Not because we have a mixed race guy in office, who cares about that. But because runaway legislation will occur at a level we haven't seen in decades. With democ. controlled congress I can't even imagine the new legislation and social engineering that will be signed off on. Your neighborhoods, schools, workplace will all change for the worse.
I'm more afriad if Mad Man mccain wins McCain's agenda 1.Continue the war in Iraq at a cost of billions of dollars a month with thousands of more lives lost.So far there have been over 4,000 Americans killed,20,000 + Americans injured,and over 100,000 Innocent Iraqi citizens dead,with more to come if McCain gets elected.McCain is supposed to be so pro life and against abortions,but yet he has no problems with the 100,000 + lives lost in a war he voted for,a war he called for more troops to be sent into the war,and a war that he wants to continue.i never heard Obama say he believed in slavery reparations,but i bet slavery reparations would cost the US far less money then the billions of dollars spent in Iraq every month.I know there ar alot of war mongers out there,but i get sad when i see 18 years old kids with thier faces burned so bad they no longer look human or 20 year olds with thier arms and legs blown off 2.War with Iran.McCain let his true feelings on Iran slip ..."bomb bomb bomb Iran" How many lives will be lost in a Iran war ?How many billions of tax dollars will be spent on a Iran war ?Where will the troops come from that would be needed to fight in a Iran War ?,Say hello to another military draft.hope all you McCain supporters are ready to see the young members of your families sent to war against thier will.If you're not sure about Obamas energy plan,just wait to you see gas prices when McCain starts bomb,bomb,bombing Iran What will McCain do about the economy ?I don't know he says he needs to be educated on the subject.Obamas plan for the economy is to basically bring back the tax structure and Economic polices that bill Clinton had.I can go with that because the economy was much better back then.i don't blame McCain for not knowing much on the economy.when your wife has 100 million dollars,8 houses and spends 800,000 a month on her credit card, i wouldn't expect mccain to understand or care much about the economy What about immigration ?well McCain was the head of a effort to give amnesty to every illegal alien in this country i could make a list of the numerous flip flops mccain has made,but i'll just say kerry has nothing on mccain when it comes to flip flopping aside from this McCain has made many hostile threats towards Korea,Russia and china,i woundt rule out world war 3 under a McCain administration.McCain trys his best to hide his temper and aggressive personality,but its clear he is still suffering from what happen to him in Vietnam.i don't want a tortured pow with a bad memory with his hands on the nuclear buttons Obama is not my first choice,i wish this country would wake up and put people like Ron Paul in the white house and congress,but Obama is the lesser of the two evils we have available Obama was right about the Iraq war in the first place.obama has been saying for years that Afghanistan and AL Queda was most important.Obama said he would go after AL quead in Pakistan,a few weeks later Bush made air strikes in Pakistan killing important AL queda members.Obama said he would meet with Iran before going to war with them,now bush decides to do it.
Even President Bush is trying to avoid a legacy of being the worse president ever and is taking Obamas advice First Obama said he would attack AL queda in Pakistan,A few weeks later bush did it and killed some top ranking AL queda members Obama said he would try diplomacy with Iran before going to war with them,now bush is doing it Obama said he would set a time table for withdrawal In Iraq.........NOW BUSH IS DOING THIS( To bad Bush didn't follow Obamas advice about not going to war with Iraq in the first place) Ha Ha.Bush kept McCain out of the white house in 2000 and he is doing it again in 2008 by proving what good judgement Obama has http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080718/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq Bush agrees to time 'horizon' on Iraq troop cuts TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent 6 minutes ago WASHINGTON - President Bush and Iraq's prime minister have agreed to set a "general time horizon" for bringing more U.S. troops home from the war, a dramatic shift from the administration's once-ironclad unwillingness to talk about any kind of deadline or timetable. The announcement Friday put Bush in the position of offering to talk with Iraqi leaders about a politically charged issue that he adamantly has refused to discuss with the Democratic-led Congress at home. It also could complicate the presidential campaign arguments of Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama who have staked out starkly opposite stands about the unpopular war. What's changed? The sharp reduction in violence in Iraq â to the lowest level in four years â has made the country's leaders increasingly confident and more assertive about its sovereignty, giving rise to demands for a specific plan for American forces to leave. Iraq has leverage because the White House is struggling to salvage negotiations for a long-term agreement covering U.S. military operations there. The White House said its goal is to conclude that deal by the end of this month. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki talked about the stalled negotiations during a secure video conference on Thursday, agreeing "on a common way forward to conclude these negotiations as soon as possible," a White House statement said. The two leaders agreed that improvements in security should allow for the negotiations "to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals, such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq," the White House said. Bush repeatedly has vetoed legislation approved by Congress setting deadlines for American troop cutbacks. Friday's White House statement was intentionally vague and did not specify what kind of timelines were envisioned. That allows Iraqi officials, who are facing elections in the fall, to argue they are not beholden to Washington or willing to tolerate a permanent military presence in Iraq. For Bush, it points the way toward a legal framework for keeping American troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires on Dec. 31. "The agreement will look at goal dates for transition of responsibilities and missions," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for Bush's National Security Council. "The focus is on the Iraqi assumption of missions, not on what troop levels will be." As for the campaign to elect a new commander in chief, McCain firmly opposes any withdrawal timetable while Obama pledges to pull out combat troops within 16 months. By talking about a "time horizon," Bush appeared at odds with McCain and could make his own GOP administration a tougher target for Obama's anti-war barbs. McCain issued a statement saying, "Progress between the United States and Iraq on a time horizon for American troop presence is further evidence that the surge has succeeded. ... If we had followed Sen. Obama's policy, Iraq would have descended into chaos, American casualties would be far higher, and the region would be destabilized." However, Ben Rose, a senior adviser to Obama, said, "It's another indication that the administration is moving toward ... Sen. Obama's position on negotiating the removal of our forces as part of our ongoing discussions with the Iraqi government." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Bush wasn't going far enough. "After rejecting 18 months of attempts by the Democratic majority in Congress to adopt redeployment timetables, the president now proposes a vague general time horizon that falls far short of a commitment to ending our involvement in Iraq," she said. Democratic Rep. William Delahunt of Massachusetts, who has led House hearings on the planned agreement with Iraq, said the "time horizon" cited by the White House was "very vague and nebulous." He also said the agreement taking shape seemed "far less grandiose than what was initially articulated." Iraq has proposed requiring U.S. forces to fully withdraw five years after the Iraqis take the lead on security nationwide â though that condition could take years to meet. Iraq's national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, said this month that Baghdad would not accept any security deal unless it contained specific dates for U.S. troop withdrawals. So far, the United States has handed control of 10 of 18 provinces to Iraqi officials. "Obviously, if Iraqis are assuming more missions, then you need less American troops," Johndroe said. The White House sought to make a distinction between talking with Iraqis about withdrawals and attempts by Congress to force cutbacks. "I think it's important to remember that the discussions about timeline issues previously were from Democrats in Congress who wanted to arbitrarily retreat from Iraq without consideration of conditions on the ground," said White House deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel, who was traveling with Bush in Tucson, Ariz. "All of the discussions that we have always had have been based on conditions on the ground and making progress in the country, and we are doing just that," Stanzel said. "We are making progress on the security situation. The number of attacks has dropped dramatically in recent months." A major troop buildup ordered by Bush in January 2007 has ended. In recent days, the 3rd Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade, the last of the five additional combat brigades sent in last year, left the country. There are still 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq â as many as 15,000 more than before the buildup began. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Wednesday that he is likely to recommend further troop reductions this fall because security has improved.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cLfsG8XKWfw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cLfsG8XKWfw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MEc2ot3QGB4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MEc2ot3QGB4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/o-zoPgv_nYg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/o-zoPgv_nYg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Some people fear The Boss <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bTIklFsMjjU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bTIklFsMjjU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
George W. Bush has already set back the conservative movement by about 50 years. It will be a long, long time before Republicans will be trusted to run a competent government again, which is unfortunate for McCain, bearing the burden of a Bush legacy. In that sense Obama is as much of a creation of George W. as anybody. So when Obama becomes president, we can all thank George W. He is a gift that keeps on giving.
Obama will load up the Judiciary with guys that will be screwing with us for the next 6 decades... that alone is enough for me to not consider voting for him without laughing out loud...