obama, make me vote for him

[DaviDawg]

a lot of people seem to like obama but i never really hear about what his plans are.

[CraZx2ing]

The TV is a good place to start. The news paper is another one. You can also try the internet. All three of these media outlets have gobs and gobs of info. There is also plenty of sites out there breaking everything down for you on all 3 peeps. I've seen a few of the links in some of the other threads in this subforum.

No, i'm not being sarcastic, althuogh i have a feeling your going to take it that way...

[McG35]

McCain 09

[PHeller]

He's got a 65 page report on his website outlining his plans for change.

However, he hasn't mentioned who exactly his administration will be comprised off, which makes me wonder if they people he selects will be capable or not.

[ImCrazy]

goto his website and do some research, hes a much better public speaker than McCain and if you vote McCain your voting for George Bush's third term. I am primarily voting for Obama however my secondary concern is voting against McCain, hes a war monger and probably won't do shit for the middle class citizen or the greater good of our country.

[SoCalZX2]

What exactly do you want done for the middle class ImCrazy?

[CraZx2ing]

make him upper class. duh! then the next term he can vote republican so that he gets all the tax breaks :).

[SoCalZX2]

I still don't see how upper class got such big tax breaks... I mean you do realize the top like 5% of earners in the country pay like 35% of the overall taxes paid each year...

[zxtwou2]

a lot of people seem to like obama but i never really hear about what his plans are.

he isn't Hillary...and actaully takes advice from people who know what the hell they are doing

/thread

[CraZx2ing]

(playing stereotypes and joking in that last one :p )

[slammmed]

This is what gets me about politics...

1. you can't just "cut taxes" you need to cut spending before you cut taxes. Bottom line, basic economics.

2. IF obama gets elected the first term is just to get balls rolling and to propose changes to make it through the legislature. Just because someone is president doesn't mean their ideas will go into place.

I'm not anti obama, in fact I still might vote for him but the bottom line is you have to look at the individuals claims and really, I mean REALLY think about how they ACTUALLY implement them.

IMO we need someone who will implement a single tax bracket. Income is income, how you made it should be irrelevant(with exception to legality). If I'm a savvy business man and I earned a net profit of $500,000 last year I should pay the same tax rate as my assistant who made $50,000 last year.

I don't think we need to focus on "tax the rich more, tax the poor less". Lets stimulate the economy, lets promote personal growth, self accountability, reduce "hand outs" to those that truely don't need it.

I want a president who's going to stop being mr/mrs nice guy and tell it like it is.

[capitalcrew]

McCain 09

tr00f. We need some one with a REAL plan to get us out of Iraq. Not some half assed plan to just pull out and hope it goes well.

[Buster]

The TV is a good place to start. The news paper is another one....these media outlets have...

...a horrible political bias and are unreliable. ;)


The internet is a place where you CAN get things that the media hides to protect their chosen candidate, but there's also some looney crap there too.


The best advice I can give...examine the candidates past voting records, not from their OWN websites, but from unbiased reseach groups.

http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm is the BEST resource I've seen. It really clearly shows your their stands and records on about every issue.

Being an informed voter can be hard work, but I feel it is everyone's responsibility. You have the freedom to vote for your leaders in this nation and many have died for your right to, so you should do your part and exercise the freedom that many around the would only wish they had. Our system may not be perfect, but at least you can participate. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about anything because you COULD have helped fix it.

Also, watch and listen to what they say and see if they are consistent in their message or change depending on the crowd they're in front of (Clinton tactics). Debates are better than interviews because they're forced to explain their stands and are not in control of the issues brought up.

Just watching the news is not enough, you can't trust what you are told in many cases. Also, candidates' own sites, commercials, appearances will only let you hear what they want you to hear.

[af3ll]

...a horrible political bias and are unreliable. ;)
http://www.foxnews.com

[STS-ZX2SR]

goto his website and do some research, hes a much better public speaker than McCain and if you vote McCain your voting for George Bush's third term. I am primarily voting for Obama however my secondary concern is voting against McCain, hes a war monger and probably won't do shit for the middle class citizen or the greater good of our country.


So...because BHO is a better speaker, that makes him the more qualified candidate? Taking 'spun' information for a candidate's own website is the last place to get information--any information.

Because McCain says that we cant simply 'pull out' of Iraq, like BHO wants to does not make him a war monger. It makes him a realist. Good, bad or indifferent--we're there...and we're going to have to remain there at some level for a long, long time. There is not enough in the stability of the political infrastructure anywhere in the Middle-East to allow for a safe withdrawal of US/Allied forces. To simply unplug and leave would throw that whole region into a turmoil of cataclismic proportions. Until all of the Arab nations learn to "play nice in the sandbox", there needs to be a stabilizing force there. At least McCain has enough of a background (as a seasoned politician and as Naval officer) to understand this.

At the very least, McCain brings some sustitive background and track-record to the office--not just "want" and "hope".

As for the "wont do shit" comment--all I can say is that you may want to stop drinking the BHO Kool-Aid and actually do some unbiased research as to the track record and more importantly the character of these two men. One has a lot of both, and one has little of either.

[af3ll]

Until all of the Arab nations learn to "play nice in the sandbox"
United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman are quality Arab nations.

[capitalcrew]

So...because BHO is a better speaker, that makes him the more qualified candidate? Taking 'spun' information for a candidate's own website is the last place to get information--any information.

Because McCain says that we cant simply 'pull out' of Iraq, like BHO wants to does not make him a war monger. It makes him a realist. Good, bad or indifferent--we're there...and we're going to have to remain there at some level for a long, long time. There is not enough in the stability of the political infrastructure anywhere in the Middle-East to allow for a safe withdrawal of US/Allied forces. To simply unplug and leave would throw that whole region into a turmoil of cataclismic proportions. Until all of the Arab nations learn to "play nice in the sandbox", there needs to be a stabilizing force there. At least McCain has enough of a background (as a seasoned politician and as Naval officer) to understand this.

At the very least, McCain brings some sustitive background and track-record to the office--not just "want" and "hope".

As for the "wont do shit" comment--all I can say is that you may want to stop drinking the BHO Kool-Aid and actually do some unbiased research as to the track record and more importantly the character of these two men. One has a lot of both, and one has little of either.

Finally.. some one other than Buster and I who has any political sense.. :judge:

[Buster]

http://www.foxnews.com


+
every other network too.


Do you have a point or just providing a link? :D

[af3ll]

+
every other network too.


Do you have a point or just providing a link? :D
Sorry I bagged on your conservative fan boy network. That was my point.

[SoCalZX2]

This is what gets me about politics...

1. you can't just "cut taxes" you need to cut spending before you cut taxes. Bottom line, basic economics.

2. IF obama gets elected the first term is just to get balls rolling and to propose changes to make it through the legislature. Just because someone is president doesn't mean their ideas will go into place.

I'm not anti obama, in fact I still might vote for him but the bottom line is you have to look at the individuals claims and really, I mean REALLY think about how they ACTUALLY implement them.

IMO we need someone who will implement a single tax bracket. Income is income, how you made it should be irrelevant(with exception to legality). If I'm a savvy business man and I earned a net profit of $500,000 last year I should pay the same tax rate as my assistant who made $50,000 last year.

I don't think we need to focus on "tax the rich more, tax the poor less". Lets stimulate the economy, lets promote personal growth, self accountability, reduce "hand outs" to those that truely don't need it.

I want a president who's going to stop being mr/mrs nice guy and tell it like it is.

It's a shame Ron Paul didn't get the Rep nomination lol. I can guarantee that there isn't a single DEM out there that agree's with most or any of what you said... probably not many REP either. Personal growth and self accountability are totally alien concepts to our Gov't, no matter the elected party. People need to stop looking to Washington D.C. to have their problems solved. They need to start looking much closer to home and find ways to better their environment... not blame the president who has little effect on their daily lives.

[SoCalZX2]

Sorry I bagged on your conservative fan boy network. That was my point.

And yet there has still been more grossly bias negative news towards REP in an election year regarding the economy then there was under a DEM with an actual worse economy.

Personally, news in general is always "sky is falling", but IMHO there is a bias in the media about which party they want in the white house... not like it matters which party makes it, we're hosed no matter what.

[af3ll]

Yeah I usually don't watch the news anymore. I'll read things on the net since yahoo is my homepage.

[Buster]

So...because BHO is a better speaker, that makes him the more qualified candidate? Taking 'spun' information for a candidate's own website is the last place to get information--any information.

Because McCain says that we cant simply 'pull out' of Iraq, like BHO wants to does not make him a war monger. It makes him a realist. Good, bad or indifferent--we're there...and we're going to have to remain there at some level for a long, long time. There is not enough in the stability of the political infrastructure anywhere in the Middle-East to allow for a safe withdrawal of US/Allied forces. To simply unplug and leave would throw that whole region into a turmoil of cataclismic proportions. Until all of the Arab nations learn to "play nice in the sandbox", there needs to be a stabilizing force there. At least McCain has enough of a background (as a seasoned politician and as Naval officer) to understand this.

At the very least, McCain brings some sustitive background and track-record to the office--not just "want" and "hope".

As for the "wont do shit" comment--all I can say is that you may want to stop drinking the BHO Kool-Aid and actually do some unbiased research as to the track record and more importantly the character of these two men. One has a lot of both, and one has little of either.



Also, BHO makes ignorant statements like "we'll be as careful about pulling out as we were getting in".

Yes, he's a great speaker, probably because his mentors have been preachers (who can engage people with speeches despite being hateful, racist and pretty much insane). He never has any facts or substance in his speeches to back up his effective speaking skills. He wants to leave Iraq, despite facts showing we're winning and it is a great sucess since we sent in reinforcements and since General Petreaus took over. We have killed every new leader Al Qaeda has reappointed, Iraqi security forces are taking over most of the responsibility, many of the militants are now on the run, casuaties are WAY down (18 this May compared to 120+ last May) and we're talking of withdrawing troops because they have done the job, not to prevent them from suceeding.

Like it or not, we ARE there and have a job to do. Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand the consequences of simply leaving to please protestors or because he doesn't personally agree with reasons for being there. His lack of judgement with not only his personal realtionships but his agenda are downright scary to consider for the Office.

Also, while he preaches about bi-partisanship and a "change" in Washington, if you actually examine his voting record in his very short stay in Congress, you'll see he votes with his party nearly 100% of the time. Some change huh? His voting record is among the most liberal in Washington, yet he claims he wants to "bring us together" and work with both parties. It's simply a speech to excite people with nothing to back up the words.

The main issues will be the war on terrorism, where he wants to simply quit and ignore, the economy where he has proposed tax hikes to rates higher than in the Clinton years even, plus gas prices. Last week he once again voted against drilling for our own oil until we find a replacement source of energy and constantly attacks oil companies and wants to put more restrictions and higher taxes on them, while taking more of their and our money in gas taxes that Washington does nothing to deserve and already gets far more profit from than oil companies do for all of their work to provide us with fuel. He will only drive prices HIGHER for us.

I see no real "change" for the POSITIVE that could come from electing this man. He will only ensure that Congress will have a blank check to control and damage our lives further.

I wish we didn't have to elect anyone from Congress from either party, because Governors have a better understanding of how to manage governments and budgets, but we have to choose one.

Senator Obama looks far too much like the worst President in our nation's history with eerily similar conditions in gas prices and also with another clash with Iran looming. History would repeat itself and if we learn nothing from history, we'll deserve it.

[Buster]

Yeah I usually don't watch the news anymore. I'll read things on the net since yahoo is my homepage.

Do you realize that Yahoo's source for news is the AP? The same as CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, NPR, Fox, etc? :D

[Buster]

Sorry I bagged on your conservative fan boy network. That was my point.

Funny, I see a ton of liberals on that network that leave me yelling at them through the TV screen.

I must be seeing things... :D

[Buster]

It's a shame Ron Paul didn't get the Rep nomination lol. I can guarantee that there isn't a single DEM out there that agree's with most or any of what you said... probably not many REP either. Personal growth and self accountability are totally alien concepts to our Gov't, no matter the elected party. People need to stop looking to Washington D.C. to have their problems solved. They need to start looking much closer to home and find ways to better their environment... not blame the president who has little effect on their daily lives.

Yeah, what a shame.

He's so much better and more experienced.

Paul was too simple-minded for the job. His intentions may be good, but he doesn't have experience or long-term ramifications in mind, much like Obama.

[af3ll]

Funny, I see a ton of liberals on that network that leave me yelling at them through the TV screen.

I must be seeing things... :D
I yell at your boy Sean Hannity and your girl Ann Coulter haha.

[af3ll]

Do you realize that Yahoo's source for news is the AP? The same as CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, NPR, Fox, etc? :D
What's your point?

[SoCalZX2]

Yeah, what a shame.

He's so much better and more experienced.

Paul was too simple-minded for the job. His intentions may be good, but he doesn't have experience or long-term ramifications in mind, much like Obama.

Still wouldn't have been a horrible choice when considering all the options. IMHO if the country is going to ever succeed financially again, they need someone with more than just military experience running the place.

As for his intentions, I'm all about my freedoms, and he was just about the only candidate that wanted to restore some of those. I believe he would have had a much better financial plan for our country than any of the candidates we currently have.

Sorry you don't see it that way, but military experience shouldn't be the only hinging factor for a president. (I will agree it's pretty important though lol).

[SoCalZX2]

What's your point?

That all news has a spin no matter where you get it. So reading the internet news is just as useless as watching local or national news.

[capitalcrew]

Right now, military experience is one of THE most important factors for the election. One of our biggest issues is Iraq, and we need some one who knows what they are doing and can get us out of there without making it one huge clusterf*ck. It was McCain's idea for the "surge" that was done a while ago and it worked out quite well. If the idea didn't come from McCain himself, it was still something he thought would work. It did.

Obama will screw us. Pretty words mean nothing.

[af3ll]

That all news has a spin no matter where you get it. So reading the internet news is just as useless as watching local or national news.
Gotcha. I wouldn't say useless though.

[af3ll]

Let's make sure we get all these political threads back in a few years or so. I'd be curious to see what happens.

[Buster]

Sorry you don't see it that way, but military experience shouldn't be the only hinging factor for a president. (I will agree it's pretty important though lol).

I agree with that. Some of our greatest Presidents had no military experience. Ronald Reagan was a great example. However, understanding HOW TO USE the military is vital. I do not believe Obama has a grasp on this and we know from the 1990s that a Clinton Presidency would not.

McCain does seem to be more of an independent thinker than Obama. His voting record proves this. He's not tied down by allegiance to his political party and seems to appeal to people from every party. I don't agree with a lot of his stands, but he IS consistant and experienced in every aspect of the job of the Presidency, especially military and foreign relations which is the most important issue right now. We may not like every position he takes, but we can be sure he believes what he says and won't change it.

[SoCalZX2]

Right now, military experience is one of THE most important factors for the election. One of our biggest issues is Iraq, and we need some one who knows what they are doing and can get us out of there without making it one huge clusterf*ck. It was McCain's idea for the "surge" that was done a while ago and it worked out quite well. If the idea didn't come from McCain himself, it was still something he thought would work. It did.

Obama will screw us. Pretty words mean nothing.

I don't disagree at all that it's a big issue... but so is how our country is run. To me, getting out gov't under control is just as pressing as safely removing our troops from Iraq under a realistic time line.

Not to sound unconcerned about Iraq, but our local policies are more important to me than those of a country I'll never step foot in. I understand we're trying to help rebuild now, and thats great. But lets not forget out own "household" while helping everyone else out.

Edit:

I hope you guys don't think I'm lobbying for Obama... lol

[Buster]

^

I hope you're not lobbying. :)

Aside from foreign policy, I still have not heard a good stance on issues from Obama on domestic policies either. Raising taxes and preventing energy independence are bad "changes".

[SoCalZX2]

lol no I'm not. Lobbying was a bad term. Supporting would have been a better term... Which I most certainly do NOT support him.

[Buster]

^


Good. Nice to know you don't strike out in choice of football teams AND politics. ;)

[SoCalZX2]

^


Good. Nice to know you don't strike out in choice of football teams AND politics. ;)

Ouch... lol

[capitalcrew]

:rofl:

[ImCrazy]

Lol I like how this turned into a Bunch of people defending McCain shows two things:

1) People who support McCain as well as the man him self know that hes going to need a miracle to win.

2) Obama is someone different what this nation needs most is drastic change everyone knows it but some people are too biased and brain washed to realize Obama is the best man for the job in our incredibly corrupt and mislead country.

[slayer03]

Lol I like how this turned into a Bunch of people defending McCain shows two things:

1) People who support McCain as well as the man him self know that hes going to need a miracle to win.

2) Obama is someone different what this nation needs most is drastic change everyone knows it but some people are too biased and brain washed to realize Obama is the best man for the job in our incredibly corrupt and mislead country.

too bad buster and socalzx2 have both shown how obama's words aren't backed up by his actions. He says he'll bring great change and bipartisanship to his presidency, when he his past actions show nothing that would show this to be the truth. When is he going to stop talking and start doing? Sure the man can make a speech, but can he back up what he says?

[STS-ZX2SR]

Lol I like how this turned into a Bunch of people defending McCain shows two things:

1) People who support McCain as well as the man him self know that hes going to need a miracle to win.

2) Obama is someone different what this nation needs most is drastic change everyone knows it but some people are too biased and brain washed to realize Obama is the best man for the job in our incredibly corrupt and mislead country.

That may have been the most niave thing that I have read today.

OK here is my take...

1) People who support BHO are easily swayed by the Obama marketing machine that incledes the likes of Oprah and much of the popular media. He is a young, well-spoken, shiney, glossy, package that comes acoss beautifully on TV. Inside this package you will find: a same-as-it-ever-was, tax-and-spend, bleeding heart liberal with a minimalistic resume that is filled with happy thoughts, hope and want...and nothing of substance to explain the execution of these "plans".

2) Different? See above. Obamas National voting record, which is about only 60% of the total votes that he could of cast as a senator, is decidedly partisan. He is an empty suit liberal, nothing more.

[ImCrazy]

^ @ least hes a Liberal. Bipartisan is best but conservative is the worse of the two evils known as the two party system that is slowly destroying our country. McCain sides with the likes of GWB so that makes him a liability to our country @ best.

[ImCrazy]

too bad buster and socalzx2 have both shown how obama's words aren't backed up by his actions. He says he'll bring great change and bipartisanship to his presidency, when he his past actions show nothing that would show this to be the truth. When is he going to stop talking and start doing? Sure the man can make a speech, but can he back up what he says?

Only one way to find out Elect him He will be the next JFK and hopefully live to serve his two terms.

Everyone has known for a long time now that our next leader would be a democrat thats been obvious no one wants more of the war machine known as the Bush administration.

[raider]

Vote Ron Paul
has never voted to raise taxes
- has served 10 terms in Congress
- is a veteran and flight surgeon
- opposes federal intervention in state affairs
- seeks to bring a speedy end to the War in Iraq
- would leave both abortion and marriage in the hands of the states (where those issues belong)
- will strengthen the value of the dollar through abolishing the Federal Reserve
- drastically reduce government spending by decreasing our military presence abroad
- has voted against the Patriot Act and champions civil liberties
- has a real solution to the problem of Social Security entitlements and deficit spending that devalues our $.
- has a rational approach to the "war on drugs".
- has won innumerable straw polls around the country

[af3ll]

-Ron Paul will never be president.

[raider]

-Ron Paul will never be president.
Would be the best choice for president.

[af3ll]

I like a lot of stuff he says but I'm one of those guys who feels that if you're not a Democrat or Republican you don't have a chance in winning.

[capitalcrew]

Imcrazy you're just another one of those hardline liberals who thinks peace solves all.

Guess what, we're in a war. They don't just end with a, "hey, I'll get out of here. Sorry!". We need to bring a real end to the war in Iraq. We can't just leave it the hell hole it is. We'll turn even more of the middle east against us and leave a weak government to be taken over by extremists.

The quicker the end of the war, the better. Everyone agrees with that. Everyone. You make it out like McCain wants to be there, that he is some war hungry nut who wants people dead. HE WANTS US OUT. He just has enough military sense to know that it doesn't happen over night.

Obama can't talk his way out of Iraq. I don't care how well he can write a speech. He's a good speaker. Talking, and saying something are two different things though. Sure he can SAY he'll bring change, but Obama will be nothing but a large disappointment to anyone open minded enough to realize they made a mistake.

John McCain is the best option for the President of the United States, in the current election.

[ImCrazy]

I never said piece solves all in fact I'm quite a large supporter of lethal force and war is necessary at times but this war has been for all the wrong reasons and a waste of human life.

[capitalcrew]

Yes, I agree.

Now here is the question I ask..

Would you rather leave quickly and leave the country in turmoil, eventually resulting in more problems and possibly a return for us, or would you rather do it the right way? I agree with you, we need out of Iraq.. but there are right and wrong ways to do it.

[ImCrazy]

I don't think we can wake up Monday and say oh time to leave iraq, however i could give a damn what happens to the people in those countries they are in a religious war thats been going on forever and will go on forever they will never get better we should just not let anyone immigrate from Saudi Arabia

[af3ll]

I don't think we can wake up Monday and say oh time to leave iraq, however i could give a damn what happens to the people in those countries they are in a religious war thats been going on forever and will go on forever they will never get better we should just not let anyone immigrate from Saudi Arabia
You're kidding right? You know all of the middle east is not like that right?? Iraq is our fault so we can't just leave. It should have never happened but there's nothing we can do now.

[capitalcrew]

You should give a shit, because now we're in it and we have no way out. We don't have a choice but to stay there until their government is strong enough to sustain itself. If we leave now, all of the people killing us, will kill them, and gain power. The last thing we need is more extremists in power over there.

Obama has no exit strategy. He thinks we can just up and leave. We can't. It is going to take a while to do it right. One year and four months is not enough time. Remove one brigade every month..? What happens in the last month when the enemy's strength has been slowly gathering due to our sudden lack of military presence? In the last few months there will be very high casualty rates. Not exactly something I want to see happen.

[ImCrazy]

I don't think there is any good strategy Id be for staying there if we could get our gas cheaper I hoped @ least that would come outta the war, we should just invade the place and call it our own if were gonna spend this much time there then seize the supply of oil and get some cheap gas back in the USA. Id rather have those troops here.

[capitalcrew]

Now YOU sound like an oil hungry warmonger.

Pot, meet kettle.

[ImCrazy]

Now YOU sound like an oil hungry warmonger.

Pot, meet kettle.

No I just hate wars for no good reason @ least if we got some black gold outta it we'd have something to show for it.

[STS-ZX2SR]

-Ron Paul will never be president.
Voting for Ron Paul this year will be like voting for H. Ross Perot in 1992--it'll take votes away from McCain and all but ensure BHO takes the white house.

He has many good ideas, and some not so much--but either way lacks the wherewithall to seriously challenge.

[STS-ZX2SR]

I don't think there is any good strategy Id be for staying there if we could get our gas cheaper I hoped @ least that would come outta the war, we should just invade the place and call it our own if were gonna spend this much time there then seize the supply of oil and get some cheap gas back in the USA. Id rather have those troops here.

The US is a liberator, not a conqueror. History says so. Look at what we did in Germany and Japan after WW2. It took more than 3 or 4 or 7 or 8 years...we still have a presence in each country now. And...there we had a 'defined' enemy, whereas now anyone walking a street in Iraq could be a 'bad guy'. Face it...until the Iraqis can rely on a self-government and maintain an effective internal military/police force, we need to maintain a presence there. A stable Iraq is a keystone to a stable Middle-East, which in turn goes a long way at achieving a stable planet. You want that don't you? BHO has about as much foreign policy experience as my pet goldfish---and that in and of itself is a HUGE setback in his qualifications to lead this country. It is the all but missing part of his already thin resume. His nice-sounding, feel-good rhetorcic and pie-in-the-sky proposals of 'unplugging' in Iraq and openly bargaining with known terroist leaders is niave at best, and lethal at worst.

If you want oil, tell your lefty pals to let us tap into the reserves already under US soil. There is plenty right here if you're willing to displace a few polar bears, and some fish.

[ChillinZX]

Obama will win, I knew he would win since I first saw him. He will be our first black president.

[PHeller]

Umm...just because you attempt to liberate a nation doesn't mean your not in it for your own benefit at the cost of thousands of lives.

On another note,

If Ron Paul would have looked like Obama, he would have won single handedly. Ron Paul was walking the talk, but he looked like a "Crazy Ol' Uncle Ron". He was a libertarian, and nothing he said really tried to hide that, so he lost the favor of alot of die-hard Republicans. Democrats didn't like the idea that they'd be voting for a (R), and many of this nations voters would have agreed with Ron Paul's ideas never heard his message (voters 50+). I know for a fact, that even at the height of Paul's popularity, my step-father (is 57) was saying "we need a President who gets rid of all the junk in Washington", but I asked him "what do you think of Ron Paul" and he's like, that Rue Paul who?

Paul focused too much on the youth, internet savy, and conservative/libertarian debaters, but that's only %20 of the total voting population.

Go ahead, vote for Ron Paul. We need more interest in people who stand out, otherwise we'll continue with status quo.


On Obama, for one, stop acting like his middle name is big deal. Get real people, America is a mix of cultures, European, Asian, Hispanic, African, and Arab. Hussien is one of the most common names in North Africa. WHERE HIS DAD WAS BORN. HIS MOM WAS FROM KANSAS! Quit it with this BHO bullsh t.

Get this, John Sidney McCain III, Sidney is probably less used in Europe/America than Hussien is in the rest of the world. BIG DEAL!

On Experience: Not a big deal. We've had good President's without experience and bad President's with experience. Some of worst President's had the most experience: Harding, Grant, Nixon, were all well known political figures with long-running careers in politics that did horrible as President.

History (and rankings) show that some of the best Presidents are those that have the power to motivate the nation, the epic speakers, the powerful personalities, the dynamic minds.

Obama shows that he can motivate people without ever mentioning what it is he motivating them towards.

OBAMA SAYS: "WE ARE HERE TODAY TO WITNESS CHANGE, AND WE'LL DO IT!!!"
CROWD ROARS!!!!
OBAMA SAYS: "TODAY IS ARE DAY"
CROWDS SAYS: "OK WE"RE READY, NOW GIVE US SOME DIRECTION!"

Part of his appeal is that he doesn't need a direction to motivate people, but as long as you have the people motivated, they will work harder for what you/or they believe in.

If speaches were all about substince, half of America wouldn't even know what the hell the speaker was talking about. Not all American's relish the detail and depth of a part by part break down of what it is we'll do with our nation.

McCain has been a great Senator, and very well experience and opinionated about the issues that he's not afraid to cross partisan lines to achieve. I have great respect for the man who has served our nation for almost 60 years.

His biggest flaws are those relating to his stubbornness on some issues, and his temper on others. He's not afraid to piss people off, great as a Senator, but not overly diplomatic. He is a sharp cutting tool, and he refuses to take anything but straight answers, and that's all he gives. This can be his downfall, when questioned about difficult topics, he avoids them rather than giving them his best shot.

I think this is where Obama and McCain differ the most. Obama is not afraid to answer any question, even if he stumbles over himself doing it. He's not overly decisive, but he "goes there". On topics McCain is comfortable with, he'll give straight honest answers, but question something controversial, and he'll just ignore the question, or give your a humerous remark.

The debates will be interesting.

[STS-ZX2SR]

On Obama, for one, stop acting like his middle name is big deal. Get real people, America is a mix of cultures, European, Asian, Hispanic, African, and Arab. Hussien is one of the most common names in North Africa. WHERE HIS DAD WAS BORN. HIS MOM WAS FROM KANSAS! Quit it with this BHO bullsh t.

I simply dont like to type out his name--I referred to Hillary as HRC earlier...nothing more, nothing less. I will continue to do so, thank you very much.







On Experience: Not a big deal. We've had good President's without experience and bad President's with experience. Some of worst President's had the most experience: Harding, Grant, Nixon, were all well known political figures with long-running careers in politics that did horrible as President.



Wow. I beg to differ. Given the state of affairs that the next President will inherit, experience will be critical. You have health care, the mortgage mess and all of its fallout, energy, social security and education at home...and occupations in two countries abroad...not to mention the threats posed by others.

Again, thank you very much but I'll err on the side of experience here. "Wanting" and "hoping" you can fix all of that ain't gonna cut it.

As for a couple of your references...

Grant was a General who had no political experience; as for the 'failure' of his administartion. A lot of it had to do with it being during a corrupt Democtarical controlled congress...that was unwilling to allow Grant to pass legislation. Bad example.


As for Nixon...yes, he took the fall for Watergate, and resigned in disgrace. He got us out of the quagmire in Vietnam which was started by JFK and escallated by LBJ. He engaged the USSR and along with Brezhnev initiated SALT. He opened up China to the West. He desegregated schools. And that is off of the top of my head. The fact is, other than the Watergate scandal...he was a very effictive, and popular, President...evidenced by his 1972 reelection.


I'd rather you show me an effective President who had as little experience as BHO.

[PHeller]

Just because you have experience doesn't neccisarily gauruntee you'll not continue you in your old flawed ways. If someone with 20yrs experience running ZX2's in STS told you that you wouldn't be competitive in that class, would you listen? No, you'd try it out for yourself. Obama wants to try things out for himself.


However, McCain has been around long enough to know what has worked and what has not, but I still view him as a product of the military IMO, which makes him appear biased toward military decisions, rather than diplomatic ones. I think he still views the world in terms of 1960's, rather than 21st century. His experience in foriegn countries has been plagued with misfortune and violence, and that can't make him into someone who sees the benefits to diplomacy.

I'd like to see McCain go with a young, well spoken, powerful leader who has civilian foriegn policy experience or background for his VP pick.

Again, I'm not making any decisions till I see debates and Veep picks.

[PHeller]

On another note:

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h318/bluecrewfan88/cd178bb4bc9d7c4773c32cb8fee6a913.gif

[PHeller]

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf .

[STS-ZX2SR]

Obama wants to try things out for himself.




That is simply a gamble that I am unwilling to endorse. The stakes are too high to let a largely untested entity 'try' things out at this level.

For me: He can 'try' to be a Senator for a while longer...and in 8 or 12 years from now after he has established some sort of legacy, make a shot for the white house.

Furthermore, regarding your take on McCain and his background--at a time of war, I cant see why I would want someone without a stich of military experience (and furthermore someone who has shown a disdain for the military by voting against funding essentials for our troops) to be our Commander in Chief.

[Buster]

That is simply a gamble that I am unwilling to endorse. The stakes are too high to let a largely untested entity 'try' things out at this level.

For me: He can 'try' to be a Senator for a while longer...and in 8 or 12 years from now after he has established some sort of legacy, make a shot for the white house.

Furthermore, regarding your take on McCain and his background--at a time of war, I cant see why I would want someone without a stich of military experience (and furthermore someone who has shown a disdain for the military by voting against funding essentials for our troops) to be our Commander in Chief.

Exactly...

From Obama's continual voting to deny funding for equipment the military needs to win, his comments that troops have "wasted their lives" and his insistence on allowing openly-gay soldiers to serve, he's proven that he's unfit to be Commander-in-Chief.

[PHeller]

Exactly...

From Obama's continual voting to deny funding for equipment the military needs to win, his comments that troops have "wasted their lives" and his insistence on allowing openly-gay soldiers to serve, he's proven that he's unfit to be Commander-in-Chief.

But that's what the military does need in order to win. This is not a "bomb the place to hell" war, this is clear area by area, befriend the community, build safer cities, establish a independent government and security forces.

Telling anyone, whether they are immigrants, gay, or over 50, that they are not able to join the military is waste of manpower. They military needs anyone it can get at this point.

McCain may have military experience, but I'm worried that anytime his generals tell him "we need more men", "we need more time", "we need more guns" he'll just sign the papers.

What needs to be asked in Iraq is "what is the definition of victory in Iraq?"

A country without Sadam? Victory!
A country with an independent government? Victory!
A country with a constitution? Victory!
A country with a security force? Unknown (corruption is not something you can fight with guns).
A country with safe schools? Unknown (American doesn't even have safe schools)
A country that allows U.S. Military Installations closer to Iran? Victory!
A country with an established economic system? (Unknown)

Iraq is not America. Iraqies did not build our nation, and we should not build theirs.

In my eyes, victory has already been achieved, it is up to Iraqi's who they will let control their country.

[PHeller]

What I hate about this administration has been that we've been listening to generals and failed intelligence from the very beginning, and ignoring the American people.

The military does not run this country, citizens run this country!

When the citizens want out of a war, it is the duty of the civilian Government to follow those orders, not the orders of the Generals.

I honor and respect those in the military, but it is their duty to serve our nation, not their superiors, and not our leaders.

When a military starts acting under its own direction, it is only a matter of time before its enemies are its citizens.

[ChillinZX]

American troops should just stay home and protect our borders. This is a dumb war that the first Bush started, then Clinton came on and ironically nothing was going on, then the 2nd Bush comes in and the war continues. When Bush is gone, I'm pretty sure the war will leave with him as well.

[Buster]

What I hate about this administration has been that we've been listening to generals and failed intelligence from the very beginning, and ignoring the American people.

The military does not run this country, citizens run this country!

When the citizens want out of a war, it is the duty of the civilian Government to follow those orders, not the orders of the Generals.

I honor and respect those in the military, but it is their duty to serve our nation, not their superiors, and not our leaders.

When a military starts acting under its own direction, it is only a matter of time before its enemies are its citizens.

If we made decisions on defending the nation based on a poll of its popularity, we'd be in huge trouble.

It is the Commander-in-Chief's responsibility and decision, as it should be.

Failed intelligence...sure. Nice talking point from Pelosi and Crew. The UN issued 17 resolutions over 11 years to being Hussein into check. He ignored and resisted, while using chemical weapons on his own people, funded and trained terrorists, filling mass graves for half a million people, raping women and children for fun, using torture chambers (proven by video evidence) plus we FOUND chemical weapons, mobile weapons labs and even his air force buried in the desert. Maybe you want to ignore the slaughter of people outside this nation or maybe you just want to try to live peaceably with a dictator, but you can't honestly deny that the war was not justified for any valid reasons that aren't politically-driven.

War is NOT easy, but it must be done and won when we find ourselves engaged in one.

[Buster]

American troops should just stay home and protect our borders. This is a dumb war that the first Bush started, then Clinton came on and ironically nothing was going on, then the 2nd Bush comes in and the war continues. When Bush is gone, I'm pretty sure the war will leave with him as well.

Fine intelligence shown there. The "first Bush" did not start anything. Saddam Hussein did. Presidents G. H. W. Bush just made the mistake of not carrying it out to completion, trusting that Hussein would behave himself after being embarrassed militarily. We also should not have trusted the corrupt UN, who ended up playing along and funding Saddam's weaponry through the Oil for Food Program.

Thinking the only reason that fighting is engaged in the world is because PRESIDENT (grow up and have a little respect for the Office no matter who is in it) Bush loves fighting is just completely ignorant and asinine.

[PHeller]

If we made decisions on defending the nation based on a poll of its popularity, we'd be in huge trouble.

Not really, opinion polls would have allowed us involvment in WWI, WWII, and many other actions taken, however, in the case of our current invovlement in Iraq, it would have deteremined the length of time we spent in another country. I'm sure we would have entered Iraq, taken out Sadam, and instilled a government and consititution, and we would have pulled out 2 years ago.[/QUOTE]


It is the Commander-in-Chief's responsibility and decision, as it should be.

I believe this should only be in cases where America is under active attack from a direct source. Bush's quick actions towards the Taliban and al Queda in Afghanistan was a reasonable counter attack to those on our homeland.

However, if Iraq had been a valid threat, why did we not attack Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and other safe havens for terrorists?



Failed intelligence...sure. Nice talking point from Pelosi and Crew. The UN issued 17 resolutions over 11 years to being Hussein into check.


The UN did. Who ended up going with the most amount of forces? The US. Why? Because there was something in Iraq that we wanted more than the rest of the world. Picking fights half-way across the world is not due to a direct threat, but this administration played that card, and the American people bought into it.


He ignored and resisted, while using chemical weapons on his own people, funded and trained terrorists, filling mass graves for half a million people, raping women and children for fun, using torture chambers (proven by video evidence) plus we FOUND chemical weapons, mobile weapons labs and even his air force buried in the desert. I'm pretty sure we did all of that during and after the first Gulf War.

Sure, but has that proven reason for us being there for 5 years?



Maybe you want to ignore the slaughter of people outside this nation or maybe you just want to try to live peaceably with a dictator, but you can't honestly deny that the war was not justified for any valid reasons that aren't politically-driven.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have gone to Iraq, I'm saying we should have left a long time ago.



War is NOT easy, but it must be done and won when we find ourselves engaged in one.

We won, lets bring'em home.

[PHeller]

If we focused all of our military strength on liberating countries and spending 100 years in every one of those countries we attempt to liberate or "nation build", we would never have enough strength to counter those countries whom actually posed a threat to us.

Why did this administration pick Iraq above all corrupt nations?

There are far more dangerous regimes, far more ruthless dictators, and far more oppressed people in nations other than Iraq, but we chose that country as the ones we'll "liberate" for the next century.

[PHeller]

Do you choose to lavishly indulge one child out of 10, and let the rest starve? Or do you distribute your wealth, freedom, and prosperty to all 10 of those children, saving them all?

We have thrown everything we've got at Iraq, and many of its own citizens won't even fight for their country, and those who do are corrupted by sectarian leaders. Iraq is the spoiled child who will just continue to whine until it has sucked us dry.

It is time for Iraq to be removed from America's Tit.

[SoCalZX2]

Do you choose to lavishly indulge one child out of 10, and let the rest starve? Or do you distribute your wealth, freedom, and prosperty to all 10 of those children, saving them all?

We have thrown everything we've got at Iraq, and many of its own citizens won't even fight for their country, and those who do are corrupted by sectarian leaders. Iraq is the spoiled child who will just continue to whine until it has sucked us dry.

It is time for Iraq to be removed from America's Tit.

I don't think anyone here disagree's with that. What the argument is sprung from is a timeline. I'm personally of the belief that we need to be very careful about the exit strategy, because it will have a lasting effect on our country and how it's viewed.

If we just up and leave the country in turmoil, don't you think that will be used as propaganda? I mean people already hate us for the invasion, but do you think they'd love us for "leaving them with nothing"? I could almost guarantee you that the next dictator to take power there would use that to garner respect and momentum against the US.

We have to be careful and leave them with a Gov't that can sustain itself IMO... but they need to start withdrawing and allowing their Gov't to work. Or IMO we're just going to be giving a blank check for a high powered security team lol.

[PHeller]

I think its a mute point because troops will be coming home soon no matter who enters office. Both (R) and (D) know that Iraq needs to start fending for itself.

What I don't want is another administration with a mindset similar to the one we have. I don't want this mistake to happen again, in Iran, North Korea, or a similar "Axis of Evil" nation.

We are stronger more powerful nation when we aid countries with food, education, and other non-military related actions than when we use weapons to achieve a goal.

[SoCalZX2]

Well IMO we need to stop feeding the worlds hungry and feed our own. This country has been focused too much on the world and not enough on itself IMHO. We have too many internal issues to be gallivanting around as the savior of the world.

It doesn't matter what party is in the white house, but I'd rather have less "national" programs that I have to fund with my paycheck. So I'm not a big fan of DEM. I'd say, lets get people to school, get them educated, get them to know the value of work and the value of a dollar and how to handle their money better.

Work on and solve our own internal problems before we try and solve the worlds problems. Show me a candidate that can do that. I don't think either that are running can really do that, but I'll vote against BIG Gov't programs that will cost me more in taxes every time.

[JonsZX2SR]

We need to stop supporting the rest of the world, considering our wealth is being given to oil rich nations.

Time for the oil rich nations pay to support the poor of the world. We might provide expertise as long as they are footing the bill. Time for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela and other oil rich nations to pay up. let see how much of a concerned socialist Chavez is or whether he is full of BS.

Time to stop being the world's policeman. We have greater worries about taking care of our own at home.

time to stop paying to support the UN. the UN should be moved to a neutral location, such as locating it in Geneva, Switzerland. Let the oil rich nations pay an dispropotionate share of support for the UN as we did in the past. It isn't our turn any longer.

If some nations of the world want to act as barbarians and kill their own it isn't our job to act as policeman. Let the UN police the barbaric parts of the world using troops volunteered by willing nations.

Time for our military to become smaller but much better equipped (and lethal) to be used solely to defend our nation. We should not waste any more American lives trying to clean up someone else's foolishness elsewhere in the world.

[EmoRebellion]

I think its a mute point because troops will be coming home soon no matter who enters office. Both (R) and (D) know that Iraq needs to start fending for itself.

What I don't want is another administration with a mindset similar to the one we have. I don't want this mistake to happen again, in Iran, North Korea, or a similar "Axis of Evil" nation.

We are stronger more powerful nation when we aid countries with food, education, and other non-military related actions than when we use weapons to achieve a goal.
Have you even heard a Mccain speech?

[ImCrazy]

Exactly...

From Obama's continual voting to deny funding for equipment the military needs to win, his comments that troops have "wasted their lives" and his insistence on allowing openly-gay soldiers to serve, he's proven that he's unfit to be Commander-in-Chief.


The Military can't win

and what has 8 years of "experience" got us, IMO our country is in the worst shape of my life time thanks to poor decisions by this administration.

[af3ll]

The Military can't win

I'm in the military and I'm really starting to feel the same way. When I first deployed for it in 2003 I was the only one to say "Hey this is a mistake". I feel the same way today.

[JonsZX2SR]

The Military can't win...

...primarily because the military is being mis-used. We shouldn't be wasting the lives of militray personnel trying to play policeman to the world. Our military needs to be strong defensive force that acts as a deterrent to those who attack us. They should be ready for a quick strike if necessary.

If people want to act lawless and kill each other in thier own oart of the world we should let them. When they are done there will just be fewer haters in that part of the world.

Invading Iraq brought us no security, depleted our resources and made American personnel targets.

Think about some guy in Iraq telling his kids 25 years from now how his daddy was a hero killing American pigs back in 2004.

Now imagine instead, that guy was telling his kids not to mess with the Americans because his daddy pissed someone off back in 2003, the Americans came in, incinerated everyone and left a message. Go pick on someone else, because Americans mean business.

Our military needs to be better equipped and trained and be more of a quick reaction strike force. Get in, get the job done and get out... and be as lethal as possible. These protracted police actions do no one any good and just fuel hatred in the next generation.

[kaliayev]

And what do we tell the children of those who died in the towers. Sorry America does not send our troops into another country, bottom line. Get real, Putting troops on the ground is the only way to win a war. Sure you can quickly bomb the shit out of a country, but if you do not follow that up they will dust themselves off and come back at you. I agree invading Iraq was a huge mistake, but pulling out now will only compound the problems our children will have to face. We are the most powerful nation in the history of this planet and we can no longer just roll up the carpet and be isolationist again. Politically or encomically it is absurd to even propose such an argument.

[EmoRebellion]

And what do we tell the children of those who died in the towers. Sorry America does not send our troops into another country, bottom line. .

... Except for the fact that the people who sent those planes into the towers werent from Iraq..


I agree invading Iraq was a huge mistake, but pulling out now will only compound the problems our children will have to face. We are the most powerful nation in the history of this planet and we can no longer just roll up the carpet and be isolationist again. Politically or encomically it is absurd to even propose such an argument. Doesnt that contradict what you first said?

[kaliayev]

I was pointing out the mistake in a few others arguments for isolationism. I realize Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I agreed from the beginning on the US invasion of Afghanistan and believed it was a bunch of crap we were being fed on going into Iraq. But the bottom line is we do have to intervene with troops at times and at times we do have to act as the cops of the world. Sure we can surrender our role as a world super power, but do you want the likes of China to assume that role. You also must realize we often intervene in other nations politics because we have economic interest involved.

[JonsZX2SR]

And what do we tell the children of those who died in the towers. Sorry America does not send our troops into another country, bottom line. Get real, Putting troops on the ground is the only way to win a war. Sure you can quickly bomb the shit out of a country, but if you do not follow that up they will dust themselves off and come back at you. I agree invading Iraq was a huge mistake, but pulling out now will only compound the problems our children will have to face. We are the most powerful nation in the history of this planet and we can no longer just roll up the carpet and be isolationist again. Politically or encomically it is absurd to even propose such an argument.

I can see you are an excellent student of history. After 9-11 the US invaded Afghanistan and cleared out the Taliban and the Al-Quida training camps. We were well on the way to stabilizing a democracy there that mostly welcomed our presence.

You are the one who needs to get real and brush up on your history. The subsequent invasion of Iraq diluted our military forces to the point where we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan. The Taliban continues to have a presence there.

The invasion of Afghanistan is appropriate type of response I was talking about where our military is used to respond to an attack.

How you think invading Iraq was a response to the 9-11 attacks is beyond me ? (Care to explain ?) What I would tell people who lost family and friends in the 9-11 attacks is the US failed to finish the job in Afghanistan and the Al-Quida threat is greater due to poor planning and poor use of our military in Iraq.

Saying we should stay in Iraq because we started, mistake or not, is not our only option. Our military has become depleted, what kind of message does that send to our enemies ? That our military planning and use of resources is poor, 2nd rate, etc. ?

We should pull out of Iraq, cut our loses, and rebuild our military to the strength it was at before the Iraq invasion. Then we will be able to respond the same was we did in Afghanistan in early 2002. We cannot do that effectively if we are attacked agin now.

[JonsZX2SR]

And what do we tell the children of those who died in the towers. Sorry America does not send our troops into another country, bottom line. Get real, Putting troops on the ground is the only way to win a war. Sure you can quickly bomb the shit out of a country, but if you do not follow that up they will dust themselves off and come back at you. I agree invading Iraq was a huge mistake, but pulling out now will only compound the problems our children will have to face. We are the most powerful nation in the history of this planet and we can no longer just roll up the carpet and be isolationist again. Politically or encomically it is absurd to even propose such an argument.

I can see you are an excellent student of history. After 9-11 the US invaded Afghanistan and cleared out the Taliban and the Al-Quida training camps. We were well on the way to stabilizing a democracy there that mostly welcomed our presence.

The invasion of Iraq diluted our military forces to the point where we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan. The Taliban continues to have a presence there.

The invasion of Afghanistan is exactly the type of response I was talking about where our militray is used to respond to an attack.

How incading Iraq was a response to the 9-11 attacks is beyond me ? (Care to explain ?) What I would tell people who lost family and friends in the 9-11 attacks is the US failed to finish the job in Afghanistan and the Al-Quida threat is greater due to poor planning and poor use of our military in Iraq.

Saying we should stay in Iraq because we started, mistake or not, is not our only option. Our military has become depleted, what kind of message does that send to our enemies ? That our military planning and use of resources is poor, 2nd rate, etc. ?

Wake up. We are no longer the most powerful nation economically due to our poor leadership and we cannot sustain military actions overseas for extended periods. We WERE the most powerful military power. We could return to that status with better leadership, rebuilding of the military forces and wise use of the military in the future.

We should pull out of Iraq, cut our loses, and rebuild our military to the strength it was at before the Iraq invasion. Then we will be able to respond the same was we did in Afghanistan in early 2002. We cannot do that effectively if we are attacked agin now.

[Buster]

The Military can't win

and what has 8 years of "experience" got us, IMO our country is in the worst shape of my life time thanks to poor decisions by this administration.

Not with Congress trying to run the show.

[ImCrazy]

Not with Congress trying to run the show.


Politics ruins everything. Who knows the right answer, I am not qualified to give an educated opinion on whats right for the war in iraq but I know its not going well and was a mistake from day 1.

[SoCalZX2]

I'll agree it was a mistake... but how do you know for a fact it's not going well? You basing that off what you hear in the news like it's the gospel truth? Just curious, because it's not like the news has ever been known to be bias in an election year.

[ImCrazy]

I'll agree it was a mistake... but how do you know for a fact it's not going well? You basing that off what you hear in the news like it's the gospel truth? Just curious, because it's not like the news has ever been known to be bias in an election year.

Cause it can't? They haven't glassed the place yet thats the only thing thats gonna stop people hating each other based on religious reasons. :wacko:

[SoCalZX2]

Cause it can't? They haven't glassed the place yet thats the only thing thats gonna stop people hating each other based on religious reasons. :wacko:

I personally wouldn't have been opposed to that method in all honesty

[ImCrazy]

I personally wouldn't have been opposed to that method in all honesty

But we cannot do that politically it would ruin what respect is left for our once mighty country.

[Buster]

Politics ruins everything. Who knows the right answer, I am not qualified to give an educated opinion on whats right for the war in iraq but I know its not going well and was a mistake from day 1.

Not going well. :eyes:


You aren't paying attention then.

See post #23. I don't feel like retyping it for someone who ignore it anyways.

[Buster]

Only one way to find out Elect him He will be the next JFK and hopefully live to serve his two terms.

Everyone has known for a long time now that our next leader would be a democrat thats been obvious no one wants more of the war machine known as the Bush administration.

Obama is NOTHING like JFK.


JFK would be considered very Conservative today. He'd either be run out of his own party much like Zell Miller and even Joe Leiberman (even though he voted with the party 95% of the time).

Don't trash JFK by comparing him to Obama. He's not one of my favorite Presidents but compared to the candidates his party puts forward today, he's a world better. Actually, if you look at policies on the economy and also national security, Kennedy is pretty close to President Bush and is a complete opposite from any Democrat Party leader today. Of course personally, he's what Clinton only wished he could be, but I'm not talking about that right now. :D

[ZetecInside]

Obama is NOTHING like JFK.


JFK would be considered very Conservative today. He'd either be run out of his own party much like Zell Miller and even Joe Leiberman (even though he voted with the party 95% of the time).

Don't trash JFK by comparing him to Obama. He's not one of my favorite Presidents but compared to the candidates his party puts forward today, he's a world better. Actually, if you look at policies on the economy and also national security, Kennedy is pretty close to President Bush and is a complete opposite from any Democrat Party leader today. Of course personally, he's what Clinton only wished he could be, but I'm not talking about that right now. :D

What are you basing this on? Although he was a foreign policy hawk, many Kennedy's domestic policies were actually quite liberal. His proposed "New Frontier" policies included increased government intervention in the economy to halt the recession at the time and increased federal funding for education and health care, as well as raising the minimum wage. He also appointed Arthur Goldberg to the bench, who was probably one of the most liberal Supreme Court justices of the 20th century.

[RedRooster]

Don't vote for obama. He wants to appease the terrorists! If he gets elected this country is headed toward anarchy. Not being racial but if Obama gets elected the KKK is going to make a comeback in full force.

[capitalcrew]

But we cannot do that politically it would ruin what respect is left for our once mighty country.

The same could be said for us pulling out before the country is stable, FYI.

[EmoRebellion]

Don't vote for obama. He wants to appease the terrorists! If he gets elected this country is headed toward anarchy. Not being racial but if Obama gets elected the KKK is going to make a comeback in full force.
What the fuck are you talking about? What are you basing ANY of those statements on?

[Buster]

What are you basing this on? Although he was a foreign policy hawk, many Kennedy's domestic policies were actually quite liberal. His proposed "New Frontier" policies included increased government intervention in the economy to halt the recession at the time and increased federal funding for education and health care, as well as raising the minimum wage. He also appointed Arthur Goldberg to the bench, who was probably one of the most liberal Supreme Court justices of the 20th century.


Name a current Democrat who would LOWER taxes.

JFK proposed permanent income tax cuts for every tax bracket and supported supply-side economics like Reagen before it was even called that. Of course, Kennedy's tax cuts did not pass Congress.

Yeah, I thought so.

[Buster]

I think its a mute point because ...


More "mute" points. :wacko:

[EmoRebellion]

Yeah, I think he means "moo" point.. :shrug:

[ZetecInside]

Name a current Democrat who would LOWER taxes.

JFK proposed permanent income tax cuts for every tax bracket and supported supply-side economics like Reagen before it was even called that. Of course, Kennedy's tax cuts did not pass Congress.

Yeah, I thought so.

Yeah, Kennedy proposed lowering taxes. He also approved budgets which ran average defecits of $31 billion a year while in office. Lowering taxes is fine - as long as you cut spending proportionally. This is one of the most fundamentally basic concepts of macroeconomics - one that Kennedy and Bush both failed to grasp, which is why they both contributed to staggering deficits while in office. Bush has presided over the highest budget deficits in this country's history ($413 billion in 2004, and even more than that under his proposed budget for 2009). The Republicans love to pretend that they champion "small govermnent", yet they elected a man (Bush) who presided over probably the biggest increase in the federal government's size and spending since the Johnson administration, and possibly ever. An increase that occured during a Republican-controlled congress, I might add.

The problem with Democrats and Republicans is that they both love spending other people's money. The difference is, Democrats are at least smart enough to understand and honest enough to admit that you have to raise taxes to fund all those little govenment projects. Republicans are either so stupid that they think money grows on trees, or so dishonest that they feel no qualms about lying to the public about debt financing consequences just so they can win elections. I don't like the fact that Democrats spend so much on the government, but at least they understand budget responsibility.


Do you think it's a coincidence that of the 47 federal budgets approved since 1962, only 5 have run surpluses, and all 5 of those were signed by Democratic presidents?

[EmoRebellion]

http://incredimazing.com/static/media/2008/03/27/c4ac3ef1404bc65/debt.jpg

[ImCrazy]

Not going well. :eyes:


You aren't paying attention then.

See post #23. I don't feel like retyping it for someone who ignore it anyways.

I stopped reading 99% of what you type long ago dude.

[ImCrazy]

http://incredimazing.com/static/media/2008/03/27/c4ac3ef1404bc65/debt.jpg

ding ding ding we have a winner.

[capitalcrew]

I stopped reading 99% of what you type long ago dude.

You really show your age sometimes.

[ImCrazy]

You really show your age sometimes.

yeah I know once you grow up you realize whats worth your time and whats not.:eyes:

[kaliayev]

I can see you are an excellent student of history. After 9-11 the US invaded Afghanistan and cleared out the Taliban and the Al-Quida training camps. We were well on the way to stabilizing a democracy there that mostly welcomed our presence.

The invasion of Iraq diluted our military forces to the point where we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan. The Taliban continues to have a presence there.

The invasion of Afghanistan is exactly the type of response I was talking about where our militray is used to respond to an attack.

How incading Iraq was a response to the 9-11 attacks is beyond me ? (Care to explain ?) What I would tell people who lost family and friends in the 9-11 attacks is the US failed to finish the job in Afghanistan and the Al-Quida threat is greater due to poor planning and poor use of our military in Iraq.

Saying we should stay in Iraq because we started, mistake or not, is not our only option. Our military has become depleted, what kind of message does that send to our enemies ? That our military planning and use of resources is poor, 2nd rate, etc. ?

Wake up. We are no longer the most powerful nation economically due to our poor leadership and we cannot sustain military actions overseas for extended periods. We WERE the most powerful military power. We could return to that status with better leadership, rebuilding of the military forces and wise use of the military in the future.

We should pull out of Iraq, cut our loses, and rebuild our military to the strength it was at before the Iraq invasion. Then we will be able to respond the same was we did in Afghanistan in early 2002. We cannot do that effectively if we are attacked agin now.

The reason Afghanistan has been a failure is exactly because we have followed in the way you want the military run. A RDF cannot win a war. It is not meant to. It is meant to punish, rescue, etc. It is not meant for a sustained presence. And that is all we have inserted into Afghanistan and all that was meant to be sent there. So nothing was diluted, there was never any plans or intentions on sending a larger force there. If you knew anything about Afghanistan you would know that it has never had a strong central government and prolly never will. I don't believe for a second that the Bush adminstration really had any delusions that here would be were democracy could be first forged in this region.

You forget that our military as a whole was well on its way to becoming a RDF. Changes that were being pushed by Rumsfeld and Chaney. It is a big reason our military does not have all the proper equipment that it needs to occupy Iraq. It also the reason we have had to rely so heavily on PMCs, which in my mind is a disgrace.

Whose ass did you pull your other info from? What nation now has a larger economy than ours? Please enlighten me. Also who has a better military than ours? I agree that our military has been damaged because of Iraq, but what other nation can move half way around the world at will and sustain a military presence. There is none...zip.

[aaronrun]

Be a "typical white person" (Obama's words) and vote against the black hating, aids inventing, rich white devils. Or I'll call you a racist.

[JonsZX2SR]

Whose ass did you pull your other info from? What nation now has a larger economy than ours? Please enlighten me. Also who has a better military than ours? I agree that our military has been damaged because of Iraq, but what other nation can move half way around the world at will and sustain a military presence. There is none...zip.

Nowhere in your argument did you address the impact of dilution of our resources in Afghanistan by diversion of troops to Iraq. What might have been a full deployment of troops in Afghanistan became a RDF because troops were sent elsewhere. What part of troops needed for Afghanistan being diverted to Iraq don't you understand ? Thanks for supporting my argument.

If you can't win a debate without insulting people and resorting to comments like the above, it is pretty obvious yothe only thing that needs to get pulled out of an ass is your head. Quite frankly you don't know what you are talking about.

Where do I get my information ?? Well documented history books, scholarly journals and plenty of work experience. One problem I deal with on a daily basis is the cost of materials for global manufacturing. There is a huge cost of doing business associated with a falling dollar.

1. Comparing the US economy to any single nation is just wrong headed thinking. So we have the largest economy, but compared to the combined European economies, to the combined Asian economies our economic power is decreasing. 5 might be greater than 2, 3 or 4 but 5 is less than 2+3+4.

Having a large economy is no substiture for having a well managed economy. The Soviets had one of the 6 or 7 largest economies in the 1980's. Being large didn't save them from economic collapse caused by poor management. It would be a good thing if the US avoided falling into this trap.

We have problems just paying to maintain our infrastructure (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/12/crumbling.cities.ap/index.html). Does anyone see similarities between the decline of the US economy and the decline of the Soviet economy in the late 1980's. We pushed the soviets into paying for military technology they didn't need, now our own leaders have deceived us into a war that we can't afford long term.

Germany didn't lose WW1 because they were defeated militarily. At the time of the armistice in 1918 the front lines were in France with both sides having dug in. What happened is the economies on both sides (Germany, France and England) were unable to sustain the conflict much longer. The start of the influenza epidemic further depleted European economies at the same time the entry of the US gave France and England a boost.

Why did Germany lose WW1 ?? (http://www.socyberty.com/History/Why-did-Germany-lose-World-War-One.14354)

After the collapse of Romania and Austria-Hungary, the German economy collapsed before the allies, ending the war. Even the treaty between the Germans and Bolsheviks couldn't help Grmany after the US joined the fight.

Had there been no influenza epidemic neither side might have been able to fight with out the help of the US with the war possibly ending a draw with all economies devastated.

No matter how big a military is, the national economy has to support that military. The US economy is not doing as well as you think. What would happen if OPEC decided to shut off oil supplies ?? (Comment #3 below)

2, Do you care to address how the US dollar is sinking against other currencies, how the US balance of trade with the world is running negative, how foreign companies and nations are investing and buying companies and resources in the US. The US is becoming owned by the rest of the world because of poor economic policy.

So we have the largest single economy. So what ?? That doesn't negate China's ability to buy oil, steel and other resources with US dollars and drive up prices. How do you suggest we address that ? Invade China ?? I don't think so.

3. How would we respond if OPEC decided they were tired of the US use of military actions overseas and decided to stop selling us oil ? It is their oil to sell and the US is not entitled to it. Wars can be fought economically. If our economy were in ruins would we invade the oil producers and take the oil. That sounds like behavior that Germany or Japan might have followed in the 1930's.

It is people like you who think military action is the solution for everything that have lead to the problems we face. Beating people up with military force does not make the US strong, it just makes us bullies, and it does nothing to repair our ability to compete economically.

Fortunately there are more intelligent people here to debate.

[JonsZX2SR]

...and if anyone thinks and ever weakening dollar doesn't make it easier for foreign investors to buy US companies, think again.

InBev wants to buy Anheuser-Busch (http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/companies/anheuser_busch/index.htm?postversion=2008061118)

Another bad sign is Anheuser-Busch is talking merger with Mexico's Grupo Modelo (http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/12/news/companies/anheuser_grupo_modelo/index.htm?postversion=2008061217). If an American company needs to merge with a Mexican company to foil a takeover by a European company, what does that say about the health of the dollar ??

It's not just a beer company, but middle eastern and Asian investors have been buying into US financial companies. HSBC owns a large share of US banks and middle eastern investors own large chunks of investment bansk and firms.

At the rate we are going, European, Japanese, Chinese and oil rich middle eastern investors are going to own a big chunk of the US economy. What happens if they don't want to invest in infrastructure or create future jobs here ? What happens if they export profits to their home countries or off shore tax shelters ? If we don't wake up we are on our way to becoming a 3rd world nation owned by outsiders if we don't wake up.

Now a few uninformed people here are still under the illusion the US has the largest economy (with an ever increasing share owned by foreigners) and that we have a mighty military (which sometimes has a hard time getting critical supplies and isn't going to of much value in an economic struggle anyway.)

My question is can we elect a government and develop business leaders who understand the global economics of the 21st century ?? What we need is a strong dollar and a climate where US businesses own an increasing share of foreign companies and not the other way around.

[kaliayev]

Your statement was we no longer have the most important economy. When called on this you now want to say that it is "wrong headed" to compare one nations economy with another. Nice change of direction. Of course our influence is shrinking, the 3rd world is starting to develop. This was going to happen it was just a matter of when. But or economy still the largest and how healthy it is is doing effects the rest of the world like no other economy.

Sure other nations such as China can cause the prices of resources to go up, but this also effects their economy as well as other economies throughout the world just not ours. Our economy is not the only one hurting right now, just look at the EEC for instance or Japan's. China's economy is also starting to feel the problems of developing to fast and without restrictions. Name me a country that does not have problems with its infrastructure right now. All in all our economy is strong with very low unemployment and inflation rates compared to other nations.

Your doomsday prophesy was as raised during the recession in the 80's when Japan and European countries started to gobble up property in the US. Nothing came of it and in the 90's our economy rebounded.

I agreed, if you could read, that our military has been effected by Iraq. But you said we no longer have the most powerful military in the world. My question then is who has a more powerful military? Can we take on the world single handed? No of course not, no nation can. But our military is still capable of doing what no other military can. Our navy and airforce alone can wipe most nations off the map. Is military might only a good thing, no. But this was not part of your ridiculous statement.

It is pretty funny how you make a definitive statement without any proof and when called on it try to change the debate by changing your criteria.

[JonsZX2SR]

It is pretty funny how you make a definitive statement without any proof and when called on it try to change the debate by changing your criteria.

If you read my posts you'll find I'm the one who has consistently provided links to articles in the financial community. How many links have you provided with your posts so far?? ZERO. It appears you're the one who is talking out of his posterior. Nice try, but you'll have to do better than that to deflect the debate. Perhaps you don't know how to click on links ???

This is not about doom and gloom, it is about people,such as yourself who seem to think the US is doing alright both militarily and economically. Don't worry, everyhting will turn out alright is not the right approach. People need to wake up.

But that isn't going to happen if everyone held your attitude and thought things are alright.

You are right China, India, Japan and Europe all have problems of their own, but they seem to be dealing with rising costs of commodities better than we do. China pays for petroleum with US dollars taken in exchange for excess exports. that should tell you that we have a problem. the same is true for copper, mild steel, nickel, etc.

If you look at the impact Japan had on the US economy since the 80's it hasn't been insignificant. Both our automotive and electronics industries have been displaced by the Japanese and they continue to shrink and become less competitive. Certainly you understand this.

Our automotive industry continues to become globally less competitive. We no longer have the dominant automotive companies. What's next ?? Foreign investors are gobbling up our financial institutions. Who owns HSBC ?? How about Citigroup and merrill-Lynch ??

foreign_investments_in_us_banks_draw_scrutiny (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/01/16/foreign_investments_in_us_banks_draw_scrutiny/)

Foreign investemnts in US banks (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18754222)

Our salvation will be primarily US owned global companies who continue to expands and our downfall would be letting US dollars sent overseas be used to buy an increasing share of our businesses.

I don't know what you do for a living. I work for a Fortune 100 company and see the impact of the declining dollar, increased demand for resources overseas and increased and better competition overseas. What will help the US maintain a competitive position economically is a REALISTIC assessment of US economic policy rather than just thinking we are still #1 in the world.

* * * * *
In terms of shear power our military can wipe most nations off the face of the earth. to do so would make the US a pariah. Most likely this would turn the world against us in a war we cannot win. In terms of practical engagement, We can't even supply our soldiers with the supplies they need. How long has it taken to get properly armored vehicles for our troops in Iraq ? How many enlistments have been involuntarily extended ??

Do you really believe the morale of our troops is sufficient to fight another war.

You've taken this off topic, my premise original was that we have depleted our military capability, that we do not have the resources to fight another war. We are less string that we were 5 years ago, because we wasted resources in Iraq.

We might still have the gretest military in theory, but from a practical perspective it will take years to restore our military strength. Real world military forces win engagements, theoretical armies are for toy soldiers.

Do you really believe that our military is a strong as and has the same capabilities it had in 2003 ??

Exactly what do you think would happen if China invaded Taiwan next week ? Could we respond. My point is that we have depleted our military to the point where it is no longer the stongest force on all counts. In a confrontation over Taiwan, in that theater of engagement the Chinese and not the US would have the stronger forces.

To thrive in the 21st century we need to change our economic and military policies to benefit Americans at home first and worry about the rest of the world 2nd.

[JonsZX2SR]

Just one more reference on how depeleting the effort against the Taliban in Afghanistan has paid negative results...

Taliban re-occupy Afghanistan villages (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/06/16/afghan.villages.ap/index.html)

[Mike]

Well he has some relations with terriorist....is said to be racist....I mean you just have to search...seems like a great guy. :)

[af3ll]

President Gore endorsed him today.

[JonsZX2SR]

Well he has some relations with terriorist....is said to be racist....I mean you just have to search...seems like a great guy. :)

Who are you talking about, Kaliayev ? Obama ? ...or someone else posting on here ??

Meanwhile a big battle is brewing in Afghanistan between the Taliban and NATO troops.

NATO warns Afghani villagers (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/06/17/afghanistan.fight/index.html) of impending battle.

Imagine if we had left a lot more troops on the ground and finsihed the job in Afghanistan 5 years ago instead of invading Iraq.

[PHeller]

but apparently Obama's judgement can't be trusted...he was only telling us 5 years ago that we should focus on Afghanistan....

[Mike]

Who are you talking about, Kaliayev ? Obama ? ...or someone else posting on here ??

Meanwhile a big battle is brewing in Afghanistan between the Taliban and NATO troops.

NATO warns Afghani villagers (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/06/17/afghanistan.fight/index.html) of impending battle.

Imagine if we had left a lot more troops on the ground and finsihed the job in Afghanistan 5 years ago instead of invading Iraq.


The man this thread is about. Obama....

[raider]

My two favorite Obama quotes.
"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go."

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

[Buster]

President Gore endorsed him today.

Oh, you're one of THOSE people. :wacko:

[PHeller]

The man this thread is about. Obama....

They relate him to such people by drawing conclusions that he agrees with all of his supporters views. Is McCain racist because KKK members support him?

Who would Obama be racist of? Whites? He's half white. Black's? Doubt it. Jews? Don't know where you'd get that from. Asians? Right...

Conservatives say that "Obama is all talk and uses poetic speeches to distract people from his questionable supporters and lack of experince."

Yet pundits try to distract potential supporters of Obama from listening to his ideas for change, by bringing up pointless figures who don't have any sway on his personality or judgement.

[JonsZX2SR]

My two favorite Obama quotes.
"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go."

This is old news, Obama was referring to 57 primaries plus caucases, which when you count Guam, Puerto Rico (which are not states) and states that have both (texas, for example) add up to 58 contests.

If you do a news search for the quote, you come up empty...

Myth of the Obama 57 state quote (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/05/11/old-media-ignores-obamas-57-states-couldnt-get-enough-quayles-potatoe). Apparently Obama knows more about the contests leading to the Democratic nomination than the people who keep this "quote" alive.

Like it or not, the Nov. election comes down to Obama + ?? vs. McCain + ??

So who will the VP nominees be ??

[af3ll]

Oh, you're one of THOSE people. :wacko:
Yes. Oh how different life would be had he not been screwed.

[Gregersonke]

I still don't see how upper class got such big tax breaks... I mean you do realize the top like 5% of earners in the country pay like 35% of the overall taxes paid each year...

I love this quote...


Lets put it into different terms of hypothetical

You make 100k a year and pay roughly 35-40 percent of that into taxes, social security, etc.

I make 1 million a year and I pay about 15-20 percent of that into social security taxes, etc.

Remember, social security cuts out at 100k. So I'm not paying any social security after the first 100k.

Technically, I payed in 3-4 times more than you did. But I was nowhere near the same percentage in taxes. Even better, I get to use that extra 200 grand towards making more money. Plus, the money I make from the investments doesn't get hit by social security. It only gets hit by long term capital gains taxes which at the moment are 15 to 25 percent.

This means that I can setup myself up with about a million in stocks making long-term gains. I'd end up making roughly what you do and pay half the taxes you do without ever donating to a charity other than myself.

Now, does the system seem fair?

[JonsZX2SR]

Your idea is correct, but you've exaggerated the numbers. I ran the numbers for an example of taxable income in another post. I don't have time to link it right now, but I have the rough numbers.

Someone making $100K with an estimated 78K taxable income might pay about $15.3K in taxes. Figure $10K in deferred (401-K) income so FICA taxable income is $90K. On top of that add 6.2% FICA or $5.6K (the limit is 0.062 times $102K) and another 2.9% or $2.6K for a total of $23.5K or 23.5% of gross income.

Someone making $1000K with an estimated 770K of taxable inome and $900K FICA/medicare income is going to pay about $248K in federal taxes. On top of this add $6.3K (the limit) for Soc. Sec. plus another $26.1K for medicare taxes. (2.9% without a limit.) the total is $280K or about 28% of gross income. You can see the %age gap is shrinking.

If you are self employed the FICA taxes double (you pay both employer and employee portions) but the $102K limit is stil applied to the Soc. Security portion. So doctors and lawyers who own their practices pay at double the rate and they pay the employer's portion (6.2% + 2.9%) for their employees. So it's not a simple calculation.

What complicates things is if someone has considerable long term investment income that is taxes at a flat 15% and is NOT subject to FICA taxes. For example if the person above making $1000K had $600K as investment earnings the total taxes would be lower.

Also municiple bonds are often completely free of federal tax, so for example, someone with $5 million invested at 4.5% might see an untaxed income of $225K.

On top of this add state income taxes, if applicable, and real estate taxes on property. the guy makingh $100K might have a $250K to $400K home. The guy making $1000K might have a $1300K home and another $1000K in business or rental property.

I'd still rather be the guy making $1000K per year. $2000K would be even better...

[Buster]

Yes. Oh how different life would be had he not been screwed.

He was only screwed by his screwy views and statements.

[PHeller]

Oh ya, that's why he won the popular vote by 543,816.

[Mike]

"Vote Obama...the next reason that this country will continue to decline!"

[PHeller]

"Vote Obama...the next reason that this country will continue to decline!"

What the hell gives you that idea? McCain is running on many Republican platform ideas, coming from the same minds that Bush has been trying. Have we seen improvement? No.

[Mike]

Hmm..can you point out anywhere in any post that I state anything..like...."Go McCain...McCain is God....Vote for McCain, the leader of all men?"

Didn't think so.

I just point out that once we get Obama in the office, which everyone knows McCain stands no chance against him...this country is just gonna keep going further under, and probably faster then it is now.

[EmoRebellion]

I just point out that once we get Obama in the office, which everyone knows McCain stands no chance against him...this country is just gonna keep going further under, and probably faster then it is now.
What exactly is that based on?

[Mike]

Hmm...I'm the only one that has noticed a decline in the economy and everything else that we have to deal with on a daily basis, I suppose...

[EmoRebellion]

Im sure youre not, but what does that have to do with Obama? If anything, it should make you be wary of McCain..

[kaliayev]

Wake up. We are no longer the most powerful nation economically due to our poor leadership and we cannot sustain military actions overseas for extended periods. We WERE the most powerful military power. We could return to that status with better leadership, rebuilding of the military forces and wise use of the military in the future.



This is what you said. I have simply asked since we are no longer the top nation at either, which country now has a more powerful economy and who has a more powerful military. You have given a bunch of a run around, but I would like to know who is the most powerful in these two areas since you have categorically said the US has been replaced.

[kaliayev]

Now a few uninformed people here are still under the illusion the US has the largest economy (with an ever increasing share owned by foreigners) and that we have a mighty military (which sometimes has a hard time getting critical supplies and isn't going to of much value in an economic struggle anyway.)


BS on the march. Who has a larger economy? What country does not have foreign investors? Show me a military that is better armed and can supply it's troops better? There is not another nation on this planet that can move away from its borders without supply problems let alone half way across the globe.

[kaliayev]

1. Comparing the US economy to any single nation is just wrong headed thinking. So we have the largest economy, but compared to the combined European economies, to the combined Asian economies our economic power is decreasing. 5 might be greater than 2, 3 or 4 but 5 is less than 2+3+4.








So why here are you comparing the US to regions and then not comparing that with our biggest trade partners. The US/CA/MX is just slightly smaller than the EC. More BS.

[JonsZX2SR]

This is what you said. I have simply asked since we are no longer the top nation at either, which country now has a more powerful economy and who has a more powerful military. You have given a bunch of a run around, but I would like to know who is the most powerful in these two areas since you have categorically said the US has been replaced.

I have posted numerous links to references. It isn't my fault you are unable to read and understand these. You are the one who should shut up about me giving a run around because all you post is unreferenced, made up BS. Anyone who reads this post can see I've provided plenty of references and all you are doing is making a public fool of himself. Continue to post at your own risk.

Do you deny that the devaluation of the dollar, the large imbalance of trade, and the cost of energy is not a problem. If anything having a large economy only makes solutions to these problems larger and more difficult.

It isn't the size or our economy or where it has been that is important. It is where the economy is headed. This is determined by our leadership, planning, etc. Right now our leadership isn't doing a very good job.

Where we were in the past has little value, it is where the US economy is headed in the future that matters. The average person can see and understand this, what part don't you understand ?? We need an economic change and we need to compete with the rest of the worlds who are making changes.

You're living in the past.

[Mike]

Im sure youre not, but what does that have to do with Obama? If anything, it should make you be wary of McCain..

Hmm...again...i'm not for McCain...and OMG soo not for Osama, I mean Obama......

[af3ll]

Hmm...again...i'm not for McCain...and OMG soo not for Osama, I mean Obama......
Idiot.

[Mike]

Say what you will....

[af3ll]

I was saying it for the Osama thing. That's ridiculous.

[Mike]

So you don't think he has ANY ties with any sort of terrorists?

[ZetecInside]

So you don't think he has ANY ties with any sort of terrorists?


You actually do think he has ties with terrorists?

[Mike]

Hmm....I guess the reading up on his family may have been wrong......

[EmoRebellion]

... Id love to see where youve been "reading" this.. National Enquirer?

[ZetecInside]

... Id love to see where youve been "reading" this.. National Enquirer?

Probably Fox News. Not that there's much of a difference between the two....

[EmoRebellion]

Probably Fox News. Not that there's much of a difference between the two....
Hey man, even the Nat. Enq. doesnt enter the same league as fox news..

[STS-ZX2SR]

... Id love to see where youve been "reading" this.. National Enquirer?

http://www.inlibertyandfreedom.net/



Obama's Not Exactly's:

1.) Selma Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965. (Google'Obama Selma' for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.)

2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.

3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - NOT EXACTLY, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.

4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Oba ma, is Odinga's follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Check out the following link for verification of that....and for more. Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers have burned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter.. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth.

5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.

6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama. Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). From....and for more....go to.....http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml?Barack_Hussein_Obama_- _Arab-American,_only_6.25%25_African

7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office. 4-3-08 Article "Obama was 'quite religious in islam'" http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559

8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book). February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset." This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says "Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts."

9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could speak the language.

10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.

11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.

12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.

13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - NOT EXACTLY, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.

14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.

15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - NOT EXACTLY, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.

16.) Voting "Present" is Common In Illinois Senate - NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.

17.) Oops, I Misvoted - NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.

18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.

20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - NOT EXACTLY, you didn't write it, introduce it, change it, or create it.

21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish.

22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.

23.) I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.

24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.

25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.

26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.

27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - NOT EXACTLY, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.

28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Candian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.

29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel.

30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY, you said let the delegates decide.

31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.

32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - NOT EXACTLY, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.

33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - NOT EXACTLY, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.

34.) I Don't Take PAC Money - NOT EXACTLY, you take loads of it.

35.) I don't Have Lobbysists - NOT EXACTLY, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.

36.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.

37.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - NOT EXACTLY, you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.

38.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTLY, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it.

Carol Kalwa (304) 838-6652 "Qui non intelligit aut discat aut taceat" Who does not understand should either learn, or be silent

Obama / His Wife / Their Communist Theories

Michelle Obama visits Harrisburg
http://www.charlotte.com/109/story/572303.html
DAVID PERLMUTT
dperlmutt@charlotteobserver.com
HARRISBURG --
This was Michelle Obama's "mom time" in her husband's campaign for president.
She'd come Tuesday to meet with 50 working women who filled a room at a Harrisburg preschool, anxious to talk to Barack Obama's wife.
But they'd have to wait.
Instead, Michelle Obama swept into a classroom of children, ages 2 to 6, to read to them.
She asked for their names, and what they liked most about school. After reading "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie" and "Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?" she shouted "potty request!" for one child, and then declared hug time.
The children stormed her in a group hug.
Then it was on to hear concerns of the big people, before heading off to campaign events in Winston-Salem and Raleigh as part of a daylong tour of North Carolina.
It was Obama's first time ever in the state. She said she and her husband would be back many times before the May 6 primary.
"Every state is critical now," she told the Observer. "We want to win North Carolina."
As she's done elsewhere, Obama meets in roundtable discussions with working mothers, because she's a lawyer and mother of two daughters, ages 9 and 6.
"What this allows me to do is make sure that the policies that come out of the campaign, are fueled by people like you," she told her audience.
A panel of five women, each with young children at Dixon Academy, told Obama that the cost of living was taking its toll.
Kim Neely said groceries once cost $40 for a week of meals. Now it's triple that. Rising gas prices made it difficult to get to work. She and her husband work for the same company and worry outsourcing could kill their jobs.
Rebecca Allen, a registered veterinary technician, said her dog gets better health care than her family. "We'd like to have another child, but we have no maternity coverage and it would cost half of what I make in a year," said Allen, whose husband runs a small business.
Obama, like her husband a Harvard-trained lawyer, listened and then spoke off the cuff.
Most Americans, she said, don't want much.
"They don't want the whole pie," she told the women. "There are some who do, but most Americans feel blessed just being able to thrive a little bit. But that is becoming even more out of reach."
After law school, she and Barack were beset by loans they'd still be paying had her husband not written two best-sellers, "The Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams From My Father."
Those debts early in their marriage, she said, equips her husband to better understand the problems many Americans face.
Should she become first lady, she said she'd focus on family issues.
"If we don't wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership...for how we want this country to work, then we won't get universal health care," she said.
"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

SO - her plan is to take what little I have and give it to someone who works less - has made less effort to learn what I have learned - has less skills then I have but I AM TO SUPPORT THEM AND LOSE WHAT LITTLE I HAVE STRUGGLED FOR THROUGH MY OWN EFFORTS - a totally communist principal. Yup - we need THIS in the White House.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. The phrase summarizes the idea that, under a communist system, every person shall produce to the best of one's ability in accordance with one's talent, and each person shall receive the fruits of this production in accordance with one's need, irrespective of what one has produced. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society will produce; the idea is that there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.
The complete paragraph containing Marx's original statement of the creed is as follows:
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
Although Marx is popularly thought of as the author of the phrase, it has been widely speculated that he merely co-opted a term earlier used by other leaders of the communist movement. The slogan was first used by Louis Blanc in 1840, in "The organization of work", as a revision of a quote by the utopian socialist Henri de Saint Simon, who claimed that each should be rewarded according to how much they work. Despite the secular nature of Marxism, inspiration for this creed may have been drawn from the early Christian communism of the 1600s.
An earlier exposition of this idea, however, is found in the Bible, in Acts of the Apostles. Luke describes the organization of the first Christian congregations following the death of Jesus:
And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45)
...
Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (Acts 4:34-35)
This passage is important to Christian leftists. For further information see Christian communism, Christian socialism, Christian anarchism.
Debates on the phrase
Opponents of Marxism, for example Ayn Rand, have interpreted this statement as saying that people should receive as much as they ask for[citation needed], and they argue that the unproductive will ask for more than they produce, or more than they deserve (see for example "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand). In response, Marxists usually argue that needs are objective (and refer to such things as food, shelter, education and medical care), and that they are more or less equal between members of the general population. Since communism entails the abolition of private property, it would be impossible for people to hoard things that they do not actually need. In a propertyless society, most objects would be shared; when one person is not using such an object, someone else may pick it up and use it.
However Marxists do accept that some people need more resources than they can produce - for example the elderly or the chronically sick. The principle assumes that such people have a right to these resources, whereas Ayn Rand (for example) specifically asserts that they do not.
Marx delineated the specific conditions under which such a creed would be applicable - a society where technology and social organization had substantially eliminated the need for physical labor in the production of things, where "labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want." Marx explained his belief that, in such a society, each person would be motivated to work for the good of society despite the absence of a social mechanism compelling them to work, because work would have become a pleasurable and creative activity. Marx intended the initial part of his slogan, "from each according to his ability" to suggest not merely that each person should work as hard as they can, but that each person should best develop their particular talents.
As the most prominent ostensible followers of the Marx' theory, the Soviet Union adopted the formula with substantial modification, namely: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work (labour investment)" suggesting that each participant of this social system must 'earn' the right for sharing the benefits of socialism, rather than just be enabled for their utilization. Marxist-Leninists later codified this as the principle of socialism, with "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" remaining the principle of communism.
Real-world examples
In 'primitive' societies
Marxists, as well as some anthropologists, have asserted that hunter-gatherer societies were characterised by a communal economic system. In Marxism this is called primitive communism.
The family
In general, there is a social expectation that parents should provide for their children - to the point that failing to do so is criminal - and that married adults should share their wealth with one another.
Some left-wingers have therefore suggested that the family is an example of communal economics. For example William Montgomery Brown wrote that
Always, because we were human, we have had to introduce cooperation, or we could not get along at all.
The family is just one instance. The institution of the family could thrive only as it adopted the principles of communism. The need of every member had to be considered, the various members as a rule learned family loyalty, family devotion, and family love. If these expressions are not as strong as they once were, it is not because human nature has changed but because there are so many human affairs nowadays that the family cannot attend to, and they have to be carried on by other organizations. [1]
Others argue that children, who are not ready to independently exercise their rights, "muddies" the example of the family as a communal society. In many societies children leave home when they come of age.
Communes
There have been a number of attempts to practice the principle in small groups, in the midst of societies based on other economic systems. These attempts have not necessarily been directly inspired by Marx or Marxism. For example see:
Diggers
Kibbutz
Anarchist Catalonia
Commune
In some cases the small-scale attempts are intended to be the catalyst for a change in the broader society. Many critics of communal living don't object to voluntary experimentation. It is the forced (government force) commune or forced "sharing" that they object to.
In the mind of the U.S. public
A poll claimed that almost half the population of the United States believe that the U.S. Constitution is the source of Marx's phrase, "so obviously right does the sentiment seem"[1].
More broadly
Most communists and anarchists, as well as some socialists depending on how the term is defined, could be said to believe in a society whose economy would be based around the principle.
In addition there are a number of streams of thought which hold to a similar principle in a limited form. For example Catholic social teaching holds that everyone has the right to a basic standard of living, even if they are unable to earn it by their own efforts. Thus, for example, the able-bodied are bound to subsidize the handicapped. The idea of the welfare state is based on a similar idea, and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights asserts a similar "right to social security" [2].
] References
^ Noam Chomsky, Necessary Illusions, citing FAIR, Press Release, July 19, 1988. Poll on Constitution, Boston Globe Magazine, Sept. 13, 1987, cited by Julius Lobel, in Julius Lobel, ed., A Less than Perfect Union (Monthly Review, 1988, 3).

[EmoRebellion]

Wow there is so much BS in there I dont have time to reply to it all right now.. Someone help me out?

[ZetecInside]

Wow there is so much BS in there I dont have time to reply to it all right now.. Someone help me out?

No worries, pal. Snopes already has that bullshit on lockdown.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp

[Mike]

Just do a search on the internet...and you'll see. ;)

[phosphite]

No worries, pal. Snopes already has that bullshit on lockdown.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp

STS-ZX2SR just got majorly Snopes-owned!

[Buster]

Another Obama lie has surfaced.

He had been campaigning on fair financing of elections and said he'd accept money from the public financing and not from individual donors not bound by campaign finance laws, now has done the opposite. Rather than following the rules, he will forgo public election funds ($2000 contribution max) and accept money from anonymous private donors and lobbyists that can contribute as many millions as they'd like to try to defeat McCain. This includes George Soros. Also, Obama would now have no spending limit. He will now have unlimited funds and we will not know who is funding him or buying commercials to trash his opponent. This is more about breaking campaign laws or having an advantage over McCain, this is a sign that he will work in the shadows and in secret with whomever he can to get what he wants. It's very Clintonian, but possibly worse. At least if he has stuck to his original promises to play by the rules, we'd have a public record of who is funding him.

More proof that Obama is NOT interested in changing the corrupt political system, because without it, he'd be nothing. Again he shows dishonesty and a severe lack of judgement.




http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121391903495590337.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks
A Reformer's Progress
June 20, 2008; Page A12

So much moral good was expected from "campaign-finance reform" that Barack Obama's announcement yesterday that he will opt out of public financing for his Presidential run is an historic moment. Senator Obama is the first candidate since the law was passed in the 1970s not to take matching funds for the general election. Even candidate George W. Bush, flush with cash in 2000 and 2004, didn't do that.

The campaign-finance law may have been on life support, but being the one who finally pulled the plug seems to have put the Illinois freshman in a churlish mood. "John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs," he explained. He expects "smears and attacks" from Mr. McCain's "allies" who will "spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations." In fact, they made him do it: "We face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system."

Is this the tone of the new postpartisan Obama era? One may wonder. The fact remains that the decision is a large and telling Obama flip-flop. He said early on that he would accept public financing for the general campaign, which runs between the conventions and November's vote. But this was back when he couldn't be sure he would be able to raise so much money by nonpublic means, or what he has since called his "parallel" public financing system.

Mr. Obama argues that his Internet-driven donations have come, not from lobbyists and PACs, but from small individual donors, and so this is sort of like "public" financing. By no coincidence this will give him a huge financial advantage over John McCain, who is expected to accept the public system's $84 million spending limit.

The campaign-finance laws have always been a monument to hypocrisy. Don't, however, expect the system's supporters in the nation's editorial pages or good-government groups to admit that Barack Obama has killed it. More likely they will express "disappointment" with his decision and suggest that he "fix" it – after he's President, most likely with more rules that will help incumbents and the well known or rich. The odds of Mr. McCain's friends from the McCain-Feingold crusade stepping forward to defend him against this Obama gambit are close to zero.

During the primaries, Senator Obama raised some $265 million, more than three times the public limit for the general campaign. The Democratic nominee should have little trouble duplicating this earlier achievement. By some estimates, he may be able to raise up to $500 million, which he hopes to use to drive Mr. McCain over a cliff.

By the way, MoveOn.org Political Action, an Obama ally not bound by public spending limits, began this week running an anti-McCain TV ad. The ad is co-sponsored by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the big public-employee union. It goes like this:

A young mother sits with her baby son on her lap and says: "Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And he's my first. . . . John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can't have him."

This is the reward Senator McCain gets for becoming the flag-bearer for the modern public-finance crusade. He is going to be hugely outspent, even as he is "attacked" by Mr. Obama, a candidate who entered the campaign as a "reformer" and who will no doubt end a half-billion dollars later proclaiming himself to be even more of a reformer.



See the arrogant announcement here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/06/obama_announces_opting_out_of.html

[EmoRebellion]

No worries, pal. Snopes already has that bullshit on lockdown.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp
That is awesome! :supernana:

[ZetecInside]

Buster (for once) posted something critical about Obama that is actually accurate and not based on ridiculous internet rumors.

Obama's rejection of public financing is opportunistic and his rational for doing so is dishonest and illogical. The public finance system may be "broken", but it hasn't changed in the months since Obama pledged to follow it. He's only changing his tune now because of the enormous funding advantage he now has over McCain. If their respective war chests were roughly equal, you bet your ass Obama would accept the public funds.

Granted, Obama is no worse than any other politician out there. He saw an opportunity, and he took it. (McCain would have done the same thing if the situation were reversed). But this act should be a wake up call to all those harboring messianic delusions about Obama.

THAT's something legitimate to discuss, not the continuous regurgitation of nonsensical, debunked rumors like what STS-ZX2SR posted.

[PHeller]

I don't quite understand what the big deal is. Why can't the guy choose who he wants to take funding from?

I would like to see equal and unbiased criticisms of some of Obama opinions/views/ideas for the nation, instead of the same old "he's a terrorist" or "we can't trust him, we can't even say his name".

No-one ever brings up what beneficial or detrimental things he's voted on, nor opinions he's shared that aren't aligned with the American public.

Yet when it comes to McCain, we can pick out all kinds of bad ideas (gas tax holiday, not talking to aggressive nations, increasing tax-cuts, decreasing funding for public mass-transit and other alternative fuel research).

If you don't want to vote for Obama because he doesn't have a track record, FINE, but don't not vote for him because BS reasons that aren't true.

That's like me discounting McCain because he got divorced, or was an alcoholic, or because he was very close with Rev. John Hagee. None of those issues would play any part in my voting or not voting for him.

[Buster]

I'll make this as simple as I can:

Public funding = Regulated, has limits for each donor, must be made public record, we'll know who is funding campaign.

Denial of public funding/going private = Unregulated, unlimited per donor, can be kept hidden from public knowledge and official record, George Soros. Even if not trying to actively hide who's funding, this gives appearance of being sneaky and hiding his associations. Also, leaves candidate open to "owing" who gives more money because millions/billions can be given with the expectation of reciprocation. With public funding, all donors are known and held to equal maximum contributions. Also, this takes power away from voters and concentrates influence to a limited few that are wealthier.

[Buster]

This is far from a "BS issue that is untrue".

First of all, it's ABSOLUTELY true and clear to everyone who is not a blind apologist that Obama is circumventing laws and apparently ready (or already has) taken unlimited money that is given with the sole intention to influence the election rather than to show support his campaign.

When voters are excluded from the election process because they are not billionaires, it's a travesty.

Also, Obama did a 180-degree turn from his prior promises.

He's not perfect. He DOES make mistakes and DOES have bad qualities, as does every candidate. However, Obama's mistakes are big ones. This is one of them. We can't trust him.

I've noticed that MANY, if not all Republicans can criticize McCain. I'm unhappy about having him as my only option to vote since Obama is completely not an option for the future of America. McCain is slightly better.

However, I can't find any Obama supporters who can say ANYTHING critical about him. They not only deny everything, but they get very belligerent and feel the need to return fire to try to apply the same to McCain. Example is trying to compare being in Wright's church for 20 years, listening to sermons, getting married and baptized by the man, taking him on campaign events up until official declaration, contributing money to his church and being very close acquaintances to...McCain getting an endorsement from a pastor who he's never sat in a church with in his life and didn't even know his teachings. You can reject an endorsement from someone you've never met...but it's tough to do that when you've had a close personal relationship with the person for 20 years. How many times are we going to take Obama's word when he says "That's not the person I knew." He's done it for Jeremiah Wright, Tony Resko, William Ayers..who's next, his wife?

He speaks like a preacher (trained by Rev. Wright probably) and he is followed like he is Jesus himself. It's sickening and dangerous how protected he is.

[ZetecInside]

...McCain getting an endorsement from a pastor who he's never sat in a church with in his life and didn't even know his teachings. You can reject an endorsement from someone you've never met...

While the McCain/Hagee relationship is nowhere near as close as the Obama/Wright relationship, to imply that McCain and Hagee were practically strangers is simply not accurate. McCain had been actively courting Hagee's endorsement for at least a year and a half prior to their relationship becoming a national news story. He personally visited Hagee at his church in San Antonio in early 2007, and had other subsequent meetings with him during the campaign. Hagee also helped organize a convention reception for McCain and introduced him at a campaign stop in North Carolina.

I personally find it hard to believe that neither McCain, nor anyone on his staff had any inkling of Hagee's more extreme beliefs during their association over this period. And if they didn't, it means they are not a very thorough organization - Hagee wrote books on this stuff. Do you really want a president who is this clueless?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/135385

[PHeller]

It doesn't matter. I don't give a crap about personal lives so long as they don't affect professional lives. Neither of these men seem to be affected by their personal lives, so why do we keep bringing them up?

[Buster]

It doesn't matter. I don't give a crap about personal lives so long as they don't affect professional lives. Neither of these men seem to be affected by their personal lives, so why do we keep bringing them up?

You honestly don't believe someone contributing millions to a campaign wouldn't affect his job and decisions?

Forgot about the Clinton pardons already?

[ZetecInside]

Forgot about the Clinton pardons already?


Or the Reagan & Bush I pardons?


Oh wait, I forgot. You don't like to mention the indiscretions of non-Democrats.

[Buster]

Or the Reagan & Bush I pardons?


Oh wait, I forgot. You don't like to mention the indiscretions of non-Democrats.

G.W. Bush = 157
Clinton = 456 (141 in final hours of Admin.)
G.H.W. Bush = 75
Reagan = 406
Carter = 534


Oh, wait, you're wrong.

[Mike]

PREACH on Buster!

[ZetecInside]

G.W. Bush = 157
Clinton = 456 (141 in final hours of Admin.)
G.H.W. Bush = 75
Reagan = 406
Carter = 534


Oh, wait, you're wrong.

Wrong about what? I never said that Reagan or Bush I pardoned more people than Clinton.

You mentioned that an official will often act in the interests of their campaign contributors and/or personal friends, regardless of whether it is an ethical or responsible thing to do. You cited the Clinton pardons (presumably referring to people such as Marc Rich, Susan McDougal, Roger Clinton, etc) as evidence of this.

Predictably, you failed to mention the fact that many Republican presidents including Ronald Reagan and GHW Bush did the exact same thing. Ronald Reagan pardoned George Steinbrenner (at the time still a major Republican donor) for conspiring to make illegal contributions to Richard Nixon's presidential campaign in the 70's. In 1992, GHW Bush pardoned 6 officials involved in the Iran-Contra scandal from the Reagan/Bush administration. Bush I also pardoned Armand Hammer, an oil tycoon convicted of campaign money laundering in 1975. His pardon was granted a few months after Hammer donated $100K to the RNC and another $100K to the Bush/Quayle inauguration committee.

By referring solely to the "Clinton Pardons" as an example of improper donor influence, you are implying that he was the only president guilty of this, which is not true.

[Buster]

Jesse Jackson wants to cut Obama's nuts off.


http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/09/jesse-jackson-apologizes-for-obama-remarks/

[ChrisK]

nice

[JonsZX2SR]

Jesse Jackson wants to cut Obama's nuts off.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/09/jesse-jackson-apologizes-for-obama-remarks/

He's jealous because his don't work anymore... :rofl:

[Buster]

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a300/stitchjones/automotivatorjessejackson.jpg

[af3ll]

It's about time something happens to Jesse Jackson. I hate that racist piece of shit.

[jombee]

It's about time something happens to Jesse Jackson. I hate that racist piece of shit.

Black people aren't racist, that's a very intolerant thing to even say.

You must be racist.

/sarcasm

[af3ll]

It annoys me that he and Al Sharpton always get away with things. It's good to see something happen to him.

[Buster]

I heard that Don Imus called for Jesse Jackson to be suspended from his radio show.


Funny, but does prove a point.

[af3ll]

Here are some of Obama's views on the military:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/07/military_obama_issues_070708/

Sen. Barack Obama’s positions on some key issues:

IRAQ PULLOUT:
Obama wants to remove forces from Iraq at one to two brigades a month. At that pace, the pullout would be complete in 16 months. He says, however, that meeting that timetable will depend on the situation on the ground. At the conclusion of the drawdown, Obama says, a small force will remain, focused on guarding U.S. diplomats and counter-terrorism. He has often been quoted as saying, “We should be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in.”

AFGHANISTAN BUILDUP:
Two more brigades would be sent to Afghanistan to fight the growing threat from the Taliban.

END STRENGTH
Obama supports the drive to grow the Army by 65,000 soldiers and add 27,000 Marines to the Marine Corps. He has not staked out a position on the sizes of the Navy and Air Force. The Navy is drawing down. The Air Force was shrinking, but that was halted recently.

STOP-LOSS:
He would seek to end the policy for reservists and active-duty troops.

MILITARY FAMILIES:
Obama would create a Military Families Advisory Board to cut burdens on spouses and families.

PAY RATES:
He plans to bring basic pay levels in line with the private sector. The campaign has not released specifics.

“DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL”:
Obama would work to repeal the controversial law governing gays in the military. He said the law has deprived the armed services of troops with crucial skills.

GUARD AND RESERVES:
Obama wants them to deploy one year out of every six years, and cap cumulative deployment time at 24 months.

VETERANS:
Troops coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan would have mental health screeners in every state. Veterans also would have up to five years to enroll to receive care from the Veterans Affairs Department, versus the two years now allowed.

WEAPONS PROGRAMS:
All major programs would be re-evaluated based on current and future needs. Trade-offs would be made between systems designed for the Cold War and other new aircraft, such as unmanned aerial vehicles and cargo and refueling aircraft. Although not going into specifics, Obama called for “unparalleled air power capabilities,” adding that “relying solely on old systems from a past century will not suffice.” Obama calls for modernizing current ships and investing in small, capable combatants. He supports the concept of the Littoral Combat Ship program.

PRIVATE CONTRACTORS:
Obama calls for greater accountability and oversight for private contractors, especially those who are working in a war zone, and would require the Defense Department to decide “where contracting makes sense and where it doesn’t.”