Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: soda72 on August 04, 2008, 05:22:15 PM
-
"If I am president, I will immediately direct the full resources of the federal government and the full energy of the private sector to a single, overarching goal –- in 10 years, we will eliminate the need for oil from the entire Middle East and Venezuela," Barack Obama just said during an address he's giving in Lansing, Mich
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/08/obama-says-he-h.html
I don't care much about the global warming reasons why this should be done, but If he can reduce our dependency on Middle East oil and Venezuela as promised he's got my vote.
:aok
-
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/08/obama-says-he-h.html
I don't care much about the global warming reasons why this should be done, but If he can reduce our dependency on Middle East oil and Venezuela as promised he's got my vote.
:aok
So how is he going to make "the full energy of the private sector to a single, overarching goal". He not being elected supreme ruler of.... ohh wait the coolaid drinkers think he is. My bad.
-
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/08/obama-says-he-h.html
I don't care much about the global warming reasons why this should be done, but If he can reduce our dependency on Middle East oil and Venezuela as promised he's got my vote.
:aok
HUH?
You actually believe his line of B.S.?
and you're going to support him ......
Even if it cost you some or all of your rights?
-
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/08/obama-says-he-h.html
I don't care much about the global warming reasons why this should be done, but If he can reduce our dependency on Middle East oil and Venezuela as promised he's got my vote.
:aok
[hijack]bye bye dancing kitty avatar :( [/hijack]
Obama is an idiot. He says hes gonna do it, but how? He plans to put a Tax on the oil companies so he can give every single person in the U.S. 1000$$ for needs.... :rolleyes:
-
Obama is an idiot. He says hes gonna do it, but how? He plans to put a Tax on the oil companies so he can give every single person in the U.S. 1000$$ for needs.... :rolleyes:
Yep - how pathetic is that ? "Vote for me folks, and I'll give ya a crisp $1000 bill".
It's WORSE than buying votes - because he's not even using his money ! He's raiding corporate funds as a personal slush fund to buy votes - it's reprehensible.
Those of us who work will pay for it at the pumps - when the Oil Companies pass the expense back to us.
-
Even if it cost you some or all of your rights?
Just curious. Which rights would those be that are effected?
-
GO OBAMA!!!! :rock :rock :rock
Glad to hear someone else here supports him, Soda.
Nice avatar btw :aok
<S>
Yossarian
-
GO OBAMA!!!! :rock :rock :rock
Glad to hear someone else here supports him, Soda.
Nice avatar btw :aok
<S>
Yossarian
Aren't you from england?
-
I'll wait for the Great Debate and let's see who comes out on top.
-
Aren't you from england?
Yes, BUT my parents are both American. Which means they get to vote for Obama :D
I'm only 16 though :(
-
Just curious. Which rights would those be that are effected?
2nd Amendment for starters
-
2nd Amendment for starters
EDIT: Personally, I don't really agree with the second amendment.
I think that many people are just too plain irresponsible to handle them, and to be trusted to have them. (see DickBong's post)
-
Just curious. Which rights would those be that are effected?
He is seriously into the P.C. BULL
So guessing the 1st and probably the 4th, but IMHO he would go after the 2nd BIGTIME...
He APPEARS to follow Billary's line of P.C. so your money will be going away as well....
-
To Obama haters...
The least you can hope for 2008-2010 is to have balance of power.
McCain with democrat majority of House and Senate
or
Obama with GOP majority of house and senate.
-
Oh well, what a loss. Sorry if I actually offend anyone by this, but if I'm just pissing you off I'm still sort of sorry, but not quite as sorry.
Anyway, I think the world's a better place without guns. Not always, sometimes they're necessary, but in a civilised country I don't believe they're necessary.
Yes because your ohh so much smarter than the founders. People this is a grade A example why teens can't vote.
-
To Obama haters...
The least you can hope for 2008-2010 is to have balance of power.
McCain with democrat majority of House and Senate
or
Obama with GOP majority of house and senate.
Here's the guy who wants obama to win so the blacks can't complain anymore. Great reason to vote for him no? numpty
-
Oh well, what a loss. Sorry if I actually offend anyone by this, but if I'm just pissing you off I'm still sort of sorry, but not quite as sorry.
Anyway, I think the world's a better place without guns. Not always, sometimes they're necessary, but in a civilised country I don't believe they're necessary.
insert your right foot in your mouth please.....guns dont kill...it's the idiots behind them that do
-
If you don't vot for Obama you are racist.
-
Yes because your ohh so much smarter than the founders. People this is a grade A example why teens can't vote.
I never said I was smarter then the Founders, nor do I think that I am. Partly because I am an American citizen, I really respect what they did, and I believe that the US Government system is the best in the world. However, I think that since America appears to have settled down and become more stable than it was at the time of its formation, it is no longer necessary to allow everyone to have guns. However, this is JUST my opinion.
Sorry for the hijack, but in a perfect world, nobody would have guns, and since nobody had guns, nobody else would need guns. However this is not a perfect world (duh). In England, all handguns are totally illegal, and the vast majority of firearms are strictly controlled (as far as I know). Whilst people still do have guns illegally in this country, far fewer people overall have guns, and as a result, there are far fewer instances of gun crime here than there are in the USA. I'm sure that the relative populations of these countries factors into this, but I doubt it does so too much.
[/hijack]
And about teenagers not being allowed to vote, I completely agree with that policy, largely because many people would be influenced by their parents at such an age (ok, this is a guess, but I still agree with it).
<S>
Yossarian
EDIT: Changed my previous post so it has a less aggressive tone.
-
Oh well, what a loss. Sorry if I actually offend anyone by this, but if I'm just pissing you off I'm still sort of sorry, but not quite as sorry.
Anyway, I think the world's a better place without guns. Not always, sometimes they're necessary, but in a civilised country I don't believe they're necessary.
HUH?
Why is the world a better off place without guns?
OH you bought into that P.C. BULL about being civilized means DISARMED.....
IMHO that is one of the silliest arguments I believe I've ever heard....
Run that line of B.S. by me again PLEASE I wanna read it again.
Cause to me a in truly civilized country you could own a tactical nuke and no one would worry.
IMHO It's NOT the weapons that are the problem in any society it's peoples attitudes.
Every society has a basic problem....
it ALWAYS contains a few barbarians.
These are the types that just don't understand civilization, and probably wouldn't like it if they did.
BUT they want to run it, or ruin it for others.
They just can't help themselves................ they want the government to control others for their sake. Always forgetting that when the government is given that much power it's going to eventually control them as well.
How does that go?
Here it is..................
"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking
others to live as one wishes to live." Oscar Wilde Anglo-
Irish author.
-
Personally, I don't think that is such a major issue.
[I think the world's a better place without guns. Not always, sometimes they're necessary, but in a civilised country I don't believe they're necessary.]
C'mon, this has got to be a troll. No one is that stupid.
-
Here's the guy who wants obama to win so the blacks can't complain anymore. Great reason to vote for him no? numpty
lol where did I say that I want obama to win.
I just said what the aftermath should be if he wins.
-
I edited that post that pissed everyone off so much...sorry about its retarded tone...
I still don't think that everyone should be allowed guns, however the reasons I gave in that other post were sort of half reasons.
EDIT: I'm going to remove/change the rest of that post.
-
If you don't vot for Obama you are racist.
Thats some stinky bait, even for you.
-
2nd Amendment for starters
Exactly how many of the democrat presidents have we had now and you still have your guns, yes?
Clinton had 8 years to do it and the best he could manage was a feel good law that was outright silly and ended up prevented you from owning a small percentage of guns based mostly on the way they looked.
One of your own, Republikan Governer of Kalifornia probably did more damage with his ammo ban.
Your guns arent going anywhere. Not By Obama anyway.
Not unless there is an overwhelming majority of Demoncrats in congress that would prevent any blockage by Republicants.
THERE is your real threat to the second.
Not Obama
There is about as much chance if not less of a chance of you loosing your guns as there is for Roe V wade being completely overturned.
Next to none
-
Those were my thoughts too, Bubi.
-
I think I will go with the old line
Let's make guns illegal so only the criminals have them. Now that is the kind of world I want. The kind where the only threat the criminals have is police who won't be there until after you are shot and killed.
Back on subject though, I wouldn't let some half witted promise from a politian whose only real goal is to get voted into office be a deciding factor. I am even going to go with Bronk in his balanced idea. We have seen more than once what happens when our Fed gov is mostly one party or another and that is also not a good situation.
I personally would love to see the parties done away. It seems now that our government is not run by or votes cast based on politians ideas of right and wrong which is the way I and manyof the people I know vote them in but by the party deciding what they want to see and the office holder goes with it so that he/she can be nominated again. At least that is how they act to me.
-
lol where did I say that I want obama to win.
I just said what the aftermath should be if he wins.
Obama will win but...
After that, I don't want to see blacks ever use the race card and victim card again. No more "but it's whitey's fault" for their social ills and their economic situation.
I'm Asian btw
Yup good reason to vote for him..... Numpty
-
Watch Carlos Mencias newer stand-up...some funny stuff...but it almost sounds true
-
The comment "obama will win" was based on the dynamics and attitude of the citizens 2-3 weeks ago, not my gut feelings.
-
It'll be Rodney King if you don't. :angel:
-
Yup good reason to vote for him. Numpty
He didnt say he wanted Obama to win. Just that he thought he would and what a side benifit of that win would be.
a side benifit I happen to agree with.
No more cop outs of "because I'm black"
That same old lame excuse will no longer be valid.
I dont want either candidate in. Buit It is more then likely that Obama will be Barring a major turnaround in the economy between now and November.
So in the event he does.
When life issues you a Lemon.
Make Lemonaid
Its not a reason to vote for him anymore then Mccain having been a POW 40 years ago is a reason to vote for him.
It would however be a way of looking on the bright side
-
The comment "obama will win" was based on the dynamics and attitude of the citizens 2-3 weeks ago, not my gut feelings.
It's what you said afterward that clues anyone paying attention what your motives are.
-
Yup good reason to vote for him..... Numpty
I'm still on the sidelines just like everyone else. I will wait for the debate to start. Like I said before whoever comes out on top on the debate will have my vote (based on sound plans, no BS) .
How bout you?
-
Brazil did it. Sounds like a decent goal to strive for. Are you guys saying you are FOR dependence on foreign oil?
-
The comment "obama will win" was based on the dynamics and attitude of the citizens 2-3 weeks ago, not my gut feelings.
LOL havent you figured it out yet.
The Obama paranoia around here has brought about the "If your not for us, your against us" mentality.
There is no inbetween.
Speak the truth,Or see the truth for what it is. And if its not Purely Anti Obama. Your an Obama lover
The one thing you cant be. Is unbias
:rolleyes:
-
If I am president, I will immediately direct the full resources of the federal government and the full energy of the private sector to a single, overarching goal –- in 10 years, we will eliminate the need for oil from the entire Middle East and Venezuela," Barack Obama just said during an address he's giving in Lansing, Michigan.
The "full resources" and "full energy" except that he won't allow off shore drilling, won't allow drilling in ANWR, won't allow new nuke powerplants, will raise taxes on the oil companies that will immediately passed on to the consumer, etc., etc., etc.
A shiny bauble really distracts some of you, doesn't it?
-
your bauble is blinding, Toad.
-
Oh, and the threat of the Obamessiah to the 2nd is not what he'll try to push through Congress.
The threat is that he will put extremely liberal judges on the SC and your rights will be abrogated from the bench. Think judges more liberal than John Paul Stevens. Not just the 2nd either. Recall that in two recent cases, Kelo v New London (eminent domain) and Gonzales v. Raich (medical marijuana) individuals lost rights and government powers expanded. In BOTH of those cases, the Liberal judges of the court provided the majority.
Now you can lose the nice house on the beach your great grandfather built because the City Council can decide that they'd get more taxes from having a developer put a McDonald's there.
Now, even though your state passes a medical marijuana law allowing use with a prescription, the Feds can still arrest you.
Go ahead, vote against individual freedom and rights; vote the Obamessiah. You'll get what you deserve.
-
I'm still on the sidelines just like everyone else. I will wait for the debate to start. Like I said before whoever comes out on top on the debate will have my vote (based on sound plans, no BS) .
How bout you?
Will that be the debates where they get the questions beforehand?
-
Brazil did it. Sounds like a decent goal to strive for. Are you guys saying you are FOR dependence on foreign oil?
Maybe they are against empty promises and plans that aren't realistic, no matter how wonderful they sound? Maybe they actually don't want a candidate who will tax the working citizens to the point they can't exist anymore?
-
Oh, and the threat of the Obamessiah to the 2nd is not what he'll try to push through Congress.
The threat is that he will put extremely liberal judges on the SC and your rights will be abrogated from the bench. Think judges more liberal than John Paul Stevens. Not just the 2nd either. Recall that in two recent cases, Kelo v New London (eminent domain) and Gonzales v. Raich (medical marijuana) individuals lost rights and government powers expanded. In BOTH of those cases, the Liberal judges of the court provided the majority.
Now you can lose the nice house on the beach your great grandfather built because the City Council can decide that they'd get more taxes from having a developer put a McDonald's there.
Now, even though your state passes a medical marijuana law allowing use with a prescription, the Feds can still arrest you.
Go ahead, vote against individual freedom and rights; vote the Obamessiah. You'll get what you deserve.
gibberish. the future is free, elder amphibian.
-
Brazil did it. Sounds like a decent goal to strive for. Are you guys saying you are FOR dependence on foreign oil?
some of us have seen many promises before that never even came close to coming to light. some of the candidates in history have been known to say these things with no real intention of making them reality. We are all for being freeing ourselves from foreign oil but so far as I can tell he has not done anything to "rock the boat" and I don't see any reason to believe he will once voted into office. When I speak of "rocking the boat" I am speaking of following the rest of the party. When I vote I will be looking for someone that I think will be an independent thinker and not worry about what the party wants. Of course I am not sure that McCain is one of those either.
Man I would love for an independent candidate to run.
-
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/08/obama-says-he-h.html
I don't care much about the global warming reasons why this should be done, but If he can reduce our dependency on Middle East oil and Venezuela as promised he's got my vote.
:aok
you're joking, right?
remember what was being put forth in the other forums?
his camp thinks this is what people want to hear, so he says it. he won't do a dam thing about it though.
-
Sorry for the hijack, but in a perfect world, nobody would have guns, and since nobody had guns, nobody else would need guns. However this is not a perfect world (duh). In England, all handguns are totally illegal, and the vast majority of firearms are strictly controlled (as far as I know). Whilst people still do have guns illegally in this country, far fewer people overall have guns, and as a result, there are far fewer instances of gun crime here than there are in the USA. I'm sure that the relative populations of these countries factors into this, but I doubt it does so too much.
There's no such thing as a perfect world then. The Soviets made it to where nobody could have guns, [sarcastically] IT WAS GREAT!! [/sarcastically]
-
Exactly how many of the democrat presidents have we had now and you still have your guns, yes?
THERE is your real threat to the second.
Not Obama
There has NEVER BEEN a more Anti-Second Amendment Presidential Candidate Than Barrack Hussein Obama. Please, don't take my word for it, read what the nation's #1 Second Amendment Protection Organization has to say about him.
BTW, he currently has an "F" rating with the NRA. If he was no threat to the 2nd Amendment, the NRA would endorse him.
Barrack Obama's Ten Point Plan to "Change" The Second Amendment
1- Ban use of firearms for home defense
2- Pass Federal laws eliminating your Right-to-Carry
3- Ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns
4- Close down 90% of the gun shops in America
5- Ban rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting
6- Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500 percent
7- Restore voting right for five million criminals including those who have been convicted of using a gun to commit a violent crime
8- Expand the Clinton semi-auto ban to include millions more firearms
9- Mandate a government-issued license to purchase a firearm
10- Appoint judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal judiciary who share his views on the Second Amendment
SOURCE: The NRA
On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama!
The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where apparent nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the right to keep and bear arms.
But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.
(http://www.nraila.org/images/Obamasm.jpg)
FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.[1]
FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.[2]
FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.[3]
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership[.2]
FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.[4]
FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.[5]
FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.[6]
FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.
FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.[7]
FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”[8]
FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.[9]
FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.[10]
FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.[11]
FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.[12]
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.[13]
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.[2]
FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.[14]
FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.[9]
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.[9]
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.[9]
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.[9]
References
--------------
1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219)
2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 20087. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)
3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217)
4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html)
5. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004 SB 2165, vote 20.
6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php)
7. “Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html)
8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7. (http://www.joycefdn.org/pdf/98_AnnualReport.pdf)
9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)
10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.
11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.
12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html)
13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html)
14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement.)
SOURCE: The NRA
-
Oh, and the threat of the Obamessiah to the 2nd is not what he'll try to push through Congress.
Gonzales v. Raich (medical marijuana) individuals lost rights and government powers expanded. In BOTH of those cases, the Liberal judges of the court provided the majority.
Now, even though your state passes a medical marijuana law allowing use with a prescription, the Feds can still arrest you.
Go ahead, vote against individual freedom and rights; vote the Obamessiah. You'll get what you deserve.
Pretty interesting inasmuch as its usually the Dems who push for allowing Medical Marijuana and its typically the Reps fighting against it.
I loose freedoms and rights no matter which way I vote.
I vote Dem. and I loose what you mentioned.
I vote Rep and I have tyrannical nonsense like the Patriot Act and my daughter potentially looses rights, and I get right winged morality crap shoved down my throat.
Its a matter of would you rather drink hemlock Or cyanide
And lately the rights becoming just as overbloated and overbearing as the left
I'm sick of loosing to both sides.
But I hope you will excuse me if I choose not to run around like Chicken Little screaming "the sky is falling" based on the rhetoric of either side.
Each side spews their crap. Neither side has proven to be able to do much of anything worthwhile or worthy of neither my respect or support.
Neither side is for "America" and each side supports big business while letting the little guy swing in the breeze.
Its whatever they have to say or do to get their party into power.
sorry. Im not buying it from either side
-
And we aLL know that because it says "FACT" in front if it.
It must be.
and the NRA is beyond reproach
:rolleyes:
-
There has NEVER BEEN a more Anti-Second Amendment Presidential Candidate Than Barrack Hussein Obama. Please, don't take my word for it, read what the nation's #1 Second Amendment Protection Organization has to say about him.
BTW, he currently has an "F" rating with the NRA. If he was no threat to the 2nd Amendment, the NRA would endorse him.
lmao. source, plz.
-
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/08/obama-says-he-h.html
I don't care much about the global warming reasons why this should be done, but If he can reduce our dependency on Middle East oil and Venezuela as promised he's got my vote.
:aok
Granted I will likely vote for Obama, but I'm far from being a Koolaid drinker who thinks we will be riding unicorns and dancing if he's elected. However it would be nice if he does put the focus on actually making this country energy independent.
However I never really believe anything politicians say while running for office reguardless of what party they are with. After all George Bush Jr promised me he was going to get rid of the IRS and put a flat tax in place.. Not only once but in both elections.. :rofl
-
lmao. source, plz.
http://www.nraila.org/obama/
-
And we aLL know that because it says "FACT" in front if it.
It must be.
and the NRA is beyond reproach
:rolleyes:
The facts are all annotated with references - feel free to follow the sources - they came from the media and not from the NRA.
-
Pretty interesting inasmuch as its usually the Dems who push for allowing Medical Marijuana and its typically the Reps fighting against it.
Gonzales v. Raich: Majority opinion delivered by Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. These comprise the liberal group on the court. Justice Scalia issued separate concurrence, shaming himself IMO.
Kelo v New London: Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Suprise, suprise. The answer to "what is the greatest threat to my rights and liberty?" is right there in front of you. The liberals on the SC never miss a chance to expand Federal power far beyond the intent of the Founders.
I loose freedoms and rights no matter which way I vote.
Yep. That's why I'm voting Libertarian. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.
I vote Dem. and I loose what you mentioned.
I vote Rep and I have tyrannical nonsense like the Patriot Act and my daughter potentially looses rights, and I get right winged morality crap shoved down my throat.
You will lose far more if The Obamessiah fills the vacancies on the SC rather than McCain. McCain's choices will suck because McCain is not really a conservative and he'll be dealing with a Democratically controlled Senate. The Obamessiah's will be far, far worse as he is an extreme liberal. That's not in doubt; it's proven by his time in the IL Senate and his short time in the US Senate.
Its a matter of would you rather drink hemlock Or cyanide
It's more like do you want to cut off your hand (McCain) or drink cyanide (Obamessiah)
I'm sick of loosing to both sides.
There will be no change until the two dominating parties feel a threat from a third party. Vote Libertarian.
But I hope you will excuse me if I choose not to run around like Chicken Little screaming "the sky is falling" based on the rhetoric of either side.
Each side spews their crap. Neither side has proven to be able to do much of anything worthwhile or worthy of neither my respect or support.
Neither side is for "America" and each side supports big business while letting the little guy swing in the breeze.
Its whatever they have to say or do to get their party into power.
sorry. Im not buying it from either side
You can pretend they are equally bad choices. It's not true. I will agree they are both bad choices but they are not equally bad. The Obamessiah will appoint the absolute worst sort of judges to the SC and they will serve for their lifetimes. The President proposes, Congress disposes but the Supreme Court RULES. It is in the SC that your Constitutional rights will either be extinguished or preserved.
-
gibberish. the future is free, elder amphibian.
So you always preface your comments with a categorization? Interesting habit.
-
So you always preface your comments with a categorization? Interesting habit.
With all the AADD these days, well, .. you know. Still with me?
-
Nah, not with you. What other shades did you use here?
-
I don't care much about the global warming reasons why this should be done, but If he can reduce our dependency on Middle East oil and Venezuela as promised he's got my vote.
:aok
This is exactly why the public should not vote in these elections. If Americans are stupid enough to vote for this moron then they deserve what they are going to get.
-
Vote for Obama you idiot, geesus, you people will never learn... :mad:
-
you people will never learn... :mad:
You people?! This is why we should all vote for Obama! Racism!! :rolleyes:
-
I notice there are 2 camps here...
The Obama koolaid and the Hater-rade
-
Neither one of the candidates have convinced me they will
1. Fix the economy.
2. Avoid the imports (from both the Middle East AND the Orient).
3, Protect me and my family.
McCain- 1. He is clueless and has admitted it.
2. Hasn't taken any stance except a gas tax holiday, in fact is against an-war drilling.
3. Seems able to perform #3, at the cost of continued foreign engagements. Only time will tell if this
is going to work..
Obama 1. Increased taxation to increase entitlements will make the economy worse.
2. Wants to avoid oil imports but doesn't want to increase drilling for the short term in case the
alternative energy sources don't work as soon as intended. Orient imports would continue.
3. Wants to leave the Middle East, regardless of the consequences for both the Middle East and the
safety of our home shores.
-------------------
Wish we had a viable 3rd candidate, there is a country (I forget which one) that has a 'none of the above' option and if the 3rd option gets the most votes, then new candidates must be drawn up and the election process begins anew.
-
Delirium said
"Wish we had a viable 3rd candidate, there is a country (I forget which one) that has a 'none of the above' option and if the 3rd option gets the most votes, then new candidates must be drawn up and the election process begins anew."
Only place I've ever seen or heard of that was in a Libertarian Novel by L. Neil Smith called "the Probability Broach".
Enjoyed the book BTW. Also enjoyed his similar book called "Pallas"
Maybe we should push for that?
Cause IMHO right now they got us by the short hairs...............
-
I think I will go with the old line
Let's make guns illegal so only the criminals have them. Now that is the kind of world I want. The kind where the only threat the criminals have is police who won't be there until after you are shot and killed.
Back on subject though, I wouldn't let some half witted promise from a politian whose only real goal is to get voted into office be a deciding factor. I am even going to go with Bronk in his balanced idea. We have seen more than once what happens when our Fed gov is mostly one party or another and that is also not a good situation.
I personally would love to see the parties done away. It seems now that our government is not run by or votes cast based on politians ideas of right and wrong which is the way I and manyof the people I know vote them in but by the party deciding what they want to see and the office holder goes with it so that he/she can be nominated again. At least that is how they act to me.
In Heinlein's the Moon is a Harsh Mistress when the moonies formed their Government it was suggested they should have one house who's only job was to UNMAKE laws <sigh> incredible idea!
BTW in a couple of novels written by Libertarians their are many parties and NONE of em have any real power, it all belongs to the people that VOTE. And on the ballet there is a NONE OF THE ABOVE and if that wins then NO ONE holds the office voted on.
I would REALLY REALLY like to see a NONE OF THE ABOVE on our ballets and if the 2nd time around that one won the election then the office would remain vacant for the following term....
That would require some changes such as a law would/could NOT be passed it their were no President to sign it, veto it, or ignore it?
OR perhaps a better idea would be any laws in the works could not be passed into law unless a vote BY THE PEOPLE was for it?
Just some thoughts.......
expensive? perhaps but how much is freedom worth?
-
SNIP
So guessing the 1st and probably the 4th, but IMHO he would go after the 2nd BIGTIME...
SNIP
Maybe The 2nd Amendment Will Go After HIM! LOL
-
2. Wants to avoid oil imports but doesn't want to increase drilling for the short term in case the alternative energy sources don't work as soon as intended. Orient imports would continue.
Obama has changed policy and now supports limited Alaskan exploitation and off-shore drilling to enable a new energy strategy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7541291.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7541291.stm)
-
Obama has changed policy and now supports limited Alaskan exploitation and off-shore drilling to enable a new energy strategy.
Must of just happened today...
Personally, I'm against any release of the reserve unless it is to make the prices of oil crash. Otherwise, it is just a bandaid on a sucking chest wound, so to speak.
-
Hey everybody I'm gonna get the big bad oil companies to give each of you $1000!
Why? ...
Enquiring entrepreneurs want to know. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama's "emergency" plan, announced on Friday, doesn't offer any clarity. To pay for "stimulus" checks of $1,000 for families and $500 for individuals, the Senator says government would take "a reasonable share" of oil company profits.
Mr. Obama didn't bother to define "reasonable," and neither did Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Senate Democrat, when he recently declared that "The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy." Really? This extraordinary redefinition of free-market success could use some parsing.
Interesting article...puts things into perspective: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121780636275808495.html?mod=googlenews_wsj (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121780636275808495.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
-
Here is more on NObama................ :)
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71431
and here is someones take on voting in 08...........
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71251
and here is my take on what far to many modern Liberal Democrats SEEM to believe....
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/08/04/world-citizenship/
-
I notice there are 2 camps here...
The Obama koolaid and the Hater-rade
Shouldn't you be busy googleing thr GT-R.
-
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/08/obama-says-he-h.html
I don't care much about the global warming reasons why this should be done, but If he can reduce our dependency on Middle East oil and Venezuela as promised he's got my vote.
:aok
All talk. To bad you can't see actions, as they speak louder then words.
-
Obama has changed policy and now supports limited Alaskan exploitation and off-shore drilling to enable a new energy strategy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7541291.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7541291.stm)
he'll change his mind again next week. stay tuned.
-
You people?! This is why we should all vote for Obama! Racism!! :rolleyes:
Blows Gay Basher Emergency Whistle
FEEE!!!! FEEEE!!!!!!! FEEEEEE!!!!
Holocaust Denier !! Holocaust Denier !!
-
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/08/obama-says-he-h.html
I don't care much about the global warming reasons why this should be done, but If he can reduce our dependency on Middle East oil and Venezuela as promised he's got my vote.
:aok
:rofl :rofl :rofl
He'll be about as effective doing that as he will be at making radical Islamists love us all. He's about as likely to actually DO anything as he is to make pigs fly on their own.
-
Obama has changed policy and now supports limited Alaskan exploitation and off-shore drilling to enable a new energy strategy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7541291.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7541291.stm)
That's because NOW he's trying to gather votes from the center and the right. See, this is how you define "hope" and "change". He would like to "hope" that if he will "change" his position often enough, he will get more votes.
It never ceases to amaze me how people are stupid enough to believe what a politician says instead of looking to see how he has actually voted.
-
Kool aid anyone? :noid
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q37/acfireguy26/Kool-AidMan_t.png)
-
That's because NOW he's trying to gather votes from the center and the right. See, this is how you define "hope" and "change". He would like to "hope" that if he will "change" his position often enough, he will get more votes.
As a European (by geography anyway), I'm not an Obama fan. My wife and I missed the Berlin address by one day - in fact it seemed like he was following us around Europe - we have the same opinion. He seems short on solidity and is pretty arrogant with it. McCain looks to be marginally more trustworthy - but at least they are not Bush.
-
(http://www.mtv.com/shared/media/images/artist/b/bush/az_official/281x211.jpg)
??
-
Shouldn't you be busy googleing thr GT-R.
(http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/images/troll.jpg)
c'mon... you've done nothing but to try to witch-hunt me on Obama. You think I've drank gallons of his koolaid. My posts about the candidates are just predictions.
And just for you... here's the press release of the the NEW GTR (http://www.autoblog.com/2008/08/04/specter-werkes-sports-unveils-corvette-c6-gtr/) :cool:
-
I would like to see our country take steps to reduce it's dependency on foreign oil. Obama seems to be
taking a much more agressive approach now than McCain..
Whether we use hydrogen, some sort of hybrids, or a pure EV or whatever, even if it means more drilling here in the states, it can be done...
"YES WE CAN"
:D
Jeremy Clarkson "back to carpets for you"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfLIR1d5x1I&feature=related
Obama Promises $7000 Plug-in Tax Credit, $3 Billion to US Automakers, and Mentions the Volt by Name
http://gm-volt.com/2008/08/04/obama-promises-7000-plug-in-tax-credit-3-billion-to-us-automakers-and-mentions-the-volt-by-name/
-
talk talk talk
-
He is just tricking you into voting for him and then he is going to take away your guns.
-
crack me up... the saudis probably buy up more american debt than americans collectively pay them at the pumps... it's no secret that uncle sam protects these middle-east oil dictatorships because they in turn recycle their petrodollars either through wall street or buy up those soon to be worthless govt t-bills.
if you stop the flow of petrodollar recycling from these dictatorships who's going to buy up all the empire's debt in a nation of twin deficits and debtors... china will only float the usd against the euro until simple economics force them to dump their holdings.
sure... you could get all neocon socialist about it and inflate and export your inflation via the world currency onto the backs of other hard working countries... like in the 70's... or you could just man up and raise taxes and pay for your lifestyles yourselves.
it's pretty basic stuff...
-
He is just tricking you into voting for him and then he is going to take away your guns.
What he will do is put a minimum of two extrememly liberal SC justices on the court during his term. Heller was a 5-4 decision.
Kelo V New London and Gonzales V Raich were also very close decisions.
Even one more super lib judge on the court is way too many.
-
What he will do is put a minimum of two extrememly liberal SC justices on the court during his term. Heller was a 5-4 decision.
Kelo V New London and Gonzales V Raich were also very close decisions.
Even one more super lib judge on the court is way too many.
Thanks for seeing the big picture. All those who say that the prez doesn't have the power to overthrow the 2nd obviously hasn't looked at all the angles.
-
EDIT: Personally, I don't really agree with the second amendment.
I think that many people are just too plain irresponsible to handle them, and to be trusted to have them. (see DickBong's post)
Lets ban cars while we are at. Maybe fat people too.
-
HUH?
You actually believe his line of B.S.?
and you're going to support him ......
Even if it cost you some or all of your rights?
And Bush & Co. haven't been attacking them the past 8 years? Wake up!
-
Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach 'Change'
Editor, Times-Dispatch:
Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day and on July 4 I celebrate America's. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.
On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.
I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.
When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said "Praise the Lord." And when the young leader said, "I will be for change and I'll bring you change," everyone yelled, "Viva Fidel!"
But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.
Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?
Would we?
Manuel Alvarez Jr. Sandy Hook.
Obama doesn't know how to accomplish that. That is what he 'wants' what we all want. but he has no steps to it.