|
|
Post by dgriffin on Aug 29, 2008 21:41:07 GMT -5
Wow! 
|
|
|
|
Post by wilum47 on Aug 29, 2008 22:40:27 GMT -5
Marxism - Capitalism
Fairness Doctrine - Free Speech
Gun Grabbing Ammo restrictions - 2nd Amendment rights
Rev. Wright Pentagon bombing leftovers - Five years in the Hanoi Hilton
Taxes for the Rich - veto earmarks reduce spending
Let GW's tax relief die in 2010 - Retain GW's taxes which is saving me at least 4 grand a year and I'm nowheres near 200K.
Tax only above 200K - There goes small businesses who usually file personal taxs.
No Drilling or Nuclear energy - Reliving the Carter years with odd-even gas days if any at the pump when you finally get there
Your choice! But most of us have lived through this so called "change" 30 years ago
|
|
|
|
Post by wilum47 on Aug 29, 2008 22:56:53 GMT -5
Dave did ya notice the right side has all the babes?
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Aug 29, 2008 23:26:07 GMT -5
Good genes, I guess. Natural selection at work, again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Aug 30, 2008 0:18:37 GMT -5
Swimmy, it is called campaigning for your candidate. Not telling someone how to vote. Nobody knows how you vote except you and your concscience. I would almost bet that you would vote for Obama because you are young, and a lawyer, and you want to see change.
I will let you in on a little secret. All americans want to see "change" after 8 years of Gdubya. It is only a matter of "change to what?" I don't want to see it be a change to more arrogance than Bush has (and he has a boatload), and to "marxist leanings" with a cabinet of miscreants and anti-american smart asses, trying to make their mark on this great country.
I have said it before, and I will say it again. The Democratic Party needs to change the face of their campaigns and get away from slamming the administration and the Republican Party, and get together to find a "VIABLE" candidate, that will appeal to not only Democrats, but those Republicans that are undecided and hanging on the fence.
I would damn near be more comfortable voting for Lous Farrakhan than Barrack Obama, because at least I would KNOW where Farrakhan is coming from and where he is wanting to go. Obama's connections and acquaintances are frightening. He is surrounded by anti american's, terrorists, and marxists. His ambition is to get to "the top", and he cares not what happens to the country after he does. He wants to be president purely out of political ambition, not patriotism. Listen to his speeches and it is evident in his words and his body language.
Believe me when I tell you, that Obama is closer to another Louis Farrakhan than he is to Martin Luther King Jr. When the time has come for the nation to have it's "First Black President", it will be evident to all, and the candidate will a man of experience and American roots, with an agenda that is spelled out in much more detail, than simply saying he is the "candidate for change".
When he is done selling us down the
river, compromising with the communists, muslim radicals in Iran, other enemies of America, and to anyone else that courts his favor, we will have lost the ideals that men have fought for since 1776.
It is one thing to "take a chance on him as a senator from Illinois", but entirely different to "hand over the reins of the finest country in teh world" to someone with questionable past, questionable background, and questionable ambitions, with a questionable agenda, and an anti-American wife.
Those of us who have fought for the freedoms we enjoy, didn't do so in order for young inquiring minds to turn it all over to a Marxist or a Socialist in the name of "Change."
I truly hope to see Obama go down in flames in November. That will give us 4 more years for the Democratic Party to pull their head from their bitter asses and put a platform together, and pick a candidate that can pull both parties back into unity in the interest of saving our nation from destruction or further deterioration.
Hopefully they will find someone that is not inclined to fly around the world, kissing Iranian and French asses in order to court favor on the world scene. Maybe they will find a candidate that can confidently campaign right here in the good old USA and win on with a positive platform of unity and the betterment of life in America. They will have to dig deep, because in the last 3 or 4 elections, they have not been able to find a candidate with the appeal necessary to carry it off. Kerry? Gore? Gore didn't even carry Tennessee, and he lives here. Hillary? Another carpet bagging crook, with a personal agenda, and no concern for the general good. Jimmy Carter was the last "moral and decent" democrat to run for president, and he turned out to be a loser also. He was a great diplomat, but a lousy leader.
The democrats need one basic thing in a candidate. They need a candidate that is buoyed up by accomplishment, not applause. A candidate that is a into something more than comedic mud slinging, and theatrics. Our first black president needs to first be black, and secondly, be a man like MLK Jr. Our first black president must have his heart in taking care of the underlings, not building a political rep and empire.
Our next "young" president needs to understand that our world power comes from strength and deterrence, not from pandering to radicals, and negotiating with people guilty of crimes against humanity.
We must have a president that will stand toe to toe with our enemies and not back down. We can't have some mamby pamby little trial lawyer, thinking he is in small claims court, trying to win a verdict. He is on the big stage, and MY life and YOURS depend on his strengths and image in the eyes of the world.
When the world is in the state of turmoil we are in right now, I want to go to my bench and send in the "incredible hulk" not "mickey mouse". I want to send in Goerge Forman, not Kobe Bryant. I don't want some long legged kid negotiating away the freedoms that my comrades shed blood and lost their lives for, in the name of "proving himself" as a great legal mind, and diplomat.
"Peace" can be negotiated, but "Victory" must be won. Victory insures a lasting peace. Negotiation guarantees only peace for today.
PEACE was negotiated in Korea, and we still have troops there to maintain it. VICTORY was accomplished in Europe and the Pacific in WWII, and we don't have to stand with a our weapons locked and loaded 24/7 to let the world know WE were the winners. We have troops in Europe as guests of the nations we liberated. We have troops in Korea, because if we brought them home, N Korea would walk back into S Korea before our troops landed back here in the USA. That is the difference between a Victory and a cease fire and a "negotiated" end to conflict.
Send the old crusty war vet to do our bidding. If someone spits on HIS shoe, I guarantee that he will wipe it off on the ass of their pants, instead of bending down and wiping it with his handkerchief.Let our country survive another 4 years under the "old guard" while the parties both work to seek out and groom a suitable candidate to carry on the tradition of strength and power that the USA is noted for.
Send the "old war horse" into battle, and let the young stallion prance back to the senate until he has the experience to lead and the balls to stand up to our enemies and detractors.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Aug 30, 2008 0:29:56 GMT -5
OH yeah! I am not telling you how to vote. That is your decision. I am only pointing out some realistic points that need to be pondered before you pull down the lever.
Do what you have to do, but remember that this particular election is not about health care and the economy. This election is about regaining our stature in the eyes of the world, and in showing the world that we are still the same strong and invincible nation that has been the strongest of super powers for as long as anyone can remember.
When we have mended our fences with our ALLIES, not our enemies, and we have regained the respect of those that GW ignored and disrespected, we will have time to achieve our domestic victories and the american dollar will once again be of value on the world exchange.
|
|
|
|
Post by gearofzanzibar on Aug 30, 2008 0:34:24 GMT -5
One thing I really like about Palin is that she's the first Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate that has actually worked for a living since..what..Ross Perot?
Having career lawyers and politicians tell you they feel your pain is one thing. Having someone that actually *has* felt your pain is another.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Aug 30, 2008 0:57:28 GMT -5
What I like most about Palin, is she is NOTHING like Hillary. LOL
She actually has a record of accomplishments, instead of a list of litigations, indictments, and inuendos against her.
Hopefully while Palin is on her way up, Hillary is on her way out. Maybe NY voters will send her packing in the next senatorial race, and she can take her whoremaster husband back to Arkansas to live happily ever after on the money that they surely have tucked away from Whitewater, and the rest of their crooked schemes.
She accomplished her mission. She has a husband with a presidential pension, and although she failed to gain the office of president, she DID qualify herself for a senatorial pension, also coming off the backs of the taxpayers.
Sarah Palin and her "All American" family is just what this election needs, and just the person we need to promote drilling for domestic oil in Alaska. I think that not only can John McCain live long enough to fulfill his term as president, but Sarah Palin can be depended on to fill his shoes should anything unfortunate come about.
With America behind her, and the correct people in her circle of advisors, I would trust her far more to represent us than any vice president we have had in recent history. We survived LBJ and Gerald Ford taking office under less than desireable circumstances, so I am sure we would be quite well represented if she were to be dropped into the office of President of the United States. I would predict that she would probably prove to be a two term president, elected on her own.
We may well be looking at the face of the "First Female President of the United States", and I am much more comfortable with that prospect, than I was with the prospect of Hillary for president.
|
|
|
|
Post by corner on Aug 30, 2008 5:40:08 GMT -5
shes cute to boot!
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Aug 30, 2008 7:35:17 GMT -5
Wilum, have you noticed all the world's women leaders are getting better looking? Or am I just getting older.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Aug 30, 2008 7:42:49 GMT -5
Our next "young" president needs to understand that our world power comes from strength and deterrence, not from pandering to radicals, and negotiating with people guilty of crimes against humanity. It appears we're the only country in the world led ... in part ... by people who don't understand that. Hopefully, it's only politicians seeking differentiation of their views that produces such a startling sight, at least in the press. |
|
|
|
Post by denise on Aug 30, 2008 8:20:17 GMT -5
When it was first announced that Palin would be McCain's running mate, many people really thought, "He's picked a nobody. Barack Obama is going to be a shoe-in for President." I think after some research was done on Palin's history and accomplishments, people are rethinking their first thought.
I think that McCain made a smart choice.
I am a registered Republican but have not necessarily always voted the partyline. I too think change would be good, but I also know I will vote for the best choice. So far I have heard Obama do nothing more than say what he thinks people want to hear. No substance to anything. I agree with Clipper. If the Democrats want someone from their party to win the presidency then they need to do more than to bitch about George W. Bush and the Republican party. Obama does a fantastic job of blowing smoke up idealists asses, which of course, they just eat right up.
I'll be voting for McCain/Palin in November.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Aug 30, 2008 8:37:21 GMT -5
Clipper,
Let me further explain what I meant by one of the reasons I'm for Obama. Have many reasons not to vote for Obama, my chief concern is his stance on Iraq. Another concern is that he has a lot of rhetoric but not a lot of details. I watched his speech the other night, I was impressed at first until I realized that he has no idea how he is going to bring about this change. He has no idea how afford the changes he wants.
McCain has impressed me with his details. My only problem with him, as with many senior senators running for President is that they want all this change as President, when much of the change they are promoting could have been done while they were still in Congress. It's why I hated the idea of kerry becoming president, or that hilary was so "unstoppable".
But I'm more for McCain than I am for Obama.
|
|
|
|
Post by gearofzanzibar on Aug 30, 2008 9:36:13 GMT -5
Just from the comments here I think one thing is obvious- Palin has added a new dynamic to the race that has people a lot more excited about McCain's candidacy. As much as I respect the man, it wasn't until yesterday that I really felt myself getting behind him because of this choice.
Sweet Jebus, the woman can shoot a 5-inch group with an M-16 on full auto. That's just amazingly cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilum47 on Aug 30, 2008 10:18:28 GMT -5
My attitude towards "change" is not necessarily pointed at President Bush. I believe when the smoke settles historically Mr. Bush will sit among one of our better presidents.
The first thing you have to get past is the Media's bitter distaste for this man. I can honestly say I do not remember ANY article that I have read that was favorable to this president.
"He lied" is daily being cleared by down graded classified material showing everything he said about Hussein and Iraq was true. WMD have been discovered since the invasion and the finding remained classified until they were dealt with before they got into the wrong hands.
Katrina; this was media's finest moment. Many forget that President Bush begged the Governor and mayor of Louisiana and New Orleans to start an evacuation and was politely told to mind his own business. He asked her to release the guard and she didn't. After all this President Bush got on National Television and begged the people to get out of there. This was three days before the storm even hit. Remember, New Orleans survived the storm but it wasn't until the next day the levees broke. The Federal government through the Navy and Coast Guard did a heroic job of saving lives down there while the city's own government and police ran way. Fema is a secondary response not a primary but caught all the criticism along with...........Bush! the man who warned them days before.
The release of classified information to embarrass the administration by bureaucrats and the media during time of war was unprecedented. Any other war would have sent people to a firing squad!
The man has a stubborn attitude towards the border but I have a feeling, as Ted Nugent said on Glenn Beck last night, there is more to it involving Mexico and the US and terrorist activity.
His silence really angered me when every avenue of insult, name calling on the senate floor, constant attempts by congress to usurp the separation of powers regarding the executive branch, the continuing calling up of the presidents people to harass them with trumped-up charges in front of Cspans TV cameras.
Look, he never used the veto to stop the McCain Feingold, earmarks and a bunch of spending, and the borders are a real throne in my side. As far as Iraq, I feel it was a right move and took the terrorists away from here to fight there.
But the one thing that I will remember this president for is standing on a pile of rubble in downtown Manhattan with his arm around a fireman and promising a response to the ones who did this. But it doesn’t stop there, the man walks out the following evening, taking his time to say hello to the players in the middle of a well lit ballpark steps on the pitchers mound, an open target, and throws a strike.
|
|
