<p>
[quote]
Good job except for the fact, that it was not included in his campaign for the primaries
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What do you mean "not included in his campaign"? How can you say that it was not included in his campaign when he released statements and had surrogates state his positions? Your argument is that Obama was set in stone about the 16 month withdrawal. My counter-argument is that while he has advocated a general ambition of a 16 month withdrawal, it is subject to the volatile situation on the ground. I have provided proof, while you have nothing but personal anecdotes that claim you watched every single public appearance by Obama. </p>
<p>
[quote]
September 2007: Obama Said He Believed "That We Should Have All Our Troops Out By 2013, But I Don't Want To Make Promises."</p>
<p>Last time i checked 16 months from 2009 was not 2013.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obama's "big picture" has always been the withdrawal of the final American soldier by the end of his first term. His 16 month plan is a manifestation of this ambition. But as he said, everything is subject to conditions on the ground, and he will not sacrifice American or Iraqi lives just to satisfy his ideology. Besides, I wouldn't call too much focus on numbers, considering your guy is John "100 Years" McCain.</p>
<p>It's pretty obvious what the media is doing by giving this ridiculous story legs while ignoring the many many flip-flops of John McCain (which should be given more scrutiny given his now-defunct "maverick" image). The media desperately wants a tight race, and right now, it looks like it's Muhammad Ali vs. Woody Allen.</p>
<p>The intelligent are more likely to seek education, that much is obvious. </p>
<p>I think it strange, however, that people place such an enormous value on what presidential candidates have said they plan to do. Aren't their track records of voting while in congress a far better picture of what they actually believe, and thus what they will actually do as president? A promise made while campaigning is really only meant to garner votes, and so cannot really be taken seriously. Pandering is pandering, whichever way it is phrased. </p>
<p>I really do like Obama's magnetism, and yet he has shown himself to be about as far left as possible through his voting record. It frightens me to think that people care more about his personal life and his charisma than they do his political beliefs. I, for one, do not want to work sixty hours a week and make a great deal of money only to have half+ of it disappear to subsidize the retirement and heath care of others. I do not want to spend 6-7 years in school in preparation for a difficult job that isn't going to make me any more comfortable or affluent than anyone else. I am a capitalist, and I want to rise or fall on the basis of my own work, not on what the government decides is appropriate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I, for one, do not want to work sixty hours a week and make a great deal of money only to have half+ of it disappear to subsidize the retirement and heath care of others. I do not want to spend 6-7 years in school in preparation for a difficult job that isn't going to make me any more comfortable or affluent than anyone else. I am a capitalist, and I want to rise or fall on the basis of my own work, not on what the government decides is appropriate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well now, this is just a gross exaggeration. Obama's not a socialist. But if you do advocate a free-for-all capitalist society (that is, no government support in any manner, including education and the like), then I can understand why you'd make such a statement. </p>
<p>And by that logic, those who can't afford education simply shouldn't have access to it.</p>
<p>Our healthcare, education, and social security systems are by no means perfect, but I'd much prefer socialized programs to a "survival-of-the-fittest" scenario where only the wealthy can access what should be covered by basic human rights.</p>
<p>You can even have it both ways. I am a capitalist and a socialist, in that I want minimal government interference in business, but yet I fully support free compulsory education, social security, and universal health care, all paid for by taxes, including higher taxes on higher earners (which includes myself) to help prevent the huge deficit burden the current don't-tax-but-spend administration is placing on our children and grandchildren. I also favor abolishing corporate income taxes and shifting those taxes to shareholders as income taxes. Enough rambling; it's probably not very interesting anyway.</p>
<p>I own a shirt from BustedTees that says "McCain 1908!" lmao, and I'm a McCain supporter. I don't care if he's old. He's still ten billion times more qualified than Obama haha</p>
<p>NbaChris if you look farther down at most post you would see the inherit flip flop, he said he was not going to make promises, but then like a few days ago renews the promise he made in the primaries. That is what ppl are talking about.</p>
<p>In Fargo, Obama renews promise to get U.S. out of Iraq</p>
<p>"He left the impression that his talks with military commanders could refine his promise to remove U.S. combat troops within 16 months of taking office."</p>
<p>Both candidates should repudiate this notion of flip-flop. Cowboy Bush seems to think it's a virtue to never change his mind, and never admit a mistake, no matter how disastrous his decisions prove to be.</p>
<p>What good is McCain's additional experience if he espouses some of the worst Bush policies?</p>
<p>I hate the fact that people will only vote for who they think has a chance. Dont you guys understand that doing that ruins the objectivity of voting. It makes voting useless. Just vote for who you truly want to win. If they dont win, so what. If everybody voted for who they actually liked, this country would be a much better place to live right now.</p>
<p>
[quote]
NbaChris if you look farther down at most post you would see the inherit flip flop, he said he was not going to make promises, but then like a few days ago renews the promise he made in the primaries. That is what ppl are talking about.</p>
<p>In Fargo, Obama renews promise to get U.S. out of Iraq</p>
<p>"He left the impression that his talks with military commanders could refine his promise to remove U.S. combat troops within 16 months of taking office."</p>
<p>But he doesn't want to make promises.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>His general promise is to push for withdrawal. What he won't promise is a strict ideologically-driven rulebook that ignores the unpredictable situation in Iraq. This is what he's said all along, and if you got the wrong impression, then the blame lies with you. </p>
<p>
[quote]
yet he has shown himself to be about as far left as possible through his voting record.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is amateur BS. You must referencing his "Most Liberal Senator" ranking. Well, let me tell you something about that. Presidential candidates, you see, are very busy creatures. Most of their time must be spent away from the Capitol in efforts to rally support, raise funds, do interviews, etc. Because of this, they only show up for the critical votes that are split between party lines. So Obama earned that rating by doing what every other presidential candidate does and voting for only the most contentious bills. Then voila! You get a bogus ranking that somehow places a guy like Obama as more liberal than Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders (a self-identifying socialist!). </p>
<p>
[quote]
I am a capitalist
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You should move to Hong Kong then. They have excellent economic freedom. Makes America look like Cuba in comparison.</p>
<p>'Aint it lovely how at least 3 people in the past few pages have said Ron Paul, yet the updated report still only says 1 (and then goes on to say that's only "possibly" 1).</p>
<p>NbaChris it is ridiculus to assert:
His general promise is to push for withdrawal. What he won't promise is a strict ideologically-driven rulebook that ignores the unpredictable situation in Iraq. This is what he's said all along, and if you got the wrong impression, then the blame lies with you. </p>
<p>Because he did speak of a strict rule he said: 16 months, not 19 months or even two years, but he EXPLICTLY said 16 MONTHS there is no denying that, but as i am concerned this conversation is over.</p>
<p>That is not ametuer but a legit ranking of politicians, even if he only came to vote on important things which is what politicians do, then why was Clinton not as liberal.</p>
<p>Nbachris i am not trying to be rude, and if seems that way i apologize, but the things we are debating are mute. Even if Obama had continually said he would listen to generals he also stated a 16 month withdrawal and made that a focal point to his primary campaign, without also highlighting listening to generals, so that it seemed like a flip flop. But it want matter if just keep arguing, you can vote for Obama and i will vote for McCain, and we'll see who wins.</p>
<p>Btw:
I predict McCain wins, by a slight majority of electoral votes. And that half the swing states go to Obama and the other half McCain, Obama undercuts the Republican stronghold in several states but fails to win the state and therefore results in no electoral numbers, but rather a diffusion away from swing states. McCain responds by continually hounding swing states in cheap fashion appealing to more likely voters (old, middle class whites) who dominate nearly every swing state and therefore still polls well. But ultimately i think Obama will lose, especially if the campaign plans on relying on public contributions, bc the more he is around the less appealing his novelty will be and therefore the less likely individuals (like you and me) will contribute money. </p>
<p>Let's turn this thread into a prediction of how the election will play out.</p>
<p>On another note, the media seems to make a big deal of the historic sums that Obama is raising but that is misleading in context. Bc his campaign after beating Clinton only had about 33 million whereas McCain's campaign had about 31 million on hand left to use for the summer. Therefore the gamble Obama is taking on not using the public financing system is risky as the reason he was able to raise so much during the primaries was due to his appeal as a novelty. But by his positioning to the center, makes him seem like a typical politican and therefore undercuts his idealistic position, this ultimately will have some impact on fundraising bc individual donors of like 500 dollars or more contributed heavily to his campaigns finances during the primary. But also his novelty is doubly jeopardized by his over exposure in the media, ultimately the reoccurance of seeing Obama will cause him to become more like a common occurance than a ground breaking new politician. </p>
<p>Btw, this is from doing domestic extempt (i know others of you do it :)), but lets discuss.</p>
<p>
[quote]
without also highlighting listening to generals, so that it seemed like a flip flop.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obama always said that as commander-in-chief, he would reserve the right to re-assess the situation at any given time. Your notion that this was not the case is based on your "feelings" that he did not emphasize this caveat (which he did, by the way). The "Well, that's the feeling I got" argument is not a solid one.</p>
<p>People are only thinking that Obama has flip-flopped because they are low-information voters who naturally assume that all Democrats want immediate and unconditional withdrawal. If you cared to pay attention to everything Obama said in 2007 and during the primaries, he has never advocated a rigid withdrawal plan.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Because he did speak of a strict rule he said: 16 months, not 19 months or even two years, but he EXPLICTLY said 16 MONTHS there is no denying that, but as i am concerned this conversation is over.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, always with the "assess the situation" caveat. You simply cannot keep denying that Obama has repeatedly said that. If you got the "feeling" that Obama didn't emphasize his conditional plan, then that's your fault.</p>
<p>
[quote]
then why was Clinton not as liberal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Clinton moved up like 30 spots from the last assessment. It's a fact that Obama is more liberal than Clinton (which was why he had so much online and grassroots support). But it's stupidity to honestly believe that Obama is more socialist than Bernie Sanders. That's Fox News level idiocy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Obama will cause him to become more like a common occurance than a ground breaking new politician.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obama will still fill up Invesco Field while McCain will struggle to compete with the opening weekend of the NFL season.</p>