oldschool, I've collected some of what I'm calling "dubious claims," you've asserted in this thread.
oldschool is here to introduce us to a higher, purer political discourse, and to help us all to achieve that higher level. Not the best way to start your tenure here. Such a tone is arrogant and insulting.
Publicly-funded fire departments are socialist. I think you should know that if you could substantiate that claim, most of us here would respond by calling for the privatization of fire departments.
Obama is a champion of transparency and probity in government. "Also, he will not allow the special interests, oil companies and defense contractors to continue to rob us blind."Why should I believe that Obama is less prone to the vices of other politicians? Or if Big Oil and Big Defense are "robbing us blind," what makes anyone think that Obama has any idea how to deal with that? And since the choice is between Obama and McCain, how does Obama's record compare to that of the man who brought us the Campaign Finance Reform called
McCain/Feingold? Not that I'm promoting McCain or his bill, but what does Obama have to offer in this regard, that McCain don't got?
I also have to register my befuddlement at the notion that corruption could be anyone's No. 1 Issue. Is that honestly the biggest issue we face? Could it be you're just harping on that, because it is the one thing Obama has attempted to deal with?
"I like that the vast majority of Barack's campaign finance is coming from everyday people like us and not special interest."Not a dubious claim, so much as a bit of demagoguery so old, it's got whiskers. "Special interest" is nothing but a pejorative term for anyone with whom one has a political disagreement. Even the NRA, with its 4 million members, is referred to as a special interest group.
Obama has "good judgment." Just sounds dubious to me, that's all. I wonder if there are some examples of that. And no, the Iraq War thing won't be terribly convincing for some of us. Backing up a controversial claim with another controversial position is called "begging the question." Look that up under logical fallacies.
Obama was a lone voice in the wilderness on the Iraq War. This is simply a myth, as anyone who was politically aware in 2002/2003 can tell you. Opposition to the Iraq War was widespread and vocal, especially among those who currently comprise Obama's base. So it's puzzling how Obama's voicing a fairly popular viewpoint could demonstrate independent thought.
This last is not a dubious claim, just something with which I take issue.
My gripe with Mc Cain is that I think he has sold out his own ideals in order to get elected. He was tough on the Washington Lobby and he did not buckle to the whims of special interest groups. Now there are lobbyists throughout his campaign and he is kissing up to all of the special interest groups that he used to shun. I think he is taking big money from powerful people who will expect reciprication when he is in office.
In other words, McCain is a politician running for the oval office. The idea that Obama is somehow different from McCain in this respect is, well, dubious.
