Political Report

Paul1355

All Star
winner by knock out!

Paul, how long does it take you to draft McCain's list. I can't imagine it will take that long. As Tuner's post shows, youth does not mean inexperience. Since you believe that Palin is more experienced than Obama I would like to see a list of her accomplishments as well. Did she set up a bear-patrol in Alaska?

BearPatrol-m.jpg

Lol Bears? I dont think that can make someone get a 80% approval rating, Pat. I will list her accomplishments after I finish my argument with Turner. I won't forget.
 

OGKnickfan

Enlightened
Obama's more experienced than this backwoods hillbilly, by far, but that's not even the point. Experience is not necessarily positive. You can be experienced in being an asshole, the type of experience that basically makes you an undesirable candidate.

With Obama, you have a guy who thinks deeply and with regard for much more than political ideology. So... there's your Sean Hannity, same old "attack democrats" argument, Paul.
 

Paul1355

All Star
Obama's more experienced than this backwoods hillbilly, by far, but that's not even the point. Experience is not necessarily positive. You can be experienced in being an asshole, the type of experience that basically makes you an undesirable candidate.

With Obama, you have a guy who thinks deeply and with regard for much more than political ideology. So... there's your Sean Hannity, same old "attack democrats" argument, Paul.

That's why im looking for known accomplishments, more of that to me means more experience. A guy can be in the Senate for 80 years but if he does nothing than anyone can be more qualified for the Presidential job. Sean Hannity makes valid points about Obama, things he's said and the people he's associated himself with can't be ignored, this is what Hannity always says, is it wrong to not forget information like this? Information that can give people a differenet look and perspective on Obama? I think it's important.
 

OGKnickfan

Enlightened



This is the guy who feels he has a right to call out Obama, as a racist and a terrorist. Unless you have evidence, or even believe that, Obama has done anything like racist or terrorist, you just have to simply shut up.
 
Last edited:

TunerAddict

Starter
I've been thinking about it, and neither candidate has ANY experience whatsoever. Why? Neither has been president before.
 

pat

Starter
I want proof that he did something either single handedly or with a partner and was the main reason for it.

Unfortunately (at least for the point you were trying to make) this isn't how democracy works. You cannot do things single-handedly. I also believe that making a good decision after weighting the options according to what your advisers tell you is a skill a president must have. This of course only works if you know how to pick the right advisers.

I have the feeling that Obama has this skill. Especially after he weighted his options for so long and so well before choosing Biden. As from what I read McCain based his decision on gut feeling (Paul, you are more informed about the Republican party, so correct me if I am wrong).

Personally, I believe that today's global affairs are to complicated to base any decision on gut feeling.
 

Paul1355

All Star
Unfortunately (at least for the point you were trying to make) this isn't how democracy works. You cannot do things single-handedly. I also believe that making a good decision after weighting the options according to what your advisers tell you is a skill a president must have. This of course only works if you know how to pick the right advisers.

I have the feeling that Obama has this skill. Especially after he weighted his options for so long and so well before choosing Biden. As from what I read McCain based his decision on gut feeling (Paul, you are more informed about the Republican party, so correct me if I am wrong).

Personally, I believe that today's global affairs are to complicated to base any decision on gut feeling.

McCain did take risks in his campaign and picking Sarah Palin was the biggest of all. I agree with you that he is a guy that picks on gut feeling, but also on strategy. Think about it, Sarah Palin shocked people from both sides. Obama didn't pick a women and McCain did, now I'm not saying he picked Palin because of that, but it did hit Obama pretty hard. Also no one really knew this girl enough to attack her right away, so they go after her family, which has nothing to do with her experience or ability to be a vice president. She brought over blue collar conservatives, female middle class women, some Clinton supporters not many right now but some; time will tell whether MCain can make an impact on more Clinton supporters. And she also brought over people that were confused if McCain still had that "Maverick/re-former" kind of attitutde and picking Palin just made that strong again.

Obama's people are smart, very smart, I dont deny that, but remember that some of his advisors said things that Obama didn't believe in and he had to fire them. I have to go back in the records to find that story but I remember there was a point in the race when Obama's people and association couldn't do anything right. It was the time when the Jeremiah Wright stories popped up and when the association with Bill Aires came into play, and people started voting for McCain more frequently when hearing this information. So if you say he was smart in picking his advisors, it's yes and no becase they are all smart but have made mistakes that cost him votes in the past. And advisors shouldn't hurt the person they help run for President.

If you think about it, McCain doesn't have to amaze everyone to win this race. He is not amazing, I personally feel that Rudy Gulliani or Romney would have been a stronger Repuclican President, but he isn't a slouch. He has a positive history in Arizona when it coms to Economics and was considered to be THE REASON for the Economic Boom in Arizona. This is what I meant by single-handed accomplishments, stuff he is KNOWN FOR. He is known as a re-former when he joined with Democrat Feingold and passed the law to limit political speech and advertising, showing that he can work with Democrats decently. This re-forming became stronger when it came to the Surge when he convinced Democrats to join his cause in installing more troops and staying in Iraq. Many democrats were against this and McCain was the only known Republican, with Democratic views, to really support this. In the end it work successfully and showed not only that he is a reformer, but has some knowledge on foreign policy. This also hit Obama and Biden hard because they voted against the Surge. Now if you say that Obama wasn't wrong, proof that he was wrong would simply be him being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly last week when he said that the Surge was a success. He couldn't admit that he was wrong in not supporting it, which got to me a little, but it wasn't a big issue.

The Surge was not a gut feeling, this is were McCain's military background comes in and helps him. He knows with more troops and staying in Iraq that Al-Queda would eventually be beat, other politicians didn't feel this way. If you say that obviously more troops would make us win, then why didn't Barack Obama or Biden support it? Because they didn't think we'd win the war against Al-Queda. They thought we were going to lose and waste more lives. And that to me, shows a weakness in foreign policy.

So bottom line, John McCain does have a gut feelins in some ways but he attacks strategy more than ever. I think he is more knowledgable than people think when it comes to decision making.

Did I answer your question?
 

Paul1355

All Star
we don't need experience, we need change

McCain's campaign is now stressing to promote change as well, but saying that McCain's form of change is better, it's your choice whether you think McCain's or Obama's view of change is better. No matter who gets picked this country will change in many categories whether it's negative or positive.
 

Paul1355

All Star
I've been thinking about it, and neither candidate has ANY experience whatsoever. Why? Neither has been president before.

lol well if you put experience in that way then yea, none of them have been president, evry president that became one was at a point were they ran with no presidential experience. I just meant the important accomplishments he is known for that he made a big difference on.

I have some for McCain that I was explaining to Pat about. If you want I can explain to you a few accomplishments that John McCain is known for that can show that he backs up some of what he is talking about in his speeches. I can also explain Palin's accomplishments that makes her look better than what the media makes her out to be.

If you want to continue this argument. Up to you, Turner.
 
Last edited:

TunerAddict

Starter
I think this had kinda moved into the discussion spectrum and not really and argument. And argument is more divisive and hostile while this has really settled down into a neutral talk where we are all actually learning and presenting new information in a relaxing, intelligent setting.
 

Paul1355

All Star
I think this had kinda moved into the discussion spectrum and not really and argument. And argument is more divisive and hostile while this has really settled down into a neutral talk where we are all actually learning and presenting new information in a relaxing, intelligent setting.

I agree, it seemed like an argument at first and then died down. I don't like to get triple-teamed because im the only Republican, makes it harder for myself. I've learned a lot from these talks, and we did argue at many times where we attacked each other. But I have learned and become more open-minded as I was telling OGKnickfan. The more I discuss and argue the more open-minded I become.

So do you want me to present some information on McCain and Palin that shows that they have some experience and can back up some view points they talk about?
 

pat

Starter
As far as Obama admitting to be wrong about the surge is concerned. I think he made a pretty valid point (although I have to say it took him some time to get there) in saying that the surge did create stability but not peace and certainly not democracy. It is really quiet now but this does not mean that the surge changed the fundamental situation.

1.) destroyed infrastructure
2.) hostility towards US (troops)
3.) Islamistic fundamentalism
4.) corruption

The surge will only work if a civil society is going to be built, based on principles that are not alien to the middle east.
 

OGKnickfan

Enlightened
I think whether or not the surge worked is a non-issue. If the war was unethical, wrong to begin with, you are smart to resist the deployment of more troops.

If someone kicks an old lady's head in, at what point does the act of beating her become moral? She starts to kick and bite, so you have to stomp her, again? I think you walk away, refuse to offer your personal support to a situation that was wrong, to begin with. I commend Obama for refusing to support an action, based on lies and deception, at the beginning, middle and end.
 

Paul1355

All Star
I think whether or not the surge worked is a non-issue. If the war was unethical, wrong to begin with, you are smart to resist the deployment of more troops.

If someone kicks an old lady's head in, at what point does the act of beating her become moral? She starts to kick and bite, so you have to stomp her, again? I think you walk away, refuse to offer your personal support to a situation that was wrong, to begin with. I commend Obama for refusing to support an action, based on lies and deception, at the beginning, middle and end.

The Surge is a very important issue. If we did not win the Surge and eliminate Al-Queda and just left, then the following would have occurred: there is almost a 100% chance that they would have used Iraq as a stronghold, promoted Radical Islamic/violent propaganda through their victory in Iraq, and would have been worse than before. It would have been a complete moral victory for Al-Queda and their forces would have been solid again and increasing in number. I have no doubt in my mind that these events would have occured if the vote was passed to get out of Iraq when Barack Obama and Joe Biden wanted, like many other Democrats.

The vote was passed to stay in Iraq and deploy more troops, and bottom line..... it worked.
 

OGKnickfan

Enlightened
No, it didn't necessarily work, and many experts have linked the drop in violence to Iraqis who have, on their own, worked to expose people promoting terror, usually against their own people, in Iraq, not to the surge. Also, the likelihood, if you study the history of radical Islamic groups, is not great that al-qaeda, a Sunni group, would have established control of Iraq, a majority Shiite nation. Radical Islamic groups have existed in many countries and have failed to assume power, outside of Iran.

And, if withdrawal from Iraq offers them a moral victory, so be it. I don't believe in something that's wrong, in the first place, becoming right and just, later on. It was wrong, to begin with, and it's still wrong. The blood of 1.2 million dead speaks to that.
 

Paul1355

All Star
No, it didn't necessarily work, and many experts have linked the drop in violence to Iraqis who have, on their own, worked to expose people promoting terror, usually against their own people, in Iraq, not to the surge. Also, the likelihood, if you study the history of radical Islamic groups, is not great that al-qaeda, a Sunni group, would have established control of Iraq, a majority Shiite nation. Radical Islamic groups have existed in many countries and have failed to assume power, outside of Iran.

And, if withdrawal from Iraq offers them a moral victory, so be it. I don't believe in something that's wrong, in the first place, becoming right and just, later on. It was wrong, to begin with, and it's still wrong. The blood of 1.2 million dead speaks to that.

Barack Obama admitted it was a success. I'm not going to keep arguing with you the likely hood of Al-Queda gaining power in Iraq if we left, because I think they almost 100% will. A country in taters from war and no one to turn to with Al-Queda winning the war against the "all powerful" USA...everything makes sense for the events I mentioned to happen. You can keep denying it because of other countries with Radical Islam, this is different. I think we spoke our case on this topic, you sound like you are anti-war in general by the way you approach these topics. I respect your decision due to the many innocent deaths that have taken place since our first invasion.

And we will withdrawal troops soon enough without Al-Queda gaining moral victory. I'm sure Bush made a speech today about the withdrawal of thousands of troops that should all be back by February.

Good discussion.
 

OGKnickfan

Enlightened
I'm not completely anti-war. War, because of how the world is set up, can be necessary. If a government is actively (operative word) committing genocide, or engaging in unprovoked belligerent acts against its neighbors, war is necessary, obviously.

However, this is not what the United States has done, for the most part, if you look at the history of this country. This war was fought on the pretext that nuclear and biological weapons were being kept in Iraq. Because we felt Israel could be struck by these, we sacrificed over a million lives. Turned out that they had none of these weapons, and we should have allowed inspectors to continue doing their jobs, which is what they asked us to do. Documents were forged and the whole thing was being pushed since the Clinton administration, by Neocons.

Even the just wars that we've engaged in have been for selfish reasons. During WWII, the holocaust was taking place, but we only entered the war when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. During WWI, we didn't enter until the Zimmerman note, sent by Germany and asking for the invasion of the United States by Mexico, was intercepted. We didn't enter the Civil War to stop slavery, we did so as the result of economic conflict between slave states and free states, as the US moved to settle the lands stolen from Mexico.

So, bottom line is that we have engaged, by and large, in amoral war. I do not support war, if it's immoral (done for the wrong reasons). Amoral (not done out of goodness) war can be right, if, at the least, the nation fought is engaging in evil. You need to decide what you are first, a Christian or an American. Since Christians can be born anywhere, and under any political conditions, your mixing of politics and religion is almost anti-Christian.

*Also, Barack never said that he was wrong about the surge, which is what you claim. If he did say that, please quote the question and the answer. Don't play those type of games. A few Al Qaeda fighters are also incapable of taking control of a country where they are not even citizens and cannot speak Iraqi Arabic, that has never, Paul: they're not trying to settle the country, bring their families to live there. What you propose has never happened. Also, most of the people who fought the US in Iraq were not Al-Qaeda. Again, you're repeating what the Bush administration likes to say, in order to justify attacking Iraq, claims of Iraq funding Al-Qaeda, providing bases, etc. All that's a lie, for the simple fact that Al-Qaeda hated Saddam for being a secular leader, who allowed women to hold jobs, drive cars and go to school. Again, do you research, before talking.
 
Last edited:

Paul1355

All Star
I'm not completely anti-war. War, because of how the world is set up, can be necessary. If a government is actively (operative word) committing genocide, or engaging in unprovoked belligerent acts against its neighbors, war is necessary, obviously.

However, this is not what the United States has done, for the most part, if you look at the history of this country. This war was fought on the pretext that nuclear and biological weapons were being kept in Iraq. Because we felt Israel could be struck by these, we sacrificed over a million lives. Turned out that they had none of these weapons, and we should have allowed inspectors to continue doing their jobs, which is what they asked us to do. Documents were forged and the whole thing was being pushed since the Clinton administration, by Neocons.

Even the just wars that we've engaged in have been for selfish reasons. During WWII, the holocaust was taking place, but we only entered the war when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. During WWI, we didn't enter until the Zimmerman note, sent by Germany and asking for the invasion of the United States by Mexico, was intercepted. We didn't enter the Civil War to stop slavery, we did so as the result of economic conflict between slave states and free states, as the US moved to settle the lands stolen from Mexico.

So, bottom line is that we have engaged, by and large, in amoral war. I do not support war, if it's immoral (done for the wrong reasons). Amoral (not done out of goodness) war can be right, if, at the least, the nation fought is engaging in evil. You need to decide what you are first, a Christian or an American. Since Christians can be born anywhere, and under any political conditions, your mixing of politics and religion is almost anti-Christian.

*Also, Barack never said that he was wrong about the surge, which is what you claim. If he did say that, please quote the question and the answer. Don't play those type of games. A few Al Qaeda fighters are also incapable of taking control of a country where they are not even citizens and cannot speak Iraqi Arabic, that has never, Paul: they're not trying to settle the country, bring their families to live there. What you propose has never happened. Also, most of the people who fought the US in Iraq were not Al-Qaeda. Again, you're repeating what the Bush administration likes to say, in order to justify attacking Iraq, claims of Iraq funding Al-Qaeda, providing bases, etc. All that's a lie, for the simple fact that Al-Qaeda hated Saddam for being a secular leader, who allowed women to hold jobs, drive cars and go to school. Again, do you research, before talking.

And Saddam never performed genocide on his own people? What about when he killed over a million of his own people? That does not qualify? And his tortures on innocent civilians everyday for amusement? You said that genocide makes war neccessary, then that makes the Iraq War neccessary because of Saddam's history of genocide on his own people, you contradicted yourself.
Also Saddam was notified before hand that inspectors would come to search for his weapons, he had plenty of time to move them wherever he wanted, perhaps Pakistan? Many people think that Osama is there and that Pakistan is home to many wanted terrorist and weapons. Anything could have happened in that period of time, this is why telling the press military information hurts strategy because the terorist just have to turn on TV and see our plans unfold. It's ridculous.

How am I mixing politics and religion to be ANTI-CHRISTIAN?!?!?!, i stated that my belief supports why I have my political views. my examples were the support of Israel due to my belief in Biblical prophecy and importance the Bible preaches about the land. Your accusation is completely false.

*Time to get a taste of the real Obama, watch part 1 of Bill O'Reilly's interview with Barack Obama last week. Obama openly admitted that the Surge was a success, get to know your presidential nominee a little more and what he says presently. I recommend you watching the O'Reilly factor at 8 pm, Obama is asked about his association with people that has hit him in a completely negative way with guys like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Aires, terrorist, yea not a pretty bunch. It apparently gets good. Tell me what you think of that. And part 2 of the interview talks about his Economics strategy, a lot is presented in these few interviews on the O'Reilly factor, even though you hate Bill, watch it.

And Al-Queda was present in Iraq after the invasion. Why else would they have strongholds in that land? You think the Surge is one big lie? Everyone from Democrats to Republicans is saying it was a success and that AL-QUEDA has been destroyed in that area and almost completely.
 
Last edited:
Top