I'll take you up on that argument: We really cant afford a President who agrees with George W. Bush 95% of the time.
LostRealist said 09/24, 12:22 AM
Obama#1Fan's principles were correct, but his arguments poor. I'll take you up on that debate though.
You know, its not only common sensed American's that are afraid of four more years of Bush. The Europeans overwhelmingly support Barack Obama and live in fear that John McCain could be our President. Why? Because Europeans, Asians, Americans alike, we all are fed up with lies, deceit, war, and most of all, of Bush.
-http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caitlin-kraft-buchman/bush-administration-has-l_b_127420.html
And there are very good reasons we just cant afford more Bush. For example, look at our "fundamentally strong" economy. Under Bill Clinton it flourished. Under Bush? No president since the Great Depression has seen such a great net loss in job's. Source: Center for American Progress, Economic Policy Weekly, Jenna Churchman, June 6, 2005
But thats just our economy, I don't really have to argue about that, Im sure you see it yourself. But what about the reasonless "accomplished" war in Iraq?
Please... tell me why we are fighting in Iraq again... I forget. Which was it? WMD's? Opps, none of those! Liberate the people? Nah, then we would be in Africa... Tell me again please?
MorgMcA said 09/24, 03:29 AM
You seriously quoted an opinion from the Huffington Post, which is not considered to be unbias by anyone. I love how you say that because Europe loves Obama, he must be the canidate for America. Next you mock the current situation of 1 week ago and use a source to back it up which was written 3 years ago
if the situation is so dire, why did wall street rebound? Yes I am aware of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Lehman Bros etc. A situation brought on by corrupt CEOs, dubious practices and customers who tricked themselves into thinking, I can't afford a $1 downpayment, but I can afford a $350k mortgage
You really don't try to understand Iraq do you? War on Terrorism: We invaded Afghanistan to overthrown Taliban who harbored AlQaeda. AQ driven to the hills. 2 options: allow AQ to regroup and strike elsewhere or strike first and force them to respond to us instead of planning independant action. Invade Iraq: throw Al Qaeda off balance, remove an uncooperative dictator who sponsers terrorism while we're at it. mission 1: remove sadaam: accomplished Mission 2: eliminate reactionary AQ, stabilize democratic Iraq: unfinished
Tell me how we can afford a sweet-talking do-nothing Obama
LostRealist said 09/26, 04:30 PM
Dont like the Huffington Post I see. I find it funny that you attempt to insult how I choose to back up my argument, yet you offer no proof to back up your own. Makes me wonder whether you simply state opinions or arguments. While you have good wording, you have no substance.
That being said, here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/2049446/Barack-Obama-beats-John-McCain-in-European-vote-US-election-2008.html
Now, about Wall Street rebounding. You havent watched the news have you? If you honestly think Wall St. is anywhere close to safe, you are not attentive to the current state of the nation. Let me help you: http://topics.cnn.com/topics/u_s_national_economy
The situation is in fact dire. Gas prices are up 400%, We are waisting billions of dollars helping another nation, but we cant afford to help our own.
Now about Iraq. It seems you have no uderstanding of it. I cant comprehend how you argue that we must not allow AQ to regroup, so we invade Iraq. Correct me if I am wrong, but AQ is in Pakistan right? So if your theory is correct, then would we not invade Pakistan, rather than randomly pick nations we dont like?
MorgMcA said 09/26, 06:57 PM
I still don't understand why I should vote for Obama simply because people that will not represented by him are head over heels for him
"The Dow rallies and broader market erases most of its losses as investors expect some form of the $700 billion bank bailout plan will go through." http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/26/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?cnn=yes
Is that better? I usually don't quote sources because there's a lot of analyzing of many news items that one needs to do independant of the media's spinning to understand what is going on
Wait, who says we can't take care of ourselves?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the AQ operative, whom we killed, named Al-Zarqawi, was in Iraq when he died leading an organization called AQ-in-Iraq, which was made up of AQ cells from all over the world. why invade Pakistan, they're helping us. Iraq was 2 birds w/ 1 stone, hit what's left of AQ by bringing them to you on a 2nd front and get rid of Sadaam
Back to your original statement, I ask again, how can we afford to have Obama in the white house. the man has no plan, doesn't act, talks a good talk, but can't walk a straight line, is extremely partisan and reactionary not proactive
LostRealist said 09/27, 02:00 AM
You're kidding me right? You think we are taking care of ourselves?
No, China is taking care of us. We owe so much money to China its not even funny. We only sustain this diminished version of the American Life thanks to the loans the Chinese give us.
Now about Pakistan. Your argument was we should invade Iraq to prevent AQ from regrouping. Guess where AQ and Osama Bin Laden regrouped? Pakistan. So in your theory, were AQ regroups, we invade. Pakistan atm thanks to President Bush, is not fond of us. So hey! Lets take out AQ, and then take out a government that isnt fond of us while were at it right?
The fact is Morg, that President Bush has led the U.S into outstanding debt, a diminished world standing, and unsatisfied people of America. So tell me, how can we afford Bush's third term? You attacked Obama in your last paragraph. Our debate is not about Obama. It is about McCain.
McCain votes with President Bush 90% of the time. FACT. Bush is widely considered a complete failure by most respected world leaders and Americans. FACT. How can we afford then, to let a Failure continue?
How many times Morg, should America get burned before it realizes not to play with fire?
MorgMcA said 09/27, 04:01 AM
Let's see, less than 1/3 of our debt is Chinese. If they really ran our lifestyle I'd expect all of our debt to be Chinese
Pakistan, whether fond of us or not, is cooperating. Whether led by Musharaf or their new president, they continue to be our ally. Let's not go from Jane Fonda to Dr Strangelove and invade an ally w/ natural defenses better than Switzerland's
Because Obama is the only alternative to McCain, this debate is just as much about Obama as it is about McCain
FACT: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, not to mention the leaders of closer allies, respect and support many of Bush's initiatives (both Sarkozy and Merkel were elected to strengthen ties w/ the US)
FACT: McCain has bucked his president on Bush's worst and most contreversial decisions
FACT: the American People are sick of partisan politics being rammed down their throats, a policy that would only get worse under an Obama admin w/ a Dem controlled Congress
At a time when victory seems near, How, Lost, can we afford a President who, when it comes to Iraq (the central battleground in the war on terror [according to Petraeus and Bin Laden), can't see past 2003?
Comments
Add Your Comment
MorgMcA your good, thats why i quoted you in one of my debats. keep up the good work man
AppleFritter | 09/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
first off as a person who works in on wall street that we did not rebound. are you living under a rock our do you just read and watch what you like? what rebound are you looking at? most of my friends and family worked for lehman and they lost their jobs but we rebounded. BLAH! second does your rock or cave not get cable. the war on terror did nothing but excite the terrorist. do you really think that invading iraq showed the world that we are a stronger nation and can live past 9/11 or it showed we are a bunch of bullies and invaded a country that possed no immediate threat to us unlike south korea letting nukes off and the only thing we did was tell them not to do it again. did we catch bin laden because i have an entire city that would like to kill his ****. what did sadam do to the u.s. i missed that lesson in history class? the best way i look at it is this...if you kept trying to get somewhere and kept running into the same problem everytime, would you (a) find a different route or (b) give up on getting where you have to go because the idea of something different scares you?
votewithheart | 09/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
South Korea has nukes and I'm the one who doesn't read the news. I'm sorry your family lost their jobs, but just because someone lost a job doesn't mean that the stock market didn't rebound, which it did, all around the world. don't stop reading the news once you find a piece of venom to spit out at those you don't agree w/.
MorgMcA | 09/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
Wow, I cant wait till I get off work to respond to this. Morg.. you are good. I can already tell this is going to be the funnest debate I have going on this site. You actually challenge me. BUT, your still wrong.
LostRealist | 09/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
"For the record I find it ironic that you admit his arguements are poor yet currently 11:51 Pacific time he's actually winning. oh well, i've always enjoyed uphill fights." He's not winning now... I was right...Eh, nothing new. Im always right. Its a talent.
LostRealist | 09/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
MorgMcA, your argument is okay except for the Iraq War thing that directly links to "sweet-talking" Obama. Iraq only started improving "drastically" since, what, the Petraeus or so era, when we started searching in our pockets for a political solution to this. Setting up a stable, indefinitely-self-sustaining democracy in Iraq cannot be very well achieved by stagnating our soldiers there with pretty much no viable plan while going for a "time horizon". In this case, a "sweet-talking" Obama may help a bit more than a "bitter-talking" McCain.
CorruptAbramoff | 09/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
By the way MorgMcA, if you dont like that proof either, you can simply google "Europeans opinions of the U.S. Presidential elcections 2008." And you were right by the way, the Huffington Post is a very biased source which I should not have quoted. I was not aware of their existence until I googled the european opinions on the election. I usually do check my references and use more reliable sources. Sorry about that!
LostRealist | 09/26/08
Report Offensive Comment
Elect Obama-Biden in 2008!!!!!!!!!!! That is what I think all of us should do!! I say that we need to vote the only way and the real way and that is the DEMOCRATIC WAY!!!!!!!
RealDemocrat | 09/27/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
Only Axl Rose remains in the group, but since 1987 GnR has been rocking with fury
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th President
For the record I find it ironic that you admit his arguements are poor yet currently 11:51 Pacific time he's actually winning. oh well, i've always enjoyed uphill fights.
MorgMcA | 09/24/08
Report Offensive Comment