Quote:
Originally Posted by cykoe6
Apparently the extent of your ability to have a policy debate is claim anyone who disagrees with you is uninformed. Is it impossible to comprehend that someone might be quite adequately informed but simply disagrees with you? Perhaps our values differ in some fundamental way which leads us to support different policies and different outcomes? I oppose Obama because of his stated polices and positions. That does not make me uniformed but rather just someone who disagrees with him and you on what is best.
Instead of assuming I am uniformed isn't it possible to assume I am just a bad person whose defects of character make it impossible for me to support the obvious righteousness of Obama's agenda? Perhaps I am simply evil as opposed to stupid?
Anyway there is no reason for you to trouble yourself considering any of these things because as you have already clearly stated "I already know the answers.... so I do not need to waste my time arguing every point for no reason."
|
I will point out a couple of the most egregious so that you feel more comfortable in the fact that I am not just saying you posted falsehoods... but proving it. Maybe this will make you feel better. I doubt you are evil or stupid... just simply misinformed because you probably read alot of right wing sources... or at least some of the things you posted would indicate this. I read alot of those same sites because I like to get both sides of the story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cykoe6
Government funded health insurance (paid for with penalty taxes on small businesses who don't provide health insurance)
|
Obama hasn't proposed any "penalty taxes" on small businesses. As a matter of fact, it specifically says that small businesses will be exempt.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Obama Health Care Plan
Large employers that do not offer meaningful coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cykoe6
Amnesty for Illegal immigrants
|
Obama has never proposed amnesty... as a matter of fact he proposes that we secure our border first, resident illegal immigrants would be required to pay a hefty fine and go to the back of the line... but they wouldn't just kick them out. How you you propose to round up 23 million people or however many illegals there are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cykoe6
Drivers Licenses for illegal immigrants
|
His position is that it should be up to the states... he doesn't support any type of federal requirement to do so. These drivers licenses fall right into the comprehensive immigration reform plan that he supports... the one that McCain helped write...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Obama
On the driver?s license issue, I don?t believe that we?re going to have to deal with this if we have comprehensive immigration reform, because people don?t come here to drive. They come here to work. If we have registered them, if they have paid a fine, if they are learning English and going to the back of the line, if we fix our legal immigration system, then we will not have this problem of undocumented workers in this country, because people will be able to actually go on a pathway to citizenship.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cykoe6
Releasing Guantanamo prisoners onto the US mainland
|
This is misleading. He has not proposed "releasing" any prisoners onto US soil... he has proposed holding them in military prisons in the US and trying them with military tribunals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cykoe6
Support of the International Criminal Court and the authority of international law over US law (See Harold Koh nomination)
|
This is false. The whole hullabaloo over Harold Koh was a red herring where some National Review journalist posted a letter from some guy who never commented on the letter accusing Harold Koh (The Dean of Yale Law) of supporting Sharia Law by citing a speech that he gave. A statement that the event organizer denied.
If you read the speech transcript, he was specifically talking about contractual law in the context of international business and how it applies in US courts. The reason behind this smear is that he wrote an article for Stanford Law Review which stated that the US wants to have it's cake and eat it too in the sense that it uses the ICC for it's advantage when it comes to dealing with other countries but does not comply with it's rulings when the US is concerned... specifically when it comes to selling small arms to small nations that later end up in the hands of militants. He has never said that ICC rulings should supersede US law... he has merely said that the Declaration of Independence requires us to respect the laws of mankind... so, in essence, he is saying that we should respect the laws of other nations instead of not respecting them and calling other countries who do not respect them "rogue nations".
Quote:
Originally Posted by cykoe6
Engagement with Syria and Iran
|
Until we have a useful dialog with these 2 countries... there will be no solution to the Israel/Palestinian conflict. We HAVE to engage them in order to end this argument that has gone on way too long and fueled international terrorism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cykoe6
Pressuring Israel to negotiate with Hamas and the PLO
|
The funny thing about this statement is that even the majority of Republicans support a two state solution... how do you propose to get to that if there is no negotiations between Israel and the elected government in the Palestinian Territory? News Flash - there is never going to be a group in Palestine that would meet our expectations of acceptable political behavior. Israel has killed thousands of Palestinians (if not more)... there is no way that the Palestinians are going to not have a militaristic view of their politics. Groups like the PLO and Hamas are our only hope as the last 40 years have shown.