Please, make your case for Obama...
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
You mean the "socialism" that is bailing out the banks? How about medicare, since you bring up healthcare. Here is an idea, lets hear McCain suggest we do away with Medicare.
Do I believe healthcare is a "right"? No. But I believe we should endeavor to make it affordable and accessible for everyone. I dont believe national healthcare program is the answer. But we definately need to make changes, significant changes.
Then do away with Medicare and Medicaid and enact tort reform. Those three things more then anything else are what are causing costs to rise as much as they are. You wanna make healthcare affordable, you take government out. It is that simple.
What will Obama do to lower the cost of health care, while maintaining the same (or greater) level of service and quality in the healthcare system?
Convince me that he will actually lower the costs (for more then just "the middle class") and I will vote for him!
Sounds About Right
Whether Democrat or Republican, you should get a kick out of this!
A litte boy goes to his dad and asks, ' what is Politics?' dad says,
' well son, let me try to explain it this way : I am the head of the family,
so call me The President. Your Mother is the administrator of the money,so we call her
the Government. We are here to take care of your needs, so we will call you the
People. The Nanny, we will consider her the Working Classs.
And your Baby Brother, we will call him the Future. Now think about that
and see if it makes sense.' So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about
what Dad has said.
Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying,
so he gets up to check on him. He finds that the baby has severely
soiled his diaper. So the little boy goes to his parents' room and finds
his mother asleep. Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nannys' room.
Finding the door locked, he peeks in the keyhole and sees his father in bed
with the nanny. He gives up and goes back to bed.
The next morning,the little boy says to his father, ' Dad, I think I understand the
concept of Politics now.'
The father says, ' Good, son, tell me in your own words what you think Politics
is all about.'
The little boy replies;
' The President is screwing the Working Class while the Government is sound asleep.
The People are being ignored and the Future is in deep s h i t.'
Whether Democrat or Republican, you should get a kick out of this!
A litte boy goes to his dad and asks, ' what is Politics?' dad says,
' well son, let me try to explain it this way : I am the head of the family,
so call me The President. Your Mother is the administrator of the money,so we call her
the Government. We are here to take care of your needs, so we will call you the
People. The Nanny, we will consider her the Working Classs.
And your Baby Brother, we will call him the Future. Now think about that
and see if it makes sense.' So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about
what Dad has said.
Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying,
so he gets up to check on him. He finds that the baby has severely
soiled his diaper. So the little boy goes to his parents' room and finds
his mother asleep. Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nannys' room.
Finding the door locked, he peeks in the keyhole and sees his father in bed
with the nanny. He gives up and goes back to bed.
The next morning,the little boy says to his father, ' Dad, I think I understand the
concept of Politics now.'
The father says, ' Good, son, tell me in your own words what you think Politics
is all about.'
The little boy replies;
' The President is screwing the Working Class while the Government is sound asleep.
The People are being ignored and the Future is in deep s h i t.'
daves2000ls
Dedicated LVC Member
Awesome.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Another veiled attack on Bush. At least they included the do-nothing Congress. I'll pretend to laugh.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
I see Johnny has chimed in with his "opinion" (rehash of mindless and unfounded left-wing talking points) that he will not defend, most likely because he can't.
Facts stand on their own, they don't need defending.
OK hotshot, make YOUR case for McCain in the same vein Calabrio laid-out, put your emotion aside, and make your case without attacking the Dem ticket. So far w/ my 15 mins of browsing this forum all I've seen are constant RWW attacks on Obama and Biden, much like McCain's pathetic campaign. Have you NOTHING POSITIVE to say about McCain's platform or his position on the REAL issues that'll convince someone to vote for him?? Or are you going to be childish and kick and scream and blame the MSM and Dems for McCain's dive in the polls?
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php
Very true. In fact that is probably the first true statement you have posted in quite a while.
The problem is the "facts" you cite are, at best, half truths! Usually, they are based more on speculation and exaguration then actual, reasonable and objective interpretation of the facts.
Prime example, the poll you just sited is rather biased. Try Zogby instead.
There is a loaded and leading question. Care to play fair? Or are you just gonna try and trap people?
Unlike what Calabrio did, which was to ask for a case for Obama that was based on reason and facts instead of fallacious arguments, specifically arguements of style over substance (symbolism) or various appeals to emotion; you are trying to create a false choice here by limiting the discussion to McCain, effectively taking the choice out of context.
The fact is, neither candidate is worth much in this election. Senator's make bad presidental candidates and bad presidents. However, as in every presidential election, it is ultimantly a choice between two candidates who are senators. So, which is the most reasonable choice? It is rather clear that McCain is the better choice because Obama is a huge risk and has demonstrated through his actions both a lack of judgement, wisdom and character as well as a radical left-wing/socialist agenda.
Basically, the difference between McCain and Obama is the difference between disappointment and despair. More then ever, it is a choice for the lesser evil.
If you cannot debate on honest terms, and can only offer baseless propaganda to distract from the debate, then please, STFU, and go away.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Gee, looks like your argument is based merely on "speculation and exaguration {rather} then actual, reasonable and objective interpretation of the facts." LOL
Here's some facts:
1) McShame said he'd stop his campaign to rush to Washington to help pull a bailout deal together and said he would not go to the first debate until a deal was made. Then he flip-flopped and went to the debate anyway without having a deal agreed upon. POOR JUDGEMENT to initially threaten to not debate, then ERRATIC when he went back on his word.
2) McShame said he'd run a clean election and not get into the mudslinging like what victimized him back in 2000. Then without cause, his campaign threw the first punches w/ slime ads and stump speeches about a debunked "covert" connection between Obama and Ayers. POOR JUDGEMENT to "go there" with all his shady connections, and ERRATIC and SPINLESS when he's too chicken to look Obama in the eye and talk man-to-man about it.
Want me to continue? I have more where that came from. Is it any wonder that ALL of the polls show McShame's hopes going down the drain?
I'm still waiting on Calabrio's case for McCain........... (crickets)
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
:bsflag: McCain ignored Obama for months. That was McCain's problem.
You're gonna get your wish at the next debate. Obama is gonna get the smackdown.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Gee Johnny, I guess you didn't hear Obama say today that he thought Ayers had been "rehabilitated".
What does Obama seem to think Ayers needed to be "rehabilitated" from exactly if he was only a "guy in the neighborhood"?*owned*
So, after the economy settles, and the dirt is off the election, there will be real issues.
How about 3 supreme court nominations?
And the huge backlog of other judicial appointments that Bush can’t get through.
The next president should be able to significantly impact the federal court system in America.
That will last a long, long time.
How about 3 supreme court nominations?
And the huge backlog of other judicial appointments that Bush can’t get through.
The next president should be able to significantly impact the federal court system in America.
That will last a long, long time.
I agree. I just hope the economy settles quickly. But I'm not so sure.
I hope that the economy's problem is that everyone is caught up and worried about the election - it just needs to be finished, and then America can go back to work. Sort of lame duck president syndrome at its worst.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
If only that were true, but it isn't. This house of cards called the American economy has been teetering for decades. A credit/debt-based economy is inherently risky and unstable.
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Nice job spinning the timeline around to fit your argument......
Here's what was said in the interview:
Obama said:
1) First Obama joined a board shared w/ Ayers and several other conservative buisnessmen.
2) Obama later found out about his acts back when Obama was 8 years old, and at that time assumed he was rehabilitated (gave him the benefit of the doubt)
3) After that point, when Obama became aware that Ayers was un-repentant and not fully "re-habilitated", Obama denounced his acts.
Not the other way around. Now the right-winged whackos want to spin this around to imply that Obama still thinks Ayers is still re-habilitated?? LOL, nice try.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Um...yeah, ok...
From Debate between Obama and Hillary:
So, Johnny, are you calling Hillary mistaken? Or do you want to fact check this?
Not to mention the fact that Obama not knowing about Ayers' past just shows him to be a clueless buffoon who doesn't vet his own associates.
Not really, it is a reasonable conclusion given the facts about both him and Obama.
It is interesting how your "facts" seem to simply summarize and mischaracterize things, leaving out certian, inconvenent, parts.
The fact is that the meeting in Washington was taken over and blown up by Obama and the Democrats who were trying to use it to score political points instead of get anything accomplished. Nothing could get done at that point, and it was a waste of everyone's time there.
Actually, Obama and his supporters "threw the first punch"...
Feel free to throw out all the lies and half-truths you want. It just puts more egg on your face and shows your true colors to everyone here...
Bob Hubbard
Dedicated LVC Member
All this bickering is senseless.
It prooves nothing except that everyone has a point of view, and they are not the same.
How bout something constructive like, due to the double edged sord of voter registration fraud in a few states, and the possibility that Obama is not a natural born citizen, and unable to be president, we keep the current administration in power until these alligations are cleared up.
This would be a history making decision to prolong the current administration but, in this election, should the same candidates remain intact for the election, it too would be history making.
Either we have a black president or we have a woman vice president.
Certainy putting off the election until these controversial matters can be cleared up is something the surpreme court should consider.
There is a lot at stake in this election, and the voters deserve nothing less than a chance to clear the slate of any wrongdoing before one single vote is cast.
Bob.
It prooves nothing except that everyone has a point of view, and they are not the same.
How bout something constructive like, due to the double edged sord of voter registration fraud in a few states, and the possibility that Obama is not a natural born citizen, and unable to be president, we keep the current administration in power until these alligations are cleared up.
This would be a history making decision to prolong the current administration but, in this election, should the same candidates remain intact for the election, it too would be history making.
Either we have a black president or we have a woman vice president.
Certainy putting off the election until these controversial matters can be cleared up is something the surpreme court should consider.
There is a lot at stake in this election, and the voters deserve nothing less than a chance to clear the slate of any wrongdoing before one single vote is cast.
Bob.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Two things I see about your post that I have a problem with:
1. Postmodern thinking is wrong. If there are two opposite viewpoints, at least one of them MUST be incorrect. They cannot both be right.
2. Who gets to make this momentous decision to belay the results of a national election? The Constitution doesn't provide for this.
Bob Hubbard
Dedicated LVC Member
This is why we have a surpreme court, to settle disputes that arise "in the course of human events".
They were brought in for the 2000 election, and I see no reason why they could not make a ruling in this case.
It is not fair to ALL voters to be voting under a cloud of suspicion.
Bob
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
So now you are banking on Hillary's credibility? Did hell just freeze over? LOL.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/oct/10/radical-ayers-allegation/