Obama supporters. I have one question

scubadoo

Active Member
oscardeuce;2498298 said:
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2498245
.
Obama and Hillary are both Socialists. This election isn't between Republicans and Democrats, it's between Captialism and Socialism.
QUOTE]
I've been beating that drum for a week or more!

You will not get a Hillary or Obama supporter to admit either candidate is a socilast or supports socialism with some or all of their positions. Perhaps those that actually are socialist would admit it.
Heck, Barry has campaigned and supported candidates that have gone on the record and stated they are socialist. What more proof does one need?
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2498338
Must have been a typo - send in a suggestion to the publisher for a correction
I understand you are a bean counter and deal with absolutes. How many times are you going to count your same beans and spout the same results?
You brought the subject up again.
 

reefraff

Active Member
McCain didn't think the Bush tax cuts were the best way to go. He still says he would vote the same way if he had it to do over because he thinks his idea was better. He has also been voting to make the cuts permanent since 2005 because he realizes raising taxes at this point would be harmful to the economy. I have no problem with that point of view.
Here is McCain's 2000 proposal
http://www.ctj.org/html/mcca00pr.htm
Not really sure if it would have done better than Bushes or not but he was in favor of tax cuts.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by fish master
http:///forum/post/2498242
Our Boy Came Home From School Today And Said Go Obama,we Were So Sad.how Could Anyone Want Him To Win. You Cant Put Someone In The White House With No Experience.i Cant Believe People Are So Stupid.he Keeps Saying We Need Change But Doesnt Tell How Hes Going To Change.hes Got The Gift To Gap,thats It.if He Makes President We Are All Going To Be In Trouble.when You Have Someone Like Jesse Jackson Backing You,it Cant Be Good.i Personaly Think He Is The Anti Crist
I'd be for finding out who's feeding him the political info at school. If its the other kids fine but you don't have to tolerate that from teachers. My kid went through a pretty decent school where that wasn't too common. I know a couple of people who had issues with the same teacher saying stuff. They finally called her on it. Principle reluctantly had to back the parents. No reason for an english teacher to be talking politics.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2497781
Of course "voting for the lesser of two evils" is the appropriate thing to do.
It took me a while to come to that conclusion, but imho, the damage that would be done to our Democracy under Obama or Clinton needs to be voted against. No matter what.
I agree....one of the most important issues for me is national security and the war on terror. I believe McCain to be strongest on this issue.
I've gone on record and stated that I do not support McCain 100% on all issues. Also, the far left views and positions of Obama/Hillary I believe are bad for the country. The surrender message they would send to the terrorists also is troubling in my view. The socialists views/positions of Hillary/Barry are disturbing.
McCain is right on enough issues for me to justify my vote. I'd have no room to complain or cast stones at a Barry or Hillary presidency if I did not participate in the process .
In the end...the decision is quite easy for me.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2498193
I have read that also - how many more are left of the 129 total just to get those out of the way -then we can start on the other 4000 that were yes and no, correct?
NY Times
“If you are worried about your next election, the present vote gives you political cover,” said Kent D. Redfield, a professor of political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield. “This is an option that does not exist in every state and reflects Illinois political culture.”

Among those, Mr. Obama did not vote yes or no on a bill that would allow certain victims of sexual crimes to petition judges to seal court records relating to their cases. He also voted present on a bill to impose stricter standards for evidence a judge is permitted to consider in imposing a criminal sentence.
On the --- crime bill, Mr. Obama cast the lone present vote in a 58-to-0 vote.
In 2000, Mr. Obama was one of two senators who voted present on a bill on whether facts not presented to a jury could later be the basis for increasing an offender’s sentence beyond the ordinary maximum.
State Representative Jim Durkin, a Republican who was a co-sponsor of the bill, said it was intended to bring state law in line with a United States Supreme Court decision that nullified a practice of introducing new evidence to a judge in the sentencing phase of the trial, after a jury conviction on other charges.
The bill sailed through both chambers. Out of 174 votes cast in the House and Senate, two were against and two were present, including Mr. Obama’s.
“I don’t understand why you would oppose it,” Mr. Durkin said. “But I am more confused by a present vote.”
Mr. Obama was also the sole present vote on a bill that easily passed the Senate that would require teaching respect for others in schools.
An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way.
In more than 50 votes, he seemed to be acting in concert with other Democrats as part of a strategy.

Forgot to mention this was also covered earlier in the thread with a journey posting and also has been covered. But, you did want to discuss it yet again.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
http:///forum/post/2498462
... The surrender message they would send to the terrorists also is troubling in my view. ....
Even more disturbing is what it would say to our allies: "Don't count on the USA, if things get tough they're out of here".
The sad thing is, of course, the war in Iraq, statistically, is an amazing success. Taken in context, for instance, we had 2500 soldiers killed landing on Normandy the first day.
My head still spins when I think of Barak's "I would send troops back to Iraq if Al Qaeda was establishing a base there..." comment.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2498555
My head still spins when I think of Barak's "I would send troops back to Iraq if Al Qaeda was establishing a base there..." comment.
I certainly do not know for sure...but I'll take a stab at it. He probably was trying to demonstate he would be tough on terrorism with "words" . His judgemnt in making that statment certianly can be questioned. His statement also defies logic...or at least my logic. He'll have to defend that position/statement in the general should he make it. It does demonstrate a flaw in thinking and in position at a minimum IMO.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
On the first debate, the first question to Obama should be. "Will you Define what in your mind a base is with regards to Al Qaeda?"
That question alone will move 50% of the moderates and independents away from him.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2498655
On the first debate, the first question to Obama should be. "Will you Define what in your mind a base is with regards to Al Qaeda?"
That question alone will move 50% of the moderates and independents away from him.
Naturally, I do not know for sure but I believe that statement was not in the "script". It was simply stated to deliver the message...I will be tough on terrorism. Of couse, maybe I am given Barry too much credit...perhaps he is just "lost" and/or inexperienced on national security and how to fight terrorism (see post and position of Barry on healthcare offerings and other social programs to terrorists)
 

scubadoo

Active Member
I've been given another matter some thought...
Obama claims he NEVER would and/or did support the war..although many libs at one time did support the war. Assuming he had no additional access to intel as a Illinios Senator (how could he)...how did he arrive at this decision?
More importantly...fast forward....If he is elected president..and he is given intel regarding Iran and WMDor some other country and/or group ......what will he do? Look back at the above and ask that q? The answer I arrived at is troubling.

I know he's made statements...but I'm not so sure he would follow through.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Anyone who credits Obama with having good judgement because he opposed the war isn't thinking things through. For all he knew at that time we had sat pictures of nuclear missile silos being built there. Hell, as I remember only 6 senators even bothered to read the classified info for themselves. That is why I don't have any respect for those who say they were against the war from the start. Ted Kennedy was against the war but he was certain Iraq had WMD's. Go figure, Al Qeada was known to have contacts with Iraq and before the invasion there was no way we could know if anything came or would come of it but Kennedy and Obama wanted to let Blix stumble around the desert for another 7 or 8 years while Hussein gamed the oil for food program.
 

eddiesick

New Member
oscar deuce.
I dont mean to hijack the thread
Today I drilled some liverock it was more base rock. their was some white dry powder emitting from it. I inhaled some. Now I am in the emrgerncy room (they admitted me to a room). My wife was upstairs she came down with the same symptoms but not as bad. Dog puked.......long story short doctors dont know what is wrong with me. This is not a joke.
got a 101.8 fever...cough bad....ache all over....
they said it was the flu....gave me steroids..cant break the fever...
please email me
at
etutwiler@gmail.com
 

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by SH2000
http:///forum/post/2498839
I don't vote. never did never will

Wrong answer. I really would rather have you vote for Obama or Clinton than not vote at all.
I heard on the radio, Ohio was adding extra machines and poll workers for the expected "heavy" turn out.... 52% of registered voters. That really makes me sick.
Vote, vote for whomever, but vote. At least write me in.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2498903
Wrong answer. I really would rather have you vote for Obama or Clinton than not vote at all.
I heard on the radio, Ohio was adding extra machines and poll workers for the expected "heavy" turn out.... 52% of registered voters. That really makes me sick.
Vote, vote for whomever, but vote. At least write me in.
Every American should educate themselves on the issues and vote.
It's sad when people say Democracy will never work, yet they have better turn outs to their elections then we do...
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
http:///forum/post/2498726
I've been given another matter some thought...
Obama claims he NEVER would and/or did support the war..although many libs at one time did support the war. Assuming he had no additional access to intel as a Illinios Senator (how could he)...how did he arrive at this decision?
More importantly...fast forward....If he is elected president..and he is given intel regarding Iran and WMDor some other country and/or group ......what will he do? Look back at the above and ask that q? The answer I arrived at is troubling.

I know he's made statements...but I'm not so sure he would follow through.
That is a mildly funny thought, he didn't have the ability to vote when those 2 senate bills went through congress authorizing the use of force.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Michelle Obama: "Don't Go Into Corporate America" [Byron York]
I have a new story today about Michelle Obama's visit to Zanesville, Ohio, where she met with a group of women at a local day care center. According to the U.S. Census, Muskingum County, where Zanesville is located, had a median household income of $37,192 in 2004, below both the Ohio and national averages. Just 12.2 percent of adults in the county have a bachelor's degree or higher, also well below the state and national averages. About 20 percent don't have a high school degree. Nevertheless, Mrs. Obama urged them to foreswear lucrative professions like corporate law or hedge fund management and go into the helping industry, even if the sacrifice is great:
As she has many times in the past, Mrs. Obama complains about the lasting burden of student loans dating from her days at Princeton and Harvard Law School. She talks about people who end up taking years and years, until middle age, to pay off their debts. “The salaries don’t keep up with the cost of paying off the debt, so you’re in your 40s, still paying off your debt at a time when you have to save for your kids,” she says.
“Barack and I were in that position,” she continues. “The only reason we’re not in that position is that Barack wrote two best-selling books… It was like Jack and his magic beans. But up until a few years ago, we were struggling to figure out how we would save for our kids.” A former attorney with the white-shoe Chicago firm of Sidley & Austin, Obama explains that she and her husband made the choice to give up lucrative jobs in favor of community service. “We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do,” she tells the women. “Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond.” Faced with that reality, she adds, “many of our bright stars are going into corporate law or hedge-fund management.”
What she doesn’t mention is that the helping industry has treated her pretty well. In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office. And that does not count the money Mrs. Obama receives from serving on corporate boards. She would have been O.K. even without Jack’s magic beans.
Mrs. Obama also bemoaned the amount of money she has to spend — nearly one-third of the median household income in Zanesville — on piano, dance, and other lessons for her two children. But she was grateful for the concern her husband's supporters have shown for her. "Everywhere I go, no matter what, the women in the audience, their first question for me is, 'How on earth are you managing it, how are you keeping it all together?'" she told the women.
 

zman1

Active Member
Wow, I was just searching for some info on McCain. I didn't look at the web site, for a little bit I thought it was a Democratic anti-McCain Web site. Turns out a be a conservative site.
What could be wrong with a presidential candidate who is a longtime Republican senator from a conservative state, a certified war hero with a great smile and a wisecracking sense of humor? Nothing at all, except the last time one ran against a Clinton, he ended up filming

[hr]
commercials while Bill was rehearsing his inaugural address.
The media have created the fiction that Sen. John McCain, alone among the Republican candidates, can beat Hillary or Obama this fall. This is a fiction because only a conservative can unite the Republican Party this year and win. Call him “maverick”, call him “independent,” but please don’t call McCain “conservative.”
“McCain's apostasies are too numerous to actually count.” And what McCain says about his record is astonishingly misleading.
In recent debates McCain has said he voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts because they weren’t accompanied by sufficient spending cuts. But in a Senate floor speech in 2001 his reasons were pulled from the Democrats’ playbook. He said, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.” In 2004 he said he was against making the tax cuts permanent. Now he says he favors permanence.
In speeches and debates this year McCain has said – again and again – that he has “learned the lesson” of the failed McCain-Kennedy-Bush illegal immigration “reform” bill he fought so hard for last year. (That failed bill is one of the major points in the New York Times’ endorsement of McCain over his Republican competitors, saying he, “…risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate.”) Fundamental American values are conservative values. Granting permanent resident “Z visas” and citizenship to illegal immigrants contradicts those values.
The hyperliberal editors of the New York Times liked McCain’s illegal immigration bill so much, they mentioned it twice in the endorsement, praising him for being, “…a staunch advocate of campaign reform working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform.”
When would a conservative be endorsed by the New York Times over other Republican candidates? To borrow a phrase from Mr. McCain, “when pigs fly.”
Because his politics is based on collaboration with liberals McCain is a divider of Republicans, not a unifier. He is the same gentleman who -- defending his McCain-Kennedy-Bush “comprehensive immigration reform” -- screamed “f*#@% you” at Texas Republican John Cornyn, one of the bill’s leading opponents. He’s also told Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter that he was a colorful anatomical term and referred to Sen. Charles Grassley a “#$%^#*^ jerk.” It is difficult to even deal with people you abuse. Unifying them is impossible.
One Senate source I spoke with said that there was probably more than one Republican senator who was supporting McCain’s presidential bid just to get rid of him.
 
Top