The Presidential Race

[made-in-japan]

Cutting taxes up in this election, right? Oh well, I guess the rich just need to be richer!

IAVA or Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America also has a rating for every single Representative and Senator who has served since 9/11.  They do these every year based on votes in their respective house of Congress.  Looks like the two non military service Democrats have voted for more benefits than the war veteran.  I'll be voting for the guy who supports us more.  But you don't have to take my word for it.  Here's the link: http://www.iava.org/documents/Congressional_Ratings_white_paper_IAVA.doc

Senator Joseph Biden D DE 88% 31 B+
Senator Barack Obama D IL 89% 20 B+
Senator John McCain R AZ 58% 80 D

[flew-da-coup]

Cutting taxes up in this election, right? Oh well, I guess the rich just need to be richer!

IAVA or Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America also has a rating for every single Representative and Senator who has served since 9/11.  They do these every year based on votes in their respective house of Congress.  Looks like the two non military service Democrats have voted for more benefits than the war veteran.  I'll be voting for the guy who supports us more.  But you don't have to take my word for it.  Here's the link: http://www.iava.org/documents/Congressional_Ratings_white_paper_IAVA.doc

Senator Joseph Biden D DE 88% 31 B+
Senator Barack Obama D IL 89% 20 B+
Senator John McCain R AZ 58% 80 D

Are you saying that the Obama and Biden support the military more? Both of them voted down more funding for the Military. I am confused.

[made-in-japan]

Are you saying that the Obama and Biden support the military more? Both of them voted down more funding for the Military.  I am confused.

Yes, I am exactly saying this.  And if you're using Senator Joseph Lieberman's speech at the Republican National Convention as proof that they voted down funding for the military than I could argue that Lieberman also voted down funding and Senator McCain didn't even bother to vote because he was too busy campaigning or knew that the bill would pass/not pass even with or without his vote. 

The reason both parties in this presidential election voted down funding is primarily because of their stances on the war in Iraq.  McCain does not want to apply timetables to a withdrawal in Iraq and Obama wants timetables.  One bill had a timetable with the funding and was voted yea by Obama and not voted on by McCain and the other was a bill that had no timetable with the funding and voted against by Obama and voted yea by McCain.

It's just a difference in the future of our mission in Iraq.  Both campaigns are even different on the recently passed G. I.  Bill for the 21st Century.  McCain felt that there wasn't enough incentive for retention rates so he was adamant about not supporting the bill without that language in it.  Obama felt that retention would still stay on the upside so he voted for the original language of the bill.

Neither supports us, the military, any more or any less.

[flew-da-coup]

Are you saying that the Obama and Biden support the military more? Both of them voted down more funding for the Military.  I am confused.

Yes, I am exactly saying this.  And if you're using Senator Joseph Lieberman's speech at the Republican National Convention as proof that they voted down funding for the military than I could argue that Lieberman also voted down funding and Senator McCain didn't even bother to vote because he was too busy campaigning or knew that the bill would pass/not pass even with or without his vote. 

The reason both parties in this presidential election voted down funding is primarily because of their stances on the war in Iraq.  McCain does not want to apply timetables to a withdrawal in Iraq and Obama wants timetables.  One bill had a timetable with the funding and was voted yea by Obama and not voted on by McCain and the other was a bill that had no timetable with the funding and voted against by Obama and voted yea by McCain.

It's just a difference in the future of our mission in Iraq.  Both campaigns are even different on the recently passed G. I.  Bill for the 21st Century.  McCain felt that there wasn't enough incentive for retention rates so he was adamant about not supporting the bill without that language in it.  Obama felt that retention would still stay on the upside so he voted for the original language of the bill.

Neither supports us, the military, any more or any less.

Obama voted against the troop surge and now admits that it did work. So it looks to me that he does not have the ability to make smart military decisions. Does our military really need that kind of leadership? Also, to say that John McCain does not support the military is a pretty bold statement. I am going to research your claims.

[flew-da-coup]

So far, I have found that the votes that he made against the bills that concerned Vets healthcare were made because those bills would have destroyed the VA hospitals. He wanted the money to go to the VA and the bill was more like medicade and he didn't want our Vets being treated like that. Congress is notorious for putting garbage into bills that are inrelated or un-needed which makes some vote them down and wnating it re-written. This is known and common practice in congress. I will keep looking this up, but it sounds to me that you are getting your info from a biased source that does not give the whole story. Maybe it would be fair to read why he voted down a bill before you say that he is against Vets. 

[made-in-japan]

I never said that he was against veterans or the active duty military.  His voting record, however, shows that he does not seem to vote favorably on Veterans Affairs all that much.

As for my sources, I would assume that former veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars would be a pretty unbiased source in regards to Veterans Affairs.  What do they have to gain by telling the truth except better healthcare? They were also a major supporter and contributor to ensuring that we received the new G. I.  Bill as well so I can't really say they are biased at all to the benefit of veterans.

And since you brought up the discussion of pork barrel spending, why is it that he nominated Sarah Palin for Vice President when she earmarked over $27 million for tiny Wasilla, Alaska? She even hired a Washington lobbyist to secure these funds for the tiny town 40 miles north of Anchorage.  Now some of these earmarks were for beneficial things for the city like a youth center and sewer repairs.  But things like a $15 million rail project for a town of 6000 is a bit outrageous. 

Or how about the fact that she requested $197 million in earmarks this year for Alaska itself as governor.  That is more per person than any other state.  Or what about that "Bridge to Nowhere"? McCain felt that the $223 million that was being requested should be diverted to Hurricane Katrina recovery but Palin still fought for it with the help of Sen.  Ted Stevens.  Here is a direct quote from the local newspaper of Ketchikan; the town that the bridge was going to be built in.

"We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative," Palin said in August 2006, according to the Ketchikan Daily News.

I got that from USAToday itself.  I wouldn't call that a very biased source either.  Here's the link: www. usatoday. com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N. htm

[flew-da-coup]

I never said that he was against veterans or the active duty military.  His voting record, however, shows that he does not seem to vote favorably on Veterans Affairs all that much.

As for my sources, I would assume that former veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars would be a pretty unbiased source in regards to Veterans Affairs.  What do they have to gain by telling the truth except better healthcare? They were also a major supporter and contributor to ensuring that we received the new G. I.  Bill as well so I can't really say they are biased at all to the benefit of veterans.

And since you brought up the discussion of pork barrel spending, why is it that he nominated Sarah Palin for Vice President when she earmarked over $27 million for tiny Wasilla, Alaska? She even hired a Washington lobbyist to secure these funds for the tiny town 40 miles north of Anchorage.  Now some of these earmarks were for beneficial things for the city like a youth center and sewer repairs.  But things like a $15 million rail project for a town of 6000 is a bit outrageous. 

Or how about the fact that she requested $197 million in earmarks this year for Alaska itself as governor.  That is more per person than any other state.  Or what about that "Bridge to Nowhere"? McCain felt that the $223 million that was being requested should be diverted to Hurricane Katrina recovery but Palin still fought for it with the help of Sen.  Ted Stevens.  Here is a direct quote from the local newspaper of Ketchikan; the town that the bridge was going to be built in.

"We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative," Palin said in August 2006, according to the Ketchikan Daily News.

I got that from USAToday itself.  I wouldn't call that a very biased source either.  Here's the link: www. usatoday. com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N. htm

Well, no since in debating it with you. You went off on a bent on Sarah Palin instead. I never said that Repubs never do pork, I had stated that it was common practice in congress. I mentioned it because those are the reasons that both sides sometimes vote "no" on bills that they normally agree with.

Here, instead off listening to people that want to spin McCain's stance on the Vets, let's see what he says directly. http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/9cb5d2aa-f237-464e-9cdf-a5ad32771b9f.htm

[dallanta]

First off, USA today is a biased paper, definitely.
Maybe all this is true and maybe it is a stretch.   However, it comes down to a choice.
Even if he does part the seas and heal the planet, obama will never be my choice.  Pondscum
  How do I really feel?  lol

[flew-da-coup]

First off, USA today is a biased paper, definitely.
Maybe all this is true and maybe it is a stretch.   However, it comes down to a choice.
Even if he does part the seas and heal the planet, obama will never be my choice.  Pondscum
  How do I really feel?  lol

Plus he lacks any executive exp.. I think voting against the troop surge proves that he doesn't understand what to do with Iraq.

[cobychuck]

    The biggest factor for me not voting for Obama is that he uses the same rederick that is used by the out-of-touch members of the Democratic party.  Recent issues, like offshore drilling for example, prove to me that when an issue of great importance to the American people comes up, they have no real desire to meet the issue head on.  Instead they have dodged this issue, relying on smokescreens, flip-flops, and convoluted answers to straigh forward questions.
    Also, with the recent fall of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two problems that had been up before to be fixed.  There was a fix put on the table, one that required an overhaul of the two fanancial giants to fix problems that required a sincere effort.  Instead, the democrats decided that it would be better to widen the base of people that could qualify for loans and mortgages, thereby ensuring their eventual collapse.  Both organizations were also rife with corruption, from book-cooking to embezzelment, and a few other ilegal activities.  All of these actions came to light during the Enron scandal, and so no coverage was given to these liberal brainchildren during their concurent scandal.
    With that paragraph on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it may appear that I have strayed from my point, but I believe that it helps to illustrate the kind of metallity we are dealing with.  Now, I still have research to do regarding the candidates support of the military, but when it comes right down to it I still believe that Obama would be a catastophe if elected to office.  I have no use for the social programs that have been forth by his party.  Socialism didn't work when tried in the New World at the beginning of our history, it didn't work for Russia, and it will not work now.  Nor do I appreciate his repeated put-downs on America.  We do not need to appologize for every action throughout history that the Democrats perceive as wrong.  We are not weak, and we cannot afford to try and appease every nation on the face of this planet.  We must be ourselves.  Trying to bend to the wishes of the world will destroy us.

[made-in-japan]

Well, no since in debating it with you.  You went off on a bent on Sarah Palin instead.  I never said that Repubs never do pork, I had stated that it was common practice in congress.  I mentioned it because those are the reasons that both sides sometimes vote "no" on bills that they normally agree with. 

Here, instead off listening to people that want to spin McCain's stance on the Vets, let's see what he says directly.  hxxp: www. johnmccain. com/Informing/Issues/9cb5d2aa-f237-464e-9cdf-a5ad32771b9f. htm

I didn't go off on a "bent" instead.  I went off on her record of pork because you brought the topic of pork up.

And it's not listening to people who want to spin his record.  It's reading his vote and seeing that what he says and what he does are two different things.  That's not bias, spin, distortion, whatever else you want to say.

This is the biggest case of cognitive dissonance I have ever seen in my life.  The facts are right there but instead of everyone chooses to ignore it.  You say it is bias and call the Democrats "out of touch elitists" but yet you are voting for a man who owns SEVEN houses and didn't even know that.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it best "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. "

[flew-da-coup]

Well, no since in debating it with you.  You went off on a bent on Sarah Palin instead.  I never said that Repubs never do pork, I had stated that it was common practice in congress.  I mentioned it because those are the reasons that both sides sometimes vote "no" on bills that they normally agree with. 

Here, instead off listening to people that want to spin McCain's stance on the Vets, let's see what he says directly.  hxxp: www. johnmccain. com/Informing/Issues/9cb5d2aa-f237-464e-9cdf-a5ad32771b9f. htm

I didn't go off on a "bent" instead.  I went off on her record of pork because you brought the topic of pork up.

And it's not listening to people who want to spin his record.  It's reading his vote and seeing that what he says and what he does are two different things.  That's not bias, spin, distortion, whatever else you want to say.

This is the biggest case of cognitive dissonance I have ever seen in my life.  The facts are right there but instead of everyone chooses to ignore it.  You say it is bias and call the Democrats "out of touch elitists" but yet you are voting for a man who owns SEVEN houses and didn't even know that.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it best "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. "

Uhm, Okay? You obviously still don't get my point. I thought it would have been clear after 2 post. Anyway, my whole reference to pork was to explain why some congress members from both sides vote "no" on some bills and want them re-written to exclude the pork. I mention this because that is why McCain turned down the increase for Vets health care ( As I mentioned before ). What I also said is that the spin doctors just mention that he voted  "No", but conveniently leave out why he voted  "No". So when you mention "FACTS", maybe you need to heed your own advice and learn them. You can quote me on this " only half the truth is not the truth". 

I also didn't say anything about the Democrats being elitist. Why are you putting words into my mouth? How do you know what I know about McCain having 7 houses? Also, who really cares how many houses McCain owns? Obama and Biden have more money than Sarah Palin. Matter of fact Biden and Obama are worth more than Palin and her husband, so what does that make them in your eyes? Either they are just as bad or you are a hypocrite my friend.

Let's hear your cognitive dissonance.

[flew-da-coup]

made-in-japan, I see that you read my post 2 hours after I posted it. I would really love to hear a response to my post. You must be busy Googeling to find out if I am correct about Biden and Obama's net worth. You will only find that I am right. I usually don't post things before checking them out myself. I guess you are trying to figure out how to back pedal now.

By the way, are you even PMEL? If so when and where did you go to school?

[dallanta]

When I was a kid "made in japan" meant it was the cheapest crap on the market and a copy of something better.

[fwisdo]

I am not voting for either.    I am voting for Bob Barr.    Don't forget there are more than two candidates.    The best candidate is not always the one with the most money.

www.lp.org