Bash Obama Thread

Well, I hadn't heard that. How unfortunate for both of them and the families.
 
Alisa said:
Yeah, and what about that car crash in 1964 where John McCain supposedly killed somebody? I just feel like I know so little about these candidates, I just wish we had more information :)
Click to expand...

Here's a novel thought...
How about full disclosure on the incidents from BOTH candidates, rather than allowing one cover-up to cancel out another.

But to me - the past associations (especially recent) of a person running for President are much more important than whether or not they may or may not have been in an auto accident that may have resulted in someone's death. But that's just me.

Side note - red herrings are poor debate style.
 
redneckgeek said:
Here's a novel thought...
How about full disclosure on the incidents from BOTH candidates, rather than allowing one cover-up to cancel out another.

But to me - the past associations (especially recent) of a person running for President are much more important than whether or not they may or may not have been in an auto accident that may have resulted in someone's death. But that's just me.

Side note - red herrings are poor debate style.
Click to expand...

And likewise, a candidate's advisors are much more important to me than who they may have sat next to at some point. But I guess that's just me.
 
Alisa said:
And likewise, a candidate's advisors are much more important to me than who they may have sat next to at some point. But I guess that's just me.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:I'm done here. You win. Your incredibly effective "DailyKos" debate style has won me over.
 
I've said REPEATEDLY that I'm not a McCain supporter - I'm just avidly against Obama. So twisting every question I have about Obama back into a question about McCain gets rather tiring. I said I'd like to see full disclosure on both. And you turned it into "bbubububut what about McCain's advisors?" In effect, you've said either:
"I don't care who he has associated with."

or

"Well, McCain does it too"
 
redneckgeek said:
I've said REPEATEDLY that I'm not a McCain supporter - I'm just avidly against Obama. So twisting every question I have about Obama back into a question about McCain gets rather tiring. I said I'd like to see full disclosure on both. And you turned it into "bbubububut what about McCain's advisors?" In effect, you've said either:
"I don't care who he has associated with."

or

"Well, McCain does it too"
Click to expand...

Actually what I have said is that I DO care who both candidates have associated with. After evaluating what we know about who Obama has associated with and to what extent, I am comfortable with those associations. After evaluating what we know about who McCain associateS with, as in, HIRES for his campaign, I am not comfortable with those associations.
 
I am not going to previous discussions about advisors or who they hired because it has been aired out that both sides have hired lobbyists and have advisors that do not have such a reputable past ... in equating these two about each candidate - you are basically measuring an apple against an apple.

If I were to say something about advisors I would state that Obama's economic advisors still have not come up with a consistent position on the economy due to the fact that it has changed over the past couple of weeks. I will use the ceiling drop for the tax cuts as a prime example. Again, how low will it go?

I think what everyone is losing site of is the median voter theorem. By definition from Wiki, it states:

The median voter theory, also known as the median voter theorem and the median voter model, is a famous voting model positing that in a majority election,if voter policy preferences can be represented as a points along a single dimension, if all voters vote deterministically for the politician that commits to a policy position closest to their own preference, and if there are only two politicians, then if the politicians want to maximize their number of votes they should both commit to the policy position preferred by the median voter.
Click to expand...

Which lends weight to the fact that Obama is changing his messages to gain votes according to this theorem. For example, he has his focus groups test his messages and he releases them to the public. The public rejects portions of this messages which causes a shift in the preference curve so he reshapes his messages in an attempt to gain more votes. Remember Clinton 'moving more towards the center'?

I claim that this is why he is attempting to pander to everyone and promises everything. He is not very consistent because he never uses words that mean anything to me such as "I will look at ..." or "There may be ...".

Politically speaking it gives him a width scope of wiggle room and that is why McCain used the phrase "nailing jello to the wall" because Obama will not commit to anything. In this line of thinking, his plans are as shallow as his words. They don't mean anything because he will not commit. Action speaks louder than words - and that is all I have heard from him.

Non commitment is not what I want in a leader. Non commitment is how the Dems have always and are going to get away with the bait and switch.

-dK
 
Maybe you can illuminate for me what John McCain and his advisors' consistent position on the economy has been.
 
If the situation changes it is sensible to change your policies. Anyone who hasn't revised their economic strategy in the last few months has surely missed something.
 
I will further state that even through this theorem that Obama is appearing to be a "unifier" or a "centurist". At least that is how he is trying to play it to suggest that he is closer to the center.

The question is what actions has he taken in Congress or Illinois to suggest this? I claim the evidence put forth earlier that he is the most liberal voter .. ever. There is no center movement to this character, only lies to a gullible mass that the Dems are going to take care of everything.

I am astounded that people are going to vote for the same people that manufactured this economic disaster and the press lets them get away with blaming others.

-dK
 
Agreed to change the policies depending on circumstances -- but to have 3 policy changes .. 250k, 200k, and 150k and as of last night back to 200k within days apart?
 
In the spirit of bashing Obama specifically as well as generally, maybe you could specify one or two of Obama's votes or legislation that you perceive to be eggregiously liberal.
 
dkinley said:
Agreed to change the policies depending on circumstances -- but to have 3 policy changes .. 250k, 200k, and 150k and as of last night back to 200k within days apart?
Click to expand...


I don't think the policy has changed, but there certainly has been a lot of confusion. An objective party (slips my mind at the moment) compared the tax plans of the two campaigns. Thier conclusion is that nobody in either campaign knows exactly what either tax plan entails. But they gave Obama a good score on the degree of agreement between what he said about his tax plan and what his tax plan says, and they gave McCain a much lower score on that measure.
 
Alisa said:
In the spirit of bashing Obama specifically as well as generally, maybe you could specify one or two of Obama's votes or legislation that you perceive to be eggregiously liberal.
Click to expand...

Here is your stupid sample ... some are decidedly liberal (like not allowing the States to decide issues for themselvees), others are listed to show they went against the conservative vote.

Funny how he didn't show up to alot of votes but on some that he did vote, he is not speaking the exact opposite on the stump. Figures.

ECONOMIC ISSUES
- Repeal the federal minimum wage by giving states the authority to set minimum wages. (No)
- Limit debate on a bill raising the federal minimum wage without providing offsetting tax relief for businesses (Yes)
- Limit debate on a proposal to attach $8.3 billion in small-business tax breaks to the minimum-wage hike. (Yes)
- Exempt extensions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts from budget rules for offsets. (No)
- Require higher-income Medicare beneficiaries to pay higher premiums for prescription drugs in Medicare Part D. (No)
- Repeal the estate tax. (No)
- Limit debate on a measure allowing importation of drugs at prices lower than available in the United States (Yes)
- Create a national action plan for reducing oil consumption by 35 percent by 2030. (Did Not Vote)
- Speed up the permitting process for oil-refining sites (No)
- Limit debate on a measure to permit labor union organizers to bypass secret-ballot requirements if a majority of eligible workers sign a union card (Yes)
- Increase financial aid for college students and reduce subsidies for student-loan lenders (Did Not Vote)
- Block most non-pregnant adults from coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (Did Not Vote)
- Table a proposal to bar Davis-Bacon prevailing-wage requirements for highway bridge construction or maintenance projects (Yes)
- Limit debate on a proposal to agree to House revisions to legislation reauthorizing and expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (Yes)
- Approve fiscal 2008 appropriations for the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education departments (Did Not Vote)
- Override the president's veto of the Water Resources Development Act (Did Not Vote)
- Limit debate on a measure to revise the alternative minimum tax to prevent coverage of additional taxpayers, and offset that change with corporate tax increases (Did Not Vote)
- Limit federal, state, and local governments' eminent-domain power over private land. (Did Not Vote)

FOREIGN POLICY
- Require U.S. troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq within four months (Yes)
- Limit debate on a proposal to require progress reports for the Iraq government and withhold economic aid for failure to meet "benchmarks." (Yes)
- Restrict the U.S. share of the cost of United Nations peacekeeping operations (Did Not Vote)
- Strike language requiring U.S. troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq (No)
- Block funding for World Bank malaria control and prevention programs (Did Not Vote)
- Condemn personal attacks on Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq. (Did Not Vote)
- Express the sense of Congress that Iraq should be divided into Shiite, Kurdish, and Sunni federal regions (Did Not Vote)
- Express the sense of the Senate that the Iranian revolutionary guard should be designated a terrorist organization (Did Not Vote)
- Limit debate on a fiscal 2008 emergency supplemental appropriations bill to provide $50 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and require the withdrawal of most U.S. troops by December 15, 2008 (Yes)
- Implement a free-trade agreement with Peru (Did Not Vote)
- Express the sense of Congress that by the end of 2008, the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq should be limited to counter-terrorism, training Iraqi security forces, and force protection. (Did Not Vote)

SOCIAL ISSUES
- Make English the official language of the United States (No)
- Support embryonic-stem-cell research. (Yes)
- Support non-embryonic-stem-cell research. (No)
- Eliminate an immigrant guest-worker program (Did Not Vote)
- Permit law enforcement officers to question individuals about their immigrant status if they have probable cause to believe that the immigrants are here illegally (No)
- Eliminate a program legalizing unlawful immigrants (No)
- Require the disclosure of information on visa applicants to law enforcement officers. (No)
-Make temporary guest workers eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (Yes)
- Put more weight on job skills than family ties for visa applicants (Yes)
- Table an amendment requiring unlawful immigrants to leave the country before applying for a visa (Did Not Vote)
- Table an amendment eliminating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants (Yes)
- Limit debate on the immigration reform bill (Yes)
- Waive a procedural objection to providing legal immunity to people who report suspicious activities (Did Not Vote)
- Waive a procedural objection to denying Social Security benefits for illegal work (Did Not Vote)
- Waive a procedural objection to requiring photo identification for voters (Did Not Vote)
- Define a fetus as an "unborn child. (No)
- Renew for six months authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to review communications of suspected terrorists without a court order. (No)
- Block funding for international groups engaged in coercive abortions, as designated by the U.S. government. (Did Not Vote)
- Prohibit domestic family-planning funds to organizations that perform abortions. (Did Not Vote)
- Block an effort to change the formula for distributing funds under the Ryan White AIDS program. (Did Not Vote)
 
Well that is a great big list of stuff, but I am not sure which of these votes was excessively liberal. Can you break it down a little?
 
Alisa said:
And likewise, a candidate's advisors are much more important to me than who they may have sat next to at some point. But I guess that's just me.
Click to expand...

What about the people that the candidate admires? Sometimes in politics and in business (even as a regular person) you have to do business with people you don't like. IMHO, the people you like and admire say more about you than the people you hire.

In the case of the LA Times Khalidi/Obama coverup, Obama was toasting Khalidi and, supposedly, said some very very bad things about Israel. The only way to remove the speculation about what he said is to release the tape. But, again, speculation is that Obama would be very hurt if that tape were released.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom