Barack Obama Sweeps "Ballot Bowl" Saturday

[photon]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

The inexperience is what is making him so likable. Can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Ah but there's always the less often quoted ancillary to that, new dogs don't know any tricks.

I always thought that would be Obama's undoing was that he didn't appear to have the necessary experience. But that doesn't seem to be hurting him much.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I'm not going to debate whether he beats McCain or not, but rather why he's the President the US needs to get them back on their feet? Going beyond his speeches and campaign of hope, what has he accomplished in Public life that would indicate he's the right president for the job?

He's a lawyer.

We can trust lawyers.

I feel optimistic about his relative inexperience in Washington....I mean his inexperience to the partisan politics and such.

But you still need experience....especially in regards to foreign policy. And while he could(hopefully)...surround himself with knowledgeable people who can HELP him with those decisions, Obama is the one making that decision.

I don't know....maybe its what we're facing....problems, solutions, but I feel more comfortable knowing someone that has been exposed to the horror wars, is the POTUS.

Just saying.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Personally I believe that religion, in the Bush administration, has taken up too large a role in the American government and that it has guided too many of the policies of the Bush administration.

So you're saying Obama, who is a Christian like Bush, won't involve religion when he makes decisions in the White House?

Give me a break.

Bias indeed. Look at it from a neutral standpoint. You actually need more substance than 'change' to make a good President.

Personally, I think his foreign policy inexperience has already come to the forefront. First he wants to attack Pakistan....

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

...which everyone has ignored, and he wants to create a civil war in Iraq. Actually he won't, because there is no way he'll actually implement a fast withdrawal from Iraq. That is the pipe dream of everyone voting for him.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well after the disaster that the Bush administration has become, I'd say change would be a good thing.
McCain just offers more of the same old, same old, albeit with more of an emphasis on the doing the war right while watching the economic bottom line.

How is that exactly the same old?

IIRC, the problem with Bush was that he wouldn't put emphasis on making sure things in Iraq went right, nor did he seem to care about the economic part of the equation.

I doubt McCain, OR Obama would change the latter, but they will change the former.

How is that the same old?

[MarchHare]

But you still need experience....especially in regards to foreign policy.

As governors of California and Arkansas, respectively, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton had virtually no foriegn policy experience before running for president. If you ask most Republicans and Democrats (again, respectively), they'll say that those two did pretty well on the foreign policy front.

And for the sake of discussion, George W. Bush had very little foreign policy experience either, and he's been a disaster. :P

In any case, Obama makes a good point that it's more important to be right than it is to have experience. In terms of foreign policy, Clinton and especially McCain have much more experience than Obama, but the latter was right about Iraq from the beginning while the former two were dead wrong.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Are you accusing people here of that, or the US public as a whole?

Are people here voting for him?

There is a problem with 'blind support'...don't you think? The same thing happened with Bush...people blindly supported him.

If you look at Obama's platform, his ideals, what he actually wants to 'change'...and you agree with it, THEN vote for him. But don't fall into the whole 'change America'....whatever you want to call it, and decide he's the best candidate for the job.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

As governors of California and Arkansas, respectively, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton had virtually no foriegn policy experience before running for president. If you ask most Republicans and Democrats (again, respectively), they'll say that those two did pretty well on the foreign policy front.

Absolutely, and that is why I remain optimistic that Obama 'could' do a good job.

And for the sake of discussion, George W. Bush had very little foreign policy experience either, and he's been a disaster. :P

Exactly my point. It is a valid concern.

In any case, Obama makes a good point that it's more important to be right than it is to have experience. In terms of foreign policy, Clinton and especially McCain have much more experience than Obama, but the latter was right about Iraq from the beginning while the former two were dead wrong.

Being 'right' about Iraq from the beginning doesn't change anything about how he has to deal with Iraq 'now.'

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Azure

Are people here voting for him?

There is a problem with 'blind support'...don't you think? The same thing happened with Bush...people blindly supported him.

If you look at Obama's platform, his ideals, what he actually wants to 'change'...and you agree with it, THEN vote for him. But don't fall into the whole 'change America'....whatever you want to call it, and decide he's the best candidate for the job.

Let me rephrase the question. Are you accusing people here of being uninformed?

You seem very bitter towards a lot of the optimism Obama has created, yet other posts make you sound as if you support him.

If you're of the opinion that his running platform is too vague, I'd suggest doing some further research to educate yourself.

Like

Here
and
Here

Also, your comment suggesting a pullout of Iraq would start civil war is the result of republican rhetoric on the issue. Polls done by international news agencies in the country favor the US leaving all together, and letting Iraq deal with it's own problems. Iraqi's want the US to leave. They know the situation much better than the propagandist reports coming out of US media allow us to understand it.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well after the disaster that the Bush administration has become, I'd say change would be a good thing.
McCain just offers more of the same old, same old, albeit with more of an emphasis on the doing the war right while watching the economic bottom line.

To compare McCain with Bush is nearsighted and unfair. Bush was radical right - One of the most right wing politicians in a long time (if not ever). The biggest threat to McCain's campaign is the fact that he's not right enough. He's a moderate. Other than party affiliation, I fail to see how you can blanket-statement McCain like that.

McCain's policy on Iraq realistic. So many opinions are "the US needs get out of Iraq immediately" without thinking of the consequences of that action. Pulling out would allow the country to fall into even greater despair and after years of fighting, the most powerful warlord would take power and who's to say he'll be any better than Saddam? The problem that the US has been facing in Iraq is that they approached the war 1/2 a$$ed. Since Bush authorized the US "surge" (something McCain supported), the US has been making significant progress.

Be very wary of blindly supporting a candidate because he/she is simply the stark contrast to what exists now. It's dangerous. Obama may be a great leader and change the US for the better. But he could also have a weak platform that captured a large percentage of voters because of a catch phrase... "Change".

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Let me rephrase the question. Are you accusing people here of being uninformed?

Some, yes, are simply looking at the message of 'change' and jumping on his bandwagon without REALLY knowing what he stands for.

I'm very surprised by the 'blind support'.....considering CP argued for years upon end that THAT support was a very big problem with the Bush administration.

You seem very bitter towards a lot of the optimism Obama has created, yet other posts make you sound as if you support him.

Believe it or not...I do suppot some of his ideas. Some.

Am I bitter? Not really....I just want people to look beyond his campaign slogan. As I see it, the American people are frustrated with the current government, and Obama knows that, so he effectively uses the 'change' message to gain votes from people who have no idea what his policies are.

Is that not disturbing to you? It is to me, especially considering that Obama has yet to campaign based on his actual platform. Very scary....after the past 8 years, that people will still blindy follow someone because he is a great public speaker.

If you're of the opinion that his running platform is too vague, I'd suggest doing some further research to educate yourself.

I would think that it is Obama's responsibility to bring that information to the public....and not force the public to go search for it.

I can't wait for the primaries to be over....I really want to know how Obama responds to 'actual' issues.

Like

Here
and
Here

Whats your point? I've looked at every candidate's platform....

Also, your comment suggesting a pullout of Iraq would start civil war is the result of republican rhetoric on the issue. Polls done by international news agencies in the country favor the US leaving all together, and letting Iraq deal with it's own problems. Iraqi's want the US to leave. They know the situation much better than the propagandist reports coming out of US media allow us to understand it.

Polls? You want Obama to make foreign policy decisions based on polls?

Iraq dealing with their own problems would cause civil war. You can keep living under the illusion that it won't. Fact is that the Iraqi Government is NOT ready to take over the country....and until they are it is the responsibility to the US to clean up their own mess.

2 million people died in Vietnam when the US decided to let them deal with their own problems.

But hey, cut and run....surely it must be the best solution.

Look at it this way....with the recent surge, we have reason to be optimistic....and face it, a stable and democratic Iraq would go a LONG ways to solve the problems in the ME. Especially if they can function by themselves.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Pulling out would allow the country to fall into even greater despair and after years of fighting, the most powerful warlord would take power and who's to say he'll be any better than Saddam?

You mean like what happened in Afghanistan after the Soviets decided to pull up and leave? And the United States decided it was better to let the Afghani's deal with their own problems?

Say it isn't so.

15 years later they had to deal with the problem anyways.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Bush was radical right - One of the most right wing politicians in a long time (if not ever).

That's what he turned out to be, but remember all that "compassionate conservative" hoopla from 2000. Bush cast himself as a moderate when he was first running for the office. It was in 2004 that the evangelicals came out in force after they'd all seen how far to the right he was.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Azure

Polls? You want Obama to make foreign policy decisions based on polls?

Iraq dealing with their own problems would cause civil war. You can keep living under the illusion that it won't all you. Fact is that the Iraqi Government is NOT ready to take over the country....and until they are it is the responsibility to the US to clean up their own mess.

2 million people died in Vietnam when the US decided to let them deal with their own problems.

Excellent post Azure.

I get the feeling that just because the current administration or members of the Republican party believe that an immediate Iraq withdrawal would cause a civil war in Iraq people immediately to chalk this up to Right-wing propaganda rather than having merit.

In fighting the Soviets in the late 1970s, America armed resistance groups who, after the withdrawal of the Soviet Union and subsequent lack of interest from America battled for power in Afghanistan.

Simply overthrowing a dictator doesnt result in peace (ask numerous central and south american nations).

Many Americans followed Bush blindly in 2000 because he promised change from the Clinton administration. The Republican base was tired of the Democrat president and threw all their support behind Bush - they were energized. 8 years later, many Americans are sick of Bush and are throwing their support blindly behind Obama because he offers a change from the Republican White House.

Obama isnt Bush. But blind faith and getting caught up in the hype of an energized Democrat base is just as dangerous as what happened with an energized Republican base in 2000.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by driveway

That's what he turned out to be, but remember all that "compassionate conservative" hoopla from 2000. Bush cast himself as a moderate when he was first running for the office. It was in 2004 that the evangelicals came out in force after they'd all seen how far to the right he was.

Ya, but I think McCain's case is different because of his consistent track record as Senator of Arizona. He's been the face of bi-partisan politics and the moderate vote for years.

Bush had to sell himself as more moderate than he really was. McCain has to convince the base that he's right enough for them to support. Big difference.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Azure

Polls? You want Obama to make foreign policy decisions based on polls?

Iraq dealing with their own problems would cause civil war. You can keep living under the illusion that it won't. Fact is that the Iraqi Government is NOT ready to take over the country....and until they are it is the responsibility to the US to clean up their own mess.

2 million people died in Vietnam when the US decided to let them deal with their own problems.

But hey, cut and run....surely it must be the best solution.

Look at it this way....with the recent surge, we have reason to be optimistic....and face it, a stable and democratic Iraq would go a LONG ways to solve the problems in the ME. Especially if they can function by themselves.

I guess I'm of the opinion the US could truly care less about actually implementing a working democracy in Iraq... Which is the assumption you make in your argument. IF the intensions you believe are the case were the case, the situation would be different. This war is about allowing the US to pillage the Iraq's 125 billion barrels of oil... Everything else is a PR screen. I thought this was common knowledge by now.

The US stands behind their 'spreading democracy' platform and uses it to justify the invasion. I'm sorry, but there's nothing that could be brought forward to nullify the massive coincidence that the US went into a country with the world's second largest oil reserves to 'spread democracy'.

I'm hardly touching on the complexity of the situation, but it's important to understand America's intensions if you're going to argue a long term occupation in Iraq is the best plan for the Iraqi people.

The BBC did a story 2 years ago based off a strategic plan they obtained from the US State Dept. It's worth a quick read through:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/4354269.stm

Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia's energy privatisation. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves.

Ms Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec and the current high oil price: "I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company."

The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight: "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

This war is about allowing the US to pillage the Iraq's 125 billion barrels of oil... Everything else is a PR screen. I thought this was common knowledge by now.

Still sticking to the 'blood for oil' argument, eh?

Tell me, why would the US have to 'invade' Iraq to secure their oil? Not only did it disrupt the flow, but it set Iraq back 5 years, and they're 'still' not back to their original barrels per day production.

Only lately have they been able to bump up production 200,000 barrels per month, IIRC in November and December of last year.

Hardly pillaging the 125 billion barrels of oil.

Plus, Iraq gets that money, not the US.

Sorry, but I fail to understand how it was in the US' best interest to raise the price of oil by invading Iraq in order to 'secure' their oilfields. As it has been shown in Saudi Arabia...the US is willing to let Islam extremism go untouched as long as the oil keeps flowing. So your 'conspiracy' of invading Iraq for the 'oil'....is ridiculous.

The US has massive reserves under their own control....they're just not tapping them. Not to mention that ever-expanding Alberta oil sands....perhaps a better idea, if the US was concerned about oil, would be to invest that trillion they spent in Iraq into the Alberta oil sands.

But hey, you can stick to your old and ridiculous argument all you want.

The US stands behind their 'spreading democracy' platform and uses it to justify the invasion. I'm sorry, but there's nothing that could be brought forward to nullify the massive coincidence that the US went into a country with the world's second largest oil reserves to 'spread democracy'.

That is your 'opinion.'

I'm hardly touching on the complexity of the situation, but it's important to understand America's intensions if you're going to argue a long term occupation in Iraq is the best plan for the Iraqi people.

I think increasing the production of oil, fixing the infrastructure and improving the quality of living is in the best interest of the Iraqi people. Sadly, your ridiculous plan of pulling out tomorrow would allow none of that to happen.

Its no secret that the US buys a lot of oil from Iraq, considering the #1 consumer in the world does use a lot of oil(hint, they buy lots from Canada too, I wonder what kind of interests they have vested in our oilfields...ready to invade to secure them perhaps?)....so yes, it WOULD be in the best interest of the United States to have Iraq pumping out a lot of oil.

Not only that, it would be in the best interest of the whole world. A stable Iraq, and a stable oil supply would lower the price. Plus, we won't see 3 dollar jumps just because Iran 'might' be building a nuclear bomb.

[Azure]

Something I found today, not sure if it 'should' be humorous or not.

$286.999 BILLION - Projected annual spending for Obama’s proposals

$218 BILLION - Projected annual spending for Clinton’s proposals

$7 BILLION - Projected annual spending for McCain’s proposals

$54 BILLION - Projected annual spending for Huckabee’s proposals

$150 BILLION (in savings) - Projected savings after Ron Paul eliminates most of the Government.

I want Ron Paul back....without the isolationist stance though.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Azure

Personally, I think his foreign policy inexperience has already come to the forefront. First he wants to attack Pakistan....

That is a quote one has to be careful about. I believe it was responding to a question about if the US had rock solid intelligence that Bin Laden was in pakistan or that there was an imminent terrorist threat originating from a group in pakistan he would authorize the use of troops to go in and eliminate that threat.

They same thing most other candidates have said they would do. The same thing most leaders of any country would do.

The same thing Bush said he'd do when asked the same question (not surprisingly now that Bush is in re-elect Republican mode he forgot he said the same thing and ridiculed Obama just a few days ago for that comment...ridicule helped by taking the comment out of context).

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Azure

Something I found today, not sure if it 'should' be humorous or not.



I want Ron Paul back....without the isolationist stance though.

Spending is not always a bad thing. A government that fails to invest in its infrastructure will see negative effects in short order. Social programs are excellent in my mind in promoting the standard of living and the safety of a country's citizens. Obviously if disagreed with those last two points and/or your biggest issue is government overspending, don't vote for Clinton or Obama.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by ernie

That is a quote one has to be careful about. I believe it was responding to a question about if the US had rock solid intelligence that Bin Laden was in pakistan or that there was an imminent terrorist threat originating from a group in pakistan he would authorize the use of troops to go in and eliminate that threat.

They same thing most other candidates have said they would do. The same thing most leaders of any country would do.

The same thing Bush said he'd do when asked the same question (not surprisingly now that Bush is in re-elect Republican mode he forgot he said the same thing and ridiculed Obama just a few days ago for that comment...ridicule helped by taking the comment out of context).

Lets be realistic here....if you're running for POTUS you don't make ridiculous comments about sending troops into Pakistan without them condoning it, no matter HOW right it is....plus, any operation into Pakistan is probably covert, so Obama needs to shut up about it.

Especially if Pakistan is supposed to be considered an 'ally'.....even if they aren't exactly abiding by 'all' the rules.

I thought we didn't like it when the US attacks sovereign nations?