Why im voting for Barack Hussein Obama

[sealybobo]

Here's the piece from Hunter.

I'm a lifelong conservative activist and I'm backing Barack Obama

Even if my hopes on domestic policy are dashed and Obama reveals himself as an unreconstructed, dyed-in-the-wool, big-government liberal, I'm still voting for him.

These past eight years, we have spent over a trillion dollars on foreign soil - and lost countless lives - and done what I consider irreparable damage to our Constitution.

If economic damage from well-intentioned but misbegotten Obama economic schemes is the ransom we must pay him to clean up this foreign policy mess, then so be it. It's not nearly as costly as enduring four more years of what we suffered the last eight years.

 

[SkyWater]

Even if my hopes on domestic policy are dashed and Obama reveals himself as an unreconstructed, dyed-in-the-wool, big-government liberal, I'm still voting for him.

These past eight years, we have spent over a trillion dollars on foreign soil - and lost countless lives - and done what I consider irreparable damage to our Constitution.

If economic damage from well-intentioned but misbegotten Obama economic schemes is the ransom we must pay him to clean up this foreign policy mess, then so be it. It's not nearly as costly as enduring four more years of what we suffered the last eight years.

Obama may not continue in the way McCain would be he's no foreign policy messiah either. If he wins we will still have troops in Irafghakistan at the end of his tenure. This is why I disagree with voting for obama on the basis of the occupations.

 

[sealybobo]

Obama may not continue in the way McCain would be he's no foreign policy messiah either. If he wins we will still have troops in Irafghakistan at the end of his tenure. This is why I disagree with voting for obama on the basis of the occupations.

Don't forget McCain and the GOP/PNAC wants to invade Iran too. That Obama won't do.

And IMO, Gore would not have invaded Iraq and we'd be much better off today had we not.

 

[SkyWater]

Don't forget McCain and the GOP/PNAC wants to invade Iran too. That Obama won't do.

And IMO, Gore would not have invaded Iraq and we'd be much better off today had we not.

I couldn't stand Gore but you are correct. Heck, 9E may not have even happened or not happened to the extent it did with a different Admin at the helm. Key members of the bush admin had a motive to allow 9E and have captalized on it like Nike commercials did when the Bulls were winning NBA titles. He wouldve kept our bases in SA and maintained the Sanctions on Iraq but he would not have ordered an occupation. It's questionable if he wouldve done the same in Afghanistan because the invasion of both countries had very little to do with 9E.

 

[soldiers_mom]

Well I don't think one sect of a group is indicative of a whole group.
See...

VetsForFreedom...

That isn't why I posted that info. By the way, while I'm sure Vets for Freedom is an upstanding group, just knowing that the vast majority of the newclips on their "media" page come from Fox News and CBN, tells me a lot about their agenda. The IAVA has an entirely different mission - to see to it that the troops and their families are taken care of.

 

[sealybobo]

That isn't why I posted that info. By the way, while I'm sure Vets for Freedom is an upstanding group, just knowing that the vast majority of the newclips on their "media" page come from Fox News and CBN, tells me a lot about their agenda. The IAVA has an entirely different mission - to see to it that the troops and their families are taken care of.

Hi Soldiers mom. I look forward to hearing/reading what you have to say. I work with a guy who's kid is in Afganistan. Bless your son. And look forward to hearing what he/you have to say.

 

[soldiers_mom]

Even if my hopes on domestic policy are dashed and Obama reveals himself as an unreconstructed, dyed-in-the-wool, big-government liberal, I'm still voting for him.

These past eight years, we have spent over a trillion dollars on foreign soil - and lost countless lives - and done what I consider irreparable damage to our Constitution.

If economic damage from well-intentioned but misbegotten Obama economic schemes is the ransom we must pay him to clean up this foreign policy mess, then so be it. It's not nearly as costly as enduring four more years of what we suffered the last eight years.

Right On!! The Bush Administration has almost destroyed this country. Almost any democrat at this point would be better than McCain.

 

[sealybobo]

Right On!! The Bush Administration has almost destroyed this country. Almost any democrat at this point would be better than McCain.

So what are the troops saying? We were discussing that, in general, the military usually votes with the GOP. I think this election is going to be different.

But, in my opinion, the upper brass in the military tells the troops not to vote for Democrats and they tell the troops that the dems don't support the troops. I think bringing them home is supporting them. But the kids are super patriotic so they want to win, and the upper brass probably tells them that voting for the dems means defeat.

The upper brass likes the funding the GOP does for the military. But the soldiers should know that Obama voted for them 80% and McCain only voted with them 20%. So yes the Dems won't spend as much on the military, but they will give more to the troops. GI Bills, VA benefits and disability, etc.

 

[SkyWater]

That isn't why I posted that info. By the way, while I'm sure Vets for Freedom is an upstanding group, just knowing that the vast majority of the newclips on their "media" page come from Fox News and CBN, tells me a lot about their agenda. The IAVA has an entirely different mission - to see to it that the troops and their families are taken care of.

"VFF staff and members have extensive ties to George W. Bush, Bill Kristol and Republican Party• VFF Executive Director wrote article in pro-War Weekly Standard:æ Pete Hegseth, VFF's Executive Director since May 2007, wrote the article "What Would Lincoln Do? Civil War Woes Emblematic Of Those Faced In Iraq," published June 26, 2007, in neo-conservative William Kristol's The Weekly Standard magazine"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Vets_for_Freedom

Here's something else that's interesting...from the VFF "About us" page:

"Vets for Freedom is the largest Iraq and Afghanistan veterans organization in America"

Compare that to this from the IAVA "About us" page:

"Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America is the nation's first and largest group dedicated to the Troops and Veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the civilian supporters of those Troops and Veterans."

VFF is not a respectable group from my pov...and not because it supports Bush and the occupation but only how it is done through deliberate deceptions, distortions, and outright omissions of relevent information. It is a shame Vets would do that to each other.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yeah, they should only associate with good liberals and socialists.
Gimme a break.

 

[SkyWater]

Yeah, they should only associate with good liberals and socialists.
Gimme a break.

Is this a message board or a Willy Strawman Wonka Factory? It's absolutely astonishing how these rubber stamp responses dominate over simple dialogue.

Think I made it quite clear it's not their positions...it's the dishonest way they defend the positions. Kind of like how Scott McClellan admitted the Bush admin supplied Fox News with talking points...but who the hell cares about facts?

 

[jreeves]

Wow, so not only was my post completely ignored but a distraction from Operation Truth gets tossed up? Where was anyone talking about Operation Truth? What's even more revealing is how the provided link defeats the purpose of that link, which is indicative of not really doing any research but rather a frantic google hunt to maintain an indefensible position. Was this little gem overlooked:

"Anyone who cares to search Rieckhoff's Operation Truth website, by the way, hungry for a single statement opposing either the invasion or occupation of Iraq will go home with an empty stomach. That's because it is not an antiwar NGO. It is criticizing the conduct of the war and the actions of the Republican administration on veterans benefits in a way calculated to bewilder people into believing it is an ally of the antiwar movement"

Please stop wasting my time. Either address what was posted or simply ignore it. But don't insult everyone's intelligence by posting distractions hoping nobody will notice how it was shown VFF is not comparable to IAVA. Thanks.

You must have missed???

Paul Rieckhoff is the executive director and founder of Operation Truth, which he created in June 2004 "with a cell phone and a few loyal supporters," and executive director and founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA).

Rieckhoff delivered the Democratic Party’s response to Bush’s news conference last month

Learn how to read....He's the founder of IAVA...he delivered the Democratic party's response....Oh right that's not partisan....dipshit

 

[jreeves]

"VFF staff and members have extensive ties to George W. Bush, Bill Kristol and Republican Party• VFF Executive Director wrote article in pro-War Weekly Standard:æ Pete Hegseth, VFF's Executive Director since May 2007, wrote the article "What Would Lincoln Do? Civil War Woes Emblematic Of Those Faced In Iraq," published June 26, 2007, in neo-conservative William Kristol's The Weekly Standard magazine"
Vets for Freedom - SourceWatch

Here's something else that's interesting...from the VFF "About us" page:

"Vets for Freedom is the largest Iraq and Afghanistan veterans organization in America"

Compare that to this from the IAVA "About us" page:

"Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America is the nation's first and largest group dedicated to the Troops and Veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the civilian supporters of those Troops and Veterans."

VFF is not a respectable group from my pov...and not because it supports Bush and the occupation but only how it is done through deliberate deceptions, distortions, and outright omissions of relevent information. It is a shame Vets would do that to each other.

Stop your spinning...dipshit....IAVA's founder gave the freaking democratic response to the President's radio address....

 

[Chris]

Is this a message board or a Willy Strawman Wonka Factory? It's absolutely astonishing how these rubber stamp responses dominate over simple dialogue.

Think I made it quite clear it's not their positions...it's the dishonest way they defend the positions. Kind of like how Scott McClellan admitted the Bush admin supplied Fox News with talking points...but who the hell cares about facts?

These guys are on the wrong side of every issue, and everyone who disagrees with them are "socialists." They are living in a fantasy world.

 

[jreeves]

These guys are on the wrong side of every issue, and everyone who disagrees with them are "socialists." They are living in a fantasy world.

We are supposedly living in a fantasy world, when a founder of an organization, "IAVA", gave the democratic response. We call it partisan but somehow the organization isn't partisan? WTF, please explain to me how somehow who gives a Republican or Democratic response isn't partisan?

 

[SkyWater]

Stop your spinning...dipshit....IAVA's founder gave the freaking democratic response to the President's radio address....

Lol...when did I ever Riekhoff isn't partisan? This is just like when you pointed out VFF supports Marshall so that means they aren't partisan.

You ignore anything presented that challenges your claim, put words in other peoples' mouths, then top off the class act with name calling. This isn't a job interview to co-host with Oreilly.

Once again, VFF is not comparable to IAVA by their own Mission statements. But, feel free to ignore that, the other facts presented, do some more name calling, and make false claims about what others have said. Iam sure it won't hurt your credibility.

 

[jreeves]

Lol...when did I ever Riekhoff isn't partisan? This is just like when you pointed out VFF supports Marshall so that means they aren't partisan.

You ignore anything presented that challenges your claim, put words in other peoples' mouths, then top off the class act with name calling. This isn't a job interview to co-host with Oreilly.

Once again, VFF is not comparable to IAVA by their own Mission statements. But, feel free to ignore that, the other facts presented, do some more name calling, and make false claims about what others have said. Iam sure it won't hurt your credibility.

Sure......IAVA's founder who controls the organization isn't partisan, he just delivered the democratic response.....ok

 

[SkyWater]

We are supposedly living in a fantasy world, when a founder of an organization, "IAVA", gave the democratic response. We call it partisan but somehow the organization isn't partisan? WTF, please explain to me how somehow who gives a Republican or Democratic response isn't partisan?

You are conflating issues in a desperately transparent attempt to defend your earlier claim about VFF. Nobody here has said Riekhoff himself isn't partisan. You even provided a link that defeated your own claim then ignore it when it gets pointed out. (Sourcewatch link...)

IAVA is about the Troops, period. VFF is strictly about the WOT POLICY. Where is the mystery?

Looks to me like you hate any organization that helps Troops if they don't suck bush butt cheeks in the process. But an organization that is a self admitted propaganda machine is sparkling clean awwwwllll good. WTF is right!

 

[SkyWater]

These guys are on the wrong side of every issue, and everyone who disagrees with them are "socialists." They are living in a fantasy world.

Well, at least they can rely on name calling! Lol...and completely ignore any and all info that pretty much proves their claims wrong. I can never respect camps like that because they don't respect themselves.

 

[SkyWater]

Sure......IAVA's founder who controls the organization isn't partisan, he just delivered the democratic response.....ok

How does all caps work? Can people read that more clearly? WHERE HAS ANYONE CLAIMED RIEKHOFF ISN'T PARTISAN????????

Personally iam not a fan of all caps but it was either that or I was going to try posting in cantonese.

If anyone looks on the home page of IAVA you will see things like Bush being praised for signing the new GI Bill into law. See Republican Chuck Hagel being applauded for his work. Now, it was sufficient to point out since VFF supported Marshall that means they aren't partisan (even though they admit it in their mission statement...lol) so now let's if the ball rolls back the other way. By your own logic IAVA can't be partisan because they praise Republicans.

What else is on the IAVA homepage? Stuff about Troops celebrating the Fourth...you know...real die hard aisle dancing! Know what isn't anywhere on the homepage? Anything about a position on Iraq. There is nothing that says the organization is pro or con Iraq occupation. Gee, could that be because it's for the Troops?

The real revelation is projection because some people cannot imagine putting their support for the Troops above their Party line. They see Riekhoff giving a Dem response so it must be impossible for Riekhoff to simply love our Troops because these Limbaugh fans can't figure out how anyone could have something so alien, like dignity, that they would actually be capable of supporting our Troops.

(There is a small pool running to see how many names like "dipshit" can be slung in response. $10 buy in and winner takes all!)