A post that has been festering in my mind for a while now……
Something not unique to America yet important to our very existence is the presence of patriots. Those who signed the Declaration of Independence did so knowing that they would be put to death if captured. We call those who forged this nation and fought and defeated the most powerful military in the world with little more than determination. Read accounts of Valley Forge…it was cold and miserable and many died. Those who fought in WWII are known as patriots. They took on the greatest threat to democracy and liberty of the last century. They left their nation to storm the beaches at Anzio and Normandy; they fought with desperation at Midway and Guadalcanal; they died by the scores at Okinawa and Iwo Jima. We call the members of our military patriots, whether they serve in combat or not.
So what is the common thread that runs through those that we call patriots? It would seem to be those that sacrifice their own needs, or those things in their personal best interest, for the cause of something greater than themselves. Surely the large signature of Jon Hancock on the Declaration of Independence signaled that he was willing to die for the cause of liberty. Had be been concerned about his own pocketbook and his own interests, he would have stayed home and not attended the founding of a nation.
The Continental Army was composed of volunteers. Thee was no government to draft, and individuals enlisted because they desired to fight. When there was no food and clothing, and when the miserable, deadly winter set in at Valley Forge, these men re-enlisted without a second thought. Sure, many deserted and many went home, but many men were “patriots” and stayed for the long haul.
In the current political lexicon, we don’t want to call anyone unpatriotic because their opinions are different than ours. We might agree on the goals, but not on the course of action and therefore we allow those actions to be left untouched and allowed to be granted merit. The truth is that there is little that can be said to be in the best national interest in the Obama campaign. A vote for Obama is unpatriotic. It is putting personal feelings and desires ahead of the nest interests of the nation. It is not in America's best interest to raise taxes on ANYONE, to sit down and give equality at the negotiation table with terrorists, to equate the desires of Islamic radicalism to eradicate Israel with the desire of Israel to simply exist, or to want to exacerbate the class warfare that permeates the very fabric of our society.
The patriots of 1776 wanted liberty for everyone. Those who stormed the beaches and Normandy wanted to go home and live free. They wanted to quash the socialist/fascist/communist line of thought and defeat Germany. Today, the left wants us to insert our mores on no one, and to punish our own citizens for success. Could we again confront forces of evil as represented by the Axis powers? Do we have enough people willing to sacrifice their own lives, and loves, and futures for the grander scheme of liberty and America?
Before you pull that lever or push that button or pop out that chad, ask yourself why you are voting for your candidate. If the answer is just to change, then you’re picking the wrong person. If it is to save your own fortunes or save a mortgage you shouldn’t have gotten in the first place, then you are picking the wrong person. If you are simply looking to replace Bush, think long and hard about your choice.
Obama is associated with Bill Ayers, a man whose terrorist group killed police officers and bombed the U.S. Capital. John McCain comes from a family of warriors, and when given the chance to be released from a Vietnamese prison camp, he refused to do so because his men were not being released. He voluntarily endured years of torture and abuse because of his personal integrity and a blind eye to his own self interest. He was beaten day after day, and now suffers physical problems and can't raise his arm above his shoulders. Can you imagine a lifetime not being able to brush your own teeth?
One of our candidates is a patriot. Are you one?
You Are Among The Elite!
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Let's Face It, A Vote For Obama Is Unpatriotic
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 Posts From Readers:
Voting for Obama is definitely not patriotic. You were spot on there!
I think people that are voting for Obama are doing it for all the wrong reasons. They want Bush gone, well, so do we, but we don't intent to put someone in there that is against everything we live and believe. They say Obama is change. Well, change isn't always good. McCain offers change too, but it's not so drastic that we change the essence of our governemt. I really don't want a socialist America and that is exactly what we will get if Obama gets elected into office.
what makes your statement patriotic is you can say it. Whereas the obama camp has done as much as possible to to quash all infidels, it speaks volumes of the hypocrisy.
The 1st was put there for its importance and the democrats with obama will do all to prevent it republican or conservative dissent or question their infinite authority.
Censorship is not patriotic and an obama admin will be dangerous.
Perhaps you have not heard the jeering at McCain/Palin rallies: "Kill, kill the terrorist." Or perhaps you have chosen to ignore the language of hate because it benefits your candidate. Maybe the language of hate and incitements to violence do not bother you, but it bothers me. It reminds me of lynchings … and 1930s Germany.
Perhaps you have not yet heard Senator McCain trying to undo the damage when he said: "He [Obama] is not an Arab. He is a decent person, a good family man, and he will not be a risky president. I just have fundamental disagreements with him ...” [followed by a chorus of “boos” from the crowd].
Perhaps you have chosen to ignore the language of hidden racism … and the use of the code word “elitist” as a substitute for “uppity” or the use Obama’s middle name as a synonym for “terrorist” and “traitor.”
You call a political opponent “unpatriotic” while conveniently ignoring the skeletons in your own political closet such as …
Todd Palin’s 7-year membership in the Alaska Independence Party and the words of its founder, Joe Vogler, who said:
“My government is my worst enemy. I’m going to fight them with any means at hand.”
And how conveniently you ignore this:
Vogler’s greatest moment of glory was to be his 1993 appearance before the United Nations to denounce United States “tyranny” before the entire world and to demand Alaska’s freedom. The Alaska secessionist had persuaded the government of Iran to sponsor his anti-American harangue ...
That’s right … Iran. The Islamic dictatorship. The taker of American hostages. The rogue nation that McCain and Palin have excoriated Obama for suggesting we diplomatically engage. That Iran ...
Imagine the uproar if Michelle Obama was revealed to have joined a black nationalist party whose founder preached armed secession from the United States and who enlisted the government of Iran in his cause? The Obama campaign would probably not have survived such an explosive revelation …
Where’s the outrage, Sarah Palin has been asking this week, in her attacks on Obama’s fuzzy ties to Ayers? The question is more appropriate when applied to her own disturbing associations.
Whereas you malign Obama and question his patriotism, this dirty secret of the Palin clan sneaks under the radar screen unnoticed. A mighty hypocrisy! But I guess you read only what you want to read, hear only what you want to hear, and believe only what you want to believe because your mind is narrow, closed shut, and incapable of acquiring new knowledge or considering other viewpoints. Yes, I am very offended by your post.
Just for the record, my aim has never been nor will it ever be to not offend anyone.
Interesting that you choose to paint my post as calling Obama unpatriotic. I did nothing of the kind. I said that the mentality that those who will vote for him is rooted in selfishness and lack of desire for the greater good of the country....His extremely liberal and socialist ideals garner support only because of the mantra of "change".
The language of hidden racism is absurd. You choose to hear such nonsense. Elitist is a perfectly acceptable and appropriate term that has been used by those of all political persuasions and races.
The past association of the vice-presidential candidate's husband is grasping at straws in an attempt to counter a friendly and direct link between Obama and a man who today expresses his opinion that the Weather Underground should have been MORE violent than it was to accomplish their aims. I, as well as our founding fathers, considered the power and trappings governement as inherently evil and feared the very structure that is growing today. Government is the enemy of the people in many ways. Yet there is quite a difference between one who espouses separatism and one who actually bombs the seat of the Unite States governemnt and kills law enforcement officers.
Interesting that you choose to paint my post as calling Obama unpatriotic. I did nothing of the kind.
The title of this post, A Vote For Obama Is Unpatriotic would paint me as unpatriotic for casting such a vote. Now don't you think that would offend me too? Your logic is absurd.
Robert,...
I guess I leave for a few months and I miss all the fun! Nice piece, and better volley in the comment section!
At times, opinion, or satire, is interpreted as fact or social doctrine. Your commenters should remember that the word "patriotic" while having a de facto definition in Websters, is hardly objective. It is soothed and formed with the surrounding set of facts that put it in the line of expression in the first place. I mean, Goebbels was patriotic in the eyes of Hitler and his country-men, was he not? Patriotic does not imply noble intent necessarily, although it should (to me at least)
As to your title, i think it is appropriate to use the word in the context of your opinion of Mr. Obama, regardless of the political sensitivities of the opposing view.
I said that the mentality that those who will vote for him is rooted in selfishness and lack of desire for the greater good of the country...
I get it. If your party wins, the mentality is selfless. If the other side wins, the mentality is selfish. Why bother having a two-party system? Why bother with democracy when only a red-state monopoly will do? Why are your motivations so pure and selfless, but mine or others are suspect? Do you call this "mutually respectful?"
Government is the enemy of the people in many ways.
According to this statement, the “common defense” and the Army and the Navy and the Air Force must be bad. And national highways … awful! And bridges and tunnels … terrible! And the National Park System … outrageous! Yup, I get it. Government is the enemy of the people.
Or are you referring to government regulation? Ya know, the kind of rules that keep your drinking water safe, keep trash off your lawn, and protect your bank accounts and investments. Ya know, the kind of stuff that protects you and your family safe from thieves and scoundrels? Yup, regulations must be bad. Enemy of the people!
Where does freedom ring? In the unregulated halls of Wall Street where idiots have squandered away the savings of millions of investors? In your book, regulation is creeping socialism. In my book, regulation protects citizens from scoundrels. You have a very strange sense of freedom: Thieves are allowed to run free while honest citizens get cheated.
All I read here are platitudes and slogans, but nothing indicative of knowledge and thought. Certainly political science and basic economics are not your strong suits. Your worldview is narcissistic and parochial, and you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty. Read a book! Learn something new!
I am not sure where to start here. "Read a book! Learn something new?" What the hell does that mean?
Your comments are intentionally sophomoric and remind me of my 16 year old having a pre-menstrual tantrum. Government is the enemy of liberty. The founders asserted, and rightly so, that liberty is a gift from God. It is government action that denies those liberties. Those who vote for Obama because they want the government to do more for them is selfish and has lead to a situation where too many of our citizens refuse to stand for themselves and turn to the governemnt for solutions. I believe it was Ronald Reagan who said that conservatives have read Karl Marx but liberals understand it. If you are voting for Obama just to be different, then those motivations are questionable.
And to the sophomoric argument that because I can observe that the institution of government can be evil and indeed become the enemy, does not mean that government has no purpose. Our federal governement was established to do for the soverign states those tings which they cannot do for themselves, such as common defense and national highways. Those things are completely within the realm of government.
Redistribution of wealth, entire departments that have accomplished nothing except to employ tens of thousands and squander billions of dollars (Dept of Education, Department of Energy are great examples), funding billions of dollars of earmarks, stopping the creation of a crawfish farm that would raise millions of crawfish a year because the construction of that far would kill 250,000 crawfish, and the willfull refusal to use our own natural resources are examples of government that is inept and intrusive.
Thieves? Where is the cry for personal responsibility? Did anyone force someone to sign an ARM that they knew they couldn't afford? I was offered an ARM when I financed my home, and it took about 3 seconds for me to work through the logic that it was a terrible idea. "I know you want to purchase this 2400 sq foot house on a 30 year mortgage, and you can afford the $1100 payment. But with this option you can buy this 4000 sq foot house for a mere $300 a month! Dont worry about the adjustable rate in 5 years, with all the money you save now you will be able to handle the $3000 payment then!"
Geeesh, mortgage companies aren't there to do someone a favor, they are there to make money. I do think that there should have ben government controls and regulation. This was a ticking time bomb and many people saw it years ago. Unfortunately, the liberals created the Fannie Mae's of the world and then didn't manage them responsibly. I wasn't cheated in my mortgage, I evaluated my options responsibly. I am not begging the government to bail me out of my mortgage because I acted responsibly and don't want them involved.
Thanks for dropping in T-P. I guess that means you have escaped your captors, at least long enough to place a message in a bottle and seek the outside world.
[Your comments are intentionally sophomoric and remind me of my 16 year old having a pre-menstrual tantrum.]
That was truly a "LOL" line!
I guess it is too much to ask, to use a little common sense and live within your means. Obama's line of thinking......buy what you like...we will bail you out. A lotal lack of personal responisibility!
Your comments are intentionally sophomoric and remind me of my 16 year old having a pre-menstrual tantrum.
Someday your teenager should take you to task for that unwarranted, sexist remark. Mind your manners! Time for a reality check:
The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (the S&L crisis) was the failure of 747 savings and loan associations (S&Ls). The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around $160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion directly paid by the U.S. government—that is, the U.S. taxpayer. The crisis was brought by two changes in the law: (The Tax Reform Act of 1986 and (2) deregulation, both hallmarks of Reagan economic policy.
TRA 86 contributed to the end of the real estate boom of the early to mid '80s and facilitated the S&L crisis. Prior to 1986, much real estate investment was done by investors who pooled their resources in REITs to invest in commercial or residential property. TRA 86 reduced the value of those investments by limiting the extent of losses that could be deducted from investors’ gross income. This encouraged holders of loss-generating properties to unload them, which lead to sinking real estate values. This turmoil and repositioning in real estate markets was not caused by changing market conditions.
Deregulation of S&Ls gave them the capabilities of banks, but it did not bring them under the same regulations as banks, and the new legislation allowed them to enter new lending businesses with little oversight. This economic blunder was signed into Law by Ronald Reagan, a conservative Republican.
Bttom line: The S&L Crisis of the 1980s was a harbinger of the current crisis, and the result of conservative economic ideology.
Economists say that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was to blame for events leading to the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis and 2008 global economic crisis. The Act is well-known for repealing provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act, which regulated the financial services industry. The co-author of this bill is YOUR Phil Gramm, a conservative Republican.
YOUR Phil Gramm was one of five co-sponsors of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. One provision of the bill has been referred to as the "Enron loophole." Critics blame this provision for permitting the Enron scandal to occur. Gramm's wife, Wendy Lee Gramm, was on the board of directors of Enron when it famously collapsed, giving the legislation its moniker, and she was named in many of the subsequently settled lawsuits. Again, this is YOUR Phil Gramm, a conservative Republican.
John McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis was paid in excess of $1.8 million by FNMA, payments which continued through last month. John McCain received $21,550 from Fannie Mae in 1989-2008. Are John McCain and Rick Davis liberal Democrats? I think not.
In 2004, anti-predatory rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals. Who was President in 2004, the year these rules were dropped? George Washington? Bill Clinton? Nope, it was George W #43 Bush. And who controlled both of houses of Congress? Republicans, of course.
In 2007, Daniel Mudd, then President and CEO of Fannie Mae, testified before Congress. He stated that the agency's responsible underwriting requirements drove business into the arms of the private mortgage industry who marketed aggressive products without regard to future consequences: "We … set conservative underwriting standards for loans we finance to ensure the homebuyers can afford their loans over the long term. We sought to bring the standards we apply to the prime space to the subprime market with our industry partners primarily to expand our services to underserved families … Unfortunately, Fannie Mae-quality, safe loans in the subprime market did not become the standard, and the lending market moved away from us." In other words, FNMA's problems were not linked in any way to the sub-prime meltdown but to a loss in market share as fast money moved elsewhere.
And here is Trivial Pursuit question for you: Can you name the so-called Keating Five, the five politicos reprimanded for peddling influence on behalf of Charles Keating? Hint: One of them is John McCain.
I would be glad to host a debate at THE SWASH ZONE but be forewarned: “Read a book” and “learn something new” because there are people there who know what the hell they are talking about. Do you accept this challenge?
A debate regarding what exactly? That GOVERNMENT failed to provide oversight? There is nothing to debate there and I have not said otherwise.
I shall enter The Swash Zone and see what material might educate me.
And as far as the sexist remark? This is a prime example of outrageous silliness. Just because it steroetypes something uniquely female does not mean that I see the fairer sex as less than human.
Besides, Jenn wasn't offended, and that is pretty much my benchmark for whether it was funny....
Good to see you Jenn! I know you dropped your exclusively political blog, but anytime you jsut need to rage about a political topic let me know and you are welcome to post here!
No, I wasn't offended at all, but then I am not one of those feminists, that take offense at every little thing said.
It's good to see you back in action. I see you've got them crawling out from the woodwork.
Yeah, I supposedly gave up my "political blog" but I end up talking about politics more than I ever did! Go figure.....
Robert, thank you for stopping by Social Sense; I welcome your commentary. I've added you to my blog roll.
We should note that the Democratic solution to the current or future economic challenges is to regurgitate political history. For the record, I do not trust politicians, regardless of party. Reality is, however, someone has to do it and we do know them for the skunks they are. All of them bear scrutiny.
That said, I agree with you that any person who truly loves America will not vote for a man, or a party, whose intent is to destroy America. A true patriot will fight for his country, and will seek to maintain important traditions and values. What socialists want to do is to transform America into a European socialist state. Every one of Mr. Obama’s programs is a socialist solution, an oxymoron.
The rhetorical question is if these people are so much in love with the idea of a socialist state, why not just move to one? Maybe stay there for ten or so years, and then tell us how wonderful it is.
Zell Miller is an exceptional American; a combat hero; a former Democratic senator. When asked why he moved into the conservative camp, he said (paraphrasing), “I have always been a conservative. I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, they left me.” This is an example of eyes wide open, as opposed to eyes wide shut. The only thing wrong with Democrats these days is that they love a socialist ideology, more than they love their country.
Semper Fi
I have always respected Zell Miller and Joe Leiberman for their ability to see the proper course of action and to stand against their party when there are outlandish and socialist agenda items.
I have long enjoyed our commentary, Mustang. I think it was T-P that sent me in your direction some time ago.
Semper Fi.
Powell was not the only endorsement today. Susan Eisenhower, the granddaughter of one of the great Republicans presidents in history, Dwight Eisenhower, has endorsed Barack Obama:
Now, the granddaughter of President Eisenhower is stumping for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, because it is time, again, for real change, Susan Eisenhower said Sunday afternoon …
In Southwest Florida on Sunday for a whirlwind meeting with Obamacans — Republicans who have chosen to endorse Obama — Eisenhower, 56, said the nation is at a critical juncture.
“I think he has the capacity to be a great American president,” Eisenhower said. She was especially joyous that Gen. Colin Powell had just announced his support for Obama.
“I’d like to associate myself with all the points he made,” she said of Powell.
Do you still consider a vote for Obama as unpatriotic? Do you still regard Obama as a terrorist sympathizer despite all evidence to the contrary? And who are you to judge the patriotism of others? It seems your narrow-minded parochialism and intolerance of others has made you part of the problem in this country, not the solution.
I consider a vote for Obama, if rendered for the single purpose of acquiring "change" and to accept his handout programs as unpatriotic. I have no idea how much more plainly I can state that opinion.
Narrow minded? That is liberal euphemisym for "won't give in to be bi-partisan" and I thank you for that compliment.
I, sir, may judge the patriotism of others in any way that I please. I have placed my life on the line on more than one occasion while assuring the success of democracy in this country and in others. Aside from my service in combat, I am a citizen of the United States and therefore am protected by the right to free speech as granted by God and preserved in our Union.
Let me see: I am married, have children born in wedlock, attended college and grad school, pay my taxes, am a cub scout leader, little league baseball coach, college faculty, served my country as a Marine, was previously in law enforcement, worked for the Dept of Homeland Security for six years and missed multiple special events at home as I was traveling for duty, cut my grass weekly, barbecue with neighbors regularly, attend religious services of my choosing, help my kids with homework daily, read to them before bed, serve on the board of a Civitan Club of which I am a charter member and officer so that we may serve our community, wash dishes, sew buttons, pay my bills on time (mostly), treat the neighbors kids to ice cream from the ice cream truck weekly, vote every election, love my dogs, do the yardwork and house maintenance for my elderly father, give to charities regularly and actually work on service projects monthly.
And all of that while teaching my kids to be self reliant and strong by giving them an example! Aside from my five+ years with DHS, I have worked at least two jobs my entire life. I achieved 11 A and 1 B in grad school, while I worked as a cop and worked off duty jobs and coached my daughters (plural, two teams) basketball teams. I work when I am sick, I work when I am tired, and I stand by the commitments I make. It is in the forefront of my mind every day that my kids watch everything that I do, so I seek to be the best role model that I can be.
In all of that, I have never taken one dime of government money other than a paycheck. I paid for my own education and my own home. I decide my employment partially upon the health care options provided. I make every efort to limit the role of government in my life each and every minute.
So yes, I can see where I am part of the problem in this country. We surely can't have people who don't need liberalism to feed their kids.
Perhaps I am not familiar with the conversation that you are all having here and there is some history I am not privy to, but what I find troubling is that you seem to be using broad phrasing (e.g. "a vote for Obama is unpatriotic") when your really discussing a narrow group of people (e.g. those voting for Obama simply for "change" and to obtain handouts). I think that's the type of thing that can offend people when you don't intent to- I am voting for Obama but I have not ever, nor will I ever (willingly) accept welfare or similar government "handouts". However, I have benefitted from wonderful public schools both secondary and university, from excellent law enforcement policies and officers (as a victim of random violent crime) and from growing up feeling safe and secure in this country because of the heroic patriots who volunteer for the armed services. Why do you disregard that I am voting for Obama because I believe he will maintain and improve those government "hand outs"? Why can't I be voting for him because as someone who has lived abroad and travelled extensively domestically that I believe he is someone who can unite our country as Reagan once did while presenting a strong, but compassionate face to other countries? Why is that selfish? Or unpatriotic? And if it is not- then you should adjust your title... or if your trying to make a satirical point- then maybe just put a star after it and foot note that you don't mean all votes for Obama are unpatriotic.
Anon, thank you for dropping by and you are welcome to do so anytime.
Obama has neither the ability nor the desire to unite our nation. I don not want our nation united in political accord because that would mean that conservatives have abandoned their principles. When liberals speak of "uniting" what they mean is for ocnservatives to give up their arguments and vote with democrats.
The fact that we have those "handouts" at all continues to be troubling. The European sense of socialism and entitlement does nto work here, nor will it continue to work there. I do not want us to be led down the path to the destruction of democracy. When a President seeks to punish me and my children so that someone else can have the fruits of my labors, then I cannot and will not support his policies.
Tell me exactly why you vote for Obama, and I mean specifics - not a "feeling" that he is compassionate.
When liberals speak of "uniting" what they mean is for ocnservatives [sic] to give up their arguments ...
No, that is not what it means!!! That is what YOU want it to mean ... two different things.
Robert, I have been following this thread from the sidelines, and I must say: "I am very disappointed in you." I am the person who introduced myself here over a year ago, suggesting conservatives, independents, and liberals start a constructive dialogue. You seemed willing and enthusiastic at the time. In fact, you even visited a liberal blog … once … and then dropped the ball.
What happened to the concepts of “consensus” and “mutual respect” as ensconced in our laws and traditions? You have turned yourself into little more than a party hack who repeats only talking points and slogans. I see no signs of analytical thinking, or independence of mind, or a willingness to disengage from stock phrases and non sequiturs.
You talk only about yourself, but you do not listen to others.
There was an article in the Economist (magazine) about the Balkanization of America, i.e. how citizens and voters seem to cluster around certain communities. When looking for a new home in a new community, for example, conservatives look for the “W” signs in the yards, while liberals look only for the “Kerry” signs. That is what is happening today in America.
What is sacrificed as populations “cluster” into enclaves: When people cease to talk to each other, they become more extreme in their views, more radicalized, and the country becomes more polarized.
Robert, I live in a conservative, upscale community. Most of my friends are conservative who have felt mighty betrayed by the last 8 years. Most of them are voting Obama, but NONE of us would dare call any of ourselves “unpatriotic.” Frankly, your language and your attitude are “unpatriotic” and insulting because you do not seem to embrace what being American is all about. You engage in sneering and jeering about people, other viewpoints, other cultures, but represent nothing larger than yourself.
I regret starting this dialogue with you. I see it was a waste of time, and I will not bother coming here any more.
Eco/Swamp, to come here or not is obviously your choice. We can dialogue about anything you wish, and we have done so numerous times. (And for he record, I visit liberal blogs all the time. I simply do not post in a troll-like manner on them.)
I am open minded and perfectly willing to compromise in a statesman-like fashion. However, I have never said that I was anything other than a conservative and I refuse to abandon my conservative principles for the sake of consensus and bipartisanship. I am anything but a "party hack" as I have been a harsh critic of the GOP for more than a decade. I am a conservative, and only republican because the GOP most closely matches my personal beliefs and values. That isn;t to say they match them as I am not all enthusiastic about a McCain Presidency, but the alternative is much worse.
Sometimes one must say what should be said - those who select the leader of the free world based on what he promises to take from someone else to give to them does not fit my definition of patriotic.
I am not betrayed by the last eight years. My family has a better quality of life than we did in 1999, but not because we relied upon the government to improve. I have no interest whatsoever in a candidate who promises the moon. Nor do I care for one that believes we can negotiate with people who are hellbent on our destruction.
Nor will I stand down from that belief.
If you want to dialogue about our candidates, bring me something besides the crap about President Bush. Bring me the reasons why you think that an Obama presidency will enhance the founder's vision of our nation. Explain to me why I should vote FOR Obama, and not AGAINST Bush.
You can't expect me to dialogue by presuming my goal is to get along. My goal is to opine about those things important to me.
Hello !.
You may , perhaps very interested to know how one can reach 2000 per day of income .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may begin to receive yields with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you thought of all the time
AimTrust represents an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
Its head office is in Panama with structures around the world.
Do you want to become really rich in short time?
That`s your choice That`s what you really need!
I feel good, I started to get income with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to select a correct partner who uses your money in a right way - that`s the AimTrust!.
I earn US$2,000 per day, and my first investment was 500 dollars only!
It`s easy to get involved , just click this link http://pybygaxu.easyfreehosting.com/ofegogu.html
and lucky you`re! Let`s take our chance together to become rich
Hi !.
You may , probably curious to know how one can collect a huge starting capital .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may begin to get income with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you haven`t ever dreamt of such a chance to become rich
The firm represents an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
Its head office is in Panama with offices everywhere: In USA, Canada, Cyprus.
Do you want to become an affluent person?
That`s your chance That`s what you really need!
I`m happy and lucky, I started to take up income with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to select a proper partner who uses your savings in a right way - that`s AimTrust!.
I make 2G daily, and my first investment was 500 dollars only!
It`s easy to join , just click this link http://udoveroc.lookseekpages.com/ofegogu.html
and lucky you`re! Let`s take this option together to become rich
My brotheг suggesteԁ I might like this web site.
Ηe used to be totаlly right. This submіt trulу made my day.
You can not imаgine simply hoω a lot time I had
spent foг this іnfοгmаtion!
Thаnks!
My website ... bucket truck safety
Feel free to surf my webpage : bucket trucks
Υοur mode οf tellіng eveгything in
thіs аrtiсle is іn faсt
pleasant, еvery one be cаpаble оf without diffіcultу understand it, Тhankѕ
a lot.
Here is my site - used bucket truck
Hey there I am so thrilleԁ I found уour site,
Ι really founԁ you by aсcident, while I was looking
οn Aol for sοmething elѕе, Regardless I am hеre now and would just likе to ѕay thankѕ a lot for a tremendous
post and a all round interesting blog (I also lοve the
theme/design), I ԁοn’t have time to
reaԁ through it all at the minute but I haνe saveԁ it anԁ
аlsο includeԁ your RЅS feeds, so when I hаve time I
will bе back to гead more, Please do keep up the fаntastic b.
My web-site: tens units
I all the timе emailed this ωebѕite post page to all my contаctѕ, sіnсe if like to
reaԁ it аfter that my links wіll too.
Also visit my web-site; http://www.howtobuyandsellcars1.com/learn-how-to-flip-cars-profit/
Post a Comment