and for most of years, obama voted "present" on voting issues. sometimes he was even the only one voting present. why should i want a president who can't even make known his stance on ANY issue?

as for palin and her foreign policy; she's meeting with the president of colombia, iraq, pakistan and georgia as well as henry kissinger, all in an effort to prepare for her possible vice presidency

not to mention, what experience has obama had with foreign relations? (i'm actually not sure about that one, its not rhetorical) but i do know his foreign policy; negotiation without preconditions. sitting down with ANY leader. how can you expect to negotiate with anyone who says " "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." (hussein moussawi, former terrorist leader)

I'll be honest, I haven't gone through and counted all of Obama's votes to see his percentages of yeas, nays, and no-votes; but based on his voting record as listed here, I'd say that it's far-fetched to say that he's failed to vote on most issues.

Even so, I think Obama has taken a stance on a number of issues, as judged by speeches, interviews, writings, and the like.


Great. I don't know if merely meeting with political leaders qualifies one to make decisions on issues related to those nations, but I guess it's a start. (Although I wouldn't mind if she didn't meet at all with Henry Kissinger; that's hardly a good thing.) The fact remains, though, that she doesn't really have any experience in foreign policy, nor as she made many statements as to her position. I'd like to give her time, but...the clock is winding down a bit.


Yes, because we've seen over the past eight years that attacking sovereign nations is the best foreign policy.

Look, I'd rather have someone who's willing to negotiate than go to war. McCain's a hawk; he's on record saying that he'd go to war with Russia if Russia attacked Georgia (after Georgia becomes a part of NATO). Russia! That's the problem with McCain; he hasn't realized the Cold War's over, and he and the Bush Administration seem intent on starting it up again. And they're getting their way, too; the Russian Navy's even participating in war games with Venezuela.

But I think you're alluding to the highly inappropriate comments Bush made before the Israeli Knisset back in May. I have a lot to say on the issue, but I think that Chris Matthews says it better than I ever could:

f**king hell that dude in the video is annoying

well at least palin is doing something. what exactly qualifies obama in foreign relations?

obama has voted "present" almost 130 times, ever. i'd say that is most of his voting history. and even when he does vote, its contrived with fellow democrats in gain more power over the republicans.

you say that he's taken a stance on speeches, writing, etc. that's the thing with obama. he's very eloquent, saying he'll do this, do that. but what will he really do? is he just a talker? or a doer as well? i'd say by not voting he is not taking a stance on very many things...

when you say "Yes, because we've seen over the past eight years that attacking sovereign nations is the best foreign policy."

9/11? what did we do to provoke that? there are terrorists out there like the extreme islamists who believe that we, as a society are evil and must be eliminated. we did not attack them first. the bush administration just decided to fight back.

at least mccain knows from experience what it means going into the war. my point is, negotiation just does not work with people who want you dead. period.

I'll be honest, I don't have a good answer to this question. I feel that Obama has been involved in foreign policy issues on a grander scale than Palin; as a US Senator, it'd be hard to have no involvement in foreign affairs. But more importantly, I feel that Obama is more capable of delegating foreign affairs issues to capable, intelligent staff members. Given our foreign policy failures under the Bush Administration, I no longer feel comfortable letting any right-wing Republican deal with foreign leaders. The most prominent thing McCain has said about Iran, for example, is "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran". That's not the kind of person I trust to make foreign policy decisions. I somehow feel that Palin is no more capable or influential.

That's not to say that this is a "lesser of two evils" issue. I do feel that Obama is intelligent enough to make the right decision on most foreign policy issues, and to delegate decision-making when necessary. It's an error to think that our politicians can and should know everything about everything.

Admittedly, one big area in which I disagree with Obama is his stance on Israel, but aside from that, I think he is quite capable on foreign issues -- not necessarily because he's an expert, but he surrounds himself with people who are.



Obama's been a US Senator for four years, and spent seven years as a state senator before that; 130 votes is a drop in the bucket (although I wouldn't mind a citation for that figure). I read through about four pages of his voting record, and that went back only about a year. Senators cast a lot of votes. If you'd like to give percentage figures on his yeas, nays, and non-votes, be my guest. I linked to his voting record; it's just a matter of counting everything up.

Of course, I don't deny that Obama has a tendency to vote with Democrats, but, geez, you can hardly criticize Obama for trying to leverage the position of Democrats against Republicans -- that's how politics work. A Republican senator (such as McCain) would vote in a similar way. I do feel that Obama does not merely toe the party line, but tries to vote as best he can.



I can't promise anything, but his writing and speeches do show him to be a more passionate, intelligent candidate than McCain, who at least tries not to sink to petty name-calling and mudslinging. What are McCain/Palin guaranteed to do that's so much better than Obama? What are they going to do to save America?



The reason we're in the mess we're in right now is because of simplistic thinking like this -- the idea that there are swarms of Islamic fundamentalists who hate America so much that they want to see it destroyed, and the only thing we can do to stop it is kill 'em all -- and maybe take over a few oil-rich countries in the process, right?

The truth is, our foreign policy issues are much, much more complicated than that, and have roots long before September 11, 2001. Did we directly provoke 9/11 by bombing another country? No. But we've spent years -- decades -- meddling in the foreign affairs of the Middle East. We've supported Israel since the beginning in their quest to essentially steal land from the Palestinians. We've lobbed cruise missiles at Kenya and Afghanistan. We sold arms to Afghanistan, then abandoned them as soon as they pushed out the Soviets. We intervened in the Balkans. We've falsely accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction. We've sold arms and given to support to Israel (yes, I already mentioned that, but it's important). We've meddled in the politics of Iran (and lost out on the deal in the end).

And that's just the Middle East. We've had our fingers in other pies in places ranging from Southeast Asia to Central America, and we've done some pretty nasty things there. In short, we've created a situation in which no one can really trust the US. Would you trust a country like the US?

So yes, I'd say we did provoke 9/11. I'm not saying anyone deserved to die, but there was provocation. That it didn't happen sooner is what's really surprising.

But that's the problem with McCain -- and, by extension and association, Palin. They promote the myth that you've repeated -- that America's a-okay and some mean, nasty Muslims just hate us for no good reason. Swap out Muslims for Soviets and Communists, and you have a similar situation that created an atmosphere of fear from the 1945 to 1991. Well, I for one am tired of politicians pulling the wool over our eyes by creating threats against one scapegoat or another. Communists or Muslims, it's all the same illusion -- and you'll just get more of that illusion if McCain is in office.

The real cause of our problems with foreign affairs is America's atrocious foreign policy and human rights record. And I don't want more of the same.

i'll look up the figures for obama's voting history later; i don't have time right now. but..

what you say about mccain voting usually for republican isn't true. in 2006, mccain was rated 62% (or 64, i can't remember off the top of my head) his level of conservative ratings. so 48% of the other times, he voted more liberally, showing he is more openminded to both sides, although he IS more conservative than liberal.

compare this to obama, who was rated 8% conservativeness, 92% of the time being liberal, his own party.

as to what palin and mccain are GUARANTEED to do, i'm not sure i admit. but with what i hear about obama's spotty voting record, it makes me wonder what he will do as a president; you can't just not have an opinion there. (once again, i will check up on that later)

"The truth is, our foreign policy issues are much, much more complicated than that, and have roots long before September 11, 2001. Did we directly provoke 9/11 by bombing another country? No. But we've spent years -- decades -- meddling in the foreign affairs of the Middle East. We've supported Israel since the beginning in their quest to essentially steal land from the Palestinians. We've lobbed cruise missiles at Kenya and Afghanistan. We sold arms to Afghanistan, then abandoned them as soon as they pushed out the Soviets. We intervened in the Balkans. We've falsely accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction. We've sold arms and given to support to Israel (yes, I already mentioned that, but it's important). We've meddled in the politics of Iran (and lost out on the deal in the end)."

we've supported israel because they are our ally...,shall we just drop them? they are just trying to fight for land of their own. from what i can remember from last year, they didn't just "steal" land, they won the land when they were attacked after trying to proclaim themselves as independent. like the yom kippur war? or the 7 days war, i really can't remember.

afghanistan, we just fought with to push out the soviet war. the enemy of my enemy is my friend...at least for the time being.

and from what i know, there has been no proof that there either war OR wasn't WMD in iraq

that's basically all i can touch up on right now,.i have to sleep ;)

As I noted before, I'm not going to argue that Obama isn't staunchly liberal in his voting record. I don't view this as an entirely bad thing, but it's not an entirely good thing, either. Then again, given what's happened over the last eight years with conservatives in power, a liberal-leaning president can't be a bad thing.

That said, McCain is a bit more of a "maverick", or was, rather. At one time (around 2000, when he was running for the Republican nomination), I actually supported the guy in his bid against Bush. But McCain's lost his "maverick" charm; he's really just a lackey of the Republican Party/religious right/corporate America/special interest groups now. Which is a shame, really.



Okay, well, unless you can provide some specific details on Obama's "not having an opinion", or actually do an analysis of his voting record, then this claim is weak at best.



Absolutely, we should stop supporting Israel! Our support of Israel is probably the cause of some of our biggest problems in the Middle East, and what do we really gain from being allies with Israel? Moreover, why do we give Israel a blank check to systematically continue human-rights abuses of Palestinians? Let me ask you this: Is it right to force Palestinians off their land and hand it over to Jewish settlers? Is it right to bomb the apartment complexes, market places, and villages of Palestinian civilians? Is it right to assassinate elected Palestinian politicians?

Look up the history of Israel. It isn't pretty. The land that became Israel did belong to Palestinians prior to 1945; Israel was only created as a result of the Holocaust. The Holocaust was horrific, yes, but I hardly think it should have led to the small-scale genocide of the Palestinian people. I don't really care if Israel took the land in war -- might does not make right. At any rate, there's no need to kill Palestinian civilians.

Granted, I don't think the Palestinians act entirely appropriately, either, but on the whole, I'm against the murder of civilians by both sides. Israel, however, is a lot better at killing innocent Palestinians than the Palestinians are at killing Israeli civilians.



This is exactly the short-sighted foreign policies about which I am concerned. We supported Afghanistan in order to fight against a nebulous Communist "threat". Don't you see that it's the same thing, over and over again? First it was the Communists, now it's the Muslim extremists. The enemy changes, the policies stay the same. Our support of Afghanistan got us into a lot of trouble because we abandoned the country as soon as our needs were met. And for what? To meddle, once again, in someone else's foreign affairs? This idea of "you're my friend...for the time being" is what continually gets us in trouble.



Sigh...your claim runs counter to mounds and mounds of evidence and intelligence gathered and released since the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003. Most experts agree that the evidence we had was wrong or outright fabricated. Do you really think that, after occupying Iraq for five years and not finding any weapons of mass destruction, that they're still hiding out their somewhere? I don't, and neither do most analysts who have studied the evidence. Seriously, I'm not making this up; a number of military and congressional commissions, as well as CIA analysts, have said that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

But, oops, look...while we were chasing ghosts in Iraq, look who did develop nuclear capabilities: North Korea and Iran. Yet another example of the failed foreign policy of the last eight years.

Oh, and what about Bin Laden? Still haven't caught him yet, either. But, you know, maybe after we invade Pakistan, we'll find him. Right?

The 9/11 attacks were planned for years. Other attacks on other countries/places were supplemented the 9/11 attacks. Planning started in 1996! That's nearly 5 years in the making. 9/11 was the accumulation of many pent up hostilities towards the US. It's hard to pinpoint what exactly provoked the attacks. All we understand is that the extremists totally disagree with US policies. It's all well and good to side with an ally but it's very different if we help supply troops and weaponry.

Not only did experts say there were probably not many or any at all WMDs in Iraq... but the CIA itself confessed as did the executive branch that much of the WMDs reports were known to be false. There was a huge media frenzy for months as the CIA went under investigation for the reports. Whether or not there were ACTUALLY hidden WMDs in Iraq is not the main concern. The main concern is that Bush and the government LIED and said there was PROOF of DEFINITE WMDs in Iraq and went to war for that.

Searches of all the possible places to put WMDs in Iraq has turned up nothing.

Incidentally, McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time, so it doesn't seem like McCain is capable of making his own decisions, either.

Anybody find it funny, how after the debate, Obama has been gaining with the 50 and over crowd? Also, white women are more inclined to vote for him now.

who do you think is going to win?

In the end, do any of us really win?

no cause we have a dumb congress still

HAH! Some rescue plan...The Dow is falling faster than the staff credibility! J.K.

did any of you guys see all the other shit they put in the bail out plan? like funding for wooden arrows and other random ass shit that only about .0087 % of the population would ever care about.

i don't understand....

It just goes to show, that our elected officials clearly don't care about what we think.

i'm just really confused by it. i don't understand why the house wouldn't pass it the first time around, but now that it has like 150 billion worth of pointless crap they will.


i don't know. i don't get any of it. i'm confused. if i'm not confused, then i think this is just really f**ked up

Honestly, my opinion probably wont affect the debate in anyway. I'm not the best at debating online, but I'm just going to say my opinion and leave. haha

Anyway, I don't really believe that either of them are very qualified, Maybe in some issues Obama is and maybe in others McCain is, but all together, I don't think either of them are.
I would like to say, however, that I'm probably going to vote for McCain. I agree with him on more issues than Obama.
But if it was up to me, neither of them would win.

tact

well i think that they added things that seemed attractive to both sides .

About tonight's debates, the pressure is on Obama . But my boyyy will handle it . McCain has better experience in talking in these question type things, but if he's out to attack Obama with these stupid lies and things that he exagerates then he's done . (herb ass McCain)

Haha. I can tell Im talking to a liberal. No, Im not rich. I live in a middle class family and Im going to school to be a nurse. So, do I believe that the minimum wage should be raised? Of course, but not drastically. Im friggin sick of all these lazy people relying on the govt. Dont you believe in the American dream? Small businesses are a huge part of that. McCain wants to make govt. smaller and have small businesses thrive in the US. Obama wants to raise the taxes on people who make 250,000 or more a year. My dad owned his own construction company a few years ago... he has since folded it. But he told me he made well over 250,000 a year... but he made way less in profit. If he still owned that business and Obama gets in office, he would be taxed even MORE outrageously than he already was. I can remember a few times he was so angry over the amount of taxes he paid already. Thats how you lose jobs. Offshore drilling? Now there is a way to create jobs, take our dependence off of foreign countries, and also help the economy.

About illegal immigration. I guess I got a little ahead of myself. Your right, it would not be practical to kick them out. I guess Im just a little PISSED OFF that there are a ton of people living in the US taking away American's jobs and not paying taxes. Obama wants to give rights to these people, he wants to give them driver's licenses. Haha. Guess who these people are voting for? Obama. He is going to get votes from people who arent even American citizens, wonderful. I believe, along with John McCain, that these people who broke our laws, came into our country illegally, refuse to pay taxes, and take our jobs should EARN their citizenship. Not have it handed to them. They knew what they were doing when they came into our country illegally... they need to take responsibility for their selfish actions, and unfortunately their children are going to have to pay for their parent's mistakes. I understand how most liberals think: People shouldnt be held responsible for their actions, its not their fault, the govt. can just bail them out. Hell no.

Im a practical conservative. I belive in earning your money, earning your citizenship and earning respect.

what's liberal about that? that i think people should get paid enough to live on their wage and i don't think you can just throw every illegal immigrant out of the country in the snap of a finger? yeah, so liberal of me.


you still didn't tell me why you don't think minimum wage should be livable. i didn't say it needs to be raised drastically, although if that's what it takes to be livable, then i'm for that too. i just said that if you work you should be able to provide the basics for yourself. you keep saying how you believe in people working, but then you don't believe people should be rewarded enough to live on their hard work...once again, makes no sense to me.

you don't think people should make enough to live on and then ask me if i believe in the american dream?

lol wut?


anyway, so how is he going to make our government smaller? because republicans love to say that, but we've been under a republican for 8 years and i don't see how our government has gotten anything but bigger.


i don't think mccain is going to "make smaller businesses thrive". i don't think obama is either though. i think neither candidate has a great plan for smaller businesses, because both of them have their drawbacks and flaws. i don't have a lot of knowledge of what average earnings for different businesses are so i won't pretend like i do. however, i still don't think the majority of small businesses make over 250,000. either way, i think both of them suck at this and neither is really on the side of small businesses.


people get so "pissed off" at immigrants for taking "their" jobs but why don't you jump all over of the american citizens who are giving them "your" jobs in the first place? they aren't taking them, they are getting them handed to them. no, i'm not going to knock someone who desperately needs a job for accepting one.

i said before, the system is broken. if they could become legal the right way they wouldn't be doing it the wrong way. it's not a black and white issue. i don't understand what you mean by obama is going to get the vote of the illegal immigrants. you have to be an american citizen to vote.

you paint them to all be awful people who disregard all laws and just want a free ride in life. that's just bullshit and very ignorant to say. they came to have a better life and give their kids a better one, and the system which is broke hasn't allowed that to happen flawlessly. you harp on how they should EARN their citizenship, ok that's delightful, but it's missing my whole point which is you can't just EARN it when the system is messed up to begin with.


obama didn't say that it should be "handed to them". he said:





i mean, hey, don't you believe in the american dream?

I would like to applaud dosomething888 on her ability to regurgitate every Republican talking point ever. Fine job, my friend!

objection #1: this villainization of "liberals" needs to stop. You can tell when you're talking to one, and you know how they think? Oh, ok. They think people shouldn't be held responsible for their actions because the government will bail them out (Bail out? why does that phrase sound so familiar?.....). LOL. Yes. That's it, that's exactly it. I'm so glad you're so good at critical thinking.
Liberal is not a dirty word, and today's Republicans aren't even conservative by any stretch of the imagination, unless we're talking socially.

Your problem with illegal immigrants. Of course there are problems with illegal immigration, but the problem is not they're "taking our jobs" and "refusing to pay taxes." What the hell? And people who aren't citizens can't vote. Seriously...get your information somewhere other than your daddy, and the rest of us might be able to take your opinion seriously, but right now you're sounding incredibly ignorant. People move here because the legal immigration process is long and difficult; these people are moving here, taking low paying jobs in hopes that they might better the lives of their families. There is no refusal to pay taxes. However, it's awfully hard to pay income taxes when you're being paid below minimum wage under the table.

And there's a reason politicians keep proposing driver's licenses for illegals rather even though they're unpopular among voters. While I honestly have not done enough research on the issue to say for certain, I would imagine that the benefits would be to have more qualified drivers on the roads than untrained ones, and to be able to identify those who are illegal, when there are going to be few other ways to keep tabs on someone who is undocumented.

You defend your positions by saying that you're not rich, but middle class. Think about it: you were born into that status. You seem terribly fond of the idea that people should earn what they get, and of course I won't argue with you on that one. But what have you earned?
I'll spare you the drawn out hypothetical questions I had initially asked and just make this point instead. You should be more sympathetic to those worse off. Not believing in handouts is one thing. But be careful when you say things like "I believe in earning your money, earning your citizenship and earning respect," because chances are you haven't really done any of those things. You haven't earned your citizenship, you were born here. You probably haven't earned all that much of your own money, because you probably haven't needed to. And earning respect? How about not disrespecting people because they haven't been as fortunate as you in life?

PS, have you actually looked into McCain's stances on illegal immigration at all? You probably won't like them very much; he's not very tough on them by Republican standards.

I also really don't think that very many Republican policies are favorable towards small businesses. The whole idea is that corporations should be trusted over the government; what the hell do corporations care about your father's business? Lowering taxes sounds nice and all, but not if we're still pouring money into Iraq. Let's keep piling on that national debt!

Now. I most definitely have issues with some of Obama's proposals and ideas. But like...I've done my research, I've considered both sides. I try to think from other people's perspectives. Have you? Doesn't seem like it.

are you really that naive?

READ A BOOK:

On a side note, did anyone watch the Daily Show last night? The one where he showed McCain's Stump speech and his republican convention one?