Why Voting for Obama is a Mistake

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

You people are rediculous. Replacing Bush with Mcain would, in effect, be like pooping on vomit.

But really its all irrelevant, because Obama will win in November and it wont be close. He will destroy Mcain. The people of this country have finally wised up (at least the ones who arent idiots)

I get the feeling that you think things are true because you put them into words and they had the ability to make it out your mouth.

1) McCain is nothing like Bush, and he has one of the most non-partisan voting records in the history of congress. He votes what he believes. Can you even tell me what Obama believes in besides himself, and by the way, "change" and "hope" don't count. Both of those stake platitudes are empty vessels that are intended to be filled by rubes.

2) You keep saying the election won't even be close... yet most polls show McCain continually staying with, and gaining on, Obama. I even find this shocking considering this the the most biased election coverage I've EVER seen on any level of the media, but facts are stubborn things and I can't deny them (though you do a good job of that). So what exactly do you base that statement on?

Do you operate on any other level in politics than the purely emotional?

Bond, what would you replace our dollar on now, instead of our ability to produce? Honestly, there isn't enough gold out there to back our dollar anymore, and since we moved to a fiat currency our country has experienced the most economic success of any nation in the history of the world. People keep saying that "we can't do this forever", but the problem is, that is purely based on speculation and reactionary responses to current economic events.

History has proven our economy to be resilient and over 10 and 20 years cycles to exprience far more success than failure, no matter what Ron Paul tries and sell the public. As for isolationism, well, I won;t even go into that as it has caused much more death and torment in the world than I'd like to comment on.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Bond, what would you replace our dollar on now, instead of our ability to produce? Honestly, there isn't enough gold out there to back our dollar anymore, and since we moved to a fiat currency our country has experienced the most economic success of any nation in the history of the world. People keep saying that "we can't do this forever", but the problem is, that is purely based on speculation and reactionary responses to current economic events.

History has proven our economy to be resilient and over 10 and 20 years cycles to exprience far more success than failure, no matter what Ron Paul tries and sell the public. As for isolationism, well, I won;t even go into that as it has caused much more death and torment in the world than I'd like to comment on.

I have no idea what the dollar could be backed with now, probably nothing. I suppose I don't think the issue of a fiat money system is a tremendous problem by itself, but when it's coupled with a six trillion dollar debt, a large part of which is owed to China, rising inflation, and an ever increasing government, I do see a problem.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Bond

I have no idea what the dollar could be backed with now, probably nothing. I suppose I don't think the issue of a fiat money system is a tremendous problem by itself, but when it's coupled with a six trillion dollar debt, a large part of which is owed to China, rising inflation, and an ever increasing government, I do see a problem.

I can't disagree with that, but out of those issues you raised, fiat currency is the least of our worries.

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by Professor S

2) You keep saying the election won't even be close... yet most polls show McCain continually staying with, and gaining on, Obama. I even find this shocking considering this the the most biased election coverage I've EVER seen on any level of the media, but facts are stubborn things and I can't deny them (though you do a good job of that). So what exactly do you base that statement on?

Im basing that on what I believe. We cant rely on any polls, thats been proven before, one poll could show it this way another could show it a different way. Im just basing that statement on a general feeling I have...Im not really basing it on anything. So I ask that you just wait, because come november I will be proven right and I'll probably link back to threads like these just to prove my point.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Im basing that on what I believe. We cant rely on any polls, thats been proven before, one poll could show it this way another could show it a different way. Im just basing that statement on a general feeling I have...Im not really basing it on anything. So I ask that you just wait, because come november I will be proven right and I'll probably link back to threads like these just to prove my point.

I hope you do, because I've always had a horrible track record when it comes to political issues, like when I guaranteed that Bush would win in 2004 and Leiberman would win as an Independent in 2006...

For the record, my current prediction is that Obama will win by a thin margin, mainly because the media refuses to pay attention to anything he actually says and instead fellate him every chance they get.

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by Professor S

For the record, my current prediction is that Obama will win by a thin margin, mainly because the media refuses to pay attention to anything he actually says and instead fellate him every chance they get.

Or the fact that he is obviously the better candidate, but bah nevermind that of course it will be the Media's fault when Mcain Loses! Its always their fault!

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I hope you do, because I've always had a horrible track record when it comes to political issues, like when I guaranteed that Bush would win in 2004 and Leiberman would win as an Independent in 2006...

For the record, my current prediction is that Obama will win by a thin margin, mainly because the media refuses to pay attention to anything he actually says and instead fellate him every chance they get.

Yes, because the media has been absolutely fair to Obama. Calling his wife Michelle a "baby mama." "Mistaking" his name consistently for 'Osama', somebody who has committed mass murder on our country. The "liberal" media you speak of is nothing more than a myth. Did you see the Jerimiah Wright coverage? That almost guaranteed Obama's political death even though he had nothing to do with it, yet he still fought through it. But yes, he has been "given a blowjob" by the media. Ignore the racism and hate speech, that never happened.

[Vampyr]

But anyway, a lot of the people putting down Obama now are the people who supported Bush in previous elections. You're wrong about him, and you're also wrong this time. If you win and McCain becomes President, you'll see that eventually.

If Obama wins, who knows what will happen. All I can say is that I feel things will be better than they are now, and I feel he will do a much better job than McCain. I feel he will make America a much better place. Sometimes a "feeling" does transcend political knowledge.

There's just some instinct or intuition that tells me he is the right choice.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

Yes, because the media has been absolutely fair to Obama. Calling his wife Michelle a "baby mama." "Mistaking" his name consistently for 'Osama', somebody who has committed mass murder on our country. The "liberal" media you speak of is nothing more than a myth. Did you see the Jerimiah Wright coverage? That almost guaranteed Obama's political death even though he had nothing to do with it, yet he still fought through it. But yes, he has been "given a blowjob" by the media. Ignore the racism and hate speech, that never happened.

What you are quoting is not the media, they are spinsters and commentators. I am referring to newpaper headlines, major news stories and basic face time and interview time given by the media. For God's sake one compared him to JFK because of his awful and meaningless trip to Germany.

You mention Jeremiah Wright as if it supports your case. Any other polician would have been DESTROYED by their association with a hate monger like Wright, but Obama has essentially gotten away with it. Obama si asociated with a former domestic terrorist, and while I don't view his light association as being that bad, he has gotten away with it. Obama has taken two different sides on issues within weeks of stating them, LIED about it, and has gotten a free pass. If McCain had these associations, and not Obama, don't you think the outrage would have not yet ceased? If you really think there hasn't been a double standard in favor of Obama, you're not paying attention.

The worst part is, Obama has NEVER been pressed by any journalist on what he ACTUALLY STANDS FOR. Instead, they report on Obama as a phenomenon instead of someone who wants to lead our nation, and it's pathetic.

Lastly, the biggest proof of the media ifavoring Obama, is that the media is even taking him seriously. He has NO EXPERIENCE. There is no reason on God's green earth to consider this man as being qualified to be president, and yet he is worshipped almost to the level of a messiah.

[BlueFire]

Originally Posted by Professor S

For God's sake one compared him to JFK because of his awful and meaningless trip to Germany.

Out of curiosity, why do you think his trip to Germany was meaningless?

Lastly, the biggest proof of the media ifavoring Obama, is that the media is even taking him seriously. He has NO EXPERIENCE. There is no reason on God's green earth to consider this man as being qualified to be president, and yet he is worshipped almost to the level of a messiah.

Now, I'm not necessarily disagreeing that having little to no experience is a bad thing, but why are you sure that having experience is a guarantee for a good president? I mean, I'm sure you've seen all the articles floating about: Most historians and the general public believe that Lincoln was the greatest president the country has had.. and also one of the most inexperienced.

History has also shown us that having a lot of experience doesn't make a good president. So I just have to ask, why are you so adamant about requiring a wealthy amount of experience for presidency? I mean, Obama DOES have some experience.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by BLueFire

Out of curiosity, why do you think his trip to Germany was meaningless?

Because he is running for president of the United States, and not the world. He gave a speech to 200,000 Germans that said absolutely nothing, and played basketball, as if that would give him any credibility when it comes to foreign relations, another area that he knows next to nothing about. The trip Europe as a sideshow and a photo-op.

Now, I'm not necessarily disagreeing that having little to no experience is a bad thing, but why are you sure that having experience is a guarantee for a good president? I mean, I'm sure you've seen all the articles floating about: Most historians and the general public believe that Lincoln was the greatest president the country has had.. and also one of the most inexperienced.

History has also shown us that having a lot of experience doesn't make a good president. So I just have to ask, why are you so adamant about requiring a wealthy amount of experience for presidency? I mean, Obama DOES have some experience.

I never said experience makes a great President, but I believe it should be a qualification. You mention Lincoln as being a great President with little experience, and I counter with Woodrow Wilson, who was a borderline facist who believed that "certain individuals" should be sterilized. He only had a few years as Governor before winning the Presidency. If we want to use isolated examples, we can come up with any argument we like.

But more importantly, I think that if you have little experience, and basically refuse to state your opinion on major issues and political topics, that should show you that he is unqualified.

Obama is inexperienced, but not stupid. Having next to no experience or track record to go back to in national politics (or more importantly no track record that can be used against him) he uses amorphous speech, talking about "change" and "hope", but rarely stating what he wants to change, or go into detail about how he would go about it. This way his opinion is EVERYONE's opinion, because no one is against change or hope, and you can slide your political beliefs in to fit with his message. This is why there is a % of disenfranchised Repuiblicans who support Obama, even though if you take the time to dig up his record, and you have to dig becuase no media outlet will challnge Obama on it, he disagrees with just about everything Republicans and even right leaning moderates believe in.

Now do you want me to go into detail as to why I'm against Obama and think he would be the most damaging President in history?

1) In state senate he voted that if a late term abortion fails, meaning the child is alive outside of the womb, the doctor can kill it. Honeslty, supporting late term abortion was bad enough. Obama stated that he voted against it because it called a phetus a child... well DUH, its alive outside of the womb, that is the very definition of a human. His vote stated that human life is based on whether or not we intended it to live, not whether or not the child is ALIVE.

2) Obama has refused to change is opinion on the troop surge in Iraq and its success, even though most objective observation and the death counts have proven it to be a success. Regardless of a change in policy, I do not trust someone who can not admit to facts.

3) On more than one occassion Obama has essentially repeated ideals strait from the Communist Manifesto. In a fundraiser(sp?) in San Fran he stated that some people who are disenfranchised cling to Religion and guns to fill the void, whixch is basically a rewording of the Marxist belief that Religion is the opiate of the masses and sole intent was to keep the poor from rising up. At Wesleyan's graduation he stated that the individual cannot succeed without the collective, and talked about a belief in national service beyond the military and "asking citizens to serve", whatever that means, but Obama certainly won't tell you and no one will ask him to clarify.

4) Obamanomics - His tax policy would cripple small businesses and single-proprietor businesses, raising many of their tax burdens as much as 25% in cases, once ALL the taxes, increases in social security payments and other federally mandated employee benefits are raised. Sound all well and good, but Obama tends to view the world through the leftist view that actions don't have unintended results. When you hurt the small business owner, you hurt American because small businesses employ the vast majority of people in America. When taxes are raised on them, they don't pay the taxes, they hide the money in trusts and other shelters instead of putting money back into their business, and their employees, and growing the economy.

Obama is also for such horrible economic policies such as the "liveable wage" replacing minimum wage. 1) Less than 2% of people are paid minimum wage, so this will not help the economy at all 2) Minimum wage mandates have already started to take effect, and the result is a historical high in teenage unemployment. Business owners will not pay people who are inexperienced that much money to drop baskets of fries when a touch screen can take an order and an illegal immigrant can work off the books. If anything, it will only serve to help make people more comfortable in poverty. How is raising the minimum wage to a liveable wage supposed to help anyone? Who knows, and those that support it definitely don't care as long as it sounds like a good thing to run for re-election with.

5) Obama clims to be a uniter, but has proven to only want to unite those that do what he thinks. The National Journal (non-partisan) analyzed his voting record and showed it to be the most liberal in all of Congress, voting 97% the party line. But he tends in ignore his voting record in his speeches, and when he taks about his experience, he talks about being a community organizer on Chicago, whatever that means.


But what bugs me the most is that he looks like someone who is trying to get elected by pretending to support certain views, and once he is elected he can follow another agenda. In my mind, if you are afraid to tell your constituency what you really believe in for fear of not getting elected, you are unqualified to be president, or even be a public servant.