Obama criticizes McCain for 'naive' foreign policy

We Were Soldiers Once wrote:

Vets for Freedom: Obama will go to Iran but not Iraq
posted at 9:45 am on May 23, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly
Vets for Freedom has a new ad out that attacks Barack Obama for his policies on Iraq and Iran. The video features Sgt. Garrett Anderson, a wounded Iraq War veteran from the Illinois National Guard, speaking about his attempts to meet with Obama earlier this year. Anderson says that Obama couldn’t make time for a veteran from his home state, but apparently wants to make time for enemies of the US:
I’m sorry, Sgt. Anderson, but I don’t see where this helps Michelle Obama’s children. Distraction!
Their press release explains further:
1) Senator Obama has never met, one-on-one, with the Commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus.
2) Senator Obama has not visited Iraq, and our brave troops on the ground, in over two years. His last visit to Iraq was January 2006, and he was there for less than two days.
3) On April 8, when two-dozen Illinois veterans went to his office for a meeting, Senator Obama was unwilling to meet with them. He was in the office, just wouldn’t come out. Sergeant Anderson was a member of that group.
The point here is plainly made. While Barack Obama talks about how important it is to conduct direct presidential diplomacy without preconditions with Iran, he so far has been unwilling to offer the same sort of direct contact with the American commander of forces in Iraq, or even with veterans from his own state. If that seems a little backward to you, Vets for Freedom feels the same way.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/23/vets-fo ...

1 & 2 :McCain came back from his visit in Iraq saying that things were so good that you could walk around Iraqi market without protection... except for the bullet proof vest, tanks, helicopters and soldiers, he would've been dead on making that comment. If that is the kind of judgment you get when you go to Iraq then I don't think I would go around bragging about how many trips I've made. Journalists who have been embedded in Iraq for years say that politicians just get the brief dog and pony show. Commanders are told what the talking points are. There unable to be open and honest. That's why we've seen so many retired commanders come fourth to speak out about Bush's policies.

Gotta love it. Your GOP is going to try and put 58 permanent bases in Iraq. You have word that Bush will force an attack on Iran before the end of the year. You think it's expensive to fill up your Hummer now... just wait.

left of you wrote:

<quoted text>Did you pull this straight from a GOP talking points guidebook? Honesty isn't one of your strong points is it? Or is it just a lack of looking for facts? Our nation is behind 36 other countries in health care as ranked by World Health Organization. Ok, this is the point where you rabidly try to discredit the world health Organization. Walter Reed is one of many examples of where Bush admin. failed to plan for post Iraq. You know, if universal healthcare is run by republicans then no I don't want it. So far the republicans have been horrible at running anything. I guess when they say something won't work.... they are really saying that they are incompetent of doing so themselves. Just like GOP and FDA. GOP and NIH. The GOP and the DOJ.... they suck at everything!!!!!

as opposed to the dems we voted in to take care of everything who have also not followed through with anything. I do not want to be forced to take health care unless they start covering alternative and preventative medicine like Europe does. Until then medical treatment and more prescriptions are a joke in this country, and within 5 years are going to be 10% of the GNP. Why did the scripts go up 15% when plan B came into effect? could it be these doctors are writing more because they can. People follow their doctors advice like they follow Obama... blindly. The doctors are "practicing" medicine and Obama is "practicing" change.

Left of you wrote:

No, no, no, no.... No you don't. Don't change the question. We hear over and over how universal health care is impossible. I'm working on baby steps here. First you have to admit that it IS possible. Once again as soon as I try to provide irrefutable evidence, someone changes the question. You right wingers really need to work on phrasing your statements and questions. Don't tell me universal health care is "impossible" when all other developed countries have it. Maybe you don't think it's as good or it's slow.... but don't make up BS and say it's impossible. Everything has become so partisan that you can't even admit that "yes", it is totally possible to provide universal health care. Now is the part where you take one statistic after another that you know will support your argument in defense of universal health care. No one claims it would be perfect but neither is a system that leaves millions uninsured. I bet you I can find a lot of hard working people who are unable to get insurance that wouldn't mind if it's not the fastest system around. It's like telling a homeless person "you don't want to get food from the lighthouse mission." "you will have to wait 3 hours in line". If you go to McDonalds you can get a burger in 60 seconds". It doesn't matter to someone who doesn't have access to begin with. You could still buy your own supplemental to cover any extra needs you might have.

You mention Canada and Europe have you considered the population differences in countries? And before we could even consider socialized medicine in the US we need major tort reform to stop all the insane lawsuits and cash awards. It is also estimated there are billions of dollars wasted in fraud every year in the welfare,medicare, and social security systems. These are all things to consider before committing tax dollars to any more government run programs. Also lets not forget Canadians get walloped pretty hard in taxes and so do most Europeans. And having done business in Canada I can tell you their health care system leaves a lot to be desired. Can it be done? Yes but not by Hillary or B.Hussein and not efficiently any time soon. The point I'm trying to make here is first you must fix the current system ,then figure out how to make it available to everyone at a low cost. But the current proposal by both dems is a loss leader and another form of re-distribution of wealth, that could turn out to destroy the system. I just don't see the fairness in taking money from a hard working person and giving it to someone who doesn't. The government should not dictate what charities we give to or use tax dollars to buy votes from certain segments of the population by giving them handouts.

Left of you wrote:

<quoted text>This is usually a winning argument for GOPers as long as the person you are arguing with doesn't have all of the information. While it's true that the corporate tax rate on paper is higher than most other counties this doesn't tell the whole story. In fact that statement alone brings you to a false conclusion. The EFFECTIVE tax rate of the U.S. in nearly every case is MUCH lower than the stated rate. For those reading this post I'll give you a quick/easy example. When you file your household taxes, given your household income for the year you are put into a tax bracket. But we all know there is much more to it. You then add up deductions, exemptions, etc. to deduct from your taxable income. After all deductions/credits/etc are made the portion that you actually owe is considered your effective rate. This percentage of your income is less than what your initial tax bracket stated. Well think of corporations the same way except their are far more deductions, depreciations and credits... not to mention they put people on the payroll (of major corporations) that are specifically assigned to save as much money from being taxed as possible. I don't blame them. As long as it's all done legally, why not. But, It is disingenuous for you JerseyGirl (and other GOPers) to constantly tout that corporations deserve further tax breaks because of our high corporate tax rate. It isn't what it seems. So the next time you tell your tax story... why don't you include telling people about the effective rate and how it changes the ball game dramatically.

It's obvious you have not run a business or managed anything in the private sector. To receive any break on taxes the amount of deductions you must accumulate is staggering. But that's not the whole picture in the US. what does more damage to business in the US is the high cost of liability insurance,payroll taxes,an inordinate amount of government regulation,staggering workman's comp. insurance. The list goes on and on. While labor is cheap abroad it is only a small part of the cost associated with manufacturing in an automated setting,it's all the other crap we deal with in the US that forces business offshore just to stay afloat. Higher taxes and more government regulation as proposed by the dems is not going to produce more jobs in the private sector. Like it or not we are in a world market so we must look at ways to be competitive.

I will Not be free wrote:

<quoted text>as opposed to the dems we voted in to take care of everything who have also not followed through with anything. I do not want to be forced to take health care unless they start covering alternative and preventative medicine like Europe does. Until then medical treatment and more prescriptions are a joke in this country, and within 5 years are going to be 10% of the GNP. Why did the scripts go up 15% when plan B came into effect? could it be these doctors are writing more because they can. People follow their doctors advice like they follow Obama... blindly. The doctors are "practicing" medicine and Obama is "practicing" change.

I think you know why nothing is getting done in congress. It the republicans who set an obstructionist record in only one year. Did you recently see the memo of theirs that described their plan for obstructing an environmental bill? In it it said their point was to gain political points rather than pass anything. Yes, I know all about part B. This was pushed hard by Bush and a few republicans. The lied about what the actual cost of their bill would be. It turns out that the bill was written more for the pharmaceutical companies and not the people. This was something a republican rammed through not a democrat.

taxpayer1 wrote:

<quoted text>
You mention Canada and Europe have you considered the population differences in countries? And before we could even consider socialized medicine in the US we need major tort reform to stop all the insane lawsuits and cash awards. It is also estimated there are billions of dollars wasted in fraud every year in the welfare,medicare, and social security systems. These are all things to consider before committing tax dollars to any more government run programs. Also lets not forget Canadians get walloped pretty hard in taxes and so do most Europeans. And having done business in Canada I can tell you their health care system leaves a lot to be desired. Can it be done? Yes but not by Hillary or B.Hussein and not efficiently any time soon. The point I'm trying to make here is first you must fix the current system ,then figure out how to make it available to everyone at a low cost. But the current proposal by both dems is a loss leader and another form of re-distribution of wealth, that could turn out to destroy the system. I just don't see the fairness in taking money from a hard working person and giving it to someone who doesn't. The government should not dictate what charities we give to or use tax dollars to buy votes from certain segments of the population by giving them handouts.

We spend more on healthcare, PER PERSON, in this country than the others mentioned.
I never said providing health care you be merely signing it into law. Yes there are many steps to it. There are millions of americans who are "hard working" who still can't afford insurance.
No I don't own a business. But I know that tax law by republicans is the same for business as it is for citizens. They care more about large corporations than the small businesses.

left of you wrote:

<quoted text>We spend more on healthcare, PER PERSON, in this country than the others mentioned.
I never said providing health care you be merely signing it into law. Yes there are many steps to it. There are millions of americans who are "hard working" who still can't afford insurance.
No I don't own a business. But I know that tax law by republicans is the same for business as it is for citizens. They care more about large corporations than the small businesses.

Unfortunately, giving universal heathcare will have very valid problems facing it.

First of all, there are some major problems regarding "who" pays for it?

The middleclass can not support all the programs and incentives for the masses. At the rate things are going we might as well hand our paycheck over to the government and work for free.

""Cautionary Healthcare Tales From California and Massachusetts

The collapse of health reform in California and ominous signs from Massachusetts spell big trouble ahead for reforming the nation's healthcare system no matter who is elected President.""

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080407/lieberm...

There is an answer, at least in part.

Over here we have a clinic that charges you by your income. You pay a percent for medical and dental based on a percent. The more you make, the more you pay. Poor pay nothing, financially secure pay more.

US Citizen 07 wrote:

<quoted text>
Unfortunately, giving universal heathcare will have very valid problems facing it.
First of all, there are some major problems regarding "who" pays for it?
The middleclass can not support all the programs and incentives for the masses. At the rate things are going we might as well hand our paycheck over to the government and work for free.
""Cautionary Healthcare Tales From California and Massachusetts
The collapse of health reform in California and ominous signs from Massachusetts spell big trouble ahead for reforming the nation's healthcare system no matter who is elected President.""
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080407/lieberm...
There is an answer, at least in part.
Over here we have a clinic that charges you by your income. You pay a percent for medical and dental based on a percent. The more you make, the more you pay. Poor pay nothing, financially secure pay more.

No one ever claimed it would be easy, simple or free. Let me ask you this. Do you then acknowledge that Bush single handedly destroyed, permanently, our economy with his war? The reason I ask is because universal healthcare will cost less than this war does. No one on the right seems to be concerned with all the money being poured into it. The amount of money that turns up missing in Iraq is more than many of the programs the GOP balks at.... and when the democrats try to enforce oversight of all that money, they are consistently blocked by republicans and the president. Why is that? Is it because Bush and his republicans don't really care about wasting your money so long as it ends up in the pockets of his buddies? I think the past 7 years proves this theory. I can't understand why more of you don't see this. In the past seven years we've witnessed a republican party spend money like drunken sailors. They refuse oversight and reform. And then they cry when democrats try to fund health care for children, benefits for soldiers, environmental issues.... Do you not see a pattern. Why are they soooo willing to throw money at things that don't benefit the masses, but a narrow few. If any of you don't believe me, please don't take my word for it. Go do a little research for yourself. I feel that most people who support the GOP right now either lie about their true reasons for supporting the GOP, or they are uninformed as to what has been going on..... and things have become so partisan, that you won't listen to anything other than the usual party line.

How much of our time and money did Bush let us waste on investigating the outing of Valarie Plame? If in the end he is going to commute everyones sentence then why not just be honest up front? For the GOP "holding people accountable" means blasting Moveon.org for an add but giving a pass on outing of a CIA agent, perjury, torture, war profiteering, spying on U.S. citizens, taking our country to war under false pretenses just to name a few. How can you feel good about your party? How do you justify their actions to yourself?

Gotta love those GOPers. Once again their are looking out for the poor ol' oil companies. They blocked the democrats effort to place a 25% tax on excessive profits. The oil companies would be able to avoid the tax if they use that money pursuing renewable energy. Basically it would force them to invest in renewable energy. This could actually benefit the oil companies in the long run. There is only so much oil out there and it's getting harder to extract. The GOP also blocked the democratic effort to extend tax breaks to renewable energies. Huh.... what does this tell you? Are the Republicans really concerned with the price of oil or our addiction to it? Nope. Not as long as Big Oil lobbyists are lining their pockets with $$$. I thought Republicans supported cutting taxes. So why is it that a tax break that could benefit us greatly in the future with clean renewable energy is so rabidly opposed by the Republican party? Republicans only idea (I refuse to call it a solution because it won't solve anything) is to allow oil companies to further destroy our land by drilling for more.... which will do NOTHING to reduce our dependence on oil and will only change gas prices by a penny per gallon 10 years down the road. They think that our county will be just fine as prices continue to climb until 2018, and then we'll get a whopping 1 cent per gallon off. Who else thinks that sounds ridiculous? Don't waste your time telling me how democrats are to blame for not allowing to drill many years ago. Even if we accept that argument (which I don't), it doesn't change where we are at this very minute. If the only answer from republicans is to play a blame game and promote further profits for oil companies.... it's time for them to go.

left of you wrote:

Gotta love those GOPers. Once again their are looking out for the poor ol' oil companies. They blocked the democrats effort to place a 25% tax on excessive profits. The oil companies would be able to avoid the tax if they use that money pursuing renewable energy. Basically it would force them to invest in renewable energy. This could actually benefit the oil companies in the long run. There is only so much oil out there and it's getting harder to extract. The GOP also blocked the democratic effort to extend tax breaks to renewable energies. Huh.... what does this tell you? Are the Republicans really concerned with the price of oil or our addiction to it? Nope. Not as long as Big Oil lobbyists are lining their pockets with $$$. I thought Republicans supported cutting taxes. So why is it that a tax break that could benefit us greatly in the future with clean renewable energy is so rabidly opposed by the Republican party? Republicans only idea (I refuse to call it a solution because it won't solve anything) is to allow oil companies to further destroy our land by drilling for more.... which will do NOTHING to reduce our dependence on oil and will only change gas prices by a penny per gallon 10 years down the road. They think that our county will be just fine as prices continue to climb until 2018, and then we'll get a whopping 1 cent per gallon off. Who else thinks that sounds ridiculous? Don't waste your time telling me how democrats are to blame for not allowing to drill many years ago. Even if we accept that argument (which I don't), it doesn't change where we are at this very minute. If the only answer from republicans is to play a blame game and promote further profits for oil companies.... it's time for them to go.

June 10, 2008

Greetings "left of you":

You wrote "it's time for them to go.” God forbid, but change and monitored so that all of our professional experts to change and focus on the national and international crises is a realistic mandates of and for the people. If any leader doesn't hear this mandate being voiced by the people, they should humbly stand down.

I've notice party intent v. USA intent for changes beyond our traditional party lines. Do you hear the same thing? An hour ago I wrote on another thread……..

Greetings "Blame the Republicans" and Fellow Posters:

All is well, as long as we seek the blessings of America --- USA. Obama has magnified the need for change in 2008 but, the question is: Is the party he represents selfless enough to endorse in it platform 'a Bi-Partisan Centralized Coalition for Change' in our White House; 'a Bi-Partisan Centralized Coalition for Change' to guide in drafting-modifying Bills expeditiously that will meet the mandates dictated and defined by counter 'a Bi-Partisan Centralized Coalition for Critical Changes’ of Congressional legislative bodies and the citizens they represent?

Correcting a crisis that has escalated for over four decade requires the cooperative Bi-partisan action administratively and congressionally to expedite change.

We the People the citizens of our government, the USA, have the right and responsibility to address change in the way our elected official handle and stabilized our State of Our Union during a crisis. Business as usual, will not work nor failure to take joint responsibility. Both parties must stand in perfect square verbally recognizing our crisis and end the gridlock in our internal political party warfare that is more serous and caused more problems than they admit to the citizens. The time is now, our leaders need to accept and endorse 'a Bi-Partisan Centralized Coalition for Change', and selfless address the multiple-crises our country is plagued with.

On June 9, I had the opportunity to post tin response to your posting: See …..yesterday's posting…… 3191

In spirit and truth,
EXCELLENCES

left of you wrote:

Gotta love those GOPers. Once again their are looking out for the poor ol' oil companies. They blocked the democrats effort to place a 25% tax on excessive profits. The oil companies would be able to avoid the tax if they use that money pursuing renewable energy. Basically it would force them to invest in renewable energy. This could actually benefit the oil companies in the long run. There is only so much oil out there and it's getting harder to extract. The GOP also blocked the democratic effort to extend tax breaks to renewable energies. Huh.... what does this tell you? Are the Republicans really concerned with the price of oil or our addiction to it? Nope. Not as long as Big Oil lobbyists are lining their pockets with $$$. I thought Republicans supported cutting taxes. So why is it that a tax break that could benefit us greatly in the future with clean renewable energy is so rabidly opposed by the Republican party? Republicans only idea (I refuse to call it a solution because it won't solve anything) is to allow oil companies to further destroy our land by drilling for more.... which will do NOTHING to reduce our dependence on oil and will only change gas prices by a penny per gallon 10 years down the road. They think that our county will be just fine as prices continue to climb until 2018, and then we'll get a whopping 1 cent per gallon off. Who else thinks that sounds ridiculous? Don't waste your time telling me how democrats are to blame for not allowing to drill many years ago. Even if we accept that argument (which I don't), it doesn't change where we are at this very minute. If the only answer from republicans is to play a blame game and promote further profits for oil companies.... it's time for them to go.

June 10, 2008

Greetings "left of you":

You wrote "it's time for them to go.” God forbid, but change and monitored so that all of our professional experts to change and focus on the national and international crises is a realistic mandates of and for the people. If any leader doesn't hear this mandate being voiced by the people, they should humbly stand down.

I've notice party intent v. USA intent for changes beyond our traditional party lines. Do you hear the same thing? An hour ago I wrote on another thread……..

Greetings "Blame the Republicans" and Fellow Posters:

All is well, as long as we seek the blessings of America --- USA. Obama has magnified the need for change in 2008 but, the question is: Is the party he represents selfless enough to endorse in it platform 'a Bi-Partisan Centralized Coalition for Change' in our White House; 'a Bi-Partisan Centralized Coalition for Change' to guide in drafting-modifying Bills expeditiously that will meet the mandates dictated and defined by counter 'a Bi-Partisan Centralized Coalition for Critical Changes’ of Congressional legislative bodies and the citizens they represent?

Correcting a crisis that has escalated for over four decade requires the cooperative Bi-partisan action administratively and congressionally to expedite change.

We the People the citizens of our government, the USA, have the right and responsibility to address change in the way our elected official handle and stabilized our State of Our Union during a crisis. Business as usual, will not work nor failure to take joint responsibility. Both parties must stand in perfect square verbally recognizing our crisis and end the gridlock in our internal political party warfare that is more serous and caused more problems than they admit to the citizens. The time is now, our leaders need to accept and endorse 'a Bi-Partisan Centralized Coalition for Change', and selfless address the multiple-crises our country is plagued with.

On June 9, I had the opportunity to post tin response to your posting: See …..yesterday's posting…… 3191 3522

In spirit and truth,
EXCELLENCES

left of you wrote:

Gotta love those GOPers. Once again their are looking out for the poor ol' oil companies. They blocked the democrats effort to place a 25% tax on excessive profits. The oil companies would be able to avoid the tax if they use that money pursuing renewable energy. Basically it would force them to invest in renewable energy. This could actually benefit the oil companies in the long run. There is only so much oil out there and it's getting harder to extract. The GOP also blocked the democratic effort to extend tax breaks to renewable energies. Huh.... what does this tell you? Are the Republicans really concerned with the price of oil or our addiction to it? Nope. Not as long as Big Oil lobbyists are lining their pockets with $$$. I thought Republicans supported cutting taxes. So why is it that a tax break that could benefit us greatly in the future with clean renewable energy is so rabidly opposed by the Republican party? Republicans only idea (I refuse to call it a solution because it won't solve anything) is to allow oil companies to further destroy our land by drilling for more.... which will do NOTHING to reduce our dependence on oil and will only change gas prices by a penny per gallon 10 years down the road. They think that our county will be just fine as prices continue to climb until 2018, and then we'll get a whopping 1 cent per gallon off. Who else thinks that sounds ridiculous? Don't waste your time telling me how democrats are to blame for not allowing to drill many years ago. Even if we accept that argument (which I don't), it doesn't change where we are at this very minute. If the only answer from republicans is to play a blame game and promote further profits for oil companies.... it's time for them to go.

June 10, 2008

Greetings "left of you":

You wrote "it's time for them to go.” God forbid, but change and monitored so that all of our professional experts to change and focus on the national and international crises is a realistic mandates of and for the people. If any leader doesn't hear this mandate being voiced by the people, they should humbly stand down.

I've notice party intent v. USA intent for changes beyond our traditional party lines. Do you hear the same thing? An hour ago I wrote on another thread……..

Greetings "Blame the Republicans" and Fellow Posters:

All is well, as long as we seek the blessings of America --- USA. Obama has magnified the need for change in 2008 but, the question is: Is the party he represents selfless enough to endorse in it platform 'a Bi-Partisan Centralized Coalition for Change' in our White House; 'a Bi-Partisan Centralized Coalition for Change' to guide in drafting-modifying Bills expeditiously that will meet the mandates dictated and defined by counter 'a Bi-Partisan Centralized Coalition for Critical Changes’ of Congressional legislative bodies and the citizens they represent?

Correcting a crisis that has escalated for over four decade requires the cooperative Bi-partisan action administratively and congressionally to expedite change.

We the People the citizens of our government, the USA, have the right and responsibility to address change in the way our elected official handle and stabilized our State of Our Union during a crisis. Business as usual, will not work nor failure to take joint responsibility. Both parties must stand in perfect square verbally recognizing our crisis and end the gridlock in our internal political party warfare that is more serous and caused more problems than they admit to the citizens. The time is now, our leaders need to accept and endorse 'a Bi-Partisan Centralized Coalition for Change', and selfless address the multiple-crises our country is plagued with.

On June 9, I had the opportunity to post tin response to your posting: See …..yesterday's posting…… 3191 3522 3359

In spirit and truth,
EXCELLENCES

left of you wrote:

Gotta love those GOPers. Once again their are looking out for the poor ol' oil companies. They blocked the democrats effort to place a 25% tax on excessive profits. The oil companies would be able to avoid the tax if they use that money pursuing renewable energy. Basically it would force them to invest in renewable energy. This could actually benefit the oil companies in the long run. There is only so much oil out there and it's getting harder to extract. The GOP also blocked the democratic effort to extend tax breaks to renewable energies. Huh.... what does this tell you? Are the Republicans really concerned with the price of oil or our addiction to it? Nope. Not as long as Big Oil lobbyists are lining their pockets with $$$. I thought Republicans supported cutting taxes. So why is it that a tax break that could benefit us greatly in the future with clean renewable energy is so rabidly opposed by the Republican party? Republicans only idea (I refuse to call it a solution because it won't solve anything) is to allow oil companies to further destroy our land by drilling for more.... which will do NOTHING to reduce our dependence on oil and will only change gas prices by a penny per gallon 10 years down the road. They think that our county will be just fine as prices continue to climb until 2018, and then we'll get a whopping 1 cent per gallon off. Who else thinks that sounds ridiculous? Don't waste your time telling me how democrats are to blame for not allowing to drill many years ago. Even if we accept that argument (which I don't), it doesn't change where we are at this very minute. If the only answer from republicans is to play a blame game and promote further profits for oil companies.... it's time for them to go.

June 10, 2008

Greetings "left of you":

You wrote "it's time for them to go.” God forbid, but change and monitored so that all of our professional experts to change and focus on the national and international crises is a realistic mandates of and for the people. If any leader doesn't hear this mandate being voiced by the people, they should humbly stand down.

I've notice party intent v. USA intent for changes beyond our traditional party lines. Do you hear the same thing? An hour ago I wrote on another thread……..

Greetings "Blame the Republicans" and Fellow Posters:

All is well, as long as we seek the blessings of America --- USA. Obama has magnified the need for change in 2008 but, the question is: Is the party he represents selfless enough to endorse in it platform 'a Bi-Partisan Centralized Coalition for Change' in our White House; 'a Bi-Partisan Centralized Coalition for Change' to guide in drafting-modifying Bills expeditiously that will meet the mandates dictated and defined by counter 'a Bi-Partisan Centralized Coalition for Critical Changes’ of Congressional legislative bodies and the citizens they represent?

Correcting a crisis that has escalated for over four decade requires the cooperative Bi-partisan action administratively and congressionally to expedite change.

We the People the citizens of our government, the USA, have the right and responsibility to address change in the way our elected official handle and stabilized our State of Our Union during a crisis. Business as usual, will not work nor failure to take joint responsibility. Both parties must stand in perfect square verbally recognizing our crisis and end the gridlock in our internal political party warfare that is more serous and caused more problems than they admit to the citizens. The time is now, our leaders need to accept and endorse 'a Bi-Partisan Centralized Coalition for Change', and selfless address the multiple-crises our country is plagued with.

On June 9, I had the opportunity to post this response to your posting: See …..yesterday's posting…… 3191 3522 3359 6498 8591

In spirit and truth,
EXCELLENCES

left of you wrote:

<quoted text>We spend more on healthcare, PER PERSON, in this country than the others mentioned.
I never said providing health care you be merely signing it into law. Yes there are many steps to it. There are millions of americans who are "hard working" who still can't afford insurance.
No I don't own a business. But I know that tax law by republicans is the same for business as it is for citizens. They care more about large corporations than the small businesses.

No, the law is different depending on the type of business it is an the way it's structured. The laws from state to state can be cumbersome as well. The problem with our current set of laws and/or government involvement in the private sector is it strangles growth. In all honesty I think government is the most inefficient entity in the US. Consider this, there are 513,000 elected officals in this country and they can't get a damn thing done at any level. Next consider how many people work for the government that aren't productive,how many people live off the government dole and how many de-fraud the system. If anybody ran the numbers you'd probably find about 35% of working America support the entire country. It's no wonder we are broke. How many more programs,handouts and increased government do you think we can support? Don't even mention more foreign aid because that really makes my blood boil.

Obama's Defense Plan Leaves Us Vulnerable
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11:30 AM
By: Charles R. Smith
Sen. Barack Obama has made very little effort to supply the voters with any idea of his real policies. To date most of his speeches concentrate on the smoke and mirrors of feelings but little, if any, substance. There is one area that Obama has made his intentions very clear; U.S. national defense. The senator, like his liberal colleagues, stands ready to cut our national security to dangerous levels. During a policy speech on national defense, Obama declared the real enemy to America is not North Korea, Moscow, Beijing, Tehran or bin Laden. According to Obama, the U.S. military is the evil that must be destroyed.
"I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems," stated Obama.
The implications here are standard fare for left-wing zealots who hate anything military. For example, Obama pledged to cut the national missile
defense, calling it "unproven." Ironically, the only way to prove such a defense in combat is to have someone shoot missiles at the U.S. homeland. Of course, without a missile defense, we will be helpless at any such onslaught.
Still, the USS Lake Erie just racked up another in a long series of successful intercepts, proving the U.S. Navy anti-missile systems not only work but work well in simulated combat situations. The Lake Erie scored two direct hits against two missiles fired and destroyed another missile from a moving launch vehicle.
Obama feels that such a defense is unnecessary. Meanwhile, both North Korea and Iran are quickly progressing toward missiles capable of reaching
America, Moscow is deploying its latest lethal ICBM, the Topol-M, and China is investing in massive missiles capable of reaching the U.S. homeland.
The last test, performed by the Iranians, proved their missiles could reach Western Europe. The next Iranian test will orbit a small satellite, with the possibility of global reach.
Then there is Obama's commitment to cut defense in space, pledging to not "weaponize" space. This pledge comes long after the cow has left the barn,
or in this case, after China has shot down an orbiting satellite. The Chinese anti-satellite test sprayed hundreds of thousands of pieces of
debris into near orbit, adding to the dangers of space travel. The Chinese test also proved that the PRC has already weaponized space, thus any pledge by Obama to not take defensive measures is just a way of leaving the communists in the high ground, threatening our satellites with instant
destruction.

In addition, Obama's pledge to slow weapon systems is just as short-sighted as the rest of his declarations. The fact is that slowing weapons deployment raises their costs astronomically - not to mention the fact that we may already need these new weapons. Then there are systems that we are developing that our allies will use. Things we have already sold to Europe, Asia and the middle-east. For example, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is slated to replace over 4,000 aging jets around the world and in the U.S. inventory.
Any effort to slow its development will cost American jobs, threaten the defense of countless allies and force U.S. fighter pilots to fly aircraft that in some cases are over 30 years old. In short, Obama's pledge will bring unemployment, and force our allies to seek other global vendors to meet their defense needs.
However, these issues are lost on Obama in his wild-eyed, anti-military role. In fact, there is one statement from Obama's speech that cuts our
national defense to the very brink of war.
"I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off
hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal," noted Obama.
It is interesting to note that in order to "not develop" nuclear weapons, the U.S. arsenal will quickly fade. Senator Obama, as president, will be
faced immediately with the choice of unilateral disarmament - no nuclear assets - or spend the money necessary to maintain the minimum levels
specified by the strategic arms treaties with Moscow.
The current treaties are set to reduce the nuclear weapons stockpiles to historic lows. The ICBMs are never on hair trigger alert despite the senator 's inflamed remarks. The aging Minuteman missiles, a force we have depended on for nearly 40 years, will need upgrades to maintain the current level of 450 missiles. Oh no, to keep his pledge, President Obama will let the U.S. missiles rot while Moscow deploys a new generation of Topol-M monsters and China deploys its Dong Feng 31 series. In addition, President Obama will remove any chance of defense by canceling the National Missile Defense which could save millions of lives otherwise snuffed out in the blinding flash of nuclear hell-fire.
This entire scenario goes against the liberal corner-stone of defense policy - Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD. With no defense and no offense, the U.S. homeland will be a helpless target for both major powers and minor players alike.
Clearly, the senator has not considered what his pledges will do to global security, much less U.S. security. His Neville Chamberlain promise to wave paper treaties in place of real defense is a sure fire way toward war. The Obama defense is a plan for disaster that will be paid with the blood of U.S. soldiers and perhaps by millions of American lives at home.

left of you wrote:

Gotta love those GOPers. Once again their are looking out for the poor ol' oil companies. They blocked the democrats effort to place a 25% tax on excessive profits. The oil companies would be able to avoid the tax if they use that money pursuing renewable energy. Basically it would force them to invest in renewable energy. This could actually benefit the oil companies in the long run. There is only so much oil out there and it's getting harder to extract. The GOP also blocked the democratic effort to extend tax breaks to renewable energies. Huh.... what does this tell you? Are the Republicans really concerned with the price of oil or our addiction to it? Nope. Not as long as Big Oil lobbyists are lining their pockets with $$$. I thought Republicans supported cutting taxes. So why is it that a tax break that could benefit us greatly in the future with clean renewable energy is so rabidly opposed by the Republican party? Republicans only idea (I refuse to call it a solution because it won't solve anything) is to allow oil companies to further destroy our land by drilling for more.... which will do NOTHING to reduce our dependence on oil and will only change gas prices by a penny per gallon 10 years down the road. They think that our county will be just fine as prices continue to climb until 2018, and then we'll get a whopping 1 cent per gallon off. Who else thinks that sounds ridiculous? Don't waste your time telling me how democrats are to blame for not allowing to drill many years ago. Even if we accept that argument (which I don't), it doesn't change where we are at this very minute. If the only answer from republicans is to play a blame game and promote further profits for oil companies.... it's time for them to go.

The windfall profit tax failed during the carter years and lead to shortages. And how is taxing these companies going to bring down the price of oil in the near future? Should we tax law firms that make huge amounts of money on personal injury cases, or how about food companies who are making huge profits right now or how about the pharmaceutical industry they do well also? I'm not to happy about the price I pay for gas but I see the profit margins (%) the oil companies make and quite honestly the state and federal government make more in taxes on a gallon of gas. And you can't blame the oil industry for not developing alternative fuel sources it's not the business there in. The short term fix is to drill and build more refineries and the left wing continues to fight the immediate solution to our current problem. Consider this when I go to Mexico gas is 2 dollars a gallon,there is no reason it can not be that here. And there is more oil out there than the public realizes. You would be amazed at the amount of foreign companies that were in Houston a month ago at the OTC looking at buying new equipment. These very same people are laughing at us because we won't drill here. Another point, buy expanding drilling here do realize the positive impact that would have on our economy as far as job growth?

June 11, 2008

Greetings NoBama - No Way and taxpayer1:

You both have focused on significant critical issues of our country,that is why I say:

The people want an immediate commitment to change from any candidate wanting to be elected. Not self-centered party embellishment. It will take Democrats Republicans, Independents and other in a "Centralized Bi-Partisan Coalition to expedite the changes our country is over due for.

Is asking for a Bi-partisan government to expedite the reversal of the country's impediments at a faster pace a realistic beneficial request? 6992

In truth and spirit,
EXCELLENCES