Obama's comittment to global nuclear disarmament

[Necromis]

First on the 200,000 people. You fail to mention the fact that those people where there for a a free concernt by two very popular German bands. Not only because Obama was there. I think I could get 2000,000 people to stand there and listen to me if I had a free concert prior to my speach, also.

Secondly, you twist what is said by McCain into what you want it to be. His plan is basically to remove troops as Iraq is able to take on the rolls they are serving. Just as said. No time table. You should also watch more news, even CNN is saying that the surge worked and we are currently winning the war in Iraq. Obama's plan was to not have the surge, to just pull out back then. If we listened to him then Iraq would have been lost. Iraq is actually getting stronger and more able to protect itself.

Obama shows he is a politician, and he is running a campaign of popularity contest, and not on substance. His actions abroad showed that. He was fine with planning basket ball with the troops while his press following could be there to make a photo op of it. However, when the pentagon said he wasn't allowed to bring the press into the hospital when he saw the wounded troops he decided it would *look political* to go see them. That lie has been caught. As the media would not have been allowed there, it would not have looked political because all they could have said is, "Obama visited the wounded troops today." They would not have had any video or photo coverage of it. As a person trying to be the commander and chief of our country he should hvae gone to see the wounded troops which is his duty. Instead he wound go because he couldn't get any media attention while doing it.

If the primaries were held like the national election Clinton would be the one running against McCain right now. Why? Because as the campaign went on it stopped being about popularity and started being about substance. Obama was shown by Clinton to not have the right stuff to lead. His flaws were shown and if not for that initial up swing in votes at the very early out set she would have caught and passed him.

Obama is wrong on the economy, he wants more taxes which will hurt everyone. You increase taxes on small business and they won't be able to aford the jobs you want to create and you will have goods/services go up in price.

Obama is wrong on energy. He has a very limited idea of what he wants to allow us to do.

McCain is right on the economy. He knows the way to help is to keep the taxes low. It is also to cut out big spending in the government to lessen the deficit.

McCain is right on energy. He wants to diversify and do EVERYTHING. Nuclear, wind, solar, oil drilling......etc.

Obama is a man of charisma and no substance. He will end up losing the election. McCain and Obama are still statistaclly in a very close race and they have not gone head to head in debates. Yes Obama will probably spreak *prettier* than McCain. However, the substance of what McCain will be saying will be stronger than what Obama has to bring.

Obama says whatever it takes during this campaign to try and get elected. McCain has stuck to his ideals through out.

Example. While in the primaries he leaned way left saying get the troops out as soon as he was in office. Now that he is trying to look more centered he changes that to we have to do a staged time table withdrawl over a long period of time.

[Evnissyen]

Okay, first, most of the latter misunderstandings and falsehoods I've already addressed in previous posts either in this thread or the Obama vs. McCain thread... on taxes, energy, taxes, jobs, taxes. No need to revisit them. You keep repeating the "lack of substance" nonsense. This is what I'm talking about when I talk about slander and regurgitation. (That and suggestions such as that his campaign is being run by a former terrorist.) Visit his website and see if you have any trouble finding "substance".

On the rest:
The Hillary vs. Obama race was not about substance vs. image, which is the lie that the Hillary people were pushing. (She was actually more guarded on the substance, as Centrists generally are.) What was happening was mostly a conflict between established mindsets. You saw all the polling that described the demographic leanings. These did not change. Even the 24-hour cycled slander of Obama regarding his angry-black-man pastor and Obama's ill-chosen remarks (so much for the Media's love affair with Obama, eh?) did not change the demographics which remained consistently predictable, at that point, contest after contest.

CNN: CNN is a marshmallow. Wimps and lightweights. They'll ask tough questions of nobody, conservative or liberal. I just love Wolf Blitzer's 'strategy sessions'. A partisan liberal and a partisan conservative spewing out all the talking points. What fun! There're better sources.

On Iraq and the economy, too: I've already said it. And with the U.S. on the brink of economic crisis, we need somebody with the intelligence and concern and the political will and the physical and mental energy to handle it... and McCain's and the Republicans' attachment to Big Oil and Wall Street and Corporate America certainly doesn't make me confident about their ability to fix the problems.

You are correct, however, on the issue of the wounded soldiers in Germany. I do not know why Obama decided not to visit them. The answers I've heard from the Obama campaign are not satisfactory. Honestly: this bothers me a great deal. It was a dumb decision, and despite everything else which he did right during this past week: this decision was eminently unpresidential. McCain was right to criticize him for it.

So... hey, there're a lot of things Obama's been doing that bothers me. I don't like his flip-flopping on the FISA bill. I don't like his speech about faith-based initiatives. But he doesn't scare me like McCain does, for all the reasons I've given on both their personalities and characteristics. Even though I knew in 2000 that a Bush candidacy would be bad: I never imagined it would ever be this bad. I don't think anyone did. What's interesting is that we seem to be looking at quite a similar candidate: detached, unconcerned, complacent and... what was the word somebody used to describe Bush?... incurious.

I don't know, I think that if we haven't already then we've finally reached the point where this dialogue is becoming circular. Hopefully we can wind this up soon?

[waltshooter]

On the government's responsibilities: While I think we can all agree that we don't want the government baby-sitting us (including telling us who can marry whom, and so forth), as far as I understand it, the purpose of a nation's government is to ensure the safety, health, prosperity and well-being of its people. While I do not believe the gov't should extend its hand beyond that (including the arts: I'm an artist but I do not believe that art should be funded by the government)... it just so happens that the definition I've given above covers a whole range of areas. Including guaranteed, affordable health coverage, and strict corporate regulation.

Then you misunderstand the purpose of the American government. The purpose of our government is stated quite clearly in the Preamble to our Constitution:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution ...

At least, it's clear to anyone who cares to take the time to research it, and understand that the language at the time meant things differently than it does today. For example "domestic tranquility" doesn't mean "free housing for all", it meant the states were close to warring with each other. And "general welfare" has nothing to do with the modern Welfare system.

In fact, if one reads the Constitution, one finds that there are less than 20 powers granted Government. If our government was paired back down to those powers, and our taxes reduced accordingly ... We the People would have more than enough "disposable income" to pay for our own health care.

"If 10% is good enough for God, it should be more than enough for the government." - unknown