I've listening to Obama now during this election year and at first I was intrigued by him, by no means going to vote, but he caught my attention with his speeches. However, now the speeches have never developed past saying he is going to change things. Does this mean the elimination of private healthcare in the US, well what will happen to the many businesses and investers of those companies. Will there be a big expensive government buy-out that will cause taxes to increase or us to borrow more money from other countries or will those companines just go out of business and people lose millions and the stock market crash? How much will you increase taxes? A little won't hurt, but if you repeal the Bush tax breaks and increase inheritance and capital gains taxes, that will only leave us with change! What about the fact he wants to drastically reduce our military budget and the size of the military. Well this could, all be it very unlikely, lead to a change in the power dynamic of the world and leave us vulnerable to attacks by other countries. This wouldn't be a change that I am for. Government provided college tuition? Sounds good but then again how much will taxes increase, you can't add programs and not add taxes! Many people are caught up in the letter behind the names of the candidate and it is very very frightening to see someone potentially be the President of the US that we know very little about and that any time a question is asked about him or his potential policies he gets defensive. That's not change, that's the same way every husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend has ever acted when they are keeping something from their significant other. Change, could be good, but how about enlightening us on what kind. Maybe just Maybe by doing this we might actually agree. Wow imagine that the public knowing what you are for. But then again with many voters it seems that the old addage is true, what you don't know can't hurt. Or can it?
Libs will get off subject in 3......2.....1.....
launchpad4 Wrote:I've listening to Obama now during this election year and at first I was intrigued by him, by no means going to vote, but he caught my attention with his speeches. However, now the speeches have never developed past saying he is going to change things. Does this mean the elimination of private healthcare in the US, well what will happen to the many businesses and investers of those companies. Will there be a big expensive government buy-out that will cause taxes to increase or us to borrow more money from other countries or will those companines just go out of business and people lose millions and the stock market crash? How much will you increase taxes? A little won't hurt, but if you repeal the Bush tax breaks and increase inheritance and capital gains taxes, that will only leave us with change! What about the fact he wants to drastically reduce our military budget and the size of the military. Well this could, all be it very unlikely, lead to a change in the power dynamic of the world and leave us vulnerable to attacks by other countries. This wouldn't be a change that I am for. Government provided college tuition? Sounds good but then again how much will taxes increase, you can't add programs and not add taxes! Many people are caught up in the letter behind the names of the candidate and it is very very frightening to see someone potentially be the President of the US that we know very little about and that any time a question is asked about him or his potential policies he gets defensive. That's not change, that's the same way every husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend has ever acted when they are keeping something from their significant other. Change, could be good, but how about enlightening us on what kind. Maybe just Maybe by doing this we might actually agree. Wow imagine that the public knowing what you are for. But then again with many voters it seems that the old addage is true, what you don't know can't hurt. Or can it?
Not a single shred of truth here!
DevilsWin Wrote:Not a single shred of truth here!
?????
Please point out what is not true.
Why should I trust a website promoted by Obama. His website can say whatever it wants. Doesn't mean what he tells us is gonna hold true once he takes office. HE's already backing out of his tax breaks policies.
Beetle01 Wrote:Why should I trust a website promoted by Obama. His website can say whatever it wants. Doesn't mean what he tells us is gonna hold true once he takes office. HE's already backing out of his tax breaks policies.
He will be held accountable unlike all the haterade websites.
DevilsWin Wrote:He will be held accountable unlike all the haterade websites.
LOL he'll sugar coat everything with some nice speeches and Dems will gobble it up like Turkey on Thanksgiving.
I would be very surprised if more than 10% of his policies actually come to fruition.
Obama is a slick talker. Any man that has went to a church for ten years and listened to a preacher and said he didnt know how he believes and lived. Is not tellen the truth, then that makes me ask how many other things is he not tellen us the truth on. Plus if u put an G before Obama you have Go bama and i am not a bama fan.
I hope he is accountable more than his racist Rev. Wright.
Old Jacket Wrote:I hope he is accountable more than his racist Rev. Wright.
In that it is 9/11, let me suggest this: religion poisons everything, and those who would kill "for the glory of god" are sadly and tragically poisoned. With that said, the terrorists targeted the Twin Towers (symbol of America's economic power or exploitation (or both) depending on your viewpoint; targeted the Pentagon (symbol of America's military might or imperialism (or both) depending on your viewpoint; targeted (but failed) the White House (symbol of America's political power or arrogant rule (or both) depending on your viewpoint. America is neither wholly good or wholly evil; but as people are complex mixtures of both, and nations made up of people, so is America a complex mixture of both. If Rev. Wright was trying to point that out, he was telling the truth, no matter how painful it might be. Racism poisons everything as well, and often bubbles up out of religion.
thecavemaster Wrote:In that it is 9/11, let me suggest this: religion poisons everything, and those who would kill "for the glory of god" are sadly and tragically poisoned. With that said, the terrorists targeted the Twin Towers (symbol of America's economic power or exploitation (or both) depending on your viewpoint; targeted the Pentagon (symbol of America's military might or imperialism (or both) depending on your viewpoint; targeted (but failed) the White House (symbol of America's political power or arrogant rule (or both) depending on your viewpoint. America is neither wholly good or wholly evil; but as people are complex mixtures of both, and nations made up of people, so is America a complex mixture of both. If Rev. Wright was trying to point that out, he was telling the truth, no matter how painful it might be. Racsim poisons everything as well, and often bubbles up out of religion.
Great Post!:Thumbs:
Racism hasn't "bubbled" out into any church service that I have ever been to. I'm pretty confident in saying that the Bible teaches us to love others and to teach others as we should be treated. Listen here if your church teaches racism, it probably isn't that good of a church. You can not defend someone's actions of going to a church or saying things like Rev. Wright said by saying, "well its just religion things come out" That's stupid and you should be removed from BGR for saying an insane generalization like that. You can not honesly tell me that religion spreads or teaches or has these things come out in them. EVERY religion teaches some form of peace. And yes there are radicals in every one of them, but you can't say well its religion's fault. And you also shouldn't try to use that for an excuse for someone that uses the pulpit to try and advance his racist beliefs.
launchpad4 Wrote:Racism hasn't "bubbled" out into any church service that I have ever been to. I'm pretty confident in saying that the Bible teaches us to love others and to teach others as we should be treated. Listen here if your church teaches racism, it probably isn't that good of a church. You can not defend someone's actions of going to a church or saying things like Rev. Wright said by saying, "well its just religion things come out" That's stupid and you should be removed from BGR for saying an insane generalization like that. You can not honesly tell me that religion spreads or teaches or has these things come out in them. EVERY religion teaches some form of peace. And yes there are radicals in every one of them, but you can't say well its religion's fault. And you also shouldn't try to use that for an excuse for someone that uses the pulpit to try and advance his racist beliefs.
Nearly every White church in the South had no problem preaching hate during Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's Civil Rights campaign.
Attendance at the 1st Baptist Church where I live has declined since the new "White" Pastor showed up with his African American wife.
DevilsWin Wrote:Nearly every White church in the South had no problem preaching hate during Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's Civil Rights campaign.
Attendance at the 1st Baptist Church where I live has declined since the new "White" Pastor showed up with his African American wife.
Thank you. Quick story: when a teen, went to a friend's home, whose dad was a pastor at a church. Sanford and Son came on. The preacher said, "Get those ("n" word) off the t.v." Also, I have heard MANY Christians so-called quote (is it Genesis 9:27) that god cursed Ham, which was the ancestor of the "dark races." "In Christ Jesus, there is no slave nor free, Jew or Gentile, male or female" and, may I add, no black or white... Paul said in Acts (in Athens I think?) that god made all peoples everywhere from one. Sunday morning is STILL the most segregated hour in America.
Now why when I bring up past examples I'm blasted for using things that happen decades ago, but its o.k. for you guys to use stuff from the sixties. How long has it been since Sanford and Son was on t.v. Things change, people change, sure there were tensions in the South, but most civilized people have moved past the color issue. If you can't see someone for who they are on the inside then what kind of person are you truly. Great job on directing the subject off topic though. You libs work really hard on diverting attention from the issues with Obama. It's really funny how you all work together to try and hijack threads.
launchpad4 Wrote:Now why when I bring up past examples I'm blasted for using things that happen decades ago, but its o.k. for you guys to use stuff from the sixties. How long has it been since Sanford and Son was on t.v. Things change, people change, sure there were tensions in the South, but most civilized people have moved past the color issue. If you can't see someone for who they are on the inside then what kind of person are you truly. Great job on directing the subject off topic though. You libs work really hard on diverting attention from the issues with Obama. It's really funny how you all work together to try and hijack threads.
I watched Sanford and Son just 2 nights ago.:confused:
I can see that most people who say "I ain't gonna vote for Obama because I just don't trust him" are, whether they know it or not, Racists.
Just because they seem like a nice understanding person that doesn't use "The N Word" they could still be a practicing predjudiced racist.
So I beg to differ with your thesis that I can't see someone for who they truely are.
Instead I propose that I can see that most of white America is still full of racists and biggots although appearing to be "over the hump" of bigotry and racism.
Most racists would never admit it except in close company because its becoming more unaccepatable.
Sure some have realized that this election is more important than their own selfish feelings and will vote for Obama because he is a Democrat like them. But most of the white anglo saxon men and women in this part of America are Racist.
As for the hijacking. I don't think there is any lopsidedness to this board and I will never let any untruth be unchallenged.
launchpad4 Wrote:Now why when I bring up past examples I'm blasted for using things that happen decades ago, but its o.k. for you guys to use stuff from the sixties. How long has it been since Sanford and Son was on t.v. Things change, people change, sure there were tensions in the South, but most civilized people have moved past the color issue. If you can't see someone for who they are on the inside then what kind of person are you truly. Great job on directing the subject off topic though. You libs work really hard on diverting attention from the issues with Obama. It's really funny how you all work together to try and hijack threads.
(1) To my knowledge, I have never "blasted" you over using examples from the past; (2) It was not a "liberal" who brought up Rev. Wright; (3) While the example I gave happened in the early 80's, Sanford and Son is still in syndication. You want to debate issues, McCain to Obama? Let's do it. Over the last 7.5 years, McCain has voted with Bush 91% of the time. Thus, John McCain is the 9% change candidate? The Bush-diluted Maverick?
Religion and Racism for the most part have no connection. Yes there are extremists who try and contort views to further Racism. However, racism does not come from being religious, and to even suggest so is unbelievable.
Rev. Wright didn't say what he said because he is Christian. He said what he said because he is a racist who happens to be a preacher.
thecavemaster Wrote:(1) To my knowledge, I have never "blasted" you over using examples from the past; (2) It was not a "liberal" who brought up Rev. Wright; (3) While the example I gave happened in the early 80's, Sanford and Son is still in syndication. You want to debate issues, McCain to Obama? Let's do it. Over the last 7.5 years, McCain has voted with Bush 91% of the time. Thus, John McCain is the 9% change candidate? The Bush-diluted Maverick?
Mccain voted with Bush??
Wow, musta missed that day in Civics class when they talked about the President having a vote in the Senate. Thanks Cavemaster.
You libs need to quit scanning left wing blogs for talking points for BGR. Half of your posts don't even make sense.
Beetle01 Wrote:Mccain voted with Bush??
Wow, musta missed that day in Civics class when they talked about the President having a vote in the Senate. Thanks Cavemaster.
You libs need to quit scanning left wing blogs for talking points for BGR. Half of your posts don't even make sense.
Never been on a blog in my life. While I would hope you are attempting to be cute and clever, you know what is meant by McCain standing in support of Bush policies for the last 7.5 years and now acting like he's James Garner. Thanks, Beetle, you never cease to amuse.
thecavemaster Wrote:Never been on a blog in my life. While I would hope you are attempting to be cute and clever, you know what is meant by McCain standing in support of Bush policies for the last 7.5 years and now acting like he's James Garner. Thanks, Beetle, you never cease to amuse.
No its a simple fact that the President doesn't have a vote in the Senate. The VP does, but that is only if there is a tie.
First of all the statistic isn't over 7.5 years. Its over about the last year and a half when Mccain has been out campaigning, do you know Obama's percentage? Well over 50%, but if you include bills that have gone through that he supported but did not vote on it goes over 80%.
Either way the argument is pointless. The President doesn't vote in the Senate. Any bill passed has to be signed by the President, and that is what that statistic is based on. Not only does it pass the Senate, but also the House. So if congress passes a bill to give Federal aid to the areas affected by the hurricanes, and the President signs off on it. That is considered voting with Bush. This is the most ignorant attack Ive ever witnessed. It just completely contorts and misrepresents the truth.
Thread finished, find some other BS reason to try and bring down Mccain without either misrepresenting facts, contorting figures to your liking, or just making crap up.
Beetle01 Wrote:No its a simple fact that the President doesn't have a vote in the Senate. The VP does, but that is only if there is a tie.
First of all the statistic isn't over 7.5 years. Its over about the last year and a half when Mccain has been out campaigning, do you know Obama's percentage? Well over 50%, but if you include bills that have gone through that he supported but did not vote on it goes over 80%.
Either way the argument is pointless. The President doesn't vote in the Senate. Any bill passed has to be signed by the President, and that is what that statistic is based on. Not only does it pass the Senate, but also the House. So if congress passes a bill to give Federal aid to the areas affected by the hurricanes, and the President signs off on it. That is considered voting with Bush. This is the most ignorant attack Ive ever witnessed. It just completely contorts and misrepresents the truth.
Thread finished, find some other BS reason to try and bring down Mccain without either misrepresenting facts, contorting figures to your liking, or just making crap up.
Thread finished in your mind. Of course, unless you are some sort of BGR Mussolini wanna be, I don't think you have that in your job description.
thecavemaster Wrote:Thread finished in your mind. Of course, unless you are some sort of BGR Mussolini wanna be, I don't think you have that in your job description.
Is that all you have? To call me a Mussolini? Is that what you libs resort to when you can't win an argument?
I just completely and 100% rebuted all of your ignorant misrepresentations of the facts.
If your depending on MSNBC for your talking points, your gonna lose every time you bring that weak crap in here.
Beetle01 Wrote:Is that all you have? To call me a Mussolini? Is that what you libs resort to when you can't win an argument?
I just completely and 100% rebuted all of your ignorant misrepresentations of the facts.
If your depending on MSNBC for your talking points, your gonna lose every time you bring that weak crap in here.
I don't watch MSNBC. In the last 7.5 years, find McCain's voting record in relation to Bush policies/initiatives. The facts are not ignorant nor misrepresented simply because you need them to be. The issues in this country at this time are far too important to worry about one's ego "winning" or "losing" a debate.
thecavemaster Wrote:I don't watch MSNBC. In the last 7.5 years, find McCain's voting record in relation to Bush policies/initiatives. The facts are not ignorant nor misrepresented simply because you need them to be. The issues in this country at this time are far too important to worry about one's ego "winning" or "losing" a debate.
I've seen the statistcs, and they are not 90%. The question is if you have never seen the statistics for yourself, why are you using that as a talking point?
Beetle01 Wrote:I've seen the statistcs, and they are not 90%. The question is if you have never seen the statistics for yourself, why are you using that as a talking point?
McCain initially opposed the Bush tax cuts. Having been tortured, he spoke out against waterboarding. He was leery of the Patriot Act but, like Dems in the fear frenzy of post 9/11, afraid to be labeled "soft" on terror. Research the rest of the voting records of the last 7.5 years yourself. I'm not doing your homework for you.
thecavemaster Wrote:McCain initially opposed the Bush tax cuts. Having been tortured, he spoke out against waterboarding. He was leery of the Patriot Act but, like Dems in the fear frenzy of post 9/11, afraid to be labeled "soft" on terror. Research the rest of the voting records of the last 7.5 years yourself. I'm not doing your homework for you.
Like I said Ive seen the statistics of the voting record, and the 90% you are referring to is a straight up lie.
Looks like your the one who needs to do some homework.
Beetle01 Wrote:Like I said Ive seen the statistics of the voting record, and the 90% you are referring to is a straight up lie.
Looks like your the one who needs to do some homework.
Have you looked it up in the Congressional Quarterly? Have you traced the votes in the daily Congressional voting logs? All available under the Freedom of Information Act? Granted, a lot of votes are not that substantial; however, McCain mirrors Bush, with slight deviations.
I'm still waiting for proof that Bush votes in the Senate.
This argument is of no consequence, any bill that passes into law or is signed by the President is considered voting with Bush in your view.
So just look up how many bills Mccain voted for that got passed and signed off on by the President. Then look up how many bills he voted against but still got passed and signed by the President.
Thats what your argument is???
I guess you in no way remember the year 2000 political scene. Anyone who thinks Bush and Mccain are the same person should not be on here acting like they know anything about politics in any way, shape, or form.