Another Reason to Vote for Obama

sillysally

I'm sorry, but I find this approach to voting more than a little scary.  Things can ALWAYS be worse. 

Of course things CAN get worse.  The thing is, they're much less likely to get worse under a president who can see that huge, major changes need to be made.  The results of  the last election (when Dems got control of the house and senate and Nancy Pelosi was elected speaker) made it pretty obvious  that the majority of the country wants big changes, and they want them sooner rather than later. Personally, I wouldn't trust a president who actually made a statement about the possibility of being in Iraq for 100 years to change anything except maybe his underwear, if that.

Joyce

fuzzy_dogs_mom

sillysally

I'm sorry, but I find this approach to voting more than a little scary.  Things can ALWAYS be worse. 

Of course things CAN get worse.  The thing is, they're much less likely to get worse under a president who can see that huge, major changes need to be made.  The results of  the last election (when Dems got control of the house and senate and Nancy Pelosi was elected speaker) made it pretty obvious  that the majority of the country wants big changes, and they want them sooner rather than later. Personally, I wouldn't trust a president who actually made a statement about the possibility of being in Iraq for 100 years to change anything except maybe his underwear, if that.

Joyce

Yes Obama says he is for "change," but notice that he rarely elaborates.  If you ask most Obama supporters what he wants to change, they generally have no idea.  That, to me, is much more spooky than a president that comes out and says what he means, even if I don't agree with it.  At least then you know where you stand.  My concern is that everyone is going to get Obama fever, elect him, and then realize that the dude has no idea what he is doing in the foreign policy department (one of the most important issues of the day).  Yes, he is a good speaker.  However, speeches to not protect our national security.  If he had a few for years under his belt I wouldn't be quite so hinky about the whole thing.  Even though I would not vote for him due to his hardcore liberalness, I would at least be somewhat at peace with him being elected. 

It also bores me whan people act as if Obama is as pure as the driven snow.  He is from Chicago, and I am exposed to quite a bit of Chicago media (we are only an hour away), and he has most certainly been involved in things there that are questionable. 

sillysally

Yes Obama says he is for "change," but notice that he rarely elaborates.  If you ask most Obama supporters what he wants to change, they generally have no idea.  That, to me, is much more spooky than a president that comes out and says what he means, even if I don't agree with it.  At least then you know where you stand.  My concern is that everyone is going to get Obama fever, elect him, and then realize that the dude has no idea what he is doing in the foreign policy department (one of the most important issues of the day).  Yes, he is a good speaker.  However, speeches to not protect our national security.  If he had a few for years under his belt I wouldn't be quite so hinky about the whole thing.  Even though I would not vote for him due to his hardcore liberalness, I would at least be somewhat at peace with him being elected. 

It also bores me whan people act as if Obama is as pure as the driven snow.  He is from Chicago, and I am exposed to quite a bit of Chicago media (we are only an hour away), and he has most certainly been involved in things there that are questionable. 

Right on the money IMO Sally.  You know what the change is going to be, it's what will be rattling around in your pocket after he gets done knocking your taxes sky high.  Imagine that, barrel of oil is tearing everyone up and you know their agenda is to bump your taxes up as well, but they're not going to mention it for fear of scaring off voters.  Either one, Hillary or Obama, they're going to bang taxes right up.

fuzzy_dogs_mom

 Personally, I wouldn't trust a president who actually made a statement about the possibility of being in Iraq for 100 years to change anything except maybe his underwear, if that.

Joyce

How long has it been since we dropped the bomb on Japan?  60+ years and we still have a military presence in Japan, and Germany, and Korea, etc.  What makes you think were going to be out of Iraq any time soon?  They talk a good game about cutting and running, but if elected they know they can't abandon those people over there...just telling you what you want to hear.

In addition to the current budget, Obama would like to add this "Little " budget change over four years....if anyone thinks this money will come from the "Rich" people only, then you are kidding yourself......

http://www.gop.com/obamaspendometer.htm

Oh, and Hillary rings in with over 900 billion.......eeek.....

cc431

  They talk a good game about cutting and running, but if elected they know they can't abandon those people over there...just telling you what you want to hear.

I wouldn't expect the troops out in a week, but I would expect a pull-out to start in a reasonable time frame .... and I have no problems at all with telling the Iraqi people it's time to start figuring out how to solve their own problems. It's just unfortunate that we're the cause of most of their current problems.  We are not the "World Police" and it's not like we don't have enough problems of our own to deal with. As for Japan, there was a  World War going on and our military bases were attacked.  I don't recall Iraq dropping any bombs on us ... and if I recall right, it was the Saudis who were responsible for 9/11, not  the Iraqis.

Joyce

fuzzy_dogs_mom

 I don't recall Iraq dropping any bombs on us ... and if I recall right, it was the Saudis who were responsible for 9/11, not  the Iraqis.

Joyce

Grossly mistaken and way off base.  This is my quote from another thread:

"Someone already mentioned this, but the first Gulf War under Bush Sr. was a UN backed war with full support.  We were there to draw the line in the sand, chase them out of Kuwait and protect the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, at the request of the Saudis who financed and back the entire war.  Only our government and the former government of Afghanistan were willing to step up to the plate and offer protection to the Kingdom.  Now everyone knows that the Taliban would never have been able to kick the former USSR out of Afghanistan if it wasn't for our help.  The Saudis took the sure bet and chose the USA over the Taliban for protection.  That very choice, the USA over the Taliban was the inspiration for the current problems in the Mid-East (the infidel stepped on their soil and waged war, despite the invitation).  Osama Bin-laden took his successful shot at the Twin Towers (the second attempt; first attempt was under the Clinton who did nothing in '92) in the hopes to draw a riff between the relationship between the Kingdom and the USA.  That is also why 3/4's of the plane hijackers were of Saudi decent, hand-picked by Bin-laden to further that riff.  It is important to realize, that during the first Gulf War, it was clearly NOT OUR MISSION to topple the government of Iraq and remove Hussein from power.  We did complete the job that was asked of us, to draw the line in the sand and remove him from Kuwaitt....PERIOD.  We didn't take him out for good reason.  It wasn't the job to take him out and nobody knew what to expect.  The next guy to step up to the plate in Iraq could have possibly worsened the situation rather than help, and it was thought best to just leave him in power, but much, much weaker in strength than before."

Joyce, not my intent to argue whether or not we should be in Iraq.  Many like my self figured it a mistake from the get go.  But, we are there and have to try and make the situation right the best we can. Cutting and running like Hillary and Obama want to do is IMO a huge mistake.  We left them once with "no fly-zones" and Hussein slaughtered 100,000 in the south.  If we abandoned them a second time another 100,000 are going to get slaughtered in civil unrest.  All that set aside, when you make a comment like the above, the Saudis are to blame for 911, you are clearly playing into exactly what Bin-Laden had hoped would happen, fostering a riff between the Saudi government and the USA and displays a total lack of understanding in what the 911 attack was really all about.

CC

cc431

Many like my self figured it a mistake from the get go.  But, we are there and have to try and make the situation right the best we can. Cutting and running like Hillary and Obama want to do is IMO a huge mistake. .

 I am not sure if I can go as far as saying it was a mistake from the getgo, but it was badly handled, we (bush administration) made the mistake of thinking that we could win the war quickly using technology (shock and awe) and have found that what the military leaders with balls were telling them had been correct all along, you need boots on the ground and lots of them to win a war like this. I agree that cutting and running would be a huge mistake.

cc431

 We left them once with "no fly-zones" and Hussein slaughtered 100,000 in the south.  If we abandoned them a second time another 100,000 are going to get slaughtered in civil unrest. .

 The slaughter and unrest will be only part of the issue should we decide to cut and run. The world has never truly likes us very much, but has always respected us, over the last few years that respect has dropped and much of the world think we have no resolve and we are weak at waging war and it is only our superior fire power that even allows us to do as well as we do. IMO cutting and running will only add to that lack of respect within the world and especialy that part of the world. It will be a disaster for Iraq if we run and it will end up being a disaster for us as well.

dgriego

 I am not sure if I can go as far as saying it was a mistake from the getgo, but it was badly handled, we (bush administration) made the mistake of thinking that we could win the war quickly using technology (shock and awe) and have found that what the military leaders with balls were telling them had been correct all along, you need boots on the ground and lots of them to win a war like this. I agree that cutting and running would be a huge mistake. ...

Definitely badly handled.  Not everyone was for this in Conservative circles...Afganastan yes, but Iraq???  Pat Buchanan, our long time conservative voice in Washington had this to say:

http://www.theamericancause.org/patdesertstormii.htm

http://www.theamericancause.org/patwrongwarinthewrongplace.htm

 Pat has a lot of good articles found here:

http://www.theamericancause.org/patarchives.htm

 I was listening to talk radio on the way back from lunch and they were talking about Obama's church and his pastor whom supposedly Obama has called his spiritual advisor. Obama also stated on the news this morning that he has gone to the same church for 20 years. Below is the vision of the church. What is meant by a non-negotiable commitment to Africa? Liberation from what? Taken from the website of the church: http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.
2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.
3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.
2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.
3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
4. A congregation with a non-negotiable committment to WHITE AMERICANS.
5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF WHITE PEOPLE 
8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

 Now tell me what an uproar there would be if this shoe was on the other foot? Why is it okay to ask these questions of some candidates and not others? Why is it racism on one end but it is not on the other?

To end there are three things that concern me about the statement posted on his church’s website.

1.     We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. What about America? Does the commitment to Africa supercede any commitment to America?

2. We are a congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.  Same question
3. We are a congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.  So are we to share our economic wealth with everyone so that each can have the same? is this regardless of work ethic? Do those who do nothing recieve some of my hard earned money? Exactly what does this mean?

Another interesting point:http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080304/EDITORIAL04/280164763/1013/EDITORIAL

"Mr. Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. of Chicago's Trinity United Church. "whom Mr. Obama has called his "spiritual mentor" and sounding board," has not only traveled with Mr. Farrakhan to visit Moammar Gadhafi in Libya - some junket. Mr. Wright has also said that Mr. Farrakhan "epitomized greatness." Just last year, Mr. Wright's church, known for a creed aptly described as black separatist, bestowed on Mr. Farrakhan the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer award."

 It is like Michael Moore doing a favorable documentary on the life and accomplishments of George W Bush.

Bottom line is this......these candidates(democratic) are on a fast highway of turning this country into a socialistic/democratic country....bad news folks.......do your research on how other countries are doing that have that type of government.......UK, Germany, France....and so on....the unemployment rate has skyrocketed in those countries.......tax rate has spun out of control....I have friends in Germany....for those who are working the tax rate at times is reaching almost 60% of their paychecks for entitlement programs and other tax related funding.....

Flat out scary...........

snownose

Flat out scary...........

Yes it is.

I actually could care less what his church says...I am not religious.

I doubt every Church go-er here agrees with everything their Church says, and even less what their pastor says...and as to mentor and sounding board...my MOTHER is both to me...but guess what? On some issues we differ VASTLY. Doesn't affect my respect, love, or commitment to her wellbeing.

In short...so what?

rwbeagles

I actually could care less what his church says...I am not religious.

I doubt every Church go-er here agrees with everything their Church says, and even less what their pastor says...and as to mentor and sounding board...my MOTHER is both to me...but guess what? On some issues we differ VASTLY. Doesn't affect my respect, love, or commitment to her wellbeing.

In short...so what?

 I cant help but wonder if your stance would be the same if the canidate in question were white and the church refered to "whites" instead of blacks.