I will start by answering my opponents two questions:
Answer to Question 1
Being that the description of 'to death' is a matter of opinion, i think my opponent is asking does Obama believe he will stimulate the economy by
I answer for Obama based on my understanding of the man:
Barack Obama understands that you can't continue to print more money when you run out of what you have. The more money you print, the more you
depreciate the value of said money.
His goal is not to DIRECTLY stimulate the economy. Economic growth comes from investors. Investment comes from Wall Street. To make the
argument that people wont want to invest, because their taxes got raised, is a rather asinine statement, in this persons opinion.
You point out yourself that,
our dollar (is) in major decline. High Gas prices, major mortgage foreclosures/scandals and so on.
The reasons for this is the current administration has not yet learned the concept that you can't spend money you dont have.
A trillion dollar war + tax cuts + "stimulus checks" + no additional forms of income = a big debt.
In order to pay for that big debt, we have simply printed more money to help compensate. Which in turn, depreciates the value.
Barack Obama understands what people want, and he gives us the straight answers, regardless if we like them or not.
The majority of people want Universal Health Care. This may not be a personal issue for any single individual that may be reading this, but it is
something requested on a national level.
Barack Obama would be lying to the American People if he offered a universal health care plan that spends billions, if he did not offer a way to pay
His proposal (for paying for it) is the capital gains tax.
Answer to Question 2
We really need to build our economy again and feed OUR OWN people. Andrew, why is it America's responsibility to solve global poverty?
By solving global poverty, we solve poverty at home as well. The united states is considered in the 'global' category. So if a more precise
question would be why is it our responsibility to help people outside of America
and the answer is simple: Because we can.
the cost of the Iraq war, at the time of writing this, was over 500 billion dollars. Source
with estimates of it topping 1 trillion before its ever close to being over
If this country is able to expend 1/2 a trillion dollars in roughly 7 years to overthrow a dictator and go to war with a country on false pretenses,
why could the same money not be applied to other things.
As "one nation under God" i believe we have the moral responsibility to help other people. Everywhere you look in our country anymore, we boast
that we are "one nation under God" and "in God we trust", so it only follows the pattern to help others, the way God would have us do.
Hunger? Poverty? Why should it be allowed when one nation can spend 1/2 a trillion dollars on one war.
If we do not initiate the progress in the way the world operates in relation to poverty and hunger, who will?
Should we treat world poverty like a man having a heart attack in an aisle at walmart? Stand by in disbelief asking "is somebody going to do
No. We should step in and do something ourselves.
I have described to you what a leader is, and i have proclaimed that being a great leader is one of my characteristics of a great President.
So how does John McCain fail as a leader?
my opponent provides the beginning part of this answer in the last sentence of his previous post
A true leader sticks to his word, and is by no means INDECISIVE!
The only alteration i would make to this, otherwise flawless, statement, is that a true leader only makes change when necessary, in order to stay
course of achieving the greater good.
There has to be a clarity of destination, not always clarity of the method.
A good example would be Lincoln, whose purpose of making greater our nation, but whose methods changed along the way, ultimately ending slavery, and
making our nation great.
What does not change, however, is the goal.
How does John McCain fail on his goals?
could John McCain possibly be trying to achieve when he voted against the Martin Luther King jr. National holiday in 1983
Sure, he later apologized for his actions -- On April 4th, 2008.
It took him 25 years to realize he was wrong and apologize for it.
If McCains goals are civil rights, i believe this clearly shows a lack of leadership.
What other goals could John McCain possibly strive for for POTUS?
Well. One big question has been, for a long time now, Abortion: legal or no?
McCain says he supports the ideal of making Roe vs. Wade obsolete, but refuses to support the repeal its self. He condemns all forms of abortion,
except in cases of rape.
He says abortion is okay if the issue is rape, but says testing for said rape is not okay; whereby creating a loop hole that is bound to be taken
advantage of, making his stance on anti-abortion completely obsolete.
So if his goals are anti-abortion, clearly John McCain fails at leading the cause.
All references for John McCain's stances on Abortion comes from This Source
In fact, John McCain's entire political career is full of such contradictions that begs the question: What exactly are his goals?
everything from here on out will come from Issues 2000.org
unless otherwise stated
Is he for the middle class ?
According to John McCain himself
Bailing out Bear Stearns necessary to protect economy. (Apr 2008)
Key is to not to bail out homeowners who speculated. (Apr 2008)
he Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005) which essentially removes any chance a middle-class working
American had to get a, sometimes needed, fresh start when things got rough.
So it seems he's more for big business, as he would rather see a bank (under federal investigation for corrupt business practices) not close down,
and instead would rather see Home Owners kicked to the streets?
Could his goal be to uphold the bill of rights that we, as citizens of this great country, hold so dearly?
My opponent has pointed out his own notion that Barack Obama is against the 2nd amendment of the constitution. But as my last post clearly points
out, Barack Obama is for each individual state to decide for themselves, and condones such action when her refers to the right to acquisition of
private land, and zoning ordinances imposed by state government bodies.
So it would seem as though Barack Obama is pretty consistent on his stance with weapons. And to clarify for my opponent, Barack Obama has always
stood for local governments to decide for themselves, and has never taken a stance that all guns should be banned.
On the issue of rights
John McCain has supported and voted for all of the following:
Ban cheap guns(Aug 1999)
Supports ban on certain assault weapons. (Aug 1999)
He Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
and offers no explanation of any of it,
Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
So how is it possible to differentiate a criminal from a citizen, if there are no background checks in place? Unless his stance is to the effect that
we should not do anything until the crime has been commited, which would be the only clear way you could tell the difference between a criminal and a
On the first amendment, John McCain supports censorship in a few different ways
he wants censorship on the internet with saying
Unfiltered Internet robs our children of their innocence. (Dec 1999)
and condones squelching certain forms of speech, that for any reason what so ever, go against the grain of societal acceptance.
1st Amend. not a shield for hate groups. (Aug 1999)
and to contradict his stance against hate-oriented groups, he Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
So clearly - it seems as if John McCains goals are enigmatic, to say the least.
One may even offer the idea that his only true goal is to cater to his crowd, and since the crowd changes from place to place, so does the rhetoric he
uses to influence them.
However, with the invent of the Internet, we are now able to track the change in rhetoric, and hold said persons accountable
That being said, its also clear that, not only do John McCains goals
change, but clearly his methods do as well.
So that brings me to my first series of questions for my opponent.
You have pointed out ways in which Barack Obama's methods have changed. Could you please give us a few examples in which Obama's goals
Could you please enlighten us as to reasons you believe the fight on "World Poverty" should not be America's responsibility?
How does John McCain plan to fun a program like Universal health care?
Could you please give us some examples of what John McCains true goals are?
Could you please give us some methods that John McCain has consistently used to attain his goals as outlined in question 4.