The Respectfully Republican Conversation

When I read that e mail So Cal Lisa posted how that piece of trash snubbed the troops my blood boiled and he would be Commander in Chief?  Who the Hell does he think he is? And to refer to himself as the president that arrogant bast***...

Anne if that idiot is elected I hope he does attack somewhere so the idiots that think he is so damn great can wallow in their own BS. 

Two different stories out on why Obama did not visit troops in hospital, in Germany.  He says that it wasn't permitted by Defense Department as it would be viewed as a campaign stop.  Defense Dept. (from what I've read) says he had permission to visit, as any other senator would, but couldn't bring along press.

 If Defense is correct (and I'm waiting to hear more) than he decided that without a photo op it wasn't worth his time.  If that's true, that's very serious and will have ramifications.  If Defense is lying, then that's serious too, as it's playing politics.  I wonder which side is correct?

Paulette--he's said on many occasions, not just one, that every option is on the table--and he meant nuclear weapons.  But what about the innocent people who die so he can prove himself to the hawks?  Surely, they're more important than proving to the Obamamanics that he's not anti-war--and he's not! 

Obama--down, down, down in polls.  Maybe by convention, super delegates will get their minds back!  One can hope. 

Just watching a program on CNN where a consumer (woman who works as a librarian for $50,000) purchased a home for $560,000, which she financed through two loans, nothing down.  And she's now asking for foreclosure help.  Oh, please.  I made four times that (and more) when I had my own business and never purchased a home for more than $150,000.  And now, as a taxpayer,  I'm supposed to help this woman.  On this one, I'm with McCain, that we should not be helping people who act irresponsibly.  I assume if she's a librarian that she has a college education and can compute mortgage rates.  And she admits she knew the house was more than she could afford and is blaming the person who sold her the house and the mortgage companies.  They're all to blame and I resent bailing any of them out.  Perhaps in my old age, I'm becoming more conservative, but I've seen many houses I would have loved to own but knew I couldn't afford--so didn't buy them.  Capitalism run amok!

First Susie, I have to say I laughed at the piece you posted.  I'm sending it to my older brother who will have a HO-HO-HO laugh over it.

AnneShirley, I agree that we, the taxpayer, should not help stupid people who lose their homes because of the need to have "the best."  Heck, I just wanted some painting and a few repairs done and we can't afford that!  I suppose we could if dh could do the painting for which he hates doing..his back's a mess.  Don't think he can roll walls and ceilings anymore.  Even as dumb as I am I wouldn't consider a variable rate.  I'm not saying we haven't made some unwise decisions e.g. educating children when we couldn't afford to, borrowing money towards two of their weddings, and other decisions (husband retiring too soon).  If we lose our house no one's gonna bail us out.  We refinanced the dang thing more than once..it should have been paid for by now.

As far as BO not visiting the troops..I heard the same thing.  He could visit them as a SENATOR, but not take his campaign and media with him.  I also heard that the military would have taken photos.  Think about it.  What would he have to say to our injured troops?  Sorry the surge didn't work.  Don't get me started!

Fox did give air time to McCain today.  I was surprised.  He was giving a speech at a vet place who are mostly Hispanic.  I thought it was a good speech.  And I liked his ideas about taking care of our injured vets.  He wants them to have a plastic card where THEY can choose who THEY want to see...none of this awful travel to go to a facility.  Our vets should be taken care of, and I mean WELL taken care of.

I am finding this person to be more arrogant as time goes on.  I am just the opposite of some of you.  If this man gets elected I PRAY that he does a good job.  I don't want this country worse off than it is now.  I think he's blowing smoke.  He has said over and over he wants to get rid of nuclear weapons.

As far as the drilling goes...the dems are gonna get slammed with Reid et al attitude.  They are snubbing their noses at the American's ability to make choices that are good for us.  Wouldn't it be wonderful not to have to depend on foreign oil?  AND, work on alternative energies.

Shirley

By the way here is a picture you won't see from the media, but I found it offensive that that the Western (Wailing) Wall --one of the most sacred Jewish sites was used for political purposes during Obama's pre-dawn visit.

Jerusalem police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld confirmed to WND posters that adorned police barricades erected at the Western Wall plaza for Obama's visit were distributed by the presidential campaign. "These posters were his campaign and not the doing of the police," said Rosenfeld, whose police department coordinated security and provided protection for Obama's visit today to the holy site. Asked if it was traditional practice forpoliticians visiting the Western Wall to bring along posters or campaign materials, Rosenfeld replied, "No." 

Mind you, I also think its reprehensible that someone dug his note out of the wall and published it...........

It's up!!!!!!!  Hilarious!!!!!! Brilliant satire!

I deleted that link

For some reason that link is not working --try this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThFvlybQYso&eurl

On the link I posted----You may have to cut and paste it into the address box as there seems to be intermittent problems linking from here.

I'm afraid paranoia is getting the better of me since I am thinking the Obamamaniacs are trying to crash the site as they regularly did the Hillary supporter at No Quarter, but realistically its probably just heavy traffic hitting on it.

Linda, thank you for speaking out.  I too am happy that Bush is our president.  I like his strong stance.  And, it's not, my way or the highway, because Congress has to appove anything he does.  The war was voted on and it passed.  So, Bush haters and blamers, give it a rest!

Africa...oh, what a troubled continent.  In many of the countries they have no regard for human life.  They are savages.  My "gypsy" children has good stories to tell.  There are people in S. Africa wanting out.  My kids think that it's going to be another Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe was once flourishing, but now look.  And the U.N. is a of no use. And, as you say, Linda, we would be criticized for going in unilaterally.  Oh, how I wish we could.  We could destroy those monsters with no problem.  Even watching National Geographic about the gorillas being killed over there is enough to turn my stomach.  My children had the pleasure of tracking the gorillas.  The kids say the gorillas are gentle.  How did I get on that subject?

I watched "Hotel Rowanda" with them.  Sickening!  They said "The Last King of Scotland" was also good.  I'll be watching that soon.

All the money going into Africa given to them by our generous nation doesn't always get in the hands of the PEOPLE.  Instead, it goes to the dictators who live very well.  Oh, I don't want to get started.  I'll be glad when my son-in-law writes his book.  BTW, I think they got out of S. Africa just in time.

Anneshirley, the best part of living in a true democratic nation is we CAN criticize our government.  We can vote for whom we want.  The media has the right to cover only those who they want.  They can lie about our candidates.  And, we who see the unfairness of the media sit back and shake our heads.  But, like McCain said when asked about the coverage Obama is getting by the media when he doesn't get jack (my word), Mc Cain said, "It is what it is."  He didn't whine and carry on.  He's a man of honor, and no matter what I disagree with him on I trust him to run this country in an honorable way, and treat our vets with respect they deserve, and the care they need. 

Now, I need to get some signs and plaster bumper stickers on my car. And, if I can find one that says, "Honk if you support McCain" I'll put that one on.  Well, on second that...maybe not.  There may be some crazies out there that wouldn't honk, but instead throw rocks. 

Shirley

Back in the civil war days, anyone coming over by boat that landed in N.Y. were immediately drafted, given a rifle and off they went.  I don't see the problem with this, come over our border and on to Afghanistan.  That would stop our immigration problems.

Rocktobermom, Obama's white grandmother is still alive.  And even more interesting is her background.  It seems that she was quite the trailblazer for a woman of her era and for a white woman in Hawaii - she was a business woman who became a bank vice president.  I find this really interesting because Obama continually (ad nauseum) talks about how he was raised by a single mother.  Well, yes, that's true, but only for about 4 years of his life.  Obama lived with his mother until the age of 10.  During those 10 years, she was married, first to Obama's father, then to her 2nd husband, for about 6 of those years.  Then when Obama was 10, he was sent to live with his grandparents.  His grandmother was already a bank VP by the time he moved in with them.  His grandparents raised him from that point on, sending him to an exclusive private school.  So Obama's story about his life, while it has threads of truth in it, for the most part is a bunch of crap.  Much like most of what he says.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-07-obamagrandma_N.htm

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

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

And so it starts..........................And he hasn't even been elected yet                                                                  ________________________

ELECTION 2008
Obama's $845 billion U.N. plan forwarded to U.S. Senate floor
'Global Poverty Act' to cost each citizen $2,500 or more
Posted: July 25, 2008
12:30 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

The U.S. Senate soon could debate whether you, your spouse and each of your children – as well as your in-laws, parents, grandparents, neighbors and everyone else in America – each will spend $2,500 or more to reduce poverty around the world.

The plan sponsored by Sen. Barack , the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is estimated to cost the U.S. some $845 billion over the coming few years in an effort to raise the standard of living around the globe.


Barack Obama

S.2433 already has been approved in one form by the U.S. House of Representatives and now has been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar for pending debate.

WND previously reported the proposal demands the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.

Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media has published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels of U.S. foreign aid spending "subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."

(Story continues below)

He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years, he said, would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

A recent statement from Obama's office noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," Obama said. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.

"Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere," he continued.

Another critic, however, has been commentator Glenn Beck, whose YouTube video critique can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PePbtEABzGk

"Not one dime would go to fixing America," the commentary said.

Obama has continued to lobby for such massive expenditures on his campaign stops. During an address as recently as last week, he said, "I'll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease."

Beck and Kincaid pointed out that the plan not only commits the U.S. to the anti-poverty spending proposal, it also adopts for the U.S. the United Nations Millennium Development Goal, which includes a variety of treaties and protocols advocated by the U.N.

Objections have remained strong. Duane Lester, writing at the All American blogger, warned that the U.S. has yet to be able to win its own war on poverty.

"On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson declared "all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States." This "all-out war" would last through the presidencies of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush. We have spent billions of dollars fighting this war, and what have we achieved?"

He continued, "Very little. In 1964, there were 36 million Americans living in poverty, or about 19 percent of the population. In the 40 years between 1964 and 2004: ... poverty never measured less than 11 percent of the population. In 1983, under President Reagan, poverty registered 15.2 percent; in 1993, at the beginning of Bill Clinton's presidency, poverty was measured at 13.7 percent of the population. In 2004, under George W. Bush, a president often accused by the political Left as not caring about the poor, the poverty rate declined to 12.7 percent. Still, some 37 million Americans remain poor."

Despite that performance, "Obama is ready to take the fight global," said Lester.

"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child," he wrote.

Tom DeWeese at NewsWithViews said the plan "is very telling" about what Obama would do as president.

DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, warned the over-arching plan includes the ideals of consolidating all international agencies under the U.N., regulation by the U.N. of all corporate environmental issues, license fees charged by the U.N. to use air, water and natural resources, a restructuring that would give hand-picked non-governmental organizations huge influence, authorize a standing U.N. army and require registration of all arms.

 

I received something in my email about this very same Bill.  I don't EVEN want to get started!  Again, and I repeat (redundant), that monies sent to wherever does not always get into the right hands!  And the UN is absolutely USELESS!!!  Who can trust them!?

Thanks, Susie, for posting this.  I am going to have to do like you...stop getting myself so worked up over this socialist, Obama!  My BP is going up, up, up!

Shirley

Did you know the election has already been held???

---------------------------------------------------

The New York Times

July 28, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Be Afraid. Please.
By WILLIAM KRISTOL

Life is full of disappointments.

Early Friday, I went to the Real Clear Politics Web site, as I do every morning, for my fix of political news and commentary. I perked up when I saw the third entry on the list of that day’s notable articles — “No. 44 Has Spoken.”

“Hank Aaron has spoken? Wow,” I thought as I clicked through.

Nope. The article was by Gerhard Spörl, the chief editor of Der Spiegel’s foreign desk. “No. 44” didn’t refer to the uniform number of the man some of us still consider the true all-time major-league home-run champion. It referred to the next president of the United States. The article’s premise was that an Obama victory is a foregone conclusion: “Anyone who saw Barack Obama at Berlin’s Siegessäule on Thursday could recognize that this man will become the 44th president of the United States.”

So it wasn’t Hank Aaron speaking. It was just another journalist fawning over Obama. That was a disappointment. But disappointment was quickly replaced by the healthier emotion of annoyance.

“Nicht so schnell, Herr Spörl,” I thought, drawing on what Obama would consider my embarrassingly limited German. Not so fast.

Don’t the American people get a chance to weigh in on this in November? Maybe they’ll decide it’s more important to have John McCain as commander in chief than Barack Obama as orator in chief. Maybe they’ll further suspect that 200,000 Germans can’t be right.

I was cheered up by this notion.

But the next morning, as I drove around the Washington suburbs, I saw not one but two cars — rather nice cars, as it happens — festooned with the Obama campaign bumper sticker “got hope?” And I relapsed into moroseness.

Got hope? Are my own neighbors’ lives so bleak that they place their hopes in Barack Obama? Are they impressed by the cleverness of a political slogan that plays off a rather cheesy (sorry!) campaign to get people to drink milk?

And what is it the bumper-sticker affixers are trying to say? Do they really believe their fellow citizens who happen to prefer McCain are hopeless? After all, just because you haven’t swooned like Herr Spörl doesn’t mean you don’t hope for a better world. Don’t McCain backers also have hope — for an America that wins its wars, protects its unborn children and allows its citizens to keep more of their hard-earned income?

But what if all those “got hope?” bumper stickers spur a backlash? It might occur to undecided or swing voters that talk of hope is not a substantive plan. They might be further put off by the haughtiness of Obama’s claim to the mantle of hope. This hope restored my spirits.

Before they fell again. Later that day, I read a report of a fund-raising letter from Obama on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, arguing that “We must have a deadlock-proof Democratic majority.”

Yikes.

But then it occurred to me that one man’s “deadlock-proof” Democratic majority is another’s unchecked Democratic majority. Given the unpopularity of the current Democratic Congress, given Americans’ tendency to prefer divided government, given the voters’ repudiations of the Republicans in 2006 and of the Democrats in 1994 — isn’t the prospect of across-the-board, one-party Democratic governance more likely to move votes to McCain than to Obama?

So I cheered up once again. For it will become increasingly obvious, as we approach November, that the Democrats will continue to control Congress for the next couple of years. But if the voters elect Obama as president, they’ll be putting Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in untrammeled control of our future.

In 1948, a Republican Congress, which had taken power two years before with great expectations after a decade and a half of Democratic control, had become unpopular. Harry Truman lambasted it as a no-good, do-nothing Congress — and he rode that assault to the White House. We’ll soon start hearing more from McCain about the deficiencies of today’s surge-opposing, drilling-blocking, earmark-loving Congress.

And McCain will then assert that if you don’t like the Congress in which Senator Obama serves in the majority right now, you really should be alarmed about a President Obama rubber-stamping the deeds of a Democratic Congress next year. A President McCain, on the other hand, could check Congressional appetites — as well as work across the aisle with a Democratic Congress in a bipartisan spirit where appropriate.

And so I drifted off into a pleasant daydream. It’s election night, and a victorious John McCain is waving around the Spiegel article, “No. 44 Has Spoken” — just as Harry Truman, 60 years ago, triumphantly held aloft the early edition of the Nov. 3, 1948, Chicago Tribune, with its banner headline, “Dewey Defeats Truman.”

Life may be full of disappointments. But it’s also full of surprises.