Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Challenge Match: coven vs. jamie83: 2008 Election

page: 1
9

log in

join

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
The topic for this debate is "Barack Obama Should Be The Next President Of The United States, And Rightfully So.

coven will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
jamie83 will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

Character limits are no longer in effect. You may use as many characters as a single post allows.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

By request of the Fighters, responses should be made within 48 hours. One single 48 hour extension can be used by a member by requesting it in the thread. If 48 hours passes without response, you may proceed with your next post. Members who exceed 48 hours run the risk of losing their post, but may still post up until their opponent has submitted their next response. As well, due to obligations of the Fighters, there will be recesses observed for weekends.

A final stipulation and unique to this debate made by the challenger was that only AP Style Links may be used, i.e. Major News organizations.

This is a challenge match. The winner will receive 2 ranking points, the loser will lose two ranking points.




posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Firstly I would Like to thank:

Jamie83 for agreeing to this debate,

Memoryshock for working so hard to set it up,

and the rest of the debate forum members for their participation in this debate.

----------------
Pro: Barack Obama should be the next President of the United States.


Judges and esteemed debate forum members,


My task today is a simple one. I am here to present valid reasons why Barack Obama should be the next President of the United States. During the course of this debate I will present arguments that no matter your political view, should peak your interest in electing Mr. Obama.


That said the purpose of this debate is NOT to sway political opinion. My purpose in this debate is to show you why Mr. Obama should be president. Being that he is a candidate for President, this should be fairly easy to do. I will throughout the thread list valid reasons with documentation as to why Mr. Obama is well qualified to be the next president of the United States.


My opponent has the task of proving to you without a doubt that Mr. Obama is NOT qualified to be president. Not to prove he's a bad candidate, but that he is not electable. I believe this debate will be interesting, but that in the end my documentation of Mr. Obama's Qualifications will prevail, and the judges will see that he is very well qualified, and thus "Barack Obama should be the next President of the United States".


With that I turn the floor over to Jamie83 for their opening statement.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Like many people, at first I was captivated by Obama. I was caught up in his rhetoric. I was emotionally moved by his vision for a united America. I was also caught up in his role as the underdog who fought long odds to beat Hillary Clinton. I was happy when Obama ran off consecutive victories after Super Tuesday. I believed Obama when he portrayed himself as an agent of change.

And then little by little I started to see bits and pieces of Obama's veneer fall off. Day by day, it became more and more apparent that there was a significant gap between the ideals that Obama claimed to stand for, and his actions.

Now when I think of Obama what comes to mind is the scene in "The Wizard of Oz" when Toto pulls back the curtain to reveal that the Wizard is really just and ordinary carnival huckster from Kansas. Pulling back the Obama curtain reveals that Obama is just an ordinary politician from the Chicago political machine who has become a tool of Washington D.C and Wall St. insiders.

Maybe it's unfair to hold Obama to the standard of having to live up to the image that his handlers have created. Then again, maybe it's even more important to compare Barry Obama "the man" to the carefully crafted "Barack Obama" media persona. Because when you examine Barack Obama's rise to prominence, it becomes obvious that he is poised to become the Democratic nominee based on personality, not policy. In terms of experience and policies, Obama is not even the most qualified Democrat to be President. I dare coven to prove otherwise:

Question 1: Which are the three most important policy differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that differentiate why Obama should be President instead of Hillary Clinton?

While coven mulls that question over, I would suggest that Barry Obama is just another politician who worked his way up the political ladder until he was taken under the wings of the Washington establishment and then turned into "Barack Obama", the archetypical hero/celebrity crafted in the image of Perseus himself. And make no mistake, it is "Barack Obama" the celebrity who became the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party.

"Barack Obama" is all about image. He is the "Wizard" roaring his well crafted message to the crowd. Barry Obama, the guy behind the curtain, learned early in his life that he was better off hiding who he really is. It was Barry Obama who wrote: "It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved - such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

Barry Obama understands exactly what gives the "Wizard" his power. It's manufacturing the image he believes people want to see.

And now Barry Obama has taken the concept of using "tactics" and "tricks" to a new level. Now, as "Barack Obama", he has managed to convince people he is a Washington outsider while surrounding himself with the most entrenched Washington insiders like James Johnson, Director of Goldman Sachs and member of America for Bilderburg. Lee Hamilton, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission and Iraq Study Group, and Zbignew Brazinski, a Washington policy advisor dating back to Kennedy and Johnson, are also advisors to Obama. Barry Obama effortlessly steps into the role of "Barack Obama" and delivers messages written and choreographed by David Axelrod and David Plouffe, who are behind the scenes pulling the levers. Which leads to my next question for coven:

Question 2: Which three original ideas or concepts has Obama presented that provide evidence that he is a visionary or leader? (Note: "change" and "hope" don't count.)

To understand why Obama should not be President, one must first recognize Obama's lack of authenticity. Because if Obama's soaring rhetoric lack authenticity, there is no longer ANY reason to support Obama. You will see example after example of Obama saying one thing and doing another. The latest example is his support for the wire tap bill giving telecom companies retroactive immunity.


Obama, who had said he would oppose any bill that would toss out lawsuits against the phone companies, has said he will support the new proposal. He said it makes sure that in the future, "somebody's watching the watchers."

"Given that all the information that I've received is that the underlying program itself actually is important and useful to American security, as long as it has these constraints on them, I felt that it was more important for me to go ahead and support this compromise," Obama said Wednesday in Chicago, Illinois.

www.cnn.com...


Obama has just said he'll violate what many thought were his core principles to vote foe this bill. The only reason one can conclude that Obama decided he'll vote for this bill was for self-serving, political expediency, not a matter of principle. I.e., Obama lacks authenticity. Simply put, Obama cannot be trusted to do what he says he's going to do.

Which leads to the next challenge for coven:

Question 3: What core principles does Obama stand for, and what evidence can you provide that he is committed to these principles rather than just presenting these "principles" for political expediency?

Herein lies the fundamental problem with Obama. No matter what principles he claims to have, he has already shown he is willing to compromise his purported principles for political expediency. Obama's soaring rhetoric stirs crowds of 10,000 people but when the rubber meets the road, his actions have differed from his promises. And he leaves his supporters attempting to rationalize, explain, and otherwise defend actions that are indefensible in terms of principles.

But what about Obama's proposed policies? Discussing Obama's policies is challenging because one never knows from day to day what those policies are. Is Obama for or against NAFTA? Is Obama for or against single-payer health care? Is Iran a serious threat to the U.S. or not? Does he support gun bans or the 2nd Amendment? Does he support public funding of campaigns or not? Obama the "Wizard" is trying to create a different image for whichever group of people he addresses. In Pennsylvania he can roll up his sleeves and bowl for a photo op, and then go to San Francisco and imply that white people in Pennsylvania won't vote for him because they are bitter racists that cling to their guns and religion.

When Obama tries to transmogrify into the ideal image for whatever audience he is speaking to, his inauthenticity becomes becomes comedic. Bowling a 37 isn't a reason to reject Obama. Obama using bowling as a "trick" and an "effective tactic" to get blue collar voters to identify with him reveals that the core of his personality is inauthentic. In simple terms, he lacks integrity.

Obama has been clear on some policies. Unfortunately, his clarity on certain policies is more disturbing than his lack of authenticity. His energy policy and foreign policy positions are just two examples.

It is clear that the U.S. is on the brink of an energy crisis with gas selling at over $4 a gallon. Obama's solution to $4 a gallon gas is to hit the oil companies with a windfall profit tax. Clearly, portraying the oil companies as the culprits and threatening them is a calculated appeal to the emotions of the masses. It's an example of the all mighty, all powerful "Wizard" impressing the villagers by threatening to punish the evildoers with his pure power. Never mind that a windfall profit tax on the oil companies would do nothing to lower the price of gas, and in fact, would most likely cause the price of gas to increase. So coven, please explain...

Question 4: How does Obama's proposed windfall profit tax on oil companies do anything to solve the problem of $4 a gallon gas?

Finally, Obama's sheltered, dogmatic upbringing in the halls of academia has left him ill-prepared for real world foreign policy issues. He has stated his goal is to eliminate U.S. nuclear weapons, has vowed not to put weapons in space, and to slow new weapons development. His foreign policy white papers may have earned high marks at Columbia or Harvard, but in a post-9/11 world are naively dangerous. It's no coincidence that Zbignew Brazinski is one of Obama's senior foreign policy advisors. This is the same Zbignew Brazinski that was an advisor to Jimmy Carter during the Iranian Hostage crisis. What crisis will be next if U.S. adversaries rightfully perceive Obama, and by extension the U.S., as weak?

www.youtube.com...

Question 5: How does Obama's pledge to slow development of new weapons benefit U.S. national security?

The topic for this debate is "Barack Obama Should Be The Next President Of The United States, And Rightfully So."

Coven wrongly asserts that the burden is upon me "to prove beyond a doubt that Obama is not qualified to be President." But this debate isn't about whether Obama is qualified or not to be President. Dozens of politicians are more qualified than Obama. No, this debate is about whether Obama should be President.

Obama's handlers are trying to convince you that the image of "Barack Obama", the media persona, should be the next U.S. President.

But it's not "Barack Obama" the manufactured media persona that would be required to take the oath of office. It's Barry Obama, the man -the inauthentic, inexperienced, politically expedient law professor who's levers are being pulled by the Washington elite and Wall St. insiders.

George W. Bush and Bill Clinton are corrupt and dishonest servants of the powers that be. Obama represents more of the same, which I will demonstrate beyond all doubt in the upcoming debate.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Esteemed Readers,

I did not come to debate opinions of Obama, nor to make comparisons to movie characters(on an off note. The wizard; Not a good comparison. as he was the one who helped Dorothy get home in the end.); But to debate as to why Mr. Obama is well qualified (i.e. supposed...) to be the next President.

You see dear readers, my opponent attacks Obama with opinion and conjecture. Not FACTS.

While you may think Mr. Obama is your every day corrupt politician; his history shows otherwise.

Starting as a Community Organizer, Mr. Obama worked his way from working with inner city steel mill workers, (who had just lost their jobs due to a steel mill closure) and creating jobs in underprivileged communities; to becoming a state senator for Illinois. 2 terms Later Barack was elected to the U.S. Senate. Starting in the late 80's, Barack has committed more than 20 years of his life to helping his community, and the worst off within it.

My opponent mentions Barack changing his stance on phone company lawsuits as proof of why Obama should not be president. He forgot to quote the important part. The ACTUAL STATEMENT from Obama. I will take the liberty of doing this for him...
CNN Link

"Given that all the information that I've received is that the underlying program itself actually is important and useful to American security, as long as it has these constraints on them, I felt that it was more important for me to go ahead and support this compromise," Obama said Wednesday in Chicago, Illinois.

Emphasis is mine. You see, Obama wants the companies constrained from spying on regular citizens. He wants them listening in on potential terrorists. These people do exist, and they should be monitored.

Now, as to why Mr. Obama should be the next President of the United States...

Civil Rights

1) Obama Supports Affirmative Action for Poor Whites.

Link to quote Below

Obama: I think that there's nothing wrong with us taking that into account as we consider admissions policies at universities. I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed.


2) Obama Supports (as much as jamie hates the word...) CHANGE in our justice system.
All statements from Baracks Campaign taken from www.barackobama.com

Obama will provide job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling to ex-offenders.

Obama believes the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based coc aine is wrong and should be completely eliminated.

Obama will give first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have been proven to work.


wow... Jailing reform. to the point of actually trying to fix the problem, as opposed to locking people up and throwing away the key.
Rehabilitation for first time offenders... and proper sentencing for crack and coc aine charges.

Economy

3)fixing the tax system, to help the working poor

from the same link above:
Obama will create a new tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans

Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000



I don't want to overwhelm the reader with evidence of why Obama should be the next President(in a single post
); so I believe that is sufficient for now. If need be I will further lay out what Obama plans to do when elected, and how this is evidence of why he is SUPPOSED to be the next President.

My opponent mentions Obama wanting to proliferate Nuclear Arms. To get rid of them doesn't disarm America; It upgrades us to the new stuff. To seek peace in the world through diplomatic means is precedent to maintaining the honor of any country. War should always be a LAST option...

Post 9-11 use of Nukes will only lead to a Nuclear Holocaust, and the Destruction of all mankind. The only way to ensure this does NOT occur is to proliferate Nuclear Weapons. The only way to guarantee that we can proliferate our Nukes before they are launched pre-eminently is to Elect Barack Obama as the next president of the United States.Thus proving "Barack Obama should be the next President of the United States"


On a side note. just to inform my opponent. Multiple responses to multiple question, really means multiple questions. since there is a limitation to the amount of characters, I shall answer 1 of each. If you would like further examples, ask in your three replies, and I will give you more. Out of respect you should allow me enough space to complete my counter argument to your claims. I will do the same for you, and hope this was a slip in courtesy...

Question 1: Which are the three most important policy differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that differentiate why Obama should be President instead of Hillary Clinton?


1: Obama did not take any money from Lobbyists. and as he says on his ethics page "I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over."


Question 2: Which three original ideas or concepts has Obama presented that provide evidence that he is a visionary or leader? (Note: "change" and "hope" don't count.)

Being that I have listed 3 original ideas, that are both visionary and show signs of leadership (which isn't the important factor good leadership is!), I will only list the numbers above as your answers.

1) Everything in number 2 above. (thats 3 examples in one for you!)

Question 3: What core principles does Obama stand for, and what evidence can you provide that he is committed to these principles rather than just presenting these "principles" for political expediency?

1) Barack Obama actually has GREAT political ETHICS (link: www.barackobama.com... )
Principle: Ethics!
Evidence; from the link above... a)Federal Ethics Reform: Obama and Senator Feingold (D-WI) took on both parties and proposed ethics legislation that was described as the "gold standard" for reform. It was because of their leadership that ending subsidized corporate jet travel, mandating disclosure of lobbyists' bundling of contributions, and enacting strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips became part of the final ethics bill that was signed into law. The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, "The final package is the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet."b)A High Standard: Unlike other candidates Obama's campaign refuses to accept contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees.


Question 4: How does Obama's proposed windfall profit tax on oil companies do anything to solve the problem of $4 a gallon gas?

This is simple. 'The windfall tax' taxes PROFITS on the oil companies. That would mean if they want to keep more money... They have to charge less. This drives down their profit, which drives down the excessive tax burden they would have carried charging more for their product. What has happened is the oil companies have manipulated the equation of supply and demand. They have created a false shortage for nearly 30 years, as to increase their profits exponentially. Petroleum is not as scarce as you think; ask most Middle Easterners. An oil companies money is always good to the Saudi Royals.

Question 5: How does Obama's pledge to slow development of new weapons benefit U.S. national security?

Because it allows us to focus on developing particular weapons systems. While we throw money into the military, we are starting to see side effects. Billions of dollars thrown into systems that just won't work. And the cost becomes so high, that they cannot be built. WASTED MONEY. Scientifically, the correct approach is to focus on one or two (in this case a FEW, not thousands) developments at a time. When they are 100% operational, you continue to the next project. It decreases the expense, and actually increases the quality of the products of the future. Focused development, like focused training lead to a better end result.

Now... Questions out of the way... Lets invoke the Socratic Method!

Because there are only two candidates for president. I shall ask you to truly defend why Barack Obama should not be the next president by asking you this question. a play on your own question...

1) Which are the most important policy differences between Barack Obama and John McCain that differentiate why McCain should be President instead of Barack Obama? please provide evidence as to why John McCains stances would be better suited for the Presidency.


2) What is your Definiton of a 'Good Leader'; What is your Definition of 'Visionary'?

3)How do Nuclear Weapons Ensure Global Peace?

4) based on three... How does a guaranteed Nuclear Holocaust, because of a single Nuclear launch, Ensure Global Peace(preferably without extinction)?

5)Since you do not support Barack Obama for president, one must assume you are voting for the other viable option. As such, How would John McCain's policy of 'Don't leave Iraq, even if it takes 100 years' help to ensure that we as Americans are safer, and that global peace is possible?




Dear Reader, I will further prove why Barack Obama should be the next President of the United States further in my next response; however, I would like to you read over this post, and review Barack Obama's website. I assure you, you will agree. "Barack Obama should be the next President of the United States."

Thank you for reading!

With that I pass the floor back to jamie83.

(***wipes brow... 120 characters left...
*** )



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I will begin by answering coven's questions:

1. Which McCain policy is better for U.S.?

Lifing ban on offshore drilling.


Question 1 for coven: How does Obama's insistence on banning offshore drilling help lower gasoline prices?


2) Definiton of a 'Good Leader';'Visionary'?

A good leader is somebody who goes first. It's not somebody who says they're for public funding of campaigns and then rejects public funding out of pragmatism. A visionary is somebody who can see things in the future better than they are today -and not for himself personally, but for the entire country.


3) How do Nuclear Weapons Ensure Global Peace?

They don't. Eliminating U.S. nuclear weapons ensures enemies of the U.S. could hold the U.S. hostage.


4) How does a guaranteed Nuclear Holocaust Ensure Global Peace?

Because it would be in nobody's interest to initiate an attack that would ensure their own destruction.


5) How would John McCain's policy of 'Don't leave Iraq ensure Americans are safer, and global peace is possible?

The presence of the troops in Iraq stops other enemies of the U.S., like Iran, from moving in an taking over Iraq and gaining more power that would destabilize the region, and put U.S. allies in jeopardy.


Now I will rebut coven's Top 3 reasons he gives for Obama becoming next POTUS.


1. Affirmative action for poor whites. Huh?

What coven has pointed out is that Obama, in his obsession with pandering to every possible demographic, has now sunk to a new low. Obama is now pandering to his weakest demographic, middle-class white voters, by bastardizing the entire concept of affirmative action.


2. Easing up on convicted drug users and crack heads.

While the first reason is pure pandering to the white middle-class, the second reasoning is pure pandering to blacks who have made the crack vs. coc aine sentencing disparity into a racial issue.

With troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, while gas is at $4 a gallon, and while the mortgage industry teeters on implosion, coven would have you believe that Obama should be the next POTUS because he's going to go easier on crack users.


3. Fix the tax system by eliminating taxes for 10 million Americans, and eliminate taxes for seniors making under $50,000.

Again, this is pandering at it's finest. Coven is pointing out that Obama is campaigning on the premise that "everybody except YOU will pay higher taxes." Telling millions of people they won't have to pay taxes is a way to get elected, but I would guess that it's not going to happen. After all, in his time in the Senate has Obama introduced any tax legislation that reflects what he claims he's planning on doing now?


Now let's look at coven's answers, or lack thereof, to my questions:

Except for #1, Coven's answers are barely worth wasting space over. An example of Obama's leadership and vision? He'll reduce crack-head sentencing? I don't think this is leadership or vision.

Obama's core principle: ethics? Uh-huh. Ever wonder why Tony Rezko's wife bought the lot adjoining Obama's property on the SAME DAY Obama bought his $1 million+ house?

The U.S. would be more secure with less advanced weapons? I don't think so.

And coven claims windfall profit taxes would cause the oil companies to LOWER prices to make more profit? Nope. Not even close.

Profit = sales x price - taxes.

Notice that if the "taxes" variable in the equation is increased, say for example with a windfall profit tax, there is no way the right side of that equation can get larger by LOWERING price. It's the opposite. To keep profits even LEVEL, price has to be increased.

This should be so obvious that coven should be embarrassed to even claim otherwise. In recorded history, increasing taxes on a company has NEVER resulted in a company lowering a selling price to consumers.

Question 2: Cite examples of when increasing taxes on a corporation resulted in that corporation lowering prices to the public.

Now let's look at coven's first answer...

I asked coven to name just 3 policies of Obama's that differed from Hillary Clinton in a way that distinguished Obama as being more worthy to be POTUS. coven used limited space as an excuse and listed only ONE policy difference -Obama doesn't take lobbyist money.

Of course what coven didn't tell you is the rest of the story.

Obama didn't take money directly from lobbyist because he attempted to eliminate the 527 groups altogether by asking donors to bypass the 527s and contribute money DIRECTLY to Obama. In other words, Obama still wanted the money, but wanted to eliminate the middle-man 527 groups so that he would not be held accountable to what they stand for.

Why's this? Because Obama stands for nothing. He says one minute he'll filibuster any FISA bill with retroactive immunity for telecom companies and then a few weeks later he turns around and says he'll vote for a FISA bill giving telecoms retroactive immunity. Obama did the same with campaign finance, and now is softening his pledge to immediate withdraw the troops from Iraq to bring them home, and instead is talking about redeploying the troops to Afghanistan.

So it's no wonder Obama would rather you send money to him instead of a 527 group. He still gets the money and he doesn't have to stick to one position that is in alignment with whichever group gave him the money.

But more important is this whole notion that Obama's failure to accept lobbyists' money somehow puts him above "politics as usual." Nothing could be further from the truth.

Obama is surrounded by the most deeply entrenched Washington operatives. His chief foreign policy advisor is Zbigniew Brzezinski. And this is where we can begin to go further down the rabbit hole because Brzenski's son, Mark Brzenski, is also an advisor to Obama.

And what's Mark Brzezinski's "day job"? He's an attorney for one of the most powerful international corporate law firms in the world, McGuireWoods.

And who does McGuireWoods represent? How about firms like General Electric, Global Oil Field Services, Ford Motor, and Verizon.

Verizon???



One of Obama's most connected advisors, Mark Brzezinski, is a lawyer for a firm that represents Verizon, a telecom company which will directly benefit from Obama's recent reversal to vote in favor of the FISA bill giving telecom companies retroactive immunity. And coven claims Obama is somehow immune from the influence of corporate lobbyists?

How can Obama have Mark Brzezinski on his payroll while Brzezinski and his firm represent companies like Verizon, Ford, Global Oil Field Services, and still claim that he is beyond corporate influence?

Who else does McGuireWoods represent? Alternative energy firms Greenlight Energy, Leveraged Green Energy, LP, and SUEZ Energy North America. So McGuireWoods represents alternative energy companies and Obama plans in putting $50 billion of taxpayer money into alternative energy venture cap funds. Coincidence? Not likely.

And if you doubt the influence of McGuireWoods on the Obama campaign, check this out. Jeremiah J. Posedel, another attorney at McGuireWoods, was Obama's deputy campaign manager for Obama's 2004 Senate campaign.




McGuireWoods

Jeremiah Posedel

Mark Brzezinski

Question 3:Obama reversed his position on retroactive immunity for telecoms, while his former deputy campaign manager and current foreign policy advisor are attorneys for McGuireWoods, the firm that represents Verizon. Is Obama being disingenous by claiming he's free from corporate influence while not disclosing this fact?

And now here's an interesting connection.

Brzezinski co-authored reports with Richard Holbrooke. This is the same Richard Holbrooke who is also a co-Chair of Perseus LLC, the hedge fund at which James Johnson is Vice Chairman. And of course it's James Johnson who Obama selected to lead his committee to vet a VP candidate.

Question 4: Is Obama being disingenous by not disclosing his relationship with Perseus LLC execs, and their partnership with George Soros?

I could devote a full book on Obama's relationships with Washington insiders like the Brzezinski's but space does not permit. Needless to say, Obama's claims of being insulated from corporate influence are totally bogus. He's being bought, sold, and controlled by the wealthy Washington/global elite. As such, Obama shouldn't be POTUS because he cannot be trusted to act on principle rather than act to benefit the interests of his handlers.

This is why I selected the "Wizard of Oz" as the metaphor for Obama. It fits perfectly. Coven's erroneous claim that the Wizard helped Dorothy get home is indicative of his poor attention for details, and for his desire to believe what he wants to believe no matter what the facts. The Wizard promised Dorothy, the Tin Man, the Lion, and the Scarecrow that he would give them their deepest desires. In reality, he gave them nothing. In the end, the Wizard, exposed for what he really was, a charlatain, floated off alone in his balloon never to be seen again. It was Glinda that helped Dorothy get home, not the Wizard.

Likewise Obama is the same type of charlatan, promising everybody that he will give them exactly what they want. However, the only people who actually will get what they want are the men paying the bills and pulling the levers, men like James Johnson, Frank Pearl, Richard Holbrooke, Lee Hamilton, Zbigniew & Mark Brzezinski, and their clients.

Question 5: Explain how Obama is a different type of politician?



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Esteemed Readers, (and jamie (
j/k)

As I have stated in my previous post I will not ignore my original intent; especially to fill space responding to my opponents ludicrous claims, and "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" style connections. nor will I further debate the meanings behind Classic American Movies. The focus of this debate is to prove that Barack Obama should be (and is qualified to be) the next President of the United States. As in my first response, all statements about Barack Obama come directly from his website. original sources are cited there.

Reasons Barack Obama should be the next president of the United States(continued from Above):

4) Return to Government Funding for the Sciences.

"Over the last three decades, federal funding for the physical, mathematical and engineering sciences has declined at a time when other countries are substantially increasing their own research budgets. Barack Obama believes federally funded scientific research should play an important role in advancing science and technology in the classroom and in the lab."

5)Repairing the Severely damaged transportation Infrastructure in this Country.

"Barack Obama believes that America’s long-term competitiveness depends on the stability of our critical infrastructure. As president, Obama will make strengthening our transportation systems, including our roads and bridges, a top priority."

6) Fixing Education

a)Fixing No Child Left Behind

"Obama will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law... He will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner. Obama will also improve NCLB's accountability system so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them."

b)focus on our failing Math and Science programs.

"Obama will recruit math and science degree graduates to the teaching profession and will support efforts to help these teachers learn from professionals in the field. He will also work to ensure that all children have access to a strong science curriculum at all grade levels."

c)Record to Back it Up.
" Obama has been a leader on educational issues throughout his career. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama was a leader on early childhood education, helping create the state's Early Learning Council. In the U.S. Senate, Obama has been a leader in working to make college more affordable. His very first bill sought to increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,100. As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, Obama helped pass legislation to achieve that goal in the recent improvements to the Higher Education Act. Obama has also introduced legislation to create Teacher Residency Programs and to increase federal support for summer learning opportunities."


7) Raise the Minimum wage.

"Even though the minimum wage will rise to $7.25 an hour by 2009, the minimum wage's real purchasing power will still be below what it was in 1968. As president, Obama would further raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing -- things so many people take for granted."

That said... To my reply...




jamie83 said
Lifing ban on offshore drilling.


I guess I will have to further address this question when you have provided evidence, as requested in the post before yours. I will how ever, give you a little preview.

There is still oil in the 48 states. And it's not being drilled... Further after your complete reply


Answer 1:

It doesn't. One would hope Mr. Obama would have enough sense to reopen closed drilling operations throughout the lower 48 states.



A good leader is somebody who goes first.


This is definitely faulty logic. A person who goes first is most often known as a "Scout". The leader is the person who is utilizing said scout to do his bidding. A good leader should have the ability to stop and think. They should also be capable of changing their mind. Both of which my opponent gives examples of Barack doing, further into his post...



Eliminating U.S. nuclear weapons ensures enemies of the U.S. could hold the U.S. hostage.


Really? Weapons invented in the 1940s are the best we've got. You can't be that ignorant of our military...

Remember... We have stealth technology. Hell, We've even been to the moon since then (well some of us believe that... this is ATS after all!
)

Affirmative Action is not a racial solution. It is a solution to even the CLASSES. Thus poor WHITES should be involved. You do not understand the purpose of affirmative action.

next at bat


Obama believes the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based coc aine is wrong and should be completely eliminated.


I don't get how you can try and say this is pandering and to be frank your comment about him pandering to blacks is racist... He is saying they should be sentenced evenly. And they should. They are both bad. Equally bad.


2006 Census estimates shows a population of 299+ million in the US. How is 1/30th of the population "Everyone"? Please quit trying to spin your own facts and do a little research.

Quickfacts.Census.GOV


Pr=(S * P) - Tx
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING. A simple business class would tell you this is NOT the way to figure your profits. It's just a random explanation you've pulled out of nowhere. I'll give you a hint for one of the several missing components of your figure OVERHEAD. second hint; using your equation:
Excessive Profit -Windfall Profit Tax = Sales * Price - Taxes. You see a windfall tax ONLY TAXES PROFIT... It does so by taxing the profits on a barrel of oil... PER BARREL...

Oh. And it hasn't worked ever in history? You sir should be embarrassed.

(1980-1988 Windfall Profit Tax Effects)


Obama: Crackdown On speculators
also, a Crackdown on Energy Speculators Would further decrease the cost of gas, by not allowing the same companies who charge us for the oil speculate on the costs of the future (which drives up the cost of oil...)

Since Jamie wants to keep bashing Obama's Ethics by playing "Six Degrees of Barack Obama".
While this sounds fun for BTS it has no place in a legitimate debate. As such I will give him another Policy Difference.

Universal Health Care. Hillary wants it Voluntary for those who can't afford it. Barack wants it mandatory. This is easily explained, but I'll let my opponent attack this point before I knock his argumentIssues: Health Care down.





Answer 2:
See 1980-1988 Windfall Profit Taxes Facts Above


My opponent Even admits

jamie83 said:Obama didn't take money directly from lobbyist because he attempted to eliminate the 527 groups altogether by asking donors to bypass the 527s and contribute money DIRECTLY to Obama."


Proof that Obama is not interested in commitments to P.A.C.s or Lobbyists. He wants people to donate to him, not their favorite lobbyist group.
My opponent seems to think that Obama ignoring the lobbyists is a bad thing. I beg to differ.

Answer 3: No he's not. I have already answered this question in my previous post. You really should read it... It explains why Obama reversed his position. The bill was amended to add constraints to the companies, getting rid of the 'big brother is watching you' aspect of this bill.

Answer 4: No he's not. Six Degrees of Barack Obama does not mean these people have a relationship. I'd be surprised if Obama has ever even met Richard Holbrook. even if he has it doesn't mean he is indebted to him or his company.

Dear Readers, my opponent keeps trying to make Obama out to be a evil manipulative person. With the racist statement in the previous post, I cannot help but think My opponent suffers from a severe case of "fear of a black man".

Answer 5:
Obama Should be the Next President of the United States because he has proven his commitment to ethics, the less fortunate, and his country, during his 2 decades of service to his community. Proof positive he is a different type of politician.


Question 1:

How will Off-Shore Drilling Decrease the Cost of Oil in this Country? provide Evidence.

Question 2:

How will conversion to "green-Technology" hurt the United States? Please provide 3 forms of evidence.

Question 3:

How does Mutually Assured Destruction Keep some nut terrorist from launching a Nuclear Attack? Or Three... Provide Evidence.

Question 4:

Why should we continue to throw billions into our military per year, when our weapon technology hasn't advanced since the 40's? (Remember you said if we got rid of Nukes we wouldn't have anything better to defend ourselves...) Please provide Evidence.


Question 5:

Since the question was only partially answered...
Which are the most important policy differences between Barack Obama and John McCain that differentiate why McCain should be President instead of Barack Obama? please provide evidence as to why John McCains stances would be better suited for the Presidency.

if you need to change your answer that would be fine.



With that, I concede the floor back to Jamie83.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   


"With the racist statement in the previous post, I cannot help but think My opponent suffers from a severe case of "fear of a black man".


As you are about to discover, coven's arguments are ludicrous, so now he has now deteriorated into personal ad hominem attack and accusations of racism.


Case in point...

When asked to point out policy differences between Clinton and Obama that makes Obama more qualified to be POTUS, coven provided this gem:



Universal Health Care. Hillary wants it Voluntary for those who can't afford it. Barack wants it mandatory.


coven has once again displayed his complete ignorance regarding the issues.

It was CLINTON's plan that called for health insurance for everybody to be mandatory.

Maybe coven should actually try reading your own source:
politics.nytimes.com...


Hillary Clinton
Require everyone to get health insurance,


and


"We've got a philosophical difference, which we've debated repeatedly, and that is that Senator Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it." -Obama"



Question 1: How embarrassed are you to discover that when asked to cite reasons Obama is better than Hillary, you couldn't even get the fundamental difference between their health plans correct?

Question 2: Do you now think Hillary's mandatory plan is better than Obama's voluntary plan now that you've been schooled on the issue?

Further, this example of unabashed ignorance speaks to the portion of MemoryShock's initial debate topic: "Obama should be POTUS, and rightfully so."

I would argue that coven's lack of understanding of basic policy differences between Clinton and Obama is not isolated to only coven. This type of ingorance may be widespread among Obama supporters.

Rather than use sources to prove this, I will use logic and reasoning:

If coven, who claims to be an educated and vocal advocate for Obama can get the health care policies completely backwards, I wonder what the casual Obama supporter knows about the policies? I would argue that the masses of Obama supporters who voted for Obama were probably less attuned to the issues than our own "educated" coven, who has displayed total ignorance re health care policy.

If the average Obama supporter is as clueless and misguided regarding basic issues as coven, then perhaps Obama isn't the "rightful" Democratic nominee.





See 1980-1988 Windfall Profit Taxes Facts Above


First coven went off topic to attack me personally. Now coven has failed to answer my question directly, and instead cited a 3rd party website, not an AP news source. And this condition to limit sources to AP news was coven's request. Once again, coven is displaying that he has no valid answer to the question re whether or not windfall profit taxes help reduce the price of gas (they don't).

Further, coven provides an incorrect formula in his attempt to show how higher taxes will lower gas prices:



Excessive Profit - Windfall Tax = Sales * Price - Taxes


or,

EP - WT = S*P - T

For thos beyond the 10th grade who've taken algebra, you will notice that you can add WT to both sides of the equation to get:

EP - WT + WT = S*P - T + WT
EP = S*P -T + WT

Coven is claiming Excess Profits = Income - tax PLUS Windfall Tax. No wonder he's got it totally backwards when claims that windfall profit taxes will cause oil companies to sell gas at a lower price.

Contrary to coven's ludicrous analysis, there is no way a company can INCREASE profits by decreasing the price to consumers in order to make up for additional taxes. The exact OPPOSITE is true. A company must INCREASE prices to make up for increased costs in order to maintain the same profit. This is common sense.

Question 3: Coven, explain in your own words why windfall profit taxes will help alleviate the price of gas to consumers?



Other coven gems...



Affirmative Action is not a racial solution. It is a solution to even the CLASSES.


Once again coven is displaying his ignorance. Affirmative action is a specific program that applies to race based opportunity, not "classes." Or at least that's what the Dept. of Labor says:


For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans.


www.dol.gov...




Raise the Minimum wage.


The POTUS has no power to pass any law to raise the minimum wage. And again, it's just another example of Obama telling people who to spend their money. Raising the minimum wage will make people think Obama is for the "little guy" until the "little guys" discover that basic necessities cost more money and they have less job opportunities.

Question 4: coven, I have a theory that when labor costs increase companies will hire fewer people at minimum wage AND they'll raise the price of goods to make up for the increased labor costs. Why is this not true?




Crackdown on Energy Speculators Would further decrease the cost of gas, by not allowing the same companies who charge us for the oil speculate on the costs of the future


Once again, coven has this COMPLETELY backwards.

Companies who sell oil "speculate" by locking in future prices by buying at the speculative price NOW. This is why the futures market was invented. Oil companies can lock in next years oil at $140 a barrel so that if oil is selling on the spot market next year at $200 a barrel, they will save $60 a barrel. This will help oil companies and consumers, and also provides liquidity in the market, which ensures gasoline will be at the pumps. Without liquidity, oil companies would not be able to guarantee the flow of oil from market to refineries to the gas pumps.

Question 5: If speculators are buying oil and driving the price up, then who is selling the oil contracts to the speculators?


Rather than waste space rebutting coven's other inarticulate arguments one after another, I would suggest that coven has already shown that his reasons for supporting Obama are either based on false understanding, faulty reasoning, or Obama's promises about how he's going to take our money and spend it.

Any politician can become popular by promising to spend money on issues that appeal to any number of groups.

Obama reminds me of a kid in 4th grade running for class president promising that he's going to get the school to serve pizza everyday for lunch. It's called selling hope, and is a classic con-man strategy.


Q&A
===
Question 1: Increased supply of oil will put downward pressure on prices. Source: gift of reasoning.

Question 2: As long as the green "conversion" is market driven and not a top-down redistribution of capital it won't hurt anything. If Obama forces the redistribution of capital by taking at gun point our tax dollars to fund companies that his backers have invested in, and which the market has rejected, it will hurt everybody BUT those who invested in the non-viable companies.

Question 3: It doesn't.

Question 4: Our technology has advanced tremendously since the 40's. To say otherwise is idiotic. Spending billions a year ensures that the U.S. maintains its strategic advantage over enemies of the U.S. who are attempting to catch up.

Question 5: Already answered. Further, this debate isn't about McCain vs. Obama. coven is straying off topic.

===


By now anybody whose followed this debate has seen that coven has shown little, if any, understanding of the issues. He's confused Hillary's and Obama's health plans. He thinks increasing taxes on oil companies will cause them to drop the price of gas. He's used personal attacks, and like many Obama supporters, has now accused me of being racist. coven stated he likes Obama because he is for the "proliferation" of nuclear weapons. He's violated the terms of the debate and the T&C. Heck, he even tried to misrepresent how "The Wizard of Oz" ended.

In short, coven hasn't shown an understanding of basic facts. And without understanding of facts, one cannot hope to form sound conclusions.

Further, I would argue that coven represents one of the more "educated" Obama supporters who even claims to have knowledge of the issues. It would then follow that the masses of Obama supporters less "educated" than coven probably support Obama because he makes their legs tingle when he talks. Unfortunately, making somebody's leg tingle when speaking does not mean that candidate should be POTUS.

More importantly, coven has dismissed the connections I've shown Obama to have with Perseus and McGuireWoods as "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon."

Nothing could be more important than these connections. Contrary to what coven wants you to believe, these are not incidental connections. These are direct connections, quid pro quo connections, between Obama and the men who've selected him to be the Democratic nominee.

Obama is doing the work of men who have no loyalty to the U.S. or any other government. This election isn't just about defeating Obama. It's about defeating the power-brokers behind Obama who place their personal interests ahead of U.S. interests. People like George Soros.

Unfortunately, coven, and many like him, believe Obama is genuine and beyond the influence of the corrupt "powers that be."

coven was even so naive and/or misguided to suggest that Obama has probably never met Perseus LLC Co-Chairman Richard Holbrooke.


I'd be surprised if Obama has ever even met Richard Holbrook.


I would suggest otherwise:






posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   
First dear readers, forgive my error in numbering. Continuing the list of why Barack Obama should be the next President of the United States,and rightfully so with my 7th example.


Foreign Policy

7) Renew American Diplomacy

"Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs."



8) Build a 21st Century Military

"Obama will give our troops new equipment, armor, training, and skills like language training. He will also strengthen our civilian capacity, so that our civilian agencies have the critical skills and equipment they need to integrate their efforts with our military."

9) Invest in Clean Energy Development

"Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe."

10) Improve Energy Efficiency 50% by 2030

a)"Barack Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He'll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal."

b)"Obama will create a competitive grant program to award those states and localities that take the first steps to implement new building codes that prioritize energy efficiency."

c)"Obama will pursue a major investment in our utility grid to enable a tremendous increase in renewable generation and accommodate modern energy requirements, such as reliability, smart metering, and distributed storage"

Ladies and Gentlemen, as I said in my opening post, my task in this debate is an easy one. I am here to prove to you why Barack Obama should be the next President of the United States. I have given you 10 easily researched reasons. My opponent has yet to provide one reason why Barack Obama should not be the next President of the United States. They have provided much conjecture, opinion, and extensive 'six degrees of Barack Obama' play.

Now to Reply to that tantrum that Jamie calls a Debate Reply:
counterpoint1:


jamie83 said
2. Easing up on convicted drug users and crack heads.

While the first reason is pure pandering to the white middle-class, the second reasoning is pure pandering to blacks who have made the crack vs. coc aine sentencing disparity into a racial issue.


Personal ad hominem attacks, huh?

Question 1: you said Crack Heads is the second reasoning, and then said it is pure pandering to blacks. Knowing firsthand that Crack is prominent problem in all poor communities, and has nothing to do with race; What exactly did you mean by this statement?

counterpoint 2:

"So we've got a lot of similarities in our plan. We've got a philosophical difference, which we've debated repeatedly, and that is that Senator Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it. And my belief is, the reason that people don't have it is not because they don't want it but because they can't afford it. And so I emphasize reducing costs"
Intriguing how you left the last part of that quote as well. Very Mass Media of you!


Just an FYI my friend. Universal Health Care is free. The Italicized statement is Barack's Plan. The Bold statment is Hillary's. As you can see Hillary was forcing INSURANCE on everyone. Barack is Forcing Universal Health Care. Those who want to pay for it can... But everybody gets it.

Answer 1: About as embarrassed as you are that you didn't understand the difference between cheap forced health care, and Free Universal Health Care... Also I answered your question the first time around. He won the nomination. Hillary didn't. and as you say in your reply to my fifth question (which is my unanswered 1st question from the first post) Hillary isn't even relevant to this topic.

I'd point out some flaw with Barack in your last posts if I were you.

Answer 2: no. Because I can't afford to pay for Hillary's mandatory INSURANCE. I can afford my taxes being put to use, and providing our country with Universal Health Care.

You sir are utilizing ad hominem personal attack in your reply by calling me "Clueless and Misguided".

Obama is the Rightful nominee because he actually understands what the American people want. As proven by the ten examples provided throughout this thread. I will be glad to close with a summary of those as you seem to keep missing them.

Hell, I'll even throw a few more on for good measure.


Counterpoint 3:

Actually Sir, you asked a question for evidence. I do not have to provide NEWS COVERAGE to validate evidence of a tax study based on occurrences in the 1980's. Your question was answered. you didn't like the information given so you claim it invalid. You sir have yet to provide any reliable information. My facts come straight from the campaign I am defending.

Counterpoint 4:
Your still leaving out Overhead, Production costs, Shipping and Receiving charges, and about 50 other minute details that cause your math to be illogical. Simple business knowledge tells one you have to include you EMPLOYEE'S PAY in your figures to determine profit.

Once you've run a business (which I have for 8 years now...)
On that specific point Answer 3:
you'll learn that taxation on your specific profits, will MAKE you lower your costs. It's not worth the extra expense, because the profits are cut SO DRASTICALLY. It's better to charge less, and sell more; which won't get taxed on a windfall. the exact opposite CAUSES the windfall tax to ACTIVATE. Lesson for the day, and you can't learn that in a college classroom.


counterpoint 5:
"qualified minorities"
I guess that only means people with dark skin huh?
Couldn't possible mean POOR could it?

Answer 4: Theres this little thing called small business. They Make sure to take care of their employee's. If the big guys won't... The little guys will. Once again, you run your own business for a while you'll learn this.(if a mod need be, I can easily validate I am involved in the operations of two EXTREMELY successful small businesses in Nashville TN; However I will not release this personal info in Thread)

Answer 5: Speculation drives up the cost of gas. Ever since Commodities have become a hot trader on the markets-the 70's-, costs have drastically risen.(and normally fell as quickly, but as we know this is not the case now) I do not understand what you are trying to say with your question, but the oil companies and speculators both profit from this process, and their profits have risen 100 fold in the past 20 years. If one can use logic, one can see the connection.


Talk about Twisting... you claim my links are crap, then you post photos of BLOGS!!!!!!!!

you sir, have turned this debate in to a joke, and I believe you realize that. It is sad you are unwilling to debate the actual topic, and bring forth honest and forthright debate on a topic.


Even worse... your blog says OBAMA WASN'T THERE. He wouldn't even attend his good buddy Holbrooke's fund-raiser for HIM. great connection there my friend. from your own link (below)

In case you can't read it in the picture you can read it here
Ben Smith's BLOG link

Richardson, is not Obama... So your '6 degrees of Barack Obama is proven false.

Links to those articles are required in debate. I should not have to search them out because you wanted to post images. I guess you thought you wouldn't get caught using a blog.

that's what I meant by AP sources. Not OPINION but articles or STUDIES. you have provided no evidence.

Question 2:
you refuse to provide evidence of Why Off Shore drilling will Help.

The Energy Information Administration says that there are "substantial resources of crude oil" offshore. However, it also notes that both time and money would be required to produce any oil from areas that are currently off-limits. Specifically, it estimates that no production would begin until 2017 and that it would take until 2030 to reach peak production, increasing total domestic production by 3 percent.

Newsweek Article

Can you explain how no extra oil until 2030 can help lower gas prices NOW?

Question 3:
Being that you have provided plenty of evidence everyone BUT Barack is meeting with Holbrooke (who was a Clinton Supporter). So I'll ask again. Do you have any PROOF of them meeting?

Question 4: If we have better Technology(than the 40s) than Nukes... Why do we still need such dangerous weapons?

Question 5: Are you saying that MAD is the reason a Terrorist hasn't nuked America yet? if so explain why.

That said...

Your entire Debate has been a ridiculous rant about Barack, and you have stained the debate forums with these tactics. please use your last reply to make this an ACTUAL debate, and not another of your forums slandering Barack.

I concede the floor to jamie83.



posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I am requesting my one time 48 hour extension to reply.

Thanks,

jamie



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Being that 48 hours have come and gone... I'm not allowing this to drag out anymore.

Jamie, your next post is a closing...


First off let me apologize to my readers and my opponent for how heated this debate has gotten. When it comes to politics, one must expect a little fire on their feet during the discussion. I hope my opponent bears no hard feeling, and realizes that this is all just a part of debate.

I thank you for reading our debate, and I also Thank Memoryshock for keeping us debaters in check, and working so hard on this debate!


That said, Lets close this debate down...
-------------------------------------

Closing Statement:

Again... Forgive the Numbering Order error in the last post. Formatting these in HTML is not a huge skill of mine.

1) Obama Supports Affirmative Action for Poor Whites.

2) Obama Supports (as much as Jamie hates the word...) CHANGE in our justice system.

3) Obama Supports fixing the tax system, to help the working poor

4) Obama Supports Return to Government Funding for the Sciences.

5) Obama Supports Repairing the Severely damaged transportation Infrastructure in this Country.

6) Obama Supports fixing Education By:
a)Fixing No Child Left Behind
b)focus on our failing Math and Science programs.
c) He has the Record (from Illinois) to Back it up.

7)Obama will work to Raise the Minimum wage.

8) Obama Supports Renewing American Diplomacy

9)Obama will Invest in Clean Energy Development

10) Obama will work to Improve Energy Efficiency 50% by 2030

As I have said in Previous Posts I will throw in a few more for good measure

11) Barack Supports Fiscal Responsibility

a) Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.

b) End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense. Obama has called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices. Obama will also tackle wasteful spending in the Medicare program.

12)Obama Supports Expanding Early Childhood Education:

Research shows that half of low-income children start school up to two years behind their peers in preschool skills and that these early achievement gaps continue throughout elementary school. Obama has been a champion of early childhood education since his years in the Illinois legislature, where he led the effort to create the Illinois Early Learning Council. Obama has introduced a comprehensive "Zero to Five" plan to provide critical supports to young children and their parents


13) Obama will Expand Federal Service Groups (Americorps, Peace Corps)

Obama will expand AmeriCorps from 75,000 slots today to 250,000 and he will focus this expansion on addressing the great challenges facing the nation. He will establish a Classroom Corps to help teachers and students, with a priority placed on under served schools; a Health Corps to improve public health outreach; a Clean Energy Corps to conduct weatherizing and renewable energy projects; a Veterans Corps to assist veterans at hospitals, nursing homes and homeless shelters; and a Homeland Security Corps to help communities plan, prepare for and respond to emergencies.


Dear Reader the list goes on and on. Not only Does Mr Obama Say the right thing; he has the RECORD to back it up. Barack Obama Should be the next President of the United States, and Rightfully So

My opponents arguments have ranged from corporate connections, to Obama wanting to get rid of Nuclear Weapons.

My opponent Even admits that we have better weaponry in this day and age... Yet he believes that Obama is wrong for wanting to get rid of these dangerous weapons worldwide. As I have asked my Opponent many times, what would happen if a Terrorist launched a nuke?

I'll answer it myself, since my opponent seems to refuse to... Someone would take advantage, and annihilate the Entire U.S.
Given the opportunity China would be glad to get rid of the U.S. Government. When we destroy all nuclear weapons, we ensure the protection of America. My opponent even admits that these weapons aren't necessary; leading to the conclusion that his argument is incorrect.

The best evidence my opponent can provide for his other argument is that the man he claims is 'pulling Obama's strings' held a $2000 a person fund raiser; which Barack did not even attend. Some puppet to not show up to such a HUGE event.

I have provided Evidence that Off Shore Drilling won't help Gas Prices; and I have provided Evidence that the Windfall PROFIT taxes DOES lower the price of whatever commodities they are applied to (oil specifically). All of this evidence is easily found with a Google search.

I requested this debate with my opponent as a chance to show them that they are not researching enough in their postings, and are buying into whatever people feed them. As the debate turned Ugly, my opponent retorted to his thread tactic, of attack and name call. My opponent Truly does not like Barack Obama, yet they cannot provide adequate evidence as to why; (besides their personal opinion) seems to me, their threads are a waste of time, if they cannot even defend their views in a civilized debate.(No offense, but seriously, consider, if you can't defend your perspective... why maintain it?)


Ladies and Gentlemen, don't buy into this internet slander machine. Barack Obama is a good, Patriotic, honorable man. He actually cares about the least fortunate Americans, and intends to affect CHANGE for them. Barack Hussein Obama should be the next President of the United States, and rightfully so.

With that I hand the floor back to Jamie for his closing statement.
________________________
I do request if we haven't heard from him by Friday we please start judging A.S.A.P.
________________________



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   
coven, you are not a moderator. MemoryShock told me last week that the weekend break meant that Monday's post needed to be posted by Monday night.

I asked for the 48 hour extension on Monday, which would give me until Wednesday night, which is tonight.

This is my THIRD post, not my closing. You do not have the authority to unilaterally decide otherwise.
=======================


Thank you for your patience! I had important family matters to attend to, and I apologize for the delay in my response.

First, let me address coven's questions:

1: Crack/coc aine sentenceing and pandering to blacks.


"But let's not make the punishment for crack coc aine that much more severe than the punishment for powder coc aine when the real difference between the two is the skin color of the people using them." -Obama's website speech at Howard U.

www.barackobama.com...


That's what I'm talking about when I say Obama is pandering to blacks re the sentencing differences. It was OBAMA who brought race into the sentencing issue, not me.

Question 1: Since you accused me of being racist for saying the crack/coc aine issue was race-based, does this mean Obama's statement is also racist?


2: Offshore drilling

Offshore drilling will help because it will increase future supply of oil. Lifting the ban would send a signal to the markets that supply will increase. Market price of any commodity prices in future supply. NOT lifting the ban would guarantee a continue escalation in prices and total dependence on foreign oil.


3: Evidence of Holbrooke/Obama Meeting

James Johnson is Vice Chairman of Perseus. Holbrooke is Co-Chairman of Perseus. Obama named Johnson to pick his VP. Mark Brzezinski is one of Obama's foreign policy advisors. Mark Brzezinski co-authored white papers and hosted foreign policy events in which Holbrooke was featured speaker. Holbrooke is being mentioned as possible VP candidate and Sec. of State. One can infer that there is a high degree of certaintly that at some point Obama has met with Holbrooke.


4: If we have better Technology(than the 40s) than Nukes... Why do we still need such dangerous weapons?

We have better nuclear weapons than those made in the 40s. We need the modern nuclear weapons to keep from being held hostage and at the mercy of U.S. enemies. We also use car technology that was invented in the 1900s. Does that mean we should drive 1940 cars instead of 2008 cars?


5: MAD and Terrorists

No, MAD probably wouldn't deter a terrorist. MAD deters terrorist STATES.

----------

"Words matter." -Barack Obama

It always struck me as odd that Obama would need to make a speech (or should I say copy Duval Patrick's speech) about why words matter.

Why was it important for Obama to make it a point to say "words matter."?

The answer is obvious. Because "words" are Obama's tool of manipulation. "Words" are what candidates use to get elected. But what Obama didn't say was something more important.

Actions matter more than words.

Anybody can create a website and promise anything. George Bush promised if elected he would unite the country. George Bush promised if elected the U.S. would not be involved in nation building. George Bush Sr. promised "no new taxes." These men said what they needed to say to win the election, but took actions completely opposite of what they promised.

This type of political pandering is the exact reason the country is so screwed up. Spineless, weasly, snake oil salesmen posing as politicians promise the world and deliver only to their big business friends. In Bush's case, he delivered to the oil companies, the Carlyle Group, and defense contractors. Cheney's buddies at Haliburton made tens of millions in our "nation building" effort in Iraq.

Bush said things just to get elected, and it worked. Twice.

Now Obama is hoping to replace Bush by walking in his footsteps. Obama is promising to unite the country, yet injects race into almost every issue. Obama is the other side of the Bush coin. Where Bush promised no nation building, Obama promised to immediately bring the troops home from Iraq. Bush promptly went into the business of nation building, and Obama is already backtracking on his position in Iraq, totally dropping his promise to immediately withdraw the troops, and now suggesting that they will be redeployed in Afghanistan.

So if you like being pandered to, misled, and outright lied to repeatedly, Obama and Bush are your guys.

But I think America deserves more than another Bush-like, lying politician leading the way. Coven can list dozens of policies written up on Obama's website by the people who conducted the focus groups, but it doesn't matter.

Why?

Because Obama can't be counted on to follow through on ANY of the positions he advocates.

Take the FISA bill as just one example. Obama pledged to filibuster any bill that gave telecoms retroactive immunity, and yet he voted FOR a bill that did just that.

But Obama's reversal on the FISA bill wasn't just a matter of political expediency. It was directly related to the FACT that Obama's foreign policy advisor Mark Brzezinski is a partner in the law firm of McGuireWoods, and that McGuireWoods represents telecom giant Verizon.

Question 2: Obama voted FOR a FISA bill that he said previously he would veto. Why do you believe there is no relationship between Obama's change of opinion on the FISA bill and Verizon being a major client of Mark Brzezinski's law firm?

Coven fails to take seriously Obama's deep connections to powerbrokers at Perseus and McGuireWoods. These connections are not "6 degrees" of separation. They are direct connections. Obama is working for the people who've created his image and propped up his candidacy, not the interests of the citizens of U.S.

How can I say this? For starters, Obama has called for Constitutional rights for terrorism suspects, while voting for a FISA bill that gave immunity to telecom companies for VIOLATING our Constitutional rights. Just who's side is Obama on?

What's most troubling about these connections is the central figure in all of this is George Soros. And George Soros has already proven himself to be worse than a mercenary when it comes to his interests vs. the interests of the public at large.

In 1992 Soros shorted the British pound, bringing the government of the U.K. to it's knees. Soros made $1 billion on his bet against the British currency in 1992 in a single day.

And now who is Soros betting on?

Barack Obama.

Soros bought MoveOn.org's progressive leaning mailing list for $5 million and promoted Obama to this list. Obama then got nearly 1 million subscribers from this list who he could mail to directly, and now has the balls to claim he didn't take any contributions from special interests. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Soros runs hedge funds that take positions, both long and short, in companies, commodities, and currencies. Soros' hedge fund is partnered with Perseus LLC, another hedge fund. Perseus LLC is heavily invested in "clean" technology and biofuels production, specifically ethanol production.

Perseus Vice Chairman James Johnson was named by Obama to head his committee to find a VP. Perseus Co-Chairman John Schwieters, and former McGuireWoods Chairman, Robert Burrus, are on the board of Smithfield Foods, a company that stands to make hundreds of millions from corn ethanol production. McGuireWoods also represents Smithfield Foods, and a McGuireWoods attorney James Posefeld was the deputy chairman of Obama's 2004 Senate campaign.

So is Obama's policy on increasing tariffs on sugar cane used for ethanol production in the U.S best interests, or his boyz at Perseus, McGuireWoods, and Smithfield Foods?





SMITHFIELD FOOD DIRECTORS



In the "real world" judges in the same position as Obama would be forced to recuse themselves because of a conflict of interest. In the brazen world of Barry Obama, he can claim to be the ONLY candidate not under the influence of special interests while proposing policy after policy design specifically to help the special interests that put him into the position he finds himself today.

Now let's look at Obama's dictator-like, elitist mentality. Obama repeatedly takes positions that he somehow knows how WE should be acting better than we ourselves do.

Obama implied we shouldn't eat whatever we want.
Obama implied we shouldn't drive the type of car we want.
Obama implied we set the temperature of our homes wrong.
Obama is embarrassed we're too dumb to know we should have taken a foreign language.
Obama said we're parenting our kids poorly.
Obama thinks people shouldn't donate to PACs, but only donate directly to him.
Obama thinks law abiding citizens should be prevented from owning guns in certain areas.
Obama thinks companies should be punished for setting prices on their products "too high."
Obama thinks people who hunt and go to church are "clinging" to their guns and religion.
Obama thinks our kids should spend time doing community service instead of watching tv.



What's important to realize is that all of these issues are INDIVIDUAL decisions acted on because we have INDIVIDUAL rights.

The role of POTUS is to PROTECT our right to make these choices, not to tell us that how we choose to exercise our rights is embarrassing.

Question 3: Do you believe Obama knows best about how we Americans should live our personal lives?



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
As, technically, jamie83 did surpass the timestamp of his extension request (there was no established time stamp for the weekends as it was agreed upon for real world courtesy), it is ruled that jamie83's last post is indeed his closing argument.

I would like to direct the judges to the intent of jamie83's Socratic questions and not their own answers or projected answers.

As a final note...and please let all Fighters take note...

There will be no more personal talk regarding when the judgment period should take place; there will be no more personal talk regarding Moderator/Outside interaction again in a debate.

This forum is an organized and professional setting that is non-inclusive of anything other than an attention to 'your' opponents presentation.

I am personally disappointed to have to remind anyone of this.

With that said, and with what has been presented...

Excellent job, on both sides, coven and jamie83.

You have done a fabulous job and we are off to the judges.

*Judges*

Strike this post from your consideration.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
I want to congratulate both Fighters, as they did an excellent job. But their can be only one and the judges have spoken...jaimie83 wins by majority decision.

The judges notes..



As far as the persuasive effectiveness of the debaters, I would have to suggest that jaime83, despite his lapse in response, presented a more cogent and self-sustaining case. Coven made good use of preprepared material from the candidate's political website, but still seemed to have difficulties effectively refuting some of the 'appearances of impropriety' that jaime83 presented. Circumstantial as they may be, these connections needed to be countered with rationale which deprived them of the weighty political impact they have. These 'negatives' needed to be swatted away more forcefully than with the '6-degrees' label. Politicians can afford to simply 'ignore' these negatives in light of other positives they wish to characterize as their own. In this debate however, each of those points must countered, whether or not this is convenient to argument flow.




I would give the overall win of the argument to Jaime83 over Coven (just barely, this one was really close and really difficult, they both did a remarkable job, despite the mix up over the posts.) Although Jaime83 did "lose a post" I feel Coven did as well by not utilizing the opening post for argument, and so to me that evened them out on posting.

WHY I would hand it to Jaime is the fact that Coven left one of Jaime83's main and most damaging premises un-rebutted. Jaime83 began the debate with a well supported argument that *nothing* Obama said was a policy could be trusted to be his actual stand. (The wizard argument) Coven did not, in my opinion, sufficiently address that. That, in my mind, really weakens the entire structure of Coven's "Obama stands for this, Obama stands for that," argument.

Coven made excellent points, and did a good job in his/her rebuttals, except for that single but very crucial misstep. (As he/she then based most of his/her case on proposed policies of Obama.)


Again, well done gentlemen and I look forward to seeing more from both of you in this forum in the future.









 
9

log in

join