Possible Presidential Pairings?

222 replies [Last post]
Rugby's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-06-06

Here's an interesting article on Biden.  Its a little easier to follow than the McCain shady connection to Georgian lobbyist that BG presented:http://www.nypost.com/seven/09072008/postopinion/editorials/special_interest_joe_127959.htmThat Obama...he'll sure clean up Washington. Bill Clinton told us he hit it out of the park with the Biden pick.   Notice the polls pulling even or putting McCain ahead.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

To me it is inconceivable that anyone would have voted for Bush in 04 knowing the Iraq invasion was based on a lie.

 
 

  • www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/05/world/main4235028.shtml
  •  
    It was a lie?

    troll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-11-29

  • www.cfr.org/publication/9551

  • Exactly how many people to you have to kill with a weapon for it to be considered a WMD?

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    primo, interesting stuff, but wrong lie. WMDs? Where are they? That's the lie.                        
     
    No one's arguing that Sadam was looking for nuclear capability. That's a given.
     
    Let's not redebate this whole thing. Believe what you will.

    troll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-11-29

    People losing their jobs. Others barely scraping by.
     
    Wasn't Bush handed a recession when he took office?  Who was responsible for that?  The economic problems center on one issue.  Bush is a RINO when is comes to spending.  Tax conservative, liberal spender.  This absolutely does not work.  You must be consistent.

    troll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-11-29

    BondGuy wrote:primo, interesting stuff, but wrong lie. WMDs? Where are they? That's the lie.                        
     
    No one's arguing that Sadam was looking for nuclear capability. That's a given.
     
    Let's not redebate this whole thing. Believe what you will.
     
    Wrong lie?  What do you think he was doing with 550 tonnes of yellowcake?  Let's put it another way.  You have a neighbor.  He has killed people in the past.  You are aware that he is stockpiling guns.  Police go in and find lots of guns, but no bullets.  Where you wrong to be concerned? Oh and by the way, his friend who lives with him just went on a killing spree at the local mall. 

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    The Center for Public Integrity found that the Bush admin made 935 false statements about the alleged threat to the united States posed by iraq. While some left over remnents of weaponized WMDs were found most U.N.weapons inspectors are satisfied that work on such WMDs ceased in 1991. Addtionally, the ISG found there to be no WMDs in iraq and that iraq's nuclear program had ceased in 1991.
    Again, we were lied to. But believe what you will.

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    Primo wrote:People losing their jobs. Others barely scraping by.
     
    Wasn't Bush handed a recession when he took office?  Who was responsible for that?  The economic problems center on one issue.  Bush is a RINO when is comes to spending.  Tax conservative, liberal spender.  This absolutely does not work.  You must be consistent.
     
    as was Clinton. But nether was handed the problem we find ourselves in today.
     
    What's a rino?

    troll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-11-29

    republican in name only

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    Primo wrote:BondGuy wrote:primo, interesting stuff, but wrong lie. WMDs? Where are they? That's the lie.                        
     
    No one's arguing that Sadam was looking for nuclear capability. That's a given.
     
    Let's not redebate this whole thing. Believe what you will.
     
    Wrong lie?  What do you think he was doing with 550 tonnes of yellowcake?  Let's put it another way.  You have a neighbor.  He has killed people in the past.  You are aware that he is stockpiling guns.  Police go in and find lots of guns, but no bullets.  Where you wrong to be concerned? Oh and by the way, his friend who lives with him just went on a killing spree at the local mall. 
     
    primo, i agree with you the guy was a bad guy and would be up to no good the first chance he got. But that yellowcake isn't the reason we invaded iraq. We were told he had WMDS when in fact he didn't. That's the lie.
     
    Niger has yellowcake. Should we invade them too?
     
     

    troll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-11-29

    But nether was handed the problem we find ourselves in today.....you mean like a terrorist attack that changed the American people forever.  That could have been averted had the previous administration been a shade more concerned with foriegn affairs?   Look, I feel Bush has been a terrrible President.  He spent way too much on entitlement programs, IMO we went into Iraq as much for oil as national security (of course one could argue that they are one in the same), and he has lost the confidence of the American people.  However, he has accomplished a number of good things.  People are acting like his presidency has been an unqualified disaster from start to end, and that is simply not true.

    troll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-11-29

    BondGuy wrote:Primo wrote:BondGuy wrote:primo, interesting stuff, but wrong lie. WMDs? Where are they? That's the lie.                        
     
    No one's arguing that Sadam was looking for nuclear capability. That's a given.
     
    Let's not redebate this whole thing. Believe what you will.
     
    Wrong lie?  What do you think he was doing with 550 tonnes of yellowcake?  Let's put it another way.  You have a neighbor.  He has killed people in the past.  You are aware that he is stockpiling guns.  Police go in and find lots of guns, but no bullets.  Where you wrong to be concerned? Oh and by the way, his friend who lives with him just went on a killing spree at the local mall. 
     
    primo, i agree with you the guy was a bad guy and would be up to no good the first chance he got. But that yellowcake isn't the reason we invaded iraq. We were told he had WMDS when in fact he didn't. That's the lie.
     
    Niger has yellowcake. Should we invade them too?
     
     
     
    We were told our intelligence suggested presence of WMD's.  Of course we were not allowed in (might bit suspicious) so we did not know for sure.  Was this shaped for the American public?  Yep.  Of course if that bothers you, you should not vote for a politician ever again.  Also, the decision to go in had a bit of support from the left, who had access to the same raw intelligence as the President.   So when we went in, we only found the guns, but no bullets.  Let's also ignore the state support of terrorists, but of course terrorists would never be so bold as to attack us.

    troll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-11-29

    Niger has yellowcake. Should we invade them

     
     
    For mining it?  In the words of BHO, that is a devise comment.

    HymanRoth's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2008-08-25

    BondGuy wrote: 
    To me it is inconceivable that anyone would have voted for Bush in 04 knowing the Iraq invasion was based on a lie. Yet he got away with putting it past the American public in 04. The Iraq invasion was based on a lie?I've seen this argument put forth by the left so many times, yet with no evidence.  Are you telling me that Bush was able to either deceive Colin Powell, or to persuade him to knowingly present false information to the UN Security Council?Was the UN Security Council also gullible, considering that they were fooled by these alleged lies?What about the British and Israeli intelligence services, who provided information supporting the viewpoint that Saddam Hussein had WMD's?  Were they also participating in a huge global ruse?Is it that hard to believe that these weapons were not smuggled across a porous border to Syria, a country which is also no friend of the US?  Or perhaps they were buried somewhere in the desert, still not found?Did you know that many, if not most, in Hussein's own government thought that Hussein controlled a stock of WMD's?

    Indyone's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2005-05-31

    9-7-2008 - Obama 45.7% - McCain 46.7% - McCain +1.0%
     
    Goodbye lead.  Obama peaked too early, IMO.  The McCain +10% in USA/Gallup is probably faulty, although the momentum has clearly shifted, no doubt causing Obama's campaign to scramble.  After the last two elections, I put more faith in the Rasmussen polls than any others.
     
    Many folks I've talked politics with tell me that yes, given the decided lack of an attractive candidiate on the Dem side, they would have still voted red in 2004, even after seeing a less than effective 2nd term at times.  One old fellow reminded me that we haven't been successfully attacked by terrorists here since 9-11-2001 and he credits Bush's offensives for that, telling me that if left alone after 9-11, terrorists would have likely attacked us more than once since 2001.  While there is no way to measure a non-attack, I concede that he had a point in the matter.  I also agreed with him that John Kerry was probably the worst candidate for president in my voting lifetime (starting with the Reagan years).

    babbling looney's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-12-02

    Oh, i see you're confused about the meaning of the word guillible. Let me give you some synonyms: innocent, trustful,simple, naive. Anything meaning mental defect in those words? There isn't. But don't let that get in the way of a good rant
     
    I understand the meaning of the word gullible.  I also understand the intent behind your use of the word. You mean it as belittling insult.  Prick has a dictionary meaning.  So does the word ass. If I call you a prick or an ass be assured I don't intend the meaning to be the  ones found in the dictionary.
     
    To me it is inconceivable that anyone would have voted for Bush in 04 knowing the Iraq invasion was based on a lie.
     
    A lot of things are inconceivable to you evidently.  You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.  I voted for Bush because the alternative was Kerry.  The lie that the Iraq War was predicated on lies is just another tired old talking point from the left.   Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it the truth.  I suggest you get a new handbook.  There is a new game in town.
     
    Take a look around at the mess this country is in. Economy in the toilet, tens of thousands of people dead on a war based on a lie. People losing their jobs. Others barely scraping by. Our rights flushed. Look at all that and then look into a mirror. Because it's your fault babs. You and your millionaire roping horse freinds who are just fine with the way things are.
    Really?  Are you sure you are an actual financial advisor?  High GDP growth.  Coming off of record unemployment to 6.1% which is still a low figure historically. You need to refresh yourself on the economic cycle. Do you think things always go up?  How old are you?  30 or less?  If you can't remember the Carter years I suggest you get a history book and read a bit.  Are things rosy in the economy? Of course not. We are in a downward economic cycle right now and inflation is a problem. The weakness in the financial markets is also a huge problem but can be solved.  How about instead of setting your hair on fire and point blame at people for what is a natural and repetitive economic swing you try to guide your clients through it.   The economic policies proposed by your boyfriend Obama will positively throw us into a depression instead of the mild recession that we are in at this time.
    My millionaire "roping horse" clients (as you so snidely say) are those who create jobs.  They create wealth, industry and pay through the nose for the welfare state that Obama wants to expand. 
    Lastly, that you immediatly embraced Palin without knowing her is disconcerting.
     
    You have no idea what I know or don't know about Palin. I've been hoping that she would be selected as McCain's VP for many months now.  What is disconcerting is that you can't accept that people have the ability to make judgements that don't jive with your world view.  Instead you call people gullible, uninformed and basically stupid because they don't accept your superior views.
     
    The attitudes of people like you, Bond Guy, is why the Republicans will win this time.  The snide, condescending, negative comments. The disrespect of the middle class, working class, small business owner and values of small town America.  Don't think that people don't see this and resent it. Despite our gullibility we know when we are being insulted and taken for fools.  I know,  you find it inconceivable.  

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    Apologies up front to all for taking this one point for point.
     
    HymanRoth wrote: BondGuy wrote:
     
    To me it is inconceivable that anyone would have voted for Bush in 04 knowing the Iraq invasion was based on a lie. Yet he got away with putting it past the American public in 04. The Iraq invasion was based on a lie?
     
    Show me the WMDs? Where are they? No WMDs!  Bush built his case for war on the fact that iraq had Biowarfare WMDs ready to use and was ACTIVELY working on producing a nuclear weapon. Yet nada? At first it would be easy to give Bush a pass and say he relied on faulty intelligence, but the fact is the intell advisors had the info right. The info they had right was that any intell telling us Iraq had these weapons or was working on them COULD NOT be trusted. They advised and then warned Bush not to use the info in speeches to the American people and more importantly not to act on it. Bush decided to ignore that advice and used the info in speeches. Most prominately  the "sixteen words" in his state of the union address. More concisely, Bush manipulated the intell to bang the drum for war.
    I've seen this argument put forth by the left so many times, yet with no evidence.  Are you telling me that Bush was able to either deceive Colin Powell, or to persuade him to knowingly present false information to the UN Security Council?
     
    You might want to check with Colin Powell on that. Powell was very uncomfortable about going before the UN and the world with shakey intel we were using to make the case. he was, according to his aides, told to fall on his sword if necessary by cheney. Cheney also told him that as the most popular figure in the Bush admin he could afford to lose some  points in the pols. Powell negotiated with Bush/cheney that taking the case before the UN was his price to "sell" the case for war. later the ISG as well as a US Senate investigation found that a key documents used by Powell to make his case for war were inaccurate.
     
    Decieve, no, persuade yes. Knowingly, no, not on Powell's part.
    To be clear, the lie is Bush telling the country he had irrefutable proof that iraq had WMDs when he knew he had no such proof. Not only no proof but top intel aides telling him not to act on the shakey intell they did have. By the way that still goes down as an intel failure.
    Powell views his role in the drumbeat for war as a blot on his record. He said in an interview that it was painful and is painful. You tell me Hyman, do you think he believes he was duped?Was the UN Security Council also gullible, considering that they were fooled by these alleged lies?
     
    The reason Powell was the front man, was he was the most trusted Bush admin figure. His job was to "sell" the plan. The plan was based upon forged documents and inaccurate documents. He did a good job of selling it. What about the British and Israeli intelligence services, who provided information supporting the viewpoint that Saddam Hussein had WMD's?  Were they also participating in a huge global ruse?
     
    Global ruse? That's not what was happening. The Brits vetting of the documents in question came to a no decision. In other words they didn't know if they could trust the documents or not. Yet,   shortly after his speech, a British TV station found  one of the British intel documents that Powell used prominately in his presentation was not only based on old material, it was plagiarized. So it goes for British intel, outwitted by a TV station. Is it that hard to believe that these weapons were not smuggled across a porous border to Syria, a country which is also no friend of the US?  Or perhaps they were buried somewhere in the desert, still not found?
     
    ISG has found no evidence that this is the case. One would have to ask how the most watched nation in the world could have done this under the noses of our intell satellites. Then again...
     
    yes,  in light of the ISG report it would be hard to believe.
    Did you know that many, if not most, in Hussein's own government thought that Hussein controlled a stock of WMD's?
     
    yes, Bush admin relied on many defectors for intel. The white house ignored the agenda's of these sources against advice of senior intel.
     
    To sum it up, no WMDs. Bush manipulated, and ignored the intel he had to bulid his case for war.
    Read the findings of the ISG. This is not some left wing diatribe.

    Indyone's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2005-05-31

    I  see Keith Olbermann got booted from his MSNBC political desk...after finishing dead last on RNC coverage...good riddance...
     
    BG, it's time to own the gullible comment for what it was.  When I look up gullible, I get synonyms such as naive, simple, silly, foolish, and unsophisticated.  None of those are flattering in my world, and you might as well have called the entire middle of the country stupid.
     
    ...and no, my "misunderstanding" of your point is not my problem, it's Obama's problem.  That's probably one of the more serious verbal faux paus he's made in his campaign and will not likely soon be forgotten.  That you verbalized the same thoughts and feelings about middle America tells me that this attitude is prevalent in coastal metro politics, and I'm sorry, it IS divisive.  That's not opinion - it's fact.  It would be like someone labeling coastal folks as tree-hugging, latte-sipping, window-smashing, bed-wetting liberals, but only meaning it in the kindest, most flattering sense of the language.  Doesn't that feel just a wee bit divisive to you?

    norway401's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2007-10-16

    Interesting times in politics. The Conservatives have called an election for 14/Oct/08. Prior to calling the election the Conservatives were in a minority government position with the Liberals constantly making threats to defeat the Conservatives on a Confidence Motion. Up until recently the Conservatives ( your Republicans ) and the Liberals ( your Democrats ) in a virtual tie. The lastest polling shows a huge upsurge for the Conservatives which if it holds mean a Majority Government. By the way....IT'S ABOUT THE ECONOMY with other issues way behind.
    If your polls to the South are correct it appears that the Republicans may be elected .....the democrats may have peaked too early. On a final note.....FIRE OLBERMANN he is not anything more than a flunky for the Democrats.

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    babbling looney wrote:Oh, i see you're confused about the meaning of the word guillible. Let me give you some synonyms: innocent, trustful,simple, naive. Anything meaning mental defect in those words? There isn't. But don't let that get in the way of a good rant
     
    I understand the meaning of the word gullible.  I also understand the intent behind your use of the word. You mean it as belittling insult.  Prick has a dictionary meaning.  So does the word ass. If I call you a prick or an ass be assured I don't intend the meaning to be the  ones found in the dictionary.
     
    To me it is inconceivable that anyone would have voted for Bush in 04 knowing the Iraq invasion was based on a lie.
     
    A lot of things are inconceivable to you evidently.  You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.  I voted for Bush because the alternative was Kerry.  The lie that the Iraq War was predicated on lies is just another tired old talking point from the left.   Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it the truth.  I suggest you get a new handbook.  There is a new game in town.
     
    Take a look around at the mess this country is in. Economy in the toilet, tens of thousands of people dead on a war based on a lie. People losing their jobs. Others barely scraping by. Our rights flushed. Look at all that and then look into a mirror. Because it's your fault babs. You and your millionaire roping horse freinds who are just fine with the way things are.
    Really?  Are you sure you are an actual financial advisor?  High GDP growth.  Coming off of record unemployment to 6.1% which is still a low figure historically. You need to refresh yourself on the economic cycle. Do you think things always go up?  How old are you?  30 or less?  If you can't remember the Carter years I suggest you get a history book and read a bit.  Are things rosy in the economy? Of course not. We are in a downward economic cycle right now and inflation is a problem. The weakness in the financial markets is also a huge problem but can be solved.  How about instead of setting your hair on fire and point blame at people for what is a natural and repetitive economic swing you try to guide your clients through it.   The economic policies proposed by your boyfriend Obama will positively throw us into a depression instead of the mild recession that we are in at this time.
    My millionaire "roping horse" clients (as you so snidely say) are those who create jobs.  They create wealth, industry and pay through the nose for the welfare state that Obama wants to expand. 
    Lastly, that you immediatly embraced Palin without knowing her is disconcerting.
     
    You have no idea what I know or don't know about Palin. I've been hoping that she would be selected as McCain's VP for many months now.  What is disconcerting is that you can't accept that people have the ability to make judgements that don't jive with your world view.  Instead you call people gullible, uninformed and basically stupid because they don't accept your superior views.
     
    The attitudes of people like you, Bond Guy, is why the Republicans will win this time.  The snide, condescending, negative comments. The disrespect of the middle class, working class, small business owner and values of small town America.  Don't think that people don't see this and resent it. Despite our gullibility we know when we are being insulted and taken for fools.  I know,  you find it inconceivable.  
     
    Babs, thank you for putting so much time and effort into your response. Could you please show me where I used the word inconceivable in another post? I may have used it ,but I can't find it.
     
    Somehow you've co-opted the word stupid as a synonym for the word gullible. And it has really set you off. Gee, i don't know what to do here. Telling you that you are wrong and well, I come off as condesending. Yet, here  you've prosed an entire diatribe based on a word comprehension mistake on your part. You've even got me looking down on small town america. I can't find anything i said that could be twisted to that. Well, by a logical person.
     
    babs, you are free to conduct your hate bondguy campaign. I can't stop you from hating me. i can't stop you from twisting my words. And i can't stop you from PMing other forum members to spread the hate. But i'm not the one you need to worry about.
     
     

    babbling looney's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-12-02
    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    Indyone wrote:I  see Keith Olbermann got booted from his MSNBC political desk...after finishing dead last on RNC coverage...good riddance...
     
    BG, it's time to own the gullible comment for what it was.  When I look up gullible, I get synonyms such as naive, simple, silly, foolish, and unsophisticated.  None of those are flattering in my world, and you might as well have called the entire middle of the country stupid.
     
    ...and no, my "misunderstanding" of your point is not my problem, it's Obama's problem.  That's probably one of the more serious verbal faux paus he's made in his campaign and will not likely soon be forgotten.  That you verbalized the same thoughts and feelings about middle America tells me that this attitude is prevalent in coastal metro politics, and I'm sorry, it IS divisive.  That's not opinion - it's fact.  It would be like someone labeling coastal folks as tree-hugging, latte-sipping, window-smashing, bed-wetting liberals, but only meaning it in the kindest, most flattering sense of the language.  Doesn't that feel just a wee bit divisive to you?
     
     
     
    I find it diificult to believe that you've read the actual transcript of the San fran speech and Obama's rebuttal speech delivered the following day in  a small town in Indiana. If you have, why post this?
     
    have you have been sucked in by the misinformation machine that is presidential politics? Obama said nothing offensive about small town america. Quite the contrary. However, what the misinformation machines, both hillary's and John's, twisted Obama's words to mean is offensive to small town america. Obama delivered a speech that shows a real understanding of what's going on in small town america.
     
     
    It was predicted that, that comment would cost obama the dem nomination. So, as a campaign ploy the twisting of meaning didn't work. Small town america was able to see through the dirty campaign tactics. Whew hoo!
     
    Now McCain is giving the same tactic a spin. No surprise there considering the number of Bush people on McCain's payroll. Apparently, for as many times as I'm hearing it, it's playing well with his base. People like you. Still, it is what it is: a lie.
     
     

    babbling looney's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-12-02

    Obama said nothing offensive about small town america

     
    None so blind as those who will not see.

    norway401's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2007-10-16

    And Bond Guy .....Obama never not once ever heard Rev. Wright recite his hateful remarks and only knew him as his Pastor and friend  

    Rugby's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-06-06

    norway401 wrote:And Bond Guy .....Obama never not once ever heard Rev. Wright recite his hateful remarks and only knew him as his Pastor and friend  Unless you are so in the tank for Obama (like BG), it really is extremely difficult to get comfortable enough to consider voting for him.  Considering you have to deal with all the controversies (i.e. Wright), mystery (Ayers, resume) and translating of his "intellectual comments" ("Clinging to guns and religon").   I think that the polls are starting to reflect that.  We have one person on this forum (BG) that has his back.  That can't be a good tell for dems.  No offense to BG, but no one else supporting him on the 14 pages of the thread?  I thought he was a rock star?

    norway401's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2007-10-16

    Ruby ...my point exactly. He was heralded as so unique , so new and so anti-establishment ( Washington ) and now we find out he is JUST LIKE ANY OTHER CANDIDATE. Am I surprised not at all....the love affair was bound to end. He was or is the Media Star but at some point the hard questions get asked and then????? Rezco , Wright et al .

    Indyone's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2005-05-31

    To be fair, the investment advisor field is predominantly Republican, or independent with a leaning toward Republican.  Frankly, traditional Republican platform items, such as small government and low taxes fit very nicely into our personal and professional needs, and those of most of our clients.  The fact that BG is defending a candidate that in some respects runs counter to his economic best interest tells me that he believes passionately in other non-financial planks of the platform.
     
    He's not real happy with me at the moment (and to a degree the feeling is mutual).  We'll just have to agree to disagree on several things here.  For what it's worth, I still make sure I read his posts when I see them, as the non-political ones have often given valuable insight to me.

    babbling looney's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-12-02

    For what it's worth, I still make sure I read his posts when I see them, as the non-political ones have often given valuable insight to me.

     
    As will I.

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    Rugby wrote: norway401 wrote:And Bond Guy .....Obama never not once ever heard Rev. Wright recite his hateful remarks and only knew him as his Pastor and friend  Unless you are so in the tank for Obama (like BG), it really is extremely difficult to get comfortable enough to consider voting for him.  Considering you have to deal with all the controversies (i.e. Wright), mystery (Ayers, resume) and translating of his "intellectual comments" ("Clinging to guns and religon").   I think that the polls are starting to reflect that.  We have one person on this forum (BG) that has his back.  That can't be a good tell for dems.  No offense to BG, but no one else supporting him on the 14 pages of the thread?  I thought he was a rock star?
     
    This is laughable. Gee, no support for obama over here at RRR Forums? That would be Republican Registered Rep forums. More closely, it should be social conservative registered rep forums. That aptly discribes most of the crowd that's posting on this thread.
     
    That i am willing to vote against my own self interest should tell you all you need to know about me. Most of you come across as not  open minded enough to fathom the thought. While a vote for Obama may not be in my best interest on one score, money, it's in the best interest of my children, many of my friends and even my sales assistant financially to vote him in. But that's not the main reason i would vote for Obama.
     
    Here's something about the group here that I don't get and i'm sure you can help me out on this point. Many of you being the social conservatives that you are also, no doubt, very religious. Do i have that right? The two aren't mutually exclusive but mostly go hand in hand? Religion is important to most of you?
     
    Ok, here's my question: How do those of you who are religious square the war with God? I ask this because in my mind you can't say you believe in God and be for the war. I'm not a gleeming example of Christian values, but i'm pretty sure when Jesus said love your enemies he didn't mean kill them. Yeah, it's a bumper sticker, but still, true? Yet, religious social conservatives are among those who voted Bush to a second term. And with Palin on the ticket they are on board to vote for McCain, who will extend the war for as long as he judges necessary. How does a regilious social conservative square that up? How can you vote for extending the killing?
     
    There are what, one hundred thousand people dead because of this war? How can that be right with God? Yet, with one hundred thousand people dead because of this war all most of you can do is run around whining about your taxes and post misinformation about the man who will stop the killing.
     
     Any of you out there on RRR thinking past your own self interest?
     
    Obama says he's going to stop the killing. That's all I need to know. I don't care what he does to my taxes.

    troll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-11-29

    Obama says he's going to stop the killing
     
    Obama is not going to stop the killing, he is just going to kill much younger people who have not learned to use a gun yet, or breathe for that matter.

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    primo, for six of the past eight years you've had a republican congress, republican senate and a republican white house. Yet Roe v Wade still stands. You can't pin the abortion debate on Obama.
    How do you square doing your personal part in the killing of 100,000 people with being a christian?

    troll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-11-29

    Alot easier than killing partial birth abortion legislation would make me feel.  Of course, the Bible does not tell of any wars there.

    babbling looney's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-12-02

    BondGuy wrote:Rugby wrote: norway401 wrote:And Bond Guy .....Obama never not once ever heard Rev. Wright recite his hateful remarks and only knew him as his Pastor and friend  Unless you are so in the tank for Obama (like BG), it really is extremely difficult to get comfortable enough to consider voting for him.  Considering you have to deal with all the controversies (i.e. Wright), mystery (Ayers, resume) and translating of his "intellectual comments" ("Clinging to guns and religon").   I think that the polls are starting to reflect that.  We have one person on this forum (BG) that has his back.  That can't be a good tell for dems.  No offense to BG, but no one else supporting him on the 14 pages of the thread?  I thought he was a rock star?
     
    This is laughable. Gee, no support for obama over here at RRR Forums? That would be Republican Registered Rep forums. More closely, it should be social conservative registered rep forums. That aptly discribes most of the crowd that's posting on this thread.
     
    That i am willing to vote against my own self interest should tell you all you need to know about me. Most of you come across as not  open minded enough to fathom the thought. While a vote for Obama may not be in my best interest on one score, money, it's in the best interest of my children, many of my friends and even my sales assistant financially to vote him in. But that's not the main reason i would vote for Obama.
     
    A vote for Obama is against EVERYONE'S best interests.  His economic policy proposals are sheer disaster for your children, and everyone else.  If he enacts his punitive tax and restrictive commerce/trade policies we will be heading into a deep deep recession if not an actual depression.
     
    Here's something about the group here that I don't get and i'm sure you can help me out on this point. Many of you being the social conservatives that you are also, no doubt, very religious. Do i have that right? The two aren't mutually exclusive but mostly go hand in hand? Religion is important to most of you?
     
    Speaking for myself....no.
     
     
    Ok, here's my question: How do those of you who are religious square the war with God? I ask this because in my mind you can't say you believe in God and be for the war. I'm not a gleeming example of Christian values, but i'm pretty sure when Jesus said love your enemies he didn't mean kill them. Yeah, it's a bumper sticker, but still, true? Yet, religious social conservatives are among those who voted Bush to a second term. And with Palin on the ticket they are on board to vote for McCain, who will extend the war for as long as he judges necessary. How does a regilious social conservative square that up? How can you vote for extending the killing?
     
    Because by winning we eliminate future killings.  You know the breaking the eggs to make the omlete theory.  And lest you get snippy back at me... I have young relatives who have been and are in the military in the Middle East.
     
    There are what, one hundred thousand people dead because of this war?  Baloney.
     
     How can that be right with God?  I don't know how Got thinks... He destroyed entire cities just to prove a point.  Sodom and Gomorah.  Yet, with one hundred thousand people dead because of this war all most of you can do is run around whining about your taxes and post misinformation about the man who will stop the killing.
     
    Any of you out there on RRR thinking past your own self interest?
     
    It's in my own self interest and in the best interest of the entire US to have a strong economy, safe and secured borders and to crush the radical terrorists who want to destroy our country, not to mention our very lives.  Obama will not do this.
     
    Obama says he's going to stop the killing. That's all I need to know. I don't care what he does to my taxes.
     
    Bull.... Obama is proposing to go into Afghanisan and and attack Pakistan, a country with nukes.  How is this stopping the killing?  Oh.....I know....just moving it to a place that has been blessed by the Democrat party and leftists who can't stand the idea that we are actually winning in Iraq.    Yeah.  That's better
     
    You should care what he does to your taxes when it is in the aim to further a communist/socialist agenda.  Your children will not thank you when they are drones to the State.

    Rugby's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-06-06

    Obama really has you hook line and sinker that he would be better for your children, friends, etc...If I recall at the start of the thread I thought you were a Repub. or Indy leaning towards Obama.  Maybe the resurgence of McCain has solidified your views.Now maybe you are coming across that you think that you are made of a higher moral fiber than 99.9% of people on this thread.  Basically, you are throwing out alot of your beliefs on Bush on to McCain.  Don't forgot who controls the Congress or what Bush has been faced with early in his presidency.  To be perfectly honest with you, much of what you have written here lately seems a bit "crackpot".  That coupled with your absolute blinders on anything negative about Obama hurts you political credibility on the Rush Limbaugh Registered Rep Forum here.You may however be a completely acceptable replacement for Keith Olberman on MSNBC.  You are a valuable contributor, and perhaps some of us are guilty of goading you and are out numbering you....I do think though you are overstating the level of hard right voters on here.  Lets not forget that Obama has received a TON of money from wall street and financial industry.  The board of FNM & FRE are loaded with DEMs and former Clinton admin. people.   Notice Obama was not playing Robin Hood related to the bailout today.  Strange for a reformist to not have anything harsh to say about the people who at the helm of these financial  catastrophies that will be the burden of our children. I think you would be sorely disappointed in his ability or willingness to save the day.  Nothing he has said or done in his life or this campaign would make you think he is different. 

    norway401's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2007-10-16

    BG ....I will be the first to admit my Conservative Bias ( Republican in U.S. ) versus the Liberals ( Democrats in the U.S. ). In Canada we do not register our Party affiliation as you do in the U.S. I do admit at points in my voting history at either the Federal or Provincial level I have voted for both Conservatives and Liberals.
    All the above being said .....and I hope you are just very passionate about your Democratic Party and do not actually hold that everything that they say is RIGHT whilst the Republicans are the always WRONG But let us be fair and intellectually honest Politicans in most part are about being Elected and being faithful to the Party first and foremost.

    anabuhabkuss's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2005-05-02

    This thread is a "task that's from God".

    anabuhabkuss's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2005-05-02

    Primo wrote:Obama says he's going to stop the killing
     
    Obama is not going to stop the killing, he is just going to kill much younger people who have not learned to use a gun yet, or breathe for that matter.
     
    Take responsibility for your own actions rather than accuse others. Obama can't get pregnant.

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    A week ago I was striper fishing in Little Egg Inlet. I was fishing as my brother jockeyed 'Pole Dancer" in the 8 foot swell and fast outgoing tide. The NE wind against the tide was piling the water up and my brother had his work cut out for him trying to keep us on the fish. Probably would have been better to surf fish, but we were too dumb to figure that out  before hand. The guys on the beach were catching fish. We were getting a salt water bath.
     
    As I looked down at the water it was obvious that we were moving very fast. Yet as I looked up at the shoreline a quarter mile away I  could see we weren't moving at all. The boat speed was perfectly balanced against the outgoing tide. Was I moving or standing still? Standing still. Yet depending on one's POV that wouldn't be obvious. To everyone on board we felt we were moving. To anyone watching us from the beach, we were a still picture. Bobbing, but standing in place.
     
    And so it goes here. To dyed in the wool republicans I suppose I do look in the tank for Obama. That would be the micro, on board the boat looking down at the water view. However, pan out to the macro view from the beach and I'm not so in the tank as many of you would think. In fact I'm not in the tank at all. I've just made an informed decision. No doubt one which you will belittle because in differs from yours.
     
    Spending days as the sole contrary opinion here and it would be easy to draw the conclusion that I'm blind to any Obama flaws. I assure you I'm not. I've read the positions and major policies of both candidates. In fact I'm closer to McCain on many issues, like right to life. He's pro life with exceptions for rape incest and medical emerg, just as I am. He's pandering by saying no exceptions which I don't hold against him. He's gotta do what he's gotta do. I'll be surprised, if elected, he holds to that position.
     
    And the tax thing that many of you go on about I just don't get. Based on the income splits  I've seen from both campaigns, and based on what I know of production levels around here, many of you are better off under Obama. Still the tax rant goes on?
     
    After reading and listening to both candidates I've decided to go with Obama. The overwelming reason is the war. I was antiwar before it became invogue. And I got flamed right here on this very forum for speaking out against the war. Yet, much of what I said has come to pass. This is a key issue for me. I have a problem with many aspects of the war. So, I'm voting for the guy who will get us out as quickly as possible and refocus our attention where it should have been to begin with, Bin laden.
     
    My decision to go for Obama also has something to do with John picking Caribou Barbi as his running mate. I know that many of you hold views similar to hers but  she's an extremist. Extremist don't get my vote.  And yes, I kid the candidate with one of the many colorful nicknames floating around cyberspace.
     
    If it makes any of you feel any better I'm voting republican for my congressman on the next cycle. And I voted republican for mayor on the current cycle. Hey, maybe someday he'll run for Veep! We can only hope!
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    Indyone's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2005-05-31

    Indyone wrote:Just for grins, I'm going to start marking the RCP poll average so we can watch the direction of the race between now and election day.
     
    As of 9/3/2008 - Obama 48.8% - McCain 43.0 - Obama+5.8%
     
    9/9/2008 - Obama 45.6% - McCain 48.4% - McCain+2.8%
     
    That's a pretty nice convention bounce in six days, although if you take out the two Gallup polls, it's very close.  Rasmussen, which I trust over all other pollers, has it 48-48.
     
    The real interesting thing to me is the direction of some of the state polls out today.  Florida has gone to a dead heat, but Obama is only +1 in Michigan, +3 in Wisconsin, and +4 in Washington, while McCain has widened to +7 in Ohio.
     
    Caribou Barbie..., but I'm still going to cancel out your vote.  I don't think that either candidate will keep our troops in Iraq for long, but I can see the need for a police force there temporarily until the Iraqi's are ready for the full hand-off.  We're not there to commit genocide...we're there to fill in the police force gap until the Iraqi's get sufficient numbers and training to keep the animals corraled.

    norway401's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2007-10-16

    Indy ....my opinion from Canada. You are correct either/or they want out of Iraq as soon as possible without leaving a complete void and appear they left the Iraqi Government and people in a Civil War. With that in mind , the U.S. is moving more troops in to Afganastan to shore up the increase in Taliban activities. The Canadians are in Kandahar and being hit with increasing casualties and our European Allies ( Germany and France ) frankly are refusing to take up combat roles. Thus the U.S. as recently announced increase in troops to this area. With the Pakistan Government being led by Mr. 10% ( Benazir's widower ) I don't think we in the West can expect much from him unless of course he can take/skim 10% off for himself.

    lady_trader's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2007-05-12

    Something to think about....
     
    Isn't this interesting that there have been several comments about Palin's appearance, like "But she is hot" and " Caribou Barbie". Would we have these same comments if she was a man?  Would similiar comments about Obama on his race ever be tolerated? (Quite honestly, I like Obama. I gave "The Audacity of Hope" as Christmas gifts last year.)
     
    About a month before this announcement, Sarah Palin was interviewed by Maria Bartiromo on off-shore drilling. (Below is the video link.)  This video just made me PUMPED. This is an intelligent woman discussing how her state can contribute a domestic (partial) solution to our oil problem with consideration to our environment.  Let's get away from giving money to war lords and terrorists and instead make jobs for Americans and give money to Americans who own these natural resources!
     
    Oil and taxes are the main issues for me, which is why I like the McCain-Palin ticket.
     
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=836304396&play=1

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    Oil and taxes?
     
    Palin is for drilling in ANWR and Mccain is against it. McCain is quoted as saying that the reserves to be gotten in ANWR are "not that impactful." McCain respects yields to state's rights. if voters want drilling OK, if not OK as well.
     
    On taxes, neither candidate has the money to pay for their plan. Still. Mccain will use any savings in the budget to give cuts to the rich and to the oil companies.  Obama will use any savings to give tax cuts to the middle class and working poor.
     
    Butttttttt. here's the rub. For most of us, there isn't much of difference tax wise, in the plans. At least not enough to be a deciding factor. That's not true for all of us but still, rather than blankly buying into one plan and not the other, better to see how they would affect you, and then decide.  By the way LT, I'm speaking generally here.
     
    On another front McCain?palin are getting called on the noe debunked claims that she is an earmark fighting fiscal conservative. Taking in the most federal money per dollar sent to DC of any state in the country, $1.84/$1.00 debunks that claim and squarely makes Alaska a welfare state. Apparently, Palin has never met an earmark she didn't like. Plus the truth about the bridge to nowhere has come out.
     
    Of course the truth doesn't matter. One commentator put it well when he quoted mark Twain;" A lie can make it half way around the world before the truth has time to its shoes on."
     
    Hopefully, the campaign will return to issues and get off the personalities binge its been on for the past two weeks.
     
    As for the hot and caribou comments, my only suggestion if they offend you is to not watch SNL, Leno. Letterman, Colbert, Mahr, and Daily. Watching them and you will see that there is plenty of teasing on all sides.  Alaskans even tease that she's hot. Haven't you seen the Coldest State Hottest Governor Tee shirts? LT you keep trying to make an issue out of a non issue.

    troll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-11-29

    Taxes, one issue not being given much press is Obama is going to raise taxes on every individual tax payer in this country.  Anybody know how?  There is actually two answers.  Flame away.

    lady_trader's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2007-05-12

    I said this before: The librarian glasses, coifed hair and past-the-knee skirts just do not equal sex symbol. However, if you call her "hot", it just discredits her.
     
     
     

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    Primo wrote:Taxes, one issue not being given much press is Obama is going to raise taxes on every individual tax payer in this country.  Anybody know how?  There is actually two answers.  Flame away.
     
    Do you mean even more than how much Bush has buried us with the iraq war?

    troll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-11-29

    You can tell you are an Obama fan, you even duck questions with similar flair.  One of Obama's big talking points is how he understands the common man, he will stand up for the middle class.  What he doesn't say is how letting Bush's tax cuts (OMG he did something good??!!) will increase taxes across the board.  He also is very quiet on the fact that raising corporate taxes is just a indirect tax hike on the middle class.   You see, corporations will just respond to a tax hike the same way as they always have, they will cut expenses (jobs) and raise prices.  A tax hike on corporate America will just get passed along, all the while the democrat masses will smile say "thank you, may I have another".  XOM payed more in federal taxes in 2006 than the bottom 50% (# of people) of individual filers.  THEY PAID AS MUCH TAX AS HALF OF THIS COUNTRY!!  But they should pay more.  Even though they have an 8% ROE.  They should pay more.  Do you think XOM is going to let their ROE go down to 7 or 6% or are they going to cut jobs and/or raise taxes?  Think about it.

    babbling looney's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2004-12-02

    On taxes, neither candidate has the money to pay for their plan. Still. Mccain will use any savings in the budget to give cuts to the rich and to the oil companies.  Obama will use any savings to give tax cuts to the middle class and working poor.
     
    I swear to God, there is no way that you can possibly be a financial advisor expressing thoughts like these.  Have you zero concept of economics?  I suggest you read some Milton Friedman (Free to Chose) or Friedrich Hayek (Road to Serfdom).    Do you just repeat the Democrat talking points or do you ever think about what you are saying, especially in light of what you are supposed to be doing for a living?

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    lady_trader wrote:
    I said this before: The librarian glasses, coifed hair and past-the-knee skirts just do not equal sex symbol. However, if you call her "hot", it just discredits her.
     
     
     
     
    On this very thread posters called Palin a GILF and asked if Mccain was "Hittin it" yet you said nothing.
     
    Yet, post the politcal take on such sexist comments and you're all over it. Ok for posters to say she's the Governor I'd Like to F**k, but not Ok to talk about such thinking as a wedge issue in the election?
     
    On this very thread posters have posted info calling Obama a racist and Muslim who will side with Muslims. Yet you said nothing. Tell me, in your view, what's worse, Palin being called hot, or Obama being called a Muslim racist?
     
    Just so you know, these types of comments discredit the source not the target. So Palin is not being discredited.
     
     
     
     

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    babbling looney wrote:
    On taxes, neither candidate has the money to pay for their plan. Still. Mccain will use any savings in the budget to give cuts to the rich and to the oil companies.  Obama will use any savings to give tax cuts to the middle class and working poor.
     
    I swear to God, there is no way that you can possibly be a financial advisor expressing thoughts like these.  Have you zero concept of economics?  I suggest you read some Milton Friedman (Free to Chose) or Friedrich Hayek (Road to Serfdom).    Do you just repeat the Democrat talking points or do you ever think about what you are saying, especially in light of what you are supposed to be doing for a living?
     
    Ah, these aren't thoughts, these are facts taken form each campaign. But leave it to you to take a benign recounting of each candidate's tax position and turn it into a personal attack.
     
     

    BondGuy's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 2006-09-21

    Primo wrote:You can tell you are an Obama fan, you even duck questions with similar flair.  One of Obama's big talking points is how he understands the common man, he will stand up for the middle class.  What he doesn't say is how letting Bush's tax cuts (OMG he did something good??!!) will increase taxes across the board.  He also is very quiet on the fact that raising corporate taxes is just a indirect tax hike on the middle class.   You see, corporations will just respond to a tax hike the same way as they always have, they will cut expenses (jobs) and raise prices.  A tax hike on corporate America will just get passed along, all the while the democrat masses will smile say "thank you, may I have another".  XOM payed more in federal taxes in 2006 than the bottom 50% (# of people) of individual filers.  THEY PAID AS MUCH TAX AS HALF OF THIS COUNTRY!!  But they should pay more.  Even though they have an 8% ROE.  They should pay more.  Do you think XOM is going to let their ROE go down to 7 or 6% or are they going to cut jobs and/or raise taxes?  Think about it.
     
    Primo, that's an old tired argument. Show me a time in history where increasing corp tax has lead to the job loss and the inflation that you speak of?
     
    On an intellectual level I agree with you. However, on mainstreet  it just doesn't translate to the bottom line.
     
    If the governmet came to you and said we have money to give away, we can give it directly to you, or we can give it to corporations that will cut prices, who would you rather we give it to? There is only one correct answer to that question and we both know that.
     
    Think about this: IF XOM has to produce X to acheive it's profit goals and it takes Y employees to acheive that goal, are they going to cut those employees? Nope. XOM is not going to cut anything that will adversly affect the bottom line. They will find other ways to close the gap. Employees won't get cut unless demand slackens causing a production cut or technology advances allowing personel cuts.
     
    Again, show me I'm wrong?
     
    Those who can, do, those who can't teach. There is a reason Economics teachers teach.
     
    By the way, Greenspan has come out against Mccain's economic plan, including his tax package.
     
    Mccain, early in his primary campaign said one of his weakest areas was on the economy and that he was going to read Greenspan's book, The Age Of Turbulence as part of his education. According to the AP, he needs to reread it.
     
    Lastly, I'm in McCains camp, mostly, on the tax isssue, just not my deciding issue. And again, most here will do at least as well under Obama as McCain.

    Please or Register to post comments.

    Industry Newsletters
    Investment Category Sponsor Links

     

    Careers Category Sponsor Links

    Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×