What, exactly, has Obama done....

[Gino]

That merits he receive a promotion?

During his four years in the senate, he accomplished jack shit. Yet Obama supporters think he can waive a magical wand and everything will be fixed.

His actual policies SUCK:

Higher business taxes (helloooooooooooo outsourcing)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mandated employer based health coverage (helloooooooooooo layoffs)!!!!

Letting juges modify the terms of mortgages that are about to be foreclosed on (helloooooooooo higher interest rates for the rest of us)!!!!!!!!!!!!

His voting record (97% with the democrats IIRC) leads me to believe that he'll never have the cajones to stop this democratic congress from spending us into bankruptcy like a teenager who just stole their parents credit card.

So again, what has Obama accomplished that leads anyone to believe that he'll be able to fix anything?

[hater]

did he bang your sister?

[whottt]

He's gotten elected dammit! Don't you guys understand that?

[SpursFanFirst]

If you're "The Chosen One," do you have to actually ACCOMPLISH something?

[Gino]

He's gotten elected dammit! Don't you guys understand that?

:lol:lol

You mean he's gotten "Nominated", right?

After he gets elected, then that will be his administration's signature achievement.


Im dead serious: WHAT has he accomplished? Exactly what has he done that leads anyone to believe that he'll help our country.

[ElNono]

Gee... and here I was thinking it was McCain in a landslide... taking NY too!

[Gino]

Gee... and here I was thinking it was McCain in a landslide... taking NY too!


Im hoping as election day draws nearer, Americans will admit to themselves that Obama's record and platform is a joke, plug their noses, vote for the boring guy.

[George Gervin's Afro]

:lol:lol

You mean he's gotten "Nominated", right?

After he gets elected, then that will be his administration's signature achievement.


Im dead serious: WHAT has he accomplished? Exactly what has he done that leads anyone to believe that he'll help our country.

His judgement. Joe Biden? Sarah Palin? McCain chose the hard core right wingers over his country. Game over. It's not about acomplishments now because we have TWO choices. One has sold his soul to fringe of his party and now he's going to pay for it.

[ElNono]

Im hoping as election day draws nearer, Americans will admit to themselves that Obama's record and platform is a joke, plug their noses, vote for the boring guy.

I doubt it. The problem for McCain is that Bush is the one in the White House. So you're looking more to the punishment vote than the actual vote for candidates here.

[JoeChalupa]

The person with the longest resume is not always the best one for the job. Ask anyone in HR and they'll tell you that. And being Governor of a big State like, oh, say Texas, does not mean you are ready to be president. Great leaders are made by more than just prior accomplishments.

[Gino]

His judgement. Joe Biden? Sarah Palin? McCain chose the hard core right wingers over his country. Game over. It's not about acomplishments now because we have TWO choices. One has sold his soul to fringe of his party and now he's going to pay for it.

Tell that to Obama's 97% liberal voting record.

Or is he just that PARTISAN?

Anyone think this guy will REALLY stop wasteful spending.

[Gino]

The person with the longest resume is not always the best one for the job. Ask anyone in HR and they'll tell you that. And being Governor of a big State like, oh, say Texas, does not mean you are ready to be president. Great leaders are made by more than just prior accomplishments.

Ask HR if they would hire someone for a top level executive position without having a single bullet point on their resume.

Surely, he must have SOMETHING?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Tell that to Obama's 97% liberal voting record.

Or is he just that PARTISAN?

Anyone think this guy will REALLY stop wasteful spending.

He's a lib (never denied it) and McCain just recently became a rush limbaugh reublican. who sold out?

[ElNono]

Tell that to Obama's 97% liberal voting record.

Or is he just that PARTISAN?

Anyone think this guy will REALLY stop wasteful spending.

And McCain will? The guy that suspended his campaign to make sure a $700B bailout to the bankers passes through, with incredible amounts of earmarks?

[JoeChalupa]

McCain is running as a republican and Obama as a democrat. That hasn't been secret to anyone.

[Gino]

And McCain will? The guy that suspended his campaign to make sure a $700B bailout to the bankers passes through, with incredible amounts of earmarks?

Yeah, if theres ANYTHING Im confident McCain will do its stop wasteful spending.

But see....you didn't claim Obama will increase our deficit. You just claimed that McCain will do the same (even though his record speaks to the contrary).

Im seriously wondering if Obama supporters have taken two seconds to look at this guy, his record, or his platform.

You dont care that he'll spend our country into bankruptcy because he's cool?

[ratm1221]

Ask HR if they would hire someone for a top level executive position without having a single bullet point on their resume.

Surely, he must have SOMETHING?

We talking about Sarah Palin or Obama?

[Gino]

We talking about Sarah Palin or Obama?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

educate yourself and come back with a REAL answer.

[ElNono]

Yeah, if theres ANYTHING Im confident McCain will do its stop wasteful spending.

But see....you didn't claim Obama will increase our deficit. You just claimed that McCain will do the same (even though his record speaks to the contrary).

Im seriously wondering if Obama supporters have taken two seconds to look at this guy, his record, or his platform.

You dont care that he'll spend our country into bankruptcy because he's cool?

McCain's record doesn't include the bailout?

[JoeChalupa]

I've taken a serious look at Obama and that is why I'm voting for him. If you've decided that McCain is more your candidate then so be it. We just happen to see things differently. That is all.

[Gino]

McCain's record doesn't include the bailout?

Im not any happier about he bailout that you are. But I think we have to think about the future as well.

Zero earmarks. Killing wasteful defense contracts. 100% rating by the citizens against wasteful spending:
http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Senate_Ratings_Final.pdf?docID=3282

This (fighting spending) is what McCain DOES. This has been his bread and butter for his whole career.

[Shastafarian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

educate yourself and come back with a REAL answer.

Maybe you should read through that description because I don't see how what ratm1221 said was ad hominem.

[Gino]

I've taken a serious look at Obama and that is why I'm voting for him. If you've decided that McCain is more your candidate then so be it. We just happen to see things differently. That is all.

Exactly which part of his platform do you like?

[JoeChalupa]

Im not any happier about he bailout that you are. But I think we have to think about the future as well.

Zero earmarks. Killing wasteful defense contracts. 100% rating by the citizens against wasteful spending:
http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Senate_Ratings_Final.pdf?docID=3282

This (fighting spending) is what McCain DOES. This has been his bread and butter for his whole career.

Well get that bread and butter ready because his campaign may well be toast. But this is still McCain's race to lose.

[ratm1221]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

educate yourself and come back with a REAL answer.

Your threads make no sense. There is a good chance McCain will die in office if he gets elected and Palin will be president.

Arguing experience makes no sense when your vice president choice has no experience at all.

Argue that.

[JoeChalupa]

Exactly which part of his platform do you like?

His foreign policy and health care policy are more in line with mine.

[timvp]

His foreign policy and health care policy are more in line with mine.Are you going to be mad at Obama when his health care promises don't come to fruition?

[Gino]

Your threads make no sense. There is a good chance McCain will die in office if he gets elected and Palin will be president.

Arguing experience makes no sense when your vice president choice has no experience at all.

Argue that.

:lol:lol:lol:lol

AWESOME. Could you tell me when Im going to die as well? Id just like to know.

I can't guarantee that Palin won't be president if we elect McCain, but I CAN guarantee that Obama will (if we elect Obama).

If you don't object to Obama having no experience, then you surely can't object to Palin's record, right?

[SpursFanFirst]

Your threads make no sense. There is a good chance McCain will die in office if he gets elected and Palin will be president.

Arguing experience makes no sense when your vice president choice has no experience at all.

Argue that.

Wow. Do you know something we don't know?
He may be old(er) than past Presidents, but that doesn't mean he'll die while in office.

For crying out loud, my great-grandmother just passed away earlier this year at the age of 99.

People are living longer these days.

[JoeChalupa]

Are you going to be mad at Obama when his health care promises don't come to fruition?

Not really, I don't think either candidate can really do exactly as they say. I've already got health insurance but I'd like to see the costs come down.

[timvp]

Not really, I don't think either candidate can really do exactly as they say. I've already got health insurance but I'd like to see the costs come down.Fair enough.

Is there anything you'd be mad at Obama for not doing in his first four years?

[ElNono]

If you don't object to Obama having no experience, then you surely can't object to Palin's record, right?

I do object that she doesn't know what she's talking about. At least I can understand what Obama is saying in matters of foreign policy, but Palin is just way over her head. And it's really a problem being that we're involved in two wars right now.

[Gino]

His foreign policy and health care policy are more in line with mine.

Fair enough. But I think you should think about whats gonna happen when a lot of companies are presented with a new fine when they find out that the health coverage they DO give their employees doesn't match "The Ones" standard.

Couple that with their higher taxes and theres gonna be some layoffs coming.

If Obama wants to tax us and give everyone healthcare. Fine.

But mandating employer based health care is just stupid (so is his stupid "Im not mandating health care for everyone like Hillary....just children because I want to look more moderate").

[ElNono]

Fair enough.

Is there anything you'd be mad at Obama for not doing in his first four years?

I'm going to interject on this question just to express that I would be pretty mad if he didn't get us out of Iraq and focused on Afghanistan in 4 years.

[Gino]

I do object that she doesn't know what she's talking about. At least I can understand what Obama is saying in matters of foreign policy, but Palin is just way over her head. And it's really a problem being that we're involved in two wars right now.

Did it make sense when Obama said that the 2007 troop surge had no chance of working. Or when he said that both the Georgians and Russians should show restraint even though this was the equivalent of a pee-wee football team showing restraint against the Patriots.

Or do you trust his advisor, Joe Biden, who was against Reagan in his fight against the Soviets, against Desert Storm, for the current war in Iraq and against the troop surge?

[Gino]

I'm going to interject on this question just to express that I would be pretty mad if he didn't get us out of Iraq and focused on Afghanistan in 4 years.

I would be mad if McCain didn't do the same thing.

Of course, John McCain fixed Iraq, so I have reason to believe he could fix Afghanistan.

[Nbadan]

I'm going to interject on this question just to express that I would be pretty mad if he didn't get us out of Iraq and focused on Afghanistan in 4 years.

+1 and decrease military spending, spending altogether and revoke Dubya's tax cuts which have done nothing but redistribute wealth to the top 1% which already possess 50% of our nations wealth....

[hitmanyr2k]

Fair enough. But I think you should think about whats gonna happen when a lot of companies are presented with a new fine when they find out that the health coverage they DO give their employees doesn't match "The Ones" standard.

Couple that with their higher taxes and theres gonna be some layoffs coming.

If Obama wants to tax us and give everyone healthcare. Fine.

But mandating employer based health care is just stupid (so is his stupid "Im not mandating health care for everyone like Hillary....just children because I want to look more moderate").

You sound just like the people who say McCain could die his first 4 years in office. You don't know what's going to happen in the future. Right now you're just throwing around a lot of assumptions. Your crystal ball sees "layoffs". Big fuckin deal :lol What makes your crystal ball so special? Not a damn thing.

[Nbadan]

Did it make sense when Obama said that 2007 troop surge had no chance of working.

The surge didn't work.....

[Gino]

+1 and decrease military spending, spending altogether and revoke Dubya's tax cuts which have done nothing but redistribute wealth to the top 1% which already possess 50% of our nations wealth....

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:l ol:lol

So you think that Obama's gonna veto Democrat bills because they have too much spending?

Seriously?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell me youre freaking joking. The guy has a NINETY SEVEN PERCENT record of voting with his party and you think he's gonna change NOW?!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Shastafarian]

Did it make sense when Obama said that 2007 troop surge had no chance of working. Or when he said that both the Georgians and Russians should show restraint even though this was the equivalent of a pee-wee football team showing restraint against the Patriots.

Or do you trust his advisor, Joe Biden, who was against Reagan in his fight against the Soviets, against Desert Storm, for the current war in Iraq and against the troop surge?

So you think the surge has worked huh?


In the fall of 2006, the nation’s military leaders found themselves badly out of sync with the White House over what to do in Iraq, with one of the Joint Chiefs telling Bush, “You’re stressing the force, Mr. President, and these kids just see deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan for the indefinite future.” But as the surge progressed in 2007, violent attacks began to drop dramatically in Iraq. Was the surge the reason for this reversal? Knowledgeable officials say the influx of troops was just one of four factors, and not the most consequential one.
The book also says that the U.S. troop "surge" of 2007, in which President Bush sent nearly 30,000 additional U.S. combat forces and support troops to Iraq, was not the primary factor behind the steep drop in violence there during the past 16 months.

Rather, Woodward reports, "groundbreaking" new covert techniques enabled U.S. military and intelligence officials to locate, target and kill insurgent leaders and key individuals in extremist groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Woodward does not disclose the code names of these covert programs or provide much detail about them, saying in the book that White House and other officials cited national security concerns in asking him to withhold specifics.

Overall, Woodward writes, four factors combined to reduce the violence: the covert operations; the influx of troops; the decision by militant cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to rein in his powerful Mahdi Army; and the so-called Anbar Awakening, in which tens of thousands of Sunnis turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq and allied with U.S. forces.

I wish people were more informed about this.

And I guess Biden was just a commie bastard since he was "against Reagan in his fight against the Soviets". I would like some proof on that though.

[Nbadan]

Of course, John McCain fixed Iraq,

:lmao

What the fuck did McSame do for Iraq? I wonder if the 1+ million displaced Iraqis think the surge worked...

[Gino]

The surge didn't work.....

Funny....cuz Obama said it did beyond his "wildest dreams", remember?

[Shastafarian]

I would be mad if McCain didn't do the same thing.

Of course, John McCain fixed Iraq, so I have reason to believe he could fix Afghanistan.

:lmao

[Nbadan]

So you think that Obama's gonna veto Democrat bills because they have too much spending?

Seriously?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell me youre freaking joking. The guy has a NINETY SEVEN PERCENT record of voting with his party and you think he's gonna change NOW?!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd rather they spend money here than in Iraq where it does nobody absolutely any good...

[ElNono]

Did it make sense when Obama said that 2007 troop surge had no chance of working. Or when he said that both the Georgians and Russians should show restraint even though this was the equivalent of a pee-wee football team showing restraint against the Patriots.

Or do you trust his advisor, Joe Biden, who was against Reagan in his fight against the Soviets, against Desert Storm, for the current war in Iraq and against the troop surge?

I understand that he voted against the stupid Iraq war, that he wants us out of the war for oil, and to refocus where the real theater is, Afghanistan. But most importantly, I also understand that he doesn't want 100 years in Iraq, or that he understood that we were not going to be greeted as liberators, and that the war was going to be a piece of cake.
Then again, Palin's reference to foreign policy was that McCain is a maverick. I mean, really?

[Gino]

So you think the surge has worked huh?



I wish people were more informed about this.

And I guess Biden was just a commie bastard since he was "against Reagan in his fight against the Soviets". I would like some proof on that though.

Ah yes, the proverbial "The Surge didn't work. Those thirty thousand extra troops just happened to arrive EXACTLY when the Awakening started."
:rolleyes

[Nbadan]

Funny....cuz Obama said it did beyond his "wildest dreams", remember?

...the surge was a day late...the Iraqis solved their own problems which would have happened with or without the surge...

[Nbadan]

Ah yes, the proverbial "The Surge didn't work. Those thirty thousand extra troops just happened to arrive EXACTLY when the Awakening started."
:rolleyes

:rolleyes

The awakening councils were happening before the surge....

[Cry Havoc]

Wow. Do you know something we don't know?
He may be old(er) than past Presidents, but that doesn't mean he'll die while in office.

For crying out loud, my great-grandmother just passed away earlier this year at the age of 99.

People are living longer these days.

Did your great grandmother have one of, if not THE most stressful job in the world at any point during her life?

[ElNono]

I would be mad if McCain didn't do the same thing.

Of course, John McCain fixed Iraq, so I have reason to believe he could fix Afghanistan.

This is where you lost all credibility. Now you're simply spouting McCain talking points.

[Gino]

I understand that he voted against the stupid Iraq war, that he wants us out of the war for oil, and to refocus where the real theater is, Afghanistan. But most importantly, I also understand that he doesn't want 100 years in Iraq, or that he understood that we were not going to be greeted as liberators, and that the war was going to be a piece of cake.
Then again, Palin's reference to foreign policy was that McCain is a maverick. I mean, really?

Im pretty sure Americans were greeted as liberators. It just didn't last. You must have forgotten all the 2003 footage.

Then again, we're looking at whos best for the future: The guy who fixed Iraq, or Obama.

While you think about that, think about this: If we had left Iraq when Obama first wanted, what would Iraq look like right now? What would the price of gas look like right now?

Is it reasonable to assume that Iraq would still be in the midst of civil war without McCain's "surge"?

Is it reasonable to assume that oil exports from Iraq might have been crippled?

Is it reasonable to assume that Gas would seven dollars a gallon right now?

Seven dollars is just a wild guess estimate, so you tell me.

[Nbadan]

The Iraqis had 5 years to segregate their populations - Shiite got rid of Sunni, Sunni got rid of Shiite, and they both got rid of Kurds...then the U.S. troops built walls and huge land bunkers to keep everyone apart...yeah. that's success...


........in post WW2 Germany....

[Gino]

:rolleyes

The awakening councils were happening before the surge....

Look, you'll never admit that surge worked because that would give way too much credit to McCain.

But getting back to your last post, how is Obama going to reduce overall spending? I would love to read you hypothesis.

[Shastafarian]

Ah yes, the proverbial "The Surge didn't work. Those thirty thousand extra troops just happened to arrive EXACTLY when the Awakening started."
:rolleyes

Obviously you don't read so good.


Rather, Woodward reports, "groundbreaking" new covert techniques enabled U.S. military and intelligence officials to locate, target and kill insurgent leaders and key individuals in extremist groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq.

And the surge coincided with altered STRATEGY, yes.

[Shastafarian]

This is where you lost all credibility. Now you're simply spouting McCain talking points.

For me it was when he called something an Ad hominem attack that wasn't.

[Nbadan]

But getting back to your last post, how is Obama going to reduce overall spending? I would love to read you hypothesis.

Eliminating programs that don't work for one.....including military programs..

[Shastafarian]

Look, you'll never admit that surge worked because that would give way too much credit to McCain.


Why because he thought of it? Because he didn't. He was a proponent but that point is moot seeing as how the Surge itself didn't reduce violence.

[TheMadHatter]

We never should have been in Iraq period.

Whether we leave now or 10 years from now won't make a difference in that country. It's likely going to descend into a Civil War, Saddam was the only thing keeping that country together.

[Gino]

Why because he thought of it? Because he didn't. He was a proponent but that point is moot seeing as how the Surge itself didn't reduce violence.

I guess the General in charge is wrong and you are right. Forgive me for questioning your infinite wisdom on this matter and for being cynical that thirty thousand extra GIs had no effect on reducing violence even though violence was reduced dramatically after they got there.

[ElNono]

Im pretty sure Americans were greeted as liberators. It just didn't last. You must have forgotten all the 2003 footage.


Why? I mean, how can you be a liberator one day, and the bad guys the next day? I mean, what did we do?



Then again, we're looking at whos best for the future: The guy who fixed Iraq, or Obama.


My opinion is that the guy that gets us out of Iraq is what's best for the future. That's Obama, not '100 years' McCain.



While you think about that, think about this: If we had left Iraq when Obama first wanted, what would Iraq look like right now? What would the price of gas look like right now?


It would have stayed as a sovereign country, probably pretty devastated as it was with the economic sanctions. But more importantly, we would have 4000+ soldiers alive.



Is it reasonable to assume that Iraq would still be in the midst of civil war without McCain's "surge"?


Iraq will be on a civil war for just as long as we remain there. And make no mistake, we won't be there for eternity, and they'll have their civil war. It's really inevitable. My question is, do we have to keep spilling our soldier's blood for their war?



Is it reasonable to assume that oil exports from Iraq might have been crippled?


Not really. Even if the Oil-For-Food program was relatively corrupt, their Oil exports were supplying the world.



Is it reasonable to assume that Gas would seven dollars a gallon right now?
Seven dollars is just a wild guess estimate, so you tell me.

I think it's unreasonable. Just as much as it was unreasonable for it to be $4/gallon back when it was that amount, IMO. I think the current price is a more real amount (under $3).

So you really think our soldiers should have died for cheaper gas? Is that your theory?

[Nbadan]

We never should have been in Iraq period.

+1 The Iraq war has been a trillion dollar + boondoggle that has done nothing to eliminate the terror threat against the U.S...

[boutons_]

McNasty even fights spending for VN MIA/POW and all vets. His rating with the vet orgs is about 20%, but HUSSEIN's is about 80%.

This question about what HUSSEIN has accomplished, was it asked about dubya in 2000? and what were the answers?

[Shastafarian]

I guess the General in charge is wrong and you are right. Forgive me for questioning your infinite wisdom on this matter and for being cynical that thirty thousand extra GIs had no effect on reducing violence even though violence was reduced dramatically after they got there.

I believe Bob Woodward who researched this and got quotes from military officials (and the President!) about those new techniques I alluded to above. And do you think adding 30,000 troops in a country the size of Iraq really made such a large difference? That's ridiculous.

[Gino]

Eliminating programs that don't work for one.....including military programs..

How many military programs will Obama have to cut to offset the amount of spending:

1) He proposes
2) The Democrat congress asks for that he won't veto


What are we at? A 3 trillion dollar national budget with a 1 trillion dollar deficit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

Good luck, "Mr. Scalpel."

[Shastafarian]

I find it mildly humorous when republicans who support the war bitch and moan about increases in spending.

[Gino]

I find it mildly humorous when republicans who support the war bitch and moan about increases in spending.


Iraq was the wrong thing to do.

That argument is over.

That doesn't mean Obama is going to improve our situation. Looking at his policies and record, one would think just the opposite.

John McCain is not George Bush in disguise. He doesn't govern like George Bush. He doesn't spend like George Bush.

I think Ive heard one good argument for Obama this entire thread (the guy who said his foreign policy and health care views were more in line with his).

[Shastafarian]

Iraq was the wrong thing to do.

That argument is over.

That doesn't mean Obama is going to improve our situation. Looking at his policies and record, one would think just the opposite.

John McCain is not George Bush in disguise. He doesn't govern like George Bush. He doesn't spend like George Bush.

I think Ive heard one good argument for Obama this entire thread (the guy who said his foreign policy and health care views were more in line with his).

McCain wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely. How would that reduce spending? I support Obama because of his views on foreign affairs, healthcare, education, and the economy. I don't agree with trickle-down economics. I don't like the fact McCain is gonna tax healthcare benefits. Happy?

[Nbadan]

How many military programs will Obama have to cut to offset the amount of spending:

1) He proposes
2) The Democrat congress asks for that he won't veto


What are we at? A 3 trillion dollar national budget with a 1 trillion dollar deficit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

Good luck, "Mr. Scalpel."

Reagan, Bush41 and Dubya EACH have individually ADDED more to the national debt than ALL Democratic Presidents combined......

[Gino]

Why? I mean, how can you be a liberator one day, and the bad guys the next day? I mean, what did we do?



My opinion is that the guy that gets us out of Iraq is what's best for the future. That's Obama, not '100 years' McCain.



It would have stayed as a sovereign country, probably pretty devastated as it was with the economic sanctions. But more importantly, we would have 4000+ soldiers alive.



Iraq will be on a civil war for just as long as we remain there. And make no mistake, we won't be there for eternity, and they'll have their civil war. It's really inevitable. My question is, do we have to keep spilling our soldier's blood for their war?



Not really. Even if the Oil-For-Food program was relatively corrupt, their Oil exports were supplying the world.



I think it's unreasonable. Just as much as it was unreasonable for it to be $4/gallon back when it was that amount, IMO. I think the current price is a more real amount (under $3).

So you really think our soldiers should have died for cheaper gas? Is that your theory?

This post is so stupid its not even funny.

Obama wanted troops out in 2007. Im not talking about 2002. Im talking about 2007. So unless you think he can bring people back from the dead, then 4000+ troops would still be gone if we had listened to him in 2007.

Obama was not a senator in 2002. He didn't have classified information in 2002. He was not responsible for the safety of our nation in 2002. I do not care what speech Obama made at an anti-war rally back in 2002. He was doing what all his friends were doing.

When Obama WAS a senator in 2007, he stated that a troop surge that saved our collective asses wouldn't work. He did have resources (such as the ability to speak with the commander in charge) that he did not use.

This "judgement" argument is so stupid. Millions of people (20% of the country) were against the war back in 2002. That doesn't mean they were able to prophesize that the CIA intelligence that they had no access to was innacurate.

The only time Obama had to make a real judgement call, he fell flat on his face.

[Shastafarian]

When Obama WAS a senator in 2007, he stated that a troop surge that saved our collective asses wouldn't work. He did have resources (such as the ability to speak with the commander in charge) that he did not use.


You continue to ignore the research done by Bob Woodward.

[boutons_]

The best argument for HUSSEIN is that he's not Repug.

The Repugs having fucked up federal govt and the USA for 8 years. Mc95% would do nothing to change the Repugs' path.

Also, the quality and nature of the people on McBottomGun's staff are the same nasty, neo-c*nts that were installed into govt to be All Politics, All the Time with no policies. The Repug were not interested in governing, only in building their Permanant Repug Majority. They were too incompetent to do that.

McSenile will continue Repug policies, and some observers say he's even more radical than dubya.

btw, McStupid wanting to cut govt spending now is the worst that any govt could do. Govt spending when credit is tight and consumers aren't purchasing is the only thing they would keep the economy going and give some hope of a recovery sooner rather than later. aka, Keynsian economics, not failed Miltonian economics.

Repugs should just STFU about deficits as bad since they create much bigger ones than Dems.

[Gino]

McCain wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely. How would that reduce spending? I support Obama because of his views on foreign affairs, healthcare, education, and the economy. I don't agree with trickle-down economics. I don't like the fact McCain is gonna tax healthcare benefits. Happy?

Ah yes....you are of the "Grampy McSame wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years" crowd.

McCain makes the statement that he would be in favor of having a permanent base in Iraq (as we do in Germany, Japan, Bahrain and half the other nations in the freaking WORLD) if there was no more violence and you disingenuously claim that he wants the fighting to continue forever.

[Shastafarian]

Ah yes....you are of the "Grampy McSame wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years" crowd.

McCain makes the statement that he would be in favor of having a permanent base in Iraq (as we do in Germany, Japan, Bahrain and half the other nations in the freaking WORLD) if there was no more violence and you disingenuously claim that he wants the fighting to continue forever.

When did I say he wants the fighting to continue? I said he wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely. Am I wrong?

[whottt]

Ah yes....you are of the "Grampy McSame wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years" crowd.

McCain makes the statement that he would be in favor of having a permanent base in Iraq (as we do in Germany, Japan, Bahrain and half the other nations in the freaking WORLD) if there was no more violence and you disingenuously claim that he wants the fighting to continue forever.


You realize you are debating with someone who considers Bill Ayers an esteemed educator and Sarah Palin a contemptuous bitch.

[Shastafarian]

You realize you are debating with someone who considers Bill Ayers an esteemed educator and Sarah Palin a contemptuous bitch.

Why do you lie about me? Bill Ayers is a radical. Sarah Palin is rather dumb and uninformed but certainly not a contemptuous bitch.

[Sarah Palin]

Obama will never do me....Whottt on the other hand.....

[ElNono]

This post is so stupid its not even funny.

Obama wanted troops out in 2007. Im not talking about 2002. Im talking about 2007. So unless you think he can bring people back from the dead, then 4000+ troops would still be gone if we had listened to him in 2007.

Obama was not a senator in 2002. He didn't have classified information in 2002. He was not responsible for the safety of our nation in 2002. I do not care what speech Obama made at an anti-war rally back in 2002. He was doing what all his friends were doing.

When Obama WAS a senator in 2007, he stated that a troop surge that saved our collective asses wouldn't work. He did have resources (such as the ability to speak with the commander in charge) that he did not use.

This "judgement" argument is so stupid. Millions of people (20% of the country) were against the war back in 2002. That doesn't mean they were able to prophesize that the CIA intelligence that they had no access to was innacurate.

The only time Obama had to make a real judgement call, he fell flat on his face.

Obama did not want to go to the war and voted accordingly. You seem to forget this "judgement" was correct at the time and would have saved 4000+ lives.

Your candidate is a war monger, just like our current President. Get over it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You realize you are debating with someone who considers Bill Ayers an esteemed educator and Sarah Palin a contemptuous bitch.

why do you lie so much?

[cool hand]

beat the snot out of the Clintons.

[SpursFanFirst]

Did your great grandmother have one of, if not THE most stressful job in the world at any point during her life?


Why yes, CH...she was the President of the US...don't you remember?

The point is, just because the job is stressful doesn't mean he's going to die in office.

[ElNono]

Why yes, CH...she was the President of the US...don't you remember?

The point is, just because the job is stressful doesn't mean he's going to die in office.

The question here is wether you feel confident in Palin running our country should anything happen to McCain. I mean, the same question applies to Biden.
After listening to both, I think Biden would do poorly, but compared to Palin, exceptionally well.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why yes, CH...she was the President of the US...don't you remember?

The point is, just because the job is stressful doesn't mean he's going to die in office.

Sorry. Can't take the chance.

[SpursFanFirst]

The question here is wether you feel confident in Palin running our country should anything happen to McCain. I mean, the same question applies to Biden.
After listening to both, I think Biden would do poorly, but compared to Palin, exceptionally well.

meh...I'm not thrilled with any of them. I'm honestly not sure any one of them would do better than the others.

Our options suck.

[SpursFanFirst]

Sorry. Can't take the chance.

any one of them can die in office.

[Mr. Peabody]

any one of them can die in office.

Which is why the choice of VP is such an important decision.

[Mr. Peabody]

If you're "The Chosen One," do you have to actually ACCOMPLISH something?

I guess not because he's leading in the polls and forcing Republicans to defend red states. Imagine what he'd have done if he actually accomplished something.....

[SpursFanFirst]

Which is why the choice of VP is such an important decision.


The VP can die too.

[ElNono]

meh...I'm not thrilled with any of them. I'm honestly not sure any one of them would do better than the others.

Our options suck.

I feel for you. I can't personally vote, but I know exactly what you mean.

[Mr. Peabody]

The VP can die too.

So you're pinning your hopes on Palin dying before the election? That might help turnout the base, but I think there too much of a deficit to swing the election.

[SpursFanFirst]

So you're pinning your hopes on Palin dying before the election? That might help turnout the base, but I think there too much of a deficit to swing the election.

I'm not hoping anyone dies...but anyone can...not just McCain, and that's the point.

[cherylsteele]

Im pretty sure Americans were greeted as liberators. It just didn't last. You must have forgotten all the 2003 footage.

Then again, we're looking at whos best for the future: The guy who fixed Iraq, or Obama.

While you think about that, think about this: If we had left Iraq when Obama first wanted, what would Iraq look like right now? What would the price of gas look like right now?

Is it reasonable to assume that Iraq would still be in the midst of civil war without McCain's "surge"?

Is it reasonable to assume that oil exports from Iraq might have been crippled?

Is it reasonable to assume that Gas would seven dollars a gallon right now?

Seven dollars is just a wild guess estimate, so you tell me.
You are referencing 2003? 5 yrs ago?

The future? Like serveral people have stated already McCain is 72 yr old, he has a good chance of having health issues in office that could make him unable to perform his duties...then what happens? Palin?
Health is not an issue with Obama.

The price of oil is not being guided by our involvement in Iraq, it is going down because of the current financial crisis. I blame the price of oil on the oil companies themselves, I also blame them for part of this current financial crisis as well. People can't afford mortgage payments in part because they have to spend more and more on energy prices.

If we left Iraq?
We never should have gone in when we did in the first place. I feel if put as much effort in getting Bin-Laden from the outset, as we have in Iraq, he would either already be in custody or dead. We never finished the job in Afganistan first to warrant our invasion of Iraq. Afganistan is worse off now in many ways than before the war started, and since we mismanged the war in all fronts the USA has become despised in that part of the world it seems.
A big problem is we went into Iraq with no exit strategy or idea what needed to be accomplished to consider victory in that military action, it seems we had no real objective in Iraq. It was supposed to be WMD's, there were none, we got Saddam, now what? The leadership never stopped to think "what if there are no WMD's how should we handle that?" We conducted this war like a game of Risk by kids, let's attack Iraq because the blue pieces are there.

[Mr. Peabody]

I'm not hoping anyone dies...but anyone can...not just McCain, and that's the point.

I was told that if I used "sarcasm blue" in my posts, people would know I was being sarcastic.

[Cry Havoc]

I'm not hoping anyone dies...but anyone can...not just McCain, and that's the point.

What's your point? You could die tomorrow, so why post on Spurstalk?

You're completely ignoring the issue here. I stated that McCain is much more likely to die in office because he's very old, the oldest president in history if he wins, and you went all Sylvia Plath in response. So what? Anyone can die. You aren't providing us with a groundbreaking revelation with a statement like that. The point is, is that McCain is much, MUCH more likely to die in office than most Presidents have been. This means his VP choice is of much greater importance than usual and deservedly bears greater scrutiny. Sarah Palin is not fit to be VP of the United States, let alone President. She's not even close. And beyond that, the VP still stands for a lot. Palin has NO idea what she's doing and she's horribly out of her depth.

Does that mean I hate her? Absolutely not. I like Sarah Palin. She's a likable person! But likable does not translate into running the most powerful country in the world, otherwise you could use that logic to elect Robin Williams or Stephen Colbert into office.

Just stop with the philosophy nonsense when you're attempting to argue for Sarah Palin's legitimacy to be on the ticket. She has none. She was a pick for surprise and hype value and little else.

[SpursFanFirst]

I was told that if I used "sarcasm blue" in my posts, people would know I was being sarcastic.

Ah....I did not know that rule.
I'm with you now.

Usually, I just automatically read comments on this site with sarcasm, but I didn't this time.
Sorry.

[SpursFanFirst]

What's your point? You could die tomorrow, so why post on Spurstalk?

:huh



Sarah Palin is not fit to be VP of the United States, let alone President. She's not even close. And beyond that, the VP still stands for a lot. Palin has NO idea what she's doing and she's horribly out of her depth.

A) I don't think any of our candidates are "fit" to run this country. But, you'd know that if you'd read my other responses in this forum.

B) I already covered my thoughts on Palin. Read up.



Just stop with the philosophy nonsense when you're attempting to argue for Sarah Palin's legitimacy to be on the ticket. She has none. She was a pick for surprise and hype value and little else.

:lol at the thought I'm "arguing for Palin's legitimacy."
Just because I said any of those candidates could die before or after taking office doesn't somehow translate into "Palin's a great pick and would run this country well."
Get off your high horse, CH.

Wow, you've turned bitter during the offseason. What the hell?

[Cry Havoc]

:huh




A) I don't think any of our candidates are "fit" to run this country. But, you'd know that if you'd read my other responses in this forum.

B) I already covered my thoughts on Palin. Read up.




:lol at the thought I'm "arguing for Palin's legitimacy."
Just because I said any of those candidates could die before or after taking office doesn't somehow translate into "Palin's a great pick and would run this country well."
Get off your high horse, CH.

Wow, you've turned bitter during the offseason. What the hell?

I'm bitter because both presidential candidates just voted for an $800,000,000,000 bailout that is only going to benefit the rich, and now I have to defend one of them.

And yes, perhaps none of the four P/VPs are fit to be president, but there ARE levels here. This is not an all or nothing deal. McCain and Obama are both pretty scary in some areas, but stating they are unfit and therefore lumping them in with Palin is a drastic overgeneralization. McCain or Obama are most likely going to struggle with the situation they are ascending to in office, whoever gets in. But this isn't black and white. They would struggle -- Sarah Palin would absolutely suck. Her incompetence would be apparent from day 1. She would be ridiculed and demolished by every facet of the office that demanded leadership from her.

And for the last time, this isn't a personal rip on Palin! I love my parents, but that doesn't mean I think they would make a good president, as they would be out of their depth. Exactly like Ms. Palin. Obama might be Rex Grossman and McCain might be Ryan Leaf, but Sarah Palin is a sophomore in high school in this metaphor. None of them can stand an NFL defense, but it's the difference between being relatively bad and getting absolutely killed. I'm not on a horse, I just think it's ludicrous that people feel Palin should be a VP in any regard, after the stunts pulled by the GOP campaign in this election.

[ChumpDumper]

Obama hasn't done much of anything really. That's what makes this election so hilarious. Republicans fucked up so badly that there's a good chance the American people are going to elect a guy for no other reason than his not being a Republican.

[SpursFanFirst]

And for the last time, this isn't a personal rip on Palin!


Well, I don't know who you're talking to, but I never said you were personally ripping Palin.

[boutons_]

The Little Known Truth of Barack Obama's Legislative Record

As we all know, Barack Obama hasn't passed any major legislation. He's inexperienced, never done anything. We know this. We know it because John McCain and Sarah Palin, bless her accomplished heart, have said so. And so, we know.

Far be it from me not to take their word for it, but I decided to check things out. And shockingly... it doesn't turn out to be true! Really. So, take a guess on how much legislation Barack Obama has sponsored in the United States Senate, which has become law.

C'mon, take a guess.

Nope, sorry, take another guess.

Barack Obama has authored or co-sponsored 579 bills in Washington. And as a state senator, he sponsored 820 laws for Illinois.

That's 1,399 bills in all. Not bad for someone who apparently had done zero -- okay, according to his opponents.

I know, I know. Those 820 are just for a "state," so they don't really count. Except... well, wait, a "state" is what Sarah Palin is governor of. (At least for 21 months.) So if sponsoring pesky "state" laws doesn't count, what in the world does she have on her resume then? Other than ethics violations.

Besides, y'know, Illinois is an awfully big state. If someone passes a law there, it does affect the lives of 13 million people.

And, yipes, it turns out that there is a wide-ranging record of
bipartisan laws he's co-sponsored, as well, working across the aisles with Republicans. Go figure, who knew?!

Okay, first, let's look at Barack Obama's 579 Senate bills. (To be fair, some of these are pending -- the U.S. Senate works slooowly...)
But here are just a few highlights of the ones that have passed.

With Russ Feingold, Sen. Obama helped put together and co-sponsor the Obama/Feingold 2007 Ethics Reform Law, which curbed lobbying abuses. The bill was perhaps the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate.

Mr. Obama joined forces with Republican Richard Lugar as original co-sponsors of the landmark bill that improved the government's ability to detect and destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction, keeping them from terrorists.

Working across the aisle again, this time, with Republican Chuck Hagel, Barack Obama authored a provision to secure vulnerable nuclear weapons and nuclear material around the world, protecting them from terrorists.

Sen. Obama also wrote the legislation for his Homes for Heroes Act and SAVE Act, that increased services for homeless veterans.

Shockingly, it turns out that John McCain is also wrong about Barack Obama not being willing to go against his party. You see, Mr. Obama sponsored an amendment that required lobbyist disclosures. And as the NY Times wrote, "The disclosure idea's lead sponsor, Senator Barack Obama... 'has not been the most popular person in our caucus in the last couple of weeks,' said a Democratic aide involved in deliberations over the bill."

Gee. Apparently, it seems, Barack Obama has been willing to buck his own party. And work across the aisle. And sponsor and pass important legislation. And there are 574 other bills -- some large, some smaller, but all can be found on State Surge (http://www.statesurge.com/members/923-barack-obama-federal).

Meanwhile, his record as a senator in Illinois has an impressive 820 bills that impacted the lives of countless millions, as well. By the way, for fact buffs: the 13th District he represented was alone comprised of 653,457 people -- the same as the entire state of Alaska.

In Illinois, with its 13 million citizens, Barack Obama co-sponsored
bipartisan campaign finance reforms, that the Chicago Tribune referred to as "the most sweeping good-government legislation in decades."

He co-sponsored a bipartisan, groundbreaking ethics reform law and was the main sponsor of the Health Care Justice Act.

As co-chairman of a bipartisan committee, Sen. Obama also helped pass predatory mortgage lending reforms, which prevent foreclosures. (Hmm, that was forward thinking. Ya think? But, tosh, it was just a "state" law...)

He sponsored laws that raised tax credits for low-income workers, that improved childcare subsidies for the KidCare Program (bringing health care to 70,000 uncovered children), and that reformed welfare. And he co-sponsored the Equal Pay Act for women.

Further, Mr. Obama sponsored bipartisan legislation that made Illinois the first state to require videotaping of capital cases, and bipartisan laws for monitoring racial profiling.

This list goes endlessly on. A total of 820 laws in all. FactCheck.org (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/www.factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_record_of_accomp.php)
has detailed descriptions.

None of this is to place a value judgment on the 579 federal laws Barack Obama authored or co-sponsored. Nor is it to equate state laws with federal. It's merely to address the false impression that the McCain campaign has tried to put forth that Sen. Obama has sponsored no important legislation in the U.S. Senate, never been able to work across the aisle and largely sat in the Illinois Senate voting "present."

Put whatever value you wish on the 1,399 laws Barack Obama has helped sponsor. Decide for yourself what is a "major" law. From ethics reform to safeguarding WMD to child health care to home foreclosure protection, and much more, you have a great many laws to choose from.

It's up to you to decide if passing laws in a state of 13 million people shows a person's interests, initiative and abilities and helps set precedents. In truth, Illinois state laws do not cover a nation - they just cover 4% of the nation's population.

In the end, there is only one simple point to this. Honesty. That anyone who suggests that Barack Obama has been ineffectual in his 12-year career as an elected representative, sponsoring no important legislation, unable to work across party lines, unwilling to go against his party, and avoiding taking stances by voting "present" -- then that person doesn't know what they are talking about.

Or is lying.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/the-little-known-truth-of_b_136516.html?view=print
========

McNasty and his pitbull bitch lie, lie, lie about HUSSEIN, because they can't countenance nor counter the truth of HUSSEIN

[romad_20]

The Little Known Truth of Barack Obama's Legislative Record

As we all know, Barack Obama hasn't passed any major legislation. He's inexperienced, never done anything. We know this. We know it because John McCain and Sarah Palin, bless her accomplished heart, have said so. And so, we know.

Far be it from me not to take their word for it, but I decided to check things out. And shockingly... it doesn't turn out to be true! Really. So, take a guess on how much legislation Barack Obama has sponsored in the United States Senate, which has become law.

C'mon, take a guess.

Nope, sorry, take another guess.

Barack Obama has authored or co-sponsored 579 bills in Washington. And as a state senator, he sponsored 820 laws for Illinois.

That's 1,399 bills in all. Not bad for someone who apparently had done zero -- okay, according to his opponents.

I know, I know. Those 820 are just for a "state," so they don't really count. Except... well, wait, a "state" is what Sarah Palin is governor of. (At least for 21 months.) So if sponsoring pesky "state" laws doesn't count, what in the world does she have on her resume then? Other than ethics violations.

Besides, y'know, Illinois is an awfully big state. If someone passes a law there, it does affect the lives of 13 million people.

And, yipes, it turns out that there is a wide-ranging record of
bipartisan laws he's co-sponsored, as well, working across the aisles with Republicans. Go figure, who knew?!

Okay, first, let's look at Barack Obama's 579 Senate bills. (To be fair, some of these are pending -- the U.S. Senate works slooowly...)
But here are just a few highlights of the ones that have passed.

With Russ Feingold, Sen. Obama helped put together and co-sponsor the Obama/Feingold 2007 Ethics Reform Law, which curbed lobbying abuses. The bill was perhaps the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate.

Mr. Obama joined forces with Republican Richard Lugar as original co-sponsors of the landmark bill that improved the government's ability to detect and destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction, keeping them from terrorists.

Working across the aisle again, this time, with Republican Chuck Hagel, Barack Obama authored a provision to secure vulnerable nuclear weapons and nuclear material around the world, protecting them from terrorists.

Sen. Obama also wrote the legislation for his Homes for Heroes Act and SAVE Act, that increased services for homeless veterans.

Shockingly, it turns out that John McCain is also wrong about Barack Obama not being willing to go against his party. You see, Mr. Obama sponsored an amendment that required lobbyist disclosures. And as the NY Times wrote, "The disclosure idea's lead sponsor, Senator Barack Obama... 'has not been the most popular person in our caucus in the last couple of weeks,' said a Democratic aide involved in deliberations over the bill."

Gee. Apparently, it seems, Barack Obama has been willing to buck his own party. And work across the aisle. And sponsor and pass important legislation. And there are 574 other bills -- some large, some smaller, but all can be found on State Surge (http://www.statesurge.com/members/923-barack-obama-federal).

Meanwhile, his record as a senator in Illinois has an impressive 820 bills that impacted the lives of countless millions, as well. By the way, for fact buffs: the 13th District he represented was alone comprised of 653,457 people -- the same as the entire state of Alaska.

In Illinois, with its 13 million citizens, Barack Obama co-sponsored
bipartisan campaign finance reforms, that the Chicago Tribune referred to as "the most sweeping good-government legislation in decades."

He co-sponsored a bipartisan, groundbreaking ethics reform law and was the main sponsor of the Health Care Justice Act.

As co-chairman of a bipartisan committee, Sen. Obama also helped pass predatory mortgage lending reforms, which prevent foreclosures. (Hmm, that was forward thinking. Ya think? But, tosh, it was just a "state" law...)

He sponsored laws that raised tax credits for low-income workers, that improved childcare subsidies for the KidCare Program (bringing health care to 70,000 uncovered children), and that reformed welfare. And he co-sponsored the Equal Pay Act for women.

Further, Mr. Obama sponsored bipartisan legislation that made Illinois the first state to require videotaping of capital cases, and bipartisan laws for monitoring racial profiling.

This list goes endlessly on. A total of 820 laws in all. FactCheck.org (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/www.factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_record_of_accomp.php)
has detailed descriptions.

None of this is to place a value judgment on the 579 federal laws Barack Obama authored or co-sponsored. Nor is it to equate state laws with federal. It's merely to address the false impression that the McCain campaign has tried to put forth that Sen. Obama has sponsored no important legislation in the U.S. Senate, never been able to work across the aisle and largely sat in the Illinois Senate voting "present."

Put whatever value you wish on the 1,399 laws Barack Obama has helped sponsor. Decide for yourself what is a "major" law. From ethics reform to safeguarding WMD to child health care to home foreclosure protection, and much more, you have a great many laws to choose from.

It's up to you to decide if passing laws in a state of 13 million people shows a person's interests, initiative and abilities and helps set precedents. In truth, Illinois state laws do not cover a nation - they just cover 4% of the nation's population.

In the end, there is only one simple point to this. Honesty. That anyone who suggests that Barack Obama has been ineffectual in his 12-year career as an elected representative, sponsoring no important legislation, unable to work across party lines, unwilling to go against his party, and avoiding taking stances by voting "present" -- then that person doesn't know what they are talking about.

Or is lying.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/the-little-known-truth-of_b_136516.html?view=print
========

McNasty and his pitbull bitch lie, lie, lie about HUSSEIN, because they can't countenance nor counter the truth of HUSSEIN

I sure someone, somewhere, can and will give you a counterpoint to all those bills. Some of them probably required mandatory abortion for all babies, or something.