So much for Republican's family values.

[Jaimecbr900]

Oh, and Paul......he don't know Jack either......he just hates me because he's a heathun......

[stephen]

Well, I don't understand disarming LAW ABIDING CITIZENS at all. Neither did our founding fathers, hence it is part of the Constitution. So his idea that you disarm people and leave them unable to defend themselves against criminals who care nothing about "laws" by definition is totally absurd to me. Any person who professes to be a supporter of MORE protection against civil liberties, as Obama professes, infractions doesn't try to take away my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to bear arms and protect myself, my family, and possibly others. It's an oxymoron.

have our "founding fathers" ever been wrong (13th, 14th, 15th amendments ring a bell)? as i stated, i DO NOT SUPPORT his position on gun control...BUT realize that there is a bigger picture. there were 2 bills that he attempted to get past prior to him running for president...1 allowing citizens to only purchase 1 gun a month and 2 banning semi-automatic weapons. i'm not sure how many guns you feel you need a month to protect yourself/family/others? the semi-automatic bill...well that's a different story...one that i would never support. neither bill takes away from our constitutional right to bear arms...it just makes things more difficult.

Actually, he's clearly said he would pull troops out if elected. Therefore it would leave a war unfinished, a void that Terrorists/Dictators would fill, and only give us a repeat of the Clinton no-backbone-left-unfinished initial war in Iraq where we could have avoided 9-11 all together.

IRAQ WAS NOT THE CAUSE OF 9-11...afghanistan maybe, but not IRAQ. he did say he would pull troops out, but in a timely manner...MUCH LIKE WHAT THE TROOP WITHDRAWL PLAN WE HAVE NOW.

Wrong. He does want to implement tax changes that affect high wage earners as if that is going to resolve something. It won't. Look at it this way, the top wage earners comprise only 1% of ALL tax payers, yet they pay way more than 1% of all taxes. So you want to penalize high wage earners for making money, so you can give it to those of us that don't make that kind of money? How's that make sense? That's a Socialist idea, not a democratic one. Why not make it equal across the board and make it a consumption tax, ie. the fair tax? Rich people SPEND money to avoid paying income taxes on it. When you SPEND money, under a fair tax, they get TAXED. It doesn't matter if you're illegal, drug dealer, unemployed, or Donald Trump. You would PAY taxes which in turn would mean Trillions in revenue we DON'T SEE now. Why? Because those illegals, drug dealers, and unemployed DON'T PAY TAXES NOW. How can people not see that would net MORE revenue?

have you taken a look at the recent GDP numbers? those stimulus checks gave us a 3.3% increase in the GDP...a number we haven't seen in a while. check this out...you weren't given a stimilus check if you made over a certain amount (75k i believe), and you also weren't given the full amount based on your income. basically, by giving WORKING MIDDLE CLASS americans under the $75k income bracket an extra $600 in their tax return, has provided our economy a 3.3% increase in the GDP. PROOF POSITIVE that providing financial support to WORKING MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES WILL RESULT IN A POSITIVE CHANGE IN THE ECONOMY.

Wrong again. He does support Nationalized Health Care. Here is his own quote, from his own personal website:

"OBAMA: Well, look, I believe in universal health care, as does Sen. Clinton. And the point of the debate, is that Sen. Clinton repeatedly claims that I don't stand for universal health care. And, you know, for Sen. Clinton to say that, I think, is simply not accurate. Every expert has said that anybody who wants health care under my plan will be able to obtain it. President Clinton's own secretary of Labor has said that my plan does more to reduce costs and as a consequence makes sure that the people who need health care right now, all across America, will be able to obtain it. And we do more to reduce costs than any other plan that's been out there."

this is where obama's backbone becomes an issue. regardless of how obama words it, HE'S NOT FIGHTING FOR NATIONALIZED HEALTHCARE, and RIGHTLY SO. nationalized healthcare is what they have in Canada, where THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDES/PAYS FOR ALL HEALTHCARE. making healthcare more affordable still keeps the American people paying for it, but at a rate that they can afford. NATIONALIZED/FREE HEALTHCARE IS STUPID, and obama needs to make it more clear for people (who hear the wrong message)to understand that is not his primary objective....AFFORDABLE NOT FREE. the result of free healthcare is waiting list for critical operations, and that would just create a bigger issue within itself.

Yet he himself admits he doesn't want to make a decision as to WHEN "life" begins as a definition. This is the basic premise of abortion. So if you don't know when "life" begins, how can you say you're for or against?

once again...something that i don't agree with him on. abortion is a moral issue, and it's something that i'm against. either way it goes...i'll never do it, so i could careless what obama or mccain has to say on the issue...it's "win win" for me.

Not what I've read about his immigration views. From what I've seen, he wants to give licenses to illegals, free health care for illegals, and different forms of amnesty as part of his resolution.

yes, he has made statements on giving amnesty (not sure about licenses and healthcare), but think about it in terms of taxes. 12 million illegal people are here, taking citizen's jobs, and not even paying taxes. it's impossible to send 12 million people back home...but you can give them their "american dream" and make them pay taxes like the rest of us.

There's more to crime prevention than just gun control. It is a big part, but there's also: law enforcement, legal system, and prison system. Where does he stand or does he even have plans for any of the other parts?

i already mentioned his plans for law enforcement, and i'll admit i don't know a whole lot about what he intends on doing with the legal/prison system (both of which i don't intend on seeing in my life-time). funding is an issue within the smaller cities around the U.S. i've heard him specifically say that he wants to increase funding for LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT (keep them better equipped, pay for MORE police officers, etc.). it isn't ALL about gun control.

Yep, he wants to sit down with terrorists and dictators to "talk" about the problems. Right! That's going to work about as good as "talking" down a bully. You have to hand that bully a good a$$ whoopin before he will ever listen to anything you have to say. Obama doesn't want to do that. He wants to pacify that bully by sitting down and having tea and crumpets with them. Yeah, right. The same people that want to KILL YOU are going to come running to have tea and crumpets with you. Okie dokie. Makes perfect sense. This is one of the big problems I have with Obama. He's a pacifist.

you're right, you can't "pacify" a bully...but what country is REALLY bullying the U.S.??? NOT ONE. our military is only so big man...we can't turn EVERYONE into an enemy. like i said before, terrorism and dictatorship exist ALL OVER, and we can't fight it alone. we need to do a better job at strengthening our relationships with ALLIES, and gaining MORE ALLIES, so that when the time does come to kick a$$, we can get down to it. obama has a unique ability to talk, and make his speeches "connect" with people...so why not let him do it? once again...when dude went across the world, he was accepted with open arms, SOMETHING BUSH SENIOR ADMIRED...that's something that you republicans need to think more about...MAVERICKS AREN'T ALWAYS GUN-SLINGERS...

[blaknoize]

Hope you weren't looking for a discussion on this topic. Later, QD.

...messes with ANYONE lol

[tony]

tony, you seem very intelligent and for the most part, a nice guy... but i love how you're telling me how i'd view things! lol...



and yeah, i'm a little late to the thread... bite me

Ehh, in all honesty don't pay me any attention. I just enjoy the discussion and I do sit and think about how bad would it really be under John McCain. In all seriousness, it probably wouldn't be THAT bad.. I just prefer Obama.

It wouldn't be the end of the world for me if McCain wins, hell.. it'd probably make my time in the Air Force that much more enjoyable.

[Jaimecbr900]

have our "founding fathers" ever been wrong (13th, 14th, 15th amendments ring a bell)? as i stated, i DO NOT SUPPORT his position on gun control...BUT realize that there is a bigger picture. there were 2 bills that he attempted to get past prior to him running for president...1 allowing citizens to only purchase 1 gun a month and 2 banning semi-automatic weapons. i'm not sure how many guns you feel you need a month to protect yourself/family/others? the semi-automatic bill...well that's a different story...one that i would never support. neither bill takes away from our constitutional right to bear arms...it just makes things more difficult.

I don't understand how liberal minded people like Obama and yourself think. So the answer to the problem of crime is to blame it on inanimate objects. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. So any form of Gun control is not going to solve anything. Why can't yall understand that ANY legislation to limit ANY gun ownership will ONLY affect LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. Much like the Democratic party feels they must "punish" high achievers for their success by taxing them even MORE, gun control "controls" only ONE segment of the population. Criminals wipe their a$$ with laws, the Constitution, and the paper is printed on. So you and Obama want to stop criminals with PAPER???? Let me know how that works out for you. Meanwhile, I'll be sitting in the corner with my 50 guns ready to take up for myself. Let's see who's left standing after a while.

IRAQ WAS NOT THE CAUSE OF 9-11...afghanistan maybe, but not IRAQ. he did say he would pull troops out, but in a timely manner...MUCH LIKE WHAT THE TROOP WITHDRAWL PLAN WE HAVE NOW.

You didn't get it. Iraq wasn't the cause of 9-11, but the great white hope CLINTON WAS. He had Ossamah in the cross hairs and could've wiped him off the face of the earth. He decided being PC was more important, and more than 3000 people paid for that mistake with their lives.

Obama wants to withdraw the troops immediately. He's back pedalled for a while now, but that is his basic premise. Have we not learned anything from that mistake? Why are we in Iraq now? Because we didn't finish the job the Sr. started and listened to the U.N. That's it. Had Hussein been dealt with back in 91, we wouldn't be in Iraq today. That's a fact. Now, Obama is itching to make the same mistake in the name of votes.

have you taken a look at the recent GDP numbers? those stimulus checks gave us a 3.3% increase in the GDP...a number we haven't seen in a while. check this out...you weren't given a stimilus check if you made over a certain amount (75k i believe), and you also weren't given the full amount based on your income. basically, by giving WORKING MIDDLE CLASS americans under the $75k income bracket an extra $600 in their tax return, has provided our economy a 3.3% increase in the GDP. PROOF POSITIVE that providing financial support to WORKING MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES WILL RESULT IN A POSITIVE CHANGE IN THE ECONOMY.

#1. Where are you getting these numbers from?
#2. If you think that Middle America invested that $600, you are sadly mistaken. I'm willing to bet that 90% just spent it at will.
#3. Look at the fiasco FEMA caused when they simply handed people check cards after Katrina. Money was spent on stupid things like drugs, fur coats, and jewelry. The bare necesseties? Yeah right! So keep thinking that handing out money is going to suddenly make people more economically smart. It doesn't. Look at the welfare system in America. You think it promotes people to get on their feet or just sit back on their rump?

this is where obama's backbone becomes an issue. regardless of how obama words it, HE'S NOT FIGHTING FOR NATIONALIZED HEALTHCARE, and RIGHTLY SO. nationalized healthcare is what they have in Canada, where THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDES/PAYS FOR ALL HEALTHCARE. making healthcare more affordable still keeps the American people paying for it, but at a rate that they can afford. NATIONALIZED/FREE HEALTHCARE IS STUPID, and obama needs to make it more clear for people (who hear the wrong message)to understand that is not his primary objective....AFFORDABLE NOT FREE. the result of free healthcare is waiting list for critical operations, and that would just create a bigger issue within itself.

Are you Obama's speech writer? I know how to read well. His own words say he is for Nationalized healthcare. He can candy coat everything he wants, but that's what it is. Do you think that if someone ASKS you if you can "afford" health insurance people will be honest and say "ummm, yeah, I really can....". Hell no they won't. They're going to take it like any other hand out. So then instead of making people responsible for their own health insurance, you are going to make them.....what.....DEPENDENT on yet another GOV'T hand out. It's not about healthy babies or sweet little old ladies that can't go to the doctor. It's about dependency. The more people depend on the GOV'T to give them something, the bigger and more controlling the GOV'T gets.

yes, he has made statements on giving amnesty (not sure about licenses and healthcare), but think about it in terms of taxes. 12 million illegal people are here, taking citizen's jobs, and not even paying taxes. it's impossible to send 12 million people back home...but you can give them their "american dream" and make them pay taxes like the rest of us.

The same thing can be done by simply implementing the Fair tax. No need for amnesty. Amnesty is looking the other way when someone commits a crime in the name of collecting more taxes. Why not just make drugs legal so we can then tax the dealers? It's the same idea. So immigration reform only means turn the other cheek to you guys? How about we make the legalization process easier so that people that WANT to do it don't have to wait forever to do so? How about closing down our borders? How about we scrutinize foreigners MORE without worrying about being PC? How about we don't offer so many free hand outs to illegals? How about enforcing the laws that are already on the books NOW? That to me is reform and action. Amnesty is the easy way out.

you're right, you can't "pacify" a bully...but what country is REALLY bullying the U.S.??? NOT ONE. our military is only so big man...we can't turn EVERYONE into an enemy. like i said before, terrorism and dictatorship exist ALL OVER, and we can't fight it alone. we need to do a better job at strengthening our relationships with ALLIES, and gaining MORE ALLIES, so that when the time does come to kick a$$, we can get down to it. obama has a unique ability to talk, and make his speeches "connect" with people...so why not let him do it? once again...when dude went across the world, he was accepted with open arms, SOMETHING BUSH SENIOR ADMIRED...that's something that you republicans need to think more about...MAVERICKS AREN'T ALWAYS GUN-SLINGERS...

The typical UN, we need everybody's approval before looking out for ourselves, response.

Does the UN, France, Russia, Nigeria, China, N. Korea, or Saudi Arabia send aid here? Do they pay my taxes? Do they wait on OUR approval before waging war against anyone? Nope. They do whatever they damn well please when they please it. So why do we need their approval for anything? It's ridiculous.

By sitting down with Terrorist nations, terrorists, dictators, the UN, etc. we are doing nothing but sitting down with the "bully" to pacify THEM. I have yet to see a single Middle Eastern leader bring their happy a$$ over to the Whitehouse and sit down with the Pres. and say "hey, how can I help you get rid of terrorism...." since Sadat.....and we all know what happened to him, right? Why should we then think that sitting down with them is going to do anything except assure them that suicide bombers and threats work. What does Israel do when they get bombed by the Palestinians? They bomb right back. They don't wait for UN to give them permission. They shoot back. How do you think that such a small "nation" has been able to keep control of that area? Every other Muslim nation hates them, yet they've been able to keep them from over running them. How? By not taking any crap from any of them. You send a suicide bomber to that country, they fire 3 missiles right back at YOUR country.

So you still want to sit down and have tea and crumpets with Allah Akbar who wants to KILL YOU? Go ahead. Be my guest.

[stephen]

I don't understand how liberal minded people like Obama and yourself think. So the answer to the problem of crime is to blame it on inanimate objects. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. So any form of Gun control is not going to solve anything. Why can't yall understand that ANY legislation to limit ANY gun ownership will ONLY affect LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. Much like the Democratic party feels they must "punish" high achievers for their success by taxing them even MORE, gun control "controls" only ONE segment of the population. Criminals wipe their a$$ with laws, the Constitution, and the paper is printed on. So you and Obama want to stop criminals with PAPER???? Let me know how that works out for you. Meanwhile, I'll be sitting in the corner with my 50 guns ready to take up for myself. Let's see who's left standing after a while.

i'm not sure how many different ways you want me to tell you...I DISAGREE WITH OBAMA'S GUN POLICY...all i can say is i can understand his thinking....extremely drastic, but understandable.

You didn't get it. Iraq wasn't the cause of 9-11, but the great white hope CLINTON WAS. He had Ossamah in the cross hairs and could've wiped him off the face of the earth. He decided being PC was more important, and more than 3000 people paid for that mistake with their lives.

Obama wants to withdraw the troops immediately. He's back pedalled for a while now, but that is his basic premise. Have we not learned anything from that mistake? Why are we in Iraq now? Because we didn't finish the job the Sr. started and listened to the U.N. That's it. Had Hussein been dealt with back in 91, we wouldn't be in Iraq today. That's a fact. Now, Obama is itching to make the same mistake in the name of votes.

I GET IT...SO IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT...riiiight. let me hip you to a little reading material from THE MEMOIRS OF BUSH SENIOR...then i want you to think about this $10billion a month war WITH YOUR MONEY, instigated by our fearless leader....junior...and willing to be continued by mccain.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/gulfwar.asp

#1. Where are you getting these numbers from?
#2. If you think that Middle America invested that $600, you are sadly mistaken. I'm willing to bet that 90% just spent it at will.
#3. Look at the fiasco FEMA caused when they simply handed people check cards after Katrina. Money was spent on stupid things like drugs, fur coats, and jewelry. The bare necesseties? Yeah right! So keep thinking that handing out money is going to suddenly make people more economically smart. It doesn't. Look at the welfare system in America. You think it promotes people to get on their feet or just sit back on their rump?

1. BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (geez...i guess it's not that republicans don't understand, you just DON'T KNOW).
2008 Q1 +.9%
2008 Q2 +3.3%

2. lol, dude...the money had nothing to do with INVESTING IT, it was solely the purpose of spending it. the idea was for 100% of the people to spend it, in order to do what.....STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.

3. FEMA checks...how about you give me some numbers this time on the amount of drugs, furs, and jewelry were purchased, then i'll follow you onto this one.

here's another link for you: http://www.reuters.com/article/busin...rpc=23&sp=true

Are you Obama's speech writer? I know how to read well. His own words say he is for Nationalized healthcare. He can candy coat everything he wants, but that's what it is. Do you think that if someone ASKS you if you can "afford" health insurance people will be honest and say "ummm, yeah, I really can....". Hell no they won't. They're going to take it like any other hand out. So then instead of making people responsible for their own health insurance, you are going to make them.....what.....DEPENDENT on yet another GOV'T hand out. It's not about healthy babies or sweet little old ladies that can't go to the doctor. It's about dependency. The more people depend on the GOV'T to give them something, the bigger and more controlling the GOV'T gets.

no, i'm not his speech writer...but i do understand DEFINITIONS. dude can call it what he wants, but it's not that....but whatever, that's neither here nor there. want more OFFICIAL numbers? these come from THE CENSUS BUREAU.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthi...lthfigs07.html
click on "FIGURE 6." i want you to look closely at the dates bush senior was in office, then clinton, then junior. look closely at the unisured percentages from the begining of each of their terms, to the end, and tell me YOU don't see a trend.

The same thing can be done by simply implementing the Fair tax. No need for amnesty. Amnesty is looking the other way when someone commits a crime in the name of collecting more taxes. Why not just make drugs legal so we can then tax the dealers? It's the same idea. So immigration reform only means turn the other cheek to you guys? How about we make the legalization process easier so that people that WANT to do it don't have to wait forever to do so? How about closing down our borders? How about we scrutinize foreigners MORE without worrying about being PC? How about we don't offer so many free hand outs to illegals? How about enforcing the laws that are already on the books NOW? That to me is reform and action. Amnesty is the easy way out.

dude...mccain wants to REDUCE taxes, and still pay for stuff WE CAN'T AFFORD. it's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE.

you know what's funny though...obama and mccain have similiar plans on dealing with immigration, and yet you're still arguing how OBAMA's idea is the one that wrong. actually...their plans are EXACTLY THE SAME...something i just learned after doing a little more research on YOUR CANDIDATE.

The typical UN, we need everybody's approval before looking out for ourselves, response.

Does the UN, France, Russia, Nigeria, China, N. Korea, or Saudi Arabia send aid here? Do they pay my taxes? Do they wait on OUR approval before waging war against anyone? Nope. They do whatever they damn well please when they please it. So why do we need their approval for anything? It's ridiculous.

By sitting down with Terrorist nations, terrorists, dictators, the UN, etc. we are doing nothing but sitting down with the "bully" to pacify THEM. I have yet to see a single Middle Eastern leader bring their happy a$$ over to the Whitehouse and sit down with the Pres. and say "hey, how can I help you get rid of terrorism...." since Sadat.....and we all know what happened to him, right? Why should we then think that sitting down with them is going to do anything except assure them that suicide bombers and threats work. What does Israel do when they get bombed by the Palestinians? They bomb right back. They don't wait for UN to give them permission. They shoot back. How do you think that such a small "nation" has been able to keep control of that area? Every other Muslim nation hates them, yet they've been able to keep them from over running them. How? By not taking any crap from any of them. You send a suicide bomber to that country, they fire 3 missiles right back at YOUR country.

So you still want to sit down and have tea and crumpets with Allah Akbar who wants to KILL YOU? Go ahead. Be my guest.

you're missing the point...you conservatives walk with blinders on. nobody needs the U.N. approval...but seriously, how much can the U.S. do to fight a GLOBAL problem all on its own???? you know what...fu.ck it....let's spend $10 billion a month of OUR MONEY to shoot up 2 small countries for 100yrs. let's allow 100+ americans to die every month, in 2 countries for a cause that plagues THE WORLD. let's allow young men and women (by the thousands) to come home in ridiculous mental conditions, medical conditions, and addictions to prove that we've got the biggest nuts on the planet. better yet...let's just let them not come home at all...give them a life sentence in the sands of some foreign desert, without the possibility of parole. have you ever heard of "stop-loss?" look into it, there was even a movie about it (great movie too). like i showed you a little further up...BUSH SENIOR DIDN'T THINK IRAQ WAS A GOOD MOVE FOR AMERICA, and he made that clear during his OWN presidency.

by the way....where did "Allah Akbar" get his weapons from in the first place? as a matter of fact...whose daddy gave them to him? i guess they were decent enough people to sit down with, and sell guns to at some point...right?

[Jaimecbr900]

i'm not sure how many different ways you want me to tell you...I DISAGREE WITH OBAMA'S GUN POLICY...all i can say is i can understand his thinking....extremely drastic, but understandable.

So you "understand" it, yet disagree with it. Got it.

You justified it with all your facts and figures about the black youth death rate.

I GET IT...SO IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT...riiiight. let me hip you to a little reading material from THE MEMOIRS OF BUSH SENIOR...then i want you to think about this $10billion a month war WITH YOUR MONEY, instigated by our fearless leader....junior...and willing to be continued by mccain.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/gulfwar.asp

So Clinton DIDN'T have Ossamah in his sights and DECLINED to kill him???? You need to do better research instead of buying into your party line's idea to blame the Republicans. He DID have Ossamah in his sights....CONFIRMED...but he decided, all by himself, that it was NOT prudent to take him out because what???? There was the son of an important person in the tent with him....probably plotting to kill you and me both. Great decision there, huh? So yes, 9-11 could have possibly been avoided had CLINTON.....a DEMOCRAT.....had the nads to quit being PC and take out a major "threat" then, which turned out to be a REAL threat now.

Instigate? Really? How about Hussein? Did he "instigate" by giving the entire world the middle finger and not abiding by the terms of HIS surrender or were we just bullying him? How about Ossamah? Is he sitting in some cave praying to Allah about world peace and harmony or he and his followers plotting how to KILL all of us? "Instigate"????? I think you need to look up the definition to that.

1. BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (geez...i guess it's not that republicans don't understand, you just DON'T KNOW).
2008 Q1 +.9%
2008 Q2 +3.3%

Show me figures at the end of the year. Look up figures every year right after tax season. Let's see how that pans out.

2. lol, dude...the money had nothing to do with INVESTING IT, it was solely the purpose of spending it. the idea was for 100% of the people to spend it, in order to do what.....STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.

Then why not give everyone $6000 instead of $600?

3. FEMA checks...how about you give me some numbers this time on the amount of drugs, furs, and jewelry were purchased, then i'll follow you onto this one.

I guess Republicans aren't the only ones that "don't know", huh? This was common knowledge and even prosecuted just a few short years ago when the fiasco happened.

no, i'm not his speech writer...but i do understand DEFINITIONS. dude can call it what he wants, but it's not that....but whatever, that's neither here nor there. want more OFFICIAL numbers? these come from THE CENSUS BUREAU.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthi...lthfigs07.html
click on "FIGURE 6." i want you to look closely at the dates bush senior was in office, then clinton, then junior. look closely at the unisured percentages from the begining of each of their terms, to the end, and tell me YOU don't see a trend.

I didn't say it, nor did you. Obama said it. So don't try and back pedal out of it now. He's always wanted nationalized health care. It's common knowledge.

dude...mccain wants to REDUCE taxes, and still pay for stuff WE CAN'T AFFORD. it's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE.

Much like how Obama is going to make all these "changes" without accounting for funding. Tit for tat. It's politics 101. Over promise and under deliver.

you know what's funny though...obama and mccain have similiar plans on dealing with immigration, and yet you're still arguing how OBAMA's idea is the one that wrong. actually...their plans are EXACTLY THE SAME...something i just learned after doing a little more research on YOUR CANDIDATE.

Show me where I said that I agreed with Mccain 100%. I certainly don't.

by the way....where did "Allah Akbar" get his weapons from in the first place? as a matter of fact...whose daddy gave them to him? i guess they were decent enough people to sit down with, and sell guns to at some point...right?

I guess you've never had a friend backstab you, huh? Well that's exactly what happened when we supplied our "allies" weapons and then they suddenly turned on us. How's that our fault? Does Obama have some kind of magic crystal ball that's going to avoid this? Show me where.

[jwrape]

This thread is petty.

[Jaimecbr900]

This thread is petty.

That's what the big red X at the top right is for.

[stephen]

So you "understand" it, yet disagree with it. Got it.

why is that so impossible...to understand someone's logic, but still feel like they're going about it wrong???

You justified it with all your facts and figures about the black youth death rate.

and here lies the problem; the BIGGEST "NOBAMA" problem...i made ONE reference to black youth death rate, and why he's able to pull "certain" black voters, and now i've given you ALL THESE BLACK FIGURES...lol, nevermind the fact that i told you he wants to provide EVERYONE with better LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. i should've just said, "i'm making a valid point! here's a straw...grab it! QUICK!"

So Clinton DIDN'T have Ossamah in his sights and DECLINED to kill him???? You need to do better research instead of buying into your party line's idea to blame the Republicans. He DID have Ossamah in his sights....CONFIRMED...but he decided, all by himself, that it was NOT prudent to take him out because what???? There was the son of an important person in the tent with him....probably plotting to kill you and me both. Great decision there, huh? So yes, 9-11 could have possibly been avoided had CLINTON.....a DEMOCRAT.....had the nads to quit being PC and take out a major "threat" then, which turned out to be a REAL threat now.

ok, i get it...so SADDAM IS TO BLAME FOR 9-11 AND WE DIDN'T KILL HIM FOR PAST WAR CRIMES AGAINST HIS OWN PEOPLE...alright, it's making sense

Instigate? Really? How about Hussein? Did he "instigate" by giving the entire world the middle finger and not abiding by the terms of HIS surrender or were we just bullying him? How about Ossamah? Is he sitting in some cave praying to Allah about world peace and harmony or he and his followers plotting how to KILL all of us? "Instigate"????? I think you need to look up the definition to that.

you're right...instigate was a bad choice of words, i can admit that...hardheaded like Palin's daughter is more like it (he didn't listen to daddy). how many service members did we lose to kill ONE MAN??? you know as much as i know, politics is more than just you, me, and the american people. dude, EVEN ROCKEFELLER admitted to sitting down and having a conversation with bin laden 20 years ago...and who was president and vice president then??? REAGAN AND BUSH SR. i'm sure bin laden didn't wake up in 2001 and say "well...i think i'm going to become an extremist today." talk about having someone in your sights...lol

Show me figures at the end of the year. Look up figures every year right after tax season. Let's see how that pans out.

damn man...i looked it up, explained it to you, and even gave you the SOURCE to educate yourself, and all you can tell me is "look up figures..."
lol, at the end of the year it'll be TOO LATE. besides...it was named "ECONOMIC STIMULUS" for a reason, that should explain enough for you right there.

Then why not give everyone $6000 instead of $600?

ask our fearless leader...i can't answer that for you. if you took the time to read the article i pointed you to, you'd see that the dems actually requested a second stimulus check be issued...bush felt like it did enough and wasn't necessary...meanwhile THE COUNTRY is still in debt.

I guess Republicans aren't the only ones that "don't know", huh? This was common knowledge and even prosecuted just a few short years ago when the fiasco happened.

i never said i didn't know...i told you to prove it. show me figures of the people that blew that money vs. the people that did what they were supposed to do with it. of course the negative is going to stand out...

OH, and for the record...FEMA check recipients weren't the only ones to waste money. how much of the disaster area did the government actually rebuild? how about their plans to get rid of low income/affordable housing and replace them with lavish, high income neighborhoods, country clubs, and casinos.

I didn't say it, nor did you. Obama said it. So don't try and back pedal out of it now. He's always wanted nationalized health care. It's common knowledge.

lol, i'm not back pedaling...my stance has stood the same...i can't explain it to you any better...i'm sorry.

Much like how Obama is going to make all these "changes" without accounting for funding. Tit for tat. It's politics 101. Over promise and under deliver.

he's accounting for it...you just don't like it!

Show me where I said that I agreed with Mccain 100%. I certainly don't.

are you going to vote for him? if so, show me why you think he's worth putting in charge of this country.

I guess you've never had a friend backstab you, huh? Well that's exactly what happened when we supplied our "allies" weapons and then they suddenly turned on us. How's that our fault? Does Obama have some kind of magic crystal ball that's going to avoid this? Show me where.

there's a difference between having a FRIEND backstab you, versus putting trust in an ENEMY. lol, how's that our fault...are you serious? well who's fault is it??? like i said before, we knew who these people were LOOONG BEFORE 9/11, and they were always the same people. the only difference was we had a common enemy...RUSSIA...that didn't make us friends. that's like saying...i know you're a "stick up" kid, and we have a common enemy...so i give you a gun to protect yourself and possibly get rid of OUR enemy. who's fault is it if you put that same gun in my face 10 years later?

honestly mang, i enjoyed this long a$$ discussion...i actually learned some stuff (like mccain's immigration stance). my whole point was to prove that there are "reasonable" obama supporters out there...far more than you believe. there will never be THE PERFECT president...NEVER. i feel like i've heard/read enough about obama's political agendas, and i'm willing to give him the opportunity improve this country. i hear more about mccain's 5yrs in vietnam, than anything else...it's in EVERY SINGLE SPEECH (given by him and others). there's are times when we need "first to fight" type of presidents, it's just not now...not when we've got so much stuff going on within the country. when i look at the fact a democratic government got us the LARGEST economic surplus IN HISTORY, and 8yrs. later we end up with a $9.5 TRILLION DEBT under a republican government (whose new presidential nominee agreed with atleast 80% of the choices that got us there), the choice just seems simple...lol.

i don't even know what come after 1 trillion....zillion maybe.

[ShooterMcGavin]

damn this is getting heated like the presidential candidate debate...

[Jaimecbr900]

why is that so impossible...to understand someone's logic, but still feel like they're going about it wrong???

Ok, I'll concede. I understand what you're saying now.

and here lies the problem; the BIGGEST "NOBAMA" problem...i made ONE reference to black youth death rate, and why he's able to pull "certain" black voters, and now i've given you ALL THESE BLACK FIGURES...lol, nevermind the fact that i told you he wants to provide EVERYONE with better LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. i should've just said, "i'm making a valid point! here's a straw...grab it! QUICK!"

The problem is not a color one. It is a problem of disarmament. If you don't fight criminals on various fronts, i.e. laws/jail time/law enforcement/AND the threat of getting shot and killed by law abiding citizens, then you will never be successful at "solving" the problem. We know that jails are over crowded. We know law enforcement is over taxed. So what's left? Think about it. It's been shown a thousand times in a hundred studies that criminals fear getting shot by far and away MORE than even jail time. Then why take away THE biggest deterrent? He needs to realize that.

ok, i get it...so SADDAM IS TO BLAME FOR 9-11 AND WE DIDN'T KILL HIM FOR PAST WAR CRIMES AGAINST HIS OWN PEOPLE...alright, it's making sense

Are you purposely over looking what I really typed?

I clearly said OSSAMAH is to blame for 9-11 and CLINTON had OSSAMAH in his cross hairs way before 9-11 and CHOSE NOT TO kill him. Saddam got his because of his arrogance in not abiding with the terms of his own surrender treaty. Two different people, two different reasons.

you're right...instigate was a bad choice of words, i can admit that...hardheaded like Palin's daughter is more like it (he didn't listen to daddy). how many service members did we lose to kill ONE MAN??? you know as much as i know, politics is more than just you, me, and the american people. dude, EVEN ROCKEFELLER admitted to sitting down and having a conversation with bin laden 20 years ago...and who was president and vice president then??? REAGAN AND BUSH SR. i'm sure bin laden didn't wake up in 2001 and say "well...i think i'm going to become an extremist today." talk about having someone in your sights...lol

Hence the reason why "sitting down to pacify" is a bad idea all the way around.

damn man...i looked it up, explained it to you, and even gave you the SOURCE to educate yourself, and all you can tell me is "look up figures..."
lol, at the end of the year it'll be TOO LATE. besides...it was named "ECONOMIC STIMULUS" for a reason, that should explain enough for you right there.

You didn't get it. Show me figures at the end of the year where all 4 quarters are there to see a true pattern. Just because there's a "sale" on eggs today doesn't mean that over the last few years their price hasn't actually gone UP, does it? Same thing here. Just because there was an increase in the GDP between two quarters doesn't mean that it will REMAIN at the end of the year. That's my point.

ask our fearless leader...i can't answer that for you. if you took the time to read the article i pointed you to, you'd see that the dems actually requested a second stimulus check be issued...bush felt like it did enough and wasn't necessary...meanwhile THE COUNTRY is still in debt.

GDP has nothing to do with national debt, right?

i never said i didn't know...i told you to prove it. show me figures of the people that blew that money vs. the people that did what they were supposed to do with it. of course the negative is going to stand out...

OH, and for the record...FEMA check recipients weren't the only ones to waste money. how much of the disaster area did the government actually rebuild? how about their plans to get rid of low income/affordable housing and replace them with lavish, high income neighborhoods, country clubs, and casinos.

I will dig up some articles about this.

As for rebuilding.....do you want them to re-build 60 yr old houses with 60 yr old houses???? You can't do that, right? So what's wrong with re-building something old with something new and probably better?

[The Creeper]

There is no logic in his views on gun control. You realize criminals cant legally own a gun in america, and obviously they do anyways, so cracking down on gun control is not going to stop crime at all. Really I think we should make our laws more strict if you break the ones of violent importance. If you murder someone, you should get death penalty, period. So many people are against that though because they know our court systems are corrupt and ****ty anyways. If you attempt to murder someone, death penalty. We spend too much money supporting criminals in prison that will never change, so that would reduce taxes if we had less jails/prisoners, death penalty can help take care of some. I also think any rapist should get death penalty as well. Gang membership to violent gangs should result in death as well. I guess all i want is more killing and less imprisoning for people who have done a highly violent or terrible offense. End RANT. Proceed with the argument.

[stephen]

Ok, I'll concede. I understand what you're saying now.

lol, atleast we agree on something!

The problem is not a color one. It is a problem of disarmament. If you don't fight criminals on various fronts, i.e. laws/jail time/law enforcement/AND the threat of getting shot and killed by law abiding citizens, then you will never be successful at "solving" the problem. We know that jails are over crowded. We know law enforcement is over taxed. So what's left? Think about it. It's been shown a thousand times in a hundred studies that criminals fear getting shot by far and away MORE than even jail time. Then why take away THE biggest deterrent? He needs to realize that.

i agree, that's very true. the issue of crime is something that's hard to take on, and definitely not something that should be left ONLY in the hands of ANY PRESIDENT. our local government needs to do a better job also. not to mention, our ridiculous unemployment rate (which has just seen another INCREASE), and poor economy don't help the crime situation ('Fun With Di.ck and Jane' is a perfect example). the government can do all it wants to punish criminals, but you have to attack some of the root issues. there are SO MANY factors that influence crime, so there can never be a cut and dry solution, but you still have to start somewhere. crime is an issue where regardless of who's president, they're going to have to reach across party and government lines to fight it together.

Are you purposely over looking what I really typed?

I clearly said OSSAMAH is to blame for 9-11 and CLINTON had OSSAMAH in his cross hairs way before 9-11 and CHOSE NOT TO kill him. Saddam got his because of his arrogance in not abiding with the terms of his own surrender treaty. Two different people, two different reasons.

no, i understand what you said..and yes, maybe clinton should have taken him out. the only point i was making was that he wasn't the only one to not take him out. bottom line...our government saw saddam as being "beneficial." if you talk to some older military guys, they'll tell you that we had saddam on more than one occasion, even when bush sr. was in office.

Hence the reason why "sitting down to pacify" is a bad idea all the way around.

the sit down and talk idea is strictly politics. we OBVIOUSLY can't afford to stick our guns in EVERYONE'S face...it's just impossible. we need to focus more on DEFENSIVE operations, as opposed to drawing the first gun. sometimes the best offense is a good defense...right? obama has a LOT of homeland security type policies, that'll benefit us far more than squeezing the trigger. you said it yourself...criminals are far more afraid of someone defending themselves than punishment. i highly doubt obama is going to sit down and hold hands with terrorist. i can see him saying, "look, i really don't have the time to kill every last one of you...and you know i can. just chill out, and we'll all be cool."

You didn't get it. Show me figures at the end of the year where all 4 quarters are there to see a true pattern. Just because there's a "sale" on eggs today doesn't mean that over the last few years their price hasn't actually gone UP, does it? Same thing here. Just because there was an increase in the GDP between two quarters doesn't mean that it will REMAIN at the end of the year. That's my point.

EXACTLY! the point is WHAT CHANGED THE GDP? providing WORKING families under a $75k salary with a tax break. if you continue THOSE TYPES of trends, now giving those breaks to WORKING families under $250k, what do you think the outcome will be? if the MAJORITY of people can't even afford the "sale" on eggs, then who's going to buy them (regardless of the price trend)?

if you reduce EVERYONE'S income taxes, then where do you think they'll get the money for this trillion dollar debt? they'll tax our goods harder...right? when milk goes to $20 a gallon, then what? you finally end up with sh.it like a STRONG black market, which is FAR MORE DETRIMENTAL than taxing a few rich folks.

ZIMBABWE is a prime example of this. my aunt went there for a year, and this is exactly how their economy is. a loaf of bread is the same amount as some people's paychecks.

GDP has nothing to do with national debt, right?

actually, it does. GDP is the value of goods produced domestically. we're spending more money than we make, and that's the problem...DEBT.

GDP = consumption (citizens) + investment + spending (government) + (exports-imports)

consumption - the amount of money WE spend on domestic goods
investment - money invested in our goods (private and public)
spending - what the government spends (including MILITARY SPENDING)
exports/imports - self explanatory

I will dig up some articles about this.

As for rebuilding.....do you want them to re-build 60 yr old houses with 60 yr old houses???? You can't do that, right? So what's wrong with re-building something old with something new and probably better?

the logic behind that is fine. the problem is, they're not creating AFFORDABLE housing. what happens to the people who can't afford these new "lavish" properties? these people didn't ask for their $50k 60yr old home to be destroyed (by a storm...not bush lol), and now replaced by a $200k 3 month old home that they can't afford.

regardless, i understand your point...people are going to take advantage of the government. the government is also going to take advantage of the people though. it's a never ending battle...but in the end, you can't forget about the people who do the right thing, and the effect they have on our nation...political figures and citizens alike.

[man]

Then why hold Obama accountable for his pastor? Of whom he has even less control over.

Never did. I'll never hold anyone responsible for anything other than what he/she does. You complain about people talking about Obama's pastor and then turn around and do the exact same thing for Palin??? Talk about hypocrisy...

[tony]

Never did. I'll never hold anyone responsible for anything other than what he/she does. You complain about people talking about Obama's pastor and then turn around and do the exact same thing for Palin??? Talk about hypocrisy...

Big difference there, Obama isn't bringing an unwed pregnant teenager into the whitehouse, that is what I have issues with.

[man]

Big difference there, Obama isn't bringing an unwed pregnant teenager into the whitehouse, that is what I have issues with.

But how is it Palin's fault? Are you trying to tell me you never had premarital sex? Parents can't control everything their children do. Welcome to the real world, where everyone makes mistakes.

[tony]

But how is it Palin's fault? Are you trying to tell me you never had premarital sex? Parents can't control everything their children do. Welcome to the real world, where everyone makes mistakes.

Everyone does but elected officials are held to a higher standard. Everyone cheats but Clinton was almost impeached for his affair correct? Palin should have better control over her household and instill higher standards in her children if she plans to be in the whitehouse.

Again, unwed pregnant teenager in the whitehouse under any capacity is lowering our expectations of those we elect. I would say the same for Obama.

[eraser4g63]

1= last democrat we had in office showed america some of the best economic times history,

2= people keep running their mouths about obamas lack of exp dude graduated from best law school in the country and practiced/taught constitutional law. biden is the best out of all 4.

3=most republicans are planning on voting republican on principle not on reality. everyone knows we are in the sh!t and republicans have been at the for front of this for the past 8 years.

Couple of points I would like to clear up,
1= people need to wake up and realize that the economy goes up and down, kind of like a roller coaster or the ocean. It is a constant thing and it doesn't matter who is voted into office, it will continue.

2= he was an assistant professor and helped in the class. Oh yeah, if I am not mistaken he also has never written a bill or very few bills. Mostly other people donate their laws and bills to his cause.

3-Most people are not voting republican to vote republican. Actually there are about a third of the voters that swing both ways depending on what the flavor of the week is. It sounds to me like you are voting democrat to vote democrat. I believe that is the definition of the pot calling the kettle black. I'm not sayin I'm just sayin.

[man]

Everyone does but elected officials are held to a higher standard. Everyone cheats but Clinton was almost impeached for his affair correct? Palin should have better control over her household and instill higher standards in her children if she plans to be in the whitehouse.

Again, unwed pregnant teenager in the whitehouse under any capacity is lowering our expectations of those we elect. I would say the same for Obama.

Clinton cheated, not his children. And who says it won't happen to Obama, his children are very young atm... Personal attacks have NO business in politics. These are Govt. officials, not babysitters. Teenage girls will be teenage girls. No matter how well you bring them up you can't control their every action, and doing so would be worse parenting than letting them make their own mistakes.

[4dmin]

Couple of points I would like to clear up,
1= people need to wake up and realize that the economy goes up and down, kind of like a roller coaster or the ocean. It is a constant thing and it doesn't matter who is voted into office, it will continue.

2= he was an assistant professor and helped in the class. Oh yeah, if I am not mistaken he also has never written a bill or very few bills. Mostly other people donate their laws and bills to his cause.

3-Most people are not voting republican to vote republican. Actually there are about a third of the voters that swing both ways depending on what the flavor of the week is. It sounds to me like you are voting democrat to vote democrat. I believe that is the definition of the pot calling the kettle black. I'm not sayin I'm just sayin.

1= this is true but at this rate there isn't going to be an up turn for a while... i'm not sure how long you would like this slump to go for, but mccain himself has called the current administration a failure. considering his voting record i don't think putting another republican in office is the answer.

2= he did plenty of work in Illinois - mccain has been in politics what 30 years... what do you expect from a guy in his 70's? either way mccain is out of touch w/ our generation he is not focused on our future.

3= that is just a dumb statement to begin with. republicans know bush is a failure yet they think putting another republican in office will help? ya i'm sure they've totatly researched both canidates and weighed the odds. 2nd i'm registered as libertarian but there is not value in voting anything but democrat at this point - until we start to see debates w/ other partys. I would of voted Ron Paul before both of them.