Why I'm Not Voting For Obama

Thank you for the nice list. Hopefully someone pro-Obama will see this and change.

Well I won't be voting for him either and you have hit most of the reasons why.

His associations are horrible (as you mentioned) and he doesn't even have to balls to stand by his convictions (if he has any) because as soon as one of his trusted associates start to cause poll slippage he just tosses them under the bus.

 

I actually would have had more respect for Obama if he either :

A. Denounced Wright immediately

or

B. just stuck it out with him and said "Yeah, I think he is right."

 

Instead he chose the Eunuch's path.

As for the National Security Force though... I would point out that this already exists in the form of the stumblin' bumblin' Homland Security Department/TSA. They already are making attempts to parallel all intelligence and secuirty operations extant in both thte military and Three Letter Agency worlds.

 

(time to go fishing)

I won't vote for him because his last name rhythms with Osama and his middle name is Hussein.

Ok Ted (Kennedy), get back in your bottle!

LOL

You forgot his plans to unilaterally disarm America so that we can have a Utopian "world without nuclear weapons"

I don't like either major party candidate, Obama is going to bloat our government to levels never before seen and McCain seems to be Bush number 3.

I prefer either Bob Barr (Libertarian Party) or Ralph Nader (ex-Green Party, now Independent). I am leaning towards Bob Barr more and more because of his stance of less government is better government, but his views on abortion bother me. If I were to vote today though I would probably vote for Barr.

I highly recommend everyone out there look into third party candidates and not just for president but for congress too. Remember every member of the House is up for election every 2 years and 1/3rd of the Senate is up every 2 years so we are electing a President, 435 members of the House and 33 Senators this year. Lets send a big message to the idiots in Washington that this trend of pointing the finger of blame at the "other" party must stop, this trend of "do-nothing" congresses must stop. Kick out ALL the incumbents and if possible replace them with third party representatives so that more of the American voice can be heard in Washington rather than the special interest groups.

Those are good reason to not vote for Mr. "Gift from the world to America" Obama.

Anybody Europe loves, is enough for me to never vote for them.

Eh, I like Obama more than McCain. I don't agee with everything Obama says or has on his platform, but honestly, McCain just seems like a Bush-lite (which is odd given who/what he was years back). I would rather change horses than ride the same one with a different color.

 

::Arches his eyebrows and just shakes his head, sighing::

I don't understand why, but whatever floats your boat.

 

That's a nice wet dream, but it's not ever going to happen; just look at history. Americans are too apathetic and such to act instead of complaining. Sad, but true. I've little faith in humanity as a whole.

 

Bob Barr is nothing more than a hypocrite. He is the author of the "Defense of Marriage Act" despite having been divorced three times himself. He wants to make government small....so small that it fits inside your bedroom. (Props to Stephen Colbert for that!)  He also voted for the Patriot Act, though he latter said that he regretted that.

The National Debt is expected to rise by $482 billion dollars next year, not counting $80 billion in war costs. (Forbes.) The debt is $9.5 trillion dollars. $9,500,000,000,000.00. Are you okay with that? You don't think that we need to increase taxes?

Which social programs will you cut? Welfare? I have a hard time talking about cuts in Aid to Dependent Children (the largest portion of the welfare budget) when we just allocated $25 billion to bail out the mortgage lenders. That is not counting the $29 billion that we gave JP Morgan to buy Bear Stearns.

In order to make these bailouts legal, we had to raise the ceiling on National Debt to $10.6 trilllion.

My point is that we, as Americans, have given billions to people whose need is at best unclear. And these handouts were done with the consent of both parties.

John McCain offers more of the same. He seems to think that the only way to curry favor is to out-Liberal Obama. At least Obama offers the hope of change.

Besides, I look at who is against him...and I want to be on the OTHER side.

 

As a "typical white woman" clinging to my Bible and my God given Constitutional rights: Not a chance! No way!

McCain - the one thing I am sure about - he won't abandon our military. Also - it seems he got the message on amnesty - but I'll have my e/mails at the ready to keep on the right path - the law applies to everyone or it applies to no one.

 

 

 

That's funny, because I look at who is for him, and I see people like Wright and groups like Hamas... and I want to be on the other side.

Besides, I am white and against enslaving women. That already makes me "the other side" in the eyes of Obama's friends.

 

The myth is "program cuts". It is not necessary to cut programs to get a balanced budget, just hold the line on spending. However in newspeak, if you do not increase spending by an arbitrary amount (decided upon by the custodians of newspeak) it is called a cut.

With that being said, yes I would cut it. When the government has to advertise to spend money, there is too much money chasing too few people. And that is one program that advertises that it wants to spend more money.

And as for the bailouts, on that we agree. It is ridiculous and wasteful. And should not have happened, nor continue to happen either in the financial markets or any other markets.

Touche'!

I'm not saying that I agree with everything that Bob Barr has done in the past but I agree with him now more than I do McCain or Obama. And what is so wrong with a government so small that it could fit in a bedroom? That is the way the government is supposed to be if you go back and look at what the founding fathers wanted when they created our government. Our government is supposed to provide some basic services which include (but are not limited to) national security, infrastructure, immigration, law enforcement.

What programs would I cut? I would start with cutting back on all of the foreign aid that we send out while our national debt is ever increasing. Why are we sending billions of dollars worth of military aid to Israel, Saudia Arabia, etc while our roads and bridges are crumbling? It just doesn't make sense.

And yes we should cut back on many of our social programs as they are horribly bloated. We have become a nation that lacks personal responsibility. Granted you can't cut back too much too soon because that would be too much of a shock to the system but there needs to be serious reforms put in place to cut spending. We need to kill government funded education, it doesn't work, and instead go to privately funded institutions like charter schools. To start this could be done by providing government vouchers that parents could then choose which schools to send their children to. The better schools would get more money. Obviously I don't have enough space or time to put in all the details here but use your imagination.

The bottom line is that our government has become bloated and cumbersome, it really needs to be shrunk down to a more managable size.

And as for your comment on the government bailouts of the banking industry, I couldn't agree more. The bailouts were horrible ideas. The banks that took the risky loans on should have been allowed to collapse. They took the risk and they should pay the consequence not the American Taxpayer. Also to that end the borrowers who entered into loans that they couldn't afford should be foreclosed on. While I have some sympathy for the ones who were conned by the banks a little common sense should have told them not to enter into risky loans like that. Bailouts funded by the government are a horrible idea and should never have happened.

I watch Obama and I see a man who has stated that he would talk with terrorists without making demands, but won't talk with US troops.  I see a man who won't pledge allegience to the US without ulterior motives, but openly and emphatically pledges allegience to Africa (for those who still deny this, try reading his church's website).  I see a man who brags about his "experience" in the senate, but actually has actually logged fewer working days for the federal government than a private who has completed basic training and AIT.

In other words, I see a man who wants to be president of the United States for no other reason than to remake us all into something of whom his wife can finally be proud.

Change isn't always good.  Changing to higher taxes for one isn't good.

The best way to raise tax money is for more people to work and earn more cash. More people paying a little instead of a few paying a lot. More businesses and wealthier people = more jobs, why kill the cash cows? It makes no sense to me. Stop the bail-outs on every level, as a few have mentioned this country has no personal responsibility anymore. But there seems no shortage of hyper-sensitivity.

ParaTed2k has hit the nail on the head, if McCain (or anyone else) took that short paragraph and made it into an ad, it would kick ass.

I am curious about one thing. I have not seen Brad around in a while but a while back he said clearly that he would rather vote Obama than McCain simply because they had similar policies and he figured if we were gonna get stuck with Democratic polices regardless which one of the 2 wins, he would rather let Obama win, that way we can let the Democrats be fully responsible for the complete destruction of this countries economy. Although considering things have been going pretty bad for the economy under Bush the past few years, it seems that we are not as bad as once predicted and in fact things seem to be turning for the better, very slowly but surely.

I am curious if Brad still feels this way and do any others here agree with him?

I hear this one all the time. Please define change. What does it mean in Obama's sense? Many supporters of Obama constantly say how he will bring about change yet I haven't heard of one person being able to actually define what that means, so please enlighten me.

Need I remind you that when Bush was running for election in 2000 he ran on a platform of "change" as well. In fact if you look up his speech at the 2000 republican convention when he was accepting the nomination he threw the word change around almost as much as Obama does.

And to be completely honest if you really want to "change" the way things are done in Washington then we should be voting for a third party candidate rather than one of the same parties that have driven this country into the ground over the years.

I still am holding a grudge since the primary.  I think he treated Hillary horribly.  I think he is sexist.  It offended me that he tried to block re-votes in Florida and Michigan.  (Yep, he really wants every vote to count if he thinks it will be for him - anyone in Florida and Michigan that votes for him is an idiot).  I have a problem with his numerous present votes instead of actually representing his constituents.  I DO not think he even comes close to having the experience to be President.  His pandering is legendary.  I think he changes positions more than he changes his underwear.  ex. surge, FISA, Israel, troop withdrawal, accepting public funds etc. etc. etc.  I also cannot stand how condescending he is.  How he wants to explain away others ignorance because he is so much above it all.  I am talking about he bitter, clinging to their guns and religion, I am talking about he is embarassed that Americans who travel can only say "merci beaucoup".  I'm not so much for McCain as I am against Obama.

 

You're not?

Most of your points are perfectly valid, except for the first one about Obama being sexist and blocking re-votes. I haven't seen any evidence to support the notion that Obama is a sexist other than he beat Hillary in the primary which doesn't cut it in my book.

As for your comments on the Florida and Michigan primaries, had Hillary been in the lead she would have done the exact same thing that Obama did. When you're winning you certainly don't want to allow anything to happen to take away from your lead if you can help it. And that said I think the DNC caved by making the deal with Florida. Both Florida and Michigan knew the consequences of their actions for moving the primaries up yet they did it anyway. The DNC should have stuck to their guns and not allowed any delegates from Florida or Michigan to be seated at the convention. The people in those states shouldn't be upset with the DNC, Hillary or Obama for what happened to them. They should be pissed off at their state governments for them moving the primaries up, they should vote each of those officials out of office the next time they are up for re-election because of this mess.

No, are you?