Obama vs. McCain (Clinton, Republic, Center: 2011, brokers, cabinet)

[Northwoods Voyager]

But, in the meantime, we do have the two party system and it is imperative that your vote does count for something. Intelligent and thinking people will be able to look at the candidates that we have now and vote not for the 'lessor of two evils', but the 'person' who has the country's safety in mind and appreciates the ramifications of ignoring the threats by others to destroy what we have.

Maybe not as perfect as it could be, but remember, this country is ours. We must always be proud of it and contribute. Contribute? Yes, and I don't mean tax dollars. I am referring to volunteer work, being a mentor to youngsters, reading to a blind person, shopping for someone. Anything !!! Pass it along. Do something. Don't just sit there and complain.

Oh, sure, we may not like, may not approve, may even be distrustful, but get up, get out, use your skills whatever they may be, and do something. If we don't have a solution, then maybe, just maybe, we are part of the problem(s).

Vote, Tuesday, November 4th. Vote your conscious. Vote for America. Vote for keeping what you earn and vote for our country's security. We don't need handouts. Just need a little guidance through the maze.

[Ciaerin]

well said north woods.

[smellykat]

Our Veterans! Please Vote.

[ShadowCaver]

Originally Posted by smellykat

Our Veterans! Please Vote.

I did,,, this morning. 45 minute long line, but worth it.

Indeed - thanks to those that laid the groundwork of and for our country, via their sweet, tears, thinking, and blood.

[Marie'sBees]

Originally Posted by smellykat

Our Veterans! Please Vote.

My Veteran status was the tipping point for my choice for President.

In a conversation with my Brother (who was also undecided) the Reverend Wright came up, and we played a game of what if's. After many imaginary scenarios, it came to "what if the Reverend Wright was invited to the White House and got to write his "God **** America" sermon on the same desk that Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation"?

Granted, that probably won't ever happen, and if it did I would certainly spend the better part of the day puking my guts out and that would be it. But having served in the AF, I can't bring myself to vote for a man who sat for 20 years and listened to a PREACHER in church shill his "God **** America" sermon. Many, many people died for his right to say it, but I don't have to agree with it or like it. And I don't.

[STLCardsBlues1989]

I'm voting for the first time tomorrow.

[Northwoods Voyager]

Tomorrow, November 4th, 2008. What have you in mind for the future of our country? I so much do not want to play the name calling game that so many others are doing in other forums and threads. Vote as if your life depended on it. Vote as if your children and grandchildren depend upon it. Vote as if your family, friends, neighbors and that family down the street depends upon it. Believe me, it does!

Ask yourself a few questions before you 'pull that lever'. Are you voting for change? Are you voting for progress? Are you voting because that party is the party you have always voted for? Ask yourself those questions, please. Have you been following as much of the rhetoric as possible? Are you being honest with yourself? Or are you following someone else's ideas? I ask this of you because I am hearing a few say that they 'hate' the current administration and anyone that is of the same political party. 'Hate'. Now that is one strong word. Strong because it can only cause the 'hater' problems.

Don't 'hate'. You may disagree with someone because that appears to be the popular road to take. And yes, I have made my mind up. I will vote for the person whom I firmly believe will uphold our Constitution and the other 'warrantees' written so many years ago. I will vote for the future if a self-governing people. Not for a 'cradle to the grave' Utopia. Join me, won't you?

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by OA 5599

What parts exactly of Obama's plan will give the country away to "gay loving liberals and illegal aliens"?

I personally think both candidates are lackluster at best. Obama got my vote but I don't by into a lot of the hype surronding him, and I have doubts as to if he'll be able to make a lot of the changes he says he will. Sadly, the good candidates (Bill Richardson or Ron Paul), didn't get a lot of media attention and were ignored in the primaries. The last 8 years have been horrible for this country and we need a change, which is the main reason I'm not voting for McCain.

I don't agree about Bill Richardson and Ron Paul, but I agree that Obama and McCain are relatively lackluster choices...not quite as lackluster as Bush and Kerry, but neither one of them is likely to measure up to the standards of Bill Clinton, who besides his affairs was an excellent president. I voted for Obama...he is the lesser of two evils. John McCain in my opinion runs the risk of death in office and having Sarah Palin as the president as not a comfortable thought at all.and no, for me it has nothing to do with her being a woman. But I think that the country needs change, and that a democrat can bring that change better than a republican who is in 90% agreement with Bush's policies.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by ajf131

I don't agree about Bill Richardson and Ron Paul, but I agree that Obama and McCain are relatively lackluster choices...not quite as lackluster as Bush and Kerry, but neither one of them is likely to measure up to the standards of Bill Clinton, who besides his affairs was an excellent president. I voted for Obama...he is the lesser of two evils. John McCain in my opinion runs the risk of death in office and having Sarah Palin as the president as not a comfortable thought at all.and no, for me it has nothing to do with her being a woman. But I think that the country needs change, and that a democrat can bring that change better than a republican who is in 90% agreement with Bush's policies.

Let's look at it this way: 90% voted for the Bush side, yes, but we all have to remember by the time a bill gets to the senate, what started to be one thing, has so much pork barrel thrown in one has to decide to vote a certain way whether they fully agree or not. Just like we are left with voting for a candidate for Pres we may not agree with...

As for Bill Richardson and Ron Paul, I lived in NM for 7 years, you are right, certainly he would not have been the answer. If, for no other reason his administration is so currupt. I know all are, but you would have to live there to know how bad his is and was. As for Ron Paul, he isn't really a republican, he is more of a nut....I am afraid Obama's change isn't what we need.

By the way, I do like your seasoning, you are not attacking and you have true reasons for your views, even if I do not agree..

Nita

[ucfjtm]

Originally Posted by ajf131

I don't agree about Bill Richardson and Ron Paul, but I agree that Obama and McCain are relatively lackluster choices...not quite as lackluster as Bush and Kerry, but neither one of them is likely to measure up to the standards of Bill Clinton, who besides his affairs was an excellent president.

I hope you're kidding with that statement.

Here are a few examples of Clinton's "excellent" non-affair policies:
1993. Raised taxes on nearly everyone after running a campaign promising to lower taxes for all but the very wealthy. Apparently, the very wealthy included those making just $40k a year.
1993. Dismantled the military. There are a LOT of families that were suddenly unemployed because of "forced retirement" from a career in the military years before they had planned on retiring. My family in particular was affect by this, and a pilot finding a job with an airline was *extremely* difficult.
1993. World Trade Center bombing. Yeah, a lot was done to punish those involved or take that sort of threat seriously..
1993. Mogadishu. Black Hawk Down. 'Nuff said.
1993. Clinton rushes to sign NAFTA treaty, which will go into effect in January of 1994. Although pushed for by Bush Sr, it's who signs their name that takes the credit/blame for the results of their actions. Clinton promised economic and job growth, and results have shown that economic growth happened from companies outsourcing cheaper labor while millions of jobs have been lost at the same time. The ghost-town of the Midwest manufacturing jobs is mostly due to this treaty.
1995. Just a couple weeks before Republicans took majority House/Senate, Clinton beefs up the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 by forcing banks to give out risky loans to people who can't afford them so they are eligible for mergers. Welcome to the initial source of government involvement in the housing meltdown.
1999. Signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which as a by-product, allowed banks to trade risky mortgages. The banks make the money and take no risk. This had a lot of Republican support, but Clinton *could* have refused to sign the bill. Instead, he voiced his support to make the economy LOOK better when he left office. You, like many others, apparently fell for it.
2000. Claimed a budget surplus. Funny, considering the treasury's website's listing of the year-by-year national debt never showed a decrease. Clinton lied about it - he intentionally didn't include the payment of interest on the debt within his budget to CLAIM he had a surplus.
End of 2000:
Clinton leaves office with the economy stagnating and inflation growing, so Greenspan continues to lower interest rates, which fuels the housing meltdown we see today. Gas prices were at $1.51 a gallon after being just $1.00 a few years earlier. Bush still has to deal with an inherited recession in 2001.

Without looking at the affairs, for some reason Clinton continues to be the most overrated President in the last 50 years. Our current economy is mostly to blame from his actions. There are more policies that were far from "excellent," but that's a good enough list of BAD policies for now.