Why Voting for Obama is a Mistake

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

I say so what if the media is baised towards Obama? Good I say, the media cares enough to not want a shitty president.

Thank you for helping to prove my point. You have always been a font of validation for my arguments. You're simply awe inspiring.

But all that is Republican bullshit anyways, as is all the crap about Obama not having any "experience". Its just Republicans desperatley trying to dig up anything bad on Obama. Unfortunatley for them, thats all theyve got and Americans arent buying into the Republican lies.

So its a lie to say Obama lacks experience? I thought it was a statement of fact. Regardless of whether or not you support Obama, you have to admit there is nothing in his track record that would make you think he was qualified to be President. In the end, we must depend solely on his speeches and interviews for this information, and he has been anything but forthcoming.

And KG, US states have very little control over the abortion issue since the Roe vs. Wade decision. Xantar is correct in saying that its largely a supreme court matter, but he is incorrect in believing that makes this an unimportant issue for the presidential campaign. The President appoints the judges and they make the ruling on whether or not a doctor can kill and new born simply becuase it wasn't supposed to survive. With several justices appraching retirement age, I can't think of a more important duty of a new president than appointing judges right now.

And again, I'll pick the candidate that says "don't kill the baby"

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Thank you for helping to prove my point. You have always been a font of validation for my arguments. You're simply awe inspiring.



So its a lie to say Obama lacks experience? I thought it was a statement of fact. Regardless of whether or not you support Obama, you have to admit there is nothing in his track record that would make you think he was qualified to be President. In the end, we must depend solely on his speeches and interviews for this information, and he has been anything but forthcoming.

And KG, US states have very little control over the abortion issue since the Roe vs. Wade decision. Xantar is correct in saying that its largely a supreme court matter, but he is incorrect in believing that makes this an unimportant issue for the presidential campaign. The President appoints the judges and they make the ruling on whether or not a doctor can kill and new born simply becuase it wasn't supposed to survive. With several justices appraching retirement age, I can't think of a more important duty of a new president than appointing judges right now.

And again, I'll pick the candidate that says "don't kill the baby"

Obama never actually voted "no" towards the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, he voted "present".

His reasoning was:
"Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

Later on, when the act was passed at the Federal level, this bit of wording had been added on (which is what brought in the support of pro-abortion democrats)

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section."

Obama has since stated that he would have voted "yes" if that wording had been there when the Illinois voting took place.

Although I think I still disagree with his decision, it at least makes it a little more clear as to why he made it, and that it wasn't intended to be malicious towards babies.

At the same time, we also have to consider that neither candidate is going to have all the qualities that each of us look for in a good person/leader, as no two people are the same. For example, I could never like McCain as a person due to his stance on gay issues. I consider this to be on the same level as racism, no questions asked.

However, that's not the main reason I will be voting for Obama. I will be voting for Obama because I agree with him and support his stance on a vast majority of issues. I am not very "liberal" when it comes to gun control, but that is just one topic among many.

EDIT:
As for speaking to the Germans:
Yes, it was a photo-op, done primarily because you and others criticize his experience. He wanted to show that he has the ability to be a world leader and galvanize other nations into working with the United States. We are a pretty hated place around the world at the moment, and I think the rest of the world sees Obama as a reasonable person that they can work with, compared to what we've had serving the last 8 years.

As for putting troops in Afghanistan rather than Iraq:
I'm not in support of sending more troops anywhere. I think the Middle East is a lost cause, and that Jon McCain's plan to "WIN!" is incredibly stupid. We are never ever going to fix the problems they have over there. They have been fighting this war since the death of Abraham, we are -never- going to fix the conflict and strife that is happening there.

However, this was -supposed- to be a War on terror, instigated by the 9/11 attacks, and it -wasn't- Iraq that started all of that. America was lied to in order to get troops into Iraq, when Afghanistan was probably where they should have been sent in the first place.

It would be like if Germany suddenly attacked us, and in order to get back at them we blew up Canada.

[Professor S]

Vampyr, a few notes on your points:

1) Abortion - Thanks for the clarification. I better understand why Obama voted the way that he did. I still don't agree with it, but I better understand his viewpoint, even if I think he was reaching a bit in his explanation.

2) Your comments about the war in the middle east are typically misleading. No one was lied to to go to war with Iraq. At worst, our intelligence was wrong, and also the intelligence of every other major world power was wrong to. The argument never was whether or not Iraq had WMD's, it was what to do about it. There is a difference between being wrong and pirposely misleading an entire nation.

And your comparison of Iraq to Canada is a bit of a stretch. If you did want to foster democracy in the medle east, I know you don't agree, but if you did Iraq is the best choice with a modern infrastructure and an educated populace. Myself, I'm not as pessimistic as you, and I actually think that Iraq will succeed as a nation now, and within 18 months or so, but to give such a timeline is idiocy.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Vampyr, a few notes on your points:

1) Abortion - Thanks for the clarification. I better understand why Obama voted the way that he did. I still don't agree with it, but I better understand his viewpoint, even if I think he was reaching a bit in his explanation.

2) Your comments about the war in the middle east are typically misleading. No one was lied to to go to war with Iraq. At worst, our intelligence was wrong, and also the intelligence of every other major world power was wrong to. The argument never was whether or not Iraq had WMD's, it was what to do about it. There is a difference between being wrong and pirposely misleading an entire nation.

And your comparison of Iraq to Canada is a bit of a stretch. If you did want to foster democracy in the medle east, I know you don't agree, but if you did Iraq is the best choice with a modern infrastructure and an educated populace. Myself, I'm not as pessimistic as you, and I actually think that Iraq will succeed as a nation now, and within 18 months or so, but to give such a timeline is idiocy.

I have spoken to several people who say that when we first started the war in Iraq, they believed it was a direct retaliation for the 9/11 attacks. These people were typical Americans and not people who closely follow exactly what the government is doing. I'm not saying the government cooked up an elaborate conspiracy, I'm saying that the general American public was mislead by not having all of the facts laid out exactly as they were. I think there was some subtle deceiving that occurred that shouldn't have.

When it was finally made clear that Iraq did not have WMD's, and hadn't even been trying to develop them since 1991, and that Iraq was actually not connected to Al-Queda (or at least no evidence has been discovered yet) the American public became very confused, and quickly after that very angry. I can't help but suspect there were ulterior motives in going to war with Iraq, and I think we've all heard the stories and accusations enough for me to not have to repeat them. However, it is entirely possible that the Bush administration was given misleading evidence to suggest that Iraq was more closely involved with terrorism than they turned out to be.

But now that we -know- how things are and how things were, we should be trying to end this debacle as soon as possible, even if it means just pulling out. We are trying to force a Western philosophy onto a non Western people. We went into this war with the Westernized assumption that we could deal with them with Western reason, and that has failed. There are too many radicals that are clouded by their religion, and you can -never- change their minds, it is engraved into them as writing on stone.

We took down Saddam Hussein, but there will always be another like him ready to take his place. I know that you feel that we shouldn't abandon those people, but I honestly believe that we can't be that much more help to them, and all the while it is costing American lives and American dollars. It's easy for us who are not involved, either in the decision making or the actual fighting, to say "We need to finish what we started," but when everyday American men and women are dying because of what many, including myself, consider to be a lost cause, it is hard to feel like that can be justified in any way.