How I would respond (that he begins the e-mail by insisting on including Obama's middle name is a bad sign):
========================================================================================================
This email will focus more on my personal beliefs and issues with today's Democrats. In particular, I'll start with Barack Hussein Obama and my concerns about his candidacy.
1) Is Obama a Racist? Honestly, I suspect so but he won't actually answer the question.
He won't answer the question? When has anyone ever asked him? I can't think of a time, and for good reason, any journalist would have to be clinically insane to ask the guy with the black father, white mother, half white half Indonesian sister who was raised by his white grandparents after he lived with his Indonesian stepfather... the guy who gave what is widely regarded as one of the most powerful and insightful speeches on race relations in U.S. history... if he was a racist. They would be laughed out of their profession for even suggesting anything that mind bogglingly ridiculous.
And no, he did not have a link to the black panthers on his website. Some poster on his website's social networking area had one.
I don't see exactly why he would have to "explain" having an association with a respected professor at the University he attended just because that professor isn't a huge fan of Isreal (being Palestinian, not exactly a surprise).
Ali Abunimah isn't even a close association, the guy says he met Obama. Wow. And he's a *writer*, not a "terrorist supporter".
He doesn't even appear to have THAT level of "association" with El-Hady, the sole connection between them seems to be that someone created a fundraising page on that same social networking site under that name... which was later removed.
And Malley was not "caught secretly negotiating with Hamas". He talked to them. He's a specialist in conflict resolution whose job at the International Crisis Group is to look into these situations. He briefs the State Department on these meetings before and after he has them. What do you suppose he was doing?
This entire line of reasoning is purely silly.
2) National Security. I just saw an interview where Obama vowed to end a host of military R&D programs including SDI Missile Defense, the Future Warrior program, and others. He wants to withdraw our military from Iraq, and negotiate with terrorists and states like Iran on an unconditional basis. He seems dismissive of any threat to America as seen in his threat that Iran is incapable of hurting us if it came to a fight.
Obama supports slowing the Future Combat Systems program. McCAIN has called the same system "wasteful and bloated". Hmmm...
He isn't the only one who wants the troops to withdraw from Iraq... the Iraqis do too. They have explicitly stated they want a withdrawal timetable. This WAS supposed to be about giving them a free and democratic sovereign state and not a power play to seize control of their land and resources right? That means when they say "thank you, leave *our* country now" you're supposed to leave. It's their country remember? We're liberators, not occupiers... at least that's supposed to be the line...
Yes, he wants to talk to Iran. You think if you give them the silent treatment they're going to go away and behave themselves? Or are you going to make the argument that talking to them at all somehow gives them what they want? Like a verbal exchange with the leadership of the United States is at the top of their national wishlist or something? They're just acting out because they want attention and if we give it to them it'll reinforce negative behavior? Talking to foreign leaders is what diplomacy is, it's supposed to be the president's *job*. After the last 8 years that fact may have slipped from the national consciousness a bit but it's still true. Obama has NEVER said he wants to negotiate with terrorists. Ever. And you are twisting his statement on Iran's level of threat. He was making an argument that it's ridiculous to say we can't talk to Iran by saying that Iran is, *compared to the old Soviet Union*, a tiny threat (which it obviously is). And that we still talked to the Soviets so we can talk to Iran.
3) Universal Health Care -- this is a big issue and I am against it.
Because... then we might end up like those poor Canadians? With everyone covered, nobody ever bankrupted by medical costs, longer life expectancies, lower infant morality, and spend 30% less money doing it per capita as the U.S. government currently spends on the system we have now?
You don't really fall for that "Socialized Medicine!!!!! Boo!!!" scare line do you? Bottom line is it works better than what we have. WAY better. (Please don't now point me to some anecdotal story of someone's Canadian aunt who had to wait a long time for an MRI or something as the proof that it's somehow worse.)
4) Economy
Economists:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=10038502145) Israel -- this is a big issue for me. And he lies whenever he talks about it,
Provide an example. When you do, back up the claim it's a lie if you don't mind.
======================================================================================================================
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
