Friday, October 31, 2008

Vote... if you're voting on issues

If you're voting based on a slogan, a TV advertisement, or a soundbyte do the country a favor and stay home. If you educated yourself on each candidate and where they stand on the issues important to you then vote and be proud.

Link to John McCain's website.
Link to Barack Obama's website.

It's hard to get unbiased news today... you got to do some serious searching to find the good and bad of Obama's and McCain's stand on the issues.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of either candidate so I voted for the candidate that's in MY best interest.

20 comments:

gerry dorsey said...

what does it say about the media that the most intelligent thing i've heard/read in terms of this election is on bamahoops.blogspot.com??

kudos sir.

finebammer said...

if you're voting to be a part of history, stay home.

we're all about to find out why senators don't make good presidents. and it couldn't come at a worse time in world history.

pay close attention to joe "the plumber".

joe made the mistake of asking the man a unvetted question.

the price? public disemination of mr. wurzelbacher's private affairs thanks to a government bureaucrat weilding the power of a government weapon. (the computer)

barack hussein obama with the power of a filibuster-proof congress will ensure a one-party monopoly for, at least, the next fifty years.

pelosi and reid have regained power for the democrats and are determined not to allow 1994 to happen again.

yeah, it's that serious.

bobbyjack said...

Thanks GD... my biggest issue with politics is campaigns are more focused on what the other candidate can't do. Unfortunately, this type of campaigning resonates with the majority of our culture... the soundbyte generation.

Finebammer... I don't think if Obama wins it's a societal (sp?) change per se. If he wins and the economy is in the tank 2 years from now Congress will change.

Mitchell said...

Finebammer: You are insightful when it comes to Alabama University politics, but your insight into national politics is terribly skewed.
You're parroting right-wing talking points, which are little more than propaganda to keep the Republicans in power. A party that has proven woefully inadequate when it comes to governing.

The fact is Obama has maintained what his tax plan means to the working class of this country. If you make over $200,000, then I can see why you're worried about an Obama presidency.

But here's what I find ironic: People who succeed based in large part because of the opportunities this country provides are the same ones who have an irrational fear and hatred of giving back to the country.

Bobbyjack: I promise not to turn this into a political back-and-forth, but the slander against Barack Obama (who is winning because he has refused to engage in the same gutter politics) because Conservatives have this misplaced fear that Liberals are going to destroy the country (even though it was Liberal policies that contributed to America becoming the most powerful nation during the 20th century) is insane and ridiculous.

Finebammer: Your party has been in charge the better part of 8 years and the country is in terrible shape from an economical, social, military and political perspective. Time to give someone else the reins. Just deal with it. You never know, you might find that Barack Obama, despite his name which fills you with so much revulsion, turns out to be a hell of a President.

finebammer said...

mitchell, i wouldn't worry about offending bobbyjack's sensibilities with a political back and forth as that is what the original post was about. (and i really don't think that's what you're worried about)

and i love your line about parroting things after implying a conservative (me) is a political dumbass. (you democrats have been parroting that line of thinking for years)

fact of the matter is that barack hussein obama is a liar and a snake.

barack hussein obama promised to sit down with john mccain months ago and discuss public campaign financing. mccain promised to run his campaign on public financing. obama couldn't even live up to a promise to talk about it. why?

barack hussein obama has over two hundred million dollars of unreported donations in his campaign coffers. where's that money from, mitchell??

oil for food?? (tony rezko)

or the market?? (herb and marion sandler. know who they are, mitchell?? i didn't think so. the sandlers are far left political donors who made their fortune on the backs of folks who borrowed money through arms - adjustable rate mortgages. they sold their savings and loan in 2006 for a cool 24 billion dollars to..........wachovia bank. yeah, that wachovia bank. the one who recently bankrupted. the one who's receiving taxpayer-funded bailout money. that sale sent wachovia into bankruptcy. the sandlers have since sent millions in the form of donations to numerous far-left organizations like the ACLU and ACORN. yeah, mitchell, that ACORN. how much of that money is in your boy's campaign???)

of course you never hear these type questions ask from our "watchdog" media because they're too tied up in alaska investigating sarah palin's family tree.

barack hussein obama is winning because he's got more money. lots more. tons more.

it's about the money, mitchell. plain and simple.

finebammer said...

now to the point on "societal" change.

the "republican revolution" would not have happened in '94 were it not for rush limbaugh.

love him or hate him, rush provided an alternative voice to a media that was totally controlled by democrats.

democrats don't like opposing views or questions. (see joe the plumber)

rush helped bring to light democrat crime and corruption. without him you'd likely never have known the social security trust fund was broke due to democrats raiding the fund for years.

without his groundbreaking work 1994 would never have happened.

and democrats fully intend to address that problem with the fairness doctrine.

for the past several years democrats have tryed to counter conservative radio with a liberal slant in the radio market. one problem. it doesn't sell. we the people don't buy the crap and turn it off.

if radio stations are forced to "balance" rush limbaugh and others with jim hightower and randi rhoads the radio stations, faced with the specter of declining ad revenues, will wash their hands of all of it. rush is successful because he sells airtime. he sells airtime because we listen. air america crashed because it didn't.

and in the end that's what this debate is about. control.

democrats know they have to regain control of the media. an educated populace is harder to control. (you have to look no further than the state of alabama and it's political system to see that)

next? the internet.

then? our 2nd amendment rights.

free speech??? don't let them lie to you. liberals hate free speech. liberals hate sunshine. it exposes their true intentions.

finebammer said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s&NR=1

civilian national security?

societal change?

this ain't no black helicopter, guys.

bobbyjack said...

Couple of corrections:

1) Wachovia is being bought out by Wells Fargo. Originally the Fed was going to take it over and Citibank was going to buy the scraps, but Wells Fargo stepped up and bought Wachovia... saving taxpayers billions.

2) Obama has 4x the $$ McCain has... and has spent more $$ on negative campaigning.

My main point in the post was I want educated voters voting regardless of who they're voting for. I want people to vote for their best self-interest and not be swayed by soundbites, celebrities, talk shot hosts, or TV ads.

It's funny... we have a President that sports one of the lowest approval rates in history bunched up with Congress hovering with similar low approval rates. Whoever win Nov 4th has a tall task... the ecomony, the wars we're in, health care, and social security have to be dealt with and fast. To be honest I don't get warm and fuzzies about either being up to the task.

I voted Friday... in my best interest.

finebammer said...

from the financialtimes.com:

Mr. Silverman and Mr. Willens said Wells Fargo's acquisition of Wachovia was helped by the fact that losses Wells Fargo might incur are also no longer subject to limitations because of the changes to the tax code. Mr. Silverman said that if Wachovia now sells some of its debt to the government or anybody else, “normally a loss would be available, but it would be subject to the limitations under provisions of Section 382. But since it's been waived, the loss is not subject to limitations.”

in other words, wells fargo is getting tax breaks and future promises of bailouts for buying wachovia. the taxpayers haven't been saved anything.

here's the real deal. this financial crisis is the brain fart of congressional democrats and their's alone. through fannie mae and freddie mac they pushed banks to loan money to those that didn't qualify. then these loans were bought by fannie and freddie, repackaged and sold to bigger banks. bigger banks bought insurance on these packages from companies like aig. when the welfare recipients started bankrupting, the house of cards crashed.

now democrat idiots like barney frank (who has had a homosexual affair with a freddie mac official) claim wall street greed, lack of oversight and other such claptrap. they want to pile all this on republicans yet as far back as '02 republicans have been raising red flags about all this.

think i'm making this up?? head to u-tube. you don't have to search hard for video of congressional democrats berating the fannie/freddie regulator and other republicans for interfering with their ability to "spread the wealth".

john mccain went so far as to write the senate banking committee a letter expressing his concerns.

yet somehow this is all his fault over a man who is the second largest recipient of fannie and freddie donations, barack hussein obama.

two trillion dollars of wealth has been lost in the regular folks 401k's. for many of us, that's the only chance at retirement we'll have as democrats have screwed us out of our social security too.

hope and change indeed.

Mitchell said...

finebammer: I do worry about offending Bobbyjack's sensibilities because he's been a hell of a nice guy to me and I'd hate to hijack a college basketball blog with 200 comments about our respective politics. It's called thinking of others; you conservatives should try it some time.

Nevertheless, I'm not one to run away from an argument. So put on your hard hat, sir. Let's dance.

First and foremost, I am not an Obama apologist. There are policies of his - particularly aspects of his foreign policy - that I don't agree with. Nevertheless, there have been charges levied against him that have been based on lies and xenophobia, which I don't think should be used in order to determine a candidate's ability to run the country.

It's always about the money, Finebammer. Funnily enough, I never hear Conservatives bitch about that when their candidate is ahead. It's only when their opponents well-run campaign is kicking their ass into the ground that they want to start crying about the money. Is the McCain campaign and its supporters bitter?

McCain is talking about "campaign funding reforms" not campaign spending. Obama's candidacy attracts large and small donors alike, those who want to give money and those who want to raise it, veteran activists and first-time contributors, and anyone who is wired to anything: computer, cell phone, PDA. In the month of February his campaign raised $45 million over the Internet. Millions of donors giving relatively small amounts is further democratization of the process. The Obama campaign had 632,000 new donors in September and 3.1 million total contributors. The average donation to the campaign in the month was $86. Is the support of 3.1 million people, with an average donation below $100, bad for campaign finance reforms? Would those be the very same reforms designed to stem the influence of 'big money' donors?

And regarding McCain and political reform: In 2006 he opposed a grassroots lobbying bill he once supported. It was reported that his presidential ambitions led McCain to reverse his support of a campaign financial bill called McCain/Feingold.

You call Obama a liar, but, to date, independent, nonpartisan fact checkers have published more than 50 fact checks debunking John McCain's lies and distortions.

What else has McCain lied about and/or flipped on? Here is but a small sample:

The new G.I. Bill introduced by Senator Jim Webb. McCain criticized it until it passed. Now he sings its praises. The strange thing is, he didn't even vote on it.

McCain is the self-proclaimed "Maverick" and "War Hero", yet he participated in covering up intelligence indicating that American POWs were still being held in Vietnam.

He said he would vote against the development, relief and education for Alien Miners Act that he co-sponsored, and then said he would vote against an immigration bill that he introduced.

In 2006, he said on "HARDBALL," quote, "I think that gay marriage should be allowed." Then after the commercial break he added, I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal.

In 1999, he was publicly supporting Roe v. Wade, while privately opposing it in a letter to the National Right to Life Committee. In the 2000 debates, he would change the GOP platform to permit exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother. Now, of course, with the Christian Right watching him like a hawk, he has "changed" his opinion yet again.

He was originally against storing nuclear waste at Yucca mountain. Now he's for it.

Negotiating with Kim Jong-Il was not acceptable until President Bush did it. He was for negotiating with Castro in 2000. Now he opposes it. Negotiating with Hamas and/or terrorists was fine when Colin Powell went to Syria and in 2006 when McCain said sooner or later we‘ll talk to Hamas. Now he criticizes Obama for seeking to follow a path of diplomacy where it regards our actions and interests in the Middle East.

In 2001, he could not in good conscious support tax cuts. Now he does.

He says now he's not for privatizing Social Security and never has been. Yet, in 2004, he "didn‘t see how benefits will last without it".

In 2000 he referred to a group of Bush fund-raisers as coyotes breaking the law. By 2006, they were co-chairing McCain fund-raisers.

In 1983, McCain opposed Martin Luther King Day. Now, he supports it.

During a June 4th town hall meeting in Baton Rouge, John McCain answered a reporter’s question regarding Hurricane Katrina and the failure of the New Orleans levees by announcing: "I’ve supported every investigation and ways of finding out what caused the tragedy. I’ve been here to New Orleans. I’ve met with people on the ground." McCain neglects to mention that in 2005 and 2006 he twice voted against a commission to study the government’s response to Katrina. He also opposed three separate emergency funding measures providing relief to Katrina victims, including the extension of five months of Medicaid benefits. And as ThinkProgress pointed out, "until traveling there one month ago, McCain had made just one public tour of New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina touched down in August 2005."

And that only covers a small amount of this guy's incoherence. There's no need to bring up the Keating Five again or his withholding information from his 2006 Senate report detailing how Alabama governor Bob Riley was targeted by Jack Abramoff's influence peddling scheme. And there's more.

But you go right on calling Obama a snake and a liar.

Mitchell said...

The two hundred million dollars of unreported donations: the identities of people who contributed more than $200 million of Obama's total take haven't been made public because the individual donations fall below the $200 reporting limit.

Regarding Tony Rezko: What are you referring to specifically? What political favors did Rezko get from Obama? The only thing I am familiar with at the moment is the hullabaloo over the $300,000 savings on a home that Obama purchased. While it's true that Obama paid $300,000 less than the asking price, the Obama campaign posted an e-mail from the seller, Frederic Wondisford, confirming that Obama’s offer on the house was the best one. In the letter, the seller says he rejected two lower offers from the Obamas before the two sides finally settled. The GOP offers no proof that the price paid by the Obamas was anything other than a matter of negotiation. Compare this to the Keating 5 scandal and get back to me. After all, that cost taxpayers over a billion dollars.

You never take the whole Sandler business anywhere except to bring up ACORN, which has to be one of the most ridiculous stories pushed against the Obama campaign.

ACORN has been painted as this corrupt organization when (gasp, shock, awe) Republicans have supported ACORN in the past. Oh, what the hell, let's look at some examples:

John McCain was a speaker at a 2006 ACORN event.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist partnered with ACORN in March 2008 for a "Homeownership Promotes The Economy" taskforce. The New York Times reported that ACORN supported a law signed by Governor Crist, which "changed the rules last year to restore the voting rights of about 112,000 former convicts."

In 2005, another Republican governor, Rick Perry of Texas, signed ACORN's Lending Law Reform Bill that changed the state's homelending practices.

In July, California Governor and McCain supporter, Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill that ACORN helped draft aimed at California homeowners facing foreclosure.

And the sordid tales of ACORN voter fraud perpetrated by Republican noise machines? Here's the irony: While that story has been relentlessly pushed, RNC operatives are engaging in massive voter suppression and purging efforts.

The truth about ACORN is they collected some bad signatures from their workers who were trying to boost their registration numbers. But guess what? None of ACORN's actions will have any impact on any election. ACORN hired 13,000 canvassers to register new voters. A small number of these workers defrauded ACORN by handing in phony registration forms using names they had invented (e.g. Mickey Mouse), or copied from phone books. None of these activities constituted voter fraud. It is no crime to register multiple times; only the final registration counts. Multiple registrations would not allow someone to vote multiple times. It's an absurd accusation made by the McCain camp.

ACORN took steps to screen its registrations and mark those it considered dubious. However, federal laws make it a felony for voter registration groups like ACORN to discard registrations even when it believes them fraudulent. Therefore, ACORN flagged the forms it considered doubtful and handed them in to the registry. Ironically, it was those flagged forms -- the fruits of ACORN's diligence -- that have been flogged by Republicans as their best evidence of widespread election fraud. Again, it's an absurd story being pushed by McCain that only serves to further highlight his desperation.

Mitchell said...

Two things about the media before I end my portion of this debate.

1) Sarah Palin should be investigated. I don't give a damn about her family tree. What I care about is she is the most unqualified VP pick in memory. She has no concept of how United States government functions (and she should since her husband belonged to a secessionist party in Alaska) nor does she have any inkling of the domestic and foreign policy issues that we're currently facing. In short: she's a moron!
This is the one area where I sympathize with McCain, yet also find it very amusing. I sympathize with McCain because she is not who he wanted as his running mate. He was forced to choose her as a running mate in an attempt to appease the raving lunatic religious right. How else to explain a campaign that focuses on Barack Obama's lack of experience and then turns around and chooses a candidate who is equally, if not more so, inexperienced (by their own rationale) as Obama? Yet, I find it amusing because it may signify the end of the religious right's influence in the Republican political machine. For years Republican candidates have had to toe the line for these rapacious freaks in order to secure their vote by lying about their intentions to overturn Roe v. Wade, ban gay marriage, have Creationism taught in schools, etc. If McCain loses this election, it won't be lost on him or his peers in the Republican party that his decision to placate the religious freaks may have ultimately cost him the election, whereas if he had gone with Joe Lieberman, he probably would have pulled in quite a few independents and even a few Democrats.

2) I'm so sick of hearing Conservatives blubber about this "Liberal Media Bias". What the hell are you talking about? Where was this bias for the last 8 years while Bush and his criminal thugs reduced the Constitution to shreds? Oh yeah, like George said, the Constitution's "just a goddamn piece of paper."
Where was the media bias when Clinton was being questioned about receiving a blowjob in the Oval Office. The media were like buzzards during that whole thing. They certainly didn't cover anything up or not report the details 24/7.

Get the hell out of here with that myth. I will agree that the Press in this country has failed in doing its job, but it doesn't have a Liberal bias. That's just nuts.

And regarding the financial issues in this country: I opposed the bailout. Still do. Those sons of bitches should have been left for the sharks. Yet, of course, Finebammer, you blame everything purely on the Democrats. That seems to be the only thing your party is good at. It's certainly not governing.

Get your head out of the sand. This is a direct result of the deregulation frenzy that started with Reagan and went unchecked until the bottom fell out. This not only happened in the financial markets, but also in media and television as well as infrastructure. When there is no one minding the store, the first impulse is to steal. This is a situation where I do not think partisan politics should come into play. This is a governmental breakdown on both sides of the aisle: Those who demanded more and more deregulation and those who allowed it to keep happening.

DJC said...

Good Lord, I don't think either one of you are going to change each other's mind.

FWIW, I support Obama. I don't agree with all of his policies, but overall, I think he is the better choice.

The rhetoric from both sides, (Obama is a socialist muslim, McCain is a senile old man, etc) is ridiculous.

finebammer said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related

the truth about fannie mae and freddie mac. i challenge you to watch it. i challenge you to find a single republican calling for the deregulation of these corrupt gse's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbOGRg3VzlQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63siCHvuGFg&NR=1

in fact, republicans, including mccain, were calling for MORE regulation of the gse's and warning of the repercussions.

in fact, the financial crisis in which we're currently in IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS!

in fact, barack hussein obama is the SECOND LARGEST BENEFACTOR OF FANNIE AND FREDDIE MONEY behind only (d)chris dodd and ahead of (d) john kerry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbkEAR2GgiA&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_324911

protest all you want, this is a democrat scandal, and one the left wing media refuses to investigate.

and we all know why.

sabanchangeseverything said...

Obama is a socialist that is going to redistribute my wealth to poor people that are too lazy to work. More food stamps for them and they get a welfare check while those that actually contribute to society get taxed even more. When did we lose a war to Canada?

Obama scares the hell out of me.

finebammer said...

hugo chavez ain't skeered!


"We are not asking him to be a revolutionary, to be a socialist -- no," Chavez said at a political rally. We just want the black man who is about to be the U.S. president to have enough stature for the times the world is living through."

really. i guess the only question left is whether ahmadinejhad will join colin powell and chavez with his endorsement before the voting begins.

i must admit to some morbid anticipation of standing on the soapbox declaring 'i told you so' as rome burns.

finebammer said...

you know, it's really sad saddam hussein (there's that name!) couldn't be here to see this "historic" day.

Mitchell said...

finebammer: you're an ignorant freak. Seek help.

DJC said...

finebammer, all of your "sources" are carefully edited youtube videos. I think that speaks volumes. RTR and OBAMA '08!

sabanchangeseverything said...

Obama is not change we need. Poverty will run amuck under his shady leadership. Any man that associates with Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, the PLO, and is a friend of a voter fraud organization like ACORN is not who I want to lead this great country. Libs are socialists.

Country First!