Election 2008 - Barack Obama Accuses John McCain of 'Losing His...

OLD politics thought we'd vote gender, race, religion. NOT THIS TIME. We the people are taking America back for ALL of US.
Your wrong, Obama is getting the majority of the black vote,that is the only reason he is winning. But, let him when, I can then vote for McCain or Bob Barr. The polls show that if Obama gets the nomination, McCain will win the general election, if Hillary gets the Nom. she will win in Nov.

Equality.

The Republican party represents the view of the American citizens better on many of these issues then the Democrat party does.

Abortion, most favor restrictions.
Illegal immigration (not immigration as you stated), most favor enforcement. Enforcing the law would take care of deportation. Its really rather simple, if the law on immigration were enforced instead of thwarted constantly, and if the government was given the tools enforce, then
deportation would be taken care of.
Voter ID and proof of citizenship, most citizens favor.

Republicans are not always against social programs, they support quite a few of them.
This nation does spend a large amount on Social programs, last I looked 56% of the budget and no end in sight. Given all the social programs the Democrat candidates are currently talking about, I'd hate to see how much that is expected to increase. The Democrats plan of increased social spending and increased immigration, legal or illegal is not sustainable. Nor is increased immigration, legal or illegal, going to help us acheive energy independence or lowering our use of resources and polution.

I hear how the Democrats plan to fund the Social programs by taking the money away from Defense and National Security. The Defense and National Security budgets had received less before 9/11. That 9/11 happened changed that, as it should have.

Logic wrote:

<quoted text>
No you dont. You simply want to stop paying into social services. You offer no alternative, help, or game plan on how to "lift people up and make them productive happy members of society".
Just like every issue conservatives face, be it social services, abortion, economy, immigration, etc... Your ideology does not support any ration game plan for any of it. Take immigration. You guys want to deport all illegals and close the border. But have you figured out how to even collect and transport 20 million people? No.... Have you even thought about the general affect of such an endeavor? No... See? Being a conservative is simply to be disfunctional. This whole lack of ability, accountability, and competency is why conservatives are losing elections to liberals.

2007 article in USA today:
"As of Sept. 30, the two wars have cost $604 billion, the CBO says. Adjusted for inflation, that is higher than the costs of the Korea and Vietnam conflicts, according to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments."

Notice it is not trillions? The trillions estimate was for what it could cost through the decade. The words estimates and could mean something. Words matter.

I hope people actually research a little before they fall for everything they are told on the internet, especially when it comes to political views. Perhaps I'll add some more in this thread later that disputes the rest of your post, in any case, people need to research the statements themselves. With real facts, not partisan propaganda and statistics slanted to prove a political view rather then show a true picture.

Dirt trick politiks wrote:

<quoted text>
"Excess?" Bush took a sub-prime mortgage on America. Kept all WAR speanding (plus military/industrial PORK hidden in there too by him) in "emergency supplementals."
Bushco has spent MORE than all previous administrations COMBINED. He just put it on the credit card for our future generations to pay without ever having chance to vote against it.
TRILLIONS of debt -- WAR DEBT. Plus interest. It was TOTALLY irresponsible to give refunds to BILLIONAIRES while pledging the property of all Americans to secure debt made by his dreams of EMPIRE. Sick. He isn't stupid. He's evil.

winzy wrote:

The Republican party represents the view of the American citizens better on many of these issues then the Democrat party does.
<quoted text>

No it doesnt. Pure retoric here.

winzy wrote:

Abortion, most favor restrictions.
<quoted text>

Republicans favor more than restrictions. While I agree that most people support restrictions on things like PBA's, Republicans are the ones who want to remove a woman's right to choose.

winzy wrote:

Illegal immigration (not immigration as you stated), most favor enforcement. Enforcing the law would take care of deportation. Its really rather simple, if the law on immigration were enforced instead of thwarted constantly, and if the government was given the tools enforce, then
deportation would be taken care of.
Voter ID and proof of citizenship, most citizens favor.
<quoted text>

Your moving the goal post again. Everyone favors enforcement. But it is the Republicans calling for deportation and closing borders.

winzy wrote:

Republicans are not always against social programs, they support quite a few of them.
<quoted text>

Oh? Which ones? I cant think of a single one republicans created, supported, and didnt try to dismantle or take money from.

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth. Sorry your wrong. I'm not a Republican. I vote "Green". Whatever candidate stands on more money in my families bank account gets my vote. Democrats won the last election because they came out and lied that it was all the Rep. that were spending out of control. An now the liar Pelosi said the Democrats were going to change that. Yea, they changed, they are spending MORE! Now they better look over their shoulders during the next election. Lie to the American people, get voted out!

William wrote:

<quoted text>
I DO NOT like Obama at all...I just don't like "cut and paste" Internet email political Bu**Sh**.
Republicans...fill your email box with this kind of crap and I don't like having to delete it.
AGAIN, Republicans apparently aren't impressed with their own.
That's why Republicans "voted" for the Democrats to take over Congress.
You don't think ONLY democrats voted against them do you?

This had as much to do with the current mortgage crisis as anything Bush did, yet this was from 1994, Clinton, a Democrat.

Fannie Mae Seeks to Ease Home Buying, 3/10/1994 article.

"The organization that stands behind many of the nation's mortgages is taking broad steps to make home ownership easier for lower-income Americans, particularly recent immigrants and minorities, people involved in the effort said today."


Another - WASHINGTON, March 9 1994 (By Bloomberg Business News)-- The Federal Reserve loosened lending regulations today on bank holding companies by requiring fewer appraisals of property involved in real estate loans.

Dirt trick politiks wrote:

<quoted text>
"Excess?" Bush took a sub-prime mortgage on America. Kept all WAR speanding (plus military/industrial PORK hidden in there too by him) in "emergency supplementals."
Bushco has spent MORE than all previous administrations COMBINED. He just put it on the credit card for our future generations to pay without ever having chance to vote against it.
TRILLIONS of debt -- WAR DEBT. Plus interest. It was TOTALLY irresponsible to give refunds to BILLIONAIRES while pledging the property of all Americans to secure debt made by his dreams of EMPIRE. Sick. He isn't stupid. He's evil.

Get Informed wrote:

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth. Sorry your wrong. I'm not a Republican. I vote "Green". Whatever candidate stands on more money in my families bank account gets my vote. Democrats won the last election because they came out and lied that it was all the Rep. that were spending out of control. An now the liar Pelosi said the Democrats were going to change that. Yea, they changed, they are spending MORE! Now they better look over their shoulders during the next election. Lie to the American people, get voted out!
<quoted text>

Exactly WHERE did I say you were a Republican??
Doesn't matter to me who you support.
Republicans have been losing because "most' of the voters (both demos and repubs) have come to the conclusion that the Repubs can't get the job done.
You are also saying Republicans don't know the difference between a lie and a truth? Are you that naive?
Both parties accuse the other of lying...always have, always will...where have you been.

I do not waste my time arguing with partisan hacks. If an individual is so indoctrinated by a party its a waste of a brain and the rights and freedoms we have.

Some individuals in both parties are against abortion. Women do normally have the right to choose whether they engage in sexual relationships and possibly become pregnant.
Most individuals favor restrictions on abortions. As it is we have many contraceptives, we have Plan B, and a variety of options besides abortion for when contraceptives do not work or were not used. There are still limited cases where abortions should be allowed. I find it difficult to justify continued essentially unlimited abortions given the other options, the effort that has gone into making the other options available and the effort that has gone into making contraceptives legal and available to almost any female in the US.

Are you suggesting that current immigration law does not cover deportation of those here illegally? As I recall it does cover deportation.

What is it that you mean by the phrase closing borders? restricting illegal entry into the United States along with drugs, and other illegal goods.
Its common sense to restrict entry. Immigration law is pointless if there is no intention to enforce it at both the interior and exterior, the same with allowing illegal goods and drugs. It is pointless to have an EEOC that take businesses to court for not hiring the right minority quotas, when the quotas are based on illegal as well as legal minorites. Then complain that businesses hire illegal workers. The law is obviously its own worse enemy.

There are social programs the Republicans support. Research the issue yourself if you actually have a mind open enough to read something besides party propaganda.

Logic wrote:

<quoted text>
No it doesnt. Pure retoric here.
<quoted text>
Republicans favor more than restrictions. While I agree that most people support restrictions on things like PBA's, Republicans are the ones who want to remove a woman's right to choose.
<quoted text>
Your moving the goal post again. Everyone favors enforcement. But it is the Republicans calling for deportation and closing borders.
<quoted text>
Oh? Which ones? I cant think of a single one republicans created, supported, and didnt try to dismantle or take money from.

You also failed to respond to the other issues, the 56% of the budget to social programs, the national defense increases that were needed after 9/11 and after years of cuts.

Please see my previous response in regard to your statements here.

Logic wrote:

<quoted text>
No it doesnt. Pure retoric here.
<quoted text>
Republicans favor more than restrictions. While I agree that most people support restrictions on things like PBA's, Republicans are the ones who want to remove a woman's right to choose.
<quoted text>
Your moving the goal post again. Everyone favors enforcement. But it is the Republicans calling for deportation and closing borders.
<quoted text>
Oh? Which ones? I cant think of a single one republicans created, supported, and didnt try to dismantle or take money from.

Not surprisingly, the only place I can find any reference to this in a search is on left leaning blogs.

Do you have some credible links you can point me to for this statement? I'd like to read the articles that support the statement.

Dirt trick politiks wrote:

<quoted text>
Bushco has spent MORE than all previous administrations COMBINED. He just put it on the credit card for our future generations to pay without ever having chance to vote against it.

winzy wrote:

Are you suggesting that current immigration law does not cover deportation of those here illegally? As I recall it does cover deportation.
<quoted text>[/quote]
No, I am suggesting that you can not deport 20 million people as republicans suggest we do. And I am only addressing the logistical impracticality. I wont even touch on the morality of such an absurd concept.

[QUOTE who="winzy"]There are social programs the Republicans support. Research the issue yourself if you actually have a mind open enough to read something besides party propaganda.
<quoted text>

YOU made the assertion that Republicans support social services. I asked you which ones. You failed to provide me any to support your assertion so your assertion is sumarily dismissed.

Sorry but you folks just do not have any credibility left and are politically bankrupt.

winzy wrote:

You also failed to respond to the other issues, the 56% of the budget to social programs, the national defense increases that were needed after 9/11 and after years of cuts.
Please see my previous response in regard to your statements here.
<quoted text>

Incorrect. Only 9% of the budget goes to social services. You might be thinking Social Security and Medicade are social services. That would bring the number up to the 50's, but those are not classified as Safety Net Programs

As president of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt created five National Parks, four Big Game Refuges, fifty-one National bird Reservations, and the National Forest Service. Nixon created the EPA. Community Development Block Grants were started by Ford. They also contributed to anti-slavery, they were also the first major party tosupport the right of women to vote.

There are others, but as shown above, contrary to your earlier statement, Republicans do support social programs.

In general the difference between Republicans and Democrats is not based on the difference to support social programs, it is based on the view that the government does not belong in the business of social programs. The Republican party has that view because they are against a large federal government. They believe more in the rights of the indvidual. That is also why they tend to be against affirmative action. They believe all should be protected equally, not special protections for government designated protected minorities.

The discussion was on social programs, not safety net programs as you call them. So yes the 56% number is right for social progarms.

Logic wrote:

<quoted text>
Incorrect. Only 9% of the budget goes to social services. You might be thinking Social Security and Medicade are social services. That would bring the number up to the 50's, but those are not classified as Safety Net Programs

As president of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt created five National Parks, four Big Game Refuges, fifty-one National bird Reservations, and the National Forest Service. Nixon created the EPA. Community Development Block Grants were started by Ford. They also contributed to anti-slavery, they were also the first major party tosupport the right of women to vote.

There are others, but as shown above, contrary to your earlier statement, Republicans do support social programs.

In general the difference between Republicans and Democrats is not based on the difference to support social programs, it is based on the view that the government does not belong in the business of social programs. The Republican party has that view because they are against a large federal government. They believe more in the rights of the indvidual. That is also why they tend to be against affirmative action. They believe all should be protected equally, not special protections for government designated protected minorities.

Logic wrote:

<quoted text>
YOU made the assertion that Republicans support social services. I asked you which ones. You failed to provide me any to support your assertion so your assertion is sumarily dismissed.
Sorry but you folks just do not have any credibility left and are politically bankrupt.

winzy wrote:

As president of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt created five National Parks, four Big Game Refuges, fifty-one National bird Reservations, and the National Forest Service. Nixon created the EPA. Community Development Block Grants were started by Ford. They also contributed to anti-slavery, they were also the first major party tosupport the right of women to vote.
There are others, but as shown above, contrary to your earlier statement, Republicans do support social programs.
<quoted text>

Excuse me? You are claiming the National Parks and the EPA are part of the Sfaety Net social services like welfare? I simply do not know what to do with this assertion.

Again, I ask you. What Safety Net social services do republicans support? Not simply tolerate...but support.

Here is your original post. Notice that you mentioned social services twice. If there is a reference to safety-net programs I missed it.

Now, I am sorry if you have a blockage in reading your own post, but social services does not equal safety-net programs as you call them.

Further to be clear, I'd suggest that social programs in general provide to many of the same people that safety-net programs do, another words people avoid the having to turn to the safety-net because of a variety of social programs.

Logic wrote:
Quote:
"No you dont. You simply want to stop paying into social services. You offer no alternative, help, or game plan on how to "lift people up and make them productive happy members of society".
Just like every issue conservatives face, be it social services, abortion, economy, immigration, etc... Your ideology does not support any ration game plan for any of it. Take immigration. You guys want to deport all illegals and close the border. But have you figured out how to even collect and transport 20 million people? No.... Have you even thought about the general affect of such an endeavor? No... See? Being a conservative is simply to be disfunctional. This whole lack of ability, accountability, and competency is why conservatives are losing elections to liberals."

Logic wrote:

<quoted text>
Excuse me? You are claiming the National Parks and the EPA are part of the Sfaety Net social services like welfare? I simply do not know what to do with this assertion.
Again, I ask you. What Safety Net social services do republicans support? Not simply tolerate...but support.

Both do include a variety of programs to low income areas and people. So yes in that respect they are safety-net. No, that isn't there entire purpose, nor should it be. The point is that just about any government agency has social programs and yes even safety-net programs within it.

Logic wrote:

<quoted text>
Excuse me? You are claiming the National Parks and the EPA are part of the Sfaety Net social services like welfare? I simply do not know what to do with this assertion.
Again, I ask you. What Safety Net social services do republicans support? Not simply tolerate...but support.

And just exactly WHAT have the Democrats done lately. They are adding Pork Barrel spending projects to every bill passed since the CZAR Pelosi took over. Sorry, your trying to blame Congress's inability wisely manage our money on Republicans. It's both parties! At least McCain is accurately stating what tax plans he has. Obama is smoke and mirrors until he taxes this nation into poverty!

William wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly WHERE did I say you were a Republican??
Doesn't matter to me who you support.
Republicans have been losing because "most' of the voters (both demos and repubs) have come to the conclusion that the Repubs can't get the job done.
You are also saying Republicans don't know the difference between a lie and a truth? Are you that naive?
Both parties accuse the other of lying...always have, always will...where have you been.

Let's see, which dumb comment to I address first.

Sub Prime Mortgages - how in the world and you rationalize Pres. Bush was to blame for this. This was simple, American Greed. Home appreciated year after year, Home Owners gambled and lost. Mortgage companies gamble and lost. No correlation with the Presidential Administration.

Pork Barrel spending - Sorry Pelosi's Congress is taking up right where the other Congress left off. I don't vote for any politician who wants to raise taxes and waste more money.

Finally, your complaining about spending and taxes yet if Obama gets in he will out spend anything we've ever seen. A question. Does Washington have the capacity to spend our money wisely? And you want to give them more. They'll tell you it's to bring down the deficit but it won't go there. Brining down the deficit will take less taxation, creating more investing and more business thus more tax revenue from economic growth. Try competing with foriegn countries whose taxation burden is well below ours. See a trend. Sorry, you can't complain about Bush, he's not running. And McCain is his own man!

The War - Liberals love hindsight. Need I remind you that the Democrats in congress almost voted 100% for the war. They reviewed the same intelligence data the President did. The issue was the flawed intelligence. Want to find any blame with the flawed intelligence it belongs to the previous admin. that made serious budget cutbacks at the FBI and CIA. That would be the Clinton Admin to refresh your memory. Do the math, 9-11 was early in Bush's tenure he had to rely on the intelligence he could see. The President was supplied this intelligence and did not generate it. Democrats love to blame the War on Bush after the fact when they support it to. As for the spending, what option were we left with? Clinton was lucky 9-11 did not happen during his term. Then the Democrats would be yelling Clinton had to go into Iraq!

Dirt trick politiks wrote:

<quoted text>
"Excess?" Bush took a sub-prime mortgage on America. Kept all WAR speanding (plus military/industrial PORK hidden in there too by him) in "emergency supplementals."
Bushco has spent MORE than all previous administrations COMBINED. He just put it on the credit card for our future generations to pay without ever having chance to vote against it.
TRILLIONS of debt -- WAR DEBT. Plus interest. It was TOTALLY irresponsible to give refunds to BILLIONAIRES while pledging the property of all Americans to secure debt made by his dreams of EMPIRE. Sick. He isn't stupid. He's evil.