Can we ask? Yes we can!

[Monster8V]

Undeniably legit questions we will never get answers to.

p4_ypTOwo_U

[mike]

Hey, I live in the big city and I cling to my guns with no fear of the economy..........

Great find. When the bush tax cuts expire, taxes will go up, spending will go up, taxes will go up again. As I posted in another thread, he has already admitted he can not balance the budget his first term, and most likely not his second. Redistribution of wealth and Socialism for all.

[Monster8V]

indeed.

[Anonymous]

Undeniably legit questions we will never get answers to.


Another weak video that answers have been given to long ago.

Voting present:
THE FACTS: Obama acknowledges that over nearly eight years in the Illinois Senate, he voted "present" 129 times. That was out of roughly 4,000 votes he cast, so those "presents" amounted to about one of every 31 votes in his legislative career.

Illinois legislators often vote "present" and for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes blocs of lawmakers do it as a protest in some dispute over rules and procedures. Obama was often joined in his "present" votes by 10 or 20 other senators.

In other cases, lawmakers do it to signal objections to the details of a measure that they support in principle. They also use "present" votes as strategic moves to defeat legislation or, of course, simply to avoid taking a firm position.

Clinton highlights several of Obama's "present" votes that she considers questionable.

Several involve abortion -- a ban on certain late-pregnancy abortions, a requirement that a minor's parents be notified and restrictions on a type of abortion where the fetus sometimes survives for short periods.

"A woman's right to choose ... demands a leader who will stand up and protect it," said one Clinton campaign mailer.

But the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council says Obama's "present" votes were actually part of a careful strategy to prevent those restrictions from passing.

President Pam Sutherland said the group feared several senators were going to vote "yes" on the legislation because of attacks from Republicans over their past opposition. Sutherland says she approached Obama and convinced him to vote "present" so that the wavering senators would do the same. For their purposes, a "present" was as good as an outright "no" because it kept the bills from reaching the majority needed to pass.

Clinton also points out that Obama was the lone "present" vote on legislation allowing the victims of rape and other sex crimes to have their court records sealed. Obama explains now that he had questions about its constitutionality, although the law has never been struck down by the courts.

Neither the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault nor the House sponsor of the legislation faults Obama for his vote. Former state representative Lauren Beth Gash, who supports Obama for president, said she ultimately disagreed with his constitutional concerns but that Obama raised legitimate questions and was acting on principle.

Spending:
The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.

Funding:(snipped from factcheck.org)
It says he "voted against funding our troops." He did – exactly once. Obama cast at least 10 votes for war-funding bills before voting against one last year, after Bush vetoed a version that contained a date for withdrawal from Iraq.

The claim that Obama "voted against funding our troops" is true. He did, once, last year. But that's hardly the whole story.

Prior to the sole 2007 vote cited by the McCain campaign as justification for this ad, Obama voted for all war-funding bills that had come before the Senate since 2005, when he was sworn in. So did all other Senate Democrats, except for a few absences. As recently as April 2007, Obama voted in favor of funding U.S. troops again, but this time Democrats added a non-binding call to withdraw them from Iraq. McCain (who was absent for the vote) urged the president to veto that funding measure, because of the withdrawal language. President Bush did veto it, and McCain applauded Bush's veto. Based on those facts, it would be literally true to say that "McCain urged a veto of funding for our troops." But that would be oversimplified to the point of being seriously misleading, which is exactly the problem with McCain's ad.

Furthermore, by saying that "John McCain has always supported our troops," the ad insinuates that Obama doesn't. But funding a war and supporting troops are not necessarily the same thing. If they were, we'd reiterate our point above, that both men expressed a willingness to see a war-funding bill killed unless it met their conditions.

Clinging:
Is this not true? Why do you always equate Democrats with taking your guns away? It's often in your sigs.(direct response to Mike) He's not speaking of literally clinging to guns and religion, he's refering to the clinging of gun and religion issues. "Abortion and gays are a sin, my religion tells me so. I'm not voting for a Democrat because his social views go against my religion. I'm not voting for a Dem cause he'll take my guns away. Mean while, I'll vote for a Republican because he says he'll take away gay rights and make abortion illegal(when they never do) and give my money to corporations and slowly erode my civil rights to protect those corporations."

[mike]

McCain will make major spending cuts to close his gap, where Obama will make more spending, and will either have to raise taxes to fill the gap, or cut spending, which he won't do, in anything other then the military, which in this day and age of a defiant Russia, Iran, and the wild card that is North Korea, would be foolish.

[Anonymous]

McCain will make major spending cuts to close his gap, where Obama will make more spending, and will either have to raise taxes to fill the gap, or cut spending, which he won't do, in anything other then the military, which in this day and age of a defiant Russia, Iran, and the wild card that is North Korea, would be foolish.

Source?

[mike]

Your the king of research and copy and paste, you tell me....... look up his website, I have researched and found plenty. If you want to know, then look.

[Anonymous]

You're the king of research and copy and paste, you tell me....... look up his website, I have researched and found plenty. If you want to know, then look.

:rolleyes:
Wow. You're disappointing me. You have searched and found nothing. I've addressed most if not all of your posts and shown them to be empty. You need to brush up on your researching. My point in asking for a source is that you don't have a legitimate one and you prove it.
The fact is that both of their plans have been determined to increase the deficit and both have made proposals/promises to cut spending to help offset it.

[mike]

Lets see what you have to say about the Jews against Obama thread, have at it, need a link?

[mike]

Exactly, both plans plans have made promises to curtail spending, but do you actually, realistically, think two out of the three branches being Democratic would be able to pull that off?

[Anonymous]

Exactly, both plans plans have made promises to curtail spending, but do you actually, realistically, think two out of the three branches being Democratic would be able to pull that off?

Do you think 3 out of 3 would pull it off. I present to you 2000 - 2006. I don't understand your blind(seemingly) devotion to Republicans. Where were you between those years?

[PhätTony]

Lets see what you have to say about the Jews against Obama thread, have at it, need a link?


oh oh oh I have the FILTHYRICHUPPERCLASSWHITEREPUBLICANSAGAINSTMCCAIN. ORG site, how bout that one? :tup2:

[mike]

Sweet, lets see it!