Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Obama also voted not to fund troops in combat....

Posted By: sam on 2008-09-09
In Reply to: Veterans Forgotten - sm

It should be apparent to all of us by now that whatever you can find on one politician you can find on another... :)

http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/454ad652-5f6d-4cb1-808d-d52a8aa6f4ac.htm


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

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

Well surely Obama doesn't fund all sources
a name please of a source you would consider credible.
Obama is calling for keeping troops in Iraq....
for how long he does not say, but that we need MORE in Afghanistan. He does not differ from McCain on that stance. Diplomacy does not work with terrorists (the Taliban were in charge there when bid Laden was parading around in the open after 9-11). Taliban = terrorists. With all due respect...you cannot negotiate with terrorists. Do you remember the horrific images of 9-11? I do. Of the Khobar Towers bombing? I do. The first World Trade Center bombing? I do... the bombing of the marine barracks in beirut? I sure remember those images.
Obama sends more troops to the middle east
Obama sends 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

Obama's campaign speech: "As President of the United States I will start withdrawing troops from the middle east within 60 days of taking office".

Why am I surprised?

Everytime he speaks all I can hear is that Thompson Twin song "Lies"

Lies, lies, lies, yeah
Lies, lies, lies, yeah
Lies, lies, lies, yeah
Obama did say he would send more troops to Afghanistan while he was campaigning - nm
x
Obama on his decision to deploy additional 17,000 troops in Afghanistan..sm
"There is no more solemn duty as President than the decision to deploy our armed forces into harm's way," Obama said. "I do it today mindful that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action."


Obama voted against it, too!
What does that make him?
Why I voted for Obama (sm)

1.  I believe in a woman's right to choose.  I have read the FOCA bill and have based my decision on my interpretation of that bill in accordance with my own opinion.


2.  I believe the war in Iraq is a disaster.  I don't think it does credit to our troops to send them into harm's way for an unjust war.  Obama will end that war and get our military home.  The money we spend in Iraq is also included in that.


3.  I agree with Obama's tax plan.  I have sat down and compared the two, and in my situation, I get a better deal with Obama's plan.  I see no difference in McCain's plan and what is going on right now with Bush.


4.  McCain has shown is lack of leadershiip in the fact that he cannot manage his own campaign.  He ran all around like a chicken with his head cut off when the economic crisis hit.  Said he suspended his campaign and didn't. Obama submitted a plan and went with hit, showing leadership qualities.


5. Negative campaining:  This is something McCain and his wife publicly said he would not do, and yet he seems to be okay with it now.


The list is much longer, but these are a few.


You know, GP, I voted for Obama and like

I said, I never cared for the Bush administration, but give Bush a break.  Enough is enough.


and Obama voted yes for it. (nm)
.
You voted for Obama? NUF SAID! HA!
--
The will of the people voted Obama in
and the will of the people voted down gay marriage. There is no gray area.
Excuse me, but I voted for Obama and

I have never questioned the authenticity of his birth certificate.  I am not a supporter of Bush but he is our President until Obama is sworn in as President.  GP, you jumped to all types of conclusions because I mentioned it was time to stop ranting and raving about Bush.  That does not mean I am a Bush supporter.


Even Obama has made his peace with Bush and he is working with him.  I think it is high-time you allowed for difference of opinions between dems and pubs.  If the pubs want to question Obama's birth certificate athenticity, then so be it.


yes, and many people who voted for Obama can think for themselves too

Obama inherited what he voted for! nm

Not right, as far as I can remember 59% voted for Obama...nm
nm
Obama and Biden voted for the bridge to nowhere....twice....

Hmmm....after all that castigating of Bush for Katrina...Obama and Biden had chance to shift funds for the Bridge to Nowhere to Katrina relief...and voted AGAINST it in favor of the bridge.


Now that Alaska is front and center in the news again, it is a good time to catch up on a favorite story, The Bridge to Nowhere, using the Washington Post US Congress Votes Database.


Though Gov. Palin originally supported the earmark spending on the Ketchikan bridge (“to nowhere), she eventually killed the project, choosing to spend Federal money on other infrasturcture programs.


However, Sen. Biden and Sen. Obama voted for funding the Bridge, even when given a second chance by Sen. Tom Coburn (R), who proposed shifting earmark funds to Katrina relief.


Sen. McCain did not vote on the Coburn Amendment, though he is on record as opposing the Ketchikan bridge earmark.


Link to votes record below.


http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/1/votes/262/


 


Obama voted to extend the Patriot Act...
just so you know. After he said he would work to repeal it. There's some honesty for ya. Frankly, I don't think throwing your pastor and mentor of 20 years under the bus for your political career is particularly moral either. But that is just me.
If Obama plan is socialism then it was just voted in.
Got it?
CRAP! I blame all the ones who voted for Obama,
Geesh.  THANKS A LOT.  You wanted change, BOY ARE YOU GOING TO GET IT.  He is not even President yet, and already a Marxist.  Go ahead, bow on your knees to Obama, I want my United States back again.  It may have not been perfect and Bush tried along with Clinton, Senior Bush, Regan, Carter, and all the other presidents, but YOU CAN HAVE YOUR HITLER, MARXIST GOVERNMENT.  I blame you all who voted for the Marxist, Hitler style government. 
McCain's legal adviser has already voted for Obama.
Yet another high-profile Republican has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama — and this time, it’s one of Sen. John McCain’s own advisers.

Charles Fried, a conservative legal scholar, Harvard professor and former solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan, has asked to be removed from McCain’s list of advisers and thrown his support behind the Democratic presidential nominee.

http://washingtonindependent.com/14860/mccain-adviser-endorses-obama
Nobody cares who you voted for, you bash Obama now and that is not patriotic
nm
My DH and I, both middle-aged and white, voted for Obama because
we loved his intelligence and his views.  Plain and simple.  Blackness had nothing to do with our decision to vote Obama.  May be hard for you to believe, I understand.  Anyone who was against the Iraq war showed thoughtfulness, wisdom, and courage to buck his own party, number one in my book, and millions of others thought the same way.  Too bad your coffee is laced with poison, and you HAD better HOPE he gets the country turned around for your own sake. 
Her point is that Obama voted repeatedly against tax breaks for the middle class and suddenly he'

the middle class person's best friend!  Funny how now he wants to help us, when each time he had the opportunity to, he voted against it. 


Dems voted for it, Biden voted for it....
Bill Clinton signed it into law. Plenty of blame to go around. McCain asked for regulation of Fannie/Freddie in 2005. Dems blocked it. The Dem record is slightly worse in the regulation/deregulation arena.

But...plenty of blame to go around.
Iraq war fund

Iraq War Funding Imminent, Timeline Absent



After months of ranting and raving, congressional Democrats have backed down and approved funding for the war in Iraq without a troop withdrawal provision.



2nd Democratic lawmakers and staffers privately say they’re closing in on a broad budget deal that would give President Bush as much as $70 billion in new war funding.


The deal would lack a key provision Democrats had attached to previous funding bills calling for most U.S. troops to come home from Iraq by the end of 2008, which would be a significant legislative victory for Bush.


Democrats admit such a move would be highly controversial within their own party. Coming just weeks after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, vowed the White House would not get another dollar in war money this year, it would further antagonize the liberal base of the party, which has become frustrated with the congressional leadership’s failure to push back on Bush’s Iraq policy.


“The base will not be happy,” said one senior Democratic aide, who requested anonymity to candidly discuss budget negotiations that have not been completed.


The Democratic aide acknowledged the president is likely to get new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before Congress adjourns for the year. “Yes, in the end, that’s where we will be,” the aide said.


The bizarre thing is that everybody knew that months ago. Of course the president was going to “win” on this issue. No Congress is going to pull funds from an army currently in harm’s way. That Pelosi and company allowed this to be framed as a partisan issue was amazingly incompetent.




Why not? Pacifists have to fund
Get a grip.
Taxpayers do not fund PBS
You obviously do not watch PBS. It is solely viewer funded and publicly owned. (Although lately I HAVE seen paid commercials on there)

I'm beginning to see the reason some of the posters here sound so ignorant.
If the cigarette tax would completely fund...
the 6 billion in revenue expanding this program is going to cost,that would be one thing. It won't. You say you wouldn't mind "having your taxes raised a little." Isn't 35-40% off the top of your gross now enough? I think it is. I think they need to proritize the spending, that is all I am saying. It seems the consensus here is that health insurance for children is the most important. Then that program should be funded first. Then decide what is the next most important issue, and fund that, and on down the line. We cannot keep adding programs, adding taxes, adding programs, adding taxes. At some point it has to stop, or those paying the taxes are going to need help from a program to eat while they are working for taxes for programs. And as more and more people opt for programs and not working and paying into the system...the situation will only get worse. You do realize that realistically this cannot continue forever....right?
401K/retirement fund

You can't "take" your pension and 401K out of the stock market if you are not retirement age.  We are stuck with whatever the companies we work for invest in. my husband and I have some choices about where we invest our 401K but they all involve mutual funds, stocks, bonds, etc.


 


Borrowing from the fund is not the only problem --
I don't want to start an argument, but part of the problem is people like my grandmother (God bless her). She drew social security benefits off my grandfather for at over 20 years. She had never paid a penny into social security. Before that, he had drawn for at least 15 years. I know that he only paid in for very few years before he started drawing. So, just the two of them drew out many more thousands of dollars than they paid in.

Now think of all the people who never paid in and are drawing and the people who paid in very little and are drawing. Then think of how many more people are drawing than are paying in right now.

The funds are just not there for people to draw all their lives. I mean get real, when it was set up, people did not live as long, they did not pay in very much at all (in fact, my grandfather regularly paid in 10 cents a week before retirement), it just does not balance out. Now with the baby boomers getting ready to draw, we are really in trouble because the days of having 6-10 kids that would be contributing are over. Most of us only have 2 or less... Do you think we will ever get back the money we have contributed? No way!!!

That's why even though I feel bad for people having to go without a raise for a couple of years, I am not going to really get too upset because at least they are benefitting somewhat - My money is just lost!

Some things to think about....
RNC fund-raising letter

Michael Steele, Chairman


Republican National Committee


310 First Street, Southeast


Washington, DC 20003


 


Mr. Steele,


 


In response to your urgent ''roll call'' of Americans... (and solicitation of a donation) I can assure you that I certainly am fed up with the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.  But I must inform you that I am equally fed up with the Republican party as well.  What’s more, I feel great sense of betrayal because I expect Democrats to act exactly as they have, but not Republicans.


 


TARP and other bailouts were not a good idea just because they were begun by Bush.  The further bailouts, stimulus, deficit increase, nationalization of American business, universal healthcare and other travesties against capitalism are not bad ideas simply because Obama owns them.  These are wrong, no matter who is in charge.  Bush threw the ball, Obama knocked it over the fence.  Way to go.


 


Only in Washington, DC does it make sense to say, ''I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.''   What makes our free market possible is the freedom of  losers to fail and winners to succeed.  No one and nothing is too big to fail. It’s how we weed out bad ideas.  You might remember this next time you are tempted to run a RINO for president.


 


The Republican party allowed Obama to be elected by fielding such a poor presidential candidate.  McCain:  Heck of a guy, admirable character, but not a true Republican.  By the time I voted in my state Ohio primary, any other appealing Republican candidate had dropped out.  In November I was forced simply to vote the NObama ticket.  I did not want a candidate who would ''reach across the aisle.''  I wanted a conservative Republican candidate.  Had it not been for Sarah Palin, I might as well have stayed home. 


 


I will not be attending the Republican ''listening tour.''  Listen to this:  The dismantling of the American way of life is on Republican as well as Democrat heads.  I now consider myself an Independent.  In 2012, if the Republican party manages to run a strong conservative candidate I will vote for that candidate. If the party persists in ''moving to the center'' and watering down its traditionally conservative principles, it will find itself in this identical situation.


 


Thanks for asking,  I feel much better now.


RNC fund-raising letter

Michael Steele, Chairman


Republican National Committee


310 First Street, Southeast


Washington, DC 20003


 


Mr. Steele,


 


In response to your urgent ''roll call'' of Americans... (and solicitation of a donation) I can assure you that I certainly am fed up with the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.  But I must inform you that I am equally fed up with the Republican party as well.  What’s more, I feel great sense of betrayal because I expect Democrats to act exactly as they have, but not Republicans.


 


TARP and other bailouts were not a good idea just because they were begun by Bush.  The further bailouts, stimulus, deficit increase, nationalization of American business, universal healthcare and other travesties against capitalism are not bad ideas simply because Obama owns them.  These are wrong, no matter who is in charge.  Bush threw the ball, Obama knocked it over the fence.  Way to go.


 


Only in Washington, DC does it make sense to say, ''I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.''   What makes our free market possible is the freedom of  losers to fail and winners to succeed.  No one and nothing is too big to fail. It’s how we weed out bad ideas.  You might remember this next time you are tempted to run a RINO for president.


 


The Republican party allowed Obama to be elected by fielding such a poor presidential candidate.  McCain:  Heck of a guy, admirable character, but not a true Republican.  By the time I voted in my state Ohio primary, any other appealing Republican candidate had dropped out.  In November I was forced simply to vote the NObama ticket.  I did not want a candidate who would ''reach across the aisle.''  I wanted a conservative Republican candidate.  Had it not been for Sarah Palin, I might as well have stayed home. 


 


I will not be attending the Republican ''listening tour.''  Listen to this:  The dismantling of the American way of life is on Republican as well as Democrat heads.  I now consider myself an Independent.  In 2012, if the Republican party manages to run a strong conservative candidate I will vote for that candidate. If the party persists in ''moving to the center'' and watering down its traditionally conservative principles, it will find itself in this identical situation.


 


Thanks for asking,  I feel much better now.


Err, you mean the link to Commonwealth Fund report
"It has to do with Medicaid." Yes, Medicaid is mentioned in the report, but ONLY within the context of expanded eligibility (by various states) based on INCOME, not on age. Furthermore, the feds are actually trying to limit, as in RESTRICT, this type of expanded Medicaid coverage.

It also talks about the interplay between Medicaid and private companies and how it is picking up some but not all of the fallout from private insurance eligibility restrictions. The report goes on to say that Medicaid is functioning AS IT WAS INTENDED, thus lending credence to the assertion in the OP that the SCHIPS program being administered like Medicare and Medicaid is a good thing.

Here's a suggestion. Do a find/search on Medicaid within the article and then try to identify any single statement that indicates Meicaid AGE guidelines have been revised upward. Certainly, you will find nothing anywhere to support the hogwash in the other post that suggests it is now or ever going to be 30.

Here's a few more clues for you. In the excerpt from the other post, terms and phrases such as "nothing to do with federal mandate, their parents' INSURANCE POLICIES and allow INSURERS to set their own dependent age limits" can in no way be interpreted as referring to state funded insurance programs.

Bottom line, once again, is that the aim of health care reform is to INSURE folks, not EXCLUDE them. Raising age (and other) restrictions by private insurance companies is one of many creative ways of keeping folks OFF of state and federally funded health insurance programs.
Why shouldnt gov fund religious programs?
I should be able to get some funding just like everyone else if I have a religious program.  I mean we fund abortion here in the US and abroad.  We fund wars, we fund all kinds of CRAP so why NOT religion?  Isnt it supposed to be equal and fair?  Why is it the religious people of this world, namely the Christians get the short end of the stick? 
I guess because they/we fund it maybe? Not a birthday gift. nm
X
The congress which raided the SS fund was republican at the time
and at the rate the republicans are carrying the country, in ten years, it will resemble Argentina (who also ended up in the same place, as a debtor nation).

Israel has the republican party as it stands in his back pocket as does corportate america. The republican party isn't conservative anymore. It is a giant siphon of American assets into the pockets of the rich, at the expense of the taxpayer. Anyone can see this but the sheople who voted these clowns into office and didn't benefit from the tax cuts ::rolls eyes::.
the drug companies that fund the research for new drugs
really don't have all that much time to make money on the drugs before generics are allowed. Do you think generic companies are going to start contributing to research? For all those people who gripe about the drug companies, I would like to see the day come when the drug companies aren't willing to spend another dime on the research. The gov can pay for all the research then. They still pay for the meds, and it might be more, factoring in the waste for the gov being involved.
And govt shouldn't fund religious programs....
schools, facilities, etc.
Thank God our troops

Okay...so you are okay with troops in ...
Afghanistan...just not in Iraq...?
Yes, has nothing to do with the troops.
And no, it does not make her a resident expert. Explain the differences of opinions amongst our own troops. Not all of them believe what they are doing is justified. Not every mother believes it either. It has nothing at all to do with being prideful of our sons and daughters. My point being is that their job is done. My brother is a gunny and is doing his job, but he no longer feels justified in doing it, and he is not alone. And I believe HIM. If the other poster is a resident expert because her son is in Iraq, then I guess that makes me a resident expert as well, no?

Yes, Liberal Thinker, and proud of it. I have not abandoned compassion. My agenda is to stop this needless war. My compassion is expanded to all not just a few. It started in my brain, and I am letting it spill out my mouth.

Yes. I criticize that with which I do not believe. That is our right is it not?

And last time I looked, this is a political forum, and a liberal forum at that.
It has nothing to do with our troops.
Why are you taken it so personally? You must realize that for every picture of sunshine your son sends you there is one that depicts suffering and starvation and death. I have family fighting it Iraq. It's doesn't change my stance that I feel that they are there unjustly. That's the real deal. Not quite sure how having family there makes you the resident expert. The point to my post was that we shouldn't be there anymore. Our troops have done what the Bush administration wanted done on the initial invasion. Now we are there fighting for an ideal that doesn't exist. So, in that perhaps you don't have a clue. If you son dies at the hands of an insurgent, those same insurgents who benefit from keeping unrest in the country and keeping it destabilized, a situation that our government and you refuse to recognize or better yet do anything about, I wonder if you will feel the same? Would his death be justified then? We are not fighting terrorists anymore in Iraq. They've moved on to other countries. What happens if there is another strike? Our troops are too thin and they are tired. Draft? Getting on your patriotic horse isn't help us end this war any sooner. There is no pride in this war anymore, if there ever was.

We have been paying Pakistan since 2001 to help fight terrorism. They haven't done much with our 10 billion dollars have they? If Al- Qaeda is to blame for Bhutto's death, then Pakistan should deal with it, and I don't believe we should be sending them anymore money. We shouldn't have been sending them money to begin with.

This is a widespread virus of Islamic extremism that we have concentrated mostly in Iraq while Al-Qaeda has gained strength in other countries while our military is being depleted. It is to their benefit this war continues because it destabilizes OUR country. Unless we have a full coalition from other countries to help fight this war, it cannot be won and we are wasting our time and our money on a pipe dream.

We do not have infinite resources to fight a civil unrest that will probably never be rectified. This war was handled poorly from the beginning and it is getting worse by the day.

I don't think YOU are paying attention to what is really go on in Iraq. Do you want your son there indefinitely? How about your son's son? This is a religious war for them, it will never end unless we end it.

That's what the troops are supposed to be doing
The key word is *securing.*  It's an extreme exaggeration to say that the U.S. was supporting Hezbollah by making sure a Suni and Shiite combined rally did not get out of hand, but it's par for the course of for the dramaticists known as the mainstream media.  Poor and misleading reporting is what they specialize in.
Say thanks to the troops...(see link)...sm
nm
Oh, so that is your message to our troops...
Go to work and do your job. Just live with the protesting and ignore it?
Somehow, I don't think our troops see things that way. sm
I don't think that is a good analogy. 
The troops speak

Replying to a post below, I thought this would be a good link in a separate message in case people skip over it below.


The US Military troops speak and here is what they say - 68% for McCain, 23% Obama.  Here is the link below.


http://activemilitaryformccain.blogspot.com/


So if you take that, plus Obama has a 5 point lead over McCain in today's polls, plus the 11% who are not decided it is a very close call.  November 4th is going to be an excited day for sure.


Yes, hurrah for the troops.....sm
I saw this the other day, and while I do not hold much stock in the mainstream polls that poll the dems 3 or 4:1, I was very heartened to see this story. Of course, I could only find it on Fox, and another military website.

Seems the mainstream media didn't want the rest of the American public to know about it, which is hardly surprising.


At any rate, since I believe the majority of those polled for this study are older military, who most likely are Republican, of course they support John McCain. They know that he is the most able leader for our country in times like these.


I'd also like to post this video again. Dear Mr. Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8
I agree with you about the troops.
I also believe that the REAL disgrace was for them to be sent into a war based on lies and the blind ambitions of the imperial wizard and his henchmen. I also do not believe that a policy based on "saving face" is worth sharing one more drop of blood over...on either side.
You just blew your pro troops facade. sm
but you are pretty easy to read. It isn't about the war or Cindy Sheehan or the price of gasoline.  It's about your virulent and soul destroying damnable hatred for George W. Bush that even goes so far as to extend to his family.  You, and those like you, put this country and our troops at risk every single day.  Why not do the right thing since you hate this war so very much.  BE A HUMAN SHIELD.  As if.
So much for caring about the troops. You are a joke. nm