Obama `08 [Archive] - My Hattiesburg Community

SueScribe

01-06-2008, 08:44 PM

The World would thank us for him. There might be a chance we could redeem ourselves, and there might be a chance we could turn the corner on the politics of divisiveness and actually do something for ourselves.

Just might.

And, No, he's not a muslim. We don't know what ANY of them are, if you insist that he is. ALL of them could be muslims and we're just stumbling through the Matrix, okay? Okay.

I've listened to the man. He is a breath of fresh political air. And - he's smart. And - electing him to the presidency would inspire our friends and confuse our enemies.

Yep. Obama `08.

Conveyor Belt

01-06-2008, 08:50 PM

I'm SERIOUSLY considering voting for him.

If Paul doesn't pick up before the MS primary, I'm going to vote for Obama.

So far, my wife likes Huckabee. So, we're going to have a Huckabee and an Obama sign in our yard. Funny.

dreamhippy

01-06-2008, 08:53 PM

If he took the "weather control" remote that President Bush has been sitting on or sleeping on for the past seven years and removed the batteries and locked it in the vault, yep, the world would thank us, at least for that. :) But, since Al Gore is the one promoting the whole "Global Warming" myth and he is a hardcore Liberal from the same party as O`bama, I imagine the crazy phenomena will probably continue if Barack makes it. Too bad, too, since I really hate all the destruction caused by these One Worlders in their fearmongering attempts to bankrupt the country`s budget and subvert our country`s sovereign authority.

Conveyor Belt

01-06-2008, 08:57 PM

I think Obama may just hate 'Big Oil' enough to actually get the US off of it. If he only accomplished that, it would be worth electing him.

Luvia

01-06-2008, 09:02 PM

<TABLE cellPadding=5 border=1><TBODY><TR><TH>VoteMatch Question & Answer
(Click on question for explanation and background)</TH><TH>Based on these stances:
(Click on topic for excerpt & citation)</TH></TR><TR><TD>Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's right (http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q1_2006.asp)
(+5 points on Social scale) </TD><TD>Voted against banning partial birth abortion: Favors topic 1 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm#14)
Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases: Favors topic 1 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm#11)
Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion: Strongly Favors topic 1 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm#7)
Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters: Favors topic 1 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm#5)
Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill: Favors topic 1 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm#3)
Protect a woman's right to choose: Strongly Favors topic 1 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm#1)
Supports Roe v. Wade: Strongly Favors topic 1 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm#2)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance: Strongly Favors topic 1 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm#06n-NRLC)
YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives: Favors topic 1 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm#2005-75)
NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions: Favors topic 1 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm#2006-216)
YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines: Favors topic 1 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm#2007-127) </TD></TR><TR><TD>Strongly Favors topic 2:
Require hiring more women & minorities (http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q2_2006.asp)
(-5 points on Economic scale) </TD><TD>Better enforce women's pay equity via Equal Pay Act: Strongly Favors topic 2 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm#31)
Racial equality good for America as a whole: Favors topic 2 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm#14)
Supports affirmative action in colleges and government: Strongly Favors topic 2 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm#1)
America's race and class problems are intertwined: Favors topic 2 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Principles_+_Values.htm#16)
Rated 100% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance: Strongly Favors topic 2 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm#06n-NAACP) </TD></TR><TR><TD>Strongly Favors topic 3:
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits (http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q3_2006.asp)
(+5 points on Social scale) </TD><TD>We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions: Favors topic 3 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm#21)
Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality: Favors topic 3 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm#11)
Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is: Favors topic 3 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm#10)
Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws: Favors topic 3 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm#9)
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance: Strongly Favors topic 3 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm#06n-HRC)
NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage: Strongly Favors topic 3 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm#2006-163) </TD></TR><TR><TD>Opposes topic 4:
Teacher-led prayer in public schools (http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q4_2006.asp)
(+2 points on Social scale) </TD><TD>Listening to evangelicals bridges major political fault line: Favors topic 4 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Families_+_Children.htm#1)
Religious concerns ok, if translated into universal values: Opposes topic 4 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Principles_+_Values.htm#46)
Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation: Strongly Opposes topic 4 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Principles_+_Values.htm#06n-AU)
NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration: Opposes topic 4 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm#2006-189) </TD></TR><TR><TD>Opposes topic 8:
Death Penalty (http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q5_2006.asp)
(+2 points on Social scale) </TD><TD>Some heinous crimes justify the ultimate punishment: Favors topic 8 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Crime.htm#4)
Videotape all capital punishment interrogations: Opposes topic 8 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Crime.htm#5)
Battles legislatively against the death penalty: Strongly Opposes topic 8 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Crime.htm#2)</TD></TR><TR><TD>Opposes topic 9:
Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws (http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q6_2006.asp)
(+2 points on Social scale) </TD><TD>Supports alternative sentencing and rehabilitation: Strongly Opposes topic 9 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Crime.htm#1)
Rated 75% by the NCJA, indicating a mixed record on criminal justice: Neutral on topic 9 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Crime.htm#05n-NCJA)
YES on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program: Opposes topic 9 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Crime.htm#2007-110) </TD></TR><TR><TD>Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership (http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q7_2006.asp)
(-5 points on Economic scale) </TD><TD>Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality: Strongly Opposes topic 10 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm#2)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions: Strongly Opposes topic 10 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm#1)
NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers: Strongly Opposes topic 10 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm#2005-219) </TD></TR><TR><TD>Favors topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage (http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q8_2006.asp)
(-3 points on Economic scale) </TD><TD>Increase competition in the insurance and drug markets: Opposes topic 5 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Health_Care.htm#34)
National Health Insurance Exchange for private coverage: Opposes topic 5 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Health_Care.htm#35)
National insurance pool & catastrophic insurance: Strongly Favors topic 5 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Health_Care.htm#11)
The market alone can't solve our health-care woes: Favors topic 5 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Health_Care.htm#25)
Crises happen in our lives and healthcare is necessary: Strongly Favors topic 5 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Health_Care.htm#8)
Believes health care is a right, not a privilege for the few: Favors topic 5 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Health_Care.htm#5)
Will expand health coverage & allow meds to be re-imported: Favors topic 5 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Health_Care.htm#4)
Ensure access to basic care: Favors topic 5 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Health_Care.htm#2)
YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics: Favors topic 5 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Health_Care.htm#2005-299)
YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug: Strongly Favors topic 5 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Health_Care.htm#2005-60)
YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D: Favors topic 5 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Health_Care.htm#2006-005)
YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D: Favors topic 5 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Health_Care.htm#2007-132) </TD></TR><TR><TD>Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security (http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q9_2006.asp)
(-5 points on Economic scale) </TD><TD>Privatization puts retirement at whim of stock market: Strongly Opposes topic 6 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Social_Security.htm#8)
Stop any efforts to privatize Social Security: Strongly Opposes topic 6 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Social_Security.htm#7)
No privatization; but consider earning cap over $97,500: Strongly Opposes topic 6 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Social_Security.htm#5)
Stock market risk is ok, but not for Social Security: Strongly Opposes topic 6 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Social_Security.htm#3)
$2000 tax credit for Working Families Savings Accounts: Opposes topic 6 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Social_Security.htm#1)
NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security: Opposes topic 6 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Social_Security.htm#2007-089) </TD></TR><TR><TD>Opposes topic 7:
Parents choose schools via vouchers (http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q10_2006.asp)
(-3 points on Economic scale) </TD><TD>Guarantee affordable life-long, top-notch education: Opposes topic 7 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Education.htm#7)
Supports charter schools and private investment in schools: Favors topic 7 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Education.htm#2)
YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies: Opposes topic 7 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Education.htm#2005-269) </TD></TR><TR><TD>Strongly Favors topic 18:
Replace coal & oil with alternatives (http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q11_2006.asp)
(-5 points on Economic scale) </TD><TD>3-way win: economy, environment, & stop funding terror: Strongly Favors topic 18 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm#10)
Sponsored legislations that improve energy efficiency: Favors topic 18 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm#6)
20% renewable energy by 2020: Strongly Favors topic 18 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm#4)
Invest in alternative energy sources: Favors topic 18 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm#1)
Increase CAFE to 40 mpg: Strongly Favors topic 18 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm#2)
Renewable Fuels Standard: require ethanol in fuel supply: Strongly Favors topic 18 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm#5)
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence: Favors topic 18 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm#06n-CAF)
YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%): Strongly Favors topic 18 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm#2005-140)
YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR: Strongly Favors topic 18 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm#2005-288)
YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Favors topic 18 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm#2005-52)
YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning: Favors topic 18 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm#2007-166)
YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies: Strongly Favors topic 18 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm#2007-226) </TD></TR><TR><TD>No opinion on topic 19:
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it (http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q12_2006.asp)
(0 points on Social scale) </TD><TD>2001: questions harsh penalties for drug dealing: Opposes topic 19 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Drugs.htm#9)
Smokes cigarettes now; smoked some pot in high school: Favors topic 19 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Drugs.htm#4)
Admitted marijuana use in high school & college: Favors topic 19 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Drugs.htm#3)
Deal with street-level drug dealing as minimum-wage affair: Opposes topic 19 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Drugs.htm#5)</TD></TR><TR><TD>Favors topic 20:
Allow churches to provide welfare services (http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q13_2006.asp)
(+2 points on Economic scale) </TD><TD>Reach out to faith community;faith has role in public square: Favors topic 20 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Principles_+_Values.htm#85)
Engages people of faith on all aspects of his public service: Favors topic 20 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm#11)
Black churches minister to social needs out of necessity: Favors topic 20 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm#7)</TD></TR><TR><TD>Strongly Favors topic 11:
Repeal tax cuts on wealthy (http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q14_2006.asp)
(-5 points on Economic scale) </TD><TD>Bush tax cuts help corporations but not middle class: Strongly Favors topic 11 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm#3)
Tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs: Favors topic 11 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Jobs.htm#5)
Rated 100% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation: Strongly Favors topic 11 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm#06n-CTJ)
NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends: Strongly Favors topic 11 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm#2005-347)
YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut: Favors topic 11 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm#2006-008)
NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends: Strongly Favors topic 11 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm#2006-010)
NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`: Strongly Favors topic 11 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm#2006-164)
NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts: Strongly Favors topic 11 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm#2006-229)
NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million: Strongly Favors topic 11 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm#2007-083)
NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax: Strongly Favors topic 11 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm#2007-108) </TD></TR><TR><TD>Favors topic 12:
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship (http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q15_2006.asp)
(+2 points on Social scale) </TD><TD>Support granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants: Favors topic 12 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm#13)
Reform must include more border security, and border wall: Opposes topic 12 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm#7)
Pathway to citizenship, but people have to earn it: Favors topic 12 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm#4)
Give immigrants who are here a rigorous path to citizenship: Favors topic 12 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm#3)
Extend welfare and Medicaid to immigrants: Favors topic 12 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm#1)
Rated 8% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance: Strongly Favors topic 12 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm#06n-USBC)
YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security: Strongly Favors topic 12 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm#2006-130)
YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship: Strongly Favors topic 12 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm#2006-135)
YES on establishing a Guest Worker program: Favors topic 12 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm#2006-157)
YES on building a fence along the Mexican border: Strongly Opposes topic 12 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm#2006-262)
NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government: Strongly Favors topic 12 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm#2007-198)
YES on comprehensive immigration reform: Strongly Favors topic 12 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm#2007-235) </TD></TR><TR><TD>Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade (http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q16_2006.asp)
(-3 points on Economic scale) </TD><TD>Stand firm against CAFTA for labor & environmental standards: Strongly Opposes topic 13 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Free_Trade.htm#10)
People don't want cheaper T-shirts if it costs their job: Opposes topic 13 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Free_Trade.htm#6)
Amend NAFTA to add labor agreements: Opposes topic 13 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Free_Trade.htm#5)
Fair trade should have tangible benefits for US: Strongly Opposes topic 13 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Free_Trade.htm#1)
Tax incentives to create jobs at home instead of offshore: Opposes topic 13 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm#1)
NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade: Strongly Opposes topic 13 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Free_Trade.htm#2005-209)
YES on free trade agreement with Oman: Strongly Favors topic 13 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Free_Trade.htm#2006-190) </TD></TR><TR><TD>Favors topic 15:
Expand the armed forces (http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q17_2006.asp)
(-3 points on Social scale) </TD><TD>Grow size of military to maintain rotation schedules: Favors topic 15 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Homeland_Security.htm#9)
Give our soldiers the best equipment and training available: Favors topic 15 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Homeland_Security.htm#2)
YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months: Opposes topic 15 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Homeland_Security.htm#2007-243) </TD></TR><TR><TD>Strongly Favors topic 16:
Stricter limits on political campaign funds (http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q18_2006.asp)
(-5 points on Economic scale) </TD><TD>Public campaign financing with free television & radio time: Strongly Favors topic 16 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Government_Reform.htm#29)
No "bundled" money from federal-registered lobbyists: Favors topic 16 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Government_Reform.htm#25)
People know his "bundlers" because he pushed disclosure law: Favors topic 16 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Government_Reform.htm#21)
First bill ever passed was campaign finance reform: Strongly Favors topic 16 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Government_Reform.htm#7)
Lobbyist influence comes from access, not money: Favors topic 16 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Government_Reform.htm#17)
YES on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity: Favors topic 16 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Government_Reform.htm#2006-077)
NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress: Strongly Favors topic 16 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Government_Reform.htm#2006-080) </TD></TR><TR><TD>Strongly Favors topic 14:
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties (http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q19_2006.asp)
(+5 points on Social scale) </TD><TD>The politics of fear undermines basic civil liberties: Strongly Favors topic 14 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm#40)
America cannot sanction torture; no loopholes or exceptions: Strongly Favors topic 14 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Homeland_Security.htm#24)
Close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus: Strongly Favors topic 14 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Homeland_Security.htm#11)
NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision: Strongly Favors topic 14 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Homeland_Security.htm#2005-358)
YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act: Opposes topic 14 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Homeland_Security.htm#2006-025)
YES on preserving habeus corpus for Guantanamo detainees: Strongly Favors topic 14 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Homeland_Security.htm#2006-255)
YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods: Strongly Favors topic 14 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Homeland_Security.htm#2006-256)
NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad: Strongly Favors topic 14 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Homeland_Security.htm#2007-309) </TD></TR><TR><TD>Favors topic 17:
US out of Iraq (http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/q20_2006.asp)
(+2 points on Social scale) </TD><TD>US policy should promote democracy and human rights: Favors topic 17 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Foreign_Policy.htm#3)
War in Iraq is "dumb" but troops still need equipment: Strongly Favors topic 17 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm#32)
We are playing to Osama's plan for winning a war from a cave: Strongly Favors topic 17 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm#45)
NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007: Strongly Opposes topic 17 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm#2006-181)
YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008: Strongly Favors topic 17 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm#2007-075) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Luvia

01-06-2008, 09:05 PM

Regarding above post...

That information came from http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/senate2006.asp?quiz=2008
It's one of those quizzes, but at the end you can look at each politician's stances and their voting record, etc.

I disagree with a LOT of his stances. I do appreciate many of his qualities and ideas, but the ones I disagree with are significant enough to keep me from voting for him.

Blockhead

01-06-2008, 09:09 PM

I personally couldn't give 5 minutes of my time even attempting to care what the rest of the world thought of us. It doesn't affect my life in the least, so far as I can tell.

Aside from the mess we continue to make in the Middle East, of course. It'll take more than a new president to change our image amongst those people. We've been screwing with them for, what? 50 years now? Maybe 60?

I like Obama to a point. There's a lot I can't like, though.

I don't care what color he is. But, his affiliation with the NAACP lets me know that he does. Anyone who's going to use race as a factor in policy making is not someone I want running the country.

Pro-abortion candidates are automatically on my "Sorry. Can't help ya." list. Though, 8 years of Bush has me considering dropping that issue down the rankings just a bit.

Still, he seems like he's on the fast track to the White House. I should probably familiarize myself with his views on other issues.

Luvia

01-06-2008, 09:17 PM

The World would thank us for him. There might be a chance we could redeem ourselves...

They trash talk us, but they surely don't have a problem taking our aid...

I'm not bothered by what the world thinks of us when I don't see them acting much better. I'm not saying we're right and they are wrong...I'm just saying that many countries that criticize us aren't necessarily on my top ten list either.

Of course, I would love for all countries to get along...for everyone to adore the US and for us to adore them right back. But I'm not letting the global opinion influence who I vote for...

Blockhead

01-06-2008, 09:20 PM

I think Obama may just hate 'Big Oil' enough to actually get the US off of it. If he only accomplished that, it would be worth electing him.

The oil companies would have him killed long before they allowed that to happen.

Blockhead

01-06-2008, 09:23 PM

"Voted against banning partial birth abortion: Favors topic 1"

Yeah, that pretty much takes him off the ballot for me.

I can accept that there's a question regarding when life begins. But in the 3rd trimester, I don't see where there's any room left for debate.

Luvia

01-06-2008, 09:23 PM

The oil companies would have him killed long before they allowed that to happen.

Ya know...that sounds paranoid...BUT...remember Ralph Nader was being followed by private detectives hired by GM all those years ago. I wouldn't doubt it. He's alive, but I bet there were many talks...

Luvia

01-06-2008, 09:27 PM

Support granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants: Favors topic 12 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm#13)

Extend welfare and Medicaid to immigrants: Favors topic 12 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm#1)

YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security: Strongly Favors topic 12 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm#2006-130)

NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government: Strongly Favors topic 12 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm#2007-198)

Topic 12 scares me the most...but these are the most offensive to me and why he'll never ever get my vote.

Blockhead

01-06-2008, 09:34 PM

Ya know...that sounds paranoid...BUT...remember Ralph Nader was being followed by private detectives hired by GM all those years ago. I wouldn't doubt it. He's alive, but I bet there were many talks...

I think people underestimate what our government officials and corporations will do to protect their way of life.

petalgirl00

01-06-2008, 09:42 PM

I like him. sure, there are things I don't agree with. However, the only perfect candidate would be me.

Conveyor Belt

01-06-2008, 09:44 PM

I've learned that I'm a pretty strong nativist, but I don't think English should be the 'official' language of the US. We're a nation of immigrants. English should be the spoken language, but I don't think it should be 'official'. I know, it doesn't make sense, but it does in my warped mind.

Luvia

01-06-2008, 09:46 PM

I like him. sure, there are things I don't agree with. However, the only perfect candidate would be me.

Well sure. I don't agree with anyone 100%. There are certain things that are deal breakers though.

WAnting to give illegal aliens access to medicaid, welfare, and social security is one of those instances.

My hard earned taxED dollars are already pitiful enough without giving it away to even more people.

Luvia

01-06-2008, 09:48 PM

I've learned that I'm a pretty strong nativist, but I don't think English should be the 'official' language of the US. We're a nation of immigrants. English should be the spoken language, but I don't think it should be 'official'. I know, it doesn't make sense, but it does in my warped mind.

I understand where you are coming from...but take that one off the list and his stance on Topic 12 is terrifying still.

petalgirl00

01-06-2008, 09:52 PM

He wants med coverage for legal immigrants. Not a bad thing imo. He also wants to strengthen the military and shorten deployments. Again, not a bad thing. I'm a little more liberal than most in MS so I u nderstand that many wont agree with me.

Luvia

01-06-2008, 10:00 PM

He wants med coverage for legal immigrants. Not a bad thing imo. He also wants to strengthen the military and shorten deployments. Again, not a bad thing. I'm a little more liberal than most in MS so I u nderstand that many wont agree with me.

I don't have a problem with *legal* immigrants...it's the illegal aliens who use our social security numbers who bother me.

I'm pretty liberal about many things also. I'd say I'm 50/50. That's why I've looked into Obama so closely...because he is very charismatic and I like him. I was hoping I could vote for someone who appeared so likeable and genuine.

I am not happy about any of the candidates at the moment. Dems or Repubs.

Blockhead

01-06-2008, 10:13 PM

Regarding above post...

That information came from http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/senate2006.asp?quiz=2008
It's one of those quizzes, but at the end you can look at each politician's stances and their voting record, etc.

I disagree with a LOT of his stances. I do appreciate many of his qualities and ideas, but the ones I disagree with are significant enough to keep me from voting for him.

I was filling out this survey, mostly out of boredom. I think I've decided that its viability is near naught, though.

Far too many suspect twists and spins in the explanations of what each option means. Example:

Replace US troops with UN in Iraq

Looks pretty black and white. But when you look a little deeper...

Seek UN participation in military action

That doesn't really read the same as the original question, does it? How did "replace" turn into "participate"?

POSITIONS

* Strongly Support means you believe: The United Nations is a force for good in the world. We should consult with the UN Security Council before any attacks abroad. Foreign aid fosters global cooperation and US foreign involvement should be focused on maintaining peace and stability.

So suddenly wanting to have the UN take over in Iraq so we can bring our people home means that we should involve them in all of our foreign affairs decisions? Huh?

* Support means you believe: The UN has an important role in US military action abroad but should not have veto power. Foreign aid should be targeted at maintaining US interests overseas, and in supporting countries which are critical to our economy or strategic interests. Aid could also be targeted toward fulfilling US international commitments and to support foreign leaders who are favorable to the US.

* Oppose means you believe: Phase out foreign aid - people who want to contribute to foreign countries should do so privately. And phase out involvement in foreign wars - as recommended by the Founding Fathers, we should not become entangled in foreign affairs.

Doesn't this seem to support the original question? Am I just misreading this thing?

* Strongly Oppose means you believe: Phase out foreign aid entirely - we should focus on America. We have plenty of domestic issues to spend our resources on. We should exit the UN and other organizations that use our money with little US benefit.

Whoever put this thing together was extremely agenda driven, IMO. I see no validity at all to a survey put together so dishonestly.

Luvia

01-06-2008, 10:18 PM

Blockhead, I don't particularly like the survey itself either.

I just like that after you click submit, you can see the candidate's stance, direct quotes, and voting record.

Blockhead

01-06-2008, 10:28 PM

Blockhead, I don't particularly like the survey itself either.

I just like that after you click submit, you can see the candidate's stance, direct quotes, and voting record.

I worry, though. Can we get an accurate accounting of their beliefs from such a flawed survey? I don't know how many of those questions you clicked on to get a deeper explanation of, but there's an unnerving number of them that simply are not what they appear to be on the surface.

Conveyor Belt

01-06-2008, 10:28 PM

Obama up by 13 points, McCain up by 4 in USAT/Gallup Poll in N.H.
Sen. Barack Obama has opened up a 13 percentage point lead over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the battle for votes in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll conducted in the state from Friday through this afternoon. The results were just released.

Here's (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/01/obama-up-by-13.html) the entire article.

If Obama can not only win New Hampshire, but win in this sort of fashion, I think Hillary would be done. Even a close loss in NH may still be enough to finish her off.

The C-span poll had them tied, didn't it? It was the only one that showed Obama and Hillary tied, when every other poll was showing Obama ahead by at least 10.

Funny how polls work.

Conveyor Belt

01-06-2008, 10:35 PM

I remember now it was some Zogby something poll. I remember when Rush Limbaugh used to swear by the accuracy of Zogby polls. I don't think he does that anymore.

Luvia

01-06-2008, 10:38 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/candidate-match-game.htm

This quiz is fun! You get to see their big goofy heads go up with each vote. This is the only one I've seen that actually matched who I *thought* I liked.

Blockhead, I have the same concerns, but that's not the only place I've looked and come to the same exact conclusion. Illegal immigration, education reform, and health insurance are pretty big on my lists. Those will be the issues that determine my vote. Mainly illegal immigration and education.

At the end of the quiz...when it shows their stances you can check the source. If you click the tiny words like "opposes topic 12" then it will give you the source of the information.

Luvia

01-06-2008, 10:45 PM

I worry, though. Can we get an accurate accounting of their beliefs from such a flawed survey? I don't know how many of those questions you clicked on to get a deeper explanation of, but there's an unnerving number of them that simply are not what they appear to be on the surface.

Look on page one of this thread...where I posted the huge block of text citing Obama's record. See the blue links on the far right? You can click those and get the sources.

Like I said...the survey doesn't matter...it's the stance of the candidate that is interesting and informative in this poll.

For instance: Extend welfare and Medicaid to immigrants: Favors topic 12 (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm#1)
reveals...
<CENTER>Extend welfare and Medicaid to immigrants

Obama supports the folowing principles regarding immigration:
</CENTER>
Continue to extend state-funded welfare benefits for legal immigrants.
Use state funds to continue some Medicaid coverage for legal immigrants.<CENTER>Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998 </CENTER>
Some of the sources are from previous debates, interviews, AP articles, campaign pamphlets, etc...
<CENTER>
</CENTER>

Conveyor Belt

01-06-2008, 10:46 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/candidate-match-game.htm

This quiz is fun! You get to see their big goofy heads go up with each vote. This is the only one I've seen that actually matched who I *thought* I liked.

Blockhead, I have the same concerns, but that's not the only place I've looked and come to the same exact conclusion. Illegal immigration, education reform, and health insurance are pretty big on my lists. Those will be the issues that determine my vote. Mainly illegal immigration and education.

At the end of the quiz...when it shows their stances you can check the source. If you click the tiny words like "opposes topic 12" then it will give you the source of the information.

Mine came up Paul, Romney and Thompson... in that order.

Blockhead

01-06-2008, 10:50 PM

Most helpful information, Luvia. I'd rep you, but I guess a "thanks" will have to do.

dollfus46

01-07-2008, 06:23 AM

I'm SERIOUSLY considering voting for him.

If Paul doesn't pick up before the MS primary, I'm going to vote for Obama.

So far, my wife likes Huckabee. So, we're going to have a Huckabee and an Obama sign in our yard. Funny.

I'm really curious, I'm not being critical. But how do you go from far right to far leftl in one move? If, in fact, Hendrixfreak is right that Paul is conservative, which I question.

dollfus46

01-07-2008, 06:34 AM

I think Obama may just hate 'Big Oil' enough to actually get the US off of it. If he only accomplished that, it would be worth electing him.

C'mon CB, the same thing that has kept us dependent on oil will continue to do so. Can you say Sierra Club, et al? You want a nuclear dumb site in Oak Grove? Petal? You want to pay $300,000 for that sporty hydrogen car? I feel like you do, but for whatever reason, we ain't getting it done. This, "we gotta stop being dependent on oil" thingy has been going on longer than you've been alive. I don't have an answer. I"m not smart enough.

onlyme

01-07-2008, 06:34 AM

Mine came up Paul, Romney and Thompson... in that order.

Dodd, CLinton, Obama. Dodd is out, I don't like Hillary, Obama is it ;)

dollfus46

01-07-2008, 06:57 AM

Regarding above post...

That information came from http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/senate2006.asp?quiz=2008
It's one of those quizzes, but at the end you can look at each politician's stances and their voting record, etc.

I disagree with a LOT of his stances. I do appreciate many of his qualities and ideas, but the ones I disagree with are significant enough to keep me from voting for him.
There's no question that he's at least as liberal as Hillary and if elected, would be the most liberal ever to hold the office. Anyone that far left is equally as dangerous as someone that far right. Like I've stated before, I have visions of Mo Udall, Humphrey, and I'll think of the other one starts with an M. Old age is hell.:kekeke:

CircusRide

01-07-2008, 08:30 AM

The World would thank us for him. There might be a chance we could redeem ourselves, and there might be a chance we could turn the corner on the politics of divisiveness and actually do something for ourselves.

Just might.

And, No, he's not a muslim. We don't know what ANY of them are, if you insist that he is. ALL of them could be muslims and we're just stumbling through the Matrix, okay? Okay.

I've listened to the man. He is a breath of fresh political air. And - he's smart. And - electing him to the presidency would inspire our friends and confuse our enemies.

Yep. Obama `08.

No ideas worth talking about. His wife is an idiot and will embarrass the country.
So, basically, he's right there with the rest of these sorry options for President.

CircusRide

01-07-2008, 08:33 AM

Looks to me like the libs are all starting to jump from that sinking Clinton ship and just want to ride a winner.

hendrixfreak70

01-07-2008, 08:42 AM

The World would thank us for him. There might be a chance we could redeem ourselves, and there might be a chance we could turn the corner on the politics of divisiveness and actually do something for ourselves.

Just might.

And, No, he's not a muslim. We don't know what ANY of them are, if you insist that he is. ALL of them could be muslims and we're just stumbling through the Matrix, okay? Okay.

I've listened to the man. He is a breath of fresh political air. And - he's smart. And - electing him to the presidency would inspire our friends and confuse our enemies.

Yep. Obama `08.

Sue, is it ok with you that he expands the war into Pakistan? Another place where we do not belong?

hendrixfreak70

01-07-2008, 08:43 AM

I cannot understand why liberals would vote for him. The very same liberals that want us out of Iraq (or at least say they do) will vote for a man that will take us into Pakistan. How is that not crazy? One war is ok but not the other?

hendrixfreak70

01-07-2008, 08:51 AM

There is only one liberal who genuinely wants us out of Iraq and does not want to expand the war and that is Dennis Kucinich. The media hates him nearly as much as the do Paul because he is willing to speak out against the establishment.

Conveyor Belt

01-07-2008, 09:30 AM

I'm really curious, I'm not being critical. But how do you go from far right to far leftl in one move? If, in fact, Hendrixfreak is right that Paul is conservative, which I question.

I ask myself this question every time I type something like this in. Perhaps Obama is the AntiChrist? I donno.

I just think the guy's going to do something so radically different in America that may spark change. Maybe he'll try to swerve us so far in one direction that people will finally get off their asses and DO something instead of trying to throw up people like Huckabee and Romney... who are just regular politicians.

I don't want someone in office who's wants to just make up some new rules. I want someone who's gonna change the game.

Kitty

01-07-2008, 09:46 AM

. . .Like I've stated before, I have visions of Mo Udall, Humphrey, and I'll think of the other one starts with an M. Old age is hell.:kekeke:

Edmund Muskie?

CircusRide

01-07-2008, 10:31 AM

I ask myself this question every time I type something like this in. Perhaps Obama is the AntiChrist? I donno.

I just think the guy's going to do something so radically different in America that may spark change. Maybe he'll try to swerve us so far in one direction that people will finally get off their asses and DO something instead of trying to throw up people like Huckabee and Romney... who are just regular politicians.

I don't want someone in office who's wants to just make up some new rules. I want someone who's gonna change the game.

To vote for change simply for the sake of something different is wrong. That's why these candidates all suck. Because you have to choose which is the lesser evil, not which is the best. There is a difference.

Conveyor Belt

01-07-2008, 10:42 AM

To vote for change simply for the sake of something different is wrong. That's why these candidates all suck. Because you have to choose which is the lesser evil, not which is the best. There is a difference.

Something is wrong with choosing the same thing over and over again, even though you know you really weren't happy with it the last time.

I liken it to a restaurant. I go to the same restaurant because everything in there is pretty good. But then, something happens and the food just doesn't taste the same. No matter what I get, it's all crap. Do I keep going back to the same restaurant and wait for them to fix what's wrong, even though I've complained again and again about the food? Or do I try that nice new restaurant down the street with the completely new menu? I might not like it, but it WILL be different.

I like something different now and again.

And if I've learned anything, it's that a president can't deliver on 90% of what they promise in an election run.

dollfus46

01-07-2008, 10:46 AM

I ask myself this question every time I type something like this in. Perhaps Obama is the AntiChrist? I donno.

I just think the guy's going to do something so radically different in America that may spark change. Maybe he'll try to swerve us so far in one direction that people will finally get off their asses and DO something instead of trying to throw up people like Huckabee and Romney... who are just regular politicians.

I don't want someone in office who's wants to just make up some new rules. I want someone who's gonna change the game.

I hear "change" every election. What specific change do you want? Can your guy bring it about, considering the House and senate and supreme court, and will he?

Conveyor Belt

01-07-2008, 10:57 AM

I hear "change" every election. What specific change do you want? Can your guy bring it about, considering the House and senate and supreme court, and will he?

If past performance of every president I've voted for or against is any indicator of future performance, then the answer is 'no'. Bush couldn't deliver on SS, Clinton couldn't deliver on Health Care.

I'm jaded, so I'm going to throw the Obama cog into the system and see if it will make it all come tumbling down... which is what I really want.

The guy, though, inspires me. I like that. I think we need that at this time in America. Right or wrong, some inspiration is needed.

SueScribe

01-07-2008, 11:44 AM

I personally couldn't give 5 minutes of my time even attempting to care what the rest of the world thought of us. It doesn't affect my life in the least, so far as I can tell.

Ah, but it does:

Valuation of the dollar - in the toilet. Why? We've mortgaged our nation to China and our "ends" aren't meeting, fiscally. Bad credit. The Iraqi Misadventure and our presence in that region are driving oil prices to the tune of $3.00 a gallon - and predicted to go higher - gasoline. There is an astounding trade deficit, which further devalues our productivity and weakens our declining industrial and manufacturing base.

I like Obama to a point. There's a lot I can't like, though.

I don't care what color he is. But, his affiliation with the NAACP lets me know that he does. Anyone who's going to use race as a factor in policy making is not someone I want running the country.

Would you prefer someone who uses religious ideaology, invoking the name of Christ and God as routine vote-getting ploys?

Still, he seems like he's on the fast track to the White House. I should probably familiarize myself with his views on other issues.

There you go.

I'm not bothered by what the world thinks of us when I don't see them acting much better. . . Of course, I would love for all countries to get along...for everyone to adore the US and for us to adore them right back. But I'm not letting the global opinion influence who I vote for...

It isn't that Global Opinion should be the deciding factor, but to disregard it is to do so at our potential peril. If we are to command respect, we must do so by some means other than the threat of our Military Might. We must become partners with our allies again, and not agents of warring coercion.

Respect for this great nation has bottomed out. And now, we have to EARN it back.

Well sure. I don't agree with anyone 100%. There are certain things that are deal breakers though.

WAnting to give illegal aliens access to medicaid, welfare, and social security is one of those instances.

My hard earned taxED dollars are already pitiful enough without giving it away to even more people.

See below.

Look on page one of this thread...where I posted the huge block of text citing Obama's record.
. . .

Extend welfare and Medicaid to immigrants:

Obama supports the folowing principles regarding immigration:

Continue to extend state-funded welfare benefits for legal immigrants.

Use state funds to continue some Medicaid coverage for legal immigrants.

<CENTER>Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998 </CENTER>
Some of the sources are from previous debates, interviews, AP articles, campaign pamphlets, etc...

<CENTER>
</CENTER>

Do you see the words "LEGAL IMMIGRANTS" ?? Legal. NOT illegal.

There's no question that he's at least as liberal as Hillary and if elected, would be the most liberal ever to hold the office.

I think FDR and Lyndon Johnson would disagree.

Sue, is it ok with you that he expands the war into Pakistan? Another place where we do not belong?

I don't think I've read nor heard the Senator say he'd commit troops to Pakistan for purposes of war upon that nation.

What he HAS said is that Musharrif needs to BACK off his "no messin' with the Al Queda stronghold tribal regions in the northwest, and that the military-dictatorship's refusal to allow pursuit by U. S. Troops across Pakistani borders when the Bad Guys are in sight has to change.

Pakistan is going to be THE test of our country's leadership - far into the future. It has WMDs, i.e. nukes, and Al Queda is being harbored there and, by some reliable Intel sources, that group of terrorists has infiltrated the Pakistani Army (which controls the nukes).

I cannot understand why liberals would vote for him. The very same liberals that want us out of Iraq (or at least say they do) will vote for a man that will take us into Pakistan. How is that not crazy? One war is ok but not the other?

If you have some data, quotes, etc., to back that up, I'd like to read them. IF Obama is running on a ticket of expanding the wars in the Middle East and beyond, my mind can change about him, ipso facto.

Something is wrong with choosing the same thing over and over again, even though you know you really weren't happy with it the last time.

It's a measure of insanity and/or irrationality: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I hear "change" every election. What specific change do you want? Can your guy bring it about, considering the House and senate and supreme court, and will he?

With Congress in Democratic control, YES he can. The gridlock in our government occurs when the Executive Branch is controlled by the opposite party and Congress' political makeup up (as now) makes meaningful legislative change all but impossible.

The Supreme Court? Dof . . . . the Supreme Court ??? :attack:

mybabysmomma

01-07-2008, 11:55 AM

I took that quiz thingy and came up with Duncan Hunter, Mitt Romney and John McCain (in that order). I have NO CLUE who Duncan Hunter is, and don't like Romney (he makes me want to gnaw on someone's ankles...anyone's ankles will do). I like McCain okay, but I'm not sure about him.

hendrixfreak70

01-07-2008, 12:06 PM

[quote=SueScribe;437283]Ah, but it does:

Valuation of the dollar - in the toilet. Why? We've mortgaged our nation to China and our "ends" aren't meeting, fiscally. Bad credit. The Iraqi Misadventure and our presence in that region are driving oil prices to the tune of $3.00 a gallon - and predicted to go higher - gasoline. There is an astounding trade deficit, which further devalues our productivity and weakens our declining industrial and manufacturing base.

Would you prefer someone who uses religious ideaology, invoking the name of Christ and God as routine vote-getting ploys?

There you go.

It isn't that Global Opinion should be the deciding factor, but to disregard it is to do so at our potential peril. If we are to command respect, we must do so by some means other than the threat of our Military Might. We must become partners with our allies again, and not agents of warring coercion.

Respect for this great nation has bottomed out. And now, we have to EARN it back.

See below.

Do you see the words "LEGAL IMMIGRANTS" ?? Legal. NOT illegal.

I think FDR and Lyndon Johnson would disagree.

I don't think I've read nor heard the Senator say he'd commit troops to Pakistan for purposes of war upon that nation.

What he HAS said is that Musharrif needs to BACK off his "no messin' with the Al Queda stronghold tribal regions in the northwest, and that the military-dictatorship's refusal to allow pursuit by U. S. Troops across Pakistani borders when the Bad Guys are in sight has to change.

Pakistan is going to be THE test of our country's leadership - far into the future. It has WMDs, i.e. nukes, and Al Queda is being harbored there and, by some reliable Intel sources, that group of terrorists has infiltrated the Pakistani Army (which controls the nukes).

If you have some data, quotes, etc., to back that up, I'd like to read them. IF Obama is running on a ticket of expanding the wars in the Middle East and beyond, my mind can change about him, ipso facto.

It's a measure of insanity and/or irrationality: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

With Congress in Democratic control, YES he can. The gridlock in our government occurs when the Executive Branch is controlled by the opposite party and Congress' political makeup up (as now) makes meaningful legislative change all but impossible.

The Supreme Court? Dof . . . . the Supreme Court ??? :attack:[/quote

Here you go Sue. He is talking about terrorism and spreading the war from Afghanistan and into Pakistan. This is the same excuse that Jorge Bush used. If you'll listen to the jabbering he does he makes it clear when he says he will get us out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan. http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php

Here is another one by him: http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?Itemid=34&id=305&option=com_content&task=view

Yet another more common source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/

A little more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece

CircusRide

01-07-2008, 12:08 PM

Go take a look at the energy bill that Obama voted for. If you think he's the answer to the oil issues, think again. He's already in the pocket of big oil companies.
I'm telling you, the guy has nothing idea-wise. You all better go check him out good before you decide he's the savior.

hendrixfreak70

01-07-2008, 12:13 PM

Go take a look at the energy bill that Obama voted for. If you think he's the answer to the oil issues, think again. He's already in the pocket of big oil companies.
I'm telling you, the guy has nothing idea-wise. You all better go check him out good before you decide he's the savior.

I can sit here all day and TALK about how I am different. Until I put my money where my mouth is I am not better than the scum I criticize. The same goes for Obama. CR you made a great point about the energy bill. He is a CFR member and CFR members are doing what is best to keep us under the thumb of corrupt big business. NAFTA ring any bells? The Council on Foreign Relations played a huge role in that.The answer is to leave government out of it altogether.

Sue, I left some links about Obama above. One is directly from him and the others are accounts about his plans for Pakistan, which include sending troops to Pakistan. My question is how long is it going to be before the Executive Branch (both future and present) decide that Al-Qaeda has enough presence in the U.S. to declare war, on itself?

SueScribe

01-07-2008, 12:15 PM

Here you go Sue. He is talking about terrorism and spreading the war from Afghanistan and into Pakistan. This is the same excuse that Jorge Bush used. If you'll listen to the jabbering he does he makes it clear when he says he will get us out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan. http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php

Here is another one by him: http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?Itemid=34&id=305&option=com_content&task=view

Yet another more common source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20070536/

A little more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I'm gonna have to pull up those links the old way - by typing them in. MSNBC, I trust. Obama's own website, I trust. But . . "blackagendareport.com" ? Ahh. . . I dunno.

The Senator HAS said we should focus our resources on Afghanistan and the spilling over of that war into Pakistan - because of the Taliban's and Al Queda's government-tolerated refuge there.

That - I strongly agree with. But, I do not think (I'll check out your sources) that Obama is taking a policy position that we need to declare WAR on Pakistan.

I shall report back. :smt105

hendrixfreak70

01-07-2008, 12:19 PM

Hmmm. Rather we declare war or not is irrelevant. To send troops in any country with the intent of hunting down the 'enemy' is a declaration of war. Just ask Jorge.

So you agree with Bush's position about Afghanistan? Aren't we doing the same thing there that we are in Iraq? Instead of actively pursuing the culprits we are bogged down in political wrangling an nation building. I hate to sound like such a fatalist but aren't there many countries in the world that harbor Al-Qaeda?? If so should we just follow them all around the world regardless of the costs? If so, then Obama is no different than the current administration.

petalgirl00

01-07-2008, 12:36 PM

We're never going to leave Iraq/Afghanisitan. We will have a presence indefinetly. The military really isn't that stretched, they just don't know how to use the resources they have.
We do need a change.

hendrixfreak70

01-07-2008, 12:40 PM

I also have to admit that at one time in the very early stages of all of this I had considered Barack Obama. He beat out my candidate for Illinois, Alan Keyes. However I do not live in Illinois so it was of no consequence to me. The GOP should have had their heads on a chopping block for pushing Keyes to do that anyway. However, I changed my mind when I learned that he was a CFR member and wanted to spread the war. All of this talk about charisma and amicable personalities is hogwash when you consider that these are not good enough reasons to vote for someone. Substance is what counts. Obama has very little and offers nothing unique. Besides the ones who are propping him up are the very ones that are going to knock him down when he gets the nomination, the media. I would rather choke than listen to what Jesse Jackson has to say (he is also a CFR guy) but he made a good quote in 1988 when running for president, so I will not eat for the next few hours. He was asked by a reporter who he thought would win the nomination or presidency or something to that effect. Jackson said 'I dunno, you tell me" Then he went to elaborate how the media influences and affects things. So in essence I have surmised from all the same ol politicos that the candidates that are worth something are the ones who we do not hear about at all.

dollfus46

01-07-2008, 02:11 PM

I also have to admit that at one time in the very early stages of all of this I had considered Barack Obama. He beat out my candidate for Illinois, Alan Keyes. However I do not live in Illinois so it was of no consequence to me. The GOP should have had their heads on a chopping block for pushing Keyes to do that anyway. However, I changed my mind when I learned that he was a CFR member and wanted to spread the war. All of this talk about charisma and amicable personalities is hogwash when you consider that these are not good enough reasons to vote for someone. Substance is what counts. Obama has very little and offers nothing unique. Besides the ones who are propping him up are the very ones that are going to knock him down when he gets the nomination, the media. I would rather choke than listen to what Jesse Jackson has to say (he is also a CFR guy) but he made a good quote in 1988 when running for president, so I will not eat for the next few hours. He was asked by a reporter who he thought would win the nomination or presidency or something to that effect. Jackson said 'I dunno, you tell me" Then he went to elaborate how the media influences and affects things. So in essence I have surmised from all the same ol politicos that the candidates that are worth something are the ones who we do not hear about at all.
Good Lord, man. How can you possibly think yourself more conservative than me if you even consider voting for Barak Hussain Obama? :confused: Reminds me of an egg commercial. This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs.:-D

CircusRide

01-07-2008, 02:20 PM

Since a number of people always bring up religion or their distaste for such, I thought I'd provide a link to Obama's church website.

http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm

Here's more........

http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html

hendrixfreak70

01-07-2008, 02:23 PM

Good Lord, man. How can you possibly think yourself more conservative than me if you even consider voting for Barak Hussain Obama? :confused: Reminds me of an egg commercial. This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs.:-D

Because I was and am tired of politicians claiming to be conservative only to go hand in hand with the liberals on many things. Those many things are similiar but the rationale is different. We have been over this. I would never vote for Obama. Neo-conservative is not that far from liberalism. My hope was that he was not establishment. Now that I know full well he is and he is extremely liberal in wanting to spend my money on maintaining the empire I won't ever consider someone who is CFR. I am not even considering Kucinich despite the fact the he is not establishment, because he is too liberal. Nor will I consider someone who wants to spend my money on stupid things. For example, I paid in over 9 K in taxes this year and i have to pay more. Does that not sound like stealing? You claim Paul has no viable plan to replace the Federal Income tax. I claim he does and it does not involve replacing it. Isn't it a bit of perpetuation of the cycle to tax, spend the money on those who don't pay taxes, then print money out of thin air, run it through banks, and charge interest on it all the while creating bigger government problems by creating more government? This notion goes against every fiber of a genuine conservative and my hope was that there was someone out there that was going to stop this. We did just fine before 1913. We didn't have big government spending because we didn't have the money. Private charitable organizations do just fine in providing for those who need, why do we need welfare or income taxes?

hendrixfreak70

01-07-2008, 02:30 PM

About the gold standard and the Federal Reserve. Sure we had inflation but not like we have seen now. This is the consequences of not having your currency backed by something hard. Fiat money failed in Austria and Ludwig Von Mises pointed out and it is failing now in America. Wanna know why? It is simple: You print money backed by nothing, (despite Congress voting on it the Federal Reserve Act takes the power away from the Congress Article One Section Eight to coin monies), you run it through banks and charge interest on it, the middle class suffers while the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.

The Federal Income tax I say again is a plank of communism as is the abolition of private property.... which is something the libs definitely want like hillary. I have heard Hillary say at least a half dozen times that in essence there should be no private property. To continue to rob Peter to pay Paul is insane. Before 1913 the states did just find with their collection of money. Bridges weren't as adequate you may argue but neither was technology. We have tried this Federal Income tax for 95 years can we all agree that the big spending comes from taxes and printing money out of thin air??

dollfus46

01-07-2008, 04:06 PM

About the gold standard and the Federal Reserve. Sure we had inflation but not like we have seen now. This is the consequences of not having your currency backed by something hard. Fiat money failed in Austria and Ludwig Von Mises pointed out and it is failing now in America. Wanna know why? It is simple: You print money backed by nothing, (despite Congress voting on it the Federal Reserve Act takes the power away from the Congress Article One Section Eight to coin monies), you run it through banks and charge interest on it, the middle class suffers while the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.

The Federal Income tax I say again is a plank of communism as is the abolition of private property.... which is something the libs definitely want like hillary. I have heard Hillary say at least a half dozen times that in essence there should be no private property. To continue to rob Peter to pay Paul is insane. Before 1913 the states did just find with their collection of money. Bridges weren't as adequate you may argue but neither was technology. We have tried this Federal Income tax for 95 years can we all agree that the big spending comes from taxes and printing money out of thin air??
No one can ever tax us out of poverty. Can't happen. But it sounds like the Christian thing, the decent thing to do. I think it takes cojones to stand before the country like Hillary and tell the world we're going to tax hell out of the rich. Now that sounds fair.:laugh:

Luvia

01-07-2008, 04:12 PM

Do you see the words "LEGAL IMMIGRANTS" ?? Legal. NOT illegal.

EXACTLY...read the statement above that and it says...Give illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship. THEN extend medicaid and welfare to LEGAL immigrants (who were ILLEGAL til he granted them citizenship).

<CENTER>Give immigrants who are here a rigorous path to citizenship

</CENTER>We want to have a situation in which those who are already here, are playing by the rules, are willing to pay a fine and go through a rigorous process should have a pathway to legalization. Most Americans will support that if they have some sense that the border is also being secured. What they don't want is a situation in which there is a pathway to legalization and you've got another several hundred thousand of folks coming in every year. That is a central position we should be able to arrive at.

<CENTER>Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007 </CENTER>

<CENTER>Extend welfare and Medicaid to immigrants

</CENTER>

Obama supports the folowing principles regarding immigration:
Continue to extend state-funded welfare benefits for legal immigrants.
Use state funds to continue some Medicaid coverage for legal immigrants.
<CENTER>Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998 </CENTER>

dollfus46

01-07-2008, 04:18 PM

Neo-conservative is not that far from liberalism.

What?:confused: There are so many definitions of neo conservatism it's impossible to figure out which one you're talking about.

somebody who, during the mid-1980s, began to support conservatism in society, and in politics in particular, as a reaction to the social freedoms sought throughout the 1960s and early 1970s So it's exliberals who recentlly converted to social conservatives.

Basically it was the Democrats who voted for Reagan. Liberals try to use it as a demeaning term for conservatives like radicals but it's not.
Neo is new. And there is nothing further from the truth that neoconservativism is near liberalism. The two are basically opposite.:-D

dollfus46

01-07-2008, 04:20 PM

Now see, CB. You're a fair guy. You groan me when you think I'm wrong and thank me when you think I'm right Can't ask for more fairness than that. I agree + 21. Heh heh heh.

Conveyor Belt

01-07-2008, 04:25 PM

Now see, CB. You're a fair guy. You groan me when you think I'm wrong and thank me when you think I'm right Can't ask for more fairness than that. I agree + 21. Heh heh heh.

I groaned you for that middle eastern swipe, and you know it.

LOL.

dollfus46

01-07-2008, 04:42 PM

I groaned you for that middle eastern swipe, and you know it.

LOL.

Yes I do.;) I'm surprised I didn't get more. At least I didn't call him a Muslim. Heh heh heh.

dollfus46

01-07-2008, 04:44 PM

Edmund Muskie?

Das Him. Edmund Muskie. Dangerous man. Thanks Kitty.:clap: I agree +10 reps.

Blockhead

01-07-2008, 04:57 PM

Ah, but it does:

Valuation of the dollar - in the toilet. Why? We've mortgaged our nation to China and our "ends" aren't meeting, fiscally. Bad credit. The Iraqi Misadventure and our presence in that region are driving oil prices to the tune of $3.00 a gallon - and predicted to go higher - gasoline. There is an astounding trade deficit, which further devalues our productivity and weakens our declining industrial and manufacturing base.

Would you prefer someone who uses religious ideaology, invoking the name of Christ and God as routine vote-getting ploys?

There you go.

I don't know that I'd put the Mid east disaster in the "what others think of us" category as much as the "stupid shyte we do around the world" category. But, I suppose they're inseparable.

And, no. The idea of having some religious ideologue in the white house scares the hell out of me. Reagan did enough damage. Someone even more out of touch would be horrendous.

That still doesn't make me feel any better about someone who thinks race and policy should have anything to do with each other.

SueScribe

01-07-2008, 09:17 PM

. . .That still doesn't make me feel any better about someone who thinks race and policy should have anything to do with each other.

I'm not convinced that the groundswell of support for this mixed-race man, nor his views, are premised on "race and policy". Listen to him. He wants to make a difference for his country and in the lives of all of us.

I believe with all my fragile heart that the man is genuine, a light at the end of a long and laborious, divisive and regretable, national tunnel. We may see fear and bifurcation overcome by steady and reasoned resolve founded on the principles of this being ONE nation under God (as each of us know him to be).

Finally, as John F. Kennedy proclaimed in his inaugural address, perhaps the time has come that the torch be passed "to a new generation of Americans."

Give the generation behind the Boomers the obligation and the chance to assemble its vision of a nation they will inherit.

IGID

01-07-2008, 09:23 PM

If any of this is true, he has all of you fooled.

Rhonda Hall
Lemon Mohler Insurance Agency
806 Washington Avenue
Ocean Springs, MS 39564
(228) 875-7777 (office)
(228) 875-2867 (fax)
rhall@lemonmohler.com (rhall@lemonmohler.com)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). The information contained in this message may be private and confidential, and may also be subject to the work product doctrine. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
----- Original Message ----- From: pacampbell@bellsouth.net (pacampbell@bellsouth.net)
To: Campbell. Jamie (jamiec@forrestgeneral.com)
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 3:08 PM
Subject: Obama's Church



-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: "Woody Spiers" <gardendistrict@bellsouth.net (gardendistrict@bellsouth.net)>
To: <earlfox@bellsouth.net (earlfox@bellsouth.net)>
Subject: Fw: Obama's Church
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 18:31:22 +0000

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=GENERATOR>Subject: Fw: Obama's Church

Thought this was interesting

Terry Tetzlaff

Subject: Obama's Church

<STYLE>#AOLMsgPart_2_8f6e934c-f0f9-4147-bbf1-0d6653c9206c .ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P { PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px}#AOLMsgPart_2_8f6e934c-f0f9-4147-bbf1-0d6653c9206c .ExternalClass EC_body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma}</STYLE>Please send this to everyone you know!!!!!!

OBAMA'S CHURCH

Obama mentioned his church during his appearance with Oprah. It's the Trinity Church of Christ. I found this interesting.

Obama's church:
Please read and go to this church's website and read what is written there. It is very alarming.
Barack Obama is a member of this church and is running for President of the U.S. If you look at the first page of th eir website, you will learn that this congregation has a non-negotiable
commitment to Africa . No where is AMERICA even mentioned. Notice too, what color you will need to be if you should want to join Obama's church... B-L-A-C-K!!! Doesn't look like his choice of religion has improved much over his (former?) Muslim upbringing.
Are you aware that Obama's middle name is Mohammed? Strip away his nice looks, the big smile and smooth talk and what do you get? Certainly a racist, as plainly defined by the stated position of his church! And possibly a covert worshiper of the Muslim faith, even today. This guy desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa !</S TRONG>
I cannot believe this has not been all over the TV and newspapers.
This is why it is so important to pass this message along to all of our family & friends. To think that Obama has even the slightest chance in the run for the presidency, is really scary.
Click on the link below:
This is the web page for the church Barack Obama belongs to:&n bsp;

www.tucc.org/about.htm (http://www.tucc.org/about.htm)

<HR>Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. Get it now! (http://www.windowslive.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_powerofwindows_122007)
<HR>Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live. Share now! (http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_122007)
<HR>Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary! Check it out! (http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlhmtextlink1_dec) =
<HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail (http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003)!

<HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape (http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489) in the new year.

CircusRide

01-07-2008, 09:37 PM

Obama has the JFK, young, well spoken lure to him. He has no substance though.
All the folks who were on the Hillary wagon have now started to bolt to the person they think can win. People don't care about ideas anymore. They just want anything different. It's the American way now.
They don't look to see that he's a supporter of illegals, he's in the pocket of the oil companies already, he's a member of a racist group, he's not against war, he's voted against tax reform.
Yeah, he'll make a hell of a President with those qualifications.

hendrixfreak70

01-08-2008, 07:34 AM

What?:confused: There are so many definitions of neo conservatism it's impossible to figure out which one you're talking about.

somebody who, during the mid-1980s, began to support conservatism in society, and in politics in particular, as a reaction to the social freedoms sought throughout the 1960s and early 1970s So it's exliberals who recentlly converted to social conservatives.

Basically it was the Democrats who voted for Reagan. Liberals try to use it as a demeaning term for conservatives like radicals but it's not.
Neo is new. And there is nothing further from the truth that neoconservativism is near liberalism. The two are basically opposite.:-D

How are they opposite of one another when they both have or had the same ideas? You obviously do trust people more than I. Once a lib always a lib.

Taxes and Federal Budget: "Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth." In Kristol's view, neocons are and should be less concerned about balancing fiscal budgets than traditional conservatives: "One sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth.

Hogwash. This is taken from Bill Kristol. How can you be concerned about cutting taxes but not balancing fiscal issues? The two are the same. What he means here is tax break for the rich. Well, not everyone is rich Bill.

Size of Government: Kristol distinguishes between Neoconservatives and the call of traditional conservatives for smaller government. "Neocons do not feel ... alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable

This notion goes against every fiber of a tradtional conservative. This notion is probably the worst one.

Traditional Moral Values: "The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives". Here Kristol distinguishes between traditional conservatives and libertarian conservatives. He cites the shared interest of Neocons and Religious Conservates in using the government to enforce morality: "Since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power

Once again how can you enforce morality?? As a Christian I am alarmed at the amount of power the government has over my bedroom. As someone who may not be a Christian it is a double blow because it forces certain standards to be adhered to, Hitler would be proud. Remember land of the free, not enslaved.

Expansionist Foreign Policy: "Statesmen should ... distinguish friends from enemies." And according to Kristol, "with power come responsibilities ... if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you

Globalism. Point blank. We tread on others' sovereignty and force democracy (or their version) with the end of a rifle.

National Interest: "the United States of today, inevitably ... [will] feel obliged to defend ... a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces ...that is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II ... that is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today

Again globalism. This is what I meant by the traditional party line thinkers have been hijacked. How can any conservative who understands the original intent of our Constitution and Founding Fathers believe this sh** (that one was for you Dollfus :) )

These ideas are an attempt to build, maintain, and spread an empire. This is a damned republic, or a representative democracy if you prefer. How can anyone not see this!!!?

hendrixfreak70

01-08-2008, 07:39 AM

This bit I stole from Wikipedia (some may or may not like Wikipedia but it's cool). From my understanding of Stalinism and the like this is spot-on.

The neoconservative desire to spread democracy abroad has been likened to the Trotskyist theory of permanent revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_revolution). Lind argues that the neoconservatives are influenced by the thought of former Trotskyists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyist) such as James Burnham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burnham) and Max Shachtman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Shachtman), who argued that "the United States and similar societies are dominated by a decadent, postbourgeois 'new class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_class).'" He sees the neoconservative concept of "global democratic revolution" as deriving from the Trotskyist Fourth International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_International)'s "vision of permanent revolution." He also points to what he sees as the Marxist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism) origin of "the economic determinist idea that liberal democracy is an epiphenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenon) of capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)," which he describes as "Marxism with entrepreneurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneur) substituted for proletarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian) as the heroic subjects of history." However, few leading neoconservatives cite James Burnham as a major influence.

I believe what I said above is accurate and I will stand by it. This just further validates the argument. If you know political systems and history then neoconservatism is just plain ol damn totalitarianism wrapped in the word conservative.

dollfus46

01-08-2008, 09:29 AM

I believe what I said above is accurate and I will stand by it. This just further validates the argument. If you know political systems and history then neoconservatism is just plain ol damn totalitarianism wrapped in the word conservative.
WOW. :exit2:"That's out there. I mean that's really out there." -Meat in Bull Durham. :-D

hendrixfreak70

01-08-2008, 09:44 AM

If so then elaborate how. I am really interersted to know why the paradigm has shifted for us conservatives. I am of the old traditional right and you are for the new. Compare the new style to the Marxist point of view. Not much different. How is globe trotting and the like that goes with it conservative?

dollfus46

01-08-2008, 11:41 AM

If so then elaborate how. I am really interersted to know why the paradigm has shifted for us conservatives. I am of the old traditional right and you are for the new. Compare the new style to the Marxist point of view. Not much different. How is globe trotting and the like that goes with it conservative?

I'm not sure I can, hendrixfreak. Not in a manner you'd understand nor accept. Not because you aren't very bright, you are. We can't even agree on definitions to start with. I find you wavering between 12:01 and 11:59 on the clock face example I used. You appear to me to be a hybrid. I'm the conservative and you can be highly liberal on some subjects. If you want the government out of your bedroom, you're a liberal. You find unnatural sex acts to be just dandy. If you want to take a goat to bed that's your business. You think that's conservative? You and many Democrats are using the word neocon as a word to make conservatives seem onerous, when in fact, it really doesn't exist. A conservative is a conservative, from the 60's to the 00's. It doesn't change. A "new" conservative is an ex liberal who changed his mind. Seems to me that your definition of neocon is best applied to neolib. I always thought It's the libs who march to the beat of one party. They'll vote party above anything else. One woman admitted so after the debates the other night. Worried to death that McCain would be the Republican candidate. Then she proceeded to explain why and it was every reason she should be voting for HIM. Honest, decent, more experience......I couldn't believe my ears. She's voting party. So when you, and others, use the term neocon or neoconservative I tune you out because you're using the term incorrectly as far as I'm concerned.

hendrixfreak70

01-08-2008, 11:55 AM

All I have to do is cite what one of the founders say about the thought process of neoconservative principles like I did with Bill Kristol. Then I compare them to what traditional conservatives are about. Hell all one has to do is read what Kristol is writing, he even distinguishes between the two in each paragraph! You're telling me that Kristol, a self-admitted neoconservative is not a self-admitting neoconservative, despite him saying he is?? Therefore it is my assertion that not only is neoconservatism not conservatism but in its very form is a real and dangerous ideology. And no I do not want the government in my bedroom because as a libertarian-minded person I don't want the government in to simply be able to reverse its decisions because it is a two way street. What's next for the government to regulate, where we go to church??

SueScribe

01-08-2008, 12:10 PM

If you want the government out of your bedroom, you're a liberal.

Thank you, Dof. I've often wondered why some elements of the GOP seemed to want the government in their bedrooms. There's a psychiatric term for that . . something . . "fetish" . . can't recall right now.

You find unnatural sex acts to be just dandy.

There has never been a vote taken on the DNC level; never a Democratic-sponsored referendum, national or local, on the classification of natural and unnatural sex acts. "Just Dandy" would not have been a term such a vote or referendum would have used. That, I'm pretty certain about.

If you want to take a goat to bed that's your business.

A . . goat? To bed? Why would he/she be inside the premises? Don't goat lovers have barns or sheds or something? A goat to bed. . .

Well. Let me just say right now, up front, that IF I discovered an acquaintence bedding goats, I'd quietly keep my distance for them.

Alligators, though: Have you ever gotten a close look at their tails?? :smt118

You and many Democrats are using the word neocon as a word to make conservatives seem onerous, when in fact, it really doesn't exist.

Oh, but it does. Even Chris Matthews admits it does. Goldwater Conservatism has been supplanted, in frightening part, by Neo-Conservatives, whose idealogy has little to do with TRUE conservatism.

A true conservative (and I happen to know one quite well) becomes insulted if you call them a "neo-con".

People don't care about ideas anymore. They just want anything different.

. . . . . . . . . It's the American way now. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Amen, and it's about time. It will likely be the single "legacy" that George Walker Bush will leave behind. Eight years of his tenure ignited a fire under political ambivalence and tolerance of the national status quo.

For that reason alone - Thank you, Mr. Bush.

hendrixfreak70

01-08-2008, 12:28 PM

That is exactly correct. It is all about freedom, not a political party or who is left or right. I want freedom... if I am to be called a liberal for wanting to be free then so be it. I consider myself classically trained in the ways of libertarianism, sound fiscal responsibility, and freedom.

SueScribe

01-08-2008, 12:50 PM

It is all about freedom, not a political party or who is left or right. I want freedom... if I am to be called a liberal for wanting to be free then so be it. I consider myself classically trained in the ways of libertarianism, sound fiscal responsibility, and freedom.

Amen and Amen.

SueScribe

01-08-2008, 12:53 PM

Someone posted a thread that New Hampshire has run out of ballots, roughly, oh . . .6 hours before the polls close????

Lord. Make us instruments of thy peace.

dollfus46

01-08-2008, 04:53 PM

All I have to do is cite what one of the founders say about the thought process of neoconservative principles like I did with Bill Kristol. Then I compare them to what traditional conservatives are about. Hell all one has to do is read what Kristol is writing, he even distinguishes between the two in each paragraph! You're telling me that Kristol, a self-admitted neoconservative is not a self-admitting neoconservative, despite him saying he is?? Therefore it is my assertion that not only is neoconservatism not conservatism but in its very form is a real and dangerous ideology. And no I do not want the government in my bedroom because as a libertarian-minded person I don't want the government in to simply be able to reverse its decisions because it is a two way street. What's next for the government to regulate, where we go to church??
It's created to trash conservatives. Not one liberal can say "conservative." They can't do it. It's right wing radical, radical right, religious right, neoconservative. It pure BS. Your definition of neoconservative can be applied to liberals too. Give me some specifics that distinguish new from old and maybe we can understand each other.

dollfus46

01-08-2008, 04:54 PM

All I have to do is cite what one of the founders say about the thought process of neoconservative principles like I did with Bill Kristol. Then I compare them to what traditional conservatives are about. Hell all one has to do is read what Kristol is writing, he even distinguishes between the two in each paragraph! You're telling me that Kristol, a self-admitted neoconservative is not a self-admitting neoconservative, despite him saying he is?? Therefore it is my assertion that not only is neoconservatism not conservatism but in its very form is a real and dangerous ideology. And no I do not want the government in my bedroom because as a libertarian-minded person I don't want the government in to simply be able to reverse its decisions because it is a two way street. What's next for the government to regulate, where we go to church??
Hyperbole?

Blockhead

01-08-2008, 05:18 PM

I'm not convinced that the groundswell of support for this mixed-race man, nor his views, are premised on "race and policy". Listen to him. He wants to make a difference for his country and in the lives of all of us.

I believe with all my fragile heart that the man is genuine, a light at the end of a long and laborious, divisive and regretable, national tunnel. We may see fear and bifurcation overcome by steady and reasoned resolve founded on the principles of this being ONE nation under God (as each of us know him to be).

Finally, as John F. Kennedy proclaimed in his inaugural address, perhaps the time has come that the torch be passed "to a new generation of Americans."

Give the generation behind the Boomers the obligation and the chance to assemble its vision of a nation they will inherit.

I don't know that Obama himself is going to be big into race, but with pressure coming from the NAACP, and undoubtedly people like Jackson & Sharpton, could force him to bend. That, or be labeled a Tom and get enough negative publicity to guarantee he wouldn't see a 2nd term.

Every silver lining has a touch of gray, and I'm pretty good at finding it.

dollfus46

01-08-2008, 07:54 PM

Maybe it's time we started asking specific and pointed questions of Obam:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703010012

CircusRide

01-08-2008, 07:59 PM

Maybe it's time we started asking specific and pointed questions of Obam:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703010012

Dollfus, you can forget it. They've made up their minds. He's different than everyone else in the race. Problem is, that's not a good thing in this case. If Huckabee were a member of a church that preached white supremacy, he wouldn't be allowed in the race. But a black man can do the same thing and be declared an exciting change. LOL!!
Senseless!

dollfus46

01-08-2008, 08:06 PM

Dollfus, you can forget it. They've made up their minds. He's different than everyone else in the race. Problem is, that's not a good thing in this case. If Huckabee were a member of a church that preached white supremacy, he wouldn't be allowed in the race. But a black man can do the same thing and be declared an exciting change. LOL!!
Senseless!
Don't forget, "A breath of fresh air" too.:smt118 Romney had to explain Mormonism but no one is axting Obama to explain his religion. It ain't Christian. They mention God but not Christ. Islam believes in God. I guess non-Christian is better than Christian. People are scared chitless of the Baptist Preacher.

CircusRide

01-08-2008, 08:12 PM

Don't forget, "A breath of fresh air" too.:smt118 Romney had to explain Mormonism but no one is axting Obama to explain his religion. It ain't Christian. They mention God but not Christ. Islam believes in God. I guess non-Christian is better than Christian. People are scared chitless of the Baptist Preacher.

And if that's not bad enough, if they'll actually take the time to check Obamalama's voting record, they'll see he's against tax reform that would lower the middle class taxes, he's a friend of the illegals, & he's taking the oil money. They don't want facts. They're looking for a savior that's not in this race.

hendrixfreak70

01-08-2008, 08:19 PM

It's created to trash conservatives. Not one liberal can say "conservative." They can't do it. It's right wing radical, radical right, religious right, neoconservative. It pure BS. Your definition of neoconservative can be applied to liberals too. Give me some specifics that distinguish new from old and maybe we can understand each other.

The part you wrote about neoconservatives being applied to liberals is exactly me point. I agree with you about liberals not being able to say conservative.

Ok here goes:

Neoconservatives believe that government can solve many problems throughout the world. Regardless of method, necons believe spending money to spread democracy is essential TO America's survival. The very same notion canbe used by liberals to argue for righting the wrongs of social injustices by injecting more government controls over the population IN America. See regardless of what the money is being spent on the very definition of a liberal is to spend. Neocons (like Bush) have spent 580 billion dollars in 5 years to spread democracy throughout the world by force. A neoconservative is a liberal who just spends money on different things. Libs on nanny state programs and neocons on maintaining an empire around the world.

Neocons wants government to regulate human nature. Liberals want government to regulate human nature too, just by creating laws that prevent people from being human. You'll likely remember more so than I the Civil Rights Act. I have only studied, I am presuming that you lived it. The notion that govenrment can get involved wherever it pleases is a liberal notion.

Traditional conservatives realize that sodomy and all that silly crap is immoral. They would just prefer the government not regulate. Ask Barry Goldwater (from beyond the grave!)

Traditional conservatives STRESS the need to remain non-interventionalist and a smaller government. Bill Kristol put it best when he said that he and his neocon buddies do not worry about the size of government and see it as an inevitability to increase. Seriously? Says who? Well he does. See, larger government is the goal of a liberal. Apparently it is of the necons too. So you are correct when you say that neocons can be called liberals.

I will post further tomorrow on this subject so we can better understand each other. I am likely to run out of time with this post. Suffice it to say I have had my nose in the books about Alexis de Tocqueville, F.A. Hayek, Ron Paul's A Foreign Policy of Freedom, Milton Friedman (whom I disagree with on a few things), James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, my least favorite of the Founders Alexander Hamilton, Ludwig Von Mises (economically) and the Constitution. These guys have inspired me beyond belief. I have began to think outside the Fox.

dollfus46

01-09-2008, 09:03 AM

The part you wrote about neoconservatives being applied to liberals is exactly me point. I agree with you about liberals not being able to say conservative.

Ok here goes:

Neoconservatives believe that government can solve many problems throughout the world. Regardless of method, necons believe spending money to spread democracy is essential TO America's survival. The very same notion canbe used by liberals to argue for righting the wrongs of social injustices by injecting more government controls over the population IN America. See regardless of what the money is being spent on the very definition of a liberal is to spend. Neocons (like Bush) have spent 580 billion dollars in 5 years to spread democracy throughout the world by force. A neoconservative is a liberal who just spends money on different things. Libs on nanny state programs and neocons on maintaining an empire around the world.

Neocons wants government to regulate human nature. Liberals want government to regulate human nature too, just by creating laws that prevent people from being human. You'll likely remember more so than I the Civil Rights Act. I have only studied, I am presuming that you lived it. The notion that govenrment can get involved wherever it pleases is a liberal notion.

Traditional conservatives realize that sodomy and all that silly crap is immoral. They would just prefer the government not regulate. Ask Barry Goldwater (from beyond the grave!)

Traditional conservatives STRESS the need to remain non-interventionalist and a smaller government. Bill Kristol put it best when he said that he and his neocon buddies do not worry about the size of government and see it as an inevitability to increase. Seriously? Says who? Well he does. See, larger government is the goal of a liberal. Apparently it is of the necons too. So you are correct when you say that neocons can be called liberals.

I will post further tomorrow on this subject so we can better understand each other. I am likely to run out of time with this post. Suffice it to say I have had my nose in the books about Alexis de Tocqueville, F.A. Hayek, Ron Paul's A Foreign Policy of Freedom, Milton Friedman (whom I disagree with on a few things), James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, my least favorite of the Founders Alexander Hamilton, Ludwig Von Mises (economically) and the Constitution. These guys have inspired me beyond belief. I have began to think outside the Fox.

Well, based on you're definition, which is so broad it would only fit about 50 people I'm not a neocon. Seems there are more definitions for this term than carter has pills. Hard to call a liberal a conservative. I'll just stick with my definition of radical conservative.:-D

SueScribe

01-09-2008, 12:17 PM

It's created to trash conservatives. Not one liberal can say "conservative."

I'm not sure about your contention that a "liberal" cannot say "conservative," but as a centrist, conservative Democrat who beleives in a balanced federal budget, less government intrusion into private lives, compassionate concern about the plight of the middle class, and unfettered liberty, I can.

dollfus46

01-09-2008, 12:24 PM

I'm not sure about your contention that a "liberal" cannot say "conservative," but as a centrist, conservative Democrat who beleives in a balanced federal budget, less government intrusion into private lives, compassionate concern about the plight of the middle class, and unfettered liberty, I can.
:bowrofl: And I'm a midget pole vaulter.

dollfus46

01-09-2008, 12:57 PM

Well, based on you're definition, which is so broad it would only fit about 50 people I'm not a neocon. Seems there are more definitions for this term than carter has pills. Hard to call a liberal a conservative. I'll just stick with my definition of radical conservative.:-D

FUZZIS, ARE YOU LISTENING? It's taken me a year, and the rantings of hendrixfreak70, to understand what Fuzzis was talking about when she warned of "labeling" people: Liberal, conservative, Neocons, whatever.......No one fits a label. You can't put someone is a box called Liberal or conservative or neocon and be able to get all of them inside the box. No one will fit such a box. Thanks, Fuzzis. Sorry I was so stupid. I'm still not sure what a neocon is. :confused: So, I say, I have strong conservative tendencies. That's as close as you can get to labeling someone, I 'spose. It's like the questions asked to determine which candidate you more closely line up with. No one was 100% anybody. The best I got to was 79% Duncan Hunter. If he's 100% conservative, that leaves me about 21% liberal, eh? I'm a hybrid. :cry: Unpure. Mixed. ;)

SueScribe

01-09-2008, 02:03 PM

The best I got to was 79% Duncan Hunter. If he's 100% conservative, that leaves me about 21% liberal, eh? I'm a hybrid. :cry: Unpure. Mixed. ;)

Yeah? Sure you aren't a midget poll climber? :smt001

dreamhippy

01-09-2008, 11:48 PM

Has anyone else noticed that due to the similarity in names between Obama and Osama, the media (FOX , at least) is now referring to Bin Laden as U-sama? His name changed very conveniently.<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shape id=Picture_x0020_1 style="WIDTH: 260.25pt; HEIGHT: 279.75pt" alt="Barak Osama" type="#_x0000_t75" o:spid="_x0000_i1025"><v:imagedata o:href="cid:image001.jpg@01C82402.28C85010" src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\WDAMMA~1.HQ\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1 \01\clip_image001.jpg"></v:imagedata></v:shape>

Blockhead

01-10-2008, 12:17 AM

They've been flip-flopping between Osama and Usama for a couple years now, I think. Even when calling him by his initials: OBL or UBL. Considering Arabic writing looks like drunken chicken scratch, I guess either could be accurate. I don't even use the guy's first name anymore since no one seems to know it.

SueScribe

01-10-2008, 05:52 PM

Senator John Kerry, the presiding Democtratic Party Stalwart (the last man standing in a national election) has endorsed Barack Obama. Story:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hrv3xwT9t7wsEZsJhNnI60CRPjtg

What I find most interesting is that Kerry's endorsement seems to be messge-inspired, and directed as much (if not more) at his former Vice Presidential running mate than The Clintons. Kerry is a shrewd politician. He sees the handwriting on the distant cultural, political wall and must think that Edwards' face in the race is drawing votes away from Obama (both seem to be singing off the same A Change Is Comin' sheet music).

With Edwards OUT of the race, his supporters (the majority of whom supported the Kerry/Edwards ticket in 2004) could be expected to switch to Obama. AND, John Kerry wants to be up there, in the rarified Winners political air. Vicariously is good enough for John.

dollfus46

01-10-2008, 06:12 PM

Senator John Kerry, the presiding Democtratic Party Stalwart (the last man standing in a national election) has endorsed Barack Obama. Story:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hrv3xwT9t7wsEZsJhNnI60CRPjtg

What I find most interesting is that Kerry's endorsement seems to be messge-inspired, and directed as much (if not more) at his former Vice Presidential running mate than The Clintons. Kerry is a shrewd politician. He sees the handwriting on the distant cultural, political wall and must think that Edwards' face in the race is drawing votes away from Obama (both seem to be singing off the same A Change Is Comin' sheet music).

With Edwards OUT of the race, his supporters (the majority of whom supported the Kerry/Edwards ticket in 2004) could be expected to switch to Obama. AND, John Kerry wants to be up there, in the rarified Winners political air. Vicariously is good enough for John.

As FoxNews pointed out, what's interesting is that Kerry named Edwards as his VP running mate. A person he felt most qualified to be President if something should happen to him. If Edwards was good enough to be Kerry's back up, what happened between then and now? Heh heh heh. I still use Hunt's Ketchup though.:-D I can't bring myself to give up Heinz 57 yet.

SueScribe

01-10-2008, 06:29 PM

As FoxNews pointed out, what's interesting is that Kerry named Edwards as his VP running mate. A person he felt most qualified to be President if something should happen to him. If Edwards was good enough to be Kerry's back up, what happened between then and now?

The cumulative, deteriorating and debilitating effects of the three-plus years since, mebbe ?

The simplest answer, as brainy types will tell you, is usually the correct one. In this case:

Barack Obama happened.

Heh heh heh. I still use Hunt's Ketchup though.:-D I can't bring myself to give up Heinz 57 yet.

Heinz Ketchup rules. 57 sauce? There is no way around it, one becomes addicted.

Don't worry too much about giving up Heinz Ketchup, though. I haven't opened a can of Bush Baked Beans since 2003.

SueScribe

01-10-2008, 06:32 PM

P. S. Dof: There is a rumour goin' round that Clapton is opening a new rehab center, on a remote mountaintop, for those afflicted with Foxawatchatosis addiction.

dollfus46

01-10-2008, 06:58 PM

The cumulative, deteriorating and debilitatin