Obama Or Mccain

[Zaitz]

:lol: I read this on Facebook:

:lol:

1. If you do it, do it right the first time. Gulf War. If you gonna engage a war, plan it out with proper exit plan. What do we have at this moment beside McCain proprosal for another 100 years? Now, tell me if Iraq war wasn't a mistake

2. Every other country in the world have national healthcare must be sucks....let see...European countries?

I read this on VS. :lol: :lol:

[s70turbo1998]

I read this on VS. :lol:

:lol: Oh VS...

[theForgottenone]

I read this on VS.

What is your problem with my statement then?

[s70turbo1998]

What is your problem with my statement then?

It's the political forum, everybody has problems with every statement. Just let it go :lol:

[gdizzle]

Senate Democrats Want Trillions in New Taxes

Monday, June 9, 2008 8:30 AM

By: Newsmax Staff

The spending plan approved by the Senate last week fails to extend President Bush’s tax cuts — and could lead to the largest tax increase in U.S. history.

“Make no mistake: This tax hike is gargantuan,” the Investor’s Business Daily states in an editorial.

“Simply by not making Bush’s tax cuts permanent, taxes will rise by a minimum of $2.8 trillion between now and 2018.”

The IBD says that if the tax cuts are allowed to expire in 2010:

Spending will rise by half a trillion dollars over the next five years. And the Democrats will pay for it by raising taxes by $683 billion — “the biggest such increase ever.”

About 48 million married couples — “the heart of the middle class that Democrats say they want to help” — will see an average annual tax increase of $3,007.

The tax bill for the elderly will rise $2,181 a year on average.

A single parent with two children earning $30,000 a year will see a tax hike of $1,600.

A family of four earning $50,000 a year will be hit with a tax increase of 191 percent.

The 2009 budget for the first time ever spends $1 trillion on discretionary items — non-defense, non-entitlement.

“This is a foretaste of future fiscal recklessness under a Barack Obama presidency (he voted for the bill),” the IBD observes.

Noting that the budget would weaken the economy and kill job growth, the IBD concludes: “This is supply-side economics in reverse — creating massive disincentives to work, save and invest, and shrinking the pie.”

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

[s70turbo1998]

GG barack :lol:

[flyfishing3]

calling all DEMS and LIBERALSthis is worth of its own thread but i'll put it here

__________________________________________

Who's to Blame for High Gas Prices?

For several decades, the Democratic Party has pursued policies designed to drive up the cost of petroleum, and therefore gas at the pump. Remarkably, the Democrats don't seem to have taken much of a political hit from the current spike in gas prices. Probably that's because most people don't realize how different the two parties' energy policies have been.

Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:

ANWR Exploration House Republicans: 91% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid

House Republicans: 97% Supported

House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration

House Republicans: 90% Supported

House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration

House Republicans: 81% Supported

House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity

House Republicans: 97% Supported

House Democrats: 96% Opposed

SUMMARY

91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.

86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.

PAUL adds: It's useful to keep this sort of thing in mind when we hear (on something like a daily basis these days) that the Republicans have run out of ideas or that Republican ideas didn't work. The truth is that most major Republican ideas weren't tried because the Democrats blocked them. Increasing the domestic production of oil and gas (a move so obvious it barely meets the standard for being an idea) is hardly the only example. Social security reform and school choice also come quickly to mind. Republican-backed policies for increasing the number of Americans with health insurance were also blocked by Democrats. And so forth.

[T5power]

Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:

ANWR Exploration House Republicans: 91% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid

House Republicans: 97% Supported

House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration

House Republicans: 90% Supported

House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration

House Republicans: 81% Supported

House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity

House Republicans: 97% Supported

House Democrats: 96% Opposed

the reason for democratic opposition of those programs listed is because of the belief in preservation of the environment. if you look at other programs where dems/reps support or oppose, you'll see that generally an inverse effect in order for preservation of the environment and alternative energy sources.

[s70turbo1998]

the reason for democratic opposition of those programs listed is because of the belief in preservation of the environment. if you look at other programs where dems/reps support or oppose, you'll see that generally an inverse effect in order for preservation of the environment and alternative energy sources.

But what matters more, the preservation of the environment or how much one has to pay to afford resources from an external source?

[T5power]

But what matters more, the preservation of the environment or how much one has to pay to afford resources from an external source?

i personally believe that preservation and seeking out alternative fuels is more important than continuing what we're doing. we need to lay off the sauce and invest in some serious development on re-usable fuels, or at least more plentiful fuels rather than us just futzing around and tinkering. like hydrogen and natural gas and water and plug-in cars and such.

my hippie side is showing, what can i say :rolleyes:

[flyfishing3]

***************************

The Hill reports that Obama may raise $100 million in June. Has anyone asked John McCain whether he has any second thoughts about the campaign finance law that bears his name?

*********************************

Remembering the boon doggle

The Forgotten Man by Amith Shlaes is a timely new history of the Great Depression that has just been published in paperback. Barack Obama now bids to launch a great programmatic expansion of the federal government following in the footsteps of the New Deal and the Great Society. I asked the author if she would reflect on the current campaign in light of the history she explores in The Forgotten Man. She has kindly responded:

Barack Obama has a large infrastructure investment plan of $60 billion stretching over 10 years. His idea is to put the country to work as FDR did in the New Deal.

But such plans rest on a fallacy. The fallacy is that public-sector jobs are just as good as, or better than, private-sector jobs. The reality is that is not true. Private-sector jobs tend to be the ones in fields where innovation happens. Public-sector projects have done some famous innovating -- velcro, DARPA's role in the creation of the internet -- but that innovating tends to be the exception that proves the rule. A lot of public sector jobs are just a weight on the economy. And people instinctively know this.

Think of your train of thought as you watch someone x-ray your shoes in an airport security check: I hate this. But, hey, at least it gives someone a job. But is that job worth it even to that person? And is this process really useful?

The burden of public jobs came through really clearly in the Depression and I talk about it a lot in The Forgotten Man. Government often claims it is the only one that can do something, or fund something. People loved the individual government programs -- the PWA, the New Dealers' infrastructure program. But capital is always scarce, and even in that period the government crowded out the private sector, which might have done some of the necessary tasks better. In order to justify large government programs the New Dealers had to criminalize the private sector. Or believed they did.

Obama talks as though his plan would end pork. But as the New Deal's PWA and its Works Progress Administration demonstrated, infrastructure programs and other public job programs are pork factories. They rank right up there with agriculture in terms of politicization.

The etymology of the word or phrase "boon doggle" illustrates this. It first became familiar when a New Deal public jobs program paid underemployed teachers to teach children and adults to make craft projects for home use, "boon doggles." The term became a synonym for silly make work and the scandal of New Deal spending.

Upon the publication of her book in hardcover last year, Shlaes discussed the need to revisit the New Deal in her Wall Street Journal column "The real deal." This past December Shlaes reflected on the New Deal experience with public employment in her Wall Street Journal column "The New Deal jobs myth."

Posted by Scott at 5:58 AM | Permalink | |

[97Rwagon]

Obama wont wear the american flag pin, nor will he put his hand over his heart during the national anthem. That alone shows that a guy that has 3 muslim names doesn't even love this country, and you want him to run it?

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036

[gdizzle]

Here's some more repub. propaganda.

HOW 'LIBERAL' CARE WOULD KILL TED

By ROBERT M. GOLDBERG

June 5, 2008 -- IRONICALLY enough, the dangers of the liberal health-care agenda are being made clear by the care that a liberal icon, Sen. Ted Kennedy, has received since his brain seizure last month.

One day after an MRI detected a tumor, Kennedy was quickly diagnosed with a malignant glioma - a rare and often-fatal form of brain cancer. Less than two weeks later, his tumor was being removed by one of the world's experts in brain cancer at Duke Univeristy Medical Center. He'll follow up with chemo and radiation therapy tailored to the genetic makeup of his cancer to keep the cancer from spreading.

He'll likely take Avastin, a drug that in experiments with brain cancer has extended survival by months. A new cancer vaccine being developed in partnership with Pfizer could extend his life by six years.

Of course, with his wealth and power, Kennedy would get good treatment anywhere. But the same care is available to every American.

Not so - if we make the health "reforms" called for by Kennedy and other liberals.

Filmmaker Michael Moore gives their standard line when he says: "There are problems in all health-care systems, but at least Europeans and Canadians have a health-care system that covers everyone."

Problem is, governments that promise to "cover everyone" always wind up cutting corners simply to save money. People with Kennedy's condition are dying or dead as a result.

Consider Jennifer Bell of Norwich, England. In 2006, the 22-year-old complained of headaches for months - but Britain's National Health Service made her wait a year to see a neurologist.

Then she had to wait more than three months before should could get what the NHS decided was only a "relatively urgent" MRI scan. Three days before the MRI appointment, she died.

Consider, too, the chemo drug Kennedy is receiving: Temodar, the first oral medicine for brain tumors in 25 years.

Temodar has been widely used in this country since the FDA approved it in 2000. But a British health-care rationing agency, the National Institute for Comparative Effectiveness, ruled that, while the drug helps people live longer, it wasn't worth the money - and denied coverage for it.

Barack Obama - and other Democrats - have been pushing a Senate bill to set up a similar US "review board" for Medicare and any future government health-care plan.

After denying this treatment completely for seven years, the NICE (did whoever named it intend the irony?) relented - partly. Even today, only a handful of Brits with brain tumors can get Temodar.

And if you want to pay for Temodar out of your own pocket, the British system forces you to pay for all of your cancer care - about $30,000 a month.

Things are no different in Canada, where the wait for an MRI (once you finally get a referral) has grown to 10 weeks. For Canadians relying on their government health care, the average wait time from diagnosis of cancer to surgery is beyond the guideline set by both the US and European societies for surgical oncology.

And HealthCanada, the government system, similar refuses to pay for treatments that are often covered in America.

Chad Curley, a 37-year-old auto worker from Windsor, Ontario, had a brain tumor like Kennedy's but can't have surgery because his is too large to be operable.

His tumor didn't respond to Temodar and the same doctors now treating Sen. Kennedy told him and his wife that the Avastin combination could stop his tumor from growing and add months to his life. But HealthCanada wouldn't pay to use Avastin to treat his tumor.

Chad's family and friends scraped together the $5,000 for the first round of treatment in mid-November; they later saw Chad's left-side paralysis start to subside. But the money ran out - and he died on Feb. 21.

In pushing for government-run health care, liberals are pushing for a system where only the Ted Kennedys of the world can get cutting-edge - and life-saving - care.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06052008/posto..._ted_114032.htm

[theForgottenone]

Here's some more repub. propaganda.

Would the person in the national-health care example die if they didn't have any insurance coverage at all?

Would they even be seen by any primary physician?

The way I see it about national health-care it's providing the primary care coverage that eliminate any preventable health issues if possible. The main issue right now about healthcare coverage is people do not have access to primary care physician and use ER when come and shove. That's what drove health care cost in exponationally and non-profit healthcare organization feeling the burden bigger as year goes time.

Health care organization and insurance companies raise cost to offset the cost driven up by the uninsured population.

Remember about the movie Jonny Q? That movie is stemmed from past Kaiser practice. We run into this issue of private insurance also. They don't cover everything so why you expect national health care to be a cure-it-all plan. It suppose to help and alievate the current issue of lacking primary care for uninsured population.

[SH8KDWN]

Obama wont wear the american flag pin, nor will he put his hand over his heart during the national anthem. That alone shows that a guy that has 3 muslim names doesn't even love this country, and you want him to run it?

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=2036

Someone watches Fox News

I think this election will be a yeardstick to measure how far we have come as a society. Clearly there were multiple blunders of the previous administration and it should be a lay-up for Democrats but there is a wild card. No, definitely not McCain. The wildcard is our own ignorance and prejudice as a people.

I was speaking with a die-hard democrat in her late 70s the other day who backed Hillary. I asked what would happen if Clinton didn't get the nomination. She said she wasn't sure, "I don't want one of them in the White House!" I probed her as to what "them" meant and she said she would have a hard time voting for someone who was black. I told her she was only half right about that.

My 90 year old grandmother still uses the term "colored". Let's not forget that the civil rights movement really wasn't that long ago and it's not like a switch flipped 40 years ago that ended discrimination.

I know we all bring our own biasis to the table and can each pick and choose one or two things that will "prove" our bias. Please look big picture as to what will actually be best for our country as a whole. This is a major election.

As an aside, I have seen the american flag lapel worn by Obama several times and I can't remember if I placed my hand over my heart during the national anthem at the Monster Truck Jam last month.

Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law where he was the president of the Harvard Law review. He was also a professor of law at the University of Chicago. I wouldn't mind having that on my resume.

Fun fact...Obama has a mere 3 years less experience in public service than both Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy had before they ran for President.