Quote:
Quote by: blue saki  Pardon the hair trigger on assuming Obama has the nod. I may be pulling the same hair trigger in assuming you intend to support Obama if he gets that nod. As to your point of BO's supporters/contributers/associates may I suggest you do your homework before lending such unchecked support? Being from IL, I can tell you with a strait face he is not what he purports himself to be. He spouts bi-partisonship and yet his "voting record" is so far to the left there is no middle. His "defense" also leaves alot to be desired and like you, I am concerned over who he would include in his administration. John Kerry's wife is also very well to do. I don't recall that being such an issue among conservative like myself.
(hiccup..... John Edwards)
John McCain? I haven't made up my mind about supporting him as of yet. I will wait to see whom he chooses as a VP candidate. However, his policies are much clearer than BO or HC. (tax & spend) For the most part, his voting record which is relatively conservative, backs up his rhetoric. In other words, what you see is what you get....... so far. However, I am baffled somewhat by his latest stands on various issues.
Again pulling the hair trigger here can I assume you are a Bush basher? There is plenty of blame to go around for the Katrina fiasco for both sides. I will remind you though, the first front in aiding in that disaster was a La. democrat Gov. and a democrat Mayor of New Orleans.
Are you seriously blaming Bush for 9/11 who was in office for 8 months prior while the previous administration ran the show for 8 yrs? While those in B. Clinton's admin. and his own party were crying out for action against Bin Laden and Sadaam?
The DNC should have done their homework as well..... on both candidates. They certainly have not presented Presidential material as far as I can see; as the GOP has also failed in doing so imo, although not to such a degree. |
I feel that Conservative in-put is of value to keep things in balance. As well as liberal in-put. Finding a middle ground where both aspects are employed where they are the most useful.
I do not know if McCain is being honest about trying to be a progressive moderate like Hillary with his lastest activites or not. I am offically for a mixture of socialsim and capitalism relative to economics.
I would agree that finger pointing is somewhat useless nowadays because, in spite of what they might say in words or as a philosophy, they all have fumbled the ball when in action. Same as if you had two basketball teams who did not make every shot a into the hoop. (aka basket).
I do not give President Bush that excuse. I do not think the lies he said about Saddam was done in error, but were intended for the purpose of deception.
There is difference between Clinton and Bush about Bin Laden. He had a radicial terrorist group and not a government. When it was confirmed he used a small bomb to blow a hole in a ship Clinton responded by sending in a missle to blow up Laden's terrorist training camp. The situation at that time demanded a measured response and not total war. Clinton gave Bush a passdown about the group of men who came here to learn how to fly an airliner and Bush knew they might hijack an airliner, which was common those days. And that they were funded by a questionable source. Bush basically ignored that and did not direct the CIA / FBI to monitor those people.
However, what those guys did do was totally unexpected. And if the jets had only caused damage to the top floors of the WTC, and if the other people escaped and the fire was put out. Then the incident would have had less of an impact on us and we might not have had a full scale war with the government of Afganistan. Although more security would have been called relative to air traffic, along with a serious attempt to get Bin Laden and his group of people, which would have been a sensitive issue as the relatives of Bin Laden were visiting with the VP and Halliburton about a pipeline that would run through Afganistan.
And the Laden family were important contractors used internationally by private businesses here, relative to the business of oil and natural gas production. Just like Shell Oil now has a gaint contract with Iran to develope natural gas production for Iran.
I do not know why Bin Laden found the Laden-Hallibuton pipeline project in Afganistan offensive to his religious ideals. But for some reason he deciced to become the black sheep of the family. But he did get some of the money (millions) earned by the Laden contractor and construction business and so in a way he was funded by Hallibuton who had hired that company to do constructive things for oil interests. For which the VP was the CEO of.
It is stranger then fiction that the Bush/Chaney White House did not have a clue about that riff in the Laden family and that it represented a dangerous situation. Nor can I comprehend why all this stuff was not being seriously investigated by Congress.
Now one famous conservative once said "give me a break" and those words fits our current situation. Let the Democrats give a break from the conservative based Republican policies that now still dominate.
We hear the same claim about some myth that Democrats will tax and spend. McCain is recomending better management of pork spending, and I agree. Hillary is recomending that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes like they used to do before Bush gave them too many tax breaks, or allowed them to go tax free by putting their head offices off shore. If her plan is activated then any those social programs would have funding without rasing taxes for people in the middle or lower tax brackets. Obama has echoed her plan, that he o-dopted from her and then presented it as his idea.
Nearly all of Obama's ideas were created by Hillary Clinton only he just modified them a bit to make it sound like he is presenting something different and better. Hillary coined this motto about "change" also.
The idea that McCain is sticking with his voting record is coming into queston as you pointed out. The "you get what you see" idea does not impress me because I see that as four more years of Bushism. And I have been a Bush basher for a long time, even before he was elected the first time.
I was protesting the war in Irag before it happened and was unhappy that Congress allowed him to use trickery to get away with his pre-emptive strike when Hillary made it clear he has no permission to act on that authority without the full blessings of the U.N. Somehow her concerns were overruled because Congress was still controlled by a Republican majority and she was in the Senate, and as a newly elected person in the Senate she still did not have a lot of influence back then.
When Bush asked for funding the package included all war expendatures, also for Afganistan and the war on terrorism, grouped in with the war in Iraq. A no vote would have also cut funding for Afganistan and related efforts to stop terrorism. Keep that fact in mind when you cite voting records.