Well...first he said he was bringing the troops home immediately...

• Gourdpainter...........sm - m
  • Thanks but - gourdpainter
    • gourdpainter -- I just don't understand - here's another one
      • What are your "verifiable" souces? - me
        • Thank you, I was about to post the same thing. n/m - gourdpainter
          • and yet you sidestep the question being asked GP - here's another one for you
        • Collin Powell........sm - m
        • Seriously, I don't have time to go - here's another one
    • Lies... - Stardustst
      • you are so blind nm - woe
      • I never heard Rev. Wright say those things (nm) - Hmmm
      • Well...first he said he was bringing the troops home immediately... - sam
      • "my Muslim faith" -- oops meant Christian - here's another one
      • "there are 57 states in the us" - yeah right whatever
      • "I barely knew Bill Ayers" - year right whatever
    • First about blogs............sm - m
  • O a dangerous man? He freaks me out. - middle class
    • There is an interesting post - Hmmm
    • I agree. O is scary. If Americans love their country, - wake up to this socialist, He IS one.nm
    • I never saw so many scared people in all my life. s/m - gourdpainter
      • Why do Wright, Rezko, Khalidi, Odinga, etc. not - matter to you? O shouldnt even be considered.nm
        • If you had read my previous posts - gourdpainter
          • Too numerous to be "propaganda". I thought that - too at first, now realize I was in denial.nm
            • You may have been in "denial." I am not. n/m - gourdpainter
              • After all the quacking, I realized Obama really - is a duck. Unfortunately, many are in denial.nm
                • Well, O has too many friends who are enemies of - The USA..such a risk, yet people will vote him in.
        • Oh, come on. Give Americans "hope", "change" or - promise money, they will ignore the rest.nm
          • I could use some hope for change but - gourdpainter

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

because you STILL don't get it.  I don't care that Bristol is an unwed mother.  I don't care if the guy lived in Palin's house.  And no, I don't rule my kids with an iron fist -- unlike the religious right.  You have simply missed the point...AGAIN.

The whole point isn't that this stuff is happening.  Dems (of all people) know these things happen.  However, we are not the ones out there preaching abstinence (that doesn't work), spouting out about how terrible unwed mothers supposedly are, how homosexuals are just going straight to he11, and how you MUST be a murderer if you have an abortion.  YOU guys --- REPUBLICANS -- are the ones preaching that day and night, 24/7.  I can guarantee that if that had been a democrat who had done that the first thing out of your mouths would have been--- where was her father?  As in, insinuating that the mother (in this case Palin) would somehow be at fault because she didn't provide the proper guidance for her child.

And now after all those years of preaching that crap, who do you put up as a potential leader of this country?  The mother of an unwed pregnant teenager -- who Palin decided to flaunt all over the country, and who also obviously encouraged this boy to move in with her daughter -- as in, living in sin.

There is only one word for this:  Hypocrisy.  You do know that Palin cut funding in Alaska for benefits for unwed mothers?  Hmmm....

I found this website while trying to look up some more info and thought I'd share it.

http://www.ncsl.org/print/health/CRSSbyS0807.pdf

I'm now thoroughly confused on the arguments against expanding it.  It does require proof of citizenship (states responsibility to document), so I'm not quite sure how that means it will allow illegal immigrants access - at least any more access than they already have to medicaid - however they get it.  It also seems to state that the limit on income will be determined by the states - which would somewhat answer the question I posted below.  I've heard interviews on television with those against the expansion quoting the $88,000 limit.  (which I did not see mentioned, but I certainly have no idea what's discussed in Congress).  As I said below, for a family whose living expenses are relatively low, $88,000 is a lot of money, but for a family who lives where the living expenses are insanely high, $88,000 does not go as far. 

Observer, or any others, have  you found a site that explains why some are against it? 

i wanted to bring this up from below because i want people to read it that are for abortion.  i want them to watch the video mentioned here.

into poverty, but you don't want the money it takes to care for these children to come out of your pocket????  Am I on the mark? 

Answer:  First of all, I wouldnt be forcing anyone to have a baby born into poverty.  That would be THEIR choice.  Yes, it is a CHOICE to get pregnant or not.  If you dont want to get pregnant you should use BIRTH CONTROL, given out FREE to anyone who cannot afford it.  Of course, you cannot actually shove it down someone's throat and make them swallow it, I guess.  Second, I already DO pay for these unwanted children.  It is called WELFARE. 

I guess this is another so-called way to sling mud at Obama.  The rich republicans can't have it both ways.  You either care for the unborn (welfare for their mothers) or you allow the mother the choice...  Which is it?

Answer:  First, I am not slinging mud at Obama.  I would be against abortion no matter who was running for office.  Second, I am not a rich republican but a poor democrat.  Sorry to dissappoint!  Third, I believe that education about birth control and sex should be funded more, there should be more support out there for teens on how to NOT GET PREGNANT in the first place.  Second, there are NO unwanted children in the world.  If the natural mother did not want the child, there should be, and I am sure there are, government funded programs to allow these girls to adopt out their babies to the MILLIONS of people who want to adopt.  Also, our government should help fund would be parents to be able to adopt w/o having to spend thousands of dollars to do it.  So that way people in the good ole' USA could adopt w/o having to go to third world countries to do it.  Another thing, the government should reevaluate their priorities in that it costs almost nothing to have an abortion and commit murder versus spending thousands on adoption.  Go figure that one!

Not all abortions are a form of birth control, ya' know.  I knew a very religious lady that aborted her child due to hydrocephalus.  The child would been born deformed/a vegetable.  This would have put this lady at high risk.  She prayed about it and soon after aborted the child.  She had to live with that. 

That is the child that God gave her.  I dont have all the answers about why that would be, but murder is still murder.  So does that mean because the baby was deformed that he was less of a baby, a human life?  Not our call to make.  As far as her having to live with that, this is true.  However, as a Christian, we also have to live with whoever we put into office.  They represent us, our beliefs.  We have to answer for who we give the power to.  We are all responsible. 

Not all situations are the same.  Furthermore, you can't force your child to have a baby or to have an abortion.  Either way, it's her body.

In the OT of the Bible God speaks about the children of Israel.  They were worshipping an idol and offering their children to it.  He spoke about innocent blood be shed and he was angered by it.  He speaks quite clearly that it is murder.  Also, if anyone supports abortion, I think they should go to the faith board and click on the post not for everyone and find the link in there to a video, copy and paste and watch what happens to an aborted fetus.  At 19 weeks what a baby looks like and see what happens to them when the are killed.  I mean, after all, if you can condone it, then you should be able to watch it.

At first we were told the outsourcing was to cut labor costs.  Only after this campaign rhetoric took hold did the issue of taxes come up.  Now I ask you, if the reason for outsourcing is taxes, what the heck?  Didn't Bush CUT taxes.

It seems that American people have lost the reasoning side of their collective brains.  When I quit working a few months ago I was making LESS than I made in the 80s.  How is that possible?  The cost of medical care has not gone down.  The cost of medical insurance has not gone down.  I posted some time ago about a local hospital that laid off their most experienced nurses, not a few of them, ALL of them, and hired new graduate nurses to replace them at lesser wages.  What was that about?  They got away with it though.  Anything to increase the bottom line profit.

This is true in every industry.  They like to blame labor for everything.  Well, how the heck can you buy a $2+ loaf of bread and $5 gallon of milk on minimum wage, ya know?  Take gasoline for example.  Sure it has gone down the last days but is it back where it was when oil was what?  $86 a barrel or whatever?  No and it never will be.

So that car you drive.........how much do you think of the price tag is labor? 

These things are what really aggravates me.  People just can't seem to use reasoning power any more.  I'll give you an example:  After my husband lost his job in the CF fiasco, he drove for awhile for a friend who owns a trucking company.  I went with him on a trip.  He picked up a load of beef in Boonesville, AR, hauled it to Chicago, no problem.  Then they sent him somewhere in Ohio to pick up a load of vinegar to take to Florida.  Got to Ohio and I forget the reason but he couldn't pick up the vinegar. Then he was sent (empty) to Logan (?), Kentucky where he picked up 40,000 pounds of chocolate covered doughnuts which he delivered to Phoenix.  In Phoenix they told him that most of that load would be routed back to Atlanta.  Now what kind of sense does that make?  Taxes the problem?  I would say poor management is a bigger problem than taxes OR labor.

I'm sorry about your dad's experience.  People used to do things like that.  I recall my late father-in-law, worked for the fire department in Fort Worth and he said during the depression they did the same thing, worked less so the ones with less seniority could keep a job.  They all suffered but they suffered together and somehow they all made it as did your parents.

I am just horrified at the apparent digress of intelligence in this country.  It seems people believe anything the news media or anyone else tells them.  Seems they have totally lost the ability to reason and God forbid that anyone should think of anyone other than themself.

All that said, feel free to go ahead and believe that companies are outsourcing jobs because of labor costs or taxes.  The unionized workers, under Reagan, started taking wage concessions, that is taking a DECREASE in pay to keep jobs.  How did that work?  Don't believe I've heard of any of the victims of outsourcing even being offered a pay cut to keep the jobs in this country.  Certainly not the Rheem plant in Fort Smith that the other day laid off the last 600 workers.  They sent most of their production to Mexico a few years ago.  Fort Smith they say is dying because of outsourcing.  Their reason?  They say, it's "labor costs."  Well, then, how is it that people can't afford to pay their bills with all the excessive wages they're supposedly receiving. Obviously the next in vogue EXCUSE will be that taxes are lower in other countries.  B.S.!!!!!!!

Took some looking, but found it.

o A $1,000 “Making Work Pay” Tax Credit. For 95 percent of workers and their families—150 million
workers overall—the “Making Work Pay” credit will provide a refundable tax cut of $500 for workers or
$1,000 for working couples. This credit will benefit over 15 million self employed workers and for 10
million low-income Americans, will completely eliminate their federal income taxes.
o A Refundable $4,000 American Opportunity Tax Credit. Barack Obama will provide a $4,000 fully refundable
tax credit to ensure that college is affordable for all American families. This credit will cover
100% of the first $4,000 of qualified tuition expenses, making community college essentially free and
covering about 2/3 of the cost of public 4-year college.iv
o A Universal 10% Mortgage Interest Tax Credit. Barack Obama will provide a 10% refundable credit to
offset mortgage interest payments and make homeownership more affordable for lower- and middle-income
families. This universal credit will provide an average tax cut of $500 to 10 million homeowners who do not itemize.

I see refundable in there a few times. And there you have the low income folks who will, with the help of this "credit," ELIMINATE their federal taxes. Who is going to take up that slack?

It only makes things worse, not better. The anger it causes with "outsiders" coming to that small town does not do any good. Let the people of that town alone. They're doing okay without outsiders stirring up trouble.

I'm not just talking about that town. It happens all over the USA. These groups get together and go to a town just to stir up trouble. I've seen it happen again and again. They have no right sticking their noses in where it doesn't belong. Let them protest in their own towns.

The KKK does this all the time, too. They don't get the press, though, and they shouldn't be sticking their noses in where it doesn't belong, either.

I'm proud to be a gun-toting, religious, redneck from PA, but we are not any more racist than any other state or person.

The O thinks we are all of the above, so why does he keep coming into the state to campaign? You would think he would fear us.  His buddy Murtha really blundered on his comment and now thinks an apology will smooth things over. If the O gets in, he will take our guns away and we will have no protection at all from criminals.  It's our constitutional right to own guns.

He's a glib talker but what is he really saying? He definitely can't smile or debate his way through the terrorists.

Rendel-D, our precious governor, ran our state into the ground with giving money away to Philadelphia and Pittsburgh mostly for convention centers and sports centers and now for casinos. Why?  He loves sports and gambling. When Rendel was mayor of Philadelphia, he almost bankrupt that city with his shenanigans.  I'm so glad his term will be over soon. Maybe then Pennsylvanians will be able to get back to work. Our roads are back to being #1 on the Worst Roads in the U.S. He made sure there would be no money for road construction.

He promised all kinds of tax cuts, property taxes mostly, if the bill passed for the casinos. That was a few years ago. Where's the cut? Our property taxes went up, not down! No rebates as he promised, but we have 20,000 (exaggeration) different ways to play the lotteries between instant tickets and 3 digit, 4 digit, 5 digit, 6 digits, power ball, etc.

Casey-D didn't do a good job for us, either. He made everyone who owned a service business (that was me back then) pay 6% sales tax on our earnings EXCEPT lawyers and doctors. I'm confused. Don't they provide a service? Sure they do. He also upped our taxes. His son, sad to say, is now a Senator. First he ran for another post and won, and before that term was up, he ran for Senator and won.  How can the people of of PA fall for this again? Just hearing him talk makes me sick.

Sorry, I don't buy the dems making a better life for us. They make it worse.

I will get off my soapbox now.

Obama told George Stephanopoulos at ABC News:

"We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our Constitution."

I'm sorry, but those being held at Gitmo are not citizens of the United States; therefore, are not entitled to any protection under the Constitution.  Why not say 'abide by the Geneva Convention'?  Even then, how many of our POWs were treated as outlined in the Geneva Convention?  Let's not forget, this is a war and these terrorists are POWs.  President Bush sought to protect the citizens of this country whatever the cost.  After the awful events of 9/11, it was his priority.  The world needs to know if you target the U.S. there are consequences. 

And I want to know where they are going to put these 250 or so terrorists?  I live 50 miles from Fort Leavenworth and that's a little too close for comfort for me.  I assume some will be released to return to their country where, of course, they will plot their next terrorist attack.  While others will be housed in federal facilities like Leavenworth and then what?  We sit them down for tea and crumpets and ask them nicely if they plan on blowing anything else up here in America? 

Spam, powdered milk (hated it), that awful yellow cheese (yuk), oatmeal for breakfast every day for a year, but we ate it. No choice.  Took me 30 years to be able to eat oatmeal.

DH's parents used to get canned beef. Don't know how they got that. We never did. He liked it.

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

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

http://activemilitaryformccain.blogspot.com/

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

Since everyone is at least a bit familiar with John McCain’s record when it comes to strolling through a market in Baghdad with hundreds of his closest guards, or how he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years (except when he flip flops on that).

But not that many really, truly know just how horrific his voting record is when it comes to the troops.  And it is pretty consistent – whether it is for armor and equipment, for veteran’s health care, for adequate troop rest or anything that actually, you know, supports our troops.

This is chock full of links to the roll call votes, and the roll call votes have links to the actual underlying bills and amendments.  I present this so that there is support and things that can be rattled off when saying that McCain is not a friend of the military.  Feel free to use it as you want, but this can be tied into the "Double Talk Express".  But here is a very quick statement - John McCain skipped close to a dozen votes on Iraq, and on at least another 10 occasions, he voted against arming and equipping the troops, providing adequate rest for the troops between deployments and for health care or other benefits for veterans.

In mid 2007, Senator Reid noted that McCain missed 10 of the past 14 votes on Iraq.  However, here is a summary of a dozen votes (two that he missed and ten that he voted against) with respect to Iraq, funding for veterans or for troops, including equipment and armor.  I have also included other snippets related to the time period when the vote occurred.

September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments.  At the time, nearly 65% of people polled in a CNN poll indicted that "things are going either moderately badly or very badly in Iraq.

July 2007:  McCain voted against a plan to drawdown troop levels in Iraq.  At the time, an ABC poll found that 63% thought the invasion was not worth it, and a CBS News poll found that 72% of respondents wanted troops out within 2 years.

March 2007: McCain was too busy to vote on a bill that would require the start of a drawdown in troop levels within 120 days with a goal of withdrawing nearly all combat troops within one year.  Around this time, an NBC News poll found that 55% of respondents indicated that the US goal of achieving victory in Iraq is not possible.  This number has not moved significantly since then.

February 2007:  For such a strong supporter of the escalation, McCain didn’t even bother to show up and vote against a resolution condemning it.  However, at the time a CNN poll found that only 16% of respondents wanted to send more troops to Iraq (that number has since declined to around 10%), while 60% said that some or all should be withdrawn.  This number has since gone up to around 70%.

June 2006:  McCain voted against a resolution that Bush start withdrawing troops but with no timeline to do so.

May 2006:  McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.

April 2006:  McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.

March 2006:  McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.

March 2004:  McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes.  Jeez, McCain really loves those tax loopholes for corporations, since he voted for them over our veterans' needs.

October 2003:  McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.

April 2003:  McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.

August 2001:  McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000.  To his credit, he also voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which he now supports making permanent, despite the dire financial condition this country is in, and despite the fact that he indicated in 2001 that these tax cuts unfairly benefited the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

So there it is.  John McCain is yet another republican former military veteran who likes to talk a big game when it comes to having the support of the military.  Yet, time and time again, he has gone out of his way to vote against the needs of those who are serving in our military.  If he can’t even see his way to actually doing what the troops want, or what the veterans need, and he doesn’t have the support of veterans, then how can he be a credible commander in chief?

by Phillip Butler, PhD

People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always “No, John McCain was a POW with me.” The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.

John’s treatment as a POW:

1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September 1969, the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965, so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POWs for their country. A dam good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.

2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately, this was often the case; new POW’s arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was nonexistent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John’s father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW’s suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.

3) John was offered, and refused, “early release.” Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to “admit” that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was “lenient and humane.” So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions, and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW’s were released, with the sick and wounded going first.

4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 660 military POW’s in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled as follows: Medals of Honor – 8, Service Crosses – 42, Silver Stars – 590, Bronze Stars – 958 and Purple Hearts – 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe. Among the POWs John wasn’t special. He was just one of the guys.

John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty, and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.

I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.

Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60s and 70s. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John’s age (72) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for four or more years.

I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.

It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush’s war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me, John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John’s views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.

I’m disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate or maverick Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist minister. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he dislikes that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don’t see that John is the “straight talk express” he markets himself to be.

Senator John Sidney McCain III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who “Returned With Honor.” That’s our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I’ve decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.

by Phillip Butler, PhD

Doctor Phillip Butler is a 1961 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a former light-attack carrier pilot. In 1965 he was shot down over North Vietnam where he spent eight years as a prisoner of war. He is a highly decorated combat veteran who was awarded two Silver Stars, two Legion of Merits, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Heart medals. After his repatriation in 1973 he earned a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California at San Diego and became a Navy Organizational Effectiveness consultant. He completed his Navy career in 1981 as a professor of management at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is now a peace and justice activist with Veterans for Peace.

http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/08/25/why-i-won%e2%80%99t-vote-for-john-mccain/