:49:32 PM | ronjo58, I think Obama was pointing to the fact that we are energy hogs in America .... we take half hour long showers and use up God knows how many gallons of water while many people in the world walk for miles to bring some pails of drinking water home..... were 5% of the population and do 25% of the world's carbon emissions.....we use energy each day that is like, in manpower, something on the order of having 14 slaves.....
Obama is saying that if we are going to lead the world in reducing our carbon footprint it needs to start at home. | |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/19/2008 5:20:17 PM | | I drive an 6 year old economy car. In the winter, the thermostat is on 65 and in the summer on 80. | |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/20/2008 4:51:42 AM | | You are doing the correct thing. Now, all that is left for you to do is vote for Obama. | |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/23/2008 4:08:34 PM | Obama IS a good speaker. He outspeaks McCain by leaps and bounds.
But... Obama virtually says nothing specific other than he's going to use tax dollars to create new branches of government so he can give something to everyone.
And I'm sure getting tired of every press release Obama makes he's making reference to his blackness and how it's being used against him.
Frankly, the only "camp" that's been talking about his "race" is HIS.
I'm sure getting tired of him playing victim about his race.
It may have very well gotten him this far, but it's time he puts a lid on it.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036 | |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/23/2008 4:30:15 PM | | Obama as naive on national security and naive on foreign policy. Where in Obamas 3 years as senator has he got the experience in foreign policy? National security? I would love to be corrected on this one. Thats the only thing I have against the man. | |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/23/2008 4:31:51 PM | Obama is the man who has the realistic answers to solve problems-focusing on conservation is something that must be done, like it or not. I always respected Jimmy Carter for having the b*lls to say that back in the 1970s.
McCain wants us to continue down the failed path of Bushboy's idiotic policies.  Obama is the level headed, rational one with a sound mind, unlike McInsane, who has a bad temper and makes rash judgements. McCain scares me, quite frankly! | |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/23/2008 6:07:38 PM |
Except for the fact that he is a good speaker and for ideological reasons - why would anyone vote for Obama for president? John McCain has so much more experience in world affairs, the military, the government, etc. Obama has none of this. These are very serious times and America is to important to vote for someone just because of their race or the fact they're a good speaker or b/c he's a liberal.
I think people are actually disgusted with our foreign policy, the iraq war, the military entanglements, etc. That is why they don't like McCain.
We're not even really at war, except with a faceless enemy. We got Saddam Hussein and he's dead, so Americans are really confused about spending billions of money, rising gas prices when they should be lowered with all the iraqi oil, and a faceless enemy that is being portrayed like our shadows, terrorists who will strike at any minute in a never-ending war.
Maybe the Iraq war is never-ending and I would rather have the govt or Bush white house declare a permanent engagement like Japan or Berlin and take the issue off the table as far as near term exit strategies. Otherwise the situation reeks of incompetence and lack of direction or success. But success is a double-edged sword because that would mean troops can come home. So either its a success and troops can come home, or its not yet a success and troops should come home because we're wasting money. | |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/23/2008 6:37:23 PM | Obama as naive on national security and naive on foreign policy. Where in Obamas 3 years as senator has he got the experience in foreign policy? National security? I would love to be corrected on this one. Thats the only thing I have against the man.
In order for someone to attempt to correct you, define experience in foreign policy. McCain and Obama are both Senators and they have defined limits as such. As we have seen, McCain and Obama both have visited other countries. McCain served in VietNam, but I'm not sure that can count as foreign policy experience. Military experience, of course, but not really foreign policy experience. Obama was raised in a multicultural family and lived in other countries. That cannot be counted as foreign policy experience either, but it can give him a different perspective.
I'm not so sure foreign policy 'experience' outweighs rational thinking.
McCain wants to form a little league of nations so to speak, of like minded countries only, excluding any and all who are not on the same page. Kind of a "with us or against us" mentality, which we all know is not working out so well.
Obama is willing to discuss issues rather than keep our troops over in Iraq where they do not belong. He is willing to have discussions rather than bullying through the system and doing whatever the hell he wants to anyway at the cost to America and its' military.
So again, if you could please define what you are looking for when you want to see his experience, maybe someone could address your topic. | |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/23/2008 7:14:05 PM |
i guess some dont read or study so they dont know why we are fighting the wars we are.
WE HAVE BEEN "TALKING" TO THE ENEMY for DECADES.
remember this name? jeanne kirkpatrick? how about condolezza rice?
general colin powell? we got nowhere talking to our enemies with ALL!!!!
you think obama is going to be addressing a group of college students campaigning for him in a caucus in some unpopulated state, in foreign policy?
once obama realizes, that it will take more his charm and statesmanship in his arrogance, and innocence, that he will not be taken seriously by our enemies unless this country carries a big stick.....he will be centrist as clinton was, wanting only to have a second term and not be humiliated the way carter was, losing even more countries to the enemy along the way. at very very best, he will be a caretaker president. g-d help us. | |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/23/2008 7:25:14 PM | | We could all go on and on. I doubt many will change their minds. I'm going to vote McCain mainly b/c I am conservative on most issues and he is closest to that and also he is the best qualified. I won't change my mind on this so it doesn't do much good to argue. | |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/23/2008 7:37:12 PM | indeed god help us. I understand there both senators but look at it this way McCain is a Senior Senator and Obama is a Junior Senator.Captain John McCain retired Navy 1981.Ok heres a little foreign policy for ya. McCain was a vietnam POW for 5 years. known for his work towards restoring diplomatic relations with Vietnam in the 1990s!McCain has chaired the powerful Senate Commerce Committee, and has been a leader in seeking to rein in pork barrel spending, and in resolving a Senate crisis involving filibustered judicial nominations.And lost to Bush in the 2000 nomination for republican candidate.
Barack Hussein Obama worked as a community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. From 1992 to 2004, he also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, he announced his campaign for the U.S. Senate in January 2003. In the current 110th Congress, he has sponsored legislation regarding lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel.
So experience wise McCain wins hands down. | |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/24/2008 3:43:08 AM | If that's your observation and proof of foreign policy expericnce, the only thing you said in that statement that would make me think McCain is better at is this: known for his work towards restoring diplomatic relations with Vietnam in the 1990s.
This: "McCain has chaired the powerful Senate Commerce Committee, and has been a leader in seeking to rein in pork barrel spending, and in resolving a Senate crisis involving filibustered judicial nominations.And lost to Bush in the 2000 nomination for republican candidate " has nothing to do with foreign policy.
And this: "Barack Hussein Obama" says it all.
As far as the junior/senior senator issue, I wikipedia'd that just for you and you didn't even notice. If there had been another senator for the entire time McCain's been in office, which is entirely possible, he'd still be a junior senator.
Have you ever taken the time to find out what bills Obama's worked on and introduced? | |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/24/2008 4:18:44 AM | Being that Obama is far more intelligent than McCain, I'd rather see Obama as President.
Being that Obama recognizes we need a drastic change in government and McCain proposes the same BS, I'd rather vote Obama.
I don't care about the military history of a candidate for president as the president is supposed to be a civilian. I think it's ridiculous to have a militarist as a leader of a country unless you are trying to portray our country as a bunch of bullies. | |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/24/2008 8:23:37 AM | the reason a military background is important so that when the time comes, the president would know how it works from the INSIDE. this is not gonna be a group of fawning college students he has to lead, these are life and death situations. obama has no idea. he has to get on the job training, and we have to suffer for it, from his clinton/carter types. do we want them back????????? hell no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
obama hasnt taken a stand on anything. nothing ever controversial, nothing ever significant..............except, when the time came to help the consumer on the farm bill package, he voted like any other midwest congressman to hump the consumer and give agribusiness the subsidies..........in this time of commodity and food price spikes....that they wanted. refute that one! obama supporters. that was about two weeks ago. nancy pelosi came around looking for votes on this crooked bill assuring her crew it would be alright. "mr change" went right along with it. ill bet most readers here have no idea what im talking about.
if his name is on a bill so are a bunch of other senators. they put him on it so he would have at least a thin resume.
how else can you earn a "moderate" rating from both AIPAC and the arab lobbies?
by straddling the fence, being a pail of water with no convictions, by voting "present" on important bills.
whats he really done for chicago or illinois anyway, besides campaign?
he is always between a rock and a hard place. between his jewish sponsors like the pritzker family and his militant black churches, where he got plenty of business, as a rainmaker. thats why he was there 20 years. probably has no religious convictions at all. completely machiavellian.like either clinton, perfectly able to speak out of both sides of his mouth. at least the republicans stand for SOMETHING.
if this man is elected president, with NO experience, with all the favors he must owe by now, to the daley machine, and with the old carter/clinton appointees he will probably bring in, and with an incompetent democratic congress, g-d help us. sounds to me like a sure ticket to being a second class power, like britain is now, we can go hat in hand, begging the world to help us after 4 years of being on auto pilot. we can be like france, jealous and resentful of an emerging russia, china and india, as we fade to just being an also ran with token military forces.
well lets look at the bright side. while many here will be eating dog food and living in dumpsters or trailer homes after the new taxes and cost of living increases rob their retirement accounts of future income streams, , at least some caribou will have been saved, the porn merchants will rejoice, the criminals can look forward to easy treatment, the illegals will get free citizenship, (turning us into a one party system like mexico) the media will be happy at the open "access" to get more grist for their stories, and the world will "like" us better. gee, that would be just great. they will like a real patsy. they didnt "like" us when we saved them from hitler and tojo, and countless of our guys died. they didnt "like" us when we saved berlin from stalin and kruschev.....but weakened, with turmoil inside, they will "like" us.
| |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/24/2008 9:33:21 AM | re:"""Obama as naive on national security and naive on foreign policy""
I love you REpublicans. If you and a combined 200 years of government experience with Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz et all were telling us that iraq was going to be a cakewalk were not simply lying through your teeth with the Republican minions out there "sharing the fantasy", then you, we, all are incredibly, incredibly naive to think that occupying a country we invaded in the ME was a piece of cake.
give me a break.
Obama is a lot smarter than that.
And as far as.............eeeeek! ...."talking to our enemies" .... we dont pay these SOBs in office to launch missles, we PAY THEM TO TALK TO OTHER COUNTRIES AND USE DIPLOMACY TO NEGOTIATE DEALS, GET IT?
Brains over brawn, get it? | |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/24/2008 9:50:09 AM | I'd like a president to stands up and demonstrate his responsibility to things.
So far, from Obama, I've seen him continually point his finger at others. It's never HIS fault and he's ALWAYS the victim. He takes NO responsibility. He even said that new presidential seal his team created was a "one time thing." Believe me, people don't spend that kind of time and money on a project that big just to use it once. He's a liar.
Next time you listen to Obama. Really listen. You'll be surprised that what his speech consists of is accusations about Senator McCain. He makes a elaborate statements about McCain and the Bush administration criticizing them but never really gives details on how he can accomplish things differently. It's always in vague sweeping statements. He spends 7/8 of his speech time criticizing McCain.
Then he turns around and makes a press release that the Republicans are making accusations about his blackhood and he's a victim. Obama expresses that he wants to run a clean election but the Republicans won't do that.
Then listen to one of McCains old speeches sometime. (if you can even FIND any of his speeches) McCain spent 7/8 of his speech telling the people in detail his intended policy changes.
What happened to "I'll debate in town halls anytime, anywhere?" Obama even cries victim to the town hall debates. He wants to have ONE on July 4th. When? During the afternoon when we're all picknicking with family or after the sun goes down and we're all watching fireworks?
I'm tired of Obama constantly making press releases that he's black and a victim. If you're out there Mr. Obama put a lid on it.
Quit spending your entire speech criticizing your opponent and spend that airtime telling me what YOU plan to do in detail for a "change." | |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/24/2008 2:14:42 PM | http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MzQ4YTY4YjQyMzRjYjA5MGZlNDBiZTkwYmEyODg5NTc=
10 Concerns about Barack Obama
It's policy.
By William J. Bennett & Seth Leibsohn
1. Barack Obama’s foreign policy is dangerous, naïve, and betrays a profound misreading of history. For at least the past five years, Democrats and liberals have said our standing in the international community has suffered from a “cowboy” or “go-it-alone” foreign policy. While politicians with favorable views of our president have been elected in Germany, Italy, France, and elsewhere, Barack Obama is giving cause to make our allies even more nervous. This past Sunday’s Washington Post reported, “European officials are increasingly concerned that Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to begin direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program without preconditions could potentially rupture U.S. relations with key European allies early in a potential Obama administration.”
Barack Obama’s stance toward Iran is as troubling as it is dangerous. By stating and maintaining that he would negotiate with Iran, “without preconditions,” and within his first year of office, he will give credibility to, and reward for his intransigence, the head of state of the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism. Such a meeting will also undermine and send the exact wrong signal to Iranian dissidents. And, he will lower the prestige of the office of the president: In his own words he stated, “If we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time.” Not only has his stance toward Iran caused concern among our allies in Europe, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton called it, “Irresponsible and frankly naïve.”
Barack Obama’s position on negotiating with U.S. enemies betrays a profound misreading of history. In justifying his position that he would meet with Iran without precondition and in his first year of office, Barack Obama has said, “That is what Kennedy did with Khrushchev; that’s what Nixon did with Mao; what Reagan did with Gorbachev.”
In reverse order, Ronald Reagan met with no Soviet leader during the entirety of his first term in office, not (ever) with Brezhnev, not (ever) with Andropov, not (ever) with Chernenko. He met only with Gorbachev, and after he was assured Gorbachev was a different kind of Soviet leader — and after Perestroika, not before.
If Barack Obama wants to affiliate with Richard Nixon, that’s certainly his call. But one question: Was Taiwan’s expulsion from the U.N. worth “Nixon to China”? That was the price of that meeting.
As for the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit of 1961, Kennedy himself said “He beat the hell out of me.” As two experts recently wrote in the New York Times: “Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was ‘just a disaster.’ Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed ‘very inexperienced, even immature.’ Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was ‘too intelligent and too weak.’ The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.”
So successful was the summit that the Berlin Wall was erected later that year and the Cuban Missile Crisis, with Soviets deploying nuclear missiles in Cuba, commenced the following year.
2. Barack Obama’s Iraq policy will hand al-Qaeda a victory and undercut our entire position in the Middle East, while at the same time put a huge source of oil in the hands of terrorists. Barack Obama brags on his website that “In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.” His website further states that “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.” This, at the very time our greatest successes in Iraq have taken place. And yet, as Gen. David Petraeus has stated (along with other military experts from Michael O’Hanlon at the Brookings Institution to members of the U.S. military), our progress in Iraq is “fragile and reversible.”
Obama’s post-invasion analysis of Iraq is anything but credible or consistent, leading one to even greater doubt about his strategy as commander-in-chief. When President Bush announced the surge strategy in January 2007, Barack Obama opposed it, saying it “would not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly,” and that “the President’s strategy will not work.” Of course, the surge is one of the greatest achievements in Iraq since the initial months of the invasion, and is has reversed much of the loss suffered since the invasion.
Beyond these miscalculations and poor judgment on Iraq strategy, Obama has been anything but consistent on Iraq. For example, the same year (2007) he stated it would be a good idea to bring home the U.S. troops from Iraq within March of 2008, three months later he stated, we should bring them home “immediately…. Not in six months or one year — now.”
3. Barack Obama has sent mixed, confusing, and inconsistent messages on his policy toward Israel. Earlier this month, Barack Obama told an audience at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” The next day, Obama backtracked, stating: “Obviously, it’s [Jerusalem] going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues…And Jerusalem will be part of the negotiations.” Later, Obama’s Middle East adviser tried to explain the flipping of positions on Jerusalem by stating Obama did not understand what he was saying to AIPAC: “[h]e used a word to represent what he did not want to see again, and then realized afterwards that that word is a code word in the Middle East.”
Such quick switches of policy may stem from mere inexperience or they may stem from a general tone-deafness on the meaning of words and policy when it comes to the Middle East. After all, earlier this year, a leading Hamas official endorsed Barack Obama stating, “I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principle. And he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with humiliation and arrogance.” Rather than immediately renouncing such an endorsement, Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, embraced the endorsement, saying “We all agree that John Kennedy was a great president, and it’s flattering when anybody says that Barack Obama would follow in his footsteps.” Given Barack Obama’s long-standing ties to Palestinian activists in the U.S., one has good cause to wonder.
4. While his Mideast policy may have been the quickest turnaround or flip-flop on a major issue, it is not the only one. In the primary campaign, Barack Obama consistently campaigned against NAFTA, but has now changed his tune, as he has with other issues. During the primary, Obama sent out a campaign flier that said “Only Barack Obama consistently opposed NAFTA,” and called it a “bad trade deal.” He also said NAFTA was “devastating,” “a big mistake,” and in what the Washington Post labeled as a unilateral threat to withdraw from NAFTA, Obama said “I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage.”
No longer. Recently, Barack Obama backtracked on NAFTA and said, “I’m not a big believer in doing things unilaterally.” “I’m a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people.” He explained his primary campaign opposition this way: “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified.”
This is of a piece with his further change of position on public campaign financing. As a primary candidate, he touted his support for the public financing of presidential campaigns, but then witnessing his own fundraising prowess, as a general election candidate he has gone the unique route of forswearing the system. As David Brooks put it in the New York Times:
Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system. But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck.
5. Barack Obama’s judgment about personal and professional affiliations is more than troubling. On March 18, after several clips of sermons by his longtime friend and pastor Jeremiah Wright surfaced (showing Wright condemning the United States with vitriolic comparisons and denunciations), Obama defended his friend stating: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.” After Rev. Wright delivered two more talks along the same lines as the clips that led to the March 18 speech, Sen. Obama finally denounced Wright the following month, stating: “His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.” “They certainly don’t portray accurately my values and beliefs,” he said.
It strained credulity to believe Obama was unaware of Wright’s previous rants — especially after a 20-year membership in Wright’s church, especially when in February of last year Obama asked Wright not to attend his campaign announcement because he “could get kind of rough in sermons,” and especially when his church’s magazine honored on its front cover such a man as Louis Farrakhan. Nonetheless, once he ceased being a political asset and turned into a political liability, Obama dumped him.
Jeremiah Wright is, of course, not the only person close to Barack Obama who holds vitriolic anti-American views. Bill Ayers was a founding member of the Weather Underground. According to his own memoir, Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972. As recently as 2001, Ayers said “I don’t regret setting bombs….I feel we didn’t do enough.’’ When asked if he would engage in such terrorism again, Ayers responded: “I don’t want to discount the possibility.” When confronted with his friendship with Bill Ayers, Barack Obama dismissed the negative connections saying he is also friendly with abortion opponent U.S. Senator Tom Coburn. While Obama has never, himself, discussed his relationship with Ayers, what we do know is that Ayers hosted a fundraiser for Obama in his home and, according to the Los Angeles Times:
Obama and Ayers moved in some of the same political and social circles in the leafy liberal enclave of Hyde Park, where they lived several blocks apart. In the mid-1990s, when Obama was running for the Illinois Senate, Ayers introduced Obama during a political event at his home, according to Obama’s aides….
Obama and Ayers met a dozen times as members of the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a local grant-making foundation, according to the group’s president. They appeared together to discuss juvenile justice on a 1997 panel sponsored by the University of Chicago, records show. They appeared again in 2002 at an academic panel co-sponsored by the Chicago Public Library.
6. Obama is simply out of step with how terrorists should be handled; he would turn back the clock on how we fight terrorism, using the failed strategy of the 1990s as opposed to the post-9/11 strategy that has kept us safe. The most recent example is his support for the Supreme Court decision granting habeas-corpus rights to terrorists, including — theoretically — Osama bin Laden. When the 5-4 Supreme Court decision was delivered, Obama said, “I think the Supreme Court was right.” His campaign advisers held a conference call where they claimed the Supreme Court decision was “no big deal” according to ABC News, even if applied to Osama bin Laden, because a judge would find that the U.S. has “ample grounds to hold him.”
In a recent interview, Obama stated: “What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated. And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, ‘Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.’”
Ask the legal officials during the 1990s just how cowed terrorists were by our continued indictments against them. Or, witness the bombings at the African embassies, the attack on the USS Cole, or the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Now, ask yourself why we have not been attacked since 9/11, and, even more specifically, why there have been no successful attacks against American civilian interests abroad since 2004.
7. Barack Obama’s economic policies would hurt the economy. As Kimberly Strassel recently put it in the Wall Street Journal: “Mr. Obama is hawking a tax policy that would take the nation back to the effective marginal tax rates of the Carter days. He wants to further tax income, payroll, capital gains, dividends and death. His philosophy is pure redistribution.”
When Barack Obama speaks of taxing only the wealthy, keep in mind this could have a devastating effect on new small businesses. As Irwin Stelzer has written: “Taxes change behavior. By raising rates on upper income payers, Obama is reducing their incentive to work and take risks. The income tax increase is not all that he has in mind for them. He plans to increase their payroll taxes, the taxes they pay on dividends received and capital gains earned, and on any transfers they might have in mind to their kith and kin when they shuffle off this mortal coil. If the aggregate of these additional taxes substantially diminishes incentives to set up a small business of the sort that has created most of the new jobs in recent decades, the $1,000 tax rebate will be more than offset by the consequences of reduced growth and new business formation.”
8. Barack Obama opposes drilling on and offshore to reduce gas and oil prices. While Barack Obama has opposed off-shore drilling and a gas-tax holiday (as supported by John McCain or Hillary Clinton), his solution to our energy crisis does include additional tax burdens on oil company profits, taxes we can only imagine will be passed on to the consumer, thus causing an even more expensive trip to the gas station. As the New York Times recently detailed, ethanol subsidies are a major plank in Barack Obama’s view of energy independence and national security; the “Obama Camp is Closely Linked with Ethanol,” and “Mr. Obama…favors [ethanol] subsidies, some of which end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax.”
9. Barack Obama is to the left of Hillary Clinton and NARAL on the issue of life. As a state senator in Illinois, Barack Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, a law that would have protected babies if they survived an attempted abortion and were delivered alive. When a similar bill was proposed in the United States Senate, it passed unanimously and even the National Abortion Rights Action League issued a statement saying they did not oppose the law.
10. Barack Obama is actually to the left of every member of the U.S. Senate. According to the National Journal, “Sen. Barack Obama…was the most liberal senator in 2007.” As the magazine reported: “The ratings system — devised in 1981 under the direction of William Schneider, a political analyst and commentator, and a contributing editor to National Journal — also assigns ‘composite’ scores, an average of the members’ issue-based scores. In 2007, Obama’s composite liberal score of 95.5 was the highest in the Senate. Rounding out the top five most liberal senators last year were Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.), with a composite liberal score of 94.3; Joseph Biden (D., Del.), with a 94.2; Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), with a 93.7; and Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), with a 92.8.”
Whom will a man this far left appoint to the Supreme Court? | |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/24/2008 4:29:27 PM | | i wont vote for him race has no issue the fact tat he is a borderline socialist and assocites himself with domestic terrorists is a good enough reason for me not to vote for him. | |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/24/2008 4:55:04 PM | William J. Bennett & Seth Leibsohn are entitled to their opinions and, of course, are flat out wrong.
Next? | |
|
| Obama
Posted: 6/24/2008 5:09:01 PM | | Sure they are intitled to their opinion...everyone is. Unless a person believes that anything other than their opinion doesn't count. Someone like that would probably has their own version of what freedom is, see a need for re-education camps and probably a secret police to make sure nobody sees, thinks or hears something undesirable. | |
|
|
| Page 9 of 25
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 |
|
Home
login 
