Obama leads in military donations and support over McSame! sm
Posted By: FYI on 2008-09-14
In Reply to: How many terrorists attacks have we had since 911 - My military cousin is so sick of you people.nm
http://www.knbc.com/politics/17191067/detail.html
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
Obama leads in Ohio
win Ohio, win the election.
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.”
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
Gourdpainter. I cannot support Obama, but whoever
nm
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
.
Actually their leads are closing in - sm
Yes Obama is ahead but actually only by 5 points. This is according to the Rasmussen poll today, which is usually what everyone follows. I say their leads are closing in because last week Obama was ahead by 11 points, now he is ahead by only 5 points. Again, this is according to the Rasmussen report. I've said once and I'll say again, polls do not matter. The actual votes will count on November 4th. I'm at a point now that I don't care who wins. In honesty I hope McCain wins, but if Obama gets in that's the way it goes. But if you want to post a truly honest post, you should cite the poll that most everyone goes by and it is showing that their leads are narrowing. They've still got a couple weeks to go before the election and a lot can happen between now and then. Like I say I do hope McCain will win, but I am also realistic that Obama could win too, but to already project a winner could lead to devastating results in the end. Remember Tom Bradley? I would seriously think twice before stating false and misleading information as fact.
I'll tell you what I would like to see. I would like to see Obama drop out and Biden then become the nominee and Hillary as VP. Now that's a ticket I might vote for.
This leads me to other questions.
Think epidemics and isolating towns and/or cities with military.
I have no doubt Obama has support...it will be a close election.
"you are one, we are many." Good lord. LOL.
I have lots of Christian friends who are democrats and support Obama. nm
x
McSame and Old
No more rotting corpse! No more rotting corpse! You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.
McSame
No point in wrestling a pig; you'll just get dirty and the pig likes it
China Leads the New World Order
China leads the New World Order.
Don't believe it? Look at Bush toasting the commie leaders... all of our trade deals with them...Who has us by the balls financially.... A huge component of the creation of the North American Union is megaports on the Western coast to accommodate huge Chinese tankers.... Look at Paulson and his ties with commie China.... The lone Republican lawmaker who voted against Berancke's confirmation says that Bernacke has extensive ties to commie China so it is a conflict of interest...
The above is just a sampling. The bottom line is that we will wind up just like China, with slave labor, before it's all over with.
There is not one thing in the post that leads to hate
It's called disappointment and frustration. Over half the country feels this way. Sorry we don't love your lord the way you do. We see what is wrong and we speak our minds. The same way you did when Bush was in office.
Wait a minute...we don't need GW, cuz we have McSAME!!!
Hurray, hurray!!!!! We will all be saved. Our wallets will get fat. Interest rates will go down. We'll get to see other parts of the world as we are fighting wars in Russia, Iran and Korea on our big screen HD TVs - right in the comfort of our own living rooms!!!! Our veterans will continue killing themselves (so let's ban abortion so we can create a whole new batch of cannon fodder). I am just GIDDY with excitement. It's going to be a whole NEW WORLD!!! Maybe we'll even get to see some action on our own turf since our military is shattered. Onward Christian Soldiers........
What about Sissy McSame canceling
debate on Friday? You've got to admit that's a big mistake on his part. What is he afraid of? You know. We all know. What a loser. And don't try to take their side and make it sound like their doing it for COUNTRY FIRST. We're not all stupid. Only half the country. Hopefully, less than half come November. We'll see.
Well, Mcsame saw this crash coming and tried to avoid it...
unlike some others. That is one of the reasons I trust him.
I think it was a total of $265 over 4 or 5 donations -
nm
A website was set up for her asking for donations....
mostly instead of donations she got death threats.
Maybe.....sounds like Muslim donations which
xx
She can spend all the campaign donations she wants
!!
Wasn't campaign donations. nm
nm
Buying her clothes IS from donations.....
!!
O camp donations not unlawful.
Current campaign finance laws do not require records to be kept on donations less than $200. If records are not required and hence, not kept, then they cannot be produced.
Both campaigns have solicited on-line contributions, some of which have questionable sources in the sense that they are not properly identified or identifiable, including McC contributions documentation that does not reflect geographic origins.
As a matter of fact, O camp donations ARE in compliance with FEC (as are McC's), so no investigation is "warranted." Furthermore, O camp has returned contributions they deem coming from "suspicious" sources.
In terms of the Nigerian donations, no one can stop ATTEMPTS by foreign nationals to contribute to candidates they support. It is not an issue unless they are actually ACCEPTED.
thanks again Babe! Good luck voting for McSame/Falin...SM
ROFLMAO
"He (MCSAME) will expand free trade so we can be even more competitive.” NM
1
Investigate credit cards donations to your heart's content.
Hamas information?
It wasn't campaign donations that paid for thousands of dollars in kids' travel
nm
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?
We ARE the military.
You forget that when it comes time to put themselves on the line, you have just as many Democrats stepping forward as you do Republicans - and many more Dems go on for careers in public service. You think you own the Army? The Marines? The Navy? Well you're wrong. The military is a BIPARTISAN operation. Your problem in understanding this is that you refuse to listen to anything BUT soldiers confirming your tunnel vision. I watched the C-Span coverage of Saturday's march AND the C-Span coverage of Sunday's pro-war attempt. I listen to what all veterans have to say, not just a few that I can brand as like me. You won't have any kind of a realistic view of the whole picture until you consider BOTH sides of the issue.
I was in the military all through the 80s.
Ex-husband is a 100 percent disabled Vietnam vet with PTSD. Currently 1 son in the Army on his 2nd enlistment (in Korea even as we speak, as well as serving in both Afghanistan and Iraq). My other son and daughter-in-law also served in the Army.
The military is not the only way
su
The military could get him...yes
I can't say enough good about our young warriers but they can only follow orders.
How did they get in the military? sm
They ENLISTED. The draft was abolished in 1973 after the end of the Viet Nam War.
If our military can
be waterboarded during training, I think I could handle it for 50K. That would be a nice payment on my house. Where do I sign up?
I say let the military do what they have sm
to do to get the information they need. If the media would stay away from the military, battlefields, etc things would not drag on as long as they have. Our soldiers are limited as to what they can do or say to these bunch of terrorist because there is a camera or a microphone, it seems, recording their every word or every move they make.
The enemies of this country do not care what they do to us, but we are suppose to "molly-coddle" the terrorists and for goodness sake, don't "torture" them. Out guys go through more "torture" in boot camp than we are allowed to give to the worst terrorist when trying to get information from them.
Personally I say get the media, the papers, the TV, etc out of the battlefield. Let our soldiers do what they need to do and get back home! I wonder what the soldiers who found Sadam Hussein would have done if the media had not been breathing down their necks? If I had my guess, they probably would have blown him away and stuffed him back in the hole saving a whole lot of hassle and money.
love the military
that is why I want them home. Cant fight a war without military, so no military, no war. No immoral, illegal war. Bush will have to finally face up to facts that he lied about this war, this war is wrong. Let him send his daughters or let him finish his military duty. No we are not going to send our sons and daughters to your illegal war, Bush..
The military is not a kid club. sm
Drinking age and fighting is an old and worn out reasoning. Besides, they get all the alcohol they want. What are we supposed to do with men and women who choose to join the military. Put it in writing that they will never have to go to war? And where was the left's outrage when Clinton sent men and women into his little skirmishes. I never heard a word then. Never saw one leftie holding a sign that said NO MORE MOGADISHUs. In fact, the left hardly even mentions it. Why is that exactly?
I never said all the military supports the war.
That is a flat out untruth.
How can one's child being in the military sm
equate to a point for foreign affairs experience? Please explain that to me. I know a lot of people whose children are in the military, in the war zone and not one of them would say they have foreign affairs experience. Also, didn't she herself say she doesn't know anything about Iraq.
And so you think our military isn't fed a load of
they've been sent to do is 'morally right'? Dont' get me wrong, they are brave, upstanding young men and women who believe in the country. But once they sign on that dotted line, they've gotta go & do what they're told during their enlistment. Even if it's for dubious reasons. So what you wanna bet they get fed a WHOLE lotta propaganda.
Suicide rates amongst our military is at an all-time high, as well. Ever wonder why that might be?
The majority of the military
have always been conservative. However, many military members and veterans are changing their minds after what has taken place in recent years. Watch the results of the election and see which way the military goes and compare that to elections in the past.
Cut military spending!
How about we spend less on war and more on the citizens of the United States? Those who have family members in the military whose livelihood depends on war may call this socialism, but I call it common sense!
yes, they enlisted in the military
but they didn't enlist in the war.
I stand behind our military too but
I sure as heck am not going to stand behind a president who sends our young men and women in harms way for his own personal gain and that of his oil cronies. What happened to bin Laden? Don't tell me that our military men and women couldn't take him out. And how about McCain saying he knew how to get him. How anyone who can support this administration and this war is beyond me. Isn't it "Mission Iraqi Freedom" now? What about 9/11? Who has paid for that? And today Iraq has given us "permission" to stay for 3 more years? Permission??? We have no business meddling in their business to begin with. Wasn't Bushes and Sadam friends before they became enemies???
I'm from a military family, too
My grandfather fought in WWI and WWII. He received 5 medals for the battles in WWI in France, plus the French Etagierre. My father and mom's brothers were army. My gf retired in the 1970s. My one uncle retired in 1990 from the Army. My son was in the Marines. They all enlisted.
|
