Why You Support Obama

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by DocMoreau
I support Barack Obama for President because of his ability to actually speak intelligently.

First, that isn't an answer to the question. The question is about policies, not anybody's ability to speak intelligently.

Second, are you serious??!!!

Dead Serious... This is a conspiracy website, why are you posting thread after thread of anti Obama propaganda and opinion/editorials? Wouldn't one thread be enough, instead of the at least 13+ that you have posted. You are not Denying Ignorance, but perpetuating it.

Wasn't your opening premise "Why You Support Obama"?
'You' being 'Me' gave my answer. That everyone of the elections at least since the 1970s has been a sham, and that if all the candidates are prescreened by the COuncil of Foreign Relations and Big Business before hand, I at least want a President that speak intelligently doing it. Maybe I was not clear enough stating that I think it is actually a one party state, I assumed that would be understood from what I wrote, this being a conspiracy related website and all. If you don't understand exactly what I am talking about regarding 'speaking intelligently', I encourage you to do a cursory search of any of the current President's speeches on Youtube. Watching one will be enough to explain what I am talking about. There are numerous 'clip videos' showing some of his worst moments, presented with a laugh track if you need to save time, and need to get a broader picture than just one speech will give you.

Wow.... I hope you keep posting on this thread. This is going to get good!

Now asking people to explain in terms of policies why they picked Obama over Clinton is being characterized as a diatribe against Obama. Classic.

And people wonder why Obama supporters are perceived as whiny babies all the time. First it was, "If you don't vote for Obama you must be a dumb racist white guy." Now we can't even ask about his POLICIES without being considered going off on a negative diatribe against Obama.

Keep 'em comin'!

Posting thread after thread of Anti-Obama Rhetoric allows you to put words into my mouth? I don't thinks so, friend. You still never answered my question about why you are posting so many bandwidth eating threads that perpetuate ignorance. Instead, you present a classic strawman argument where you attribute to me a ridiculous premise,
"If you don't vote for Obama you must be a dumb racist white guy." and scream in all caps 'Policies' as being 'considered' going off on a negative diatribe. A high majority of everything you have posted has been against Obama since you signed up here at ATS, and I questioned you on that, and you did not answer. Keep 'em comin' indeed, sheesh...

It leads me to believe that you are actually one of John McCain's 'McCainiac web trolls' or are a paid propagandist for John McCain's campaign.

This is turning out better than I could have imagined... now asking people to express why, based on policies, they support Obama leads to accusations of being a paid McCain supporter. Classic.

If asking about Obama's policies is now considered a form of McCain propaganda, Obama is in DEEP trouble come November.

So back on topic, I'm still waiting to read which of BO's policies you found made the difference between wanting BO or HRC to be the next President.

Oh, I am so sorry for calling you a McCainiac, or one of his paid Political Lackeys. Even though you skirted actually definitively answering whether or not you actually were involved in John McCain's campaign to recruit and use internet trolls, it appears it is your fondness for Hillary that causes your vitriol against Obama in all of your posts and threads. I feel so sorry that you still feel that Hillary has a chance to get the nomination. Perhaps when your candidate clues in to the real world, you will need a new one. Your skills could be put to use already if you just logged in and started earning points on McCain's website.

McCain Campaign: Comment Trolls Wanted
www.johnmccain.com...


I feel sorry for Hillary, because I think she thought she had the backing of Bilderburg and the CFR. However, Obama's bloodline connections are stronger than Hillary. She has good enough connections and bloodline connections to get to where you are. Obama is just more connected. What is scary is that almost all of the connections come on his white mother's side. Don't you know he is cousins to both Cheney and Bush? Oh there I go again, talking 'crazy' on the biggest CONSPIRACY website on the internet. (Wow I can yell in all caps too!) So I apologize to you for not realizing that you still think Hilary has a snowballs chance in June. I was unaware that you had not moved on to the General ELection discussion. I honestly didn't think Hillary Supporters would go to the lengths you have here at ATS to spread bile about their own Democratic nominee come November. Sorry, but its Game Over for Hillary, well then again, maybe not.... Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June...

Perhaps, you were trying to were trying to actually have a glorious conversation about the candidates pluses and minuses regarding policies. But honestly, the sheer number of threads you have posted about Obama have all been negative, and I wondered why? I stated why I 'support' Obama, 'the most eloquent of the evils' to make up for 8 years of Lil Georgie's colloquialisms. You have never stated what your position is, besides Anti-Obama. You seem to hell bent on spreading yourself around so thinly, 21 threads, 14 with Obama in the title, in the span of six days since you joined. Is it because your threads die, and no one comes and agrees with your rhetoric? Or are you getting paid?

I find it laughable that you try to Strawman me, and yet have not really provided answers to any of my questions. I personally think it is on topic, because, what are you contributing to your own conversations? Or is it the act of posting the thread your main contribution besides attacking with anyone who questions your motives. Perhaps you should post something of substance yourself in one of your existing Anti Obama threads, before opening another.

I doubt I will waste my time responding to you again. You will just come back again with more of the same garbage debate techniques. I recommend you look up what a Strawman argument is, and try to stop using it as your main debate style. While it was effective enough to get Bush into office, it is not an effective way to actually dialogue here at ATS, not if you want anyone to actually respect anything you have to say. But why would you anyway, I still think you are a McCainiac wolf in one of Hillary's Sheeples clothing now, but hey, what do I know right?

Best Wishes to you and your candidate, who ever that is.
DocMoreau

PS... As for Policies... I like Obama's stance on Network Neutrality, Lobbying, Earmarks, and most of the Iraq War, better than Clinton.

PPS... It was this Speech in 2004 that made me 'support' Obama based on his speaking ability alone, Hillary lost my 'support' the moment she ran for Senator in NY... why NY? Why not Arkansas, or Chicago where she grew up? Donor Base for a future Presidential election? I think so. Smarmy. I don't 'support' McCain because he is older than any other president, has had numerous angry outbursts, and left his crippled wife to marry an heiress 18 years younger, throw in Keating 5, and possible medical issues that could take away his ability to speak, no thanks... Not at all. I will exercise my illusion of Democracy for the one candidate that can communicate the best.

Having known war, peace is better, IMO. That alone is THE deciding factor among all the current crop of candidates.

And to be willing to speak with enemies, and potential enemies, is better than playing political brinksmanship with the lives of ordinary citizens. If the politicians who disdain talk because it isn't politically profitable, in their party's eyes, actually thought about it, they would see the benefit of talking over conflict.

And it is this difference that matters. There is nothing lost, except "ego", by talking first. As it stands, our leaders have put forward so many conditions to be met before talks start, that the "other side" has to capitulate to Americanism before any chance of dialog. This in essence increases the likelyhood of war.

The blind refusal to talk unless certain consessions are met, means that there is only a "My way or the highway" bully mentality shown to the world. Most Americans, hell, most humans in general, don't really want their sons and daughters killing and being killed if it can be avoided. But politicians from 90% of the world want to let their ego drive the bus over a cliff.

If Obama is willing to take the road less traveled, then I for one say give him the opportunity. Negotiation and compromise are always less costly than conflict. It's common sense to make that the first option, instead of the last.

As that old '60s song put it, "Give Peace A Chance".

reply to post by southern_Guardian


Ending the war in Iraq will not end the war on terror, and the war on terror, the ongoing clash between the Muslim world, and essentially the rest of the world, where Muslim extremists are pushing a war of aggression through brutal and barbarous tactics, is real, and can not be ignored.

Now that we are in Iraq, we can not simply withdraw, it will be a victory for the terrorist. McCain's willingness to obligate us to a 100 years of fighting is most likely to bring about an acceptable solution much more quickly than Obama's duck and run policy. Our success in Iraq would be a major blow to the terrorists, while our pull out of an unstabile Iraq would be a major victory for terrorist.

Personally, I support gun rights to the fullest, as a traditional liberal American. Banning guns will not stop nutcases from going on killing sprees, the same thing can be done with an automobile, poison, an ax, a chainsaw, the list goes on and on. We can't ban these things because their utility out weighs their potential for harm and the same goes for guns. Guns are the great equalizer. Our guns are what keep this nation free.

Obama does take money from lobbyists, and this has been well established. Considering the huge amounts of cash Obama is pulling in, personally, I smell a rat. How much of that money is being funneled through individuals by a small but determined group like the Saudis.

I think that McCain will use diplomacy first, GW's foreign policy is extreme, and is it extremely doubtful that McCain will not change greatly from GW in this area. The thing is, McCain will bargain from a position of strength, while Obama will bargain from a position of appeasement, being that Obama doesn't have much faith in this country in the first place.

I expect McCain to be far more of a moderate than GW is. I expect McCain will start to evenly enforce the laws in this country, which GW and his gang have abused or ignored for the most part, except when the laws favor their positions. I think McCains foriegn policy will be far more reasonable than GW's, and Obama's foreign policy seems to be the opposite of U.S. interests.

McCain will not reward people for making foolish decisions, as in a Mortgage bailout. Obama wants to bailout the people who bought homes they can not afford, but offers no plan to help those who were smart enough not to go for the ARMs in being able to purchase affordable homes. Obama doesn't seem to want to do anything for the working poor, the people who are trying to help themselves.

Obama's health care plan excludes the people in the middle, who have reasonable incomes, but still can't afford health care. These working people should be given priority above those who are doing nothing to help themselves. I believe McCain will work with a democratic congress to reach a reasonable compromise on health care that is fair to all.

Originally posted by DocMoreau
This is a conspiracy website, why are you posting thread after thread of anti Obama propaganda and opinion/editorials?

While I appreciate your detailed response, I'd like to seriously stay on topic and understand the policy differences that make people choose Obama over Hillary.

You stated the Iraq war. Can you be more specific? Which of these policies of Obama's do you find most appealing in terms of the Iraq war:

Starting Phased Redeployment within First Days in Office: The most important part of Barack Obama's plan is to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Obama's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, his Secretary of Defense, and his National Security Council. He would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of his Administration. He would also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health care and benefits to every service member -- including every member of the National Guard and Reserves -- and their families.

Securing Stability in Iraq as we Bring our Troops Home. As president, Barack Obama would focus American aid efforts during our redeployment on stabilizing Iraq, not propping up the Iraqi government. He would direct aid to the entities -- whether governmental or non-governmental -- most likely to get it into the hands of the Iraqi people. He would also support the appointment of a high level U.N. representative -- similar to those appointed in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo -- to help broker peace among the parties in Iraq.

A New Intensive Diplomatic Initiative in the Region. In his first days in office, Barack Obama would convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq. The- mission of this group would be to develop and implement a strategy to create a stable Iraq.

Or do you find all of these policies superior to Clinton's?

Thanks for helping to keep the thread on topic!

Originally posted by DocMoreau
This is a conspiracy website, why are you posting thread after thread of anti Obama propaganda and opinion/editorials?

By the way, why do you think asking Obama supporters to tell me which Obama policies won them over is anti-Obama?

I'm just doing what the Obama supporters insisted I do. Stick to discussing policies vs. personality.

reply to post by poet1b


I do not define my self as a libertarian, I'm simply influenced by their ideas.
I don't define myself by any ideology.

Obama has never flip-flopped on Iraq, he has always opposed it - not sure where you're getting that idea - take another look

His gun control record isn't great, and if that were the only issue I wouldn't be voting for him, however he's not an anti-gun extremist like Hillary is.

The basic fact is this fall we have two real choices: Obama and McCain.

None of the third party candidates are going to win, sorry, but its true.

McCain is promising four more years of Bush.
Obama isn't.

Simple enough decision.

reply to post by jamie83


Dude, you and a few other people (half of whom I have never seen post on ATS before) are posting anti-Obama propaganda at an amazing rate.

It's a sustained negative campaign play to create Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt - right out of the Karl Rove playbook, replete with right wing "talking points"...

We've seen this kind of thing before, four years ago to be precise

I don't know if you're paid or volunteers, but it's pretty clear there is an agenda at work here...

You keep asking us why we support Barack Obama.

Why don't you tell us who you support and why?

reply to post by xmotex


Obama has voted to keep funding the Iraq war, so he he is supporting the war in Iraq now that he is in the senate. Obama has also admitted he didn't know what he would have done on the vote, as a Senator. These go against the rhetoric. Actions talk louder than words.

Obama has one vote positive for gun control, and one vote by Hillary does not make her an anti-gun extremist.

Sorry, but the democratic nomination process is not over, and the vote in Puerto Rico today very well might give Hillary the popular vote. I know you would like to narrow it to an Obama verses McCain contest, but that is not the reality yet. If the democratic party hands Obama the nomination after more people have voted for Hillary than Obama, then McCain will be the next president. That, in my opinion, is what you really desire.

Oh yeah, and McCain isn't promising four more years of Bush, that is an Obama talking point, so who do you really support? How do we know you are not just another propagandist paid to distort the picture.

The way I see it, Ron Paul's ideas are completely the opposite of Obama's ideals, so I find it hard to believe people claiming to be a Ron Paul supporter actually being for Obama, unless you are at that far, far end of political extremism where far left meets far right.

Looks like Hillary has won the popular vote when all the votes are counted. Hillary should be the democratic nominee. For the DNC machine to give Obama the Nom when Hillary has won the popular vote would be a gross violation of democratic principles.

Originally posted by xmotex
reply to post by jamie83

 

Dude, you and a few other people (half of whom I have never seen post on ATS before) are posting anti-Obama propaganda at an amazing rate.

It's a sustained negative campaign play to create Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt - right out of the Karl Rove playbook, replete with right wing "talking points"...

We've seen this kind of thing before, four years ago to be precise

I don't know if you're paid or volunteers, but it's pretty clear there is an agenda at work here...

You keep asking us why we support Barack Obama.

Why don't you tell us who you support and why?

I've been on ATS for 6 years and came back to check things out and thought this turned into a Right Wing News Site. It's good to know that this is only the doing of a select few people and that ATS hasn't made a radical departure from what made it famous in the first place.

Originally posted by poet1b

Looks like Hillary has won the popular vote when all the votes are counted. Hillary should be the democratic nominee. For the DNC machine to give Obama the Nom when Hillary has won the popular vote would be a gross violation of democratic principles.

The Delegates have always decided the winner so your argument is void and it is YOU that is advocating a "gross violation of Democratic Principles."

Originally posted by Kamikaze X
I've been on ATS for 6 years and came back to check things out and thought this turned into a Right Wing News Site. It's good to know that this is only the doing of a select few people and that ATS hasn't made a radical departure from what made it famous in the first place.

So which of Obama's position made you support Barry O. instead of Hillary?

Just curious.

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by Kamikaze X
I've been on ATS for 6 years and came back to check things out and thought this turned into a Right Wing News Site. It's good to know that this is only the doing of a select few people and that ATS hasn't made a radical departure from what made it famous in the first place.

So which of Obama's position made you support Barry O. instead of Hillary?

Just curious.

Besides a couple differences in their health-care and foreign policies their platforms are the same but there's one core difference between the two. Obama seems to genuinely want to put those policies into affect while Clinton has shown herself to be the type to say anything to get elected time and time again. If you look at Clinton's record she supported NAFTA, the selling of Magnesquelch, and The Iraq War pre-election but then opposed both when was she was trying to win the nomination. In my eyes she already has shown that she cannot be trusted before she has even gotten into office which is a big NO NO.

reply to post by Kamikaze X


Pleas provide your reference for stating that my position that the supposed democratic party to defy the will of the people, and select the candidate that lost the popular vote, is a gross violation of democratic principles is in fact a violation of democratic principles.

The delegates are supposed to choose the candidate that the people have chosen, that is democracy. For the delegates to chose a candidate not selected by the people is a violation of democracy.

Where is your logic for claiming the opposite.

Originally posted by poet1b

Looks like Hillary has won the popular vote when all the votes are counted. Hillary should be the democratic nominee. For the DNC machine to give Obama the Nom when Hillary has won the popular vote would be a gross violation of democratic principles.

edition.cnn.com...

According to that article, she's going to deliver a message stating that she'll do 'whatever it takes' to get a Democrat into the White House - she's going to bow out methinks, ipso facto, end of Clinton.

Why not I say, if you guys had Bush -> Clinton -> Bush -> Clinton your country would obviously be a dynasty-controlled empire, and any speak of 'democracy' which is exported all over the world for the benefit of all mankind would be a total farce.

At least this way it looks half believable.

[edit on 3-6-2008 by mattguy404]

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Kamikaze X

 

Pleas provide your reference for stating that my position that the supposed democratic party to defy the will of the people, and select the candidate that lost the popular vote, is a gross violation of democratic principles is in fact a violation of democratic principles.

The delegates are supposed to choose the candidate that the people have chosen, that is democracy. For the delegates to chose a candidate not selected by the people is a violation of democracy.

Where is your logic for claiming the opposite.

First off the popular vote is not even an accurate representation of the people due to the states being able to set their own rules for each individual contest. For instance, you have closed primaries where only Democrats can vote such as in New York. Then there are open primaries like Texas where Republicans, and Independents can vote in addition to Democrats. Lastly we have caucuses which are counted completely different than the primaries and have not been included in Clinton's assessment of the popular vote because Obama took her to church in them. Due to all these differences the popular vote cannot be used as a ways to determine the candidate which it wasn't in the first place so on to your next point or lack there of. You're saying by not going by the popular vote the delegates are going against the will of the people, wrong! What do you think the primaries are for? The whole reason they run the primaries is to see who votes for who which then determines the amount of delegates each candidate receives. Obama has received more delegates because he is favored more by the people it's that simple. In addition, he would still be in the lead if Hillary wasn't counting the botched primaries in Michigan and Florida that she agreed not to when she was winning but automatically changed her mind when she wasn't. But Obama should overtake that lead tomorrow with two wins in Montana and S.D. thus putting that illegitimate argument in the dust where it belongs.

reply to post by mattguy404


Being that Obama is related to Cheney, I guess voting for Obama would be a continuation of the dynasty as well, so that leaves McCain to save the U.S. from becoming a Dynasty nation.

reply to post by Kamikaze X


Actually, Hillary is counting the caucuses. Yeah, the caucuses were very lopsided, and that is the problem with the caucuses, they are controlled by the local party machine, and are not very democratic. That has been the complaint about caucuses from the beginning. Obama is the choice of the far left DNC political establishment. The reality is that nobody casts a vote in the caucuses, so all you get is an estimate. Subtract the caucus estimates and Hillary is an even bigger winner in the popular vote.

Either way, it seems to me that you agree that the party should choose the candidate that the people choose, which is the candidate who won the popular vote. With all the rules, allowing the states to control the election process, this becomes problematic. The biggest problem is that it simply isn't fair to allow the same states to get the first votes year after year after year. Considering how poor the quality of the candidates have been, this should be changed.

What we have in this primary is a situation where the DNC has manipulated their candidate of choice into position to become the nominee by twisting the rules in his favor, which is exactly what they did by eliminating Michigan and Florida from the equation. Why in the world shouldn't a working class state like Michigan be included early on? Why shouldn't a state as diverse as Florida be allowed to be counted on early on? Both of these states are Hillary's demographic, and the party knew that from the beginning. This has been a rigged election from the beginning, sorry if you are an Obama supporter, and you don't want to see this, but the evidence is quite clear.

The reality is that the super delegates do not cast their votes until the convention in August, and can change their minds until then. Let Obama take the role as the presumptive nominee, and if he stumbles, then Hillary, who won the popular vote can step in. Obama's numbers are on the way down, one good month shouldn't automatically mean he automatically should get the party nod, no matter how hard big media and the DNC machine is trying to give it to him.

It's people like us though who are educating the masses about Obama. The more people know about his deceptionism and bad character traits for leader of the free world, the more his numbers go down.

You don't need millions of dollars to get points across, only the Internet. The media? People are starting to realize how biased the media really is. The front lines are right here, on message boards like this one.