Thursday, October 16, 2008

Presidential Debate: Round 3

I'd actually like to offer more of a political opinion on this post.

There were two instances in the debate that stuck out to me and showed Obama as the superior as he has been throughout the campaign.

McCain during the debate challenged Obama and asked to recall one time when he went against his party since he's been a Senator in his short term. Obama mentioned 5 instances. That was the end of that challenge and dialog. Another time later, McCain asked Obama to tell Joe the Plumber how much of a fine he would pay. Obama looked into the camera, and told Joe ....."Zero". That was the end of that too. All McCain could do was roll his eyes.

Obama's policies while not all are perfect, at least are laid out to be understood. McCain still has not offered up anything stable and consistent of what he proposes. What does he propose?

The temperament between the two are distinctly different. Does anything phase Obama? Anything? His calmness and level headedness is remarkable. He's always in control. I also feel that if we are lucky enough to have him as President, we will finally have someone with not only a Brilliant mind, but a wonderful heart.

Do I even need to get into the Christian aspect of this debate? Same as the previous two. One showed complete resentment and hatred of the other. The other one was cordial and personal.

6 comments:

Mark B said...

You have become such a blind apologist for Obama that nothing that is said to counter his aura will have the ability to penetrate the web of adoration that you and the three other people that respond to this blog have enshrined in your minds.

So, when it is said that Obama is a liar, it will undoubtedly fall on deaf ears, but what the hell.

Obama has said in the past he has had no connection to ACORN. Less than two weeks ago, on his own website, he had posted that he had no connection to ACORN. That has since been removed.

Facts are, he taught training sessions to ACORN members, he represented ACORN in a civil lawsuit, he and William Ayers funneled $230,000 to ACORN, his campaign has donated over $800,000 to ACORN... That is a connection. Obama is a LIAR.

When it is pointed out to you that Obama is deceptive, you will enable and defend him.

Obama has said about Ayers, that, "he is just a guy in the neighborhod". When that wasn't good enough, "he was someone that I happened to sit on a board with". When that wasn't good enough he came up with more generalities and has made numerous revisions to how he was associated with Ayers, yet none of them are what the facts are. Obama is DECEPTIVE.

It's not necessarily the associations that matter, but one has to wonder that if these associations are as minimal as we are led to believe, then why the cover-up, why the lies, why the deception?

If he is deceptive on this level, it's hard for some of us to see him as trustworthy overall and wonder whether the policies he hopes to endow on America are just a teaser for more control later on in his presidency.

When Obama says that he wants abortion to remain an option so that if his daughters make a mistake that they won't be "punished" with a child. Contrast that with what Christ said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these".

When Obama stands on the Illinois Senate floor and argues that babies born following a botched abortion should receive no medical help since this would go against the mothers original intention is in stark contrast to the fuzzy stance he took during the debate. He is DECEPTIVE and does not have a wonderful heart.

This contrast speaks volumes about Obama's character. The fact that you ignore these un Christlike qualities and proclaim him as honorable and see no flaw in the man just does not wash.

Botts said...

Hi Mark,

"You have become such a blind apologist for Obama that nothing that is said to counter his aura will have the ability to penetrate the web of adoration that you and the three other people that respond to this blog have enshrined in your minds."

Well Mark, I've been following Obama for over 6 years now before he was ever a Senator. You can give me whatever you want, and I can either answer them or refute them totally. I do my own leg work Mark, and don't rely on propaganda especially ones that come from either the left wing media or right wing.

"So, when it is said that Obama is a liar, it will undoubtedly fall on deaf ears, but what the hell."

Obama lies. Of course he does. Who doesn't? Everyone lies, and politicians are probably the worst. They either flat out lie on some things or stretch the truth.

"Obama has said in the past he has had no connection to ACORN. Less than two weeks ago, on his own website, he had posted that he had no connection to ACORN. That has since been removed."

He has never had the connection that YOU claim it to be. His connection dates back to the mid 90's when he represented them partnered with the DEPARTMENT of JUSTICE. That's the Government in case you didn't know that.

"Facts are, he taught training sessions to ACORN members, he represented ACORN in a civil lawsuit, he and William Ayers funneled $230,000 to ACORN, his campaign has donated over $800,000 to ACORN... That is a connection. Obama is a LIAR."

Here's the deal Mark. You are believing so much propaganda that you don't know what is real, wrong or right. Please tell me you don't listen to Hannity. Because if you do, you'll never get the truth.

Acorn hires people to register voters and makes sure voters are real. In many cases, the people they hire fraudulently registers fake people. People that don't exist. Take Mickey Mouse for example. What does that have to do with elections Mark? Absolutely nothing. Mickey Mouse will not be in the voting booth Mark, nor will the fake people.

They are two different things. Acorn is only being brought up, because the GOP wants to suppress the actual voters that have been registered. Many new Democrats have been registered and this turn out will probably be the biggest in history. The GOP knows this. Why didn't they question this months ago? Maybe because they weren't losing in the polls.

Acorn is a non issue.

"When it is pointed out to you that Obama is deceptive, you will enable and defend him."

Every single politician since the history of time has been deceptive in certain things. They all stretch the truth. No one is denying this. Especially me.

"Obama has said about Ayers, that, "he is just a guy in the neighborhod". When that wasn't good enough, "he was someone that I happened to sit on a board with". When that wasn't good enough he came up with more generalities and has made numerous revisions to how he was associated with Ayers, yet none of them are what the facts are. Obama is DECEPTIVE."

You have got to move on from this. You are totally going kookoo like the rest of Hannity's listeners. I'm grateful that you guys are the minority. He was on a Educational Board made up of Republicans and Democrats funded by Reagan's Ambassodor and supporter of John McCain.

Ayer's is a non issue. What do you think him and Barack are staging a coup? Get real Mark. Obama didn't know who he was until he joined the board. Obama's main focus was Education, not the members of the Board's past.

"It's not necessarily the associations that matter, but one has to wonder that if these associations are as minimal as we are led to believe, then why the cover-up, why the lies, why the deception?"

There was no cover up. The information has been here since the beginning. Why are you so insistent on something that is a non issue?

"If he is deceptive on this level, it's hard for some of us to see him as trustworthy overall and wonder whether the policies he hopes to endow on America are just a teaser for more control later on in his presidency."

Like when McCain states he can balance the budget in 4 years? He is the master Panderer, take Palin for example. Do you even know what his policies are? You're fine one to talk.

"When Obama says that he wants abortion to remain an option so that if his daughters make a mistake that they won't be "punished" with a child. Contrast that with what Christ said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these"."

Now we're getting to the heart of it. Now I know exactly where you're coming from. This IS the problem with you. All that other stuff you bring out is nonsense. This is the issue for you.

We are a democracy Mark, not a Theocracy. Our Constitution allows Abortion until the Medical community states otherwise. Until a fetus can live without the Mother for survival, this could never be overturned. If it was based on the evidence in hand, it would be a faith based law only. And a faith not shared by every citizen. You would be inserting faith into the Government. Our Constitution protects this.

I'll write a post on Abortion in due time. I'm Pro Life by Choice. It's everyones personal decision. They have to live with their decisions. There is no such thing as Pro Abortion. It's Choice or No Choice. That's the issue.

"When Obama stands on the Illinois Senate floor and argues that babies born following a botched abortion should receive no medical help since this would go against the mothers original intention is in stark contrast to the fuzzy stance he took during the debate. He is DECEPTIVE and does not have a wonderful heart."

Liar liar pants on fire Mark. There was already a Law in place protecting those babies in Illinois. This was another Law on top of that one. And might I add, the Medical Community was against it as well because they already had a law in place to protect aborted babies that survived.

Try another one.

"This contrast speaks volumes about Obama's character. The fact that you ignore these un Christlike qualities and proclaim him as honorable and see no flaw in the man just does not wash."

Compared to his opponent, it's not even close. I'm using my faith and knowledge on Christ to how I live and elect the leaders. He is by far the closest thing to a Christian that I've ever seen in a candidate.

I don't think he'll lie about things to go bomb another Country and kill 300,000 of their citizens along with over 5000 of our soldiers. Wasn't Bush pro life? He sure didn't act like it. Let's tell the Iraqi's how Pro Life he is.

Harvey said...

Mark b:

Wow!!!
Your post is a classic example of Dinesh's tried and true methods for "debate".
1) Start by concluding that your opponent cannot be made to recognize the truth (as you claim it to be) thus destroying whatever rebuttal he may mount in advance of his statements. AD HOMINEM?
2) Put forth a series of half truths and abject lies without actually referencing any unbiased sources.
3) When your opponent is able, despite 1) and 2) above, to not only point out the half truths or to put them in true context so they can be understood by a presumably unbiased audience, repeat them again and again in slightly differing forms to obfuscate sufficiently to hope to still convince that part of your audience that is not able to see what you are trying to do (such as having only a single issue that really matters to you among all the rest of your sound and fury, siginifying nothing).
You have tried to go up against a clear thinker, who has just "handed you your head".

Richelle said...

harvey,

i think you're right about mark b's "debate" style. seems to me like he took a page right out of dinesh's book. specifically from that chapter that tells you to call the person you disagree with an apologist and rant on in such a way that you might be considered an apologist for propaganda. very effective... if you're not too bright.

Mark B said...

Botts,

I just had to say something because you were gushing so much about Obama, I felt you were giving undue credibility to his standing amongst the masses as the "Annointed One" whom we should all prepare to bow down to. Now that you have acknowledged that he has at least two flaws, I feel better.

Harvey,

I will never claim to be as wise or as intellegent as many of the posters on any blog. Thank you for making me aware of proper debating procedure. I was kind of hurt that you compared me to Dinesh and will endeavor to remove that distinction in the future.

Harvey said...

Mark b:
To be fair, I was somewhat raken aback by your post (in the manner of DD) since I have not noticed you descending to DD's technique in the past. Notice that I did not necessarily take issue with what you tried to say, only with how you seemed to be saying it. It is always a good thing when people on both sides of any issue take the trouble to support their views, especially when they are able to refrain from ad hominem and/or personal attacks and stick to the issues themselves. Botts, as usual, answered your points in a collegial and (in his opinion) a factual way. Whether I may personally agree with some or all of the points you made, my response was posted because of the marked improvement I have seen in the quality of comments being made on this and Saint Brian The Godless' new blog. Dinesh is gone, but the rabble rousing and self aggrandizement that characterized his Blog are not forgotten.