Why do you like Obama?

[WarpZone]

Wow, a good debate! Finally! You've made some really good points

Yeah, it's easy to do online. Much, much harder to do in person.

I'm also irritated at the base for the "Hussein" thing (to be honest I've never heard McCain or Palin use it themselves), and the "Muslim" thing, and the "birth certificate" thing. I personally believe that Obama's policies, plans and ideology are plenty enough to defeat him in Nov.

Likewise, reading Obama's policy PDF was what first turned me into an Obama supporter. I just wish he'd get into the details more heavily when he's on TV. Or at least make a point of referring the audience to it for more details.

He does have Socialist views on a number of things, and if you look at the Soviet Union... you see how well it works.

Ehhhh, that's a bit of a stretch. Communism (what they have in Russia) is a very extreme implementation of Socialism. There's a whole can of worms there I'm not going to get into. You can compare Obama's policies (and more traditional Democrat policies) to situations in other countries that have some form of welfare, but Russia's a straw man argument and you know it. His views may be socialist, or some of what you're picking up as socialist views may just be populist rhetoric, but his policies are not Socialist if you're talking about Socialism VS Capitalism.

The most Socialist thing you can accurately say about Obama is that he supports health care for all. And we've seen how well that works in France and Canada.

I still feel that the Ayres connection is a viable and legitimate question about Obama's beliefs, personality, and ideas, along with Wright and Resco, so we'll just have to disagree on that. I don't think its fair to let his actions go lightly as "he served his time and is a pillar of the community". I think that he never served any real time b/c of a technicality in his case. Example: If Timothy McVeigh (OK City Bomber) wasn't executed, and was allowed to leave prison and b/c a "pillar of the community", everyone, liberals and conservatives alike, would be outraged. Ayres "intent" was the same as McVeigh... Ayres should have served life in prison or be executed.

I agree that it's a legitimate question, I'm just pointing out that it already has a legitimate answer, which apparently isn't sensational enough for the news to cover. Here's your legitimate answer: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html

I'm not handwaving when I say he served his time. I'm pointing out that he's currently a well-respected Professor of Education at a major University. He was named a Chicago citizen of the year in 1997. There is a residence hall named for him at Northwestern University, where he was a trustee for 30 years. The guy is liked and well-respected by everyone who knows him. That is incredibly rare for an ex-con in this country.

Also, his intent wasn't the same as Timmothy McVeigh. McVeigh was interested in killing people and was motivated by revenge against the government for the Waco Massacre of 1993. Ayres was interested in destroying property and was motivated by a desire to protest the war in Vietnam. Before you even say it, I'm not saying that excuses his actions, I'm just pointing out that there are serious differences in the scope, intent, and motivations of the two crimes. Apparently enough regular people who know him feel the same way, or he wouldn't have been able to recover from his shady past as well as he has. From what I can tell, aside from a brief sensation after 9/11, his past hasn't been an issue. This speaks to Ayres' character, I would think. It suggests that Ayres is an okay guy, despite his tarnished past, and despite his statement that he still feels Vietnam was wrong and he wishes he could have done more to oppose it.

There are also questions about Ayres and Obama's idealism in the "Annenberg Challenge" and other collaberations the two worked on. The discussion would take up too much room, so I'll drop it there for now.

Yeah. I really don't think you'd find an angle there. The project is described as being "pretty mainstream" and had broad republican support. I agree, let's drop it.

All I ask is that you look away from everything for a moment, and look at the issues. Forget Ayres, Forget the middle name and internet rumors. Look at his policies, look at what he wants to do, and make your mind up that way.

Well, like I said, his policies are what drew me to him. Which policies, specifically, do you take issue with? Let's get into this.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

Thanks again my friend for a good, civilized debate!

No prob. I just wish it were feasible for candidates to debate this way. Maybe in another 50 years or so, when television has been completely replaced by the internet, we'll be able to have candidates throw up links to supporting arguments, let savvy audiences react to the speakers in realtime, and the issues will finally take center stage.

And about the "alleged" goings-on at rallys. You know as well as I do that there are stupid idiots out there that don't represent McCain, Republicans, or anyone. Also, personally, I think it is possible that Obama supporters (without the knowledge of the campaign) could go in a shout these horrible things just to de-rail support.

No, you're right, the Vocal Minority does not necessarily represent the Ticket, or even the Base. It's just disturbing to see them in action. I'm sure you've felt the same about some of the more extreme left-wingers out there, from time to time. I was just responding to Dalisclock's comment about McCain losing his respect with my own anecdote. We obviously agree that this tactic hurts McCain's credibility, the only difference is, you seem willing to attribute it to a bad Campaign Manager, while I attribute it at least partly to McCain himself.

Hell, isn't he supposed to be the Maverick? (Sorry, I couldn't resist throwing that in.) But seriously. If he's such an independent mind, surely he's in charge of the direction his own campaign takes. Right?

 

[stompy]

The definition sounds good, but its infringes on a person's basic rights of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. It's not the State's roll to PROVIDE happiness, but to protect your freedom to do so.

If a person works hard, the fruits of his labour are his own, and should be able to do with as he sees fit. Some taxation is needed to fund local and national government functions (police, fire, defence, small social safety net, roads, ect). However, it's not right or fair for the State to use their police power to take away a person's property, only to give it to another to "equalise" their situation.

Basically, that's what socialism does. It violates a person's right to his own life and labor. I don't bash Socialism b/c its a code word, or a cliche. I bash it because its a horrible from of government and economics. The free market has its problems, but free competition, free exchange of ideas, and the desire to create a marketable good or service that people need, want, and desire is the best way to run your economic system.

What you describe is not socialism. Well, not in its entirety. Socialism is a loose term, meaning that one form of socialism (communism, for example) is different from another. Just because one form takes everything from the rich and gives to the poor, doesn't mean that all socialist governments will do the same.

In your response, you paint the same picture that practically every argument against socialism paints, that the government will take all your possessions, and give them to your neighbour, who doesn't work and demands that the government give him money. Instead, in a socialist government that would be implemented by a rational human being, you would be taxed so that you could be provided necessities for life, such as education and health, so that, regardless of how much you earn, you could survive. Socialism prevents a person from being trapped in their own socio-economic class by providing them the a fair start in life.

On the other hand, socialism (well-implemented socialism, that is) would mean that, since everyone is given equal opportunities to succeed in life, they can do so. It means that, since they all have an education, they can use that education to go forward in life. Just becuase the government is socialist (or has socialist policies), doesn't mean it doesn't believe in a free market. A person can earn more money than the person next to them, and businesses can be privately-owned, and earn more than competitors.

A socialist economy doesn't necessarily mean that there is no free market, no exchange in ideas, no 'equalising' of the population, it means that, and if I may paraphrase Ultrajoe here: "Before you have your gold-plated toilet seat, everyone has something to eat."

 

[Uncompetative]

I've been observing the discussion between Brockyman and Eggo and am dumbfounded at their inability to communicate. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying which one is at fault here. I am merely stunned at the polarization of their respective positions and the apparent futility of their argument. Even the OP didn't seem to listen to the debunking of the Obama smears earlier in the thread, but that doesn't mean to suggest that I support Obama myself - I disapprove of the way McCain and Palin have been characterized.

Actually, I'm glad I'm not eligible to vote in the US Election (I'm English). That said, I have been disappointed with the conduct of the campaigns and think it is possible that were Obama elected he would get assassinated, triggering a civil war by a disenfranchised underclass, many of whom are black.

The resentment at being denied the vote due to home foreclosure, the lack of voting machines in predominantly black districts leading to long queues and mechanical faults and the death of another 'black saviour' might be sufficient to start a one-on-one uprising against all white authority figures. I'm not talking about a million men marching on D.C. (that would be stopped by the Army), I am talking about a whole bunch of cops and government official houses getting a ring on the doorbell at night.

...and perhaps, with the advent of the Internet this would be the same night.

 

[Bored Tomatoe]

ok, all I seem to be getting is that Obama's a liberal and that's why he's good. And that's great if you don't live here, but what's he gonna do for an american that should make me want to vote for him? As far as I can tell he's not really helping anyone unless they're unbelievably poor, and he's hiking up taxes on some of the higher rungs of the middle class. I personally don't think you're rich if you're making above 250 k a year, i think that's the higher end of middle class

You are so heavily biased that noone is going to change your mind.

 

[TomNook]

There is more to foreign policy than impressing your allies. Small European countries such as the Netherlands have very few enemies. Obama just isn't a very threatening person, and thats one of the reasons I don't like him. McCain may not be very likable to you leftist Europeans, but he's an old angry white war veteran who was tortured, and thats what the enemies of the US would either be afraid of or grudgingly respect.

Perhaps not enemies (save for Taliban and Iraqi insurgents, perhaps), but a lot of antagonistic countries, those hostile to the USA or the EU. That said...
...I doubt any serious politician would fear a 72-year old man...

My point was more aimed at the US's business relations. I feel that Obama is more capable of bringing new goodwill to Europe and other regions than a Republican. Modern Republicans are, in our stereotypical minds, nothing more but silly Christian warmongering cavemen, who have yet to read any Rousseau or Voltaire. Why would we want to deal with that?

Obama on the other hand, is more 'like us'.

Politician no, another crazy old guy in a cave, yes.

 

[Uszi]

ok, all I seem to be getting is that Obama's a liberal and that's why he's good. And that's great if you don't live here, but what's he gonna do for an american that should make me want to vote for him? As far as I can tell he's not really helping anyone unless they're unbelievably poor, and he's hiking up taxes on some of the higher rungs of the middle class. I personally don't think you're rich if you're making above 250 k a year, i think that's the higher end of middle class

You are so heavily biased that noone is going to change your mind.

When I was a kid, my dad made that much, and I aggressively sought to consider myself part of the middle class. I did not want to be richie-rich.

The fact of the matter is that if you earn $250,000 a year, then you are in the top 5% of wage earners in the US, which makes you Upper class. I used to only think of upperclass as those guys who make $54,000 per hour. The fact is, there are mere handfuls of uber-wealthy Americans like Trump or Gates, and they comprise much less than 1% of our social class system, as it were.

Actually, I'm glad I'm not eligible to vote in the US Election (I'm English). That said, I have been disappointed with the conduct of the campaigns and think it is possible that were Obama elected he would get assassinated, triggering a civil war by a disenfranchised underclass, many of whom are black.

The resentment at being denied the vote due to home foreclosure, the lack of voting machines in predominantly black districts leading to long queues and mechanical faults and the death of another 'black saviour' might be sufficient to start a one-on-one uprising against all white authority figures. I'm not talking about a million men marching on D.C. (that would be stopped by the Army), I am talking about a whole bunch of cops and government official houses getting a ring on the doorbell at night.

Er, considering how many blacks I know who don't even care about the election, I doubt this strongly.

 

[The Wooster]

Healthcare is not a human right but bailouts for corporate investors are? Awesome.

 

[mrnelsby]

simple....i dont. hes pro choice...and many many other things...and he makes absolutely no sense watso ever

Was this quote meant to be ironic?

 

[The Wooster]

Political debate on the internet. Isn't it grand?

 

[Brockyman]

Political debate on the internet. Isn't it grand?

Oh my, that's one of the funniest things I've seen all day!

 

[Brockyman]

The definition sounds good, but its infringes on a person's basic rights of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. It's not the State's roll to PROVIDE happiness, but to protect your freedom to do so.

If a person works hard, the fruits of his labour are his own, and should be able to do with as he sees fit. Some taxation is needed to fund local and national government functions (police, fire, defence, small social safety net, roads, ect). However, it's not right or fair for the State to use their police power to take away a person's property, only to give it to another to "equalise" their situation.

Basically, that's what socialism does. It violates a person's right to his own life and labor. I don't bash Socialism b/c its a code word, or a cliche. I bash it because its a horrible from of government and economics. The free market has its problems, but free competition, free exchange of ideas, and the desire to create a marketable good or service that people need, want, and desire is the best way to run your economic system.

What you describe is not socialism. Well, not in its entirety. Socialism is a loose term, meaning that one form of socialism (communism, for example) is different from another. Just because one form takes everything from the rich and gives to the poor, doesn't mean that all socialist governments will do the same.

In your response, you paint the same picture that practically every argument against socialism paints, that the government will take all your possessions, and give them to your neighbour, who doesn't work and demands that the government give him money. Instead, in a socialist government that would be implemented by a rational human being, you would be taxed so that you could be provided necessities for life, such as education and health, so that, regardless of how much you earn, you could survive. Socialism prevents a person from being trapped in their own socio-economic class by providing them the a fair start in life.

On the other hand, socialism (well-implemented socialism, that is) would mean that, since everyone is given equal opportunities to succeed in life, they can do so. It means that, since they all have an education, they can use that education to go forward in life. Just becuase the government is socialist (or has socialist policies), doesn't mean it doesn't believe in a free market. A person can earn more money than the person next to them, and businesses can be privately-owned, and earn more than competitors.

A socialist economy doesn't necessarily mean that there is no free market, no exchange in ideas, no 'equalising' of the population, it means that, and if I may paraphrase Ultrajoe here: "Before you have your gold-plated toilet seat, everyone has something to eat."

Your point was well stated, but I still have some problems with it.

Instead, in a socialist governmentthat would be implemented by a rational human being, you would be taxed so that you could be provided necessities for life, such as education and health

1. There are not that many rational people on Earth... While many have good intentions, there are different ideas, so where do you draw the line at what the State takes and provides
2. Why can't a person provide his own necessities for life? The public education system is already broken due to too much State interference, and while our health care system isn't perfect, it does have some advantages over social systems like in the UK and Canada.
3. What level of education? I'm a firm believer that everyone SHOULD NOT be able to partake in higher learning (university/college). Not b/c I'm a dick, but college isn't for everyone. May leave high school for trade schools, military schools, and apprenticeships, which supply us with much needed electricians, farmers, plumbers, soliders, police officers, fire fighters, factory workers, stock clerks, delievery men ect. Not everyone can be a white collar manager, and too be honest, there are millions of people that would HATE the college experience, and would rather work with their hands then their brain, and there is nothing wrong with that. Everybody is needed to work and produce, and its better they do it in something the love, or can at least tolerate.

Socialism prevents a person from being trapped in their own socio-economic class by providing them the a fair start in life.

The ironic thing here is that Obama is a shining example of how the "American Dream" actually works. He was able to come from a lower social/economic class to b/c a noted leader of our time. The same of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett, Sam Walton, Jessie Jackson, millions of others that came from single parent households, or racially charged areas, or the ghetto, or the backwoods to b/c CEOs, Doctors, lawyers, managers, tradesmen, and raise families and have a happy life. All Americans have the same chance to succeed, regardless of barriers and limitations.

The quote that I've heard here is "Conservatives want everyone to start the race at the same time, while liberals want everyone to finish at the same time.

I know I'm going to be a "mean spiritied" and "hated" neo con Nazi for saying this, but not everyone deserves to be lifted out of there "class" via the State or charity... it should be up to the individual to overcome their situtation. Where you end up in life should be due to your own efforts.

Just becuase the government is socialist (or has socialist policies), doesn't mean it doesn't believe in a free market. A person can earn more money than the person next to them, and businesses can be privately-owned, and earn more than competitors.

You are 100% correct. However, this would be in your "rationally ran" socialist utopia. I still feel that there isn't a group of people that rational to control a nation the size of the US fairly and equally.

A socialist economy doesn't necessarily mean that there is no free market, no exchange in ideas, no 'equalising' of the population, it means that, and if I may paraphrase Ultrajoe here: "Before you have your gold-plated toilet seat, everyone has something to eat."

I am also extremely pissed about some of the excesses of the "rich and famous". Diamond collars for expensive (and usually ugly) dog breeds, over the top furnishings and cars. I get it. However, as much as excess pisses us off, you need to ask yourself.. "How do you define Greed or Excess"? Is having 3 cars too much? Is having a servant staff too much? Is having a home of more then 5000 sq ft too much? Is have 3 flat screen HDTVs too much?

See? While a gold toliet seat is an obivious example of stupid money wasting thickness, having 4 HDTVs too me doesn't seem like an excess, but Joe Sixpack may disagree, so Who is Right?

I think the best way to deal with "everybody eating" is a small social safety net for people between jobs. ("People that need a hand up, not a hand out"), and private charity. If the State lowerd taxes, or gave larger incentives, more people would donate to faith-based or secular-based charities that are much better with handling money and reasources then a centralized government.

Bottom line: I don't trust the State to make these determinations wisely? Look at you Social Healthcare... it may be "free" but your tax rate is thru the roof and your services are rationed. You may have to wait months or years for services I can get by the end of the day in the US. The DMV, the IRS... the State doesn't do anyhting well, except for kill people.

Off to work. Thanks for the discussion stompy!

 

[Spinozaad]

Have you ever thought that YOU might need to get over your sterotypes of Republicans? McCain is just as capable of bringing goodwill. Plus, I didn't know that Rousseau (who was more like a modern day Conservative then anything) or Voltaire were prerequisites to dealing with Europeans... I best dust off my copy of "Julie, ou la nouvelle Héloïse" before writing further. (I was going for a cheap laugh..sorry)

Technically both were liberals. But that's okay, you folks have a different idea of liberalism than we have.

And no, McCain is not able of bringing goodwill to Europe. Perhaps a young, dynamic Republican, but not some old fart who's ultimately more of the same as Bush (and yes, I'm quite aware of the fact that McCain is different, but I'm looking at the general picture over here. McCain is Republican, and right now... Most Europeans don't like American Republicans, especially if they insist on continueing silly wars)

The only thing that makes me irritated at Europe is I know that you want a weaker United States (I forget the exact poll), and I'm not really sure why. If it wasn't for a strong United States, WW2 and the Cold War might have ended differently, and in a way you might not have liked, and with Iran, Russia, and China getting larger and more hairy balls, you might need us again to defend your Union'ed butts in the future...esp the French (ha ha, another cheap laugh).

You lost all credibility when implying that the USA won the Second World War. I know that's the fairy tale they keep telling back in the States. But it's a myth, and besides, it has no connection whatsoever with the discussion we're having.

Yes, a weaker USA would in some way be advantageous to us, because it would mean that we'd be the supreme western block (the EU is a block on it's own, mind you). The best situation would be in which the USA acknowledges equality, which it actually already is. If not even slightly less powerful than the EU.

In all honesty, we (Europe) no longer need the USA to do our work for us. Hell, if it wasn't for us, the USA would have been unable to 'keep the peace' in Afghanistan anyway. So what's your point?

For some reason, Europeans seem to forget about WW2 quite a bit, b/c sometimes it seems like that you'd rather use the Chamberlian tactic in dealing with Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, Al Queda, ect. Didn't work to well for Chamberlian..., or anyone else. I'm all about peace talks and opening a dialouge, but not with "Hitler-esc" tyrants like Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or even Hugo Chávez.

Yet barging into developing countries, kill some insurgents and proclaim victory is working all too well!

I love Europe and the Europen people, and I do think President Bush has made some mistakes in dealing with our buddies across the pond, but to root for Obama is not in your self interests. A strong United States means a strong Europe as well, and I ask that whatever the new administration is, that you welcome them, work with them, and help generate a wonderful world for us all.

A wonderful administration run by Democrats, yes.

Oh and happy that I took your bait?

 

[Fraught]

I guess making 250 thousand dollar a year would make you a low end 'upper middle class' over here in Europe... /sarcasm.

Yeah, people in my country make 15,000$ a year average.

Damnit, I hope a meteor hits America...you cheap bastards.

 

[Duskwaith]

Hes the only person so far in the election that has haad things other than sttarting anothher war up.

He is what america needs right now, to vote Mccain in would usher in another 4 years of bush-style governing where everyone is left to rot while the armie get all the money

 

[Nelvibus]

If you think anything done in politics the last 8 years in the United States; starting a war with the wrong country after 9/11, taking 4 days to respond to hurricane Katrina victims, driving our economy to our lowest since well he did it last time in 03' then fine vote for McCain a brilliant graduate at the Naval Academy that graduated 884/889 in his class who is said by Karl Rove, the lying political advisory that sleezed Bush into a White House he didn't rightfully win, that McCain's Politics are so backwards, flip flopped and represented to appeal to everyone in the United States that its a monstrosity to have him be the GOP candidate.

In short Mission Accomplished. The education system failed you.

 

[ElephantGuts]

I like Obama because he's not McCain. Seriously, that's pretty much it.

 

[TOGSolid]

Woah woah, I wasn't gonna get too involved in this but I can't believe you guys didn't notice this:

What level of education? I'm a firm believer that everyone SHOULD NOT be able to partake in higher learning (university/college). Not b/c I'm a dick, but college isn't for everyone.

You believe not everyone should have a shot at college just because it's not for everyone? That logic is so fucked up it's not even funny. Shouldn't it be left to the individual to decide on their own terms whether they want to go or not rather than "oops you don't have enough money?"

You sir, are a dick.

 

[mark_n_b]

ok, all I seem to be getting is that Obama's a liberal and that's why he's good.

The fact that Obama is a liberal is as good a reason as any. You are doing the political fanboy thing of saying every reason that is said is either not a good reason or no reason at all.

Given the current financial situation in the U.S. someone on the other side of center is a completely reasonable reason for deciding on the candidate: The U.S. has been under aggressive conservative policy for the past eight year which resulted in the unregulated free market management of the economy. Because of this right wing governing of the country's finances, it left the country open to massive speculation good and bad. Ideal right wing economic theory states because these institutions know how to handle money, this freedom ensures positive speculation where as government involvement to ensure stability restricts and ultimately inhibits economic progression.

In theory communism works really swell as well. Now we begin to see the failings in pure capitalist economic practice. A practice a Republican has to, as a matter of political belief, embrace (it's what makes them not liberal)

But this is a side note. I think Obama needs to be president for two reasons.

1. He will be able to form and act on an exit strategy from Iraq which, like it or not, is a money hole that the U.S. really can't have right now. McCain will not be able to formulate such as strategy as quickly if at all because of political realities of this being a major Republican move, bailing on it would ensure a huge hit to the Republican flag.

2. Obama will have a positive social impact on U.S. social ideology. Because he is Black, because he is worldly, because he is liberal, because he is (relatively) young. U.S. grass roots is scary, the Daily Show shows a sweet old woman saying how she can't trust Obama "he's an Arab" she gaffs into McCain's microphone. That is core racism, she is sincere and crying that "an Arab" can't be the next president.

Palin is Christian to an almost fundamentalist degree, putting more stock in going to church and reading nothing but books about metaphorical sheep than the actual christian ideology of love and tolerance.

This is an uncomfortable trend, the subtle transition as bigotry and judgment becomes more and more acceptable frightens me. I don't think McCain will be able to help that at all (even though I notice he does not support it)

McCain or Obama whoever takes the presidency both would have a stronger run than Bush. But I'm putting all my support for Obama (I was big on Clinton though so maybe this is a bad sign)