Gourdpainter. I cannot support Obama, but whoever
Posted By: gets in, hope we can unite. I did like your post.n on 2008-11-02
In Reply to: Poll from earlier today - gourdpainter
nm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
- Poll from earlier today - gourdpainter
- poll - I'm one who just said McCain
- Gourdpainter. I cannot support Obama, but whoever - gets in, hope we can unite. I did like your post.n
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Is Obama losing support or winning support?
John Clodfelter of Mechanicsville, Va., whose son was among the 17 sailors killed in the Cole bombing, said he arrived at the meeting with apprehension over the decision to close the prison. But after listening to the president and being assured that the terrorism suspects would not be released, Mr. Clodfelter said his opinion changed.
“I did not vote for the man,” Mr. Clodfelter said, “but the way he talks to you, you can’t help but believe in him. He left me with a very positive feeling that he’s going to get this done right.”
Gourdpainter, I agree with you. So do most people since Obama is ahead of McCain.
McCain doesn't have any solutions except trying to get Palin to tear down Obama with her big mouth.
No, gourdpainter...it's gonna be Obama ruling....make no mistake....
Obama and the democratic congress.
I think it's highly doubtful Hillary will pass muster to be SOS, since Bill has too many shady dealings with China and the Saudis, and who knows who else he has taken/is taking money from, and selling our national secrets to (or did, in the case of China with our military secrets).
As for Bush, don't know how you get him thrown in the equation, unless someone named Bush has been appointed....I'm working too much to pay close attention...
But, as I said, make no mistake. No matter who Obama appoints, it's gonna be him and his socialist/marxist agenda....Obama and his far left agenda to the max.....
I'm hiding for the next four years......
I Support Obama
I'm for Obama in my words and deeds. I'm 58 years old and this is the first time that I've actively participated in a campaign. I always vote in presidential elections, but in the past it has been for the most part a perfunctory action. This campaign though, I feel that I'm an important cog in the wheel that can turn our nation in a better, more fair, more uplifting direction. This is the first time I have ever donated my hard earned money to a campaign. I have been sending $25 a month to the Obama campaign since January. It's not much, but I find it empowering to know that by combining my little bit with thousands of other like-minded individuals' "little bits" to support a candidate who cares about those of us who are not rich and priviledged, we might be able to get our concerns addressed in the halls of power.
Yes, I know that the president does not run this country by himself, but I am hopeful that an intelligent man of integrity such as Senator Obama will be able to figure out how to persuade those in power to work with him in our interest.
I have read both of Senator Obama's books and I am convinced of his honesty, integrity and intelligence. I have read the information available on his website http://www.barackobama.com. I am especially impressed with his common sense ideas about simplifying and making our income tax system more equitable.
Also, his ideas for making insurance coverage affordable for all Americans makes a lot of sense to me.
I am convinced that the only voters who do not support Obama must be the ones who have not taken the time to get to know this amazing man.
I used to support Obama
Then the light popped on...duh, duh! I don't know who all these people are that do all these polls on the news every day, but I've never taken one of them. Neither have all of my sisters, my mother, my entire family! We're all MCCAIN SUPPORTERS! There are those of us out here who haven't been accounted for, so don't be so quick to give Obama his win. MCCAIN IS A PATRIOT! He is a true American...to the core! He will defend this country and stand up for it. Obama's making candy promises to lure in his voters. You're all in for a bit let-down if he does win. All my prayers are going out to Senator McCain these last few days. God's word - "The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." KEEP PRAYING FOR MCCCAIN!
Why is it just because we don't support Obama
we are all of a sudden pubs?
I guess I was a little misleading in my "we" statements. Sorry.
But on another note, I don't consider myself a pub. I guess I would be independent. Heck this was the first year I could even vote in a presidential election. I really didn't care much for Bush. I actually liked Clinton a little (until Monica). I think Hillary only stayed with Bill for the sake of running for president.
If a central, Christian, black woman ran from the democrats who didn't just pander to what the lefts want, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat! I don't care that he's black, white, or polka dotted! He is to liberal, and I think his agenda is to further what DEMOCRATS want, not what AMERICANS want. When he shows me he can reach across the aisle and start working with ALL sides, then I will start to trust him.
So far, not good.
We have four years to right the wrongs in our party. He has about two months to build a team of advisors. I suggest he chooses very wisely if he hopes to garner the support of us "bible thumping conservatives".
And I pray to God that he rethinks the FOCA. I know abortion won't be abolished completely, but it should at least be up to the individual state!
To Dog Owners Who Support Obama...
To Dog Owners Who Support Obama
Is Your Freedom To Own Dogs The Most Important Issue?
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
The 2008 presidential election has become emotionally charged for dog owners, resulting in a virtual brick wall that divides supporters of Democrat Barack Obama from those of Republican John McCain. The two candidates present a stark contrast in both style and substance.
As the campaign draws to a close, neither side seems willing to listen to the other.
We are asking Obama supporters to hear us out, but want to be up front from the beginning. The American Sporting Dog Alliance is opposed to Obama's candidacy because of his close relationship with the Humane Society of the United States and his political alliances with several key animal rights movement supporters in Congress. We also think he has been dishonest about
his views regarding hunting and firearms, and these are issues of major importance to many of our members.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance sees this election as a watershed for animal owners. We think that its outcome will determine the future of the private ownership of animals in America.
We are convinced that animal ownership is doomed if Obama becomes our next president.
Some people may ask if this is really important in comparison with the candidates' views on foreign policy, the economy and social issues. The truth is that animal issues have played no role in this election for mainstream voters, because the news media, political pundits and politicians
have not identified them as important.
But they are important to us.
We also believe that these issues should be important to everyone, because the way Obama would implement the animal rights agenda is a perfect microcosm of his views on the future of America. Those views accurately predict Obama's approach to foreign policy, the economy and social issues.
Throughout American history, animal ownership has been regarded as a personal choice. Each individual has had the freedom to own animals or not, to eat them or not, to enjoy them or not, and to hunt or not to hunt.
It has been freedom based on the idea of "live and let live." You do your thing, and I'll do mine.
The principle was to create a society that is based on the maximum possible amount of freedom for each American to live the way that he or she chooses.
America was founded on the simple yet radical principle that the purpose of human life was to be happy. The Declaration of Independence used the words "pursuit of happiness" as a vital aspect of freedom. What makes a person happy was seen as each person's private choice. Government was seen to exist only as a way to ensure the greatest opportunity to make and pursue personal choices.
"Happiness" was not mentioned specifically in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, because it was seen as a given. Those documents attempted to create a government that provided the greatest possible opportunity to pursue choices in one's life, and to protect Americans from both foreign and domestic threats to our freedom to make personal choices and live our lives accordingly.
All of the complex protections of due process, voting rights, civil rights, checks and balances on political power, and redress to the courts boil down to exactly that: Protecting our freedom to make and live by personal choices.
Our relationship with animals is one of the choices each of us has had the freedom to make and live by. It was part of our American identity, and still is for most of us.
It was all about the freedom of the individual.
In the Twentieth Century, however, a new philosophy swept over much of the planet: Collectivism. It boils down to a belief that "social good" is more important than the individual. It defines benefit to society as a higher value than benefit to the individual.
It was a philosophy of sacrifice, maintaining that each person should be willing to sacrifice him or herself to "the greater good," which was defined by the collective. In real life, the collective usually translates into government and those who have the power to influence it.
This philosophy was at the heart of Marxist/Leninist thought, and it also was the underpinning of Nazi ideology. In both cases, the collective - that is, government - became the sole arbiter of how people must live. Government existed under the pretext that its job was to define and promote the common good. This was seen as the highest value - not freedom!
Collectivism actually is a very old idea that reached its greatest influence during the Medieval Period of European history, when the concept of individual freedom was viewed as heretical. During the Dark Ages, the purpose of human life was to serve and glorify the monarchy and the church. A belief in basic human rights and individualism often led to being burned at the stake.
In light of this historical background, the American emphasis on personal freedom was truly revolutionary. It's core belief is that the job of government is to protect freedom so that people could live the way they choose. Many people mistakenly believe that this was meant only to protect people from religious and political oppression.
In fact, it was meant to protect the individual from any kind of oppression that threatens the individual pursuit of happiness and fulfillment. The right to own and enjoy property was a major issue for the founding fathers, as this is basic to the freedom to pursue happiness.
Obama represents the modern reincarnation of collectivist thought, and his views and alliances on animal rights issues illustrate this clearly.
The endorsement of Obama's candidacy by the radical Humane Society of the United States should send up a hailstorm of red flags for anyone who values individual freedom. The HSUS ideology embraces collectivism in its purest form.
Without exception, every political position advocated by HSUS boils down to a belief that individuals have an obligation to society to sacrifice individual freedom in order to achieve the "common good" - as defined by HSUS. Every HSUS position tells animal owners that they must sacrifice their own freedom in order to pay for the sins of a few people who treat animals
callously.
For example, everyone knows that there are a few bad "puppy mills" in America that should not be allowed to exist. All of us would agree with that statement, including owners of commercial breeding kennels.
But HSUS argues that these few bad kennels make every breeder of dogs suspect, and that this requires "Big Brother" to look over his or her shoulder in order to protect dogs from exploitation. It is like saying that we shouldn't enjoy our supper because people are starving in Ethiopia, or that all parents should be licensed and inspected because a few of them abuse their children.
The fallacy of this argument is easy to see. All of its premises are utterly illogical.
It assumes that government is somehow morally superior to individuals, and that government can be trusted more than people. Read any history book for an hour and the flaws of this argument become apparent. Throughout history, government has been the greatest oppressor of people, animals and the Earth itself - by far! I doubt if AL Capone harmed as many people as the average corrupt restaurant inspector in Chicago.
It assumes that the answer to bad government is more government. HSUS and Obama believe that current laws are not being enforced. Their answer is to create new laws, which is a laughable example of intellectual absurdity. The answer to bad government is to make it work better, not to create new laws and bureaucracies whose only purpose is to burden and oppress good people.
It assumes that exploitation of animals is the norm, rather than the rare exception. Anyone who raises dogs knows that this is absurd. The lives of dogs have never been better at any time in human history. They are beloved members of millions of American families, most breeders dedicate their entire lives to their animals, and thousands of dedicated rescue people save
the lives of millions of dogs that are doomed to suffering and death in government-run animal shelters.
Would you want the fate of your dog to rest in the hands of any government-run animal shelter in America?
And yet, HSUS and Obama see government as the answer.
Obama's well-documented belief that government is the answer to America's problems is at the heart of our objection to his candidacy.
For example, every improvement in the lives of dogs in America is solely because individual people have made personal and ethical choices that benefit their animals.
No improvement of any kind can be attributed to the actions of government.
Each political victory by HSUS and its allies in government has resulted in terrible suffering for animals. For example, the HSUS-backed ban on domestic horse slaughter has led to tens of thousands of horses being trucked to Mexico, where they are slaughtered under the most inhumane conditions imaginable. Every mandatory spay/neuter ordinance has led to the terrible
deaths of thousands of abandoned pets at the hands of government-run animal control programs.
Compassion for animals is one of the highest human virtues. It happens only through the dedication of individuals. Compassion and government are mutually exclusive concepts.
The HSUS endorsement of Obama is but the tip of the iceberg.
Consider that his primary political mentor, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, has been the major proponent of anti-dog-owner animal rights legislation in Congress. Durbin is the sponsor of the current "PUPS" legislation that would extend the heavy arm of federal bureaucracy into most kennels in America, and also was the author of the failed amendment to the Pet Animal Welfare
Act that was attached to the 2008 Farm Bill.
Obama's main allies in Congress read like a "Who's Who" of radical animal rights activism: defeated Sen. Rick Santorum (author of the failed PAWS legislation three years ago), Sen. Diane Feinstein, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Sen. Ted Kennedy and several others. Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, consistently gets 100% HSUS ratings.
The Obama ticket is an animal rights dream team.
Please remember, too, that political endorsements and support come with a price tag. We believe that price tag includes:
* Support for federal animal rights legislation to restrict dog ownership and virtually eliminate the breeding of companion animals. A federal spay/neuter mandate is likely, as are prohibitions about using dogs for hunting, herding or in competitive events. These are all parts of the HSUS agenda.
* Support for the camouflaged but very real HSUS agenda of forcing America into becoming a vegetarian society. This would be done by increasing federal regulation of farming, ranching and slaughterhouses with the goal of making meat, milk and eggs too expensive for most people to afford.
* The gradual elimination of hunting, both by outlawing specific kinds of hunting and also by changing policy to eliminate hunting as a tool in wildlife management.
* Naming HSUS-sanctioned people to be the new Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of the Interior, and also filling many administrative and leadership vacancies in both Departments with HSUS-anointed personnel.
* Creating a federal task force to study and recommend legislation on animal issues that is heavily weighted toward HSUS.
* Nominating pro-HSUS judges to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, federal appeals courts and federal district courts. Even if judicial nominees don't have a track record on animal issues, it is likely that most of the nominees will strongly support the concept of federal intervention on
social issues, and strong opposition to the concept of private property and the rights of individuals.
* And, based on Obama's track record as an Illinois state senator and his endorsement by gun control groups this year, many restrictions on the right to own firearms are likely. This also is a major goal of HSUS.
When it comes to political paybacks, to the victor go the spoils.
The HSUS Legislative Fund's Board of Directors has voted unanimously to endorse Obama. This is the first time ever that HSUS has endorsed a candidate for president, and this says a lot about the importance of Obama to HSUS.
This endorsement didn't happen out of the blue. Our review of the HSUS questionnaire submitted by Obama shows clearly that he actively sought the endorsement. He wanted it. He went after it. Obama stated his total acceptance of every HSUS position on dozens of different pieces of animal rights legislation. He did not disagree with any of them.
As dog owners, we cannot ethically support any candidate who is in 100-percent agreement with HSUS.
Here is how the HSUS announcement describes Obama:
" Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a solid supporter of animal protection at both the state and federal levels. As an Illinois state senator, he backed at least a dozen animal protection laws, including those to strengthen the penalties for animal cruelty, to help animal shelters, to promote spaying and neutering, and to ban the slaughter of horses for human consumption. In the U.S. Senate, he has consistently co-sponsored multiple bills to combat animal fighting and horse slaughter, and has supported efforts to increase funding for adequate enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and federal laws to combat animal
fighting and puppy mills.
"In his response to the HSLF questionnaire, he pledged support for nearly every animal protection bill currently pending in Congress, and said he will work with executive agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior to make their policies more humane.."
That statement is a nightmare come true for dog owners, farmers and hunters. It also is a nightmare for any American who believes in the sanctity of individual freedom.
An Obama victory, especially by the wide margin now shown in the polls, would place collectivists in firm control of both houses of Congress and the White House. Obama and HSUS would be able to get almost any law they want.
What all of those laws will mean is that government will not respect your freedom to make and live by your personal choices. You will be required to sacrifice your life to the collectivist ideal of "total animal liberation."
That means the elimination of almost all breeding of dogs. That means tight restrictions on the ownership of dogs. That means laws making it impossible to raise food animals, or for most people to be able to afford to buy animal products. It means the destruction of hunting and gun ownership.
It will all happen in the name of the "common good," as defined by HSUS and Obama.
The animal rights agenda is a totalitarian philosophy to force you to sacrifice your life to achieve the political goals of HSUS. Obama quite clearly has signed on to that agenda, and his signature is written in your
blood.
Like most totalitarians, HSUS favors only "top down" leadership. For example, they know it is hopeless to try to convince Americans not to eat meat or to raise dogs. They don't even bother to try. Instead, HSUS pushes for laws aimed at making it impossible for Americans to afford to eat meat or raise dogs.
The strategy is to gradually remove meat and dogs from the lives of a large majority of Americans, until the day when those things don't matter any more. At that time, they will be politically able to achieve their long-range goal of the complete elimination of animal ownership in America.
Obama is a key part of that strategy, because of his willingness to support "do-gooder" animal rights legislation, even though very few Americans are asking for those laws. The animal rights movement is not a popular uprising of political sentiment. Instead, it is an elitist movement that reflects the view of only a small but politically well connected percentage of the population.
Through his support of HSUS, Obama has shown clearly that he is an elitist who is willing to impose the extreme views of a small minority on America to achieve a collectivist goal. If he will do it about dogs, he will do it about any social or political issue.
Freedom is his enemy. Personal choice is his enemy.
Collectivism is all about using governmental power to force people to conform.
In that light, we are especially concerned with the power Obama will have to nominate Supreme Court justices, and other federal appeals court and district judges.
The constitutional system of checks and balances sees the courts as the citizens' final avenue of redress when their rights are infringed upon by the legislative and executive branches of government. The courts are meant to be a check of that power.
For dog owners, the courts are our last line of defense against bad laws that take away our rights to own and enjoy animals.
Obama will nominate the kind of judges who will be inclined to limit individual liberty in order to achieve collectivist social goals. They will believe that individuals must sacrifice personal freedom in order to create someone else's idea of a better world. They will see the right to own and enjoy personal property as something evil.
This year's Supreme Court case about firearms rights illustrates this viewpoint. In this case, gun control advocates tried to claim that individual rights do not exist. Instead, they attempted to say that there are only "collective rights" of the American people as a whole - as they define them.
This was the actual argument used by Obama's allies to try to say that the Second Amendment does not apply to you and me, but only to an undefined "us."
Obama has claimed that he is not opposed to firearms ownership and hunting. We believe he is not telling the truth, and is really saying that he is not opposed to his definition of acceptable firearms ownership and hunting.
His track record as an Illinois state senator shows this clearly, and we are indebted to Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson for making this important information available to the voters. He was the ISRA's chief lobbyist during the years when Obama was a state senator in Illinois.
Here are excerpts from Pearson's account of Obama:
"I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than does Barack Obama."
"Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forcibly confiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut down law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month."
"Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home and family."
"Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a "friend" of the law-abiding gun owner?"
"And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the company they keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger - a renegade Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shop owners and pro-gun legislators. Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago who has declared that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed to own a gun. And let's not forget Obama's pal George Soros - the guy who has pumped millions of dollars into the UN's international effort to disarm law-abiding citizens."
"Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people's money to fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a board member of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center."
Firearms issues are important to many of our members, and probably half of them are hunters. We also recognize that many dog owners do not own guns or want to own them.
However, we believe Second Amendment issues are important to all Americans. If a politician is willing to destroy even one of our freedoms, then none of them are safe. To compromise one part of the Bill of Rights is to endanger all of them.
Firearms issues also are important in understanding the collectivist mindset. Because an infinitesimally small percentage of firearms owners are criminals, collectivists believe that the other 99.99-percent should sacrifice themselves for the "common good."
The call to sacrifice extends even unto freedom itself.
We cannot support any political candidate who has demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice any of our basic American rights. Obama has shown that willingness and, we believe, fully embraces collectivist calls for the sacrifice of the rights of innocent individuals in order to achieve his
social goals.
It is a mindset that would willingly destroy the lives and livelihoods of millions of American farmers, dog professionals, hunters, dog owners, hobbyists and the tens of thousands of people whose jobs depend on them, in order to impose Obama's vision of a "New World Order" on America.
We believe Obama would destroy those people without batting an eyelash. He would see himself as the righteous defender of animals, but doesn't want to see the truth.
The people who own animals are the people who defend and protect them.
Animal rights groups like HSUS want to destroy them: as gently and gradually as practical, perhaps, but destroy them nonetheless.
Please do not vote for Barrack Obama.
For your dogs' sake. For your sake. For everyone's sake.
Just say no to Obama.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We welcome people who work with other breeds, too, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by the donations of our members, and maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our email is
ASDA@.... Complete directions to join by mail or online are found at the bottom left of each page.
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
Have You Joined Yet?
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
GOP Governors Support Obama
By Jackie Calmes ![](http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/Art/nyt_logo_140x252.gif")
updated 2:43 a.m. ET, Tues., Feb. 17, 2009
WASHINGTON - President Obama must wish governors could vote in Congress: While just three of the 219 Republican lawmakers backed the $787 billion economic recovery plan that he is signing into law on Tuesday, that trifling total would have been several times greater if support among the 22 Republican state executives counted.
The contrast reflects the two faces of the Republican Party these days.
Leaderless after losing the White House, the party is mostly defined by its Congressional wing, which flaunted its anti-spending ideology in opposing the stimulus package. That militancy drew the mockery of late-night television comics, but the praise of conservative talk-show stars and the party faithful.
In the states, meanwhile, many Republican governors are practicing a pragmatic — their Congressional counterparts would say less-principled — conservatism.
Governors, unlike members of Congress, have to balance their budgets each year. And that requires compromise with state legislators, including Democrats, as well as more openness to the occasional state tax increase and to deficit-spending from Washington.
Across the country, from California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger to Florida’s Charlie Crist and New England’s Jim Douglas in Vermont and M. Jodi Rell in Connecticut, Republican governors showed in the stimulus debate that they could be allies with Mr. Obama even as Congressional Republicans spurned him.
“It really is a matter of perspective,” Mr. Crist said in an interview. “As a governor, the pragmatism that you have to exercise because of the constitutional obligation to balance your budget is a very compelling pull” generally.
With Florida facing a projected $5 billion shortfall in a $66 billion budget, and social costs rising, the stimulus package “helps plug that hole,” Mr. Crist said, “but it also helps us meet the needs of the people in a very difficult economic time.”
Click for related content |
Mr. Obama’s two-year stimulus package includes more than $135 billion for states, to help them pay for education, Medicaid and infrastructure projects. Yet even that sum would cover less than half of the total budget deficits the states will face through 2010, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research and advocacy organization.
The states’ reliance on the federal government in times of distress will be showcased this weekend, when the governors come to Washington for their annual winter meeting. Their focus will be on infrastructure needs and home foreclosures.
GOP Governors Support Obama
By Jackie Calmes
updated 2:43 a.m. ET, Tues., Feb. 17, 2009
WASHINGTON - President Obama must wish governors could vote in Congress: While just three of the 219 Republican lawmakers backed the $787 billion economic recovery plan that he is signing into law on Tuesday, that trifling total would have been several times greater if support among the 22 Republican state executives counted.
The contrast reflects the two faces of the Republican Party these days.
Leaderless after losing the White House, the party is mostly defined by its Congressional wing, which flaunted its anti-spending ideology in opposing the stimulus package. That militancy drew the mockery of late-night television comics, but the praise of conservative talk-show stars and the party faithful.
In the states, meanwhile, many Republican governors are practicing a pragmatic — their Congressional counterparts would say less-principled — conservatism.
Governors, unlike members of Congress, have to balance their budgets each year. And that requires compromise with state legislators, including Democrats, as well as more openness to the occasional state tax increase and to deficit-spending from Washington.
Across the country, from California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger to Florida’s Charlie Crist and New England’s Jim Douglas in Vermont and M. Jodi Rell in Connecticut, Republican governors showed in the stimulus debate that they could be allies with Mr. Obama even as Congressional Republicans spurned him.
“It really is a matter of perspective,” Mr. Crist said in an interview. “As a governor, the pragmatism that you have to exercise because of the constitutional obligation to balance your budget is a very compelling pull” generally.
With Florida facing a projected $5 billion shortfall in a $66 billion budget, and social costs rising, the stimulus package “helps plug that hole,” Mr. Crist said, “but it also helps us meet the needs of the people in a very difficult economic time.”
Click for related content |
Mr. Obama’s two-year stimulus package includes more than $135 billion for states, to help them pay for education, Medicaid and infrastructure projects. Yet even that sum would cover less than half of the total budget deficits the states will face through 2010, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research and advocacy organization.
The states’ reliance on the federal government in times of distress will be showcased this weekend, when the governors come to Washington for their annual winter meeting. Their focus will be on infrastructure needs and home foreclosures.
Try to follow this logic. I support Obama. Therefore,
his platform and every single speech he ever gave, was and never will be MY issue. It is yours. MY issue is with the hypocrisy of Joe the unlicensed, the way he misrepresented his intentions to buy the business (seems to have completely forgotten that by now), misrepresented his income, the income of the business in question and the innocent bystander routine that you so strongly defend. Contrary to popular belief, it seems, ignorance IS NOT BLISS here. His cover was blown and you can't stop crying foul because the underlying agenda is out in the open.
Beyond that, McCain has lifted up JTP and is using him to further misrepresent his alleged concern for the middle class (a phrase which he has yet to utter in any speech) which is clearly the case, given his 24-year record of voting and his 90% undying devotion to the "commonly shared philosophy" with the shrub.
We who support Obama have grown weary of
.
I have no doubt Obama has support...it will be a close election.
"you are one, we are many." Good lord. LOL.
Obama leads in military donations and support over McSame! sm
http://www.knbc.com/politics/17191067/detail.html
I have lots of Christian friends who are democrats and support Obama. nm
x
O's votes support his claims. JM's votes support Bush.
Believe what you like. Voting records tell the tale. Could use a few more details on that budget. Just what programs will he slash and and how many tax dollars will be directed away from middle class and in the direction of the rich? How much longer can the infrastructure afford to crumble?
JM adopted O's withdrawal plan when he saw how well it went over with the public in an election year. He flipped on the war once. What's to stop him from flipping again once elected? The nation is war weary. Some prefer a surge in diplomacy, not military answers to diplomatic failures. Ask the Iraqis who have lost more than 100,000 among them how sucessful the war has been. Obama has always understood that the OBL/Taliban live in Afganistan, not Iraq. JM, a little slow on the draw there.
I see nothing in JMs platform that backs his claims about transparency. I see specific plan on the O side under technology initiatives, continued initiatives which originated under Clinton and were reversed during the undercover Bush administration. Pork barrel spending for pubs means something different than it does to dems. Slash the poor to give to the rich? Hard seel in the current economic frefall. Also find nothing in JM's plan to address runaway contract corruption in Iraq. Having Halliburton and companies there props up those struggling American corporations. Show me the plan.
Antiglobal/antidiplomacy. No surprise there. This is about the futureworld, not American imperial delusions of grandeur. So much data on the drilling scam being an immediate relief for gas problems out there it is not worth addressing. Can you say T-Bone Pickens, i.e., we can't drill our way out of this one. He should know. Been an oil man all his life.
Since these are just a few, what else do you have up your sleeve?
gourdpainter...
We just finished a study of Revelation at our church. In the part you were talking about, "one man rising to lead them" it also says he will be diverse from the rest. He will be well liked, and many people will come to believe he is a "messiah".
Read this site just for face value, and just tell me if it doesn't make you cringe, just a bit.
http://www.theprophecies.com/antichrist.html
I pray that we do get our hiney's raptured right out of here before everything really goes down.
Oh please, gourdpainter.
Are you insinuating that Christianity is the only religion that believes in basic human values? Do you really think that anyone who is not a Christian automatically condones raping, killing, stealing, lying, or anything like it? We all have rights in this country, even minorities!
So okay, put it under gourdpainter
I'll stand by what I say. LOL
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Gourdpainter!
This man and the running mate he has chosen (which I bet now he is regretting) scare me to death. I have never in my life witnessed so much lying, hypocrisy and lack of integrity that these two people have have shown. Anyone watching his face as he speaks would have to see the glaringly clear dishonesty of this man!
Gourdpainter, why do you believe that?
I am just wondering why you feel so sure that McCain is going to win...
I don't know, gourdpainter.............sm
why Wright is not being talked about in the political circles. My initial thought is the difference between him and Ayers or the others is that he calls himself a preacher/reverend. While I definitely agree with you as far as Wright's political statements from the pulpit, maybe it is that McCain and Palin have not jumped on him because they were made from a pulpit and they view that as "protected" in some way??? In other words, they as politicians are not supposed to bring God into politics, so maybe this is an off limits kind of subject.
I notice you keep stating that you don't want Palin as president. GP, she is not running for president; McCain is. And while the chance exists that he could die in office (not necessarily of evil intentions but rather due to age) and Palin could step into the presidency, I would rather have her there than Obama/Biden any day. I can assure you that Obama will be the final ruination of this country if he is elected.
I'm sorry you can't sleep at night. Maybe you need to rethink your vote and vote for McCain. I've noticed others on this board who have said they can sleep at night now knowing that they are voting for McCain. ;o)
Gourdpainter
Sorry I didn't answer! It was farrier day at my moms so I've been gone all afternoon.
I respect your opinion, and I understand where you are coming from. Honestly at this point all we can do is pray. There is just to much stuff I've seen of O that rubs me the wrong way. I just believe voting for Mccain is the lesser of two evils. Yes, it may be the same. But I'd rather endure 4 more years of the same and pray during those four years for a godly candidate to come about than to risk voting for someone who we really do not know about. That's just a big issue I have. We really still do not know who Obama is. We know who he is portrayed as, but there has not been enough time for us to know who he truly is and what he truly believes in.
This is my other big worry...if, God forbid, Obama gets assassinated, and Biden dies or whatever (his health isn't much better than Mccain's I'm pretty sure) then we have Pelosi. THAT is frightening. I would take Palin over Pelosi any day. And Biden could possibly misspeak his way right into a nuclear war. Of course I know your view on Palin so we won't go there... :)
Your right, Mccain is not a godly candidate. If the reason he left his wife is true, it's despicable. But you know what, he's apologized. And I'm sure he has asked forgiveness. We all do things we are not proud of. Obama lies until he is backed into a corner (such as Rev Wright) and then when he finally can't back up anymore he then says "oh I condemn what he said." Not good enough to me. I don't care what the man says, he did not sit in that church for almost 500 Sundays and never once hear Wright preach hate. Straight up, he lied. He has been saturated with this hate. Yes, I believe he will bring change. While we don't know if he is a terrorist, I firmly believe he is anti-American. I believe he wants to bring about a "New America". While we have things wrong with this country, we are still a great country when you get down to the nitty gritty and I don't think every facet of American life needs to be changed. I think that is what he believes. He has his head in the clouds. Just look at how he is now saying "ohh don't get too excited". Why did he promise all that at the beginning? To get the votes. To get people to decide on him, because you know the majority of people aren't going to change their minds now.
He's promising you more days off from school and more vending machines in the halls knowing he can't give them to you. He has people following him now like lemmings on a cliff.
Also, I feel like there are a lot of big red flags coming up from the Bible. I feel like we are going to be face to face with Jesus and he's going to say "I TRIED TO WARN YOU!"
I understand what you mean though, about God not telling you. Sometimes I wish he would just make me a neon sign :). Just make sure you sit still and listen, because if you're like me sometimes he may be shouting at you and you just can't hear him.
I encourage you to definitely take some time to yourself and just sit and talk with Him, and see what he puts on your heart.
I understand the appeal of Obama, I really do. As a 22-year-old college student, I feel like one of a few of my age group that isn't voting for him. I really liked him at first, but the more and more I read about his association with Wright, his view of the "typical white woman", his view on abortion, etc., I just feel like he is not the man who is going to lead our country back to God, and ultimately, that is what we need. Like I said, Mccain probably won't either, but I fear with Obama there may not be a chance to elect another Christian president. I fear that he will go as far as to quiet our preachers and to limit what we can say as Christians. If he doesn't personally, the democratic congress will, and I don't believe he will say no to them. That's one thing I like about Mccain, you know he will say no if need be. I just think Obama owes to many people. He didn't make it up the ladder this quick without a lot of help.
Well, it's back to work for me. Take it easy!
I think gourdpainter has.
.
i, gourdpainter...
I asked this question already a while back and nobody answered it.
So I guess, it must have something do to with the 'uterus', perhaps?
LOL !
Another invention of the Republicans to proof that they are right?
Thank you, gourdpainter.
/
Oh, gourdpainter....sm
I know for a fact, that you yourself usually possess what my grandpa used to call, "good ol' fashioned horse sense."
It just amazes me that you don't recognize it in someone else.
Your mind is already made up, so I don't think I can explain it to you.
Gourdpainter...........sm
And all the other nay-sayers.
About the post below concerning the audio interview with Obama on the energy issue, did you even listen to the audio that was presented?
Not only did I listen to it, I went to the source web site and listened. Here is the link if you want to check it out further. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=32228
The entire interview was about 48 minutes long. It was Obama answering questions from several journalists on a number of issues. He was first questioned about energy at about 25:15 in the tape. The issue that was brought up in the post below that you called 'Horsefeathers' was discussed at about 40:30. I encourage you go listen for yourself and hear the words from the horse's mouth.
Other issues discussed along with the time markers for each discussion were:
Health care 10:38
Securities Industry 20:00
Iraq 29:18
Environment 39:55
Racial issues 42:24 (And this was a listener/reader question)
Voting system in the caucuses (sp): 46:09
Obama is, without doubt, a very intelligent man and eloquent speaker, but I fear he may be far too intelligent, possibly to the point that he cannot be reigned in if necessary, and that in combination with a Democratic House, Senate and Judiciary branch makes him a very dangerous man.
Wow Gourdpainter
you really opened the floodgates - LOL!
Well, gourdpainter, there is your
it says on this website!!! Believe me, I live further south than Arkansas and I wonder what they had to pay these idiots to do this. No one near where I live averages this stoopid! Big Bad had a lot of time on her hands to come up with this one!
hey gourdpainter -- was this a typo or not?
The ex-wife, scorned "pubically" -- was that what you really meant or did you mean publicly? If so, it's the best typo I've seen all day. If not, I'm still laughing!
Thanks -- I needed one today! 
Sam/Gourdpainter debate s/m
Somewhere down below I posted things I had AGAINST Obama. Sam replied. Now I can't find the thread........typical for this old-timer.
Sam, I noticed a lot of "McCain says" and "McCain calls for" in your reply. I say both candidates "say" and "call for." Let's reason here together. After his 25 years in the Congress do you think McCain doesn't have cronies in Congress and on Wall Street? Do you think he isn't indebted to monied people in Arizona? Likewise, Obama, do you think he doesn't have cronies in Congress and Wall Street AND in Chicago? Well...news flash. Sure he does. Do you REALLY think either candidate, regardless of what they "call for" in pre-election propaganda are really going to do anything to benefit the common working class Americans? I certainly do not.
I just finished reading the Wall Street report this morning and you know what I think? I think everyone had better get out their Bible and have a read of Revelations whether they want to honor it as God's Word or just history. It's all there as well as the end result. Yep, I think we had all better turn to God. He said if we would turn to Him he would deliver us and I believe HE is our only hope. Otherwise, what I see is China forclosing on our huge national debt and then skip the socialism, we'll go directly to communism and we won't pass go and we CERTAINLY won't collect $200. Another good read might be the fall of the Roman Empire.
I can't believe I'm still wasting my time railing about the state of this countries ills. No one will see that it is not DEMOCRATS or REPUBLICANS that are at the root of the problems, it's the AMERICAN people who can't get past party affiliation. No change will come until the American PEOPLE make it come.
gourdpainter, my question is, why is it
liberal, every person who openly denounces God and all moralities are pro Obama? I am not saying McCain is perfect, and I am sure there are Christians voting for Obama. I just cannot understand why so many atheist, nonbelievers, outspoken celebrities want Obama to be elected so desperately.
In all fairness, gourdpainter,
I don't really think Obama is going to come right out and admit that he is friends with Ayers - that would spell disaster for his campaign and plans. I have learned I cannot trust what is fed to me, so I watch all of the stations, including Fox, and I read through tons of information on the internet and make up my own mind instead of letting the media make it up for me.
I will tell you, when this campaign first started, I was so excited to hear what he had to say about the issues and to think he has young kids, etc., etc., but the more I have researched (just facts with proof), I have decided that I cannot vote for this man. He is not who I believe will take America forward. His policies most definitely I don't agree with but I cannot accept a man whose character is questionable.
gourdpainter? You dont think you are just as
nm
Gourdpainter is right about the nonunion
employees getting better benefits when the union employees do. My husband works for the state and although he is not union eligible (middle management), his work class follows the same policy as the union employees. If the union employees get a raise or a benefit change, he gets the same.
My husband, however, is not protected by the union should any situations arise. I call him a "tagalong".
This post should be under gourdpainter.
x
sorry 'bout that GoUrdpainter!!! nm
.
Gourdpainter, what a copout!! lol
You have lectured people to go out and research for themselves when they asked you for links, and because not enough people responded on the board about Wright you think it is unfounded?? Good grief!! Google Jeremiah Wright and then listen to the TON of video on the man. Then watch Obama say "I never heard him say it" and then turn right around and say "well yes I heard controversial things." And when you are done with that, do some studying up on black liberation theology, which the church that he attended for 20 years is based on. The same church that honored Louis Farrakhan...you know...Farrakhan of Nation of Islam? The one who calls Obama the messiah? That should keep you busy for a LONG time. If you are really interested in the truth, do the work yourself, like you invite others to do. Its not like there is not TONS of information out there.
Not like you to cop out like that... :-)
Gourdpainter, on this one I'm totally with you.
x
You're right, gourdpainter............sm
Nor has there been an Asian American president or Mexican American president. I stopped voting by party or any other criteria than a candidate's platform, policies and what I perceived his character to be a long time ago. If a black candidate were running that had the qualifications I personally look for in a president (or any other elected office, for that matter) I would vote for him in a heartbeat. Obama just is not that person, but there may be one in the future as he has broken the ground for a black man to run.
Lobster on the way, gourdpainter!
:)
gourdpainter -- I just don't understand
you say you want reasons why you should vote for McCain instead of Obama. Yet, when anyone gives you that, as pointedly as above, you deny it. If you want to vote for Obama, that's your choice and by all means you should, but don't ask for something only to turn away from it when it's presented to you. Everything that has been presented to you as "verifiable" evidence of the man's connections or political goals, you write off as "propaganda". What more do you want, the man himself to tell you that he is connected to terrorists, that he wants to turn America into a socialist country, that he is Muslim? If that's what you're looking for, you won't find it until it's too late.
To Gourdpainter: I want to personally s/m
thank you for your many insightful posts on this board during this whole election process. Your posts along with sam's posts have very accurately paralleled the glaring differences between these two candidates, yours being ones of depth of knowledge, integrity, tolerance and a true desire for change for the better, whereas, the other one's posts have been largely based on garbage gleaned from questionable websites, blogs and other biased sources that have accomplished nothing other than to incite hatred and intolerance in support of a candidate who has based his whole campaign on filthy lies and evil smear tactics in pathetic attempts to discredit his opponent who has risen above this display of low-down politics.
So, my hat's off to you, Gourdpainter, for setting an exemplary example for all of us to aspire to!! 
Careful gourdpainter -- you may soon
nm
I think I'm a gourdpainter sheeple
Gourdpainter, can I be your best friend?
Just kidding... But I like the way you post. I've found you far more interesting than any others on this board that use monikers. I don't use a moniker because I don't feel the need to, but I also agree to please let this man have some dignity while he mourns his grandmother.
No President will be able to make any changes overnight. The President is only as smart as the people around him.
Obama has stated again and again that it will not be easy but that we all must come together. I have not heard that once from the RNC, but only comments to bash a man because he may have a few beliefs that are different. He has a beautiful family (without all of the skeletons) and he does not plan for Americans to lose jobs but rather to make more jobs here and give tax credits to companies who hire people right here in the USA. He does have 2 daughters that will need an education and to prosper on American soil; does anyone not see that or is it just me?
I know that Gourdpainter will not agree,
but part of the problem is the ridiculously high wages that American manufacturer employees get in contrast to the foreign manufacturers with plants her in the US, which is because of the unions. With higher wages comes higher overhead and higher prices. They cannot sell cars at competitive prices because their employees make too much money. It is unfortunate, but I think that a lower paying job is better than no job at all.
gourdpainter? Did you chase HER away, too?
Sorry, gourdpainter....the Democrats are primarily....
responsible for the present situation. It is all there in black and white. Republicans do share some of the blame for not supporting McCain when he told them what was going to happen...I will give you that. But the CEOs, the ones who robbed Fannie blind...Democrats. Shielded by Democrats in Congress. Now I don't say they knew this was going to happen...but I believe they knew it could...and enriched themselves anyway. I do realize that if they had been Republicans they probably would have done the same thing...but the fact is, they weren't.
And I am not a member of either of the parties. I believe they have both strayed way away from the originals. And John McCain is the only one talking about cleaning up that mess in Washington. And I believe he WILL try. We gotta start somewhere.
I agree, gourdpainter, to a point....
but one thing I DO know...Obama and a majority democrat congress mean socialism. There are no two ways about it. And I DON'T want socialism for America. So I would not vote for Obama, and if I vote for a third party and NOT McCain, that is a vote for Obama. I will NOT be a party to putting that man in the White House. No way, no how.
I am a registered Independent. I have not been a party faithful for several years. But I am concerned enough about Obama and his agenda that I am voting a straight Republican ticket for the FIRST time in my life. THAT is how much I DO NOT want him and his agenda for this country.
I agree with McCain on some things "he says." If he does them, fine. If he doesn't, we still don't get socialism. If McCain just gets elected and the status quo remains, we don't get socialism.
I don't want socialism. I don't know how much more clear I need to be about it.
Thanks gourdpainter...the cut and paste worked. nm
nm
|
