Friday, April 04, 2008

More Questions

"Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything." ~ Frank Dane

So, either DT or one of his com padre's anonymously left a new comment (which I rejected) questioning the assertions made against B. Hussein Obama in my post "Obama: Bad For America":

(Anonymous' comments and questions are in Bolshevik red and my responses in Patriot blue)

"Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate."

So, most of the country has liberal values. why shouldn't they support the candidate who most agrees with them?

Because they are bad policies. Duh.

DT (and/or anonymous)thinks most of the country agrees with him, so there must be some nefarious reason why his candidates always lose.

"...raise our taxes...military weakness...Mr. Obama is promising all those things."

This, of course, is an absurd lie.

A Lie? USA Today, certainly not a bastion of Conservatism, reports, "Democrat Barack Obama said Sunday that if elected he will push to increase the amount of income that currently is taxed to provide monthly Social Security benefits."

According to the National Taxpayers Union, Obama has proposed at least $287 billion a year in new government spending. He also co-sponsored a Senate bill to spend at least $845 billion a year to fight global poverty.

Obama would pay for these increases with much higher taxes, including by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010.


(Note: This is only one of the tax increases Obama proposes. There are many more. Too many to list in this post)

As to being weak on defense, let Mr. Hussein Obama speak in his own words:


"Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan"

This is not true. He talked about going after bin Laden in Pakistan if we had the hard intelligence. This is quite different from "invading Pakistan." Furthermore, McCain has said the exact same thing.

Not true? The Washington Compost (another Liberal Media outlet) reported: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.

In his most comprehensive statement on terrorism, the senator from Illinois said that the Iraq war has left the United States less safe than it was before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that if elected he would seek to withdraw U.S. troops and shift the country's military focus to threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
(note: He says America is "less safe" since 9/11, yet he wants to repeal the Patriot act, and outlaw electronic surveillance of known terrorists and terrorists sympathizers)

"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, "The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Partially true I guess. He said IF Pakistan wouldn't go after the terrorists, he would go into Pakistan. The problem with that is that Pakistan is our ally.

"nuclear option was off the table against terrorists". What terrorists are you going to nuke and where, exactly?

No one said anyone intends to nuke anybody. They just don't rule out the option. B. Hussein does.

"Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks." Yet many others agreed.


Yes, there are other Democrats just as stupid and foolish, but they are not running for Commander in Chief.

"For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world." This is an absurdity, of course. The US is rated 37th in the world for total quality of health care.

Anonymous is no doubt referring to the World Health Organization's Report. The report is based on availability of free health care in the world. In other words, "socialized Medicine". It doesn't refer to actual quality of health care which in those socialized medicine countries is woeful compared to the United States. The rest of the US's poor report is a direct cause of the Liberal influence in the over regulation of health care providers in America.

"He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing." This is an obvious smear. Put up the citations or take it back.

OK. You want citations? How about citations in Margaret Sanger's own words?

A quick google search produced
this result: While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.

For the record, Webster's Dictionary defines "Eugenics" as "a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed".

Now here's some questions for the Obamaniacs:

Will Obama capitulate to the terrorists demands and surrender America to them to do with us as they see fit?

Will Obama attempt to force every American to convert to Islam or will he just allow the terrorists to execute all of us?

Because that is the only two negotiables to which they will ever agree.

Does Obama has some other non-violent plan to end the war besides total surrender? If so, what is it?

In fact, what is his plan for anything he promises to do?

When he taxes the company you work for into bankruptcy and you lose your job, will you still believe in his policies?

When he orders the killing of babies to prevent them from being the "punishment" for mistakes, will you happily sacrifice your baby for the cause?

When he increases your taxes to the point where you can no longer afford even the most basic of essentials will you smile and say, "It's all for the good of the common man"?

When he dismantles the military, leaving America completely defenseless against attacks by foreign powers, and outlaws all guns regardless of their purpose, will you feel safer?

When he packs the Supreme Court with Justices who will legislate un-Constitutional Liberal policies from the bench, will you still back him?

When he demands that all Americans marry the same gender, and allow babies who survive abortion to slowly starve to death, and give up your motor vehicle to the state to protect the planet from global warming, and decrees that blacks are now the preferred race and whites are to be considered second class citizens, will you then be able to see him for what he really is?

Anyone that would vote for Barack Hussein Obama for President of the United States of America is stupid.

9 comments:

The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

I actually look forward to the debates if this moron gets the nomination. More of the truth about this liberal, socialist, communist will come out and he will not be able to just talk in generalities as he does now.

Also McCain will blow him away in a debate. I am not a big McCain fan and as you, disagree with many of his actions, but he is the nominee and when he meets Obada, (intentional spelling) head to head Obada will be shown for the idiot inexperienced idiot that he is!

Lone Ranger said...

I define stupidity as -- not the inability to learn -- but the unwillingness to learn. That pretty much covers all liberals.

Jim said...

OK, I forgot to log in last time, so I was anonymous. So here goes.

"Anyone that would vote for Barack Hussein Obama for President of the United States of America is stupid." A statement blatantly showing the stupidity of its author.

I presume you are wealthy or upper-middle class because that's who would be effected by Obama's proposed tax changes. And if you want to talk about tax increases, the Bush administration has raised taxed by $4-6 Trillion dollars over the past 7 years. Our national debt has gone from over $5T to over $9T plus the expected expenses of the war are another $2-3T. How are our children going to pay for this? You think some future administration is going to cut federal spending by $6T? What a joke!

There is a difference between invading a country and in performing tactical military strikes to take out bin Laden. Pakistan is our ally, but why is bin Laden still living there with no help from our "ally"? And times and circumstances change. In the 80's, Hussein was our ally.

"saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists." Isn't this basically what Bush meant when he said you're either with us or against us and any country that would harbor terrorists is subject to US intervention? And doesn't this specifically contradict your assertion that Obama wouldn't do anything to fight terrorists?

The Patriot Act oversteps the necessary authorities already provided by FISA which has been updated many times over the years. There is no electronic surveillance that cannot be effectively done under existing FISA and Constitutional provisions.

"No one said anyone intends to nuke anybody. They just don't rule out the option. B. Hussein does." This is an absurd argument. You provide a circumstance to use nuclear weapons and then see if President Obama doesn't use them.

"The report is based on availability of free health care in the world. In other words, "socialized Medicine". It doesn't refer to actual quality of health care which in those socialized medicine countries is woeful compared to the United States." Not true, the report has multiple criteria including responsiveness, availability, level of health and fairness in financial contribution. The US is number one in dollars spent per capita yet number 72 in overall level of health.

How do you connect Obama to the views and policies of someone writing in 1917? This is absurd. You cannot connect Obama in any way with a policy of eugenics.

"Will Obama capitulate to the terrorists demands and surrender America to them to do with us as they see fit?" Of course not.

"Will Obama attempt to force every American to convert to Islam or will he just allow the terrorists to execute all of us?" Of course not. This is absurd.

What is McCain's plan on anything. Show me his plan.

The rest of this stuff is ridiculous. Why bother?

Old Soldier said...

"There is a difference between invading a country and in performing tactical military strikes to take out bin Laden. "

Obviously, you're not one of those who will be called upon to invade, err, rather incur Pakistan in pursuit of Osama. What would you call a handful of North Korean soldiers entering the USA? Illegal immigrants?

"There is no electronic surveillance that cannot be effectively done under existing FISA and Constitutional provisions."

Spoken like a true stay-at-home dad. Put your ass on the front lines and then ask yourself what kind of intelligence you would like to have with which to conduct your mission? Timely or half-assed?

I'll bet you support the troops, too.

Trader Rick said...

Listen to the Old Soldier...

Ms.Green said...

When he demands that all Americans marry the same gender, and allow babies who survive abortion to slowly starve to death, and give up your motor vehicle to the state to protect the planet from global warming, and decrees that blacks are now the preferred race and whites are to be considered second class citizens...?

Aren't these things pretty much accepted by the average liberal as necessities?

Center For Online Disease Control said...

Jim seems to be suffering from CRIIS or "Cranial-Rectal Inversion/Insertion Syndrome."

It has lately become an epidemic on the Blogosphere, and, as yet, there is no known cure.

The symptoms range from an acute messianic compulsion to "help the poor" with everyone's money but the sufferer's own, an intense hatred toward anyone who has achieved any level of success in life, and an intense aversion to armed conflict unless it does absolutely nothing to protect American interests, to an overwhelming desire to support political candidates who promise "change" without spelling out what they are changing from, or to, or even whether the "change" will be for the better, or for the worse.

It is recommended that any blog comments posted by sufferers of CRIIS be ignored or deleted until such time as it can be determined whether the disease can be spread by casual contact.

Jim said...

I'm very familiar with CRIIS. I discovered a colony of the afflicted on this very space, old soldier being in the final stages.

Old Soldier said...

Nice come-back, Jim... about what I would expect from a noncombatant. Hope you enjoy your freedoms; you know, those freedoms bought and paid for with the sweat and blood of those willing to serve.