Give a Legitimate Argument For McCain, Against Obama

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
philly and Snowlock, I think you two should consider just dropping it and backing off--you're not getting anywhere with each other, and the back-and-forth is starting to make entering this discussion feel like stepping onto a firing range.
 
Snowlock said:



The mere fact that there was media fascination with the guy between 2004-2007 lead to his candidacy. He would not be here today were it not for media attention following his senate victory. And yes, it was as large of scale to call it momentum. The guy went from absolutely unknown to among the top of American consciousness overnight and somehow in the intervening years managed to stay there.



but this simply isn't true.

no one really knew who he was until late 2007, and not really until after Iowa -- where he was a known commodity -- and that's when Hillary's huge national lead, due to her household name status, began to evaporate.

some people knew he gave a spectacular speech in 2004. maybe that he was a Senator. and then maybe that he was a black man running for president.

on a national level, he was not much more than a passing curiosity, a potential star, in the Democratic party. most people probably couldn't have named him or what state he was from. contrast this with our "known commodity" Mrs. Clinton.

i think you're really misunderstanding what is meant by "momentum." you can't have it when you're an unknown. you can only have it when you're a contender, something Obama wasn't, nationally, until *after* Iowa.

what's most true about Obama is the opposite of Mrs. Clinton -- the more people see of him, the more they listen to him, the more they like him.
 
yolland said:
philly and Snowlock, I think you two should consider just dropping it and backing off--you're not getting anywhere with each other, and the back-and-forth is starting to make entering this discussion feel like stepping onto a firing range.

Fair enough. I'll stop addressing his posts. I still intend to stay in this thread, though, since I started it and am interested in the responses.
 
2861U2 said:


Elaborate.

-Our government spends $2.7 billion a WEEK in Iraq. I don't care who you are, spending that kind of money weekly does not fit into a small government's agenda.

-Small government doesn't intrude on the private lives of its citizens. This current administration wants to be able to wiretap without warrant, deny homosexuals equal rights, and has used fear as an excuse for eroding civil liberties. And has questioned the patriotism of those who oppose them.

-This administration came into power with a surplus and we are now riding and increasing upon a massive debt.
 
phillyfan26 said:
Fair enough. I'll stop addressing his posts. I still intend to stay in this thread, though, since I started it and am interested in the responses.
:up:
 
Diemen said:
-This administration came into power with a surplus and we are now riding and increasing upon a massive debt.

It's easy to get people not to notice the economic woes when you're hiding it under the championing of tax cuts.
 
yolland said:
philly and Snowlock, I think you two should consider just dropping it and backing off--you're not getting anywhere with each other, and the back-and-forth is starting to make entering this discussion feel like stepping onto a firing range.

yeah, I already did.
 
Irvine511 said:




but this simply isn't true.

no one really knew who he was until late 2007, and not really until after Iowa -- where he was a known commodity -- and that's when Hillary's huge national lead, due to her household name status, began to evaporate.

some people knew he gave a spectacular speech in 2004. maybe that he was a Senator. and then maybe that he was a black man running for president.

on a national level, he was not much more than a passing curiosity, a potential star, in the Democratic party. most people probably couldn't have named him or what state he was from. contrast this with our "known commodity" Mrs. Clinton.

i think you're really misunderstanding what is meant by "momentum." you can't have it when you're an unknown. you can only have it when you're a contender, something Obama wasn't, nationally, until *after* Iowa.

what's most true about Obama is the opposite of Mrs. Clinton -- the more people see of him, the more they listen to him, the more they like him.

Sorry, but that's just not true. You may've not known who he was, and sure, he's even more well known now than he ever was - he's a legit prez candidate now compared to the speculative one he was from 2004-2007. But he was no curiosity, I'm not sure why you would say that. Even the most ardent anti-Obama politico will agree that since '04 he's been a major player and at least as loud a voice as Clinton, if not louder.
 
Snowlock said:
Even the most ardent anti-Obama politico will agree that since '04 he's been a major player and at least as loud a voice as Clinton, if not louder.

I don't think that's true (hey, I wanted to join in... :wink: )

But seriously, though, I don't think Obama was anywhere near as visible in the national media as Hillary until late 2006, and even then Hillary was still clearly the heavyweight. His speech at the 04 Convention was no doubt a hit, but at least in my experience in following the news, he dropped off the radar shortly after, and the media didn't really put him back on until everyone began announcing their candidacies.

From my perspective, it wasn't until the primaries got started that I feel he really started to play in the same league as Clinton.
 
Diemen said:


I don't think that's true (hey, I wanted to join in... :wink: )

But seriously, though, I don't think Obama was anywhere near as visible in the national media as Hillary until late 2006, and even then Hillary was still clearly the heavyweight. His speech at the 04 Convention was no doubt a hit, but at least in my experience in following the news, he dropped off the radar shortly after, and the media didn't really put him back on until everyone began announcing their candidacies.

From my perspective, it wasn't until the primaries got started that I feel he really started to play in the same league as Clinton.

I may be, but trying not to, comparing Hillary to Obama regarding visibility. If Hilary was a 10 on the visibility scale, it has nothing to do with Obama being a 9.7. All I'm saying is prior to 2004, he was a .2. In '04 when the rest of the freshmen senators taking office were now a 1.2, Obama was a 9.6. The only win that got more headlines than his were GW's and he never stopped making headlines. Usually the public forget, like with Rudy G, but Obama managed to keep at the forefront and keep being a major player.

Was his profile lower before becoming a presidential candidate? Of course. But it was no Huckabee coming out of no where. He was as legit as McCaine or Clinton, despite being in the public eye for only 4 years.
 
I see what you're saying now. To an extent I agree - he didn't come out of nowhere for this election, but I wouldn't call him a 9.6 prior to it. Maybe a 5.
 
Irvine511 said:




see, this is what people are missing.

he's winning for a reason. she started out with way more money, way more name recognition, and she's literally in bed with a very popular, very successful ex-president. she's one of the faces of the now dearly missed 1990s peace and prosperity. she is a certifiable superstar in the democratic party and surely one of the most famous women in the world. they had every reason to run her, in the beginning, on a sense of inevitability. the moment she won the Senate in 2000 everyone knew she was going to make a run for the presidency. and her entire Senatorial career has been micromanaged with extreme prudence given to the larger picture -- her eventual presidential run.

and he's totally beaten her in every aspect of this campaign. someone with only one "real" campaign under his belt. and he's done it fair and square.

That's because she's a total bitch and everyone knows it.
 
Diemen said:
I see what you're saying now. To an extent I agree - he didn't come out of nowhere for this election, but I wouldn't call him a 9.6 prior to it. Maybe a 5.

C'mon now, Mitt Romney was a 5. A 5 is, "I heard that name before but can't place it even though I know he's a major." McCaine was a about a 7. You gotta agree that Obama was making more noise than McCaine.
 
Irvine511 said:




oh fuck off.

/leaves thread

Pussy. It's true and you know it. Sorry if you were offended. Hillary lost because of her personality end of story. Everyone hates her.

Hmmmm, I don't recall making any personal remarks about you prior either Irvine.
 
Last edited:
Snowlock said:


It's true and you know it. Sorry if you were offended. Hillary lost because of her personality end of story. Everyone hates her.
'



yeah. i bet she's a slut and a whore too.
 
Snowlock said:

Hmmmm, I don't recall making any personal remarks about you prior either Irvine.



this obviously isn't personal.

you used a generic, unoriginal slur to describe a female candidate.

you may as have called Obama a n*gger or Liberman a kyke.

so, yeah, fuck off.
 
Snowlock said:
You gotta agree that Obama was making more noise than McCaine.

Actually I don't. I think McCain was much more prominent. McCain-Feingold, public opposition to torture, talk show rounds - hell, he's been on The Daily Show more than any other guest, I think. Given that you rate McCain a 7 and Romney a 5, the most I'd give Obama in that respect would be a 6.
 
He has been correct about the flawed operations in Iraq from the start.
He has taken the opposite stance from the party on issues.
He has taken unpopular stances and stood by his convictions.

I do not agree with McCain on everything - but I said somewhere else, even when I do not agree with him, I somehow do not mind hearing him present the case when I do not.

These are some of the things that pop into my mind before this is closed.
 
phillyfan26 said:
That means talking about the actual issues.

Rules of this thread: No talk of experience. No talk of Obama being all about change and hope. No talk of supporters being insane.

Give real arguments.

i'm sorry, but in almost everything, experience is massive.

why can that not be used in this thread?
 
oh forgot, my legitimate argument for McCain

I'd argue that Obama's lack of experience is exactly what is getting him elected.

I think it's a message to the boomers, albiet an early one. Your time is over. We're taking over early.

It's happening in the workplace for 5/7 years. It might happen in the white house. I have no idea what to expect with Obama. My fear is he'll his naivete' will be exploited by both the old school hill types and some of our traditional enemies. He will be tested. Hope he passes the test.
 
Last edited:
Oh -- my legitimate argument for McCain:

Military background and understanding, in a time of war. Check.

Empathetic to the trigger puller AND the need for sacrifice AND the need for diplomacy.

The guy crosses the aisle better than any other. Check.

Wisdom of a hard boomer life/understanding of the mass of boomers and the nightmare of entitlements to ensue.

I like the straight talk.
 
Irvine511 said:
this obviously isn't personal.

you used a generic, unoriginal slur to describe a female candidate.

you may as have called Obama a n*gger or Liberman a kyke.

so, yeah, fuck off.

I reserve the right to call Hillary a cold hearted bitch, and Bush a stupid prick, any time I feel like it....would you honestly have objected if someone said something 10 times as bad regarding, say, Ann Coulter?
 
Re: oh forgot, my legitimate argument for McCain

MadelynIris said:
I have no idea what to expect with Obama. My fear is he'll his naivete' will be exploited by both the old school hill types and some of our traditional enemies. He will be tested. Hope he passes the test.
same here.

Hope is something

I might gamble on when

I am trying a new recipe

timer goes off -
cross fingers
and open the oven door
 
Last edited:
MadelynIris said:
Oh -- my legitame argument for McCain:

Military background and understanding, in a time of war. Check.

Empathetic to the trigger puller AND the need for sacrifice AND the need for diplomacy.

The guy crosses the aisle better than any other. Check.

Wisdom of a hard boomer life/understanding of the mass of boomers and the nightmare of entitlements to ensue.

I like the straight talk.

He wants to stay in Iraq for 100 more years. He feels that what we've done has worked in most areas. Once again, experience clearly does not equal judgment. His strategy for Iraq is absolutely ridiculous. Sending more troops will not help the situation. We've already sent soldiers over for more tours of duty than they should serve. We don't have enough body armor and equipment to protect the troops already there. More information on that is in this article.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-01-12-our-view_x.htm
We're spending almost $3 billion a week in Iraq, money that is being taken away from social programs, education, humanitarian aid to other countries, etc. We're borrowing money from Saudi Arabia and over a billion dollars a week from our biggest economic competitor, China. That could cause serious problems in the future. When we're relying on another nation for funding, they'll have a lot more influence on our foreign policy. Obama has a workable plan that will allow us to begin to withdraw troops from Iraq without leaving it to completely fend for itself. I talked more in detail about it in the thread about reasons for choosing Obama over McCain, so I'll just a post the link to the war policy here instead. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/ I will agree with you wholeheartedly that he is much more bipartisan in his past record of working with Democrats and Republicans, and I applaud him for that. Also, while we're going to have more "older" Americans than ever with the baby boomers beginning to move towards retirement and/or social security age, the younger generation always has to be the biggest focus of the government for the simple fact that we'll be the people running in and the rest of the country within a matter of mere years. Our social security and Medicare systems for seniors are in shambles and desperate need of reform, but I feel Obama has a plan that can accomplish that that is sensible and will begin to fix the serious problems in that area. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/socialsecurity/
I have never even been able to find a policy change of McCain on this issue. If he's content to have the system stay as it is, than he will not be able to connect with baby boomers and seniors as well as many expect. All of the older adults that I know and the sentiments of all those I've read articles about or seen on news reports about the subject of social security/Medicare for seniors rightfully want a reform.
 
Iraq for 50 for sho. Hopefully not 100. And I'm talking social and economic reform, with the backing of a military presence.

Can we really change the middle east to sort of a modern western way of thinking? Iraq would be our best shot at this moment.
 
You can't afford to stay there for 50 more years.

Are you willing to bankrupt your country for theirs?
 
Back
Top Bottom