How can people vote for someone if you don't know about their stance on foreign policy? -and, How can you vote for someone who doesn't have any foreign policy experience? ;)Here's your answer: You can't. However, Obama DOES have experience in foreign policy, the articles that I've provided prove it. You simply can't deny the truth.

Is there some reason why this thread should stay open, Yar-El, if you're asking for people's thoughts on why they want to vote for Obama and then saying 'people aren't answering the questions' when in fact they are?

Because they find other experince more important and our DOMESTIC economy, education, and social well being are more important to them right now? Question? Uncertain? Living in a world where terrorism and communism exists requires someone that has straight-forward answers. He or she needs to draw upon first hand experience with foreign nations to know how to play the world game. Tackling our current wars on terrorism is only the surface. Yes, I admit that we do need to sit down with key players; however, tact must be used to negotiate any peaceful resolution. Obama was a community organizer, correct? Working with the community is a noble task; however, the size of a community is extremely smaller than the world. What has Obama done within his community to get 200,000 people to gather in Germany? What has Obama done to gain such trust escapes me. We don't have enough of Obama's history to know that he is affective. We also don't know enough of him to believe he is trustworthy.

His current stance on foreign policy is reflective of him seizing an opportunity. Frontline on PBS has shown me how much little we know about him. It turns out that his backstory is a summary of two years here and two years there; thus, he has not stayed in one location to build up experience.

Example - You and I can work for one company for two years; however, that doesn't give us enough knowledge or exposure on how to do a job. We are also lacking a foundation to build upon that clearly defines us as individuals. No one really knows who Obama is; thus, they are only looking at what he is promising. Anyone can sell you utopia; however, what says that they will actually give it to you? Obama hasn't proven that he could be trusted with the most powerful job in the United States.

Is there some reason why this thread should stay open, Yar-El, if you're asking for people's thoughts on why they want to vote for Obama and then saying 'people aren't answering the questions' when in fact they are? I have already answered that in a previous post. I know you are a supporter of Obama's, so I'm asking for a little more room to breath. What I'm asking for questions is not easily answerable; thus, people are having a hardtime personalizing and defining Obama. I think some people are finally seeing. Not all of them, but a few of them are. Keep in mind that Obama supporters want this thread closed. I wouldn't ask them to close a McCain thread, and I haven't asked them to close one yet.

I'm afraid that people just aren't providing the answers that Yar-El wants to hear, which should have been expected on a forum that's completely dominated by Democrats. ;)

Being that the election's tomorrow (THANK GOD!), There's little chance of changing anyone's mind, especially here at Obama&socialismFTW.com. :xp:

Question? Uncertain?
Recitation: rhetorical.

Answer:words.

Jae, please close this tread.

I'm afraid that people just aren't providing the answers that Yar-El wants to hear, which should have been expected on a forum that's completely dominated by Democrats. ;)

Being that the election's tomorrow (THANK GOD!), There's little chance of changing anyone's mind, especially here at Obama&socialismFTW.com. :xp: Thats could be very true. :) I'm trying to get people to see that nothing is clear cut. Its all about asking loaded and unloaded questions. We are talking about the most powerful office in the United States. That might not be true; however, it is one of the most powerful offices in the United States.

Of course it's true.

Not that I'm complaining or anything. ;)

I believe that you started this thread because you have come to the realization that McCain will most likely lose and you felt the need to rant about it. And I will again put forth the theory that it doesn't really matter who wins tomorrow. The country's going to Hell in a handbasket regardless. :p

Of course it's true.

Not that I'm complaining or anything. ;) Very funny. :) Oky, the moderators can close this thread if they see fit. It may not be fair to only ask these questions about McCain; however, use your personal perspective to close or keep open the thread. I concede.

Every question Brokaw put forth has been asked by the media and answered by Obama's except Obama Worldview, which is impossible to answer for either candidate..

I believe that you started this thread because you have come to the realization that McCain will most likely lose and you felt the need to rant about it. And I will again put forth the theory that it doesn't really matter who wins tomorrow. The country's going to Hell in a handbasket regardless. :p :) To be all honest. Who would want to inherit all this chaos. You wake up in the morning and someone is holding up the bathroom. You finally get in there and then Russia is calling about missing nuclear weapons. You walk over to the famous red phone only to find out you need to call collect. Man. What such a tough job. ;)

This is not a thread about McCain. Please read the above posts for the questions. Thank you. These questions are about Obama.

Yet, since the answers are so closely linked, the thread is really about both of them.

You made an accusation; thus, you avoided the questions dead on. Only one person came close to a rational one.

My questions are pretty simple. I respect you guys; thus, I'm trying to bring something to light. Try answering the questions without using Bush or McCain in the answer. You will find out something very illuminating. Use something about him personally.

Unfortunately, the best answers to your question include both the words "McCain" and "Bush." Sorry, but it's the truth.

Where I was going with this thread is simple. No one started off focusing on Obama himself. People ended up using McCain is Bush for an answer.

That's because it's the answer that is going to get Obama 270 electoral votes today.

We really don't know enough about Obama's past stance on foreign policy. We know more about his contraversial relationships; however, we stop short from actually asking him tough questions during interviews. Most of Obama's current policies were adapted from political polls; thus, they are actually your own policies just restated. Any politician can do that. Its pretty easy. Obama is an intellegent individual who took advantage of some opportunities; however, we don't have all the details about him or his past. Sometimes we get pieces of information; thus, we are allowed a small glimps of his real life. I didn't open this thread to bash Obama, therefore, I won't go on a rant about the things I do and do not agree with him upon.

Can Obama be trusted? Why? What in his past gives us an indication? United States citizens have a responsibility to themselves and others.


Because he's not McCain.

Maybe because there is a lot of merit to that argument, given McCain's record in the Senate?

Yeah, thanks to the non-stop McCain smear train. McCain has focused more on pointing out irrelevant people in Obama's past and trying to paint him as an awful person rather than the issues that really matter to the American people.

Maybe because we already know Obama's positions about the things that matter? Interviewers go after McCain and his personal attacks on Obama; those are the tough questions asked of McCain. They can't ask these of Obama because he doesn't focus on the negative aspects of McCain's character.

What. I have no 'policies', so how can they be restated? Please translate this sentence into plain English for me.

Hahahahahahahahahahaahaha, you could have fooled me. Anyone can see past this thinly-disguised ruse.

No, you'll just try to focus on Obama's character and ignore the salient issues that the nation is facing as a whole. How very...McCain-y of you.

Maybe because all the relevant questions have already been answered?

Given his past history of charitable works and his current positions on relevant national and international issues, I think he can be trusted a lot more than John McCain.


He's not a Republican. :xp:

QFE... all of it.



Your wrong on your original assessment. You can have this conversation without bringing up McCain or Bush.

I disagree.

What specifically did Obama (alone) do in the past to draw 200,000 people together in Germany? What did he do in the past that makes you trust him? How can you vote for someone without any knowledge of his past?


Quite easily. However, the fact is I do know a lot about it, thanks to FoxNews and the "Straight-talk Express." And I still agree with his policies more than McCain's.
you not knowing that much about obama != everyone not knowing that much about obama

QFE.

there is clearly no discussion to be had here. We've given you answers, you don't like them, and restate the question.

I move that this thread be closed. Do I have a second?

I'll agree with that.


This was as close I could get to the answer; however, he couldn't go into details about Obama's personal perspective. He didn't answer the original question in post #1. How can people vote for someone if you don't know about their stance on foreign policy?

All a candidate has to do to win is convince me (and 50% of America) that his policies are better than all the other candidates'. He doesn't need to convince me that his are good, just that his are the best. Not that this fact is even relevant - I think Obama's policies are good.

I have already answered that in a previous post. I know you are a supporter of Obama's, so I'm asking for a little more room to breath. What I'm asking for questions is not easily answerable; thus, people are having a hardtime personalizing and defining Obama. I think some people are finally seeing. Not all of them, but a few of them are. Keep in mind that Obama supporters want this thread closed. I wouldn't ask them to close a McCain thread, and I haven't asked them to close one yet.

Oh my god. I hope you're not insinuating that Jae is partisan moderating. She's just responding to what's occurred in this thread. And she's not really even liberal, so your libel here is just offensive.

Very funny. :) Oky, the moderators can close this thread if they see fit. I concede.

Oh good.

_EW_

Oh, you don't want to be opening that can of worms. :rolleyes:


Actually, I think he does because Jesus wasn't running around with a lunatics that killed people and weren't even remotely sorry about it.


Obama's history is well-documented. You just choose not to acknowledge it and that's your problem, not ours.


Oh really, from what I've seen his history is full of contradictions and the media trying to bury stuff to keep it from surfacing.


Uh, no you can't. Barack Obama and John McCain are closely intertwined. You can't have a discussion on one without the other. That's how elections work.


There are things about Obama that don't have anything to do with McCain such as Rev. Wright, Saul Allinski, Khalidi, Farrakan, etc.


I dunno, ask the German people. Personally, if an American politician can get that many foreigners excited about an election in a different country, I count that as a good thing.


To me that's another reason NOT to vote for that individual.


Again, we know Barack Obama's past. No matter how many times you ask this question, it isn't going to change the answer.


In all honesty, you may find no problem with him palling around with terrorists but I quite honestly do.


I feel no weight of any questions, because they already have answers. Thanks.


Well Yar-El, myself, and quite a few others do whether they are members of this forum or not.


See, you're trying to lead us somewhere with all this ridiculous run-around. This isn't a debate topic, it's a smear thread. It's pathetic.

The truth isn't a smear, it's the truth Obama hasn't been honest with the American people, his past has relevence because it demonstrates his current value system.

Actually, I think he does because Jesus wasn't running around with a lunatics that killed people and weren't even remotely sorry about it.

Oh really, from what I've seen his history is full of contradictions and the media trying to bury stuff to keep it from surfacing.

There are things about Obama that don't have anything to do with McCain such as Rev. Wright, Saul Allinski, Khalidi, Farrakan, etc.

To me that's another reason NOT to vote for that individual.

In all honesty, you may find no problem with him palling around with terrorists but I quite honestly do.

Well Yar-El, myself, and quite a few others do whether they are members of this forum or not.

The truth isn't a smear, it's the truth Obama hasn't been honest with the American people, his past has relevence because it demonstrates his current value system.

Unfortunately for you, none of that is not going to stop Obama from getting his 270 electoral votes today.

_EW_

Oh really, from what I've seen his history is full of contradictions and the media trying to bury stuff to keep it from surfacing.senor mccain tambien mr garfield

To me that's another reason NOT to vote for that individual.heh jingoism i thought all you guys were dead

The truth isn't a smear, it's the truth Obama hasn't been honest with the American people, his past has relevence because it demonstrates his current value system.yawn go find out some stuff about obama before you start bitching about him being dishonest about his past and not knowing enough about him

Yet, since the answers are so closely linked, the thread is really about both of them.

Unfortunately, the best answers to your question include both the words "McCain" and "Bush." Sorry, but it's the truth.

That's because it's the answer that is going to get Obama 270 electoral votes today.

Because he's not McCain.

I disagree.
Quite easily. However, the fact is I do know a lot about it, thanks to FoxNews and the "Straight-talk Express." And I still agree with his policies more than McCain's.


All a candidate has to do to win is convince me (and 50% of America) that his policies are better than all the other candidates'. He doesn't need to convince me that his are good, just that his are the best. Not that this fact is even relevant - I think Obama's policies are good.

Oh my god. I hope you're not insinuating that Jae is partisan moderating. She's just responding to what's occurred in this thread. And she's not really even liberal, so your libel here is just offensive.

Oh good.

_EW_
Basically I conceded in post #58, and you want to continue with beating people down. Its not okay for someone to concede a fight with dignity; thus, people have to continue until more blood is spilt. Thats nice of you. Thanks. I apprechiate that.

Basically I conceded in post #58, and you want to continue with beating people down. Its not okay for someone to concede a fight with dignity; thus, people have to continue until more blood is spilt. Thats nice of you. Thanks. I apprechiate that.

And yet I assume you're not going to stop Obama-bashing :)

_EW_

And yet I assume you're not going to stop Obama-bashing :)I'm rooting for 8 years of Obama-bashing. Let's get Ken Starr out of retirement. :D

And yet I assume you're not going to stop Obama-bashing :)
_EW_ I will never-ever support Obama even as President. I didn't open this thread as a way to bash the man. I stand on my original intent. See my previous posts for the reasoning.

I will never-ever support Obama even as President.

I was only trying to explain that he doesn't need your vote. :)

_EW_

To me that's another reason NOT to vote for that individual.

Whoever becomes the President of the USA is going to have a big impact on the rest of the world - I think it's refreshing that not only has Obama courted American voters, but they've also tried to improve relations with other countries and world leaders.

In a world that seems to be getting smaller all the time, a friendly face, open to reason and diplomacy is a welcoming sight.

Whoever becomes the President of the USA is going to have a big impact on the rest of the world - I think it's refreshing that not only has Obama courted American voters, but they've also tried to improve relations with other countries and world leaders.


Uh huh, yeah leaders like Chavez supporting him... Yeah, this is yet another reason why I would vote for Donald Duck or Hillary Clinton over Obama.


In a world that seems to be getting smaller all the time, a friendly face, open to reason and diplomacy is a welcoming sight.

I don't really care what certain powers in the world want, honestly the fact the Iranians want Obama in office so they can develop nuclear weapons is a pretty good reason why I don't want him in office.

Uh huh, yeah leaders like Chavez supporting him... Yeah, this is yet another reason why I would vote for Donald Duck or Hillary Clinton over Obama.

Because i'm sure Obama tells people if they can or can't support him. :dozey:

I don't really care what certain powers in the world want, honestly the fact the Iranians want Obama in office so they can develop nuclear weapons is a pretty good reason why I don't want him in office.

Can you prove that they want him in so they can make nukes? No?

I seem to remember Obama saying that he would be prepared to speak with the Iranian government, without any preconceptions. Maybe they want a US President who's actually willing to talk to them without having made up his mind beforehand.

I'd much prefer a President who's going to at least make a proper effort at peace before sending in troops - to anywhere.

Uh huh, yeah leaders like Chavez supporting him... Yeah, this is yet another reason why I would vote for Donald Duck or Hillary Clinton over Obama.So you allow foreign entities to affect your vote. Let us not forget some of McCain’s dubious endorsements. Just who did Al-Qaeda endorse again? :rolleyes: Their support of McCain will not influence my vote either way.
Can you prove that they want him in so they can make nukes?
It is call lets make stuff up.

I'd much prefer a President who's going to at least make a proper effort at peace before sending in troops - to anywhere.

So would I. The fact that he seems to be at least trying to be nice to the rest of the world is a refreshing change to me.

_EW_

Because i'm sure Obama tells people if they can or can't support him. :dozey:


I'm saying they support him because he believes as they do.


Can you prove that they want him in so they can make nukes? No?


I can prove that Hamas and Hezbolla endorsed him.
Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25NiwvPNanM&feature=related)

I'm trying to find some of the other stuff, the MSM has actually been removing articles.


I seem to remember Obama saying that he would be prepared to speak with the Iranian government, without any preconceptions. Maybe they want a US President who's actually willing to talk to them without having made up his mind beforehand.

No he said that he would meet without preconditions.


I'd much prefer a President who's going to at least make a proper effort at peace before sending in troops - to anywhere.

There is a difference between diplomacy and sitting down face to face and legitimizing a lunatic.

I can prove that Hamas and Hezbolla endorsed him.
Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25NiwvPNanM&feature=related)


Unfortunately, that has nothing at all to do with Barack Obama himself, or his future presidency.

_EW_

No he said that he would meet without preconditions.

So I may have used the wrong word, but you've not addressed the point.

There is a difference between diplomacy and sitting down face to face and legitimizing a lunatic.

There's also a difference between opening a dialog and an Abrams blowing up a mosque, or Black Hawks screaming across the desert.

So I may have used the wrong word, but you've not addressed the point.


Oh but I have, when Reagan met with Gorbachev, he did so after months of low-level diplomats having meetings and there were conditions attached. When President Kennedy tried to meet with a Soviet Leader prior to that he ended up looking weak which resulted in the Cuban Missile Crisis.



There's also a difference between opening a dialog and an Abrams blowing up a mosque, or Black Hawks screaming across the desert.

You're missing the point, I'm not saying low-level diplomatic talks won't help, but just flying in on Air Force One (which is what Obama suggested) to have tea only emboldens them.

I can prove that Hamas and Hezbolla endorsed him.You keep forgetting that McCain got the all important Al-Qaeda endorsement. :xp:
You're missing the point, I'm not saying low-level diplomatic talks won't help, but just flying in on Air Force One (which is what Obama suggested) to have tea only emboldens them. No true.

You keep forgetting that McCain got the all important Al-Qaeda endorsement. :xp:

An endorsement I'm still wondering why the heck they were dumb enough to give, unless they think McCain is just going to be playing hide and seek. :loco:

That's assuming that they aren't really pulling for Obama but are trying to get it so McCain loses.

An endorsement I'm still wondering why the heck they were dumb enough to give, unless they think McCain is just going to be playing hide and seek. :loco:They want to kill Americans and get more recruits. McCain wants to stay in Iraq thus making it easier to kill Americans and get more recruits to defend their holy land from the evil invaders. They don’t care who the President is, they just want to bring us to our knees. It is just less travel under McCain.

I'm saying they support him because he believes as they do.
Wait, did you just call Barack Obama a Muslim, despite the fact that you've used Reverend Wright and his Church against him?

I'm trying to find some of the other stuff, the MSM has actually been removing articles.
Do you have any proof of such accusations?

No he said that he would meet without preconditions.
I don't see what's wrong with that. Please, elaborate as to why you think this is a bad move on Obama's part.

I don't see what's wrong with that. Please, elaborate as to why you think this is a bad move on Obama's part.

It is not true. It is a story that was made up. Obama never said the President of the United States would set down with anyone.

Obama: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran – guess what – without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.

McCain: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years.

Obama: We will take a look.

McCain: And I guarantee you he would not -- he would not say that presidential top level.

Obama: Nobody's talking about that.

Kissinger Sept. 20: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...

CNN's Frank Sesno: Put at a very high level right out of the box?

Kissinger: Initially, yes.But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.

They want to kill Americans and get more recruits. McCain wants to stay in Iraq thus making it easier to kill Americans and get more recruits to defend their holy land from the evil invaders. They don’t care who the President is, they just want to bring us to our knees. It is just less travel under McCain.

Correction, McCain wants to stay in Iraq only as long as the Iraqis need the United States, now if the EU would be willing to supplement the police work (which the US isn't doing much of anymore), as well as serve as Iraq's airforce until Iraq can defend itself, I'm sure we'd be more than willing to leave at this juncture.

Iraq has become a humiliating defeat for Al Qaeda, the Iraqis that were fighting us, got so ticked off at Al Qaeda's terrorist tactics, that they actually decided to help us throw Al Qaeda out of Iraq.

McCain and every Republican honestly wants to leave Iraq, but we want to make sure that we've done the job right, so that we don't have to go back in 5 years from now, because everything has fallen apart and we just have to go back in again.

Obama quite frankly just doesn't care, and reports are that he actually tried to sabotage an agreement as far as turning over parts of Iraq back to the Iraqis. I can do some digging later to back this part up too.

Look at how Iraq deteriorated from 2003-2006, through this time McCain was demanding more troops in Iraq while President Bush was living in a fantasy world listening to Rumsfeld. Finally, McCain forced Rumsfeld's resignation and forced President Bush to support a troop surge and put General Petraeus in charge. Now look at Iraq today, it's nothing like the Iraq of 2006.

Look at President Bush's thinking Putin was a swell guy and McCain could see three letters K-G-B. Everyone was bashing McCain for being a warmonger, but it turned out he was right, see Russia's invasion of Georgia, where Obama said the Georgians needed to show restraint. McCain called it how it was, while Obama floundered everywhere.

Do you really believe the reason we are there makes any difference to terrorist attempting to kill American troops?

Do you really believe the reason we are there makes any difference to terrorist attempting to kill American troops?

Not to them, but I sincerely believe they've actually lost their recruiting base bigtime, especially since their attacks have lately been on Iraqi civilians and not American troops.

Not to them, but I sincerely believe they've actually lost their recruiting base bigtime, especially since their attacks have lately been on Iraqi civilians and not American troops.

You think! Could it be that we have more American there due to the surge. I hope you are right, but I have my doubts. We will see as they pull troops back to pre-surge levels.