Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: john9001 on September 06, 2008, 03:24:47 PM
-
obama has been hitting palin for her "earmarks", i was going to post a list of obama's earmarks but the list is too long and i'm lazy, so i will just post a obama web site, do your own google search for obama earmarks.
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070621-obama_announces_3/
i did not even try to add all them up.
-
Senator Barack Obama on Thursday released a list of $740 million in earmarked spending requests that he had made over the last three years, and his campaign challenged Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to do the same.The list included $1 million for a hospital where Mr. Obama’s wife works, money for several projects linked to campaign donors and support for more than 200 towns, civic institutions and universities in Illinois.
But as the Senate debated a bill to restrict the controversial method of paying for home-state projects — a measure defeated Thursday evening — Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign also said that only about $220 million worth of his requests had been approved by Congress. And among those that had been killed were his request in 2006 for $1 million for an expansion of the University of Chicago Medical Center, where Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle, is a vice president.
Requested $740 million, $200 million got approved and he bashes Sarah Palin for $27 million? :rofl
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/politics/14campaign.html
That's from the NY Times, so no one can claim it's a right wing rag trying to smear Obama. ;)
-
Obama isn't running around claiming he never asked for earmarks or claiming he turns them down like Palin "claimed". There is likely a bit of a difference in 200 million for a entire state over 3 years vs 27 million for a town with a population of 6,700 but i guess you be the judge on that. ;)
How much has McSame asked for and received over his 100 years in the Senate?
btw it also seems McSame complained about Palin's earmarks while she was mayor.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,284198.story
As for Obama the $200 million that he got over 3 years isn't really that outrageous because he is a Senator not a small town mayor. From what they reported the only questionable spending was on the Hospital and that was because his wife worked there and that was only 1 million. We are talking a million bucks for an expansion to a hospital at a major city.. In fact it was the University of Chicago Hospital.
The only other big one that suck out was 8 million to a defense contractor.
That same year, Obama requested $8 million in funding for “High Explosive Air Burst Technology” made by General Dynamics, a military contractor with close ties to a major fundraiser.
edit** The $1 million on the emergancy call center was for Palin not McCain
edit.. well I can't find any full lists on McSame's earmarks just bits and pieces here and there it doesn't look like he's publicly released his like Obama has. If he has I couldn't find it.
However I did find this and it seems his claims to cut 100's of billions in earmarks is a bunch of BS. Here is a video of him talking about it and he can barely name any specific earmarks that he plans to cut. In fact the only way he can cut that much is if he starts cutting defense spending along with aid to Iseral. This video from CNN pretty much nails him down on it and he can't name what he plans to cut other than defense spending.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akeFON3kg5E
So there yea go military peeps, McCain plans to cut spending on Defense and he even admits it.
-
Obama isn't running around claiming he never asked for earmarks or claiming he turns them down like Palin "claimed". There is likely a bit of a difference in 200 million for a entire state over 3 years vs 27 million for a town with a population of 6,700.
How much has McSame asked for and received over his 100 years in the Senate?
btw it also seems McSame complained about Palin's earmarks while she was mayor.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,284198.story
McCain has never requested an earmark for his state. In fact he's introduced legislation to ban it.
Was voted down by the democrats.
Whotta surprise.
-
McCain has never requested an earmark for his state. In fact he's introduced legislation to ban it.
Was voted down by the democrats.
Whotta surprise.
Well if it's true then good for him, but it still don't change the fact he doesn't seem to want to or be able to answer where he will cut these 100's of billion of dollars a year.
I totally support doing away with earmarks and I think bills should be voted on item by item, but I don't think McCain will actually do away with them if he was elected. He just sounds like a broken record in the video I posted he just says "I'll cut billions of dollars" over and over. The problem is where is he going to cut it? Like in the reporter says in the video, the only way he can cut the 100's of billions like he claims, is to cut all aid to Israel and cut defense spending.
I'm quite sure Republicans wont support cutting aid to Israel and cutting defense spending.. :)
-
Well if it's true then good for him, but it still don't change the fact he doesn't seem to want to or be able to answer where he will cut these 100's of billion of dollars a year.
I totally support doing away with earmarks and I think bills should be voted on item by item, but I don't think McCain will actually do away with them if he was elected. He just sounds like a broken record in the video I posted he just says "I'll cut billions of dollars" over and over. The problem is where is he going to cut it? Like in the reporter says in the video, the only way he can cut the 100's of billions like he claims, is to cut all aid to Iseral and cut defense spending.
cutting earmarks wont save billions of dollars? :huh
-
Obama isn't running around claiming he never asked for earmarks or claiming he turns them down like Palin "claimed". There is likely a bit of a difference in 200 million for a entire state over 3 years vs 27 million for a town with a population of 6,700 but i guess you be the judge on that
She isn't against earmarks, she is just against abuse of the system.
The list included $1 million for a hospital where Mr. Obama’s wife works, money for several projects linked to campaign donors
That is the kind of crap that is abusing the system.
I'm not against small towns getting money for projects they need, especially for growing towns. There is probably a better way to go about it than using earmarks, but atm that is the system we have. Some folks use it, some abuse it.
-
Well if it's true then good for him, but it still don't change the fact he doesn't seem to want to or be able to answer where he will cut these 100's of billion of dollars a year.
Stopping earmarks will, so will stopping foreign aid to nations that don't particularly like us. He has mentioned both.
-
What waste spending as Obama ever stopped or any democrat for that matter? What taxes have they ever cut or what spending have they ever cut? What taxes do they want to raise?
You know that old saying about a liberal "They're nice guys, they'll give you the shirt off some one else's back".
-
Well if it's true then good for him,
Good job on fact checking before your previous post :aok
but it still don't change the fact he doesn't seem to want to or be able to answer where he will cut these 100's of billion of dollars a year.
psssttt...cutting back or eliminating earmarks will cut the 100's of billions
I totally support doing away with earmarks and I think bills should be voted on item by item, but I don't think McCain will actually do away with them if he was elected.
And you base this on.....? The fact that he is not Obama? The fact that you want it to be that way? The fact that you have no idea what you are talking about and just have to say negative things about any opposition to your golden boy, Obama?
He just sounds like a broken record in the video I posted he just says "I'll cut billions of dollars" over and over. The problem is where is he going to cut it? Like in the reporter says in the video, the only way he can cut the 100's of billions like he claims, is to cut all aid to Israel and cut defense spending.
I'm quite sure Republicans wont support cutting aid to Israel and cutting defense spending.. :)
You mean like Bill did?
-
the only way he can cut the 100's of billions like he claims, is to cut all aid to Israel and cut defense spending.
Aid to Israel is a drop in the bucket. Israel got a total of 2.5 billion in 2007.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html
Let's start with cutting out the waste first, then social welfare programs that aren't working, then see where we need to go from there.
-
cutting earmarks wont save billions of dollars? :huh
He didn't say "billions" he's claiming 100's of billions, that's what he claims on TV all the time. While earmarks are a problem they aren't 100's of billions of dollars worth of problems each year. I think the last time I looked we spent I 575 billion on the war in Iraq since the beginning.
100 billion is a crap load of money much less 100's of billions. I'm sorry but McCain is just pure full of crap on this issue because there is no way on Earth that he could cut "hundreds" of billions in earmark spending with out drastically cutting defense spending along with the money going to Israel. We don't even send Israel 100's of billions each year, it's something like 52 billion total since the state was formed.
The fact is like I posted in my earlier post much of our defense spending comes from Federal earmarks as in the case of the 8 billion with Obama that was given to General Dynamics. McCain is just talking out his aruse on this one, just like Palin is when she claims she didn't support the bridge to nowhere and claims she gave the money back when she didn't. She just spent it on other things.
As I said I'm all for doing away with wasteful spending with federal earmarks but many of them are legit and there is just no possiable way he can cut the money he claims.
-
Good job on fact checking before your previous post :aok
psssttt...cutting back or eliminating earmarks will cut the 100's of billions
And you base this on.....? The fact that he is not Obama? The fact that you want it to be that way? The fact that you have no idea what you are talking about and just have to say negative things about any opposition to your golden boy, Obama?
You mean like Bill did?
What because I don't believe him means I didn't check facts? He's voted yes for lots of bills giving away wasteful federal earmark money. For someone who claims I need to do fact checking you your self need to do some fact checking on how much is actually given away via earmarks. As a point of reference we have spent 575 billion on the war in Iraq. You honestly think McCain is going to cut half the cost of the Iraq war every year?
get real..
-
I would support getting rid of earmarks if you could get rid of unfunded government mandates at the same time...
There are earmarks and then there are earmarks.
If your EPA aholes tell your community of 3,000 that you have to put a 40 million dollar upgrade on your sewage treatment plant or fart diffusers on you cattle in order to maybe protect the 3 eyed bulgarian newt that some pony tailed acadamian found in a puddle somewhere...
You damn well better go after those grants and earmarks.
lazs
-
Aid to Israel is a drop in the bucket. Israel got a total of 2.5 billion in 2007.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html
Let's start with cutting out the waste first, then social welfare programs that aren't working, then see where we need to go from there.
You are proving my point.. the entire time we have been giving Israel aid money the total over the years is 52 to 60 billion. So as you say 2.5 billion is a drop in the bucket yet Israel is one of the biggest recipients of our foreign aid money which is considered a earmark. So where exactly is McCain going to cut the other $197.5 billion dollars.. :)
Like I said he's talking a bunch of bull cocky. But wait I guess he still needs to find the full 200 billion because he's not even going to cut the aid to Israel.
As I said the only place he could cut that much money is to severally cut defense spending and even then it would be hard pressed to find 100 billion much less 200 or "hundreds of billions" that was wasteful spending.
Just to give another comparison on just how much "hundreds of billions" is.. in 2007 the entire US defense budget was $439.3 Billion.
-
I think it was McCain who convinced Palin (when they first met) that earmarks were on their way out. Since then Palin has been anti-earmark.
-
so crock-it.. we shouldn't give any money to Israel.. or.. more to the point.. osamabinbiden will cut them off?
getting rid of earmarks is fine.. get rid of unfunded government mandates too tho.
lazs
-
I think it was McCain who convinced Palin (when they first met) that earmarks were on their way out. Since then Palin has been anti-earmark.
Well if she changed then good for her but she's still running around claiming a bunch of BS on her past in regard to earmark money. If she can't tell the truth about what has a public record, then how can anyone trust her for what she claims she will do in the future?
-
so crock-it.. we shouldn't give any money to Israel.. or.. more to the point.. osamabinbiden will cut them off?
getting rid of earmarks is fine.. get rid of unfunded government mandates too tho.
lazs
Where did you get that I said we shouldn't give Israel money or that Obama would cut them? Israel was brought up because they are the biggest recipient of our federal earmark money. It was brought up to show that there is no possible way McCain can cut 100's of billions a year in "wasteful" earmark spending.
Did you watch the video I posted?
-
You are proving my point.. the entire time we have been giving Israel aid money the total over the years is 52 to 60 billion. So as you say 2.5 billion is a drop in the bucket yet Israel is one of the biggest repaints of out foreign aid money which is considered a earmark. So where exactly is McCain going to cut the other $197.5 billion dollars.. :)
Like I said he's talking a bunch of bull cocky. But wait I guess he still needs to find the full 200 billion because he's not even going to cut the aid to Israel.
As I said the only place he could cut that much money is to severally cut defense spending and even then it would be hard pressed to find 100 billion much less 200 or "hundreds of billions" that was wasteful spending.
Crookitt, yah just don't get it.
McCain wants an end to earmarks.. if Israel gets aid, lets vote 'em aid... not slip it to 'em under the table like a damn dope deal. It's about getting rid of the crummy trick of tacking on and writing in of pet project allocations on existing bills.
If the EPA wants money to do another study on the molting of piping plovers in a windmill zone, lets vote on it....
Earmarks lead to run-amok bureaucracy and Corporate Kickbacks. This is the lobby disease. It's Corruption of the Government By The People.. McCain has correctly identified it's threat to honest government and has proposed legislation that ends the practice.
It's a bi-partisan issue. You might wanna check and see how Obama and Mrs. Klinton voted on McCains Bill.
Your objection is ludicrous.
-
Well if she changed then good for her but she's still running around claiming a bunch of BS on her past in regard to earmark money. If she can't tell the truth about what has a public record then how can anyone trust her for what she claims she will do?
Which earmarks and when? And, what is she claiming that goes against public record?
-
none of you guys has answered me...
How does a community of 3-20 thousand afford a 40 million dollar treatment plant expansion? how do they afford to do the studies that prove it is a waste? How do they afford the thousand dollar a day fine for not doing it?
How do they afford 3 million dollar handicaped ramps at every corner even tho they don't even had sidewalks at every corner.. not to mention.. maybe no or one person who is a citizen using a wheelchair?
How do the afford all these unfunded mandates?
Are you all saying that we should get rid of grants (earmarks) and the staff that work for cities to get them?
I would agree.. but.. we would have to get rid of the unfunded mandates first.
lazs
-
Like the border fence?
-
One thing that's always confronted me about earmarks--Fed TAKES money from YOUR state, (YOUR PAYcheck) gives it to some OTHER state who has more influence in DC. It can be viewed as getting OUR (insert your state here) money back (only up to a point) from the money-grubbing whooores in Congress. Doesn't amuse me living in VA, and having money confiscated from my check to pay for a @#%%@#%#@ homeless shelter in San FranTHISco for illegal Mexicans
-
I don't know hang.. if it is the governments job to protect the borders and they think we need a fence then it should be the feds who foot the bill.
My opinion is.. as it has always been. you will only stop about 30% of the problem with a fence but..
You will end 99.9999% if you simply have an instant background check for employment (hey.. they sure as hell can do it for me to buy a simple handgun)
have the check.. if he passes.. hire him.... if he doesn't and you hire him anyway.. when you get caught.. you go to prison for a mandatory 1 year term.
no schools or hospitals other than emergency for illegals.. no becoming a citizen by birth unless at least one of your parents is a citizen.
end of problem.. the fence and border patrol would then be there to stop bad guys.
lazs
-
Which earmarks and when? And, what is she claiming that goes against public record?
She claims she was against the bridge to no where and told congress she didn't want the money and all that hoopla she's runs around claiming on TV.
The fact is she was for the bridge to nowhere while she was Mayor and running for Governor. When it because a national media sceptical she then came out against it. However she still later took the money and used it else where, so her claims about giving the money back are BS.
In short she was for it, before she was against it, then she still took the money after she was against it and now claims she gave it back. The money didn't get used on the bridge to no where but the money did get used. What it was used on I really don't care nor do I plan to look up. If it was used for legit spending or not I have no clue.
However if she said, "hey I took that money that was going to get used for a useless bridge and sent it in the right places" then I'd say good for her. The deal is she isn't saying that she's claiming she sent the money back and that is a out right lie.
Her exact quote...
""I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere," Palin said Friday in Ohio, using the critics' dismissive name of the project. "'If our state wanted a bridge,' I said, 'we'd build it ourselves.'"
The bridge was intended to provide access to Ketchikan's airport on Gravina Island, which had a population of 50 in the 2000 U.S. Census. After McCain and others railed against it, Congress dropped the specific earmark but kept the money in a transportation bill for Alaska.
quote are from... http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm
If you don't like the source just search on google there are many more saying the same thing. The point is she is out right lying about giving the money back she still accepted it in another bill and it wasn't even her that turned it down it was because McCain complained about it.
-
none of you guys has answered me...
How does a community of 3-20 thousand afford a 40 million dollar treatment plant expansion? how do they afford to do the studies that prove it is a waste? How do they afford the thousand dollar a day fine for not doing it?
How do they afford 3 million dollar handicaped ramps at every corner even tho they don't even had sidewalks at every corner.. not to mention.. maybe no or one person who is a citizen using a wheelchair?
How do the afford all these unfunded mandates?
Are you all saying that we should get rid of grants (earmarks) and the staff that work for cities to get them?
I would agree.. but.. we would have to get rid of the unfunded mandates first.
lazs
No this is the right use for Federal earmarks.. Take for instance with Palin some of the earmark money she received as mayor was spent on just that, repairing the city sewers. I don't know the exact details but if it was repairs were a major cost that the city couldn't afford then that's the right use of federal earmark money. If the city could have afforded it then it would be wasteful use of the federal money.
Earmarks serve a legit purpose but they are often abused but there just isn't 100's of billions in abuse, that McCain can cut with out getting into defense spending and so on.
-
so... she redirected the funds earmarked in that bill to other Alaska transportation projects. She didn't slip it into her pocket, she used it for what the bill provided funding for. Transportation Projects.
Your point is what? She spent the money she was supposed to spend, provided by the feds for transportation infrastructure, new construction and maintenance? Your state gets those moneys too, Corkdick.
-
Earmarks serve a legit purpose but they are often abused but there just isn't 100's of billions in abuse, that McCain can cut with out getting into defense spending and so on.
So, Why did Hillary and Obama vote YES on McCains bill this spring?
LOL... OWNED.
-
She claims she was against the bridge to no where and told congress she didn't want the money and all that hoopla she's runs around claiming on TV.
The fact is she was for the bridge to nowhere while she was Mayor and running for Governor. When it because a national media sceptical she then came out against it. However she still later took the money and used it else where, so her claims about giving the money back are BS.
In short she was for it, before she was against it, then she still took the money after she was against it and now claims she gave it back. The money didn't get used on the bridge to no where but the money did get used. What it was used on I really don't care nor do I plan to look up. If it was used for legit spending or not I have no clue.
However if she said, "hey I took that money that was going to get used for a useless bridge and sent it in the right places" then I'd say good for her. The deal is she isn't saying that she's claiming she sent the money back and that is a out right lie.
Her exact quote...
""I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere," Palin said Friday in Ohio, using the critics' dismissive name of the project. "'If our state wanted a bridge,' I said, 'we'd build it ourselves.'"
The bridge was intended to provide access to Ketchikan's airport on Gravina Island, which had a population of 50 in the 2000 U.S. Census. After McCain and others railed against it, Congress dropped the specific earmark but kept the money in a transportation bill for Alaska.
quote are from... http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm
If you don't like the source just search on google there are many more saying the same thing. The point is she is out right lying about giving the money back she still accepted it in another bill and it wasn't even her that turned it down it was because McCain complained about it.
Sorry crock. Nowhere in that quote does she say she sent the money back.
-
I don't know hang.. if it is the governments job to protect the borders and they think we need a fence then it should be the feds who foot the bill.
My opinion is.. as it has always been. you will only stop about 30% of the problem with a fence but..
You will end 99.9999% if you simply have an instant background check for employment (hey.. they sure as hell can do it for me to buy a simple handgun)
have the check.. if he passes.. hire him.... if he doesn't and you hire him anyway.. when you get caught.. you go to prison for a mandatory 1 year term.
no schools or hospitals other than emergency for illegals.. no becoming a citizen by birth unless at least one of your parents is a citizen.
end of problem.. the fence and border patrol would then be there to stop bad guys.
lazs
A fence for boarder protection IMO is the perfect use of federal earmark money. The budget for securing the boarder shouldn't fall on a state just the same as states that have crap loads of illegals like Cali or Texas or Florida. Those states should get help from the federal govt to help pay for the bills these illegals cause. (ie like not paying hospital bills ect..ect..) The state should get subsidized by the federal govt, because it's the federal govt that isn't doing it's job to keep the illegals out.
-
Sorry crock. Nowhere in that quote does she say she sent the money back.
Not in that quote but in her speech that's what she said. She has said the same thing a few times now so who knows which quote they used. I just used what was in that article.
-
A fence for boarder protection IMO is the perfect used of federal earmark money. The budget for securing the boarder shouldn't fall on a state just the same as states that have crap loads of illegals like Cali or Texas or Florida. Those states should get help from the federal govt to help pay for the bills these illegals cause. (ie like not paying hospital bills ect..ect..) The state should get subsidized by the federal govt, because it's the federal govt that isn't doing it's job to keep the illegals out.
But the government mandated the fence... and then didn't fund it.
McCain want's funding for legislation coupled to the legislation. We vote for the project.. and it's funding. There's been too many unfunded mandates... like the wall. It's typical washington hypocrisy.. publicly 'for' something.. then don't fund it. Cheap tricks.
-
This has got to sting. It's still early, polls don't mean much and I still think The Obamessiah will win.
But there is NO WAY that this election should be this close. NO WAY. This election should be a cakewalk for the Dems; all they had to do was nominate someone reasonably close to the mainstream of America. But once again...OH NOOooooooOOOOOooo! They had to sieze this chance to ram socialism up the bellybutton of Americans by nominating the most liberal Democrat they could find. I will absolutely laugh my bellybutton off if The Obamessiah snatches defeat from the jaws of victory for the Democrats one more time.
Jebus Cripes! They lose to a tongue-tied Bush TWICE in a row and can't do better than generate what is basically a tie 60 days out from this election?
This should generate some deep soul-searching and belly button gazing amongst the DNC. It won't though; they'll think about it for 5 mintues and decide that they should have run someone more liberal. :rofl
Of course it they lose, they'll spend years researching a way to blame their loss on the Republicans or the voting machines or corriolis effect. :lol
Real Clear Politics summary of latest polls.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
RCP Average 08/29 - 09/06 -- 46.4 44.6 Obama +1.8
Rasmussen Tracking 09/04 - 09/06 3000 LV (likely voters) 48 48 Tie
Gallup Tracking 09/03 - 09/05 2765 RV 47 45 Obama +2
Hotline/FD Tracking 09/02 - 09/04 916 RV 46 40 Obama +6
CBS News 09/01 - 09/03 734 RV 42 42 Tie
CNN 08/29 - 08/31 927 RV 49 48 Obama +1
-
Of course it they lose, they'll spend years researching a way to blame their loss on the Republicans or the voting machines or corriolis effect. :lol
Quoted for absolute Truth.
-
Btw I just found this.. http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/031808/opi_258953362.shtml which was written well before she was picked to be VP & written by one of her current staff members. (John Katz is director of State-Federal Relations and Special Counsel to Gov. Sarah Palin)
He even says Palin wasn't going to stop asking for federal earmarks but was just toning it down because it became a touchy subject nationally and in congress. The article seems pretty accurate and it's not bashing Plain but comes off more on her side. The thing is it shows she was still willing to take the federal earmarks but was toning it down from 54($550 mill in 2007) to 31($200 mil 2008).
This overall is a good thing IMO but it's far from what she is claiming. She is spouting off like she personally decided to lead the crusade on earmark abuse to fight the system when in fact she didn't cut any requests until it became a political hot potato.
This is what I don't like about this woman is the fact she is not telling the truth. The fact is she was heavy on the earmarks until it became a big issue, so then she toned them down to not raise eyebrows or because she found Jesus who knows. However she certainly didn't go on a crusade on her own desicion she was forced to cut the spending.
-
This is what I don't like about this woman is the fact she is not telling the truth.
And that is a bald-faced lie. You don't like her because she can win. If it was lying you don't like, then you'll be voting for Jesus... everybody else on this planet is a liar.
-
But the government mandated the fence... and then didn't fund it.
McCain want's funding for legislation coupled to the legislation. We vote for the project.. and it's funding. There's been too many unfunded mandates... like the wall. It's typical washington hypocrisy.. publicly 'for' something.. then don't fund it. Cheap tricks.
Yes but that's typical politicians. That was one of the things that pissed me off about Bush after 9/11 and the Iraq war. He went on the whole speech camplain talking about securing our boarders and ports but then he never funded it. In 2005 Bush actually cut the funding for 10 thousand new boarder agents that had already been approved. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/02/09/MNGOKB837T1.DTL
-
And that is a bald-faced lie. You don't like her because she can win. If it was lying you don't like, then you'll be voting for Jesus... everybody else on this planet is a liar.
No I don't like her because she wants to push religious crap into govt and the fact she's a lying hypocrite. I'm not really worried about her winning I honestly don't see the support for her other than the typical base that would support anything the party tossed on a podium.
I see this woman as nothing more than a cheerleader for the Republican base because she really isn't going to pull in the voters McCain needs to win. She might be strong for the base and the religious right but McCain had them anyway. This woman needs to be able to pull on the fence sitters and Hillary supporters and she isn't going to do that with the strong pro life agenda.
Besides that as we learned with the last election the people really don't count anyway. McCain doesn't have enough electoral votes to win at this point. Just like Bush lost the popular vote last election he only won because he had more electoral votes. Even if McCain managed to get more popular votes he still doesn't have the votes that count.
-
Upon further consideration, we could ELIMINATE ALL earmarks, if the federal government STOPPED taking that extra money out of your state.
If you DON'T try for earmarks (i.e. getting YOUR money BACK), you're throwing away your own money.
It's not like the weasels won't spend it if you decide not to go after it....it just goes to New York and California
-
No I don't like her because she wants to push religious crap into govt and the fact she's a lying hypocrite.
Here's 38 reasons why your candidate is a lying hypocrite. (from captain virgil hilts)
Obama's Not Exactly:
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 govern-ments 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 Obama, 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. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/kenyas_killing_fields/index.html
5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian -
NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own inter-views. 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/newsboyphtml?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 Canadian 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 off 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.
Yer invited to attempt to disprove any of this. #4 Is enough to convince me beyond any shadow of reasonable of doubt that O'Bama should net be in the White House, or Congress.
Squirm, Clockpith, Squirm.....
-
Here's 38 reasons why your candidate is a lying hypocrite. (from captain virgil hilts)
Yer invited to attempt to disprove any of this. #4 Is enough to convince me beyond any shadow of reasonable of doubt that O'Bama should net be in the White House, or Congress.
Squirm, Clockpith, Squirm.....
It's aparent you didn't even check the so called "sources" that are provided. Number one you bashed me in another topic for using a liberal blog as a source.
That entire post has 3 linked sources.. The first one #4 is a blank page. The source for #6 is a page selling cell phones.. :rofl
Then source for number 7 is "world net daily".. lol that's laughable at best as that site is the Daily Kos for the right wing.
so "Squirm, Clockpith, Squirm..... " back at you because in gamers terms you just got owned and it shows you will believe anything that fits your needs and do no research for yourself.
-
LOL.. check Number 4 again. This time, wait for the page to load. Or, get a better computer.
#6.. try this link. Site was updated, info moved.
http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml?Barack_Hussein_Obama_-_Arab-American,_only_6.25%25_African (http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml?Barack_Hussein_Obama_-_Arab-American,_only_6.25%25_African)
Now.. aside from the source... and remember; the media ignored Edward's bimbo bust for 6 months after a blog broke the news and it got picked up by a trash weekly... do you think Obama would survive the same scrutiny as Palin's been getting?
So... disprove it. C'mon, find me a source.. any source that can disprove any of it.
LOL... keep squirming, Crotchtit.
-
LOL.. check Number 4 again. This time, wait for the page to load. Or, get a better computer.
#6.. try this link. Site was updated, info moved.
http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml?Barack_Hussein_Obama_-_Arab-American,_only_6.25%25_African (http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml?Barack_Hussein_Obama_-_Arab-American,_only_6.25%25_African)
Now.. aside from the source... and remember; the media ignored Edward's bimbo bust for 6 months after a blog broke the news and it got picked up by a trash weekly... do you think Obama would survive the same scrutiny as Palin's been getting?
So... disprove it. C'mon, find me a source.. any source that can disprove any of it.
LOL... keep squirming, Crotchtit.
Hangyourself...
You actually want me to believe anything on a "game blog" not even a political blog that has a picture of this with the article you want me to read? I'm not even going to waste my time with that..
(http://www.arcadeathome.com/viewjpg.php?/images/news/obama.jpg)
I'm trying to figure out what your complaint is.. are you saying he's not black enough?
-
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp
A email that has been floating around the internet for the gullible is looked at
I am sure that there is one floating around about McCain and Palin - but only the immature and gullible swallow these
Might as well start answering those - i need you to deposit these funds for me from Africa emails... they are the gospel too.
:rofl
-
Crockett,
How much change did Obama bring to Illinois at the state or federal level?
Specifically:
1. Legislative change he actually authored instead of taking credit for after Emil Jones handed it off to him.
2. Endorsements that bucked the State Machine/Combine
3. Significant votes that went against the party
See, I think Obama's a hypocrite running on change when he has not generated any when given the opportunity. Again, as an Illinois resident with one of the most corrupt political systems in America (that also certainly includes state republicans, but the Dale machine is in a class all itself) what did he do to turn things around here?
It's funny Crockett. I bet you shake your head at Republicans who endlessly make excuses for Bush and fail to see the obvious. That don't even try to see the obvious. And yet... certainly, and obviously, that emotional bias isn't limited to Republicans. Obama is an empty suit. He is an insider politician. He does take PAC money and bundled money from the usual suspects. He has the strong support of the "no change" Democratic party of Kennedy and Peolsi and did well before the Hillery deal was decided. The PUMAs know it first hand. It's not like the stodgy beltway Democrats are just now endorsing him for the team win. It's not like he picked Kuchinich to be his running mate instead of liberal insider hack Biden.
Republicans voted Bush in, in no small part and without a lot of deep analysis, as a protest to Clinton. The irony is the Democrats are about to elect their own "Bush" to replace Bush. 4 more years!
Charon
-
the fact she's a lying hypocrite.
Obama isn't one?
-
Snopes can't be biased... right? Left?? LOL!
http://www.afa.net/snopesiswrong.asp (http://www.afa.net/snopesiswrong.asp)
http://shopright.blogspot.com/2007/08/snopes-liberal-bias-democrat.html (http://shopright.blogspot.com/2007/08/snopes-liberal-bias-democrat.html)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/968235/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/968235/posts)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2052060/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2052060/posts)
http://www.modernconservative.com/metablog_single.php?p=217 (http://www.modernconservative.com/metablog_single.php?p=217)
http://www.modernconservative.com/metablog_single.php?p=219 (http://www.modernconservative.com/metablog_single.php?p=219)
Damn, this is kinda fun... of course, stooping to CrotchItch's mudslinging level does greatly increase the supply of ammo, which has the amazingly beneficial effect or reducing the requirement for accuracy.
;)
-
I am sure that there is one floating around about McCain and Palin - but only the immature and gullible swallow these
Might as well start answering those - i need you to deposit these funds for me from Africa emails... they are the gospel too.
:rofl
Well there just happens to be at least one.. but it's a real letter, but of course it's just that persons opinion. The opinion ofg someone who live in her small town.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/kilkenny.asp
-
Snopes can't be biased... right? Left?? LOL!
http://www.afa.net/snopesiswrong.asp (http://www.afa.net/snopesiswrong.asp)
http://shopright.blogspot.com/2007/08/snopes-liberal-bias-democrat.html (http://shopright.blogspot.com/2007/08/snopes-liberal-bias-democrat.html)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/968235/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/968235/posts)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2052060/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2052060/posts)
http://www.modernconservative.com/metablog_single.php?p=217 (http://www.modernconservative.com/metablog_single.php?p=217)
http://www.modernconservative.com/metablog_single.php?p=219 (http://www.modernconservative.com/metablog_single.php?p=219)
Damn, this is kinda fun... of course, stooping to CrotchItch's mudslinging level does greatly increase the supply of ammo, which has the amazingly beneficial effect or reducing the requirement for accuracy.
;)
So you are linking to conservative blogs that are bashing snopes as proof Snopes is part of the evil liberal media? :uhoh
-
Crockett, answer Charon's post.
-
You are proving my point.. the entire time we have been giving Israel aid money the total over the years is 52 to 60 billion. So as you say 2.5 billion is a drop in the bucket yet Israel is one of the biggest recipients of our foreign aid money which is considered a earmark. So where exactly is McCain going to cut the other $197.5 billion dollars..
How is 2.5 billion per year proving your point? That is part of the yearly budget, cutting 2.5 billion to Israel is nothing.
And check my link, the total aid to Israel since 1949 is over 101 billion dollars, yet again you don't know what you are talking about.
Since when is foreign aid considered an earmark? The US gives out hundreds of billions in foreign aid every year, much of it to countries that despise us.
-
So you are linking to conservative blogs that are bashing snopes as proof Snopes is part of the evil liberal media? :uhoh
That question proves the point you are incapable of crediting the obvious.
Now... to ram that point home... answer Charons question.
-
So you are linking to conservative blogs that are bashing snopes as proof Snopes is part of the evil liberal media? :uhoh
For instance, in October, Snopes listed as false the claim, in its own words, that "several [Internet] domain names related to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on America were registered before the attack." CNSNews.com, a news site affiliated with the conservative Media Research Center, had reported in an article by Jeff Johnson that at least 17 domain names such as "worldtradetowerstrike.com," "attackontwintowers.com" and "wterrorattack2001.com" had been registered prior to the attack, some as early as July 2000. The Mikkelsons wrote that "this is a nothing story, promulgated by those looking for something sensational to write about."
They dismissed any notion the sites could be related to the terrorist attacks, declaring: "Given the prominence of New York, the prevalence of violence and horror in our popular entertainment, the millions of domain names registered over the years and the fact that the World Trade Center had already been attacked in 1993 [in the bombing that killed six people], that a handful of expired domain names used one or more of these elements should be no surprise."
But Snopes left out many facts included in the CNSNews piece that may have given the article more credibility. For one thing, the belief that these sites may have been related to the attacks was not mere speculation on the reporter's part, but the view of renowned terrorism expert Neil Livingstone, chief executive officer of the Washington-based counterterrorism and investigation company Global Options LLC. "This wasn't just some man off the street," says Johnson, CNSNews congressional bureau chief. Livingstone has written on terrorism for the New York Times and Washington Post and appeared on Nightline and Meet the Press.
Livingstone was quoted in the article as saying that terrorists like to take credit for their work and might have wanted to set up Websites for a propaganda campaign when they didn't know how successful the attacks would be. Johnson noted that bin Laden says on one of his videotapes that even he didn't think the strikes would be so successful. One of the main points of the article was Livingstone's outrage that the registration companies apparently didn't report the domain names to the FBI.
Snopes made much of the fact that the few date-related domain names did not refer to Sept. 11, but to Aug. 11 and Sept. 29. However, CNSNews had paraphrased Livingstone as saying these two dates "may have indicated the window of opportunity during which the attackers planned to strike."
CNSNews executive editor Scott Hogenson also says that Snopes mischaracterized the article as saying the sites were related to the terrorist attack when the story only raised the question of whether they might have been related to the attack. He tells Insight he e-mailed the Mikkelsons three times to correct the record and never received a reply. "They got it wrong, and they didn't even have the ethical fortitude to respond to detailed, accurate, polite queries. I think that's just low class," Hogenson says.
In a telephone interview with Insight, Barbara Mikkelson saw no need to change the status of the CNSNews report from "false" to "undetermined" or to include Livingstone's comments. "I don't know the man, and I don't know his credentials," she says. "Just because somebody's a known terrorism expert does not necessarily mean he will be right about everything."
As for not getting back to CNSNews, she says, "I don't recall it, and I will point out that we get hundreds of e-mails every day and there are just the two of us." Hogenson responds, "If they don't have time to correct their own mistakes, maybe they should not be in the business of trying to correct others." (When Insight used the e-mail link on the Snopes site to arrange its interview, Barbara Mikkelson got back to us within a day.)
As is usually the case in situations like this, the 'conservative blog' merely points to an article by a writer who isn't seen as fit to quote on New York Times or 60 Minutes--in this case the article was by John Berlau, an award-winning journalist and director of the Center for Entrepreneurship at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank, in Insight
-
Crockett,
How much change did Obama bring to Illinois at the state or federal level?
Specifically:
1. Legislative change he actually authored instead of taking credit for after Emil Jones handed it off to him.
2. Endorsements that bucked the State Machine/Combine
3. Significant votes that went against the party
See, I think Obama's a hypocrite running on change when he has not generated any when given the opportunity. Again, as an Illinois resident with one of the most corrupt political systems in America (that also certainly includes state republicans, but the Dale machine is in a class all itself) what did he do to turn things around here?
It's funny Crockett. I bet you shake your head at Republicans who endlessly make excuses for Bush and fail to see the obvious. That don't even try to see the obvious. And yet... certainly, and obviously, that emotional bias isn't limited to Republicans. Obama is an empty suit. He is an insider politician. He does take PAC money and bundled money from the usual suspects. He has the strong support of the "no change" Democratic party of Kennedy and Peolsi and did well before the Hillery deal was decided. The PUMAs know it first hand. It's not like the stodgy beltway Democrats are just now endorsing him for the team win. It's not like he picked Kuchinich to be his running mate instead of liberal insider hack Biden.
Republicans voted Bush in, in no small part and without a lot of deep analysis, as a protest to Clinton. The irony is the Democrats are about to elect their own "Bush" to replace Bush. 4 more years!
Charon
So are you trying to say that supporting McSame would be any different? Maybe Obama will be the biggest flop in history, maybe he was totally suck, but then again maybe he will be good. No one will know until he's in office. On the other hand we already know how bad Bush sucks. The sheer fact that McSame has voted with Bush 90% of the time just shows he will be 4 more years of the same thing Bush has been.
As for 1 & 2 I can't really say because I haven't looked them up and have no info on them.. however bashing him on number 3 seems pretty odd IMO. You are saying 3. Significant votes that went against the party Shouldn't that be a good thing?
While I don't know what the specific votes are, because you list none, shouldn't it be a good thing that he is willing to vote against his own party? Rather than tote the party line even if he thinks it's wrong? That's one of the things that makes Bush such a bad president, because he's a leader for only half this country not the whole country. How many times have you seen Bush reach across the isle and do something against his party?
I've never said Obama is going to bring change and have us all riding unicorns with rainbows in the background. I look at Obama as the best of the worst picks that we have. Obama is by far not my perfect candidate, but I'm also not going to sit back watching all the tards on this forum bashing him left and right while ignoring the faults of their own "chosen one".
The only reason I even get involved in the political topics on this board is to put a bit of balance on the subject because this board has a overwhelming group of blow hard right wingers. The few of us that stand up to talk about the other side get bashed endlessly by the same group that never see anything wrong with their own guy.So do you really think it's that odd that the few of us that do stand up against the blowhards have to keep a firm stance?
In fact if you go back and look at my posts you wont find very many of me talking about how great Obama is and that I think he's going to have us all singing and dancing. What you see me posting is mostly info about the hypicrosy of the right wing. You will however see me respond to false claims about Obama, but you don't see me making posts claiming he's the next best thing to sliced bread.
As I've posted before I'm a registered independent but I lean to the left because of the current political climate and the way the Republican party has been over run by the Religious Right and the Neo Cons it makes me have to lean even further left.
If the Republicans were "actually" conservatives like they "claim" to be then I'd likely lean further to the Right. I'm all for less govt control and less govt spending along with lower taxes, but the truth is that's nothing more than a pipe dream and the current crop of Republicans including McSame sure as hell don't believe in it. Sorry but actions speak louder than words.
At least voting for the Democrats I know what to expect and it's very unlikely any of my personal freedoms will be eroded away.. unlike with the Conservative Christian Right who wants to tell me what I can and can't do in my own home. In short a vote for McSame is a vote aginst your own personal freedoms.
-
"Screw Obama " !
-
How is 2.5 billion per year proving your point? That is part of the yearly budget, cutting 2.5 billion to Israel is nothing.
And check my link, the total aid to Israel since 1949 is over 101 billion dollars, yet again you don't know what you are talking about.
Since when is foreign aid considered an earmark? The US gives out hundreds of billions in foreign aid every year, much of it to countries that despise us.
I don't think you can see the Forrest for the trees...
The 2.5 billion we send to Israel is a enormous sum of money and it's the highest amount of money we send to any country in form of earmark aid. You can't just pull even that amount out of the govt shoe. So now tell me where he is going to cut 200 billion. I'm' using the example of Israel as was the reporter to show it's a huge amount of money and it's simply impossible for McSame to cut "100's of Billions" of dollars like he claims he will.
This means and even McSame admitted to it, that he will cut defense spending. The simple fact that McCain can't even answer the question on how he will cut the money is just proof he is full of BS on that subject. It's nothing more than a campaign promise just like when Bush Jr promised a flat tax system in "both" elections.
(btw when was the last time you heard Bush talk about his Flat Tax... oh I know, it was during his campaign)
The simple truth is, the only things McSame places he addmitted to cut was defense spending and farm subsidies. How ironic that those are the very people who will most likely vote for him blindly. lol I'm betting he's not campaigning on cutting farm subsidies and defense spending, but that's exactlly where his planned cuts will come from and he even admitted it.. :rofl
-
Your state gets those moneys too, Corkdick.
:lol @ Corkdick
-
Crockett, answer Charon's post.
I assume by several of your posts, that you don't support Obama.. If so does that mean you support McCain? If so why? What do you think he will do for this country? What makes you think he will be any different than Bush, given his voting record?
-
The sheer fact that McSame has voted with Bush 90% of the time just shows he will be 4 more years of the same thing Bush has been.
Voting against your own leader 10% of the is significant in this country.(and it hacked me off, as I view it as disloyalty) Joe Lieberman only went against them on ONE thing and was kicked out. One COULD view it differently--polls show Dem senate/house approval in SINGLE digits nationally, as opposed to Bush's low 30's. Obama votes with HIS leadership 100% of the time...I don't see how this can be construed as an asset :confused:
-
I assume by several of your posts, that you don't support Obama.. If so does that mean you support McCain? If so why? What do you think he will do for this country? What makes you think he will be any different than Bush, given his voting record?
Lol and I assume by YOUR posts, you haven't a response to Charon's post :D
-
Lol and I assume by YOUR posts, you haven't a response to Charon's post :D
you didn't read my post above I assume?
-
Voting against your own leader 10% of the is significant in this country.(and it hacked me off, as I view it as disloyalty) Joe Lieberman only went against them on ONE thing and was kicked out. One COULD view it differently--polls show Dem senate/house approval in SINGLE digits nationally, as opposed to Bush's low 30's. Obama votes with HIS leadership 100% of the time...I don't see how this can be construed as an asset :confused:
Ahh yes.. McSame the Maverick.. :uhoh
I guess that's why he's pretty much changed up on many of his former beliefs in the last two years to better fit the party line.. :lol
-
I assume by several of your posts, that you don't support Obama.. If so does that mean you support McCain? If so why? What do you think he will do for this country? What makes you think he will be any different than Bush, given his voting record?
It's very simple for me. I know first hand socialism that's even worse than any yet reached in the USA. I know that all but very very few politicians are dirty crooks. Even among those few are most likely no completely clean politicians.. It's most likely (from all I've seen) impossible not to get yourself dirty over the years, if for no other reason because the dirtier will want to have some dirt on you for leverage.. So they just shovel it at you till it sticks.
But there are some things you can still do as a politician, even if you've got dirt on you.. You follow the Constitution. Not call it a 'living document' up for constant re-interpretation, not just blindly follow its word, but understand what it means in its full context, with the rest of its related literature.
I don't particularily like McCain. His VN experience is part of him.. But politicaly, I'm pretty sure that when I was back in Phx, at least a dozen people mentionned some things that he'd done that were enough to scratch him off the clean/trustworthy list. I don't remember the specifics, but at least one problem was him waffling and more or less betraying his state, or something like that.
The only politicians I'd vote for (rather than against their opposition) are the libertarians.. They're often (relatively) a bit odd, but they follow the constitution and stand for individualism. I'm not gonna repeat Lazs' rap about that. All you need to know is that I have the exact same position.
Anything left of center is evil. And pretty much the whole left-right spectrum is slowly but surely shifting leftwards, and toward bigger government, etc etc. That toejam needs to stop. So, no, I'm not supporting Obama. Obama and his party hack team, the Clintons, etc, can eat my nuggets after I squat em out. I couldn't possibly pretend to one day swear myself citizen if I voted for those guys. I don't see any reason to believe that they're closer to a constitutional rule with individualists' interests than Republicans.. Even given all the bad about the Reps; their drift away from the earlier days around Goldwater's time, etc.
Obama reminds me of French politicians.. They're professional politicians, they go thru political science schools etc, they're like academics. Analogous would be a preference for an engineer to do something, rather than a theorist. An experienced war veteran to lead a military op, rather than a green graduate, no matter his curiculum back in school.
-
The 2.5 billion we send to Israel is a enormous sum of money and it's the highest amount of money we send to any country in form of earmark aid.
2.5 billion is a huge sum of money to us......however, it's a drop in the bucket in a budget that measures in the trillions.
I agree with Hang, if we are gonna give Israel money, do it above board and not under the table like some drug deal.
Cutting out foreign aid to countries that don't like us will save 10's of billions of dollars, (which I am for) McCain has said that is part of his plan. Israel happens to like us, so I doubt that aid will be cut.
-
I totally support doing away with earmarks
so why are you for oboma again?
I'm quite sure Republicans wont support cutting aid to Israel and cutting defense spending.. :)
i hope not, we need defence spending more than most anything else, as well as a strong Isreal to help provide a buffer between those who want us dead as well as a freind in there back yard!
-
The point is she is out right lying about giving the money back she still accepted it in another bill and it wasn't even her that turned it down it was because McCain complained about it.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm
Your own link doesn't say she said she gave the money back.
-
so why are you for oboma again?
i hope not, we need defence spending more than most anything else, as well as a strong Isreal to help provide a buffer between those who want us dead as well as a freind in there back yard!
Couldn't I in turn ask you the same question you just asked me based on your response in the second half of your reply?
Just because I don't like earmarks doesn't mean that's what I'm basing vote on. I base my vote first and for most on my personal freedom. Republicans have been going down the road of taking away my personal rights with their mingling with the Religious Right. That is the number one thing I look at, is my personal freedom.
Number two is spending.. Granted Democrats have a history of taxing more but in all honestly the last two have kicked the Republicans butts in the national budget. The last three Republican president's Regan, Bush Sr & Bush Jr have all three doubled our national debit while letting unchecked spending run wild. (Bush Sr was the only one not to double it of the three, but he only had 4 years and came damn close)
So to put it bluntly Republicans fail on my two main priorities. Separation of Church & State is crucial to me and I'll vote against any one that tries to merge the two.
If the McCain we have today was the same McCain we had 3 years ago, then maybe I might think about voting for him (but only if no Palin). However McCain we have today has thrown away any trust he had by totally changing his stance on so many of the important subjects that I just can't trust him anymore. I can't believe anything he says because he's done what ever he had to just to get the nomination, meaning not stating up for what he believed in.. He caved to the Republican party just to get the nomination.
Voting for Obama means I don't have to worry about my freedoms being taken away by pressure from the Religious Right and I also think he will likely do a better job with the budget. Obama also seems to understand where the "real" war on terror is and McSame will do the same thing Bush has done and that's lets the Neo-Cons pick the war using 9/11 as the excuse.
So now I ask you why would you vote for McCain when he has said he will cut defense spending?
-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm
Your own link doesn't say she said she gave the money back.
works fine 4 me..
-
Couldn't I in turn ask you the same question you just asked me based on your response in the second half of your reply?
Just because I don't like earmarks doesn't mean that's what I'm basing vote on. I base my vote first and for most on my personal freedom. Republicans have been going down the road of taking away my personal rights with their mingling with the Religious Right. That is the number one thing I look at, is my personal freedom.
Number two is spending.. Granted Democrats have a history of taxing more but in all honestly the last two have kicked the Republicans butts in the national budget. The last three Republican president's Regan, Bush Sr & Bush Jr have all three doubled our national debit while letting unchecked spending run wild. (Bush Sr was the only one not to double it of the three, but he only had 4 years and came damn close)
So to put it bluntly Republicans fail on my two main priorities. Separation of Church & State is crucial to me and I'll vote against any one that tries to merge the two.
If the McCain we have today was the same McCain we had 3 years ago, then maybe I might think about voting for him (but only if no Palin). However McCain we have today has thrown away any trust he had by totally changing his stance on so many of the important subjects that I just can't trust him anymore. I can't believe anything he says because he's done what ever he had to just to get the nomination, meaning not stating up for what he believed in.. He caved to the Republican party just to get the nomination.
Voting for Obama means I don't have to worry about my freedoms being taken away by pressure from the Religious Right and I also think he will likely do a better job with the budget. Obama also seems to understand where the "real" war on terror is and McSame will do the same thing Bush has done and that's lets the Neo-Cons pick the war using 9/11 as the excuse.
So now I ask you why would you vote for McCain when he has said he will cut defense spending?
It's time for a reality check here.
"Blame the Republicans" all that you want. Answer me this. Why is the Democratic Controlled Congress NEVER MENTIONED? They have more to do with our "Economy" than anything else.
-
It's very simple for me. I know first hand socialism that's even worse than any yet reached in the USA. I know that all but very very few politicians are dirty crooks. Even among those few are most likely no completely clean politicians.. It's most likely (from all I've seen) impossible not to get yourself dirty over the years, if for no other reason because the dirtier will want to have some dirt on you for leverage.. So they just shovel it at you till it sticks.
While you worry about Socialism.. This country has already been taken over by big business and corruption. Socialism, Communism is just a catchy phrase to keep the peasants in line. This country has been sold to big business years ago in a sort of Military Industrial complex but more so Big Business verses Military.
Watch Eisenhower's farewell speech and then think of this country's current state
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pWAGgLSCSQ
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oACur8v1188
Big business & special interest own this country along with foreign investors. Our govt stopped working for the people a long time ago my friend. Ask your self what the last bill this govt passed that does anything for the average Joe. Anything our govt does benefits a large cooperation or a special interest group the US citizen is a after thought.
Eisenhower was almost right in his fears, but it was Big Business as a whole that took over this country not just the military contractors.
-
It's time for a reality check here.
"Blame the Republicans" all that you want. Answer me this. Why is the Democratic Controlled Congress NEVER MENTIONED? They have more to do with our "Economy" than anything else.
Democrats only took over congress a short time ago and they have to deal with a Republican president that wants to veto everything. On the flip side the Republicans had control of it all for the last 8 years and what did they do?
-
Democrats only took over congress a short time ago and they have to deal with a Republican president that wants to veto everything. On the flip side the Republicans had control of it all for the last 8 years and what did they do?
Unacceptable answer. They have destroyed Michigan and other states in this Union. I refuse the "party line of we just got in". I'll need a better answer from you than "the usual canned response of deflection."
For a second time:
Why is the Democratic Controlled Congress NEVER MENTIONED? They have more to do with our "Economy" than anything else.
-
Democrats only took over congress a short time ago and they have to deal with a Republican president that wants to veto everything. On the flip side the Republicans had control of it all for the last 8 years and what did they do?
Clinton 37 vetoes in 8 years.
Bush2 8 vetoes in almost 8 years.
"Republican president that wants to veto everything" Say what? Put down the kool-aide dude!
-
Clinton 37 vetoes in 8 years.
Bush2 8 vetoes in almost 8 years.
"Republican president that wants to veto everything" Say what? Put down the kool-aide dude!
Between your post and mine, Crockett's King just entered Checkmate. I knew the "Veto count" myself and was wondering what "line" he would take.
-
Toad's right... One reason we have such a huge deficit is that Pres Bush very rarely uses his veto power. Yea they fight over it in congress, but he generally signs everything that makes it out of Congress unless it pushes one of his hot-issue buttons such as national security and homeland defense (look up the items he's vetoed, and why... It's pretty consistent.) That's a great way to end up with a deficit that will end up being blamed on the President, not the 13% approval rating yahoos in Congress who sent him budgets that grossly overspend fed income.
-
works fine 4 me..
The link works fine, what isn't in your own link is....Palin saying she sent the money back.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm
Maybe you can point out what you are talking about, because I sure don't see it.
-
Palin Rumors - 54 and counting.
http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors/
Nice site with a list of the rumors along with links.
Crockett, don't bother to read it; it will curdle your Kool-aide.
-
Palin Rumors - 54 and counting.
http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors/
Linky no workie for me... 500 internal server error.
-
Linky no workie for me... 500 internal server error.
It's working just fine for me, maybe you need an IT person to stop by, or just a new computer? :devil
-
It's working just fine for me, maybe you need an IT person to stop by, or just a new computer? :devil
Agree on the new computer, also on the IT person if by "IT person" you mean my wife.
-
Thanks for the link, Toad.
-
Agree on the new computer, also on the IT person if by "IT person" you mean my wife.
the "IT" in wife usually has another 'T'.
... :devil
-
I think it's getting too many hits.
Google for Charles Martin Palin Rumors
You'll get there eventually. ;)
-
I think it's getting too many hits.
Google for Charles Martin Palin Rumors
You'll get there eventually. ;)
The direct link does not work for me using MSIE and Chrome, but going to the site and then scrolling down works fine.
-
While you worry about Socialism.. This country has already been taken over by big business and corruption. Socialism, Communism is just a catchy phrase to keep the peasants in line. This country has been sold to big business years ago in a sort of Military Industrial complex but more so Big Business verses Military.
Watch Eisenhower's farewell speech and then think of this country's current state
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pWAGgLSCSQ
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oACur8v1188
Big business & special interest own this country along with foreign investors. Our govt stopped working for the people a long time ago my friend. Ask your self what the last bill this govt passed that does anything for the average Joe. Anything our govt does benefits a large cooperation or a special interest group the US citizen is a after thought.
Eisenhower was almost right in his fears, but it was Big Business as a whole that took over this country not just the military contractors.
You're so diddlyen biased it ain't funny. Keep drinking the koolaid.. I saw that speech about 10 years ago, no news to me. I've been around more than you and I have the right perspective.. What have you got, except insider bias? None of anything you've ever said has been a good excuse for voting for the crooks fastest running away from proper small govt etc.
The surest thing is that given a chance at a political career, you'd end up right there next to Obama, in a nice suit, spewing the same crooked rhetoric as every other party hack. "Socialism is just a catchy phrase" :rofl What sheltered life have you been living?? Come get your hands dirty 24/7 in third world countries and socialist paradise like France, I'll show you what you missed while you pampered in the USA's comforts.
-
You're so masken biased it ain't funny. Keep drinking the koolaid.. I saw that speech about 10 years ago, no news to me. I've been around more than you and I have the right perspective.. What have you got, except insider bias? None of anything you've ever said has been a good excuse for voting for the crooks fastest running away from proper small govt etc.
The surest thing is that given a chance at a political career, you'd end up right there next to Obama, in a nice suit, spewing the same crooked rhetoric as every other party hack. "Socialism is just a catchy phrase" :rofl What sheltered life have you been living?? Come get your hands dirty 24/7 in third world countries and socialist paradise like France, I'll show you what you missed while you pampered in the USA's comforts.
In other words your crooks are better than mine is that what you are saying moot? which is kinda funny being you don't even live in the US.. btw why all the hostility?
-
In other words your crooks are better than mine is that what you are saying moot? btw why all the hostility?
Like most folks that have adopted this country as their own, he's a better informed & educated American than you are.
-
They're not my crooks crockett.. But yes they are better than "yours". And the hostility? Like I said, come see and live what I've seen and lived and you'll know there can be no compromise on these matters. None, ever. Socialism is poison for human Happiness. There can be no compromise. Nothing can come ahead of the strive for being the best you can be, of people being all they can be... Not just sitting on their bellybutton and letting the status quo current carry them from birth to grave. That means individualism (I could argue this but that's the short of it). That means no masking welfare bloated social programs, none of that poop.
And not living in the US yet.. I've spent 6 years there, the best in my whole life. My whole family is over there, either born american or naturalized. I've studied american history and government literaly, I've lived and traveled the country quite a bit, seeing the country for what it really is, not just some shallow touring. I have friends in more than a dozen labs, friends in academia and friends living in the countryside in the middle of nowhere.. I have an adoptive grandfather that's a VN and Korea vet.. I know what I'm talking about.
Like it or not I'm coming over there and God help me, I'll do what seems right (I'm already voting by proxy.. My step brother is also my godson.).. Laugh it up if you think it's funny. I think it's going to be Good, with a capital G.
-
When you do finally get here moot, we'll welcome ya with open arms and when ya get your citizenship we'll welcome ya home too. :salute
-
crock-it.. socialism, as has been pointed out to you, is not some catch phrase...it is the greatest evil facing this country.. I would be more than willing to get into a shooting war with any socialist who will admit it but...
It is a dishonest political view.. liberal socialists hate the name.. they prefer to call it a "catch phrase" They like terms like "I lean to the left a little" or.. "I am a centrist" they prefer to rail against business to excuse the crushing of individual rights by socialism.
socialism and liberalism are founded on dishonesty "the end justifies the means" is their rally call.
lazs
-
boulderdash!
Actually, some of the most honest people I have ever dealt with were blood-red commies of old!
And my dad, being involved in politics preferred socialists to soft-right wingers....he said that at least you know where you have them. He was absolutely to the right BTW.........
IMHO the greatest evil facing your country is that you're drifting away from so many countries while being dependant upon them. The USA is making a new stamp as "unfriendly" and "Arrogant".
Just closed a long business deal with a U.S. firm btw, - hope I don't have to do that again. :furious
-
Deal with the friggin commies then.
Yeah there is a lot of whining when the gravy train gets derailed for them.
Screw em.
-
edit
Another crockett of crap. How fitting. :rofl
-
boulderdash!
Actually, some of the most honest people I have ever dealt with were blood-red commies of old!
And my dad, being involved in politics preferred socialists to soft-right wingers....he said that at least you know where you have them. He was absolutely to the right BTW.........
IMHO the greatest evil facing your country is that you're drifting away from so many countries while being dependant upon them. The USA is making a new stamp as "unfriendly" and "Arrogant".
Just closed a long business deal with a U.S. firm btw, - hope I don't have to do that again. :furious
you don't! just say know!
-
Crockett: So are you trying to say that supporting McSame would be any different? Maybe Obama will be the biggest flop in history, maybe he was totally suck, but then again maybe he will be good. No one will know until he's in office. On the other hand we already know how bad Bush sucks. The sheer fact that McSame has voted with Bush 90% of the time just shows he will be 4 more years of the same thing Bush has been.
Well, Obama has actually served me in the state of Illinois. When he wasn't voting "present" on politically risky issues he toed the party line at both the state and federal level to a higher degree than McCain supported Bush.
As for 1 & 2 I can't really say because I haven't looked them up and have no info on them.. however bashing him on number 3 seems pretty odd IMO. You are saying 3. Significant votes that went against the party Shouldn't that be a good thing?
I've posted about 1 & 2 (1. Legislative change he actually authored instead of taking credit for after Emil Jones handed it off to him. 2. Endorsements that bucked the State Machine/Combine) multiple times in threads, some of which you were participating in. Nor is it impossible to find valid, neutral information on these online -- if you are interest.
Most of his notable legislation (when he wasn't voting present 130 times or so) was not his. His mentor Emil Jones handed it to him to make a political star. He has endorsed political hacks in Illinois over far more qualified Republicans AND Democrats. For example, Todd Stroger, Rod Blagovitch and Dorothy Tillman.
Here's a link to my last 3-part post on the subject: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,246098.15.html
As for point 3 (3. Significant votes that went against the party)... That should be a good thing -- if he did it. But, he almost never voted against his party.
While I don't know what the specific votes are, because you list none, shouldn't it be a good thing that he is willing to vote against his own party? Rather than tote the party line even if he thinks it's wrong? That's one of the things that makes Bush such a bad president, because he's a leader for only half this country not the whole country. How many times have you seen Bush reach across the isle and do something against his party?
By all means, don't vote for Bush in this election. As noted above, Obama does not vote outside the party line to any notable degree, so your criticism applies equally to Obama. In fact, that is not a criticism of McCain, which is why so many socially conservative Republicans find fault with him. Say what you want about his positions, but good... or bad... McCain reaches across the aisle.
I've never said Obama is going to bring change and have us all riding unicorns with rainbows in the background. I look at Obama as the best of the worst picks that we have. Obama is by far not my perfect candidate, but I'm also not going to sit back watching all the tards on this forum bashing him left and right while ignoring the faults of their own "chosen one".
If you simply bash McCain while obviously ignoring Obama's faults (in this post you admit to not researching your candidate legislative history or political history) then doesn't that make you a "tard" too?
The only reason I even get involved in the political topics on this board is to put a bit of balance on the subject because this board has a overwhelming group of blow hard right wingers. The few of us that stand up to talk about the other side get bashed endlessly by the same group that never see anything wrong with their own guy.So do you really think it's that odd that the few of us that do stand up against the blowhards have to keep a firm stance?
So, you play the role of liberal blow hard? I prefer to try for educated voter, myself. I didn't vote for Bush in either of his elections, because I didn't feel him to be a candidate I could support for reasons I came to through my own research and analysis. I have also voted for Democrats for federal and state office (usually to my regret in this state). My opinions on Obama come from the same practice. Obama is selling a bill of goods, just like most politicians. I can respect an Obama supporter who favors big government, progressive, business as usual Washington politics and realizes that Obama can potentially deliver the promise unlike Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi who will never sit in the Oval Office. For those that think he represents some agent of change in Washington politics -- Tony Rezko has a bridge he wants to sell you.
In fact if you go back and look at my posts you wont find very many of me talking about how great Obama is and that I think he's going to have us all singing and dancing. What you see me posting is mostly info about the hypocrisy of the right wing. You will however see me respond to false claims about Obama, but you don't see me making posts claiming he's the next best thing to sliced bread.
The only claims you seem to attack are the outrageous ones. You don't seem to address the real, valid criticisms like his political record in Illinois which you haven't even researched.
As I've posted before I'm a registered independent but I lean to the left because of the current political climate and the way the Republican party has been over run by the Religious Right and the Neo Cons it makes me have to lean even further left.
At best, the Republican party gives lip service to the Christian right, something the Christian right has noticed, BTW. As for the Neocons -- well, I agree. Fortunately, I don't think the NeoCons have much support in the party these days, at lest not more than they had before their champion Bush took office.
If the Republicans were "actually" conservatives like they "claim" to be then I'd likely lean further to the Right. I'm all for less govt control and less govt spending along with lower taxes, but the truth is that's nothing more than a pipe dream and the current crop of Republicans including McSame sure as hell don't believe in it. Sorry but actions speak louder than words.
I could have written that :) Juan McShamnesty is hardly know for any strong, libertarian small govt. focus. But, he has, at times, acted as a reformer. Not always to my agreement or approval (McCain/Finegold), or much past making noises in that regard with few tough reform initiatives. However, while the perfect libertarian leaning small govt. candidate doesn't exist in this race or on the public scene, for that matter, I might give McCain the benefit of the doubt for 4 years. Here's why.
He is at the end of his political life. He does, I believe, care for America more than most of his peers and is at a point in life and his career where he can be more of his own man. He MIGHT actually try to live up to his reform campaign promises. Will he be able to actually accomplish much? One might suggest not. But, If he even tries it's a start. IMO a real reformer working to get special interests out of Washington is the first big step towards a smaller, better govt.
Obama, for all his talk of change, will not bring about a smaller govt. or reform the current pay to play system. His programs make that obvious, and his special interest support also debunks his claims as being a man only of the people. I already feel the noose of Obama-style change at home, both in lost rights and the highest tax rate in America with my middle class family earning too much to qualify for most of the programs we pay for.
Frankly, the one issue that may have me voting for McCain instead of a protest vote for Barr (not that it much matters in Illinois) is the though that he will put strict constructionists on the Supreme Court. I would give Bush more credit for doing that during his term, if he didn't have his initial picks shot down and was seemingly forced in that direction by the party. Anyway, I'm tired of legislating from the bench since that is not in the Supremes' job description and we can change our "living Constitution" using the legislative and executive branches -- as intended.
Also, with a Democratic Congress it might be good to actually have a Republican president that will act as a brake on the most ridiculous of legislation put forth by kennedy et al, leading to an uninspiring but functional "balance of mediocrity."
At least voting for the Democrats I know what to expect and it's very unlikely any of my personal freedoms will be eroded away.. unlike with the Conservative Christian Right who wants to tell me what I can and can't do in my own home. In short a vote for McSame is a vote against your own personal freedoms.
Please. In Democrat dominated Illinois my rights are very much under attack by democrats on a monthly basis. And it's not just the 2nd Amendment. This issue is a wash for either party.
Charon
-
I haven't been following this thread, but I have a few questions from the last page or two:
Please. In Democrat dominated Illinois my rights are very much under attack by democrats on a monthly basis. And it's not just the 2nd Amendment. This issue is a wash for either party.
I've seen many people on here claim that the Democrats are attacking/threatening people's rights, however I've never seen any evidence to support this, nor has anyone said in what way. Could you please tell me specifically which rights are under threat?
You're so masken biased it ain't funny. Keep drinking the koolaid.. I saw that speech about 10 years ago, no news to me. I've been around more than you and I have the right perspective.. What have you got, except insider bias? None of anything you've ever said has been a good excuse for voting for the crooks fastest running away from proper small govt etc.
The surest thing is that given a chance at a political career, you'd end up right there next to Obama, in a nice suit, spewing the same crooked rhetoric as every other party hack. "Socialism is just a catchy phrase" :rofl What sheltered life have you been living?? Come get your hands dirty 24/7 in third world countries and socialist paradise like France, I'll show you what you missed while you pampered in the USA's comforts.
moot, this is more of a philosophical question than political (I guess), but what makes you so sure you're right?
<S>
Yossarian
-
They're not my crooks crockett.. But yes they are better than "yours". And the hostility? Like I said, come see and live what I've seen and lived and you'll know there can be no compromise on these matters. None, ever. Socialism is poison for human Happiness. There can be no compromise. Nothing can come ahead of the strive for being the best you can be, of people being all they can be... Not just sitting on their bellybutton and letting the status quo current carry them from birth to grave. That means individualism (I could argue this but that's the short of it). That means no masking welfare bloated social programs, none of that poop.
And not living in the US yet.. I've spent 6 years there, the best in my whole life. My whole family is over there, either born American or naturalized. I've studied american history and government literaly, I've lived and traveled the country quite a bit, seeing the country for what it really is, not just some shallow touring. I have friends in more than a dozen labs, friends in academia and friends living in the countryside in the middle of nowhere.. I have an adoptive grandfather that's a VN and Korea vet.. I know what I'm talking about.
Like it or not I'm coming over there and God help me, I'll do what seems right (I'm already voting by proxy.. My step brother is also my godson.).. Laugh it up if you think it's funny. I think it's going to be Good, with a capital G.
Do you even watch the news over here? You have any clue how many Republicans have been caught on corruption charges the last few years? How many Democrats have been caught in the same time frame? Talk about delusional & biased.
How many members from Bush's staff have had to be dismissed because of this scandal or that during Bush's term as pres. There hasn't been another president since Nixon that has had so much dirt on it. Yet some how Democrats are bigger crooks.. :rofl That would almost be comical if it wasn't for the fact you actually seem to believe it.
You and Larz sit around crying about socialism so tell where is it? Give me an example of how our govt is being taken over by socialism.
Yet you sit back and claim Big Business isn't taking over America.. Yet you obviously haven't looked around.. That very individualism you talk about doesn't even exist in the corporate world. Take a drive across this country and every town looks the same.. It's like they roll out the map with pre placed Walmart's, GaP's, Import one's, best buy. Gone are the little guys the small town stores that made each town or city different. Now America has been steam rolled by corporate America.
Just look at the current banking problems it's just like Enron.. The rich CEO cook the books lie until it all collapses then the govt bails them out screwing over the tax payer and shareholders. Think any of these guys ever spend a day in jail??? Hell no they won't.
Hell it don't even stop in America we are exporting it.. The world is no longer being ruled by colonialism but being taken over by capitalism. In which if it were a "real" free marketplace it wouldn't be a bad thing.. However these massive corporations are backed by our govt one could easily argue the entire war in Iraq was for big business.
Socialism.. is great if it's for big business with the Republican party, but try to get affordable health care for the tax payer and it's evil socialism of course.
-
The link works fine, what isn't in your own link is....Palin saying she sent the money back.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm
Maybe you can point out what you are talking about, because I sure don't see it.
She never sent back the money it wasn't her decision to make like she goes around saying. Congress took away the earmark money for that bridge when it became a political hot potato. The same money was then put into a Alaska transportation bill and she gladly accepted it.
The funny part was McCain was one of the guys that spoke about about it bashing her for it and many of the other earmarks she got while she was mayor. Then he turns around picks her as VP and has her running around claiming she was against earmarks. It would be comical if it weren't true.
Why do you think she is avoiding the press like a plague.. They are schooling her on what to say so she don't blow it..
-
crock-it.. socialism, as has been pointed out to you, is not some catch phrase...it is the greatest evil facing this country.. I would be more than willing to get into a shooting war with any socialist who will admit it but...
It is a dishonest political view.. liberal socialists hate the name.. they prefer to call it a "catch phrase" They like terms like "I lean to the left a little" or.. "I am a centrist" they prefer to rail against business to excuse the crushing of individual rights by socialism.
socialism and liberalism are founded on dishonesty "the end justifies the means" is their rally call.
lazs
So what was the Republican party founded on Big Business and the backs of the middle class? You are comical at best lard.
Please give me some "real" examples of your evil socialism that's taking over America or just go back to your corner and sit like a good little right winger.. I bet you that I can turn around and give you a counter example where the Republicans have done the same for big business..
Yet you are of course ok with that...
-
Like most folks that have adopted this country as their own, he's a better informed & educated American than you are.
You can't even think on your own or even look up facts and you try to say I'm not informed. :rofl
-
I've seen many people on here claim that the Democrats are attacking/threatening people's rights, however I've never seen any evidence to support this, nor has anyone said in what way. Could you please tell me specifically which rights are under threat?
You request specifics and you cannot produce any when asked? :huh
-
I haven't been following this thread, but I have a few questions from the last page or two:
I've seen many people on here claim that the Democrats are attacking/threatening people's rights, however I've never seen any evidence to support this, nor has anyone said in what way. Could you please tell me specifically which rights are under threat?
Yossarian
That's typical here in the O club.. but they can never actually come up with any facts that didn't come from some chain e-mail.
-
Another crockett of crap. How fitting. :rofl
Yet obviously you don't have anything to argue your point with.. How typical.
-
So what was the Republican party founded on Big Business and the backs of the middle class? You are comical at best lard.
Nice personal attack... can't come up with an argument so you stoop to name calling... pathetic.
-
Well, Obama has actually served me in the state of Illinois. When he wasn't voting "present" on politically risky issues he toed the party line at both the state and federal level to a higher degree than McCain supported Bush.
I've posted about 1 & 2 (1. Legislative change he actually authored instead of taking credit for after Emil Jones handed it off to him. 2. Endorsements that bucked the State Machine/Combine) multiple times in threads, some of which you were participating in. Nor is it impossible to find valid, neutral information on these online -- if you are interest.
Most of his notable legislation (when he wasn't voting present 130 times or so) was not his. His mentor Emil Jones handed it to him to make a political star. He has endorsed political hacks in Illinois over far more qualified Republicans AND Democrats. For example, Todd Stroger, Rod Blagovitch and Dorothy Tillman.
Here's a link to my last 3-part post on the subject: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,246098.15.html
As for point 3 (3. Significant votes that went against the party)... That should be a good thing -- if he did it. But, he almost never voted against his party.
By all means, don't vote for Bush in this election. As noted above, Obama does not vote outside the party line to any notable degree, so your criticism applies equally to Obama. In fact, that is not a criticism of McCain, which is why so many socially conservative Republicans find fault with him. Say what you want about his positions, but good... or bad... McCain reaches across the aisle.
If you simply bash McCain while obviously ignoring Obama's faults (in this post you admit to not researching your candidate legislative history or political history) then doesn't that make you a "tard" too?
So, you play the role of liberal blow hard? I prefer to try for educated voter, myself. I didn't vote for Bush in either of his elections, because I didn't feel him to be a candidate I could support for reasons I came to through my own research and analysis. I have also voted for Democrats for federal and state office (usually to my regret in this state). My opinions on Obama come from the same practice. Obama is selling a bill of goods, just like most politicians. I can respect an Obama supporter who favors big government, progressive, business as usual Washington politics and realizes that Obama can potentially deliver the promise unlike Ted Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi who will never sit in the Oval Office. For those that think he represents some agent of change in Washington politics -- Tony Rezko has a bridge he wants to sell you.
The only claims you seem to attack are the outrageous ones. You don't seem to address the real, valid criticisms like his political record in Illinois which you haven't even researched.
At best, the Republican party gives lip service to the Christian right, something the Christian right has noticed, BTW. As for the Neocons -- well, I agree. Fortunately, I don't think the NeoCons have much support in the party these days, at lest not more than they had before their champion Bush took office.
I could have written that :) Juan McShamnesty is hardly know for any strong, libertarian small govt. focus. But, he has, at times, acted as a reformer. Not always to my agreement or approval (McCain/Finegold), or much past making noises in that regard with few tough reform initiatives. However, while the perfect libertarian leaning small govt. candidate doesn't exist in this race or on the public scene, for that matter, I might give McCain the benefit of the doubt for 4 years. Here's why.
He is at the end of his political life. He does, I believe, care for America more than most of his peers and is at a point in life and his career where he can be more of his own man. He MIGHT actually try to live up to his reform campaign promises. Will he be able to actually accomplish much? One might suggest not. But, If he even tries it's a start. IMO a real reformer working to get special interests out of Washington is the first big step towards a smaller, better govt.
Obama, for all his talk of change, will not bring about a smaller govt. or reform the current pay to play system. His programs make that obvious, and his special interest support also debunks his claims as being a man only of the people. I already feel the noose of Obama-style change at home, both in lost rights and the highest tax rate in America with my middle class family earning too much to qualify for most of the programs we pay for.
Frankly, the one issue that may have me voting for McCain instead of a protest vote for Barr (not that it much matters in Illinois) is the though that he will put strict constructionists on the Supreme Court. I would give Bush more credit for doing that during his term, if he didn't have his initial picks shot down and was seemingly forced in that direction by the party. Anyway, I'm tired of legislating from the bench since that is not in the Supremes' job description and we can change our "living Constitution" using the legislative and executive branches -- as intended.
Also, with a Democratic Congress it might be good to actually have a Republican president that will act as a brake on the most ridiculous of legislation put forth by kennedy et al, leading to an uninspiring but functional "balance of mediocrity."
Please. In Democrat dominated Illinois my rights are very much under attack by democrats on a monthly basis. And it's not just the 2nd Amendment. This issue is a wash for either party.
Charon
So wait a min.. in that first post you made.. number 3. Were you not saying that Obama voting against the party too many times? In fact I will quote you..
3. Significant votes that went against the party
You use that as a reason I shouldn't support Obama, but didn't give me any examples. I then responded that if it's true then it's a good thing.. However now you turn around and claim he always voted the party line. Which is it please make up your mind.
Sorry man this spinning is making be dizzy..You have to decide if it's either too much or not enough because you can't claim one, then turn around and claim the opposite. I know that's common of a typical Republican, however I was trying to give you the benefit of doubt because you seemed to be asking sensible questions.
-
Nice personal attack... can't come up with an argument so you stoop to name calling... pathetic.
I've taken more than my fair share of personal attacks from these trolls. Lard personally attacks me in every post he makes to me. So don't get all uppity on me about personal attacks until you say something about theirs.
-
You can't even think on your own or even look up facts and you try to say I'm not informed. :rofl
No.. If you read what I posted, I'm saying that an educated and aware Frenchman is a better American than you are.
I'll let that sink in for a second.
You may commence wailing again.
:D
-
No.. If you read what I posted, I'm saying that an educated and aware Frenchman is a better American than you are.
I'll let that sink in for a second.
You may commence wailing again.
:D
Hangtime you never "add" anything to the conversation except personal attacks and blanter. Not once can you ever post a original view that didn't come from someone else. Hell you can't even back up your own claims with facts, with out looking to some chain e-mail or right wing nut job blog.
TBH I really don't care what you say at this point. You lack any real substance or opinion.
-
Hangtime you never "add" anything to the conversation except personal attacks and blanter. Not once can you ever post a original view that didn't come from someone else. Hell you can't even back up your own claims with facts, with out looking to some chain e-mail or right wing nut job blog.
TBH I really don't care what you say at this point. You lack any real substance or opinion.
Gee, I feel honored and redeemed that my uninformed opinions, non-substantive responses and plagiarized commentary on your socialist world get under your liberal skin.
BTW, what the heck is 'blanter'?
Thank you; thank you very much!
-
You request specifics and you cannot produce any when asked? :huh
That is not answering my question.
-
Not once can you ever post a original view that didn't come from someone else. Hell you can't even back up your own claims with facts, with out looking to some chain e-mail or right wing nut job blog.
TBH I really don't care what you say at this point. You lack any real substance or opinion.
Pot....meet kettle. :D
-
Voting against your own leader 10% of the is significant in this country.(and it hacked me off, as I view it as disloyalty) Joe Lieberman only went against them on ONE thing and was kicked out. One COULD view it differently--polls show Dem senate/house approval in SINGLE digits nationally, as opposed to Bush's low 30's. Obama votes with HIS leadership 100% of the time...I don't see how this can be construed as an asset :confused:
Ya know - I bet Stalin, Hitler, and hey even Osama think and or thought the same way......
Does that make you a commie, socialist, terrorist or nazi?
No, luckily you are in the USA, where, jod forbid, you can use your own mind to make choices....Wouldn't it be great if we could get rid of all of the follow the party line sheep and get real discourse?
-
That is not answering my question.
Correct. And IMO you do not deserve an answer since you have a habit of making general statements and not being able get specific when asked to...exactly like what you asking for now.
-
Correct. And IMO you do not deserve an answer since you have a habit of making general statements and not being able get specific when asked to...exactly like what you asking for now.
Fine. Maybe you have a point. However, ask me a question now and I'll do my best to answer it.
Any other takers for my original question?
I've seen many people on here claim that the Democrats are attacking/threatening people's rights, however I've never seen any evidence to support this, nor has anyone said in what way. Could you please tell me specifically which rights are under threat?
-
So wait a min.. in that first post you made.. number 3. Were you not saying that Obama voting against the party too many times? In fact I will quote you..
Quote
3. Significant votes that went against the party
You use that as a reason I shouldn't support Obama, but didn't give me any examples. I then responded that if it's true then it's a good thing.. However now you turn around and claim he always voted the party line. Which is it please make up your mind.
Sorry man this spinning is making be dizzy..You have to decide if it's either too much or not enough because you can't claim one, then turn around and claim the opposite. I know that's common of a typical Republican, however I was trying to give you the benefit of doubt because you seemed to be asking sensible questions.
The point I was trying to raise here and have raised in numerous other posts frankly, is that Obama has not bucked the Democratic party at the state or federal level. Less so than McCain. Obviously I though you might have read enough of my posts, often in the same threads you post in, to know the context on that point.
As I have stated numerous times Obama is a party hack in the Illinois/Cook County, Daley-run Democratic machine. When he has had the opportunity to buck a corrupt system riddled with patronage, waste and indictments he has not. He has consistently supported the status quo. He has voted more along party lines than McCain -- when he actually did vote yes or no vs. present.
Since you missed it and was obviously ignored it the second time, I'll repost the link that outlines in detail the specific real-world issues with Obama. No "Obama is an Islamic terrorist" stuff here, just some details about how he got to where he is and why the concept of Obama as an agent for change is a laugh, unless by change you mean supporting the Kennedy/Pelosi idea of big govt. progressive change. Try reading it this time. You may actually learn something about the candidate you support (noting, by your own words, that you are ignorant about his legislative record and political history in Illinois at the state and federal levels):
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,246098.15.html
Here's a sample:
Several months before Obama announced his U.S. Senate bid, (Emil) Jones (Ill. Senate president) called his old friend Cliff Kelley, a former Chicago alderman who now hosts the city's most popular black call-in radio program.
I called Kelley last week and he recollected the private conversation as follows:
"He said, 'Cliff, I'm gonna make me a U.S. Senator.'"
"Oh, you are? Who might that be?"
"Barack Obama."
Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.
"I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen," State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. "Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.
"I don't consider it bill jacking," Hendon told me. "But no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book."
During his seventh and final year in the state Senate, Obama's stats soared. He sponsored a whopping 26 bills passed into law — including many he now cites in his presidential campaign when attacked as inexperienced.
It was a stunning achievement that started him on the path of national politics — and he couldn't have done it without Jones...
So how has Obama repaid Jones?
Last June, to prove his commitment to government transparency, Obama released a comprehensive list of his earmark requests for fiscal year 2008. It comprised more than $300 million in pet projects for Illinois, including tens of millions for Jones's Senate district.
Shortly after Jones became Senate president, I remember asking his view on pork-barrel spending.
I'll never forget what he said:
"Some call it pork; I call it steak."
And just to touch on this point specifically:
I know that's common of a typical Republican, however I was trying to give you the benefit of doubt because you seemed to be asking sensible questions.
I am a true, independent voter. I have voted in the past for Democrats at the presidential, gubernatorial and state and federal legislative levels. Didn't vote for Bush, even in 2000. Still might not vote for McCain or Obama (but again, that doesn't really matter in Illinois). Voted for Paul in the primaries. I am currently looking at a potentially bluedog-style democratic candidate as an alternative to the piss-poor RINO in my state congressional district, to the point of agreeing to participate in one of her e-mail issues committees on issues like the 2nd. So, the Republican tag doesn't really work on me.
I see the entire system system as fundamentally broken, particularly for the demands of the 21st century. The Democratic and Republican parties are just different sides of the same big govt. anti BOR coin. We need a smaller govt. focused on the BOR first with money removed from the equation. Since massive, immediate change is not likely, we have to incrementally take back our govt. a piece at a time the same way it has been taken from us. McCain MIGHT represent an incremental step in that direction if he can at least enact some reform of govt. spending and campaign funding. Use the veto pen, and use it often. But it is only a "might" because McCainFinegold was an anti step in that direction and the challenges to real reform are monumental. But, he might. To contrast, Obama wont, based on his big govt. proposals.
Charon
-
... CrotchItch's ...
It humours me that Laz and Hang have to always resort to name calling. Like they never got past that lesson in 1st grade.
-
You and Larz sit around crying about socialism so tell where is it? Give me an example of how our govt is being taken over by socialism.
I don't sit, I don't cry. You on the other hand get caught up in the retarded "I'm not crying, they are". You're wrong about me, and then brag about being right.. When in fact you're wrong. That just kills any credibility. Can you understand that?
Second, you don't know socialism first hand.. Don't tell me about socialism. I've seen it and lived it first hand, I know its french incarnation like the back of my hand. I could also go on about all the things that I've seen from around the world, first hand or from second hands I know are beyond suspicion, and accounting for biases I've recognized in them.. I could but it would take dozens of posts just to begin with. Have you been under a rock your whole life?
Yet you sit back and claim Big Business isn't taking over America..
Where did I claim that? I didn't.. See what you just did?
Yet you obviously haven't looked around.. That very individualism you talk about doesn't even exist in the corporate world. Take a drive across this country and every town looks the same.. It's like they roll out the map with pre placed Walmart's, GaP's, Import one's, best buy. Gone are the little guys the small town stores that made each town or city different. Now America has been steam rolled by corporate America.
Wrong.
Just look at the current banking problems it's just like Enron.. The rich CEO cook the books lie until it all collapses then the govt bails them out screwing over the tax payer and shareholders. Think any of these guys ever spend a day in jail??? Hell no they won't.
Straw man, red herring.
Hell it don't even stop in America we are exporting it.. The world is no longer being ruled by colonialism but being taken over by capitalism. In which if it were a "real" free marketplace it wouldn't be a bad thing.. However these massive corporations are backed by our govt one could easily argue the entire war in Iraq was for big business.
Socialism.. is great if it's for big business with the Republican party, but try to get affordable health care for the tax payer and it's evil socialism of course.
You're full of it. I'm not wasting my time replying to you again...
-
I've taken more than my fair share of personal attacks from these trolls. Lard personally attacks me in every post he makes to me. So don't get all uppity on me about personal attacks until you say something about theirs.
No I think it is funny coming from you and very hypocritical considering you turning people in for calling you a "crock-of-****). You're all for the rules when they suit you, but all for breaking them when it suits you.
-
moot, this is more of a philosophical question than political (I guess), but what makes you so sure you're right?
<S>
Yossarian
I've actualy written such a thread opening post a few times.. But it's long as hell and I'd always get bored near the end.. It has to be airtight or it's not worth wasting readers' time with. Right now I sure don't have the patience for it. Maybe once my life settles down again I will.
It's all very, very simple. Just a few basic principles applied very diligently. All the political arguing is really just the tip of the iceberg.
-
No I think it is funny coming from you and very hypocritical considering you turning people in for calling you a "crock-of-****). You're all for the rules when they suit you, but all for breaking them when it suits you.
I think that applies to most of the posters in the O'Club. From the looks of it you'd think all the officers in the club are very uncultured.
-
define "cultured"
-
the stuff growing in a petri dish?
-
define "cultured"
Hmmm...A willingness to engage in debate, even if it is a hot topic, with respect and dignity? Probably asking too much of some it would seem though.
-
crock-it.. I will give you "one" example of socialism and it's evils.. welfare. I will give you an example of where the democrats have made socialism worse than it even needs to be.... Public schools.
If you are talking about business and tax breaks tho.. you get no sympathy from me.. I say "a big round of tax breaks all around.. tax breaks for everyone"
the more tax breaks the better.
"earned income credit" is not a tax break tho.. it is pure evil socialism.
lazs
-
I think that applies to most of the posters in the O'Club. From the looks of it you'd think all the officers in the club are very uncultured.
Thats why I rarely post over here anymore. If I can not say something nice then I had probably best do like my Grandfather said... say nothing at all.
Personally, I feel this board has lost a lot of really good people and that precludes a good discussion from ever happening. The GScholzs' ruined the great discussions by being nothing more than antagonistic and lacking in a good argument.
The counter to this is, that this is a cartoon airplane game board, and not a place to be having some of the discussions we do. Skuzzy certainly has his hands full dealing with most of the imbeciles over here. I actually feel bad for him, as it takes away from things that could definitely further the game along if he did not have to constantly scold imbeciles in here.,
-
crock-it.. I will give you "one" example of socialism and it's evils.. welfare. I will give you an example of where the democrats have made socialism worse than it even needs to be.... Public schools.
If you are talking about business and tax breaks tho.. you get no sympathy from me.. I say "a big round of tax breaks all around.. tax breaks for everyone"
the more tax breaks the better.
"earned income credit" is not a tax break tho.. it is pure evil socialism.
lazs
Lazs, what is wrong with welfare?
And Bodhi, I agree. I can't count the number of times I've started a reply to a thread over here and then closed the tab because of what you said in the first line.
-
Hmmm...A willingness to engage in debate, even if it is a hot topic, with respect and dignity? Probably asking too much of some it would seem though.
Hmmmm.. methinks you might have slid a bit to the hypocritical side of the bus, there, Bongaroo... this IS in your signature block, yes?
"o idk, maybee cause the turd monkey is tryin 2 make all U.S citizens to learn spanish because the illegal immigrants r all comming over and cant take it apon themselves to go learn ENGLISH" -BigBOBCH
Ridicule becomes you.
Carry on.
-
Hmmmm.. methinks you might have slid a bit to the hypocritical side of the bus, there, Bongaroo... this IS in your signature block, yes?
"o idk, maybee cause the turd monkey is tryin 2 make all U.S citizens to learn spanish because the illegal immigrants r all comming over and cant take it apon themselves to go learn ENGLISH" -BigBOBCH
Ridicule becomes you.
Carry on.
I have someone's comment correctly cited in my signature. I haven't butchered his name to try and anger him have I? He hasn't requested I remove it, which I would if he asked. Now the fact that it does make him look the fool is ridicule. But I'm sure he and many others simply find humour in the irony.
A good sense of humour goes a long way. Simply berating posters over and over again because of their different political or religious views? Thats a tad different would you not say?
-
yoss.. my little british friend.. what is right about welfare?
Besides the obvious.. that it has increased poverty and dependence.. it is immoral to redistribute wealth by force.
lazs
-
I have someone's comment correctly cited in my signature. I haven't butchered his name to try and anger him have I? He hasn't requested I remove it, which I would if he asked. Now the fact that it does make him look the fool is ridicule. But I'm sure he and many others simply find humour in the irony.
A good sense of humour goes a long way. Simply berating posters over and over again because of their different political or religious views? Thats a tad different would you not say?
Allow me to respectfully disagree... it's presence is ridicule.
Your comments regarding the ridicule directed at crackett.. valid they may be, over that sig line; hypocritical they remain.
IMHO, of course.
As with anything, your perspective may vary. For my part, I try and read this stuff tounge-in-cheek, and try to avoid making statements I wouldn't be comfortable making in the physical presence of those they are directed it. I guess the key is to neither take myself, or the person my remarks are directed against too seriously, and try to keep a sense of humor. Twisted, yes.. but I'm here for entertainment. Not bloodsport.
Politics & religious debates being focal points of great and dangerous angst, sharp diatribes are routinely part iof the discourse. It's nothing new... considering the subject matter and the capabilities of some of those involved, the back-and-forth in here is amazingly tame, humorous and fairly good natured.
For the most part.
;)
-
Hmmm I bet crockit is walking bow legged after this thread. Escpecialy after Charon got done with him. :aok
-
Welfare was not designed to help people but to make them dependent on the State, it only makes people weaker in the long run. If your goal is to make people weaker, then welfare is a good vehicle for doing so. I find it amusing that leftist so support Darwin's Theory of Evolution, yet would support something like welfare.
-
yoss.. my little british friend.. what is right about welfare?
Besides the obvious.. that it has increased poverty and dependence.. it is immoral to redistribute wealth by force.
lazs
lazs, I may be misunderstanding the term here, but I don't think so.
Surely if a person, for whatever reason, cannot support themselves, it's only right that they should be helped out by the government?
EDIT: clarified who I'm asking about this.
-
I may be misunderstanding the term here, but I don't think so.
Surely if a person, for whatever reason, cannot support themselves, it's only right that they should be helped out by the government?
Yup. Those liberals are the nicest people. They'll give you the shirt off from someone elses back.
-
I may be misunderstanding the term here, but I don't think so.
Surely if a person, for whatever reason, cannot support themselves, it's only right that they should be helped out by the government?
That's what churches are for, not the government.
-
Yup. Those liberals are the nicest people. They'll give you the shirt off from someone elses back.
It's chilly in here from all this hating. Gimme your jacket!
:rofl
-
EDIT: clarified who I'm asking about this.
If you don't want interjection, you should pm him.
-
That's what churches are for, not the government.
Then republicans should keep their "values" talk in the churches, not the government. Zing!
-
Than republicans should keep their "values" talk in the churches, not the government. Zing!
Agreed. The USA is a secular country.
-
Then republicans should keep their "values" talk in the churches, not the government. Zing!
Society can not survive without basic values. But then again a thief would not know what that means, always taking things they did not earn.
P.S. And that Church out west that encouraged its people to go on welfare are even more of a threat then people like Obama.
-
Society can not survive without basic values. But then again a thief would not know what that means. Always taking things they did not earn.
ding ding ding
-
No I think it is funny coming from you and very hypocritical considering you turning people in for calling you a "crock-of-****). You're all for the rules when they suit you, but all for breaking them when it suits you.
Turning people in WTF do you get this BS from? Also where have I ever said anything about people breaking rules? I could care less if people follow rules but I treat people as they treat me. Every reply Lard has ever written to me he's calling me some name. Have you ever once seen me complain about it? Na I just call him Lard in responce.
I don't give a crap about what someone in the O club says to me..
-
Yossarian: I've seen many people on here claim that the Democrats are attacking/threatening people's rights, however I've never seen any evidence to support this, nor has anyone said in what way. Could you please tell me specifically which rights are under threat?
The most specific aspect for me personally, are the assaults on the 2nd Amendment. An issue that I have to deal with every legislative session. Nationally, you have eminent domain for the Democrats. Both republicans and democrats find issues with the 1st, but that amendment is hard for ether to breach so there are few serious assaults. However, the Democrat pushed Fairness Doctrine appears not very fair.
The Republicans, of course, have their attacks mostly centered on the 4th Amendment, but Bill Clinton in his tough on crime/war on drugs mode has dirty hands there as well. My main objection to his presidential legacy.
More nit picky (and not specifically Constitutional), at the state level we have had laws passed or proposed limiting everything from the sale of foie gras to small "drug" baggies. You have bans or proposed bans on smoking, trans fats and cell phone and driving as well. To be fair though, both parties pander to the insurance industry relative to nanny laws. Bush, for example, is a major supporter of seat belt laws.
All in all, most of these issues can find some degree of bipartisan assault, since govt. is about state power and control, and the BOR gets in the way of that for both Republicans and Democrats.
Charon
-
Well said Charon. I wish I could get my thoughts across as clearly as you.
-
I don't give a crap about what someone in the O club says to me..
You sure do spend a lot of time defending yourself against all these people you are so indifferent to...
-
I've taken more than my fair share of personal attacks from these trolls. Lard personally attacks me in every post he makes to me. So don't get all uppity on me about personal attacks until you say something about theirs.
uh oh! Did he just say uppity?
-
crock-it.. I will give you "one" example of socialism and it's evils.. welfare. I will give you an example of where the democrats have made socialism worse than it even needs to be.... Public schools.
If you are talking about business and tax breaks tho.. you get no sympathy from me.. I say "a big round of tax breaks all around.. tax breaks for everyone"
the more tax breaks the better.
"earned income credit" is not a tax break tho.. it is pure evil socialism.
lazs
ok Lazs..
Welfare.. yes I will agree with you that it does get abused. However would you rather we not have welfare at all. Can you not consider the fact that we do somewhat take care of our poor and that it helps society even though it might get abused?
Ever been to Costa Rica Lazs? That is prime example of a country with a good mix of Haves and Have-nots. Where the poor are left to fend for themselves while the well off live behind gated communities with bobwire fences and security guards. Is that what you want America to become Lazs?
You think that this country would be in the same shape it's in now if we had no welfare? You think society would not be worse in this country if we didn't try to take care of the poor?
You know what Lazs I have lived in a home with a single parent who had to go on welfare and use food stamps to put food on the table when I was a kid. I grew up in a home where I didn't have the coolest clothes in junior high school. It wasn't because my mom was lazy she worked a full time job and went to school to continue her education to become a RN nurse.
When I was a kid I had to have a major surgery that insurance didn't fully cover. My mom had to work her bellybutton off to support me and you know what she was on welfare for a short time and even had to use food stamps. I can remember going to the grocery store out side our town because she was embarrassed to have to use food stamps and didn't want anyone to know.
You know what Lazs when I was in high school in 11th grade I got into a job training program so you could get out of school early each day to go work because I qualified being from a low income single parent home. I didn't go work at McDonnalds or at some other useless job I went out and started a lawn business. I took the back seats out of my 1984 Pontiac Phoenix that I paid for with my own money, so I could stuff all the lawn equipment in it.
Hell I had to lie to my teacher and had a property manager signing my paperwork for class, covering for me by saying I worked for them. The teacher eventually figured out what I was doing but she luckily went along with it.
I busted my bellybutton and had 40 accounts by the end of the first year and by the time I sold the business 10 years later, I was doing nothing but govt contracts and large commercial accounts. Hell man I went from went from working out of a 4 door car to having 10 guys working for me with two trucks before I sold the business. I've since owned 3 other business and am in the process of starting another.
Hell man I bought my first house the day I turned 21 with no co signer back in the late 90's when it was much harder to get a loan than what it is today. I've seen both sides of the fence Lazs and I fully support this country taking care of it's citizens that need help. I am a product of your so called evil liberal socialism and I think I've done a pretty damn good job with the limited opportunity I was given and I'd hate to be such a pompous arus to say others shouldn't have that same chance because there are some that abuse the system.
Why is it you call helping out people socialism but never cry about the billions in hands out to big business? Why do you never concider that Socialism Lazs and why do you always run from that topic?
Public Schools are not a product of socialism Larz they are a product of not enough funding.
Just like a typical Republican you are all for tax cuts yet never complain about the outlandish unchecked spending done by the last 3 Republican presidents. You can't have it both ways.. If you cut the taxes then you have to cut the spending which the Republican party doesn't seem to want anything to do with.
-
Public Schools are not a product of socialism Larz they are a product of not enough funding.
:confused:
Not enough funding of what?
The schools? :rofl
-
You can't have it both ways.. If you cut the taxes then you have to cut the spending which the Republican party doesn't seem to want anything to do with.
Neither party wants to cut spending. Obama wants to raise taxes so he can spend even more.
-
Society can not survive without basic values. But then again a thief would not know what that means, always taking things they did not earn.
P.S. And that Church out west that encouraged its people to go on welfare are even more of a threat then people like Obama.
Walmart is a major corporation that tells it's employees to go on welfare.
-
Neither party wants to cut spending. Obama wants to raise taxes so he can spend even more.
Given the track records of the last three presidents from both parties.. I'd have to say there will be less debit added under the Democrats.
-
uh oh! Did he just say uppity?
Ok so?
-
Walmart is a major corporation that tells it's employees to go on welfare.
That's why I shop at Targets. Walmart is no friend of the American people either. You bring opposites to the extreme, they become the same. Big Churches and Big Businesses are just as bad as Big Government.
-
lazs, I may be misunderstanding the term here, but I don't think so.
Surely if a person, for whatever reason, cannot support themselves, it's only right that they should be helped out by the government?
EDIT: clarified who I'm asking about this.
My governments job is not Philanthropy or Charity or Health Care, Yossarian.
Here's a link to the constitutional discussion, in detail; on 'social welfare' as contrasted against 'general welfare'. Bear in mind that this is the United States.. not England. Your system is different.
http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/constitution.html (http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/constitution.html)
-
Given the track records of the last three presidents from both parties.. I'd have to say there will be less debit added under the Democrats.
Past presidents from both parties do not necessarily mean these candidates will follow the same paths their predecessors did. McCain plans on using the power of Veto often. Obama wants to raise taxes for more welfare programs. Just how much do you think a national healthcare system is going to cost?
-
Given the track records of the last three presidents from both parties.. I'd have to say there will be less debit added under the Democrats.
BS any money sent to DC is like throwing it down a rat hole..... no matter who is in power.
-
Crockett, if your story is true then it illumniates the difference between a hand up and a hand out.
Damn few in this country or on this BBS are against giving a person a hand up. You help someone get going and they take it from there.
There are many in this country and on this BBS that are against giving a person a never ending hand out.
Problem is our current welfare system seems unable to differentiate between the two.
The Obamessiah hasn't said or done anything that would indicate he cares to differentiate between the two.
-
You sure do spend a lot of time defending yourself against all these people you are so indifferent to...
I'd have to say you hit that one out of the park!
-
Ok so?
it was a bad joke about the current news of someone referring to obama as an "uppity" person.
-
Crockett, if your story is true then it illumniates the difference between a hand up and a hand out.
Damn few in this country or on this BBS are against giving a person a hand up. You help someone get going and they take it from there.
There are many in this country and on this BBS that are against giving a person a never ending hand out.
Problem is our current welfare system seems unable to differentiate between the two.
The Obamessiah hasn't said or done anything that would indicate he cares to differentiate between the two.
This is true but don't you think the idea would be to better reform the system so there isn't as much room for abuse? Rather than just calling is evil socialism as Lazs would say? I mean think of some of the country's that have zero social programs for the people in need. I can't think of any of them that would be a nice place to live even if you were well off. Do we really want to turn American into a third world craphole because the well off think they are above helping others?
-
I'd have to say you hit that one out of the park!
Do you have a purpose in this topic other than trying to bash me either directly or by proxy? Did I piss in your cheerios at some point and didn't notice? Considering your post was a whine about me "personally" attacking Lazs you sure are being quite the hypocrite.
btw you never bothered to answer about your claim that I "turned" someone in.. I'd love to hear that one, so why not speak up.
-
Given the track records of the last three presidents from both parties.. I'd have to say there will be less debit added under the Democrats.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
It's CONGRESS that spends, taxes and borrows!
-
It's CONGRESS that spends, taxes and borrows!
Last time I checked it was the president who signs on the dotted line..
-
Last time I checked it was the president who signs on the dotted line..
Lets see...
Article. II. - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section 4 - Disqualification
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Well that's it for the Executive branch...
Oh here it is, in Article. I. - The Legislative Branch Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
So it appears the President cannot sign any legislation that Congress hasn't written and approved.
100% certainty that we will have a new president on January 20, but we will still have 98% of the same old congress, and you will be wondering why nothing will change in DC.
-
So it appears the President cannot sign any legislation that Congress hasn't written and approved.
Even if the President doesn't sign it Congress can still force it into law with a 2/3 majority vote.
-
Even if the President doesn't sign it Congress can still force it into law with a 2/3 majority vote.
sure
And I am sure when some politician says something clever, Crockett would never claim that it wasn't the politician but his speechwriter who was clever. After all, the politician certainly approved the clever statement.
-
So it appears the President cannot sign any legislation that Congress hasn't written and approved.
You are missing the point I was making even though it was in front of your own eyes..The president doesn't have to sign what congress sends him. Remember the govt shutting down under Clinton because he wouldn't sign what the Republican Congress sent him?
Also take note the current Congress has only set the spending for this years budget. They will also set the spending for 2009 budget for the next president. Seven of the 8 years Bush has been in power the Republican congress has approved the budget.
So your point is what exactly? Are you agreeing with me that the unchecked spending in Bush's budgets has been the fault of the Republican congress? ;)
-
Even if the President doesn't sign it Congress can still force it into law with a 2/3 majority vote.
This is true but it didn't happen in the budget war between Clinton and the Republican congress.. They fought the govt shut down and they both came to an agreement. The very same Republican congress under Bush has turned around and ruber stamped anything Bush asked for.
-
So your point is what exactly?
That you should read the constitution and blame the branch that writes the law, spends, taxes and borrows the money.
-
Quote:
100% certainty that we will have a new president on January 20, but we will still have 98% of the same old congress, and you will be wondering why nothing will change in DC."
Maybe not
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
-
That you should read the constitution and blame the branch that writes the law, spends, taxes and borrows the money.
With the exception of last year, the Republicans have had control of Congress for the 12 years before. So are you admitting our current budget problem is the fault of the Republican Congress?
-
With the exception of last year, the Republicans have had control of Congress for the 12 years before. So are you admitting our current budget problem is the fault of the Republican Congress?
I am blaming congress as well as your ignorance. Obama and Biden voted for the bridge to nowhere as did Ted Stevens. My contempt of congress crosses party lines.
-
You are missing the point I was making even though it was in front of your own eyes..The president doesn't have to sign what congress sends him. Remember the govt shutting down under Clinton because he wouldn't sign what the Republican Congress sent him?
That happened during the Reagen years as well, only with a Democratic controlled congress. This kind of crap goes both ways.
-
I am blaming congress as well as your ignorance. Obama voted for the bridge to nowhere as did Ted Stevens. My contempt of congress crosses party lines.
Ok then that's fine.. The point I was making to you is the President has the power to not sign the budget Congress sends him. So saying it's all Congresses fault isn't really true. Yes Congress sets the budget but the President is the guy in charge that tells them what he wants.
The President doesn't just come to office and get a budget out of the blue from congress.. (with the exception of his first year) The president sets up the basis behind the budget and tells congress what he expects out of them. It's then up to Congress to hammer out the details into a budget the president is willing to sign.
Stating that Congress alone is responsible for the budget, is like saying a account it is responsible for your own household budget. Sure the account can do the paper work and give you and idea of what you can spend, but it's up to you to make the decision on what actually gets spent.
-
The very same Republican congress under Bush has turned around and ruber stamped anything Bush asked for.
Is it Bush's fault they rubber stamped everything he asked for? No, it's the fault of Congress. The system isn't operating as designed by our founding fathers. This is supposed to be a system of checks and balances and it no longer is.
-
That happened during the Reagen years as well, only with a Democratic controlled congress. This kind of crap goes both ways.
Yes but can't you see that's the point I'm making. That the President is the guy that sets the boundaries for the budget. It's Congress's job to hammer out the detail and put something together the President is willing to sign. The problem under Bush's with the Republican Congress, is they pretty much rubber stamped anything Bush asked for with crap loads of unchecked spending.
-
Is it Bush's fault they rubber stamped everything he asked for? No, it's the fault of Congress. The system isn't operating as designed by our founding fathers. This is supposed to be a system of checks and balances and it no longer is.
Well that's kind of like the question of... "which came first the chicken or the egg"?
But I will agree that the system isn't working.. that is for sure.
-
Ok then that's fine.. The point I was making to you is the President has the power to not sign the budget Congress sends him. So saying it's all Congresses fault isn't really true. Yes Congress sets the budget but the President is the guy in charge that tells them what he wants.
The Congress has the power to not be idiots and spend like there is no tomorrow!
It is possible for ethical lawmakers to exist!
Thomas Jefferson, Benjimen Franklin, John Hancock were real men!
Get a congress that balances a budget and puts country before self!
We all hear of the Presidential race, but how much do we hear about or Reps and 1/3 of the Senate?
-
Yes but can't you see that's the point I'm making. That the President is the guy that sets the boundaries for the budget. It's Congress's job to hammer out the detail and put something together the President is willing to sign. The problem under Bush's with the Republican Congress, is they pretty much rubber stamped anything Bush asked for with crap loads of unchecked spending.
I don't think the part in bold is correct. Congress makes the budget and the President either approves or disapproves it. He can make requests but it is up to Congress to decide if they wish to grant those requests. I could be mistaken but this is my understanding of how it works (in a nutshell).
Congress has also refused to give the President a line item veto power. The President has to approve/disapprove of an entire budget instead of just vetoing items he doesn't approve of.
-
I don't think the part in bold is correct. Congress makes the budget and the President either approves or disapproves it. He can make requests but it is up to Congress to decide if they wish to grant those requests.
There is a law, written and passed by Congress, that requires the executive branch to give the congress a budget. This is a starting point for their work in bankrupting the country. This budget request is by no means binding upon the congress.
The way in which Congress develops tax and spending legislation is guided by a set of specific procedures laid out in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The centerpiece of the Budget Act is the requirement that Congress each year develop a “budget resolution” setting overarching limits on spending and on tax cuts. These limits apply to legislation developed by individual congressional committees as well as to any amendments offered to such legislation on the House or Senate floor.
The following is a brief overview of the federal budget process, including:
the President’s budget request, which kicks off the budget process each year;
the congressional budget resolution — how it is developed and what it contains;
how the terms of the budget resolution are enforced by the House and Senate; and
budget “reconciliation,” a special procedure used in some years to facilitate the passage of spending and tax legislation.
-
There is a law, written and passed by Congress, that requires the executive branch to give the congress a budget. This is a starting point for their work in bankrupting the country. This budget request is by no means binding upon the congress.
Gotcha, thanks. :aok
-
Stating that Congress alone is responsible for the budget, is like saying a account it is responsible for your own household budget. Sure the account can do the paper work and give you and idea of what you can spend, but it's up to you to make the decision on what actually gets spent.
Have you even read the Constitution of the United States of America?
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
In your example, the accountant is the President.
-
The Congress has the power to not be idiots and spend like there is no tomorrow!
It is possible for ethical lawmakers to exist!
Thomas Jefferson, Benjimen Franklin, John Hancock were real men!
Get a congress that balances a budget and puts country before self!
We all hear of the Presidential race, but how much do we hear about or Reps and 1/3 of the Senate?
Yup... so we go after the senators that 'ok' pork. Term limits will help...
One of the poll agencies ran a poll awhile back, the question was : "Is Your Senator / Congressman Corrupt?"
The answer was, nationally, an overwhelming 'No.' This was at the same time congress had a single digit approval rating with the same poll agency.
Seems folks are convinced THEIR congressman is ok, it's all the other ones that are corrupt.
Change won't occur till we ALL refuse to send back our incumbents.
ALL INCUMBENTS. Local, state and federal.
So, if we want change.. we gotta change our politicians. Picking a president or a congressman based on Party does not cut it... change the body in the suit. The corpses in 'em is what's stinking.
-
Well IMO a lot of change would occur if we got rid of career politicians via term limits. Ted Stevens is a perfect example of why not having term limits are a bad thing. The guy has been in power so long and was so corrupt that his state doesn't vote him out because he has so much political power.
I say give them 6 years in congress & the senate. That give them a max of 12 years if they can get elected to both branches.
-
I wouldn't mind if Nancy Pelosi were to just 'disappear' from congress and America. She is a parasite, nothing else.
-
Well IMO a lot of change would occur if we got rid of career politicians via term limits.
We do agree on something. ;)
Congress passed term limits on the office of the Presidency. If term limits are good enough for the President then they are good enough for Congress as well.
-
Well IMO a lot of change would occur if we got rid of career politicians via term limits. Ted Stevens is a perfect example of why not having term limits are a bad thing. The guy has been in power so long and was so corrupt that his state doesn't vote him out because he has so much political power.
I say give them 6 years in congress & the senate. That give them a max of 12 years if they can get elected to both branches.
While I agree that something needs to be done, one look at the Michigan state legislature shows that term limits are not the end-all be-all. What we have is a never ending cavalcade of first termers with absolutely no experience in the art of diplomacy. This has greatly effected our state's progress (I'm not going to give all the credit to the commie Canadian in the governor's mansion...)
In fact, the Michigan state government could be used as a microcosm of what to expect with a federal government packed full of a bunch of first term Dem's in congress and Obama at the helm in the White House.
cod hep us all...
-
I wouldn't mind if Nancy Pelosi were to just 'disappear' from congress and America. She is a parasite, nothing else.
Funny, someone said the same about you and the BBS! Zing!
jk, but seriously, quit just flaming the boards with this troll flame war crapola.
-
one can only hope that Mccain is telling the truth. He says.. admits that.. congress spent too much and that he will use the power of the veto to end such spending.
I am not sure that osamabinbiden would ever even dare promise such a thing.. they have both voted for billions of dollars every year to be spent on worthless goodies. They claim they want to spend even more.
lazs
-
A crowd that had control of the country for eight years and did nothing but spend us into oblivion, gave Palin a standing ovation.
Scary
There was a poll around here right before Palin's RC speech that had asked if Palin was a good choice. The results showed 37% yes, 63% no. Right after her speech the poll was taken again and the results reversed.
I wonder how much support Ron Paul could muster if he were allowed to speak with such a prime time audience.
-
Don't know... seems logical to me.. You ask people about a woman that they have never even heard of if she is a good pick.. when your party needs a boost.
Then they hear her speak and realize she is someone who connects even better than osamabama at a welfare office..
You get a guy (and gal) who say that their own party spent like drunken sailors.. when have you ever heard a person running that said something like that? and that they are going to end it?
As for ron paul... when given a test most people will lean to libertarian. but.. When told that the government will shrink to the point that their goodies will go away.. or told that they may have to deal with individual freedom and the individual freedom of their fellows.. they universally shun libertarian principles as "fringe" and "nutball".
lazs
-
Well IMO a lot of change would occur if we got rid of career politicians via term limits. Ted Stevens is a perfect example of why not having term limits are a bad thing. The guy has been in power so long and was so corrupt that his state doesn't vote him out because he has so much political power.
I say give them 6 years in congress & the senate. That give them a max of 12 years if they can get elected to both branches.
Well.. The Term Limit legislation requires an amendment to the Constitution. 2/3 majority required. The two times Newt's congress brought it to a vote, (part of the contract with america) the democrats refused to get on board, the vote went down on party lines.
Quite a few states enacted state legislature term limit legislation, most that have run 8 years, some 12.
I doubt seriously the congress, of it's own accord, could EVER be brought to execute a term limits amendment... unless we execute it for them by simply refusing to vote for an incumbent that hasn't already signed on to the existing self-imposed term limit contracts. If a candidate doesn't sign the contract, he doesn't get state party funding.
Regardless of the apparatus.. state party imposed or voter imposed; we need to get rid of incumbent roll-in power development to crack the corruption problem. McCain is correct in pointing out that washingtons elected elite are more into staying in power than they are in representing the will of their constituents.
I'd urge all of us to NOT return a single incumbent that hasn't come out for and promised work on Term Limits Legislation.
-
I doubt seriously the congress, of it's own accord, could EVER be brought to execute a term limits amendment...
Of course they won't. Term limits were good enough to impose on the office of the President but aren't good enough (or maybe to good) for Congress.
-
While I agree that something needs to be done, one look at the Michigan state legislature shows that term limits are not the end-all be-all. What we have is a never ending cavalcade of first termers with absolutely no experience in the art of diplomacy. This has greatly effected our state's progress (I'm not going to give all the credit to the commie Canadian in the governor's mansion...)
In fact, the Michigan state government could be used as a microcosm of what to expect with a federal government packed full of a bunch of first term Dem's in congress and Obama at the helm in the White House.
cod hep us all...
Well how long is the term limit for them? I'd think 6 years would be a pretty reasonable amount of time for them to get experience but not enough time set up too many long term contacts or budies which tends to give them too much power. It's also a short enough time to keep a steady flow of new faces and new ideas flowing through.
If you figured everyone had the same term limits then it would kind of equal out I'd think.
-
A crowd that had control of the country for eight years and did nothing but spend us into oblivion, gave Palin a standing ovation.
Scary
There was a poll around here right before Palin's RC speech that had asked if Palin was a good choice. The results showed 37% yes, 63% no. Right after her speech the poll was taken again and the results reversed.
I wonder how much support Ron Paul could muster if he were allowed to speak with such a prime time audience.
It's simple Palin is nothing more than a Cheerleader and that's why she was picked. She wasn't picked because she was a good choice for helping lead the country. She was picked to be a cheerleader and if you think about that, it's pretty damn scary that this is what our political system has come too.
-
You will not understand this but I will give it a try anyway.
A very great many of your fellow citizens would believe this statement:
It's simple Obama is nothing more than a Cheerleader and that's why he was picked. He wasn't picked because he was a good choice for helping lead the country. He was picked to be a cheerleader and if you think about that, it's pretty damn scary that this is what our political system has come too.
Think about it. Probably just as many Americans would accept that statement as would accept yours.
The really scary, scary thing is that by the yardsticks liberals use to measure Palin, Obama is less qualified than she is. Yet he is the top of Democratic ticket. THAT'S scary.
The Dems had a chance to walk away with this election without breaking a sweat. But liberal ideology trumped common sense.
Now it will be a close run thing either way.
-
Regardless of running mate, I’ll cast my lot with the man that has been through the fire; tested and found pure and true. He never betrayed this fellow servicemen or his country when it counted. There is probably someone out there that is a better choice, but he or she is not on the opposing ticket at this moment.
-
You will not understand this but I will give it a try anyway.
A very great many of your fellow citizens would believe this statement:
Think about it. Probably just as many Americans would accept that statement as would accept yours.
The really scary, scary thing is that by the yardsticks liberals use to measure Palin, Obama is less qualified than she is. Yet he is the top of Democratic ticket. THAT'S scary.
The Dems had a chance to walk away with this election without breaking a sweat. But liberal ideology trumped common sense.
Now it will be a close run thing either way.
You act as if the two years in the Senate is the only experience Obama has, he was elected to the state senate in 1997 and was there until 2004 when he started his campaign for the US senate. In fact Obama's Political career started only three years after George Bush Jr's.
Compare that to Bush Jr for example, he had zero political experience other than working on his dad's campaign and a failed attempt at the House of Rep's. He was elected as Texas Governor with zero political experience and spent 5 years on the job. Bush Jr was later elected to the highest office in the land with only 5 years of elected political experience.
Now compare that to Palin who was mayor of a town with the population of only 6,700 to 9k from 1996 to 2002. She was then elected as Governor of Alaska in 2006 and hasn't even been on the job 2 years at this point.
The difference between say Obama & Bush Jr is Obama took a different path on his way up. Much like many of the other presidents who were former Senators. Not everyone can have a former US president as their father making it easy to become Governor of a state.
Now I'm sorry but being the Mayor of a such a small town is not the same experience wise. Maybe if She had been Governor 4 years b4 she made her run then she would have some experience under her belt. However she hasn't even made it 2 years and now she's the pick for VP under McCain? That's simply ridicious at best.
-
Charon has responded to and essentially demolished the idea that Obama gained vast amounts of experience in the Illinois Senate. He was indistinguished at best until his last year or so and then he persuaded Emil Jones to grant him favor. Jones was the Democratic leader in the Senate.
This is from a New Yorker article; the New Yorker is not a conservative magazine.
...That’s why, in 2002, as Obama planned his next campaign, he sought out Jones. “We never discussed it, but he had to analyze that race and recognize he had no other powerful elected officials supporting him,” Jones said. “And so he felt I could be very, very key if he was going to make the run for the U.S. Senate.
...
In the State Senate, Jones did something even more important for Obama. He pushed him forward as the key sponsor of some of the Party’s most important legislation, even though the move did not sit well with some colleagues who had plugged away in the minority on bills that Obama now championed as part of the majority. “Because he had been in the minority, Barack didn’t have a legislative record to run on, and there was a buildup of all these great ideas that the Republicans kept in the rules committee when they were in the majority,” Burns said. “Jones basically gave Obama the space to do what Obama wanted to do. Emil made it clear to people that it would be good for them.” Burns, who at that point was working for Jones, was assigned to keep an eye on Obama’s floor votes, which, because he was a Senate candidate, would be under closer scrutiny. The Obama-Jones alliance worked. In one year, 2003, Obama passed much of the legislation, including bills on racial profiling, death-penalty reform, and expanded health insurance for children, that he highlighted in his Senate campaign.
Obamessiah was made by Jones; it's that simple. Obamessiah did do diddly in the Illinois Senate except what Jones pre-planned for him and told him to do. Maybe they should have run Jones..........
Other than Illinois, he has ~ 140 days as a US Senator, using most of that time to run for President.
If you want to say Obamessiah is as experienced as Bush, you'd be wrong. But I'm not sure, if you're pushing Obama, that you want to try to make a claim that Obama will be as good as Bush. :)
As for Obamessiah being as qualified as Palin, I really don't think so. But then neither one is exactly a world statesman.
Anyway if Palin is not qualified, then Obamessiah is even less qualified AND.... Obamessiah is the top of that ticket.
Dems had this election wrapped. Hill the Prez and she would have been smart enough to make Obama the Veep. But Noooooooooooooooooooooooo.... . they had to jump the shark.
-
Oh, yeah...
That entire post of yours merely states your opinion on Palin's qualifications.
It fails to address the obvious in that there are a VERY great many US voters that feel the same way about Obama as you do about Palin. (Of course you dismiss them as wrong because... well... because you think you are right.)
Check the polls; Palin is comparing favorably with Obamessiah in a lot of eyes. And he's the top of that ticket. Ruh roh!
-
One thing you are forgetting Crockett concerning Palin is her time on the City Council. Granted, it was a small town City Council, but it's still experience that she has.
-
:rofl :rofl :rofljump the shark :rofl :rofl :rofl good one :aok
-
This piece in the Telegraph gives some more insight to Palin's background. Brilliantly, but perhaps accidentally, the Palin pick now has Obama running against the other party's VP :)
Sarah Palin is not such a small-town girl after all
By James Bennett
It is clear that few in America, let alone Britain, have any idea what to make of Sarah Palin. The Republicans' vice-presidential candidate confounds the commentators because they don't understand the forces that shaped her in the remote state of Alaska.
Thus, most coverage dwells on exotica - the moose shooting, her Eskimo husband - combined with befuddlement at how a woman can go from being mayor of a town of 9,000, to governor, to prospective VP within the space of a few years.
But, having worked with Alaskans, I know something of the challenge she has faced, and why - contrary to what Democrats think - it could make her a powerful figure in the White House.
The first myth to slay is that she is a political neophyte who has come from nowhere. In fact, she and her husband have, for decades, run a company in the highly politicised commercial fishing industry, where holding on to a licence requires considerable nous and networking skills.
Her rise from parent-teacher association to city council gave her a natural political base in her home town of Wasilla. Going on to become mayor was a natural progression. Wasilla's population of 9,000 would be a small town in Britain, and even in most American states. But Wasilla is the fifth-largest city in Alaska, which meant that Palin was an important player in state politics.
Her husband's status in the Yup'ik Eskimo tribe, of which he is a full, or "enrolled" member, connected her to another influential faction: the large and wealthy (because of their right to oil revenues) native tribes.
All of this gave her a base from which to launch her 2002 campaign for lieutenant (deputy) governor of Alaska.
She lost that, but collected a powerful enough following to be placated with a seat on, and subsequently the chairmanship of, the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which launched her into the politics of Alaska's energy industry.
Palin quickly realised that Alaska had the potential to become a much bigger player in global energy politics, a conviction that grew as the price of oil rose. Alaska had been in hock to oil companies since major production began in the mid-1970s.
As with most poor, distant places that suddenly receive great natural-resource wealth, the first generation of politicians were mesmerised by the magnificence of the crumbs falling from the table. Palin was the first of the next generation to realise that Alaska should have a place at that table.
Her first target was an absurd bureaucratic tangle that for 30 years had kept the state from exporting its gas to the other 48 states. She set an agenda that centred on three mutually supportive objectives: cleaning up state politics, building a new gas pipeline, and increasing the state's share of energy revenues.
This agenda, pursued throughout Palin's commission tenure, culminated in her run for governor in 2006. By this time, she had already begun rooting out corruption and making enemies, but also establishing her bona fides as a reformer.
With this base, she surprised many by steamrollering first the Republican incumbent governor, and second, the Democratic former governor, in the election.
Far from being a reprise of Mr Smith Goes to Washington, Palin was a clear-eyed politician who, from the day she took office, knew exactly what she had to do and whose toes she would step on to do it.
The surprise is not that she has been in office for such a short time but that she has succeeded in each of her objectives. She has exposed corruption; given the state a bigger share in Alaska's energy wealth; and negotiated a deal involving big corporate players, the US and Canadian governments, Canadian provincial governments, and native tribes - the result of which was a £13 billion deal to launch the pipeline and increase the amount of domestic energy available to consumers. This deal makes the charge of having "no international experience" particularly absurd.
In short, far from being a small-town mayor concerned with little more than traffic signs, she has been a major player in state politics for a decade, one who formulated an ambitious agenda and deftly implemented it against great odds.
Her sudden elevation to the vice-presidential slot on the Republican ticket shocked no one more than her enemies in Alaska, who have broken out into a cold sweat at the thought of Palin in Washington, guiding the Justice Department's anti-corruption teams through the labyrinths of Alaska's old-boy network.
It is no surprise that many of the charges laid against her have come from Alaska, as her enemies become more and more desperate to bring her down. John McCain was familiar with this track record and it is no doubt the principal reason that he chose her.
Focusing on the exotic trappings of Alaskan culture may make Palin seem a quaint and inexplicable choice. But understanding the real background of her steady rise in politics suggests that Barack Obama and Joe Biden are underestimating her badly. In this, they join two former Alaskan governors, a large number of cronies, and a trail of enemies extending back over a decade.
James Bennett is the author of 'The Anglosphere Challenge'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/09/09/do0904.xml
-
The surprise is not that she has been in office for such a short time but that she has succeeded in each of her objectives. She has exposed corruption; given the state a bigger share in Alaska's energy wealth; and negotiated a deal involving big corporate players, the US and Canadian governments, Canadian provincial governments, and native tribes - the result of which was a £13 billion deal to launch the pipeline and increase the amount of domestic energy available to consumers. This deal makes the charge of having "no international experience" particularly absurd.
In short, far from being a small-town mayor concerned with little more than traffic signs, she has been a major player in state politics for a decade, one who formulated an ambitious agenda and deftly implemented it against great odds.
Excerpted and placed so Crockett can't miss it.
(just continuing my non original cut and paste contribution to whats-his-names angst)
-
But...but...but...but... Obamessiah was a "community organizer" that helped fund and organize ACORN which is now under multiply state investigations for voter fraud!
And...and...and.... Obamessiah didn't do diddly in the Illinois Senate until Emil Jones gave him patronage and put his name on a bunch of bills that other Democrats had worked to pass for years!
Plus Obamessiah has been a serving Senator for ~ 140 days; he managed to sqeeze in some Senate time while he was running for President.
-
Abraham Lincoln had just 2 years in the US House of Reps and served 8 yrs in the Illinois legislature.
He then went on to lead the Union thru the most difficult time of the Republic.
James Buchanan served 10 years in the US House, 11 in the Senate, was Secy of State, and Ambassador to Britian before becoming arguably the worst president in US history.
Usain Bolt ran the 100 meters only for a year before breaking the world record and winning the gold medal and becoming the fastest man on earth.
Conclusion: Experience is not the best measure of future performance.
-
Abraham Lincoln had just 2 years in the US House of Reps and served 8 yrs in the Illinois legislature.
He then went on to lead the Union thru the most difficult time of the Republic.
James Buchanan served 10 years in the US House, 11 in the Senate, was Secy of State, and Ambassador to Britian before becoming arguably the worst president in US history.
Usain Bolt ran the 100 meters only for a year before breaking the world record and winning the gold medal and becoming the fastest man on earth.
Conclusion: Experience is not the best measure of future performance.
Yah missed my favorite.. Harry Truman.. NO experience. Was a Judge! The guy went on to make some of the toughest calls in history.
-
Yeah but he was a Senator for 10 years before FDR tapped him in 1944.
Course then he hardly caught a glimpse of FDR when he was VP.
-
Ahh! I did not know that! Thanks!