Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#17551 Jul 7, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
Perhaps OMTE has questions about me, maybe not. I can't answer for IO. Perhaps IO will give a similar statement. This is only to clear the air about myself and why I feel the way I do.Remember I am a conservative but I am not a Republican, although I have voted Republican before. I do not speak for other conservatives on this site.
IMO Bush was a terrible president. He was just another RINO that the people voted in thinking he was a conservative Republican. He was neither. Bush had many liberal ideas such as supporting the immigration bill as he is doing now. He didn't keep a close eye on our economy as he should have and looks to have made deals with Wall St. buddies. He allowed the Patriot Act to be passed and look what that has done to us.
Obama has taken over where he left off. The EPA under the Obama Administration is actually killing off industries and jobs. His misuse, in my opinion, of our military powers are evident. His use of the NSA and the IRS seem to be in question. He seems to too busy making political speeches and taking vacations, and trips instead of spending time actually guiding us out of this economic depression. If he were trying to hurt this economy he couldn't be doing a better job.
He seems either totally incompetent or is the biggest liar there ever was concerning all the scandals. He says he knows nothing about all of them. It is his job to know about them and to find out what is going on. Then he should take some real action not just words and continue to ignore them.
I don't hate the man. I just do not think he is the man to be President.
Bush was white and I didn't like him as president. Obama is half white and half black, which makes him bi-racial, and I don't like him as president. If there were an actual Black man or women as president and they did a performed badly, I still wouldn't approve of them.
The skin color doesn't bother me but the piss poor job that they do does bother me. I also don't like their Socialistic/Communist thoughts, ways and actions that they are trying to push on this country.
Perhaps OI could enlighten us to his real thoughts and feelings unless he has something to hide. Lets just see where he really stands and if he has enough guts to put it out there instead of yelling Bush this, and Bush that.If he doesn't then all of his future post mean nothing. Just a bunch of words.
+1 well stated

It's kinda funny that the clueless and uneducated think that just because someone is against the current POTUSA that they were "for" Romney and/or were "W" supporters. As I've said many times before, Romney wasn't my first choice for the Republicans, nor the 2nd, probably not even the 3rd.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#17552 Jul 7, 2013
Who wrote:
<quoted text>
While not a big Bush supporter, he was all the conservatives had to vote for. I can't imagine a conservative voting for Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004. I have voted for conservative Democrats in the past, sadly I haven't seen a conservative democrat run for office in a long time.
And right now many repubs are rino repubs. Many of them were democrats in the past and are democrats in heart today wearing sheep's clothing of conservatism.
+1 Yep.

When you get one "D" and one "R" in the race, knowing that the other candidates don't have a realistic chance (I'm a Libertarian, but most of my votes are for the "R" candidates, more as an "against" the "D" candidates), you're somewhat limited in your choice. One MIGHT almost consider it the lesser of two evils...
OMTE

Ford City, PA

#17553 Jul 7, 2013
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
+1 well stated
It's kinda funny that the clueless and uneducated think that just because someone is against the current POTUSA that they were "for" Romney and/or were "W" supporters. As I've said many times before, Romney wasn't my first choice for the Republicans, nor the 2nd, probably not even the 3rd.
What's your problem dude?
OMTE

Ford City, PA

#17554 Jul 7, 2013
Who wrote:
<quoted text>
While I agree with many of your foreign policy positions, I disagree with many of your social policy positions. Obama is bad for both foreign, and domestic policy positions in my opinion.
His "immigration policy" sucks, his "big government policy" sucks, his "interference policy" of family sucks, his use of "presidential mandates policy" sucks, and his "political policy" sucks big time and has caused the failure of the economy to rebound.
What social policies do you disagree with me on?
Informed Opinion

Cape Coral, FL

#17555 Jul 7, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>If Obama is next to Bush on the far right, then why don't you write about all of the Obama failures, lies and mistakes instead of Bush? Obama is and has been the president for the last 4 1/2 years.
Somehow you just read a post that said Obama was a Bush clone,
that both Bush and Obama should be in prison for their War Crimes and illegal conduct, and you criticize me for not criticizing Obama.

In the immortal words of my brother: "Huh ?"
Informed Opinion

Cape Coral, FL

#17556 Jul 7, 2013
Scott wrote:
<quoted text>By comparing Obama to Bush, I.O. has found a way a way to show the ultimate insult to Bush. My friends in Finland, Russia, Germany and Peck, Kansas all think I.O. is a pain but, not a Thomas Paine.
Wow - for a second I thought you were going to dispute the facts presented that demonstrate Bush and Obama are clones on issue that really matter - money and power, but of course, you can't, so you didn't even try.

We understand.

Having agreed with me that Bush and Obama are clones, now you can try to explain why Bush was the "good" clone, and Obama is the "bad" clone.

Or explain how all the things Obama is doing that match exactly what Bush did, are "bad" when Obama does them, and were "good" when Bush did them.

Or explain how Bush was a conservative when he turned a budget surplus into a $1.4 Trillion Dollar annual deficit, and Obama is a liberal when he cut the budget deficit in half.

Or explain how Reagan was a conservative when he tripled the national debt in 8 years, and Clinton was a liberal when he cut the deficits, and handed over a budget surplus to Bush.

Or... Why not just admit that "Conservative" and "Liberal" classifications have been so bastardized they are useless.
Informed Opinion

Cape Coral, FL

#17557 Jul 7, 2013
OMTE wrote:
I used to think Obama wasn't as bad as Bush, because he hasn't started any unnecessary wars. I am starting to think I was wrong, because if he gives our country away to illegal criminal immigrants, then war is imminent. Only this time it will be on our soil. So Obama is headed toward being the worst president ever in a hurry.(IMO):(
If your angry with Obama for amnesty for illegals - I am too - and we both should admit Reagan must be even worse than Obama as a president because he really pushed amnesty for illegals and signed it into law.

Just being intellectually consistent.
OMTE

Ford City, PA

#17558 Jul 7, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
If your angry with Obama for amnesty for illegals - I am too - and we both should admit Reagan must be even worse than Obama as a president because he really pushed amnesty for illegals and signed it into law.
Just being intellectually consistent.
Agreed.

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#17559 Jul 7, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Somehow you just read a post that said Obama was a Bush clone,
that both Bush and Obama should be in prison for their War Crimes and illegal conduct, and you criticize me for not criticizing Obama.
In the immortal words of my brother: "Huh ?"
Funny thing, All you seem to type over and over is Bush, Bush, Bush, and RayGun, RayGun, RayGun. His name is spelled Reagan.
OMTE

Ford City, PA

#17560 Jul 7, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow - for a second I thought you were going to dispute the facts presented that demonstrate Bush and Obama are clones on issue that really matter - money and power, but of course, you can't, so you didn't even try.
We understand.
Having agreed with me that Bush and Obama are clones, now you can try to explain why Bush was the "good" clone, and Obama is the "bad" clone.
Or explain how all the things Obama is doing that match exactly what Bush did, are "bad" when Obama does them, and were "good" when Bush did them.
Or explain how Bush was a conservative when he turned a budget surplus into a $1.4 Trillion Dollar annual deficit, and Obama is a liberal when he cut the budget deficit in half.
Or explain how Reagan was a conservative when he tripled the national debt in 8 years, and Clinton was a liberal when he cut the deficits, and handed over a budget surplus to Bush.
Or... Why not just admit that "Conservative" and "Liberal" classifications have been so bastardized they are useless.
Clinton was most certainly wasn't a liberal my friend. He is the the one signed the DOMA bill into law. If Bill Clinton was anything it was a conservative Democrat. A conservative Democrat is what this country needs to get back on track. Just as we were when Clinton was in office. Ya think?

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#17561 Jul 7, 2013
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
+1 Yep.
When you get one "D" and one "R" in the race, knowing that the other candidates don't have a realistic chance (I'm a Libertarian, but most of my votes are for the "R" candidates, more as an "against" the "D" candidates), you're somewhat limited in your choice. One MIGHT almost consider it the lesser of two evils...
Many of us sometimes vote exactly as you. We vote for the lesser of two evils. We can see that does not work. Nothing changes except more taxes and more rules and regulations that nobody understands. The country becomes more and more socialistic and dependent on government. Wars never cease and new ones are started. The country goes deeper and deeper in debt. More and more illegal aliens invade our country. Men are marrying men and women are marrying women. What is next, legal incest?
This is what happens to a country that you have no actual difference in candidates. This is what happens to a country where you always vote for the two hand picked choice of two evils. You always end up with evil.
Oh my

Young Harris, GA

#17562 Jul 7, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
On foreign terrorists, Yes. On American citizens in a foreign country, No. I would prefer the use of drones to be limited to intelligence gathering all together. I believe it's really just not the American way to kill innocent people, just because they're live near a terrorist. Only in the movies do we shoot through the victim to get to the bad guy, because in real life the good guys used to have morals.
Then you are saying that all Muslims are not terrorists, and you are saying that drone strikes in foreign countries are acceptable so long as non-terrorists are not killed.
OMTE

Ford City, PA

#17563 Jul 7, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you are saying that all Muslims are not terrorists, and you are saying that drone strikes in foreign countries are acceptable so long as non-terrorists are not killed.
Yes.

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#17564 Jul 7, 2013
I am astounded that some of our posters can't tell the difference in liberal, and conservative politicians. A liberal politician can pass one conservative bill and he is suddenly a conservative.
One has to look at his total philosophy and voting record to determine which category he falls into.
Oh my

Young Harris, GA

#17565 Jul 7, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
Any U.S.drone strike in any country is an act of war. Wouldn't the U.S. go to war with a country that attacked anything in our country with a drone? I see no difference between a drone attack and a fighter or bomber aircraft attacking.
Any act of war should be kept in a war zone.
So you were the lone voice of reason speaking out against this blank check....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_fo...

and, of course, you have been actively seeking its repeal ever since.

Since: Jul 12

Douglasville, GA

#17566 Jul 7, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
So you were the lone voice of reason speaking out against this blank check....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_fo...
and, of course, you have been actively seeking its repeal ever since.
What kind of a smart ass reply is that?
I have always thought that only Congress should declare war. The only time the president should have the power to use military force in an act of war is if we are struck by nuclear weapons or missiles are launched against us. We then have no choice but to retaliate immediately.
I suspect there are many millions of people that feel the way I do.
OMTE

Ford City, PA

#17567 Jul 7, 2013
Bigdave1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What kind of a smart ass reply is that?
I have always thought that only Congress should declare war. The only time the president should have the power to use military force in an act of war is if we are struck by nuclear weapons or missiles are launched against us. We then have no choice but to retaliate immediately.
I suspect there are many millions of people that feel the way I do.
Disagree.
youliar

Suwanee, GA

#17568 Jul 7, 2013
folks like you wrote:
<quoted text>
I have friends in Canada, Italy, New Zealand and Costa Rica who say its the best thing going, ALL of them are from the U.S. Its the most common form of health care in the world, and they are all rated higher by the W.H.O. than the U.S. Keep believing the fairytale, corporate American just loves you.
You are a sorry lying ahole.
Who

Baldwin, GA

#17569 Jul 7, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>What social policies do you disagree with me on?

2 off the top of my head.

I will post one in this post and the other in another post.
Citizens who expect others to guarantee their liberty can expect nothing less than encroachment on their liberties.

NSA = double standards by the democrats. If a repub had been president, the liberals would be screaming for an independent investigation.

Concerns about the NSA is nothing new, it has been an ongoing problem ever since its inception.

"From an October 29, 1975 U.S. Senate Select Committee To Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities, Washington, D.C.
“We have a particular obligation to examine the NSA, in light of its tremendous potential for abuse. It has the capacity to monitor the private communications of American citizens without the use of a "bug" or "tap". The interception of international communication signals sent through the air is the job of NSA; and, thanks to modern technological developments, it does its job very well. The danger lies in the ability of the NSA to turn its awesome technology against domestic communications. Indeed, as our hearings into the Huston plan demonstrated, a previous administration and a former NSA Director favored using this potential against certain U.S. citizens for domestic intelligence purposes. While the Huston plan was never fully put into effect, our investigation has revealed that the NSA had in fact been intentionally monitoring overseas communications of certain U.S. citizens long before the Huston plan was proposed -- and continued to do so after it was revoked. This incident illustrates how the NSA could be turned inward and used against our own people.”

http://news.rapgenius.com/Church-committee-in...

And where are the voices today while Obama is in office?

"From an October 26, 2007 BILL MOYERS: Welcome to the JOURNAL show.

But here's some background as to why so many people of different political stripes are alarmed. President Bush and Vice President Cheney espouse the theory of the unitary executive. That means the President's orders can't be reviewed, questioned, or altered by the other two branches of government. He alone can say what the law means, or whether or not it will be enforced or ignored. In effect, George W. Bush says his powers must be unilateral and unchecked.

Critics claim the President has used the war on terror to put himself above the law and that he has created a secret presidency of classified decisions and orders, that approve extraordinary renditions, torture, illegal detentions, and wiretapping without warrants with the collaboration of big telecom companies. This boundless secrecy and surveillance evokes images counter to American values."

http://news.rapgenius.com/Public-broadcasting...
Who

Baldwin, GA

#17570 Jul 7, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>What social policies do you disagree with me on?

Obamacare;

Socialist’s medicine. When many European countries are considering ways to cut services and cost at the expense of patients.

"The worldwide recession has forced countries around the world to curb public spending — or risk defaulting on their debt.
“The United Kingdom is the latest to tighten its belt. The National Health Service (NHS)— the centralized public agency that runs Britain’s government healthcare system — is being forced to shave $31 billion from its budget by 2015.

In order to realize some savings, the NHS is raising the threshold at which patients qualify for treatment and lengthening wait times for surgeries determined “non-lifesaving.” The Service is also cutting more than 20,000 NHS jobs over the next two years and shuttering a number of hospitals.
Patients are feeling the pain. For decades, they’ve turned over substantial portions of their hard-earned paychecks as taxes — and accepted “free”
health care from the government in return. Only about 11 percent of Britons pay for their care privately.
They’ve foregone cutting-edge medical treatments available in the United States, told by their leaders that these new therapies were no better than the old ones — just more expensive. At least in Britain, they thought, everyone has access to basic health care. That has to be better than the situation in America, where tens of millions of people lack health insurance, right?

Hardly. The British healthcare system may “guarantee” access to care — but that doesn’t mean patients actually receive it.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/1...

“The Canadian supreme court struck down two Quebec laws, overturning a 30-year ban on private medicine in the province. The wording of the ruling, though, has implications beyond Quebec, and could be used to scrap other major parts of Canada's federal health care legislation.”

“What would drive the bench to such a profound ruling? Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice John Major wrote: "The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care."”

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_week...

Why would anyone want socialized medicine when those countries who have it, have become so burdened by government bureaucracy and dysfunction and not enough tax monies to provide basic care?

Also many of those countries are looking into changing their healthcare laws (which means more will be dependent on their own in finding ways to get medical care.)

Government as baby sitter, nannie, and diaper changer will be forced to change their ways, as economies can no longer sustain the monies needed for socialism.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Brunswick Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The heartwarming reason a 91-year-old veteran i... Aug 18 Debra Davis 1
Shooting in Woodbine and no arrests?????? Aug 14 Bubba D 2
information Aug 8 sweetbaby 5
ready for whatever! Aug '15 Candy_Lady4845 2
head (Mar '14) Jul '15 wicked 10
male sex (Mar '12) Jul '15 wicked 3
darien (Nov '14) Jul '15 wicked 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Brunswick Mortgages