You are hereForums / Why I'm a Republican for Obama / For those of you who continue to criticize RsFO, I have this to say
For those of you who continue to criticize RsFO, I have this to say
I posted this in another topic, but it was buried. I thought the McCainians might like to respond. They always accuse us of being RINOs, so I must accuse them of blind loyalty to a party that traded America's and American's best interests to the highest bidder.
I don't think it is so much a hatred of McCain as it is disgust with what he, Bush, and all the neo-cons have done to our party, our military, and our country. The neo-con legacy looks like this:
North Korea develops nuclear weapons.....
Iran develops nuclear weapons (maybe)....
Iraq becomes a hotbed of terrorism.....(100,000's of civilians die)
Nuclear deal signed with India......
Canada, our closest neighbor and ally hates us....
Texas, Arizona, California, Georgia......returned to Mexico via the
NAU corridor........
Guantanomo bay opens with hundreds of prisoners........of which only 6 are being tried.....
Patriot Act
Fisa
MCA
RealID Act
$9,000,000,000,000 debt to be paid by our children and grandchildren
America in decline, dollar in the pis*er
NO border fence
No solution to abortion
No solution to healthcare
Thousands and thousands of soldiers lives changed.....for what again?
Defense industry never made more money
Haliburton(Cheney's ceo) makes so much money they move to Dubai
Oil company profits tens of billions of dollars per year=largest transfer of wealth from U.S. citizens to corporations in the history of mankind......Bush=OIL, and he knows he is going back to the oil fields in January....
2001, OIL=$11.00/barrell
2008, OIL=$147.00/barrell
I am not so much in favor of Obama as I am SO AGAINST ANOTHER BUSH DOCTRINE, BUSHWANNABE. Remember what your beloved Bush said about McCain? Look it up:
http://www.bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=522
And this is the party you want to represent you? There is no low they will not stoop to, no family's son they won't send off to war over oil, and no hero they won't trash to get what they truly believe they deserve.
K
I'm glad you posted this as a new thread RP. Although I differ with you on the point that I am very much in favor of Obama, and believe our nation needs what he has to offer.
When I see all of those things listed, one after one, it's amazing that our country has survived as well as it has. I don't believe we can survive another four years of the same policies.
Amazing that you can lay this at the feet of one political party........
Good thing the Democratic party hasn't been complicit in any way.
It's easy Abe. Every time someone objected to Bush and his policies, they were
1) outed, if you were CIA
2) painted as being unpatriotic
3)put on the "No Fly" list
4)accused of not supporting the troops
And to top it all off, everytime someone intelligent wanted to object, they would "raise the threat level to Red", even though there were no threats. Bush used fear to implement these policies. Yes, it was one party that did this!
K
sure - 59 Democrats and 1 Independent were subsequently painted as unpatriotic and put on a no fly list.
I suppose that N Korea was able to obtain the necessary nuclear elements during the Clinton administration is not a fact you should be bothered with either or that subprime lending gain acceptance with Clinton's expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act.
North Korea took down the cameras because Condy failed to live up to the U.S's agreement on oil and food. They tested their first weapon shortly thereafter. I agree that Clinton didn't handle North Korea very well, but their objective was to get the U.S. out of their peninsula. Why is it we are still there some 55 years later? Once they tested a weapon, we quit threatening them. Looks like their plot worked, we mishandled the Koreans altogether.
Clinton did have the Community Reinvestment act, but it was Bush's decision to turn the Fed loose with cheap interest rates and easy terms that has led to the downfall of the dollar. Now, if you can't pay your mortgage don't worry, GWB will bail you out. Maybe I should have waited on Bush to pay my mortgage? The dollar is in the tank because of an artificially low interest rate design to get folks spending money and not focusing on the war and how much the government owes China. If you are constantly bickering with your spouse/significant whatever, you aren't carping on the government!
K
There is a such thing as a veto pen. GWB used it very sparingly in the first six years of his administration, but has found his way to using it over 100 times since. I know the Dems are not blameless in this whole fiasco, as it takes two to tango. BUT, Bush and the neocons rightly can be blamed for most of it.
Even though Congress (some people say that word is the opposite of Pro-gress) has high negative ratings, individual legislators, in general, have much higher approval ratings. But Bush's low approval ratings are for him as an individual, and his policies!
That bail out was for the GOP's "dream homeownership program". No down payment loans.
Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager, was president of the Homeownership Alliance, which advocates the expansion of homeownership through low-interest mortgages funded by Fannie and Freddie. Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr., who is heading McCain’s vice presidential vetting panel, was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae. Mark Buse, a longtime McCain aide, lobbied for Freddie Mac before returning to McCain’s Senate staff. - Link
That payroll has cost Fannie and Freddie nearly $200 million in lobbying and campaign contributions over the past decade, according to lobbying reports and Federal Election Commission disclosures. It has also won them plenty of protection from calls for greater regulation, less federal protection, and even nationalization.
Yes, We Can
Jim Johnson, Jamie Gorelick ring a bell? Jim had to step down from Obama's VP vetting team.
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have also strategically given more contributions to lawmakers currently sitting on committees that primarily regulate their industry. Fifteen of the 25 lawmakers who have received the most from the two companies combined since the 1990 election sit on either the House Financial Services Committee; the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee; or the Senate Finance Committee. The others have seats on the powerful Appropriations or Ways & Means committees, are members of the congressional leadership or have run for president. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate banking committee, has received the most from Fannie and Freddie's PACs and employees ($133,900 since 1989). Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) has received $65,500. Kanjorski chairs the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs.
Fannie and Freddie's Enablers
underscores how both parties allowed this to happen -primarily Dems though and how Dems are taking advantage.
I agree with you that Washington politics are corrupt, and that business interests attempt to influence both parties equally with donations, arm twisting, etc.
abe, you need to understand that we do not defend the Dem party as a whole. We support Obama who happens to be a Democrat. It is our belief that he is sincere in wanting to fix a broken government, and return the power to "we the people". We don't believe he is perfect, and we certainly don't believe the Dem party, as a whole, is superior to the Rep party. What we do have faith in is Obama's very real desire to lead our nation in a different direction.
Abe, of course it's one-sided. Our users are for Obama.
As far as your suggestion that the post is libelous, you'll note that when I see users post anything that's not established fact, I point out that the truth of the allegation is not established. I did it just yesterday when one of our own mentioned the rumor that McCain called his wife a very naughty word.
I didn't see anything particularly libelous in this post. It's just a statement of opinion. That's what this forum is for....to forward one's own ideas and to discuss them.
I think in this response you have discredited your entire initial argument. This is the kind of over the top stuff that is really not based in real fact and reality, with all due respect. If there was so much "fear" whipping through America, how is it that the President has been so hatefully attacked by so many on television, in print etc. What exactly is the Democratic leadership so afraid of? Why did they not challenge the President early on? Fear? of what exactly, and please don't use the Plame case, she is hardly an innocent victim and her portrayal as such is just silly.
Could it be that democratic inaction is based more in their concern that going toe to toe with the President, they might end up on the loosing end with the American people. That should not be the case, only 1/3 of us still suppor him, so what is it. Who are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid afraid of? Who is John Kerry afraid of?
me, these types of comments are inflamatory and serve no purpose. I suggest you re-read your TOS agreement, and refrain from such in the future. This is your second warning.
Suzi, Forums Moderator
"I guess we all just have to realize that Bush had all bad ideas and Obama is the true Messiah. I am convinced and saved!!!"
Me,
Your blantant blasphemy is repulsive.
Yeah, you're right WC. Faith issues are big ones for me and I guess my buttons are easily pushed... thanks :-)
No, not everyone who disagrees is a troll. Those who make the Obama=messiah or such comments ARE trolls! They should be treated as such.
As far as I know McCain is the only one talking about him this way.
No. That's not blasphemy, either. That's apostasy, perhaps. Defection maybe. Subversive even. But it's not blasphemy anymore than it was when Noah cursed the Canaanites.
Blasphemy, according to merriam webster:
1 a: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God
b: the act of claiming the attributes of deity
WC, thank you. :-) I too was going to post the definition of the word. Pretty clear definition, don't you think?
Me, I am not sure if you have read the Constitution lately or not. Based on your comments about Guantanamo, I'm not sure you have. Our U.S. Constitution doesn't only give rights to our citizens, it also includes rights FOR ALL MEN. Remember that our Declaration of Independence also said " ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS"? Our Constitution also provides "the people", and this is interpreted as anyone here, not just citizens with this:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And this:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
And please don't tell me we are at war, the Constitution clearly states who may declare war, and it has never been the President, and Congress has not declared war once since WWII.
And this:
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
All quoted from the U.S. Constitution
The administration has clearly said these prisoners are not prisoners of war, and not provided with the Accords of the Geneva Convention. They are "unlawful enemy combatants", which is another word for criminals.
If you would notice, there was no characterizing Obama as the next coming of any diety. Simply examples of how our world has changed under GWB. I want change, I want my constitutional rights restored, and I want my Republican party back. That was the point of my post.
As for your idea that it must be working because we haven't been attacked, I will state this quote from a fellow patriot, Ben Franklin:
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
And James Madison said it clearly:
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. … No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." James Madison (bold mine)
Sorry for the long winded post, but sometimes when faced with NEOCON talking points, (neo-con, there are a million places to learn what one is, and William Kristol and his Project for a New American Century is the neo-con base, look it up please. Here is the link)
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Pay particular attention to who signed the various letters written to President Bush.
K
"Obama comes from an oil family"
I'm glad to find out that I'm not the only one who was lost at that point! What the heck was me talking about??
M was simply trolling for defectors.
McCain Deathwatch, August 20 '08: McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 43% chance of winning the election.
The people at Guantanamo are not here.
Is a search that can potentially save thousands or more lives unreasonable?
Speedy trail if you are criminal. they are not criminals they are enemt combatants.
In 1759 there were no Nukes or Biological weapons. I suggest Franklin and Madison might have different thoughts today.
I unlike many here would rather fight the war there than here. I guess we shouldn't help in Darfur either because that would mean war. we should have let Europe fall under the control of Hitler in WWII, and we should have let the South continue with slavery and secede as it meant war to keep that from happening? Remember the men that wrote the Constitution just finished leading the Revolutionary WAR!!
The people that wrote the constitution also had prayer and bible teaching on schools; byt we do not now. they also said every man can have a gun; but many people now including most Democrats believe only criminals should have guns. Even when they acknowledge guns are ok for protection in certain istances they have to be unloade taken apart and trigger locked. A lot of good that gun will do someone who truly needs it as it would take minutes to get it ready and only seconds to get killed.
So I guess it is fruitless to give you citations and links to websites that could improve your education about these things. You already know what Madison and Franklin would say, and you still think the civil war was about slavery.
I suppose you truly believe that Iraq had something to do with terrorism and 9/11, even though your glorious leader said it had nothing to do with it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM&feature=related
Ah, what's the use, you won't watch/read anything except what you see on FOX.
To hear you tell the story, the only people that care about America are loyal Republicans that support GWB. Well hopefully there are many more of us than there are of you. See you in November!
K
The comment about the civil war says it is about scession and slavery. It was indirectly about slavery as that was the main reason for the South's seceeion attempt. I do believe Sadaam Hussein was harboring terrorists and paying homicide bombers families in Israel to blow themselves up.
I believe all you guys here love the country; but are wrong. Obama is going to raise taxes, implement more entitlements, and believes that the government knows more about what is good for us then we do; and that is preposterous. I will say it again; there is not one area where the government has done a better job taking care of people than the people do. The military does not count because first of all most dems could care less about it and want us to be under the cammand of Nato and the Useless Nations; and it cannot be privatized as that leads to dictatorships.
I also have no exact idea what Franklin and Madison would say; but I expect after their support of the revolutionary war they would have supported those others; with the possible exception of this one. We can also argue whether this one was righteous or not; but there is no argument that we need to stay!!! If we leave now we will subject the weaker of the sects their in Iraq to ethnic cleansing, make Iran stronger, and give a win to the terrorists of which even Bin Laden claims are making Iraq the focus of their side of the war. You accuse me of avoiding the facts. I suggest you check your own motivation as well. If Obama is so good for the country why is he losing points in the polls as the DNC is going on; when he should be picking up 12-15 points already? And yes; I watch Fox News along with most of the rest of the country. There is a reason why they beat all their competitors ratings put together.
And yes; I watch Fox News along with most of the rest of the country. There is a reason why they beat all their competitors ratings put together. - me
With the next generation of viewers FOX is no longer beating out competitors.
During opening night of the DNC there were 22 million viewers. CNN 4.3 million; FOX 3 million; MSNBC 2.2 million; the rest was watching NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS and CSPAN.
Cable news network ranking 2nd qtr. 2008
MSNBC 101k
FOX 75k
CNN 74k
Yes, We Can
You honestly think that for the DNC more people would tune into Fox to view it? I would expect only the conservative bunch to tune into Fox to hear the commentary - definitely not the liberal crowd.
In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to another - Voltaire
I'll post the ratings for RNC next week.
Yes, We Can
That's pretty close. According to Rassmussen Reports from July 2008:
Democrats: 39.2%
Repulicans: 31.2%
Rest consider themselves independent.
The Nielsen Company says "almost 26 million people watched the second night, more than four times the audience on the same night of the party's convention four years ago. First night 22 million viewers.
Obama/Biden 2008
Third night: An estimated 24 million people watched the convention Wednesday, the night of Joe Biden. CNN had 5.38 million viewers, NBC had 5.36 million, ABC had 3.48 million, CBS had 3.46 million, Fox had 2.7 million and MSNBC had 2.3 million, Nielsen said.
Obama/Biden 2008
I wonder how many people, like me, watch the convention online instead of on television.
I had to watch it yesterday online, because my cable went down. Comcast is funny that way. It's working now.
Obama/Biden 2008
Tell me about it. Cox is the worst. I'm lucky if my cable internet works long enough for me to load RFO.
I have Comcast telephone, cable and internet, but for some reason the cable goes down not telephone or internet. It's the same line coming in. Go figure!
Obama/Biden 2008