It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Challenge Match: jetxnet vs. Andrew E. Wiggin: McCain vs Obama
page: 111
share:
The topic for this debate is "McCain Is Better Suited For The Presidency Than Obama."
jetxnet will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Andrew E. Wiggins 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Character limits are no longer in effect.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.
Responses should be made within 24 hours. One single 24 hour extension can be used by a member by requesting it in the thread. If 24 hours passes without response, you may proceed with your next post. Members who exceed 24 hours run the risk of losing their post, but may still post up until their opponent has submitted their next response.
This is a challenge match. The winner will receive 2 ranking points, the loser will lose two ranking points.
[edit on 8-7-2008 by MemoryShock]
jetxnet will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Andrew E. Wiggins 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.
Responses should be made within 24 hours. One single 24 hour extension can be used by a member by requesting it in the thread. If 24 hours passes without response, you may proceed with your next post. Members who exceed 24 hours run the risk of losing their post, but may still post up until their opponent has submitted their next response.
This is a challenge match. The winner will receive 2 ranking points, the loser will lose two ranking points.
[edit on 8-7-2008 by MemoryShock]
First let me say that I am usually a Republican Presidential Candidate supporter. However, in this election, I supported Hillary Clinton to win the
Democratic Nomination and General Election for President of the United States of America. For me, Hillary didn't waste anytime and got right down to
addressing the issues, while Barack Obama circumvented the issues and only seemed to keep repeating the "Change, Hope and Unity" Mantra in at least
a hundred different ways.
Now that Hillary Clinton is out, I believe we are left with no good choices. I do feel any choice is better than Barack Obama though, as he has some serious character and leadership shortcomings demonstrated by his associations, highly questionable scandals and massive flip-floppig. I say "massive" because these just aren't your "typical" political flip-flops or Gaffes.
I believe alot of his supporters were upset with him when he modified the Presidential Seal (possibly even Illegal to do so) and his backing out on public financing after first committing to it, as each Candidate before him has done since 1972. For Barack, it is now a "broken system" because he could only spend 80 Million dollars as opposed to his private capital funding from energy/investment banking companies and Hollywood movie stars, which so far have afforded him well over 250 Million dollars.
Furthermore, I won't even get into his questionable citizenship that has had "Blogsphere" in an uproar in terms of his highly questionable online Certificate of Birth Photoshop job being a fake. Another concern is Barack's dual citizenship with Kenya. He became a citizen of Kenya on December 12, 1963 and has never renounced this citizenship.
The American people have a right to know where Barack Obama's loyalty belongs, do they not? Is not removing the Shield on the Presidental Seal disrespectul to the Constituion (as Barack did with his seal)? The shield signfies the President's sworn duty to protect and uphold the United States Constituion. I don't know about you, but as an American citizen, I feel a little disrespected by that action.
Barack Obama also happens to be arguably the most liberal Candidate to date. So far left and Liberal is Barack Obama, that he is commonly being referred to as someone having predominately Marxist ideals, both inside and outside political circles. In fact, Democrat Dan Boren and others have called Barack Obama "too Liberal", even for them. Barack Obama was voted most Liberal Senator in 2007 by National Journal.
To me, it's scary to put such an extreme Liberal Senator in office with basically no qualifiable experience. Looking at other extreme Liberal Marxist models of government (i.e. Old Russia, East Germany, Cuba, North Korea and others), they always end up in dictatorships. It never fails. While a Marxist model of government looks good on paper, it always ends up in a doctorship. Why? Because under this model of government, one Obama clearly supports and is pushing for, it does not recognize Individualism. Your freedoms are taken from you and you become highly dependent on a very large dysfunctional government.
Large intervening government in every facet of society to create social programs that you become dependent on. You no longer have any choices. Obama's Constitution will suppress competition, reduce your choices and take away your freedoms as you know them now. Competition drives up quality and services. You will no longer have that under an Obama Nation. Only a select few monopolies will rule the land. I'm betting those that are heavily funding his campaign will no doubt have the leverage to dominate the market.
While Hillary and Obama have nearly the same voting record, they differ substantially on main policy stances and implementations. Obama's economic plan is full of surprises, and they are not in your best interest, but rather the government's best interest. Obama wants unprecedented taxation and large government.
Larger government, more taxes and significant military downsizing in a world chalk full of sophisticated weaponry and now Nuclear weapons.
Is this the type of change you can really believe in? Obama's plans show a recipe for disaster.
Obama and higher taxes
Obama is preaching higher taxes for those families with a combined income of $200,000 or higher. He claims none of this will affect the middle class. Oh, but it will and heres why:
Obama will introduce a tax hike of nearly 100% by increasing the Capital gains tax from 15% to as high as 28%. History has clearly shown us that tax cuts increase economic activity and stimulate the economy. In fact, each of the three major capital gains tax cuts, under Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton, were followed by booming stock prices, a surging economy along with increased government revenues.
Does Obama *really* know what he's doing? You can read all about how raising the Capital Gains tax certainly affects the middle class, something the aforementioned Presidents understood (source).
Question 1 Andrew, how does raising the Capital Gains tax significantly help the economy?
In addition to raising existing and proposing new taxes, Obama even wants a Gas tax!
Obama on Gun Control
Obama originally called for a sharp tax increase on weapons along with bans on weapons. A "full-court press" for keeping weapons from individuals. His original stance was against the 2nd Amendment which states individuals have the right to bear arms. After learning his stance did not bode well with several would-be voters, Obama changed his stance to supporting the 2nd Ammendment. The Supreme court just ruled individuals can have guns based on the 2nd Amendment.
Obama cannot have it both ways, either he supports the second amendment, or he does not. He says one thing but his actions show another. For example, he voted to ban weapons for individuals in Washington D.C.
Question 2 Andrew, what is Obama's stance on this? Is he for the 2nd Amendment or isn't he? Why is he telling the American people one thing, and then doing something different?
I look forward to your responses and then would like to address Obama's pro-China trade stance, no direct and current solutions to the energy crisis and his dismal national security policies.
Now that Hillary Clinton is out, I believe we are left with no good choices. I do feel any choice is better than Barack Obama though, as he has some serious character and leadership shortcomings demonstrated by his associations, highly questionable scandals and massive flip-floppig. I say "massive" because these just aren't your "typical" political flip-flops or Gaffes.
I believe alot of his supporters were upset with him when he modified the Presidential Seal (possibly even Illegal to do so) and his backing out on public financing after first committing to it, as each Candidate before him has done since 1972. For Barack, it is now a "broken system" because he could only spend 80 Million dollars as opposed to his private capital funding from energy/investment banking companies and Hollywood movie stars, which so far have afforded him well over 250 Million dollars.
Furthermore, I won't even get into his questionable citizenship that has had "Blogsphere" in an uproar in terms of his highly questionable online Certificate of Birth Photoshop job being a fake. Another concern is Barack's dual citizenship with Kenya. He became a citizen of Kenya on December 12, 1963 and has never renounced this citizenship.
The American people have a right to know where Barack Obama's loyalty belongs, do they not? Is not removing the Shield on the Presidental Seal disrespectul to the Constituion (as Barack did with his seal)? The shield signfies the President's sworn duty to protect and uphold the United States Constituion. I don't know about you, but as an American citizen, I feel a little disrespected by that action.
Barack Obama also happens to be arguably the most liberal Candidate to date. So far left and Liberal is Barack Obama, that he is commonly being referred to as someone having predominately Marxist ideals, both inside and outside political circles. In fact, Democrat Dan Boren and others have called Barack Obama "too Liberal", even for them. Barack Obama was voted most Liberal Senator in 2007 by National Journal.
To me, it's scary to put such an extreme Liberal Senator in office with basically no qualifiable experience. Looking at other extreme Liberal Marxist models of government (i.e. Old Russia, East Germany, Cuba, North Korea and others), they always end up in dictatorships. It never fails. While a Marxist model of government looks good on paper, it always ends up in a doctorship. Why? Because under this model of government, one Obama clearly supports and is pushing for, it does not recognize Individualism. Your freedoms are taken from you and you become highly dependent on a very large dysfunctional government.
Large intervening government in every facet of society to create social programs that you become dependent on. You no longer have any choices. Obama's Constitution will suppress competition, reduce your choices and take away your freedoms as you know them now. Competition drives up quality and services. You will no longer have that under an Obama Nation. Only a select few monopolies will rule the land. I'm betting those that are heavily funding his campaign will no doubt have the leverage to dominate the market.
While Hillary and Obama have nearly the same voting record, they differ substantially on main policy stances and implementations. Obama's economic plan is full of surprises, and they are not in your best interest, but rather the government's best interest. Obama wants unprecedented taxation and large government.
Larger government, more taxes and significant military downsizing in a world chalk full of sophisticated weaponry and now Nuclear weapons.
Is this the type of change you can really believe in? Obama's plans show a recipe for disaster.
Obama and higher taxes
Obama is preaching higher taxes for those families with a combined income of $200,000 or higher. He claims none of this will affect the middle class. Oh, but it will and heres why:
Obama will introduce a tax hike of nearly 100% by increasing the Capital gains tax from 15% to as high as 28%. History has clearly shown us that tax cuts increase economic activity and stimulate the economy. In fact, each of the three major capital gains tax cuts, under Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton, were followed by booming stock prices, a surging economy along with increased government revenues.
Does Obama *really* know what he's doing? You can read all about how raising the Capital Gains tax certainly affects the middle class, something the aforementioned Presidents understood (source).
Question 1 Andrew, how does raising the Capital Gains tax significantly help the economy?
In addition to raising existing and proposing new taxes, Obama even wants a Gas tax!
Obama on Gun Control
Obama originally called for a sharp tax increase on weapons along with bans on weapons. A "full-court press" for keeping weapons from individuals. His original stance was against the 2nd Amendment which states individuals have the right to bear arms. After learning his stance did not bode well with several would-be voters, Obama changed his stance to supporting the 2nd Ammendment. The Supreme court just ruled individuals can have guns based on the 2nd Amendment.
Obama cannot have it both ways, either he supports the second amendment, or he does not. He says one thing but his actions show another. For example, he voted to ban weapons for individuals in Washington D.C.
Question 2 Andrew, what is Obama's stance on this? Is he for the 2nd Amendment or isn't he? Why is he telling the American people one thing, and then doing something different?
I look forward to your responses and then would like to address Obama's pro-China trade stance, no direct and current solutions to the energy crisis and his dismal national security policies.
First off, thank you to MemoryShock for setting all of this up. Despite the tight schedule that all of the moderators are on at the moment, they
still find time to allow us mortals to grovel over our differences
Thank you to JetXNet, for being a worthy opponent in this official debate.
First i will answer your two questions, and then i will have my opening statement.
answer
The effect of the capital gains tax will be directly related to the status of the Stock market. The stock markets' status is contingent upon investors. So ultimately, it would be up to investors rather or not to invest in the economy based on the Capital Gains tax.
Ultimately, i believe that some investors would say they refuse to invest based on said gains tax, but, like clockwork, would not resist the allurement of the USD on Wall Street. Overall, i believe the impact of the Capital Gains tax would have a minimal, and brief, impact on the stock market, which would in turn be minimal and brief for the economy.
The capital gains tax is a proposal set forth by Barack Obama as a means of paying for the much sought-after Universal Health Care program. As Barack Obama says himself:
Source
As for the gas tax: We already have a gas tax in this country. It exists as a federal flat tax of 18.4 cents per gallon, and local state taxes which vary from state to state. Source
answer
Reluctantly, i must use my third and final source to answer this question. Everything i am about to show you will come from Here
I would like to address the second part of your two part question #2 first.
Barack Obama has not promised one thing, and delivered another. In fact, on repeated inquiries, Barack Obama has promised common sense gun laws and, when speaking on a federal level, he promises to leave gun laws up to the local state governments to decide for themselves.
Obama's words on this issue:
And to address the first part of your 2nd question "Where does Obama stand on the 2nd amendment" i will use the words from Obama's mouth to answer:
In future posts, i would ask that my opponent please limit each question bracket to only one question. A 2 part question should be broken up into two separate questions. This is for purposes of continued debate. Thank You.
----------------------------- Now for my opening post----------------------------------
To anyone who subscribes to the political forums, or to anyone who has been watching T.V. over the past 6 months, this may seem like a topic that is beyond Ad nauseam. But I ask you to give this a chance, as I will be approaching things from a different angle; one that rarely gets talked about these days.
The title of this thread is one that begs the question: Who is more capable of running our country? After all, make any argument you want about the power of the president, the job certainly entails a lot of authority, officially, and unofficially. It also carries immense amounts of prestige, and ultimately The President becomes the face for America, of which, the entire planet base their judgments upon.
So, in conclusion, the President of the United States is the most important job in the country.
Why elect someone unfit who would, even if unwillingly, destroy the image that America is the land of opportunity?
Every four years, we all go through the same arguments. You can predict, in a “mad libs” sort of way – how the media will cover the election progress, all the way up to the actual election its self.
And we are suffocated by the mainstream media, for months on end, until we are ready to scream and curse until our tongues swell.
However, I am of the opinion, that there is no discussion more important than the discussion at election time. I make the argument that the opposition exactly wants you to give up and walk away. After all, if you are not around to defend your candidate, how will you persuade others to vote the same?
And, as hard as it can be to resist at times, mudslinging is never the option. Sure, you see members of the opposing ‘side’ take part in it. Creating countless wild and crazy ideas and lies about your candidate, and naturally you want to lash back with stories of your own. But keeping your cool about you, and having a little patience, will always yield positive results. So keep fighting the good fight, but remember to do it on the issues and how your candidate will benefit them.
Is John McCain suited to be the next president of this great Country? I will show you many ways in which he is not. I will not be attacking him on personal traits, such as age, religion, and the likes.
As well, I will not be attacking his proclaimed policies directly, as much as I will be showing you how the some of the policies he embraces goes against the grain of characteristics of a good POTUS.
My characteristics are many, so for posting limits sake, I’ll have to narrow it to a few. In my choices, I will use examples from previous presidents of our great Country. They will be republican and democratic alike.
It is easy to say that a candidate is disqualified for one reason or another, based on a bill they voted ‘no’ or ‘present’, and even easier to selectively forget about the bills that did get voted on favorably by the same politician.
Surely, to hold any politician to the expectations of perfection is to expect blood from a turnip.
That being said, I believe that all things considered equal, any candidate who can boast these three characteristics for a great president, will undoubtedly be a president you can consider great, and will do great things for our nation.
What will follow in this debate is my evaluation of John McCain on these traits.
I hope to intrigue you, and to, if only briefly, change your opinion about political debates.
In order to set the stage for my next post, i will first need to define for you what a leader is.
A leader is someone who can steer those beneath them towards a common goal, while avoiding misuse of their power. A leader should be able to inspire his or her followers towards the ultimate goal of the greater good .
A leader should be strong and firm in decisions they would make to achieve the greater good, and a good leader should always expect they cannot please everyone, every time.
A true leader encourages, with enthusiasm, the contributions of all people involved, and should be a charismatic central figure with an open door policy. A leader should lead by example, and always take the high road.
Thank you to JetXNet, for being a worthy opponent in this official debate.
First i will answer your two questions, and then i will have my opening statement.
Question 1
Question 1 Andrew, how does raising the Capital Gains tax significantly help the economy?
In addition to raising existing and proposing new taxes, Obama even wants a Gas tax!
answer
The effect of the capital gains tax will be directly related to the status of the Stock market. The stock markets' status is contingent upon investors. So ultimately, it would be up to investors rather or not to invest in the economy based on the Capital Gains tax.
Ultimately, i believe that some investors would say they refuse to invest based on said gains tax, but, like clockwork, would not resist the allurement of the USD on Wall Street. Overall, i believe the impact of the Capital Gains tax would have a minimal, and brief, impact on the stock market, which would in turn be minimal and brief for the economy.
The capital gains tax is a proposal set forth by Barack Obama as a means of paying for the much sought-after Universal Health Care program. As Barack Obama says himself:
I want businesses to thrive, and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.
And you can't do that for free.
Source
As for the gas tax: We already have a gas tax in this country. It exists as a federal flat tax of 18.4 cents per gallon, and local state taxes which vary from state to state. Source
Question 2
Question 2 Andrew, what is Obama's stance on this? Is he for the 2nd Amendment or isn't he? Why is he telling the American people one thing, and then doing something different?
answer
Reluctantly, i must use my third and final source to answer this question. Everything i am about to show you will come from Here
I would like to address the second part of your two part question #2 first.
Barack Obama has not promised one thing, and delivered another. In fact, on repeated inquiries, Barack Obama has promised common sense gun laws and, when speaking on a federal level, he promises to leave gun laws up to the local state governments to decide for themselves.
Obama's words on this issue:
As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
And to address the first part of your 2nd question "Where does Obama stand on the 2nd amendment" i will use the words from Obama's mouth to answer:
I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country.
I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families.
We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets.
And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.
In future posts, i would ask that my opponent please limit each question bracket to only one question. A 2 part question should be broken up into two separate questions. This is for purposes of continued debate. Thank You.
----------------------------- Now for my opening post----------------------------------
Obama vs. McCain
To anyone who subscribes to the political forums, or to anyone who has been watching T.V. over the past 6 months, this may seem like a topic that is beyond Ad nauseam. But I ask you to give this a chance, as I will be approaching things from a different angle; one that rarely gets talked about these days.
The title of this thread is one that begs the question: Who is more capable of running our country? After all, make any argument you want about the power of the president, the job certainly entails a lot of authority, officially, and unofficially. It also carries immense amounts of prestige, and ultimately The President becomes the face for America, of which, the entire planet base their judgments upon.
So, in conclusion, the President of the United States is the most important job in the country.
Why elect someone unfit who would, even if unwillingly, destroy the image that America is the land of opportunity?
Every four years, we all go through the same arguments. You can predict, in a “mad libs” sort of way – how the media will cover the election progress, all the way up to the actual election its self.
And we are suffocated by the mainstream media, for months on end, until we are ready to scream and curse until our tongues swell.
However, I am of the opinion, that there is no discussion more important than the discussion at election time. I make the argument that the opposition exactly wants you to give up and walk away. After all, if you are not around to defend your candidate, how will you persuade others to vote the same?
And, as hard as it can be to resist at times, mudslinging is never the option. Sure, you see members of the opposing ‘side’ take part in it. Creating countless wild and crazy ideas and lies about your candidate, and naturally you want to lash back with stories of your own. But keeping your cool about you, and having a little patience, will always yield positive results. So keep fighting the good fight, but remember to do it on the issues and how your candidate will benefit them.
Is John McCain suited to be the next president of this great Country? I will show you many ways in which he is not. I will not be attacking him on personal traits, such as age, religion, and the likes.
As well, I will not be attacking his proclaimed policies directly, as much as I will be showing you how the some of the policies he embraces goes against the grain of characteristics of a good POTUS.
My characteristics are many, so for posting limits sake, I’ll have to narrow it to a few. In my choices, I will use examples from previous presidents of our great Country. They will be republican and democratic alike.
What makes a president great?
- Leadership
- Dedication to a clear vision
- Reaction to adversity
It is easy to say that a candidate is disqualified for one reason or another, based on a bill they voted ‘no’ or ‘present’, and even easier to selectively forget about the bills that did get voted on favorably by the same politician.
Surely, to hold any politician to the expectations of perfection is to expect blood from a turnip.
That being said, I believe that all things considered equal, any candidate who can boast these three characteristics for a great president, will undoubtedly be a president you can consider great, and will do great things for our nation.
What will follow in this debate is my evaluation of John McCain on these traits.
I hope to intrigue you, and to, if only briefly, change your opinion about political debates.
In order to set the stage for my next post, i will first need to define for you what a leader is.
A leader is someone who can steer those beneath them towards a common goal, while avoiding misuse of their power. A leader should be able to inspire his or her followers towards the ultimate goal of the greater good .
A leader should be strong and firm in decisions they would make to achieve the greater good, and a good leader should always expect they cannot please everyone, every time.
A true leader encourages, with enthusiasm, the contributions of all people involved, and should be a charismatic central figure with an open door policy. A leader should lead by example, and always take the high road.
The effect of the capital gains tax will be directly related to the status of the Stock market. The stock markets' status is contingent upon investors. So ultimately, it would be up to investors rather or not to invest in the economy based on the Capital Gains tax.
Ultimately, i believe that some investors would say they refuse to invest based on said gains tax, but, like clockwork, would not resist the allurement of the USD on Wall Street. Overall, i believe the impact of the Capital Gains tax would have a minimal, and brief, impact on the stock market, which would in turn be minimal and brief for the economy.
Thank-you Andrew. I asked you how raising (or nearly doubling this tax as Obama wants to do) would help the economy. You came back with that it would not only help the economy, but be only a brief impact on the stock market at times and thus the economy.
Andrew, we are not talking just a few percentage points here, we are talking about nearly DOUBLING this tax. It will not only discourage investors but KILL NEW and SMALL BUSINESSES! Why? Because investors give the business they buy stock in WORKING CAPITAL by holding shares. Without their investments, businesses do not get the capital necessary to start and GROW their business. This is why businesses go public on the Stock Market to begin with. New and smaller businesses in America have been the backbone and success to stimulating the US economy since our major economic boom. Unlike the really big businesses, they KEEP their JOBS HERE in the United States, and not overseas!
Let's assume Obama knows what he is doing, because if he does, Obama would know, then, that he would literally destroy albeit large international US businesses!
Is this Obama's plan for America's economy? To destroy small and medium-sized businesses, while allowing the larger international businesses to get much bigger? It seems to fit the New World Order model very well Andrew. Those businesses lining Obama's pockets like Verizon, Persus LLC., Goldman Sachs, Google, Microsoft and others are all on the international stage and won't be affected by the Capital Gains tax as much, because they have long-term "buy and hold" investors.
A very low and dirty thing to do to the Corporate heart of America's domestic small and medium-sized businesses, which mostly give us Americans our jobs here at home and for better pay!!
Andrew, raising taxes does not stimulate the economy. Why? Because if people are allowed to KEEP their money, they re-invest that money back into the economy. Why do you think they call them "Stimulus" checks.
Question 1: Andrew, How does Obama expect to STIMULATE the economy by taxing everyone to death? Sure, we might get some healthcare out of the deal, but granted, it will be third-rate at best and with low-quality inexpensive and aging equipment to boot!
Not too mention, how is Obama going to stop the "GOOD Doctors" from starting their own private practices? Surely, they are not going to want the second-rate pay and to work in sub-standard settings that the government will have to provide. France has all kinds of good doctors starting their own practices and many Canadians come to the US for their healthcare!
Keep in mind, the US has more than twice the population of countries with these current socialized healthcare systems.
We haven't even talked about the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that the Middle Class is paying for. John McCain is for doing away with this tax and Obama is for keeping it! John wants you to keep your money. So, is Obama really targeting those high-class elitists like himself by NOT letting you keep your money?
Obama on Global Poverty - America's Responsibility
We are a trillion dollar economy with our dollar in major decline. High Gas prices, major mortgage foreclosures/scandals and so on. And now, Obama wants to talk about feeding the world with your money! We work hard (most of us anyway in the US), and now we're expected to provide for the world's food crisis too? Again, with Obama, this isn't just giving an opressing militia of a country aid every now and then for their people, but
shedding billions upon billions of dollars of YOUR MONEY for this venture.
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?
Andrew, I already knew Obama's stance on gun control. It still doesn't answer my question, how can you be for the second Amendment, yet still support gun bans for individuals? Is Obama going to pick and choose who should get what? You can't do that. All people are created equal remember? This doesn't sound equal to me! By shoving off the responsibility to local state governments is a cop-out! The Supreme court already ruled in favor to UPHOLD the second amendment. Doe's Obama expects local state governments to appeal the Federal Supreme Court?
Andrew, a "true" leader does not:
- Sign a commitment and give his word to support something (i.e. Public Funding) and then just back out of it because he claims it is "broken"
- Mislead people by trying to fool them with constant subliminal messages of "Change, Hope and Unity" and showing no credibility for it with constructive arguments as to why. We are more intelligent than that. Leave that to the Commericals for cripes sake
- Change the Presidential Seal in an arrogant, infantile attempt to further make people believe he is already President
- Does not flip-flop on major stances like Gun Control, Iraq War, Patriot Act, Special Interests, Public Financing, Cuba Embargo, Illegal Immigration, and so many others
- Does not avoid and circumvent important issues to continue only repeating the "Change, Hope and Unity" Mantra with flawed logic
You see Andrew, with a true leader, you know what you are getting! With all this flip-flopping, we have no idea who Obama *really* is, do we? His voting "present" over 120 times is reflects his indecisiveness or deception.
A true leader sticks to his word, and is by no means INDECISIVE!
I will start by answering my opponents two questions:
Answer
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 imposing taxes.
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,
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 for it.
His proposal (for paying for it) is the capital gains tax.
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.
World Poverty?
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 something?"
No. We should step in and do something ourselves.
-------------------------------------My Post--------------------------------------
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
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?
What goal could John McCain possibly be trying to achieve when he voted against the Martin Luther King jr. National holiday in 1983 Source
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)
and
Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
and offers no explanation of any of it,
but says
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 law-abiding citizen.
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 have changed?
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.
Answer to Question 1
Answer
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 imposing taxes.
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 for it.
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.
World Poverty?
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 something?"
No. We should step in and do something ourselves.
-------------------------------------My Post--------------------------------------
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?
What goal could John McCain possibly be trying to achieve when he voted against the Martin Luther King jr. National holiday in 1983 Source
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)
and
Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
and offers no explanation of any of it,
but says
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 law-abiding citizen.
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.
Question 1
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 have changed?
Question 2
Could you please enlighten us as to reasons you believe the fight on "World Poverty" should not be America's responsibility?
Question 3
How does John McCain plan to fun a program like Universal health care?
Question 4
Could you please give us some examples of what John McCains true goals are?
Question 5
Could you please give us some methods that John McCain has consistently used to attain his goals as outlined in question 4.
Thank you, Andrew.
Money doesn't depreciate because of printing money that does not exist. The money does exist, but in the form of DEBT BONDS to other nations aiding the US (i.e. Japan first, China)
(Source)
Every nation does it and most owe debt to other countries! In fact, the US RANKS NUMBER 65 IN DEBT based on GDP of countries around the world owing debt (stats up to March 2008). Alot of the them owe the US and have never paid us back!
Japan is third on this list (Source)
No Andrew, that is not how it works. You DISCOURAGE investors when you nearly double the Capital Gains tax. They are looking for maximum return and do not want to be giving most of it to the Government!
(Source)
It will take ALOT MORE than that to pay for Universal Healthcare and solving Global Poverty.
So, if we give the UN all our money to distribute to corrupt militias who govern third world countries, then we can say it will solve our problem here? With the economy in major decline and higher food costs, poor people here are running into trouble Andrew. We first have to re-build our economy to a sufficient level before even thinking about solving the world's problems with regard to hunger and starvation.
In large part, the reason they are starving in the first place is because their government is starving them, using any aid for weapons (i.e. North Korea, Old Russia) etc. You don't just hand over billions$ to people like Kim Jong Ill, Andrew, and expect them to divvy out the aid like at some church charity. It will not go to the people, not like you think it will anyway.
So your answer is that it is our responsibility, somehow I just don't see as it is Andrew. We have enough to worry about here at home!
Now, onto your questions ..
Answer to Question 1: Could you please give us a few examples in which Obama's goals have changed?
John McCain's goals haven't changed Andrew. He sticks to his guns on the major issues. I say major issues like Iraq, Iran, Public Funding etc. He has made not "massive" flip-flops Andrew. You can point out little trivial things, but you will be hard-pressed to find any major political shiftings on major issues.
Answer to Question 2: Could you please enlighten us as to reasons you believe the fight on "World Poverty" should not be America's responsibility?
Well, i think it is obvious. We have to much to do in rebuilding our own economy and coming out of a major recession to even begin to think about the world's hunger problems.
Let's not give our money to the United Nations to distribute this aid to third-world countries ruled by corrupt and uneducated Militias. They will only use for themselves and make their people gravel for scraps. The UN has a dismal track record for this (remember the Oil for Food Scandal)? Even members of the UN were getting kick-backs for themselves.
I'd be for giving some aid to select countries provided it is cautioned and marginal. If we the people get some direct verification that the aid is getting to the people that need it, then that would be a start. Putting the cart before the Horse is never a good idea, especially when you leave it to the UN and third world militias. I'd rather keep my money then Andrew and give it to someone on our streets. At least I know, they're getting it.
Did it ever occur to you that Obama may be trying to get the UN rich and in position with investment bankers and energy companies to control the Global Economy starting with our money (i.e. not China's or anyone else)?
Answer to Question 3: How does John McCain plan to fun a program like Universal health care?
(Source)
We not only get to keep our hard-earned money, but get more back! Imagine that Andrew.
Answer to Question 4: Could you please give us some examples of what John McCains true goals are?
His true goals are his publicly understood goals with no flip-flops and they are:
(Source)
Answer to Question 5: Could you please give us some methods that John McCain has consistently used to attain his goals as outlined in question 4.
Please refer to question 4. They are explained in some concise detail as to how these goals are inter-related along with timelines and figures required to achieve them.
Now onto my next questions for you ..
The trade-deficit with China is abominable now at over 220 Billion$ in their favor. Many US companies are over there to avoid property taxes. Beijing does not require them to pay these taxes and the labor is beyond cheap. It has hurt our economy and job market tremendously.
Question 1: Andrew, Obama voted for continued trade-status with China. He even voted to not doing something about China's documented unfair trade-practices by tougher trade laws. How can he support this?
Question 2: How does Obama stand on issues with our military. Is is he for keeping a strong military in today's turbulant world or is he for major down-sizing of our military?
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.
Money doesn't depreciate because of printing money that does not exist. The money does exist, but in the form of DEBT BONDS to other nations aiding the US (i.e. Japan first, China)
Uncle Sam runs a worldwide confidence racket with his self-made dollar based on the confidence that he has elicited and received from others around the world, and he is a also a deadbeat in that he does not honor and return the money he has received.
(Source)
Every nation does it and most owe debt to other countries! In fact, the US RANKS NUMBER 65 IN DEBT based on GDP of countries around the world owing debt (stats up to March 2008). Alot of the them owe the US and have never paid us back!
Japan is third on this list (Source)
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.
No Andrew, that is not how it works. You DISCOURAGE investors when you nearly double the Capital Gains tax. They are looking for maximum return and do not want to be giving most of it to the Government!
If Obama raises the capital gains tax back to 28% many investors might decided to take money out of riskier equities and re-invest it in safer CDs and bonds.
After all why take a risk of a loss on a stock investment when my after rate of return might be the same as that in a safer fix income investment.
By raising the capital gains tax rate Obama would make investing in stocks less attractive. This will most likely cause investors to move money out of stocks and into fix income. As they do this the stock market would decline in value which will in turn hurt the over all value of the stock investments that Obama's "ordinary folks" own in their 401Ks and IRAs.
(Source)
His proposal (for paying for it) is the capital gains tax.
It will take ALOT MORE than that to pay for Universal Healthcare and solving 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
So, if we give the UN all our money to distribute to corrupt militias who govern third world countries, then we can say it will solve our problem here? With the economy in major decline and higher food costs, poor people here are running into trouble Andrew. We first have to re-build our economy to a sufficient level before even thinking about solving the world's problems with regard to hunger and starvation.
In large part, the reason they are starving in the first place is because their government is starving them, using any aid for weapons (i.e. North Korea, Old Russia) etc. You don't just hand over billions$ to people like Kim Jong Ill, Andrew, and expect them to divvy out the aid like at some church charity. It will not go to the people, not like you think it will anyway.
So your answer is that it is our responsibility, somehow I just don't see as it is Andrew. We have enough to worry about here at home!
Now, onto your questions ..
Answer to Question 1: Could you please give us a few examples in which Obama's goals have changed?
John McCain's goals haven't changed Andrew. He sticks to his guns on the major issues. I say major issues like Iraq, Iran, Public Funding etc. He has made not "massive" flip-flops Andrew. You can point out little trivial things, but you will be hard-pressed to find any major political shiftings on major issues.
Answer to Question 2: Could you please enlighten us as to reasons you believe the fight on "World Poverty" should not be America's responsibility?
Well, i think it is obvious. We have to much to do in rebuilding our own economy and coming out of a major recession to even begin to think about the world's hunger problems.
Let's not give our money to the United Nations to distribute this aid to third-world countries ruled by corrupt and uneducated Militias. They will only use for themselves and make their people gravel for scraps. The UN has a dismal track record for this (remember the Oil for Food Scandal)? Even members of the UN were getting kick-backs for themselves.
I'd be for giving some aid to select countries provided it is cautioned and marginal. If we the people get some direct verification that the aid is getting to the people that need it, then that would be a start. Putting the cart before the Horse is never a good idea, especially when you leave it to the UN and third world militias. I'd rather keep my money then Andrew and give it to someone on our streets. At least I know, they're getting it.
Did it ever occur to you that Obama may be trying to get the UN rich and in position with investment bankers and energy companies to control the Global Economy starting with our money (i.e. not China's or anyone else)?
Answer to Question 3: How does John McCain plan to fun a program like Universal health care?
Senator John McCain is opposed to a universal healthcare system. Instead, he is proposing a plan that would provide every American family a $5,000 refundable healthcare tax credit. Under this plan taxpayers would be allowed to choose their own healthcare and insurance providers and not be restricted to only those plans offered by their employers.
(Source)
We not only get to keep our hard-earned money, but get more back! Imagine that Andrew.
Answer to Question 4: Could you please give us some examples of what John McCains true goals are?
His true goals are his publicly understood goals with no flip-flops and they are:
(1) Prevail in Iraq: With success defined as reasonable political stability and significant reduction in U.S. force levels. We will bring most of the troops home, but in victory, not defeat.
(2) Reform the tax code: Make the Bush tax cuts permanent; abolish the estate and gift tax; and abolish the AMT. I think it will be important to limit the scope of tax reform. I'd like to cut corporate tax rates, eliminate the marriage penalty, and make other reforms, but I think that they will be very difficult to accomplish.
(3) Curtail federal spending: Freeze all spending at current levels except Defense, Social Security, and Medicare. Limit the growth of Defense spending to 3% annually.
(4) Appoint strict constructionist Justices and Judges: Focus on Chief Justice Roberts (who is less controversial than Justice Alito), and perhaps suggest Miguel Estrada as the first nominee.
(5) Secure the border: Complete the border fence and increase border enforcement. Postpone decision on policies toward illegal immigrants already in the country until after the border is secured.
(6) Reform Social Security: With a combination of private accounts, reduction in cost-of-living adjustments, raising of the retirement age, reduction in starting benefits by small increments (for example, a SS recipient becoming eligible in 2010 would receive 99.5% of the benefit calculated under current law, a recipient becoming eligible in 2011 would receive 99.0%, and so on), and small tax increases (0.05% increase per year in both the employee's and employer's tax, for 10 years, until the SS tax rate is 6.7% for employee and 6.7% for employer). Believe me, I hate tax increases, but I think that to solve the Social Security crisis, compromise will be necessary.
(Source)
Answer to Question 5: Could you please give us some methods that John McCain has consistently used to attain his goals as outlined in question 4.
Please refer to question 4. They are explained in some concise detail as to how these goals are inter-related along with timelines and figures required to achieve them.
Now onto my next questions for you ..
The trade-deficit with China is abominable now at over 220 Billion$ in their favor. Many US companies are over there to avoid property taxes. Beijing does not require them to pay these taxes and the labor is beyond cheap. It has hurt our economy and job market tremendously.
Question 1: Andrew, Obama voted for continued trade-status with China. He even voted to not doing something about China's documented unfair trade-practices by tougher trade laws. How can he support this?
Question 2: How does Obama stand on issues with our military. Is is he for keeping a strong military in today's turbulant world or is he for major down-sizing of our military?
Rebuttals:
you point out to us the following:
For John McCain. A 5,000 dollar tax credit still costs money. It is less money taken in per family, so it still has to be compensated with something. If you owe me 10 dollars, and i give you a credit of 8 dollars for raking leaves, then i have only taken in 2 dollars. If i want my other 8 dollars, i have to find another means of getting it now.
John McCain offers no solutions to PAY for what he wants to do.
Which is further proven by the answers you give us in my Question 4. John McCain seems savvy to spend, but offers no ways of paying for it.
Please let the record show, that in accordance with the rule
"When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post"
My opponent dodged my question #1. No straight forward answer was given. Refer to my opponents answer for said infraction.
Now i will answer my opponents questions:
Im not sure how my opponent came to the conclusion that Obama voted to do nothing. Obama's stance is
Straight from Obama's mouth :
Now onwards with my reply
Dedication to a clear vision
is the next topic in my list of what makes a president great.
I’ve already pointed out to you a few ways in which John McCain strays from a clear series of Goals. He seems to be polar opposites of himself every other year, on very serious topics.
As my last reply clearly indicates, he takes a very strong action in favor, or in opposition of, and realizes the impact his decisions have on those who dislike him. In an effort to get more people on his side, he changes his method, but in changing his method, he changes his goal.
If his goal is anti-abortion, then why does he say that it is okay for rape victims? After all, many people who oppose gun control say its “all or nothing”.
Furthermore, when he’s confronted with “what ifs” of Abortion, he changes his goal by saying its okay for an abortion, if you were raped. But you do not have to prove you got raped.
That’s absolutely ridiculous. He’s either for women’s’ rights or he’s not. He’s either for abortion, or he’s not. But his obvious fluctuation in the overall prime directive of “abortion” has to leave you wondering what he’s really after.
Clarity of vision.
Why is this important for a president?
Focus your efforts more on the ‘why’ and less on the ‘how’. The ‘how’ will change, as change is a constant in the known universe. Everything changes, even the methods you will have to adopt in order to achieve your goal.
In order to get people to follow you – you must have a clear perception of what it is you want them to follow you on.
If you’re pro-abortion, you will get women’s’ rights activists on your side. If you’re anti-abortion, you will get the religious activists on your side; but, if you alternate, you will ultimately turn both parties against you.
Who would want to elect a man who’s too afraid to stick to his convictions?
No direction. No goals.
Abraham Lincoln had a goal. End Slavery. Now he is revered as, arguably, the greatest president we've ever had. His methods changed, quite often, but his goal never swayed. We are a better nation as a result.
In today’s world, it seems impossible for a president to not have any real goals
We have a war
A struggling economy
Potential war on the horizon with other more powerful countries, than Iraq.
All this bickering on the ground, and meanwhile we’re exploring the universe and finding ICE on another planet.
No Goals?
Surely John McCain has to have a clear goal. As my opponent points out, he is for the war in iraq. He set his foot down and said we should be there 100 years if that is what it takes Source
Referring, of course, to the idea that there would be troops, if only minimally, in Iraq for 100 years, much in the way they are today in Korea, and Japan.
So, this dispels that his comment is taken out of context. But I believe the ‘out of context’ argument used by his proponents is really just a façade for McCains real answer.
The question about withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Will it happen soon? Or will it take 50 years, as a reported Bush quote suggests
And McCains answer was
So there is no real answer here. Instead of saying “I don’t know” he says it could take as long as 100 years.
And “as long as Americans aren’t wounded or harmed” implies that the war is over. But he gives no indication when this may be. Not even a guess? Surely a leader could give us something to go on. To have no clue what you’re talking about is really to have no clue how to lead.
Never giving us any real, clear, if even guessable, estimate as to when we could begin seeing a “victory” and bringing the troops home. He danced around it, with the implications that we have troops all around the world, but neglects to further that fact with the notion that our troops in other parts of the world are not in harms way for the purposes of oil and pride. In fact, there is no combat in Japan. There is no combat in Korea, or most other parts of the world. So what is John McCains answer? 100 years? Sounds unacceptable to me.
So, I concede, that John McCain has atleast one clear goal: Iraq. His stance on Iraq is that it is necessary, and noble Source
So, to John McCain, war is noble?
Where is the nobility in war? War is ugly, bloody, and should be the last resort of any civilized nation, if even then. For a supporter of pro-life, he certainly condones war a tad much.
But, since ultimately, war is a choice, do we really want a leader to lead us into another volatile situation. The mounting tensions with Russia, Iran, and North Korea are certainly prospects for future war. Having a president who doesn’t mind resorting to war for the solutions, and considers it noble, should scare anyone reading this post.
It is over-kill to say John McCain has a thirst for war. That is not my assertion. What I am saying is that John McCain’s stances, voting record, and quotes about the Iraq war give me indication that he’s easily persuaded to sound the battle horn. Like the guy who was cut from the high school football team, he’s ready to make his claim for glory on the battle field wearing the ultimate uniform for any military commander: Commander in Chief – the President.
To offer a preview of my next post, you can add this direct goal of war to solve problems, to John McCain's volatile retaliations with people who oppose him, and you have a healthy dose of destruction that is nothing short of the proverbial ticking time bomb.
you point out to us the following:
$5,000 refundable healthcare tax credit. Under this plan taxpayers would be allowed to choose their own healthcare and insurance providers and not be restricted to only those plans offered by their employers.
For John McCain. A 5,000 dollar tax credit still costs money. It is less money taken in per family, so it still has to be compensated with something. If you owe me 10 dollars, and i give you a credit of 8 dollars for raking leaves, then i have only taken in 2 dollars. If i want my other 8 dollars, i have to find another means of getting it now.
John McCain offers no solutions to PAY for what he wants to do.
Which is further proven by the answers you give us in my Question 4. John McCain seems savvy to spend, but offers no ways of paying for it.
Please let the record show, that in accordance with the rule
"When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post"
My opponent dodged my question #1. No straight forward answer was given. Refer to my opponents answer for said infraction.
Now i will answer my opponents questions:
Question 1
Andrew, Obama voted for continued trade-status with China. He even voted to not doing something about China's documented unfair trade-practices by tougher trade laws. How can he support this?
Im not sure how my opponent came to the conclusion that Obama voted to do nothing. Obama's stance is
Source
The U.S. should be firm on issues that divide us [from the Beijing government] -like Taiwan-while flexible on issues that could unite us. We should insist on labor standards and human rights, the opening of Chinese markets fully to American goods, and the fulfillment of legal contracts with American businesses-but without triggering a trade war, as prolonged instability in the Chinese economy could have global economic consequences.
Question 2
Question 2: How does Obama stand on issues with our military. Is is he for keeping a strong military in today's turbulant world or is he for major down-sizing of our military?
Straight from Obama's mouth :
Building a 21st Century Military
* The Problem: The excellence of our military is unmatched. But as a result of a misguided war in Iraq, our forces are under pressure as never before. Obama will make the investments we need so that the finest military in the world is best-prepared to meet 21st-century threats.
* Rebuild Trust: Obama will rebuild trust with those who serve by ensuring that soldiers and Marines have sufficient training time before they are sent into battle.
* Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.
* New Capabilities: 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.
* Strengthen Guard and Reserve: Obama will restore the readiness of the National Guard and Reserves. He will permit them adequate time to train and rest between deployments, and provide the National Guard with the equipment they need for foreign and domestic emergencies. He will also give the Guard a seat at the table by making the Chief of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Now onwards with my reply
Dedication to a clear vision
is the next topic in my list of what makes a president great.
I’ve already pointed out to you a few ways in which John McCain strays from a clear series of Goals. He seems to be polar opposites of himself every other year, on very serious topics.
- Abortion
- Gun Control
- Civil Rights
As my last reply clearly indicates, he takes a very strong action in favor, or in opposition of, and realizes the impact his decisions have on those who dislike him. In an effort to get more people on his side, he changes his method, but in changing his method, he changes his goal.
If his goal is anti-abortion, then why does he say that it is okay for rape victims? After all, many people who oppose gun control say its “all or nothing”.
Furthermore, when he’s confronted with “what ifs” of Abortion, he changes his goal by saying its okay for an abortion, if you were raped. But you do not have to prove you got raped.
That’s absolutely ridiculous. He’s either for women’s’ rights or he’s not. He’s either for abortion, or he’s not. But his obvious fluctuation in the overall prime directive of “abortion” has to leave you wondering what he’s really after.
Clarity of vision.
Why is this important for a president?
Focus your efforts more on the ‘why’ and less on the ‘how’. The ‘how’ will change, as change is a constant in the known universe. Everything changes, even the methods you will have to adopt in order to achieve your goal.
In order to get people to follow you – you must have a clear perception of what it is you want them to follow you on.
If you’re pro-abortion, you will get women’s’ rights activists on your side. If you’re anti-abortion, you will get the religious activists on your side; but, if you alternate, you will ultimately turn both parties against you.
Who would want to elect a man who’s too afraid to stick to his convictions?
No direction. No goals.
Abraham Lincoln had a goal. End Slavery. Now he is revered as, arguably, the greatest president we've ever had. His methods changed, quite often, but his goal never swayed. We are a better nation as a result.
In today’s world, it seems impossible for a president to not have any real goals
We have a war
A struggling economy
Potential war on the horizon with other more powerful countries, than Iraq.
All this bickering on the ground, and meanwhile we’re exploring the universe and finding ICE on another planet.
No Goals?
Surely John McCain has to have a clear goal. As my opponent points out, he is for the war in iraq. He set his foot down and said we should be there 100 years if that is what it takes Source
Referring, of course, to the idea that there would be troops, if only minimally, in Iraq for 100 years, much in the way they are today in Korea, and Japan.
So, this dispels that his comment is taken out of context. But I believe the ‘out of context’ argument used by his proponents is really just a façade for McCains real answer.
The question about withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Will it happen soon? Or will it take 50 years, as a reported Bush quote suggests
And McCains answer was
(same source as listed above)
"Maybe 100," McCain replied. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."
So there is no real answer here. Instead of saying “I don’t know” he says it could take as long as 100 years.
And “as long as Americans aren’t wounded or harmed” implies that the war is over. But he gives no indication when this may be. Not even a guess? Surely a leader could give us something to go on. To have no clue what you’re talking about is really to have no clue how to lead.
Never giving us any real, clear, if even guessable, estimate as to when we could begin seeing a “victory” and bringing the troops home. He danced around it, with the implications that we have troops all around the world, but neglects to further that fact with the notion that our troops in other parts of the world are not in harms way for the purposes of oil and pride. In fact, there is no combat in Japan. There is no combat in Korea, or most other parts of the world. So what is John McCains answer? 100 years? Sounds unacceptable to me.
So, I concede, that John McCain has atleast one clear goal: Iraq. His stance on Iraq is that it is necessary, and noble Source
So, to John McCain, war is noble?
Where is the nobility in war? War is ugly, bloody, and should be the last resort of any civilized nation, if even then. For a supporter of pro-life, he certainly condones war a tad much.
But, since ultimately, war is a choice, do we really want a leader to lead us into another volatile situation. The mounting tensions with Russia, Iran, and North Korea are certainly prospects for future war. Having a president who doesn’t mind resorting to war for the solutions, and considers it noble, should scare anyone reading this post.
It is over-kill to say John McCain has a thirst for war. That is not my assertion. What I am saying is that John McCain’s stances, voting record, and quotes about the Iraq war give me indication that he’s easily persuaded to sound the battle horn. Like the guy who was cut from the high school football team, he’s ready to make his claim for glory on the battle field wearing the ultimate uniform for any military commander: Commander in Chief – the President.
To offer a preview of my next post, you can add this direct goal of war to solve problems, to John McCain's volatile retaliations with people who oppose him, and you have a healthy dose of destruction that is nothing short of the proverbial ticking time bomb.
It has been a full 24 hours, and my opponent has not replied. I will continue with my 3rd supporting argument.
Reaction to Adversity
In a nutshell: A leader will be remembered most of all, for how he or she responded in times of adversity.
Why is it important, however?
As I mentioned in my opening post, the POTUS becomes the face by which the world judges our great nation.
Do we want to be thought of as a peaceful, sovereign nation that can cooperate with other nations of the world to solve problems that face us all.
Or do we want to be thought of as an angry, grumpy, and easily upset nation, who’s itching for a reason to go to war?
Certainly, one could argue that today’s perception of The United States is that of the latter. While I won’t bring up the numerous reasons why, I continue forward with the assumption that my readers know what I mean when I make that statement.
When faced with a hostile situation – the worst approach you can take is one of equal or greater hostility.
To use a quote from one of our greatest Presidents – Theodore Roosevelt:
In other words:
Mind your words instead of yelling what you are going to do, but never let your guard down.
A president who is brash, and lashes out with violence (verbal and physical) could certainly be ‘played’ by pushing the right buttons that create a violent reaction.
How does John McCain fail in this third and final characteristic of a great president?
Since his political career began, in 1982, John McCain has made comments, and cast votes, both of which have been perceived in the general public as:
All of which do not portray conduct befitting a U.S. Senator.
As I pointed out in my earlier posts, John McCain voted against national Recognition of Martin Luther King jr, a man, inarguably, at the foreground for civil rights and racial equality in America, even today.
As I also pointed out, it took 25 years for John McCain to apologize for his action against recognition of MLK jr, and only ever said it was a bad idea.
In the same stride, John McCain makes his biggest mistake with his racial slur against asian people, with his quote
He followed it up with his typical “bull-headed” stance, by refusing to apologize for it, even if only for public appeal.
Source
When dealt with adversity, John McCain lashes back with racially motivated actions and rhetoric. Not acceptable .
Passage from external source
please reference full article for a full version of the quote.
And just when you think it couldn’t get any worse, McCain gives us more glimpses into his mentality in his interview with the Las Vegas Sun.
Source
It’s amazing. When he is questioned about previous questionable comments he has made, he allows himself to make just one more. Unacceptable.
The rules would have to allow for dozens of outside sources to be allowed in order for me to show you all of his ill-tempered moments and verbal/physical outbursts.
That being said, I believe this MSNBC video shows many ways in which McCains temper has done him no justice.
Through all of this, McCain has finally admitted he has anger issue, one of which he is working on
Source
If, after 74 years, John McCain is still “working on” his anger issue, when can he possibly hope to ever get it right?
I believe this will clearly illustrate that John McCain has a hard time keeping his composure when confronted with opposition.
Sure, McCain has come back, almost every time, and apologized for his lack of discretion. But where does this end?
Do we really want the world to view us in the same light as we view his anger?
.
.
.
.
Do we really want to deal with more turmoil against opposing nations of the world, simply because John McCain wont know when to shut his mouth and walk away?
....................
Do we really want a leader who can’t control his emotions to have his hand hovering over ‘the button’?
While you ponder that, I offer questions to my opponent
JetXNet –
Can you please tell us what, if any, John McCain’s volatile temperament issues will have no effect on his presidency, if he is elected?
JetX. So far we have discussed the war, the economy, civil liberties, etc. But nay a conversation about education. Can you please tell us what differences John McCain has made in the realm of education to make it better or worse?
Can you please tell us what John McCains plans for Afghanistan are? Afterall, the “war on terror” started in Afghanistan, and it just faded away with the invasion of Iraq.
Can you please tell us what John McCains plans are to find Osama Bin Laden? The man thought to be responsible for the attacks of 9/11.
And Now, i leave the floor for my opponent to make his closing argument post.
Reaction to Adversity
In a nutshell: A leader will be remembered most of all, for how he or she responded in times of adversity.
Why is it important, however?
As I mentioned in my opening post, the POTUS becomes the face by which the world judges our great nation.
Do we want to be thought of as a peaceful, sovereign nation that can cooperate with other nations of the world to solve problems that face us all.
Or do we want to be thought of as an angry, grumpy, and easily upset nation, who’s itching for a reason to go to war?
Certainly, one could argue that today’s perception of The United States is that of the latter. While I won’t bring up the numerous reasons why, I continue forward with the assumption that my readers know what I mean when I make that statement.
When faced with a hostile situation – the worst approach you can take is one of equal or greater hostility.
To use a quote from one of our greatest Presidents – Theodore Roosevelt:
Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far
In other words:
Mind your words instead of yelling what you are going to do, but never let your guard down.
A president who is brash, and lashes out with violence (verbal and physical) could certainly be ‘played’ by pushing the right buttons that create a violent reaction.
How does John McCain fail in this third and final characteristic of a great president?
Since his political career began, in 1982, John McCain has made comments, and cast votes, both of which have been perceived in the general public as:
- Racist
- Sexist
- Grotesquely inappropriate and uncalled for
All of which do not portray conduct befitting a U.S. Senator.
Racist
As I pointed out in my earlier posts, John McCain voted against national Recognition of Martin Luther King jr, a man, inarguably, at the foreground for civil rights and racial equality in America, even today.
As I also pointed out, it took 25 years for John McCain to apologize for his action against recognition of MLK jr, and only ever said it was a bad idea.
In the same stride, John McCain makes his biggest mistake with his racial slur against asian people, with his quote
"I hate the gooks," McCain said yesterday in response to a question from reporters aboard his campaign bus. "I will hate them as long as I live."
He followed it up with his typical “bull-headed” stance, by refusing to apologize for it, even if only for public appeal.
Source
When dealt with adversity, John McCain lashes back with racially motivated actions and rhetoric. Not acceptable .
Sexist
Passage from external source
In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you [expletive deleted]." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day.
please reference full article for a full version of the quote.
And just when you think it couldn’t get any worse, McCain gives us more glimpses into his mentality in his interview with the Las Vegas Sun.
Q: Why snub the governor?
McCain: I didn’t mean to snub him. I’ve known the lieutenant governor for 15 years and we’ve been good friends….I didn’t intend to snub him. There are other states where the governor is not the chairman.
Q: Maybe it’s the governor’s approval rating and you are running from him like you are from the president?
McCain: (Chuckling) And I stopped beating my wife just a couple of weeks ago…
Source
It’s amazing. When he is questioned about previous questionable comments he has made, he allows himself to make just one more. Unacceptable.
Grotesquely inappropriate and uncalled for
The rules would have to allow for dozens of outside sources to be allowed in order for me to show you all of his ill-tempered moments and verbal/physical outbursts.
That being said, I believe this MSNBC video shows many ways in which McCains temper has done him no justice.
Through all of this, McCain has finally admitted he has anger issue, one of which he is working on
Source
If, after 74 years, John McCain is still “working on” his anger issue, when can he possibly hope to ever get it right?
I believe this will clearly illustrate that John McCain has a hard time keeping his composure when confronted with opposition.
Sure, McCain has come back, almost every time, and apologized for his lack of discretion. But where does this end?
Do we really want the world to view us in the same light as we view his anger?
.
.
.
.
Do we really want to deal with more turmoil against opposing nations of the world, simply because John McCain wont know when to shut his mouth and walk away?
....................
Do we really want a leader who can’t control his emotions to have his hand hovering over ‘the button’?
While you ponder that, I offer questions to my opponent
JetXNet –
Question 1
Can you please tell us what, if any, John McCain’s volatile temperament issues will have no effect on his presidency, if he is elected?
Question 2
JetX. So far we have discussed the war, the economy, civil liberties, etc. But nay a conversation about education. Can you please tell us what differences John McCain has made in the realm of education to make it better or worse?
Question 3
Can you please tell us what John McCains plans for Afghanistan are? Afterall, the “war on terror” started in Afghanistan, and it just faded away with the invasion of Iraq.
Question 4
Can you please tell us what John McCains plans are to find Osama Bin Laden? The man thought to be responsible for the attacks of 9/11.
And Now, i leave the floor for my opponent to make his closing argument post.
Hello, and sorry for the belated response. I have decided that the 24 hr. rule that requires a response in 24 hrs. is a "broken system" and am
"declaring independence" from said system.
Sound like someone you know Andrew?
No, in all honesty, I have been beyond busy with my own business and that is the reason for the missing post and apologize as agreed to the rule.
I'll make this post concise as to address both your previous responses Andrew, along with my closing argument.
Hmmm .. your logic escapes me Andrew. I don't believe you understand debt to income ratio very well or other basic economics for that matter. It's not a bad thing, but give you a C for effort.
McCain doesn't have to raise money for his system as it is not a social program. It requires leaving private practice in place and giving you a 5000.00 credit towards whichever practice you want to go with. It's called freedom of choice Andrew. The government doesn't decide for you. You make the call.
The answer was direct and factual. It had numbers and more, which is more than I can say for most of your round-about responses.
So this is why Obama supports continued status-quo trade with China? No strengthening of foreign trade laws that protect against unfair practices, with China leading the pack at over 220 Billion$ in their favor for such illegal practices.
(Source)
Senator Dorgan introduced this legislation and Obama voted AGAINST STRENGTHENING UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE LAWS! What country is he batting for Andrew? Our country, or China on this deal?
Obama's vote:
(Source)
So I guess Obama wants to create an even much larger trade-deficit in China's favor. Not too mention, exposing China's market to America's goods does America no good, in fact, causes a loss in profit due to systematic labor abuses, intellectual property theft and piracy, currency manipulation and unfair barriers against U.S. exports
"Misguided Iraq" .. seems Obama has jumped on the war bandwagon to get voters. What bandwagon hasn't he been on? Our Marines and soldiers are the best trained in the world! Why would Obama allude to "sufficient" training? Is he saying they are not sufficiently trained??
Building a 21st Century military with investments by STOPPING MISSILE DEFENSE and slowing sophisticated weapons production?? North Korea, Russia and China and can all strike the US! We need a missile defense shield, not only a deterrent, but protection from rogue missiles that could be sold and fired to Terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezobollah and others!!
(Source)
Not weaponize space? But allow China and Russia to do that instead?? Unproven missle defense?? Tests indicate it is doing well beyond expectations at this stage of development?
((Source)
At this time i'd like to request a 24hr. extension to answer my opponent's remaining questions and provide a closing argument.
Sound like someone you know Andrew?
No, in all honesty, I have been beyond busy with my own business and that is the reason for the missing post and apologize as agreed to the rule.
I'll make this post concise as to address both your previous responses Andrew, along with my closing argument.
For John McCain. A 5,000 dollar tax credit still costs money. It is less money taken in per family, so it still has to be compensated with something. If you owe me 10 dollars, and i give you a credit of 8 dollars for raking leaves, then i have only taken in 2 dollars. If i want my other 8 dollars, i have to find another means of getting it now.
Hmmm .. your logic escapes me Andrew. I don't believe you understand debt to income ratio very well or other basic economics for that matter. It's not a bad thing, but give you a C for effort.
McCain doesn't have to raise money for his system as it is not a social program. It requires leaving private practice in place and giving you a 5000.00 credit towards whichever practice you want to go with. It's called freedom of choice Andrew. The government doesn't decide for you. You make the call.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post
The answer was direct and factual. It had numbers and more, which is more than I can say for most of your round-about responses.
The U.S. should be firm on issues that divide us [from the Beijing government] -like Taiwan-while flexible on issues that could unite us. We should insist on labor standards and human rights, the opening of Chinese markets fully to American goods, and the fulfillment of legal contracts with American businesses-but without triggering a trade war, as prolonged instability in the Chinese economy could have global economic consequences.
So this is why Obama supports continued status-quo trade with China? No strengthening of foreign trade laws that protect against unfair practices, with China leading the pack at over 220 Billion$ in their favor for such illegal practices.
February 22, 2007 – Senate lawmakers have introduced legislation that would rescind Permanent Normal Trade Relations status granted to China in 2000.
"Since 2001, the first year China operated with PNTR status, our trade deficit with China ballooned from $83 billion a year to well over $232.5 billion in 2006," Senator Byron Dorgan said. "It's not difficult to see why. China has engaged in systematic labor abuses, intellectual property theft and piracy, currency manipulation and unfair barriers against U.S. exports.”
(Source)
Senator Dorgan introduced this legislation and Obama voted AGAINST STRENGTHENING UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE LAWS! What country is he batting for Andrew? Our country, or China on this deal?
Obama's vote:
"NO" Vote 232: H R 2862: Dorgan Amdt. No. 1665; To prohibit weakening any law that provides safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices.
(Source)
So I guess Obama wants to create an even much larger trade-deficit in China's favor. Not too mention, exposing China's market to America's goods does America no good, in fact, causes a loss in profit due to systematic labor abuses, intellectual property theft and piracy, currency manipulation and unfair barriers against U.S. exports
The excellence of our military is unmatched. But as a result of a misguided war in Iraq, our forces are under pressure as never before. Obama will make the investments we need so that the finest military in the world is best-prepared to meet 21st-century threats.
* Rebuild Trust: Obama will rebuild trust with those who serve by ensuring that soldiers and Marines have sufficient training time before they are sent into battle.
"Misguided Iraq" .. seems Obama has jumped on the war bandwagon to get voters. What bandwagon hasn't he been on? Our Marines and soldiers are the best trained in the world! Why would Obama allude to "sufficient" training? Is he saying they are not sufficiently trained??
Building a 21st Century military with investments by STOPPING MISSILE DEFENSE and slowing sophisticated weapons production?? North Korea, Russia and China and can all strike the US! We need a missile defense shield, not only a deterrent, but protection from rogue missiles that could be sold and fired to Terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezobollah and others!!
I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems.
(Source)
Not weaponize space? But allow China and Russia to do that instead?? Unproven missle defense?? Tests indicate it is doing well beyond expectations at this stage of development?
the USS Lake Erie just racked up another in a long series of successful intercepts, proving the U.S. Navy anti-missile systems not only work but work well in simulated combat situations. The Lake Erie scored two direct hits against two missiles fired and destroyed another missile from a moving launch vehicle.
Obama feels that such a defense is unnecessary. Meanwhile, both North Korea and Iran are quickly progressing toward missiles capable of reaching America, Moscow is deploying its latest lethal ICBM, the Topol-M, and China is investing in massive missiles capable of reaching the U.S. homeland.
((Source)
At this time i'd like to request a 24hr. extension to answer my opponent's remaining questions and provide a closing argument.
From the Debate Rules
If 24 hours passes without response, you may proceed with your next post. Members who exceed 24 hours run the risk of losing their post*Snip* My Emphasis
As Andrew E. Wiggen posted after the 24 hour extension without a post or extension request from jetxnet, it must be ruled that jetxnet forfeited his third rebuttal and that the previous post from jetxnet be counted as his Closing Argument.
Andrew E. Wiggen may now proceed with his Closing Argument.
First off. I would like to give a GREAT BIG "thank you" to Memoryshock for setting this up. I hope you have all enjoyed reading my posts half as
much as i've enjoyed creating them.
With that being said:
Please let the record show that my opponent neglected to answer all four of my prior questions.
first i will start with a few rebuttals to my opponent
It is not that John McCain has to raise money for his tax breaks.
A tax break is defined as
Source
In other words, John Mccain's tax break will allow for LESS money to come in, and he offers no way of making up for that money.
If the government takes in less money, and continues to spend the same amount of money on other programs, you have a negative debt/income ratio.
So with all due respect to my opponent, i have a very "standard" understanding of how it works. You cannot fund John McCains system without making additional cuts, or imposing new incomes, to make up for the, now lesser, flow of income.
Not that it is a 'earth shattering' factoid, but i would like to let our viewers know that:
It is a system that you agreed to Jetx. You had multiple login's since your last post, and never posted a rebuttal of your own. If work was consuming your time, i understand, but you could have posted for an extension during one of your logins in the last 48 hours.
and finally, on your comment:
You did not give a straight forward answer.
My question for you was:
"How has obama's goals changed."
Your answer was
"mccains goals havent changed"
there is nothing straight forward about your answer, i'm afraid.
The proof is in the text.
Now i will continue with my closing argument.
Ladies and gentleman:
I have described for you three characteristics of which i believe are the very cornerstone for a strong presidency.
I have shown you, in numerous ways, how John McCain falls short on these.
He has a volatile temper, a racist mentality, and a seemingly malleable ethos concerning military action with other nations.
For John McCain, the sword swings mightier than the pen.
It is of my opinion that the following instances say all we need to know about John McCain (please refer to previous posts for reference material regarding each)
John McCain shows us a vile temper with a cocky swagger, crude sense of humor, and manners that would make a caveman blush.
I say, if you were to offer your vote for John McCain, you might as well offer it up to a caveman. Perhaps the one from the Geico Commercials? After all, it would be about as worth your while to offer it to a fictional character, as to a racist old man with a 74 year old anger management issue.
All political non-sense aside, it IS up to us, as a nation, to choose who is best suited to lead our country.
No candidate will offer us the golden ticket. No candidate has all of the answers. No candidate will solve all the problems.
But which candidate will do the greater good?
While that is up for you to decide, please ponder the following:
While your vote is a personal, private, and wonderful thing, of which you should be proud to cast in every election, in every state, in every town in this country.....your vote is also not something you should waste and take lightly.
Remember the things i have shown you in this debate.
Go study them for yourself. Draw your own conclusions. I have shown you where to start, where John McCain is concerned, so please, if you have not yet made up your mind, continue your quest for education from here. If you have already made up your mind, and it is for John McCain, please re-read all 5 of my posts in this debate.
When you are in that voting booth this November, remember the things i have discussed about John McCain, and then ask yourself before you make a decision
When you define conservatism
Source
You get "To maintain the existing or traditional order". So a conservative president would, by definition, strive to maintain the existing order set forth by the current conservative president.
Do we really want four more years of the same thing?
My closing thought:
I'm not asking you to Vote for Barack Obama.
But i am begging you: You must not vote for John McCain.
A vote for McCain is a vote for the same. Our country is great, powerful, and strong, but we can't hold on forever.
We can't exist in this world alone.
We must strive for perfection
and we must admit our mistakes.
We must yearn for opportunities to cooperate with other peaceful nations in order to reshape our global image.
And work with these nations to help build a world that is determined to fight terror where it hides by seeking out diplomatic solutions with other sovereign nations that would disallow terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaeda, a place of refuge.
And we must elect a president for 2008 that can help begin this process, and take on this monumental task.
John McCain is not the man for the job.
And he never will be.
With that being said:
Please let the record show that my opponent neglected to answer all four of my prior questions.
first i will start with a few rebuttals to my opponent
Hmmm .. your logic escapes me Andrew. I don't believe you understand debt to income ratio very well or other basic economics for that matter. It's not a bad thing, but give you a C for effort.
McCain doesn't have to raise money for his system as it is not a social program. It requires leaving private practice in place and giving you a 5000.00 credit towards whichever practice you want to go with. It's called freedom of choice Andrew. The government doesn't decide for you. You make the call.
It is not that John McCain has to raise money for his tax breaks.
A tax break is defined as
a reduction in the gross amount on which a tax is calculated; reduces taxes by the percentage fixed for the taxpayer's income bracket
Source
In other words, John Mccain's tax break will allow for LESS money to come in, and he offers no way of making up for that money.
If the government takes in less money, and continues to spend the same amount of money on other programs, you have a negative debt/income ratio.
So with all due respect to my opponent, i have a very "standard" understanding of how it works. You cannot fund John McCains system without making additional cuts, or imposing new incomes, to make up for the, now lesser, flow of income.
Hello, and sorry for the belated response. I have decided that the 24 hr. rule that requires a response in 24 hrs. is a "broken system" and am "declaring independence" from said system.
Not that it is a 'earth shattering' factoid, but i would like to let our viewers know that:
It is a system that you agreed to Jetx. You had multiple login's since your last post, and never posted a rebuttal of your own. If work was consuming your time, i understand, but you could have posted for an extension during one of your logins in the last 48 hours.
and finally, on your comment:
The answer was direct and factual. It had numbers and more, which is more than I can say for most of your round-about responses.
You did not give a straight forward answer.
My question for you was:
"How has obama's goals changed."
Your answer was
"mccains goals havent changed"
there is nothing straight forward about your answer, i'm afraid.
The proof is in the text.
Now i will continue with my closing argument.
Ladies and gentleman:
I have described for you three characteristics of which i believe are the very cornerstone for a strong presidency.
I have shown you, in numerous ways, how John McCain falls short on these.
He has a volatile temper, a racist mentality, and a seemingly malleable ethos concerning military action with other nations.
For John McCain, the sword swings mightier than the pen.
It is of my opinion that the following instances say all we need to know about John McCain (please refer to previous posts for reference material regarding each)
- His brutally condescending tone towards his wife. It is my opinion that every woman should be offended by this, and choose to offer her vote to
any other candidate available. He jokes about spousal abuse, domestic violence, and sexist, chauvinistic remarks, as if he were in the high school
locker room with his friends.
But he's not in the high school locker room. He's on the US senate floor. He's in the media, and if he gets his way, he'll be in the White House. Is this how we want to be viewed?
- I believe he should loose the African American vote for his gross lack of recognition of the civil rights movement, of which John McCain was
around for. His 25 year stance in opposition of national recognition of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr should put blush in the face of any McCain
supporter.
- His belligerent racial slur for Asian people that, so far, he continues to refuse an apology, or retraction.
John McCain shows us a vile temper with a cocky swagger, crude sense of humor, and manners that would make a caveman blush.
I say, if you were to offer your vote for John McCain, you might as well offer it up to a caveman. Perhaps the one from the Geico Commercials? After all, it would be about as worth your while to offer it to a fictional character, as to a racist old man with a 74 year old anger management issue.
All political non-sense aside, it IS up to us, as a nation, to choose who is best suited to lead our country.
No candidate will offer us the golden ticket. No candidate has all of the answers. No candidate will solve all the problems.
But which candidate will do the greater good?
While that is up for you to decide, please ponder the following:
While your vote is a personal, private, and wonderful thing, of which you should be proud to cast in every election, in every state, in every town in this country.....your vote is also not something you should waste and take lightly.
Remember the things i have shown you in this debate.
Go study them for yourself. Draw your own conclusions. I have shown you where to start, where John McCain is concerned, so please, if you have not yet made up your mind, continue your quest for education from here. If you have already made up your mind, and it is for John McCain, please re-read all 5 of my posts in this debate.
When you are in that voting booth this November, remember the things i have discussed about John McCain, and then ask yourself before you make a decision
When you define conservatism
1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
3. Conservatism The principles and policies of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or of the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
4. Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook.
Source
You get "To maintain the existing or traditional order". So a conservative president would, by definition, strive to maintain the existing order set forth by the current conservative president.
Do we really want four more years of the same thing?
My closing thought:
I'm not asking you to Vote for Barack Obama.
But i am begging you: You must not vote for John McCain.
A vote for McCain is a vote for the same. Our country is great, powerful, and strong, but we can't hold on forever.
We can't exist in this world alone.
We must strive for perfection
and we must admit our mistakes.
We must yearn for opportunities to cooperate with other peaceful nations in order to reshape our global image.
And work with these nations to help build a world that is determined to fight terror where it hides by seeking out diplomatic solutions with other sovereign nations that would disallow terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaeda, a place of refuge.
And we must elect a president for 2008 that can help begin this process, and take on this monumental task.
John McCain is not the man for the job.
And he never will be.
Excellent job on both sides, Fighters...
Off to the judges we go.
Off to the judges we go.
The winner by majority decision is Andrew E. Wiggin.
This was a well fought debate and especially well done considering the heated nature of the topic...
This was a well fought debate and especially well done considering the heated nature of the topic...
I went in looking for both participants to accentuate the positive with respect to their candidate. I came away with the thought that pointing out the warts on one frog does not mean no other frog has warts. I am surprised Barack Obama was placed in center stage by both participants which leaves me wondering if 'McCain by elimination' was by design or by another unintended idea.
Too, it would seem that any question of 'who is MORE qualified' does not mean the other party is not qualified except by the means, manner, and the personal standards used to determine the necessary qualifications. This idea alone presents a great difficulty to each of the participants.
Further it appears the when either candidate offers solutions they are dealing with current conditions and cannot foretell the future events that may well cause changes in their direction.
Nonetheless, this was a volatile, passionate debate. And credit should be given to the participants for using logic and reason, and for having the courage to put forth their ideas on this very important decision that America faces in 2008.
My vote goes to Andrew E. Wiggins who told me what he was going to tell me, then told me, and finally he told me what he had told me.
I rule in favor of Andrew E. Wiggin.
I judge this debate not on basis of my own political leanings which would favor jetxnet but on account of Wiggins providing slightly more referencing and sources to the various statements made. Thats why it wasnt too helpful that jetxnet missed one post.
Naturally both sides are tasked with upgrading their own candidate and downgrading the other candidate but I´d have preferred to seeing one of the debaters at least once admitting to some fault of their candidate. In a sad way this debate reflects the political climate of our nation in which no space for mistakes is given at all.
Id also have preferred Wiggins to talk a bit less and cut to the chase on a few ocassions.
My judgement of this debate is highly subjective in that I (after reading) am left with a feeling that McCain does indeed have many weaknesses that are not up to speed with Leadership. One point that especially struck me was the issue of anger-management and Wiggins comment on "If he hasnt managed his anger in 74 years, when will he?". Its sometimes small things like this that can tip a vote to the other side. Jetxnet had a slight advantage over Wiggins on economic issues. Being a talented writer he could have won the debate had he invested a bit more time on sources for his various claims (such as "Obama flip flops" - while this is given as "common knowledge", some specific examples and references would have been welcome).
I look forward to reading more of both debaters on the Boards.
reply to post by MemoryShock
My Thanks to the judges, Memoryschock, and my most humble thanks to Jetxnet.
The debate forum is great, and i look forward to many many more challenges.
My Thanks to the judges, Memoryschock, and my most humble thanks to Jetxnet.
The debate forum is great, and i look forward to many many more challenges.
Thanks Andrew and congrats, it was a good contest.
I do wish i was able to address your last set of questions and provide a closing statement. The closing statement is probably the most important post overall!
Anyhow, you earned the victory. Maybe we'll cross paths again in "debatesphere".
I do wish i was able to address your last set of questions and provide a closing statement. The closing statement is probably the most important post overall!
Anyhow, you earned the victory. Maybe we'll cross paths again in "debatesphere".
new topics
-
The mysterious death of Aileen Conway
General Chit Chat: 2 hours ago -
Half-Life 2 is 20 Years Old - its Also Free on Steam until the 18th
Video Games: 6 hours ago -
Does the Trump win mean No More Taylor Swift??
Politicians & People: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
Don't cry do Cryo instead
General Chit Chat: 17 hours ago, 12 flags -
Does the Trump win mean No More Taylor Swift??
Politicians & People: 10 hours ago, 12 flags -
Trump-appointed judge blocks Biden administration overtime rule
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 12 hours ago, 9 flags -
The mysterious death of Aileen Conway
General Chit Chat: 2 hours ago, 5 flags -
Half-Life 2 is 20 Years Old - its Also Free on Steam until the 18th
Video Games: 6 hours ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
President-Elect DONALD TRUMP's 2nd-Term Administration Takes Shape.
Political Ideology • 211 • : WeMustCare -
The Trump effect 6 days after 2024 election
2024 Elections • 144 • : Xtrozero -
The mysterious death of Aileen Conway
General Chit Chat • 6 • : CarlLaFong -
Mike Tyson returns 11-15-24
World Sports • 68 • : TzarChasm -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3281 • : RelSciHistItSufi -
Thanksgiving 2024
Member Art • 21 • : BingoMcGoof -
Does the Trump win mean No More Taylor Swift??
Politicians & People • 48 • : TzarChasm -
President-elect TRUMP Picks MATT GAETZ for his ATTORNEY GENERAL - High Level PANIC Ensues.
2024 Elections • 86 • : RickinVa -
How can you defend yourself when the police will not tell you what you did?
Posse Comitatus • 90 • : WeMustCare -
Russia Ukraine Update Thread - part 3
World War Three • 6813 • : Freeborn
11