New York Times endorses Lautenberg

TEN COMPELLING REASONS TO VOTE MCCAIN
1. CHECK ON LIBERAL CONGRESS. The only way the liberal Congress will be checked at all is if McCain gets elected. Otherwise Pelosi, Dodd, and Frank(the very same people who contributed greatly to the current crisis through resisting reforms to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and pushing “affordable housing” to those who weren’t credit worthy) will have unchecked freedom to cause further economic havoc and impose irresponsible, unaffordable spending programs on this country(we’ve had a Democratic Congress for the last two years and frankly they’ve done a terrible job—-the last thing we need to do is to give them unchecked power)
2. OBAMA TAX POLICIES WILL TURN CRISIS INTO CATASTROPHE Obama, despite his promises, will turn a crisis into a catastrophe if his economic policies are implemented. This will not help the average “Joe”. Raising taxes in a weak economy is the worst possible economic policy one can do. In 1932, for example,(in an effort eerily similar to the rationale Obama is using) Congress raised taxes on the wealthy and the result was an 8 point jump in unemployment. Moreover, taking money from the pool of funds job creators have means less money to pay wages, less money to pay health care and other benefits, and less jobs. What good is a $500.00 government check if the tax punishment meted out by Obama on your boss forces your boss to cut salaries, health care benefits, raise prices on consumers or, in the worst case scenario, close the business?
3. REAL OBAMA VIEWS MIDDLE CLASS AS “BITTER CLINGERS” AND OBAMA’S JOE THE PLUMBER ENCOUNTER SHOWS HIS TRUE DISDAIN FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS We’ve seen evidence of what Obama really thinks about the average “Joe” and it isn’t encouraging or pretty. Remember Obama’s remarks that Pennsylvanians were “bitter clingers to guns and religion”. These remarks were made when Obama wasn’t expecting them to be recopied(they thus represent the real Obama). And why should we be surprised at this elitist worldview given the fact Obama is a Ivy League lawyer who spent 20 years in the hate filled church of Jeremiah Wright? Further, look at Obama’s appalling treatment of “Joe” the Plumber. “Joe” is an average guy who wants to buy a business but his dreams can not happen under the Obama tax plan because Obama takes away any incentive to gross more than $250,000.00 in income. And both Obama and Biden essentially mocked “Joe the Plumber” once they learned he was probably a McCain supporter. They and the media made sure(within a days time) that this average “Joe” would have numerous embarrassing details about his life exposed worldwide in an effort to discredit him. And why, all because(when Obama came to his house—he didn’t seek out Obama—Obama sought him out) he dared to ask a reasonable straightforward question that any private citizen should be able to ask their President? Vote for other Democrats if you like(except Murtha who in my view shares the same elitist worldview as demonstrated by his comments Pennsylvanians are “racists” and “rednecks”) but we don’t need more elitists like Obama in leadership positions.
4. DEMS LIKE OBAMA LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CURRENT CRISIS. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Barney Frank, have pushed for the “affordable housing” policies that have encouraged or pressured banks into making loans to poor minorities and whites who weren’t credit worthy. Obama and Dodd were the top two recipients of Fannie Mae campaign contributions. Obama also picked Jim Johnson(former Fannie Mae executive) to lead his vice presidential team. According to the Washington Post, one of Obama’s economic advisers is Franklin Raines(another Fannie Mae executive who in Raines’ case raked in 90 million dollars from Fannie Mae). Obama represented ACORN, trained ACORN workers, he and Ayers gave $200,000 to ACORN, Obama’s campaign gave $800,000.00 to ACORN, and ACORN intimidated many banks into giving bad loans to minorities with discrimination lawsuits. John McCain, in contrast, called for reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Frank, and Dodd, resisted those reforms. Bush called for numerous reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Democrats also opposed these reforms. So why in the world, given the fact the Democrats largely caused this crisis, would we want to put Obama, Dodd, Reid, Pelosi, and Frank in total unchecked command of the country?
5. HEALTH CARE PLAN DISASTROUS On health care, Obama’s plan is unaffordable and will lead to a total collapse of the system ultimately. Obama wants a single payer system(he doesn’t say that now outwardly but that’s what he wants—-in 2003 in a speech before the AFL-CIO he said he favored a single payer system—-further his plan will ultimately lead to single payer because private insurers will be crowded out of the market—-they will be subject to costly new mandates and won’t be able to compete with Obama’s government subsidized plan) And single payer is an abject disaster and the the worst possible choice for health care. Why? For one thing, if you have single payer, you never get rid of it and you have no other option if you don’t like the way the single payer treats you. Further, in single payer countries like Canada, you have enormous wait lines(many Canadians flock to the US for care because of these wait lines), health care gets rationed(the government covers less because they have to in order to cut costs), and quality doctors leave the system(because they are paid low wages under single payer systems or less than they could make elsewhere). So Obama’s health care plan will not only not help the average “Joe”, his single payer dream will only lead to further hardship for the average “Joe” and a collapse of the system.
6. OBAMA ENERGY PLAN LEADS TO GREATER, NOT LESS DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL On energy, Obama’s energy policies will do next to nothing to help this country achieve “energy indepedence”. The last time a “windfall profits tax” was imposed(under Carter) our dependence on foreign oil grew and this happened because the windfall profits tax kills innovation on the part of oil companies(why should they drill more if they can’t make any profits from more drilling because Obama will take the money away) Moreover, Obama and the Democrats have historically railed against more drilling(Obama even scoffed we could save more energy by inflating our tires than we could gain from drilling for more oil) and nuclear power(two energy sources which are critical to helping us lessen dependence on foreign oil) so McCain and Palin are much more reliable in terms of drilling for more oil and building more nuclear power plants. Biden also said he and Obama wouldn’t build any “clean coal” plants. You should also note Obama wants to keep gas prices high(in fact he said he wasn’t upset about the fact gas prices rose, only that they rose too fast). Keeping gas prices high certainly doesn’t help the average “Joe”. And Obama also favors keeping gas taxes high while McCain has favored suspending the gas tax in the summer. The gas tax clearly hurts the average “Joe” because everyone has to buy gas(regardless of income level) yet it is McCain, not Obama, who is willing to give the average “Joe” the tax relief.
7. OBAMA FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE There is also no reason to believe Obama will be more fiscally responsible than McCain. McCain has proposed a spending freeze while Obama propses a trillion dollars in new spending. The resulting debt burden created by these spending programs will place an incredible burden and yoke on future generations. McCain is much more likely to keep spending in check.
8. MCCAIN MORE EXPERIENCED. OBAMA’S FOREIGN POLICY DISASTROUS In terms of foreign affairs, McCain has 26 years experience, Obama has 2. And Biden’s experience shows he has made the wrong judgment numerous times so he can’t be counted on to offer much help to Obama(after 9/11 Biden proposed giving $200 million to Iran—-a ridiculous idea, Biden also proposed partitioning Iraq—an idea Iraqis almost unanimously rejected, Biden and Obama opposed the surge while McCain’s judgment was vindicated on the surge). In terms of an unsteady hand, Obama has certainly shown an unsteady hand with his foreign policy gaffes already(e.g. wrong on the surge, 3 different answers on the Georgia situation, talking with dictators “without preconditions”, invading Pakistan). And, more recently, Biden said Obama would experience an international crisis if elected because he’s so inexperienced and that “America hang with us because our response won’t seem to be the right one”. There’s no evidence therefore Obama is capable of handling foreign policy crises better than McCain.
9. PALIN MOST EXPERIENCED ON ENERGY ISSUES, PALIN AT LEAST AS EXPERIENCED AS OBAMA In terms of Palin, Palin has at least as much experience than Obama. And on the critical energy issues, it is Palin who arguably has the most experience and knowledge of ALL the candidates on energy issues(because Palin was an oil and gas regulator, her husband has worked in the oil business, Palin negotiated the natural gas pipeline deal in Alaska, and Palin has lectured and given speeches on energy issues). Palin also hasn’t been given a fair shake by the media so if you’re relying on CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, or the New York Times for your information on Palin, you are not, in my view, getting a fair picture of her. You should know that in the ABC interview Palin had, portions of it were edited out and were not shown to the public(these edited out portions would have made her answers appear more complete).
10. OBAMA’S ALLIANCES WITH RADICALS RAISE CRITICAL DOUBTS ABOUT HIS JUDGMENT AND SHOW HE HAS A RADICAL SOCIALIST WORLDVIEW. And I haven’t even discussed Obama’s numerous alliances with radicals, party hacks or corrupt individuals such as
a) Reverend Wright
b) Bill Ayers
c) Tony Rezko
d) Rashid Khalidi
e) Khalid al Monsour
f) Stroger
g) Richard Daley
h) Father Pfleger
Ten compelling reasons to vote McCain over Obama.

Thank you Liberty11, you are absolutely correct and have outlined the correct analysis of why McCain/Palin is the better choice for America than Obama/Biden.

I have just returned from a debate in Parsippany between Frelinghuysen and Wyka (and that crazy liberal that is just a very angry liberal). Firstly, it was a sad situation where the moderator selected almost exclusively democrats to ask questions, with very few exceptions. But, Congressman Felinghuysen was up for the situation, and was very convicing with facts and reality, as opposed to the others that simply "want to give America back to the middle class (talking point)."

What has been proven to me, once again, is that Democrats are simply the party of outrage and talking points. They continue to avoid the facts and focus their remarks on class warfare. The facts just do not back-up their positions. Why do they not simply say what they mean, which is - we do not like business or successful people. We want a country that gives out welfare so that these people will continue to have no reason to work hard and achieve, and solidify their power of them in a large government controlled economy and society.

Liberals argue tax fairness ("tax the rich more, and the others less") when currently the top 10% pay 80% of the taxes, this is fair? I don't think so. They talk about making things fair, what they mean is that they want to give those that currently pay no federal taxes (I think that is about 35%) a check (tax credit ... aka welfare) under the theory that then these people will have money to spend on goods and services. Well, how about real fairness? How about asking ALL americans pay their fair share. How about all Americans pay a flat tax, which would ask all to pay according to their earnings? While giving the very low income the opportunity for exemption (say individuals making less than $20K and couples making less than $25K per year). Then, you lower the capital gains taxes and corporate taxes to about 10%, with further breaks for job creation and domestic capital investments, and get rid of the death tax entirely. A flat tax for individuals would cut the IRS by at least 50% (probably more) and saving further tax payer money. Simplify the entire political system by creating a formula that gives money to the states for them to decide how to spend it. I personally believe the Federal government is far to large and involved, decision making is best when it is closest to the people, give more monetary control of spending to the states and then the people of those states will be responsible for electing officials that better represent their needs and priorities. Unfortunately, NJ would have to get rid of 60% of the people in NJ elected offices, but that wouldn't break my heart either........

I just have to stop, this could go on forever. Let me summarize:

VOTE REPUBLICAN ON NOV 4th

Today, The New York Times endorsed Sen. Obama for the President of the USA. A socialist newspaper endorsed a socialist from Chicago. I wonder why I am still in a shock? Somebody posted this about Chicago: Pull out of IRAQ? Perhaps the U.S. should pull out of Chicago? Body count in the last 6 months: 292 killed (murders) in Chicago; 221 killed in Iraq defending freedom. Chicago… Who Runs it? Senators: Barack Obama & Dick Durbin; Reps: Jesse Jackson Jr., IL Gov: Rod Blagojevich, IL House leader Mike Madigan, IL Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. All Democrats. Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago!! Of course, they’re all blaming each other! More FACTS: State pension fund $44B in debt, worst in country. Cook County (Chicago) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. (Look ‘em up if you want). Chicago school system rated one of the worst in the country. This is the political culture that that Obama comes from and HE’S GONNA ‘fix’ WASHINGTON POLITICS FOR US?

www.ircask.com ircask.com sohbet sitesi üzerinden sohbet ve aşk odalarında sohbet edilebilir. ircask sohbet siteleri blog irc forum sohbet ekle islami sohbet galeri msn mp3 güzel sözler chat directory