The_Panda vs. Asaspades: Barack H. Obama's Presidential Potency

[Eszett]

This debate is between Asaspades, who is taking the affirmative stance, and The_Panda, who is taking the opposing stance.

No other regular members may post in this thread on pain of infractions for spam. All regular debate rules apply for this thread.​

Bon voyage!

 

[The_Panda]

Normally it would be convention to let the affirmative have the first say, but as it stands Asaspades has not yet replied to this topic. Eszett, if you would wish me to make an opening statement in this light, I will if you would ask.

 

[Asaspades]

Ah, yes, sorry for the delay.

Quetion, is this a debate on his chances of being president, or whether he should be president?

The title is presidential potency, but in the 1 on 1 thread i said i support obamas policies.

either way, Obama is a politician many people in the media compare to JFK in the way he operates. You have crowds of 20,000 people showing up at rallies. And this is just a candidate. People want the message of hope and change in this day. And hes the one to bring it.

I mainly support him because of his stance on the war in iraq. He promises to have troops out of iraq by 2013 at the latest, but still supports the troops while they are there. I also like his approach to cooporations. He supports ending tax cuts for them which we desperatly need to do.

education is also an issue I personally hold in high regard. He is in favor of urgent education reform.

Here is a list of all his stances/voting records

Overall i dont see how he can be BAD for the country. Thats all i have right now, im not that good at openings. So give me your best shot, Panda.

 

[The_Panda]

whether he should be president?

I would much prefer to debate this rather than his chances.

either way, Obama is a politician many people in the media compare to JFK in the way he operates. You have crowds of 20,000 people showing up at rallies. And this is just a candidate. People want the message of hope and change in this day. And hes the one to bring it.

What I'm worried about is behind the slogans of "hope" and "change", there might not really be much substance. I've seen many upon many of Obama rallies on the internet, and while I acknowledge he is an excellent speaker I find his policies idealistic and highly vague. Only recently when I decided to debate you did I actually find out much about his policies. In addition, yes people definitely want the message "hope for change". But don't use the bandwagon fallacy (if that is what you were going to get to).

I mainly support him because of his stance on the war in iraq. He promises to have troops out of iraq by 2013 at the latest, but still supports the troops while they are there.

While his Iraq stance isn't as bad as that of many other candidates, I don't think it's wise to keep a time table to something we don't have much control over. While I'm highly skeptical of the reasons for invasion and I would agree that we definitely shouldn't have gone in there in the first place, we've broken the country, disbanded their army and left it defenseless in chaos, we almost have a duty to try fix it. While withdrawal should be the eventual aim of the war, before we do so, we would need a stable Iraq that has a defense force for itself. Having UN/Arab League help in stabilising it would definitely be something we should try get to. If we left Iraq now, its government would topple, we would have open civil war (if we do not already have that now) and most likely it would become terrorist breeding ground one-oh-one. Yet another criticism I have of Obama on this is that I think he's stuck his fingers into too many pies so to speak. There is in my opinion only one big legitimate reason to withdraw from Iraq - the Vietnam argument; that the war is unwinnable. At the current time I have not seen much evidence to support this thesis, but that's irrelevant here. If Obama wants to withdraw so much he'll attach a time table, and flag the unwinnable argument, what's the point in staying until 2013? Why not play the Mike Gravel, and get the hell out of there in one hundred and twenty days if there is no point staying there! It seems to me that Obama has attempted to reconcile with conservatives, in the process producing a stance that seems unbelievably odd.

I also like his approach to cooporations. He supports ending tax cuts for them which we desperatly need to do.

This is another area where I oppose Obama; his approach to the economy in general. We know at the current time we are (more or less) heading to a recession. The Federal Reserve is trying to pump money into the economy to keep it afloat. This is the worst time to raise taxes ESPECIALLY for corporations. Raising taxes for corporations would discourage spending and encourage fiscal policy. In other words, more money would be tied up in the treasury and less on the market - something which would make the recession even worse. Ending the tax cuts for corporations now would be suicidal. There's a reason the Federal Reserve is currently lowering interest rates - to encourage people and businesses to borrow money and spend money. The same reason we more or less NEED lower taxes for businesses. Obama continually spurts this crap about inequality between the standard people and business - but har har har, he does realise that in his idealistic attempt to produce "equality" he's going to make EVERYBODY'S life worse by making the recession even more severe.

education is also an issue I personally hold in high regard. He is in favor of urgent education reform.

Okay, if you think education is your number one issue just as health is mine (annoyingly for me none of the candidates are that good on health, but John McCain comes out as slightly better), I'll be happy to debate it. While I like some of the specifics of Obama's policies, and the general aim, I don't think socialist education (so to speak) is the best way. Your site writes that, "Sends kids to private school; but wants good schools for all (Jul 2007)". While I want good schools for all, the best way to do it is embrace private schooling. It's no surprise that even the very low fee private schools (the ones that are around one thousand dollars per year) perform much better than government schools. The reason is that in my opinion the education is a bureaucratic body which basically is decaying and needs to be euthanised. It's extremely inefficient and can't deliver funding on its own. I would support the Ron Paul style stance, that is, encouraging private schools as trusts and the government giving much funding to them so they can lower their fees and become more accessible. Of course, this extra funding comes of the condition of lowering the fees (to avoid price marking) and this should account for any money lost due to lowering the fees to maintain a high standard of education. At the same time, we need a basic grassroots free high school system, but for the poor who cannot pay. This overall should cut government spending on education and provide a better system. Obama's position on the other hand I doubt would do much - much of his funding would be lost in the whirling pool of bureaucracy.

Overall i dont see how he can be BAD for the country. Thats all i have right now, im not that good at openings. So give me your best shot, Panda.

I think definitely Obama is the better democrat and some aspects of his policy are good. Yet I think his idea of healthcare, as with so many other candidates, misses the key part of the problem, I doubt his education ideas will work, his Iraq stance is rather hypocritical while his economic ideas are destructive. On a slightly more idealistic view, Obama is far too big government so to speak - he supports higher taxes and greater government control of the services and the economy. While a degree of government control is needed, really governments are extremely inefficient and the public service is often incompetent.

 

[Asaspades]

What I'm worried about is behind the slogans of "hope" and "change", there might not really be much substance. I've seen many upon many of Obama rallies on the internet, and while I acknowledge he is an excellent speaker I find his policies idealistic and highly vague. Only recently when I decided to debate you did I actually find out much about his policies. In addition, yes people definitely want the message "hope for change". But don't use the bandwagon fallacy (if that is what you were going to get to).

I would refer to the list i gave you in my first post for this. Some of his policies do lack substance, but the president doesnt actually do much. Every single one of his ideas isnt going to go into action. And when they are proposed, we have the congress to throw them around and improve them.

While his Iraq stance isn't as bad as that of many other candidates, I don't think it's wise to keep a time table to something we don't have much control over. While I'm highly skeptical of the reasons for invasion and I would agree that we definitely shouldn't have gone in there in the first place, we've broken the country, disbanded their army and left it defenseless in chaos, we almost have a duty to try fix it. While withdrawal should be the eventual aim of the war, before we do so, we would need a stable Iraq that has a defense force for itself. Having UN/Arab League help in stabilising it would definitely be something we should try get to. If we left Iraq now, its government would topple, we would have open civil war (if we do not already have that now) and most likely it would become terrorist breeding ground one-oh-one. Yet another criticism I have of Obama on this is that I think he's stuck his fingers into too many pies so to speak. There is in my opinion only one big legitimate reason to withdraw from Iraq - the Vietnam argument; that the war is unwinnable. At the current time I have not seen much evidence to support this thesis, but that's irrelevant here. If Obama wants to withdraw so much he'll attach a time table, and flag the unwinnable argument, what's the point in staying until 2013? Why not play the Mike Gravel, and get the hell out of there in one hundred and twenty days if there is no point staying there! It seems to me that Obama has attempted to reconcile with conservatives, in the process producing a stance that seems unbelievably odd.

Now im not sure of what he is going to do, but perhaps he will give the iraqi government an ultimatum. They rely on us to much. The only way for them to stand on there feet is to give them a chance to. When teaching a child to ride a bike you dont just tell them how to do it, show them how to do it, and then expect them to be experts on it. They need to figure it out for themselves. When you let them go they may fall a couple of times, but like riding a bike, democracy isnt easily forgotten. People will come to enjoy the freedoms if the government can start contributing to the effort. I find that to be an effective way to get out. I dont know if thats what Obama has in mind when he says 2013, but it would certainly explain it. On the subject of comprimising with conservatives, i think that may be well what he is trying to do. He seems to be a good, nonpartisian negotiator. So he may end up being more effective then Hillary or McCain. McCain is either going to have to isolate democrats, or far right conservatives. (I think we know what he'll choose.) And the republicans cant stand Hillary so anything she wants to do will be filibustered. Obama can approach all members with open arms. The democrats will eat up anything he says while even far right republicans admit to liking him more the clinton and even admit that he is a very charismatic, persuasive leader.

This is another area where I oppose Obama; his approach to the economy in general. We know at the current time we are (more or less) heading to a recession. The Federal Reserve is trying to pump money into the economy to keep it afloat. This is the worst time to raise taxes ESPECIALLY for corporations. Raising taxes for corporations would discourage spending and encourage fiscal policy. In other words, more money would be tied up in the treasury and less on the market - something which would make the recession even worse. Ending the tax cuts for corporations now would be suicidal. There's a reason the Federal Reserve is currently lowering interest rates - to encourage people and businesses to borrow money and spend money. The same reason we more or less NEED lower taxes for businesses. Obama continually spurts this crap about inequality between the standard people and business - but har har har, he does realise that in his idealistic attempt to produce "equality" he's going to make EVERYBODY'S life worse by making the recession even more severe.

Yes exactly! The Fed is pumping more money that they dont have! We have a $10 trillion deficit! where is this money coming from! Ill tell you where, foreing governments. We are borrowing so much from foreing governments like China and Saudi Arabia its not even funny. The tax hike for coorporations coupled with a tax cut for the middle class could spur the economy by giving us time to recover. The tax cut for the middle class will keep spending normal, while a tax increase can help us slowly balance our debt. The coorporations are doing fine. Especially oil and gas giants. Didnt exxon mobile just announce 120 billion is profits last week? Why arnt they feeling the pressure as much as the consumer when oil goes up? They all have a joint monopoly on gas and that is whats killing the consumer. Althought the crooks like countrywide and Apollo arnt helping the sub prime mortgage crisis either.

Okay, if you think education is your number one issue just as health is mine (annoyingly for me none of the candidates are that good on health, but John McCain comes out as slightly better), I'll be happy to debate it. While I like some of the specifics of Obama's policies, and the general aim, I don't think socialist education (so to speak) is the best way. Your site writes that, "Sends kids to private school; but wants good schools for all (Jul 2007)". While I want good schools for all, the best way to do it is embrace private schooling. It's no surprise that even the very low fee private schools (the ones that are around one thousand dollars per year) perform much better than government schools. The reason is that in my opinion the education is a bureaucratic body which basically is decaying and needs to be euthanised. It's extremely inefficient and can't deliver funding on its own. I would support the Ron Paul style stance, that is, encouraging private schools as trusts and the government giving much funding to them so they can lower their fees and become more accessible. Of course, this extra funding comes of the condition of lowering the fees (to avoid price marking) and this should account for any money lost due to lowering the fees to maintain a high standard of education. At the same time, we need a basic grassroots free high school system, but for the poor who cannot pay. This overall should cut government spending on education and provide a better system. Obama's position on the other hand I doubt would do much - much of his funding would be lost in the whirling pool of bureaucracy.

I think i actually agree with you more on this. Private schooling is definatly the way to go, but you need a well funded public school system becase even at prices like that, some still cant afford to go to school. In America education is the great equalizer. We not only say you have a right to attend free schooling, but you are required by law to. That is a great thing. But we need to keep these schools well funded. Its no good getting an education if its a poor one. I heard an idea from someone, I forget who, i think it was a governor, but anyway. He said that we should have a voucher system. Where whatever the government pays per student now, we just give directly to the family so they can send their child to a private school in their area. If its more expensive, they must cover the cost, but there has to be an affordable school in there area, such as an old public school that now takes that voucher. That would mesh much better with our capitalist system. But since that is to far off, i think we need to fund the public schools well. And that means getting rid of no child left behind.

I think definitely Obama is the better democrat and some aspects of his policy are good. Yet I think his idea of healthcare, as with so many other candidates, misses the key part of the problem, I doubt his education ideas will work, his Iraq stance is rather hypocritical while his economic ideas are destructive. On a slightly more idealistic view, Obama is far too big government so to speak - he supports higher taxes and greater government control of the services and the economy. While a degree of government control is needed, really governments are extremely inefficient and the public service is often incompetent.

Well lets look at the conservative idealism for a second then. They favor small government. But wait, as soon as they get in power they dramaticly expand exectutive power. The bush administration has the patriot act, wire taps, and a plethera of other exectutive powers that didnt exist before. And now the chief economic advisor wants an enite new department on monitoring the markets. Historicly this is true too. A conservative gets in power and expands the government. Is McCain really going to be any different?

 

[The_Panda]

I would refer to the list i gave you in my first post for this. Some of his policies do lack substance, but the president doesnt actually do much. Every single one of his ideas isnt going to go into action. And when they are proposed, we have the congress to throw them around and improve them.

Yes I know he has *proposed* policies but many of them are unrealistic and idealistic.

Now im not sure of what he is going to do, but perhaps he will give the iraqi government an ultimatum. They rely on us to much. The only way for them to stand on there feet is to give them a chance to. When teaching a child to ride a bike you dont just tell them how to do it, show them how to do it, and then expect them to be experts on it. They need to figure it out for themselves. When you let them go they may fall a couple of times, but like riding a bike, democracy isnt easily forgotten. People will come to enjoy the freedoms if the government can start contributing to the effort. I find that to be an effective way to get out. I dont know if thats what Obama has in mind when he says 2013, but it would certainly explain it. On the subject of comprimising with conservatives, i think that may be well what he is trying to do. He seems to be a good, nonpartisian negotiator. So he may end up being more effective then Hillary or McCain. McCain is either going to have to isolate democrats, or far right conservatives. (I think we know what he'll choose.) And the republicans cant stand Hillary so anything she wants to do will be filibustered. Obama can approach all members with open arms. The democrats will eat up anything he says while even far right republicans admit to liking him more the clinton and even admit that he is a very charismatic, persuasive leader.

There's no way in the world the Republicans will accept Obama if he beats them in an election. And my problem with this idea of a child is that while it's correct, it's already happening and in some areas it's irresponsible. Only recently cities like Basra are being handed over to the Iraqi forces. Its a slow changeover, and it's good. But there are some areas which they should not hand over at this time because of the degree of violence there which there is no way in the world that the Iraqi army can cope. Saying you can just give it to them is like asking a ten year old to drive a car down the highway. And either way if you want the Iraqis to "learn" you may as well have the coalition as a safeguard in case something gets out of control.

Yes exactly! The Fed is pumping more money that they dont have! We have a $10 trillion deficit! where is this money coming from! Ill tell you where, foreing governments. We are borrowing so much from foreing governments like China and Saudi Arabia its not even funny. The tax hike for coorporations coupled with a tax cut for the middle class could spur the economy by giving us time to recover. The tax cut for the middle class will keep spending normal, while a tax increase can help us slowly balance our debt. The coorporations are doing fine. Especially oil and gas giants. Didnt exxon mobile just announce 120 billion is profits last week? Why arnt they feeling the pressure as much as the consumer when oil goes up? They all have a joint monopoly on gas and that is whats killing the consumer. Althought the crooks like countrywide and Apollo arnt helping the sub prime mortgage crisis either.

The Federal reserve gets it from dues from other banks. The Federal reserve DOESN'T borrow money, that's the government which has the deficit. And I don't think it will spur the economy either when we're in a time of recession. More like kill it . Yes, the corporations are doing "fine" as it were - but you realise what is needed is investment to get the economy going. The reason interest rates are being lowered is to encourage investment in other places et cetera and growth. Taxes are contrary to spending as it makes it more expensive, and at this time it is not the right time to discourage spending. Raise your corporate taxes when we're experiencing inflation and too much growth, not now where it'll hit back on working families.

I think i actually agree with you more on this. Private schooling is definatly the way to go, but you need a well funded public school system becase even at prices like that, some still cant afford to go to school. In America education is the great equalizer. We not only say you have a right to attend free schooling, but you are required by law to. That is a great thing. But we need to keep these schools well funded. Its no good getting an education if its a poor one. I heard an idea from someone, I forget who, i think it was a governor, but anyway. He said that we should have a voucher system. Where whatever the government pays per student now, we just give directly to the family so they can send their child to a private school in their area. If its more expensive, they must cover the cost, but there has to be an affordable school in there area, such as an old public school that now takes that voucher. That would mesh much better with our capitalist system. But since that is to far off, i think we need to fund the public schools well. And that means getting rid of no child left behind.

Yes we need funding for public schools. But Obama's stance is a strong pro-public school stance, which as I said wouldn't do much to help education because of the bureaucratic nature of the system. And vouchers wouldn't work either as then you'd have problems with mark-ups. The sensible option is conditional funding to make those schools easily affordable.

Well lets look at the conservative idealism for a second then. They favor small government. But wait, as soon as they get in power they dramaticly expand exectutive power. The bush administration has the patriot act, wire taps, and a plethera of other exectutive powers that didnt exist before. And now the chief economic advisor wants an enite new department on monitoring the markets. Historicly this is true too. A conservative gets in power and expands the government. Is McCain really going to be any different?

Conservatism isn't the only other option. I am myself a libertarian; while I *prefer* McCain for economic reasons really I would far prefer someone like Ron Paul or Mike Gravel (even if they do have insane stances on Iraq). There's a difference between personal and economic freedom. Conservatives want one, liberals want the other. Libertarians like me want both.

 

[Asaspades]

There's no way in the world the Republicans will accept Obama if he beats them in an election. And my problem with this idea of a child is that while it's correct, it's already happening and in some areas it's irresponsible. Only recently cities like Basra are being handed over to the Iraqi forces. Its a slow changeover, and it's good. But there are some areas which they should not hand over at this time because of the degree of violence there which there is no way in the world that the Iraqi army can cope. Saying you can just give it to them is like asking a ten year old to drive a car down the highway. And either way if you want the Iraqis to "learn" you may as well have the coalition as a safeguard in case something gets out of control.

Well then what should we be doing in iraq? If we can't pull out then the alternative is to stay costing the government billions of dollars not to even mention the human loss. There has to be a happy medium here.

The Federal reserve gets it from dues from other banks. The Federal reserve DOESN'T borrow money, that's the government which has the deficit. And I don't think it will spur the economy either when we're in a time of recession. More like kill it . Yes, the corporations are doing "fine" as it were - but you realise what is needed is investment to get the economy going. The reason interest rates are being lowered is to encourage investment in other places et cetera and growth. Taxes are contrary to spending as it makes it more expensive, and at this time it is not the right time to discourage spending. Raise your corporate taxes when we're experiencing inflation and too much growth, not now where it'll hit back on working families.

Many say that were closer to the begininnng of all these economic problems as opposed to the end. Many people realize this. So a young investor is going to invest in safe, blue chip stocks and bonds to preserve their own best interests. why would they go out on a limb with their own future and invest in Bear Sterns or J P morgan or any other fraudulant banks who are getting rate cuts? Throwing money at this situation isnt going to fix it. Plus I don't think oil Corporations (whom i think they are targeting the most here) are in any trouble of losing investors. Oil has skyrocketed and so have the earnings of these companies. and I doubt that will stop any time soon.

Yes we need funding for public schools. But Obama's stance is a strong pro-public school stance, which as I said wouldn't do much to help education because of the bureaucratic nature of the system. And vouchers wouldn't work either as then you'd have problems with mark-ups. The sensible option is conditional funding to make those schools easily affordable.

Conditional funding has been a disaster. Its making the rich richer and the poor poorer. In a privatized system it may work, but its a step in the polar opposite direction to continue it in this system. And to be quite frank, i dont understand what you have against schooling for all.

Conservatism isn't the only other option. I am myself a libertarian; while I *prefer* McCain for economic reasons really I would far prefer someone like Ron Paul or Mike Gravel (even if they do have insane stances on Iraq). There's a difference between personal and economic freedom. Conservatives want one, liberals want the other. Libertarians like me want both.

That is true, but in this election there is only conservatism as an alternative. Hence the problem with a 2 party system. I personally think that the party system over complicates the already corupt nature of democracy. But thats not what this is about. I wish there was an alternative who had a chance of winning myself, but there isnt, and I find Obama to be the best of the worst.

 

[The_Panda]

Well then what should we be doing in iraq? If we can't pull out then the alternative is to stay costing the government billions of dollars not to even mention the human loss. There has to be a happy medium here.

We should be stabilising the country. Yes, it is costing a lot, but remember we went in there, and we broke it - so we should fix it. I would think we need to have withdrawal as an aim and stabilise the country.

Many say that were closer to the begininnng of all these economic problems as opposed to the end. Many people realize this. So a young investor is going to invest in safe, blue chip stocks and bonds to preserve their own best interests. why would they go out on a limb with their own future and invest in Bear Sterns or J P morgan or any other fraudulant banks who are getting rate cuts? Throwing money at this situation isnt going to fix it. Plus I don't think oil Corporations (whom i think they are targeting the most here) are in any trouble of losing investors. Oil has skyrocketed and so have the earnings of these companies. and I doubt that will stop any time soon.

Throwing money won't fix it, you are correct. What needs to happen is the market needs to be moving. And having higher taxes impedes that.

Conditional funding has been a disaster. Its making the rich richer and the poor poorer. In a privatized system it may work, but its a step in the polar opposite direction to continue it in this system. And to be quite frank, i dont understand what you have against schooling for all.

Well I'm not arguing we keep the current system, eh? And conditional funding should only go to private schools and on the condition they lower their fees. And I do support schooling for all. However I also think if you can pay you should especially if it's a small amount. I'm all for providing a public system as grassroots, but on top of that I would want to see most of the education provided by low fee private schools run as trusts. This is far better than having most people go to an ailing public system and the very rich go to very good private schools.

That is true, but in this election there is only conservatism as an alternative. Hence the problem with a 2 party system. I personally think that the party system over complicates the already corupt nature of democracy. But thats not what this is about. I wish there was an alternative who had a chance of winning myself, but there isnt, and I find Obama to be the best of the worst.

In my opinion McCain is the "lesser evil". It looks as though he can manage the economy well, he supports private enterprise, and he can at least do something for a horrible health system. This is in contrast to an idealistic Obama and a purely dislikable Clinton.

 

[Asaspades]

We should be stabilising the country. Yes, it is costing a lot, but remember we went in there, and we broke it - so we should fix it. I would think we need to have withdrawal as an aim and stabilise the country.

I think that we are a long way away from stabilizing the country. Especially seeing that a 4 star general can't even give us criteria for withdrawel. We did break it, but I think the real goal would be to have this war not be in vain. If we can get the iraqi people to agree that the new system is better then rule under Sadam Hussein, then i think we have salvaged the war. This doesnt seem as far off, and i think that we may have even achieved that to an extent. Any further effort would just be trying to get blood from a rock.

Throwing money won't fix it, you are correct. What needs to happen is the market needs to be moving. And having higher taxes impedes that.

Not on the key investors, correct. but on the people that are going to keep assets in companies regardless. What we really need for this is some investment demographics, ill try to find some.

Well I'm not arguing we keep the current system, eh? And conditional funding should only go to private schools and on the condition they lower their fees. And I do support schooling for all. However I also think if you can pay you should especially if it's a small amount. I'm all for providing a public system as grassroots, but on top of that I would want to see most of the education provided by low fee private schools run as trusts. This is far better than having most people go to an ailing public system and the very rich go to very good private schools.

I would agree, but I think we need to combat poverty in general first, rather then just opening up this option. Most lower middle class families can get into private school with finacial aid programs. My family is lower middle class and I am going to a school with 20,000 anual tuition through financial aid. Public schools are for people who take advantage of the free opportunities and also those who genuinely cant afford even a cheap private school. "Why pay for what you get for what you get for free?" is the mentality. We need to have a slow transition into this and the only way to do that is to park it behind other more urgent issues and keep doing what were doing with maybe a few tweaks (looking at you, "no child left behind").

In my opinion McCain is the "lesser evil". It looks as though he can manage the economy well, he supports private enterprise, and he can at least do something for a horrible health system. This is in contrast to an idealistic Obama and a purely dislikable Clinton.

So the only problem you really have with Obama is that he is idealistic? idealism is what America needs right now. We've given the conservatives 8 years to do something and everything they touched they messed up. Why would we give them 4 more? Obama brings new ideas and politics into a dead system. Its had some shining moments, but when it was bad, it was (is) really bad. We need some reform and the democrats can do that.

 

[The_Panda]

I think that we are a long way away from stabilizing the country. Especially seeing that a 4 star general can't even give us criteria for withdrawel. We did break it, but I think the real goal would be to have this war not be in vain. If we can get the iraqi people to agree that the new system is better then rule under Sadam Hussein, then i think we have salvaged the war. This doesnt seem as far off, and i think that we may have even achieved that to an extent. Any further effort would just be trying to get blood from a rock.

The thing is now Iraq is better than under Saddam. But on the other hand, what would happen if we left?

Not on the key investors, correct. but on the people that are going to keep assets in companies regardless. What we really need for this is some investment demographics, ill try to find some.

While ordinary people do make up a substantial proportion of investors, stockbroking firms and banks make up the majority.

I would agree, but I think we need to combat poverty in general first, rather then just opening up this option. Most lower middle class families can get into private school with finacial aid programs. My family is lower middle class and I am going to a school with 20,000 anual tuition through financial aid. Public schools are for people who take advantage of the free opportunities and also those who genuinely cant afford even a cheap private school. "Why pay for what you get for what you get for free?" is the mentality. We need to have a slow transition into this and the only way to do that is to park it behind other more urgent issues and keep doing what were doing with maybe a few tweaks (looking at you, "no child left behind").

How do you propose we fight poverty then (or how does Obama propose)?

So the only problem you really have with Obama is that he is idealistic? idealism is what America needs right now. We've given the conservatives 8 years to do something and everything they touched they messed up. Why would we give them 4 more? Obama brings new ideas and politics into a dead system. Its had some shining moments, but when it was bad, it was (is) really bad. We need some reform and the democrats can do that.

It's not "the only reason", rather it's more or less a summary. I've given other reasons above. I far prefer realism to idealism. There is a lot wrong with America, but going idealistic and filling your speeches up with "hope" and "change" won't help. A better way is a realistic approach where you carefully analyse the problem and deduce what is the best way to fix it while being frank and serious. My fear with Obama is not only may he take the U.S. in the wrong direction towards socialism but his idealism may not actually get anywhere. But at least he has energy and vigour.

 

[Asaspades]

The thing is now Iraq is better than under Saddam. But on the other hand, what would happen if we left?

Well what else can we do to improve the situation? violence has gone way up in the last week.

While ordinary people do make up a substantial proportion of investors, stockbroking firms and banks make up the majority.

Exactly. So tax breaks will encourage investment in the middle class, while tax increase will do virtually nothing to brokering firms and bank ivestments.

It's not "the only reason", rather it's more or less a summary. I've given other reasons above. I far prefer realism to idealism. There is a lot wrong with America, but going idealistic and filling your speeches up with "hope" and "change" won't help. A better way is a realistic approach where you carefully analyse the problem and deduce what is the best way to fix it while being frank and serious. My fear with Obama is not only may he take the U.S. in the wrong direction towards socialism but his idealism may not actually get anywhere. But at least he has energy and vigour.

Well he's trying to win a popularity contest. People want to hear about change. They are tired of the same old ways, and want new ways. He is idealistic, but he can't expect everyone of his ideas to happen just as they are. Idealism is not a bad thing and i doubt that he truely believes he can reform the country into his exact mental picture. He should be idealstic in his speeches but realistic in his actions. And i think he will be.

 

[The_Panda]

Well what else can we do to improve the situation? violence has gone way up in the last week.

So now you are arguing leaving the country will improve it?

Exactly. So tax breaks will encourage investment in the middle class, while tax increase will do virtually nothing to brokering firms and bank ivestments.

Virtually nothing? You realise taxes are based on percentages. Higher taxes have the same effect as higher interest rates - they discourage spending. And as I said earlier the U.S. economy is headed for a deep recession: discouraging spending is the last thing we want.

Well he's trying to win a popularity contest. People want to hear about change. They are tired of the same old ways, and want new ways. He is idealistic, but he can't expect everyone of his ideas to happen just as they are. Idealism is not a bad thing and i doubt that he truely believes he can reform the country into his exact mental picture. He should be idealstic in his speeches but realistic in his actions. And i think he will be.

How do you know he will be realistic in his actions?

 

[Asaspades]

Sorry for the delay, i was away this past weekend.

So now you are arguing leaving the country will improve it?

Well i wouldnt put it that black and white. Im trying to argue that its none of the US's concern what happens in Iraq. It will be beneficial to us to leave. There is not a substantial threat in Iraq any longer, so our efforts should be focused on the war on terror in afgahistan.

Virtually nothing? You realise taxes are based on percentages. Higher taxes have the same effect as higher interest rates - they discourage spending. And as I said earlier the U.S. economy is headed for a deep recession: discouraging spending is the last thing we want.

Many experts believe we are closer to recovering then plunging deeper. Just because you said the economy is headed for a deep recession doesnt make it so.

How do you know he will be realistic in his actions?

He is going to be more realistic because there is no alternative. either your realistic or you do nothing. I dont think he will do nothing.

 

[The_Panda]

Well i wouldnt put it that black and white. Im trying to argue that its none of the US's concern what happens in Iraq.

On the other hand if we allow Al Qaeda to gain a foothold in Iraq it most certainly is our business. May I presume the following: you believe that we should be in Afghanistan to chase down Al Qaeda? If so; if Iraq became a stronghold for Al Qaeda as Afghanistan once was and as Tribal Pakistan now is would you not see it as logical in the same light to hunt down Al Qaeda there as well? If you accept that; I will continue. If not I'll debate you on that premise first.

It will be beneficial to us to leave.

Here you have stated a conclusion which I disagree with; and just restating it won't help. As I am in the process of doing with you step by step above; I would request that we reach our conclusions through clear logical arguments and show that process to eachother instead of just stating our conclusions.

Many experts believe we are closer to recovering then plunging deeper.

I would like a source instead of "many experts", and I would think that if we were recovering it would not be good to hinder that recovery.

Just because you said the economy is headed for a deep recession doesnt make it so.

Of course it doesn't. But I never said that did I. But I guess it is my fault that I took the state of the economy as objective fact and doubted you would dispute that... but since it appears you are I'll have to take you through on this. So as clarification, would you disagree with the statement that "the economy is at slowing down if not heading for or already in recession"?

He is going to be more realistic because there is no alternative. either your realistic or you do nothing. I dont think he will do nothing.

I guess this is again my fault; I did not make it clear what I meant by realistic. You get several types of politicians, those that do nothing and for their own gain (I don't have a special name for these), those who do something but for the sake of political power, in that they choose their moves primarily over how they would be swallowed by the electorate, and then there are those politicians that do something for the sake of trying to make life better for the electorate. I have no doubt Obama is one of these, however within this group I see two types of leaders: idealists and realists. Idealists assess what policies they should make on a set of ideas and agendas which are prefixed, for example, Obama has set his ideal as fighting poverty and sees state intervention as the best way. These are very unlikely to change n the near future, they are set out. The other type of politician in this category are realists, in that they work by approaching the situation by assessing and analysing it and from this divulge into the best course of action taken from this. I would consider myself a realist in many aspects of life and its a shame that there are more or less no realists in prevalence. Perhaps that is because by nature politicians need an ideal to succeed; oh well.

 

[Asaspades]

On the other hand if we allow Al Qaeda to gain a foothold in Iraq it most certainly is our business. May I presume the following: you believe that we should be in Afghanistan to chase down Al Qaeda? If so; if Iraq became a stronghold for Al Qaeda as Afghanistan once was and as Tribal Pakistan now is would you not see it as logical in the same light to hunt down Al Qaeda there as well? If you accept that; I will continue. If not I'll debate you on that premise first.

I understand your logic here, but we arnt really fighting al queda in iraq anymore, its more of the sunni/shiite (sp?) conflict that we seem to be in the middle of.

I would like a source instead of "many experts", and I would think that if we were recovering it would not be good to hinder that recovery.

ill find the exact people later, its very late where i am, but for now, you have a stock market thats been up 3 consecutive weeks with the largest one day gain in 30 years, an economic stimulus package going out soon, plus its tax rebate season so spending will soon be at a high. As for hindering the recovery, we have a large stimulus package going out, we dont need tax breaks.

Of course it doesn't. But I never said that did I. But I guess it is my fault that I took the state of the economy as objective fact and doubted you would dispute that... but since it appears you are I'll have to take you through on this. So as clarification, would you disagree with the statement that "the economy is at slowing down if not heading for or already in recession"?

A recession is defined by two quarters of negative growth. So i factually i have to believe that. however, i believe the market will only recover from here.

I guess this is again my fault; I did not make it clear what I meant by realistic. You get several types of politicians, those that do nothing and for their own gain (I don't have a special name for these), those who do something but for the sake of political power, in that they choose their moves primarily over how they would be swallowed by the electorate, and then there are those politicians that do something for the sake of trying to make life better for the electorate. I have no doubt Obama is one of these, however within this group I see two types of leaders: idealists and realists. Idealists assess what policies they should make on a set of ideas and agendas which are prefixed, for example, Obama has set his ideal as fighting poverty and sees state intervention as the best way. These are very unlikely to change n the near future, they are set out. The other type of politician in this category are realists, in that they work by approaching the situation by assessing and analysing it and from this divulge into the best course of action taken from this. I would consider myself a realist in many aspects of life and its a shame that there are more or less no realists in prevalence. Perhaps that is because by nature politicians need an ideal to succeed; oh well.

Exactly, politicians need an ideal to suceed, so you cant blame Obama for being idealistic. Obama is idealistic. Most politicians are. But when he hets into office, he will relaize that these changes wont happen over night, and that hes going to have to bring his policies back to earth if he wants to help anyone.

 

[The_Panda]

I understand your logic here, but we arnt really fighting al queda in iraq anymore, its more of the sunni/shiite (sp?) conflict that we seem to be in the middle of.

Can I reach a Burden of Proof with you. If Al Qaeda are in Iraq, or if us leaving will facilitate their position in Iraq, we should not leave. If I can get agreement on that conditional, I will go about to attempt to show the premise as true.

ill find the exact people later, its very late where i am, but for now, you have a stock market thats been up 3 consecutive weeks with the largest one day gain in 30 years, an economic stimulus package going out soon, plus its tax rebate season so spending will soon be at a high. As for hindering the recovery, we have a large stimulus package going out, we dont need tax breaks.

We don't need tax breaks for the sake of recovery, that is true. But we don't need an increase from where they already are.

A recession is defined by two quarters of negative growth. So i factually i have to believe that. however, i believe the market will only recover from here.

How do you know that it will "only recover"?

Exactly, politicians need an ideal to suceed, so you cant blame Obama for being idealistic. Obama is idealistic. Most politicians are. But when he hets into office, he will relaize that these changes wont happen over night, and that hes going to have to bring his policies back to earth if he wants to help anyone.

That's not what I meant by realistic as I said earlier. Read over again and have a think about it.

 

[Asaspades]

Can I reach a Burden of Proof with you. If Al Qaeda are in Iraq, or if us leaving will facilitate their position in Iraq, we should not leave. If I can get agreement on that conditional, I will go about to attempt to show the premise as true.

See, im looking at this from the perspective of "would we invade now if we hadnt already". My answer to that is no, as we have toppled Sadam Hussein, the only concrete reason for invading in the first place. I believe no one would be for invading Iraq now if we hadnt and Sadam Hussein was out of power. Al Queda is much stronger in the Afgahnistan/Pakistan border then it is in Iraq. So because there is not a clear guidline as what it is our goal in Iraq is, as even General Patreaus is not clear on what "Victory" is in the region, I am against continuing this war until given a clear, decisive guidline as to what our goals are and what we have to achieve in order to declare "victory". So put quite simply, regardless of Al Quedas presence in Iraq, we should leave.

We don't need tax breaks for the sake of recovery, that is true. But we don't need an increase from where they already are.

Ok, i can agree to that. However, i dont see this as a deal breaker for Obama.

How do you know that it will "only recover"?

Well arguing from out current premise, neither of us knows the fate of the economy. I will try to prove it is closer to a recovery, and you can try to refute that with evidence of you own, agreed?

That's not what I meant by realistic as I said earlier. Read over again and have a think about it.

Ok, well firstly, I dont see how giving states the power to fight poverty is so idealistic, and second, id like to ask you then; what is so bad about idealism?

 

[The_Panda]

See, im looking at this from the perspective of "would we invade now if we hadnt already". My answer to that is no, as we have toppled Sadam Hussein, the only concrete reason for invading in the first place. I believe no one would be for invading Iraq now if we hadnt and Sadam Hussein was out of power. Al Queda is much stronger in the Afgahnistan/Pakistan border then it is in Iraq. So because there is not a clear guidline as what it is our goal in Iraq is, as even General Patreaus is not clear on what "Victory" is in the region, I am against continuing this war until given a clear, decisive guidline as to what our goals are and what we have to achieve in order to declare "victory". So put quite simply, regardless of Al Quedas presence in Iraq, we should leave.

Okay. You didn't really answer what I asked on the burden of proof, before I properly answer your statement above, I will tell you what I'm going to prove and how I will prove it (don't refute it yet until I actually bring it out). I'm going to show that; Al Qaeda and other such groups have a presence in Iraq, and leaving would create a vacuum which they could partly fill; I will show that by what I have already established, if the Iraqi government falls the lack of order would further facilitate not just sectarian violence but create a haven for criminals; therefore, as we have more or less agreed that if Al Qaeda is in Iraq and has a notable presence and/or leaving would facilitate a notable presence we should not withdraw from Iraq. Please do refute the above yet. I just first want your agreement that if I can show Al Qaeda is in Iraq/will come into Iraq you will concede on the Iraq point.

Ok, i can agree to that. However, i dont see this as a deal breaker for Obama.

Well it refutes his tax plan. But I have to say it's unlikely to change his chances as president... those who would be harmed by his tax plan probably wouldn't vote for him anyway.

Well arguing from out current premise, neither of us knows the fate of the economy. I will try to prove it is closer to a recovery, and you can try to refute that with evidence of you own, agreed?

I'm sorry if this is picky, but I would prefer the burden of proof as you will prove by setting out a stable logical chain then showing the premises so logically your proposition is proven. I will concede on this if this occurs. I will try to refute this, either by attacking the logic or attacking the premises.

Ok, well firstly, I dont see how giving states the power to fight poverty is so idealistic, and second, id like to ask you then; what is so bad about idealism?

The reason why I say it's idealistic (it might not be, but from what I've seen it is) is that especially on the poverty front he says he's going to fight it but I have actually seen no standing plan for how he will fight it. He's stated there is widespread poverty in the U.S.A. (something I agree on), that it needs to be fixed (again agreed for obvious reasons), then said he will be the candidate to fix it. That would be all well if he had a standing action plan not just big words in his speeches. I just read through the link you provided me earlier and he has no standing plan. This is the problem with idealism - all big words and slogans, all impressive speeches, but no real plan of action to help.

 

[Asaspades]

Okay. You didn't really answer what I asked on the burden of proof, before I properly answer your statement above, I will tell you what I'm going to prove and how I will prove it (don't refute it yet until I actually bring it out). I'm going to show that; Al Qaeda and other such groups have a presence in Iraq, and leaving would create a vacuum which they could partly fill; I will show that by what I have already established, if the Iraqi government falls the lack of order would further facilitate not just sectarian violence but create a haven for criminals; therefore, as we have more or less agreed that if Al Qaeda is in Iraq and has a notable presence and/or leaving would facilitate a notable presence we should not withdraw from Iraq. Please do refute the above yet. I just first want your agreement that if I can show Al Qaeda is in Iraq/will come into Iraq you will concede on the Iraq point.

What i was trying to say is that i will not concede on the iraq point even if you suceed in proving those points.

I'm sorry if this is picky, but I would prefer the burden of proof as you will prove by setting out a stable logical chain then showing the premises so logically your proposition is proven. I will concede on this if this occurs. I will try to refute this, either by attacking the logic or attacking the premises.

Ok. The US economy will soon be coming out of its current recession. This is because the most recent data coming from the markets indicates positive growth, and there is not a substantial reason for this growth to halt.

The reason why I say it's idealistic (it might not be, but from what I've seen it is) is that especially on the poverty front he says he's going to fight it but I have actually seen no standing plan for how he will fight it. He's stated there is widespread poverty in the U.S.A. (something I agree on), that it needs to be fixed (again agreed for obvious reasons), then said he will be the candidate to fix it. That would be all well if he had a standing action plan not just big words in his speeches. I just read through the link you provided me earlier and he has no standing plan. This is the problem with idealism - all big words and slogans, all impressive speeches, but no real plan of action to help.

Wait, didn't you just say that his plan was giving states the authority to combat poverty? Anyway, in order for Obama to have a sucessful presidency, and improve the lifes of the electorate, he will need to have a plan. He does on many issues. So is your issue that he doesnt have a plan on many of his key talking points, or that his plans are unrealistic?

 

[The_Panda]

What i was trying to say is that i will not concede on the iraq point even if you suceed in proving those points.

We need to reach a stable burden of proof here. What conditions will we set up for the Iraq sub-topic? Remember you are obliged to argue Obama's view on Iraq not your own. This isn't an Iraq topic rather it's an Obama topic.

Ok. The US economy will soon be coming out of its current recession. This is because the most recent data coming from the markets indicates positive growth, and there is not a substantial reason for this growth to halt.

Okay. I'm sorry if this is too teacher-like, but let's go through the steps here. You need to show that it'll be coming out of its recession very soon enough to allow for higher taxes. You have said there is data indicating we are recovering (I would like to see some data, not that I dispute an at least temporary relief), and your justification is that there is not a substantial reason for this to take us out of recession. But there is a big jump in logic here. That is you can't claim it's going to continue because nobody has shown otherwise. The lack of anybody showing otherwise is indicative of the unknown; not certain growth. It's your role to show this growth will continue to take us out of recession and as the affirmative discount the possibility that this is temporary relief brought about by companies experiencing higher than expected profits. That is one explanation I am inclined to think, the main reason for growth reported by the ABC news here is that certain companies reported higher than predicted profits. This spurred at least some optimism leading to temporary relief. Now as long as that suggestion remains open you as the affirmative haven't proven your case on this small (but important) subtopic.

Wait, didn't you just say that his plan was giving states the authority to combat poverty? Anyway, in order for Obama to have a sucessful presidency, and improve the lifes of the electorate, he will need to have a plan. He does on many issues. So is your issue that he doesnt have a plan on many of his key talking points, or that his plans are unrealistic?

Saying "I'm giving the states the authority to combat poverty" is a plan for what is says NOT a good definitive plan to cut back on poverty. What I want from Obama is a plan on how he is going to do so. For example if I was a politician who wanted to cut back on poverty in the U.S.A., I would formulate a rough plan as a realist by looking at what causes poverty in the U.S.A.: pretty much the problem with jobs. From here my plan would be to help alleviate this problem: that is encourage people who are poor to seek a job/a better job, change the doll system so if you're not in some sort of training or seeking a job actively you won't get it; and then address the issue of education and make better education more affordable (I have my own ideas about this). Here, in about five minutes on my own I've spun up a rough plan. Of course it needs big work. But it's a plan I want to see from Obama. And something much better developed than that of course, but I really haven't seen much from him: he says he'll give that power to the states and that's how he's going to combat it, but tell me, what authority is he going to give the states, how is he going to do it, what funding changes is required, and how will the states help, et cetera. Things left totally unanswered by Obama's rhetoric.

And of course he'll need a plan if he was to improve the life of the electorate. But I haven't seen it. Maybe he does have one hidden in his desk, but I don't know. Like every other person who would dare consider calling themselves a realist in politics, I want to see that plan on how he's going to deliver what he says he will. Voters need to know how if they are to not be mislead - I agree with what some politicians have as their goal but more than often I find their methods less than optimal to vote for.