CodyTalks at the...
140 conference smalltown 2011

"We Teach Them to Drive"

Read more
CodyTalks Public Speaking

CodyTalks Radio Show
Sundays at 7a.m. CST - Wednesdays at 10:30a.m. CST

Hot topics going on in your area

Read more
CodyTalks Radio Show

CodyTalks at the...
140 conference NYC 2011

"How the Internet is like a Small Town"
...Twitter is coffee shop of the world... the whole world can now know about the good or bad thing you did just like it's always happened at the small town coffee shop.

Read more
CodyTalks Public Speaking

George F. Will leads the Codytalks.com debate on Presidential Candidates.


Ok I have read George F. Will a couple of times.

Matt sent me a link to his Questions for Obama and I in-turn discovered his Questions for McCain.

Here's the scoop, I am ready to call Hillary a cooked goose. I hope I am right.

I also want a decent discussion/debate on here about who the next President should be. What I really don't want is "Bush is a Moron, we have to vote for a democrat". I also don't want "The democrats are baby-killers, we have to vote Republican" I want pro stuff for your guy to dominate the comments. It's my blog, so play by my rules.

I hate the bi-partisan system (the bad parts of it) (lol) and I will delete comments that just get into stupid time wasters.

That being said, there is required reading before you get into this discussion. I have placed a tracer on all of your computers to see if you really read these 2 articles and if you comment with out reading the articles, your computer will just freaking melt right there on your desk.

Here are the articles, read them both and then come back and make your case for President McCain or President Obama.

Questions for Obama.

Questions For McCain.

Remember our poll? Click Here

Who has the stones to open up the bidding??

p.s. I haven't decided, I, no shit, am hoping to have this discussion in the comments field affect my decision. A lot of people I respect comment in here, but it depends on the amount of class we can do this with as to whether or not it gets stupid... Here we go?!?!?!?!!?

11 comments:

  1. Ok I posted the post as neutral as possible cause I really want to try and be that way as the owner of the blog.

    Here is my first non-neutral comment.

    Does anyone really think that Obama has the political experience and accumulated clout and peers that it will take to get anything done?

    I know it's kinda sad/wrong but isn't there truth to "It's who ya know" being a factor in getting anything done in DC? (I said a factor not the entire thing)

    Has Obama had the time/experience to develop those relationships and if not can he truly get things done in the White House.

    It's a question don't get all yelly just answer it!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I believe that the "It's who you know" mentality is only important when it comes to the ease of being President. It's got to be nice to have a bunch of people already in your corner and working with you.

    But do we really want another one that's just like all of the other politicians? One that's been around in Washington long enough to have picked up a lot of the bad habits?

    That's one thing that Obama has going for him.

    On the other hand, he's also got a lot of really idealistic views of things that his lack of experience has yet to show him aren't possible.

    I'm sure you've heard plenty of places that McCain, while attempting to distance himself from G.W.B., essentially promises to be just like him. But he's got experience, which may be more important than a lot of people realize right about now.

    Ultimately, I'm going with Obama or Hilary (Not counting her out just yet), because both of the Democratic candidates have truckloads more diplomacy than McCain. I think the people of the United States have watched their country force the will of a select few on them and the rest of the world. Lord knows I have.

    Now is not a good time for a "Maverick."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Obama is the man because in his 10 years as a senate legislator (8 in state, 2 in federal), he has been one of the best cross-aisle mediators. In just 2 years he was in his state senate, he sponsored 780 bills, and 280 of those were signed into law. In his first year as U.S. Senator, he sponsored 152 bills and resolutions, and cosponsored 427 more. He has a proven track record on public display of working to reach solutions that all sides can support, or at least accept as well-intended leadership.

    Around 50% of voters elected Bush. Around 30% currently approve. That means that there are 20% that are patriotic republican voting Americans who are tired of partisan bickering, and want a leader who is perceived to be non-partisan. Obama is sufficiently patriotic and sincere. He has no scandals, no indictments coming from shady business deals, no ties to greedy private interests, nothing to really tie up the media's time with things other than making our country unified and great. Who the heck wouldn't want to vote for that?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mr Underhill deals the first decisive blow.

    1. He backed it with facts and not opinion.

    2. He didn't really let his emotions play into it.

    3. He did play to Patriotic Emotions in others (with facts)

    That is how you intelligently debate!

    He hit McCainies hard enough they dropped to a knee!!! There are back up and running but chasing not leading on this site.

    I do think the fact that I now know for a fact that Obama has 2 years National experience is still scary to me, should it be??

    ReplyDelete
  5. How much national experience did Reagan, Clinton, Bush (w). Some are better examples than others. Besides, some would consider his short tenure in the DC area as an asset not a liability.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Things I worry about when it comes to Obama:

    I've always been an independent voter because I primarily believe in a balance of power /ambitions/ ideas.

    It concerns me that Obama has voted with his Democratic colleagues 96.7% of the time in the current Congress. Joe Biden voted with the Democratic party 96.9% and Chuck Schumer 96.7%.

    It concerns me that Obama sponsored the "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433). The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

    It's not that I'm against helping the world. It's something we've done as a nation for a very long time in many ways.

    I am against the United Nations being given the ability to tax U.S. citizens directly.

    I am against the United Nations dictating how U.S. funds are spent for "world good". The U.N. has very different ideas than many and/or most U.S. citizens. Giving them carte blanche will hurt the U.S.

    It will also take away much of the Diplomatic bargaining power the U.S. holds in the world.

    On a personal level, I don't understand how Obama can promise more Diplomacy while giving away control of the tools of the Diplomacy.

    Moving on to another point. It bothers me that much of Obama's green energy plans, as outlined on his campaign website, include massive funding from the U.S. taxpayers. Across the board his campaign promises amount to somewhere between $350 and $400 billion annually. Green energy is a huge chunk of that.

    IMHO, we'd be better served letting private industry foot the bill for that. They have been in many ways. bp Energy is one good example. There are many others.

    The much maligned oil industry knows that with the world consuming more oil based products, alternative energy solutions are upon them and they are spending mega bucks on R&D bringing them into reality.

    Obama's energy plans seem to me to be focused on bankrupting the U.S. oil industry with massive tax increaes as well as legislation designed to have consumers pay $1.30 more per gallon at the pump to pay for cleaner energy.

    It concerns me that Obama has promised the auto industry complete infrastruture configurations to turn out autos which will run on the new "green fuel".

    Does that mean that all the autos in the U.S. will become obsolete as soon as the "new" green fuel is developed? Or will they be refitted, a move which will also be a great boon to the auto industry. How much will that cost working class families? How many times will our autos need to be "refitted" as new "greener" energy emerges?

    First though comes the problem of actually developing the fuel. We all knew ethanol was a bust before the farm subsidies for corn a year ago. The studies held that to be true before our legislators pushed for it. Not to mention the very real problem of corn requiring a lot of fertilizer. Corn strips the soil something like 8 times as much as other crops. IMHO, if we have too many years of high corn growth, we'll be paying farmers to rest their land even more than we do now.

    It seems that both Obama and McCain are pushing government funding of CTL (Coal to Liquid) "green" energy. The technology has existed for 100 years. We've never used it because of environmental reasons though other places in the world have done so since the 1940's. China is increasing their CTL output this year.

    I'd like to hear more about this "magic solution" for green CTL that massive funding will bring that will make the environmentalists happy when there hasn't been a way found in the past 100 years.

    It concerns me that Obama's energy plan is built on the "possibility" that by the time the U.S. oil companies are bankrupt, new energy will be ready to go.

    That's a huge gamble, IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jolene,

    Great comment, thanks for taking the time. You make a lot of good points, many of which I agree with.

    Lets see what some of our hardline Obama fans can do with it, lol!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. What worries me about Obama is that for all of his rhetoric, he has not been very bipartisan; quite the opposite.

    What bothers me about both candidates, and Will covers this very well, is that they are both so quick to bash successfull, wealthy, business owners who create wealth and jobs and help grow our economy. Since when is it evil to make a profit and create wealth?

    What also worries my about Obama is his willingness, and almost rigid insistence, of sitting down and talking with the likes of Iran, North Korea, etc. His ignorance of history in this also worries me, as he has cited FDR and Truman for sitting down and talking with our enemies during World War 2; even though neither one of them ever did that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I will respond to Cody's question: "Does anyone really think that Obama has the political experience and accumulated clout and peers that it will take to get anything done?"

    I think it takes time/connections/clout, etc. to get stuff done as a legislator. It is far different, however, for the President. The President is the big kahuna...the clout of the President is position itself, the Chief Officer of the Executive branch, the bully pulpit, and the fact that s/he won ___ million of American votes.

    I think that necessary clout follows the President. Whether it was W, Clinton, or Reagan. At the time, none of them necessarily had DC clout, but the clout naturally attached itself to the presidency.

    The bigger problem, IMHO, for all first term Presidents is the learning curve, growing pains, etc. Mistakes will always be be made in how to negotiate this new position and clout (and the myriad relationships with Congress, States, Military, Agencies, Diplomats,etc and to push too hard too fast, etc.).

    Lack of time in DC to gain clout is certainly not a reason to not vote for Obama. McCain has been in DC forever, and I would say that he has a pretty shakey relationship and limited clout with many of his fellow legislators. That certainly doesn't preclude his fitness to be President. Although there are numerous other reasons why he shouldn't be President, his clout/congressionalrelationships is not one of them. :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dave,

    Really I agree with you. I might even agree with the idea that less experience there is better.


    I think this is the best Presidential Race in our lifetime, because I really do think both of the potentials (assuming Hillary goes by the wayside) are legitimate decent Presidential Prospects.

    Problem is it kinda makes for a boring debate her on www.codytalks.com so I threw out the Obama experience question to create discussion.

    I would invite you to throw out the "numerous other reasons why he shouldn't be President" concerning McCain.

    I really am pretty proud of the discussions generated here on most topics on this website and would be interested in your thoughts there as well as the responses.

    I know I am constantly asking you to do stuff... Sorry.

    The election isn't until Nov. so no hurry! I will keep this going all the way through.

    ReplyDelete

I love the discussion in the comments.. so... GO FOR IT!

Other CodyTalks posts you may like