Thread: Why I'm voting for Obama.

[quote=Ex_OC][quote=AngelaTC][quote="Ex_OC":152tpcol]
Cindy McCain though is awesome. Have you read her bio? [/quote]

You mean that part about stealing pharmaceuticals from the non-profit she volunteered for?

Good lord - are these the best we have?[/quote]

Wow! She did?? I did not know that. Thanks![/quote:152tpcol]


[url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3295472.ece"]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 295472.ece[/url]

It was in the late 1980s, after a series of miscarriages and giving birth to three children, that Cindy developed spinal problems and was prescribed painkillers after surgery. Her husband and family had no idea she was secretly taking pills stolen from a charity she had created called the American Voluntary Medical Team, which sent mobile surgical units to war zones. When federal agents began to investigate gaps in the charity’s records, Cindy telephoned her husband, a senator in Washington, and confessed.

Originally Posted by MW

cayla wrote:

McCains VP choice is extremely important to me. Have you looked at McCain lately? I mean really looked at him, I don't think he will make it 4 years.

You make an excellent point that everyone should consider. I too have my doubts about McCain making it through the next four years. Even if he did somehow manage to stay healthy over his term, he will not be a candidate in 2012. However, Obama could be sitting in the White House for eight miserable years.

Yes, McCain looks quite addled these days. The campaign trail must be taking it's toll. I am waiting with bated breath for who he chooses as VP. I wish the VP had more power in the White house-if he picks Romney-I MIGHT see a ray of hope for us. Romney has the business sense, moral sense and shares a lot of our ideals from what I've seen. Correct me if Im wrong.

It's still gonna take a LOT to get me NOT to vote for Chuck tho! I figure a vote for Oblabber or McStain is a vote for amnesty and I just can't be a part of it!

[quote=April][quote=Ex_OC][quote=AngelaTC][quote="Ex_OC":2ccf4kkk]
Cindy McCain though is awesome. Have you read her bio? [/quote]

You mean that part about stealing pharmaceuticals from the non-profit she volunteered for?

Good lord - are these the best we have?[/quote]

Wow! She did?? I did not know that. Thanks![/quote]


[url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3295472.ece"]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 295472.ece[/url]

It was in the late 1980s, after a series of miscarriages and giving birth to three children, that Cindy developed spinal problems and was prescribed painkillers after surgery. Her husband and family had no idea she was secretly taking pills stolen from a charity she had created called the American Voluntary Medical Team, which sent mobile surgical units to war zones. When federal agents began to investigate gaps in the charity’s records, Cindy telephoned her husband, a senator in Washington, and confessed.

[/quote:2ccf4kkk]

No Surprise here. Cindy reminds me of an aging woman trying to hang on to her youth. You know, the kind who wears too much make-up, dyes her hair, wears mini skirts, drives a red convertable sports car, wears skimpy Halloween costumes, etc. (Yes, I used to know one of these and I felt embarrassed for her!)
Cindy looks like she has had some nips and tucks done too. Not that any of this makes her a bad person-I just don't trust her.

I resent references to "old fart" for personal reasons because it doesn't have any real meaning, especially if McCain chooses a good running mate who could be set-up to take over in 4 years. No way we should take the chance of 4 or 8 years of Obama. McCain wouldn't do the economic damage that Obama would inflict on the country.

The deciding factor for me was the civilian security force. This terrifies me because I am a history buff and I see it as the end to even a pretense of freedom in this country. It is something that could not be fixed without a war. It could very well mean we are voting in our last election. McCain has not offered anything even close to this

Originally Posted by cayla99

The deciding factor for me was the civilian security force. This terrifies me because I am a history buff and I see it as the end to even a pretense of freedom in this country. It is something that could not be fixed without a war. It could very well mean we are voting in our last election. McCain has not offered anything even close to this

Cayla, if you'll excuse my ignorance, but can you elaborate on this? What exactly is a civilian security force? Why is it bad? When did this happen in history?

Originally Posted by SicNTiredInSoCal

Originally Posted by cayla99

The deciding factor for me was the civilian security force. This terrifies me because I am a history buff and I see it as the end to even a pretense of freedom in this country. It is something that could not be fixed without a war. It could very well mean we are voting in our last election. McCain has not offered anything even close to this

Cayla, if you'll excuse my ignorance, but can you elaborate on this? What exactly is a civilian security force? Why is it bad? When did this happen in history?

Obama made a Freudian slip.

Sen. Barack Obama

Democrat Sen. Barack Obama's stunning assertion in a recent speech that the U.S. needs a "civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force is not included in published transcripts of his prepared remarks.

In the July 2 speech in Colorado Springs, Obama insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set."

Campaign officials have declined to return any of a series of WND telephone calls over several days requesting comment. Nor have they posted a transcript of the speech on their website.

The lines are not included in a transcript of the prepared remarks published by the Denver Post and Wall Street Journal.

(Story continues below)




According to the transcript, Obama was to have said:

We'll send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods. We'll enlist veterans to help other vets find jobs and support, and to be there for our military families. And we'll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

But a YouTube video of the speech, at about the 16-minute mark, shows Obama added the following lines:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=69784


As far as history is concerned, The Gestapo was originally sold to the people as a civilian security police force. The USSR and China also have/had domestic security forces equal to that of the military. I can not find one historical reference of such a force that was for freedom and the good of a free people. If anybody else can find such a reference, please let me know.

Originally Posted by gofer

I resent references to "old fart" for personal reasons because it doesn't have any real meaning, especially if McCain chooses a good running mate who could be set-up to take over in 4 years.

I would not want to wait four years. If McCain chooses a pro-enforcement candidate, I say we put all of our efforts behind impeaching his ass to put the pro-enforcement guy in the Oval Office.

We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods.

I have no idea what this means....what's a renewable energy cleanup???

Originally Posted by cayla99

Originally Posted by SicNTiredInSoCal

Originally Posted by cayla99

The deciding factor for me was the civilian security force. This terrifies me because I am a history buff and I see it as the end to even a pretense of freedom in this country. It is something that could not be fixed without a war. It could very well mean we are voting in our last election. McCain has not offered anything even close to this

Cayla, if you'll excuse my ignorance, but can you elaborate on this? What exactly is a civilian security force? Why is it bad? When did this happen in history?

Obama made a Freudian slip.

Sen. Barack Obama

Democrat Sen. Barack Obama's stunning assertion in a recent speech that the U.S. needs a "civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force is not included in published transcripts of his prepared remarks.

In the July 2 speech in Colorado Springs, Obama insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set."

Campaign officials have declined to return any of a series of WND telephone calls over several days requesting comment. Nor have they posted a transcript of the speech on their website.

The lines are not included in a transcript of the prepared remarks published by the Denver Post and Wall Street Journal.

(Story continues below)




According to the transcript, Obama was to have said:

We'll send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods. We'll enlist veterans to help other vets find jobs and support, and to be there for our military families. And we'll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

But a YouTube video of the speech, at about the 16-minute mark, shows Obama added the following lines:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=69784


As far as history is concerned, The Gestapo was originally sold to the people as a civilian security police force. The USSR and China also have/had domestic security forces equal to that of the military. I can not find one historical reference of such a force that was for freedom and the good of a free people. If anybody else can find such a reference, please let me know.

Seems odd he'd say this since he is against guns for the most part...