Log in

View Full Version : 2008 ELECTION Agree? copy it, e-mail it!


fishman0422
10-09-2008, 09:48 PM
I put this "little" piece together. It's a combination of researched info, content copied and pasted from the web, links I found here and elsewhere, and writing from my heart. The election is getting closer. Much is at stake, I believe it's the most important election of our time and there is much for us to be concerned. If you agree why don't you Email it to everyone you know? One Email could become thousands maybe more! I think it is such an important issue! Oh and a special thanks to Harveyc for his thread and great information. -Fishman



IF YOU'RE CONSIDERING VOTING FOR BARACK OBAMA PLEASE TAKE THE
TIME TO READ THIS




It can definitely be said that the theme for this election year is
change. The obvious topics up for change are the economy and the war
in Iraq. let's start with the war.

The Iraq war has been the object of much controversy. Barack Obama,
among many others, believes we never should have gone into Iraq. If
you are one of these people then there's a good chance you've made a
rock solid decision to vote for Barack Obama and absolutely nothing
will change your mind. However there's also a very good chance that if
you are one of these people you weren't always. At the start of the
war on March 20, 2003 the President's approval rating was at 70%.
Obviously most people approved of the decision to go into Iraq at that
time.
So what exactly happened between then and now? Maybe it's the
amount of time our military has spent inside Iraq. It's been over 5
years since the war began. I WILL admit that is a long time. But
honestly, we're living in the land of the Big Mac. Maybe we just can't
handle it. Here in the good old USA we like speed and convenience. We
bring our cars through fast food drive throughs and were now doing the
same at the pharmacy. We have one hour photos. While complaining about
the ridiculous gas prices we still drive ten miles over the speed
limit. So naturally we would just expect this war to be over quick and
easy. War is not easy and although war is not nice, it sounds absurd,
we try to make it nice. These are not the days of WWII. We care about
civilian casualties. We do not blanket bomb entire cities without
regard for life. War is much more strategic, more calculated, & more
high tech. This takes time. It has been said we are nation building.
Make no mistake about it, we could have blown Iraq to smithereens
without even the thought of using WMDs. Obviously this was not an
option, nor should it be. Like I said this does take time and it has
been a long time. I do believe the Bush administration's plan, while
well intentioned, was flawed. If the strategy of the surge had been
implemented early on success would have come sooner and American lives
would have been spared. John McCain has been a leading advocate of the
surge. That strategy has paid off. From June 2007 through March 2008,
violence in Iraq was reduced by 90 percent. Civilian deaths and deaths
of coalition forces fell by 70 percent.
Maybe you're really frustrated we went into Iraq in the first
place. We were still fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, We never did
find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein
certainly didn't orchestrate 9-11. Going into Iraq President Bush had
overwhelming support from congress. Barack Obama never supported going
into Iraq but keep in mind he was not yet in the United States senate.
He never had a vote. His position is an easy one to take. There's a
pretty good chance things may have been different had he had the
opportunity to vote. I could be wrong. Here's quite a few quotes on
Iraq from Democrats in the years working up to the Iraq war.
snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp) Virtually all
Democrats NOW think Iraq was a mistake. Some of them call George Bush
a cowboy as if they had never supported the military action. Things
don't go so smoothly and oh boy how everybody keeps their distance
from President Bush. HOW PATHETIC. They should be ashamed of
themselves. They are not worthy of their public office positions. Some
of these Democrats even claim America was deceived. Maybe YOU think
George Bush lied. Well just forget it. Maybe George Bush was mistaken
but he certainly didn't lie. Even those with a public voice who make
this ridiculous claim can't actually believe it, it's just rhetoric,
100% total bull. If George Bush lied about Iraq's WMD program there's
a long line of liars standing behind him, just forget it.
We do know that Iraq had had chemical and biological weapons and
had used them before. After several UN security council resolutions ( I think 17) Saddam continued to be belligerent with inspectors and his military continued to shoot at our planes over no fly zones. Terrorist training camps were located within the borders of his country. Saddam
also paid families of suicide bombers that carried out attacks on
Israel. International intelligence indicated that Saddam indeed still
had a WMD program that included pursuing nuclear weapons. Maybe the
intelligence was wrong about the WMD maybe it wasn't. Almost fourteen
months passed by after President Bush named Iraq one of the axis' of
evil before we started our military campaign. I think Saddam had a
pretty good idea we would be coming. He was stalling, buying time
playing games of cat and mouse with weapons inspections. Iraq is about
5 1/2 thousand square miles larger than the state of California,
that's a small country but still quite a bit of sand. 14 months.....I
could have gotten rid of a weapons program with that kind of notice.
Maybe Saddam brought it over the border into Syria, who are we
kidding? He was going to get rid of it IF he had it. The Bush
administration could never push this theory, OH NO - without the
weapons they would be even bigger liars.
Although people choose to ignore it, President Bush has taken the
position that Iraq did not play a role in 9-11. Does it really matter?
Wasn't Saddam's behavior enough to move in and take him out? I'm
sorry, enough is enough. What kind of a country have we become that
we'll let a dictator get away with all this nonsense after all the
chances given to him? Ignoring resolutions, stubbornly tolerating
sanctions, and shooting at our planes, What other way were we to deal
with him? There obviously was not a diplomatic solution. Saddam's
desire for weapons of mass destruction, his hatred of America and
Israel, and his role in the turmoil of the Middle East certainly
presented a risk to our national security if not sooner, later.
Getting rid of Saddam and FINISHING the job in Iraq will mean as a
nation we are safer. 100% safer? 5% safer? The point is we'll be safer
and the alternative is too damn scary. Doing nothing should not have
been an option.
The greatest burden of going into Iraq is the casualties. Many men
and women risk their lives everyday. I can say I don't think I would
have their courage. Their sacrifice should be honored. It is not my
intention to down play the loss of American life or the devastating
injuries in the Iraq war. To date about 30,700 Americans have been
injured and nearly 4,200 have been killed. By weight of comparison in
WWII 683,846 servicemen were injured and 416,800 killed. These numbers
are not to discount the number of casualties in Iraq, but to remind
Americans of sacrifices of the past. America has paid a severe price
before and we sometimes seem to forget. Our military has been doing an
outstanding job. Although the threat of WWII was much clearer I do
believe today's threats left unchecked can have far greater
consequences. We are not fighting a visible enemy. We have to hit them
where they breed. In the blink of an eye much can be lost.
Why really has the thought of a threat from Iraq been minimized?
What do we really think we know? Saddam Hussein was a ruthless,
dangerous dictator who hated The United States. He had evil intentions
and played host to terrorists. What was not to be concerned about? No
matter what your position is on the Iraq war the point is that we are
there. Should we have gone in when we did? Maybe not. We will never
truly know what we may have disrupted. Should the war been planned out
differently? Definitely. Do we need to get out? Yes. IN MY OPINION it
should be an agreed upon strategy between the United States and the
new government of Iraq. It should be a gradual process depending on
the ability of the Iraqis to take control of their own security with
the understanding that a very minimal amount of forces may have to
remain in the country. It should not be a with drawl date up for public
discussion. I really do not need to hear Barbara Walters and her gal
pals discussing it over coffee in the morning. This is confidential
military information. Obviously allowing insurgents to know our
intentions every step of the way is irresponsible, they know too much
as it is. Our enemies will simply sit on their hands and wait. Barack
Obama has taken at least two positions on the troop with drawl. Senator
McCain I believe is a far better choice for getting us out of Iraq
responsibly. His position on the surge indicates his greater knowledge
of the subject. We MUST choose the candidate who will do this more
responsibly. While John McCain has been an advocate of the surge Obama
refuses to admit he was wrong about it's ability to succeed.



As of late the economy seems to be the topic of greatest concern.
This is where Obama's change message seems to resonate the most among
voters. Obama as well as the rest of the Democrats would love to have
you believe that this entire problem with the economy is the fault of
the Bush Administration. Not so fast. Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and
the Democrats are playing a very risky game of Russian roulette. They
are hoping voters will believe them that the Bush Administration is
obviously at fault since they've been in the White House for the last
eight years. Don't be fooled.
During the Presidency of Bill Clinton Government became larger and
Americans paid more to the government than ever before.
Clintons View of the Economy (http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clint_econ.html#rebound) On
August 10, 1993 President Clinton signed the highest tax increase in
our country's history. The economy remained healthy through most of
the Clinton Presidency. However towards the end Bill Clinton's actions
began to catch up with him. When President Bush took office January
20, 2001 he inherited a faltering economy and immediately sought a tax
cut, one of the largest in our history. Our country suffered a serious
blow on September 11, 2001, and all things considered the economy did
pretty well, and started to show signs of improvement by 2003.
Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration)
In 2006 amid sinking approval ratings due to Bush's
handling of the Iraq War America wanted change (sound familiar?) so
America voted in a Democratic congress. So how do you think we're
doing today?
The current Mortgage crisis stems back to the Community
Reinvestment Act. The Community Reinvestment Act was signed into law
back in 1977 by then President Jimmy Carter, Democrat. The law did not
require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to
the institution, instead the law emphasizes that an institution's CRA
activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner. Several
legislative applications and regulatory revisions have been enacted
since then.
CRA regulations gave community groups the right to comment or
protest about banks' non-compliance with CRA. Such comments could help
or hinder banks' planned expansions. Groups at first only slowly took
advantage of these rights. Regulatory changes during the Clinton
administration allowed these community groups better access to CRA
information and enabled them to increase their activities.
Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act)
During March 1995 congressional hearings William A. Niskanen, chair
of the Cato Institute, criticized the proposals for political
favoritism in allocating credit and micromanagement by regulators, and
that there was no assurance that banks would not be expected to
operate at a loss. In 1999 Senators Christopher Dodd, Democrat and
Charles E. Schumer, also a Democrat, broke another deadlock by forcing
a compromise which wanted to prevent banks from expanding into
insurance or securities unless they were compliant with the CRA.
Some commentators have charged that the CRA contributed in part to
the 2008 financial crisis as it encouraged banks to make unsafe loans.
For example, economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that
a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of
lending standards throughout the banking industry. In a commentary
Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United States House Committee
on Financial Services, charged that the CRA was "forcing banks to lend
to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."
So now even after its obvious Democrats created this sub prime
mortgage crisis YouTube - Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis? V2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY) Nancy
Pelosi and her gang are hoping you don't catch on. In 2003 The Bush
Administration tried to bring attention to the brewing problem but hit
a brick wall otherwise known as the Democrat majority congress. The
Democrats stopped the Republicans concerned about the ability of lower
income families to attain loans; lower income families that were being
given loans with adjustable rate mortgages that eventually they would
have a difficult time paying. Democrats said that there WAS NOT a
problem. Then in 2005 John McCain sponsored a bill, "The Housing
Enterprise Regulatory Act" This bill would have regulated Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac, the Democrats blocked it. In that video you should
have noticed that Barack Obama received over $126,000 from Fannie Mae.
Obama received four times more money from Fannie Mae than any
senator other than Chris Dodd.
If the Democrats have their way you'll vote thinking that the Bush
Administration and more importantly Republicans are at fault for this
huge sub-prime mortgage mess. You will reward the lying Democrats with
a Democrat in the Whitehouse along with the Democratic majority
congress. Make no mistake about it, this problem child is the
Democrats' baby! If the Democrats aren't to blame why would Bill
Clinton admit it in this McCain ad? Bill Clinton has a hard time
admitting anything! YouTube - Rein (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2RZ0sUcVcE)
Now check out this article tying Obama to Acorn and the sub-prime
mortgage mess: Planting Seeds of Disaster ACORN, Barack Obama, and the
Democratic party.
Planting Seeds of Disaster by Stanley Kurtz on National Review Online (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA=)
Are you voting for change? Were you planning on voting for Barack
Obama? Are you still voting for Barack Obama? Barack Obama says his
campaign is about change. I assure you the only change Barack has in mind is putting a
Democrat in the White House. Barack Obama's policies are straight out of the
Democrat hand book. Barack Obama intends on raising taxes on any one making
more than $250,000. That includes businesses and corporations.
If you really think that the government runs the country you better
think again. Business runs the country! Better yet business runs the
economy. Businesses don't pay their taxes you pay their taxes. The
government might as well be raising taxes on us. If the taxes go up on
business business attempts to make the same gross profit making it
tougher for them to survive making it tougher for us to survive.
Prices will rise. It really isn't very difficult to understand. I'm
really not sure why the Democrats insist on raising taxes on the
wealthy, claiming that it's fair. A little known fact is that about the
top 2% of earners in this nation pay for approximately 40% of the
federal taxes. Look, people who make more should pay more and they
always will but the percentage they pay in taxes is higher! Wealthier
people are paying more than their fair share. What an interesting concept:
America land of opportunity. Only problem is if you succeed and you
provide a service exceptionally well. The government will punish you
by the way of higher taxes. Nice. If Main Street is struggling
to make ends meet when the prices go up, and when taxes go up they will,
isn't it only going to get tougher? Change Washington? Obama's not fooling me. Look at his choice for a running mate, Joe Biden, 30 year senate Democrat! Who's more likely to change government Sarah Palin who's already been doing it, or Joe Biden? please. John McCain is not intending to raise
taxes on any body. John McCain understands raising taxes
will only put a strain on our already fragile economy. The McCain plan does include additional tax credits for children.
Here's the bottom line on an Obama economy: $1 trillion in new
spending. Higher taxes for individuals and companies earning over
$250,000. Ending the Bush tax cuts (that's a tax increase!) Job growth will not increase, prices will rise, businesses
will struggle to survive. The government cannot raise taxes and
increase spending of this magnitude in this economy, it will put a
strangle hold on "Main Street"!

OK there they are, the two BIG topics facing us this Presidential
election.... if you STILL want to vote for Barack Obama Here's a few
more points.
Barack Obama became defensive when his patriotism was questioned.
As if I should have to, here's the definition of patriotism from the
dictionary patriotism- Devotion to ones country. Now Barack
Obama may not agree with the direction this country was heading
however, what purpose would refusing to wear an American flag lapel
pin serve? The American flag is the symbol of this great nation. Where
is Barack Obama's devotion? I QUESTION BARACK OBAMA'S PATRIOTISM! The
fact that Obama now wears the lapel pin only after an advisor
suggested he do so only makes it worse. Obama will hide his true
feelings to serve his ambitions. Is this not true? Take a look at this picture http://www.thewritesideofmybrain.com/williamayers.gif
That's Bill Ayers. He seems to have the same amount of respect for the American flag as Barack Obama. I don't have to question Bill Ayers patriotism
....I already know the answer. If you believe statements made by
Barack Obama about Bill Ayers, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Resco
I hope not to offend you when I say you're naive. During this campaign season even before the nominees were decided the candidates liked to claim others were out of touch. A lot of celebrities have spoken out on behalf of Barack Obama. I like their TV shows, movies, and music, but I ask, could there be a larger group of people out of touch with "Main Street"?
I can not believe, I can seriously not believe that any one who pays attention, truly pays attention, could vote for Barack Obama. If YOU vote for Obama and things get bad, I mean really bad, don't say you weren't warned.

I LOVE MY COUNTRY

Richard
10-09-2008, 11:44 PM
Many people, including myself voted on Monday by mail.

damaclese
10-10-2008, 09:39 AM
I'm all but decided not to get in to thees political threads. most of us have to date not been able to discus them with any sort of civility. there doesn't seam to have Been any consensus. so why am i commenting especially in light that ever time i do i get put down for being to altruistic and have been told time and time again that I'm so unrealistic about what people can achieve on a higher plain of consciousness. so I'm going to say just one simple thing

I believe it is wrong to Kill or hurt IE torture another human being!. and that only in circumstances were you are directly being attacked can any person take actions that would directly or indirectly harm another.
keeping this in mind i think for my self the cores is clear and concise. every thing els are constructs layered on ones moral sensibilities to justify or rationalize there beliefs thereby allowing them to engage in behaviors that are not only self destructive but designed to Deni the basic rights of others to live there life as they see fit. this is not to say that i approve or give privilege to people that engage in the vary acts that every one is discussing. so if you are of reasonable intelligent and i believe you are I'm sure it easy to infer for the above what my position is on just about every single issue that is currently being discussed in not just this thread but most of the political threads to date!

momoese
10-10-2008, 10:09 AM
There are two sides to every coin fishman.

Richard
10-10-2008, 11:27 AM
There are two sides to every coin fishman.

I would agree, in fact there is a minimum of three sides because the edge has non-trivial thickness. Now if you look closely, the edges of many coins have serrations, for example the U.S. quarter. So depending on whether you are near-sited, far-sited, wearing your glasses, or using a microscope: A coin can have few to many sides.

momoese
10-10-2008, 11:35 AM
Agreed Richard. Here ya go.

EGYzxi5Izvg

damaclese
10-10-2008, 12:07 PM
I would agree, in fact there is a minimum of three sides because the edge has non-trivial thickness. Now if you look closely, the edges of many coins have serrations, for example the U.S. quarter. So depending on whether you are near-sited, far-sited, wearing your glasses, or using a microscope: A coin can have few to many sides.

LOL Richerd its nice to have some levity in these trying times

damaclese
10-10-2008, 12:16 PM
after taking some time to consider all that has happend in the last year i feel like crying we are truely Lost

Richard
10-10-2008, 12:30 PM
Mitchel, I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul and feel there is merit in much of what he has to say. Unfortunately he has the opinion that the U.S. is a Christian nation and should stay that way. A respectable survey for the town council in our district (roughly 120,000 people) found that 1 out of 10 are Christian, or 2 out of 10 if you included those of the Catholic faith. So in that way, Ron Paul reminds me of school board candidates with a stealth Christian agenda. Notice in the following piece the divisive nature of the stereotype labels he uses:

The War on Religion by Rep. Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html)

momoese
10-10-2008, 03:53 PM
That's unusual as I believe it's about 50/50 nationally.

This was also my major concern with supporting him, but I felt that it was an acceptable risk when he is willing to put the bastards at the federal reserve in jail as financial terrorists using the patriot act. If he or anyone for that matter could effectively dismantle the Federal Reserve then I'm will to take that chance and try to work things out after their term.

http://www.killthefed.org/

Richard
10-10-2008, 04:16 PM
Mitchel, I commiserate with you on the economic issues. Unfortunately I have also seen far too many politicians with a strong conservative religious background get into an office or position on economic values and then do very little with it -- but implement a horrifying social agenda.

Nationally the sum total percentage of citizens practicing a Christian faith is less than 40% -- unless you want the numbers from the Council of Churches or the Republican central committee.

island cassie
10-10-2008, 09:31 PM
Enough already!!!
Cassie

fishman0422
10-10-2008, 11:03 PM
momoese,
Originally I wasn't going to post ANYTHING additional to this thread. I was just going to put in that first post and sit back and let everybody do what they wanted with it. I just want to say I totally respect your support of Ron Paul. I appreciate his message. I know that if Ron Paul had won the Republican nomination he would be getting my vote. I fear Obama's far left views will seriously harm our economy. I know that Ron Paul would take a very conservative stance and keep the taxes low, promoting growth. The man gives a damn and wants to run the government responsibly. We really need a fiscally responsible leader more than anything else. But he says he doesn't want to police the world. If he was the president it might be kind of difficult not to intervene when a smaller country such as Kuwait is invaded by Iraq, or worse Germany invading Poland, we know how far Hitler went. I don't think anyone WANTS the U.S. to be the world police. I think just about everybody is anti-war, we all just have different opinions of the possible consequences of not keeping the few individuals who are pro-war in check and how to go about it. If Ron Paul was our President it would be terrible if something got by his watch and slipped past the border. I'm scared of something ten times worse than 9/11. We just can't erect a bubble around our nation. These are scary times. BUT I can see why you support Ron Paul, he cares about this country!!