John McCain will make a better president than Barack Obama

Libertarian, can you keep the number of vague new points to a manageable level? I'm sure we can both blitz each other and make 300 new points, but that would simply decrease the quality of the debate. Plus, the new points are extremely vague and do not provide any reasoning nor support, I cannot argue against obvious generalities. I need to know more about what Obama's going to do. Economy + Paygo i)Paygo has already failed when the Democrats tried to use it – see Wikipedia article. There is empirical evidence that it will fail under democratic control, along with the massive cost of Obama's social program. ii)Obama's programs were projected to cost 800 billion a year back in Feburary, it's now grown to 1.5 trillion dollars. As WSJ's Steve Moore puts it: "He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax."(http://www.realclearpolitics.com...) . These tax levels are far above what they are now. Furthermore "It's an age-old recipe for economic disaster. It completely ignores incentives for entrepreneurs, small family-owned businesses, and investors. You can't have capitalism without capital. But Obama would penalize capital, be it capital from corporations or investors." (from the same article) iii)Combine Libertarian's new points 4,5,6,7 and link this back to Paygo. Since my opponent advocates that Obama will use Paygo no matter what the impacts – these programs must be paid by money from something else, since the government is already in a huge debt, the only plausible way to raise money to pay for these massive social programs is to RAISE TAXES, which links back to my ii) quote. Experience i)"Bush fails"-Bush is only a solitary example. FDR, LBJ, Jefferson all had many years of experience at the federal level before they became president. ii)"Votes"-Although the number of people who support Obama is only in the DEMOCRATIC race, not in the general population. Such statements such as "Obama got more votes than Hiliary" in the democratic race hardly shows general support iii) "Prison =/= experience" Yet you agreed that McCain served as a navy captain for 13 years and legislator for 26 years. Furthermore, the 13 years he spent in the navy IS NOT COUNTING his 5 prison years. iv) "Obama bitter comments" – they show that he fails to understand. If he grew up in the lower classes, why would he make such ignorant, sweeping generalizations? v) "Obama was blah blah" – The only experience he has that counts is his only term as a freshman senator, clearly outweighed by McCain's military and legislative experience. Furthermore, head editor of a law review demonstrates nothing conducive to leading a nation. vi) "Legislative Experience" – if I recall correctly, you did not make a statement against it last round except "I defended it", thus if you didn't drop it earlier, you dropped it last round. Judgment i)Wright – He's been sitting there for 20 years, why didn't he leave earlier? ii)3am – It was my claim that 3am shows his lack of judgment, you merely said that it did justify it, but never explained why it justifies his "great" judgment. iii)Abstain – Abstaining in over 130 votes including bills that Obama sponsored is not responsible, it shows a lack of judgment. iv) Iraq a)"NPR = destabilize"- precisely, that's why Obama's plan to withdraw will allow Al Qaida and Iran to destabilize it more. The surge has been working and we need to continue. b) "Loss of lives" True, American lives may be lost now, but we'll be saving more lives later c) "Lies!" – In round 2 – you said "This is a lie" (round 2, your judgment , point e) when countering my point made in the same round that said "He did oppose the war" (see round 2, Judgment point e). I don't know what is a lie? You previous statement that Obama opposed the war or my statement? d) "Talking" – Since when did talking to hostile nations like Syria and Iran magically solve their subtle involvements in an Iraqi Civil war? e) "Violence" The violence is declining due to the Surge (see Wikipedia) f) "bad War = stupid" – Why is it stupid? If you're calling me dishonest, then I have every right to Policies i "Nafta" – Obama's against free trade, you said that he will amend NAFTA. Free trade is a binary equation, there is either free trade or there is restricted free trade. There is no way he can amend it to still be free trade and help Americans. ii) Back in 1990-1998, we didn't have a shitty housing market and economy, it was working due to the large amounts of tax money flooding in. The economic situation has changed, and it is no longer tenable, as shown by democrats abandonment of it earlier this year. iii) "9/11" – the Dow had the single largest one day drop since the great depression right after 9/11. It devastated major companies that were situated in the WTC. iv) "bidding" – Enron fouled up their tax returns, there is already competitive bidding on almost all major products. Please name one major government project that was simply "handed over" vi) "JFK in Vienna" – Khruschev did bully JFK, read this: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com... vii) "Bush talked to NK" – read your own citations please, Bush was MAKING A THREAT AGAINST NORTH KOREA, the exact opposite of talking. (now who's being dishonest?). Furthermore, this is not the unilateral, unconditional arguments that Obama is suggesting Other points i) "Al Qaida" – the patriot act does not legitimize Al Qaida, it is against terrorists, not one group in particularly. Talking to them will be a sign of weakness. Furthermore, what makes you think they would talk to us? After all, they are winning in Iraq according to you. ii) "He" = JFK iii) "Hitler" – It was an example of where talking failed. The allies tried to appease Hitler with Sudetenland and Anschluss, but that failed to satiate him, so he demanded more. I dropped that I need to give an example, thus I'm in full agreement with you that I should give an example, and I gave one last round. iv) "Tax cuts" – last time I checked, we only went in to a recession recently. Furthermore, how will Obama magically conjure up money to give to the middle class? v) "filibuster" – what makes you think they will? The fact is, a plurality in the Senate was last achieved more than 20 years ago. vi) Abortion – It's still murder, which you dropped, thus murder > choice and outweighs all other benefits vii) Medicine – McCain is not providing costly universal healthcare, but tax breaks, unlike the Obama, who's giving 47 million more people health care. I don't see how McCain is letting children die…most child mortality is due to incurable diseases viii) Paygo – Democrats killed it once again, plus economic conditions are different now ix) "Iraq War again" – The future is worse if we withdraw now. Furthermore, you already conceded that there is violence and we need to be there to stabilize it. x) "Bush tax cuts" – I was saying that you countered something I did not say xi) "NCLB" – I already gave several reasons, although they're not supported by cites, they are logically sound and therefore it is your responsibility to argue why my arguments don't make sense xii) There are many facets of NCLB that are worth it, refer to my original arguments. New points 2) "Bush tax cuts = harmful" – where did I say that? I said it was highly debatable 3) How will obama create jobs for the environment? What does this mean exactly? Without giving me a specific plan, I cannot argue against a generality 4) Some drug users are potentially harmful, thus releasing them back to the public may not be a good choice 8 - 10) All generalities, I need specific plans to argue against.