World welcomes Obama win

[A Wangari]

WoudKano wrote:

<quoted text>
No...it is obvious to me...especially the claim that Obama holds racist views...
How, parytell, does the senator hold racist views?

well, well, well look who still lives?

[Eeew]

Obama is one "change" away from a fruit loop.

Good luck to him though.

[Conner]

MarkL5 wrote:

<quoted text>
Look Helen,
I don't know of what country YOU live in, but in order for Obama to become Hitler, America would have to be fresh off of losing a World War, its industrial stregnth weakened due to sanctions, and its people ready to revolt against the government due to ethnic purity.
To compare the US NOW, against Nazi Germany in the 30's makes about as much sense as jumping out of a perfectly good airplane with no chute.
You are crazy.
In the United States of America, you can revolutionize via the constitution. That is one of the ways the founding fathers were SMARTER than you. Obama will not be elected by overthrow, such as Hitler. He will be VOTED in. He will have the support of the military in matters of DEFENSE only. Even George Bush, though he started an illegal war, can only go so far without other branches of government supporting him.
That you would insinuate that Obama will be more powerful than any white president and somehow overthrow the land by overthrowing the constitution makes no HISTORICAL sense. Therefore, you should lay down, and allow the nurses to give you your daily meds. I am sure that you have been spending too much time at the computer on your floor and neglecting your family during visiting hours.

I can agree with most of what you say by being correct in trying to defuse some of the most outrageous and over the top comments. However poorly constructed the comment you responded to was it sounds like a reaction to the prepubescent teenage love fest so many have engaged in as they utterly ignore his lack of a track record. Senator Obama has never served in an executive position that would allow a voter to understand how he would govern. He is a first term Junior Senator without a track record as US Senator to judge him by.

Unless they have the support of Congress a President has very limited power to do anything. But if the Congress secures a filibuster proof majority and Obama wins the election expect Obama to do exactly what he said he would do with the support of the most liberal Congress in decades. If those are the public policies you favor, then vote for Obama, if you want to restrain that Congress then you must vote for McCain.

[WoudKano]

A Wangari wrote:

<quoted text>
well, well, well look who still lives?

hey you...how goes it?

[WoudKano]

Eeew wrote:

Obama is one "change" away from a fruit loop.
Good luck to him though.

i am sure that you mean something "nice" with your quip....

[MarkL5]

Jim Says wrote:

News about the Messiah Lord Obama.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/136003.html

Is this the same Andrea Mitchel who agreed Monday that Obama could come back home on Tuesday and his trip would already be an overwhelming success?

[RandomlyRambling Rick]

Obama: Healthcare for Illegals

Monday, July 21, 2008 9:06 PM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Democrats' single most important domestic proposal — universal health insurance — may blow up in Barack Obama's face when voters are exposed to the deadly details.

Obama has said, proudly and often, "I am going to give health insurance to 47 million Americans who are now without coverage." But are they "Americans?"

That 47 million statistic includes illegal immigrants, who virtually all lack insurance. In fact, about one in four of those lacking insurance is here illegally. And they are, by far, the group most in need of health insurance.

About 15 million of the remaining uninsured are eligible for Medicaid but haven't signed up, mainly because they haven't gotten sick. When they do, they enroll in Medicaid and we pick up the full tab for their health care relatively cheaply.(About 80 percent of each Medicaid dollar goes to nursing-home care for the elderly, only about 20 percent for the medical needs of the poor.)

The rest of the uninsured pool? Virtually all the children are eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Some aren't enrolled because the parents haven't bothered, but most are eligible. That leaves about 20 million uninsured adults who are US citizens or legal immigrants. There are far better ways to handle their needs than to turn our entire health-care system upside down.

Care for illegals is the biggest unmet medical need in our nation, and Obama's program targets it squarely. But do we really want to give them federally paid coverage equal to what US senators get, as Obama proposes?

Covering illegals adds dramatically to the cost of any program - and would encourage more folks to enter America illicitly.

Obama's plan will likely have a horrific effect on some local health-care systems.

Illegals now get free emergency-room treatment for life-threatening conditions, as any other American who's entered an ER in an area with lots of illegals recently well knows.(Three-quarters of the illegal-immigrant population is concentrated in five states: California, New York, Florida, Texas and Illinois.)

But now they'd be eligible for the entire range of medical services, all free of charge. That would trigger severe rationing: bureaucrats deciding who gets to see an oncologist, who can have an MRI - and even who can have bypass surgery and who'd die for lack of it.

These decisions would be made not on the basis of legal status but on the brutal facts of triage: Treat the 37-year-old illegal with his whole life to live before you spend scarce resources on an overweight, diabetic, 80-year-old citizen with high blood pressure who smokes.

John McCain hasn't raised this issue, perhaps for fear of offending the Latino vote. But polling suggests the case against rationing of health care would be as persuasive to Hispanic-American citizens as it is to the rest of us. Nobody wants to die waiting in line - especially not behind someone who snuck in ahead of us.

McCain needs to hit the Obama plan for treating illegal immigrants to free, federally subsidized health insurance — and hit it hard.

© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

[WoudKano]

Conner wrote:

<quoted text>
I can agree with most of what you say by being correct in trying to defuse some of the most outrageous and over the top comments. However poorly constructed the comment you responded to was it sounds like a reaction to the prepubescent teenage love fest so many have engaged in as they utterly ignore his lack of a track record. Senator Obama has never served in an executive position that would allow a voter to understand how he would govern. He is a first term Junior Senator without a track record as US Senator to judge him by.
Unless they have the support of Congress a President has very limited power to do anything. But if the Congress secures a filibuster proof majority and Obama wins the election expect Obama to do exactly what he said he would do with the support of the most liberal Congress in decades. If those are the public policies you favor, then vote for Obama, if you want to restrain that Congress then you must vote for McCain.

So tell me what experience W had before becoming POTUS? And how about the following:

1. Abraham Lincoln had 2 years experience in U.S House of Representatives and 8 years in the Illinois State House of Representatives. Large-scale: 2 years, small-scale: 8 years, Total: 10 years
2. Franklin Roosevelt was Governor for 4 years, State Senator for 1.5 years, and Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 7 years. Large-scale: 4 years, small-scale: 8.5 years, Total: 12.5 years.
3. George Washington would bias the results if he were included since the Republic was new when he took office and he had no opportunity be a Senator, Representative or hold a similar office. I have excluded him from calculations.
4. Thomas Jefferson has above average experience so, even though much of his career is also prior to the formation of the Republic, I include him. He was Vice President for 4 years, Governor for 2 years, and Secretary of State for 4 years. Large-scale: 10 years, Total: 10 years.
5. Teddy Roosevelt was Vice President for 1 year, Governor for 2 years and Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 1 year. He also had a distinguished military career, and it should probably be noted that I don't include that in my calculations in spite of its potential relevance. Large-scale: 3 years, small-scale: 1 year, Total: 4 years.
6. Woodrow Wilson was Governor for about 1.5 years. Large-scale: 1.5 years, Total: 1.5 years.
7. Harry Truman was Vice President for 0.5 years and U.S. Senator for 9 years. He was also an elected judge at a local level (something I am excluding in the calculation). Large-scale: 9.5 years, Total: 9.5 years.
8. Andrew Jackson was Governor (of a territory) for 0.5 years, U.S. Senator for 1.5 years, and member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 1 year. He also served in the TN State Supreme Court and had a distinguished military career (which I exclude). Large-scale: 3 years, Total: 3 years.
9. Dwight Eisenhower did not serve in an elected position, but, of course, had a very distinguished military career. Large-scale: 0 years, Total: 0 years.
10. James Polk was a Governor for 2 years, and was in the U.S. House of Representatives for 14 years. Large-scale: 16 years, Total: 16 years.

[just wondering]

Jim Says wrote:

<quoted text>

so swell of you to showcase your IQ score. mine is 1 point below yours - so what?

You are FFOC

[mrs jim]

oh no! he's simply soopurrrrrlativ

[Pappa]

WoudKano wrote:

<quoted text>
Because he is an American citizen who has just won the democratic party's nomination for the presidency...
Obama did not run for either the president of Kenya nor of Indonesia...duh!!!

But you forget, he has not won the nomination yet. That does not happen until the convention. Watch those wascally Clintons.

[WoudKano]

Pappa wrote:

<quoted text>
But you forget, he has not won the nomination yet. That does not happen until the convention. Watch those wascally Clintons.

true...very true...

how about "he is the presumptive presidential nominee of the democratic party?"

[Blasphemy]

OBAMA IS NOT ONLY FOR LATE TERM ABORTIONS, BUT AGAINST SAVING THE LIVES OF BABIES WHO SURVIVE LATE TERM ABORTIONS: Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues, but his radical stance on abortion puts him further left on that issue than even NARAL Pro-Choice America.

In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies who survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said,“Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.

Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said,“I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”

“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said.

http://tinyurl.com/4knpm4

This is the Bill where Obama was the only dissenting voice.

http://tinyurl.com/5gxs9q

See also,“The Audacity of Death”(Wall Street Journal):

http://tinyurl.com/6zebwh

[Conner]

WoudKano wrote:

<quoted text>
So tell me what experience W had before becoming POTUS? And how about the following:
1. Abraham Lincoln had 2 years experience in U.S House of Representatives and 8 years in the Illinois State House of Representatives. Large-scale: 2 years, small-scale: 8 years, Total: 10 years
2. Franklin Roosevelt was Governor for 4 years, State Senator for 1.5 years, and Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 7 years. Large-scale: 4 years, small-scale: 8.5 years, Total: 12.5 years.
3. George Washington would bias the results if he were included since the Republic was new when he took office and he had no opportunity be a Senator, Representative or hold a similar office. I have excluded him from calculations.
4. Thomas Jefferson has above average experience so, even though much of his career is also prior to the formation of the Republic, I include him. He was Vice President for 4 years, Governor for 2 years, and Secretary of State for 4 years. Large-scale: 10 years, Total: 10 years.
5. Teddy Roosevelt was Vice President for 1 year, Governor for 2 years and Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 1 year. He also had a distinguished military career, and it should probably be noted that I don't include that in my calculations in spite of its potential relevance. Large-scale: 3 years, small-scale: 1 year, Total: 4 years.
6. Woodrow Wilson was Governor for about 1.5 years. Large-scale: 1.5 years, Total: 1.5 years.
7. Harry Truman was Vice President for 0.5 years and U.S. Senator for 9 years. He was also an elected judge at a local level (something I am excluding in the calculation). Large-scale: 9.5 years, Total: 9.5 years.
8. Andrew Jackson was Governor (of a territory) for 0.5 years, U.S. Senator for 1.5 years, and member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 1 year. He also served in the TN State Supreme Court and had a distinguished military career (which I exclude). Large-scale: 3 years, Total: 3 years.
9. Dwight Eisenhower did not serve in an elected position, but, of course, had a very distinguished military career. Large-scale: 0 years, Total: 0 years.
10. James Polk was a Governor for 2 years, and was in the U.S. House of Representatives for 14 years. Large-scale: 16 years, Total: 16 years.

Well you went to a lot of work to make the point that many have served and one can assume you think successfully or you wouldn't have included them.

One issue was, absent record of governing or serving in a high executive position, there is no record for a voter analyze to make a logical decision. Now some people make their life choices by how they feel about things and if that works for you so be it! I won't allow it to work for me!

"W" served two terms as Governor of Texas which produced a record that could be reviewed and two terms a President. He passed review and was elected in Texas twice and for the office of the President twice.

Second, our government is organized so it takes two branches in agreement or in compromise to do much of anything. If you agree with the policies Obama promotes and a Democrat Congress secures a filibuster proof majority he is your guy, but if you disagree with those policies changes only a McCain has a chance to restrict those actions.

[Jim Says]

MarkL5 wrote:

<quoted text>
Is this the same Andrea Mitchel who agreed Monday that Obama could come back home on Tuesday and his trip would already be an overwhelming success?

They are all totally in the tank for him.

[Jim Says]

just wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
so swell of you to showcase your IQ score. mine is 1 point below yours - so what?
You are FFOC

Congratulations, welcome to the 1%.

[WoudKano]

Conner wrote:

<quoted text>
Well you went to a lot of work to make the point that many have served and one can assume you think successfully or you wouldn't have included them.
One issue was, absent record of governing or serving in a high executive position, there is no record for a voter analyze to make a logical decision. Now some people make their life choices by how they feel about things and if that works for you so be it! I won't allow it to work for me!
"W" served two terms as Governor of Texas which produced a record that could be reviewed and two terms a President. He passed review and was elected in Texas twice and for the office of the President twice.
Second, our government is organized so it takes two branches in agreement or in compromise to do much of anything. If you agree with the policies Obama promotes and a Democrat Congress secures a filibuster proof majority he is your guy, but if you disagree with those policies changes only a McCain has a chance to restrict those actions.

I want to be an involved and informed citizen..if that means doing a little homework..or as you say doing “..a lot of work,” then that is the price I’d gladly pay for the freedom and rights afforded me by the men and women risking life and limb to protect said freedoms…

You are wrong re: the assumption you claim I make…all I was trying to show was that there have been POTUSs with little to no experience compared to Obama…Some have been successful, others have failed…

Re: W and his record in Texas, it sure did the voters a lot of good that they were able to analyze it and make a logical decision. By all accounts, this guy, W, will go down in history as one of the most ineffective POTUS in history….so much for analyzing his record and making a logical decision!!

I have more faith in the system of government our founding fathers put forth…but even more to the point, I have faith in the voting public to learn from the past 8yrs and make their decision accordingly. I highly doubt that Obama will run roughshod over Congress even if it is controlled by democrats….The honorable opposition and the Sean Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs of the airwaves will make sure that he does not abuse his power or enact policies that rile the majority…and if he does, can you say 2012?? He will be a one term POTUS.

I disagree with McCain on the following: position on Iraq and the role of the US in the global arena,(ii) too much reliance on the marketplace/forces to do the right thing for consumers…he is the same ol’ same old….someone who got where he is not by anything remarkable that he did…but because of his connections – familial and marital. That does not impress me at all and shows a certain level of privilege that gave us W...and like they say, the rest is history!!

[WoudKano]

wolfman wrote:

<quoted text>You are so right. This corrupt media has even stooped so far as to call him the president
"mistakenly", of course. Like you, I will never vote for him, nor support him in any way.

Is that the only reason you wouldn't vote for Obama..that he corrupt media has stooped to calling him the president...and that he has the lighting used for his press conference looks like a halo?? Don't you think that a presidential election requires deeper thinking than that??

[snake-oil salesman]

Islamic World maybe but not 'World'!

[Marie]

Jim Says wrote:

<quoted text>
Congratulations, welcome to the 1%.

you really are FFOC