Know Before You Vote - Side by Side Comparisons

[Taco John]

Here's a good website that runs down the issues and provides sources...

http://www.knowbeforeyouvote.com/

[frerottenextelway]

"Votes Against Unconstitutional Wars"

HC yes
BO no

That's a joke. If you consider her vote saying Congress was giving permission for War, than it's not an unconstitutional War since Bush had permission from Congress. If you consider her vote not giving Bush permission for War, then it's not unconstitutional vote for War since it didn't give permission and it's Bush who broke the constitution. It's literally impossible for a member of congress to vote for an unconstutional War. That said, her vote was political and she's lied about it since.

[Bronco Bob]

Another thing bogus about that site is it list NO for Mike Huckabee
in regards to Eliminate Need for Income Tax. Mike Huckabee is
the only candidate calling for the Fair Tax, which eliminates
income tax, the social security tax, the medicare tax, corporate
taxes, estate taxes, and capital gains taxes as well as eliminating
the IRS.
Also frerottenextelway makes a good point. Exactly which war did
Barrack Obama vote against? He wasn't in the Senate when
Afghanistan and Iraq were voted on, and I don't recall any
wars started since then.
Another thing that is bogus about this site is "bringing troops
home as soon as possible." Just tonight both Hillary and Barack
emphasized that they would start bringing the troops home as
soon as they took office.
In regards to immigration, the link in the site fails to list the six votes
by Hillary FOR a border fence.
And where is Ron Paul's position on health insurance? That's
a big issue with voters too.

[frerottenextelway]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Another thing bogus about that site is it list NO for Mike Huckabee
in regards to Eliminate Need for Income Tax. Mike Huckabee is
the only candidate calling for the Fair Tax, which eliminates
income tax, the social security tax, the medicare tax, corporate
taxes, estate taxes, and capital gains taxes as well as eliminating
the IRS.
Also frerottenextelway makes a good point. Exactly which war did
Barrack Obama vote against? He wasn't in the Senate when
Afghanistan and Iraq were voted on, and I don't recall any
wars started since then.
Another thing that is bogus about this site is "bringing troops
home as soon as possible." Just tonight both Hillary and Barack
emphasized that they would start bringing the troops home as
soon as they took office.
In regards to immigration, the link in the site fails to list the six votes
by Hillary FOR a border fence.
And where is Ron Paul's position on health insurance? That's
a big issue with voters too.

Things we agree on - If any list puts Clinton's vote to authorize War as unconstitutional, you can disregard the entire list as politically motivated junk.

Things we disagree on - Obama wasn't in the Senate to vote against the War, but he *did* give a real speech against it in '02 (you should listen to it now if you haven't yet) and gave a keynote speech at the DNC in '04 re-stating as much. His War record has been unfairly critized by the Clintons - basically for taking it off his web page once the War started. I was against the War from the start, but once our brothers and sisters started fighting, I would've taken it down from my webpage too, in the sake of giving support to our family giving their lives overseas.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by frerottenextelway

Things we agree on - If any list puts Clinton's vote to authorize War as unconstitutional, you can disregard the entire list as politically motivated junk.

Things we disagree on - Obama wasn't in the Senate to vote against the War, but he *did* give a real speech against it in '02 (you should listen to it now if you haven't yet) and gave a keynote speech at the DNC in '04 re-stating as much. His War record has been unfairly critized by the Clintons - basically for taking it off his web page once the War started. I was against the War from the start, but once our brothers and sisters started fighting, I would've taken it down from my webpage too, in the sake of giving support to our family giving their lives overseas.

I still say there is a big difference in what you say you would do in
a hypothetical situation and what you do when you have to actually
make the decision and suffer the consequences.

It wasn't just Clinton of the Democrats who voted for the resolution.
Yes John Edwards voted for it and later called it a mistake.
But Joe Biden and Chris Dodd also voted for the resolution.
As well as Diane Feinstein and Harry Reid, hardly right wing knee jerks.

In fact in 2004 Obama said he did not know how he would have voted on the resolution authorizing the war.

I mean even John Kerry voted for the resolution, and it wasn't a
deal breaker for him to get the nomination.

Actually that was Obama's defense to saying this in 2004, that he was
supporting John Kerry for president at the time. Kerry had voted for the war
and was continuing to justify his support for his vote. Obama said that he did
not want to cause Kerry political embarrassment so he said that he, Obama,
did not know how he would have voted.

So on the very issue he identifies as the biggest moral issue facing America
(the Iraq war) the issue on which he most often attacks Hillary Clinton
(the original vote on the Iraq war), Obama effectively states that he was
basically lying for political advantage.

The issue about Iraq isn't who voted for or against it. It's what are
we going to do to fix the mess now, and I don't see any substantial
difference between the two of them in regards to Iraq.

[frerottenextelway]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

I still say there is a big difference in what you say you would do in
a hypothetical situation and what you do when you have to actually
make the decision and suffer the consequences.

It wasn't just Clinton of the Democrats who voted for the resolution.
Yes John Edwards voted for it and later called it a mistake.
But Joe Biden and Chris Dodd also voted for the resolution.
As well as Diane Feinstein and Harry Reid, hardly right wing knee jerks.

In fact in 2004 Obama said he did not know how he would have voted on the resolution authorizing the war.

I mean even John Kerry voted for the resolution, and it wasn't a
deal breaker for him to get the nomination.

Actually that was Obama's defense to saying this in 2004, that he was
supporting John Kerry for president at the time. Kerry had voted for the war
and was continuing to justify his support for his vote. Obama said that he did
not want to cause Kerry political embarrassment so he said that he, Obama,
did not know how he would have voted.

So on the very issue he identifies as the biggest moral issue facing America
(the Iraq war) the issue on which he most often attacks Hillary Clinton
(the original vote on the Iraq war), Obama effectively states that he was
basically lying for political advantage.

The issue about Iraq isn't who voted for or against it. It's what are
we going to do to fix the mess now, and I don't see any substantial
difference between the two of them in regards to Iraq.

Being against the Iraq War in '02 *almost* had the same political advantage as saying your for an Iranian War now. I mean, this was only a year after 9/11, there wasn't political upside with that speech at that time. But before you get carried away with the ''almost all Dems voted for it" theme, the truth is the majority of Senate Democrates did vote against it, and like 45% of the house Dems quitely voted against it too.

I mean, this is verbatim from his keynote in '04 at the DNC -

"When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never, ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world."

I was against that War literally from the start, but if I was a public figure I would've toned it down once it started like he did. At that time, it does America more harm than good to preach your stance against it. We're 4 years later now (from his '04 speech), and his keynote from '04 finally has become the position of the Democratic Party. I don't care who you are, that's not following trends for votes, that's the damn truth despite it.

I mean, you can side with Clinton because you think she has more political power, experience, all those real truths, but painting Obama as a kinda pro-Iraq-War dude isn't legitamate imo.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by frerottenextelway

Being against the Iraq War in '02 *almost* had the same political advantage as saying your for an Iranian War now. I mean, this was only a year after 9/11, there wasn't political upside with that speech at that time. But before you get carried away with the ''almost all Dems voted for it" theme, the truth is the majority of Senate Democrates did vote against it, and like 45% of the house Dems quitely voted against it too.

29 Democratic Senators voted for the resolution and 21 Democratic Senators voted against it. That doesn't sound like a majority of no votes to me.

Look, Hillary is the junior Senator from New York, she hadn't been in the
Senate that long. Her home state had just been attacked.
She would look to guidance from the senior New York Senator, Chuck Schumer.
And Chuck Schumer voted yes on the resolution.
It's easy to second guess a decision in hindsight now that Bush has botched the war.
But if the war had gone as well as the first gulf war and we were
in and out in a year, would anyone even care how Hillary voted in 2002?
If anything the yes vote would be considered an asset and Obama
wouldn't even be mentioning it.

I mean, this is verbatim from his keynote in '04 at the DNC -

"When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never, ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world."

I was against that War literally from the start, but if I was a public figure I would've toned it down once it started like he did. At that time, it does America more harm than good to preach your stance against it. We're 4 years later now (from his '04 speech), and his keynote from '04 finally has become the position of the Democratic Party. I don't care who you are, that's not following trends for votes, that's the damn truth despite it.

I mean, you can side with Clinton because you think she has more political power, experience, all those real truths, but painting Obama as a kinda pro-Iraq-War dude isn't legitamate imo.

I never said Obama was pro-war. I just said he was being politically
expedient by saying one thing at one time and another thing at another time.
Look, they all do that, but don't try to paint him as some saint above all that.

[frerottenextelway]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

29 Democratic Senators voted for the resolution and 21 Democratic Senators voted against it. That doesn't sound like a majority of no votes to me.

Look, Hillary is the junior Senator from New York, she hadn't been in the
Senate that long. Her home state had just been attacked.
She would look to guidance from the senior New York Senator, Chuck Schumer.
And Chuck Schumer voted yes on the resolution.
It's easy to second guess a decision in hindsight now that Bush has botched the war.
But if the war had gone as well as the first gulf war and we were
in and out in a year, would anyone even care how Hillary voted in 2002?
If anything the yes vote would be considered an asset and Obama
wouldn't even be mentioning it.



I never said Obama was pro-war. I just said he was being politically
expedient by saying one thing at one time and another thing at another time.
Look, they all do that, but don't try to paint him as some saint above all that.

Eh, i got the house and senate backwards. The house was 81-126 against. (I should've known better, but I did say 1 was barely for for it, and 1 was barely against, so the point does stand). If we add the house and senate together, 36 more Dems voted against it than for it.

I posted a snip from BO's speech from the '04 DNC, that was hardly either pro-iraq war or for a political stance. In fact, it is Hillary Clinton's *current* position 4 years later. Her current position is that it wasn't necessarily a bad vote, it was managed wrong (under trooped). Well, Obama said it was a wrong war when it was unpopular, then once it got started he said if you want to win, more troops were needed (also unpopular at that time). I don't get why people can't say Obama was right on this issue, because on this issue it's pretty clear. To say he was being politically expedient when he took a very unpopular position isn't a serious argument.

The reality is (and I agree here), if the Iraq War was done and over in a year, BO wouldn't be a Presidential candidate. I don't say that as pro or anti HC/BO, it's just a reality. Him taking this stance on Iraq, and forming an alliance with Kennedy 2 years ago is why he's on today's national political scene. To make the slam equal, Hillary wouldn't be a candidate for President if her husband didn't nail some other broad. It is what it is, that other party is just as bad.

Part of voting for tommorrow's leader is basing it on who was right yesterday. Part of it is voting based on who will yield more power to get things done for tomorrow. They each have their strength and weakness there.