The Conservative - Liberal Debate Thread

I live near Chicago.

So far Obama is known for: 1) real estate dealings and 2) running for President

Exactly!

I am from the Chicago-area too and I think out-of-state people may think that Obama has had an illustrious career in Illinois. The truth is that people from Illinois barely know him.

Obama only became a US senator in 2005 and he has been campaigning for President for at least a year. He only won his seat in 2005 because a long-time Republican finally retired and then the Republican who was running against Obama had to drop out at the last minute due to a scandal. Alan Keyes, an out of towner with a lot of baggage, then ran against Obama at the last minute.

If he has accomplished anything for Illinois since he has been in office, I don't know what it is. I think he should have waited to run for President until he has more experience, he just isn't ready.
 
moved from Conservative Thread.......response to wrevy......

Regards,

Quote:
Ah, but I would say that Obama's stance against the war is every bit the "accomplishment" that McCain's stance for it is for you. Yet, somehow I don't think he'd get credit for that from your side. :teeth:

I disagree. It was no kind of accomplishment for Sen. Obama. What kind of current was he swimming against after all?

To me, he just did what demagogues have always done.......

Look around for an angry mob......run and jump in front of them and yell "Follow Me!" ;)

Yes, I am calling Sen. Obama a demagogue ie 1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.

Not saying he is evil or anything.....just that there is downside to all this "hope" and "change" rhetoric. We should not ignore it.

Regards,

Ah, but you forget what the political environment was like back in 2002. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Company were fresh off their "Saddam has nukes and he's getting ready to use 'em" tour, and the war had strong support among much of the country (including a certain junior senator from New York). Considering his national political aspirations, it did take guts to put himself on the minority side of public opinion. That he has proven right actually means less than that he was willing to take that stand.

As for his "demagogue" status...you'll have to first prove that he's actually making false claims. So far, I have seen no evidence of such a claim.

Exactly!

I am from the Chicago-area too and I think out-of-state people may think that Obama has had an illustrious career in Illinois. The truth is that people from Illinois barely know him.

Obama only became a US senator in 2005 and he has been campaigning for President for at least a year. He only won his seat in 2005 because a long-time Republican finally retired and then the Republican who was running against Obama had to drop out at the last minute due to a scandal. Alan Keyes, an out of towner with a lot of baggage, then ran against Obama at the last minute.

If he has accomplished anything for Illinois since he has been in office, I don't know what it is. I think he should have waited to run for President until he has more experience, he just isn't ready.

You forgot to mention that he beat Alan Keyes like a rented mule (if you'll pardon the colloquialism). :teeth:

The people of Illinois overwhelmingly voted him into office. Apparently, they disagree with you that he "didn't do anything" while he was there. As for him "not doing anything" either in Illinois or in Washington, I would simply suggest that you look at his record...a record far more substantial than Hillary Clinton's, by the way.
 
Ah, but you forget what the political environment was like back in 2002. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Company were fresh off their "Saddam has nukes and he's getting ready to use 'em" tour, and the war had strong support among much of the country (including a certain junior senator from New York). Considering his national political aspirations, it did take guts to put himself on the minority side of public opinion. That he has proven right actually means less than that he was willing to take that stand.

I so do not forget.... nyah (hehe)

Sen McCain's ambitions for POTUS preceeded events in 2002 as described above, as does his long long career in public service (warning: this will come up again and again hehe).

OTOH, Sen Obama's ambitions began in 2004, which we can all agree (or really should consider thinking of perhaps agreeing some small bit), was nearly as ugly as the 2000 Presidential election (on both sides). This is where Obama found his "mob" (clever Chicago "pervasive culture of corruption" reference) Or "they" found him (ominous implication). This too shall come up again....;)

As for his "demagogue" status...you'll have to first prove that he's actually making false claims. So far, I have seen no evidence of such a claim.

I note the irony of you asking for specifics from me but not of your candidate......

I saw this the other day (not my words and unsure who to attribute them to).

Change used as a mantra
without substance is demagoguery
Like old time bible thumpers, he ignores
our present needs and pronounces them
as flexible to his purpose
He asks us to wait till tomorrow, to some future hope

That sums up my reservations nicely.

I also read a great article by Thomas Sowell (read it here but with caution, it's NRO) :)
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWQ0ZDZmN2Q3YWU4NzM5MmFjZjZjNGZlODFmMGMwYTk=

Some snippets:

Barack Obama says that he wants to “heal America and repair the world.” One wonders what he will do for an encore and whether he will rest on the seventh day.

Barack Obama says that he wants to “heal” the country while at the same time promoting the idea that all sorts of people are victims for whom he will fight.

Being divisive while proclaiming unity is something you can do only in the world of rhetoric.

Regards,
 
I so do not forget.... nyah (hehe)

Sen McCain's ambitions for POTUS preceeded events in 2002 as described above, as does his long long career in public service (warning: this will come up again and again hehe).

OTOH, Sen Obama's ambitions began in 2004, which we can all agree (or really should consider thinking of perhaps agreeing some small bit), was nearly as ugly as the 2000 Presidential election (on both sides). This is where Obama found his "mob" (clever Chicago "pervasive culture of corruption" reference) Or "they" found him (ominous implication). This too shall come up again....;)

Ah, but he was well out in front of that "mob", since he started denouncing the war in 2002 when the votes were cast.

You're right that McCain had aspirations before 2002...and he cast his vote right along with the "mob" that the white house had conveniently whipped into a war frenzy. Not sure how that's a "brave" stance when the vast majority of the country supported it.

I note the irony of you asking for specifics from me but not of your candidate......

I saw this the other day (not my words and unsure who to attribute them to).

Change used as a mantra
without substance is demagoguery
Like old time bible thumpers, he ignores
our present needs and pronounces them
as flexible to his purpose
He asks us to wait till tomorrow, to some future hope

That sums up my reservations nicely.

I also read a great article by Thomas Sowell (read it here but with caution, it's NRO) :)
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWQ0ZDZmN2Q3YWU4NzM5MmFjZjZjNGZlODFmMGMwYTk=
Regards,

See, here's the problem I have with people claiming that Obama has nothing beyond his speeches. It IS there, but some people don't want to find it.

You and I have gone around a few times on this thread. Do I seem like the type to be impressed by empty promises and meaningless rhetoric? :teeth: Will you at least acknowledge that I probably know a little more about Obama than you do (unless you, too, have read his books and his website)? Here...start at this link: http://www.barackobama.com/issues and take a look at where he stands on the various issues of this election (take your pick...there are a bunch of 'em). Then go to the Washington Post's website and check out his voting record on any number of different issues. MOST importantly, go to your local library and check out his book The Audacity of Hope.

If you do that, I'll make a prediction right now: you may not agree with his stances on the issues, but you will respect what he has to say. He's a lot more centrist and there is a lot more substance than you guys give him credit for. If you'd just do a little research - from either an objective or at least from sites that aren't virulently anti-Obama or anti-Democrat - you might come to see that he's not the empty suit you're currently trying to make him out to be.
 

See, here's the problem I have with people claiming that Obama has nothing beyond his speeches. It IS there, but some people don't want to find it.

ya know - I've listened to McCain speach and he is just as vague as Obama and Clinton. I have visited all 3 websites to see what each candidate feels on the issues I feel are of importance. It didn't take me long - I mean how lazy are we as a society that we won't pull up a website?

~Amanda
 
Mr. Man, stay away from the light. Do not go near the light.:lmao: :rotfl2:

Because it's better to live in darkness? :confused3

ya know - I've listened to McCain speach and he is just as vague as Obama and Clinton. I have visited all 3 websites to see what each candidate feels on the issues I feel are of importance. It didn't take me long - I mean how lazy are we as a society that we won't pull up a website?

~Amanda

Exactly! I mean...I got blasted from any number of people on the "Hillary Supporters" thread for saying basically that same thing: do your own homework. Several people on that thread felt it was offensive because I insisted that they hadn't tried to find the information they claimed didn't exist.

Look, I have no problem at all with people that disagree with my preferred candidate's policies. I happen to think that the reasoning he used in coming to such conclusions was sound, but they may see things differently, and that's fine. That's why we have two parties in this country. But don't tell me that the information isn't there, when I know for an absolute and undeniable fact that it is.
 
Because it's better to live in darkness? :confused3



Exactly! I mean...I got blasted from any number of people on the "Hillary Supporters" thread for saying basically that same thing: do your own homework. Several people on that thread felt it was offensive because I insisted that they hadn't tried to find the information they claimed didn't exist.

Look, I have no problem at all with people that disagree with my preferred candidate's policies. I happen to think that the reasoning he used in coming to such conclusions was sound, but they may see things differently, and that's fine. That's why we have two parties in this country. But don't tell me that the information isn't there, when I know for an absolute and undeniable fact that it is.

Lighten up.:rotfl: I won't speak for Mr. Man, but I'll bet just like me, he's taken a good look at Obama's website. You say you have no problem with people who disagree with your candidate's policies, but yet you seem to assume it's because they haven't taken the time to educate themselves. As unbelievable as it may seem to you for anyone who takes the time to educate themselves and still not come out on his side, well that's just a fact of life. I don't see why that's such a big deal.
 
Ah, but you forget what the political environment was like back in 2002. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Company were fresh off their "Saddam has nukes and he's getting ready to use 'em" tour, and the war had strong support among much of the country (including a certain junior senator from New York). Considering his national political aspirations, it did take guts to put himself on the minority side of public opinion. That he has proven right actually means less than that he was willing to take that stand.

As for his "demagogue" status...you'll have to first prove that he's actually making false claims. So far, I have seen no evidence of such a claim.



You forgot to mention that he beat Alan Keyes like a rented mule (if you'll pardon the colloquialism). :teeth:

The people of Illinois overwhelmingly voted him into office. Apparently, they disagree with you that he "didn't do anything" while he was there. As for him "not doing anything" either in Illinois or in Washington, I would simply suggest that you look at his record...a record far more substantial than Hillary Clinton's, by the way.

My grandmother could have beat Alan Keyes like a rented mule. :teeth:

Obama was just elected in 2005 and began running for President in 2007. He hasn't had time to do much for his office.
 
You're right that McCain had aspirations before 2002...and he cast his vote right along with the "mob" that the white house had conveniently whipped into a war frenzy. Not sure how that's a "brave" stance when the vast majority of the country supported it.

It's a different perspective I suppose. You say "war frenzy". I say "grim resolve". LOL

Also, a minor bone of contention. I thought us supporters of OIF were in the minority......yet now we are the vast majority? (smart alecky rhetorical response). BTW I agree, we are the majority.

See, here's the problem I have with people claiming that Obama has nothing beyond his speeches. It IS there, but some people don't want to find it.

You and I have gone around a few times on this thread. Do I seem like the type to be impressed by empty promises and meaningless rhetoric? :teeth: Will you at least acknowledge that I probably know a little more about Obama than you do (unless you, too, have read his books and his website)? Here...start at this link: http://www.barackobama.com/issues and take a look at where he stands on the various issues of this election (take your pick...there are a bunch of 'em). Then go to the Washington Post's website and check out his voting record on any number of different issues. MOST importantly, go to your local library and check out his book The Audacity of Hope.

If you do that, I'll make a prediction right now: you may not agree with his stances on the issues, but you will respect what he has to say. He's a lot more centrist and there is a lot more substance than you guys give him credit for. If you'd just do a little research - from either an objective or at least from sites that aren't virulently anti-Obama or anti-Democrat - you might come to see that he's not the empty suit you're currently trying to make him out to be.

I have three books I will be reading over my vacation next week & Obama's book is one of them (I will put an Ann Coulter booksleeve over the top of it.....I do this out of a deep seated sense of propriety) hehe.

I do enjoy discussing the issues with you and have no doubt that your position is not something you have to come to on a whim. If I did not believe this to be true, I would be posting silly pictures and blabbin' inanely.......:thumbsup2

IMO Sen Obama's positions on the issues of the day are not being communicated effectively yet. I accept that one can make the same argument about the other candidates still in the race, but they have the advantage of being in the public eye for much longer than Obama (we think we know them-not saying we do, but it is the perception). Obama has done a good job setting the tone for his campaign (better than the others IMO), but at some point, the band has to start playing......can't just sit there tuning up indefinitely......

You are likely right though, I doubt I will like the song selection.......
(I'm assuming Lynard Skynard is not part of their reportoire). :lmao:

Regards,
 
I don't quite get the (sometimes) rabid attacks on women from hard core women's libbers. It's like they're less of a woman if they don't conform to their standards. But they say some species eat their own. I guess. :confused3

Hey, I just checked the calendar...It's 2008, not 1978!!!!!:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Sorry...just couldnt resist!:lmao:
 
You forgot to mention that he beat Alan Keyes like a rented mule (if you'll pardon the colloquialism). :teeth:
.

Obama should THANK Blair Hull and Jack Ryan for that win...and even Mike Ditka for saying NO to the GOP nod!! :lmao:

It really was a comical Election to watch! Make a GREAT movie some day.:happytv:
 
There's been so many libs on the Conservative "NO DEBATE" thread trying to debate the past couple of days I thought this thread must need a BUMP.:rolleyes:

Here it is:

BUMP!
 
Too much attention lately? ;)

If I want to debate I'll go to a debate thread. Some of us like to abide by the titles of a thread out of respect to the OP.

Where I come from NO means NO, that's all.:rolleyes1
 
It's game over for the "President Bush has never lied" crowd......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080313/wl_mideast_afp/usattacksiraqqaedamilitary

No link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda: Pentagon study Thu Mar 13, 6:04 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A detailed Pentagon study confirms there was no direct link between late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the Al-Qaeda network, debunking a claim President George W. Bush's administration used to justify invading Iraq.
Coming five years after the start of the war in Iraq, the study of 600,000 official Iraqi documents and thousands of hours of interrogations of former Saddam Hussein colleagues "found no smoking gun (i.e. direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and Al-Qaeda," said the study, quoted in US media Thursday.

The US administration appeared to bury the release of the study, making it available only at individual request and by mail -- instead of posting it on the Internet or handing it out to reporters.
A Pentagon spokesman on Thursday said they did not know why the Joint Forces Command was not posting the report online, but denied that it was an attempt to limit its distribution.

"We don't have a reason to do so. I think when you see the report it will show a Nazi-esque cataloque of Saddam's ties to terror, both within his own country and elsewhere in the Middle East," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell.

Previous reports by the blue-ribbon September 11 commission and the Pentagon's inspector general in 2007 reached the same conclusion that there were no ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda but none had access to as much information.
"The Iraqi Perspective Project review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism," said a summary of the Pentagon study to which ABC News provided a link on its website Wednesday.

"State terrorism became a routine tool of State power" but "the predominant target of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens," the summary said.

ABC reported the study initially was to be posted on the US military's website accompanied by a background briefing with the study's authors. But the Pentagon scrapped those plans and took the unusual step of offering only to send the report by mail to those who asked for it.
Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and top aides have insisted there were links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, citing the alleged ties as a rationale for going to war in Iraq.

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda," Bush told reporters in June 2004.
The study says Saddam Hussein's regime did not have clear ties to Al-Qaeda, which was responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, but had associations with other terror groups including Palestinian militants.

The regime "often cooperated directly, albeit cautiously, with terrorist groups when they believed such groups could help advance Iraq's long-term goals," it said.

"The regime carefully recorded its connections to Palestinian terror organizations in numerous government memos.

"One such example documents Iraqi financial support to families of suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank," the study said.
 
If I want to debate I'll go to a debate thread. Some of us like to abide by the titles of a thread out of respect to the OP.

Where I come from NO means NO, that's all.:rolleyes1

But see we are the party that believes in Law and Order. The Dems are the party of Do Whatever Feels Good.
 
You forgot to mention that he beat Alan Keyes like a rented mule (if you'll pardon the colloquialism). :teeth:

The people of Illinois overwhelmingly voted him into office. Apparently, they disagree with you that he "didn't do anything" while he was there. As for him "not doing anything" either in Illinois or in Washington, I would simply suggest that you look at his record...a record far more substantial than Hillary Clinton's, by the way.
I agree completely that Obama went against the tide prior to the war. He was one of the few who stood up against it.

However, as for him doing anythign for Illinois, we are still waiting. He didn't win "overwhelmingly" because of what he would do for us, but because the Republican candidate got caught with his "pants down" so to speak and had to retire from the race (he had a good 10 point lead or more if I remember correctly) and the DuPage Republicans, in their insolent wisdom (choice of words intentional) decided to bring in a carpet bagger from Maryland rather than try to find someone to run from inside the state. After spending years of bashing Hillary for doing the same thing, they lost the vote of everyone who wasn't a rabid Republican from the far far left. That is why he won overwhelmingly. He had the support of every Democrat in the state (and Illinois is usually a blue state because of Chicago), every moderate Republican and quite a few regular Republicans. I could have won given those circumstances. Even Blagovitch could have won.
 
It's game over for the "President Bush has never lied" crowd......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080313/wl_mideast_afp/usattacksiraqqaedamilitary

No link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda: Pentagon study Thu Mar 13, 6:04 PM ET

This report was just released correct? So it was just discovered that there is no link? Yet, Bush (not any of the CIA, DoD or military advisors apparently, just Bush) was supposed to be aware of this little tidbit 6 yrs ago. That is your proof that Bush lied? :confused3
 












Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top