OBAMA VERSUS MCCAIN: ARGUMENTS FOR WHO IS BETTER FOR MOST AMERICANS

@SYNRON,

Debra LAW has me on Ignore so she did not read my challenge. Those who read this challenge should know that she is tired of urinating on herself in fear when s she notes my arguments.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Yes, that may be true,but to think that the inner city LIAR OBAMA will not lie over and over has not read the excellent expose

"Obamanation" by Jerome R. Corsi which made the best seller list a month ago.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

This is why I don't vote for party, I vote for individuals. Even though each candidate is part of a party, I prefer to recognize each of them for their unique combination of attributes.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

I do the same to a certain extent. But in today's toxic political envirnonment, no Republican with a Democratically controlled Congress will be able to accomplish all he hopes nor vice versa. A radical, ideologically extreme person with a Congress of his own party is far more dangerous, however. George W. Bush has been a disappointment to many of us, but radical or extreme he is not. Nor is McCain. Nor was Clinton. Nor was any of their predecessors.

I have no such confidence in a Barack Obama who has demonstrated questionable judgment in many of his past associations, distanced himself from some extremely extreme ideas only when it became politically expedient to do so, and who lacks the political or life experiences to avoid some of the most dangerous kinds of mistakes.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

I think you are wise, rosborne, do you know what kind of INDIVIDUAL Obama really is?

0 Replies

The following quotes together and individually make it clear that our government's lawful job is to secure our liberty and not to secure our individual consumptions at levels dictated by our government.

Quote:

The Declaration of Independence
(Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776)
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Quote:

The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
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 for the United States of America.

Quote:

Article I.Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Quote:

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

Quote:

Article VI. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;

Quote:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Obama proposes to change our government to be in even greater violation of the USA Constitution than it is currently.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote: "Otherwise, I don't recall ever even suggesting that the government should impose my moral values on anybody,"

You're not being honest--not with the people on this board--not even with yourself.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Foxfyre wrote: "Otherwise, I don't recall ever even suggesting that the government should impose my moral values on anybody,"

You're not being honest--not with the people on this board--not even with yourself.

I'm being a far sight more honest than somebody who seems to be trying to put thoughts in my head, words in my mouth, and motives in my soul that do not apply to me.

0 Replies

George Orwell in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, Part III, Chapter III, wrote:

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/
The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?

The Obama Democrats seek power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand what Obama Democrats seek?

0 Replies

That is the most utter and total bullshit I have seen in several years.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Why?

0 Replies

Because nothing anything in the Obama camp has ever said or done suggests that. Because the US has gone badly off track in the last eight years, as 8 out of 10 people in the country agree. The Bush administration has done its damnedest to destroy our economy and our standing in the world, and Obama has outlined a number of plans to restore what's been so thoroughly cast down. Because the Bush administration's attempt to impose the unconstitutional "unitary presidency" on the country smacks much more of a grab for power for its own sake, with disturbing resonances with Louis XIV's "L'etat c'est moi" or the Nazis' "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Fuhrer" than the Democratic Party, Obama, and the American people are comfortable with.

It is, in short, a product of ican's imagination, nothing more, with no evidence to back it up.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

I would agree with you if I had any confidence that Obama holds a single conviction that is important to him. So far he has been willing to effortlessly change any point to view to something more politically popular. I am unable to think of a single subject that he has stuck to his original rhetoric or that I believe he feels passionately about. He has been ruthless in denouncing numerous past associates when they became political liabilities while he had only good things to say about them before they became political liabilities. His entire professional life has included shadowy characters intent on achieving power. He does not have a great track record of keeping or even trying to keep campaign promises. How am I to believe that he is a person committed to anything other than acquiring personal power for his own ends?

Hillary was no better, of course, but at least she desires to be loved and I am pretty sure she would have governed in such a way as to be popular, just as her husband did, and therefore would not do a great deal of permanent damage. I am less confident that Obama possesses that kind of empathy.

Whatever somebody thinks about John McCain, he has demonstrated certain convictions with his votes, with how he has conducted his life. You may not want what he has to offer, but he has never been in it for the glory and we know pretty much what we would get with him. He is who he appears to be.

And whatever one thinks about President Bush, his administration is not pertinent to this particular discussion.

0 Replies

Back in 1949 George forecast the evolution of Osama Democrats.

George Orwell in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, Part III, Chapter II, wrote:

Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.

Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Obama Democrats, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Obama Democrats holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Obama Democrats. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, you all. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane.

GEORGE SOROS OWNS A CONTROLLING SHARE OF THE OBAMA DEMOCRATS!

David Horowitz and Richard Poe in THE SHADOW PARTY, HOW GEORGE SOROS, HILLARY CLINTON, AND SIXTIES RADICALS SEIZED CONTROL OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY wrote:

"American Supremacy is the greatest threat to the world today,"
George Soros, MoveON.org's billionaire benefactor.

"The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat,"
George Soros, February 1997.

"I have known George Soros for a long time now ... We need people like George Soros, who is fearless, and willing to step up when it counts,"
Hillary Clinton, June 3, 2004.

"The separation of church and state, the bed rock of our democracy, is clearly undermined by having a born again President,"
George Soros, October 18, 2004.

"Now [the Democratic Party is] our party! We bought it, we own it,"
Eli Parsera leader of MoveON.org, November 2004

"The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States,"
George Soros, June 2006.

Michael Kaufman in his biography of George Soros, page 293, [I]Soros [/I], wrote:

My goal is to become the conscience of the world

GEORGE SOROS in his 2004 book, page 159, [I]The Bubble of American Supremacy[/I], wrote:

The principles of the Declaration of Independence are not self-evident truths but arrangements necessitated by our inherently imperfect understanding.

Who is really seeking the power of "Big Brother" in the 21st century version of NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR by George Orwell--call this century's version, TWENTY EIGHTY-FOUR? The answer is of course, George Soros and his gang.

0 Replies

Democrats authored Fanny & Freddy and subsequently frequently obstructed efforts by some Democrats and Republicans, including George Bush, to correct the inadequate regulation of Fanny & Freddy that has caused the current rapid decline of the USA economy.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Artur Davis, Democrat member of the House of Representative from Alabama and a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, last week stated, "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable home ownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Franklt, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

But since Obama proposes massive new big government programs and entitlements and McCain doesn't, IMO McCain has the edge on who will be better for most Americans.

Oh GOODIE! Since giving people houses that they can't afford is not a "big government program," can I have one of those houses that McCain promised to all of his friends (every American voter), including Oliver or Alan or whoever (you know, that dumb ignorant hick who didn't know about Fannie Mae before the crisis)!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

The "general welfare of the United States" is not equivalent to the individual welfare of each individual citizens of the United States. The "general welfare of the United States" is obviously equivalent to maintaining and/or improving the survivability of the Unites States' ability to secure the unalienable rights of its indivual citizens.

Among the many pleasures of originalism is the advantage of not having to resort to vague arguments about what's "obviously equivalent" to what. (Obvious to whom, by the way?) All we have to do is to dig out a reasonably contemporary dictionary and look up the word "welfare" in it. One dictionary that originalist judges often quote is the first edition of Webster. Fortunately, it's available online for us to look up the word "welfare" in. Here is what it says:

Noah Webster, in the first (1828) edition of his dictionary, wrote:

WELFARE, n. [well and fare, a good faring; G.]

1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.

2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.

Source

I'm sorry, ican, but although you are right to distinguish between the welfare of people and the welfare of states, your claim is wrong by the obvious originalist test. A welfare state of America's size, public schools, and a universal healthcare system of the kind Obama proposes, is plainly one of "the ordinary blessings of society and civil government" these days. All countries comparable to America have a these blessings. That's how ordinary they are. You are free to disagree they are blessings and vote accordingly. But if the majority of your compatriots disagree, you're out of luck. As far as the US constitution is concerned, you're on your own.

I applaud you for making an originalist argument about the constitution. But please do it right, lest you make the rest of us originalists look nutty.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thumbs up, Thomas!

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
But since Obama proposes massive new big government programs and entitlements and McCain doesn't, IMO McCain has the edge on who will be better for most Americans.

Oh GOODIE! Since giving people houses that they can't afford is not a "big government program," can I have one of those houses that McCain promised to all of his friends (every American voter), including Oliver or Alan or whoever (you know, that dumb ignorant hick who didn't know about Fannie Mae before the crisis)!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/

On this one I agree with you. I was yelling at McCain when he made that grandiose proposal during the debate. But it was the Democrats that have pushed 'affordable housing' to the point that we got into this mess in the first place, and the GOP allowed it to happen. So both sides have to take their lumps on that, and there obviously is not going to be the money for McCain to have done much with his hairbrained proposal anyway.

McCain does have it right on a lot of his economic philosophy--getting government out of the way and allowing Americans to prosper as Americans know how to do better than just about anybody. Obama is wrong that it is safe to raise taxes on small businesses making over $250k or whatever because it is those businesses where most of our American jobs come from. McCain is right to get as much burden off of business as possible if we want business to create a lot of new jobs. Both of them are living a fool's dream if they think they can signle handedly eliminate any government programs however. Congress will never allow that.

Who will be better for most Americans? It depends on whether you take the short view or the long view. Short term goodies handed out by the government and stopgap protections are always appreciated by those receiving them and the side handing them out can count on the support of the recipients. (The maxim: He who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.) Our Founders had a lot to say about that and how it is detrimental to the health of the Republic.

For long term prosperity, the free market must be allowed sufficient freedom to get it done and McCain is far more likely to understand that.

1 Reply

OBAMA VERSUS MCCAIN: ARGUMENTS FOR WHO IS BETTER FOR MOST AMERICANS

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know