Obama supporters. I have one question

[darthtang aw]

Ok, I atleast feel a little bit better, not much. But a little.
My question is this,
"In ending the war, we must act with more wisdom than we started it. That is why my plan would maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq. But we must recognize that al Qaeda is not the primary source of violence in Iraq, and has little support -- not from Shia and Kurds who al Qaeda has targeted, or Sunni tribes hostile to foreigners. On the contrary, al Qaeda's appeal within Iraq is enhanced by our troop presence."
Um, we had to increase troop levels to curb and slow down the violence created by extremists. Hence the surge, so how is he going to bring troops home yet retain enough troops to counter act violence and terrorists?

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Vinnyl
http:///forum/post/2471412
I have to agree w/ renogaw. We are dealing with things that are a bit more urgent than bin laden. Do a quick research on inventors evasion… or foreclosures for example. I’d be a bit more concern with things that can affect our lives immediately such as Hillary’s universal health care plan. I am still debating between Obama or McCain, but one thing I know…. Hillary is not getting my vote.
Darthtang… I respect your point, but I hope you not basing your vote on only “one” statement.
Ps: humm... we found Hussein in a little underground hole... yet we can't find bin laden??
"There are more things between heaven and earth then dreamed of in your philosophy.
" - Shakespeare
God Bless America
No, I am basing most of my voting this election based on who is not going to cost the country the most monety and at the same time keep us as safe from Terrorists as possible without turning a blind eye to the issue. To be completely honest my quality fo living has only gone up each year for the past 15 years...it has nothing to do with presidential candidates or the "domestic" issues.

 

[rylan1]

McCain speech:
"To enumerate the strategic interests at stake in Iraq does not address our moral obligation to a people we liberated from Saddam Hussein's tyranny. I suspect many in this audience, and most members of Congress, look back at America's failure to act to prevent genocide in Rwanda with shame. I know I do. And yet I fear the potential for genocide and ethnic cleansing in Iraq is even worse. The sectarian violence, the social divisions, the armaments, the weakened security apparatus of the state - all the ingredients are there. Unless we fight to prevent it, our withdrawal will be coupled with a genocide in which we are complicit. Given our security interests and our moral investment in Iraq, so long as we have a chance to prevail we must try to prevail. As General Petraeus has repeatedly stated, it will be several months or more before we know with any confidence whether we can turn this war around. Elements of the new civil-military strategy are still being drafted, almost half of the additional troops have yet to arrive, and many of the new civilians have yet to take up their posts. We are off to a good start, but significant results will take time."
My issue with this statement is that genocide is still currently happening in Africa in Congo and Sudan. In Kenya they are fighting because of the democratic elections that people say were rigged. There is a clear contradiction and is hypocritical because he is saying he wants to avoid a possible genocide in Iraq, but says nothing about the one that is currently going on that is a result of islamist extremists in the Sudan.
He also wants to send more troops to Iraq, not Afganistan

 

[renogaw]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2471424
Why does Barak and Hillary continue to punish up ward mobility, education and income? Is it not the American dream to become wealthy, to move up the ladder? Then why a "progressive" tax code? Why punish me for 12 years of education after high school. Why punish me for working hard and making a good living. Am I not a "working man" just because I am educated and in a "white collar" job? does working 60-80 hours a week not qualify me a a "working man"? Both Barrak and Hillary have made it clear they play from the "from each according to his means..to each according to his needs" Socialist playbook. If they conintue to spend, and both Barak and Hillary have healthcare costs which would bankrupt us, the according to the GAO, by 2040 we will no longer be able to do anything other than make interest payments on out debt.
Think hard before you vote, do we need bigger more "progressive" government, or do we need to fall back on the faith the Founding Fathers had in the People, and the documents setting forth a limited government. Unfortunately, no candidate is running for the Constitutionalist party.
well, the problem is democratic party cators to the poor...but that's politics 101 and you shoulda known that LOL. the REASON though is because the rich have more money so they should have to pay more taxes.

 

[renogaw]

Originally Posted by renogaw
http:///forum/post/2471430
well, the problem is democratic party cators to the poor...but that's politics 101 and you shoulda known that LOL. the REASON though is because the rich have more money so they should have to pay more taxes.
and btw, that's the democratic mindset, not mine.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2471424
Why does Barak and Hillary continue to punish up ward mobility, education and income? Is it not the American dream to become wealthy, to move up the ladder? Then why a "progressive" tax code? Why punish me for 12 years of education after high school. Why punish me for working hard and making a good living. Am I not a "working man" just because I am educated and in a "white collar" job? does working 60-80 hours a week not qualify me a a "working man"? Both Barrak and Hillary have made it clear they play from the "from each according to his means..to each according to his needs" Socialist playbook. If they conintue to spend, and both Barak and Hillary have healthcare costs which would bankrupt us, the according to the GAO, by 2040 we will no longer be able to do anything other than make interest payments on out debt.
Think hard before you vote, do we need bigger more "progressive" government, or do we need to fall back on the faith the Founding Fathers had in the People, and the documents setting forth a limited government. Unfortunately, no candidate is running for the Constitutionalist party.
When it comes to fiscal spending... Bush has got us into this situation we are in now so blame him and the GOP for allowing our debt to reach its current all-time level. If we are going to wage a war we can't reduce taxes to the extent that we have...its not fiscally responsible... its like Bush is using someone elses credit card and doesn't care how much he spends. I also don't think you are being punished. IMO if you are rich you will probably maintain the same lifestyle w/o out the cuts. 2nd, the cuts were a gift... stopping them restores the previous status quo which says you should pay what you are supposed to pay. To get out the mess we are in we are going to have to increase some taxes... as much as I want all the tax breaks I can get... its in the best interest of the nation. One other point is that much of Obama's support is from wealthier people, while Clinton's is from lower income people.

 

[itom37]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2471144
Ok I just spent the last few hours looking over Obama's polotics at his website. I poured through every issue he has posted. And ONE thing stuck out at me. ONE MAJOR thing.
The major gripe about Iraq is we took our eye off the ball and didn't pursue Osama and Al qaeda as hard as you would have liked in Afghanistan. We didn't capture Bin laden...yadda yadda yadda.
Yet after looking at his site and reading. I didn't find one single mention of chasing bin laden, capturing him. Fighting Al Qaeda/islmaic terrorist or anything similar. He touches on Iraq (pull out), Iran (diplomacy/sanctions) and Isreal (more diplomacy)
BUT NOTHING ON BIN LADEN!
THIS SHOULD GIVE YOU PAUSE FOR CONCERN AS IF HE DOESN'T MENTION IT, IT ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR HIM, WHICH IS SCARY.
I would sooner vote for hilary (and I can't stand her) than Obama as she atleasts addresses these issue. Your candidate doesn't even touch on him....why is that? If I missed the info on his site, please post me a link.
I'm a Hillary supporter, but I'm fine with Obama. I'm not nuts about Obama's withdrawl plan, but you can't win em all. Now to your question: Bin laden is a symbol of radical islamic extremism to the united states. His capture would be great for our morale in this war, but I think it would change very little. Surely it's not bin Laden fighting us in the middle east... it's those who oppose us and our presence. I believe bin Laden as a target is implied in fighting terrorism as a symbolic goal, but to have our pursuit of him a large determinant of policy is crazy talk. We're not spending hundreds of billions (...trillions

) over there to get one guy, that's downright stupid.
So uh, yeah we need to get him, he's a jerk, but let's be sure to realize what an actual functional objective in the war on terror is and what's just a symbol.

 

[oscardeuce]

Well, define rich. As the IRS does, $150,000/year income is rich. Take away income tax FIC state and local tax, sales tax, property tax, gasoline tax, you name it and you are effectively making 45,000. So you're "the rich have enough money" argument is socialist propaganda. Yes, the Clintons are multimillionaires, and "have enough money". Bill Gates "has enough money". Heck, I'm still in debt from my education.
So, I make a good living, but thanks to the progressive (regressive) tax codes, I am NOT rich, and I do not have "enough money".
Big oil makes $0.09/ gallon, but the government makes between $0.25-0.55/ gallon. No risk is had by the government.
BTW after 6.7 TRILLION dollars we need to pull out of the war on poverty.
We need to stop spending like drunk Kennedys. On both sides. Stop the bridge to nowhere in Alaska, stop the pork, and get back to what the Constitution stated the role of the fed gov't is. "Provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare". it is NOT "promote the common defense, and provide general welfare".

 

[vinnyl]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2471428
No, I am basing most of my voting this election based on who is not going to cost the country the most monety and at the same time keep us as safe from Terrorists as possible without turning a blind eye to the issue. To be completely honest my quality fo living has only gone up each year for the past 15 years...it has nothing to do with presidential candidates or the "domestic" issues.
I'm happy to hear things are going well for you. Too bad I can say the same for most fellow americans.
"it has nothing to do with presidential candidates or the "domestic" issues" no comments on this one....

 

[rylan1]

A war on poverty solves many other problems... such as the the amount of $ for social programs such as welfare, unemployement. It also would decrease crime and drug use. It would promote a better family structure. It would give young people a better outlook on life and enhance the possibility for a college education. It also would increase the tax base and lastly it would boost and stabilze our economy.

 

[vinnyl]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2471459
Well, define rich. As the IRS does, $150,000/year income is rich. Take away income tax FIC state and local tax, sales tax, property tax, gasoline tax, you name it and you are effectively making 45,000. So you're "the rich have enough money" argument is socialist propaganda. Yes, the Clintons are multimillionaires, and "have enough money". Bill Gates "has enough money". Heck, I'm still in debt from my education.
So, I make a good living, but thanks to the progressive (regressive) tax codes, I am NOT rich, and I do not have "enough money".
Big oil makes $0.09/ gallon, but the government makes between $0.25-0.55/ gallon. No risk is had by the government.
BTW after 6.7 TRILLION dollars we need to pull out of the war on poverty.
We need to stop spending like drunk Kennedys. On both sides. Stop the bridge to nowhere in Alaska, stop the pork, and get back to what the Constitution stated the role of the fed gov't is. "Provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare". it is NOT "promote the common defense, and provide general welfare".

Great point!!

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by Vinnyl
http:///forum/post/2471505
I'm happy to hear things are going well for you. Too bad I can say the same for most fellow americans.
"it has nothing to do with presidential candidates or the "domestic" issues" no comments on this one....
Thats my point, it seems many people are out of touch on whats going on with the majority of americans, and base their decision solely on whats happening in their household. Crimzy brought this up earlier... for example Michigan, California, Ohio are leading states for foreclosures... and Michigan is in a recession....not to mention the buyout of possibably 70,000 workers who will be replaced with lower paid workers for GM.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by SigmaChris
http:///forum/post/2471402
Quote from http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/0...ma_the_w_1.php
It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; ...
The guy's an idiot.
We know Al Qaeda is in Iraq. We know we are at war with Al Qaeda. So Barak proposes leaving Iraq (where we know Al Qaeda is) to go looking for Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan...
Let me clarify: We LEAVE a battlefield where we are fighting Al Qaeda, to go into a terrain and political situation that is even more hostile to LOOK for Al Qaeda.
So, what happens if the fighting is more difficult in Afghanistan? Do we leave there and go LOOK for Al Qaeda in Hawaii or Guam?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2471507
A war on poverty solves many other problems... such as the the amount of $ for social programs such as welfare, unemployement. It also would decrease crime and drug use. It would promote a better family structure. It would give young people a better outlook on life and enhance the possibility for a college education. It also would increase the tax base and lastly it would boost and stabilze our economy.
We've been fighting the "War on poverty" since 1964. How much have we spent again?
*We still have unemployment
*We still have drug use
*We still have poor
*The family structure has actually declined (look at statistics for unwed mothers, single parent homes, etc.)
*Our economy continues to rise and fall based on global factors
I'm all for "cutting and running" from this war. We've been going at it for 44 years...

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2471510
...for example Michigan, California, Ohio are leading states for foreclosures... and Michigan is in a recession........
Any possibility home forclosures are based on record home ownerships?

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2471507
A war on poverty solves many other problems... such as the the amount of $ for social programs such as welfare, unemployement. It also would decrease crime and drug use. It would promote a better family structure. It would give young people a better outlook on life and enhance the possibility for a college education. It also would increase the tax base and lastly it would boost and stabilze our economy.
How has it made the family better? What? it hasn't? You say it has encouraged single parentage, no fathers in the home?
The family is worse thanks to the "great Society" Programs. Basically the Gonvernment provides where the Dad ( or Mom ) traditionally did. More people are murdered in Washington DC than in Baghdad ( we need to pull out of DC NOW!). People are more dependant on government assistance than themselves ( Katrina). After 6.7 Trillion none of the benchmarks you mention have been met. We need a timetable for the withdrawl from the war on poverty.

 

[sigmachris]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2471589
The guy's an idiot.
We know Al Qaeda is in Iraq. We know we are at war with Al Qaeda. So Barak proposes leaving Iraq (where we know Al Qaeda is) to go looking for Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan...
Let me clarify: We LEAVE a battlefield where we are fighting Al Qaeda, to go into a terrain and political situation that is even more hostile to LOOK for Al Qaeda.
So, what happens if the fighting is more difficult in Afghanistan? Do we leave there and go LOOK for Al Qaeda in Hawaii or Guam?
I'm not for pulling out of Iraq, that would mean 3,000 American lives lost in futility. I was just posting to Darth's original question on where is Obama's plan for getting Bin Laden. I may have issues with Bush's reasoning to go into Iraq, but it does seem that it made a nice theater to wage war there on not on Main Street USA.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by SigmaChris
http:///forum/post/2471653
I'm not for pulling out of Iraq, that would mean 3,000 American lives lost in futility. I was just posting to Darth's original question on where is Obama's plan for getting Bin Laden. I may have issues with Bush's reasoning to go into Iraq, but it does seem that it made a nice theater to wage war there on not on Main Street USA.
I know.. My comments were directed at Obama, not you

and the "theatre comment" you make is exactly right.
It's safer to fight overseas than in downtown Dallas. And it's easier to fight in Iraq than in Afghanistan (ask the Soviets)

 

[darthtang aw]

I would also like to point out Obama hasn't mentioned the war on terror or addressed it since that speech in fall/winter of 2007...4-5 months and not one peep, not one sound bite, and not even addressing it as an issue on his website....That is what makes me seriously wonder.
Hilary constantly addresses it, McCain addresses it, Obama....ignores it.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2471692
I would also like to point out Obama hasn't mentioned the war on terror or addressed it since that speech in fall/winter of 2007...4-5 months and not one peep, not one sound bite, and not even addressing it as an issue on his website....That is what makes me seriously wonder.
Hilary constantly addresses it, McCain addresses it, Obama....ignores it.
His logic, I'm sure, is that he can't be the "Candidate for Change" and talk about the war.
Darth, let's be honest, the first military issue that comes up and he'll wet himself. Then, after he changes clothes he'll call France and ask where they get all of their white colored flags from...