The Instigator
shwayze
Pro (for)
Losing
61 Points
The Contender
left_wing_mormon
Con (against)
Winning
69 Points

Obama would be dangerous as president of the United States.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 10,771 times Debate No: 3058
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (216)
Votes (34)

 

shwayze

Pro

Forget whether going to war with Iraq was the right or wrong decision, do you really think pulling out all our troops within 90 days is a good idea? The ramifications of pulling out would be TERRRIBLE. how can you not see that? We not only have a militaristic obligation, but a MORAL obligation as a country to finish what we started. Not only due we owe it to the Iraqi people, but WE OWE IT TO OUR SOLDIERS WHO SACRIFICED THEIR LIVES IN THIS WAR. The surge is working, political reconciliation is happening, yet Obama refuses to accept it. Pulling out of Iraq would lead to a civil war like we've never seen before. Think the killing fields in Cambodia after we left Vietnam.

What about Obama's connections with multiple controversial people? I'm not trying to use the "guilt by association" argument to attack Barack, but it is very interesting to me that he has been connected with so many controversial and dangerous people. Does the name Bill Ayers ring a bell? He was a domestic terrorist in the 1970's and part of the radical group Weather Underground who admitted to bombing a police station, the Capitol Building, and the Pentagon in the early 1970s. In 2001, Ayers even said that he didnt do enough! And we found out in the last few weeks that Obama and Ayers are "friendly" and Obama visited him in the 1990s talking politics. WHY WOULD ANYONE BE "FRIENDLY" with a domestic terrorist who declared war on the United States? Can you imagine a republican candidate that was "friendly" with Timothy McVey? He would get KILLED by the media and scorned by the left, yet this Bill Ayers connection is nothing new in the liberal circles.

What about Tony Rezko, who is currently under indictment for fraud?

What about Louis Farrakan? Obama FINALLY officially denounced and rejected Farrakan's views ONLY ON HIS ANTI-SEMETIC REMARKS! What about dozen of other rediculous statements that Farrakan has made in the past? And how about his "spiritual advisor" Jeremiah Wright who has continually said that America is a racist country and always will be. Wright said that September 11th was "retribution" for America's evil past. And how about the black value system that his church is founded on? Can you imagine if a white republican had a "spiritual advisor" that stressed and taught the white value system? The liberals would flip a s*** and we would never hear of this person again.

How about the fact that his wife said for the first time that she is proud of America? Or her thesis paper at Princeton which blamed "white oppression" for the way that she was treated as a black first, student second.

There are too many red flags that are raised with Obama and I feel that this is just the beginning. He is in for a rough road ahead and I firmly believe the majority of Americans will not elect a candidate with such inexperience and liberal views.

Finally, I would like for you to tell me one specific accomplishment of Barack Obama in his career.
left_wing_mormon

Con

I would like to start by saying, I support Barrack now, only because he is my only option. In the beginning I did not support him, I liked Kucinich, but anyways. One Accomplishment, I'll get this out of the way: He is the Author of the SAVE Act (Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere Act) which expanded federal homeless veterans programs that serve over 100,000 veterans who fought for this country.

Now moving on, I would like to address the "having relations" with dangerous people. This is a concerning statement you bring up, about Ayers and Obama. I would like your source, not that I don't trust you. But our current President has had finacial ties with the bin Laden family, his daddy sold weapons to Saddam, and the Taliban met with Bush privatly in Texas to have a mini-vacation. Hmm, if thats ok, than I guess Obama "meeting friendly" with Ayers is either just as bad or slightly worse than hanging with Osamas brother...

Keeping the troops in Iraq means more targets for Al Queda. They are dieing every day, and what is the mission? What are they fighting for right now? Stability? There is an Islamic Civil War raging there, a religously motivated war, which means no matter how many troops we put there, as long as there is food and water they islamic extremists will keep firing. What is it that we started that we have to finish? We were told Saddam had a tie with 9-11, that was false, then WMDs, that again was false, then we said we are there to over throw Saddam! Well what are we doing there now?

You mention Tony Rezko, which is odd because he also raised millions for Bush during his 2003 campaign...like you said Obama denounced the support of Farrakan...

Then we go to Michelle Obama. Listen, I don't care what she has to say because she is only a first lady hopeful. They don't have any sort of political power. We can look at what republicans wives have said, but to me that doesn't matter. Anyway, have you read her Princeton paper? She gave examples in there about her encounters with racists students. Thats all. And about her being proud of her country because hope is making a comeback. She obviously loves her country, but to be fair she has a lot of things to be disappointed with. The handling of the war, the divide (racial, gender, and ecconomic).

I know this is a debate about Obama, but out of curosity who do you support?
Debate Round No. 1
shwayze

Pro

Here is a source for the Ayers-Obama connection. http://www.politico.com...

I also would, if you dont mind, like to see a link about Bush's "financial ties with the bin Laden family" and a link supporting your claim that "the Taliban met with Bush privately in Texas to have a mini-vacation."

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that these claims are not true. I'd be very shocked to find out that the Taliban was in the United States of America on a nice get-away vacation with George Bush.

It just troubles me that anyone running for president of the United States would be "friendly" with a DOMESTIC TERRORIST WHO BOMBED OUR PENTAGON AND DECLARED WAR ON THE UNITED STATES! (I actually think the most troubling aspect of this Ayers thing is the fact that this man is well-respected on the liberal left and a respected professor. Maybe we can cope with Senator Byrd, the former KKK member, but a domestic terrorist???)

Al Qaeda targets Americans all around the world, no matter where they are. Keeping troops in Iraq means more Al-Qaeda deaths, which is reached over 100 in just one year. We killed the Al-Qaeda #2 man Al-Zarqawi. We even discovered letters from an Al-Qaeda leader in northern Iraq that said Al-Qaeda is in disarray and losing its members weekly. I have a source if you want it. The soldiers are fighting for the Iraqi people and their aspiration of democracy. Building up an effective democracy and ally in Iraq would be an incredible achievement for the United States and the Iraqi people. If you havent noticed, the Iraqi people are starting to turn against the radicals and extremists and are coming together to reconcile politically. I'm not going to get into the justification for entering the war, because it is a mute point. We are in the year 2008! If this was 2004, you would have a legitimate point, but we're there and we need to finish the job. We are winning the war and we need to complete the job.

Please support your claim that Rezko "raised millions for Bush during his 2003 campaign."

Last time I checked, George Bush wasn't running for president in 2008.

The thing that irritates me about Obama's relationship with Farrakan is that he has danced around too much about his denouncement of Farrakan. If he had come out months ago rejected Farrakan ON ALL HIS RIDICULOUS STATEMENTS, NOT JUST HIS ANTI-SEMETIC, then I would be more assured of it. It is a little troubling that Obama beat around the bush too much with Farrakan.

I definitely dont want to get into the wives of candidates, but Mrs. Obama's statement is borderline ridiculous. Was she not proud when we won the Cold War? When the Berlin Wall came down? When liberals like Ruth Bader Ginsburg were appointed to the Supreme Court? When America rallied around 9/11 to unite? I mean come on, this country has given her so much, and yet she is just proud of the United States now??? Come on, give me a break.

The fact that Obama said he would meet with the scum of the world (Chavez, Castro brothers, the Iranian and North Korean presidents) WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS is completely absurd and idiotic. This man is not ready to be president of the United States.
left_wing_mormon

Con

I know I was shocked to know that the Taliban was in the U.S. too, yet alone with then Governor of Texas, George Bush. But they did. My source is BBC. And sorry, it wasn't a "vacation" like I suggested before. They were here to about an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. So it was about business...wasn't really a vactation, you're right. Here is the report: http://news.bbc.co.uk...

As far as Bush and his finacial connections with the bin Ladens, well it goes like this, then I would like to adress Obama. George Bush served in the Texas National Guard, and while he was there he met a man named James R. Bath became really close freinds.(http://www.time.com...)
Just so happens Bath is the money manger for the BINLADEN family. Anyway, Bath started an aviation business and his main investor was Salem M. Binladen. When Bush started his own oil company and well, Bath used the bin Laden money to help Bushy run his business. (http://www.michaelmoore.com...)

Bush has had that business with the Saudi Royal familes including the bin Ladens...Anyway lets move to Obama.

Whats funny about you saying Ayers is respected by the left is not true. He was infact disinvited to an event of progressive professors. His name appeared as a mistake.

Thank you for the article, because no where in there does it say Obama is a close friend to Ayers. They were both at a campaign function, and they bumped into each other and "were friendly". I don't think Obama would do something like sell weapons to him as president, unlike Reagan and Al'Queda in the 80s.

And don't mention racism here, by mentioning Sen. Byrd. Yes he is a racist, but you say you will vote for McCain "because you have no choice". Well he voted against having a national holiday for Martin Luther King. And he supports the Confederate flag on state buildings right?

With Americans in Iraq this provides a good recruiting center for Al'Queda. The people in Iraq hate us there, and they aren't very happy with us. They are getting more and more angry and just want a way to attack us. Al'Queda, "luckily", is there for them! We are hardly killing terrorists at the rate you suggest. In fact more Al'Queda troops are being recruited every day. (Yes I would like your source for that claim)

Well Bush isn't running for president again. But I am only putting the claims you have stated for Barrack in prospective. How can you think the way you do about Obama; why aren't you outraged about Bush doing the same, if not worst?

REZKO raising money for Bush in 2003>>http://www.suntimes.com...

Ok thank you for easing your comments about Michelle Obama. She did say something that came out wrong, but the way I got it (as an Obama supporter, now) is she was proud that her husband "was uniting people" the way he was, and history in some way is bringing hope back. This country is great, no doubt. Amazing, in fact. But she went through alot too, like you said, she wrote a whole paper about racist discrimination, and now a black man is on the way to the presidency. The statement wasn't worded so well, but again she isn't the one we are talking about, that is another debate.

So you think meeting with foregein leaders, espically those who are hostile, to work out diplomacy is a bad thing? Your right, we might as well just bomb them and kill innocence and American soliders.

Why do I bring up Bush? Well it is to make you think. Do you support Bush? Did you? many presidents, even those we think are great like Reagan, made some pretty horrible decisions. I think Obama stands for human rights, civil rights, and I believe in him because there isn't enough evidence to say otherwise. Every thing you said has either an explanation or can be used against former and/or current presidents.
Debate Round No. 2
shwayze

Pro

It's Bush's fault that his friend lent him money (that he happened to accumulate from a bin Laden member) to start up a business? Give me a break. This is amazingly trivial to the topic at hand. I digress.

Again, Obama personally visited Ayers at his home in the 90s before running for office. An Obama spokesman said the two "are friendly." WHAT!!! How can a possible president of the United States be "friendly" with a DOMESTIC TERRORIST! repeat a DOMESTIC TERRORIST WHO DECLARED WAR ON THE UNITED STATES. Does this not raise any red flags? My point about Ayers is that it is astonishing that he actually teaches at a college university (Illinois)! This man tried to blow up our Pentagon and yet it's not big deal that he is educating thousands of students a year. Can you honestly even imagine if this man was a republican?

You are just completely 100% wrong with Iraq and Al-Qaeda. You think Iraq is a good recruiting center for Al-Qaeda when we're killing them weekly? Your statement that the people in Iraq hate us there is completely off base with reality. If the government (and people) really hated us there they would tell us to leave! AND THEY HAVENT. They want us there to stabilize the creation of democracy and train their policeman and army to fight the terrorists. The Iraqi troops and police are killing Al-Qaeda! Wake up! We are kicking their a**.

"So you think meeting with foregein leaders, espically those who are hostile, to work out diplomacy is a bad thing? Your right, we might as well just bomb them and kill innocence and American soliders."

Meeting with the dictators and enemies around the world is a good thing. BUT WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS- as Obama stated he would do- IS COMPLETELY IDIOTIC AND RIDICULOUS. He talks about his amazing judgement all the time. What kind of judgement is this?

"I think Obama stands for human rights, civil rights, and I believe in him because there isn't enough evidence to say otherwise."

I believe Obama does too, but there are many more pressing needs in the world today like NATIONAL SECURITY that need to be addressed first so we can have all the human and civil rights we rightfully deserve.

I think Hillary exposed Obama by winning Ohio and Texas. Everyone jumped on the Obama bandwagon without doing much research at all on his past and his experience. She got people to think twice about Obama, and the majority of people finally are starting to understand that this man is not ready to be commander-in-chief. He lacks the experience to be president of the United States.
left_wing_mormon

Con

I'm sorry but I can't find anywhere something saying Barrack met with Ayers, personally. All I can fnd is that they ran into each other at a campaign event in Illinoise and the were "friendly". Thats all. They aren't friends like you claim. And by the way, Ayers career has nothing to do with Barrack, so whats your point?

So we agree that even George Bush did take money from a man who was known for managing the bin Laden familys money, and you don't deny that the TALIBAN met with Bush in Texas. Ok.

Moving onward, Obama and preconditions. Preconditions could mean a number of things. Having a military plan "B" for example and I think what Obama meant was I don't intend to put the military as an option when dealing with diplomacy. But you can speak for Obama if you wish.

I'm 100% wrong about Iraq and Al'Queda? According to USA Today only 1/3 of Iraq believes the American presence is a good thing(http://www.usatoday.com...) And according to Zogby Polls, Sunni Arabs (82%) and Shiites (69%)want U.S. forces to leave now. Here is an entire booklet you can print up about the overall Iraqi mood towards an American presence.

As for Al'Queda recruiting on a daily basis. The very reason people are signing up with them is because of things we don't like to think about here at home. 30,000 innocent people were killed the first day of the invasion alone. You think they are happy America is in their country? They were digging their families from ruble, and now Al'Queda is there to harbor their hatred for us!

This video explains some of the meathods used to recruit:

The following are all reports on this subject of Al'Queada recruitment: http://query.nytimes.com... // http://news.bbc.co.uk... // http://news.bbc.co.uk... // http://www.cnn.com...
************
You need to keep in mind, you keep saying "we're kicking their a**" but they don't care. These are people who strap bombs to their chest and run into a group of people. These aren't typical militants. They want to die, it helps their Jihad (according to the radical muslims, not the reall muslims).

I don't think people are "waking up" or however you put it. Hillary just spent more time and money campagining in the states where the delagates are. Barrack tried spreading his message across the board.

Well anyways, in closing we have discovered a couple of things. Obama treated someone at a formal gathering of people, even thoguh he is a "domesticated terrorist", with respect. Treated him they way he would want to be treated. Bush on the other hand has bin Laden money in his pocket, and met with the Taliban privately to do business, and for some reason youre ok with that. We also learned that in fact I was right about my statement about Iraq from the fact that they want us out of their country and they are recruiting iraqis to fight us.

You made me do some research and I thank you for that. I hope we can debate in the future about other topics. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
216 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Solarman1969 8 years ago
Solarman1969
Comon now!

We have to take a 2X4 to the skull of these libs to get them to WAKE UP!

since they are so seeeeeeeeeeeeeeensitive, then INSULTS work well as the 2X4

cheers and happy new year

SOLARMAN
Posted by bignaked 8 years ago
bignaked
also, to my fellow conservatives out there - please don't be exceedingly rude ("liberalism is the philosophy of stupid," etc.)

to say so is simply unnecessary
Posted by bignaked 8 years ago
bignaked
Con lost because he didn't stay on topic very well - Obama was the topic, not Bush

also, it is a simple FACT that obama launched his campaign for the illinois senate at ayers' house

the idea of meeting with iran w/out preconditions is disturbing bc it means that he is willing to compromise with iran - obama, i ask you, "What are you willing to compromise on? Iran's women's rights? Iran's lack of freedom of religion? Iran's crimes against humanity? Or is it just fundamental human rights?" Because negotiation involves compromise, you must be willing to compromise on one of the above, which means you don't think one of the above is important. And a man who doesn't think any of the above is important isn't qualified to be president.

also, when the wright story came out, obama's response was: "i didn't know he was saying that stuff"

there are two possibilities:
(1) he is telling the truth, and he's completely clueless as to what's going on around him - not qualifications for president
(2) (far more likely) he's LYING - not qualifications for president
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
I'm sorry but www.michaelmoore.com is definetly not a valid source haha sorry Con but you lose in my opinion
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
you lack common sense like the rest of the libs in the country.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
MORONS AND IDIOTS = the core support of the democrat party

Rousseau proves us right every day

every day

hear me?

and Schwyaze?

If you dont , youre STUCK ON STUPID!!

hear us?

I hope you do!
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Is it odd that you're calling me lazy when you're too lazy to perform a simple task of fulfilling the most basic burden of debate?
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
This is the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives actually use common sense and history to make decisions. Liberals do not use either of them. And they are too lazy to learn anything on their own. As Mark Levin puts it, "Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid."
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Obama would be VERY DANGEROUS as president of the United States

THAT is the topic here

And the case was clearly made and continues to be

So obfuscate, evade, try to have me banned, whatever

OBAMA IS NOT ELECTABLE and will probably LOSE to Hillary

you are not worth engaging in your stupid childish banter
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
"Liberals are SO STUPID and SELF IMPORTANT it is really quite funny"

"and then we have to spend time out of OUR busy day to reeducate them"

Hmm... I smell some hypocritical baking up. So, big, important, and busy Solarman is too busy to "teach me" the error of my ways, yet insists that I am wrong, and that I am the self-important one. Interesting.

"insults and evasions"

Again, interesting. Coming from the guy who has called me countless names, the "oh noes he insulted me" tactic doesn't really hit home. Even if I had insulted you, which I might add, I haven't, you have no right to complain.

You live in a shadow world, away from the actual realities of today. You are a bigot, intensely hypocritical and self-righteous, and extremely unlikable. It would be a massive plus to the site to have you removed, and I'm sure many people would agree. You'll notice even your fellow conservative hasn't disagreed on this one, either. Your tactics are childish and foolish; your logic skewed. Do not comment here again, as it will be in vain. Your points are silly, and will be ignored. If you truly wish to debate, challenge me, or civilize yourself.
34 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by LB628 8 years ago
LB628
shwayzeleft_wing_mormonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by charles15 8 years ago
charles15
shwayzeleft_wing_mormonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Morell4 8 years ago
Morell4
shwayzeleft_wing_mormonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by bignaked 8 years ago
bignaked
shwayzeleft_wing_mormonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by Bellalouise 8 years ago
Bellalouise
shwayzeleft_wing_mormonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by DoctrinallyCorrect 8 years ago
DoctrinallyCorrect
shwayzeleft_wing_mormonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 8 years ago
tribefan011
shwayzeleft_wing_mormonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 8 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
shwayzeleft_wing_mormonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Rboy159 8 years ago
Rboy159
shwayzeleft_wing_mormonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
shwayzeleft_wing_mormonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03