Why im voting for Barack Hussein Obama

[SkyWater]

Oh but the other group has self admitted ties to the Democratic party but that is somehow ok. Ok now I understand...

In which post did I say that? I don't believe I have even said anything about the other groups one way or another so it's kinda weird an implication of hypocrisy gets thrown on the table.

VFF portrays itself as completely non-partisan but it clearly is not, and that was the point. Since the other groups have admitted ties you just helped prove they are more honest than VFF.

 

[jreeves]

In which post did I say that? I don't believe I have even said anything about the other groups one way or another so it's kinda weird an implication of hypocrisy gets thrown on the table.

VFF portrays itself as completely non-partisan but it clearly is not, and that was the point. Since the other groups have admitted ties you just helped prove they are more honest than VFF.

Opps...so much for the group's partisanship huh?

a nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, announced its endorsement of Congressman Jim Marshall today.

Vets for Freedom Chairman, Pete Hegseth, said his organization was backing Jim Marshall because Marshall is a "true American patriot" and one of the few Democrats who stood behind General David Petraeus' strategy in Iraq even when it was politically unpopular.

"As a fellow veteran, I am truly humbled to speak on behalf of over 25,000 members of Vets for Freedom in offering our strong endorsement of Jim Marshall for United States Congress," said Hegseth. "Jim has stood with us on Capitol Hill, and it's time for us to stand with him. During his tenure in Congress, Jim has proved time and time again that politics always takes a back seat to doing what’s right when it comes to fighting our enemies and supporting those who wear the uniform. Our country needs more people like Jim in Washington."
Georgia Politics Unfiltered: Vets for Freedom Endorse Jim Marshall

James Creel "Jim" Marshall (born March 31, 1948) is an American politician who has been a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives since 2003, representing the 8th District (formerly numbered as the 3rd District) of Georgia (map). The district is based in Macon and includes much of rural Middle Georgia.
Jim Marshall (U.S. politician):eusa whistle: - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Charles_Main]

Wait so this republican partisan group endorssed a Democrat? wow how partisan of them.

 

[SkyWater]

Opps...so much for the group's partisanship huh?

a nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, announced its endorsement of Congressman Jim Marshall today.

Vets for Freedom Chairman, Pete Hegseth, said his organization was backing Jim Marshall because Marshall is a "true American patriot" and one of the few Democrats who stood behind General David Petraeus' strategy in Iraq even when it was politically unpopular.

"As a fellow veteran, I am truly humbled to speak on behalf of over 25,000 members of Vets for Freedom in offering our strong endorsement of Jim Marshall for United States Congress," said Hegseth. "Jim has stood with us on Capitol Hill, and it's time for us to stand with him. During his tenure in Congress, Jim has proved time and time again that politics always takes a back seat to doing what’s right when it comes to fighting our enemies and supporting those who wear the uniform. Our country needs more people like Jim in Washington."
Georgia Politics Unfiltered: Vets for Freedom Endorse Jim Marshall

James Creel "Jim" Marshall (born March 31, 1948) is an American politician who has been a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives since 2003, representing the 8th District (formerly numbered as the 3rd District) of Georgia (map). The district is based in Macon and includes much of rural Middle Georgia.
Jim Marshall (U.S. politician):eusa whistle: - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How does their endorsement of Marshall carry any weight? They only support him because of his pro-war stance. A mere glance at the site shows it is anything but partisan. It is a self admitted propaganda site and donations are not tax-deductible which means it isn't a non-profit group. They even state their partisan agenda:


"Our mission is to educate the American public about the importance of achieving success in these conflicts by applying our first-hand knowledge to issues of American strategy and tactics in Iraq"

"Vets for Freedom PAC is a Political Action Committee whose mission is to help candidates—mostly combat veterans—who believe in achieving success in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the overall War on Terrorism, get elected to the United States Congress and other Federal positions."

 

[SkyWater]

Wait so this republican partisan group endorssed a Democrat? wow how partisan of them.

Where did anyone say VFF is a Republican partisan group?

 

[Charles_Main]

Where did anyone say VFF is a Republican partisan group?

Well then who were you implying they were partisan for?

 

[jreeves]

How does their endorsement of Marshall carry any weight? They only support him because of his pro-war stance. A mere glance at the site shows it is anything but partisan. It is a self admitted propaganda site and donations are not tax-deductible which means it isn't a non-profit group. They even state their partisan agenda:


"Our mission is to educate the American public about the importance of achieving success in these conflicts by applying our first-hand knowledge to issues of American strategy and tactics in Iraq"

"Vets for Freedom PAC is a Political Action Committee whose mission is to help candidates—mostly combat veterans—who believe in achieving success in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the overall War on Terrorism, get elected to the United States Congress and other Federal positions."

Hmm...it's so partisan a democrat espoused their ideals. It's not politcally partisan, it's idealogically baised. Those two are not equal....

 

[SkyWater]

Oh but the other group has self admitted ties to the Democratic party but that is somehow ok. Ok now I understand...

Since the first time it was asked got overlooked somehow let's try again. Which post did I say anything about "the other group?"

 

[jreeves]

Where did anyone say VFF is a Republican partisan group?

Well since I was discussing both groups and you interjected your opinion on VFF it only seemed appropriate.

 

[Charles_Main]

VFF portrays itself as completely non-partisan but it clearly is not.

By saying they are clearly not non-partisan are you not saying they are a partisan group?

So I ask again who are you implying they are partisan for??

 

[SkyWater]

Hmm...it's so partisan a democrat espoused their ideals. It's not politcally partisan, it's idealogically baised. Those two are not equal....

Partisanship is not restricted to political parties:

Partisanship ***Also found in: Wikipedia, Hutchinson *0.01*sec.par*ti*san*1 *(pärt-zn)n.

1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.

2. A member of an organized body of fighters who attack or harass an enemy, especially within occupied territory; a guerrilla.adj.

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a partisan or partisans.

2. Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics.



So, everything else gets dismissed because they support Marshall? It's a painfully clear propaganda site and it even admits that in its mission statements I posted (that somehow received no response.)

 

[SkyWater]

Well then who were you implying they were partisan for?

I said its a front site "for the pro-war crowd." How could I have been more clear?

 

[Charles_Main]

Partisanship is not restricted to political parties:

Partisanship ***Also found in: Wikipedia, Hutchinson *0.01*sec.par*ti*san*1 *(pärt-zn)n.

1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.

2. A member of an organized body of fighters who attack or harass an enemy, especially within occupied territory; a guerrilla.adj.

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a partisan or partisans.

2. Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics.



So, everything else gets dismissed because they support Marshall? It's a painfully clear propaganda site and it even admits that in its mission statements I posted (that somehow received no response.)

I think you just proved that every single group, web site, and source is partisan then

 

[jreeves]

Partisanship is not restricted to political parties:

Partisanship ***Also found in: Wikipedia, Hutchinson *0.01*sec.par*ti*san*1 *(pärt-zn)n.

1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.

2. A member of an organized body of fighters who attack or harass an enemy, especially within occupied territory; a guerrilla.adj.

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a partisan or partisans.

2. Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics.



So, everything else gets dismissed because they support Marshall? It's a painfully clear propaganda site and it even admits that in its mission statements I posted (that somehow received no response.)

Ok, but wouldn't you agree though that most Vet organizations are partisan toward the military?

 

[SkyWater]

Well since I was discussing both groups and you interjected your opinion on VFF it only seemed appropriate.

I interjected because the two groups are not comparable at all. Here's the mission statement from IAVA:

"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. IAVA is an independent organization and is not affiliated with any groups other than our sister (c)4, IAVA Action Fund"

VFF is not for the troops at all but pro war on terror. The fact both groups have Vets in them is irrelevent.

 

[SkyWater]

Ok, but wouldn't you agree though that most Vet organizations are partisan toward the military?

On the whole? Probably. But VFF is not pro military nor pro Vets. It's a pro "Policy" site. IAVA is pro Vet by its mission statement whereas VFF is pro War on Terror Policy by its mission statement...that is why it doesn't qualify as a non-profit group.

So basically, VFF was cited as a rebuttle to the IAVA reference but it's trying to force a comparison between organizations with different agendas. Would you say all organizations started by doctors have the same agenda?

 

[jreeves]

On the whole? Probably. But VFF is not pro military nor pro Vets. It's a pro "Policy" site. IAVA is pro Vet by its mission statement whereas VFF is pro War on Terror Policy by its mission statement...that is why it doesn't qualify as a non-profit group.

So basically, VFF was cited as a rebuttle to the IAVA reference but it's trying to force a comparison between organizations with different agendas. Would you say all organizations started by doctors have the same agenda?

Would you say these comments are non-partisan?
Paul Rieckhoff - SourceWatch
Rieckhoff delivered the Democratic Party’s response to Bush’s news conference last month in which the president vowed to 'stay the course' in Iraq. Rieckhoff debunked Bush’s Mission Accomplished slogan, charging that Bush has no plans to bring U.S. troops home from that quagmire.

"Security in Iraq must be turned over to the Iraqis, he said. 'The policy makers in Washington are using the military to solve a problem for which there is no military solution. We need a phased withdrawal.'"

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).

 

[SkyWater]

Would you say these comments are non-partisan?
Paul Rieckhoff - SourceWatch
Rieckhoff delivered the Democratic Party’s response to Bush’s news conference last month in which the president vowed to 'stay the course' in Iraq. Rieckhoff debunked Bush’s Mission Accomplished slogan, charging that Bush has no plans to bring U.S. troops home from that quagmire.

"Security in Iraq must be turned over to the Iraqis, he said. 'The policy makers in Washington are using the military to solve a problem for which there is no military solution. We need a phased withdrawal.'"

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).

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.

 

[sealybobo]

1. Sen. John McCain’s age (he’ll turn 72 in August) has been cited as a possible factor in the election outcome this fall. Is McCain’s age a concern for you?
1. Not at all. He’s apparently in good health, and he’s been sufficiently open about his medical records. Who says someone in his or her 70s can’t handle the job? McCain certainly could.
25%
2. It might. He’d be the oldest person ever elected president, and that’s worth considering.
22%
3. Yes. The presidency is just too stressful for someone in his or her 70s to handle day in and day out. I’d be concerned about his ability to function at a high level throughout his term(s).
51%
4. None of these
2%
5. I’m not sure
2%


2008 Election Guide - MSN

 

[SkyWater]

Here's the piece from Hunter.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions...im_a_lifelong_conservative_activist_and_.html