Guest BEAVERTAIL Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 However, Obama claimed that Abortions are still rising. He lies again. According to factcheck.org, Abortions have declined 9% since Bush has taken office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBlueAlum 12 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 However, Obama claimed that Abortions are still rising. He lies again. According to factcheck.org, Abortions have declined 9% since Bush has taken office. From 1992-1999 the number of abortions dropped by 14%. Based on these numbers: 1992 1,528,930 1993 1,495,000 1994 1,423,000 1995 1,359,400 1996 1,360,160 1997 1,335,000 1998 1,319,000 1999 1,314,800 http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wave316 64 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 Hate to tell you but the President isnt going to attack the issue of abortion, they just use that as a huge plaform issue. There has been a Republican president in office for the last 8 years, and there is still over 1million abortions each year! Hate to tell you but I am not one day going to bow down before a president . I will bow my knee before o holy God who says I am to be holy as He is holy. I am not going to vote for anyone who is not pro life. . There is much more likelyhood of the republicans appointing Pro life supreme court justices than there is democrats. If the dems were pro life and pro biblical marriage I would go with them. For you to say abortions are still occuring does not excuse you of violating Scripture which says defend the innocent,those who cannot defend themselves. I dont think you can get anymore defenseless than a infant in the womb who cannot escape the abortionists scissors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBlueAlum 12 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 Hate to tell you but I am not one day going to bow down before a president . I will bow my knee before o holy God who says I am to be holy as He is holy. I am not going to vote for anyone who is not pro life. . There is much more likelyhood of the republicans appointing Pro life supreme court justices than there is democrats. If the dems were pro life and pro biblical marriage I would go with them. For you to say abortions are still occuring does not excuse you of violating Scripture which says defend the innocent,those who cannot defend themselves. I dont think you can get anymore defenseless than a infant in the womb who cannot escape the abortionists scissors. You're right. I would much rather have a President that says he is pro-life, but does nothing about abortions. All the while thousands of innocnet people have died because of a meaningless war. But I guess their lives arent as important as unborn children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wave316 64 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 You're right. I would much rather have a President that says he is pro-life, but does nothing about abortions. All the while thousands of innocnet people have died because of a meaningless war. But I guess their lives arent as important as unborn children. Well we could debate the issue of the intelligence reports that said Saddam had WMD. There were many many dems who supported the war. Did not Hillary even support the war? I hate war, wish that there wasnt any terrorism. Concerning abortion I cannot support a candidate who takes a position which is opposite of Scripture. If I vote for a republican or dem who is not pro life I am violating my conscience . I will one day bow before a holy God who says defend the innocent, those who cannot defend themselves. There is no more defenseless as a infant in the womb who cannot escape the abortionists scissors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeye 32 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 Having been in Iraq, I can tell you that it does in fact have meaning. The excuse of "No WMD'S" has worm thin. The citizens of Iraq have lived under the yoke of oppression for far to long. I take great pride in the fact that I have done my part in trying to assure freedom to them. Useless it may be to you but not to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance 228 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 Having been in Iraq, I can tell you that it does in fact have meaning. The excuse of "No WMD'S" has worm thin. The citizens of Iraq have lived under the yoke of oppression for far to long. I take great pride in the fact that I have done my part in trying to assure freedom to them. Useless it may be to you but not to me. and i take great pride in knowing I helped pay for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeye 32 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 And we thank you for your contribution! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainman74 12 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 Maybe evil was a strong word in my post, but greedy was not. By the way, I watch all the news channels, not just 1. As far as the war goes, I respect all soldiers, and support the troops. Still, the war is wrong. I thought we fought for OUR freedom, not some 3rd word country in the middle east. Since when do we care about their freedom? You know its more than that. We have countries all around us with no freedom, What makes Iraq any different. Plus, I know a lot of Republicans who vote for the popularity contest as well, Does that make them less informed? Some vote republican for social status. It a complex issue. I stand by my post. Im going back to the football board! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBlueAlum 12 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 Having been in Iraq, I can tell you that it does in fact have meaning. The excuse of "No WMD'S" has worm thin. The citizens of Iraq have lived under the yoke of oppression for far to long. I take great pride in the fact that I have done my part in trying to assure freedom to them. Useless it may be to you but not to me. I thank you for your service. How come the purpose of this was has changed so many times. To begin with you never heard anything about liberating the iraqi people, it was all about WMD's, then it was terrorists, NOW it is FREEDOM! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeye 32 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 I'll post the same question to you that I have to many on this subject. I could give 1/2 a s!!t about most of the population abroad. However, children are the innocents and tend to suffer from the decisions made by adults. I will, to the best of my abilities, always strive to ensure that any child, either in this country or abroad be given the oppurtunity to thrive in a safe environment. We as a country have not fought for freedoms of our citizens since the Civil War. Was any other conflict we have been engaged in worth the cost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BEAVERTAIL Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 Maybe evil was a strong word in my post, but greedy was not. By the way, I watch all the news channels, not just 1. As far as the war goes, I respect all soldiers, and support the troops. Still, the war is wrong. I thought we fought for OUR freedom, not some 3rd word country in the middle east. Since when do we care about their freedom? You know its more than that. We have countries all around us with no freedom, What makes Iraq any different. Plus, I know a lot of Republicans who vote for the popularity contest as well, Does that make them less informed? Some vote republican for social status. It a complex issue. I stand by my post. Im going back to the football board! Why greedy? Dont cast Republicans under that shadow because they have money, all major politicians have TONS of money. I just want to know why a blue collar working person should vote for Obama, when obviously he has NEVER gotten that vote before. Heck, rural areas was where Hillary hit Obama the hardest. You made the statement, now back it up. No need to leave the Gen. Disscussion board just yet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance 228 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 Why greedy? Dont cast Republicans under that shadow because they have money, all major politicians have TONS of money. I just want to know why a blue collar working person should vote for Obama, when obviously he has NEVER gotten that vote before. Heck, rural areas was where Hillary hit Obama the hardest. You made the statement, now back it up. No need to leave the Gen. Disscussion board just yet... Yeah the Kennedy clan is not exactly in the poor house... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeye 32 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 BigBlu, No one can argue the validity of the original "excuse" for going into Iraq. The excuses have changed in order to find Justification for being there. I have said many times that I did not support the WMD reasoning. They simply did not have the means of producing WMD's. They might very well have been trying to aquire any of the 1000's of nuclear devices that the Soviets seemed to have misplaced, but the same could be said of many countries. I wasn't exactly excited about receiving orders for Iraq but, once my boots were on the ground and I gained some insight about what we trying to accomplish I fully accepted our being there. I'll agree that there are certainly deeper reasons for being there. But if we can assist in bringing stability to the regions and educate the populace with an understanding of this nation, that will only benefit all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainman74 12 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 Several reasons, He said he will close loopholes that rewards tax breaks to companies moving work oversees. He said he will re-negotiate NAFTA. He supports unions, and unions set the standards for EVERYONE. Health care is a big issue causing a lot of companies to move. They cant burden the costs. While Im not sure if Obamas plan would work or not, I know McCains wont. I'll just be glad when this is all over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BEAVERTAIL Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 (edited) According to Middleclass.com, Barack Obama recieved a C as a grade in 2005 for his voting on Middle class issues. However, he has improved his scores for this year. So has McCain. Why? Its an election year. Saddest thing is that among the 42 votes, they have combined to vote on 13 of them. But I mean, according to Obama, running a campaign gives him more experience than Palin. Im off subject now, back to the subject at hand. Obama doesnt support any real Healthcare plan for people our age. He wants Universal healthcare for CHILDREN. Not adults. He "urges" companies to provide healthcare, but the vast majority already do. 65 BILLION tax increase for this. Dont see how that will cut costs for companies. McCain will give every family 5,000 dollars to supplement the cost, single person 2,500. No tax increase. Secondly, Unions do not want free trade (Nafta). Kinda funny how he stands on the line for both Free Trade and unions, kinda like the coal business. Typical Politician is how i see it. Edited September 18, 2008 by BEAVERTAIL why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsons 178 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 (edited) Why greedy? Dont cast Republicans under that shadow because they have money, all major politicians have TONS of money. I just want to know why a blue collar working person should vote for Obama, when obviously he has NEVER gotten that vote before. Heck, rural areas was where Hillary hit Obama the hardest. You made the statement, now back it up. No need to leave the Gen. Disscussion board just yet... One reason they may want to vote for Obama is that 3 years ago the Bush administration wanted to privatize social security. Had Bush succeeded, can you imagine what folks close to retirement would feel like this week when their retirement fund had completely disappeared with the current stock market collapse? Edited September 18, 2008 by parsons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance 228 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 no one bails out the taxpayers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vthokies331 10 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 First of all, Obama has no executive experience to run this country. He has no plan when it comes to anything. He is, however, an eloquent speaker, that is until someone asks him a tough question then he can't seem to get a word out. He bounces around and tries to satisfy all people rather than standing up for what he says he believes in, this is the mark of a true politician. As for Universal Healthcare, look at Canada and the situation they are in. In the United States the average wait time for treatment for someone who has cancer is 1-2 weeks, in Canada it is 2-3 months. By that time survival rates drop by 20-40%. McCain may not necessarily be the answer but he definitely is the better of the two, and as for those who say it will be another 4 years of Bush, they obviously do not keep up or do research on their own. Although I do believe history will look kindly on president Bush, McCain has only voted with Bush around 65% of the time while the Liberal media would like everyone to believe it was around 90-95%. I am a Christian and a very Conservative individual, all I want is what is best for the country and the citizens of this Great Nation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbgfan 856 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 Hate to tell you but the President isnt going to attack the issue of abortion, they just use that as a huge plaform issue. There has been a Republican president in office for the last 8 years, and there is still over 1million abortions each year! A pro-life president can make an impact with the abortion issue when he appoints pro-life Supreme Court justices to the bench. Of course, we know that is getting harder to do when you have a Democratic controlled Congress. I have never seen a "lunch box a working man carries" that is worth the life of a child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMan 3,569 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 He is, however, an eloquent speaker... ...as long as he sticks to the script in front of him... Once you get him sidetracked, he gets stuck in the mud...a pig without lipstick, if you will.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublue 939 Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 (edited) The implementation of NAFTA was signed by Mr. William Jefferson Clinton. The mess in the housing market today is due in large part to the total "good ole boys" network at Fannie and Freddie's network. NEW YORK – Campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made to Barack Obama may backfire if the Democratic presidential hopeful wages an aggressive campaign to cast blame on rival John McCain and the Republicans in Congress for the mortgage-related losses that forced the U.S. Treasury to take over the quasi-governmental mortgage giants. A review of Federal Election Commission records back to 1989 reveals Obama in his three complete years in the Senate is the second largest recipient of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae campaign contributions, behind only Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., the powerful chairman of the Senate banking committee. Dodd was first elected to the Senate in 1980. According to OpenSecrets.com, from 1989 to 2008, Dodd received $165,400 in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions, including contributions from PACs and individuals, followed by Obama, who received $126,349 in such contributions since being elected to the Senate in 2004. In contrast, McCain warned of the coming mortgage crisis as he pressed in 2005 for regulatory reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You can read the rest of the article at following link: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75586 Edited September 19, 2008 by trublue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BEAVERTAIL Report Share Posted September 18, 2008 First of all, Obama has no executive experience to run this country. He has no plan when it comes to anything. He is, however, an eloquent speaker, that is until someone asks him a tough question then he can't seem to get a word out. He bounces around and tries to satisfy all people rather than standing up for what he says he believes in, this is the mark of a true politician. As for Universal Healthcare, look at Canada and the situation they are in. In the United States the average wait time for treatment for someone who has cancer is 1-2 weeks, in Canada it is 2-3 months. By that time survival rates drop by 20-40%. McCain may not necessarily be the answer but he definitely is the better of the two, and as for those who say it will be another 4 years of Bush, they obviously do not keep up or do research on their own. Although I do believe history will look kindly on president Bush, McCain has only voted with Bush around 65% of the time while the Liberal media would like everyone to believe it was around 90-95%. I am a Christian and a very Conservative individual, all I want is what is best for the country and the citizens of this Great Nation As much as I agree with you on Healthcare and its problems, Obama doesnt want Universal Healthcare, he just wants it for children. Which I believe provides support for your statement that Obama is just a true politician as he stands in the middle of the road on the issue, and the fact that he is helping the kids makes him look good, even though every kid in the USA pretty much already has healthcare under some form of goverment program. Yes, McCain does not vote with Bush as much, and has went to liberal sides in years past to vote. However, THIS year McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time, but that stat is misleading because he never votes since he is on the campaign trail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wave316 64 Report Share Posted September 19, 2008 Obama = Anti-coal = worst economy for SWVA and SWV.. Good choice! Obama is a Chicago elitist. I think the only reason he visited Southwest Va. is because VA. is a battleground state. Had we been totally behind Mccain as a state we would have never seen him. He lacks experience , basically a novice. He sat under a pastor for 20 years who from the pulpit said God da-n America! 20 years ,I wonder what other anti-American gospel he absorbed. Obama says he is a Christian but he supports abortion and same sex marriage. When aked by Rick Warren at the Saddleback forum at what point does life begin, he said that question was above his pay grade. He was afraid to give a correct answer in fear of offending his political base. I do not put any confidence in Obama. Thanks , but no thanks Barak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbgfan 856 Report Share Posted September 19, 2008 Obama came to Southwest Virginia for one reason... in the Democratic primary Clinton carried all of the counties/towns this side of Roanoke.... he didn't win any. He came to "court" the Clinton supporters to make sure they stayed in the Democratic camp and didn't stray. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.