Vote against Obama
Dennis Moseby, Emporia
Friday, October 31, 2008
I NEED TO start by saying that I am Catholic, thus for me, choosing is very easy compared to what many grapple with. However, lest people think I have been biased by Catholic views, I was Presbyterian for almost 39 years and was baptized Presbyterian.
Even as a Presbyterian, I never agreed with the Pro Abortion crowd (no mistake, pro Abortion, I call them what they are). Which brings me to the first item for why you should not vote for Obama. In the final debate he indicated when asked that “there surely have to be some areas where we can come to agreement on the abortion issue.” This shows a tremendous lack of understanding. One thing that abortion and slavery have in common is “There is no middle ground, you are either for it or against it.”
Some other reasons:
2. Obama has never led anyone or anything. Community organizer does not count. While an important and notable job, it is not a leadership position.
3. The President first and foremost is the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces. Here is a man who will not even leave the cloak room to vote Yes to a censure of an absolutely hateful ad about a general actively in the field. Plus a recent poll shows 60% of the military who will vote prefer McCain. Now our service personnel take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and they will serve whoever is their commander and chief with distinction and valor. Always have, always will. But if the military overwhelmingly questions his ability to lead and he has never led, then why would you vote for him?
Now McCain has led. Both in the military and in his career in government. He has at times taken unpopular positions, which a leader has to have the integrity to do. Obama has a history of being middle of the road, something a leader cannot do, especially in crises.
4. On the economy. Leave us set the record straight. The main people to blame for the present subprime fiasco are all the people who willingly accepted loans that were well beyond their means. Some amount of personal accountability must accrue. The fact is the Carter Administration instituted the concept with Clinton bringing it to full fruition and allowing the condition which Wall Street and Investment Bankers could not turn down. We can blame Bush for many things, but not this. Also, if I tax the big corporations more, the costs just get passed on to us the consumers, so that tax break you got quickly goes away or is minimized.
5. He indicates that the real war should be and always have been in Afghanistan/Pakistan. He says he will go into the cave and get Bin Laden. That is what the American people expect and that is what he will do. So let me get this straight, he was against the war in Iraq, said the surge would fail, and now he will go into Pakistan and get Bin Laden. Clinton had three chances, and did nothing. Same party, same rhetoric. By the way the Democrats in Congress said two years ago they had the solution for the war in Iraq. All we had to do was elect them and they would get the job done.
6. He keeps saying that he should not be held accountable for something Bill Ayers did when he was only 8. Okay, I can buy that, but the fact is he does know Ayers and Ayers at least helped him some in starting his rise. Plus it is okay for him to harp on McCain about the past eight years, but it is grossly unfair for anyone to challenge him on Ayers?
7. He just got done saying that he believes the wealth should be spread around. I agree with that, but I would like to make the choice where I send contributions. Excuse me but I do not believe any politician should be deciding who I support or don’t support.
8. If he is elected, we will have a Democratic Congress, a Democratic Executive, and with three Supreme Court justices soon to probably retire, he can appoint liberals to stack the court his way. Now I am sure in the past this condition has existed, but when it did we still had an unbiased press who we could count on to provide critiques and help prevent abuse.
9. Finally for many years I have always wondered how the Germans could have, as a nation, allowed themselves to be mesmerized and even hypnotized into the support of Hitler. I do not mean to equate Obama with Hitler other than to say I now see how a powerful orator can in fact institute propaganda and make you believe that he is your one best chance for the future. So, I think I can somewhat see how it was done.
I will close with a quote from Joe Biden used in his debate with Sarah Palin, “The past is prologue.” Truer words were never spoken, Joe. Obama’s past is his prologue which is precisely why we better care about his past just as much or more than the future.
wookdog13 (anonymous) says...
Very good comments. I do hope the people who are undecided take this article to heart.
The hint of an antichrist is seen in Obama.
Great nations will fall (the financial chaos that is seen and heard around the world.)
Natural disasters.(what is yet to come?)
I fear of what may happen in the near future if this man is elected.
I have yet to see his tax plan explained as to how it will actually work. Also, how his medical plan will benefit all.
Mr. Moseby I believe your article is one of the best I have read and had explained for all aspects.
I hope more people will read and listen about the man that has had no military experience and might be our commander and chief when he has shown our troops over seas no respect and seems to even have a disdain for them.
October 31, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Does it really matter? Kansas will go red as it has since the 60's. But as far as your abortion comment goes, yes there is some middle ground. In cases of rape and incest these people have no choice in the matter that they are victims. One should always have a choice if they wish to have children, never be forced into it.
I really look forward to tearing your editorial apart when I get home from work the comparisons to Hitler will be especially good quarry.
October 31, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Dennis, regardless of whether or not one agrees with your views, I commend you on being able to write an entire editorial expressing your opinion about an opposing candidate and the issues without using the words "idiot", "stupid", "true colors", and all the usual nicey-nicey we have come to expect from one side here on a regular basis, even for obvious simple slip-ups and misquotes. (Yes, the very same people that complain the loudest about the smear, name-calling, dragging the campaigns thru the gutter, and so on). Although it doesn't look like it will be long.......
"It is wonderful to be back in Oregon," Obama said. "Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."
May 9, 2008 - Barack Obama
October 31, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Name me one politician that has not slipped up? All of them have, its the ones that do it frequently that should be made a mockery of. Biden and Palin both are not very good speakers at all, McCain is average, and Obama..., incredible speaker. Anyone can agree with this. Should we all start quoting McCain/Palin Blunders to be fair?
October 31, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
historian1982 (Nick Gronseth) says...
yes people who were the victims of rape or incest have a choice. The child which is the result of that horrible event had nothing to do with it. Why should the baby be punished by being murdered? Plus, that canard (which is what it is) about rape/incest/health of mother only truly occurs in less then 5% of those who decide to have an abortion, so it should never be brought up as a 'middle ground' excuse to allow abortions.
Thank you
October 31, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
No, what we may possibly need to do, what my point was about, was to stop screaming "idiot" and "stupid" every time one of them DOES slip up. Biden slips up all the time - but I don't remember seeing too many if any posts/editorials here calling him an idiot. Not nearly as many as Palin. Yet everyone who knows her personally refers to her as an extremely smart lady - gee, it's almost as if they know her better than some posters here apparently do. I don't doubt that any of our candidates are very intelligent.
I think we've seen quite a few McCain & especially Palin blunders quoted here - goodoleboy, are you having memory loss problems? Go back and re-read some posts on some recent threads if you're drawing some blanks on people quoting Palin blunders and referring to her as stupid and idiot.
Just seems we do it alot one way, and hardly ever the other. And those that are the most vocal about name-calling seem to be the ones also the most vocal about why campaigns drown in smear and name-calling.
I would prefer that we quite calling ALL of them names. Go ahead and make fun of their blunders, but that doesn't make them an idiot, just because you disagree with them.
October 31, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
If you would have read my post closely, you would have noticed that I SAID "even for obvious simple slip-ups and misquotes" - and then I posted one for example, and refrained from throwing in "idiot, stupid, true colors", and all the usual trash. There's a word for people who constanty name-call, and complain about name-calling, and complain we should base our votes on issues, and not personalities, and then spend all their time blasting personalities. I was just, and continue, to commend Dennis on being able to put forward his views without sinking to that level.
October 31, 2008 at 4:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Historian
Whether its its 5 or 100 percent it is irrelevant. When someone is raped the choice is taken out of their hands and made by another, that is not right anyway you look at it. You have to focus on everything an issue encompasses not just what you like. I fail to see how anyone that is the victim of rape/incest has a choice in the matter, first the criminal makes the choice for her to be pregnant, second people like you make the choice she has to carry a child she did not want in the first place, where is the choice there? Looks pretty darn one sided to me.
October 31, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporialifer (anonymous) says...
I agree with wook - Mr. Moseby - this has to be one of the best written articles I have read. I certainly hope people take it to heart.
On the abortion issue, I agree with historian that I don't feel the child should be punished for the wrongdoing of another. Adoption is always an option. You see people all the time that are unable to have children that are looking for the opportunity to be parents. I'm not excusing the rapist and it is not fair that a person should have that forced upon them, but an innocent life should be given a chance.
October 31, 2008 at 4:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
equalrights (anonymous) says...
Historian-
I would like to know where you got those statistics because I would challenge you on it.
October 31, 2008 at 5:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/Aborti...
"Asked to list the most important reason for the abortion, just 4.5 percent of women cited rape, incest or the pregnancy causing life-threatening or severe health problems. Just .5 percent of women said the abortion was because they were a victim of rape."
Why Abortions Are Performed
The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.
Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;
1% because of fetal abnormalities;
3% due to the mother's health problems.
Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)
Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
Other: 2.1%
October 31, 2008 at 7 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I just finished my own extremely scientific local poll, called the open_eyes poll, accurate +- 3%.
I looked back thru all online editorials posted by the Emporia Gazette, well known to be fair and balanced - I assumed the number of editorials pro either side would be an accurate representation of the general reading area as a whole. I counted only articles that were specifically pro/for 1 party/candidate, and/or anti - pertaining to the presidential election only. I went back and counted the last 2 full months, Sept/Oct, including todays editorials. (Now, I know this is not NEWS, just opinion, but I'm operating under the assumption that it will be a fair representation of the general area consensus as a whole - especially factoring in the fact that many of the opinions are written by Gazette staff members themselves). I left out neutral articles, (there were a few) - as they were generally reporting-wise on the financial meltdown, conventions, etc... and did not express opinions about the candidates generally either way.
I found:
Pro-Obama/Biden anti McCain/Palin: 11
Pro-McCain/Palin anti Obama/Biden: 2
Therefore, based on this extrememly accurate analysis, using all the scientific methods at my disposal, I predict that voting in the Gazette reading area will be 85% Obama, 15% McCain. Of course, extrapolating that nationally, as KS is generally considered to be a McCain state overall, I would put the national numbers closer to 90% Obama, 10% McCain.
THE NUMBERS DON'T LIE !!!!!!
LOL
October 31, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Yet another study showing media bias:
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/2008...
John McCain supporters who believe they haven't gotten a fair shake from the media during the Republican's candidacy against Barack Obama have a new study to point to. Comments made by sources, voters, reporters and anchors that aired on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts over the past two months reflected positively on Obama in 65 percent of cases, compared to 31 percent of cases with regards to McCain, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs.
ABC's "World News" had more balance than NBC's "Nightly News" or the "CBS Evening News," the group said.
Meanwhile, the first half of Fox News Channel's "Special Report" with Brit Hume showed more balance than any of the network broadcasters.......
"For whatever reason, the media are portraying Barack Obama as a better choice for president than John McCain," said Robert Lichter, a George Mason University professor and head of the center. "If you watch the evening news, you'd think you should vote for Obama."
ABC recorded 57 percent favorable comments toward the Democrats, and 42 percent positive for the Republicans. NBC had 56 percent positive for the Democrats, 16 percent for the Republicans. CBS had 73 percent positive (Obama), versus 31 percent (McCain).
Hume's telecast had 39 percent favorable comments for McCain and 28 percent positive for the Democratic ticket.
It was the second study in two weeks to remark upon negative coverage for the McCain-Palin ticket. The Project for Excellence in Journalism concluded last week that McCain's coverage has been overwhelmingly negative since the conventions ended, while Obama's has been more mixed.
October 31, 2008 at 9:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...
emporialifer , you say "I don't feel the child should be punished for the wrongdoing of another." OK , lets say your 11 or 12 year old daughter gets raped, they are a child, should she then be punished and made to suffer with the experience of rape for an additional 9 months? Should she be put through the experience of giving birth to a rapist (her rapist) child?
I would have to agree with Goodolboy on this one, If my daughter was raped, I'd let her make the next choice since she was forced into the first one.
With that said, if open_eyes stats are correct and Only 1% of abortions are performed because of rape or incest, I can live with that and I'll let God Judge me, not the people on this forum.
November 1, 2008 at 6:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Why do you think you have the right to make choices for people when it comes to their body and life? If they believe as you do they will act as you do, stop shoving your religion on others. Seriously do you realize that if we overturned Roe vs. Wade a herd of docs would set up shop right over the Mexican border and nothing would really change anyways.
November 1, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
AP: Obama aunt from Kenya living illegally in US
http://www.rr.com/view/content/story....
Barack Obama's aunt, a Kenyan woman who has been quietly living in public housing in Boston, is in the United States illegally after an immigration judge rejected her request for asylum four years ago, The Associated Press has learned.
Zeituni Onyango (zay-TUHN on-YANG-oh), referred to as "Aunti Zeituni" in the Democratic presidential candidate's memoir, was instructed to leave the United States by a U.S. immigration judge who denied her asylum request, a person familiar with the matter told the AP late Friday. This person spoke on condition of anonymity because no one was authorized to discuss Onyango's case.
November 1, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy - I think the same thing would happen if we went by the path that Palin prefers - to let each state decide for themselves, instead of a federal mandate. People in the non-abortion states would just cross over to the ones where it is permitted. Not stating a side, just what would most likely happen.
November 1, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Ok now that I have time to shed some light into this….
1. Abortion issue, only person in this campaign that is on the ticket that sees things as you do is Sarah Palin, last I looked McCain was the one running for president and he and his wife both belief in abortion in certain circumstances. So by your logic you should not vote for McCain or Obama since both believe in abortion in some form.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joh...
Get your facts straight sir; this is your #1 point?
2. So you get to decide what counts? Uhhh, last time I checked he was a senator same as McCain and like McCain he chairs some subcommittees. To be honest NONE of these candidates have a ton of leadership experience, just government experience, what do think advisers are for?
3. I'll give you that the military is more supportive of McCain, he is a vet after all, no bias there. But the gap is much closer than you think and oddly enough Obama has received more money in donations from our troops. Funny thing though, Obama wants to get our troops out ASAP and all troops support that because of the growing dissatisfaction in the military as to why we are there and how it has been handled.
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2...
4. Economy, Hmm I don’t know but last I checked there a guy named Reagan and another guy named Bush between Carter and Clinton, guess they just stuck their head in the sand or were completely innocent of anything /cough Keating savings and loan scandal /cough /cough Iran -Contra /cough. And lets not forget McCain and Phil Gramm's deregulation of Wall Street in 1999. Both parties are guilty here and there is no clear winner. So why solely denounce Obama? Bias much? Far as the rest of it, get back to me after you take Econ 101, when you assume......
5. The real war IS in Afghanistan/Pakistan and NEVER was in Iraq, WAKE UP! Iraq has cost us almost 3.7 trillion to date, and we never should have been there. And by the way, Government 101, congress cannot authorize the troops to just come home, the only real power they have is cut funding and then listen to people scream about how they don't support our troops. The majority of Americans DO NOT support this war, too bad our president does not realize this. Bush has also had 8 years with endless amounts of money and resources to get Bin Laden, yet he went to Iraq? Had he went where he should have to begin with Bin laden would have been gone long ago.
November 1, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
continued
6. Bill Ayers again? You know the one of the main things that turned me off about the McCain campaign (and there was a point a very close to voting for him) is the amount of mud they sling. They could talk about McCain and his part in the Keating 5 which would be especially poignant since it was another banking scandal much like the one today, they could talk about Palin and all the skeletons in her closet but they don't. All I see from the McCain campaign is smear, smear, and smear. All of these candidates have something in their past they are not proud of, you can look past one party and not the other? People are tired of the old mud slinging campaigns, the polls prove this.
7. Do you get a choice now where you send your contributions that are not disposable income? Last I checked a lot of taxpayers were not for the bail out yet guess what, they are paying for it. Your logic here is very unsound.
8. And just why is this? My god who elected these people! Maybe people are just flat out disconcerted with the Republican Party and are using their votes top hammer home a point? We the people elected these politicians, you act like its all part of a grand scheme or something but last I checked one had to be elected in. Far as press goes, CNN is a reliable news source, and furthermore anyone that cares to enough to follow and keep up to date on issues can see through any bias out there, right or left.
9. Then why bring up Hitler's name? There are plenty of other great orators out there, Reagan was one, Kennedy was another, why not compare him to one of those instead of a lunatic? Poor taste and bad example sir.
In conclusion I would tend to think instead of "past is prologue" that "history is the best teacher" would be what we are looking for here. Learning from mistakes and not making the same ones over again is the best way to go, for someone as clearly religious as you are "past is prologue" is not very christian, how would we grow as people? Again unsound logic sir.
November 1, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Direct quotes:
"A statement given to the AP by Obama's campaign said, "Senator Obama has no knowledge of her status but obviously believes that any and all appropriate laws be followed."
Onyango is part of Obama's large paternal family, with many related to him by blood whom he barely knows. Obama first met Onyango when he traveled to Africa as an adult — he referred to her as "Auntie Zeituni" in his memoir.
"Onyango's refusal to leave the country would represent an administrative, noncriminal violation of immigration law, meaning such cases are handled outside the criminal court system. Estimates vary, but many experts believe there are more than 10 million such immigrants in the U.S."
Is this something you believe Obama should be held accountable for? Half aunt he barely knows? How is this relevant to the campaign?
November 1, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smith_ron (anonymous) says...
What scares me the most about McCain is Palin. -- President Palin.
November 1, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
get used to it, this race is over, take your zealotry and prejudices and stew for the next 4 years.
November 1, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
YaHooSis48 (anonymous) says...
I recently read an article written by Chet Hanson of Kansas City, (he is a creative consultant, writer, producer ,and voice-over specialist, & wine importer) says,"In this election it is not that McCain, even with his bravery and sacrifice for country, is so irresistible, rather it is that Barak Obams is too dangerous. Barak Obama is a danger to our America, our prosperity, our security and our way of life, and especially our freedom. He may mean well. Others on the Left before him have meant well, but the people have paid a bloody price. He is most dangerous, not just because he is inexperienced, but because of his eagerness to move us into a socialistic state." Dennis your comments were well written and I tend to agree with you on most points. Thanks!
November 1, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Did you perhaps read some of the fall out from that article where a great many inaccuracies were brought to light?
http://blogs.kansascity.com/unfettere...
That man has no respect for others beliefs, freedom of religion was one of the founding principles of this country. Lets just oppress everyone till they believe as we do shall we?
November 1, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wirewatt (Ken Bazil) says...
goodoleboy
I think if you would do a little checking, you would find out the illegal aliens and the pork barrel issues cost alot more than the war. Also the vets coming back form the war don't have the same opinion you are putting out that I have talked to.
November 1, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
wirewatt
there are a link to military polls above in my post its not my opinion its based on fact, and at 3.7 trillion the war does cost more than the illegal aliens, which I might add due to the poor economy trending has shown a good decrease in their numbers. Funny how when our troops come home and do not receive adequate physical and psychological care, hell they did not even have the equipment they needed while they were there, but hey private firms are making millions and millions off contracts. Trying to find a link to a recent survey taken of returning and what their political agendas were, let me say this it was NOT at all in favor of McCain or any republican, I'll post when I find it.
November 1, 2008 at 5:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
We lost a lot of military assets when Clinton "balanced the budget" on our backs. The military is and always has been supported by the conservatives and we return the favor, since the left sees us as attack dogs and not much else.
November 1, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Uhh you might want to run by factcheck.org before you say that sir, that topic came up during the GOP debates with Giuliani, here is what the truth of it was:
Giuliani falsely blamed President Clinton for cuts in the military that happened mostly under a Republican administration:
Giuliani: Bill Clinton cut the military drastically. It’s called the peace dividend, one of those nice-sounding phrases, very devastating. It was a 25, 30 percent cut in the military. President Bush has never made up for that. We – our Army had been at 725,000; it’s down to 500,000.
Actually, most of the cutting to which Giuliani refers occurred during the administration of George H.W. Bush. At the end of fiscal year 1993 (which was Bush’s last one in office), the Army had 572,423 active-duty soldiers – a far cry from 725,000. In fact, to get to that number, one has to go back to 1990, during the first gulf war. Moreover, Clinton’s cuts in the military, while large, were nowhere close to 25 percent to 30 percent. Between 1993 and 2001, the Army went from 572,423 to 480,801, which is a decline of 16 percent. The entire military went from 1,705,103 to 1,385,116, a decrease of 18.8 percent.
Compare that with the far larger cuts made during the first Bush administration: In 1989, the military stood at 2,130,229 and the Army had 769,741 soldiers. By 1993, those numbers had declined by 19.9 percent and 25.6 percent, respectively.
And as we’ve pointed out before, it was the first Bush administration – specifically then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney – that began bragging openly of the peace dividend.
November 1, 2008 at 5:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
chiefsfan (anonymous) says...
I just have to comment on the abortion issue. I am pro choice, mainly because I don't believe if a person was raped (or by incest) or if the baby will be horribly handicapped or if the mother's life is in danger should be forced to continue the pregnancy. This topic for people is either black or white, you are either pro-choice or pro-life. A comment was made how adoption is always an option. Tell me, lets say a 15, 16,17 year old girl gets raped and gets pregnant. You are going to force this child to continue with the pregnancy, have to go to school where she will be teased, bullied and harrassed by other students who won't know she was raped, then to go thru the pain of childbirth? I don't think I would want my daughter to go thru that. The choice is an easy one for me.
November 1, 2008 at 7:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smith_ron (anonymous) says...
I like President Obama. I could vote for President McCain if he wasn't dragging so much baggage.
Heck, I would have voted for Barnett if he hadn't picked Wagle for a running mate.
November 1, 2008 at 8:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
"Lets just oppress everyone till they believe as we do shall we?"
Gee, that sounds an awful lot like what is currently going on, let's just ban any and all press that don't ask questions we like, shall we.....
November 1, 2008 at 11:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
"3.7 trillion the war does cost more than the illegal aliens"
It's pretty hard to nail down the cost of illegal aliens in the US - estimates range all over the place, some things are very hard to measure accurately.
Here are some estimates:
http://www.esrresearch.com/Rubenstein...
They estimate the 2007 cost at $364 billion
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=...
is also in line with the above study.
"Over the next ten years the total cost of low-skill households to the taxpayer (immediate benefits minus taxes paid) is likely to be at least $3.9 trillion,”
Most of these studies are based on numbers that are too low.
"In October 2007 the estimated number of illegal aliens residing in the United States was revised. The figure went from an estimated 12 million to an estimated 38 million. "
And here is a story entitled: "Costs of Illegal Aliens Approaches Cost of War in Iraq"
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/200...
However, research into the cost of the Iraq war puts all Congressional money approved at about $600 billion. Even websites which have a running tally number have it at roughly $596 billion. All the numbers I saw projecting into the trillions were just that, projections for the total as far into the future as 2015. At our current pace, illegal immigration costs will easily surpass it before then...
November 2, 2008 at 12:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...
Observation, you ask me a question, here is my response, Yes I have a problem standing by, I have a problem standing by watching women get raped, I have a problem with standing by and watching incest. I do Not however have a problem with a woman making the choice to have an abortion in these cases. Is that clear enough for ya buddy? did ya get that ""straight"?
and in case you didnt read to clearly, I also said I'll let God be my Judge, NOT the people (you) on this forum.
November 2, 2008 at 12:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hogan77 (anonymous) says...
Why not vote for a pro choicer? At least then, the woman has the choice to be either pro life or pro choice. I would rather be able to make that decision on my own, rather than to have someone tell me I can't choose. Not that I would ever go through an abortion personally.
All you pro lifers need to understand... you are not in charge. God is in charge, and you all seem to forget that. Whatever choices a woman makes, she will ultimately meet her maker, and have to deal with the consequences. It is not your job to choose for another. YOU ARE NOT GOD.
Also, let me point out.... some of you are all for McCain, because he is pro life. I'm sorry, but his choice to keep the military in Iraq, killing people of all kinds (soldiers, terrorists, and innocents) is pretty close to the same as abortion, like it or not.
No one forces men and women to join the military, they CHOOSE to do it. They know that at some point they may have to go somewhere, and possibly have to kill someone. Granted, the latest number of Iraq casualties is no where near what has been shown for abortions in the US, the documented number of casualties is around 100,000, and the estimated number of abortions is 1.2 million. The point is, everyone has a choice, whether it be the raped college student now carrying a child from the horrific crime, or the boy down the street that just got shipped to Iraq and killed 3 civilians. One candidate is NOT better than the other when it comes to this subject. I just wish all the pro lifers would get a life and realize this. You want to be able to choose to be in the military, and I want women to be able to choose when it comes to their lives and bodies.
November 2, 2008 at 1 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
open eyes said
"Gee, that sounds an awful lot like what is currently going on, let's just ban any and all press that don't ask questions we like, shall we....."
refusing to answer press questions from the press is a hell of lot different then persecution of religious views, and BOTH candidates have dodged the press......
November 2, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Your links to the Iraq war do not take into account how we have destabilized the region and drove up the cost of oil on ourselves. The main difference over the war and illegal immigration is that the war is VERY unpopular and something we could have prevented, illegal immigration is a hot topic and has been for decades, but I agree the costs incurred are significant and something needs done badly.
November 2, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
As is stated, totalling up the actual costs for both the Iraq war AND illegal immigration are very hard to quantify and nail down concretely - for both cases. Which means, by your own logic, that it is nearly impossible to claim either way which one costs the most. Yet you do. On one side, you want to claim that we haven't taken into account alot of unmeasurable things, but on the other side, we're not supposed to take into account alot of unmeasurable things.
Which is it? Your spin is making my head hurt. :)
I would also argue that illegal immigration is VERY unpopular, and something we could have and can work at preventing. All this time and we still don't. We just float an amnesty bill every so often.
As for defense spending, you ARE correct on that - not many people realize that. However, there is some justification for looking more closely at it - post-cold-war we did start drawing down the military. But, how far do you cut it before it becomes too far? That's a debatable point, at what point did the cuts need to stop but yet they still continued - but not the topic here. Just wanted to give you credit where credit is due, however.
November 2, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
It's measurable to an extent, look at Iraqi oil production for instance, my point here is that the war is something under our control and is unnecessary, immigration is something that we think we can control but in reality we cannot because no one will ever stand firm and actually get a workable resolution passed. Of the 2 the war is easier to quantify and less margin for error, the fact that we do not really know how many illegals there are makes it impossible to really substantiate any claim made.
November 2, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I would say that illegal immigration is measureable to an extent also - all the studies go dept-by-dept with figures listing how much went to undocumented aliens. The only thing we know for sure, is that there are more illegals than we know - so, any number we come up with we know is too low. As for the price of oil, look at what speculators have done with it - and look at what the price has done in the last 2 months alone. Every bit of news I've seen has stated that earlier this year Iraq oil production reached pre-war levels. And will soon surpass it.
Since "Of the 2 the war is easier to quantify and less margin for error" - then why did you completely ignore the official fact of slightly less than $600 billion, and throw out the several trillion estimate figure (which varies by several trillion, depending on who you ask)? You seem to jump back and forth on both sides of the fence, whichever side supports your argument best. I think I'll take some aspirin and watch some TV for awhile. You're making me too dizzy. Plus with all that fence-jumping, sooner or later you're going to slip and come down right in the middle square on your ##### - ouch - LOL
November 2, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
How is it manageable? There is no numbers out there except guesswork. I could say there are 20 million and go off that, you could say more or less, it is complete guesswork. The cost of the war minus the intangibles are there in black and white and there is no room for dispute, we spend 10 billion every month in Iraq. I will give you credit where credit is do, there is some credence in your points at the cost of illegal immigration and the cost, but it is still all guess work. For the sake of sanity lets source some facts on exactly what immigration and the war cost us in the last fiscal year on record. I'm staying put on my side of the fence that the war costs more, and the thing that bothers me the most, we never should have been there, wasted money, wasted lives. Immigration is something we HAVE to deal with, big difference.
November 2, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Obviously you never followed the links I posted. Illegal immigration cost is broken down state-by-state, dept-by-dept. And that is NOT counting the "intangibles".
So you're part right - part of it IS manageable and countable, part is not.
But, there are exact costs associated with the war as well - but your "intangibles" are also exactly what you claim the illegal immigration intangibles to be - "guesswork". I just fail to see how it applies in one case, and not in the other. And why you continually try to ignore what concrete facts there ARE in one case (as a base starting point), and ignore the other.
My point: There ARE exact costs as a starting point that can be tallied FOR BOTH. To cite one and ignore the other is not being correct nor fair. And the exact costs of illegal immigration are higher than you want to admit.
And there are "intangibles" that are "guesswork" associated with BOTH sides. Again, to cite one and ignore the other is, again, not being correct nor fair.
Bottom line. They are BOTH HUGE, just by the concrete numbers that we DO have. And they both have intangibles that we can only guess at, that are both probably Huge as well. Simply put, to say that one is much higher than the other is simply a guess or opinion, no more or less valid than someone claiming that the OTHER view is much higher. This question doesn't HAVE a real answer - you only claim it does.
November 2, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy I was on active duty and know full well who was in office when we lost training and spare part funding, and when much needed weapons funding was used to remodel ships after the combat exclusion was repealed. you are full of it and we both know it.
November 2, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Then open eyes and I both are full of it, because for once we were in agreement, and the numbers do not lie.
November 2, 2008 at 6:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
goodoleboy, I agreed with you on the manpower numbers. We did draw down the military - people-wise, after the end of the cold war. I said nothing about funding, training, equipment, etc - the second part of that paragraph asked the question when the cuts needed to stop (in line with less manpower requirements) - but still continued. Your post was purely about active-duty personnel numbers - which I agreed with.
November 2, 2008 at 7:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
giggles (anonymous) says...
My only comment is that many of the people who comment here or editorialize in the paper DO NOT do enough homework. You make broad generalizations, and run with them, never slowing down to listen to someone else who has another piece of the story. It's sad. Just like in school, if you didn't do enough research, your report is lacking and you can't be surprised when you get an F grade. In America you have the choice to put in that minimal effort, but the moral of the story is, you have to live with what you have sown.
As for the abortion issue, I have no say what someone else does with their body, no matter how much I despise it. Here, however, is another piece of the story. I once knew a family who had a young teenage daughter who was raped. As a result she became pregnant. Her parents would not allow her to have an abortion, they had her carry to term their grandchild. She during and after the pregnancy, could not handle the mental strain and is now in an institution. They have their grandchild to raise, the girl lost her zeal for life... This is for those of you who think you have the wisdom of Solomon. There are always other things to consider.
November 3, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
You can only fool people with bent statistics and half-truths for so long. Of course, casinos and PT Barnum got rich doing it.
November 3, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
chiefsfan (anonymous) says...
Observation:
You have no business judging me, you don't know me! Leave your comments about a decision MY FAMILY (including my child) would make if, god forbid, we were ever in that position! I would do whatever I needed to do to protect MY CHILD from anything, whether it is to tell her to wear her seat belt, don't do drugs, or to abort MY GRANDCHILD that was conceived from a rape. If you want to put your child thru the humiliation and pain, then go right ahead, but again, the decision would be an easy one for me!
November 3, 2008 at 7:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
giggles, I hope that you also got to see the beautiful, smart, cheerful, full-of-life gal on the news a few weeks ago that survived a partial-birth abortion 20-some years ago.
There are, and always will be, stories on both sides that show both sides of any and every story. Just as there are people in Iraq that thank God every day that the US came in and love Bush, and those that are just the opposite (gee, wonder who gets all the press time?). I'm sorry for what happened to the girl in your story, but then again who knows how her life would have turned out - if she could not handle the strain of having a child, that might have even happened when she wanted a baby. Or maybe something else could have snapped her. We'll never know, and it is pointless to speculate.
But you never mentioned whether the grandchild has a zeal for life or not..... is he/she happy? Does it make it's grandparents smile? Do you know if it will turn out to be someone who makes quite an positive impression/mark on the world, or a criminal?
All I'm saying is, as you say, there are always other things to consider, in any and every case. Just trying to point some of them out as food for thought.
November 3, 2008 at 9:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/a...
Gov. Sarah Palin violated no ethics laws when she fired her public safety commissioner, the state personnel board concluded in a report released Monday. "There is no probable cause to believe that the governor, or any other state official, violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with these matters," the report says.
Gee, I'm sure everyone that ranted and raved about this will fall all over themselves trying to apologize now.... LOL
November 3, 2008 at 9:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
open eyes
After reading that 2nd paragraph you just wrote about that girl i lost all respect I had for you, my god...
And btw that was not the only issue with Palin, and her inconsistencies with being a reformer. I'd take more time to post but I simply don't care to respond anymore as this race is a moot point.
November 3, 2008 at 11:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Doesn't bother me. I didn't say anything that isn't true.
November 4, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Look up some statistics on post-partum depression sometime. It also happens to people who are not raped, and people who want their baby. It is also possible her trauma and condition are a result of the rape itself, do you know that for sure?
I feel sad for the woman, I really do. I'm just saying you can't take one instance of anything and extrapolate it to cover them all. Especially when in that one instance nobody can ever truly know the real truth about what drove her to this. As usual, I'm just trying to look at all sides of it. She seems very dismissive of the baby in her statements. Is it the baby's fault? What did the baby do that was wrong? What would you say if someday as an adult that child finds the cure for cancer? Can you say with absolute certainty that it won't? What would you think then?
November 4, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
giggles (anonymous) says...
You must have missed the point. My point was only that there are many aspects to consider. You don't know what is truly right or wrong as neither do I. Too many people playing judge, jury and executioner. I myself cannot find fault for another woman choosing that path in certain situations.
November 4, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
No, giggles, actually we agree. That was MY point also, that there are many aspects to consider. Your article (I'm not condemning it, nor your point) - was a good representation of the aspects from one side - I just tried to respectfully show how it can be viewed from the other side. Both sides have valid viewpoints and arguments. I simply asked you to consider the other aspects also, as you asked us to consider another viewpoint. I respect your opinion and the way you presented it.
I don't claim to know what is truly right and wrong in all situations. Just trying to give those who seem to other things to ponder. As you did. Peace.
November 4, 2008 at 8:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
demoseb (anonymous) says...
I thank all for taking the time to respond to the article I wrote. Unfortunately I just heard Obama probably has it sewed up, so all I can say is the people have spoken and we get another chance four years from now--I hope!
Now then one person asked why I picked Hitler vice Kennedy or Reagan and found it offensive. The reason is because both Kennedy and Reagan were constructive for the country. Obama is destructive so I picked a destructive example--simple as that. Sorry to offend delicate sensitivities.
I realize the issue of rape and incest is the worst possible case and that children who are born from such have much to overcome, but am I to believe that no child of such ever overcame it? In addition the person who wrote in the actual statistics show that these cases ARE NOT the predominant reasons cited for abortions--it remains a crime of convenience. I do not even believe one must have a particular religious belief to know deep inside it is wrong--that is why folks never say they are Pro Abortion, they say they are Pro Choice, even though much of that time the choice is in fact abortion. Another reader mentioned Reagan and so on regarding the subprime loans and trys to attribute it to them. This is just factually not true. A 1999 article in the New York Times clearly cites the role Bill Clinton played in getting the original Carter law rolling and Barney Franks and Chris Dodd helped the last two years to bring it to fruition. Several months ago Frank himself said Fannie and Freddie were sound!
At any rate, I enjoyed the feedback and again I thank you all. As O'Reilly says, "Thanks for keeping it pithy.
Dennis Mosebey
November 4, 2008 at 9:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, lets give Obama a chance. After all, he hasn't accomplished a single thing as Senator, so how do we know how he will govern as president? LOL. We shall see.....
November 4, 2008 at 9:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
demoseb (anonymous) says...
Good point Open Eyes. I liked it. Pithy indeed.
November 5, 2008 at 8:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )