2008 US Election

haha...funny enough Kathleen, I was doing the same thing but searching an actual public policy database along with wiki. If I had the time, I could easily find at least some republican contribution to ANY sentence from that story. Once again, I am and not saying that those policies are wrongly attributed to the democrats, but republicans have contributed to the same issues.

Some examples, mainly for ponrauil:

"In May 1908, Theodore Roosevelt (26th president, a REPUBLICAN) sponsored the Conference of Governors held in the White House, with a focus on the most efficient planning, analysis and use of WATER"

"Everyone knows America's vaccine industry is in serious trouble, with an ever dwindling number of producers and recent severe vaccine shortages. What everyone also should know is that the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine has now pinned much of the blame on the government vaccine-buying program promoted by former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton"

"If Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) supports the prescription drug bill circulating through Congress, then this can't be a good thing for conservatives because he would never support any initiative that was inimical to liberalism, says Bruce Bartlett. Although most Democrats oppose the measure as grossly inadequate, Sen. Kennedy counsels otherwise. This is just a "down payment," he tells them. "When we get this as a down payment, we're going to come back again and again and again to fight to make sure that we have a good program," he told CNN's Judy Woodruff on June 18. ""

What Joe doesn't know either is that ALL these regulations are done by the FOOD AND DRUGS AGENCY (FDA) signed into law in 1906 by the initiative of guess who, yes, THEODORE ROOSEVELT, a republican.

Mentioning Schwarzenegger here will not be enough I assume. What about mentioning the "awful" W. then:

"The new regulations continue the Bush policy of putting environmental policy back at the local level. Managers of each of the nation's 155 national forests and 20 grasslands now must adopt an "environmental management system." EMSs have been a standard in the private sector and other countries for years, but lacking at the federal level. These new systems are dynamic, allowing local managers to introduce new science or techniques as forest conditions demand. Big revisions should take only two or three years, at far less cost, and will contain hard objectives." - one of the biggest success stories in modern environmentalism. And please don't make me mention Teddy Roosevelt again.

I'm sure I can find a republican politician fighting for this too. But this is something I would never ever support myself so I won't be bothered. And anyway, it's a bit late. I can continue with the other statements tomorrow. What I am saying once again is that your satire simply eliminates RPEUBLICAN contribution to social and environmental policies. Let me tell you once again, even if republicans didn't do as much for all those things as the democrats, their contribution is massive, if you like it or not.

Clearly, that is true. Certainly some republican voted for the bills to pass some of that legislation too. And historically, there used to be such a thing called the progressive arm of the Republican Party. They were mostly fiscal conservatives but social progressives. That part of the party no longer exists unfortunately.

It's interesting that in the first presidential election that I remember being involved in - Kennedy vs. Nixon - a book was written by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. called Kennedy or Nixon: Does it Really Matter? (1960) At that time, the parties were more alike than not. And at the time, I had parents that voted for whomever they thought was the best candidate, not the party.

These days you are looked upon as a traitor if you cross party lines. So if I come across as more of a liberal, leftist, democrat it's because I prefer the forward looking, optimistic, positive viewpoint rather than the heavy, negative, and very censoring republican viewpoint.

They always SAY that they want smaller government and then they turn around and tell me what to do with my body regarding abortion, they get government involved in fighting birth control at home and abroad, they get government involved in medical research (ie stem cell research that they have stopped) and if you don't agree with them you are now a traitor or a terrorist or worse - no thanks.

Dear Red States:

We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and the entire Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.



To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the red states pay their fair share.



Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms. Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.



With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines, 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT. With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia. We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.



Additionally, you get the 38 percent of those in the Red states who believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent who believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the war, the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent who say that evolution is only a theory, the 53 percent that still believe Saddam was involved in 9/11 and the 61 percent of you crazy bastards who believe you are people with higher morals than we blue state pinkos.



Peace out,

Blue States

this must be a popular write up then.... even spoke to my dad and he had heard about it and believes fully what it says... but then he has always been a republican....

I have always leaned towards democrats which has made for some interesting conversations over the years with my father...

On this occassion I dont like either candidate....

Dawn

To the blue states who want to seccede. Fine. Let's split this thing up half and half, North and South. We get all the conservatives, you get all the liberals. You also get all the RINO's: Republicans In Name Only, who somehow keep getting elected with Rs next to their name, but act like they want to turn our nation into Europe. Travel between halves will only be allowed on business, since you don't want our values and we don't want you messing up our states.

You haven't even pretended to pay lip service to the Constitution in the past 10 years, and you have this annoying habit of referring to it as a "living" document (BTW, we really want to know WTH that is), so we get that too. Good luck coming up with anything as good. Any attempt at a direct replica will be met with a copyright infringement lawsuit.

We'll be keeping all those evil free marketeers by the way. And since y'all can't figure out the difference between violent and predatory and violent but protective, I guess we get the military too, and we'll be putting a halt to sales of anything more dangerous than a spork to your new nation. If you're not familiar with the letter written by Ronnie Barrett to California, now would be a good time to take a peek at it. It's going to become law.

We look to forward to denying your hurried request to re-enter the union, as any of a dozen countries march upon your newly-defenseless borders. All the best,

The Red States

The above is a work of parody. I CAN get out the "Why so serious?" pic again, to illustrate the point.

On second thought, let's try something truly revolutionary. A limited government that doesn't interfere in the business of the states. That way we can keep the union together and birds of a feather can flock together. So long as the states don't violate the Bill Of Rights (doing things like reinstituting slavery, denying jury trials, free speech, the important stuff) the states can do whatever they so choose. Wait...that sounds like...the way it was supposed to be...

Adrian

if they did secede the red states would be ****ed given they can't make black people work for free anymore

Obama Wants You

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, July 31, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: Barack Obama calls it "Universal Voluntary Public Service." We call it a plan for national involuntary servitude. Kennedy asked us what we could do for our country. Obama has ways to make us volunteer.

Sen. Obama's call to public service is quite different from JFK's. JFK knew America was already a nation of givers and volunteers, perhaps the most charitable and altruistic nation on Earth. Entities such as the Peace Corps would give Americans an outlet for their kindness and generosity, an opportunity to share what the freest nation on Earth had given them. Obama will force you to share.

Obama's Orwellian use of the words "universal" and "voluntary" together is an indicator of an antithesis to capitalist society deeply rooted in his socialist associations, education and training. Indeed, in 1996, when he ran for an Illinois state Senate seat, one of his first endorsements was from the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America.

On the surface, his plan looks just like typical bureaucratic program growth. He wants to expand Americorps to 250,000 slots and double the size of the Peace Corps. He'll create a Clean Energy Corps to plant trees and otherwise save the Earth. It's how Obama plans to fill those slots that's worrisome.

Announcing his plan July 2 at the University of Colorado, he said: "We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges." He will make us an offer we can't refuse.

Obama says that as president he will "set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year." What he doesn't say is that he'll make such voluntarism compulsory by attaching strings to federal education dollars. The schools will make the kids volunteer. It's called plausible deniability.

In a commencement speech at Wesleyan University, Obama advised graduates not to pursue the American dream of success, but to serve others.

"You can take your diploma, walk off this stage and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should," he told the graduates. "But I hope you don't."

Don't be another Bill Gates and amass a fortune making people more productive and successful in their daily lives and giving your countrymen a standard of living the world will envy. Exchange your cap and gown for sackcloth and ashes. Leave your possessions behind and come and follow Obama.

"Fulfilling your immediate wants and needs betrays a poverty of ambition," he opined. Shame on us for being selfish and buying that SUV built by an autoworker trying to fulfill his family's immediate wants and needs.

"Our collective service can shape the destiny of this generation," Obama said. "Individual salvation depends on collective salvation."

We already have a Salvation Army that is truly a volunteer organization. Collective service and salvation is not a classic definition of voluntarism. What Obama has in mind is to turn America into a socialist version of the old Soviet collectives.

And if your idea of service is to join the military and keep others alive and free, forget about it. And never mind about ROTC on campus.

Obama has no place for those who are willing to abandon fame and fortune to lay down their lives for their friends and ours. "At a time of war," Obama says, "we need you to work for peace."

"We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we're asking young people to do," Obama's wife, Michelle, told a group of women in Zanesville, Ohio, during the primaries. "Don't go into corporate America. . . . Become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers we need, and we're encouraging people to do just that."

Don't be the engineers who will figure out better ways to extract shale oil from the porous rock that holds it. Figure out how to extract more money from taxpayers' wallets.

But the Obamas are doing more than "encouraging" or "asking." In a speech in California, Michelle, who has made a small fortune in the "helping industry," said: "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone. . . . Barack Obama will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual — uninvolved, uninformed."

But America is not a nation of selfish, self-serving people. Social demographer Arthur Brooks once calculated that Americans volunteered 32% more than Obama's beloved Germans. We also donate seven times more money to charities and causes than the Germans who gathered in Berlin.

In talking about his national service, Obama, the man who seems to be running for "community organizer in chief," also made this startling statement:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

This is an idea worthy of Hugo Chavez.

Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren has estimated that this civilian national security force alone would cost somewhere between $100 billion and $500 billion, or between 10% and 50% of all federal tax receipts. And that doesn't include the cost of the brown shirts.

Adults are not exempt from all this, even adults who've already served in the U.S. military. "People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve," Obama says. Will they be asked, or drafted?

"The future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson," he concedes. "But it (also) depends on the teacher in East L.A., the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans . . ." So drop down and give Sgt. Obama 50 hours.

Require. Demand. Never allow. Obama's version of "voluntary" service is more appropriate for Havana than middle America. He wants to turn America's students, and even adults, into clones of Elian Gonzalez, compelled to serve the state in ways Obama "will direct."
------------------------------------------------------
Cont'd below

Obama made clear that he was a strong supporter of the draft at the ServiceNation Presidential Forum at Columbia University on Sept. 11, 2008 and I don't know why the MSM or the McCain campaign let that one slip right by. Obama on the draft speaking at Columbia:


Quote:
But it’s also important that a president speaks to military service as an obligation not just of some, but of many. You know, I traveled, obviously, a lot over the last 19 months. And if you go to small towns, throughout the Midwest or the Southwest or the South, every town has tons of young people who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s not always the case in other parts of the country, in more urban centers. And I think it’s important for the president to say, this is an important obligation. If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some.
http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/...ia-university/
The Obama campaign is playing down Biden's "gaffe" by saying that international crisis is common when a new president takes office. They're correct in saying that. The point that Biden was making was not that Obama will be tested but rather some very specific decisions that Obama was going to make that would be unpopular with Americans regarding the crisis. He's warning that the decisions that Obama would make are going to be so unpopular that the polls will reflect a very low popularity rating for Obama. He explains that it will be a decision that people will claim not to have known that he'd make. I believe that Bidden is talking about Obama imposing the draft. Although Obama said he favors the draft at the forum, it's never been in the MSM and the vast majority of people have no idea. A lot of his support is coming from people and groups who believe that Obama wants to keep us out of war and conscription contradicts that. Biden:


Quote:
“Mark my words,” the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

“I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate,” Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. “And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”
Quote:
"I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I'm not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it," the Senate Foreign Relations chairman said of Obama. "This guy has it. But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us."

"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued. "Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."
Quote:
Biden emphasized that the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border is of particular concern, with Osama bin Laden "alive and well" and Pakistan "bristling with nuclear weapons."

"You literally can see what these kids are up against, our kids in that region," Biden said in recalling when his helicopter was forced down due to a snowstorm there. "The place is crawling with al Qaeda. And it's real."

"We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes," he cautioned. "It's so much more important than that. It's so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it."http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...to-suppor.html
This is a real problem and should be forced onto the public right now!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Two articles on how Barak Hussein Obama may have plans to institute the draft. First one is from Investor's Business Daily, the second is from a Hillary Clinton website (I don't support her, I just make a habit of knowing my enemies.)

Thoughts?

Adrian

let's be fair adrian if a draft was likely georgyboy would have already pushed it through and out of the 2 candidates just now john could i be more a warhawk if i tried mccain would be the one to push for a draft or at least cause a situation where a draft would be necesarry...

as for the volunteering stuff. i don't think volunteering is such a bad idea for a nation as a whole whether it is tied to funding or not.

Anyone that feels the need to mention Obama's middle name as a last little jab aganist him doesn't deserve to have ANYTHING he says taken seriously.