The "Jihad Candidate"?

[longtalltechsan]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

How does Obama plan to pay for the Healthcare program he proposes without doing serious economic damage to the country as a whole and to the bulk of the individuals in it?

Not only that, but his plan is basically to nationalize it so that the government has control of our healthcare, correct me if I am wrong. So if the government has control of our healthcare, (1) how will it be better than now where I can get into the doctor in a couple of days for something and get whatever treatment I need (2) look at other countries with it where their citizens are coming here to get medical attention b/c they'll have to wait months just to see a doctor and (3) how are we supposed to believe that the government can efficiently run our healthcare when they can't keep the IRS straight, can't keep social security straight, the FAA is screwed up, the oil/energy industry is screwed up b/c the government can't keep their paws out of. Everything the government touches turns to crap. How are we supposed to believe that all of the sudden when an inexperienced junior senator with less than 4 years of experience gets into office everything is going to be better?

[ZenMachine]

Health care will be paid for by revoking the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. I might add that McCain was against these cuts before he was against them. That will not do damage to the economy, prior to Bush's tax cuts the economy as you will recall was in pretty decent shape. Also, historically our country has had both higher tax rates and a booming economy so the two are not mutually exclusive. I would like to point out that medicare has a higher customer satisfaction and lower overhead than private insurance companies. Obama is basically talking about expanding medicarea among other things.

1. Judges, as has been said in other threads the definition of "activist" largely depends on what policies one wants the judge in question to support. Recently it has been used to refer to "liberal" judges yet some claim it is the difference between making rulings based on the law and those who make ruling based on opinion. Although I think it could be argued well that the religious right has been on an extended campaign to have "activist" judges put on the supreme court who they know will overturn Roe v. Wade.

2. McCain and Obama have very similar positions on immigration and so that one I see as a draw.

3. Response to nuclear Iran. Well, Iran is not nuclear yet, although they have made the majority of progress in that direction under Bush's tough stance towards them. The belief that one cannot talk to one's enemies is not only foolish but dangerous. Check out this article:
Webb's Audition: Blasts McCain, Assesses Obama's Appalachia Problem - Politics on The Huffington Post

In it Sen Webb talks about the similarity of our current situation with Iran to the one we had with China in 1970. We can engage them without backing down from our strategic goals while still bringing Iran into the diplomatic community. Read the article for more. More can be accomplished by engaging Iran than by isolating them and the China example is pertinent. We turned an enemy into a trading partner. I think Webb is right on the money with this assessment.

4. I think Obama will be much more aggressive about reducing our dependence on foreign oil than McCain. I believe that Obama is more likely to institute some sort of mpg standard on cars than McCain. Obama has also promised to launch a "manhattan project" to find alternative sources of energy to oil. I think hydrogen is perhaps our best. Obama has also said he is not averse to more nuclear power in the country.

5. Climate change: Bad news for the global warming deniers on this board, both Obama and McCain believe it is real and have pledged to do something about it. Obama has pledged to deal with it more aggressively than McCain.

6. Obama will revoke Bush's tax cuts. Of course that will only affect those who make over $250,000 which I am guessing means fairly few people on this board. Taxes under Obama will certainly not go up for middle and working class people. He has talked about middle class tax relief to allay the effects of the recession.

7. Bill of rights. Although some one here claim he wants to revoke the 2nd amendment there is no evidence of that. He may offer stiffer regulation than Bush has but has not indicated a desire to go as far as renewing the Brady Bill or anything extreme like that. He will be a much greater defender of other rights such as privacy and habeas corpus, McCain has expressed support for warrant-less wiretapping of Americans.

8. I believe he wants to follow international law, which means not breaking the Geneva Conventions. Saddam flouting the UN was a rationale used by both Bush presidents for war with Iraq although the latter Bush has eschewed it for the most part, except asking them to help rebuild Iraq. People on the right want everyone to believe that by abiding international law (which our government signed into and is therefore contractually bound to, but who cares about keeping your word?) is somehow giving up our right to decide our own affairs. It is not, it is agreeing to conduct our business in the world by a common set of principles that we agreed to when it was created.

[XDConvert9mm]

Health care will be paid for by revoking the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. I might add that McCain was against these cuts before he was against them. That will not do damage to the economy, prior to Bush's tax cuts the economy as you will recall was in pretty decent shape. Also, historically our country has had both higher tax rates and a booming economy so the two are not mutually exclusive. I would like to point out that medicare has a higher customer satisfaction and lower overhead than private insurance companies. Obama is basically talking about expanding medicarea among other things.

The CBO has already projected out the economy's numbers with the assumption that the tax cuts will sunset. Let me ask you, how much revenue would the tax increase on those making over 250K bring in vs. how much the Healthcare proposal would cost? These are the kinds of specifics I have consistently asked for and gotten only vague answers like the above from you and other discip....supporters.

How many other programs are these tax increases supposed to pay for?

7. Bill of rights. Although some one here claim he wants to revoke the 2nd amendment there is no evidence of that.

For the record, revoking the 2A is something even he could not get done and I've never seen it suggested that he wants to. What he can help do is restrict it out of effective use for the citizens.

I asked you in another thread about the Joyce Foundation and about ole Barry's voting record in the Illinois Senate on Gun issues. Never did hear any answers from you. So, if there is no evidence that he would like to severely restrict or eliminate private gun ownership as you state, how do you explain the votes and the pesky Joyce Foundation involvement? Standing by...

[ZenMachine]

Ah, I assume you are referring to the Vogel article in Politico, which tried to paint Obama as being tied to groups that wanted to abolish handguns or some such nonsense. Here is a good excerpt from an article debunking the Vogel article where you can read Obama's opinion for yourself:

Following is an excerpt from the Joyce Foundation's Web site. "We are especially interested in improving public policies, because public systems such as education and welfare directly affect the lives of so many people, and because public policies help shape private sector decisions about jobs, the environment, and the health of our communities. To ensure that public policies truly reflect public rather than private interests, we support efforts to reform the system of financing election campaigns."

The article's title; "Obama Linked to Gun Control Efforts" is misleading in that it implies –not too subtly- that Sen. Obama previously worked to control gun ownership in America. To advance his argument, Vogel narrowly focused on a single aspect of the Joyce Foundation’s mission to create doubt about the veracity of Obama’s public positions on the right to bear arms and gun control.

That Vogel intends to dispute Sen. Obama’s integrity by depicting his public positions on gun control and the right to bear arms as dishonest is unmistakable. The first two sentences of the Vogel article follows:

"Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns. But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions."

"But" at the beginning of the second sentence implies that Senator Obama's previous service on the Joyce Foundation board contradicts his policy positions on gun control and the right to bear arms. However, the facts that Senator Obama has consistently supported the second Amendment right of LAWFUL gun ownership while championing the cause of reducing gun related violence. He employs the phrase "common-sense measures" to explain why he believes, as a Constitutional Law Professor, that: 'Like all rights, though, [the right to bear arms] is constrained by the needs and the rights of the community.' In referencing 34 students who were killed on the streets of Chicago Senator Obama called for sensible gun control to prevent senseless death." [Weekly Standard, 12/17/07]
Also, in an interview with Tim Russert, Sen. Obama was asked: "when you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?" Obama responded, "I don't think that we can get that done. But what I do think we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement...But here's the broader context that I think is important for us to remember. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership, that all of us saw, as we travel around rural parts of the country. And it is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. And then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets." Debate, 1/15/08

Let’s take a look at the second sentence of Vogel’s article: "But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.

It is important to note that The Joyce foundation granted hundreds of millions of dollars while Sen. Obama served on its Board of Directors. The vast majority of recipients were groups whose focus was not gun related.
Of the more than $240 million dollars in grants and scholarships awarded by the Joyce Foundation during Obama’s tenure as a Board member, only a little more than $30 million dollars went to groups fighting gun violence. The $30 million plus dollars that did go to support efforts to stem gun related violence went to 94 groups and represented about 6 percent of the total number of grants approved during that period. [Joyce Foundation Annual Reports]
The Joyce Foundation also funded efforts to reduce gun violence that were not related to a position on Handguns. These included:
$600,000.00 to the University of Pennsylvania to activate trauma surgeons in the effort to reduce gun injuries and deaths
$600,000.00 to the Harvard University School of Public Health for the development of a national firearm injury reporting system
$317,733.00 to the Duke University Office of Research Support to conduct and oversee research which seeks to produce an accurate estimate of the annual cost of gunshot wounds in the United States [Joyce Foundation Annual Reports]
One citation Vogel uses to support the argument against Sen. Obama is a link to the booklet: Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns, The booklet is published by the Violence Policy Center (VPC), a national tax-exempt 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in Washington, DC. The mission of VPC , which views violence related to handguns as a public health issue, conducts research advocacy and education aimed at reducing the prevalence of firearm violence. It advocates a public policy that subjects firearms to health and safety standards like those that apply to virtually all other consumer products.
The VPC was one of many recipients of funded by the Joyce Foundation. Moreover, it was in no way related to Barack Obama. A cursory reading of the Vogel article would lead to the conclusion that the purpose of the Joyce Foundation is to "advance the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights". For this reason alone, the Vogel article is at best lacking journalistic objectivity and at worst deliberately misleading.


I wanted to add, following this type of logic, because Dick Cheney once worked for Halliburton, he then should be held responsible for the money that Halliburton and its various subsidiaries have defrauded the federal government out of in Iraq? So being on a board of what say 10 people, that gave 6% of its grants to groups that wanted to curb gun violence, not all of which propose serious curtailment of the 2nd amendment, Obama is now solely responsible for trying to bring down the 2nd amendment or seriously curtail it? Even though he has stated nor voted to do so. Please provide evidence of the votes that supposedly show him to be rabidly anti-gun...

[XDConvert9mm]

Also, in an interview with Tim Russert, Sen. Obama was asked: "when you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?" Obama responded, "I don't think that we can get that done. But what I do think we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement...But here's the broader context that I think is important for us to remember. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership, that all of us saw, as we travel around rural parts of the country. And it is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. And then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets."

The first bold sure seems to me that he would like to but realizes it is not a political reality. Fair enough?

The second bold has nothing to do with the reason I own guns. I own them for protection, to carry, and because they're fun to shoot. I've heard the "Hunters and Sportsmen" line before while he was pandering in PA. Or was it out West? Can't pin it down, there's been so much pandering going on. Show me where the Consitution mentions these rights for hunters and sportsmen only and we can talk. Until then, no go.

[longtalltechsan]

Originally Posted by ZenMachine

7. Bill of rights. Although some one here claim he wants to revoke the 2nd amendment there is no evidence of that. He may offer stiffer regulation than Bush has but has not indicated a desire to go as far as renewing the Brady Bill or anything extreme like that.

Obama hasn't seen a gun control bill that he doesn't like. He even talks about passing "common sense" gun control legislation. Now what do you think he means by that? He is very anti-gun and, if elected, will do everything he can to ban as much as possible. He isn't talking about it now because it is a political hot potato. He knows that if he talks too much and people find out his real feelings he will not win the election. Look at his history in Illinois and ask the people there about his stance on the 2nd Amendment. It is atrocious. If he had his choice, he would revoke the 2A and disarm every single American citizen, except his bodyguards and friends of course.

Oh, and you are right, he wouldn't renew the Brady Bill. I am sure it wasn't restrictive enough for him.

[ZenMachine]

Originally Posted by longtalltechsan

Obama hasn't seen a gun control bill that he doesn't like. He even talks about passing "common sense" gun control legislation. Now what do you think he means by that? He is very anti-gun and, if elected, will do everything he can to ban as much as possible. He isn't talking about it now because it is a political hot potato. He knows that if he talks too much and people find out his real feelings he will not win the election. Look at his history in Illinois and ask the people there about his stance on the 2nd Amendment. It is atrocious. If he had his choice, he would revoke the 2A and disarm every single American citizen, except his bodyguards and friends of course.

Oh, and you are right, he wouldn't renew the Brady Bill. I am sure it wasn't restrictive enough for him.

Would you mind looking into the crystal ball you seem to have and who will win the world series year? Also, should I hold onto my GE stock? Also, what kind of American would allow themselves to be disarmed?

[JeffXD]

Being the simpleton that I am and I don't have big high falutin cityfied learning...

I am not interested in any government sponsered heathcare plan, and I am not interested in ANY of my tax dollars going to support it. Period.

I am not interested "stiffer regulation" as it pertains to the 2nd Ammendment. There are already enough laws "regulating" that right to own a weapon, they just aren't properly enforced. There are too many people that had rather make an excuse why an individual commited a crime using a gun rather than just throw the cretin in the slammer where they belong. Quit making up new rules unless you are going to enforce the ones that are already in place.

I am not interested in putting the brakes on the use of petroleum because it MIGHT be causing global warming. Not because it might be a contributing factor, but because its the prime cause. Go ahead and find your magic oil replacement, but in the mean time don't limit domestic drilling and refinery construction because turds with signs don't like it.

Frankly, I am not interested in any more governement nose sticking into my business. The governement really does nothing well, only marginal at best. Local on up to Federal.

I won't be voting for Obama, not because of alleged ties to Muslim supporters, but because I think he has screwy leftist thinking ideas and I am not interested.

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by JeffXD

Frankly, I am not interested in any more governement nose sticking into my business. The governement really does nothing well, only marginal at best. Local on up to Federal.

I won't be voting for Obama, not because of alleged ties to Muslim supporters, but because I think he has screwy leftist thinking ideas and I am not interested.

Two very interesting thoughts .... you say that (current) governement really does nothing well ... marginal at best but you're not willing to vote Obama because of his screwy leftist ideas. So what would you support?

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by longtalltechsan

How are we supposed to believe that all of the sudden when an inexperienced junior senator with less than 4 years of experience gets into office everything is going to be better?

Well, a governor from Texas with no federal experience but some pro baseball team ownership hasn't proved to be anything to brag about.