Hellsing321
Member
But what were more troops supposed to accomplish?VictimOfGrief said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2nd Pres. Debate 2008 Thread (DOW dropping, Biden is off to Home Depot)
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
kkaabboomm
Member
has the alaska legis committee released their final report yet?
VictimOfGrief
Banned
Do you agree that the surge was more troops?Hellsing321 said:
Yes or no?
NullPointer
Member
Bumblebeetuna said:
Well...
VictimOfGrief said:
This is for you:
http://www.236.com/video/2008/get_your_war_on_the_surge_8423.php
Hellsing321
Member
And what were more troops supposed to accomplish?VictimOfGrief said:
VictimOfGrief said:
Undisputed research shows that the defacto ethnic cleansing of Sunni from Shiite neighborhoods (and vice versa) in Baghdad had a larger effect on the reduction of violence than did the surge. It is also demonstrable right now, that the surge's original intended goal - to stablize and propel an internal Iraqi strategy, is no further than it was pre-surge.
Obama should in fact say the surge failed, or at best, was a waste of money and lives, but that's emotionally unpopular.
CharlieDigital
Banned
I am laughing in disbelief here :lol :lol :lol
The Librarian
Banned
:/ All you'll do is go back and forth if you reply like that.Hellsing321 said:
VictimOfGrief said:
1.) bush never left the country before his campaign and relished at being a foreign affairs light weight. Obama was on the foreign relations and national security committee, has met with hundreds of ambassadors and has a degree from Columbia in International relations, one of the most prestigious international relations schools in the country.
2.) gun control and against people rights to own firarems are two different things
3.) going green regardless of whether global warming is real or not (it is and man has a large role, prove me wrong if you want) is something that will boost jobs, the economy and allow us to once again be the forefront of new technology and be an exporter not an importer.
4.)Watch the O'Reilly interview, he said it worked but he tried to rightfully point out that the increase numbers of troops was not the single biggest catalyst for decreased violence nor the only reason. the Sunni Awakening and ethnic cleansing had as much, probably more to do with the recent drop in violence than the increased troops.
And do you really want to pull out the card of who admits something and who doesnt in terms of Iraq?
5.)Health care would reduce costs not increase them, UHC is a better choice for almost every reason than our system
(couldnt find the link to it here but it was posted a while back, but someone else posted it on my football forum)
http://www.saintsreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=951098&postcount=1
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
6.)Much like McCain I would put money that neither one is very religious at heart but you have to feign it in this country to get in office. Obama was knocked in Illinois as being out of touch with African Americans so he joined the most prominent african american church. McCain was knocked for being unable to sway and relate with the religious right so he sought out endorsements from John Hagee and similar fringe, inflamatory, bigot preachers.
Violence has decreased in Iraq for many reasons, the addition of 20k troops being a very minor one.
- Payoffs to militant leaders for bringing about cease-fires
- Ethnic cleansing and dividing neighborhoods into Sunni and Shia ghettos
- New "top secret intelligence techniques" for exposing and capturing/killing militant leaders
- Construction of walls separating aforementioned ghettos
- Millions of people have fled Baghdad leaving less civilian targets available to kill
On top of all of this, there is still plenty of violence in Iraq. Since April 2008 we have lost 161 American soldiers with hundreds more wounded. To say that the "surge has worked" is misleading and stupid.
- Payoffs to militant leaders for bringing about cease-fires
- Ethnic cleansing and dividing neighborhoods into Sunni and Shia ghettos
- New "top secret intelligence techniques" for exposing and capturing/killing militant leaders
- Construction of walls separating aforementioned ghettos
- Millions of people have fled Baghdad leaving less civilian targets available to kill
On top of all of this, there is still plenty of violence in Iraq. Since April 2008 we have lost 161 American soldiers with hundreds more wounded. To say that the "surge has worked" is misleading and stupid.
VictimOfGrief said:
We love you too. Someday someone with more brains than ideology will come on and half the board won't know what to say, but you're not that guy. You've essentially parroted the same ignorant talking points we all got tired of refuting months and months ago.
SouthernDragon
Member
VictimOfGrief said:
I'll take you up on that.
While it is good to have years of experience under your belt and consistent and protracted contact with world leaders and dignitaries, it is ultimately what you do with those years of learning that matter, not how many you have. Same goes for schooling.
Saying Obama went to Harvard is not proof of his intelligence. Bush also went to Harvard. But if we examined what they did there, and what they did with the knowledge gained afterward, we can gain a greater appreciation of who they are as men.
Obama has studied for years international relations, and has shown to be a man that'll think at length on any issue, surround himself with people more experienced than he, draw a consensus, and then act. This does not imply, though, that he takes a long time to reach a conclusion; on the contrary, look at how rapidly his campaign reacts to unknowns.
Obama's tour overseas proved successful, not because of the politics at home, but because of politics abroad. He received enthusiastic welcomes where ever he went, true; but afterwards, he received much praise from leaders and dignitaries everywhere.
Most telling was his meeting with the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs. That's no job for a lightweight, and certainly not someone you take lightly in a discussion. Obama went toe-to-toe with him for an hour honestly discussing positions without having to worry about jockeying for public opinion. At the end of the hour, the minister came away impressed and expressed the opinion that Obama knew what he was talking about.
The Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs says Obama understands the situation in the Middle East. That's some heavy stuff right there, and it wasn't limited to the Israeli side. From country to country, leaders expressed the same opinion.
Meanwhile, we have McCain, who constantly confuses Sunni and Shia, what their goals are, where they are based, and how they influence the region.
When it comes to years and knowledge of how to handle foreign dignitaries, if Obama didn't already show a predisposition for doing so well, he has Biden, who does have years of experience in that field.
McCain has Palin. I doubt she'd even know to correct McCain that Zapatero was the leader of Spain, not the leader of the Zapatistas.
Your move, VoG.
Souldriver
Member
Chances of a typo on the ballot? SMALLNabs said:
Chances of the typo being where the b should be? SMALL
Chances of the wrong letter being an "s"? SMALL
Chances of the new word being the name of the biggest terrorist in the world? SMALL
Yeah, it was an honest mistake!
CharlieDigital
Banned
Jonm1010 said:
Requote because I think we need it, sadly:
FlightOfHeaven said:
Bumblebeetuna
Member
Joe said:
What is this % based on?
The last President to die before 78 who didn't die because of a careless lifestyle or freak illness was Coolidge and he was President in the 20's. We've made a lot of medical progress since then.
VictimOfGrief
Banned
I am. You're not defining what I'm explaining though.maynerd said:
The Librarian
Banned
Some would also take that as he is indecisive.FlightOfHeaven said:
RiskyChris
Banned
speculawyer said:
It could certainly be a typo, in the sense that I've sometimes typed "that" instead of "than."
Muscle reflexes, subconscious thoughts, etc. etc.
Still super shitty.
Crayon Shinchan
Aquafina Fanboy
VictimOfGrief said:
I'm going to respond to you civilly on 1 point.
That is on experience;
Experience is simply a rough measure of merit. Ultimately, what we want to know is whether or not a candidate is going to have the skills and judgement to make the correct decisions in a time of need.
Experience is helpful towards that; one assumes that with experience, a person will be able to learn from their mistakes and make better, hopefully correct decisions in future.
But when a person with many years in senate, is shown to make grave errors of judgement. And not learn from it... then the years of experience becomes a questionable issue.
Moreover, direct experience isn't the only way to benefit from experience. The study of the experience of others... to learn the lessons of the experiences of hundreds to thousands of others, is also extremely important.
But I reitierate, what you want to look at are signs of a persons ability to make sound decisions and the skill in accomplishing goals.
In that measure, you don't need to look at Obama's academic achievements, impressive as they are... you don't need to look at the 800+ bills he worked on while as a senator. You don't need to look at the number of times he reached across party lines to accomplish goals in a locked up congress.
You can simply see his skill and ability in what he's achieved on this campaign trail. Taking down political giants, running incredibly tight marketing and image campaigns. Creating an unprecedented ground game. Understanding the goals and tasks needed; creating a massive Electoral Vote swing in his favour despite the relatively smaller gap in his lead in population.
He's managed all these impressive political achievements, all while sticking to his values; hasn't sacrificed what he stands for for political gain (instead using it to enhance and solidify his political gain!)
You can see his judgement in his vice president selection; selecting a counsel to aid him as a leader, rather than selecting a trophy or a doodad to help him win the election.
And it contrasts exceedingly well with McCain... who has become a shell of himself, making cynical decisions after cynical decisions, just to try maintain a fast fading parity with Obama. He's made the worst VP choice in modern history, one woefully unqualified in all arenas, except as a surrogate for the republican base.
Let there be little doubt. Experience is simply the buzzword that your republican friends have selected for this running cycle to help divide public opinion. It may or may not be used in future elections, depending on the candidates in play... but it is there to distract you from your task of understanding the merits of the candidates and making and according judgement.
SouthernDragon
Member
"Believe" should not be part of the discussion when talking about scientific matters, like evolution and climate change (USE THAT TERM).
I let my jaw drop when a classmate who seemed to be rational above all else state "I don't [believe in evolution."
I would have started an entire discussion on it, but the class was over. : (
I let my jaw drop when a classmate who seemed to be rational above all else state "I don't [believe in evolution."
I would have started an entire discussion on it, but the class was over. : (
VictimOfGrief
Banned
So what happens if I vote Obama......?
SouthernDragon
Member
Dax01 said:
Perhaps. But that's why I added the "quick response" clause there. Indecisiveness is what killed Hillary's campaign. They dallied too much. Obama informs himself, surrounds himself with professionals, and responds quickly. The hallmark of indecisiveness is, well, being slow to react.
The Librarian
Banned
Let's think about this for a second...VictimOfGrief said:
Edit:
It's what I say to people who think he is indecisive because he says "uh" a lot. That's not it, he is just think about his responses.FlightOfHeaven said:
BotoxAgent
Member
McCain was right about the surge, but was wrong about the war
Obama has been right about the war since the beginning, like most of the dirty hippies who opposed it from the beginning.
Obama has been right about the war since the beginning, like most of the dirty hippies who opposed it from the beginning.
SouthernDragon
Member
VictimOfGrief said:
Well, it depends. Why would you vote Obama?
It also depends where you vote.
Ex. "I vote Obama because he's black and cool!" Not the best of reasons.
"I vote Obama because I have noted that on a majority of issues that are important to the health of the nation and are of benefit to the world, he is right and/or has the right mindset to approach." A good reason.
If you are voting in a swing state (WV lulz) then, well, GET OUT AND VOTE. If you aren't, if you are in, say, Texas, it's still good to vote. It tells both parties that your vote is up for grabs, and they'll work that much harder for your demographics.
Byakuya769
Member
Jonm1010 said:
WTF, why are so many practically praying that Obama is faking his religion? Some of you guys just blow my mind. He has show a depth of knowledge of Christianity lacking in many, and you want to come out with "well, yea.. he did it for the votes...". What the hell.
Rapping Granny
Banned
VictimOfGrief said:
you will seem human to other humans.
The Librarian
Banned
I sometimes think of people as aliens wanting to suck my brain out.Rapping Granny said:
The voices in my head are somtimes funny.
VictimOfGrief
Banned
FlightOfHeaven said:
I'm voting in Oregon...
So really I have a couple of choices:
1.) Vote for McCain.
2.) Vote for Ron Paul (if he makes on the ballot lulz)
3.) Vote for Obama
4.) Not vote.
If I vote 1 or 2, my vote (in theory) is wasted. If I vote 3, in my good natured conscience I'll feel like I have voted for the wrong person. If 4 happens, then I'm "forever dumb" and deserve that tag for the rest of my days on the board.
Crayon Shinchan
Aquafina Fanboy
VictimOfGrief said:
If you ever change your points of view, learn a bit more about important issues facing the world, and learn to think a bit more critically for yourself... then you'll look back upon this moment as a hallmark of reason. And you'll be glad you did vote for the guy.
On the otherhand, if you continue on in the same manner that you had before, then likely, you'll become bitter and twisted that your vote was wasted on an uppity black man, that couldn't stop a financial recession, because of his insistence on national healthcare... or something like that.
speculawyer
Member
Sometimes. Sometimes others do.vitaflo said:
The Librarian
Banned
How would your vote be a waste? Do you see Democrats in Texas being dissuaded to not vote because they know the state will go red anyway?VictimOfGrief said:
Frank the Great
Banned
vitaflo said:
I so wish I had a voice like Sagan's.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked