Who really is Barack Obama?"CLAIMS & DEBUNKS (Who do you believe?)

[The Sisko]

There has to be a real discussion about why those costs are going up that way, where the money is actually going, what we are really going to do about, and what the ramifications of those actions are going to be.

Which is a conversation neither party really seems to really want to have.

Correction. One side clearly wants to discuss this while the other side wants to talk about things like "He's a muslim, black radical, who wants to change the seal of the POTUS". I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which.

[Thiebear]

His talk on immigration / border is tougher than McCains.

We should use Ontario and Massachusetts as the example of Universal Health-care.

[PeterMP]

Correction. One side clearly wants to discuss this while the other side wants to talk about things like "He's a muslim, black radical, who wants to change the seal of the POTUS". I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which.

Well, I'm listening, and I don't hear it. I alway ask this question and there is never an answer.

The costs of healthcare is going up faster than the rate of inflation. Where is the money going?

Thanks to the Perot graphs, I can say XXX category is going up faster than YYY category, but that doesn't really address where the money is going.

I'd be very happy to see the Dems address that question, and I think it would get a lot of people's attention. Instead all I hear them talk about is how everybody needs/deserves insurance, and the goverment should be responsible for making sure that is the case. As if, passing the costs onto goverment is a long term solution.

[Burgold]

Is there any reason to believe his reforms will actually bring down the cost of medical care vs. simply transfering it to the goverment?

How does that really change anything?

I think there is in this sense, there are two many people who use the Emergency Room as a primary care physician. Technically, ER's can't turn people away and so the uninsured and poor utilize them and the costs (much higher costs) get passed down to us. If a version of universal care were provided, the emergency room would be more often used for emergencies and there is a chance that more prevention would be done which would also drive down costs, because the earlier you catch a problem the cheaper it is to deal with.

[nonniey]

Again, hospitals are getting squeezed harder and harder. More and more they'll be forced to shift the costs for non-payers to folks with insurance and/or be faced with having to close. Once that happens, what was once seen as "socialized medicine" or a "gimmie program" will all of a sudden be seen as a viable option.

Us good ole Americans, we sure do know how to solve a problem...but only when it blows up into a major conflagration. We don't believe in nipping it in the bud.

Tell me who and what is squeezing the hospitals? Insurance companies? But then why is insurance so high? What is the source of the real problem? And which party is in the pocket of the group that is the source of the problem?

You want a solution that will solve more problems than any other single proposal (and not only in health care)? Mandate loser pays in all law suits.

[PeterMP]

I think there is in this sense, there are two many people who use the Emergency Room as a primary care physician. Technically, ER's can't turn people away and so the uninsured and poor utilize them and the costs (much higher costs) get passed down to us. If a version of universal care were provided, the emergency room would be more often used for emergencies and there is a chance that more prevention would be done which would also drive down costs, because the earlier you catch a problem the cheaper it is to deal with.

Has been happening for an extended period of time.

Doesn't explain constantly increasing costs faster than inflation at this point in time.

[Burgold]

Tell me who and what is squeezing the hospitals?

Insurance, litigation, and abuse of emergency services are the big three i would guess. They are also impacted by the ever increasing costs of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment.

[Burgold]

Has been happening for an extended period of time.

Doesn't explain constantly increasing costs faster than inflation.

No, but it does provide a possibility of some cost relief... which is what I thought you were asking for. I thought you asked why Universal Health Care might provide a lowering of costs. Well, prices might go down if people used ER's as they are meant to be used and if earlier and preventative care took place.

[Peeping Wizard]

I think many in Obama's camp like to act as if anybody who doesn't support Obama somehow believes he is a clandestine muslim terrorist, is racist or is somehow out of touch. However, there are MANY people out there who dislike Obama simply because of the stances he has taken on issues:

1) Health care

2) Unwilling to drill for oil on our own soil

3) Willingness to engage in discussions with despotic dictators (Iran, N. Korea, etc)

4) Proposed tax increases in the name of "fairness"

5) Immigration (not that McCain is much better on this one)

The National Journal rated Obama THE most liberal Senator in 2007. He was to the left of Bernie Sanders for crying out loud! This is based on his voting record and has nothing to do with clandestine theories about his race, religion or where he went to elementary school. Obama is much further to the left than McCain is to the right.

[Heisenberg]

It's going to be hard to hear as much about the issues as most reasonable voters want to in this election because Obama has to spend half his times defending himself from being labeled a Muslim or anti-American or basically everything you can read in a GoSkins or Sarge post lol.

Meanwhile, McCain is having to defend himself from being too old to do his job.

I'm curious to see if the focus shifts towards issues as the election nears or whether its just even more of this BS.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

PW--

1) Health care--I don't support Universal Healthcare

2) Unwilling to drill for oil on our own soil--Drilling here will not solve anything, it will merely deplete our reserves when what we really need to focus on is alternative energy. It can help in the short term, but we need to look to the future.

3) Willingness to engage in discussions with despotic dictators (Iran, N. Korea, etc)--John McCain would rather bomb any and all of the above. I'd rather talk first then go with the George Bush approach and put us in WWIII.

4) Proposed tax increases in the name of "fairness"--Tax increases make sense when you're spending as much as King George does. You need a balanced budget, more spending should be met with higher taxes.

5) Immigration (not that McCain is much better on this one)--The best solution to immigration is to make it easier for immigrants to become tax paying citizens if you ask me. The biggest complaint most people have about illegal immigrants is that they're taking advantage of hardworking American tax payers right? Then make them pay taxes, don't bother deporting them that's stupid, they'll just come back.

[PeterMP]

No, but it does provide a possibility of some cost relief... which is what I thought you were asking for. I thought you asked why Universal Health Care might provide a lowering of costs. Well, prices might go down if people used ER's as they are meant to be used and if earlier and preventative care took place.

Well, I am, but I am thinking long term. There will be a decrease in the short term, but if you don't address the constantly raising prices, then those short term gains will be overcome pretty quickly.

[Burgold]

Well, I am, but I am thinking long term. There will be a decrease in the short term, but if you don't address the constantly raising prices, then those short term gains will be overcome pretty quickly.

I think that's fair. It is possible however that early prevention could actually reduce litigation though. If you catch something earlier and it does not reach a catastrophic stage, then you are less likely to make a catastrophic mistake and thus less likely to be sued. (Mind you, I don't think my reasoning is completely sound here, because there are tons of frivilous schemers out there, but I think a certain subsection of lawsuits will disappear or at least be reduced.)

[Burgold]

The National Journal rated Obama THE most liberal Senator in 2007.

I want to take this on. We've got a bit of interesting propaganda going on here. In 2004, Kerry was the most liberal Senator in human history, with the exception of 2000 wherein Gore was the most liberal candidate in human history... except that now Obama is THE most liberal Senator in Congress. More liberal than Kerry and more liberal than any one else.

Do you see how this works? Whoever is the democratic nominee is simply called the most liberal. You can get away with it because there is no objective, quantifiable way to define liberalism.

Obama is not by any stretch of the imagination the most liberal Senator, for example, Kucinich is far more liberal than him.

[PeterMP]

I want to take this on. We've got a bit of interesting propaganda going on here. In 2004, Kerry was the most liberal Senator in human history, with the exception of 2000 wherein Gore was the most liberal candidate in human history... except that now Obama is THE most liberal Senator in Congress. More liberal than Kerry and more liberal than any one else.

Do you see how this works? Whoever is the democratic nominee is simply called the most liberal. You can get away with it because there is no objective, quantifiable way to define liberalism.

Obama is not by any stretch of the imagination the most liberal Senator, for example, Kucinich is far more liberal than him.

Not saying it is right or wrong, but Kucinich isn't a Senator.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

The National Journal rated Obama THE most liberal Senator in 2007. He was to the left of Bernie Sanders for crying out loud!

Did you know that Kerry was rated THE most liberal senator in 2004?

[Thiebear]

I want to take this on. We've got a bit of interesting propaganda going on here. In 2004, Kerry was the most liberal Senator in human history, with the exception of 2000 wherein Gore was the most liberal candidate in human history... except that now Obama is THE most liberal Senator in Congress. More liberal than Kerry and more liberal than any one else.

Do you see how this works? Whoever is the democratic nominee is simply called the most liberal. You can get away with it because there is no objective, quantifiable way to define liberalism.

Obama is not by any stretch of the imagination the most liberal Senator, for example, Kucinich is far more liberal than him.

So its no different than saying McCain is Bush 3: Voting with Bush 97% of the time.

No different than saying Obama voted with (when he voted) Kucinich 90% of the time.

[chaddukes]

I think many in Obama's camp like to act as if anybody who doesn't support Obama somehow believes he is a clandestine muslim terrorist, is racist or is somehow out of touch. However, there are MANY people out there who dislike Obama simply because of the stances he has taken on issues:

1) Health care

2) Unwilling to drill for oil on our own soil

3) Willingness to engage in discussions with despotic dictators (Iran, N. Korea, etc)

4) Proposed tax increases in the name of "fairness"

5) Immigration (not that McCain is much better on this one)

The National Journal rated Obama THE most liberal Senator in 2007. He was to the left of Bernie Sanders for crying out loud! This is based on his voting record and has nothing to do with clandestine theories about his race, religion or where he went to elementary school. Obama is much further to the left than McCain is to the right.

Thank you. All you Dems, please stop thinking that Rush Limbaugh is the voice of the republican party.

[chaddukes]

So its no different than saying McCain is Bush 3: Voting with Bush 97% of the time.

No different than saying Obama voted with (when he voted) Kucinich 90% of the time.

McCain has voted with his party 84% throughout his career. Obama has voted with his party 97%. McCain has a far better claim to being a cross the aisle bi-partisan thinker than Obama.

[Burgold]

So its no different than saying McCain is Bush 3: Voting with Bush 97% of the time.

No different than saying Obama voted with (when he voted) Kucinich 90% of the time.

Probably not :laugh:

Except McCain is

Bush III: This time it's personal.

But I think the most liberal tag is overdone. Although personally, I don't mind liberal anyway. I'm pro liberty.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

McCain has voted with his party 84% throughout his career. Obama has voted with his party 97%. McCain has a far better claim to being a cross the aisle bi-partisan thinker than Obama.

John McCain is no longer the Maverick Senator he used to be, he has completely pandered to the conservative base and generally supports the GOP party line. He can't use the 'bi-partisan thinker' argument anymore.

Thank you. All you Dems, please stop thinking that Rush Limbaugh is the voice of the republican party.

:doh:

No one said that...

[chaddukes]

What issues have the Republican war machine attacked on? Seriously, link me an ad produced by the GOP or one of their affiliates that is a Republican versus Democrat platform analysis. One honest Republican attack that goes and breaks down an issue and shows in counterpoint why the Republican position is stronger.

The closest thing to an issue I've heard is the campaign finance stuff... and that's more..

I'm not sitting in front of a catalog of GOP Ads. But, just a simple visit to the GOP and John McCain websites shows that what you say isn't true. You wanted one example here are four.

http://johnmccain.com/decisioncenter/

http://www.johnmccain.com/blog/

http://www.meetbarackobama.com/

http://www.gop.com/News/NewsRead.aspx?GUID=6f79b938-9b0f-44bb-b2d0-269f07f05638

Take a look and tell me where you see the word muslim?

Now, if you say that Repubs aren't debating the issues then you simply aren't paying attention. What about the Republican's stance on the War, on Taxes, what Oil and Energy, what about abortion?

It's foolish to say that one side is all about the issues and the other side is all about hyperbole. The reality is that both parties are about their own agendas. It is the supporters of each party and certain media outlets that fuel the personal attacks. It's like blaming all Muslims for 9/11 or all Christians for the Crusades. Don't fall for it. The official debate is about issues. The cultural debate will go on no matter who runs or who's in charge of the parties and it will always be nasty...always has been.

[chaddukes]

No one said that...

Yes, someone pretty much did.

Correction. One side clearly wants to discuss this while the other side wants to talk about things like "He's a muslim, black radical, who wants to change the seal of the POTUS". I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which.

[chaddukes]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

Why I won’t vote for Barak Obama

• GovWatch: Obama's "present" votes were a requested strategy. (Feb 2008)

• Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)

• Voted against banning partial birth abortion.

• Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion.

• Rejects free market vision of government. (Oct 2007)

• Government regulation needed for when markets fail. (Aug 2007)

• Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness. (Mar 2007)

• Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)

• Some heinous crimes justify the ultimate punishment. (Oct 2006)

• We left the money behind for No Child Left Behind. (Aug 2007)

• FactCheck: Self-contradictory on Bush's clean-energy plan. (Jan 2008)

• Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)

• Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)

• All kids should learn about sexual abuse. (Jul 2007)

• FactCheck: 'Sex Ed for Kindergarten' means 'age-appropriate'. (Jul 2007)

• Willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il & Hugo Chavez. (Nov 2007)

• Reduced cost TV ads for candidates; $85M presidential limit. (Oct 2007)

• FactCheck: Yes, Obama cast 130 "present" votes in IL Senate. (Jan 2008)

• Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)

• Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006) (huh?)

• Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)

• Restore habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror. (Jun 2007)

• Paying more at Wal-Mart is worth it for having US jobs. (Dec 2007)

• Make the minimum wage a living wage. (Jun 2007)

• Burdens of globalization are placed on the backs of workers. (Mar 2007)

• Owes unions who endorsed him; that's why he's in politics. (Oct 2006)

• Working full-time should mean enough to support a family. (Oct 2006)

• Overrode federal overtime rules and raised the minimum wage. (Sep 2004)

• Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)

• Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)

• I revere the American flag; I don't refuse to wear flag pins. (Apr 2008)

• FactCheck: Yes, refused to wear a flag pin, last year. (Apr 2008)

• Voted with Democratic Party 96.0% of 251 votes. (Sep 2007)

• FactCheck: William Ayres never killed anoyone with bombs. (Apr 2008)

• In hard times, people take refuge in traditions, God & guns. (Apr 2008)

• Stop any efforts to privatize Social Security. (Feb 2008)

• I'm not bashful about it: wealthy will pay more taxes. (Jan 2008)

• Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)

• Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)

• Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)

• Voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)

• Iraq has distracted us from Taliban in Afghanistan. (Apr 2007)

• Iran with nuclear weapons is a profound security threat. (Apr 2007) (What about, “They aren’t a serious threat to us,” quote?)

• Al Qaida is stronger than before thanks to the Bush doctrine. (Jan 2006)

• FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it. (Jan 2008)

• Support granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. (Nov 2007)

• Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)

Why I won’t cry and leave the country if he wins.

• Passed 150 laws to toughen penalties for violent crime. (Oct 2004)

• Restrict police entry rules, to protect our civil liberties. (Oct 2004)

• Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)

• Apply affirmative action to poor white college applicants. (Apr 2008)

• Decisions about marriage should be left to the states. (Oct 2007)

• Evolution & science aren't incompatible with Christian faith. (Apr 2008)

• Supports charter schools; it's important to experiment. (Feb 2008)

• Get parents re-engaged in educating the children. (Dec 2007)

• Stop sending $800M a day to Mideast dictators for oil. (Mar 2007)

• Reduce mercury and lead to protect community health. (Aug 2007)

• Protect the Great Lakes & our National Parks and Forests. (Aug 2007)

• 1985: Organized asbestos removal in Chicago housing project. (Aug 2007)

• Passed lead abatement & 24 other laws in IL Senate. (Aug 2007)

• Consistently in favor of more disclosure around earmarks. (Feb 2008)

• Unacceptable to have veterans drive 250 miles to a hospital. (Feb 2008)

• No presidential power for secret surveillance. (Dec 2007)

• We are currently inspecting 3% of all incoming cargo. (Oct 2004)

• Increase funding to decommission Russian nukes. (Jul 2004)

• Give our soldiers the best equipment and training available. (Jul 2004)

• Balance domestic intelligence reform with civil liberty risk. (Jul 2004)

• Immigrants are scapegoats for high unemployment rates. (Jan 2008)

• I am a proud Christian who believes deeply in Jesus Christ. (Jan 2008)

[Burgold]

Chad,

Did you read the opening post? Are you familiar with his history? Of course this thread is about hyperbole and overextended generalizations

There is a core of truth to what I said though. In general, the Republicans need to run away from their recent legislative and executive history. They can't trumpet their accomplishments because they have few and most people are upset with government and the state of the country. They are fearful of the future... of the Republican crafted future. Therefore, they do need to villianize Obama and many are trying.

Mud is the favorite tool of politicians and political organizations. It is not exclusive:

The Dems are enjoying muddying McCain with Bush 3 and all the geriatric jokes.

The Repubs want to muddy Obama on religion, race, patriotism, and inexperience.

I will say that I approve of McCains idea to invest in building nuclear plants, though the offshore drilling I think is a mirage (because he doesn't include building refineries and continuing down the same path is really putting a bandaid on a slashed artery) However, McCain, unlike the Dems, refuses to talk about how he'll pay for his plans. The Dems are at least honest to say that if we need to build up the infrastructure, if we need to develop new technology it will have a cost and we will have to share in that cost. Republicans say... no new taxes and all this extra revenue will come from the tooth fairy or our best friends in China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

Still, in this thread... I'm going a bit over the top because I think that is what is called for here.